All language subtitles for The Fabric of the Cosmos EP04 2011 BluRay

Lying just beneath everyday reality

is a breathtaking world,

where much of what we perceive about the universe is wrong.

physicist and best-selling author Brian Greene takes you

on a journey that bends the rules of human experience.

BRIAN GBEENE:Why don't we ever see events unfold in reverse order?

According to the laws of physics, this can happen.

It's a world that comes to light

as we probe the most extreme realms of fhe cosmos,

from black holes to the Big Bang

to the very heart of matter itself.

I'm going to have what he's having.

Here, empty space teems with ferocious activity.

The three-dimensional world may be just an illusion,

and there's no distinction

between past, present and future.

GREENE: But how could this be?

How could we be so wrong about something so familiar?

Does it bother us?

Absolutely.

There's no principle

built into the laws of nature

that say that theoretical physicists have to be happy.

It's a game-changing perspective

that opens up a new world of possibilities.

Coming up...

What if new universes were born all the time...

MAN: In this picture, the Big Bang is not a unique event.

...and ours was one of numerous parallel realities?

GREENE: Somewhere there's a duplicate of you and me

and everyone else.

Are we in a universe or a multiverse?

Right now on NOVA.

Major funding for NOVA is provided by the following:

And...

And by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting

and by contributions to your PBS station from:

Major funding for "The Fabric of the Cosmos"

is provided by the National Science Foundation.

And...

Supporting original research and public understanding

at science, technology,engineering and mathematics.

Additional fundingis provided by...

And the George D.Smith Fund.

BRIAN GBEENE: New York City.

They say there's nowhere else like it--

home to eight million people, countless structures, monuments

and landmarks, every one of them unique.

Or so we think.

Uniqueness is an idea so familiar,

we never even question it.

Experience tells us people and objects are one of a kind.

Why else would we visit museums and collect great masterpieces?

Yet a new picture at the cosmos

is coming to light in which nothing is unique.

Not that the world's great masterpieces are fakes.

Instead, I'm talking about something far more profound:

a new picture of the cosmos

that challenges the very notion at uniqueness,

one in which duplicates are inevitable.

And that's just the beginning.

There might be duplicates not just of objects,

but of you and me and everyone else.

But if this new picture is right,

where are these duplicates

and why haven't we ever seen them?

The answer may lie outside our universe.

There was a time when the word "universe"

meant "all there is," everything.

The notion of more than one universe,

more than one "everything," seemed impossible.

But perhaps if we could go beyond our solar system,

beyond the Milky Way, even beyond other distant galaxies,

past the end of the observable universe,

we'll find that there's more, a lot more,

that our universe is not alone.

There may be other universes.

In fact, there might be new ones being born all the time.

We may actually live

in an expanding sea of multiplying universes:

a"multiverse."

If we could visit these other universes,

we'd find that some might have basic properties of nature

so foreign that matter as we know it couldn't exist.

Others might have galaxies, stars, even a planet

that looks familiar, but with some surprising differences.

And if there are an infinite number at universes

in the multiverse, somewhere there's a place

where almost everything is identical to ours

except for the slightest details.

Like maybe there's another Brian Greene

who ends up in a different line of work.

STEVEN WEINBERG: If the multiverse is indeed infinite,

"then one is going to have to confront a lot of possibilities

that are very hard to imagine.

There will be other places where there will be Alan Guths

who will look and think and act exactly like me,

as well as many where the Alan Guths look and think

almost exactly like me, but with some small differences.

LEONARD SUSSKIND: Is it science?

Is it a part of metaphysics?

Is it just philosophy?

Is it religion?

Physicists tend not to ask those questions.

They just say, "Let's follow the logic."

And the logic seems to lead there.

GREENE: However unfamiliar and strange the multiverse might seem,

a growing number of scientists think it may be the final step

in a long line of radical revisions

to our picture of the cosmos.

That is, there was a time when we thought that the Earth

was at the center of the cosmos

and that everything else revolved around us.

Then, along came scientists like Galileo and Copernicus,

and they showed us

that it's the sun,not the Earth,

that's at the center of our solar system.

