2

Is it consensus among cosmologist that there is probably at least one type of multiverse? Is there any renowned physicist who rejects the idea of multiverse? I'm not talking about those who claim it's unscientific, untestable, etc., but those who think there is no such thing. That our universe as we know is finite and unique.

By "multiverse", I mean any of Brian Greene's nine types

And I'm not asking for a list or the Physics.SE users' opinions on multiverse. I'm asking if the basic idea of there being at least one type of multiverse is generally accepted among cosmologists.

Qmechanic
  • 201,751
Wood
  • 1,954
  • 4
    This question appears to be off-topic, e.g. because it is about opinions of people rather than physics, and a list question. – Qmechanic Dec 14 '14 at 12:23
  • @Wood for these kinds of questions/discussions, you could try the physics chatroom. – Ellie Dec 14 '14 at 13:01
  • I am not renowned by I accept the multiverse of Max Tegmark but enlarged to include the multiverse of set theory –  Dec 14 '14 at 15:40
  • 4
    I can either get a PhD in cosmology and have my own opinion or ask what the opinion of experts are. Also, I never asked for a list. I just want to know if there is a consensus. Sounds to me like a perfectly reasonable question. It's fine if you can't answer it, but I don't agree with putting it on hold as off-topic. Anyway, I reworded the question and I hope it's clearer now. Please reconsider it. And if I'm missing something, sorry for the trouble. – Wood Dec 14 '14 at 19:44
  • I think this is on-topic, but understand it might result in a fractious, partisan discussion (which I discourage). Asking about the consensus amongst experts seems reasonable to me. I'm suggesting re-open. – innisfree Dec 14 '14 at 21:32
  • If you are asking the theorists who have created an unscientific term because they have been unable to add a significant contribution to the puzzle they were handed by their predecessors, then you are likely going to collect a lot of nonsensical answers. The best advice I can give you is to read the definition of science another hundred times and internalize its meaning. Then go back and apply it to "multiverse". Now, in defense of those theorists, they are just as smart as they are frustrated by the inability of experimental physics to get them access to the data they need. – CuriousOne Dec 15 '14 at 01:43
  • @curiousone what do you mean "the" definition of science? i suspect you mean karl popper's definition of science, which, even in his time, was criticised. the activities of scientists and science itself are rather difficult to define or summarize. i suggest that if the OP wants to understand science, he reads whole books, rather than repeat a mantra to himself 100 times. – innisfree Dec 15 '14 at 09:00
  • The last time I checked "science" was still defined as a systematic and rational study of nature based on observation and experiments. No amount of philosophical tweaking gets the current definitions of "multiverse" under that roof. Sadly, there has been a lot of rather unscientific writing targeting layman in the field of physics. While I understand the economic motivations of these authors (it's hard to accept that a world class theorist in some cases earns less than a janitorial supervisor...), it's not a good thing to make layman believe that these books are actually science proper. – CuriousOne Dec 15 '14 at 09:09
  • i suppose that's "a" definition, which will suffice here. why can't it include multiverse ideas? their proponents presumably believe they are systematic and rational, and motivated by the results of observations and experiments. – innisfree Dec 15 '14 at 13:12

0 Answers0