Perverse Logic: Saving the Multiverse with Unhinged Cosmic Inflation!

When The Unobservable Universe Is Used To Justify Various Follies, Such As The Multiverse, Civilization Is In A Bad Way:

Physics is the laboratory of reason. This where the most advanced, most subtle logics are forged (even more so than in pure mathematics, where the navel’s importance is too great). So what physicists ponder, matters to the entire civilization which nurtures them. When physics goes to the dogs, so does civilization. The follies of state of the art theoretical physics, reflect an ambient madness which pervades civilization. (If you don’t believe this, may I sell you some imaginary bitcoins for millions of dollars?)

Astrophysicist Ethan Siegel, a continual source of excellent articles in physics, wrote an interesting essay which I disagree with. His reasons are interesting, and have the merit of honesty. My answers are even more striking, and I bring the full weight of 24 centuries of history as meta-evidence for crushing the feeble, pathetic, short-sighted considerations of my fellow physicists. Ethan’s essay is entitled: “Yes, The Multiverse Is Real, But It Won’t Fix Physics
Surprisingly, the evidence points towards the existence of the unobservable multiverse. But it isn’t the answer you’re looking for.

Ethan proposes to use cosmic inflation to provide for the proliferation of Schrödinger cats and Wigner’s friends. One folly would thus provide for the other, and they would thus stay up, like two drunks falling into each other’s arms. I will instead humbly suggest to do away with madness altogether. But first a little recap.

The universe is expanding. This experimental evidence was established around 1920, by a number of astronomers in Europe and the USA, the most famous of whom was lawyer turned astronomer, Edwin Hubble. Hubble had the biggest telescope. The expansion is presumed to be looking everywhere the same, and this is what seems to be observed. That also means that, if one looks far away, galaxies will seem to be receding from us at speed ever closer to the speed of light. As the apparent speed of these galaxies approach c, their light gets shifted to lower and lower frequencies, until they become invisible (same reason as why Black Holes are blacker than black).

Where the transition to invisibility occurs is called the “event horizon”. Beyond the event horizon is the unobservable universe (we can’t detect it gravitationally, as gravity goes at the speed of light, a theoretical prediction now experimentally verified).

The observed universe is “flat” (namely there is no detected distortion in the distribution of clouds, filaments and superclusters of galaxies). That sounds unlikely, and indicates that the observed universe is a tiny portion of a much larger whole.

This unobservable universe has nothing to do with the “Multiverse” brandished recently by many theoretical physicists who have apparently run out of imagination for something more plausible. Eighty years ago, Schrödinger pointed out that Quantum Mechanics, as formalized then (and now!) was observer dependent, and filled up the universe with waves of dead and live cats (when applied to macroscopic objects). That’s called the Schrödinger Cat Paradox. Instead of calling for a re-thinking of Quantum Mechanics (as I do!), Ethan Siegel (and many other physicists and astrophysicists) embrace the dead and alive cats, settling them in “parallel universes”. So basically they reenact Solomon Judgment: instead of cutting the baby in two, they cut the universe in two. Zillions of time per second, in zillions of smaller places than you can possibly imagine… Here is a picture of Schrödinger cat: as the branches separate in that movie, two universes are created. This is what Ethan Siegel wants to justify, thanks to cosmic inflation…

Ethan’s revealing comment: “The idea of parallel Universes, as applied to Schrödinger’s cat. As fun and compelling as this idea is, without an infinitely large region of space to hold these possibilities in, even inflation won’t create enough Universes to contain all the possibilities that 13.8 billion years of cosmic evolution have brought us. Image credit: Christian Schirm.”
To explain crazy, we will go more crazy, thus making the previous crazy sound more rational, relatively speaking…

The Multiverse”, with baby universes all over the universe, has more to do with the “Many Worlds Interpretation” of Quantum Mechanics, a theory so absurd that the great popes of physics ruling around 1960 rejected it outright. Wheeler was ashamed of himself for having had a PhD student, Everett, who suggested this folly(Everett couldn’t get an academic job, at a time when academic employment in physics was booming!)

Ethan wrote: “In the region that became our Universe, which may encompass a large region that goes far beyond what we can observe, inflation ended all-at-once. But beyond that region, there are even more regions where it didn’t end.”

This sort of statement, and I say this with all due respect to the divine, is equivalent to saying:”Me, Ethan, having checked all that exists, observable by simple humans, or not, thereby informs you that I am either God, or that She is an interlocutor of mine. We checked that cosmic inflation thing, and saw it all over all the possible universes. Don’t talk, just learn.”

There is no way for us humans to know, for sure, or not, what is going on beyond the observable universe (aside from having no gravitational field distortions when approaching the event horizon, as I said above when considering “flatness”).

Ethan notices that Many Worlds fanatics have tried to use cosmic inflation to save their (ridiculous) theory. (“Many Worlds” is ridiculous, as Schrödinger tried to show, long ago, because there would be as many ways to cut the universes into “Many Worlds” as there are observers. So, so to speak, the “Many World Interpretation”, call it MWI, is actually MWI ^ {Observers} (MWI to the power of the set of all possible Observers, the latter set being itself something of an uncountably infinite function of MWI.)

Ethan says: “But just because variants of the Multiverse are falsifiable, and just because the consequences of its existence are unobservable, doesn’t mean that the Multiverse isn’t real. If cosmic inflation, General Relativity, and quantum field theory are all correct, the Multiverse likely is real, and we’re living in it.

What Ethan is saying is that if a number of crazy (cosmic inflation), or incomplete (Quantum Field Theory), ideas are “all correct”, then something as useful as angels on pin heads is real.Yes, indeed, if one believes that Muhammad flew to Jerusalem on a winged horse (!), one may as well believe all the rest of the Qur’an. That is a proof by crystal balls. After Ptolemy and company had established their (half correctly) predicting “epicycles” theory, one could have used it in turn to “prove” Aristotle ridiculous theory of motion.

23 centuries ago a much saner theory existed, that of Aristarchus. It was rejected at the time, precisely because it was not insane, and even though it was used to make a nearly correct prediction of the distance of the Moon. Aristarchus underestimated the distance of the Sun, but a telescope could have changed this (by showing more precisely the angle of the terminus on the Moon). If astronomers had the time had accepted heliocentrism as a possibility, it would have led them to invent the telescope. Similarly, right now, rejecting Many Worlds and Multiverse will lead to develop instruments which don’t exist yet (I have proposed at least one).

Astrophysicist Ethan Siegel suggests that: “The Multiverse is real, but provides the answer to absolutely nothing.” My opinion is that the Multiverse is worse than useless: the unhinged mood it provides prevents to develop more fruitful avenues of research, both theoretically and experimentally.

Insanity is the rule in crowds (Nietzsche). Thus follies are the truths crowds love, at first sight, before being corrected by higher minds. Why? Follies bind, because they are so special.

In Aristarchus’ times, heliocentrism, the fact Earth and its Moon rotate around the Sun, should have been obvious. Indeed, people, let’s think for a moment: where was the Sun supposed to be, considering the phases of the Moon? If the Sun turned around Earth, the Moon’s illumination should have changed all day long! It didn’t require much geometrical analysis to discover that this source of light could only be where Aristarchus computed it to be, far away from the Earth-Moon system.

It took 19 centuries to correct that (obvious!) mistake. Interestingly, Jean Buridan, circa 1350 CE, did it in the most theoretical fashion.

Buridan first showed that Aristotle’s ridiculous theory of motion made no sense, and had to be replaced by inertia and momentum (what Buridan called “impetus”). Having done this, the motion of the planets in a heliocentric system could be explained by “circular impetus”, Buridan pointed out (then he observed sardonically that we couldn’t observe the difference between epicycles and heliocentrism, so may as well go for “Scripture”).

