Can Another Universe Create Life-Producing Stars?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Gold Barz
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the speculation regarding the existence of other universes with different physical constants and laws. Participants debate whether the constants of our universe are optimal for life or if other configurations could yield life-producing stars. A key point is that while some argue that the laws of physics remain constant across different universes, others suggest that both laws and constants could vary. The conversation touches on Eugene Savov's theory, which posits that the universe results from self-similar transformations, implying that while laws may stay the same, constants can differ. However, many participants emphasize that these ideas remain speculative without empirical evidence or mathematical backing, leading to a distinction between scientific theories and personal beliefs. The discussion also highlights semantic disagreements about the definitions of "universe" and "laws," indicating that a common understanding of terminology is necessary for productive dialogue. Ultimately, there is a consensus that while the concept of multiple universes is intriguing, it remains largely theoretical without concrete proof.
  • #31
If there are other Universes out there, they would have the same laws we have here. The reason for that is... laws had to exist before our Universe existed, or else our universe would not be here. Those same laws apply to all other universes out there to be created, and the universes don't make up laws as they grow and expand. So the "Universe" as DragonGod puts it is correct. An expanse that covers all universes with the same laws to create any universe out there, and therefore each universe would have the same laws.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Rahmuss said:
If there are other Universes out there, they would have the same laws we have here. The reason for that is... laws had to exist before our Universe existed, or else our universe would not be here. Those same laws apply to all other universes out there to be created, and the universes don't make up laws as they grow and expand. So the "Universe" as DragonGod puts it is correct. An expanse that covers all universes with the same laws to create any universe out there, and therefore each universe would have the same laws.
Perhaps we could all spend some time getting our terminology onto a common basis?

I mean, 'universe' - one or many?
'laws' (of physics) - by definition, is there only one set (for the 'Universe', or all 'multiverses')? or does this term mean 'laws that we conclude apply in the (part of the) universe we can see'?
[and maybe some other semantic non-disagreements]

If we can agree on what we mean by the key terms we use, maybe we could get to have a real discussion. :-p
 

Similar threads

Constructing a meme - an exercise
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
283
RIP Donald Sutherland (88), 1935-2024
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
Genetic code other than DNA (moved)
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Red Dwarf Star Systems -- Could they support life?
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
421
I What are the Dynamics and Impacts of a Type II Supernova?
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
MHB My Failed University Life: Addictions, Depression, and Uncertain Future
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Can a random sequence produce an ordered output
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Could the Laws of Physics Be Proportional to Entropy?
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
348
Will-o’-the-Wisps
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
259
Can random, unguided processes produce a rational brain?
  • · Replies 56 ·
2
Replies
56
Views
8K