Constants and multiverse possibilities

[Chalnoth]

If we tried to set up any system and put it on automatic eventually the system will stray from its parameters because of entropy.

I think you have a rather screwed up concept of entropy. In classical thermodynamics, systems tend towards equilibrium, where everything becomes the same. For a system in equilibrium, there is no arrow of time, there is no distinguishing one location from another. Such a system tends to become completely uniform.

Systems only tend to change as the entropy increases. Once it has increased to its maximum, there is no more change.

For our own universe, the expected eventual state is completely empty space, for example. Once it reaches that state, it will stay that way forever.

 

[leonstavros]

I think you have a rather screwed up concept of entropy. In classical thermodynamics, systems tend towards equilibrium, where everything becomes the same. For a system in equilibrium, there is no arrow of time, there is no distinguishing one location from another. Such a system tends to become completely uniform.

Systems only tend to change as the entropy increases. Once it has increased to its maximum, there is no more change.

For our own universe, the expected eventual state is completely empty space, for example. Once it reaches that state, it will stay that way forever.

Perhaps my concept of entropy is somewhat erroneous but you know what I'm getting at. Any system requires feedback loops and repair mechanisms that keep a system functioning. Perhaps dark matter and dark energy are such feedback loops. Maybe a study of dark energy and dark matter for tiny fluctuations can prove that.

 

[Chalnoth]

Perhaps my concept of entropy is somewhat erroneous but you know what I'm getting at. Any system requires feedback loops and repair mechanisms that keep a system functioning. Perhaps dark matter and dark energy are such feedback loops. Maybe a study of dark energy and dark matter for tiny fluctuations can prove that.

"Functioning?" We're talking about the speed of light here. The speed of light is just a unit conversion factor between time and space. There is nothing here about "functioning".

Basically, the argument goes as follows:

First, a mathematical system needs extra parameters to break symmetries. The "natural" state for a mathematical system is a highly-symmetrical one. Thus it is no surprise at all that our universe is symmetric in space.

Second, it's been shown that if you consider random laws of physics, then by careful selection of the time coordinate you can reformulate those laws in a time-invariant fashion. That is to say, just by rewriting your equations, you can always frame things so that physical laws don't change with time.

Third, we have the principle of locality: all physical laws are local laws.

So, if all physical laws are local laws, then infinite speeds are not possible: there must be some speed limit set by said physical laws. Since those physical laws are the same in every place and at every time, by the above arguments, that speed will necessarily be the same at every place and at every time. We call that speed limit the speed of light.

 

[leonstavros]

"Functioning?" We're talking about the speed of light here. The speed of light is just a unit conversion factor between time and space. There is nothing here about "functioning".

Basically, the argument goes as follows:

First, a mathematical system needs extra parameters to break symmetries. The "natural" state for a mathematical system is a highly-symmetrical one. Thus it is no surprise at all that our universe is symmetric in space.

Second, it's been shown that if you consider random laws of physics, then by careful selection of the time coordinate you can reformulate those laws in a time-invariant fashion. That is to say, just by rewriting your equations, you can always frame things so that physical laws don't change with time.

Third, we have the principle of locality: all physical laws are local laws.

So, if all physical laws are local laws, then infinite speeds are not possible: there must be some speed limit set by said physical laws. Since those physical laws are the same in every place and at every time, by the above arguments, that speed will necessarily be the same at every place and at every time. We call that speed limit the speed of light.

Symmetry had to break in order for the big bang to occur.
Symmetry had to break in order for the universe to have formed stars, etc.
It appears that symmetry is not as reliable as you make it out to be.

Physical laws do break down. How else can you explain the instant inflation of the universe and then slowing down and then speeding up again. If that doesn't prove programming what does?

 

[Dmitry67]

Multihistory universe can break symmetry symmetrically

 

[Chalnoth]

Symmetry had to break in order for the big bang to occur.
Symmetry had to break in order for the universe to have formed stars, etc.

Some symmetries had to break for these things. Others did not. But this just comes down to the weak anthropic principle: if some symmetries didn't break, we wouldn't be here. But we shouldn't expect symmetries to break that aren't necessary for our existence, such as spatial symmetry.

In any case, the fact remains that spatial symmetry is not a broken symmetry (that is, the laws of physics are the same everywhere), and thus we have a constant speed of light. It is simply easier for the universe to remain this way than to change, contrary to your misuse of entropy.

