Do we live in a multiverse? - with Laura Mersini-Houghton

What lies beyond the edge of our own universe? Learn more from cosmologist Laura Mersini-Houghton as she discusses her ground-breaking theory in this short video.
Subscribe for regular science videos: bit.ly/RiSubscRibe
Laura's book is out now: geni.us/GxU3nFB
Laura Mersini-Houghton is an internationally renowned cosmologist and theoretical physicist and one of the world's leading experts on the multiverse and the origins of the universe.
Born in Albania when it was still under a communist dictatorship, Laura was awarded a Fulbright Scholarship to study in the United States and is now a regular visiting professor at several universities around the world, including the University of Cambridge. She has been the subject of hundreds of articles in leading popular science magazines and has appeared in documentaries on the Science Channel, Discovery Channel and the BBC.
The Ri is on Patreon: / theroyalinstitution
and Twitter: / ri_science
and Facebook: / royalinstitution
and TikTok: / ri_science
Listen to the Ri podcast: anchor.fm/ri-science-podcast
Our editorial policy: www.rigb.org/editing-ri-talks...
Subscribe for the latest science videos: bit.ly/RiNewsletter
Product links on this page may be affiliate links which means it won't cost you any extra but we may earn a small commission if you decide to purchase through the link.

[@lawrencekassab1226]

Remember when we thought our galaxy was the entire universe. Then, we found an uncountable amount of galaxies.

[@RichMitch]

Like it was yesterday

[@aztro187]

I tried to explain it to a girl a couple of days ago, bruh, she looked at me like i was talking about ghosts, haha, i was like, aight, smoke the joint, lets go and fck hehe

[@sigis22259]

There is only one field! 🙏🏻

[@rodriguezelfeliz4623]

That is very true. Yet I still find it very hard to think about multiple universes. How could we know they exist if those universes that exist are separate from each other and don't interact. The maths might check out, the predictions within our universe might check out... but it seems to me like we don't have a way of ruling out alternative explanations that don't require more universes, unless we observe those other universes or their effects... but (as far as I know) we can't do that (yet)

[@krumuvecis]

Couldn't remember. That was in 1920s, if I'm not mistaking. Look up "Shapley-Curtis Debate"

[@dolgouskodusko]

Bravo and cheers from Macedonia, Albania’s neighbor!

[@rodriguezelfeliz4623]

I mean maybe... but to what degree is it possible to actually prove such claim?

[@2CSST2]

You can never 100% prove anything, but there is a way to produce evidence: indirectly. If a theory makes predictions that you can verify in our universe, you have good reason to believe in the other predictions it makes as well. The more predictions about it are verified, the bigger your confidence that the rest is true as well.

[@a.randomjack6661]

I scientific theory can only be demonstrated wrong using of course, the scientific method.. Multiverse is a hypothesis, if we stick to scientific language.

[@rodriguezelfeliz4623]

@@2CSST2 but as you said, predictions "in our universe". The only thing we can observe is our universe. If there are multiple separate universes, then I would think they wouldn't interact, right? If not, they wouldn't be separete universes. Thankfully, I'm a really dumb primate, so hopefully I'm wrong and it is indeed possible to test the hypothesis of multiple universes.

[@rodriguezelfeliz4623]

@@a.randomjack6661don't get me wrong, I have nothing against something being "just" a hypothesis. Hypothesis are not random predictions, they are based on mathematics and observations. But my issue with multiverse hypothesis is that (at least to my stupid primate brain) it seems like an untestable hypothesis.

[@benjamindover4337]

The universe literally means everything that exists, so there is no "other universe" by definition.

[@micronda]

If you remove the universes from the multiverse, what are you left with and why?

[@krumuvecis]

A burning memory

[@Safetytrousers]

A sense of desolate regret.

[@server1ok]

This happens all the time in the model. The Universes in the Multiverse are not infinite, they can evaporate or they can grow and/or give birth. The only infinite model is the "single Universe"

[@richardmarcus3340]

Proof our science community is still in it's infancy. Give them another 50-100 years and maybe, just maybe, they'll figure it out.

[@freddyjosereginomontalvo4667]

Awesome channel with awesome content and great quality as always say 🌍💯

[@solowinterwolf]

I shall buy her books. .

