MovieChat Forums > Particle Fever (2014) Discussion > Why did they dread a multiverse?

Why did they dread a multiverse?

posted 10 years ago by melinda2001
23 replies | jump to latest

There was a point where a bunch of physicists were considering the real possibility that the LHC could prove that our universe is part of a multiverse and there is no explanation as to why we are lucky enough to live in one of the absurdly rare habitable ones. They said something like the Higgs could be the last particle they ever find, so I can see how the fun could be over for collider physics, but certainly we'll be doing more basic physics in support of cosmology which should never end, right? Is it possible we could hit some sort of wall such that we can never learn more?

[–] Bob_Schaaf 10 years ago

As I understood it, any particle theorized beyond the standard model would exist in an alternate universe, which might or might not have the same laws of physics as ours, and be completely unknowable.

[–] melinda2001 10 years ago

That makes sense that it would bother people that some interesting truths might be unknowable, but haven't we been OK with something similar in Heisenberg's uncertainty principle? And in an expanding universe, more and more of it slips beyond our view forever, but that doesn't mean that it's not there.

There was a moment in the movie when there seemed to be some real fear that this grand game might end somehow. Maybe they were worried that there would be no more particles to discover. Still, chemists are having a ball even though we've found pretty much all the elements they're ever going to see. I'm just wondering whether I might be missing something here.

[–] Magician_Named_GOB 10 years ago

I just watched this the other night. First of all, I feel like I finally understand what the Higgs Boson actually is.

Second, I think what they really feared, were two things. First, if the multiverse theory was correct (Higgs' mass would be around 140) Supersymmetry as a Theory would be over, the Standard Model would no longer apply, Particle Physics would've have hit a wall, and basically all of that would mean that there is no 'unity' or 'order', Symmetry. Multiverse, from what I took from the movie, was basically Chaos, anything they thought was predictable through the Standard Model would've been completely shattered instead of just partly shattered like it turned out (Higgs was 126 not 115 where it was predicted). But, I think what the older physicist really feared was that his whole life's work would've been for not if multiverse were confirmed.

[–] melinda2001 10 years ago

I doubt the Standard Model would no longer apply no matter the weight of the Higgs. It would just not be complete. Being part of a Multiverse doesn't mean that everything is chaos. Our universe could be one of a miniscule exceptional.

I'm not in love with Supersymmetry though that may be just because I don't understand how symmetrically beautiful it is. I understand what a loss it would be for a researcher to learn that their theory was wrong. I'm betting it will be partly right.

Personally, I'd rather learn the truth than to believe in a incorrect model, and I'm sure most scientists would feel similarly. One thing I hadn't known before watching this was that the weight of the Higgs falls more or less exactly at the midpoint between Supersymmetry and a Multiverse. Now that seems to have a special and surprising sort of symmetry and significance to it, wouldn't you agree?

[–] TxMike 10 years ago

"... the Higgs falls more or less exactly at the midpoint between Supersymmetry and a Multiverse. Now that seems to have a special and surprising sort of symmetry and significance to it, wouldn't you agree? "

I am an experimental scientist, but not a Physicist, and that is my overriding thought as it ended, failure to measure either 115 or 140, but instead something almost right in the middle, is pretty exciting, as it should open up new theories and perhaps get us closer to the truth.

In experimental science there is always a desire to find data that supports what you believe it will show, that is natural and nothing wrong with it. But some of the most important discoveries have been made NOT by focusing on what seems to support your theories, but instead on the data that turns out to be unexpected and unexplained.

Let's hope the 125 or 126 GEV Higgs will generate appropriate new thought about what it means.

TxMike
Make a choice, to take a chance, to make a difference.

[–] Zero_Wolf 10 years ago

My understanding of their concern was that they are looking for ultimate rules for existence, but if Multiverse theory were true they would only be finding, and indeed even being able to find, the rules for just our Monoverse.

There would be no ultimate rules, or at least no ultimate rules we were able to discern experimentally in our Monoverse. Under Multiverse theory every permutation of the rules would exist somewhere, and so there really are no rules. No model we can construct to say, "this is how all of existence works."

______________________
Noah's Ark is a problem.

[–] fanslayer 10 years ago

I am sure we would learn a lot more but I cencerely hope that Multiverse version is correct, that Higgs would soon go, and all this disaster called "life" would dissapear

I exist.

