What is the actual evidence for an eternal universe/multiverse?

  • Thread starter Thread starter snarflemike
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

snarflemike

Guest
To just repeat the title, what is the actual evidence for an eternal universe (or multiverse)? And how does that evidence compare with the evidence for a non-eternal universe (multiverse)? Which has the stronger basis in evidence?
 
There is no evidence for a “multiverse” as shown in science fiction. “Multiverse” is also a colloquial term for a theoretical phenomenon predicted in quantum physics, involving the behavior of particles smaller than electrons. I am not familiar enough with quantum physics to discuss the merits or evidence of this theory.
 
To just repeat the title, what is the actual evidence for an eternal universe (or multiverse)? And how does that evidence compare with the evidence for a non-eternal universe (multiverse)? Which has the stronger basis in evidence?
“multiverse” is a term used to refer to several different concepts. This includes what could also be called sections of our universe that are so far away that we will never see them, the cyclic hypothesis of the universe, black-hole universes, and a few others.

The evidence for the sections of the universe that are so far away that we will never see them is based off of observations of the limit of the speed of light and the rate of expansion of the universe.

As far as evidence goes for any of these hypothesis there are some circular areas in the map of the microwave background radiation maps that some think may be evidence of a collision of bubble universes. These areas are to be further examined with future data from the Planck Sattelite.
 
To just repeat the title, what is the actual evidence for an eternal universe (or multiverse)? And how does that evidence compare with the evidence for a non-eternal universe (multiverse)? Which has the stronger basis in evidence?
Short answer. Absolutely none!

Linus2nd.
 
Short answer. Absolutely none!

👍

The Big Bang dealt a colossal death blow to the steady state theory of an infinite and eternal universe.
 
There may be different definitions of multiverse. I am thinking of multiverse as outlined in Stephen Hawking’s “The Grand Design.” As I understand his concept, many universes spontaneously come into existence in some kind of larger space. The multiple universes are somehow separate from each other; I imagine they are embedded in the larger space like raisins in a muffin, but I am sure this is a gross oversimplification of the theory. Anyway, I think the concept is highly speculative, and I am not aware of any evidence.

I think it is an elaborate theory crafted to explain one of the great mysteries of physics, namely, how it happens that many properties and interactions of matter, and even the properties of space and time, seem to be fine-tuned to make our existence possible. Physicists imagine that if the universe had even slightly different fundamental properties, it would be incompatible with life. So the reasoning goes that if there are a vast number of universes, each with its own properties (its own set of fundamental physical constants), then it is more plausible that one of them could be “just right,” as our universe is.
 
The multiverse idea is a pipe dream of certain mathematicians.

Scientists reject the theory because there is not,

*and never can be, * :bigyikes:

any evidence for it.

Case closed.
 
I would argue that the Type Ia supernova luminosity versus redshift curve pretty much put the nail in the coffin for an eternal universe, not the big bang theory. But they were put forth in the same paper by the same person (and later credited to someone else who added 2 or 3 data points to the original author).

There is zero evidence for most colloquial multiverse theories. And, by most of these colloquial theories, there can never be any such evidence. By design, these theories eliminate the ability of Universe A to see anything about Universe B. So, it is not even science (despite people posting their papers on the matter on the ArXiv).
 
“multiverse” is a term used to refer to several different concepts. This includes what could also be called sections of our universe that are so far away that we will never see them, the cyclic hypothesis of the universe, black-hole universes, and a few others.

The evidence for the sections of the universe that are so far away that we will never see them is based off of observations of the limit of the speed of light and the rate of expansion of the universe.

As far as evidence goes for any of these hypothesis there are some circular areas in the map of the microwave background radiation maps that some think may be evidence of a collision of bubble universes. These areas are to be further examined with future data from the Planck Sattelite.
So is there any evidence for ANY eternal physical reality, whatever the name?
 
So is there any evidence for ANY eternal physical reality, whatever the name?
Eternal? Not as far as I know. There are models of the universe that project a transformation into a rather inert state in which all of the energy has dissipated into forms that will never be recaptured or used to perform any work. Though that is more of the end of the universe as we know it; the matter and energy of the universe under these models would still be said to exists. I understand that the word “exists” can be used in different ways, and I suppose you mean in its current form or something close to it.
 
Eternal? Not as far as I know. There are models of the universe that project a transformation into a rather inert state in which all of the energy has dissipated into forms that will never be recaptured or used to perform any work. Though that is more of the end of the universe as we know it; the matter and energy of the universe under these models would still be said to exists. I understand that the word “exists” can be used in different ways, and I suppose you mean in its current form or something close to it.
Yes, “heat death”. My question is more about the past than about the future. Is there any evidence that physical reality did NOT have a beginning, but has always existed in some form?
 
Yes, “heat death”. My question is more about the past than about the future. Is there any evidence that physical reality did NOT have a beginning, but has always existed in some form?
Anything “before” the Big Bang is left as an unknown. Since space-time as we know it is said to have started with the Big Bang I’ve often heard it stated that “before the Big Bang” might not be a meaningful question." Even if there were something “before the Big Bang” it seems we have no information (evidence) of it to conclude that it did exists or that it did not exists beyond speculation. At the very least evidence for an eternal path would also be evidence of a time before the Big Bang. That’s not evidence that we seem to have.
 
So is there any evidence for ANY eternal physical reality, whatever the name?
SM:

Possibly. As an “expanding” universe, ours is expanding into something: Infinite Space - the Mind of God?

God bless,
jd
 
In picking between either a quantum or superstring multiverse, one is still led to the beginning of that (as per the BGV theorem) since both models are expanding and therefore, fall under that specific space-time geometry theorem. If you want more info on that, Fr. Robert Spitzer has some good videos (a couple lectures at Gonzaga are the ones I have in mind).
 
In picking between either a quantum or superstring multiverse, one is still led to the beginning of that (as per the BGV theorem) since both models are expanding and therefore, fall under that specific space-time geometry theorem. If you want more info on that, Fr. Robert Spitzer has some good videos (a couple lectures at Gonzaga are the ones I have in mind).
CC:

I am familiar with Fr. Spitzer’s work, particularly his book, (which I lent to a priest-friend and which, it seems, he has commandeered to his library!) We consider the soul to be eternal, yet it too has a beginning.

God bless,
jd
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top