From Ben Freivogel at Nautilus:
If the multiverse is large and diverse enough to contain some regions where dark matter is made out of light particles and other regions where dark matter is made out of heavy particles, how could we possibly predict which one we should see in our own region? And indeed many people have criticized the multiverse concept on just these grounds. If a theory makes no predictions, it ceases to be physics.
Freivogel nonetheless thinks that the multiverse is the physicist’s friend:
Theoretical and observational evidence suggests that we are living in an enormous, eternally expanding multiverse where the constants of nature vary from place to place. In this context, we can only make statistical predictions.
If the universe, like a box of gas, can exist in only a finite number of available states, theory predicts that we are Boltzmann brains, which conflicts with observations, not to mention common sense. If, on the contrary, the universe has an infinite number of available states, then our usual statistical techniques are not predictive, and we are stuck. The multiverse appears to offer a middle way. The universe has an infinite number of states available, avoiding the Boltzmann brain problem, yet approaches a steady-state behavior, allowing for a straightforward statistical analysis. But then we still find ourselves making absurd predictions. In order to make any of these three options work, I think we will need a revolutionary advance in our understanding of physics. More.
The multiverse is an invented crisis. It exists because cosmologists do not want to address the one universe we can explore.
Make no mistake though: Losing the ability to make predictions, moving beyond falsifiability, and generally being post-fact science is a genuine advantage to the current cosmologist.
It’s not an advantage to science progress, of course, but many thinkers are long past that now. The whole concept of correct vs. incorrect information is inherently judgmental, right?
See also: New Scientist: How far away are our parallel selves? But wait, what does it say about us that we even care?
That Old Time Multiverse Religion (Barry Arrington)
We have infinite selves in a multiverse? No, sorry, goodbye all youse, says math prof
Theoretical physicist: Multiverse is about how we define science
As if the multiverse wasn’t bizarre enough …meet Many Worlds
Follow UD News at Twitter!