Multiverse - Higgs boson - String - Anthropic Principle
- Thread starter Dr. Jones
- Start date
Archie Moses
Well-Known Member
Anthropic principle? I'll have to read up on that.
The evidence basically supports the theory of the expansion of the universe, and supporting the Big Bang Theory (i.e., the Universe had a beginning), as opposed to the Steady State theory (the Universe has always been and always will be), amIrite?
I would hesitate to say what the evidence supports as physicists disagree and some evidence is sketchy. My opinion of multiverse is it's more of a pseudo-science. Much more speculating and projecting current known truths rather than basing new theory on verifiable/quantifiable analysis.
I started this thread to learn not to teach.. so take everything I say with a grain of salt. I hope others, far smarter and better read on the subjects, join in and shorten my learning curve.
I started this thread to learn not to teach.. so take everything I say with a grain of salt. I hope others, far smarter and better read on the subjects, join in and shorten my learning curve.
No. Not yet.
Is this a cry for help trying to summons Ain'tnothing back from the banned?
So you're right this doesn't necessarily need "God", and the "In the beginning God....." . . . . did everything discussion.
The multiverse idea encompasses co-existing dimensions of reality some of which we might be able to represent mathematically even if they are not accessible from our point of view. Black holes for example could be more like "windows" into another realm which to an observer from the other side would look like a mysterious "Big Bang". All this matter and energy streaming out from a "point of origin", apparently out of "nothing". To put it another way, if God somehow decided to create our set of dimensions and had matter and energy available from another set of dimensions, He could have just opened a "window" like this, and to the observers watching it, it would have all appeared as if God has just spoken a word and created the universe they are in. . . .or that a "Big Bang" did indeed just "happen" out of no known prior existence.
So anyway, speaking of pure conjectural possibilities, there could be a succession of "universes" involving the seeming dissolution of immense quantities of mass and energy being "reconstituted" as they move through some portal into a new set of dimensions. . . .all quite beyond any hope of our direct observation or any way of knowing. . . . .
A different interpretation of the mathematical existence of other possible "universes" could involve radically "other" forms of existence, again quite beyond any hope of our gaining the power of observation, measurement, or comprehension. . . .
I don't think the Higgs boson is of anywhere near that scale of significance. . . . but could be a clue as to what kinds of things can happen in our universe.
String theory is based on the astronomical observation that there are "edges" or strings "out there" which are unusually active in terms of emerging galaxies/stars coming into organized form, and the mathematics that would explain it is very interesting but beyond my actual knowledge. . .. suffice it to say it is my impression that for some mathematical reason "wave mechanics" on the grander scale of things can explain it.
The Anthropic principle I presume refers to man having some kind of value above and beyond mere mass and energy, perhaps expressed in terms of cognition and/or organizing action. . . . .
tell you what. . . . I'll read up on all this a little and maybe come back when I know what I'm talking about. . . . . lol
Thanks babe. My very crude (intentionally) definition of Anthropic Principle is the need for science to find a scapegoat for questions physics can't answer. No, that's not a demand for an interjection of God. I'm simply saying most theories deriving from the Anthropic seem to be based on road blocks to science.
I probably made a fool of my self there.. but that's okay.. I'm trying to learn.
the physical laws of nature have no "needs". . . . it takes cognition to have "needs". Scientists "need" a scapegoat for questions science can't answer, perhaps. . . some may deny any "need" I suppose. . . . but it is a characteristic of humans above almost any other type of life to have purposes, desires, and motives, and purely intellectual "needs" for answers to questions. . . . Yes, we humans are in our minds trying to organize our data and interpret it in some beautiful (to us) way, just as we "need" to create new stuff that didn't exist until we conceived of it in our minds. . . . that's what I meant by "Anthropic Principle".
Something about humans I don't think One Brow has an answer for. . . . . but let's see. . . . .
We will, because of our natures, always be trying to improve things, change things, make things "better" to suit our purposes and perceived needs. Now show me a rock that can do that, or even a cow. uhhhhmmmm. . . . birds build nests, bees build hives. . . . . dogs dig cool dens in the burning summer sands. . . . . all show some level of "purpose" reflecting cognition. . . .
There's a whole school of philosophy about something called the Noosphere, arising from a Russian scientist's observations. . . .Vernadsky. A lot of "organizing" action in nature essential to life in general.
My parents are staying with me for the next couple of weeks, so I won't have time to participate in this interesting thread. But I wanted to make a couple of comments.
The Anthropic Principle is not science at all. It is a philosophical position. Whenever one is considering a theory on the nature or origin of the universe, one must remember that the laws of physics allow for human existence. So regardless of HOW that came to be, we must note that if it hadn't, we wouldn't be here to ask the question. Any beings capable of inquiring into the nature of their universe must be living in one that permits their existence. In other words, it isn't an answer to anything. It is simply an ontological guideline.
The multiverse is not pseudoscience. It is a perfectly reasonable explanation for quantum mechanics. Many physicists refuse to attach ANY explanation to QM, because there is no way to test those hypotheses. I personally find that baffling. The purpose of science is to provide us with better understanding, not just drone-like application-oriented number-crunching. However, its resistance to falsification leaves it in the realm of "speculation" for the moment. The same can be said about Superstring. But String theory attempts to invent a NEW paradigm to replace QM, and has thus far failed to show any testable hypotheses that would differentiate it from the current paradigm. That makes it more of an alternative theory to QM, while the multiverse is an explanation of why the universe works in such a crazy manner on the smallest levels.
I don't have time to explain how the explanation derives from Shrodinger's equation, and why it's superior to the most popular explanation, the Copehangen Interpretation. But I will link to an article that explains it, and I implore PKM and anyone else who's curious about it to give it a read. I'll also include a video as that's easier for some.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-manyworlds/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZacggH9wB7Y
The Anthropic Principle is not science at all. It is a philosophical position. Whenever one is considering a theory on the nature or origin of the universe, one must remember that the laws of physics allow for human existence. So regardless of HOW that came to be, we must note that if it hadn't, we wouldn't be here to ask the question. Any beings capable of inquiring into the nature of their universe must be living in one that permits their existence. In other words, it isn't an answer to anything. It is simply an ontological guideline.
The multiverse is not pseudoscience. It is a perfectly reasonable explanation for quantum mechanics. Many physicists refuse to attach ANY explanation to QM, because there is no way to test those hypotheses. I personally find that baffling. The purpose of science is to provide us with better understanding, not just drone-like application-oriented number-crunching. However, its resistance to falsification leaves it in the realm of "speculation" for the moment. The same can be said about Superstring. But String theory attempts to invent a NEW paradigm to replace QM, and has thus far failed to show any testable hypotheses that would differentiate it from the current paradigm. That makes it more of an alternative theory to QM, while the multiverse is an explanation of why the universe works in such a crazy manner on the smallest levels.
I don't have time to explain how the explanation derives from Shrodinger's equation, and why it's superior to the most popular explanation, the Copehangen Interpretation. But I will link to an article that explains it, and I implore PKM and anyone else who's curious about it to give it a read. I'll also include a video as that's easier for some.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-manyworlds/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZacggH9wB7Y
^thanks, Siro. I'll read it.
Perhaps pseudoscience was too strong or a bad description. All I really meant is science is measurable and whereas multiverse is immeasurable it is therefore theory. Science can surely include theories.. as it has to begin with an idea before something can be quantified.. but I used pseudo because multiverse is only a theory at this point and physicists agree it cannot be proven.
Just curious what word would better describe the above mentioned separation in sciences that can be measured/proven vs. a theory that cannot?
Perhaps pseudoscience was too strong or a bad description. All I really meant is science is measurable and whereas multiverse is immeasurable it is therefore theory. Science can surely include theories.. as it has to begin with an idea before something can be quantified.. but I used pseudo because multiverse is only a theory at this point and physicists agree it cannot be proven.
Just curious what word would better describe the above mentioned separation in sciences that can be measured/proven vs. a theory that cannot?