The Multiverse: Our Universe Is Suspiciously Unlikely To Exist - Unless It Is One Of Many

[Judi Lynn]

Should we be surprised that a universe exists in which we were able to emerge?

MARTIN REES
Guest Author

Published
March 16, 2023



Do universes pop up as bubbles from a multiverse? Image credit: Totti Cruz/Shutterstock.com

It’s easy to envisage other universes, governed by slightly different laws of physics, in which no intelligent life, nor indeed any kind of organised complex systems, could arise. Should we therefore be surprised that a universe exists in which we were able to emerge?

That’s a question physicists including me have tried to answer for decades. But it is proving difficult. Although we can confidently trace cosmic history back to one second after the Big Bang, what happened before is harder to gauge. Our accelerators simply can’t produce enough energy to replicate the extreme conditions that prevailed in the first nanosecond. But we expect that it’s in that first tiny fraction of a second that the key features of our universe were imprinted.

The conditions of the universe can be described through its “fundamental constants” – fixed quantities in nature, such as the gravitational constant (called G) or the speed of light (called C). There are about 30 of these representing the sizes and strengths of parameters such as particle masses, forces or the universe’s expansion. But our theories don’t explain what values these constants should have. Instead, we have to measure them and plug their values into our equations to accurately describe nature.

The values of the constants are in the range that allows complex systems such as stars, planets, carbon and ultimately humans to evolve. Physicists have discovered that if we tweaked some of these parameters by just a few percent, it would render our universe lifeless. The fact that life exists therefore takes some explaining.

More:
https://www.iflscience.com/the-multiverse-our-universe-is-suspiciously-unlikely-to-exist-unless-it-is-one-of-many-68001

[Hugh_Lebowski]

1. Personally find it a bit more probable that given billions and billions of stars

and billions and billions of years ... life is possible.

Has happened many, many times ... but at different times, and too far apart both physically and temporally ... to ever communicate with one another. We're going to turn out to be a blip on the cosmic timescale, and probably every other civilization that's ever existed ... was similar. Same forces, same constants.

Still fun to think about but I don't see why multi-verses are necessary in the equation ... but then I'm not a physicist.

[brush]

2. At one time the universe was considered everything...

then the multiverse concept came about. The original concept seems more comprehensive to me. Just as a solar systems or galaxies have multiple parts/elements to them, why not the universe — black holes, vast expanses of space, trillions of stars, planets, galaxies?

[sanatanadharma]

3. Without sentient-knowing-life, nothing would be known to exist

Without a "knower" nothing can exist. To deny this statement (as in making it) requires a knowing-conscious-lifeforce.

Without knowing-life, nothing can be known. Anything that can not be known can not be affirmed or denied.