WHAT TYPE OF UNIVERSE DO WE LIVE IN?

What Type of Universe Do We Live In?

Andrew Ha

University of North Carolina at Charlotte

WHAT TYPE OF UNIVERSE DO WE LIVE IN? 2

Abstract

Three theories about the nature of our universe are: The Big Bang Theory, Multiverse

Theory, and The Simulation Theory. The use of discussion about the advantages and

disadvantages of each theory will be based on a variety of sources based on scientific

observational research and logical reasoning. The purpose of discussing the research is to give a

general background of each theory, the advantages of each theory, the disadvantages, and an

interpretation of the data itself. At the end of the discussion, I will input "my" insight on the

theories with what I think makes sense logically and my reasoning behind.
WHAT TYPE OF UNIVERSE DO WE LIVE IN? 3

Introduction

When people talk about the universe--- the first image that forms in most people's minds

is a beautiful picture of countless stars, planets, and galaxies that span over a vast blank space.

To me though, when I imagine the universe, I imagine more than just the beautiful visual of it. I

imagine and see all the calculations that happened to create the universe we live in. It's almost as

if I'm looking at a matrix code of the universe full of scrolling numbers and calculations. Some

people may be disheartened by the fact that our universe is controlled by such complicated

mathematics and resort to find an easier way of understatement. Reliant on say even a

supernatural being? But to me, I think the fact that our universe is so complicated and that there's

so much more to understand, is fascinating. The only problem is that there is not a complete and

accurate explanation of how the universe began. The problem is so massive that there's even a

main field of study in trying to understand our universe's beginning and development. Being

Cosmology. Which theory of the universe is the most plausible and reasonable is truly a question

I hope to investigate and answer.

Research

The most accepted model of the universe we currently live in according to UCLA is the

Big Bang Theory (Wright, 2013). This theory summarized in my best understanding and

simplification skills states that our universe was created from a tiny and highly volatile point

most commonly known as The Singularity (Wong, 1999). This Singularity some point in time

absorbed too much energy and exploded (Wong, 1999). Thus, the universe was created. Using a

metaphor similar to one discussed later on by Erin Bow in his blog (Bow, 2014). Imagine a kettle
WHAT TYPE OF UNIVERSE DO WE LIVE IN? 4

filled with water sitting on a hot stove heating up. If you sit there and look at the kettle for a

certain period you’ll notice it’ll become to heat up and violently shake. Foam from the water

overheating will begin to leak out of the kettle as it gets too hot and in the most extreme case it’ll

even blow up. The nature of the water in the kettle foaming suddenly from the kettle getting too

hot is essentially how The Singularity exploded and; thus, the premises of the Big Bang Theory.

Clara Moskowitz summarizes in her Space.com blog according to NASA research--- Explains

how within the first second the universe was created temperatures shot up to 10 billion-degrees

Fahrenheit, (Yes Fahrenheit) (Moskowitz, 2013). Eventually, over millions and millions of years,

the universe began to cool down and began forming the more solid and widely filled universe as

we know it today (Moskowitz, 2013). The science and observational evidence supporting the Big

Bang Theory is overwhelming and has led to a general acceptance in the scientific community as

being how our Universe was created (Wright, 2013). To begin discussing the evidence though

there are a couple fundamental scientific fact/belief that must be recognized before going into

detail being: (1) We live in an expanding universe; (2) If we are expanding we must have

expanded from something small, a “Singularity”; (3) If we know the universe and space is

expanding that must mean we can physically retrace the expansion, perhaps I dare to say, “Go

back in time.” One vital piece of evidence that helps prove the Big Bang Theory is the discovery

of the claimed CMB or Cosmic Microwave Background (Moskowitz, 2013). The CMB is cosmic

radiation that sprung out from the supposed Big Bang after it exploded and is the earliest form of

radiation we have found to date. (Moskowitz, 2013). It was first discovered in 1964 by radio

astronomers Robert Wilson and Arno Penzias while they were studying the faint microwave

signaled of the Milky Way. (“How the Universe Was Created”, 2014). In the middle of their

observation, they detected a mysterious sound in the depths of the Milky Way that turned out to
WHAT TYPE OF UNIVERSE DO WE LIVE IN? 5

be a signal of radiation from the Big Bang itself (“How The Universe Was Created”, 2014). The

biggest flaw though which absolutely destroys the theory at the same time is that of, how did the

