Do we live in a multiverse? | The Economist
Video Statistics and Information
Channel: The Economist
Views: 1,818,335
Rating: 4.865591 out of 5
Keywords: The Economist, Economist, Economist Films, Economist Videos, Politics, News, short-documentary, multiverse, multiverse theory, do we live in a multiverse, multi verse, multiuniverse, multi universe, is there a multiverse, multi universe theory, what is multiverse, what is a multiverse, parellel universe, max tegmark, universe, theory of inflation, cosmology, many worlds interpretation, our mathematical universe, pocket universe, bubble universe
Id: Rx7erWZ8TjA
Channel Id: undefined
Length: 8min 58sec (538 seconds)
Published: Fri Aug 14 2015
Please note that this website is currently a work in progress! Lots of interesting data and statistics to come.
As a Scientist that works in R&D in a top 10 Scientific company, this is the most Scientifically inaccurate description of our Universe and a very deceiving picture of Physics in general for the general public.
Firstly before I criticise this here is a proper discussion of a Multiverse done by Sixty Symbols: https://www.reddit.com/r/mealtimevideos/comments/68gt7l/can_a_multiverse_ever_be_real_sixty_symbols_608/
Timestamp and Responses to video:
0:24: Are we making the same error as our ancestors by thinking the Universe is all there is. Well by definition the word Universe means that which contains everything or as Merriam Webster states: "the whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated : cosmos: ".
So if you find something outside the universe, that's technically within the universe once you find it.
It's a small technicality but it's important to understand to LEAVE our universe is something scientists cannot do. We are bound by it, so to talk of other universes outside our own that are not observable is very unscientific and is more philosophy and theology than science.**
0:45: So Leonard Susskind's appearances in the video always lead to crazy and wacky claims. Here he claims a Multiverse isn't speculation it "... comes out of both experimental or observational physics about the universe and the current theories as best we understand them."
This is by far the most dishonest scientific statement and disproved by the video itself at the 7:40 mark: "It's odd that some people get very emotional, some people are very hostile to the idea, because they don't view we should talk about entities we can't directly observe. I think we have to mind it because we have good theories that predict a Multiverse exist and I hope we can settle this."
It's not just that you can't directly observe, there is no possible way to ever gather or measure anything outside our own Universe; thus it is not falsifiable which is very convenient but which also makes the theory unscientific.
Karl Popper in his book the Logic of Scientific discovery, supported by millions of scientists throughout time has observed about science that: "In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable; and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality."
There is no experiment that we can run that will allow us to go outside our Universe and find other Universe's, and as such any theory of their existence is similar to a Spaghetti monster which you can't disprove and is simply believed as a tenet of faith, lacking the attribute of falsifiability that all Scientific theories must have in order to be considered such.
Less than a minute in, the video already claims observation and evidence that is both untrue and misleading for non-science viewers watching it.
1:10: Type one of 4 types of Multiverse is scientifically laughable. It claims a theory that has long been debunked which is an infinitely large universe that could hold other universes with different properties. Or it proposes a similar strange idea that the laws of the universe do not hold everywhere which is asked and answered on reddit more times than should ever be as it's a fundamental assumption of all Physics. Physics would literally fall apart if every time we looked at a distant star our laws would change.
1:20: "When we astrophysicists talk about our universe we don't mean everything that exists, we mean this, we mean the spherical region of space from which light has had time to reach us so far."
That is a blatant lie, not only in that it goes against the definition of the word Universe but scientists do not speak in that way. When Neil Degrasse Tyson or Einstein or anyone else says Universe, they mean the whole universe, they do not mean the Observable universe. There is a term for that, we use that term in science all the time, it is Observable universe. People do not limit the laws of physics or the discussion of the universe to only what is the observable sphere.
The very fundamental assumption of physic is that the laws of our Universe hold everywhere, not just in the observable region of space.
2:25 "...and if they stretch to infinity as some theories suggest there could be numerous isolated universes cut off from one another by their own Hubble radius"
This is such a controversial claim even the follow up discussion of this statement mentions the controversy: "I don't have a single colleague in science who thinks that space actually ends at the edge of our universe(observable universe). Where it starts to getting more controversial is when you ask where how much more space is there."
This is a very subtle way of trying to get the viewer to believe our universe is potentially infinitely big. That theory has LONG been disproven both by observation and measurement. There are no hidden pocket universes in our finite universe.
That theory was the Steady State Theory, it was thoroughly disproven about 100 years ago by the Big Bang theory and cosmological expansion.
Even a 10 year old knows that the universe can't both be infinitely large and expanding at the same time. If the universe had a beginning and it expanded, by definition it is finite in size which means there IS an edge of the universe, it is expanding, and our universe was once nothing and now is a gigantic, but not infinite.
By nothing Einstein tells us that means there was no Space, no Matter, and no Time. People that claim the universe is infinitely big go against the vast majority of astrophysicists and cosmologists.
One simple proof that works to destroy the principle is our own sun. If our universe is infinitely big and old our sun would have burned out by now, not just our sun, all suns.
The 1st law of thermodynamics tells us the amount of energy and matter in the universe is constant; after an infinite amount of years all the Hydrogen in the universe would have merged together with gravity, created suns, and become helium, in the fusion cores of all stars. As it Helium fused together it would continue fusing until the sun finally ran out of energy and burned out into a black hole or a white dwarf. This process is discussed by Neil Degrasse here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJ5kkT6YCTM
Imagine that before the point of your birth an infinite amount of time had passed, all the hydrogen in the universe would have all run out, like fuel in a car, there would be no sun, and you would never have been born.
That's why we estimate the age of the universe at about 13.82 billion years. Our universe came from nothing(no space, time, or matter) and then came into existence. Since then suns have been created and burning out. This will continue for billions of years until ALL suns burn out in our universe, which is called the Big freeze.
Here is a video discussing the main possible endings of our universe by Michio Kaku: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5orcCuprG4
The core takeaway of all this is thus: the Steady State theory of the Universe has been disproven thoroughly. The expansion of our universe by the red shift and the cosmological background radiation and other observed and measured evidence has shown us that our universe is finite in age and finite in size, it is not infinitely big and no serious Physicists really think it is, and it will never be infinitely big since it started out as a finite size which by definition in mathematics is an impossibility.
So once you know there is a limited size/age to the universe this whole pocket universe nonsense quickly evaporates as there is nowhere to hide as there is no infinitely large universe.
End of Part 1
Edit: Typos
Do we live in a giant condom?
just take a second to think about how fucking big a multiverse would be if it was a fractal of universes
Couldn't stop thinking about Rick & Morty watching this video
Other videos in this thread: Watch Playlist ▶
I'm a bot working hard to help Redditors find related videos to watch. I'll keep this updated as long as I can.
Play All | Info | Get me on Chrome / Firefox
Our universe is a giant condom.
The Fermi paradox is evidence for a multiverse if it is possible to travel back in time. Any nearby extrasolar civilisation that can detect us is ahead of us, because we are new. If it's ahead of us, and time travel is easy, then it will go back in time and kill our ancestors when it realises how dangerous we are. We can only exist in a universe in which we are either isolated or alone. The ubiquity of extrasolar planets suggests that our being alone is improbable if there is no multiverse, but probable if there is. The problem of falsifiability remains, so it's just a bit of fun.