[@SimonSozzi7258]

🤯 it's TRUE!!! We couldn't possibly be the only universe. Just one of many, many, many universes... of course! 🙏

[@Feenix102]

Something I'm wondering. They say that an observer being present will change the outcome of an experiment. By extension then, does the act of asking a question change the answer to it, or at least affect the answer on some level?

[@gregallard2317]

My favourite cosmologist.

[@AdrianaPolito]

I took this argument a step further in my book, The World Within back in 2018. I argue that the universe is not in fact expanding, but rather feeling the effects of subduction / divergence from other universes either sliding above / underneath ours / crashing into ours, basically overlapping or making contact at the boundary zones. My argument also suggests that all universes are on a sphere, thus giving the impression of expansion in the same way people used to think that the earth’s crust was expanding, when in fact material was just subsiding underneath other continental crusts and thus giving the appearance of expansion. We talk about the corners of our Universe, but in my theory, there are no corners - everything is operating on a sphere, which supports how it can both be flat and curved at the same time. The result of the spherical concept is that, like the separation and reassembly of continental continents every so many million years, I propose that universes act in a similar way.

[@NeonVisual]

Consciousness is the ability to defy causality and travel your own personal multiverse based not upon action and reaction, but upon memory.

[@CryptoHQ]

YES! This is what I have believed for some time. Many worlds also explains why our universe appears so tuned for life without having to invent infinity other universes, because it still allows for our universe and all other versions to have the same starting point at the big bang. The universe is like one huge quantum computer playing out all possible configurations at the same time where the unviable ones end while the stable ones continue forward for as long as they can remain stable. It begs the question as to the purpose of the computation. Does all computation and energy ultimately continue through to the longest surviving universe before reaching a final state, or is there some other purpose? Something must be right in our universe to have continued on for 13.5 billion years, so what is it? Is our version of the constants leading to a preferred outcome, or are we still in the earliest fraction of a moment since the big bang and stuck with accelerating expansion that eventually make our universe unviable while others with steady state expansion continue onward?

[@paulfarquharson5248]

You said this before

[@TheBTC]

this makes sense . cause and effect is linear and robotic with no room for anything else than reacting to what happened directly before, but memory and experience isn't, so it means that something happening now can be affected by something that happened way back in the past, even though at the time they were causally disconnected. so, as neo in the matrix said, "the problem is choice". we are trying to understand how the multiverse can exist when we only see evidence of the one we're living in, while also apparently having free will to make decisions that let us move into any multiverse we want, one choice at a time. isn't our ability to chose in itself proof that we live in a multiverse? If we couldn't make any decisions and felt like nothing we do could change the course of our experience, then that would suggest we're stuck in a single universe with no other possible outcomes.

[@rodriguezelfeliz4623]

You can't defy causality tho. You probably don't have free will and your conciousness is probably just an epiphenomenon of your brain activity. Please don't mix science with spiritual science fiction

[@jac9301]

Don't make categorical definitions of consciousness, you sound as foolish as people who say "well here's what God is upto".

[@banehog]

Cool. The video isn't about the multiverse though (that's more of a footnote). Maybe find a better title?

[@abdul-kabiralegbe5660]

What title do you suggest?

[@1yehny]

Does time have meaning in multiverse discussions?

[@a.randomjack6661]

Time does not exist independently of spacetime. It's a misconception to view time as a separate entity.

[@paulfarquharson5248]

Hang on a minute, I am thinking

[@jac9301]

Well time in science is nothing more than the arrow from order to disorder. In theory there's nothing saying it can't run the other way.

[@asdfasdfasdfasdfzzzz]

It has as much meaning as it does here, its probably relative in n ways. speeds up, slows down, is never uniform across grand distances

[@Anonymous-qw]

Do you have any proof of any of these ideas? Is it possible to have any evidence of any of these ideas or evidence to disprove any of these ideas?

[@whatilearnttoday5295]

They don't even have a foundation for these ideas let alone any experiments. It's purely narrative and thought experiment with no basis in reality.

[@jac9301]

We are bound by the technology of our time, will we build the foundation for future society to build on definitely, will we prove it in our lifetimes who knows.

[@jimlister9183]

If I had known when I was 18 that studying physics could mean searching for the multiverse I would have gone to school lol

[@johnspartan7103]

You are amazing!

[@tehdii]

Our universe started on Wednesday and the forecast clash with Andromeda is tomorrow on Saturday :)

[@Dyslexic-Artist-Theory-on-Time]

I think we will find that our Universe is three-dimensional continuum with light photon ∆E=hf energy continuously transforming potential energy into the kinetic Eₖ=½mv² energy of matter, in the form of electrons.

[@elinope4745]

What of gamma rays and hydrogen plasma in a magnetic field? Not all photon interactions include electrons.

[@Dyslexic-Artist-Theory-on-Time]

@@elinope4745 The process is relative to temperature and the phase changes of matter. At low temperature the same geometrical process is relative to the atoms as we have with plasma at high temperature. The same dynamic geometry is relative for the whole of the electromagnetic spectrum, all the different wavelengths. The Universe is based on conformal geometry, shape dynamics with size not relative.

[@Hugo_Overthere]

We are certain that our current perception of the universe is incorrect, because we see the near universe as it is while we see the distant universe as it was billions of years ago. Distant occurrences might have changed considerably.

[@pcuimac]

No. We see the universe as it is at our location at this moment. We can't interact with places and times outside our lightcone. It makes no difference to know that another place has already developed beyond our reach, because whatever happens there will either interact with us in the far future or even never, if it moves wih more than lightspeed away from us, because spacetime expands.

[@Hugo_Overthere]

@@pcuimac What is our universe's ratio of space to matter? Why? If space is created, must matter follow? Is expansion a cause or an effect?

[@SmallWetIsland]

I would be interested to know what she thinks of CCC Conformal cyclic cosmology. Which seems like an alternative to the Big Bang (again) the big rip and the universe flatlining

[@andrewmelvin3193]

Watch her and Roger Penrose discussing this. It’s a brilliant discussion!

[@richard_d_bird]

i agree, and so do i, but i am not entirely sure

[@paulfarquharson5248]

Me to

[@krumuvecis]

is that your final answer?

[@paulfarquharson5248]

What was the question

[@raybar1915]

I recently read her book. An interesting read. Her hypothesis combines elements of string theory landscape and the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics to posit the the Big Bang generation and the multi-verse. Creative hypothesis but based on two areas of physics that thus far have no evidence of being even testable at this point. She claims some observations in the CMB provide evidence of her theory's validity but I have not seen such evidence discussed anywhere else that I can find.

[@TheSupaman98]

Those observations make the theory falsifiable and testable, hence why it was mentioned. As it now a part of real science.

[@forkrunner2313]

What if our universe is the result of the explosion/inflation of a black hole inside another older universe?

[@whatilearnttoday5295]

Holographic Universe Theory. A 5D "star" fell into a hole and everything we see is past the event horizon. Cosmological expansion and "dark energy" is simply perspective on curvature of spacetime.

[@server1ok]

The black hole ( that you are talking about ) doesn't need to explode for this possibility to be valid

[@notanemoprog]

Let's ask Sabine

[@Vlow52]

Looking at all the natural processes in the universe, it tends to use energy as efficient as possible, so blasting off infinite numbers of duplicates at each break of wave function feels absolutely non-realistic.

[@w0mblemania]

I'm not sure about this. I wouldn't extrapolate from the efficiency of a process, to efficiency as an ideal. e.g. Our sun can produce light very efficiently, but that light isn't *used* efficiently at all. In fact, almost all of it is wasted, being spread randomly outwards, to no effective purpose.

[@Vlow52]

@@w0mblemania nobody said that the energy should be used somehow. Photons will live their lives and transform into another various forms of energy, that’s what “using” is essentially, no matter what you do. It’s binded to the laws of thermodynamics and keeps the simplest path it can possibly have.

[@w0mblemania]

@@Vlow52 It's moot because you can only define "efficiency" in terms of an outcome. Yet your argument is based around the efficiency of the universe. There's no metric there. There's nothing to compare against. But let's put aside the wave function for a moment. It's not needed here. Clearly, we do not understand the starting point (if any) of our universe. It doesn't require any kind of efficiency metric for, say, random universes to be continually be spawned from a greater cosmos. Most of these universes will be unviable for any kind of complex life.

[@server1ok]

1. This phenomenon wouldn't be infinity. The only infinity is in the single Universe model. 2. A Multiverse model doesn't need to behave in this way. Copies ( births ) can be made through black holes ( which are not infinite in number ) or some other exotic process. 3. QM suggests that the Multiverse is the only correct model.

[@rajeev_kumar]

Good

[@willem878]

It's a great pleasure to see how a simple question, which I always had, can be explained from a point of view which is logic to me. What was there before. Is it a continuum or is it something static.. I believe in the continuum. Because we are, as humans, used to think in beginning and ending of every aspect in our life. But in fact there is no beginning and no end. Everything was there before. I knew that as a child and are still convinced that it is true. It's the most reasonable way. We also will discover, some time, that it really doesn't matter if there is a universe. The universe is there. Nothing more or less. It's just there in one way or another. Maybe we will find out how and but never why. The "Why" question about the existence of the universe is in my opinion the most stupid question you ever could ask. It's just there. The universe isn't interested what we think of it. We think that we are very important but in fact we are just a glimp. Not more than some atoms and quarks. That's all there is.

[@server1ok]

check my post about your question, and ( hint ) you are not thinking in a correct way in regards to a model of the Multiverse

[@a.randomjack6661]

I'd rather opt for a fractalverse...

[@Deuphus]

Why similar?

[@fahadijazijaz3986]

epistemic possibility it may be

[@downhillphilm.6682]

this is the best explanation of these theories I have found to date, concise and clear. thank you!! (also gonna get your book).

[@setiandromeda6091]

Felicitations!brilliant!

[@ingoos]

Empirically derived data has already shown & continuous to strongly suggests (#finetuning) that our universe is highly unlikely a result of random processes. Postulating the possibility of a multiverse(s) only makes that unlikelihood even more absurdly so. And that's putting it mildly. Just data. Just facts. How fascinating to find answers within & from the very beginning!

[@MentoDaSheep]

Can one disprove the existence of something that one cannot interact with?

[@paulfarquharson5248]

My wife

[@MentoDaSheep]

@@paulfarquharson5248 Your wise can disprove the existence of something that she cannot interact with, or is your wife something one cannot interact with?

[@rodriguezelfeliz4623]

@@MentoDaSheep probably the latter lol

[@paulfarquharson5248]

Probably

[@MentoDaSheep]

@@paulfarquharson5248 I respect thee.

[@08wolfeyes]

While i feel the multiverse is an interesting idea, i don't see it as something factual. It is also something we will never be able to really answer. Trying to think of the nothing that may be beyond space is in itself, difficult for our minds to even picture. If you imagine a dark empty space with nothing at all in it, no energy, no matter or atoms, nothing, you are still picturing a dark empty place which is of course, still something. You may even subconsciously picture yourself in that space because you know there has to be a you there to see through your eyes, someone to observe it and so again, it's not empty. When space expands, it just creates more space but that space isn't moving into or growing into anything, it's just making more space. We will only ever be able to see so far back into the universe but never beyond and so to ask such a questions seems rather pointless. All you'll be doing is speculating on something you'll never know the answer to.

[@bipolarbear9917]

Says you. You obviously haven't heard of the Möbiverse. 😱

[@whatilearnttoday5295]

By design. It's intellectually dishonest pop-sci.

[@bipolarbear9917]

@@whatilearnttoday5295 No, it's NOT dishonest pop-sci, it's scientific speculation. All science starts out with an original concept. With a concept, Newton would not have discovered 'Gravity' ☀🌍🌑🪐, or Einstein 'Spacetime'. ⏲

[@MentoDaSheep]

@@bipolarbear9917 It's unscientific unless it is disprovable. Can one disprove the existence of parallel world? By definition of parallel, one cannot interact with it. As such, even if it doesn't exist, you cannot gather evidence to prove that, you cannot know for sure that it doesn't exist. It's a question of faith, like heaven and gods.

[@whatilearnttoday5295]

@@bipolarbear9917 Their concepts were based on things which weren't obviously apparent to be nothing more than fiction. Giants were stood on rather than confusing nonsensical stories.

[@TheWoody296]

This is one version... Good theroy one day someone in the near future will say they thought this is what was happening.... We just won't KW accept it..🙏

[@madezra64]

I mean it's almost scientific fact that we pretty much live in a multi-verse, with our specific universe being 13.8 billion years old.

[@TheWoody296]

@@madezra64 yes agree for now but it even facts change when it comes to beyond our conception rabbit hole stuff... I think we will find more answers looking in.

[@oaktadopbok665]

My sofa has its own big rip theory

[@humbleguy9908]

10e27 cm is not very intuitive. Why not say 10e25 m or 10e9 light years?

