Your understanding of the multiverse might be missing some information.
The idea of a multiverse is not original to quantum mechanics or to string theory. It probably originated with ancient Greek philosophy, but may be even older than that. It is not a scientific idea; it is a religious notion.
The many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics postulates a multiverse to explain the problem of wave function collapse, but this is not a scientific notion either. Quantum mechanics has many "interpretations," none of which make any testable predictions. The many-worlds case argues that since from a quantum state of many vectors only one vector will be measured, that technically all the vectors are measured, just in different universes.
Leonard Susskind, who likes this interpretation, postulated that the same was true of the many vacuum states of string theory. And he also tried to convince people that this explains the cosmological constant because applying the anthropological principle to a multiverse would imply we would only exist in a universe with an appropriate cosmological constant. I don't have to say that this isn't a scientific notion, because we left all science behind several kilometres ago.
Your understanding of science might be missing some information. Just so you understand, something isn't "not science" just because you don't agree with it or understand.
The specific idea of the multiverse being discussed is from quantum physics, and has nothing to do with religion. And to be clear, the multiverse appears in the math of quantum mechanics, regardless of interpretation. Interpretations are just about whether there is some unknown mechanism that stops the multiverse becoming "real".
Also, plenty of interpretations do make testable predictions.
The mathematics of quantum mechanics cannot be said to imply the existence of the multiverse without an interpretation. Just think about it, the Copenhagen interpretation, for example, doesn't require a multiverse.
That's the whole point of interpretations. Math doesn't NECESSARILY tell you something about nature.
And I say the multiverse isn't a scientific notion because it's unfalsifiable. This is one of the necessary qualities of scientific hypotheses. Individual multiverse models may be falsifiable, and some of those may be scientific models, but no evidence exist that any of these models are correct.
The math absolutely implies a multiverse without an interpretation. The Copenhagen interpretation is one of those interpretations I mentioned that proposes that some mechanism exists that destroys other parts of the wave function to prevent the multiverse becoming "real".
It is also unfalsifiable to claim that matter that slips past the cosmological horizon continues to exist outside of the observable universe, should we thus also conclude that any discussion of reality outside our hubble volume at all is inherently not science?
That's where interpretations come in. What is the physical relationship between nature and the wave function? Nobody knows. But interpretations guess and postulate .
Yes, the idea that there is a point beyond which we cannot see is unfalsifiable, because no matter how far one looked, one could always claim that one simply hadn't looked far enough. (It is worth noting that this is the starting point of Bayesian reasoning, which underlies much of modern science. It is the minimum assumption. The maximum assumption would be that everything known now is the extent of all that exists.) However, the cosmological considerations are about something else. It is observed that the universe is expanding . Our cosmological model to explain this is based on General Relativity with a positive cosmological constant .
And if we assume General Relativity is correct (we don't have to, but nobody has found anything better ), one of its predictions is a Cosmological Horizon at a particular place with respect to any point in the universe. This isn't testable, but it's a prediction of a testable theory (General Relativity) and that theory is the simplest, most successful we have in fundamental physics.
Your understanding of the multiverse might be missing some information.
The idea of a multiverse is not original to quantum mechanics or to string theory. It probably originated with ancient Greek philosophy, but may be even older than that. It is not a scientific idea; it is a religious notion.
The many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics postulates a multiverse to explain the problem of wave function collapse, but this is not a scientific notion either. Quantum mechanics has many "interpretations," none of which make any testable predictions. The many-worlds case argues that since from a quantum state of many vectors only one vector will be measured, that technically all the vectors are measured, just in different universes.
Leonard Susskind, who likes this interpretation, postulated that the same was true of the many vacuum states of string theory. And he also tried to convince people that this explains the cosmological constant because applying the anthropological principle to a multiverse would imply we would only exist in a universe with an appropriate cosmological constant. I don't have to say that this isn't a scientific notion, because we left all science behind several kilometres ago.
Your understanding of science might be missing some information. Just so you understand, something isn't "not science" just because you don't agree with it or understand.
The specific idea of the multiverse being discussed is from quantum physics, and has nothing to do with religion. And to be clear, the multiverse appears in the math of quantum mechanics, regardless of interpretation. Interpretations are just about whether there is some unknown mechanism that stops the multiverse becoming "real".
Also, plenty of interpretations do make testable predictions.
The mathematics of quantum mechanics cannot be said to imply the existence of the multiverse without an interpretation. Just think about it, the Copenhagen interpretation, for example, doesn't require a multiverse.
That's the whole point of interpretations. Math doesn't NECESSARILY tell you something about nature.
The idea of a multiverse in quantum mechanics is an interpretation.
And I say the multiverse isn't a scientific notion because it's unfalsifiable. This is one of the necessary qualities of scientific hypotheses. Individual multiverse models may be falsifiable, and some of those may be scientific models, but no evidence exist that any of these models are correct.
The math absolutely implies a multiverse without an interpretation. The Copenhagen interpretation is one of those interpretations I mentioned that proposes that some mechanism exists that destroys other parts of the wave function to prevent the multiverse becoming "real".
It is also unfalsifiable to claim that matter that slips past the cosmological horizon continues to exist outside of the observable universe, should we thus also conclude that any discussion of reality outside our hubble volume at all is inherently not science?
You're just describing a wave function as a multiverse . The measurement problem remains unsolved, and therefore nobody can observe a wave function. Call that inner product of vectors in a Hilbert Space a multiverse if you will, but I don't think we can call it anything until we have a solution to the measurement problem.
That's where interpretations come in. What is the physical relationship between nature and the wave function? Nobody knows. But interpretations guess and postulate .
Yes, the idea that there is a point beyond which we cannot see is unfalsifiable, because no matter how far one looked, one could always claim that one simply hadn't looked far enough. (It is worth noting that this is the starting point of Bayesian reasoning, which underlies much of modern science. It is the minimum assumption. The maximum assumption would be that everything known now is the extent of all that exists.) However, the cosmological considerations are about something else. It is observed that the universe is expanding . Our cosmological model to explain this is based on General Relativity with a positive cosmological constant .
And if we assume General Relativity is correct (we don't have to, but nobody has found anything better ), one of its predictions is a Cosmological Horizon at a particular place with respect to any point in the universe. This isn't testable, but it's a prediction of a testable theory (General Relativity) and that theory is the simplest, most successful we have in fundamental physics.