And our solar system?

It's just a little neighborhood

in the outskirts of a gigantic galaxy.

And our galaxy?

It's one of hundreds of billions of galaxies

that make up our universe.

Now, all of these ideas sounded outrageous

when they were first proposed,

but today, we don't even question them.

The idea of a multiverse may be similar.

It simply may require a drastic change

in our cosmic perspective.

On the other hand,

some scientists think that the multiverse

is nothing but a dead end for physics.

ANDREAS ALBRECHT: I'm very uncomfortable with the multiverse.

To become solid science, it's got a lot of growing up to do.

You know, it exists in the same way that,

you know, angels might exist.

We have to make our bets,

and I think right now the multiverse is a pretty good bet.

I think there's a good chance that the multiverse is real

and that a hundred years from now,

people might be convinced that it's real

GREENE: So, where did this idea come from,

and what's the evidence for it?

Well, several surprising discoveries suggest

that we really may be part of a multiverse.

The first of these discoveries

has to do with the generally accepted theory

of the origin of our universe: the Big Bang.

According to this theory,

our universe began some 14 billion years ago

in an intensely violent explosion.

Over billions of years, the universe cooled and coalesced,

allowing the formation of stars, planets and galaxies.

As a result of that explosion,

the universe is still expanding today.

But if you coud run the history of our universe in reverse,

all the way back to the beginning,

you'd find that the Big Bang theory tells us nothing

about what sent everything hurtling outward

in the first place.

GUTH: It's called the Big Bang theory,

but the one thing that it really says nothing about at all

is the bang itself.

It says nothing about what banged,

why it banged, or what happened before it banged.

GREENE: So, what fueled that violent explosion?

What force could have driven everything apart?

The quest to figure that out would bring scientists

face to face with the multiverse.

One physicist whose work

unexpectedly helped lay the foundation

for the multiverse idea is Alan Guth.

Today he's a professor at MIT.

But back in 1979, Guth and a colleague, Henry Tye,

were pursuing a new idea about how particles might have formed

in the early universe.

GUTH: Henry suggested to me that we should maybe look

at whether or not this new process that we were thinking of

would influence the expansion rate of the universe.

GREENE: Guth and Tye hadn't set out to investigate

the expansion rate of the universe

in the first moments after the Big Bang.

But Henry Tye's question

caused Guth to review their calculations one more time.

GUTH: I stayed up quite late that night

and went over the calculations very cerefully

trying to make sure everything was correct.

GREENE: As the night wore on,

Guth discovered something extraordinary in the equations

describing how new particles might have formed

in the early universe.

GUTH: I came to the shocking conclusion

that these new-fangled particle theories

would have a tremendous effect

on the expansion rate of the universe.

The kind of process henry and I were talking about

would drive the universe

into a period at incredibly rapid exponential expansion.

GREENE: What Guth found in the math

was evidence that in the extreme environment

at the very early universe, gravity can act in reverse.

Instead of pulling things together,

this "repulsive gravity" would repel everything around it,

causing a huge expansion.

"GUTH: I immediately became very excited about it

and scribbled out the calculation in my notebook,

and then at the end I wrote "spectacular realization"

with a double box around it,

because I realized that if it was right,

it could be very important.

GREENE: By discovering this"repulsive gravity,"

Alan Guth had unintentionally shed light

on the very beginning of the Big Bang.

Described mathematically, this force was so powerful,

it could take a bit of space as tiny as a molecule

and blow it up to the size of the Wilky Way galaxy

in less than a billionth of a billionth of a billionth

at a blink of an eye.

After this incredibly short outward burst,

space would continue to expand more slowly and cool,

allowing stars and galaxies to form,

just as they do in the Big Bang theory.

Guth called this short burst of expansion "inflation,"

and he believed it explained

what set the universe expanding in the first place.

The powerful, repulsive gravity of inflation

was the "bang" in the the Big Bang.

But despite having made a momentous breakthrough,

Alan Guth had an even more pressing concern.

I had no idea what my employment might be.

I was really looking for a more permanent job.

