NFT: Physicists on fine-tuning; are they missing the obvious?

the multiple "big bangs" theory is not tenable against the fact that the expansion of the universe is speeding up, not, as gravity and the theorists predicted, slowing down.

That's brand new and has been documented and led to the theory of "dark energy" - or in other words, something we know nothing about.

Isn't Your theory dependent on the Universe obeying the laws of gravity and contracting and exploding again.?

7"if we could understand the order of the universe well enough, we would find that it surpasses all the wishes of the wisest people, and that it is impossible to make it better than it is — not merely in respect of the whole in general, but also in respect of ourselves in particular". We live in the best of all possible worlds.

I read an interesting book this past weekend that talked in part about the ancient religions of the world. A point many had in common was a belief that God created the world using the cosmos - matter that already existed. It seemed so much more plausible to me than any of the other explanations, including this idea of fine tuning.

Thanks for sharing Milton.

the book actually stated that the belief in a god who created the universe and all matter out of nothing was relatively recent. This is the foundation of most modern christian churches (especially those who take the Bible in its most literal sense as the word of God), and frankly is the type of thinking that I think most rational, educated people find conflict with. I believe those religions are ultimately doomed as people continue to be more and more educated.

In comment 12388465 grizz299 said:

Quote:

the multiple "big bangs" theory is not tenable against the fact that the expansion of the universe is speeding up, not, as gravity and the theorists predicted, slowing down. That's brand new and has been documented and led to the theory of "dark energy" - or in other words, something we know nothing about. Isn't Your theory dependent on the Universe obeying the laws of gravity and contracting and exploding again.?

Yes, my theory assumes that the Universe will eventually discontinue expansion and ultimately collapse on itself, resulting in another Big Bang.

How strong is the evidence behind the belief that the Universe is expanding at an increasing speed? And does it necessarily preclude the possibility that the Universe will ultimately collapse on itself anyway (i.e., the Universe expands at a faster and faster speed until it breaks apart, thus changing the "gravitational equation" in a way that results in an expansion speed that is decreasing rather increasing).

Another possible way to rectify the two theories is that: following several billion Big Bangs--each resulting in expansion and then contraction (in a comparatively short amount of time)--there finally occurred a Big Bang that had just the right amount of explosive power and mix of elements to form a Universe whose expansion is unending. And it could then be argued that for the same reason that this particular Big Bang resulted in an ever-expanding Universe (full of stars and planets in clusters of galaxies), it also resulted in a Universe that had just the right mix of elements for life to form.

I consider myself an agnostic. I don't believe in a conscious God that created the Universe, but I can't rule it out altogether. I certainly don't believe in any biblical God.

In comment 12388472 Big Al said:

Quote:

"if we could understand the order of the universe well enough, we would find that it surpasses all the wishes of the wisest people, and that it is impossible to make it better than it is — not merely in respect of the whole in general, but also in respect of ourselves in particular". We live in the best of all possible worlds.

It - ( New Window )

In comment 12388486 Milton said:

Quote:

In comment 12388472 Big Al said: Quote: "if we could understand the order of the universe well enough, we would find that it surpasses all the wishes of the wisest people, and that it is impossible to make it better than it is — not merely in respect of the whole in general, but also in respect of ourselves in particular". We live in the best of all possible worlds. It - ( New Window )

I don't know what I accidentally hit, but it was supposed to read...
"It's certainly the most expensive." - ( New Window )

premise. It shouldn't be "how did it come to be that the physical laws of the Universe are precisely as they need to be in order for both mankind to exist?"

How about we exist PRECISELY because of the physical laws of the Universe.

I think you are correct, it is just as (if not more) likely that there have been multiple big bangs than that there are multiple universes. Both have been proposed by physicists and there are mathematical models supporting both theories, IIRC.

I'm finding myself personally more attracted over time to the belief that the creation of this world was directed purposefully by more evolved beings - who would rightfully be considered gods by humanity, particularly of old. Seems our own knowledge growth could lead within 1000 years or so to our own experiments with controlling/directing matter in similar ways, so why is it so hard to believe that another more evolved being could have done so.

Who do you think created the more evolved beings that purposely created our world? I'd like to send them a thank-you note.

In comment 12388481 Dan in the Springs said:

Quote:

the book actually stated that the belief in a god who created the universe and all matter out of nothing was relatively recent. This is the foundation of most modern christian churches (especially those who take the Bible in its most literal sense as the word of God), and frankly is the type of thinking that I think most rational, educated people find conflict with. I believe those religions are ultimately doomed as people continue to be more and more educated.

All religions are ultimately doomed as people continue to be more and more educated.

our existence is pretty much inevitable.

Fish exist the way they do due to their laws of nature. Same as birds, same as us. We've all adapted, to conform to our own laws of physics. Animals and fish are found all the time in situations that scientists previously thought impossible for them to survive.

Call me crazy, but why can't life live elsewhere under different laws of physics? Why are we so close minded to think that life can only exist with oxygen for example? Somewhere, somehow I assume life exists in a situation we would never dream possible. One day in the far, far distant future - do we look back at modern man and laugh at our modern day version of "the world is flat"? Who knows.

In comment 12388547 RB^2 said:

Quote:

our existence is pretty much inevitable.

Did you watch the video? The question isn't whether or not life was inevitable given the make-up of the Universe, the question is why is it that the make-up the Universe is exactly as it needs to be for stars and planets to even exist, let alone life?

In comment 12388489 section125 said:

Quote:

premise. It shouldn't be "how did it come to be that the physical laws of the Universe are precisely as they need to be in order for both mankind to exist?" How about we exist PRECISELY because of the physical laws of the Universe.

Yeah, well it's certainly true that we exist precisely because of the physical laws of the Universe, I don't see why that precludes us from asking the question of why it is that the Universe seems is fine-tuned for the existence of life. Just the opposite, it begs the question. Which is why it's a riddle for which theoretical physicists like Leonard Susskind and Stephen Hawking are trying to find an answer. For them, it's not enough to say "we just won the super-duper lotto jackpot so don't ask so many questions."

In comment 12388561 Milton said:

Quote:

In comment 12388547 RB^2 said: Quote: our existence is pretty much inevitable. Did you watch the video? The question isn't whether or not life was inevitable given the make-up of the Universe, the question is why is it that the make-up the Universe is exactly as it needs to be for stars and planets to even exist, let alone life?

This question always annoys me, because its irrelevant: if the universe did not expand and allign as it needs to permit life, we wouldn't be having this conversation. And their were billions of years where that was the case.

many authors, the Koran was put together from the memories of hundreds of people who knew Mohammad. There is no word of God.
Milton you make a profound point.

In comment 12388697 WideRight said:

Quote:

This question always annoys me, because its irrelevant: if the universe did not expand and align as it needs to permit life, we wouldn't be having this conversation. And their were billions of years where that was the case.

No there weren't billions of years where that wasn't the case, because the physical laws which created the Universe and led to the existence of stars and planets and galaxies were all established within the first second following the Big Bang.

I'm guessing that you didn't watch the video. If you had you would understand the question better and why it's relevant.

Try looking at it this way, I'll present you with two possible scenarios...
In scenario 1, a trillion and one tickets to a $100 billion dollar jackpot are given out to a trillion and one different organisms throughout the Universe. And you're the lucky winner! You feel special, but you realize it was just luck because there are a trillion other organisms with losing tickets. No reason to think it was fixed.
In scenario 2, you are the only recipient of a ticket in this lottery, but you are told that the odds are still the same of it being a winning ticket: a trillion and one to one. And lo and behold, it's a winning ticket. You would be quite happy to pocket $100 billion dollars, but at the same time wouldn't you be at least a little suspicious that it was fixed.

Basically, the existence of the Universe as we know it--with all of its stars and planets and people--is more like scenario 2 than scenario 1. At least it is until we can find evidence of other Universes with losing tickets.

similarly to the idea of a pothole being fine tuned for a puddle.

In comment 12388553 Shecky said:

Quote:

Fish exist the way they do due to their laws of nature. Same as birds, same as us. We've all adapted, to conform to our own laws of physics.

Not true, all animals and all vegetables and minerals for that matter obey the same laws of physics, we've just adapted differently to them.

Quote:

Call me crazy, but why can't life live elsewhere under different laws of physics?

It's possible that there could be "conscious entities" existing under different laws of physics in universes separate from our own and that's exactly what Susskind theorizes (although he doesn't require that these universes be able to support any kind of life, just that they exist). But his theory, like yours, requires that the laws of physics aren't consistent across the so-called Multi-verse (or Mega-verse, as Susskind calls it). My point is that it isn't necessary to believe in multiple universes co-existing (but with different laws of physics) in order to rectify the long odds; you just need to believe that we had multiple rolls of the dice (as in, multiple Big Bangs).

In comment 12388797 Milton said:

Quote:

In comment 12388697 WideRight said: Quote: This question always annoys me, because its irrelevant: if the universe did not expand and align as it needs to permit life, we wouldn't be having this conversation. And their were billions of years where that was the case. No there weren't billions of years where that wasn't the case, because the physical laws which created the Universe and led to the existence of stars and planets and galaxies were all established within the first second following the Big Bang. I'm guessing that you didn't watch the video. If you had you would understand the question better and why it's relevant. Try looking at it this way, I'll present you with two possible scenarios... In scenario 1, a trillion and one tickets to a $100 billion dollar jackpot are given out to a trillion and one different organisms throughout the Universe. And you're the lucky winner! You feel special, but you realize it was just luck because there are a trillion other organisms with losing tickets. No reason to think it was fixed. In scenario 2, you are the only recipient of a ticket in this lottery, but you are told that the odds are still the same of it being a winning ticket: a trillion and one to one. And lo and behold, it's a winning ticket. You would be quite happy to pocket $100 billion dollars, but at the same time wouldn't you be at least a little suspicious that it was fixed. Basically, the existence of the Universe as we know it--with all of its stars and planets and people--is more like scenario 2 than scenario 1. At least it is until we can find evidence of other Universes with losing tickets.

The Big Bang was approximately 6 billion years ago; so thats six billion years where we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Your analogy escapes me. If there are a trillion and one organisms, then there a trillion and one "lucky" organisms, one of which has a winning lotto ticket. If there's one organism with a winning lotto ticket, then there are no "losing tickets" because there no other organisms.

By definition there is only one universe.

I take it you haven't watched the video. If you had you would understand the question better.
p.s.-- In my analogy, there are a trillion and one organisms, it's just that only one ticket was handed out.

In comment 12388900 WideRight said:

Quote:

By definition there is only one universe.

Many a theoretical physicist would beg to differ.

Quote:

Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, in their 2010 book The Grand Design, present a highly readable and even somewhat entertaining summary of recent research trying to uncover the long-sought "theory of everything," together with efforts to understand the implications of these theories on modern cosmology (i.e., the study of the origin and evolution of the universe). Hawking and Mlodinow argue that modern string theory (in particular, the "M-theory" of Edward Witten) leads to a huge ensemble of universes (the multiverse), so that we should not be surprised that our particular universe is life-friendly -- however fantastic the odds, there are so many universes in this ensemble that one life-friendly universe (ours) is bound to appear somewhere (i.e., assuming the anthropic principle). They conclude, "If the theory is confirmed by observation, it will be the successful conclusion of a search going back more than 3000 years. We will have found the grand design." What's more, the book contains numerous jabs at belief in God, such as "the multiverse concept can explain the fine-tuning of physical law without the need for a benevolent creator who made the universe for our benefit."

.