[–] melinda2001 10 years ago

Yes, nature is constructed almost entirely by suffering. Such a cruel reality for something we also love so deeply. My hope is that we can use our intellect to construct a world in which suffering in general is greatly reduced.

I'm not sure what you mean about the Higgs though.

[–] Felonious-Punk 10 years ago

I believe "fanslayer" means he or she wishes that the center that holds matter together would go, and thus everything would just collapse, disintegrate. Sounds like a really attractive human being.

My attempt to list the best movies of all-time: http://www.themoviecanon.blogspot.com

[–] melinda2001 10 years ago

You may be right about fanslayer's fatalism but that doesn't say anything about the sort of person they are. The shear amount of suffering in the world is good reason for being fatalistic, and some of the more depressed realists are some of the kindest people I know.

[–] Felonious-Punk 10 years ago

I like your understanding of "fanslayer" or the type, and I will be conscious of your experience with "the more depressed realists". But I didn't mean my comment sadistically. I meant it as humor that maybe even "fanslayer" could laugh at, if not now then someday. After all, he or she espoused a desire for complete disintegration, which is the opposite of attraction and bonding.

My attempt to list the best movies of all-time: http://www.themoviecanon.blogspot.com

[–] Korios 9 years ago

I'm not sure what you mean about the Higgs though.

It was explained at the end that if Higgs particles for whatever reason stopped being produced "the universe would go". Go not as in disappear completely but rather the entire matter would be annihilated (no Higgs boson = no matter) and the universe would be full of energy and vacuum, but no matter.

That would in turn very likely cause a much faster increase of entropy, compared to the current rate. Eventually the entropy of the universe would reach its maximum value, meaning that the entire universe would reach a state of static thermodynamic equilibrium, aka it would be completely homogenized, with no thermodynamic free energy (the heat death scenario). For more about that here :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe

Fanboy : a person who does not think while watching.

[–] melinda2001 9 years ago

I understand the heat death. Your explanation about the Higgs is helpful. It's not that the Higgs particles would stop being created; rather it's that the Higgs field would change. (The Higgs particles are simply ripples in the Higgs field, just like photons are for the electromagnetic field.) Really though, just a small change in any of 20 different physical "constants" would be enough to destroy everything. Our world is utterly balanced on a knife edge.

[–] melinda2001 9 years ago

There are lots of different multiverse theories. When Greene talks about multiverses he's usually talking about similar regions of our own universe except that they are simply so far away that they can never communicate with our region of space (unless and until the universe begins to contract, that is). Currently in the news is an idea that multiple universes can co-exist in the same space and even affect each other. I like this model more.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] melinda2001 9 years ago

Being far enough away is the same as existing "outside" our visible universe. This is often what Brian Greene means, or rather is one model that he likes. I've see most of his stuff so I'm not going to watch a 1-hour video to find the part you're talking about. But let's put aside whatever version he was talking about. The one I'm talking about is quite new to me, and one that makes a lot of sense. Here's where I read it:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22429944.000-ghost-universes-kil l-schrodingers-quantum-cat.html

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] duvel123 9 years ago

Because a multiverse is pretty much untestable. And if its untestable, its not science.

Anything and everything is possible in a multiverse. Anything and everything, like constants and laws can be explained by saying it is just random and an infinite number of variations exist, and then applying the anthropological principle: 'its like that in our universe, because we are here (if it where any different, we wouldnt be here to observe it or think about it)'.

Scientists hate that; its like the ultimate cop out. But it may just be true ;).

[–] melinda2001 9 years ago

I understand the anthropic principle and I suppose you're right that many don't like that possibility. I don't think it means that any values for physical constants are possible, and perhaps not any configuration of matter either, and it does put some serious limits on what we can know but it doesn't mean that we can't test it at all. Even if we can't test anything many-worlds theories now doesn't mean that we can't ever test them. There are some version called "many interacting worlds" which have some very attractive features.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] melinda2001 9 years ago

I don't recall anyone saying that but then I don't recall as much as I used to. I certainly disagree with Nima about the fate of cosmology. I think we should keep trying to learn more, even if we don't like what we find. Perhaps especially then.

[–] UR60x 9 years ago

why can't be a Multiverse part of supersymmetry but like a grand sumpersymmetry where everything is governed by same laws of physics like ours...