<<
<< ok, can someone just summarize what bozo just said?
>>Twinkies are good for you and are part of a well balanced Breakfest. >>
Excellent
<<
<< ok, can someone just summarize what bozo just said?
>>Twinkies are good for you and are part of a well balanced Breakfest. >>
Excellent
Outside the solar system is just regular space and you have other star systems out there in our galaxy.
Outside our galaxy is just regular space and you have other galxies in our universe.
Outside the universe is nothing because if there was something it would be part of the universe.
<< For all of you physicist-wannabes like myself, let me recommend a few great books I read.
Arthur Clarke and Steven Baxter's The Light of Other Days
Stephen Baxter's Manifold Time
Michael Crichton's Timeline
Stephen Hawking's book that I can't remeber the title of...
I have always been fascinated with Quantum Physics and time theory and these books were great reads for me. >>
Are those first three just science fiction books? I wouldn't really look to those to get an understanding of physics. Here's some more good books:
A Brief History of Time - Stephen Hawking
Hyperspace - Michio Kaku
The Elegant Universe - Brian Greene
Six Not-so-easy Pieces - Richard Feynman
Black Holes and Time Warps - Kip S. Thorne
Outside our galaxy is just regular space and you have other galxies in our universe.
Outside the universe is nothing because if there was something it would be part of the universe.
<< For all of you physicist-wannabes like myself, let me recommend a few great books I read.
Arthur Clarke and Steven Baxter's The Light of Other Days
Stephen Baxter's Manifold Time
Michael Crichton's Timeline
Stephen Hawking's book that I can't remeber the title of...
I have always been fascinated with Quantum Physics and time theory and these books were great reads for me. >>
Are those first three just science fiction books? I wouldn't really look to those to get an understanding of physics. Here's some more good books:
A Brief History of Time - Stephen Hawking
Hyperspace - Michio Kaku
The Elegant Universe - Brian Greene
Six Not-so-easy Pieces - Richard Feynman
Black Holes and Time Warps - Kip S. Thorne
<< Outside the universe is nothing because if there was something it would be part of the universe. >>
Well, if you define the universe as "everything that exists," then of course nothing exists besdies everything that exists.
But I think people on this thread are using it more generally in the sense of "all phenomena viewed as existing completely within this interlocking system bounded by the macrodimensions of height, width, depth, and duration."
it all boils down to that age old question - how can something have no boundries - no end.
everything has to be in something.
even multiple universes have to be in something
how can nothing go on forever
what is the nothing in?
even infinity has to be in something, even if its another infinity.
the human mind cannot comprehend something without limits, a painting with no border.
Anthropic Principle :
In the past 20 years our understanding of physics and biology has noted a peculiar specialness to our Universe, a specialness with regard to the existence of intelligent life. This sends up warning signs from the Copernican Principle, the idea that no scientific theory should invoke a special place or aspect to humans.
All the laws of Nature have particular constants associated with them, the gravitational constant, the speed of light, the electric charge, the mass of the electron, Planck's constant from quantum mechanics. Some are derived from physical laws (the speed of light, for example, comes from Maxwell's equations). However, for most, their values are arbitrary. The laws would still operate if the constants had different values, although the resulting interactions would be radically different.
Examples:
* gravitational constant: Determines strength of gravity. If lower than stars would have insufficient pressure to overcome Coulomb barrier to start thermonuclear fusion (i.e. stars would not shine). If higher, stars burn too fast, use up fuel before life has a chance to evolve.
* strong force coupling constant: Holds particles together in nucleus of atom. If weaker than multi-proton particles would not hold together, hydrogen would be the only element in the Universe. If stronger, all elements lighter than iron would be rare. Also radioactive decay would be less, which heats core of Earth.
* electromagnetic coupling constant: Determines strength of electromagnetic force that couples electrons to nucleus. If less, than no electrons held in orbit. If stronger, electrons will not bond with other atoms. Either way, no molecules.
All the above constants are critical to the formation of the basic building blocks of life. And, the range of possible values for these constants is very narrow, only about 1 to 5% for the combination of constants.
It is therefore possible to imagine whole different kinds of universes with different constants. For example, a universe with a lower gravitational constant would have a weaker force of gravity, where stars and planets might not form. Or a universe with a high strong force which would inhibit thermonuclear fusion, which would make the luminosity of stars be much lower, a darker universe, and life would have to evolve without sunlight.
The situation became worst with the cosmological discoveries of the 1980's. The two key cosmological parameters are the cosmic expansion rate (Hubble's constant, which determines the age of the Universe) and the cosmic density parameter which determines the acceleration of the Universe and its geometry).
The flatness problem relates to the density parameter of the Universe, can take on any number, but it has to be between 0.01 and 5. If is less than 0.01 the Universe is expanding so fast that the Solar System flys apart. And has to be less than 5 or the Universe is younger than the oldest rocks. The measured value is near 0.2. This is close to an of 1, which is strange because of 1 is an unstable critical point for the geometry of the Universe.
Values slightly below or above 1 in the early Universe rapidly grow to much less than 1 or much larger than 1 (like a ball at the top of a hill). So the fact that the measured value of 0.2 is so close to 1 that we expect to find in the future that our measured value is too low and that the Universe has a value of exactly equal to 1 for stability.
This dilemma of the extremely narrow range of values for physical constants is allowed for the evolution of conscious creatures, such as ourselves, is called the anthropic principle, and has the form:
Anthropic Principle: The Universe must have those properties which allow life to develop within it at some stage in its history.
There are three possible alternatives from the anthropic principle;
1. There exists one possible Universe `designed' with the goal of generating and sustaining `observers' (theological universe). Or...
2. Observers are necessary to bring the Universe into being (participatory universe). Or...
3. An ensemble of other different universes is necessary for the existence of our Universe (multiple universes)
Anthropic Principle and Circular Reasoning :
The usual criticism of any form of the anthropic principle is that it is guilty of a tautology or circular reasoning.
With the respect to our existence and the Universe, the error in reasoning is that because we are here, it must be possible that we can be here. In other words, we exist to ask the question of the anthropic principle. If we didn't exist then the question could not be asked. So there is nothing special to the anthropic principle, it simply states we exist to ask questions about the Universe.
An example of this style of question is whether life is unique to the Earth. There are many special qualities to the Earth (proper mass, distance from Sun for liquid water, position in Galaxy for heavy elements from nearby supernova explosion). But, none of these characteristics are unique to the Earth. There may exists hundreds to thousands of solar systems with similar characteristics where life would be possible, if not inevitable. We simply live on one of them, and we would not be capable of living on any other world.
This solution is mildly unsatisfying with respect to physical constants since it implies some sort-of lottery system for the existence of life, and we have no evidence of previous Universes for the randomness to take place.
Anthropic Principle and Many-Worlds Hypothesis:
Another solution to the anthropic principle is that all possible universes, that can be imagined under the current laws of Nature, are possible and do have an existence as quantum superpositions.
This is the infamous many-worlds hypothesis used to explain how the position of an electron can be fuzzy or uncertainty. Its not uncertain, it actual exists in all possible positions, each one having its own separate and unique universe. Quantum reality is explained by the using of infinite numbers of universes where every possible realization of position and energy of every particle actually exists.
With respect to the anthropic principle, we simply exist in one of the many universes where intelligent life is possible and did evolve. There are many other universes where this is not the case, existing side by side with us in some super-reality of the many-worlds. Since the many-worlds hypothesis lacks the ability to test the existence of these other universes, it is not falsifiable and, therefore, borders on pseudo-science.
Anthropic Principle and Inflation :
Another avenue to understanding the anthropic principle is through inflation. Inflation theory shows that the fraction of the volume of the Universe with given properties does not depend on time. Each part evolves with time, but the Universe as a whole may be stationary and the properties of the parts do not depend on the initial conditions.
During the inflation era, the Universe becomes divided into exponentially large domains containing matter in all possible `phases'. The distribution of volumes of different domains may provide some possibility to find the ``most probable'' values for universal constants. When the Universe inflated, these different domains separated, each with its own values for physical constants.
Inflation's answer to the anthropic principle is that multiple universes were created from the Big Bang. Our Universe had the appropriate physical constants that lead to the evolution of intelligent life. However, that evolution was not determined or required. There may exist many other universes with similar conditions, but where the emergent property of life or intelligence did not develop.
Hopefully a complete Theory of Everything will resolve the `how' questions on the origin of physical constants. But a complete physical theory may be lacking the answers to `why' questions, which is one of the reasons that modern science is in a crisis phase of development, our ability to understand `how' has outpaced our ability to answer if we `should'.
In the past 20 years our understanding of physics and biology has noted a peculiar specialness to our Universe, a specialness with regard to the existence of intelligent life. This sends up warning signs from the Copernican Principle, the idea that no scientific theory should invoke a special place or aspect to humans.
All the laws of Nature have particular constants associated with them, the gravitational constant, the speed of light, the electric charge, the mass of the electron, Planck's constant from quantum mechanics. Some are derived from physical laws (the speed of light, for example, comes from Maxwell's equations). However, for most, their values are arbitrary. The laws would still operate if the constants had different values, although the resulting interactions would be radically different.
Examples:
* gravitational constant: Determines strength of gravity. If lower than stars would have insufficient pressure to overcome Coulomb barrier to start thermonuclear fusion (i.e. stars would not shine). If higher, stars burn too fast, use up fuel before life has a chance to evolve.
* strong force coupling constant: Holds particles together in nucleus of atom. If weaker than multi-proton particles would not hold together, hydrogen would be the only element in the Universe. If stronger, all elements lighter than iron would be rare. Also radioactive decay would be less, which heats core of Earth.
* electromagnetic coupling constant: Determines strength of electromagnetic force that couples electrons to nucleus. If less, than no electrons held in orbit. If stronger, electrons will not bond with other atoms. Either way, no molecules.
All the above constants are critical to the formation of the basic building blocks of life. And, the range of possible values for these constants is very narrow, only about 1 to 5% for the combination of constants.
It is therefore possible to imagine whole different kinds of universes with different constants. For example, a universe with a lower gravitational constant would have a weaker force of gravity, where stars and planets might not form. Or a universe with a high strong force which would inhibit thermonuclear fusion, which would make the luminosity of stars be much lower, a darker universe, and life would have to evolve without sunlight.
The situation became worst with the cosmological discoveries of the 1980's. The two key cosmological parameters are the cosmic expansion rate (Hubble's constant, which determines the age of the Universe) and the cosmic density parameter which determines the acceleration of the Universe and its geometry).
The flatness problem relates to the density parameter of the Universe, can take on any number, but it has to be between 0.01 and 5. If is less than 0.01 the Universe is expanding so fast that the Solar System flys apart. And has to be less than 5 or the Universe is younger than the oldest rocks. The measured value is near 0.2. This is close to an of 1, which is strange because of 1 is an unstable critical point for the geometry of the Universe.
Values slightly below or above 1 in the early Universe rapidly grow to much less than 1 or much larger than 1 (like a ball at the top of a hill). So the fact that the measured value of 0.2 is so close to 1 that we expect to find in the future that our measured value is too low and that the Universe has a value of exactly equal to 1 for stability.
This dilemma of the extremely narrow range of values for physical constants is allowed for the evolution of conscious creatures, such as ourselves, is called the anthropic principle, and has the form:
Anthropic Principle: The Universe must have those properties which allow life to develop within it at some stage in its history.
There are three possible alternatives from the anthropic principle;
1. There exists one possible Universe `designed' with the goal of generating and sustaining `observers' (theological universe). Or...
2. Observers are necessary to bring the Universe into being (participatory universe). Or...
3. An ensemble of other different universes is necessary for the existence of our Universe (multiple universes)
Anthropic Principle and Circular Reasoning :
The usual criticism of any form of the anthropic principle is that it is guilty of a tautology or circular reasoning.
With the respect to our existence and the Universe, the error in reasoning is that because we are here, it must be possible that we can be here. In other words, we exist to ask the question of the anthropic principle. If we didn't exist then the question could not be asked. So there is nothing special to the anthropic principle, it simply states we exist to ask questions about the Universe.
An example of this style of question is whether life is unique to the Earth. There are many special qualities to the Earth (proper mass, distance from Sun for liquid water, position in Galaxy for heavy elements from nearby supernova explosion). But, none of these characteristics are unique to the Earth. There may exists hundreds to thousands of solar systems with similar characteristics where life would be possible, if not inevitable. We simply live on one of them, and we would not be capable of living on any other world.
This solution is mildly unsatisfying with respect to physical constants since it implies some sort-of lottery system for the existence of life, and we have no evidence of previous Universes for the randomness to take place.
Anthropic Principle and Many-Worlds Hypothesis:
Another solution to the anthropic principle is that all possible universes, that can be imagined under the current laws of Nature, are possible and do have an existence as quantum superpositions.
This is the infamous many-worlds hypothesis used to explain how the position of an electron can be fuzzy or uncertainty. Its not uncertain, it actual exists in all possible positions, each one having its own separate and unique universe. Quantum reality is explained by the using of infinite numbers of universes where every possible realization of position and energy of every particle actually exists.
With respect to the anthropic principle, we simply exist in one of the many universes where intelligent life is possible and did evolve. There are many other universes where this is not the case, existing side by side with us in some super-reality of the many-worlds. Since the many-worlds hypothesis lacks the ability to test the existence of these other universes, it is not falsifiable and, therefore, borders on pseudo-science.
Anthropic Principle and Inflation :
Another avenue to understanding the anthropic principle is through inflation. Inflation theory shows that the fraction of the volume of the Universe with given properties does not depend on time. Each part evolves with time, but the Universe as a whole may be stationary and the properties of the parts do not depend on the initial conditions.
During the inflation era, the Universe becomes divided into exponentially large domains containing matter in all possible `phases'. The distribution of volumes of different domains may provide some possibility to find the ``most probable'' values for universal constants. When the Universe inflated, these different domains separated, each with its own values for physical constants.
Inflation's answer to the anthropic principle is that multiple universes were created from the Big Bang. Our Universe had the appropriate physical constants that lead to the evolution of intelligent life. However, that evolution was not determined or required. There may exist many other universes with similar conditions, but where the emergent property of life or intelligence did not develop.
Hopefully a complete Theory of Everything will resolve the `how' questions on the origin of physical constants. But a complete physical theory may be lacking the answers to `why' questions, which is one of the reasons that modern science is in a crisis phase of development, our ability to understand `how' has outpaced our ability to answer if we `should'.
Very interesting thread.
I always think about this, and then my brain hurts and I go away.
IMHO: We are a product of evolution and so is our consciousness. We have developed whatever faculties are at our disposal as a result of survival on this planet. Whether its because we live in 3 dimensions or because our brains are wired a certain way, we are simply incapable of understanding what, if anything, is outside our universe. Even Steven Hawking isn't smart enough!
- NOT morkinva
I always think about this, and then my brain hurts and I go away.
IMHO: We are a product of evolution and so is our consciousness. We have developed whatever faculties are at our disposal as a result of survival on this planet. Whether its because we live in 3 dimensions or because our brains are wired a certain way, we are simply incapable of understanding what, if anything, is outside our universe. Even Steven Hawking isn't smart enough!
- NOT morkinva
<< ponder this one:
how does someone with 768 posts get "Elite"? >>
The same way someone with under 10 got Elite. The Elite people are Elite when they arrive here sometimes it just takes longer for them to be noticed.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 411
Facebook
Twitter