When you consider discussions in theoretical physics, semantics in not your friend. The defintion of a word only holds in certain boundary conditions. A universe is an all encompassing composite of matter and energy. Envision it as contracting or expanding, or vibrating on a string with resonance and amplitude. There's still only one, wether its an expansion or a sine wave. When contracts/re-expands or recycles, there can be another, but without any relationship to the prior or future. If you say there are coexisting composites of mass and energy and that form separate universes simultaneously, you may be trying to describe something, but you're not using the word correctly.

In comment 12389154 WideRight said:

Quote:

When you consider discussions in theoretical physics, semantics in not your friend. The definition of a word only holds in certain boundary conditions. A universe is an all encompassing composite of matter and energy. Envision it as contracting or expanding, or vibrating on a string with resonance and amplitude. There's still only one, wether its an expansion or a sine wave. When contracts/re-expands or recycles, there can be another, but without any relationship to the prior or future. If you say there are coexisting composites of mass and energy and that form separate universes simultaneously, you may be trying to describe something, but you're not using the word correctly.

As you said, it's more of a semantical argument. I get what you're saying, but if Leonard Susskind and Stephen Hawking and Ed Witten are comfortable with terminology that allows for multiple universes co-existing in space and time than who am I to tell them they are using the word incorrectly.

Ironically--or maybe fittingly--what we are probably seeing is the "evolution" of the word.

The multi verse is not only "more likely than not" it's almost a certainty.

Didn;t we think only a few years ago that the earth was the center and unique.? Did we then think that there was only one galaxy and that singular milky Way galaxie was the universe. Now we know - post Hubble - that there's billions of galaxies, beyond the billions we knew about.

I think the notion of one universe is quaint. And certainly the rigid dogmatism that says there's only one universe by definition begs the question, by whose definitions? And where in anybody's definition say "there is only one universe.

And to Milton.... Sorry Buddy, it is, admittedly uncharted territory but everything we know suggests that the expansion will increase in speed and not slow down and contract. And as far as the speeding expansion...when the astronomers - who, it must be remembered, were looking to see how much the expansion was slowing down, found the increase they didn't announce the discovery because they were sure they'd screwed up the calculations. They checked and rechecked and then asked other observatories around the world to confirm it. When they were finally convinced they published with the addendum: we know less now than we did a year ago".

Grey energy is just a concept to explain the expansion but I wonder if it's not as simple as the laws are still working but there's something outside the univers excerting it's gravity on those galaxies.
Gray matter is also a concept because somehow they've computed that there should have been more matter produced in the original big bang. The theory says that matter might have no charge and then not be visible or known to us. Now people suggest that space is not empty, that space is gray matter and that the expansion is stretching it. Try to imagine...space is not empty, i'ts not nothing it's being stretched...that opens stuff we will never understand...absolutely never understand with a brain made to escape lions and to find receptive females
Now if people want to label the vastness of what we don't know as god, I have no problem with that. If people want (need, really) to imagine a god sitting down to listen and act upon your prayers and manuever events...I don't agree. When my daughter died a Muslim told me, it was my fault, I didn't pray hard enough. He was, and I really mean this, within a fraction of meeting that god, but if there is such a god, I don't like him and think of Frost's line "Forgive me god, my little jokes on thee and I'll forgive your great big one on me."
Bottom line....most likely...this universe is never going to contract, doesn't mean it won't but nothing we know supports or remotely suggests it. You can hold onto your theory, but I prefer Lewis Carol theory that pigs can grow wings.

but I believe that the laws of physics being in place dictate what will become of the universe. What I mean is that the laws are set, and things develop along those parameters. It's not that these laws allow us to exist, rather that they caused us to exist. If the laws were different, we would be different, the universe would be different, but it would still exist in accordance to those laws. People like to look for the deeper meaning in our existence, but I think that we're just one product in a vast experiment and that our existence is no surprise given the laws that are in place.

but then again, maybe not. And so on and so on.

They have proven that time runs at different speeds as you approach the speed of light. I don't agree, I mean I know they are right, they are much smarter, the study these things, they say they have proof positive and have brought back atomic clocks from space that have lost seconds compared to clocks that stayed here.'
I don't agree, It's impossible for me to comprehend so I'm going to disagree.
And they say that the time stood still and didn't exist until the big bang and I'm going to disagree with that too.
Einstein built his theory of relativeity around a clock in a square where he was somehting like a filing clerk. He looked at that clock and thought that as you moved away from it at the speed of light the following light rays would make it look like the clock was running slower. Therefore because the clock Looked like it was running slower time was slowing down. I don't get that.
And as you returned you'd be cruising into the light rays so wouldn't the clock appear to be running faster ergo you want to say that time has speeded up? And when you landed shouldn't it be equal to the real time on the clock.?
And if you fire out a light ray when you're going closer to the speed of light what speed does it go to?
For that matter if an F16 shoots a bullet does it go faster than a bullet from a grounded marine?
I don't get any of this.
They say that particles isolated by billions of light years can affect each other simultaneous even as they say light is the fastest thing in the universe and bingo they've found another disagreement here.
Quantum theory... They say if you try often enough you can walk through a brick wall....you know what that produces in my finite brain....disagreement.
They say the "vibrating string" is the heart of everything and I want to know what the string is made up of and why it's vibrating.
And here's the best one...they say some of these things in the atom don't happen unless you're watching it. Honestly, can't we all agree to disagree on that one? Does that make sense on any level.
I feel like Steven Wright who goes to the refrig , takes out the instant water and doesn't know what to mix it with.

In comment 12389485 grizz299 said:

Quote:

but then again, maybe not. And so on and so on. They have proven that time runs at different speeds as you approach the speed of light. I don't agree, I mean I know they are right, they are much smarter, the study these things, they say they have proof positive and have brought back atomic clocks from space that have lost seconds compared to clocks that stayed here.' I don't agree, It's impossible for me to comprehend so I'm going to disagree. And they say that the time stood still and didn't exist until the big bang and I'm going to disagree with that too. Einstein built his theory of relativeity around a clock in a square where he was somehting like a filing clerk. He looked at that clock and thought that as you moved away from it at the speed of light the following light rays would make it look like the clock was running slower. Therefore because the clock Looked like it was running slower time was slowing down. I don't get that. And as you returned you'd be cruising into the light rays so wouldn't the clock appear to be running faster ergo you want to say that time has speeded up? And when you landed shouldn't it be equal to the real time on the clock.? And if you fire out a light ray when you're going closer to the speed of light what speed does it go to? For that matter if an F16 shoots a bullet does it go faster than a bullet from a grounded marine? I don't get any of this. They say that particles isolated by billions of light years can affect each other simultaneous even as they say light is the fastest thing in the universe and bingo they've found another disagreement here. Quantum theory... They say if you try often enough you can walk through a brick wall....you know what that produces in my finite brain....disagreement. They say the "vibrating string" is the heart of everything and I want to know what the string is made up of and why it's vibrating. And here's the best one...they say some of these things in the atom don't happen unless you're watching it. Honestly, can't we all agree to disagree on that one? Does that make sense on any level. I feel like Steven Wright who goes to the refrig , takes out the instant water and doesn't know what to mix it with.

These are all the things that I've been fascinated by lately (the double slit experiment, superposition, M-theory, quantum entanglement, even quantum suicide). It all seems like science fiction and yet here are all these Nobel prize winners who swear by its validity. Stephen Hawking is convinced that Ed Witten conquered the elusive holy grail of 'the theory of everything" with his M-theory, all it requires is that we believe we live in an 11-dimensional space-time continuum and we're made up of tiny vibrating strings.

I'm reminded of this snippet from one of Woody Allen's essays...

