A multiverse doesn't exist
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Number of rounds
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
* Follow website terms of service
* Don't commit these fallacies listed here: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/
* Make sure to read all the links the opponent offers
* If you fail to follow the following rules, then your arguments shall be weakened
* If you can't follow the rules, then you already lost before the debate ended
* I, the creator of the rules am also under these rules.
Other rules that you wouldn't be penalized for
* Try to respond as fast as possible, though it's okay of life slows you down
* Try to make arguments as short as possible
* Try to make arguments readable
* Try to be as clear as possible
* other similar tips
- Multiverse: Many modern physicists think about a multiverse in the context of the “many worlds” theory of quantum mechanics. The theory tries to explain the behaviour of subatomic particles, which can simultaneously exist in different locations at the same time.
- Multiverse theory suggests that our universe, with all its hundreds of billions of galaxies and almost countless stars, spanning tens of billions of light-years, may not be the only one. Instead, there may be an entirely different universe, distantly separated from ours — and another, and another.
- Multiverse theory suggests that our universe, which consists of billions and billions of planets, stars and galaxies, and extends out tens of billions of light-years, may not be the only universe that exists.
- I think the resolution the multiverse doesn't exist is an interesting one. The multiverse in itself has many theories, ideas, and interpretations to it. I interpret the resolution as a generalization of all of them, rather than any specific iteration.
- The multiverse is only often regarded as an unfalsifiable theory.
- The expanding universe as we perceive it
- "According to the simplest extrapolation of the currently favored cosmological model, the Lambda-CDM model, this acceleration becomes more dominant into the future. In June 2016, NASA and ESA scientists reported that the universe was found to be expanding 5% to 9% faster than thought earlier, based on studies using the Hubble Space Telescope" .
- "The universe is getting bigger every second. The space between galaxies is stretching, like dough rising in the oven. But how fast is the universe expanding? As Hubble and other telescopes seek to answer this question, they have run into an intriguing difference between what scientists predict and what they observe" .
- It is accepted that the universe is expanding. Ceratin astrology studies have shown that it could be expanding at a faster rate than previously believed, as NASA states, it expands vastly every second, but experiments have evaluated models to more precisely predict its expansion rate.
- As national geographic states, "Using a model that predicts many of the universe’s properties with spectacular success—known as the Lambda Cold Dark Matter model—cosmologists can mathematically fast-forward the infant universe as seen in the CMB and predict what today’s Hubble constant should be. This method predicts that the universe should be expanding at a rate of about 67.36 kilometers per second per megaparsec (a megaparsec equals 3.26 million light-years) .
- It should be held commonplace that the universe is expanding
- Going off this premise, there is a point I would like to make on the existence of the multiverse.
- On Monday (March 17), scientists announced new findings that mark the first-ever direct evidence of primordial gravitational waves — ripples in space-time created just after the universe began. If the results are confirmed, they would provide smoking-gun evidence that space-time expanded at many times the speed of light just after the Big Bang 13.8 billion years ago" .
- Many physicists believe these findings give credence to the existence of a multiverse.
- Following the big bang, the dispense of energy and matter created the inflation of the Universe or as Nasa states the "extremely rapid (exponential) expansion of the universe during its first few moments."
- As these theories assert "when the universe grew exponentially in the first tiny fraction of a second after the Big Bang, some parts of space-time expanded more quickly than others" .
- Following this idea, subsections or "bubbles" of spacetime likely were created and developed; leading to the possibility of their development into other universes.
- As Stanford University theoretical physicist Andrei Linde states "It's possible to invent models of inflation that do not allow [a] multiverse, but it's difficult. Every experiment that brings better credence to inflationary theory brings us much closer to hints that the multiverse is real." .
- I hold the argument that cosmic inflation posits the idea of a multiverse as a likelihood and a reasonable explanation for the phenomena we have observed and theorize.
- Round 1 is dedicated to the opening case as time and character restrictions are considered.
- Round 2 will be dedicated to rebuttals. I will address PRO's questions therein.
- My opponent does not respond or address a single argument I have made in round one, so I must conclude that he effectively DROPS or CONCEDES the entirety of them.
- I want to first get back to expanding/extending my argument, and then go on to rebut both round one and two points that stand out.
- In round one I argued that cosmic inflation provides evidence of the multiverse. PRO does NOT object to this.
- As American theoretical astrophysicist, Ethan Siegel states, "If cosmic inflation and quantum field theory are both correct, then the Multiverse arises as an inevitable consequence of the two, combined" .
- Let's agree on what Cosmic Inflation means. As New Scientists states "Cosmic inflation is a faster-than-light expansion of the universe that spawned many others" .