Physical laws do break down. How else can you explain the instant inflation of the universe and then slowing down and then speeding up again. If that doesn't prove programming what does?

Oh, now you're just being absurd! This is no more proof of the "breakdown" of physical law than snow or trees are! Far from being a proof of some "breakdown" of physical law, these things are quite satisfactorily explained by entirely physical means. With inflation, if we have a scalar field with the right sort of potential, then it predicts all of the major properties of inflation (including rapid, accelerated expansion followed by reheating and rapid deceleration). With the more recent expansion, a small but non-zero vacuum energy appears to be the best explanation.

Granted, there are still a number of unknowns, but there is nothing that even hints at anything but purely physical processes in action.

 

[twofish-quant]

If we tried to set up any system and put it on automatic eventually the system will stray from its parameters because of entropy.

No it won't.

 

[twofish-quant]

Perhaps my concept of entropy is somewhat erroneous but you know what I'm getting at.

I'm not sure what you are getting at. Entropy is S = k ln \omega.

Any system requires feedback loops and repair mechanisms that keep a system functioning.

I don't see any reason to believe this. It doesn't follow from any physical law that I know of.

Perhaps dark matter and dark energy are such feedback loops. Maybe a study of dark energy and dark matter for tiny fluctuations can prove that.

And maybe not. Saying something maybe something and maybe not isn't that helpful. Maybe dark matter are angels on a pin, and maybe they aren't.

 

[twofish-quant]

I concluded that either the universe is finely tuned by some unknown intelligent entity or there's some mechanism that creates many universes and we happened to live in a universe that makes life possible.

1) why does the entity have to be intelligent?

2) assuming that the entity is intelligent complicates things for no good reason. Once you assume that the universe was created by an intelligent being then you have to start making statements about that intelligent being, like where did that intelligent being come from.

Once I decided on the multiverse idea then the idea occurred to me that the process that creates multiverses can be evolutionary and eventually create an intelligent universe that's capable of manipulating the various multiverses.

I think you are being insufficiently critical and skeptical of your own ideas to come up with much that is useful.

The cell does all that mentioned above but cannot understand the overall body. We as humans do not understand what the universe does we are like the cells of our body. It's like there's different levels of intelligence.

Again, you are adding a lot of unnecessary complexity which isn't a particularly good way of doing physics. It may be that there are things about the universe which are unknowable, but if they are unknowable, then how do you intended to make scientific statements about them?

It's very strange. On the one hand you are saying "we know nothing" but on the other hand there is this intelligent being that you are invoking as if you can make statements about that creature. Which is it?

It's certainly not good physics, and I really doubt that it's great theology either.

 

[leonstavros]

Multihistory universe can break symmetry symmetrically

Break symmetry symmetrically? You mean under the multiverse scenario all possible states are possible, including universes that exhibit symmetry and others that do not but on average the symmetrical states equal the non-symetrical?

 

[Dmitry67]

Say, we start from symmetric state: 00 (all locations are the same).
Now if some conservation is respected then state can change to

00 -> -+
or to
00 -> +-

But in both cases symmetry is broken. But in MWI there is a full list of branches:

-+ <- 00 -> +-

So the full picture is symmetric (from the bird's view)
Saying differently, in MWI symmetry can be broken deterministically, but ALL possible symmetry breaking must exist.

Note that in deterministic theories this is an only way to break symmetry. (hidden variables provide an illusion of it too, but mathematically speaking the violation was already there in the initial conditions)

After the discovery of Quantum Decoherence the status of randomness in QM ('wavefunction collapse') is like the status of aither (Einstent was right - God does not play dice), so only deterministic interpretations can be taken seriously. It leaves only BM and MWI. If you don't believe that God precoded assymetry in the BB conditions then the only choice is MWI.

 

[leonstavros]

Some symmetries had to break for these things. Others did not. But this just comes down to the weak anthropic principle: if some symmetries didn't break, we wouldn't be here. But we shouldn't expect symmetries to break that aren't necessary for our existence, such as spatial symmetry.

In any case, the fact remains that spatial symmetry is not a broken symmetry (that is, the laws of physics are the same everywhere), and thus we have a constant speed of light. It is simply easier for the universe to remain this way than to change, contrary to your misuse of entropy.