[@sanjuansteve]

No (ok, maybe). But, the dark matter all around us could be considered a parallel universe and it could even contain dark matter life forms, again, all around us.

[@royb3379]

"do we live in a multiverse? we live in a multiverse" that was fast

[@ukidding]

Why stop at one big bang?

[@zeropointconsciousness]

Yep. Blessings Universal Mitakuye Oyasin.

[@achatinaslak742]

Cat matter also be created out of dark energy ?

[@20july1944]

No reason to think it can, nature doesn't make regular matterfrom energy.

[@whatilearnttoday5295]

Dark Energy isn't a thing. Cosmological expansion is simply the curvature of spacetime.

[@server1ok]

This is called the "Steady State" model. That model is garbage.

[@20july1944]

@@server1ok Yes, steady state is garbage and the last formerly credible astronomer to hold to that was Fred Hoyle who died in August 2001 and he was clinging to it alone as a recognized eccentric for decades prior to that.

[@darekcebula3595]

Też mi nowość.

[@bariselem7097]

But was quantum mechanics valid at that point?

[@usaintltrade]

🌹

[@lawrencekassab1226]

Dark Flow

[@arssve4109]

I am fascinated how everything has to do with energy while energy itself is measured through equivalencies - this energy equivalent to that energy etc. One can wonder what energy actually is and if pure (formless, idle) energy even exist? So I cannot help myself to wonder if energy is a fictional "observable" that attempts to substitute for more complex sets of rules.

[@Thesunscreen]

If it is measurable and thereby repeatable to provide evidence, by the scales and frameworks we have decided we can operate with, it is also describable and we have descriptions down to subatomic level of which make out the consistencies of energy. Including a large part of their quantum parts. Equivalent is not the phrasing I would opt for, but converted to a different descriptor or reference.

[@arssve4109]

@@Thesunscreen I agree, equivalent is not the right term when I think of it, there is a small fee for every conversation lost to entropy, however we wish to interpret it. But that loss is also often expressed in energy. Not saying it is not convenient, just saying that the self consistency is somewhat fascinating.

[@Thesunscreen]

@@arssve4109 That fee is described as energy lost, because that is what has happened. No free lunch. Entropy itself is, in fact a different question. How do we represent it or describe it? Entropy perhaps, rather emphasizes that self consistency does not exist. It always deteriorates (if our frame follows space-time "forward" )

[@arssve4109]

@@Thesunscreen There are other interesting pointers. 1) Joule is not one of the 7 base units in SI system, it is rather as kg * m^2 / s^2 and therefore derived though their definitions (Watt ballance experiment, meter definition through second, and second itself being defined by Cesium atoms). We see speed of light, electron charge and plank constants involved to define Joule. 2) As far as we know energy has no measurable smallest amount, like angular momentum or electric charge, so there is nothing quantum about energy. What is quantized in atoms is their electron and core angular momentums and electron and core charges.

[@arssve4109]

@@Thesunscreen Interesting point about entropy. Not sure if it is universally true, but energy seems to get divided in ever smaller portions. Starting from hard EM radiation in the starts to microwave radiation.

[@thedude8046]

Does she have scientific proof of that claim? A lot of things that scientists have claimed have been proven wrong but these scientists are to selfish to admit they we're wrong.

[@PatGilliland]

You know how science works right?

[@whatilearnttoday5295]

It's nothing but a narrative stolen from sci-fi.

[@AliHSyed]

Thank you for a great presentation for us R

[@freehandsky]

Might life have an effect on the ultimate future of the universe? with such a long time ahead left for evolution, as the heat death approaches, sentient beings may be able tinker with the parameters and set off the "touch paper" for a new life friendly universe, and then here we go again with another ultimately pointless exercise ...... nothing better to do I guess ???

[@maxschoon2470]

All cool but what if we extend Darwin’s theory of evolution to the universe. Let’s take the limit of evolution to infinite, what would it look like? Wouldn’t it be the universe?

[@jessstuart7495]

It's difficult to prove something when your sample size is 1.

[@davidhoward4715]

There are no proofs in science, only theories and hypotheses.

