Slashdot Mirror
Stars Could Shine In Many Universes
A commonplace of cosmologists who argue the anthropic principle is the assumption that if any or a few of the constants of nature took on an even slightly different value, life could not have evolved — perhaps even stars and galaxies would not form. Science News reports on a new calculation showing that, to the contrary, star formation could happen in up to one-quarter of universes with different values of three important constants. "In fact, all universes can support the existence of stars, provided that the definition of star is interpreted broadly," said the researcher, Fred Adams. "...calculations suggest that, contrary to some previous claims, stars are not only common in our cosmos but are also ablaze in myriad other universes, where the laws of physics may be drastically different... Had Adams found that the range of parameters that allowed for stars was very small, that would have suggested that the laws of physics in our universe have been 'fine-tuned' to allow for star formation... Instead, Adams' study shows that our universe doesn't seem particularly special in that regard."
I dont read slashdot for 2 days and I missed the fact that there are more than 1 universes... shit!
This hypothesis, if true, shows that the universe is actually a rather robust structure.
I like that a lot more then the 'one tiny bit off and you get nothing' thing. It sounds more plausible to me.
A learning experience is one of those things that say, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.' - D. Adams
I can't find an astro-ph link for this?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
That's funny, I always thought they came in herds.
Or maybe in packages - contents may have expanded during shipping.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Even if we are rare, why does that make is so special? It's rare to win the lottery, but it's got to happen to someone doesn't it? If we hadn't won the lottery, we wouldn't be here to talk about it, would we?
A-Bomb
I can't wait to meet the evil me and see how I look with a pointy beard.
i thought "uni" meant one and only.
_______________
electric universe ad infintum !
A Flatlander's Universe is a sheet of paper. He has no idea that there are many sheets in a ream.
doesn't "uni" mean one and only?
__________
Electric Universe Ad infinitum
in direct contradiction to the dictate of isotropy: It did matter where the observer was. Observers on the edge of the bubble were more likely to be smacked by a collision than were observers living in the bubbleâ(TM)s protected center.
http://www.fqxi.org/data/articles/Garriga_Guth_Vilenkin.pdf (PDF)
So now we've got to be worried about aliens from different UNIVERSES as well?
Smivs on the intertubes!
I didn't know that astrologers used telescopes. Mine uses Tarot cards and reads tea leaves...and prefers psilocybin or mescaline. Crack is much too harsh.
What?
I'm sorry, but it's the "mathematical phantasy" thing.
Or more correctly: It's a tought experiment, to find out if the universe has some special fine-tuned constants, because this would pose some interesting questions on why they are exactly like this.
Of course, as far as our knowledge goes, the universe could be a 4d sphere (with a 3d surface). So there is still the question "is there an 'outside' to the universe"? If so, what is there? Other universes?
A completely different, and more realistic POV is to see our universe as the cone or our event horizon. So there could be space outside that we'll never see, but that is perfectly normal "space". Of course this would pose the question, that if the constants are different in "another universe" (= another place outside our event horizon), then why is there no visible gradient when you get near the border of that horizon?
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
Oh stop it. In a parallel universe, this makes perfect sense.
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
Anything outside our light-cone is a different universe.
I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
"From the smallest particle to the largest galactic formation, a web of electrical circuitry connects and unifies all of nature, organizing galaxies, energizing stars, giving birth to planets and, on our own world, controlling weather and animating biological organisms. There are no isolated islands in an electric universe".
David Talbott and Wallace Thornhill
Thunderbolts of the Gods
I see the multi-worlds and multiple universe hypotheses as being not much better than intelligent design. None of them can ever be proven.
but what if i stick my head in the sand?
"...Had Adams found that the range of parameters that allowed for stars was very small, that would have suggested that the laws of physics in our universe have been 'fine-tuned' to allow for star formation..." How is that? All it suggests is that matter behaved as it could given the physical laws. The laws weren't "fine-tuned" to do anything; what appears is a result of the physical laws.. nothing had the result "in mind" and made the laws as an afterthought. Sounds like creationism to me.
I think you mean to say anything outside the light-cone of the big bang is a different universe.
That is fairly defensible, I'd go with it.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Last time I checked the definition of universe is still "all existing matter and space considered as a whole"
So if the universe is "everything" can someone tell me how there can be "many?" in a way that isn't a mathematical fantasy proven in the minds of few and no where else?
The hypothesis that is being discussed involves what is essentially an extra-dimensional and strictly theoretical version of our own universe. Basically it explores what our universe would be like under different physical constraints than our own.
As for the definition of universe, it essentially is "all existing matter and space considered as a whole" but that definition deals with human perception itself. Because there are versions of our own universe which are theoretical even if they only exist in a theoretical experiment like the above (i.e. matter and energy existing on a 2nd - nth other 3 dimensional slice of a larger dimensional space having different constants as proposed above) this is the definition being used for the multiple universe hypothesis.
Just so I'm not misinterpreted I'll say again that the scientist isn't by any means proving the existence of another theoretical universe, he is simply running simulations to see what this universe could look like under different constraints and how hard/easy it is for stars and other similar objects to form.
In this aspect it is a mathematical fantasy (to some degree - no evidence against or for), but it is by no means "proven" even in mind of mathematicians.
Well, back to rejecting software patent applications.
NO God mentality can Know my 4 Day Cube. No Bible Word equals my TimeCubed Earth. How Stupid - Pay to worship Queer as a God. Mom and Dad created you as a Trinity, the Mirror of opposite brain meld into "We" Ego. Your body is of their Creation, honor "We".
-------
Support Indy Music. Buy
They also can't be disproven. That means that the idea can be used as needed as a convenient fiction. It's like the way navigation about the Earth is made easier by pretending that the Earth is the center of the universe, or engineers invoke the fictitious centrifugal force in their calculations. In this case, physicists invoke the concept of a different universe with slightly (or not so slightly) different laws to see what would happen and maybe learn something about the universe we live in.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
"A universe without weak interactions is constructed that undergoes big-bang nucleosynthesis, matter domination, structure formation, and star formation. The stars in this universe are able to burn for billions of years, synthesize elements up to iron, and undergo supernova explosions, dispersing heavy elements into the interstellar medium.
There's no evidence such universes exist. But it is still a good exercise to help keep some perspective on what is possible, even in principle, given what we know about physical law. It also highlights that people who make "anthropic principle-like" claims based on fine-tuning haven't bothered to go back to the underlying laws of physics and actually look for other stable configurations, even in theory.
i\hbar\dot{\psi}=\hat{H}\psi
I dont read slashdot for 2 days and I missed the fact that there are more than 1 universes... shit!
Only physicists can get away with this sort of crap. Any other field of science would be up in arms. Where is the falsifiability, asks Sir Karl Popper in his grave?
Louis Savain
Rebel Science News
I continue to be bothered by the use of the word "universe" to mean something other than "everything". Having to substitute "multiverse" to replace the word that didn't need to be replaced (rather a new word should have been invented for the new concept) bugs the crap out of me so much so that I hope all these new theories are proved wrong so we can maintain continuity of the language.
No one has brought up the obvious point that this indicates what we call "constants" don't need to be constant to fit with the stars we see?
Or at least they need to be less constant than originally believed?
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
This is so much crap. There isn't one bit of evidence that multiple universes are possible and yet you are all talking about it as if it were a fait accompli? Wow! All because some of you cannot stand the idea that there is a possibility that some extremely powerful agency created the physical universe. Boy, are you people religious or what? Sir Karl is turning in his grave. Only physicists get aways with wild ass crap like this. Any other field of science would be up in arms.
Louis Savain
Rebel Science News
So, now we are just treating this whole "multiple universes" thing as a given? I'm glad they threw in some Dark Matter in there, too, just to be on the safe side.
sic transit gloria mundi
The usual anthropic principle argument about formation of stars relates to the cosmological constant (yes we have one of those again, at least if there's anything to dark matter and dark energy). That constant is very, very poorly predicted by some particle physics models such as the ones that predict a Higgs boson. The observations suggest a value that is a full 120 orders of magnitude less than the prediction. If that value were as little as 119 orders below the prediction, cosmic expansion would prevent star formation.
The article instead talks about three other numbers, such as the gravitational and fine structure constants, and says some of these could vary significantly in particular combinations without making stars impossible, especially if you count things such as IR radiating black holes as starlike. So, it's not even addressing the constant most important to the original argument and it still has to hedge its bets.
The other important arguments lumped under the anthropic principle do deal with other numbers than the cosmological constant. Some of these say that varying some of these other numbers (again, such as the gravitational and fine structure constants) gives universes with stars that don't last long enough for life to evolve around them, stars where no elements heavier than say oxygen ever form, universes where the hydrogen all fuses to helium in the first three minutes, and such, and argues these universes won't support life. So the proponents of the anthropic principle have already stipulated that stars or something similar are probably possible in many of the very same cases this article supports. The researchers have identified a few interesting possibilities for combinations that would seem exotic to us but might make complex, interesting universes with something just conceivably like life or other really high complexity phenomina, and that's all very nice but it is totally irrelevant to the argument the slashdot editor says it affects, and is actually pretty compatible with the other arguments the editor didn't mention.
Who is John Cabal?
I know. I was speaking more for the benefit of those who take these things quite literally. Intelligent design can make for interesting thought experiments too.
okay I'll cite an example proving it. Stargate SG-1! Although based on their extensive research, the laws of physics were exactly the same in every universe, just different things were happening. Hey by the way, I'm gonna make up some equally dumb fantasy like that quantum cat in a box thing where you can never prove it wrong so you automatically get funding from dumbasses to study it. I theorize that beyond any shadow of a doubt, 48.2348% of other universes are planning to invade our particular one because we're the coolest and they're jealous so I demand that congress and every university give funding to a big ass anti-quantum rift gun to defend ourselves.
Google's Super Secret Search Algorithm: SELECT @search_results FROM internet WHERE @search_results = 'good'
I wonder if Adams found that the range of parameters would all result in the answer to the meaning of life in all universes being 42.
I understand that this may or may not be true, but scientists still don't really understand what the gravitational force is, nor do they understand the role of dark matter or dark energy. I think we have a long ways to go before we can make any realistic conjecture on any of this.
Proponents of the Anthropic Principle do not claim that universes which cannot support life are rare, or commonplace, or anything of the sort.
The Anthropic Principle merely says that we should not be surprised to find the universe conductive to our existence, even if such conditions are highly improbable, because the fact of our existence logically necessitates that we exist in a universe conductive to it.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
This research is great because it points out that the constants and such that the universe exhibits aren't so special, however the way it's presented is quite ridiculous.
Firstly, these "universes" are purely theoretical, and they're function of the modification of a few constants, that doesn't mean they're actually out there.
Secondly, I just hate it when people say "myriads/an infinity of other universes". What you really mean by "infinity" in that case is not a large number of discrete universes, but continuous variations of a universe. Presenting something continuous as an infinite amount of discrete things is stupid and misleading, although somehow correct. Sure you can iterate some constant by the smallest increments you want, so you can cut the whole thing into an infinity of possibilities, but just because you're sampling something continuous discretely doesn't make it cease from being continuous and not discrete. That's exactly like saying the 3D space universe is actually made of an infinity of stacked up 2D universes that communicate between each other. A completely arbitrary way to look at things that misleads you on the real nature of things.
You just got troll'd!
that the universe is truly just a 4 quadrant cube with 4- 24 hour days rotating simultaneously within 1- 24 hour rotation of a 4 quadrant created earth?
In my opinion the conclusion is total wrong: "1/4 of the universes have stars"?. He just assumed some arbitrary parameter space. That doesn't tell you anything about the probability!
I'm interested to know what this means: "In fact, all universes can support the existence of stars, provided that the definition of star is interpreted broadly."
Doesn't "star" already have a real, scientific and black-and-white definition somewhere? Like, I don't know, maybe an astrophysics textbook? If you don't know what is a star and what is not a star, trying to count them or determine if they exist in another universe or not is meaningless.
Maybe someone should figure out a definition of star that isn't open to broad interpretation.
Any simulations done with an alternate rule set probably fail to take into account a number of things affected by that change that we don't really know about. These constants are taken for granted throughout all of science, we never see them as anything else, so we don't know all of the interactions they may be having an impact on. We have no frame of reference to determine *everything* that changes when one of these rules changes. Until we find a few real alternate universes with different rule sets and determine what has been modified by modifying the rules, any guesses we make are probably pretty bad ones.
This hypothesis, if true...
The Standard Model has 19 free parameters (not including G) and even more if you include the new neutrino mixing results. This guy varies TWO of them plus G and then claims that 25% of possible universes would form stars? I remain completely unconvinced. While the strength of gravity, EM and the strong interactions may be important for stars the other parameters control some other vaguely important things like whether there is any matter in the universe.
In addition these parameters also have major effects directly on the functioning of stars. For example if the electron mass were larger the orbit of the electron in the atom shrinks and fusion becomes a lot easier. One would presume that this would greatly affect star formation. In addition there are other effects caused by varying the parameters: tweaking with these may well change the type of matter in the universe such as less hydrogen and more helium etc. He does at one point mention this and then states that he would not expect it to vary much from our universe without giving a reference. To me this seems completely non-obvious but I'm not a cosmologist so perhaps it is obvious to them?
So as I said I remain totally unconvinced that this paper really shows anything meaningful at all.
and they can jump in to our electric systems as well.
Perhaps there are universes in which life is fantastically abundant and our universe is, by comparison, a bland underperformer?
What the anthropic people are talking about is "life just like me." They're not talking about what's flourishing near our undersea thermal vents, by and large, what grows under the Antarctic ice, or if we find any, what grows on Mars.
AFAICT, life adapts to its environment. One would expect different forms of life under different conditions.
Or perhaps life is itself a silly concept? Maybe whole universes are organized such that they are sentient.
What are we if not star-stuff? Do we not recognize the Universe? Are we not the Universe made manifest?
Just as we do not yet fully understand how our bodies work, we're still a sentient race. So, just because we haven't found the End of Physics, that doesn't mean the Universe isn't self-aware. How people can think of Humans as being outside of "the Universe" is beyond me.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
So is it just me, or is this just crazy theoretical stuff made up by mathematicians, with absolutely zero empirical evidence to support any of it?
He finds that stars are stable entities in roughly one-fourth of the universes he considered.
Come on. Now I know he's just making stuff up. He thought up some imaginary universes, and discovered that a quarter of them can have stars. Despite being printed in Science News, this isn't science. Maybe it's interesting math, but that's all.
And you people think Creationists are nuts...
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
As there is no hard evidence of parallel universes, discussion about them is of limited use (other than ideas for science fantasy stories). Isn't science supposed to be about things that can be measured?
The existence of such universes wouldn't disprove God either. Who are we to tell him/it how and what to create?
And don't forget to bring a towel.
I also qualified my reply with 'if true'.
All parameters are not created equal, he may have picked up on something rather interesting.
Or not, it requires more investigation.
A learning experience is one of those things that say, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.' - D. Adams
I'm not convinced in the slightest that a multiverse exists (in any sense of the word), but I agree that assuming things like Brane cosmology are true, the logical conclusion is that these other universes would, based on probability, have something recognizable to us as 'stars' and even 'life'
Possibility always wins when we play the probability game.
As I said above, I think the multiverse theories are a pantload of stink. When it comes to the very big and the very small, we can't ever seem to reconcile with infinity. There's always a smaller particle or a bigger cosmological super-structure...how long before we find that Higgs Bosons actually have a sub-particle or that there are actually multiple multi-verses? It's a reductive zero sum game...when in doubt, just add another layer of complexity.
I submit that instead of spinning our wheels thinking up bigger and smaller structures so we can get research grants, we should instead do whatever needs to be done to nail gravity down cold. Once we understand gravity as well as other forces, things will start making more sense such that these unprovable multi-verses and sub-sub-sub-sub particles will be unnecessary.
Thank you Dave Raggett
"all universes can support the existence of stars, provided that the definition of star is interpreted broadly"
hell yeah, in fact there's a 'star' right here on my desk
of course you must accept that my definition of 'star' looks remarkably like your definition of 'cup of coffee', but that's a minor point
The catch is that you do not know how the universes should be distributed, if you assume a logarithmic normal distribution and not a uniform one, the probabilities that results differ.
Also, if the anthropic principle would be defined correctly, including dropping the "anthropic" part from it, instead of in zillion differing versions, then it cannot be refuted.
The key to this is that by quantum physics the observation changes the observer and the observee.
This means that the observer is part of the universe.
So the universe must be able to coexist with the observer. Which results in Zaphod Beeblebrox's principle: The more you know about the universe, the more it appears the universe has been especially constructed for you.
Hey don't blame me, IANAB
There is no way to prove that other universes exist. If you could touch them (or detect them) they would be part of this universe. Still if you saw a marble sitting on the sidewalk, would you automatically assume that it was the only marble ever made?
That'd be the universe where Slashdot moderators live, right?
Adding one dimension to the mix can allow for more than one additional universe; visualize it like stacking plates. You're stacking plates one on top of another in one dimension, and you can stack them to the sky. With 7 dimensions you can stack those plates in a whole lot of different directions, each of them potentially infinite and transfinite in combination.
The real question is, what do these directions in dimensions *mean*? Can we measure differences in properties in those universes based on the distance along each dimension?
