String Theory May Create Far Fewer Universes Than Thought

[Ninshub]

String Theory May Create Far Fewer Universes Than Thought

In Scientific American
Clara Moskowitz on July 30, 2018

Some physicists claim the popular landscape of universes in string theory may not exist

The problem with string theory, according to some physicists, is that it makes too many universes. It predicts not one but some 10500 versions of spacetime, each with their own laws of physics. But with so many universes on the table, how can the theory explain why ours has the features it does?

Now some theorists suggest most—if not all—of those universes are actually forbidden, at least if we want them to have stable dark energy, the supposed force accelerating the expansion of the cosmos. To some, eliminating so many possible universes is not a drawback but a major step forward for string theory, offering new hope of making testable predictions. But others say the multiverse is here to stay, and the proposed problem with all those universes is not a problem at all.

Ultimately the debate going on in string theory centers on a deep question: What is the point of physics? Should a good theory be able to explain the particular characteristics of the universe around us or is that asking too much? And when a theory conflicts with the way we think our universe works, do we abandon the theory or the things we think we know?

In what way does string theory supposedly create more universes?  Has it something to do with, as I believe I may have heard recently, the first moments of the big bang multiple universes were simultaneously created?
I take it this method of universe creation is different from the many worlds method involving quantum collapsing wave functions, probabilities, superposition, and other assorted quantum weirdness.

And is there a difference between physical, matter universes and 'alternate realities' anyway? lol

Way I understand it, there are basically 3 methods of having an infinite number of universes.
1) The universe we occupy is infinite and within it, could contain infinite reiterations of earths for example.
2) A multiverse
3) Quantum generated alt. realities

In what way does string theory supposedly create more universes?  Has it something to do with, as I believe I may have heard recently, the first moments of the big bang multiple universes were simultaneously created?
I take it this method of universe creation is different from the many worlds method involving quantum collapsing wave functions, probabilities, superposition, and other assorted quantum weirdness.

And is there a difference between physical, matter universes and 'alternate realities' anyway? lol

Way I understand it, there are basically 3 methods of having an infinite number of universes.
1) The universe we occupy is infinite and within it, could contain infinite reiterations of earths for example.
2) A multiverse
3) Quantum generated alt. realities

Read through this. https://www.space.com/31465-is-our-unive...verse.html

It is truly amusing that "mainstream" physicists using their highly developed    brains continue to hypothesize string theory, multiverses, etc.  Most of them are usually the same people that dismiss phenomenology and other para-happenings as hokum. So, if they do not have any real evidence of such "theories", does this make them metaphysicists? My .02 cents.

Steve, great article!

I suggest a Level V.... Frank Tipler's Omega Point. Lol. Crikes, I happen to hear him on some podcast recently and also a debate with Larry Krauss.  I remember Tipler waaay back because of his Tipler cylinder hypothetical time travel device.  The proton, photon, electron represents proof for the holy trinity or some such shite?  The guy is off his nut!  Lol

Offthechain, that's a valid point. These physicists are just replacing God with multiverses and both are equally experimentally unverifiable.  However.... I understand, at least mathematically speaking, it all seems to point to it.

Steve, great article!

I suggest a Level V.... Frank Tipler's Omega Point. Lol. Crikes, I happen to hear him on some podcast recently and also a debate with Larry Krauss.  I remember Tipler waaay back because of his Tipler cylinder hypothetical time travel device.  The proton, photon, electron represents proof for the holy trinity or some such shite?  The guy is off his nut!  Lol

Offthechain, that's a valid point. These physicists are just replacing God with multiverses and both are equally experimentally unverifiable.  However.... I understand, at least mathematically speaking, it all seems to point to it.

The only area of string theory I can even remotely buy into is matter/antimatter. It does coincide with a unified field line of thinking. Nothing in the universe happens by accident. I also think that because something is experimentally unverifiable, does not mean it is impossible. The same human mind that created these mathematical formulas are the same minds that created holy texts, works of art, technological advancements and philosophy. I theorize that the universe is only going to be understood as humanity perceives it from a low-level ability that we as simple organisms possess. There is an understanding of the universe that can only be experienced on a different plane of existence.

It is truly amusing that "mainstream" physicists using their highly developed    brains continue to hypothesize string theory, multiverses, etc.  Most of them are usually the same people that dismiss phenomenology and other para-happenings as hokum. So, if they do not have any real evidence of such "theories", does this make them metaphysicists? My .02 cents.

Figuring out how this came to be is the greatest mystery of all. Something worth persuing don't you think?

It is metaphysics with a caveat. Whereas philosophers each are content protesting they know the truth, physicists are willing to put their metaphysics to experimental testing when possible. Which points up the difference between people that claim they know the truth and those that do not. None of these interviewees claim they have the truth. The believers of the supernatural and paranormal are replete with claims of truth.

Steve, great article!

I suggest a Level V.... Frank Tipler's Omega Point. Lol. Crikes, I happen to hear him on some podcast recently and also a debate with Larry Krauss.  I remember Tipler waaay back because of his Tipler cylinder hypothetical time travel device.  The proton, photon, electron represents proof for the holy trinity or some such shite?  The guy is off his nut!  Lol

Offthechain, that's a valid point. These physicists are just replacing God with multiverses and both are equally experimentally unverifiable.  However.... I understand, at least mathematically speaking, it all seems to point to it.

If there is more than this one universe then I would like to be like God to see it in its entirety.

Just thinking of why there is something rather than nothing short circuits my brain with the endless implications.
Anyone read Jim Holt's book, 'Why Does The World Exist: An Existential Detective Story"

Figuring out how this came to be is the greatest mystery of all. Something worth persuing don't you think?

It is metaphysics with a caveat. Whereas philosophers each are content protesting they know the truth, physicists are willing to put their metaphysics to experimental testing when possible. Which points up the difference between people that claim they know the truth and those that do not. None of these interviewees claim they have the truth. The believers of the supernatural and paranormal are replete with claims of truth.

Definitely worth pursuing. I study metaphysics almost daily. Curiosity is innate human nature. I think it is impossible at this level of an organism's development to "know" the truth. We need to realize that truth and untruths are only what we perceive them to be. I agree that physicists and metaphysicists alike theorize on all subject matter. My point is that metaphysics is often dismissed due to the anomalous nature. The world of metaphysics and those that study it, are also willing to put theories to the test. Most often they are stamped invalid by what would be assumed to be the "hard" sciences. I do understand that some are trying to bridge the gap, to hopefully create some credibility to phenomena that cannot be readily explained.