Similarly, nowadays, instead of arguing with the “angels on a multiverse pinhead” authorities, we better point out to the glaring inconsistencies of Quantum Mechanics.

Civilization without reason is like a chicken without a head: it can run, but not forever.

Patrice Aymé

Tags: , , , ,

14 Responses to “Perverse Logic: Saving the Multiverse with Unhinged Cosmic Inflation!”

  1. brodix Says:


    Yes, it is reductio ad absurdum, but how far back did it all go off the tracks?
    Is it possible redshift is optical and all the patches, Inflation, Dark Energy, etc. are unnecessary?
    I keep pointing out that General Relativity and spacetime really can’t be used to explain redshift, because if it is taking light longer to cross the universe, in order to be redshifted, than it is not Constant to the ruler of this frame. There are more lightyears, not expanding lightyears and that ignores the premise of spacetime!
    Redshift is the same in all directions, creating the impression we are at the center and necessitating using spacetime as an excuse for space itself to be expanding, not just an expansion in space. An optical explanation would create the same effect. If this effect compounds on itself, that would remove the need for Dark Energy.

    A paper to consider:

    Click to access 2008CChristov_WaveMotion_45_154_EvolutionWavePackets.pdf

    “5. Conclusions
    In the present work, the effect of attenuation and dissipation on propagation of waves governed by the Jeffrey equation is addressed. When packets of small but finite breadth are considered the presence of dissipation changes the central wave number of the packet. The distribution of the wave length around the central length is assumed to be Gaussian which is the most frequently encountered case in cosmology when hot stars are observed. Dispersion relation for the damped wave equation is derived and the evolution of the packet density is investigated in time (or space). It is shown that the attenuation acts merely to decrease the amplitude of the shifts packed, while the dissipation damps the higher frequencies stronger than the lower frequencies and shifts the maximal frequency of the packet to lower frequencies (longer wave lengths), i.e., the packet appears redshifted upon its arrival. For Gaussian wave packets, this kind of redshift is linearly proportional to the time passed or the distance traveled. The coefficient of proportionality contains the ratio of the dissipation coefficient and the initial width of the distribution which means that the thicker packets are redshifted more than the narrower ones for the same distance or for the same time. We call this liner relationship ‘‘Hubble Law’’ for redshifting of wave packets.
    The new approach can be used in acoustics for devising methods for estimating the bulk viscosity of air, or other slightly compressible liquids based on the relationship between the ‘‘baseshift’’ and viscosity coefficient. An application to cosmology is also possible because the spectral lines measured in the experiments are wave packets, and never a single isolated wave comprising it. Thus, one has to take special care to distinguish between the redshift of the packet (as outlined in the present work) and the redshift due to the dilation of a single wave.”


    • Gmax Says:

      Can’t understand YOUR point. Light can’t be redshifted, you say, BECAUSE?????? B/c WHAT? The crucial sentence you wrote sounds like gobbledy-goop to me.

      I am not trying to be difficult, I don’t understand equations very much. General relativity is beyond me, and I don’t get this doppler shift. Is it that the wave packets get stretched??? Help!


  2. Gmax Says:

    SouNDS pretty pathetic, this astrophysicist. Multiverse real because we said so?

