I was going through some old e-mails and came across this argument of mine against “infinite universes.” I think this argument might apply against infinite “bubble” universes within a single three-dimensional system. Of course, the argument wouldn’t apply if one supposes infinite universes “out there” (against which position I think I have effective argument, but that’s for another thread). The following is essentiall a mathematics question appropriate for GQ, I should think:
Are you talking about what’s referred to as the “infinite universes” hypothesis, which states that every time a quantum mechanical interaction occurs, the universe splits into two universes, one in which each outcome occurred?
If so, it’s a misnomer, as the number of universes that results is not infinite, just mind bogglingly large.
Not sure if that helps, as I’m not sure what you mean by grids.
What he said.
No, I’m talking about the idea that there are “bubble universes” in an infinitely large 3D space.
Here’s a link to the article. I wrote some counter-arguments to the author, who was kind enough to write me back but did not answer the argument I put forth here.
What I mean about grids is this: Suppose you have a 3D space of infinite size, each of which holds a “universe” of a box of four marbles (2 in 2 layers). The marbles can be either red or white. These boxes are also very far apart from each other.
OK, so there are only 2[sup]4[/sup] or 16 total universes, so “all” possibilites can easily fit in the infinite space.
But wait. One can make a “grid” made up of these universes (even if they are far apart, they still maintain a 3D relationship to each other), and now there are 16 types of things to make the grids out of instead of two. If the grids are two by two, as by four (each universe of 4 marbles counting as a marble), then now we have 16[sup]4[/sup] possibilities.
I hope that makes more sense.
I think there’s something you’re kinda missing about the notion of infinite space…
I’m pretty sure that infinity doesn’t exist in matter/energy form, but is rather just a concept. A damn useful one, but just a concept nonetheless.
Here’s my reasoning: an infinite number of anything, including universes, would have to including something, maybe just one photon or a large number of photons. But since you are multiplying your photons or other small particles by the number of infinite universes you have postulated, you have an infinite number of particles.
An infinite number of particles would make up an infinite amount of mass and take up an infinite amount of space and cause infinite gravity, and that would destroy our universe as we know it because such is inconstent with our obersvations.
As such, you cannot have an infinity of any with any mass, it would destroy reality.
To deal with the upcoming counter-arguments, suppose infinite universes spaced out and then infinite universes parallel.
Spaced out: Well, if it is still infinite, but scattered, there are still infinite particles, creating infinite gravity, we are still squished. We are not squished, therefore there are not infinite spaced out universes we cannot see.
Parallel: (Slightly more complicated). If infinite universes exist parallelly, you still have infinite mass/energy in the same space, which would still make our existence impossible if even the most infinistimally small fraction of that gravity “leaked” across, it would still be infinite gravity. If nothing can possibly leak across, even in a small experiment (which infinite monkeys are repeating infinitely) it still creates an infinitely large leak, which puts us back in the same boat: it destroys us or makes our exitence impossible. Therefore it doesn’t exist.
QED. May I have my Noble Prize for physics of the infinite now?
Gravity waves propagate at the speed of light, right? So I don’t see the problem of “infinite gravity” if the clusters of gravity (i.e. one universe) are spread so far apart.
If you start with any finite number, no matter how many finite times you multiply it, the result is a finite number.
A permutation is a concept rather than a thing. If I have a deck of playing cards, I can arrange it in 52! ways, which is an enormously huge number. But I still only have 52 cards. The number of permutations of it isn’t a physical reality, it’s a mathematical notion.
I don’t understand why you want to take grids of grids in the first place - it appears to have nothing to do with any concept of infinite bubble universes I’ve ever read - but I think you’re just shuffling permutations around.
Consider a bubble the size of the visible universe. There are a finite number of ways that matter and energy can be arranged in within a given bubble. (Finite, but very, very, very large.)
An infinite universe will be filled by an infinite number of these bubbles. That means that some configurations of matter and energy must repeat. In fact, some will repeat an infinite number of times.
However, that DOESN’T mean that every possible configuration MUST exist. It’s quite likely that many arrangements of matter and energy are utterly impossible to achieve within the laws that govern the universe. There are an infinite number of copies of some configurations, and zero copies of other configurations.
That’s where your argument breaks down. The universe can be infinite an still not contain certain configurations of matter and energy.
Except that random fluctuations, either classically thermal or quantum mechanical, can in theory produce extrordinarily unlikely configurations of matter and energy and keep them in existence.
I think the premise of the OP is that our (finite) observable universe is one small portion of an infinite spacetime, and so in theory every possible universe exists somewhere in that infinity and in fact is repeated infinite times. What the OP is asking is, how can an infinite set include all possible variations of it’s subsets, since those subsets can themselves be grouped in ever-larger hierarchies? The answer is that they can, because of the nature of infinity.
Well, you pretty much got me there. Although infinite universes spread finitely far apart are going to eventually have an effect on each other. Infinite universes spread infinitely far apart are never going to have the slightest influence on each other or be detectable in any way.
All will repeat an infinite number of times.
That’s not certain.
Not neccesarily, consider the number sequence 1, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3, …
Even though it’s an infinite sequence, the number 1 only appears a finite number of times.
Why would gravity from one universe have an affect on another universe, regardless of distance apart? This implies each universe is not really an isolated system but in fact part of a larger system in which place you don’t have multiple universes, you have 1 universe with a bunch of “regions” like we do in the universe that we currently call “our” universe.
I believe three dimensions are a placeholder for our conscious physicality. That is its extent. Limited by the linear. I believe the idea of finite universe is inherent and therefore limited to 3-D concept and language. Deficient in its wholeness and unaccountable for possibility.