The inflationary universe scenario looks very exciting.

GUTH: So I went on actually a pretty long trip,

giving talks about this.

WEINBERG: Suddenly this idea caught on.

ALBRECHT: Talks about inflation were packed with people

from all areas of physics.

WEINBERG: Lots of astrophysical theorists,

including me, got very enthusiastic.

ALBRECHT: It was a very, very exciting time.

WEINBERG: If you have a really good idea

that allows other people to move the field forward,

peope are going to pay attention.

GUTH: An amazing feeling

that suddenly I had crossed that gap

from being an unknown post-doc

to being one of the major players,

and it was very hard to absorb, but it certainly felt good.

GREENE: One reason inflation was so exciting

was that it made predictions

that could be tested through observation.

Scientists realized that if the theory were correct,

evidence for it should be found in the night sky.

Imagine that we could shut off the sun

and take away all the stars.

If our eyes could detect

the rest of the energy that's still there,

we'd see a warm glow everywhere in the cosmos.

This sea of radiation is called the cosmic microwave background.

It's the last remnants at heat from the Big Bang itself.

Theory predicted that the violent expansion of space

during inflation would leave an imprint on this radiation.

These telltale "fingerprints" would form a precise pattern

of temperature variations--

slightly hotter spots and slightly colder spots--

that would look something like this.

But it woud be about ten years

before the technology was sensitive enough

to test this prediction.

Then in 1989,

NASA launched the Cosmic Background Explorer satellite,

followed by a second satellite, WMAP, in 200l

that would put inflation to the test.

The missions measured the radiation

with tremendous precision, and the results were stunning.

The temperature variations found in the cosmos

were am almost identical match

with the predictions of the theory of inflation.

It's just a theory, mathematics on the page,

until it makes predictions that are confirmed.

WMAP found what the math of inflation predicted.

That is enormously convincing.

So inflation has had a number of chances now to fail.

It made predictions, data came in,

and inflation has come through with flying colors.

GREENE: Guth's work on inflation, along with that of other physicists,

was hailed as a milestone

toward understanding the origin at the universe.

In the process, its expanse...

GREENE: But soon, two Russian physicists would discover

that the equations of inflation held a shocking secret:

our universe may not be alone.

One of these physicists was Andrei Linde,

who had already made pivotal contributions

to inflationary theory.

The other was Alex Vilenkin,

who happened to attend one at the talks Alan Guth gave

during his road trip.

ALEX VILENKIN: He gave a wonderful talk.

I hadn't met him before,

but what I heard was rather unexpected.

In one shot, inflation explained very well

many features of the Big Bang

and was quite remarkable.

...why the universe is the way it is.

VILENKIN: So I went home greatly impressed.

GREENE: Alex Vilenkin was so impressed that for months afterward,

he couldn't stop thinking about inflation.

VILENKIN: Usually I have my thought of the day in the shower,

which I tend to take long.

GREENE: The more Vilenkin considered the process of inflation,

the more he wondered about what would make it stop.

How would a region of space transition out of inflation?

What exactly would Happen at the moment inflation ends?

VILENKIN: As I thought about it, it turns out that the end of inflation

doesn't happen everywhere at once.

GREENE: Vilenkin suddenly realized

that if inflation doesn't end everywhere at once,

then there's always some part of space

where it's still happening.

VILENKIN: So in this picture,

the Big Bang is not a unique event that happened.

There were multiple bangs that happened before ours,

and there will be countless other bangs

that will happen in the future.

GREEPE: It was a striking and unexpected new picture

in which inflation would stop in some regions,

but always continue somewhere else.

New big bangs are always occurring

and new universes are always being born,

yielding an eternally expanding multiversa.

Linde and Vilenkin in particular

pushed the idea that inflation might never end,

that this ballooning process

could happen over and over again,

giving one universe after another ofter another.

So was this a revolution in science

or a theory that's full of holes?

The idea became known as "eternal inflation,"

and you can picture it something like this.

Imagine that this block at cheese is all of space

before the formation of stars and galaxies.

Now, according to inflation,

space is uniformly filled with a huge amount of energy,

and that energy causes space to expend at an enormous speed.