Quote:

I began with Kierkegaard and Sartre, then moved quickly to Spinoza, Hume, Kafka, and Camus. I was not bored, as I had feared I might be; rather, I found myself fascinated by the alacrity with which these great minds unflinchingly attacked morality, art, ethics, life and death. I remember my reaction to a typically luminous observation of Kierkegaard's: "Such a relation which relates itself to its own self (that is to say, a self) must either have constituted itself or have been constituted by another." The concept brought tears to my eyes. My word, I thought, how clever! (I'm a man who has trouble writing two meaningful sentences on "My Day at the Zoo.") True, the passage was totally incomprehensible to me, but what of it as long as Kierkegaard was having fun?

I think you may appreciate this intro from Richard Feynman (which is basically him saying he gets that you don't understand it because he doesn't understand it either, but it doesn't change the fact that it's true)....
"This is the way nature works" - ( New Window )

My rotweiller is giving me strange looks...

i tried your video...sound not good will play it later with speakers.

It's not just quantum mechanics that I don't get, it's more pedestrian things. When I was a kid I always wondered how a sail boat go faster than the wind that was pushing it - in spite of the friction from the hull.
That one was easy. The way that water circles going down a sink (or toilet) and why that is different than on both sides of the equator quickly sucumbed to the raw power of my noodle too.
But they've known about the speed of light (186,000 per second) forever. How did they figure that one out... I mean how could you compute that even with modern instrudments.

Now tell me about your GPS. I read the darn thing can compute your altitude by bouncing a beam off a satellite and timing how long it takes. So it can tell the difference in time down to the foot of something that's traveling at 186,000 miles per second...OK that's not exotic that a hundred dollar machine doing that....I don't believe it. I don't know how it's being done, but that's not it.
other places I've read that the GPS can break a second down to billions....first off I can't believe that the difference in one foot for something going as fast as light would mean a figure as big as a billonth of a second. I have to believer that it's not measureable. But assuming light traveling from a satellite and back does take a billioneth of a second to go one foot longer...now you're telling me my GPS can do that?
Absolutely Impossible.

but the methods that were used aren't astounding in the least and can be replicated quite easily without a lot of tech. A trip to the science section of your local book store would do wonders for your ability to understand some of these things.
The aforementioned Richard Feynman has some great reads for us laypersons.

in a hundred words or less (and without sending me on a shopping expedition) please tell me how they computed the speed of light.

Scientists just confirmed the existence of "Dark Energy", a mysterious repulsive force that acts in opposite to gravity. As the distance increases, the attractive gravitational force decreases but this mysterious repulsive force increases. This repulsive force is pushing galaxies apart; the greater the distance the greater the repulsion. Scientists today do not know what this "Dark Energy" is, but they know that it is causing the entire universe to expand at an increasing rate.

For the first 7 bln years after the big bang the expansion of the universe slowed down because the attractive gravitational forces were stronger than this repulsive force. However as the distances between the galaxies increased the attractive gravitational forces weakened while this repulsive force became dominant. This made the expansion of the universe to enter an accelerating phase:
I googled how they measure the speed of light too, Shep , thanks.

Cover an entire dish with large marshmallows standing side by side.

Place the dish in a microwave, set the microwave on high for a few minutes, and watch.

Wait until the first four or five marshmallows begin to melt, turn off the microwave and remove the plate.

Measure the distances between the marshmallows that began to melt. The distance should be around 6 centimeters, and represents half of the wavelength of the microwave. Divide by 100 to get the reading in meters.

Find the frequency of your microwave. It is measured in megahertz (MHz) and is usually llisted on the back of the device and in the instruction manual.

Multiply the wavelength (your measurement from step 4, doubled) by the frequency (the MHz from the microwave) to equal the speed of light in meters per second.

Sponsored Links


Read more : http://www.ehow.com/how_5157189_calculate-speed-light.html

I'm amazed by the telephone. How is it possible? But I can't deny that it works.

And once again I turn to Woody Allen....
"How the hell do I know why there were Nazis, I don't know how the can opener works" - ( New Window )