Where did the multiverse come from?

We know that there is at least one universe, as we live it it. It seems very well suited to sustaining life, however it came about. Many suggest that there are other universes out there, other than our own. I am asking what the current "theory" is on how they are generated? Also, is there any evidence of this? Is there any real science backing it up, or is it simply a theory based on the fact that our universe is so perfectly created for life that many other universes are needed to explain it?

a reply to: mikefougnie

Someone's drug binge.

That's my guess.

a reply to: mikefougnie

A theory brought about to explain away the " fine tuned " univers notion .

Having said that , it has been speculated that it might be possible to view bump marks in the Back ground radiation from our univers where it may have come in contact / bumped , with one of these other supposed universes .

originally posted by: mikefougnie
Is there any real science backing it up, or is it simply a theory based on the fact that our universe is so perfectly created for life that many other universes are needed to explain it?

Can you please leave the religious trolling out of the science forum. Every thread from you is a religious troll, and they are getting to be a choir to keep up with..

a reply to: boncho

First of all I am not Trolling, this is a valid question. Where did the multiverse come from. Is there any actual science backing up that theory?

Secondly, You should at least think before you go attacking people, you're the one acting like a troll here. I am guessing you don't have an answer to this question either, do you now?

Third, how is this a "religious" post?

a reply to: Max_TO

Has anyone ever observed this? That would be interesting to see.

a reply to: mikefougnie

No . But for it to be a theory they had to have some thought as to how it might be observed otherwise it wouldn't be science .

Life has the wonderful ability to evolve and adapt perfectly to whatever environment.

There is no other logical outcome that ANY life *must* be perfectly suited to live in whatever environment. Because the other alternative option is "no life", no survival.

This applies on a macro level, "the entire universe", if you will, but also on a micro level. Animals in a jungle are pefectly adapted to live in the jungle, animals in the sea are perfectly adapted to live in the water etc..etc..

This your "fact that our universe is so perfectly created for life" is your opinion, not a "fact", as you claim. Whether it was created by a "god" entity, neither you know...neither your church's priest, neither do I know.

If you take a microscope and observe live in a puddle of water you find somewhere, and you find microbes and whatever life-forms in the puddle....would you also assume that the puddle was "created for the lifeforms" by a god entity? (Based on your observation that the microbes in the puddle seem awesomely adapted to live in it).

a reply to: mikefougnie

When you say theory you mean hypothesis right? It is kind of important to make the distinction. As far as saying it is perfectly created for life I will disagree. Over 99% of the universe in inhospitable to life even huge swaths of the earth in inhospitable to much of the life that evolved here. Life in the universe is probably more common than we thought but out of all the planets and moons in our own solar system we think there is one other prospect other than earth there may be life. In other words no it isn't perfectly created for life.

By definition, there can be no such thing as a multiverse. Universe is a term that encompasses all that is and all that ever will be. As soon as we find something "outside" of our Universe, that something becomes apart of the Universe. There will only ever be one universe.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Oh, I see. That is a good point. That also reminds me of an episode of StarTrek where intriguingly enough there was another universe, but in this universe there was lower gravity, and the entire universe instead of being empty space was full of a fluid full of nutrients.

a reply to: mikefougnie

You know you could just go to Wikipedia and do a quick search. Once you're read up on the subject you may be able to answer your own questions. Here's a couple links to help you.

Multiverse

Many-worlds interpretation

a reply to: mikefougnie

The Higs Boston can be at multiple places at once, until we look at it. Everything in the universe is made with the Higs Boston.

Knowing this you can draw your own conclusions however you will need to have an general understanding of physics, if you do not have a general understanding of physics then there is no point in trying to explain to you the multiverse theroy as it will just go over your head anyway.

a reply to: mikefougnie

I agree with Bassago. If you're seeking knowledge, you should do a web search instead of making an ATS thread. However, it is clear from your recent activity that you are simply a creationist looking for an argument. Very well.

There is absolutely no evidence for the existence of any universe other than our own. One group of researchers claimed to find such evidence in CMB anisotropy data, but were later proved wrong. Even if they had been proved right, the kind of 'multiple universes' they claimed to find were simply other regions of spacetime ('Hubble volumes') with similar conditions to the one we live in, distributed within an infinite spacetime that contains them all. That is, they can be considered as separate universes for technical reasons but are all part of the same continuum.

Mathematical tricks pulled by clever theoretical physicists may suggest otherwise, but in practical terms, evidence for the existence of other universes is, by definition, imperceptible to us.

However, there is one 'multiverse' hypothesis (none of them have the status of theories) that is compelling: it is the so-called Many Worlds hypothesis to which Bassago linked you earler. The MW hypothesis is one way in which the paradoxes of quantum mechanics might be explained. However, it offers no support for the Anthropic 'fine-tuning' Principle, since in it all universes are offshoots of a single set of initial conditions.

I know you are probably beyond the reach of reason on this subject, but I heartily advise you not to bother your head with all this stuff. It is simply too advanced, conceptually speaking, for a mind that clings to creationist beliefs and fallacies. You will never believe it because you will never understand it. Believe whatever you wish to believe instead, and leave science to those who have the brains and the stomachs for it. Just scoff at us and tell us we're wrong, as you have been doing. After all, we might be; science, unlike religion, always admits that possibility.

a reply to: Imwatchingyou010

The Higs Boston can be at multiple places at once

But it never leaves Maryland.

The best evidence to my simple mind for the multiverse is that nothing I can think of is actually a solitary example. Nothing. As above so below.

a reply to: mikefougnie

If you are serious, here is a place to start investigation.

Conjecture last I read, has dark matter, as gravitational influence from other universes.

a reply to: Bassago

Hi, there Bassago. I was hoping to find a thread that wasn't completely worthless, I suppose you were looking too. Oh, The Three Stigmata came in today, I'll get started on it tomorrow. (Oops, it is tomorrow.)

I looked at the first of the links you provided, and while I might have missed it (the three tequilas, you know), I missed the part that said how multiple universes might have been created. I did see where more careful studies had failed to find any evidence of Universe bumping.

If one happens to be a big bang fan, would that have meant multiple big bangs, or one bang creating multiple universes? My mind is having a tough time visualizing the latter.

See you at the place,
Charles1952

a reply to: mikefougnie

Where did the multiverse come from?

Silly mikefougnie, from the multimultiverse of course.

a reply to: mikefougnie

Start with

"The case for a creator"

Most of the people on here have no clue what science is pointing to

They have their views that science knows all

They are so wrong

They need to read more.