CERN accepts the idea of search for multiverses and other dimensions

This is a satirical website. Don't take it Seriously. It's a joke.

2059 39245 Shares

Since CERN (European Organization for Nuclear Research) there was the idea of search for multiverses and other dimensions, and the development of massive projects for search for those, despite the massive support of several CERN scientists and the possibility of massive investments, CERN took several decades to put this in practice and only in 2021 it was finally able to start with the massive project for the creation of machines for search and test multiverse hypothesis and hypothesis about other dimensions and post-physical hypothesis as well. The most exciting news is that this first project is expected to be able to collect the data on other dimensions and even on other universes and to measure their properties, which will allow to test the multiverse hypothesis and to put the question about the beginning of the multiverse. In this paper we will not discuss the CERN project for testing other dimensions, because there are already many publications on this subject (see [@Abreu:2017swn; @Abreu:2017xkn; @Abreu:2017yqg; @Abreu:2018njd] for example). Instead we will concentrate on a special property of the multiverse of the “big bang” universes, and that is so called entanglement. The main question that we want to answer in this paper is the following: can you extract the information about the “big bang” from the observable universe if it was a part of the multiverse? This question can be answered by studying the property of entanglement in the multiverse, and in this case we are going to use the concept of entanglement between universes and universes. The main goal of the paper is to find conditions on the multiverse that would imply non-observability of the “big bang” (i.e. no extraction of the information about it from the multiverse). This information is not known to the physicist, but is available only to the information encoded in the multiverse itself and is hidden from any external observer. The paper is organized as follows: In Sec. [secconfmult] we shortly review the definition of the multiverse. Then in Sec. [sectbun] we introduce the term “big bang” universe in the multiverse and examine the property of entanglement between universes and universes in the multiverse. In Sec. [seccond] we use these properties of the multiverse to find conditions that would imply non-observability of the big bang and in Sec. [secconc] we make the conclusion. Confining multiverse {secconfmult} ==================== There are two definitions of the multiverse, and it is important to understand which one is used. In this paper we consider the multiverse as the union of all spacetime sectors in which the observable universe is a part of it. One can formulate this union using some conditions on the spacetime: First of all, one has to assume that in each spacetime there are infinite copies of the observable universe. (Of course, the observer can observe only one copy. But there could be different observers with different observations and each observer sees some copies of the universe.) Second, we consider only static universes. (The static means that in every point of the universe there is a timelike Killing vector field pointing along the time direction of the metric. This means that only the spatial coordinates are dynamical and all timelike events can be moved to the infinity by the Killing field in a certain Lorentzian spacetime. If a spacetime is not static then there is no one-to-one correspondence between timelike Killing vector fields and time direction, and there are timelike events that cannot be moved to the infinity.) The dynamics of the universe in one spacetime can be viewed as the dynamics in another spacetime with the same metric. So one can consider all universes in the multiverse as different universes with different metrics. Third, the universes must be causally connected, so a certain observer can look through the universe as a whole and consider the other observers as the observers of his own universe. (In the case of the two-universe models of eternal inflation there is a certain observer who sees the whole universe as his own universe.) The causality means that the causally connected observers are in different universes, but there is the connection between their universes. For example, the causally connected observers can communicate through the connection. {width="0.6linewidth"} As it was mentioned above, the multiverse is a quantum system, so it can be modeled using quantum mechanics. We should distinguish quantum states in the models, where the state of the universe means some classical state of the entire universe. This is the state of the observer in the considered model. In some models of the multiverse there are superpositions of quantum states, which means that there are different universes. For example, this is the case in a version of chaotic inflation (Fig. [fi:2]). In another model the universe is defined as a quantum system, but it is in a pure state. Then one has just the model of a single universe with some observers. If the observers are identical, then this model reduces to the eternal inflation model. The multiverse models which can be discussed by observers cannot be related to the concept of the universe, because they use classical language. For example, the universe can be considered as classical or as a quantum system, depending on how much the universe can be considered as a quantum system. One can ask which questions can be considered as classical and which can be considered as quantum in the universes which are part of the multiverse. Then we can speak about classical and quantum models of the multiverse. {width="0.9linewidth"} Discussion ========== It seems to be an impossible situation, because if the causally connected observers consider their universes as being parts of the multiverse, they cannot think about each other. One can even say that all the observers can consider themselves to be the observers of the single universe. It seems that these approaches are contradictory. But one has to remember that the observers can consider themselves as observers of the multiverse, because they are observers of their universes. One can then ask what they are. The answer is that they are identical, so they are the observers of the same universe. The observers which consider themselves to be the observers of the multiverse exist in this universe. The observers can consider themselves to be observers of each other. If we change the point of view, then we change the position, but if we change the point of view, then the observers are the same. The observers can then be considered to be the observers of the multiverse. To be an observer is to be the observer of something. To be an observer is to consider oneself to be the observer of something. If one is not the observer, but he is not to be an observer, because he is not the observer of something, then one is nothing. This situation is not related to the situation of an observer being conscious. An observer can be conscious or not conscious, but he can not be conscious and also observer. He is conscious of something, and conscious of himself as an observer. He can then choose to think that he is not conscious, or he can realize that he is conscious, but he is an observer of himself. The observer can then consider himself as observer, or he can consider himself not as observer, but as an observer. There is no difference because we cannot think about our observer without thinking about our observer, so it is the same. It is not the same if one considers oneself as the observer and then he considers himself to be observer, because then he thinks of himself as not being observer, but he thinks of himself as being observer.

This is a satirical website. Don't take it Seriously. It's a joke.