Oh, now you're just being absurd! This is no more proof of the "breakdown" of physical law than snow or trees are! Far from being a proof of some "breakdown" of physical law, these things are quite satisfactorily explained by entirely physical means. With inflation, if we have a scalar field with the right sort of potential, then it predicts all of the major properties of inflation (including rapid, accelerated expansion followed by reheating and rapid deceleration). With the more recent expansion, a small but non-zero vacuum energy appears to be the best explanation.

Granted, there are still a number of unknowns, but there is nothing that even hints at anything but purely physical processes in action.

I'm not sure what you are getting at. Entropy is S = k ln \omega.



I don't see any reason to believe this. It doesn't follow from any physical law that I know of.



And maybe not. Saying something maybe something and maybe not isn't that helpful. Maybe dark matter are angels on a pin, and maybe they aren't.

Can you think of a complicated machine that man has made that doesn't have feedback loops and requires maintenance? I don't think so. I consider the universe a complicated machine that requires feedback loops and maintenance. What do you call a propensity for a machine to wear out? The closest thing I could call it was entropy even though entropy is used in thermodynamics and has to do with equilibrium.Lifeforms can only continue living with constant repair. Is it so hard to believe that a system that created self repairing lifeforms is itself self repairing?

Another way of looking at vacuum energy is an attempt by the universe to keep itself from collapsing. I know what you going to say, that if vacuum energy wasn't what it is then we wouldn't be here to talk about it. I guess the theory of multiverses can cover any possible condition that I find improbable. I just find it hard to believe that there's a blind process that somehow exists that configures itself to different states until it comes up with the right stuff in order to produce an observer because without an observer why does the multiverse bother?

 

[leonstavros]

1) why does the entity have to be intelligent?

2) assuming that the entity is intelligent complicates things for no good reason. Once you assume that the universe was created by an intelligent being then you have to start making statements about that intelligent being, like where did that intelligent being come from.



I think you are being insufficiently critical and skeptical of your own ideas to come up with much that is useful.



Again, you are adding a lot of unnecessary complexity which isn't a particularly good way of doing physics. It may be that there are things about the universe which are unknowable, but if they are unknowable, then how do you intended to make scientific statements about them?

It's very strange. On the one hand you are saying "we know nothing" but on the other hand there is this intelligent being that you are invoking as if you can make statements about that creature. Which is it?

It's certainly not good physics, and I really doubt that it's great theology either.

Whether an intelligent entity exists or some unknown process that creates universes exists are both equally unknowable and equally possible. We are beings that are trapped inside a room with no windows trying to guess what's outside the room. Some of us say the house built itself and others say that there was an architect.

 

[S.Vasojevic]

Who built architects house?

 

[Chalnoth]

Can you think of a complicated machine that man has made that doesn't have feedback loops and requires maintenance? I don't think so.

Again, you're misunderstanding. These machines tend to break down because they are very far from equilibrium: they are low-entropy configurations, while a broken-down machine is a higher-entropy configuration.

The fact still remains that systems tend towards equilibrium states, states which are quite stable.

 

[leonstavros]

Who built architects house?

Yeah I know what you mean. It's like an endless series of russian doll boxes. Maybe the architect is space-time. Perhaps the original "God" was simply the fabric of the universe and everything arises out of the fabric.

 

[leonstavros]

I was thinking about spacetime being the originator of everything. Could it be that spacetime is what controls the expansion of the universe also regulates the galaxies, continually repair itself, reproduce other universes. Maybe quantum theory will eventually find a smart spacetime continuum.

 

[S.Vasojevic]

Try to imagine or define space, time or spacetime without putting at least two particles in it. It can't be done!

Quest for ultimate supervisor of nature is doomed to fail. What ever answer you come up with - it will not be true.

Many times repeated but true - only place where you will find supreme being is inside yourself.

 

[leonstavros]

Try to imagine or define space, time or spacetime without putting at least two particles in it. It can't be done!

Quest for ultimate supervisor of nature is doomed to fail. What ever answer you come up with - it will not be true.

Many times repeated but true - only place where you will find supreme being is inside yourself.

Quantum theory states that at spacetime "boils" at a very small level. Particles are created and destroyed in some sort of cosmic dance, why can't spacetime be the ultimate creator and regulator of all matter including regulating the speed of light.

According to Einstein matter controls spacetime could the opposite be true?

I tried looking inside myself all I could find was a guy with questions.

