Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

It's official, Elvis lives [inflationary cosmology saves the King!]
Telegraph.co.uk ^ | 16 January 2007 | Marcus Chown

Posted on 01/15/2007 6:32:55 PM PST by snarks_when_bored

It's official, Elvis lives


Last Updated: 12:01am GMT 16/01/2007

It might sound a little crazy, but our standard theories of cosmology and physics suggest that an infinite number of Presleys still exist, says Marcus Chown. And if that's not scary enough, it also means that you, and these words, are repeated ad infinitum across the universe

Elvis is alive. No, really! He didn't die of a cardiac arrest in his bathroom at Graceland on August 16, 1977. Instead, he slipped out of the back door under cover of darkness dressed as a nun, had a sex change and worked for several years in a gas station in Ohio. She/he has now retired, is living on the Gulf Coast and is in tip-top health. After all, she's still only 71.

 
Elvis Presley
The King rules again, and again, and again... as an unavoidable consequence of 'inflation’ in the universe

Have I done a David Icke and gone conspiracy mad? Not at all. Elvis is alive and kicking, all right. Not here on Earth - but in an infinite number of other places in the universe. I have just revealed cosmology's dirty little secret – the thing the people who spend their time theorising about the universe rarely like to mention except in a whisper. And who can honestly blame them?

Elvis's survival turns out to be an unavoidable consequence of two things – the standard theory of cosmology and the standard theory of physics, "quantum theory". Take cosmology first.

According to the standard picture, the universe underwent a brief, super-fast period of expansion in its first split-second of existence. It goes by the name of "inflation". You don't need to know much about inflation – what drove it or why cosmologists believe it happened. You just need to know one thing: inflation implies the universe goes on for ever – it is effectively infinite in extent.

The universe we see through our telescopes, however, does not look infinite. Far from it. Everything burst into being 13.7 billion years ago in the explosion of the Big Bang, so we see only the galaxies whose light has taken less than 13.7 billion years to get to us.

Galaxies whose light would take, say 14.7 billion years, we don't see – their light is still on its way to Earth. For this reason, there is a "light horizon" around our bit of the universe and everything we can see within it we call the "observable universe".

But, just as there is more beyond the horizon at sea, there is more of the universe beyond its horizon. In fact, an infinite amount, according to inflation. Imagine our observable universe shrunk to the size of a soap bubble. Well, according to inflation, beyond our soap bubble are an infinite number of other soap bubbles, all similar to our observable universe.

It is easy to speculate on what it is like in the other bubble regions because we have a pretty good idea how the galaxies in the observable universe came to be. Some regions of the Big Bang fireball were ever-so-slightly denser than others. They acted as "seeds" for the growth of galaxies.

Specifically, they had stronger gravity than surrounding regions and so gathered in matter from about them. This made their gravity even stronger so they could pull in more matter. In a process akin to the rich getting ever richer, they gradually produced the galaxies like our own Milky Way and its neighbour, Andromeda.

Now, inflation is no airy-fairy theoretical idea. It has been pretty much confirmed in the past year by data collected by Nasa's "Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe", which is observing the dim "afterglow" of the Big Bang fireball from far out in space. And inflation predicts more than that – there are an infinite number of bubble regions like our observable universe.

It also predicts something else significant – that the seeds of galaxies were randomly scattered throughout the Big Bang fireball. Consequently, in the next soap-bubble region to our own, the seeds were different, which means that the history of that region was different, and the galaxies that formed were not the same as ours. And the same goes for the next region. And the next...

Though Elvis has not made a look in yet, don't worry, we're getting there!

The last thing you need to know to understand why the King still lives is that the universe is quantum. This means that, ultimately, everything comes in tiny, indivisible grains, or "quanta". Matter comes in indivisible grains. Time comes in indivisible grains. And so does space.

If we could look at space with some kind of super-microscope – way beyond the power of any instrument we can build today – it would resolve itself into a grid of tiny cubes. For the sake of simplicity, think of it instead as the two-dimensional grid of squares of a chessboard.

In this picture, we might have a galaxy-spawning seed of matter on one square, and another seed on another square; and so on. But, and this is the key, there are only a finite number of ways of arranging the seeds just as there are only a finite number of ways of arranging the pieces on a chessboard.

So there are only a finite number of possible histories for a universe leading to only a finite number of possible arrangements of galaxies.

