First Observational Test of The Existence of ‘Multiverses’
Artificial Person
Posted on August 21, 2011
The existence of Multiverses, a set of multiple possible universes that together comprise everything that exists, may not just be science-fiction stories told in books and movies but could also be something very real. The theory has been around for over 100 years but it’s only recently that scientists have found ways to look for signs of other universes in the background radiation of our own.
“British physicists have announced that the theory that our universe is contained inside a bubble, just one of multiple bubble universes in a “multiverse,” can now be tested.
According to such theory, our universe is not limitless, but instead contained within a celestial bubble that bounces off of other universal bubbles in a multiverse.
While the theory has gained more academic recognition and interest in the last few years, demonstrating the existence of a multiverse has proven difficult.
However, Scientists at University College London, Imperial College London and the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics now say they will search for disk-like patterns in the cosmic microwave background radiation left over from the Big Bang that could provide evidence of collisions between other universes and our own.
Disc-like patterns in the radiation could be located anywhere in the sky, which makes it even more difficult to identify them scientists have also warned.
“It’s a very hard statistical and computational problem to search for all possible radii of the collision imprints at any possible place in the sky,” researcher Hiranya Peiris said Wednesday in a UCL release.
A new computer algorithm will allow the researchers to analyse huge amounts of background radiation data from a NASA probe, the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe.
“The work represents an opportunity to test a theory that is truly mind-blowing: that we exist within a vast multiverse, where other universes are constantly popping into existence,” Stephen Feeney, who created the powerful algorithm, said.
The study is only a first step, and there still not enough evidence to prove that either our universal bubble is the only one around or that universes collide regularly.“It’s all too easy to over-interpret interesting patterns in random data (like the ‘face on Mars’ that, when viewed more closely, turned out to just a normal mountain), so we took great care to assess how likely it was that the possible bubble collision signatures we found could have arisen by chance,” Dr. Daniel Mortlock, another co-author of the study, said.
If the theory is not yet proven, scientists insist that the study has opened up the debate to whole lot more research.”
If total energy of the universe is zero, as claimed by some scientists, then it can be shown that multiverse theory is probably not true. This is because total energy being zero, total mass will also be zero due to mass-energy equivalence. Scientists have shown that anything having mass will always occupy some space. So anything that fails to occupy any space cannot have any mass. Our universe perhaps fails to occupy any space, and that is why its mass is zero. But if multiverse theory is true, then our universe will definitely occupy some space within the multiverse, and thus in that case its mass cannot be zero. But as this mass is zero, therefore multiverse theory cannot be true.
Here it may be argued that radiation occupies space but its mass is zero. So here is an example that something occupying space can still be without mass. So our universe can also be without mass even if it occupies some space within the multiverse. In reply we will say that the example cited here is a bad example, because our universe is not any kind of radiation. So if it is without mass, then that can only be due to its not occupying any space, and not due to its being some sort of radiation.
However, if total energy of the universe cannot be taken to be zero, then the conclusion drawn here will not stand. In that case multiverse theory may be true, but we cannot say that it will be necessarily true.