[@server1ok]

The Multiverse is a way of avoiding the infinity of a single Universe. But how can a Multiverse be smaller and have a more comprehensive point than a single Universe ? Because there is ( an unknown ) Darwinian pressure and some Universes that loop backwards. A Multiverse can be finite and if not finite ? the model can be undefined ( in numbers ) which is separate from being knowingly infinite. Popular models that are infinite include "The Cyclical Universe" and "The Steady State Universe". Because infinity leads to garbage predictions and garbage math, these models are junk. And that's putting it nicely. The outcomes of dark energy in this presentation are a speculation. What's more interesting is how dark energy and gravity coexist and how the ratio can affect the birth of a new Universe or new phenomena within or outside our current Universe, that is, if the Multiverse is the correct model. ( this includes awareness in some models ) Lastly. Everything about QM suggests that the Multiverse is the only viable model.

[@bretttheroux8040]

the multiverse is wild conjecture, foisted upon us by brilliant scientists unwilling to confront the fact that we are here by the decided will of an all powerful being

[@davidhoward4715]

Ah yes... "It's all in the Bible, praise Jesus, exterminate the evil scientists, send me all your money."

[@nigelpalmer9248]

Every time I watch one of these makes me believe we are in a simulation and all we do is try to find excuses for why we aren't.

[@shaamilthattayil]

Stimulation or not, the pain is real, and sometimes unbearable.

[@bipolarbear9917]

Have you seen 'The Simulation Hypothesis' documentary by Fair Winds Productions?

[@MentoDaSheep]

TBH I fail to see the usefulness of that story. Whether or not the rules of physics were made by intelligence or just because, that doesn't change the fact that we are bound by the rules of physics. You can create mythology around that, but how will that change anything?

[@panosvrionis8548]

Im thinking..... we can't go anywhere else except earth.....due to our biology Something like Truman show 🤔🤔 Wish life experiences is an arcade machine from 4000a.d🤗🤗🤗😎

[@stefan1024]

That simulation idea isn't really plausible, it's basically just a modern take on old religious beliefs, some gods creating the world, leading our destiny and so on.

[@Phlizz]

Funny that the starting question is a fundamental human question. The notion to ask „what was before spacetime“ is silly since there is no „before“ without space time. There’s also no dark energy btw… it’s a lack of informational content. Physics don’t mix well with the actual nature of the reality we are observing. The human interpretation of entropy is solely subjective and resembles no deeper insight whatsoever.

[@chipparker3950]

There's not a shred of evidence that there are other universes. It's a non falsifiable theory, pure speculation but fashionable and so people are inclined to say "yeah, that makes sense " to be in fashion. I suspect it is there as a ploy to avoid admitting that the universe and our observations of our world scream for the existence of a creator.

[@seanparker7415]

Prove it.

[@swampfoxIX]

I think people are sleeping on the "universe-as-a-simulation" theory and are vastly underestimating the real plausibility of that theory. But then again, I don't have a STEM background, so what do I know? And this simulation is the product of non-human entities.

[@benjamindover4337]

But what you've described is a fantasy that you've made up. That isn't how science works.

[@swampfoxIX]

@@benjamindover4337 It's obvious that it was strictly an opinion of mine, and not once did I share "proof" or "evidence". What are you, like aut1stic or something? lulz

[@cremasca]

❤️👍❤️

[@paulfarquharson5248]

👣

[@FarbotBurunetNia]

Yes, this universe and all other universes in the vicinity of this domain of cosmos were in there early stage or infancy, but it came to a sudden distraction and end by evil aH/s and their chopped shinny eliminated animal kingdom. Goodbye the universes, and the universe that you live in, will come to and end in a few decades. Fr. N

[@brainstormingsharing1309]

Okay, I know that the idea/theory of a/the multiverse is very popular and therefore many of the best scientists (astrophysicists, etc.) think it's real, but although all that, my personal idea is that we live in a single holistic universe! Needless to say that we are not living in a simulation neither!!! "Just" 1 single real immense and holistic universe!

[@DenkyManner]

I've never heard a compelling or even interesting multiverse theory. It's just scifi 'what if?' stuff. That it keeps coming up, and such intelligent people are thinking about it is a sign of the crisis in physics, we've hit such a brick wall everyone is turning to fantasy to pass the time

[@jonathanwalther]

Wow, you have no clou, what it's about to tackle fundamental questions. It's a long and hard way full of obstacles and dead-ends to formulate well informed theories and ideas to test them. Theory and empiricism are two sides of the same coin. Without theories there are no sensible experiements and without experiements theories could not be futher developed or refuted. "What if" is the most important question you can ask, if the "if" gives rise to new testable insights.

