Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Is It Possible

  1. Apr 3, 2005 #1
    For another universe with different constants and laws to produce more life-producing stars?

    I wouldnt expect nothing more than PURE SPECULATION
  2. jcsd
  3. Apr 3, 2005 #2
    http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Cosmo/cosmyth.pdf [Broken]
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  4. Apr 4, 2005 #3
  5. Apr 4, 2005 #4


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Pure speculation it is. Yes it is possible. My reasoning is that we have no reason to suppose the setup in our universe is the best possible for life. All we know, from it's having produced us, is that it's at least MINIMALLY good enough.
  6. Apr 4, 2005 #5
    Eugene Savov's theory of interaction shows that the universe
    results from self-similar transforms, hence the laws remain
    the same only the constants change.
  7. Apr 4, 2005 #6
    But doesnt the laws derive from the constants? I forgot who said this but I read it on this board

    Yeah, the constants would probably be different in another universe because the constants are from the fabric of space itself.
  8. Apr 4, 2005 #7


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Not really - the constants are like the dimensions of the playing field - the laws are the rules of the game. You could, for example, move the picher's mound back a foot without changing any of the rules and the way the game ended up could be different (hey, it's baseball season...).
  9. Apr 4, 2005 #8
    I see...so in other universes the same laws apply but constants differ? or will they both differ?

  10. Apr 4, 2005 #9
    I agree....
  11. Apr 8, 2005 #10


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    And we all know that's pure speculation too! :smile:
  12. Apr 14, 2005 #11
    Its not pure speculation. It only makes sense that no matter what, if other dimensions exist, that the universal laws, whatever they are, would have to apply to other dimensions. Within a system, anything within the system, is bound by the laws of the system - my law, but it makes sense. The Universe is the ultimate system. If other dimensions exist, that means, somehow it makes sense with Universal Law, then they would have to be bound by Universal Law.
  13. Apr 14, 2005 #12


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Do you understand that you're using dimension incorrectly?
  14. Apr 14, 2005 #13


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    and as for this whole God argument (this is a cosmological argument?) it gives 0 proof of God.

    For example, here is another theory which is just as likely:
    Universes are constantly created with different laws, we just happened to get this one.
  15. Apr 14, 2005 #14
    I think this makes more sense
  16. Apr 14, 2005 #15
    That makes no sense. We exist in THE UNIVERSE. There are no other Universes. Actually wait, I believe I know what the problem is. It's semantics. We have different definitions for the same label (Universe). My definition of the Universe is the infinite system, meaning it encompasses everything, that is governed by the ultimate set of laws, meaning the set of laws that have to exist in order for everything else to exist and make sense. According to this definition, there can be no other universes. However, if you are uses the definition that the universe is still expanding and that there might be different big bangs that occured farther out in space that created different universes, then you guys are correct and we are actually all agreeing with other.
  17. Apr 14, 2005 #16
    My definition of the universe is the space/bubble that is still expanding. There could possibly be other bubbles with other physical laws and constants, but thats all pure speculation, its not science anymore its a belief for me.
  18. Apr 14, 2005 #17


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    So, within the framework that we use here in PF, Savov's ideas are pure speculation - there is no math, no quantification, no specific, concrete predictions ... in short, it's not science.

    Now I freely admit that I may be ignorant of a 'Savov idea' publication in a peer-reviewed (physics) journal, so if there is one, please let us know! :smile:
  19. Apr 14, 2005 #18
    LOGIC is all the proof you need to verify something as true. Mathematics like english, spanish, and any other language are just LABELS to represent what CONCEPTS exist in reality. You can write 1+1=2 or you can translate in English one ball plus one ball equals two balls. They prove the exact same CONCEPT. They just use different LABELS to represent the same CONCEPT. You can also write F=ma or you can translate in English force equals mass multiplied by acceleration. Neither represents reality more accurately than the other, they just use their own individual LABELS. LOGIC is the thing that unifies all CONCEPTS and gives us the ability to analyze and interpret reality. With this said, if something makes sense in English than it makes sense in math, physics, and any other language. Therefore, I don't need to show you mathematical proof of what I am saying, I just need to make sense.
  20. Apr 14, 2005 #19
    Lee Smolin say the basical laws would be the same but the constants would be different?
  21. Apr 14, 2005 #20
    Lee Smolin doesn't make sense. The analogy he provided with baseball doesn't work. It would go against the RULES to move the pitches mound back. The rules specify a certain width and length that each base should be apart and so forth.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook