Can Another Universe Create Life-Producing Stars?

  • Thread starter Gold Barz
  • Start date
In summary, Savov's theory of interaction shows that the universe results from self-similar transforms, hence the laws remain the same only the constants change.But doesn't the laws derive from the constants? 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...).I see...so in other universes the same laws apply but constants differ? or will they both differ?
  • #1
Gold Barz
467
0
For another universe with different constants and laws to produce more life-producing stars?

I wouldn't expect nothing more than PURE SPECULATION
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Cosmo/cosmyth.pdf [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #3
anybody?...
 
  • #4
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.
 
  • #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.
 
  • #6
But doesn't 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.
 
  • #7
Gold Barz said:
But doesn't the laws derive from the constants?
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...).
 
  • #8
I see...so in other universes the same laws apply but constants differ? or will they both differ?

again, PURE SPECULATION
 
  • #9
selfAdjoint said:
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.

I agree...
 
  • #10
brightstar2005 said:
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.
And we all know that's pure speculation too! :smile:
 
  • #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.
 
  • #12
Do you understand that you're using dimension incorrectly?
 
  • #13
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.
 
  • #14
Alkatran said:
Universes are constantly created with different laws, we just happened to get this one.

I think this makes more sense
 
  • #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 occurred farther out in space that created different universes, then you guys are correct and we are actually all agreeing with other.
 
  • #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 that's all pure speculation, its not science anymore its a belief for me.
 
  • #17
Actually wait, I believe I know what the problem is. It's semantics.
Its [Savov's idea] 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.
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:
 
  • #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.
 
  • #19
Lee Smolin say the basical laws would be the same but the constants would be different?
 
  • #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.
 
  • #21
CONSTANTS=LAW unless you define constants as something that has different than law of course. LAW= what has to be true. if you define law different than that, then we are not even talking about the same concepts.
 
  • #22
According to your definition GOLD BARZ there just might be more "universes." When I use the word Universe I am talking about the system which contains all the "universes" (using your definition); The system that emcompasses every single "universe" that could exist. That system is what I define as The Universe. That system therefore would have to have definate Laws and no other dimensions or universes could exist without following those laws.
 
  • #23
If you say laws = constants, then obviously other universes would have different constants
 
  • #24
LOL, no. Its like you didn't read what i wrote. I said The Universe, as i am using the word, is the ultimate system which encompases any other "universes" (your defintion) therefore The Universe's Laws would apply to every single "universe" or "dimension" that could exist. Since every single universe or dimension could only exist in The Universe then they would be bound by the Laws of The overriding Universe. SO NO, DIFFERENT UNIVERSES WOULDN'T HAVE DIFFERENT CONSTANTS. please read what i write. If you don't understand it, ask me to clerify what i mean.
 
  • #25
We've moved way beyond General Astronomy and Cosmology; so I'm moving this to somewhere more appropriate ...
 
  • #26
LOGIC is all the proof you need to verify something as true.
Rubbish - the 'truth' vs 'proof' debate was settled long ago (and not in your favour).
Mathematics like english, spanish, and any other language are just LABELS to represent what CONCEPTS exist in reality.
Rubbish - "Twas brillig, and the slithy toves did gyre and gimble in the wabe" - what 'reality' is represented by these labels?
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.
Rubbish - you might like to read your Russell, and no doubt a great many philosophers besides.
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.
Rubbish - explain how it's possible to 'translate' the equations of QFT into English! Besides, science long ago ceased to be about 'representing reality' (and maths blazed that trail well before science did).
LOGIC is the thing that unifies all CONCEPTS and gives us the ability to analyze and interpret reality.
So you will have no difficulty then in using LOGIC to show the unity of all the CONCEPTS within LOGIC itself? And, furthermore, you will shortly publish some papers showing that folk such as Cantor, Gödel, Church, and Turing were just too narrowly focussed to properly interpret reality?
With this said, if something makes sense in English than it makes sense in math, physics, and any other language.
"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." makes no sense to me - in English - so therefore it cannot make sense in math, physics, etc?
Therefore, I don't need to show you mathematical proof of what I am saying, I just need to make sense.
If you want to 'make sense' here in PF, you need to discuss concepts within the framework of the physics that you find in peer-reviewed journals; I submit to you that your challenge, should you choose to accept it, is to present any 'alternative ideas' (whether your own or Savov's) in a manner that is a) self-consistent, b) consistent with all good observational and experimental results (within its domain of applicability), and c) consistent with good theories with overlapping domains of applicability. If you can't, then we call such ideas (e.g. Savov's) 'pseudoscience', and PF is not a healthy place for such.
 
  • #27
I beleif that there are infinit universes. It is extremely in probable to find two universes with identical laws and/or constants. Each of the fisicall existing universe at the exact branch of all the infinite ones in space-time have an infinite number of parallel universes were something is different 8this one is one of the unvierses with infinite parallel universes). But of course, humans only exist in the parallel unvierses to this one, and NO WAY in all of them.

But I think the question shouldn't be if human woudl exists with different cosntants/laws, but if the universe itself would be able to exist with different constants/laws.
 
  • #28
I think that in the link in the first reply (first page) I made shows that a long lasting, complex and stable universe is possible in a wide variety of constants...
 
  • #30
There's only one universe: this one. It's probably infinite but if indeed there's an end to the mass-energy universe then it should be filled with complete darkness. There's always energy in the universe, in one form or another, therefore i don't believe it can be finite.

If the universe is indeed an open 'system', then the light from distant supernovaes should interact with the electromagnetic fields of the quantum vacuum and so appears redshifted.
 
Last edited:
  • #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.
 
  • #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. :tongue2:
 

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
Replies
7
Views
964
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
11
Views
383
Replies
1
Views
850
  • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
262
  • General Discussion
Replies
9
Views
1K
Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
667
Replies
56
Views
6K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
10
Views
373
Replies
12
Views
1K
Back
Top