If your head hasn't yet exploded, you now have all you need to understand the first paragraph of this article.

If there are an infinite number of regions like our observable universe but only a finite number of histories for such regions, then every possible history happens not once but an infinite number of times.

"There are an infinite number of places in the universe where Elvis is alive and kicking," says one of the contributors to inflation theory, Alex Vilenkin of Tufts University.

There are also an infinite number of places where Shane Warne was born in Surrey, and England never lose the Ashes. There are an infinite number of places where The Telegraph liked this article so much it decided to pay me a million pounds and run a special colour supplement solely to advertise my new book.

But all of this also has implications for you, not just Elvis and Shane Warne. There are an infinite number of regions in the universe exactly the same as the observable universe. And each contains a perfect copy of you who, up until this instant, has experienced everything you have ever experienced. This is no fanciful prediction.

"It is possible to calculate precisely how far away is the nearest region identical to our observable universe," says Vilenkin.

"It's 10^10^100 centimetres away." (10^100 is 1 followed by 100 zeroes, so I'll leave to imagine how "vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big" 10^ (10^100) is, to steal Douglas Adams's words. As an anorak aside, Google, the name of the ubiquitous web search engine, is a misspelling of "Googol", which means 10^100. There is even a name for 10^Googol – 1 followed by a Googol of zeroes. A "Googolplex"!).

And remember, the existence of your doppelgangers is an unavoidable consequence of our standard theory of cosmology and our standard theory of physics. Your doubles do not exist only if one or both of these theories is wrong, which very few physicists are – frankly - prepared to countenance.

I have a soft spot for this whole idea because, even if you think this is the dullest and most incomprehensible article you have ever read, I can console myself with the thought that, in an infinite number of other space domains, you were so impressed that you emailed it to every person in your address book and bought copies of my book for all your friends and family.

  • Marcus Chown's book, 'The Never-Ending Days of Being Dead: Dispatches from the Frontline of Science' is published by Faber & Faber on 18 January, 2007 and is available for £13.99 (rrp £15.99) + £1.25 p&p. To order call Telegraph Books on 0870 428 4112



TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; Miscellaneous; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: cosmicinflation; cosmology; physics; quantummechanics
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-73 last
To: Dog Gone
Whoa, that article started out in english...

With articles like that, you just read around the equations...(grin)

61 posted on 01/16/2007 11:45:39 AM PST by snarks_when_bored
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Junior

(laugh) Nicely put.


62 posted on 01/16/2007 11:47:28 AM PST by snarks_when_bored
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: snarks_when_bored
If your head hasn't yet exploded...

Too late!


63 posted on 01/16/2007 12:01:32 PM PST by uglybiker (A bunch of radical Unitarians left a flaming question mark on my lawn!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: uglybiker

I suspect that it's fortunate that I've blocked GIF animations...


64 posted on 01/16/2007 12:10:24 PM PST by snarks_when_bored
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: who_would_fardels_bear
Either God is perverse or has a really sick sense of humor if this is the case.

Or...

There are an infinite number of gods...

65 posted on 01/16/2007 12:17:44 PM PST by Junior (Losing faith in humanity one person at a time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Junior
"There are an infinite number of gods..."

So if a God is the definer of morality in the universe He creates then there are infinite moralities, which is to say there is no morality.

If it is possible for us to know that there are other universes that have potentially different moralities then we know that there are multiple moralities and so there is no absolute morality.

So we still have the same problem.

Even if there are no Gods. If in our own universe the vast majority of us come to the conclusion that axe murdering is wrong, then if there is another universe where the vast majority of sentient beings have come to a different conclusion, then who is to say which morality is correct?

Multiverses are worse than multiculturalism when it comes to abandoning morality for whatever seems to work at the time. It's situational ethics at a multi-cosmic level.

66 posted on 01/16/2007 1:38:07 PM PST by who_would_fardels_bear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: who_would_fardels_bear
So if a God is the definer of morality in the universe He creates then there are infinite moralities, which is to say there is no morality.

You're assuming God defines morality. Going by His actions in the OT, Satan has nothing on God in the amoral department.

67 posted on 01/16/2007 2:10:30 PM PST by Junior (Losing faith in humanity one person at a time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: snarks_when_bored
"If your head hasn't yet exploded, you now have all you need to understand the first paragraph of this article."

