Parallel Universe(s) question

[Sonic]

So I keep hearing talk of parallel universes and the people who I hear it from constantly talk about different versions of ourselves with a different profession and what not. I obviously have a difficult time comprehending part of the theory. I understand how there could be another version of me in a parallel universe but I also believe it would be a rather low chance of that happening. If there was a parallel version of me that makes different decisions in life would the same not apply to my parents and my parents parents?

I guess what I don't get is that humanity, if it existed in said parallel universe, would evolve differently with different cultures and religions. We just wouldn't exist as we do today and a whole slew of other people would be alive and not "us".

Someone educate me.

 

[Mize]

There's the argument that there are infinite universes. By definition this would mean universes nearly identical to this one and others very different from this one. With infinite universes - by definition - there is one identical to this that then changes because YOU made a different decision and so they diverge. That's the thing about infinite.

 

[Sonic]

That clears it up a bit. I failed to look at it from that perspective. Thanks Mize!

 

[Grall]

An interesting book that deals with multiple universes is Eon by Greg Bear, and its follow-ups.

It is a realistic take on sci-fi, ie not the more space operatic-like fiction seen from some other writers such as Hamilton, etc, and besides, it's interesting from a political point of view also - even though the first book is a little bit dated now, since it was written during the mid-80s when the cold war was still very much a reality. So the russians are the bad guys, and the americans are the vigilant defenders of freedom and everything else lol.

But other than that (small) blemish, it's a really good, captivating book. I wonder what kind of formal education Bear has, since the central character of the first book is a theoretical physicist, and the work itself deals with some really unique concepts of space and time. I guess I could look him up on Wikipedia or something, but I just haven't been able to make myself do it.

 

[pocketmoon66]

It was the dad of the bloke from the Eels (Novocain for the soul..) who came up with the concept - he was ignored and ridiculed and eventually committed suicide.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Everett

[edit] of course he only committed suicide in a parallel universe. In this one he died on natural causes and his daughter committed suicide

 

[hoom]

I don't buy the idea of parallel universes at all.

There would need to be a new infinity of universes created at least every Planck Time and for each <whatever the smallest subatomic particle is> in each already existing parallel universe

I mean infinite is a really big number already but to be creating new infinite numbers of infinite infinities every Planck Time out of nowhere is beyond ludicrous

Edit: Ok skimming the Hugh Everett article & a couple of others there are a bunch of competing theories that cover much the same issue, with various interpretations of the reality & persistence of the parallel universes & including ones where its only a transitory, not-really-there thing that helps make the formula work (like -x/0 = -infinity).
I can accept that latter sort of setup at least until something better comes along.

Apparently the currently dominant theory is one where its persistent & real though

 

[Grall]

You're not creating infinities upon infinities of new universes, regardless of any random movement of particles etc - ONE infinity of universes is already at infinity - you can't get any more universes than that!

 

[pcchen]

The parallel universe concept comes from the many worlds interpretation of quantum physics, so if we go that route there wouldn't be "infinite" number of parallel universes. It's still quite a lot (in theory every quantum state could produce a new parallel universe), but not infinite.

There is an old joke about this infinite number of parallel universes: if you have a device which can destroy the whole universe, then you can actually solve any NP problem in P! First, just randomly generate a possible answer (note it's very important to generate the answer from a truly quantum random source), then check it to see if it's the answer. If it is the answer, you solved it! If not, just blow up the whole universe, and in theory, only those universes which have the correct answer will not be blown up, so you should always get the correct answer from the random number generator!

 

[_xxx_]

Just join some f*nboi forum (be it gfx-cards or cars or football) and you'll see that parallel universes are actually real

 

[Dooby]

I mean infinite is a really big number...

Me thinks you need to properly wrap your head around the concept of infinity before making that statement again. Infinity is NOT a number, as a number denotes some form of finality, which is, literally, the opposite of infinite.

 

[hoom]

I know what infinity is, yes.

I used 'really big number' in an apparently failed attempt to point out the ludicrosity of the idea of new parallel universes created & persisting in real parallel existence per possible state per sub-atomic particle per planck-time in each universe from no energy source.

 

[DuckThor Evil]

I know what infinity is, yes.

I used 'really big number' in an apparently failed attempt.

Some of us got it

 

[Grall]

Hoom,
Why do you seem to believe new universes would have to be created per planck-time?

If the infinite alternative universe theory should happen to be correct (probably impossible to ever know), then all of those infinite universes would logically have existed from the moment of creation. Their history would be precisely identical to ours, up until that sub-atomic particle (or particles) changes state that makes that universe unique compared to our own...

Anyway, this is most likely just a mental construct, an intriguing brainteaser so to speak; I don't think there's any need to seriously believe there are even a single alternative universe to our own; much less an infinite number of them...

 

[Mize]

So does that mean when someone says "infinity times infinity" it isn't actually bigger? lol

 

[Npl]

So does that mean when someone says "infinity times infinity" it isn't actually bigger? lol

Nope. Infinity to the power of infinity is bigger tough =)

 

[Richard]

Infinity is NOT a number, as a number denotes some form of finality, which is, literally, the opposite of infinite.

Well, a number can't be the opposite of infinity when there are numbers which are infinite, like 1/3 on base 10, or π for that matter.

On the topic at hand, once you accept that our Universe is infinite, accepting infinite parallel universes is a tame step forward.

 

[Grall]

once you accept that our Universe is infinite

It's not infinite per se from what I understand.

It merely doesn't have any physical boundaries, which is something other than simply being infinite.

If it was truly infinite, we'd have to accept that the universe contains not just an infinite amount of space, but also mass, energy etc, which would present certain practical difficulties...

An infinitely large universe could not have been created in a big bang, since you can't go from a finite state to an infinite state where volume is concerned... You can get progressively larger as the universe expands, but at no point would we go from wee, to not so wee, to friggin' HUGE and then to infinite...

An infinite universe would have been infinite right from the start, and I don't think that fits with our current models.

 

[Richard]

An infinite universe would have been infinite right from the start, and I don't think that fits with our current models.

An infinite universe does not necessarily mean infinite mass; it could be an infinite void. Like you said, it's boundless and unless it wraps completely (torus if we want to restrict the argument to three dimensions but you'd have to find restrictions on all currently accepted dimensions - we're up to eleven if I'm not mistaken), it's infinite.

 

[j^aws]

It's not infinite per se from what I understand.

It merely doesn't have any physical boundaries, which is something other than simply being infinite.

If it was truly infinite, we'd have to accept that the universe contains not just an infinite amount of space, but also mass, energy etc, which would present certain practical difficulties...

An infinitely large universe could not have been created in a big bang, since you can't go from a finite state to an infinite state where volume is concerned... You can get progressively larger as the universe expands, but at no point would we go from wee, to not so wee, to friggin' HUGE and then to infinite...

An infinite universe would have been infinite right from the start, and I don't think that fits with our current models.

I can think of the Big Bang as a single expanding/ contracting 'bubble'; and each of these bubbles can exist independently from each other. And there can be an infinite number of these bubbles! ;P

 

[V3]

I can think of the Big Bang as a single expanding/ contracting 'bubble'; and each of these bubbles can exist independently from each other. And there can be an infinite number of these bubbles! ;P

If there are infinite amount of points where Big Bang originated then the chance of these bubbles interacting with each other is high even if they can exist independently from each other. We should see evidence of that. We should be able to witness Big Bang if that is true and often too.