What would you think about the idea that there is , somewhere in an other dimension, a parallel universe where your life looks completely different ? It is even possible that you don’t exist. Is it just a twist of the mind, or is it something more difficult to understand..


Multiverse is a hypothetical model that explains why there could be parallel universes, and what it means. The multiverse is said to contain all the energy, matter, space and time there is, in addition to the physical laws and constants. In other words, the multiverse describes everything that exists. The multiverse is made of infinite numbers of parallel universes, with their own physical laws, constants and further on.

Different types of parallel universes

Level 1 : Everything beyond our cosmological universe

If space is proven to be infinite , than there is a part of space we’ll never see, because light just can’t reach us. In this part of space everything is the same as in our own region of space : same physical laws, constants, mathematical structure. This is called the level 1 universe.

Level 2 : Universes with different physical constants

The chaotic inflation theory states that the multiverse is stretching as a whole. And will continue doing this till the end of times. Scientists also calculated that some regions of space just stop stretching and they form ‘bubbles’. These bubbles can have different properties , maybe the physical constants are different. These are called level 2 universes.

Level 3 : Different worlds according to quantummechanics

Quantumechanics describes an infinite number of parallel universes depending on actions. For example : you throw a die and the result is 6. You had a chance of 1/6 to throw this number. Quantummechanics now says that on the second the die stopped on 6 you created 6 parallel universes. In one universe the die stopped on 4, in an other it stopped on 3 and so on. So eventually you’ll have a quantum branch where you live in, but you will also live in the universe where the die stopped on 2, only we don’t notice or feel this universe. Quantummechanics is all about possibilities, it will never give an exact answer. So this universe, where you are now, would occur with 16.67% .

Level 4 : Ultimate ensemble

This level of parallel universe contains all equally real universes, described by abstract absolute mathematics. Mathetimatics that is defined, so abstract that it is stripped from al human interpretations.

My own conclusion

I don’t believe in random coincidence or destiny. If everything what we do produces a new parallel universe (cfr. Level 3) than its not a coincidence we do the one thing over the other.. Since both events happen anyway but in diffrent universes.We are experiencing the present event because we changed the outcome of both events by experiencing it ( = bottom line quantummechanics) . Maybe this is a way to mathematicise coincedence? What do you think ? Comment below, I would love to hear different opinions on this part where I am struggling.

Grtz H4oxer



  1. I myself am more a fan of the Omniverse theory. All multiverses are initialized with a completely different structure, and evolve over time to their most stable (think lowest energy) states. This would imply that part of those multiverses never even made it to their ‘Big Bang’ stadium, and others evolved into something more familiar to ours, yet entirely alien.

    It’s often stated that our universe has physical constants that are just too good to be random, and that life was ‘meant to be’. In my interpretation, you could compare this to a chess match against Gary Kasparov. Say you started playing chess against him on 100 boards. On every board you do a random move, even if it’s illegal. Every board with illegal moves is removed, and all the others are played on by Kasparov. Then you try 100 different moves on each of the remaining boards, and so on. Every board you lose on gets removed as well. Some time later, a guy walks by and sees you playing on say, 3 different boards against Kasparov, and you’re actually doing pretty well. He’d think you’re one of the greatest chess players ever, while you don’t even have a clue what you’re doing. This of course is a generalization of every evolution-based theory, but in my personal opinion, illustrates what everything ‘beyond’ our own universe looks like.

    1. Thanks for your comment!

      Reading your comment rises the next question : If a part of those multiverses never even made it to their ‘Big Bang’ stadium, that event alone , would it create yet another universe like where the big bang did evolved? If so , maybe the start of the whole multiuniverse was divided in two parallel universes , one that did evolved to the Big Bang Stadium and that one who failed to do so. And than again my question keeps on playing with my mind, would it be possible to mathematicise this start ? If that is possible we can also calculate where it ends, or how the bigger picture looks like ?

      Why do you prefer Omniverse ? I don’t really get it from your comment.. Cheers!

      1. Well, it actually reverses the causality here. Instead of seeing your ‘dice roll’ example as dividing the universe into 2 parallel ones, from the Omniverse perspective those 2 universes already existed, and were identical up to that specific point in time. More specifically, all the quantum dynamic uncertainty-related effects were equal to all observers until that moment in time. Thus implying that our universe is only one ‘leaf’ on a ‘branch’ (Multiverse) with the exact same physical constants but different (quantum dynamic or macroscopic) configurations. ‘Trees’ in this interpretation being Xenoverses (different constants _AND_ different physical laws all together) standing in the ‘forest’ called the Omniverse.

        Greetz, Tom

      2. So basically , you’re saying that omniverse is the ‘whole package’ of universes ? Is it right to assume you think that the 2 universes already exist and by experiencing and measuring it we change the outcome of it , with respect to the Copenhagen Interpretation? If so, I do think this is also very likely.

      3. Well yes, with the side note that the ‘probability’ of a certain measurement, as conceptualized by Heisenberg and Bohr, should be interpreted as “the odds that we’re already in the universe where that specific experimental outcome is measured” instead of “the odds that that measurement will be the outcome in our universe”.

        And I just feel that this is an interpretation that makes much more sense than implying that measurements ‘create’ parallel universes.

  2. Yes, you put me on a new track.. It’s certainely worth learning more about ! I follow you that the interpretation of already existing universes is more consistent. You think this could be a way to mathematicise the whole beginning , or is it just a strange twist of my mind and never possible?

    1. Although I haven’t researched this deep enough to be certain, it’s my opinion that we’ll never be able to precisely determine how our universe started, simply due to lack of data and the fact that it’s (probably) impossible to prove the existence of other universes.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s