Singularity come to be? Jack Wong (1999) quotes, “All the theories and laws of physics used to

describe the universe as it is today, break down when attempting to explain the behavior of the

singularity. This implies that science can deal with everything that occurred after the big bang,

but not before or during the actual big bang.” Nothing we know in physics so far has helped the

mathematics behind The Singularity. The fact that we cannot explain mathematically what

happened before The Singularity begs to differ if this theory truly does explain how our universe

was created. The Big Bang theory though is coherent mathematically and a plausible way of

explaining a universe from The Singularity. (Wong, 1999)

One theory that gets rid of a couple flaws of The Big Bang is the Multiverse theory.

Going back to the pot, and the kettle example. Imagine the hot pot on top of the burning kettle.

Recall how that when the pot reached a certain temperature the water inside began to boil and

bubble up. Each one of those mini bubbles is a universe, and we are basically one of those mini

bubbles (Bow, 2014). A universe made from a parent universe beside many other small

universes. Not confusing at all right? This though is the cosmic inflation model of the

hypothesized Multiverse theory (Bow, 2014). Now, what is the evidence for this model? Well in

truth, there really is no “observable evidence” that has been tested. Instead, this theory is

dependent on a controversial topic called the Inflation Field (Bow, 2014). "Inflation is a general

term for models of the very early Universe which involve a short period of extremely rapid

(exponential) expansion.” (Griffon, 1996). Inflation is the same thing as the many bubbles that

formed out of the boiling pot. To compare it to the Big Bang. Instead, of a universe being created

from a Singularity that blew up--- There was a set period where cosmic particles contracted and
WHAT TYPE OF UNIVERSE DO WE LIVE IN? 6

expanded in an endless cycle, creating many Big Bang equivalent explosions (Bow, 2014).

Critics of this Inflation Field argue that we cannot use the Inflation Field as a plausible model as

it cannot be scientifically used as it enters the domain of metaphysics. (Bow, 2014). On the other

hand, those who do argue in favor of the inflation field. Say that it's “The next logical step in the

inflation story.” (Bow, 2014). Meaning that the Inflation Field is the explanation needed in order

to state how universal inflation can work properly and is the logical step to take. There though

has been attempts to try to explain how a Multiverse can arrive without having the Inflation

Field. The problem with most of those theories though is that it lacks the mathematically

evidence behind it to support it and therefore cannot be tested. (Bow,2014). There is a working

mathematical sense in this hypothesis though. The research is being led by scientist Matthew

Johnson. Johnson creates computer simulations of the universe and uses it to test testable

predictions based on the inflation field (Bow, 2014). “We’re now able to say that some models

predict something that we should be able to see, and since we don’t, in fact, see it, we can rule

those models out.” (Bow, 2014) Johnson simulations help basically to see what predictions work

out in the multiverse theory and shows that the theory itself is testable in a sense that we have the

ability to learn if we are living in a Multiverse or not.

Moving apart from General Cosmology. One theory of the universe that has gained much

attention is the Simulation Theory. The Simulation theory states that our universe is a computer

simulation created by a post-civilization of humankind where technology surpassed the limits of

reality (Bostrom 2013). This theory specifically has gained much attention and favor from many

renowned scientists such as Elon Musk and Neil Degrasse Tyson. Elon Musk in an interview

with Vox gives a great explanation of why he thinks we are in a simulation. Elon summarizes

that technology has progressed an immense amount in a short period (Recode, 2016). He uses an
WHAT TYPE OF UNIVERSE DO WE LIVE IN? 7

example of how a little over forty years ago we had a simple game called Pong (Recode, 2016).