As it does, here and there the energy discharges,

sort of like a spark of static electricity.

But this is like static electricity on a cosmic scale,

and when it discharges...

...all that energy is rapidly transformed into matter

in the form of tiny particles.

That process is the birth of a new universe,

what we have traditionally called "the Big Bang."

Inside these new universes,

which are like holes in the cheese,

space continues to expand, but much more slowly.

And sometimes, galaxies, stars and planets form,

much as we see in our universe today.

Meanwhile, outside of these new universes,

the rest of space is still full of undischarged energy

and is still expanding at enormous speed.

And more expanding space

means more places where the energy can discharge

into more big bangs and create more new universes.

And that means this process could go on forever.

In other words, when it comes to eternal inflation,

that cheese is more like Swiss cheese,

in which new universes endlessly form, creating e multiverse.

The multiverse-- a profound implication

of eternal inflation.

But, as Alex Vilenkin would soon learn,

one that would not be easily accepted.

VLENKIN: I thought I realized something important

about the universe,

and I wanted to share this with my fellow physicists,

and one at the first, of course, had to be Alan Guth.

Now, we know that quantum fluctuations in the scalar field

are different in different regions in space.

VILENKIN: I thought he would be excited about it.

As a result, in some regions...

But this encounter didn't go as planned.

...inflation will last longer than in others.

The delay of inflatien...

VILENKIN: As I was describing to him my new picture at the universe,

inflating regions and so forth...

...expansion.

VILENKIN: I noticed that Alan is begining

to doze off a little bit.

VILENKIN: Actually I was of course very unhappy about that,

so I thought that I probably should go.

GREENE: One problem with the concept at a multiverse

was that there seemed to be no way to detect it.

Not only is each universe expanding,

but so is the space in between them.

That means that nothing, not even light,

can travel from any of the other universes to reach us.

VILENKIN: Physicists did not really respond very well

to this idea of eternal inflation.

Once I said that I'm going to tell them

something about things beyond our horizon

that cannot in principle be observed,

most ot them just lost interest right there.

GREENE: Alex Vilenkin thought he was on to something big,

but others were skeptical.

So Vilenkin reluctantly tried

to put his work on eternal inflation out of his mind.

ALBRECHT: Who wants to talk about a universe

you're never going to see?

The multiverse can't make predictions, it can't be tested.

You could make the case that it's not really science.

how can you ever be confident of it

when you can't see the other parts of the multiverse?

We can only see our little patch,

our little expanding cloud of galaxies.

How are we ever going to know?

You can't prove the multiverse exists.

It's not wrong.

You can't prove that it doesn't exist.

So why should we believe it?

GREENE: Alex Vilenkin tried to stop thinking about the multiverse.

With no hard evidence to support it,

the idea seemed to have hit a deed end.

VILENKIN: Many people thought that it's just not science

to talk about things that you cannot observe.

So I did not return to the subject for almost ten years.

GREENE: Meanwhile, Vilenkin's Russian colleague Andrei Linde

kept the flame alive.

He had independently come up

with his own version of eternal inflation,

but unlike Vilenkin, he would not be deterred.

ANDREI LINDE: Maybe I am a little bit more arrogant.

When I got the idea for this multiverse,

I understood that this may be the most important thing

which I ever do in my life.

And if somebody doesn't want to hear it,

that's their problem.

GREENE: Linde published more than a dozen papers,

but his work would meet an equally chilly reception.

It seemed no one wanted to hear about the idea of a multiverse.

If the equations of eternal inflation

were the only clues pointing to the multiverse,

that's where the story might have ended.

But the multiverse idea would gain some unexpected support

from two completely unrelated areas at science.

One was an idea called string theory,

designed to explain how the universe works

at the tiniest scales.

The other was an astounding discovery

made by astronomers exploring the universe

on the largest scale,

a discovery thats utterly mysterious

if there's only one universe.

But if we're part of a multiverse,

it's a whole new ballgame.

It has to do with the expansion of the universe,

and its easy to explain using a baseball.

Now, if I toss this ball up in the air,

we all know what will happen.

As it rises, it slows down because of gravity.

Now, astronomers knew that the universe was expanding,

and they assumed that the expansion would slow down

because of the gravitational pull of stars and galaxies,

just as the ball slows down

because of the gravitational pull of the Earth.

But when they actually did the measurements,

they found something astonishing,

something that rocked the foundations of physics.

They found that the expansion is not slowing down.

It's speeding up.

It's as if I took this baseball and when I throw it...

...instead of slowing down as it rush away,it speeds up.

Now, if you saw a ball do that,

you'd assume there's some invisible force

that's counteracting gravity, pushing on the ball,

forcing it to speed away ever more quickly.

Astronomers came to the same conclusion about the universe:

that some kind of energy in space

must be pushing all the galaxies apart,

causing the expansion to speed up.

Because we don't see the energy,

the astronomers called it "dark energy."

It's among the most important experimental discoveries ever

in the history of soience.

It took most of us completely by surprise.

And so, we're still trying to come to grips with that.

GREENE: Discovering that dark energy

is pushing every galaxy in our universe

away from every other at an accelerating rate

was shocking enough.

But even more surprising was the strength of that dark energy.

For over a decade, scientists have been unable to explain

why such a peculiar amount of it exists in empty space.

But that mystery seems easier to resolve

if we're part of a much larger mutiverse.

Now, the idea that space

contains any energy at all sounds strange.

But our theory at small things like molecules and atoms,

the theory called quantum mechanics,

tells us that theres a lot of activity

in the microscopic realm,

activity that can contribute an energy to space.

And according to the math,

the amount of energy generated by that microscopic activity

is enormous.

The problem is, when astronomers measured the amount at energy

thats actually out there,

the amount of energy required to force the galaxies apart

at the accelerating rate that's observed,

they get a numder like this:

a decimal point followed by 122 zeroes, and then a one.

An incredibly tiny amount, very close to zero,

and nothing at all like what the theory predicted.

In fact, it's trillions and trillions

and trillions and trillions of times smaller,

a colossal mismatch.

We have tried everything

to explain why the dark energy is as small as it is.

We have tried everything, and everything fails.

Hopeless!

I once called this the worst failure

of an order of magnitude estimate

in the history of science.

Does it bother us?

Absolutely.

Finding that the amount of energy in space

is so much less than our theory predicts

is not just on academic problem.

The precise strength of that repulsive gravity, well,

that has profound implications for all of us.

For example,

it I were to increase the strength of the darh energy

just a little bit by erasing four or five of these zeroes,

I still have a tiny number,

but the universe would be radically different.

That's because a slightly stronger dark energy

would push everything apart so fast

that stars, planets and galaxies

would never have formed.

And that means we simply would not exist.

And yet here we are.

So, why is the amount of dark energy

so much less than our theory predicts

and also just right to allow the formation

of galaxies, stars, planets and life?

We just don't know.

The mismatch between the theoretical predictions

of dark energy and what astronomers have observed

is one of the great mysteries that science faces today.

But consider this:

If we do live in a multiverse, then the mystery of dark energy

might not be so mysterious after all.

In fact, if we're part at a multiverse,

the value at dark energy we've measured

might actually make total sense.

Hi.

reservation for Greene.

To see how the multiverse might solve the dark energy puzzle,

imagine you're checking into a hotel

and you get a room number like this:

ten million and one.

Hmm

Thanks.

Enjoy your stay.

Ten million and one

would seem like a pretty strange room number,

and getting a room number like this would be surprising,

much as the value of dark energy in our univese

is a number that scientists have found surprising.

But here's the thing:

if this hotel had a huge number of rooms...

say, billions and billions,

then getting room number ten million and one

wouldn't be so surprising.

In a hotel this big, you expect to find a room with that number.

Similarly, if we're part of a multiverse

with a huge number of universes,

each with a different value of the dark energy,

then you'd expect to find one

with the value as small as what we've measured.

If you think of each of these rooms as a universe,

and each universe has a different value

for the dark energy,

then most of these universes won't be hospitable

to life as we know it.

