Thursday, October 15, 2009
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
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?
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Comments
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.
paulsnx2
10/15/2009
Posts:1
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.
ka5s
10/16/2009
Posts:15
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.
ZephirAWT
10/16/2009
Posts:158
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...
flared0ne
10/16/2009
Posts:47
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.
ZephirAWT
10/16/2009
Posts:158
JustaGuess
10/16/2009
Posts:7
Standing on Linde & Vanchurin's shoulders we might see the cosmological horizon. Given time.
Phineas
10/16/2009
Posts:93
p m winlsow
10/18/2009
Posts:1
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?
Qasem
10/18/2009
Posts:3
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
jorich2009
10/31/2009
Posts:1