I was under the impression that the idea of parallel universes was that at some point in time, a different decision was made (whether it be "should I invade a country" or "should I turn on the light") which causes a butterfly effect and essentially gives you an infinite number of choices.
What's a quarter of infinity?
Homonyms are fun!
You're driving your car, but they're riding their bikes there.
So just how is "they exist but it is mathematically impossible for them to affect our universe in any way or for us to measure them or conduct any empirical experiment upon them" any different from "they don't exist"? Are they, perchance, Invisible Pink Universes?
As for "winning the lottey", the question "why is the universe like it is" has only ever been a side-issue to the bigger question "why should any universe whatsoever exist at all -- the empty set is perfectly mathematically self-consistent; why should anything be here for us to 'even if I am mistaken, I am'* in"? It's a rhetorical question, but helps to understand the conceptual difference between the mathematical sense of "exists" ("there exists a set that contains possible appliances that can heat bread") and actual concrete existence. Laser toasters exist in the set, but that doesn't mean any really exist. If you believe that being describable (mathematical existence) is the same as real existence, then all the characters Agatha Christie described "existed" and she's the biggest murderer of all time...
We could pursue the silliness even further: if you claim to believe there really are an infinite number of universes, and you are still alive, then you are almost certainly lying. After all, why would you bother getting up in the morning when you can leave it to the infinite number of other yous... the true believers will have long since starved to death knowing it doesn't make any difference, leaving only the versions of themselves that chose not to believe still alive.
Now, St Augustine, the originator of the quote marked with a '*', about a thousand years before Descartes, would claim that this universe exists and the others do not because God, the great I Am, has blessed this universe to be the one that should exist. But of course that's "untestable nonsense" to be ridiculed by Flying Spaghetti Monsters on this forum, whereas believing there's an infinite number of untestable universes including many that actually contain flying spaghetti monsters, of course that's perfectly rational.
Since when did /. allow Scientology to advertise here?
(That's the ad on the top of this page for me right now: Think for yourself. Get the facts. Scientology video channel. Links to scientology.org.)
Hmm. I guess, since Microsoft is allowed and iNTEL is allowed, and I've even seen the Find a Russian Bride sites advertised here, it only makes sense.
What next? Get-Your-Invitation-to-Get-Taken-in-by-Nigerian-Money-Laundering-scams here sites?
Of course, that has nothing to do with string theory.
Hmm. I wonder. Could there be an alternate universe in which Scientology could be, in some sense, true or valid?
If there are only 8000 or so possible universes, I doubt it. Of maybe not. It's hard enough to reason about Scientology in a universe I know exists.
..they're full of stars!
Our Universe is one possibility made by the starting conditions that effected us in our big bang. Other Universes have different possibilities due to different starting conditions in their big bang. Additionally, our universe is limited by what we perceive.
Additionally, just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean it is a fantasy.
You've got it exactly right.
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
All well and good provided that the physics that we know works in these 'supposed' other universes. The fact of the matter is that you can play with all the numbers that you want, but without direct observations and repeatable, verifiable, experimentation, this is all just conjecture based on some doodles on a cocktail napkin with a cigar burn in it.
Sig this!
If you mean the "outside of our universe" versions... Right... partially. :)
Depending on the structure of the universe, it's nearly impossible to say, that something can *never ever* be proven. "Never" is from the beginning until the end of time, independent of your position and state of existence. If that were so, then you should be able to prove your argument.
ID, the idea of a God, and "outside of our world/universe/time range" theories all try to adress the really annoying problem of "what was the cause of everything" trough ignorance. This is because you can always ask "And who created God?" or "What's outside of the multiverse?"
I think that maybe, we just ask an absurdly wrong question, because our brain can't be wrapped around a concept that makes sense in our current view of reality.
That problem and everything following from it, inclusive religious explanations for those that don't need a more advanced reality dissonance, will continue to exist, until we get to a point where we solve this.
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
I also qualified my reply with 'if true'.
I understood that. I was commenting that I thought it very unlikely to be true based on the evidence presented.
All parameters are not created equal, he may have picked up on something rather interesting.
I doubt it. There are very clear reasons to expect other parameters to greatly affect the formation of stars. As far as I can see he has not commented on this at all. This means that either:
My guess is that option (2) or (3) is the case and for both of these I would regard his conclusions as either wrong or unproven. If he has considered and ruled out the other parameters as relevant then either option (1) is the case or else he should have explained his arguments as to why they are irrelevant.
The reason I doubt option (1) is that from the particle physics side of the fence we know of the 3 Sakharov conditions on the Big Bang. One of these is something called CP violation which is a difference between matter and anti-matter which is why the universe is matter only (as far as we know). If we alter the SM parameters relating to this ('delta' for the quarks and possibly another for the leptons plus theta_QCD) then this asymmetry could disappear (unless you add new physics) and you'll have very little matter left plus an equally small amount of anti-matter. I would argue that star formation in a universe like this will be impossible. Either there will be too little material or, if there is enough, the moment it starts to collapse gravitationally it will blow itself apart before a star forms.
Also works if the universe we understand is in itself, essentially the inside of a humoungous black hole. (Which itself would be in an even bigger universe. etc.) It's not like we could ever see outside of the event horizon if to know if that were the case. Might even explain why the thing is still expanding, and perhaps help with the dark matter conundrum. (Stuff coming in from outside the black hole or influincing it from the outside. But nobody pursues that idea since that might take quite a rewrite and kill a couple well established pet-theories along the way.)
But that would mean that black holes in themselves are alternate universes. Only thing is, we can't really see inside the event horizon to see if that were the case.
The reason for the discussion is the false belief that stars are necessary for planets, life, etc. It's kind of like a polar bear saying "All life we know of requires temperatures below 0 to survive. Therefore the fact that we have a temperature below 0 is a wondrous, one in a million thing"
The flaw with this logic is pretty obvious because we don't live in that environment. But that SAME error applies to us when people that are NOT biologists try to talk about how life requires the physical laws of the current universe.