 

[Agent M27]

I have to say, just because one claims a possibility, doesn't make it logically possible. We can say there is the possibility that a unicorn is orbiting Earth, but it is highly unlikely. The complaint I have with even entertaining the idea of an intelligent architect or intelligent space-time is that both these arguments are not even close to being valid. For these to even be considered there needs to be at least some form of evidence with a direct trail pointing to whomever/whatever did it, both of which have neither. All bread crumbs thus far lead back to the BB, so that's what did it.

When people impart the peculiarities of fine tuning to being designed I have to ask, aside from the cuteness of it, how does it follow that it has been designed? Even worse, how does that imply self maintenence? How can a photon be considered a system which needs repair? These constants do not require repair because they are not a mechanical process in the traditional sense. Gravity is the curvature of space-time in the presence of matter, the mass of that matter is the determinant for how much it will curve, and that curvature causes a force proportional to the mass, it doesn't need to be rejuvinated. The same goes for other constants. They are merely to get our predictions to match those of observation, but this does not take away from the theories & laws which are based upon them.

As far as QM goes first and foremost, no information can be transferred via entanglement, as of yet. Secondly if it were possible, which it is not as of yet, in order to get atoms entangled, they must be "vibrated" at just the right frequencies, only then will they be entangled. This needs to be done for evey atom...and even after that pain staking process, you're not getting information through there. Space-time IS the creator, to some extent, although the only thing space-time had to do with it, was provide the ability for an event to occur somewhere at some time. That is my brief understanding of QM so hopefully the others can chime in on the virtual particles. All I know is they exist but the in's and out's of it are beyond me at this level.

Joe

 

[leonstavros]

I have to say, just because one claims a possibility, doesn't make it logically possible. We can say there is the possibility that a unicorn is orbiting Earth, but it is highly unlikely. The complaint I have with even entertaining the idea of an intelligent architect or intelligent space-time is that both these arguments are not even close to being valid. For these to even be considered there needs to be at least some form of evidence with a direct trail pointing to whomever/whatever did it, both of which have neither. All bread crumbs thus far lead back to the BB, so that's what did it.

When people impart the peculiarities of fine tuning to being designed I have to ask, aside from the cuteness of it, how does it follow that it has been designed? Even worse, how does that imply self maintenence? How can a photon be considered a system which needs repair? These constants do not require repair because they are not a mechanical process in the traditional sense. Gravity is the curvature of space-time in the presence of matter, the mass of that matter is the determinant for how much it will curve, and that curvature causes a force proportional to the mass, it doesn't need to be rejuvinated. The same goes for other constants. They are merely to get our predictions to match those of observation, but this does not take away from the theories & laws which are based upon them.

As far as QM goes first and foremost, no information can be transferred via entanglement, as of yet. Secondly if it were possible, which it is not as of yet, in order to get atoms entangled, they must be "vibrated" at just the right frequencies, only then will they be entangled. This needs to be done for evey atom...and even after that pain staking process, you're not getting information through there. Space-time IS the creator, to some extent, although the only thing space-time had to do with it, was provide the ability for an event to occur somewhere at some time. That is my brief understanding of QM so hopefully the others can chime in on the virtual particles. All I know is they exist but the in's and out's of it are beyond me at this level.

Joe

I have been looking into Fred Hoyles idea of a steady state universe, he also believed that space-time was the creator of matter. His theory was just as believable as the BB until the back-round radiation study "proved" him wrong. Supposedly the "noise" that was detected is the end result of the "ringing" from the original big bang but could the back-round noise also be a sum of quantum events formed by a foaming space-time?Has anybody done a study to see whether this back-round microwave radiation is decaying further?If the BMR is steady that would mean a steady state universe.

Space-time is also a conductor of light, something in the fabric allows a photon to accelerate to the speed of light and then something regulates that speed to a constant. Space-time also does all kinds of contortions to maintain the illusion to an observer that the speed of light is constant no matter how fast the observer is moving. It is very believable that the universe was designed for an observer.

 

[Chalnoth]

If the BMR is steady that would mean a steady state universe.

Studies of how galaxies change with redshift have already conclusively disproven a steady state universe. Never mind simple thermodynamic arguments that make any such thing ridiculous on its face.

Space-time is also a conductor of light, something in the fabric allows a photon to accelerate to the speed of light and then something regulates that speed to a constant. Space-time also does all kinds of contortions to maintain the illusion to an observer that the speed of light is constant no matter how fast the observer is moving.

