Below is a link to an interview with Stanford University theoretical physicist Leonard Susskind on the topic of "fine-tuning" in the Universe, the question being: 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?
Susskind gives some detail on just how improbable it is that it's just a happy accident and follows it up by claiming that the best explanation is that we must live in some kind of mega-Universe that includes a multitude of universes and we happen to exist in the universe where the physical laws allow for us. So--in other words--given a near infinite number of possible universes, it's no surprise that one of them would have the physical laws that are precisely needed for our existence.
But in his list of three possible explanations (God, coincidence, or multiple universes each with their own physical laws), he leaves out what seems to me the simplest explanation; which is that rather than the co-existence of multiple universes, the fine-tuning is the result of
multiple Big Bangs.
There already exists the theory (and it's even considered likely) that our universe is not the result of the first and only Big Bang, but instead that the universe has expanded and contracted repeatedly. So why not apply that theory to the explanation for fine-tuning?--with the belief that previous big bangs could have resulted in universes of a different physical and chemical make-up, but that we were fortunate enough that in our particular Big Bang, the conditions were exactly ripe for our existence.
Does that make sense? If not, watch the video and then tell me what I'm saying doesn't make sense. It just seems to me that Susskind and his fellow physicists are missing what should be considered the simplest explanation.
Is the Universe Fine-Tuned for Life and Mind? - (
New Window )
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.?
Thanks for sharing Milton.
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.?
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.
It - ( New Window )
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 )
How about we exist PRECISELY because of the physical laws of the Universe.
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.
All religions are ultimately doomed as people continue to be more and more educated.
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.
How about we exist PRECISELY because of the physical laws of the Universe.
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.
Milton you make a profound point.
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.
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.
p.s.-- In my analogy, there are a trillion and one organisms, it's just that only one ticket was handed out.
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."
Ironically--or maybe fittingly--what we are probably seeing is the "evolution" of the word.
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.
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.
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...
"This is the way nature works" - ( New Window )
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.
The aforementioned Richard Feynman has some great reads for us laypersons.
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.
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
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 )