The only universe we truly understand is the one with the physical constants as is are. If we want to postulate a universe with a different set of physical laws, why not postulate one where stars FORM under different circumstances.
Most importantly, you are not some super-genius that knows what a minor change in the universe is. You think you do, only because of arrogance. The things you are trying to change, thinking they are minor changes are NOT minor changes.
The 'universal constants' are interconnected. There is no such thing as a 'minor' change to them.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
...you're describing. Although there are variants on it, your description is correct-- if the universe didn't happen to favor human life, we wouldn't be here to argue about it.
The Strong Anthropic Principle makes stronger claims, that the universe's laws exist to bring about sentient observers.
The chief difference between them is that the Weak principle sees humans as a coincidental product, while the Strong principle sees humans as the intentional/desired/inevitable outcome of physical forces, although not always Deist intervention.
You're talking about the latest fad in the anthropic principle arguments. There was PLENTY of discussion about the anthropic principle and how it applies to the universe before we knew about inflation and the acceleration of cosmic expansion.
Yeah, if you enjoy being stuck on mental roundabouts...
In The Gods Themselves (I think), one of Asimov's characters speculated that in a universe with different laws, life could not exist. Another character countered that if the laws were different, the definition of life might be different, so life could exist, even if we couldn't recognize it.
But varying the other 16 produced hairy women, so he skipped them.
Table-ized A.I.
I didn't know that astrologers used telescopes.
At the visitor information station on Mauna Kea, I am routinely approached by followers of astronomy (henceforth "gullibles") during the evening stargazing sessions. It usually goes something like this:
Gullible: It's my birthday, can you point out my sign?
Me: (points at the ground)
Anyone who subscribes to pseudoscientific nonsense but doesn't even read enough of it to know that their sign is the one the Sun is in when they're born, should be duct-taped in place and forced to listen to Weird Al's "Your Horoscope for Today."
To their credit, no Christians have asked me to point out the star from when Jesus was born. Yet.
Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
There's only one universe, the others were just dupes.
Slashdot moderators live in the same universe as this guy
That is NOT the anthropic principle.
You obviously never played MTG when you were younger, did you?
That there might be a mirror universe of a total Open Source Microsoft XP and Vista- and then an evil company in Redmond called Ubuntu run by that Mr. Burns from the Simpsons?
There are far easier solution to all this, which would be, that once again the summary isn't entirely 'accurate' in typical slashdot style. Or alternatively, he only varied those three because that was already complex enough to work with and his claim of 25% only reflects universes within those three parameters.
So far we have no observational evidence whatsoever that other universes even exist, no observational evidence for more than 4 dimensions, and no observational evidence for universal silly string.
Most of this talk is mental masturbation by overeager physics and math theorists.
Actually there's a very cheap and effective test. Just try dying. If you can't, there are an infinite number of universes, in some of which you become immortal.
I agree, it's about as good as a religious test (you'll know for sure once you die, honest!).
Hi, I'm (nominally) a Christian, could you point out the star from when Jesus was born?
A picture would be fine. Try to fit in the big rays shining off at 90 degree angles, if it's not too much trouble.
In this sense, we conclude that universes with stars are not especially rare...
He then goes on to say that:
In future work, another issue to be considered is coupling the effects of alternative values of the fundamental constants to the cosmic expansion, big bang nucleosynthesis and structure formation.
So his conclusion really should read: If you only consider varying three parameters 25% of the time stars would burn. However there is no guarentee that they would ever form nor has any work been done studying the effect of varying the other fundamental parameters. So we cannot conclude in any meaningful sense from this paper whether universes with stars are common or rare. However it is a step along the way.
Last time I checked the definition of universe is still "all existing matter and space considered as a whole"
So if the universe is "everything" can someone tell me how there can be "many?" in a way that isn't a mathematical fantasy proven in the minds of few and no where else?
I think the definition of "universe" is usually considered to be "all existing matter and space and energy considered as a whole, that is part of the same continuum with us, that is connected to us". Another universe could not be reached, even as a thought experiment bypassing all constraints like speed of light, by travelling in our 3 dimensions. Put something out of reach like this, and you have a different universe.
There are also other possible definitions of universe, and of course you can come up with fictional or hypothetical ways of connecting universes temporarily (like wormholes) or otherwise travelling between them (like avoiding timetravel paradoxes by that being travelling into different universes, not back in time in the original universe).
Flip a fair coin an infinite number of times. What fraction of the time does it come up heads? Half. Granted, that's still an infinite number of times, but it's also still half the number of times flipped. Transfinite math is weird: multiples and fractions of infinity are still infinity, but that doesn't mean you can't do multiplication and division with them.
Hell, there's an even easier example than that one. How many positive integers are there? Infinite. How many of those are even? Half. So how many even numbers are there? Infinite.
One of my favorite little pseudo-philosophical thoughts related to this, more on subject: as any fraction of infinity, no matter how small, is still infinity, if there are an infinite number of different universes, then anything that is possible, no matter how improbable, so long as it has any probability at all greater than zero, will occur an infinite number of times. Likewise if space or time are infinite. (For the purposes of this post, "infinite" assumes non-repeating, as a repeating infinite structure is indistinguishable from a finite looped structure).
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
Life as we know it began when an entity able to evolve appeared billions of years ago. No other lifeforms have or could have existed for long. Obviously, billions of universes ago, a universe having the properties suitable for life appeared and it has been recycled ever since. Tne recycling process happens when an experiment such as the Large Hadron Collider initiates a big bang event.
If I understand Progman3K, it is more precise than that.
Say the universe is 15 billion years old. We can observe a 15 billion light year radius ball around us.
Well, in a sense, this ball is the whole universe. Saying anything farther exists has no meaning, if your "exist" definition is "being part of our universe".
If you see the visible universe as part of a bigger thing, as it seems reasonable. If you imagine a place 30 billion light years away and at the same date as us, as no photon ever came to this place to us it is in a quantum superposed state of anything that is possible. So, that is a different universe.
I'm not sure I'm clear...
Indulging in whimsy does not make one gullible, merely human.
It's a capability that's generally considered to be a good thing.
Unlike curmudgeon.
I don't think people are aware what implications this could have for what really could exist 'out there'.
If the natural laws are quite different in many other universes, warp travel, time travel could be possible, or even life itself could be much more common or varied, and it could be easier perhaps, to travel far, in other universes than our own. Energy-based life-forms, even "gods" in the meaning of very powerful beings, which have spread out in the galaxies and taking control, might exist. They might exist here too, however the physical constants of our universe makes it very cumbersome to travel and communicate, and radiation is also a problem, so it seems like we are somewhat alone in our corner of the galaxy. That is, unless this is correct!
Thus - the 'reality' of some of our science fiction stories could be true in other universes, while we live in a "boring" one with few means of transportation and (quick) communication over long distances. Even the brane we reside upon seem to be very stiff, since gravity waves haven't been observed (yet), so no easy wormhole solutions for transportation seem feasible with moderate amounts of energy. Even though other universes probably never can be observed directly, this is exciting stuff, hopefully we will be able to collect at least indirect evidence of other universes, perhaps with some of the experiments done in the big hadron collider.
That's a pretty unreasonable leap of faith, a marble on the sidewalk isn't the universe.
If followers of astronomy are gullible, I would like to know how you call followers of astrology. ;-)
I remember deriving three different versions of the Schrodinger equation, &c., back in freshman year. QM always struck me as being fundamentally a bunch of B.S. - throwing a whole bunch of theory together with enough "maybe"s, "sorta"s, "kinda"s to give a bunch of stoned physics majors a decent amount of C.Y.A. I mean - come on - when you start resorting to things like probability flux density isn't that basically a cop-out from determinism? and isn't determinism what science is supposed to be all about, in the end?
Whew, many great comments under this subject. Possibilities of multiples universes existing, all without the guidance of an incredibly intelligent Being we call our Creator God. However, if so many universes do exist what power holds them apart? Is there a level of SuperPhysics over all the different universe-level physics laws? Yep, there'd hafta be. And the plot thickens. Even though I'm one of Jehovah's Witnesses I could allow for a small space of possibility that God is not running the show ~that all of this just decided to happen~ except for a big problem. According to physicists every system is in some degree of degradation. Without God offering us everlasting life all we have is a wonderful glob of stuff that will all wind down like a clock to either stop or miraculously regenerate into another wonderful glob of stuff, complete with all new sets of living things whose only hope is to one day end again. By reading SlashDot I've learned about great areas in outer space where vast empty voids of nothing exist. By reading more SlashDot articles I've learned the universe is expanding Faster&Faster instead of slowing down... which consternates and befuddles scientists to explain why. And yet the Bible explains it very well. The "empty spaces" still being filled shows what the Genesis account of Creation already told us over 3,000 years ago. It says there that God rested on the 7th Day so we are still in that 7th Day of Creation. What we are observing is the finishing of Universal Creation still in the process of completing itself after God started the 7th Day off & running and rested as His orders executed. I wrote of this in a SlashDot article dated August 25 2007 plus explained about 2012 a good deal also and how the Native American Indian, Mayan and Biblical prophecies are all coming true in the same era or timespan not a particular year we can pinpoint. The Holy Bible has many answers coming true now that explains Man's continuing quandaries and consternations. Anyone who closes the door on the Bible is making a huge mistake. I started out my life being taught ("brainwashed") the Bible was true. I once thought about leaving God with many of you others but then decided nope, I'm going to play these cards. So far my Faith in my cards has helped me discover many answers, a lot of them here => askinventor.com/index.htm#IfGodcaresforuswhydoesntHedosomethingabouttheplanetsweather. I've shown how Peak Oil can be totally avoided by building circular energy "frictionless" engines => Universal_Energy_Truths_of_Real_Time_Grapevine_Energy.pdf .How I did all that? Because the Bible convinced me that God made this Universe for us to live in forever so He must have made technologies to one day run just as efficiently by our hand as the Universe runs by His Hand and neither of us is degrading down to Zero. That's your laws mandating failure not God's. Those who choose to believe in the half empty cup will reap an empty cup. On the other hand, by my believing in the Ancients like Moses as well as the Greek and Roman philosopher-scientists I've seen how to make a solar device that operates like a particle accelerator and an engine that runs in circles like a back-to-back waterwheel that substitutes metal balls for H2O water molecule
Industrial Age 2 + How-to Stop Malignant Cancers.
A bit of a tangent, but I recall an Asimov story ("The Gods Themselves"?) where this idea was played with.
Basically, people in a universe like ours discover a way to open up a path to a universe where the constants are different. Somehow, this allows them to extract energy. This was all fine and dandy, except that they discover that this "leaks" the different universal constant from the other universe into theirs, eventually causing all of the stars in their universe to destabilize.
The solution was to open up another portal to another universe with yet another set of constants to offset the drift.
Part of the story is about the "people" in the universe they are connected to... but I forgot what happened to them.
-- "This world is a comedy to those who think, a tragedy to those who feel."
While researchers discovered that while a different universe could still have stars, they found that this is the only possible universe in which Morris Dancing could exist.
What if Tetris was invented by Nazis?
There has to be one where they have figured out how to easily travel to other universes. In that subset there must be one where they can detect certain signals from people who live in restricted universes. No all we need to do is signal them and we have a way of traveling to other universes.
Wow, I invented multi-verse travel.
I want my Nobel Prize now!!!
Of course it turns out I did get my Nobel Prize, but it was just in some other universe, this universe sucks....
Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
Still if you saw a marble sitting on the sidewalk, would you automatically assume that it was the only marble ever made?
That marble exists within the context of something else. There is by definition more observable room and more observable source material from which other marbles to spring.
The universe is a bit different. By definition is encompasses the entirety of reality and existence itself.
It is an interesting question though. It seems unlikely that the Big Bang was a particular random event that occured once to create our universe that will eventually flitter out of existence. It's too random to be a one time event. To me though, the Big Crunch theory just seems to be the most intriguing. A cycle of collapsing and subsequent banging makes more sense than a one time fluke.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
With all the discussion of multiple universes, none has ever been found. Not one. (See also: Multiple Planets Like Earth)
This is pure speculation. It assists in the idea that, given enough universes, we just happened to land in the one that 'works'. Other than this one, there 'must have been trillions of others' that didn't get Earth right, so nothing happened there.
(It also avoids the question, "Who is it, making all these universes until it gets right?" but let's not bother the scientists with that, just yet...) :>
Keep in mind: every creation has a cause greater than itself. And this one universe was created, not continually recreated. Hubble shows the stars accelerating, not slowing down; this is well known.
One book points out, correctly, that the "Earth is suspended from nothing" and says this reality began with "Let there be light", and the "dividing the land" part, discussing the parting of the continents through tectonic action. It also has dozens of other 'how could they have known?' instances all throughout it's pages: the Bible. No one else got any of these right.
So why are scientists so afraid to look there?
I'd like to live in a Star Trek Universe of some sort- all kinds of discoveries and most of life's little troubles worked out, but this reality doesn't work that way. We're not solving problems, we're changing them. And life on the 'next inhabitable planet' requires FTL tech that we don't have. Wouldn't it be better to be happy here, than crawling over each other to get off this rock in the off-chance we ever break the FTL problem? Answers to these problems are in that same book.
--- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
There is only one planet, we are it, and all the stars in the firmament revolve around us.
Well, there might be some other planets, but God dammit, there is only one sun, and we and the other planets revolve around IT!
Wait. Shit. Wait. All the other stars are suns too, and there are billions of them? Ok, well, then there is only one galaxy...and it's sure as hell the only one there is.
No? You say that astronomers have found other galaxies in the universe, all moving away from each other in an ever-expanding universe? Well, it's sure as shit the only universe, and it's a hella fuckin' balls-to-the-wall awesome one too.
There is more than one universe? Perhaps an infinite number you say? Well, certainly we are the only one that can support stars and life. I'm absolutely certain that this is the case.
No, it isn't the case? You science folk obviously haven't been able to make up your fucking minds, so I'm joining the Flat Earth Society and ordering me a copy of The Geocentric Bible which I will read over a bonfire roasting a smore sandwiched between Darwin's "The Origin of Species" and Hawking's "A Brief History of Time" instead of graham crackers. At least they've made up their minds.
Captain type says, "Quick [insert engineer/techie name], we need that alternate universe drive moving us NOW! We have to complete this mission!"
Engineer/techi says, "I know Cap'n, but if I push any more power to the [insert fictional controller/conduit name], the drive could blow!"
Captain type grimaces and replies, "Well that won't matter in 60 seconds when the [insert fictional badguys] 2nd attack ship comes into range. Just do it!"
"Cap'n, we're already at 89% on the destroy universe probability meter! But at 91% it won't just be this universe... we could tear a hole in space-time and destroy all of them!", wails the already too busy keeping the universe intact to bother talking engie/techie.
The captain with sudden calm coming over his face responds, "Yeah, but 3/4 of them don't have stars anyway."
The techie incoherently mutters something about Slashdotters before saving everybody and everything ever with the punch of a few buttons and the twist of a wrist.
Another theoretically righteous half-wit who thinks that a single feature of the anthropic principle accounts for the vast array of ecobalanced coincidences that make up the anthropic principle. These antifanatics never learn...
The real anthropic principle: http://knol.google.com/k/richard-ryals/the-anthropic-principle/1cb34nnchgkl5/2
it also contains the electrolytes that plants crave.
Everybody knows that.
Gullible: It's my birthday, can you point out my sign?
Me: (points at the ground)
Could it be, possibly, that some of them are just interested out of curiosity even if they don't believe in it? A local Chinese restaurant has a menu with the zodiac years. Even though I don't follow Chinese astrology, it's fun to read what people born in my year are supposed to act like, and whether I'm supposed to be compatible with various family members. If I asked you to point out my sign, it'd be in that same sense.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
We are told only in the Bible he created the time-space matter-energy universe.
No. You obviously lack the familiarity you claim to have with other religions, even very closely related ones, and with religion in general. (You've made the same wrong assertion many times now, and people have pointed out the problems with it; perhaps you've just missed them all.) Islam and Judaism make this same claim, and even about roughly the same God! Hinduism and Daoism have very different spins on this idea. Zoroastrianism has exactly the same theological concept (Ahura Mazda, the uncreated creator) that you claim is true only of Christianity. Only one of the few, major counterexamples I just gave is younger than Christianity, and most are *much* older. It is either naive or arrogant of you to think that your religion (in this case, Christianity) is the lone bastion in all human history of people being in some way "reasonable" about their religion, above and beyond how poor that reason actually is.
One of the most majestic sentences in all of human writings...
"Majestic" is a matter of opinion. And it is clear you have not sampled "human writings" very broadly, and are in no position to assert this one is tip-top; only that you like it.
...is the first verse of the Bible...
The first verse of the Bible is also a sweeping claim about reality, it isn't based on evidence, and there is evidence that it is an incorrect claim anyway.
The Bible contains many accurate predictions that have come true throughout history, some are happening right now before our eyes, and some are about to happen in the not too distant future. These predictions are not vague generalities, but very narrow and specific.
Bullshit. You have made this claim in very many posts on Slashdot, but never once named even one. Name them, or stop making this claim.
Only in the Bible are we given an accurate account of Jesus Christ...
How would anybody know it was accurate? Most religions in the world make no reference to Jesus of Nazareth, and most of those that do consider him a prophet at most; certainly not the son of God and most certainly not God himself.
...and gave powerful evidence that this is true. He showed understanding of and mastery over the forces of nature and overcame our greatest enemy -- death.
Appealing to evidence is not a battle you can win. The Bible simply makes claims about Jesus, including the virgin birth and resurrection after death, and ascent into heaven. The Koran claims that Muhammad ascended into heaven on a flying horse. These are not historical facts; they claim to be historical facts just like many other false claims. They just aren't corroborated by analysis.
I cannot see how anyone can study any field of science and not be amazed and stand in awe of the incredible order and harmony of the world we find ourselves in.
Maybe you can't, but that's not to say there are none. Fascination and awe with the universe is what attracts scientists to study it in its many facets.
I cannot imagine how this order could have arisen by any process NOT involving careful thought and planning...
That's appealing to lack of imagination. Just because you can't imagine an alternative doesn't mean there aren't alternatives. In fact, complexity often arises from simple rules; one discovers this in the course of scientific or even purely mathematical study. You're clearly unfamiliar with such things, so perhaps their existence is news to you. ... -- the mind of God.
Here's a second leap of logic: You fail to understand how something could be, and then ascribe it to magic. Scientists are comfortable admitting they don't know how everything works,
Other religious writings place their god as part of or within this physical time-space-matter-energy universe.
I'll post this yet again, because this wrong assertion just keeps getting made:
No. You obviously lack the familiarity you claim to have with other religions, even very closely related ones, and with religion in general. Islam and Judaism make this same claim, and even about roughly the same God! Hinduism and Daoism have very different spins on this idea. Zoroastrianism has exactly the same theological concept (Ahura Mazda, the uncreated creator) that you just claimed was true only of Christianity. Only one of the few, major counterexamples I just gave is younger than Christianity, and most are *much* older. It is either naive or arrogant of you to think that your religion (in this case, Christianity) is the lone bastion in all human history of people being in some way "reasonable" about their religion, above and beyond how poor that reason actually is.
The record tells us that those who came to arrest Jesus fell down backwards at the sound of the name of God.
"The" record? There are many books, and many holy books, but they do not constitute historical "record". The Bible claims a lot of unlikely events happened. So does the Koran, so do the Vedas, and so does the New York Times. Not every claim that gets made or reported is true.
The Bible tells us that God just is.
But it is just as easy for the universe itself "just to exist". Religious claims of special creation don't solve any mystery at all, and they are worse because they require belief without evidence.
Oooh, that was an embarrassing typo. :)
Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
Your apologia for Christianity is refreshing. I see I've written a lot, but I hope you will find it insightful enough to endure and consider even if you don't think it's worth a reply. I don't mean any of the following in a condescending or vitriolic way, and hope you will keep as much in mind while reading. Many Christian apologists are more like Christian "stonewallers" than anything, and I will return your good faith (no pun intended).
Do you have any examples [of the Bible's inaccuracies]?
Forthcoming; I'll put them at the end of my post because I consider them minutia and would rather exhaust the reader's patience with deeper and better-tailored discussion.
This charge has been made against the Bible before, and in countless instances, that which was thought to be wrong later proved to actually be correct by archaeology.
Actually, exactly the opposite is true. In countless instances, that which we thought to be correct in the Bible was later discredited by archaeology, scientific advancement, the greater historical context, or just plain internal inconsistency, all of which cause Christian apologists to equivocate or syncretize outright, as your two posts today indicate you have done. If you want to decide to believe a bunch of stuff on pure faith, anyone can question your abandoning of reason but nobody can argue with you on faith. But, if you want your religious faith (*any* religion, definitely including Christianity) to be a reasoned one, you're fighting a losing battle and trying to justify your decision after you've made it. It should concern you that you've made your decision without justifying it first.
It should also concern you (any religious follower, that is) that a) other people find similar-quality evidence of their religions convincing, and b) that which religion humans follow is largely a matter of when and where they were born, rather than of their own reasoned choice. Perhaps the creator of the universe really thinks some people should have a hard time escaping damnation for believing the wrong religion, at least enough not to bother ensuring the "correct" religion (or one "similar enough" to it) was available to them. What do you think God was doing for the first 200,000 to 400,000 years humans lived on Earth? They led difficult, unenlightened lives with primitive tools, without the benefit of language, and certainly without the loving direction of God, which according to even the Abrahamic religions was absent for all but the last 4000 years, give or take depending on literature.
There are hundreds of historical falsehoods, scientific falsehoods, and of course internal contradictions to be found in the Bible; probably thousands if anyone ever earnestly tried to catalog them. History is not my area though, and I find most of these to be boring minutia, being more familiar with the scientific shortcomings (and of course the logic errors and horrendously immoral imperatives).
Actually, this ["God did it"] explains a great deal. It explains why there is an order and method to the universe.
You're appealing to salience. What you and the original poster actually mean to say are (respectively) "Actually, this would explain a great deal" and "[claiming] 'God did it' is an unfounded explanation, even if some people find it salient". Moreover, it is our minds that demand we find order in things (as we are innate pattern-matchers), and we must of necessity fit harmoniously in any universe we inhabit, which is a tautological truism that doesn't lend any support to the "tuned universe" argument for God.
In other words, the other poster objected to your claim of "explanation" in the same sense you meant it here:
[The Bible] also explains how our universe came into being.
It's a possible configuration of reality, but it is not empirical or reasoned.
The fact that G
I propose a new definition of universe: A universe is everything that can be sensed - including the stuff that we would have to travel to any distance to sense. There could be other universes - but we cant sense them. We can *never* sense them. Our universe may be infinite in the three dimensions we can detect, but finite in others - or perhaps we need a definition that allows for two or more infinites that are not connected. (Yes, I just used the plural of infinite.)