Multiverse Theories Explained: Bubbles, Branes and Many Worlds

Multiverse Ideas: What the Theories Claim and Leave Open

Is our universe the only one? Physicists take the question seriously, but there is no single "multiverse theory". Instead, several separate lines of reasoning each suggest that what we can see may be part of something larger. In a short 2014 video, MinutePhysics sorted the best-known ideas into three groups: bubble universes that grow out of cosmic inflation, membranes (or "branes") from string theory, and the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. None of them has been confirmed by observation, and some scientists doubt they ever can be.

Here is what each idea actually claims, where it comes from, and what the evidence does and does not show.

Three ideas in one short video

The video, titled The True Science of Parallel Universes, is a good starting point because it keeps the three ideas apart. That matters. They come from different branches of physics, rest on different assumptions and would produce very different kinds of "other universes". Treating them as three versions of one discovery is one of the most common mistakes in popular writing on the subject.

It also helps to remember Carl Sagan's definition from the opening of Cosmos (1980): "The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be." Multiverse ideas ask whether the part we can observe is all there is, or only one region of something far bigger.

Bubble universes and eternal inflation

The first idea grows out of cosmic inflation, the proposal that the very early universe expanded extraordinarily fast for a tiny fraction of a second. Inflation explains several features of the sky well, such as why the universe looks so uniform in every direction, and it is the leading model for that early period.

In some versions, called eternal inflation, the expansion never stops everywhere at once. Space as a whole keeps inflating, while isolated regions calm down and become "bubbles" like ours. Andrei Linde and Alexander Vilenkin are among the physicists best known for developing this picture. Each bubble could even end up with different physical constants, which is why the idea is linked to debates about why our universe seems suited to life.

The appeal is that bubble universes are not an extra assumption added for fun; they appear as a by-product of a model many cosmologists already use. The weakness is that inflation itself, let alone its eternal form, has not been directly confirmed.

Branes from string theory

The second group comes from string theory, which proposes that the basic ingredients of nature are tiny vibrating strings and that space has extra dimensions we do not notice. In brane cosmology, our entire three-dimensional universe sits on a membrane, or brane, floating in a higher-dimensional space sometimes called the "bulk". Other branes could float nearby.

In cyclic versions of the idea, branes occasionally collide, and each collision could set off something like a Big Bang. The branes then drift apart, and the process may repeat over immense spans of time. These models are elegant, but they inherit string theory's biggest problem: so far no experiment has found evidence for strings or for the extra dimensions they need.

The many-worlds interpretation

The third idea is quite different, because it is not about distant regions of space at all. In 1957 the American physicist Hugh Everett III proposed what is now called the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. Quantum theory describes particles as being in combinations of possible states until they are measured. Most interpretations say that measurement somehow picks one outcome. Everett suggested that nothing is picked: every possible outcome happens, each in its own branch of reality.

Many-worlds is one of several mainstream interpretations of quantum mechanics and has prominent supporters, but it is not a proven fact, and physicists still argue over whether the other branches should be thought of as real. The catchy name came later, when Bryce DeWitt popularised the idea in the 1970s. No experiment carried out so far can tell many-worlds apart from its rivals; proposed tests would require keeping large objects in quantum superposition, which is far beyond current technology. That is why the debate is so hard to settle.

Fractal patterns like this one, which repeat their shape at every scale, are often used to illustrate the idea of worlds within worlds. They are a lovely metaphor, but none of the three multiverse ideas is literally a fractal, and atoms are not tiny universes.

What the 2014 headlines got wrong

In March 2014 the BICEP2 team announced that it had detected a twisting pattern, called B-mode polarisation, in the cosmic microwave background, and linked it to gravitational waves from inflation. For a few months it looked like strong support for inflation, and many popular articles at the time presented it as evidence that the multiverse was becoming hard to doubt.

The claim did not survive. Data from the Planck satellite showed that dust in our own galaxy could produce a signal as strong as the one BICEP2 had seen, and a joint BICEP2/Keck Array and Planck analysis published in January 2015 concluded that the signal could be fully explained by that dust. Primordial gravitational waves of this kind have still not been detected, though newer instruments are searching with far greater sensitivity.

A second figure often repeated in older posts is that "99%" of the universe is invisible. Current measurements, based on Planck data, put dark energy at about 68% and dark matter at about 27% of the universe's total content, with ordinary matter at roughly 5%. So about 95% is unseen, still a remarkable figure, but not 99%.

It is also worth correcting a common phrasing: parallel or mirror universes are hypotheses, not established theories. None has been observed.

Can a multiverse ever be tested?

This is the heart of the scientific argument. Critics such as the cosmologist George Ellis have argued that universes with no causal connection to ours can never be observed, which would place them outside science. Paul Steinhardt, one of the original architects of inflation, has become a leading critic of both eternal inflation and the multiverse.

Supporters reply that a theory can earn trust through the predictions it makes about our own universe, even if some of its consequences remain out of reach. There have also been attempts at direct tests. Around 2010 and 2011 a team led by Stephen Feeney searched the cosmic microwave background for circular "bruises" that a collision with another bubble universe might leave behind. Later analyses using sharper Planck data found no statistically significant sign of such collisions.

The fair summary is that multiverse ideas are serious physics at the speculative edge, not established fact and not mere fantasy. When you read a headline about "proof" of parallel universes, it is worth asking which idea is involved, what was actually measured and whether the result has been checked by an independent team. The same habits apply to other big claims, as in our look at how scientists would assess a discovery of life beyond Earth.

Sources: MinutePhysics: The True Science of Parallel Universes; Wikipedia: Multiverse; Wikipedia: BICEP and Keck Array; Wikipedia: Many-worlds interpretation; Wikipedia: Dark energy. Earlier commentary shared by The Spirit Science.

Related: