So I am not a physicist or have any background in physics but I enjoy thought experiments and thinking about the nature of our universe and I was thinking about the idea that we live in a multiverse where every possible decision is made in all of it's possible variations and I'm confused how this correlates with the law of conservation of energy.

Since it's easy to assume this type of multiverse branches out and grows at an exponential rate then shouldn't we observe a matching exponential loss of energy from our universe? Either the energy for this new universe had to be created from nothing which is in violation of the law or the energy from the previously existing universe would need to be divided between the newly created universe and the existing universe resulting in an observable loss of energy.

One thought that I have is that if time is in fact the 4th dimension then the future must be as concrete as the past (any point in time just an index along a dimensional axis) which would mean that the future is predetermined and all possible multiverses existed at the moment of the big bang and all of the energy was divided at that time. That would mean while we like the perceive that we made a decision and that decision branched out a new universe that perception is false. While in reality we always made that same "decision" and what we perceived to be a new universe always existed because our decision was predetermined and nothing was ever variable.

This all started with me doing a thought experiment into if we have free will or not which leads me here. Now I'm thinking that for everything to make sense 1) we don't have free will (not that it changes anything) 2) The multiverse exists as a immutable entity where every branch of the multiverse was created in all the infinite variations simultaneously.


closed as unclear what you're asking by Qmechanic Aug 2 '18 at 5:21

Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • $\begingroup$ The conventional energy conservation does not hold in GR. Consider e.g. inflation, your could ask your question there and will see where your assumption fails. $\endgroup$ – user178876 Aug 1 '18 at 23:53
  • $\begingroup$ To reopen this post (v4), consider to specify (e.g. by including references/link) which multiverse theory you are talking about. If you meant the many worlds interpretation, then mention that. $\endgroup$ – Qmechanic Aug 2 '18 at 5:21

I suppose you are referring by this to the quantum multiverse, or many-worlds theory of quantum mechanics, not other multiverse theories and concepts like eternal inflation, since you talk about universes "splitting" or "branching".

This requires a clarification on what many worlds is - and what it is is nothing more or less than simply demanding the Schrodinger equation

$$\hat{H} [|\psi\rangle(t)] = [\hat{E} |\psi\rangle](t)$$

holds for the entire Universe, that is, that the whole Universe can/should be assigned a quantum state vector, and it satisfies this equation (Actually, it needs to be somewhat modified if we are to consider a relativistic Universe like the actual one, and this is where it's not sure the picture works because we don't yet know how to or if you should quantize gravity.), and that the collapse rule should be discarded or changed to a different ontological status.

When you do this, you end up with that all particles (or better, quantum fields) are in a superposition of each possible configuration of the Universe. In this sense, energy conservation is maintained, or not, if you prefer, in the same way it is in quantum mechanics before a measurement "collapses" a wave function, since that's effectively all we've removed: the collapse. The amplitude of energy states does not change because they are eigenstates of the Hamiltonian operator on the left, rather only their phase, which by interference changes the structure of the rest of the Universe, thus if you write the universal state as a sum of energy states, this result will obtain as well.

You should not think of the "separate universes" as constituting separate chunks of matter - rather, they are effectively the same thing as the two branches of an electron after it has been passed to a simple barrier-tunneling setup like this:


and note the two "humps" after tunneling. There are not now two electrons with thus twice the energy, but a single electron with slightly less position information ("which hump is it in?" or "which side is it on?" is a now unanswered question, or one for which the answer is no longer "left" or "right" but less-informative probability distribution that looks to be 70% chance of left and 30% chance of right) - or more entropy in position (here ~0.26 shannons more entropy.). Effectively, the whole Universe is a "haze" or "blur" of superposition that looks like a different, but more structured, Universe to each occupant of each branch.


It’s a fair question, but you don’t have to change anything about many worlds to resolve it. It is indeed true that the contribution of the total expectation value of the energy in our “world” (branch of the wavefunction) goes down exponentially over time, since the amplitude of our branch goes down exponentially. But within our branch this does not have any noticeable effects, because quantum mechanics is linear in amplitudes. More quantitatively, when you compute any physical quantities observable in our branch, the exponentially small amplitude will always cancel out.

You still might prefer your picture of QM, on philosophical grounds. The point is that on scientific grounds there is no problem with many worlds, nor with Copenhagen or pilot wave or anything else. All interpretations of QM can account for all experimental results. Your choice of interpretation is up to taste.


The question is, "How is the Multiverse possible with the law of conservation of energy?".. "Energy is neither created nor destroyed.."

One point is, In order for a thing to be "created" the components in which a thing is to be "created" must already exist. The root word of existence, of course, is TO exist. Going TOwards a thing means going away from another which gives life to zero point zero reference because that which you are leaving is a start which is referred to as a zero (0) and the point you are going to is 9 all within the same space, existence. And upon the law of Observation, everything is in action called existence which is existing which denotes an action verb. Action denotes motion which denotes work. To move.. Energy which is the capacity in which things have to perform work is a motion which is an action of existence. Motion denotes distance which are in wavelengths. Wavelengths are circular and denotes time (Cycles) which are Circles. Circles beginnings are its endings so it offsets itself and is balanced, hence true time is of a Zero-point Zero Reference, just as the Omniverse and its energy is Zero. Look at the number Zero, (0) even IT is a Circle. This is why Energy is neither created nor destroyed, its potential, meaning the potential of energy not potential energy, is incalculable because everything is energy and everything can not be calculated in equilibrium because of balance which is zero (0) So how is the multiverse possible with the law of conservation of energy? Because its self is energy.

  • $\begingroup$ In physics, we use mathematics to formulate theories and to explore their implications. Messing around with the grammar of English (or any other natural language) isn"t physics. $\endgroup$ – PM 2Ring Feb 14 at 15:15

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.