A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.
Rules
This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.
It's funny, outside of Hollywood, Comic Books, and Bertrand Russel trying to disprove religion by taking Hawking out of context, is there any real evidence for a multiverse?
I mean I believe that reality is truly infinite and the only reason we have limitations is because we haven't found a way around them yet (Science distinguishable from magic is not sufficiently advanced in my book), so I'm not calling bullshit, but I'm also asking for evidence beyond going "Hey, wouldn't it be cool if?"
It was always a hypothesis that filled in a math equation but has no proof.
Quantum results are hard to explain, but proven (by experiment) to be real. There's a particular mathematical/logical definition of something being 'real' and 'local', that I've still only half got my head around, and it should be true but isn't.
The main experiment is two particles that, if you check one, it affects what you'll see in the other in a particular, but subtle , way. And it's proven mathematically impossible to find an explanation where they don't either communicate faster than the speed of light (so, not 'local') but the effect actually happens ('real').
The trick is in the statistics - the pattern of results - that match up between the two particles in this very particular way. And one way to explain it is that different options are also happening, but in a different universe - i.e. every time two different things could happen, reality splits into two realities, one where this happens and one where that happens.
That's for specific quantum events, but some think those such quantum events underlie all choices and possibilities in reality. So, scale up that idea and you get 'infinite' (actually just very very many) parallel universes, one for every possibility that could ever have happened, branching off into more each time a (quantum) choice happens.
They don't "communicate" faster than light, the wave function itself is non-local and collapses non-locally.
I’d argue that multiverse theory being true would be a property of the multiverse, not a property of any individual universe, but the ‘infinity not including all possibilities’ part is true too
If there is an infinite Multiverse, there is a universe where the inhabitants believe the Multiverse doesn't exist, doesn't make it true.
If there is no infinite Multiverse, the inhabitants could also believe that it exist.
No paradoxes.
Edit: A computer can run Virtual Machines, but there could be some VMs where another VM can be run, while other VMs have some "system corruption" that make the VMs impossible, but VMs still exist. Just because one VM cannot run VMs within itself, doesn't nullify the existence VMs
One night I was thinking about multiverse stuff and I wondered if you could cause a paradox in another timeline. I got stuck on thinking that it might not immediately destroy the timeline and then I began to worry what it would be like if we lived there. (I was not sober lol.)
Group theory already solved that one 😄