The reason is that the value of the dark energy wouldn't allow

the formation of galaxies, stars and planets.

Universes with much less dark energy than ours

would collapse in on themselves.

And universes with much more dark energy than ours

would expand so fast that matter would never have the chance

to coalesce into clumps and form stars and planets.

So, of course we find ourselves in a universe

where the value of the dark energy is hospitable to life.

Otherwise we woudn't be here to talk about it.

If we're part of a multiverse,

the mystery of dark energy becomes not so mysterious.

But there's a piece of the puzzle missing

How do we know if there's enough diversity within the multiverse

so that every value for dark energy,

including the strange value we observe in our universe,

can be found somewhere?

The answer would emerge

from an entirely different area of physics.

I'm talking about a ground-breaking theory

that comes from investigating the universe

on the tiniest scale.

We know that inside atoms are even tinier bits of matter,

protons and neutrons,

which are made of still smaller particles called quarks.

But physicists realized

that this might not be the end of the line.

These subatomic bits

might actually be made of someting even smaller-

tiny vibrating strands or loops of energy called strings.

This set of ideas, called string theory,

says everythng that exists

is made of this one kind of ingredient.

And just as a single string on a cello

can produce many different notes depending on how it vibrates,

strings can take on different properties

depending on how they vibrate,

creating may kinds of particles.

From this theory came the promise of elegant simplicity:

a single master equation that would explain what we see

in the would around us.

SUSSKND: String theory would be beautiful, it would be elegant,

and calculation from that very simple theory

would produce the world as we know it.

GREENE: But for this beautiful theory to work, there was a catch.

The math of string theory

required something that defies common sense,

a feature that would open the door to the multiverse:

extra dimensions of space.

We're all familiar with three dimensions of space:

height, width and depth.

But the math of string theory

says these aren't the only dimensions.

JOSEPH POLCHINSKI: The mathematics works only if the strings move and vibrate,

not just in the three directions that we see,

but in those and, say, six more-

nine space dimensions in all.

so if string theory is right,

where are these extra dimensions,

and why can't we see them?

Think about the cable supporting a traffic light.

From a distance, it looks like a line, one-dimensional.

But if you could shrink down to,

you'd find another dimension,

a circular dimension that curls around the cable.

And string theory says that if we could shrink down

billions of times smaller than that ant,

we'd find tiny extra dimensions like this

are curled up everywhere in space.

SUSSKIND: At every point of space,

there's extra dimensions of space

that are curled up into little tiny knots

that you can't see because they're too small.

GREENE: And the shape of these extra dimensions

determines the fundamental features of our universe.

Just the way the air streams

that are going through an instrument like a French horn

have vibrational patterns

that are determined by the shape of the instrument,

the shape at the extra dimensions

determins how the little strings vibrate.

Those vibrational patterns determine particle properties,

so all of the fundamental features of our universe

may be determiend by the shape of the extra dimensions.

SUSSKIND: The way those extra dimensions of space are put together

is in many respects like the DNA of the universe.

They determine the way the universe is going to behave,

just exactly the same way

as DNA determines the way an animal is going to look.

GREENE: The problem was, the more string thearists looked,

the more ways they found that extra dimensions

could be curled up.

And the math provided no clues

as to which shape was the right one

corresponding to our universe.

SHAMIT KACHRU: I think the consensus right now

is that that number seems to be astronomical.

There are published papers

suggesting upwards of 10 the 500-

that's 10 followed by 500 zeroes-

different possible shapes.

GREENE: Ten to the 500 different possible shapes

for the extra dimensions, each appearing equally valid.

It seemed preposterous.

Especelly for a theory

that was looking for one, single master equation

to describe our universe.

But then it occurred to some string theorists

that perhaps there was a different way

to look at the problem, and this different perspective

would breathe new life into the idea of a multiverse.

Ten to the 500 different string theories.

This sounded like a complete disaster.

What good is it to have a theory

that has ten to the 500 solutions?

You can't find anything in there.

well, that left string theorists

somewhat unhappy, somewhat depressed.

My own reaction to it at the time is, "This is great.

