...............................................................................................................................................................
What is the
multiverse?
BY KATE KERSHNER
There's a
universe. And another. And another ...
We're
talking about multiverses, so you know the drill: Imagine you're you but
instead of eating an apple as a snack today, you ate a piece of pizza.
Or
imagine you're not you because protons don't work the same way where
"you" are, and atoms don't form and all the universe is lifeless and
weird.
Or
imagine anything at all, because when we talk about the multiverse, we often
find ourselves going over these infinite possibilities for existence.
Which is
fine and good; the multiverse is about these "alternative" worlds.
But it's
also a channel of physics that might answer some serious questions, while still
prompting some tough criticism from skeptics.
First,
let's talk about the multiverse's rise to popularity -- and why it's
so very unpopular with some scientists who argue it's more philosophy than
science.
We'll
start with the Standard Model of particle physics, which is basically the
accepted model of the fundamental matter and forces that exist in the universe.
At this
point, we've seen 'em all: the matter particles (including things like
electrons and protons), and the four forces that they interact with.
The one
discrepancy we had with the Standard Model is that -- while we know that
particles have mass -- we couldn't figure out how that mass was gained.
When
scientists observed the Higgs boson in 2012 during experiments at the Large
Hadron Collider, the last piece of the Standard Model puzzle slid into place:
the Higgs field, comprising a soup of Higgs bosons, allows particles to gain
mass.
We all
celebrated because science was figured out, and everyone could go home to
ponder more important issues, like if Lady Mary could just run Downton Abbey on
her own and leave the pesky suitors out of it.
I'm
guessing you've already determined that science isn't solved, and vanilla Lotharios
are still bombarding Mary every week.
Because
while the Standard Model works great for what we've observed, it still
possesses some huge, gaping holes.
And it's
how scientists explain those holes that we come upon the idea of the
multiverse. So, let's examine some of those gaps, to see why a multiverse might
start to sound appealing.
There are
a few big things the Standard Model doesn't answer. Like how gravity works
within the Standard Model, and how the other three fundamental forces might be
united into a single one.
Another
outstanding question is that the universe is largely made up of dark matter and
energy; we've never been able to observe what that mysterious "other"
matter is.
The third
is that while we saw the Higgs boson in LHC experiments, we observed it at a
mass that made little sense.
It
should've been extremely large; it was actually quite light.
Now you
or I -- assuming you're not a world-renowned physicist, and if you are please
identify yourself -- are probably thinking, "Too bad.
Sounds
like the Standard Model isn't so standard, or much of a model. Back to the
drawing board to create the Alternative Standard Model that actually explains
stuff."
Recall,
however, that the Standard Model is actually confirmed; in other words,
everything the Standard Model has predicted has been observed.
The
Standard Model, it seems, doesn't need to be scrapped; we "just" need
to figure out the physics that it doesn't explain.
We're in
a fascinating time to examine what the lies beyond the Standard Model, thanks
to the Large Hadron Collider.
The LHC
works by smashing protons together at enormous speeds -- nearly the speed of
light. (That's why they call them particle accelerators.)
When the
protons collide, a small-scale Big Bang occurs that reproduces the conditions
right after our universe began.
We can
study the debris that flies from these proton-smashes to see if we can find any
particles that might go beyond the Standard Model, giving us a better idea of
how to answer the questions the model doesn't.
Remember
how we said we should thank the Large Hadron Collider for providing such a
fertile time for particle physics?
Some
scientists are more likely to grumble a "thanks for nothing" to the
old LHC. Because beyond the Higgs, it's found nothing.
Which is
a pretty big deal, because one widely accepted idea to fill in the Standard
Model holes was the idea of supersymmetry.
In short,
supersymmetry said that for every known particle of mass or force, there was a
yet-unseen superpartner that was much heavier.
Supersymmetry
would present an elegant, natural solution to a whole host of Standard Model
questions.
It
presents a viable candidate for dark matter (in the form of a superpartner), it
explains mass discrepancies and it even could unify the three forces at a
single high energy.
Unfortunately,
the LHC hasn't found a single superpartner yet, although we really should be
finding some at about the same mass as the Higgs.
In fact,
we haven't found any evidence for supersymmetry, period.
That's
where the multiverse comes in. It's yet another extension of the Standard Model
that tries to explain some of the lingering questions that the Standard Model
isn't really designed to answer.
And boy,
is it controversial.
Essentially,
the multiverse concept (and there's more than one) says that this isn't the
only universe in the cosmos.
While
things might work one way in our little corner, that by no means guarantees
that there's a constant, natural order that encompasses Physics with a capital
P.
These
multiverse ideas take on a host of different forms.
Perhaps
we live in a universe on top of a universe on top of a universe, and so on into
infinity.
Perhaps
we live in a "pocket" universe in an infinite field of universes.
Maybe we
even live in a universe of universes where any possible outcome of anything can
occur, because all probabilities exist in their own universe.
Our
universe hasn't been specially tuned to have the just-right constants that make
our existence -- and the existence of everything -- possible.
Instead,
it's just a statistical probability that in an infinite number of universes,
one of them would come out like ours, with particles that can clump to form
atoms, molecules, grass, air, stars, Lucky Charms and people.
A lot of
physicists find this prospect bleak. Why study the universe if there's nothing
to discover?
If it's
nothing but a statistical coincidence that our world works the way it does,
what's so exciting about trying to figure out at what energy the forces unify?
It's just
a number. But beyond the ho-hum reasons to be wary of the multiverse, some
physicists argue that it's downright irresponsible science, since it hasn't
been seen and no one can prove it.
Of
course, science is often based on big questions that aren't always easily
tested; that's completely fair.
We can't
just come up with ideas based on fact, or else there would never be a spark of
creativity to move us beyond what we already know.
But
scientists do rely on moving toward finding testable hypotheses, or else we're
in another realm -- dare I say, universe -- called philosophy.
Which is
exactly what some physicists find so upsetting about the multiverse and other
seemingly untestable doozies like string theory, with its multiple dimensions
we have no hope of seeing. (Or feeling. Or hearing. You get the idea.)
If we
can't test them, they're nothing but theoretical ideas, relegated to dinner
party "what if" discussions.
Of
course, a lot of important scientific theories don't appear to be easily
testable at the outset.
The
problem with multiverses is that it requires us to stop looking at the things
we can see, and try to explore what we can't see.
Attempting
to unlock the mystery of what we can observe, some would argue, is far more
important than chasing the hypothetical things we have no hope of discovering.
Kate
Kershner,
Contributing Writer
Kate Kershner has a degree in creative writing from Western Washington University.
Kate Kershner has a degree in creative writing from Western Washington University.
HowStuffWorks got its start in 1998
at a college professor's kitchen table. From there, we quickly grew into an
award-winning source of unbiased, reliable, easy-to-understand
answers and explanations of how the world actually works. Today, our writers,
editors, podcasters and video hosts share all the things we're most excited to
learn about with nearly 30 million visitors to the site each month. Learn more about our
authors, and maybe even become
one yourself. You can learn more about us in our FAQ.
No comments:
Post a Comment