    See my question to Brodix


  3. brodix Says:


    When redshift was first discovered, the two possible reasons assumed were doppler shift, because the sources were all moving away, or “tired light.” That something was interfering with the light. Since the light wasn’t otherwise disturbed, it was accepted that nothing was interfering with it, so it became accepted the sources must be moving away.
    Then, after further examination it was discovered that all galaxies in all directions were redshifted proportional to distance and the further the more extreme the redshift. As Patrice observed, “That also means that, if one looks far away, galaxies will seem to be receding from us at speed ever closer to the speed of light. As the apparent speed of these galaxies approach c, their light gets shifted to lower and lower frequencies, until they become invisible”
    The problem was this made it appear that we are the center of the expansion and thus universe. So then it was argued, as the first patch of Big Bang Theory, that space itself must be expanding, based on “spacetime!” and so every point would appear as the center.
    As I keep trying to point out, this overlooks the essential premise of GR, that the speed of light is always measured as a Constant, because in a moving frame, the ruler and the clock “dilate” equally. The clock slows and the ruler shrinks. But if it is taking light longer to cross, in order to be redshifted, then presumably the ruler is stretched, but the speed of light and thus the clock, remains the same. It can’t go faster to match the ruler, or it presumably wouldn’t redshift.

    As a side note, what Perlmutter et al discovered 20 years ago is that the rate of redshift doesn’t decline or slow at a constant rate, from that recession at near the speed of light at the very edge of the visible universe, as Patrice mentions, but declines fairly rapidly, then levels off. The problem this created is that in terms of the Big Bang Theory, there must be some other energy than the initial Bang, to sustain the slower, but steadier rate.
    To use a ballistics analogy, it would be as if the universe were shot out of a cannon and after it slowed down a bit, a rocket motor kicked in.
    Now if you think of it from the opposite direction, from what we actually see, then this redshift starts off slowly and after awhile starts to go parabolic, until it apparently reaches the point the galaxies seem to be moving away at the speed of light and naturally we can’t see beyond this.
    If redshift is an optical effect, then it would mean it is compounding on itself and after awhile it would naturally go parabolic.
    Yet if it is an optical effect, the light from beyond this horizon line would still reach us, but it would simply be shifted down into the infrared and radiological parts of the spectrum and that is exactly what we see, with the Cosmic Background Radiation.
    Though according to BBT, this black body radiation is just left over from the initial Bang.
    They do keep finding structures and sources that are increasingly difficult to fit into the chronology of the Big Bang, but since its practically a religion, no one even thinks to question why.
    The James Webb Space Telescope is supposed to go up in 2019 and I’m willing to bet it continues to find things which don’t fit, but no telling what the astronomers are going to propose to explain them.
    Like string theory and vampires, BBt is not going to die easily.


    • Gmax Says:

      Brodix: thank you for this interesting answer. I wish Patrice would come on line here and enlighten us further.
      If I remember correctly she insisted that the constant speed of light is just a local notion, while general relativity is global. It’s like when you integrate something linear to get something quadratic.
      Also I don’t get your insistance on optical. Anything about light is optical, no?
      I don’t believe in BB either


      • brodix Says:


        Thanks. It is a rather basic argument that doesn’t get much consideration, because the entire field has devoted itself to working within the BBT paradigm and arguing against it seems like speaking a different language.
        Well, yes, all light is optical, but I’m just differentiating between the physical recession of the source and consequent doppler effect the BBT insists on and what is another form of lensing effect.
        I suspect the problem goes to assumptions about the nature of light. That photons are indivisible, rather than quantized by interaction. Consider that if photons traveled the entire way from the most distant galaxies, as essentially particles of light. All the information we would be able to get would be just from the particular event emitting it. Yet it seems much more logical that the photons our telescopes receive are samplings of waves and consequently carry much more information. As that paper by Christov observes, these multi spectrum quanta do redshift with distance. As he observed, the need for actual recession is based on single spectrum quanta of light, which are what are usually tested with in experiments.
        Here is another paper on that;
        This is an entry in one of FQXi’s contests, so I linked to it, rather than directly to the paper, as it gives further context. The link to the paper is in it.


        • Gmax Says:

          I wish Patrice would enlighten us about all this. Why does the far-away light gets redder? Seems to be what baffles you and it baffles me too. The explanations I read I can’t understand. Generally she can explain things clearly. Patrice! To work!


What do you think? Please join the debate! The simplest questions are often the deepest!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: