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?
There is a general misunderstanding regarding the meaning of words like "law, principle, theory" and such within mainstream culture. In science, everything is a theory. Scientific knowledge is always probabilistic. A currently accepted theory is only accepted because it is confirmed by most observations, make for better predictions, and/or provides the best answer to a previously unanswered question. When scientists use the term law, they simply mean an established principle without any known contradicting evidence (or very little). But it is still probabilistic. The constancy of the speed of light is a law of physics. It has had so many confirmation across so many different fields and disciplines, and it explains so much in a profound and comprehensive way, that it would require some SERIOUSLY convincing experimental data to cast doubt on it. But it may be proven incorrect nonetheless. An accepted theory will typically contain many laws and principles.
The multiverse is a theory in a softer sense. Whether someone believes that interpretation or any other makes little difference to their experimental procedures, as the interpretation has little bearing on the rules of quantum mechanics. QM is the theory. Multiverse is the explanation of why QM are so freaking bizarre and counter-intuitive.
The Black Swordsman
Well-Known Member
Lets say you are in a room with 50 swat members aiming their gun at you with lasers. They are all about to shoot you in 5...4...3...2..1... BAM they all shoot. You are still alive?
You shouldn't be surprised you are alive because if you weren't you wouldn't be alive. Instead you should be surprised the bullets missed.
You shouldn't be surprised Humans are alive in the Universe, you should be surprised the Universe allowed for humans to survive due to its fine tuned nature.
This is why Siro fails to understand.
You shouldn't be surprised you are alive because if you weren't you wouldn't be alive. Instead you should be surprised the bullets missed.
You shouldn't be surprised Humans are alive in the Universe, you should be surprised the Universe allowed for humans to survive due to its fine tuned nature.
This is why Siro fails to understand.
You've concluded that this discussion is superfluous because you already know all the answers and know that those who disagree are wrong. Congratulations. Since this discussion has no value to you I'd like to politely ask you to stay out of it.
TIA TBS
Like I said in my first post, the Anthropic Principle is not a scientific theory. It is a logical response to the Fine Tuning argument. Fine Tuning hypothesis stipulates that the nature of the universe is so perfectly tuned to our existence. Anthropic Principle responds by saying "Well, DUH! If it wasn't we wouldn't be here talking about it". In essence, nobody denies that the laws of the universe make it possible for humans to exist, and that other laws would not (since we are the product of these very laws).
The Black Swordsman
Well-Known Member
We don't know much about why abiogenesis occurred for example but we know it occurred. We should still be surprised it occurred and try to find out how it occurred. Not just say if it didn't occur we wouldn't be here. We don't just say "Well, DUH!" I am a man of science, reason, rationality, and logic so I cannot do such foolishness.
Same thing with anthropic principle. You don't just say "Well, DUH!" like an idiot. You try to find out why the universe is fine tuned.
That is precisely the point. The fact that it is tuned for our type of life is not surprising. It could not have been any other way. Regardless of the explanation, a universe that has conscious beings must have the laws the support their development. So the Fine Tuning argument says nothing worth saying. The question of why the universe have its current laws is what much of theoretical physics attempts to answer.
The Black Swordsman
Well-Known Member
A human living against swat members requires no explanation. The 50 swat members does.
Humans living because of fine tuned universe requires no explanation. The universe being fine tuned still does.
In the sense of the discussion Siro linked in the video above, there was some discussion of the mathematical results of the QM equations allowing divergent realities. The snow-covered car pulls out of the parking lot and one multiverse has it turn to the right while the other has it turn to the left. And the astute QM theologian allows that there are infinite possible solutions to the unversal wave equations. Delightful possibilities.
So according to the math, if fifty swat team members unloaded their semi-automatics on you, fifty rounds per clip and say ten clips, there would be bullets flying literally everywhere but one "solution" to the mathematical equations would have them all miss you. That's the world for me!!!!!!
I just thought that was good for a laugh.
I don't believe "time" warps or varies, either, and time travel is impossible because the time field is not path-dependent. I don't believe this kind of multiverse is possible, either. Lots of quantum mechanical equations have probabilities of zero. What is curious though is that while hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, scientists do detect one of it's radiative emanations that has a zero mathematical "probability". So I hold out some consideration for impossible things. . . . though I suspect a more mundane explanation like a "catalytic" effect in some circumstances causing the forbidden transitions and radiation. . . . just like cold fusion is theoretically impossible under normal circumstances, but can happen in some other circumstances such as the combination of an electric field, the presence of the element boron in a metal that also has close-packed deuterium.
My idea of "multiverse" is much more mundane that the imaginary mathematical solutions of mere equations. Maybe a structure that is not simply spherical and maybe spaces/dimensions that are around some kind of "bend" where we just can't "see". I work with bailing wire a lot, and use it fix everything including my truck which is just too old to be held together in any other way. . . . . who knows if we are not living in a "wire" universe that can bend and fold back on itself in a way that could allow someone with "the right tools" to look across the gap and see us.
Last edited: