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."
Universe, uni- means 'one' (duh). So you think if there is one '-verse' then there is probably more. All of the universes together is called the multiverse or meta-universe.
i think string theory allows for up to 23 dimensions at once. i dont know if that qualifies as seperate universes or multiverses - but it does expand on ours if it is valid (string theory that is).
"You can kill the revolutionary, but you can't kill the revolution."-- Fred Hampton
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!
I hope all these new theories are proved wrong so we can maintain continuity of the language.
You fail. Miserably. I don't know how many languages you speak, but English is one of them. Read anything from a few centuries ago, compare it with what you consider correct usage now and let me know if the "continuity of language" has ever been maintained.
Language is not supposed to be static. It's meant to convey information. Don't worry about the prefix "uni." Hundreds of years from now, if the existence of a multiverse is confirmed, children in school will learn that we call an "universe" a "universe" because humans once thought there was only one. Then they'll move on and file that under trivia. Who cares?
String theory posits that there are actually 11 (or 12?) dimensions, of which only 4 are "uncoiled" at any given time. In our "universe" those 4 are the three physical dimensions (length, width, height) and time.
Taken 4 at a time you come out with something like 8000 different "universes", each with their own physical laws.
The big goal of string theory is to figure out why our 4 dimensions are the uncoiled ones. It may be that those are the only ones that give a stable "universe", or it may be that there are other universes which use a different combination of those dimensions. At this point we just don't know.
instead of posting, why don't you read the wiki article on the anthropic principle and afterwards TFA? You raise valid points, but they're all addressed in those links.
This isn't positing the existence of multiple universes at all. This is about the question why the universal constants are what they are, and what would have happened if they were different.
Something completely different from M-theory.
I suffer from attention surplus disorder.
Would you all screw off about Popper. No one has ever done science the way Popper said they do, and even he backed off on is ridiculous claims in later years.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
As if there's something wrong with the multiverse theory? The theory itself isn't hard at all to understand, and it doesn't even need string theory as a backbone of proof. The theory is relatively simple. There's three theories that I can think of that back up the multiverse theory, two of them which I completely disagree with. One is the brane theory, another being the idea that every quantum reaction creates its own universe. But there's another one that sounds the most plausible of the three. Back when inflation was evaporating just a couple moments after the big bang started, there were still parts of false vacuum that would decay, but they wouldn't decay completely. When it gets to a point where there's a field of false vacuum small enough, that part will literally shred itself from the universe (think of it like a droplet of water coming out of a faucet) and assuming that it has enough energy, it can actually create its own universe in the same way ours was.
It really isn't that complicated of a theory, and it's very aggravating when you hear common-folk complain that our physicists are on shrooms or what have you.
Until it sets g too low and the universe expands forever instead of collapsing, or time doesn't increment. Or maybe our glorious intelligent designer has put a constraint in to make sure this can't happen :)
The atom was originally defined to be the smallest indivisible unit in existence. Under that definition, scientists were merely mistaken when they observed Helium, Iron, Oxygen, etc. and called those things "atoms". When we realized they were not indivisible, we could have invented a new word for them and used atom to refer to the even smaller particles. Instead, we just changed the definition of an atom.
It matters because changing the definition can affect the meaning of text written before the change. If I use the word "universe" to mean "all of existence", then later someone redefines "universe" to mean only the observable realm of stars and galaxies, it makes it difficult for others to fully understand what I meant through no fault of my own. The GP's point is that if you want to concoct a more specific meaning at odds with the previous meaning, please concoct a new word to go along with it.
If I remember correctly, there are 5 different versions of string theory (that vary slightly) each one, however, containing 11 dimensions of space (the directions (xyz), time, and the dimensions needed for the vibration of the strings). When the 12th dimension is added (correct me if im wrong, but i believe it is super-gravity) then we have M-Theory (Membrane-Theory). This theory brings together the 5 string theories.
QM certainly works. It demonstratively works. However the actual workings of QM are odd. In fact that it's easier to understand them if you invent an infinite number of parallel dimensions or dead/alive cats or any number of very bizarre but oddly more understandable things. Even clearly bizarre they tend to seem less bizarre than things actually work that way.