[@mikel4879]

Multiverse my as

[@AOKONE]

Feel so mediocre thinking of all the tasty thoughts that must have passed through her brain.

[@cassac250]

Always nice to get a lecture of Leonards mom

[@julianshepherd2038]

Crikey !

[@Coastaljaeger]

Don´t think so.

[@eriksaari4430]

well that didnt explain anything

[@apollorobb]

We live in a yellow submarine being Captained by Sasquatch on the great salt lakes

[@barbaralindhjem2488]

Maybe somewhere in one of the many multiverse

[@endpc5166]

Is this a falsifiable theory?

[@notanemoprog]

It's not even wrong

[@server1ok]

The infinity in the "single Universe model" is knowingly false.

[@karlstenator]

🔭🌓 ☀ ⭐ ✨ 🌌 🦄

[@ryo0o0o88]

No you live in a multiverse. My name is Ryan and I'm from earth.

[@septopus3516]

gobbledygook...

[@superjimnz]

This is philosophy, not science. These theories are by definition unprovable, so ultimately pointless. What is for certain is that this is the only universe we will ever interact with, so talking about purely hypothetical alternatives achieves literally nothing.

[@jac9301]

Incorrect because we are currently looking at the evidence that may or may not support that. 100 years ago saving an infected arm or transferring organs was purely hypothetical as was shaping a piece of metal to move us through the air or on land. There's no substance to your point.

[@bobSims1864]

Very well put. You expressed what I was thinking better than me.

[@sigis22259]

Nope! It’s one!

[@eelkoweeda6453]

correct

[@sigis22259]

@@eelkoweeda6453 🙏🏻

[@paulfarquharson5248]

Or not

[@sigis22259]

Can you know? 🙏🏻

[@paulfarquharson5248]

Maybe

[@johnjosephlonergan]

But, is this multiverse thing actually "science" ?

[@SpamMouse]

sadly the more that is understood the less is Science a subject on it's own, re double slit experiment and collapsing the wave function.

[@server1ok]

Yes. QM is science. QM has led to the Internet, PC's, smart phones etc.

[@hericiumcoralloides5025]

The constant branching of the wave function leading to a multiverse is still just a philosophical interpretation of QM and a hypothesis. Change your interpretation slightly and the multiverse disapears. We don't even know what a measurement means, if the wave function is a real thing, what the nature and inner workings of space-time are, etc. It's all conjecture. Makes for cool sci-fi though.

[@johnjosephlonergan]

@@hericiumcoralloides5025 I remember at schoo in the 80's l that things like falsifiability and predictive power were important once. Is that all irrelevant now?

[@server1ok]

@@hericiumcoralloides5025 when you apply ( what you are talking about ) to the nanoseconds at the birth of the Universe, you automatically receive a Multiverse. To add. The infinities in standard models such as "The Cyclical Universe" and "The Steady State" get nullified. The infinities become unbound, so the Multiverse is actually "smaller" ( and more comprehensible ) than the usual infinite 1 Universe model, although this requires some complicated math that I can't present, you'd have to check Wiki or a nolife at the Uni.

[@King.Mark.]

nope

[@PetraKann]

No

[@gerhardrausing777]

Im sorry, i wasnt listening / The Dude

[@eelkoweeda6453]

7.04 min.bla,bla,bla

[@paulfarquharson5248]

7.05 aha

[@Safetytrousers]

7.06 the space goat

[@stephencktsang]

IoI

[@PatGilliland]

Love all these comments, mostly from fellow guys, calling into question the expertise of a leading person in the field. The arrogance...

[@20july1944]

The woman is just speculating, she offers no proof.

[@MentoDaSheep]

does "mostly from fellow guys" suggests a problematic behavior in the realm of men-women interaction?

[@PatGilliland]

@@20july1944 The Woman is Dr. Mersini-Houghton A tenured full professor of theoretical physics and cosmology at the University of North Carolina and has collaborated with Stephen Hawking. Who the hell are you?

[@PatGilliland]

@@MentoDaSheep Some men can't tolerate smart women.

[@cryptout]

No.

[@slluch]

it is weird to see a girl that seems to spend summer on a boat on monaco taking about physics

[@poetmaggie1]

Well there is the creation God made for us to learn about Him and the places He has also prepared for after we leave this universe.

[@Safetytrousers]

That's nice for him.

[@jimsteen911]

I strongly disagree. "We don't know," practice this phrase in the mirror.