"This is fantastic.

"This is exactly what the cosmologists are looking for:

"enormous diversity of possibilities.

"Don't be unhappy about this.

"That says that string theory

"fits extremely well with cosmology

and with all the interesting ideas about multiverses."

GREENE: Turning what seemed like a vice into a virtue,

some string theorists became convinced

that the multiple solutions of string theory

might each represent a real and very different universe.

In other words, string theory was describing a multiverse-

and an extremely diverse one at that.

JOHNSON: To everyone's surprise,

string theory was actually quite readily describing

huge numbers of different kinds of solutions,

each of which corresponds to a possible universe.

So we just got this multiverse for free.

DELIA SCHWAETZ-PEELOV: Both from string theory and from inflation,

you have these universes that are produced.

These different univeses would all naturally have

different amounts of dark energy.

GREENE: In fact, according to the math, the amount of dark energy

would span such a wide range of values from universe to universe

that the strange amount we've measured would surely turn up.

String theory, without even trying, solved that problem.

GREENE: So, over a decade after Linde and Vilenkin

had come up with their ideas about eternal inflation,

the multiverse was revived.

Three lines of reasoning were now all pointing

to the same conclusion:

enternal inflation, dark energy and string theory.

Just the way it takes three legs to support a stool,

these three ideas taken together support the argument

that we may live in a multiverse.

When different lines of research all converge on one idea,

that doesn't mean it's right,

but when all the spokes of the wheel are pointing at one idea,

that idea becomes pretty convincing.

Today the multiverse is hotly debated.

Many critics remain.

David Grace is going to tell us, "No, no, no."

GREENE: But mutiverse advocates

like Alex Vilenkin, Alan Guth and Andrei Linde

are no longer alone.

VILENKIN: The tide appears to be turning.

Now these ideas are accepted to a much larger degree.

The genie is out of the bottle.

You cannot put it back.

GREENE: So, what would it be like?

if we could travel to some of these other universes,

what would we see?

Some might be vastly different from our own,

with properties unlike anything we've ever seen.

In fact, some universes in the multiverse

might not have light or matter or anything recognizable at all.

And there might be other universes with features

not unlike the familiar ones we know,

but where life takes a completely different form,

Perhaps communicating in ways we'd find utterly bizarre.

And the math shows

that if we were able to visit enough of these universes,

we might eventually find ones like ours,

with a Miky Way galaxy, a solar system and an Earth.

Except with some slight differences.

In one, maybe the asteroid

that killed off the dinosaurs 65 million years ago missed,

and evolution charted a new course.

In another, there might be an Earth

with people similar to us...

(phone ringing)

...but better at multitasking.

But there's someting even stranger.

Somewhere out there,

we should find exact copies of our universe

with duplicates of everything and everyone.

How could this be?

How could there be exact duplicates of ourselves

out there in the multiverse?

To see how, take this deck of cards.

It's made up of 52 different cards,

and if I deal them, everyone will get a different hand.

But, over the course of many, many rounds,

eventually some of the combinations

will start to repeat.

That's because with 52 cards,

there's a limited number of different hands you can deal.

So if you deal the cards an infinite number of times,

then repeating hands are inevitable.

And in the multiverse, a similar principle applies.

That's because, according to the laws of nature,

the fundamental ingredients of matter, or particles,

are kind of like a deck of cards:

in any region of space, they can only be arranged

in a finite number of different ways.

So if space is infinite,

if there are an infinite number of universes,

then those arrangements are bound to repeat.

And since each one of us

is just a particular arrangement of particles,

somewhere there's a duplicate of you and me

and everyone else.

This can be shocking.

It could be that in another universe

I was a rock star and my life much better.

Or much worse, depending on your opinion of rock stars.

It means all those things that I've never found time to do

are maybe being done by some copy of me somewhere else.

I was rather depressed, actually.

This picture robs us of our uniqueness.

It is a consequence of the ideas,

and the ideas seem very well motivated.

GREENE: Yet critics argue

the multiverse is just too convenient an explanation

for thing we don't understand,

like the tiny value of dark energy in our univese

and the huge number of possible shapes

for the extra dimensions in string theory.