It's not complex. It's just weird. It's something that we just aren't good getting our heads around. Sure QM works and works every time we just have a tough time understanding how something be there and not be there, have a state and not have a state or be several places at the same time because we aren't use to this in our everyday lives. They don't compute... but we use quantum phenomenon to run our computers without fail or error. They just work.
It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon.
I cannot speak for Arminw, but here are the reasons why I believe the Bible.
First, unlike most religious books, much of the Bible is essentially a book about history and the reflections of its worldview as seen in historical events. This historical account has proven to be incredibly accurate -- far more so than any other writings from its time frame. It contains details that have stood up against tremendous scrutiny, and whenever someone thinks they have found an error in its account, archaeology eventually proves that the Biblical account was actually correct from the start (if you want examples, I can give you some, but for the sake of brevity, I will move on).
Further, the textual scrutiny and techniques given to ensure the accuracy of our manuscripts is unparalleled by any other work of ancient writings. The entire Old Testament except for the book of Ester was found in the Dead Sea Scrolls dating back to 100 B.C. These manuscripts were found to be nearly identical to the manuscripts that had been used to translate most versions of the Bible. This means that the Bible we have today -- especially in the Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic -- are essentially identical to the original writings with an accuracy that no other ancient document can touch.
These two facts make the writing of the Bible highly reliable as a record of ancient history and culture. If the Bible is so accurate in these little things, it makes me take what it says about God, life, the state of humanity, and how we should live our lives very seriously. It is one of the few religions to state that man is basically evil -- we are all capable of horrendous acts. This, I think, best explains the sorrows and atrocities we see in the world today.
It also explains how our universe came into being. Unlike most religions, it identifies the source of all things while most theories do not. Evolution cannot explain where the matter and energy came from in the first place. The theory of aliens populating our planet does not explain where the aliens themselves came from. Reincarnation does not explain the original source of our souls. Also, where did the laws of our universe come from? Why are we able to describe mathematically how our universe works with accuracy and predictability with formulas that are simple and eloquent? If the universe is run by collective consciousness or random chance, how could such an unchanging and perfect system come into being?
The Bible identifies God as the uncaused cause -- the singularity of eternal existence from which all things derive their existence. God created the laws that govern our universe and ensures that they remain unchanged to this day. The Bible also tells us that far from being an impersonal force, God desires to have a relationship with His creation, and that the Bible was His way of communicating with us.
Regarding the apocryphal and gnostic works, there were rules and procedures for choosing which books were considered scriptural. One of the most important rules was that the author needed to be a witness of Jesus Christ or directly associated with the original Apostles. Many of the gnostic gospels were actually written two to three hundred years after the events of the New Testament. The "Gospel of Judas" was written, for example, around 290 A.D., and its account is such a vast departure from the rest of the gospels, it would be hard to argue its accuracy and be intellectually honest. Another rule was the agreement of these works with the established scriptures -- the Old Testament. In short, it was a rigorous process and ultimately, these excluded works are a red herring. The fundamental aspects of Christianity can be found throughout all of the books of the Bible so that even if you removed some of the existing books, you would lose none of the essential doctrines.
This post is already getting quite long, and so I will pass on a detailed discussion of the Trinity, but it should be noted that the roots of this doctrine can even be found in the Jewish custom of Passover, the physical manifestations of God in the Old Testament (the incarnate God, Jesus Christ) and even the use of plural forms when God speaks in Creation ("let Us create...").
I hope this has helped.
I believe in de-evolution. God made the world perfect, man fell, and its been going downhill ever since!
Call me when string theorists make a testable prediction.
They have. The problem is that they haven't made a testable prediction yet that's unique to string theory. In other words, at the moment it predicts things as well as the current model, but nothing yet beyond that.
If the Bible is so accurate in these little things, it makes me take what it says about God, life, the state of humanity, and how we should live our lives very seriously.
The Bible is also very INaccurate about a lot of things. Why do you count the hits and forget the misses?
It also explains how our universe came into being.
Except it doesn't. "God did it" doesn't really explain anything.
Evolution cannot explain where the matter and energy came from in the first place.
Evolution doesn't have to, because that's not what evolution is about.
If the universe is run by collective consciousness or random chance, how could such an unchanging and perfect system come into being?
How do you define "perfection" when it comes to universes? How do you know our universe is "perfect" without something else to compare it against? And who says it's unchanging? It's not.