Forty years later we are now already playing with virtual simulation (Recode, 2016). What

technological advances can we make in a thousand-years? (Recode, 2016) Is what he poses next.

There are two main questions though that questions the legitimacy of this theory. Those two

questions being, do we have the technological capacity to simulate the universe and is there

evidence that we are living in one? Both these questions are addressed in Nick Bostrom paper

Are You Living In A Computer Simulation. Nick Bostrom states how we can figure out the

computing power necessary to emulate both the human mind and the surrounding environment

(Bostrom, 2003). We can come to this conclusion by replicating the functionality of one nervous

tissue we know very well about--- Then taking this replication and equating it to the whole

human brain (Bostrom, 2003) By doing this, we would replicate the brain to yield a computing

value of about ten to the fourteenth operations per second (Bostrom, 2003). Basically, we are

replicating a piece of tissue we understand enough about and then calculating the processing

power of the whole brain based on that one piece. The significance to this is that ten to the

fourteenth operations per second is really not that high. Nick references a current project by Seth

Lloyd who is currently working on a quantum computer that has almost the same computing

power theorized in the math above (Bostrom, 2003). To be more specific, Lloyd computer can

work on a “computer of 5*1050 logical operations per second carried out on ~1031 bits.”

(Bostrom, 2003). If you are mathematically genius and can make sense of those numbers by

yourself, great. For our sake, Nick says that to simulate the human brain is not in far reach

compared to computing power we are already working, and if you don’t believe it the numbers

are above (Bostrom, 2003.) Now, what about everything outside of consciousness and the human

brain? How much computing power would it take to simulate that? Using a rough estimation, it
WHAT TYPE OF UNIVERSE DO WE LIVE IN? 8

would only take about 10^33-10^36 operations (Bostrom, 2003) How they got this number was a

bit radical in "my" opinion but none of the less “is” feasible. The first thing Nick says though is

that there is absolutely no way to simulate the universe to a quantum level. (Bostrom, 2003)

Quantum level meaning the itty-bitty parts that create us. How they solved this problem though

was by stating the science we knew was just a lie, or a small visual in the face of a larger

scientific field outside of our reach and intelligence (Bostrom, 2003). Our understanding of how

the universe is in truth a cop-out created by our simulator. “– only whatever is required to ensure

that the simulated humans, interacting in normal human ways with their simulated environment,

don’t notice any irregularities. The microscopic structure of the inside of the Earth can be safely

omitted” (Bostrom, 2003). Here is the broader and general explanation if my short summary of it

was too blunt for your taste. So basically, we have proven according to Nick Bostrom paper that

yes, we have the ability or the potential ability to simulate the universe. Therefore, also

addressing the question of is it possible to exist in a simulated universe.

Discussion

Now that we have discussed three different theories about the universe 1.) The Big Bang

Theory, 2.) Inflation Theory, 3.) Simulation theory---Which one is the one that is the most

convincing to me? In all honesty though, to be truthful, all of them are fairly unconvincing based

on their flaws. For me, the Simulation theory in logic makes the strongest argument. It answers

the question of the nature of consciousness and our limitation to understand ourselves to the

fullest. Some may argue that the Simulation Theory is just a cop-out to avoid the big questions

that would make it flawed in context with how Nick Bostrom stated in his paper that we don’t

really need to simulate the facts behind real physics but just the fraction of it that applies to our
WHAT TYPE OF UNIVERSE DO WE LIVE IN? 9

universe. But the ongoing empirical evidence and in thorough thinking that Nick stated in his

paper was promising and in the future, I think it can be a very convincing theory. The Multiverse

theory on the other hand. It really doesn’t make much sense to me and is hard to be convinced

by. To first start off there is really no evidence supporting the fact we live in a universe

surrounded by billions of other ones around. The level of theoretical math that was implied with

the theory was totally out of scope and I felt like I was just looking at a bunch of numbers thrown

onto a piece of paper. Now is the level of complexity of a theory a valid reason to dismiss it?

Sadly not. Can I use other credible scientist thoughts on the theory as a credible source?

Somewhat. But, the question was what did I found convincing and so I'm going to throw out the

Multiverse theory. For me though and many people like the Big Bang Theory is almost so

convincing like it's so close to being the answer that I just want to forget about its flaws and

forget about it. Sadly, though that is impossible and I mean if The Big Bang Theory didn’t have

the flaws it did, there would be no need to write this paper as we would have long known the

nature of our universe. The fact that mathematically all works of physics fail to explain the

before and origins of the Singularity makes matters very complicated. Imagining something from

absolute nothing from just an ordinary logical sense is very hard. I mean even when someone

imagines nothing they probably or thinking about black or white which in fact is something is it

not? So, before there is truly a convincing way of explaining nothing, I keep skepticism of the

Big Bang Theory but I totally agree with the theory in explaining everything after the Big Bang.

Conclusion

Trying to figure out what type of universe we live in is truly a troubling question. By

discussing three general theories of the kind of universe we live in and the evidence supporting
WHAT TYPE OF UNIVERSE DO WE LIVE IN? 10

it. I have come to the conclusion that I support the Big Bang Theory the most due to its

overwhelming observational and empirical evidence that has already been discovered by it. The

evidence of the CMB which shows that there truly was near the beginning of the universe some

type of catastrophic explosion that can be linked to the Big Bang is disprovable. I think in time

that we will be able to explain the nature of the Singularity and how it came to be in the first

place. Therefore, that is why I think the Big Bang Theory is the most convincing theory of what

type of Universe we live in and how it began. This does not mean I disapprove of the other two

theories. The reason why I choose The Big Bang over either the Multiverse or the Simulation

Theory is due to lack of logic behind what I find far-fetched empirical evidence supporting the

remaining two theories that leaves me skeptical.

 WHAT TYPE OF UNIVERSE DO WE LIVE IN? 11

References

Bostrom, N. (2003). Are We Living in A Computer Simulation? The Philosophical

Quartery,53(211), __1-13. doi:10.3897/bdj.4.e7720.figure2f

Bow, E. (2017, June 28). Is The Universe A Bubble? Let's Check. Retrieved April 14, 2018, from
___ https://insidetheperimeter.ca/universe-bubble-lets-check/

Future - Big Bang: How the Universe was created. (2014, August 12). Retrieved April 16, 2018,
___from http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20140812-how-was-the-universe-created

Gribbons, J.(1996). Inflation for Beginners. Retrieved April 14, 2018, from
___fhttp://aether.lbl.gov/www/science/inflation-beginners.html

Perry, P. (2017, December 17). There was no 'big bang', radical theory of the universe states.
___f Retrieved March 29, 2018, from http://bigthink.com/philip-perry/there-was-no-big-bang-
___f radical-theory-of-the-universe-states

Recode, (2016, July 1). Is life a video game? | Elon Musk | Code Conference 2016[mp4] ___f
___f Rerived from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2KK_kzrJPS8

Shoemaker, N. (2016, November 22). Is There Evidence That We’re Living in a Computer
___Simulation? Retrieved April 18, 2018, from http://bigthink.com/natalie-shoemaker/question-
___the-nature-of-your-reality-with-neil-degrasse-tyson-brian-greene

Wong, J. (1999, Spring). CREATING A UNIVERSE-CREATION THEORY. Retrieved ___f

___f March 29, 2018, from https://web.uvic.ca/~jtwong/newtheories.htm
WHAT TYPE OF UNIVERSE DO WE LIVE IN? 12

Wright, E. L. (2013, May 24). Frequently Asked Questions in Cosmology. Retrieved April 10,
___f 2018, from http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#bestfit
WHAT TYPE OF UNIVERSE DO WE LIVE IN? 13

Reflection

Before doing this project I only thought of the term inquiry as posing a question or just thinking
about one. After doing this project I can see now that it has to entitle both the posing of the
question and the act of pursuing to answer the question at hand. I learned from the inquiry
process in terms of how to be active in trying to research and answer questions or topics of
discussion at hand. Therefore, I feel like if one constantly takes this approach to actively trying
to formulate answers based on research. The inquiry process can in fact shape what you do in
and how you act in other aspects of your live-in terms of being more active. In this certain
inquiry process where I already knew a mix of information about the topic at hand I was
researching. I think the most interesting thing for me was trying to defamiliarize myself with the
knowledge I already knew and conveying into my writing so I can teach my audience the topic at
hand who were not maybe as familiar with the topic or on the same level. I had so much struggle
with both the writing and research process of this paper. It is not new after I constantly have
nagged and cried about many aspects of this paper I felt very unconfident in. As you know in
terms of research wise, there was so much to know. I choose such a wide information
encompassing topic that it was really hard to try to answer the question at hand well. I was sitting
here learning about physics, philosophy, cosmology, astrophysics, and even computer science. I
mean, I was trying to answer a very complicated question when I barely even knew the premises
or basics of where the conversation was even taking place. Then of course in terms of writing
wise, that too was an obvious struggle. As you already knew I can’t write for my life.
Transitioning between sentences for me is just so complicated when I want to talk about so much
without wanting my writing to be choppy but in turn it just makes it confusing. I did though try
to make an active approach and attempted new grammatical rules I never used before or were not
familiar with in an attempt to address that problem. In terms of how well I did in doing so? I’d
probably give myself around a six/ten. A very lenient rating as I want to reward myself for taking
such an effort in trying to fix my writing. Anyways, the importance of looking at the context and
background of my question. Well by looking at the context and background for my question it
would have been easy to tell that my question is very encompassing and a slightly difficult
question to answer at that. Looking at the context of my question though is important overall
because it lays down the foundation of answering the question where to start with the research or
it helps identify how to approach a certain topic. What am I most proud of in the process of the
paper? I feel very rewarding that I can rant off about general knowledge in many fields of
science without even taking a course into it. I think the actual knowledge I gained from the time I
spent gathering and doing my research makes me very contempt and proud.(Although it gave me
many headaches and I was very tempted to switch topics at many times throughout doing this
paper. My question and approach to the question changed dramatically throughout the process of
this paper. Once I begin to do actual hard research into the question at hand I realized that I
wasn't even asking the right question in the first place or that I was phrasing it in a way that
made it kind of unanswerable and dull. I think that my contribution to my writing group overall
was fairly high. I have a compelling passion to be somewhat nosy and thirst for knowledge so I
would usually pester to a lot of my group members about their project and how they approached
their question at hand. Especially in terms of Jarret’s paper since he was doing Economics and I
have a high love for Macroeconomics so I think that I was really able to give high and positive
feedback into his paper and to others. I think that my group members really helped me in shaping
how I showed the evidence for my paper. My target audience was science students who were
WHAT TYPE OF UNIVERSE DO WE LIVE IN? 14

compelled by our universe. When my group members told me that some of my information was
very hard to understand in terms of content it made me realize I was in king of the right ballpark
and was able to summarize and shorten the content more in order for it to make sense. I very
somewhat humbly think I gave a lot of effort into this project in terms of research wise. My
research was so hard for me because I have such a small knowledge on science that I really had
to go out of my way and understand what in the world I was talking about. I feel like I wasn't
able to apply my knowledge that well because I was fearful of dragging on too much and was
scared that a lot of the research at the hand was too difficult to summarize for the sake of this
paper.