Sean Carroll (February 12, 2014) wrote, “The second goal was to give a subtle sales pitch for the Many-Worlds interpretation. Really more damage control than full-on hard sell; the very idea of many worlds is so crazy-sounding and counterintuitive that my job is more to let people know that it’s actually quite a natural implication of the formalism, rather than a bit of ad hoc nonsense tacked on by theorists who have become unmoored from reality. I’m happy to bring up the outstanding issues with the approach, but I do want people to know it should be taken seriously, (see http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2014/02/12/the-many-worlds-of-quantum-mechanics/ )”.

In addition to the jargon of “interference/ (wave function collapse) and entanglement/decoherence”, Carroll’s key point is that there are unobserved possibilities which is the hint (or the proof) that the other worlds exist. I think that this is a wrong definition for ‘multiverse’, as there are always unobserved possibilities for a ‘universe’ which has an event-horizon; for the part of the universe which is beyond the event-horizon, it is unobservable for any observer (us, Martians or anyone else) by definition. There should have three different types of multiverses.

- Type one — each universe has different initial and/or boundary conditions while has the same physics laws and nature constant. The cyclic universes (C-multiverses) are this type. And, this C-multiverse is the direct consequence of the Alpha-physics.
- Type two — each universe has different physics laws, the Simultaneous-multiverse (S-multiverses)
- Type three — each universe has different nature constants, also an S-multiverses.

It is not too difficult to show that the type two and the type three can be placed in the same basket. Then, this issue of multiverse was muddy up by the issue of Falsifiability. In fact, no fact (or truth) of any kind can be falsified. The fact that I was born cannot be falsified even with the death. If a fact (truth) can be falsified, it is not a true fact. This is simply a semantic issue. Of course, the falsifiability is a good tool in science to weed out the craps, as all nonsense can always be falsified.

For consecutive cycling universes (with different boundary or initial conditions for each universe), this multiverse could will be a ‘fact’. For some simultaneously co-existing universes (with different physics laws or nature constants), this simultaneous-multiverse (S-multiverse) can of course be falsified with three points although by definition that those other universes are unobservable from ‘this’ universe.

First, for the S-multiverse as a ‘fact’, it has produced a special universe which we are living in. For the S-multiverse-theory, it has failed to describe that ‘fact’, as being unable thus far to find out how ‘this’ universe came about from the S-multiverse fact. That is, the S-multiverse-theory is useless and nonsense.

Second, if we can show that the physics laws and nature constants of ‘this’ universe are bubble-independent (not arising in-time or depending on-space), that is, the laws and constants of this universe is ‘universal’. Today, the following issues are open questions for the physics of ‘this’ universe.

- Why is there the cosmological constant (Λ)?
- Why is there the Cabibbo angle?
- Why is there the Weinberg angles?
- Why is there the Alpha?
- Why is there the Neff = 3?
- Why is there the Planck data?
- How to give rise to the particle zoo of the Standard Model?
- How to give rise to Baryongenesis?
- How to give rise to quantum principle?
- How to give rise to unified force equation (including gravity)?
- How to give rise to life?
- Why is here something rather than nothing?
- How to give rise the Quantum-Spin?

These issues are addressed in details at http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2014/02/ghost-rascal-conjecture-and-ultimate.html . However, I will show one simple example here.

As the Alpha (electron fine structure constant) which is the ‘lock’ of three nature constants, it can be derived with the following equation.

Beta = 1/alpha = 64 ( 1 + first order mixing + sum of the higher order mixing)

= 64 (1 + 1/Cos A(2) + .00065737 + …)

= 137.0359 …

A(2) is the Weinberg angle, A(2) = 28.743 degree

The sum of the higher order mixing = 2(1/48)[(1/64) + (1/2)(1/64)^2 + …+(1/n)(1/64)^n +…]

= .00065737 + …

Obviously, this Alpha-formula (with the Weinberg angle) is totally bubble-independent (without any bubble factor in it), and it consists of only two steps.

One, ‘uncountable-infinity to finite’ concretization process, see “Multiverse bubbles are now all burst by the math of Nature” (see http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2013/10/multiverse-bubbles-are-now-all-burst-by.html ). That is, the uncountable-infinity is concretized as a circle (or a pie).

Two, this pie (the highest infinity) is ‘divided’ or shared by two group members (forming the structure of this universe), that is, 64 kids (of this ultimate infinity); one group (16 kids) takes the energy (dark energy), the other group (48 kids) takes the landmass as landlords. See “Pimple Model; BARKED UP THE WRONG TREES (M-THEORY AND SUSY, https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2013/09/19/barked-up-the-wrong-trees-m-theory-and-susy/ );” and “DARK ENERGY, MYSTERY NO MORE! (https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2013/09/25/dark-energy-mystery-no-more/ )”. Thus, the numbers (64, 48 and 24) play the key roles in my Alpha-formula. The whole point is about the ‘dividing’ or sharing the pie, and there is nothing about the bubble.

On January 6, 2014, Amir Mulic showed a new Alpha formula, (4π^3+π^2+π). Although Mulic has M-string interpretation for his formula, it is still basically a numerological formula. Yet, when it is rewritten as the following equation, the physics significance is now all clear.

Let 2 π = the circumference of a unit disk (with radius = 1) = Pie

π = half Pie = HPie

Then, his formula can be rewritten as,

(1/α) = (1/2) {Pie * [(Pie + 1/Pie)^2 + (HPie – 1/HPie) – ((1/Pie) – 1)^2]} … equation A

The equation A above is a topological (static) description of the pie-sharing.

(Pie + 1/Pie), type 1 mixing (division); (Pie + 1/Pie)^2, the first order mixing (sharing)

(HPie – 1/HPie), type 2 mixing (division), the second order mixing (sharing)

[(1/Pie) – 1]^2, the ‘remainder’ (indivisible) of the division (sharing)

So, equation A = (1/2) Pie * (the first order sharing + the second order sharing – the ‘remainder’ of sharing)

That is, Mulic’s new Alpha formula is also bubble-independent. The fact that the Alpha is now written with two formulas (one static and one dynamic) while both of them are bubble-independent. Now, we can be very certain that S-multiverse is not a fact.

Of course, someone can still insist that both Alpha formulas are simply numerological tricks. In fact, there are two points on this numerology issue.

- For any given number, there are unlimited ways of reaching it with numerological formulas. Yet, a numerological formula of one number is, in general, unable to reach a different number.
- For the ‘true’ physics of ‘this’ universe, it can reach all ‘numbers’ of ‘this’ universe.

I have provided a link (the first link above) which shows that all 13 open questions of the current physics are addressed with the same physics which gives rise to Alpha.

Then third, we can show that multiverse is totally irrelevant to ‘this’ universe even if it were true. So, we much show that the ‘boundary’ of this universe will never bump into the ‘other’ universes. When this universe expands, where does it expand into? If this universe does not bump into the boundaries of the ‘other’ universes, then

i. The boundary of this universe is ‘independent’ of bubbles, and it should be the same for the other universes.

ii. The other universes are irrelevant to this universe, and vice versa. That is, the multiverse or not is no issue at all.

For the detailed discussion of this, it is available at http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2013/11/why-does-dark-energy-make-universe.html .

Conclusion: While by definition that S-multiverse is unobservable from this universe, it can still be falsified with the three points above.

## One thought on “Damage control for the Multiverse”