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
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'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
but what if i stick my head in the sand?
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.
"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.
i thought "uni" meant one and only.
doesn't "uni" mean one and only?
Which is why I find your double post so delightfully ironic!
Well, back to rejecting software patent applications.
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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