- Dr. Ethan Siegel says that "Inflation is now widely regarded as the origin of our Universe, and those observations narrow down which classes of inflationary models remain viable" . As it turns out, Siegel is correct in this assessment. As Wikipedia mentions on inflation (cosmology), "The basic inflationary paradigm is accepted by most physicists, as a number of inflation model predictions have been confirmed by observation; however, a substantial minority of scientists dissent from this position" .
- Let's agree that several inflation model predictions have been proven accurate and most/the majority of physicists accept the theory.
- I believe cosmic inflation suggests a possibility we may be living in a multiverse. As cosmic inflation tells us, the Universe grew exponentially in the first tiny fraction of a second after the Big Bang.
- As a result of this "some parts of space-time expanded more quickly than others. This could have created "bubbles" of space-time that then developed into other universes. The known universe has its own laws of physics, while other universes could have different laws, according to the multiverse concept" . This argument was raised in the previous round and CON does not object to it.
- As a conclusion to this argument, I will quote Dr. Ethan Single. "Those regions of space where inflation end and the hot Big Bang begins are each their own, independent Universe, and together, they make up a Multiverse. We may not be able to measure these other Universes, at least not just yet, but there’s every reason to expect that if inflation and quantum field theory are both correct, then the Multiverse inevitably exists" .
- It is resolved today that "A multiverse doesn't exist."
- I argue, that the multiverse is a possibility and a justified one at that, and I hope to see PRO engage with my arguments in the following round. I do not believe my opponent has refuted my case or shown it to be unreasonable.
- We can't claim that a multiverse does not exist knowing what we know about cosmic inflation.
- SPACE (Alan Guth, theoretical physicist): "It's hard to build models of inflation that don't lead to a multiverse," Alan Guth, an MIT theoretical physicist unaffiliated with the new study, said during a news conference Monday. "It's not impossible, so I think there's still certainly research that needs to be done. But most models of inflation do lead to a multiverse, and evidence for inflation will be pushing us in the direction of taking [the idea of a] multiverse seriously" .
- Most if not almost every inflationary model leads to the multiverse. If you reject inflation you reject what appears to be a scientific consensus. If you accept inflation, and every inflationary model leads to the multiverse, how on earth can we say it does not exist with any certainty? The resolution fails.
- Now as I have promised to dedicate around two to rebuttals of arguments. PRO created a gish gallop of questions presented in round one, and as the characters are limited, I will seek to respond to the most relevant ones.
- I would agree that there are aspects of the multiverse that remain indefinitely puzzling, however many testable models of the multiverse exist, and large parts of the theory. According to BeThniking: "some current multiverse models do make testable predictions. Stated another way, they have consequences in our universe that future measurements could validate or falsify. For example, some models predict that another universe might have collided with ours during its earliest phases. Such a collision would produce measurable signatures in the cosmic microwave background (CMB). Similarly, a multiverse would naturally cause asymmetries in the CMB that some scientists claim to have found"
- According to SPACE, and as I previously argued: "The known universe has its laws of physics, while other universes could have different laws, according to the multiverse concept." I think the question fails because the premise that all universes have the same laws of physics is false. Ill address Universe collisions in your next question
- There very well could be evidence of Universe collisions with our universe, and of other universes colliding with each other.
- If another Universe had collided with our own "the crash would have left an imprint on the cosmic microwave background (CMB), the faint afterglow from the Big Bang" .
- The Universe is growing in size. As I have shown, and as you do not object to. We should agree that the universe is expanding at rates we have been able to predict, and there has been no recorded evidence of our world proactively decreasing in size.
- Science has considerable enough evidence to say the Big Bang was the foundation of the universe. I believe is worth pondering whether a God or Deity exists that set this mechanism into place, but those theories are unfalsifiable and not relevant to our current debate.
- The question seems to have been answered by its first premise. All Universes began with the big bang. therefore that was their origin. If you mean to argue that the big bang has an origin or cause, it's an argument I am willing to have, but for the sake of the existence of a multiverse, it is irrelevant.
- Universes can branch-off and emerge from other larger expanding Universes. inflation: the expansion of the universe is the mechanism for this, not one ultimate original universe that caused this chain. Many universes expand simultaneously.
- There are no rigid laws that control how inflation manifests because we are still studying the matter of inflation in and of itself.
- Cosmological models and inflationary models can predict how different universes can exist.
- As I said previously, most astrophysicists accept cosmic inflation because "a number of inflation model predictions have been confirmed by observation" , and it is very hard to make an inflation model that does not lead to the multiverse .