Huh? The speed of light is nothing more and nothing less than a parameter that relates the units of space to the units of time. Your statement here makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[leonstavros]

Studies of how galaxies change with redshift have already conclusively disproven a steady state universe. Never mind simple thermodynamic arguments that make any such thing ridiculous on its face.
Huh? The speed of light is nothing more and nothing less than a parameter that relates the units of space to the units of time. Your statement here makes no sense whatsoever.

The red shift argument was handled by Hoyle. He said that space-time generated inflationary pressure which caused the galaxies to recede from us thus the red shift.

Light propagation was believed to have required an aether as a medium until the Michelson-Morly experiments could not find any change in propagation no matter which direction the light was measured but then someone came with the explanation that the instruments also changed with the direction if travel therefore offset any changes in light propagation. The question of an aether is still an unresolved matter. Nowadays the aether is the space-time continuum.

 

[Chalnoth]

The red shift argument was handled by Hoyle. He said that space-time generated inflationary pressure which caused the galaxies to recede from us thus the red shift.

I don't think you understand what I'm saying. I'm saying that galaxies we see nearby are very different in character from galaxies we see at, for instance, z=6. This can only be adequately explained by suggesting that the population of galaxies has varied in time, which is impossible in a steady state universe.

Light propagation was believed to have required an aether as a medium until the Michelson-Morly experiments could not find any change in propagation no matter which direction the light was measured but then someone came with the explanation that the instruments also changed with the direction if travel therefore offset any changes in light propagation. The question of an aether is still an unresolved matter. Nowadays the aether is the space-time continuum.

What? This doesn't make any sense.

 

[leonstavros]

I don't think you understand what I'm saying. I'm saying that galaxies we see nearby are very different in character from galaxies we see at, for instance, z=6. This can only be adequately explained by suggesting that the population of galaxies has varied in time, which is impossible in a steady state universe.


What? This doesn't make any sense.

Steady state galaxies doesn't mean that galaxies can't evolve, quantum variations will ensure that galaxies will be different.

Can you shed some light why the speed of light is?

 

[Chalnoth]

Steady state galaxies doesn't mean that galaxies can't evolve, quantum variations will ensure that galaxies will be different.

It doesn't mean that individual galaxies can't evolve. But it does mean that galaxies can't evolve on average.

Can you shed some light why the speed of light is?

I already went into this earlier. You didn't pay any attention before, why should you now?

 

[leonstavros]

Studies of how galaxies change with redshift have already conclusively disproven a steady state universe. Never mind simple thermodynamic arguments that make any such thing ridiculous on its face.


Huh? The speed of light is nothing more and nothing less than a parameter that relates the units of space to the units of time. Your statement here makes no sense whatsoever.

You sure have a unique explanation of a photon.

 

[Chalnoth]

You sure have a unique explanation of a photon.

The speed of light has nothing directly to do with photons, except that it was with photons that we first discovered that space and time are related by a simple unit transformation. And so we still call this unit transformation the "speed of light" for what amount to historical reasons.

Photons travel at this speed because they have zero mass. Anything that has zero mass must necessarily travel at the same speed.

 

[leonstavros]

The speed of light has nothing directly to do with photons, except that it was with photons that we first discovered that space and time are related by a simple unit transformation. And so we still call this unit transformation the "speed of light" for what amount to historical reasons.

Photons travel at this speed because they have zero mass. Anything that has zero mass must necessarily travel at the same speed.

Photons=light, photons have zero mass but they use space-time for propagation,why do photons follow space-time around a strong gravitational field? Because space-time is warped and photons must use space-time for propagation. There must be a function of space-time that controls the propagation of light.

 

[Agent M27]

As I mentioned before photons bend due to the curvature of space but this isn't really a curved line, it is just a straight line in curved space. This does not point to a medium, by definition a vacuum has nothing in it. Also you're confusing how sound (pressure) waves propogate. Sound needs a medium to propogate because pressure waves actually move the particles in the medium, e.g. a sonic boom. Light waves on the other hand are a massless particle traveling in a wave function through the medium, hence no distortion or pressure change in the sound wave scenario. To my understanding any particle which has no mass requires no medium to propogate, but will propogate through a medium dependent upon its refractive index. As Chalnoth mentioned the speed is irrelevant to what a photon is, hence c has dimensions of meters and seconds, combining both space (distance) and time. Nothing more nothing less.

Also nothing against Fred Hoyle as a person but his steady state theories have long since been disproven, if not we would be using his models today inlieu of GR. As I said nothing against him, people can be wrong.

Joe