Working+Draft

__

From Universe to Multiverse: The Philosophical Implications of Parallel Universes__

Imagine a cat in a closed box. Also in that box is a vial of poisonous gas under a hammer. The hammer will fall if an atom of uranium decays. There is a 50% chance that the uranium atom will decay, dropping the hammer, crushing the vial, and killing the cat. Is the cat alive or dead? We cannot know until we open the container and observe the feline, in which case the cat must be either among the living or deceased. But before the box is opened, the cat is in a much stranger state, something literally unperceivable. Inside, the cat is both alive and dead at the same time. This seems impossible. After all, removal of the lid reveals a cat that is either alive or not. While still in the closed box, the cat is in a state known as superposition, in which both states apply to it equally. The cat is both alive and dead at the same instant. This famous hypothetical, first conceived by physicist Erwin Schrödinger, illustrates one of the tenants of quantum mechanics. The generally accepted answer about the fate of the cat is that in parallel universes, the box is opened to reveal either a living or a dead cat. In fact, the quantum event of the uranium decay spawned a series of new universes, 50% of which yield a dead cat, and 50% of which yield a living cat. Let a parallel universe be defined as an alternate cosmos. The following will deal with two types of parallel universes. The first, illustrated by the cat in the box, is a set of realities that share “space” with the observable universe. The second, defined not by quantum mechanics but by membrane theory, is a set of realities that exist separate of the observable universe in different regions of hyperspace. The natural issue becomes one of relevance. By their nature, it seems that these alternate universes are inaccessible. This is almost the case, save excessively tiny and dangerous wormholes known as Einstein-Rosen bridges (Hyperspace 219). Wormholes can be thought of as tunnels that sporadically link parallel universes, like hairs reaching from one’s scalp to a nearby balloon. Even assuming a lack of human contact with parallel universes, they have profound philosophical implications. The existence of parallel universes fundamentally alters ethical and metaphysical understandings by redefining both reality and the consequences thereof. At every instant, an innumerable amount of parallel universes are splitting off and occupying the same space that each individual presently observes (Highfield para. 11). Right now, there is likely a universe with a stegosaurus standing where the White House would be. In yet another universe, this area is underwater. In many of these parallel universes, the earth does not even exist. The Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI) of quantum mechanics, first hypothesized by Hugh Everett III in the 1950s, is the origin of the most intuitive sort of parallel universes (Highfield para. 4). Recently, a pair of Oxford mathematicians, David Wallace and Simon Saunders, proved the validity of the MWI (Highfield para. 19). According to the MWI, each “world” has its own unique past, but numerous potential futures (Vaidman para. 13). To the lay person, this may at first seem insignificant. More realistically, the MWI yields meaningful ethical dilemmas that must be considered. Given the accuracy of the MWI as shown mathematically by Wallace and Saunders, each individual must recognize that all of their possible futures happen. It has been suggested that the MWI will cause people to “behave in an irrational way” (Vaidman para 50). By suggesting that multiple futures exist, one changes the relevance of life and death. An individual may find it prudent, therefore, to play a game of Russian roulette (Vaidman para. 51). Assuming that the final position of the revolver’s barrel is determined by a series of quantum events, an individual who plays such a game will end up either extraordinarily rich, or dead and unable to care about it. By the MWI, these will both occur, leading to either rest or affluence. Life and death may matter less seeing as all possible outcomes occur. This suggestion leads naturally to the doctrine of nihilism: the idea that life is inherently meaningless, worthless, or unimportant. The counter generally given to this nihilistic result is either religious or practical. To deal with the practical ethical implications, all possible outcomes will occur in a proportion equal to their total probability. Thus, this Russian roulette player will, in five of six universes, be dead, and his/her loved ones will be forced to grieve. Religiously, the issue becomes one of the ramifications of suicide. While there are essentially two potential outcomes for an individual in a game of Russian Roulette, the number of parallel universes may, in fact, be infinite (Hyperspace 253).This being the case, “all parallel worlds coexist with” this one (Parallel Worlds 169). The layperson must take this to mean that when they put others at risk, they are actually creating every possible outcome from their action. Perhaps an individual drives recklessly with his or her child in the car and has a near miss with another vehicle while traveling at sixty-five miles per hour. In this reality, it is simply that, a near miss. No one is harmed. All are relieved. But in an indeterminable number of parallel worlds, the driver has, through his or her hasty actions, killed his or her progeny. In another set of existences, the driver has left the child without a parent. In yet more universes, a double funeral is held. And that is not even taking into account the driver of the other vehicle. But outcomes are not the only variable when it comes to the MWI. Richard Feynman, in his work that would later win him the Nobel Prize in physics, showed that the path one generally takes from A to B is the most likely path (Parallel Worlds 163). The shortest path, or the “classical path,” occurs most often, but each possible way to get from A to B may be taken (Parallel Worlds 163). Using the example of the fateful demise of Franz Ferdinand, one can understand how this can alter individual fates as well as world politics. In certain realities, including this one, Ferdinand’s driver turned down the wrong street. In attempting to correct this, he inadvertently allowed Gavrilo Princip a shot at the Archduke, spawning World War I. In other universes, the driver never made such a mistake, and the “correct” path from A to B was taken. Ferdinand was not assassinated. For the common man, this could potentially result in undue paranoia. Rather, the true ethical consequence is that one must consider one’s motives and actions and the motives of others before opting to take action. Ferdinand could have opted to stay at point A and avoid B. In fact, this decision likely occurred in any number of parallel universes. This means that individuals not only have power over the direct future, but over a plethora of futures that will split off from this unique past. With this great power, comes the great responsibility for humankind to act ethically. A death not only results in a world without the deceased, but a potential infinity of future worlds without the individual. Going beyond moral considerations, parallel universes greatly influence the area of metaphysics. Metaphysics can be subdivided into two primary categories, ontology and cosmology. Succinctly, ontology is inquiry into what exists, while cosmology deals with the structure of the universe (or multiverse, being the structure of all universes). The MWI impacts both fields of metaphysics. Ontologically, the MWI suggests that each possible (probable) event occurs in different parallel universes, meaning that all potential happenings end up in a state equally as real as the observed universe. In a more basic fashion, the MWI suggests that alternate universes do in fact “exist,” so long as one accepts the existence of the observed universe. Cosmologically, the MWI is responsible for the field of quantum cosmology, which is fundamentally an attempt to study the physical universe while bypassing the observer. This allows for a greater amount of objectivity in observation. Everett suggested that the wave function of an electron (a way of defining the particle’s behavior) “collapses” upon being observed and is forced into a determinate state (when one opens the box to see Schrödinger’s cat) (Highfield para 9). This notion has since been expanded. Current wave function work is based on determining the wave function for the entire universe, summing together the wave functions of all particles. This allows for the removal of the observer entirely from the equation, as the quantum occurrences within the human brain are included within the universe’s wave function (Hyperspace 323-324). This erases the issue of solipsism from the wave function. Solipsism is the self-centered philosophical notion that one’s mind is all that exists, and that the physical world is determined by the brain’s observation. Were solipsism to be left unaccounted for, it would seem that the mind somehow projects a determined state upon a particle, leading to all sorts of logical road blocks in scientific exploration. The ethically relevant and spatially similar alternate realities of the MWI are but one sort of parallel universe, another being more distant and arcane. The notion behind these is the most promising candidate for a “theory of everything,” and is the foundation of the cosmology that famed physicist Stephen Hawking spends most of his time working on – membrane theory (Falk 156). The history of membrane theory (M-theory) is long and complex. The notion originates with string theory – the hypothesis that all matter is made of tiny vibrating strings (Falk 154). String theory demands a total of ten dimensions in the universe. Humans are capable of understanding four dimensions, the three spatial ones, and time. The other six are essentially so small at each point that they cannot be observed (“The Elegant Universe” para 128-129). String theory was expanded to include an eleventh dimension, which “at its maximum size, could be something like a trillionth of a millimetre” (“Parallel Universes” para 61). Adding the eleventh dimension to string theory takes the concept from the very tiny to the absolutely enormous and creates M-theory. In M-theory, all of the strings that make up matter are connected into a gigantic membrane (“Parallel Universes” para 50). This has important ramifications for cosmology. All of existence must be reconstructed. Membrane theory describes parallel universes that exist in different “space” from each other universe. This means that M-theory universes (membranes) are different from and not exclusive of MWI universes. In M-theory, it is thought that the universe is essentially either a “thin rubber sheet” or “a bubble” floating about hyperspace (“Parallel Universes” para 64). Hyperspace can be visualized as similar to outer space, but populated with universes instead of galaxies. From an overall metaphysics perspective, M-theory must be considered because it reshapes the beginning of the universe. Under M-theory, the Big Bang is reconceived as a collision of two membranes, resulting in a transfer of energy from a neighboring universe into this one (“Parallel Universes” para 83). Seeing as energy and matter are fundamentally the same (e=mc2), this resulted in all of the matter and energy present within the observable universe, the matter having congealed from energy in the first moments of cooling after the Big Bang. This matter then distributed about the membrane based on ripples in its structure (“Parallel Universes” para 105). Einstein hinted at this notion with the idea of gravity being defined as warps in space-time (the four observable dimensions). In fact, time begins with the Big Bang, as time is roughly defined by the vibration of matter (Smith para 25). Having deeply impacted the creation and structure of the universe, M-theory further redefines reality. The reason that M-theory qualifies as a potential “theory of everything” (description of the universe as a whole) is that it accounts for gravity. Each previous theory was found wanting in this area. The issue is that on the quantum level, gravity is seldom accounted for, while it is always a consideration on the macroscopic level (Falk 150). M-theory literally requires gravity for it to work, as one of its tenants includes the graviton (the graviton is to gravity as the photon is to light). Gravity is unique among the forces as it is significantly weaker than the strong nuclear force and the electro-weak force (“weak” is included here because it is a unification of the electromagnetic force and the weak nuclear force which binds electrons to atomic nuclei) (“Parallel Universes” para 68). One can understand how weak gravity is by looking at a refrigerator magnet. Notice how a paper may be made to stick to a surface with a tiny magnet and is not pulled away by the gravitation of the entire planet (“Parallel Universes” para 67). Lisa Randall suggests that the reason gravity is so weak is that it is leaking into the universe from another universe entirely, and so this universe acquires only a fraction of the force’s actual power. Thus, gravitons can travel to different membranes. Demonstrating this has proven difficult. Presently, Fermilab (Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory – a group working with a massive particle accelerator) is working on observing a graviton at the precise moment it disappears into another universe to prove M-theory (“The Elegant Universe” para 188). So far, the graviton has never been observed, but it is generally agreed to exist. This issue of proof collides precisely with philosophy. Stephen Hawking explains that physics only deals with “how,” and the philosophers determine “why” (Hawking 191). That being said, there is still debate as to if the “how” aspect of parallel universes can be qualified as physics. The issue is one of proof. Fermilab’s difficulty in observing a vanishing graviton illustrates how difficult it is to prove M-theory in any experimental fashion. While the math may work and accurately describe the observable universe, it falls sort of being entirely conclusive. If one cannot test a theory, then it necessarily falls in a category other than science, and moves into logic and philosophy (namely metaphysics in the case of M-theory) (“The Elegant Universe” para 180). Metaphysics is not solely concerned with philosophy. It also can be found within theology. Many religions deal with alternate plains of existence. Therefore, the MWI and M-theory have considerable meaning for this field. Suppose that the Buddhist nirvana or the Christian heaven can be found in membranes adjacent to the physical world, accessible by sporadic wormholes. Suddenly, a cosmological restructuring brings the potential for renewed religious considerations and not merely religious contradictions in the form of the Big Bang (Hyperspace 330). The structure of the universe has been re-imagined. First, quantum mechanics laid the groundwork for Everett’s MWI. These universes continuously split off from a common past into distinct futures. Redefining ethical considerations and decision making, as well as statistical probability, the MWI should be known by each individual so as to promote responsibility. M-theory reveals a highly probable structure for the multiverse, and is humankind’s only likely “theory of everything.” Membranes are like galaxies floating and waving about hyperspace, connected by wormholes and seldom directly interacting (save the Big Bang). Cosmologically and ontologically, M-theory redefines what “is” and how it “looks.” Suppose Schrödinger’s cat is found alive and well upon removal of the box’s lid. For each occurrence of this outcome, the same cat is found dead in a parallel, MWI universe. Ultimately, the only way to prevent this is to avoid placing the cat in the box in the first place, though there is no guarantee that the cat will not end up in the box in another reality. In a possibly infinite number of MWI universes, the cat was never born. Perhaps cats never evolved. This may be the case for m-theory universes. The membranes may hold worlds similar to ours, or strange and unimaginable alternatives. Furthermore, each of these membrane universes has its own potentially infinite set of MWI universes. The structure of hyperspace is vast beyond conception, and is home to all of existence. Whether parallel universes are strange or similar, probable or unlikely, they are out there.

__Works Cited__

Falk, Dan. //Universe on a T-Shirt.// New York: Arcade Publishing Inc., 2002. Print.

Hawking, Stephen. // A Brief History of Time //. Bantam Dell Publishing Group, 1988. Print.

Highfield, Roger. "Parallel universe proof boosts time travel hopes - Telegraph." Telegraph.co.uk: news, business, sport, the Daily Telegraph newspaper, Sunday Telegraph - Telegraph. Web. 18 Sept. 2009. .

Kaku, Michio. Hyperspace: a scientific odyssey through parallel universes, time warps, and the tenth dimension. New York: Oxford UP, 1994. Print.

Kaku, Michio. Parallel Worlds: a journey through creation, higher dimensions, and the future of the cosmos. New York: Random House, 2005.

"Parallel Universes." //Horizon //. BBC Two. 14 Feb. 2002. //Bbc.co.uk //. Web. 18 Sept. 2009. .

"The Elegant Universe." NOVA. PBS. Oct. 2003. Television.

Smith, Quentin. “Quantum Cosmology's Implication of Atheism.” Secular Web: Atheism, Agnosticism, Naturalism, Skepticism and Secularism. Web. 05 Oct. 2009. .

Viadman, Lev. "Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics." //Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy//. Web. 05 Oct. 2009. .