Multiverse Musings: Is It Testable?

People regularly question whether the multiverse belongs in the arena of scientific investigation. The answers often center on a key query: Is the multiverse testable? Those within the scientific community respond to this concern with different answers. Some say yes, some say no. Certain aspects of the multiverse remain beyond our ability to test currently and maybe indefinitely. In fact, the speculative nature of these models provides insight into how scientists approach difficult problems.  

****

Higu_Higu_no_MiAny scientist will tell you that testing forms the basis for legitimate scientific inquiry. So, how can we classify a theory based on alternate universes that scientists can never detect as science? The fact that multiverse models stand on the scientific frontier, where we have sparse hard data, makes answering this question even more difficult. Though many scientists disagree about the usefulness of models containing some form of a multiverse there are some reasons for including these models in the realm of scientific investigation, even though they are speculative (in the theoretical, not pejorative, sense) in nature.

First, multiverse models are not new to the cosmology scene. For example, shortly after Einstein developed the equations for the theory of general relativity, he realized that the solutions to those equations indicated we lived in an expanding universe. This meant the universe began to exist in the relatively recent past (few billion years ago) and was not eternal. Motivated by philosophical opposition to a genuine beginning, Einstein proposed a multiverse model known as the oscillating universe, where the universe alternated between expanding and contracting phases. It begins with a big bang, expands until gravity halts and reverses the expansion, then contracts until it ends in a big crunch. And then the cycle starts again leading to an infinite number of universes, one of which is where we reside. Eventually, calculations and measurements of our universe ruled out the oscillating universe as a viable cosmological model (although scientists have since proposed an updated version known as the cyclic universe).

Second, the current batch of multiverse models gained popularity primarily because they arose from investigations of other phenomena. Scientists did not simply invent a multiverse in order to explain away the beginning of the universe or to account for its life-friendly fine-tuning. The most popular multiverse model (a level II bubble multiverse filled with level I universes) arises from efforts to find an explanation for how inflation works. Granted the multiverse scenario arises after huge extrapolations of well-tested physical models, but most versions of inflation that produce a universe that looks like ours also produce a multiverse.

Third, some current multiverse models do make testable predictions. Stated another way, they have consequences in our universe that future measurements could validate or falsify. For example, some models predict that another universe might have collided with ours during its earliest phases. Such a collision would produce measurable signatures in the cosmic microwave background (CMB). Similarly, a multiverse would naturally cause asymmetries in the CMB that some scientists claim to have found.

Fourth, scientists recognize the need to find a way to test multiverse models although they disagree about whether they we will ultimately have the ability to conduct such tests. Distinguished cosmologist George Ellis rightfully argues that multiverse models require huge extrapolations from known physics and may undermine core scientific principles. Equally distinguished cosmologists Alexander Vilenkin and Max Tegmark agree about the large extrapolations but argue that multiverse models provide important explanations about the ultimate origin and character of our universe. theoretical physicist Sean Carroll argues that evidence has driven scientists to accept the idea of a multiverse and, as a scientific model, it is here to stay. In response, theoretical physicist and mathematician Peter Woit contends that the multiverse evidence rests on circular reasoning.

It seems that, as a whole, the scientific community remains agnostic about the existence of a multiverse. We may find evidence for or against it as scientists continue to investigate—or we may not. This uncertainty means that any attempt to declare the multiverse out-of-bounds scientifically is premature. Yet we must also approach the topic with appropriate caution lest we undermine the foundations of the scientific enterprise.

If you would like to see a question about the multiverse addressed in this forum, send it to multiverse@reasons.org.

About these ads
Comments
3 Responses to “Multiverse Musings: Is It Testable?”
  1. Alex Peak says:

    Isn’t the paragraph about Einstein wrong?

    As far as I remember hearing of Einstein’s views, Einstein thought that, because of gravity, everything in the universe should be rushing together, not apart. This would not be an expanding universe, but rather a contracting universe. Thus, I disagree with the sentence, “[Einstein] realized that the solutions to those equations indicated we lived in an expanding universe.”

    Einstein also originally believed in a constant, eternal universe, not an oscillating universe. Because he believed in a static universe, and because his math showed him that the universe should be contracting, he came up with a countervailing force he called the cosmological constant, something that would keep the universe stable instead of contracting. That way, the universe would neither be getting larger nor smaller, but could instead be eternal and unchanging. In short, Einstein originally proposed a static universe, which is extremely different from an oscillating universe.

    Einstein’s cosmological constant was simply a makeshift solution to explain why the universe hadn’t crashed into a singularity under the weight of its own gravity. As far as I am aware, Einstein’s theory of relativity had nothing to do with the discovery of the expansion of the universe, which came instead from Edwin Hubble observing the Doppler effect in distance galaxies. It was from that bit of data that we began to realise that the universe in which we reside must have had some sort of beginning, thus invalidating Einstein’s static universe and Fred Hoyle’s steady-state theory.

    It was only after it was discovered that the universe was expanding (instead of being static) that Einstein started believing in an oscillating universe. (In this view, gravity would eventually overpower the expansion, at which point a contraction would occur, followed by a Big Crunch and then a Big Bounce. But, as we know now, the universe’s expansion is accelerating, which implies there shall likely never be a Big Crunch (at least in our universe).)

    Respectfully yours,
    Alex Peak

Trackbacks
Check out what others are saying...
  1. […] Zweerink from Reasons to Believe wrote a short article addressing the scientific nature of and foundation for multiverse theories. He argues that some […]

  2. […] recently wrote an article addressing the testability of multiverse models where I made the following statement: “First, multiverse models are not new to the cosmology […]



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

  • Hidden Treasures in the Book of Job

    Arguably the oldest book in the Bible, the book of Job has a surprising amount to say about some of the newest scientific discoveries and controversies. With careful consideration and exegesis, Hugh Ross shows that the Bible is an accurate predictor of scientific discoveries, and that both the book of Scripture and the book of nature are consistent both internally and externally.
  • Creating Life in the Lab

    Representing the best of RTB's efforts to anticipate scientific breakthroughs and explain their contribution to the case for Christian faith, biochemist Fuz Rana shows how recent advances in synthetic biology actually undermine the evolutionary explanation for the origin of life. Creating Life in the Lab addresses the scientific, theological, and philosophical aspects on both the dangers and promises of synthetic biology.
  • If God Made the Universe…Why Is It the Way It Is?

    Drawing from his popular book Why the Universe Is the Way It Is, Dr. Hugh Ross shares Scripture, stunning satellite photos, and the most recent scientific findings to explain the great love story that is our universe. This DVD series invites you to be a part of Dr. Ross’ small group. Each session includes a brief presentation (about 20 minutes), followed by Q&A.
  • Impact Events: The Earth

    In this unique student devotional, astrophysicist Jeff Zweerink and seasoned small-group leader Ken Hultgren connect little-known facts about our planet with faith-building insights about the Creator. The booklet includes practical, yet thought-provoking questions to help students apply each lesson’s principles to their lives. This Impact Events series is designed to transform your life and faith with truth from God’s Word and evidence from God’s world. God wants to impact your life. Will you let Him?
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 129 other followers

%d bloggers like this: