Can physics explain the existence of physics?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter quantumcarl
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Explain Physics
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Ask a follow-up in this thread, or start your own.
35 replies · 5K views
Ivan Seeking said:
In one Many Worlds model seen along the way, it is suggested that an infinite number of universes are generated, but the laws of physics vary from one to the next, and only certain universes are viable; or maybe only one is viable. The rest ultimately fail. In a sense this would explain why we have the laws that we have. And even without this model the answer may be the same, but then one has to ask how we got so lucky.

Edit: Maybe not from the Many Worlds Theory. This was one variation on the Big Bang Theory, IIRC.

How we got so lucky!? I guess we chose our reality well!

I used your premise about Many Worlds in my reply to self Adjoint. One law, and I don't know if its physical or not, but, there seems to be a need for opposites. Its a similar idea to "for every action an equal and opposite reaction" but it has less to do with action and more to do with "for every existence there is an equal and opposite existence". Maybe this is one way physics can be explained. Its here because it isn't somewhere else.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Why is that hard to accept?. There is nothing special about this universe. Multiverse theory merely proposes this is one of many [perhaps infinite] versions of a universe that allows complex structures to form - like sentient observers. I try not to read too much into that. While there may be infinite numbers of 'me' in the 'multiverse', we do not communicate [so far as I can perceive]. I therefore conclude they have no causal connection to my observable universe.
 
Chronos said:
While there may be infinite numbers of 'me' in the 'multiverse', we do not communicate [so far as I can perceive]. I therefore conclude they have no causal connection to my observable universe.

Its a good thing that you're not a photon. The wave theorists would be out of jobs. :biggrin:

Edit: Okay now let me say that in a way that someone will understand.

The single photon, double slit experiment, is what I had in mind. IIRC, at least some versions of MWT depend heavily on the idea that alternate realities do interfere.
 
Last edited:
Ivan Seeking said:
Its a good thing that you're not a photon. The wave theorists would be out of jobs. :biggrin:

Edit: Okay now let me say that in a way that someone will understand.

The single photon, double slit experiment, is what I had in mind. IIRC, at least some versions of MWT depend heavily on the idea that alternate realities do interfere.

Are alternate realities part of the study (and reality) of physics?
 
quantumcarl said:
Are alternate realities part of the study (and reality) of physics?


Not really. They may be part of some people's interpretation, but that is not diectly part of the study (or reality) of science. It's more part of the sociology of scientists.
 
selfAdjoint said:
Not really. They may be part of some people's interpretation, but that is not diectly part of the study (or reality) of science. It's more part of the sociology of scientists.

Of course we could interpret the dark side of the moon as a different reality as compared to the reality of the sunny side of the moon. But, in this case reality is purely relative to those somewhat organized piles of matter that have light receptors, temperature sensitivity and a nice cozy extravehicular space suit.