Oy!

68 posted on 01/16/2007 2:16:56 PM PST by Diana in Wisconsin (Save The Earth. It's The Only Planet With Chocolate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WestVirginiaRebel


"I'm a hunka hunka burnin love, baby!"
69 posted on 01/16/2007 2:22:31 PM PST by reagan_fanatic (You'll shoot your eye out, kid)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Junior
I'm not assuming anything: I'm assuming everything.

There may or may not be a God. There may or may not be such a thing as morality. God may or may not define morality (if such a thing exists.)

All I'm trying to say is that in a situation where there is a single universe, even without a God, there is some way of making a case for certain acts being inherently good and other acts being inherently evil.

However if we have infinite multiverses where no matter what we do in this world, countless copies of us are doing the exact opposite, then there is no way of salvaging anything resembling morality.

Then all we are left with is the fact that the majority of us are too afraid to buck the system, and the few people that are courageous enough are running it however they choose. Nihilism at its finest! Of course if I had the guts to run the entire system Michael Jackson, Celine Dion, and Brittney Spears would never have been allowed to get above dive bar singing status.

70 posted on 01/16/2007 3:03:05 PM PST by who_would_fardels_bear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: devolve


71 posted on 01/16/2007 4:33:02 PM PST by potlatch (Does a clean house indicate that there is a broken computer in it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: reagan_fanatic
A pregnant Elvis with a cameltoe? Not even Suspicious Minds want to know anything about that!
72 posted on 01/16/2007 4:58:45 PM PST by snarks_when_bored
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: cmsgop; commandante_zero; lesser_satan; saganite; Nachoman; sittnick; Doohickey; Dog Gone; ...
Sunday is fun day...

The following paragraphs are from Don N. Page, Is Our Universe Likely to Decay within 20 Billion Years? (PDF format):

Let us take the case in which the decay of the universe proceeds by the nucleation of a small bubble that then expands at practically the speed of light, destroying everything within the causal future of the bubble nucleation event.

[snip]

One might ask what the observable effects would be of the decay of the universe, if ordered observers like us could otherwise survive for times long in comparison with 20 billion years. First of all, the destruction of the universe would occur by a very thin bubble wall traveling extremely close to the speed of light, so no one would be able to see it coming to dread the imminent destruction. Furthermore, the destruction of all we know (our nearly flat spacetime, as well as all of its contents of particles and fields) would happen so fast that there is not likely to be nearly enough time for any signals of pain to reach your brain. And no grieving survivors will be left behind. So in this way it would be the most humanely possible execution.

Furthermore, the whole analysis of quantum cosmology and of measures on the multiverse seems (at least to me) very difficult to do without adopting something like the Everett many-worlds version of quantum theory (perhaps a variant like my own Sensible Quantum Mechanics or Mindless Sensationalism [1, 36]). Then of course if there are “worlds” (quantum amplitudes) that are destroyed by a particular bubble, there will always remain other “worlds” that survive. Therefore, in this picture of the decaying universe, it will always persist in some fraction of the Everett worlds (better, in some measure), but it is just that the fraction or measure will decrease asymptotically toward zero. This means that there is always some positive measure for observers to survive until any arbitrarily late fixed time, so one could never absolutely rule out a decaying universe by observations at any finite time.

However, as the measure decreases for our universe to survive for longer and longer times, a random sampling of observers and observations by this measure would be increasingly unlikely to pick one at increasingly late times. Although observers would still exist then, they would be increasingly rare and unusual. Of course, any particular observer who did find himself or herself there could not rule out the possibility that he or she is just a very unusual observer, but he or she would have good statistical grounds for doubting the prediction made in this paper that he or she really is quite unusual. In any case, the decrease in the measure of the universe that I am predicting here takes such a long time that it should not cause anyone to worry about it (except perhaps to try to find a solution to the huge scientific mystery of the measure for the string landscape or other multiverse theory). However, it is interesting that the discovery of the cosmic acceleration [37, 38] may not teach us that the universe will certainly last much longer than the possible finite lifetimes of k = +1 matter-dominated FRW models previously considered, but it may instead have the implication that our universe is actually decaying even faster than what was previously considered.


73 posted on 01/21/2007 3:10:34 PM PST by snarks_when_bored
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-73 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson