arXiv blog

Physicists Calculate Number of Universes in the Multiverse

If we live in a multiverse, it's reasonable to ask how many other distinguishable universes we may share it with. Now physicists have an answer

kfc 10/15/2009

  • 10 Comments

One of the curious developments in cosmology in recent years has been the emergence of the multiverse as a mainstream idea. Instead of the Big Bang producing a single uniform universe, the latest thinking is that it produced many different universes that appear locally uniform.

One question that then arises is how many universes are there. That may sound like the sort of quantity that is inherently unknowable but Andrei Linde and Vitaly Vanchurin at Stanford University in California have worked out an answer, of sorts.

Their answer goes like this. The Big Bang was essentially a quantum process which generated quantum fluctuations in the state of the early universe. The universe then underwent a period of rapid growth called inflation during which these perturbations were "frozen", creating different initial classical conditions in different parts of the cosmos. Since each of these regions would have a different set of laws of low energy physics, they can be thought of as different universes.

What Linde and Vanchurin have done is estimate how many different universes could have appeared as a result of this effect. Their answer is that this number must be proportional to the effect that caused the perturbations in the first place, a process called slow roll inflation, and in particular to the number "e-foldings" of slow roll inflation.

Of course, the actual number depends critically on how you define the difference between universes.

Linde and Vanchurin have applied some reasonable rules to calculate that the number of universes in the multiverse and have totted it up to at least 10^10^10^7. A "humungous" number is how they describe it, with no little understatement.

How many of these could we actually see? What's interesting here is that the properties of the observer become an important factor because of a limit to the amount of information that can be contained within any given volume of space, a number known as the Bekenstein limit, and by the limits of the human brain.

Linde and Vanchurin say that total amount of information that can be absorbed by one individual during a lifetime is about 10^16 bits. So a typical human brain can have 10^10^16 configurations and so could never disintguish more than that number of different universes.

10^10^16 is a big number but it is dwarfed by the "humungous" 10^10^10^7.

"We have found that the strongest limit on the number of different locally distinguishable geometries is determined mostly by our abilities to distinguish between different universes and to remember our results," say Linde and Vanchurin

So the limit does not depend on the properties of the multiverse but on the properties of the observer.

How profound is that!

Ref: arxiv.org/abs/0910.1589: How Many Universes Are In The Multiverse?




TRSF: Read the Best New Science Fiction inspired by today’s emerging technologies.

Print

Close Comments

To comment, please sign in or register

Forgot my password

paulsnx2

1 Comment

  • 852 Days Ago
  • 10/15/2009

Number of observable universes...

The logic is flawed.  While one person might be so limited in observing other universe (the 10^10^16 value), we as a race are not one person.

This logic seems to imply that if I only have a canoe, that there are only three observable
Continents ... because at most, the average person could only visit three continents by canoe in their life, if that is all they have.

Yet people can be living on all continents.  And technology may progress to the point that we have better transportation than a canoe.

Reply

ka5s

59 Comments

  • 851 Days Ago
  • 10/16/2009

Re: Number of observable universes...

Including the capacity of the human brain in the problem is really only the anthropic principle applied (IMO) arrogantly to the universe(s) under discussion; what counts is the number of available interactions, each interaction being an observation in its own right. Bishop Berkeley's chair exists without him.

Looked at differently, if an observation is required to assert an occurrence,  a hamster could observe a raindrop fall, an amoeba can be washed away by it, a grain of pollen be moved and a particle of dust be dissolved. The principle being established, there is no limit to how small the observation need be save the smallest interaction possible.

Reply

ZephirAWT

299 Comments

  • 851 Days Ago
  • 10/16/2009

Re: Number of observable universes...

IMO Universe is behaving like Tetris game, which randomly creates less or more complex structures. The more complex these structures are, the lower probability exists for their creation, the larger pile of random configurations is required.

In certain moment the structure of complexity of human brain is created and the surrounding pile of less random states would correspond the Universe, directly observable by this brain.  For example, if average human brain contains 10^26 atoms, then the observable Universe would contain 10^(26*26) atoms, or somewhat similar number. It would mean, connected effort of more brains would allow us to see our Universe larger.

This could be meaningful interpretation of the above article.

Reply

flared0ne

395 Comments

  • 851 Days Ago
  • 10/16/2009

And for our next subject, "Pin-Head Angel-Dancing"...

A particularly desperate case of "initial conditions" interfering with rational thought. Among other issues, one result of the initial hypothesis is that all of these universes are somehow "at a distance", outside of our light-cone I assume. When a fairly major element of the "multiverse" concept is that of interleaved overlapping sheaves of branes, that the "space" we occupy is juxtaposed with other spaces and the separating 'factors' have little if anything to do with the classical concepts of 'distance' as such.

In any case, blithely tossing around numbers on the order of 10^10^10^7 would seem to deserve at least a bit of error-bar prediction, say at least a couple of magnitudes one way or the other, right? Particularly since I believe that number exceeds what I vaguely recall as estimates of the total number of Planck-scale spatial 'bits' in the universe -- which is also supposedly linked to that maximum information content number quoted...

Reply

ZephirAWT

299 Comments

  • 851 Days Ago
  • 10/16/2009

Number of multiverses

Idea presented is basically consistent with Hawking's top-down cosmology and AWT model, in which universe is virtually unlimited.

But in physics even states, which single observer can never watch or remember alone are considered real. For example, my universe doesn't involve electrons, because I cannot see electrons. States of my brain are supposedly working at even much higher level, so I could observe/remember quite low number of multiverses, whereas the number of observers possible inside of such multiverse still remains quite high.

Reply

JustaGuess

7 Comments

  • 851 Days Ago
  • 10/16/2009

Thinking outside the box

If a hypothetical person lived 100 years, that would be jut a bit over 3 billion seconds.  If they observed a universe every second of their life it would not come close the the numbers given.  Observing one per second is nearly useless since you could learn nothing about the observation and you would never remember any of it.  As you age you can't even remember what you had for breakfast yesterday.  My guess would be closer to a few hundred worthwhile observations per human brain.

Reply

Phineas

127 Comments

  • 851 Days Ago
  • 10/16/2009

Perpetually Perturbed

A Humungus equals Plethora to the power of Googolplex and that will inflame D-brane.
Standing on Linde & Vanchurin's shoulders we might see the cosmological horizon. Given time.

Reply

Advertisement

p m winlsow

1 Comment

  • 849 Days Ago
  • 10/18/2009

Infinite!

Why can't we just say it?  We live in an infinite universe.  Infinitely large radiating out and infinitely small within.  A simultaneously expanding and contracting fractally-imbedded feedback system that cannot be 'counted'.  See www.TheResonanceProject.org/research for the peer-reviewed recently published papers that describe both a simpler system and an infinitely unbounded system of black/white holes with the forces of gravity and electromagnetism and torque and Coriolis forces, and without the 'invented' small and weak nuclear forces, that is being used to solve Einstein's Field Equations  Read a PDF of "The Schwarzchild Proton" ("Best paper Award" in "Physics, Quantum Mechanics, Relativity, Field Theory, and Gravitation” at a recent conference) and other papers. 

Reply

Qasem

6 Comments

  • 849 Days Ago
  • 10/18/2009

Angles dancing on the sharp tip of a needle?

Am I the only one who is reminded of the old question of "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" when I take a glimpse on these papers?

This kind of questions appear when we deal with a type of framework claiming to be "the Theory Of Everything"(TOE); this TOE could be either religion or a branch of science. Being the TOE it acclaims itself to be describing "every-things". We have only one single "every-things"(consider "every-things" as the set of all things we could and can and will observe). In the phase space of theories, our "every-things" is a point that provides a single constraint on the possible TOE. Each theory that fits on our "every-things", will  predict many other "every-things" through extrapolation that by definition we can observe neither of them. In what sense does providing constraint on what by definition we can not observe sound physical?

Reply

jorich2009

1 Comment

  • 836 Days Ago
  • 10/31/2009

multiverse cosmology

From universes that are ejected in big bangs from plasma multiverses spawn massive 'big holes' that digest entire galaxies and eject them into other dimensions. This is the world of plasma multiverse cosmology based entirely on newly discovered fluidic phenomena, which reveals processes of the observable universe otherwise unknown.

Please discover how the universe was created, how it loses mass through 'big holes' and where high-energy cosmic rays originate.

http://sites.google.com/site/jupitersthings/multiverse-cosmology

Reply

Bio

The Physics arXiv Blog produces daily coverage of the best new ideas from an online forum called the Physics arXiv on which scientists post early versions of their latest ideas. Contact me at KentuckyFC @ arxivblog.com

Follow The Physics arXiv Blog on Twitter

Subscribe to the arXiv blog RSS Feed

Advertisement
Advertisement

Facebook

Advertisement