STEINHAEDT: The problem with that kind of reasoning

is that it doesn't explain

why the dark energy is the way it is.

It just says it's random chance.

I don't find that satisfactory.

You can apply this kind of reasoning

any time you don't have a better explanation.

GREENE: On the other hand, supportesrs of the multiverse

point out that sometimes a better or depper explanation

for the way things are simply does not exist.

Take, for example, the Earth's orbit around the Sun.

We find ourselves at a distance of 93 million miles,

perfect for life.

If we were much closer to the Sun,

our planet would be too hot for life as we know it to exist.

And if we were much farther from the Sun,

it would be too cold for life.

So, why are we in this sweet spot?

Well, starting in the late 1500s,

the famous astronomer Jonannes Kepler asked that very question,

and he spent years trying to find a physical reason,

some law of nature

that requires the Earth to be 93 million miles from the Sun.

But Kepler never found it, because it doesn't exist.

There isn't any physical law requiring the Earth to be

93 million miles from the Sun.

It's simply one possibility of the many you'd expect to find

in a universe we know is full of solar systems.

SUSSKIND: You might think it was an extraordinary accident.

It's not.

It's just that there are a lot of planets out there.

GREENE: Similarly, some suggest that the true explanation

for many of the fundamental features of our world

will elude us if we don't consider the possibility

that we live in a multiverse.

GUTH: Clearly if we had a good physical reason,

that would be great and we would understand it.

We'd be much happier.

We may have to live with that.

There's no principle built into the laws of nature

that say that theoretical physicists have to be happy.

It's a hypothesis.

It's the leading hypothesis

because nobody has another hypothesis

which makes as much sense.

GREENE: The multiverse, a tantalizing possibility.

But with no experimental evidence, should you belivee it?

We can't believe in anything

until there's observational or experimental support.

But what we have found over the last few centuries

is that mathematics provides a sure-footed guide

to the nature of things

that we haven't yet been able to see, observe or experiment with.

Math predicted things like black holes

and certain subatomic particles

long before we ever observed them.

And math is suggesting

that there may be these other universes.

That doesn't mean it's right, but often it's leading you

to a deeper understanding of reality.

If you choose not to believe it, that's perfectly fine,

because we have not given you any evidence yet,

and one of the wonderful things about science

is it's about evidence; it's not about belief.

GREENE: And some scientists now think we might just be able

to find that evidence.

They propose that if our universe and another

were born close together,

the two might have collided.

That collision could have left its own telltale sign

in the form of a pattern of temperature differences

that we might detect in the cosmic background radiation,

the heat left over from the Big Bang.

My guess is yes, that in 100 years

we will know one way or another whether these ideas are right.

A hundred years from now

it may be an amusing historical episode.

We don't know.

But if you only work on the things

that are already well established,

you're not going to be part of the next big excitement.

GREENE: If we do verify the multiverse, it would change our perspective

much as Copernicus did 500 years ago when he showed

that the Earth is not the center of the cosmos.

And some might say that if our universe is just one of many

our descent from the center would be complete.

SCHWARTZ-PERLOV: Regardless, I think it's more important

just that we're so lucky that we can understand the universe.

I think it's a great ride,

and I think it's really good for physics

that we have this tension.

I don't know where we're going to end up.

GREENE: So, what does this all mean?

Are there infinite duplicates

of you and me and everything existing right now

in an infinite number of other universes?

Is the multiverse the next Copernican revolution?

We don't know at least not yet.

But if the idea that we live in a multiverse proves true,

we'd be witnessing one of the most exciting

and dramatic upheavals

to our understanding of the fabric of the cosmos.

Major funding for NOVA is provided by:

And...

And by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting

and by contributions to you PBS station from:

Major funding for "The Fabric of the Cosmos"

is provided by the National Science Foundation.

And...

Supporting original research and public understanding

of science, technology, engineering and mathematics.

Additional funding is provided by...

And the George D. Smith Fund.

Captioned by Media Access Group at WGBH access.wgbh.org