So are all those bubble universes, if they evolve to become a universe do they end up with the same physical parameters as our universe. If they do how is this reconciled with the many who say that in a Multiverse there will be universes with different physical parameters.
There could be many other universes, with different physical constants and possibly even different laws. This proposal could explain the origin of our universe and why it is fine-tuned for the development of life.
Abstract. Recent developments in cosmology and particle physics suggest there could be many other universes, with different physical constants and possibly
academic.oup.com
The String Theory and The Multiverse
The concept of a multiverse is not new, but string theory provides a possible framework for its existence. This would mean an infinite number of parallel universes, each with different physical laws and constants and each with its version of reality.
No they do not end up having the same physical parameters as our universe.
In this thread the terms vacuum expectation value and energy expectation value have been used.
Since quantum mechanics in most interpretations is probabilistic in nature the expectation value is the average of all possible outcomes when a measurement is made.
This also extends to quantum fields where the energy of the field is expressed as an expectation value and being an average value means the vacuum decay of local fields to produce bubble universes can occur for different random energies.
The temperature of the hot BB depends on the amount of energy released during vacuum decay associated with inflation, hence the initial conditions for each bubble universe can vary leading to different physics.
When inflation was first proposed in the late 1970s, the inflaton field was thought to be the Higgs field, the idea has persisted with many scientists and as this thread has shown a deviation in the energy of the false vacuum of the Higgs field can lead to drastic changes in the physics.
Ok here we go now your trying to back me into some position I am not. If I keep refuting your attributions of me you will keep finding some some angle to make me a creationist.
We could keep going back until we arrive at something like Theistic Evolution and that more or less someone who supports both the science and creation so there is no need to create any false arguements for the God of the gaps. Perhaps this is revealing more about your ideology and assumptions than anything else.
I suggest you go back and read what I stated, I asked if you supported ID not creationism.
As you now know ID, YEC and OEC share similar views on creation ex nihilo.
When it comes to my ideology and assumptions, I have made my position perfectly clear as a Christian that God, ID, creationism and the supernatural are unfalsifiable in science.
Well if you look at my posts on evolution you will find I lean more towards Theistic Evolution so your assuming a lot. They also believe in some sort of creation out of nothing for the first form of life or ingredients for that life. But from that point support the science. The same logic applies for the creation of the universe. We don't like the gaps we want to understand how Gods creation works in scientific terms.
No I don't believe in ID, creationism or any other organised ideology around Gods creation. Though I do agree with the idea that Mind and Consciousness are fundemental. But that is not necessarily a creationist thing. I tend to like the science behind Wheeler and Henry Stapps ideas about Mind and Observers.
For me I think the science on its own without any religious connotations can reveal God and I like discovering that detail.
You still have an agenda but under a different name which disagrees with the BB because it does not depend on God’s creation and therefore you are in the wrong forum by pushing this agenda.
I did not know Flemming. All I was concerned about was the part on how the contradictions in the monoploes between local observations and the CMB for which Sabbine and the papers they both cited supported. Unlike you I was not hyper vigelant about the credibility of the source but rather than particular content.
I wasn't defending Flemming and even said once someone pointed out he had no history of mainstream papers that I acknowledged his lack of credibility. I was only defending the particular parts he pointed out which were alos supported by other scientists.
You blindly accepted Flemming without any objectivity because his narrative supported your confirmation bias the BB was wrong.
Your repudiation of him while still trying justification because particular parts of his crank theory were supposedly supported by other scientists is not terribly convincing.
phys.org
