Universe or Multiverse? (new w/cosmic natural selection chapter)

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the upcoming book "Universe or Multiverse," which explores various theories related to cosmology, the multiverse concept, and the anthropic principle. Participants share insights about the book's content, particularly focusing on the chapter discussing the Cosmological Natural Selection (CNS) hypothesis and its implications for fundamental physical parameters.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants highlight the significance of the CNS hypothesis, which posits that all fundamental parameters are optimally adjusted for the formation of astrophysical black holes.
  • Others discuss the potential for falsification of the CNS hypothesis, noting that finding a dimensionless parameter that could increase black hole formation would refute it.
  • A participant mentions that the CNS hypothesis remains unrefuted, as no neutron star has been reliably shown to exceed a mass of 1.7 solar, despite many discoveries.
  • Some contributions reference the book's table of contents and the notable authors involved, suggesting that the book may impact discussions in cosmology and related fields.
  • There are mentions of previous discussions and attempts to challenge the CNS hypothesis, including a failed attempt by Vilenkin.
  • Participants express interest in the book and its chapters, indicating a desire to engage with the material despite potential complexity.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally express interest in the CNS hypothesis and its implications, but there is no consensus on its validity or the outcomes of related discussions. Multiple competing views and interpretations of the anthropic principle and multiverse theories remain present.

Contextual Notes

The discussion includes references to specific parameters and theoretical frameworks without resolving the uncertainties surrounding them. The implications of the CNS hypothesis and its potential for falsification are discussed, but no definitive conclusions are drawn.

Who May Find This Useful

Readers interested in cosmology, the multiverse concept, and the philosophical implications of the anthropic principle may find this discussion and the referenced book valuable.

  • #31
http://cosmicvariance.com/2007/04/27/how-did-the-universe-start/

Here is Sean Carroll's Blog.

Multi-verse is the answer to cosmology.

It is the ONLY way to find the 'mechanisms' for "How things are working'.

MBH's ARE the 'mechanisms'! For the Darkness/Exotic Dark Matter/Point Particles, which gets here FIRST!

And for the Light/Energy/EM/Strong/Weak forces, which get here when the MBH's are created IN OUR UNIVERSE.

The Problem: the universe's initial conditions are due to singularities, BUT NOTHING can come 'through' a "NAKED SINGULARITY"!
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
RussT said:
http://cosmicvariance.com/2007/04/27/how-did-the-universe-start/

Here is Sean Carroll's Blog.

quite a mix of fashionable ideas but so scattered I can't get much out of it. I can see why the cosmologist Bernard Carr, when he was putting this Uni/Multi book together, might have chosen not to include an essay along those lines. In any case he put in people with established track-records and scholarly reputation, like Steven Weinberg, Lee Smolin, Frank Wilczek, George Ellis, Jim Hartle, Max Tegmark, Leonard Susskind (for better or worse), Stephen Hawking etc. These people have had something definite and nontrivial to say in the past, whether it was right or wrong, so there should be some interesting essays in the book.
 
Last edited:
  • #33
The real problem is that science has defined itself right into a no-win corner where the answer for how the universe works is actually Career Suicide to even consider!
 
  • #34
RussT said:
The real problem is that science has defined itself right into a no-win corner where the answer for how the universe works is actually Career Suicide to even consider!

Regardless of anything, I think there is a clear conflict of the measure of optimation in any similar situation.

The idea to get payed and at the same time do what is close to your heart sure sounds nice, but is that really the way it works?

It's like they say, business is business. At some point it's a personal choice, what is more important in life. Fight for what you believe in, or get food on the table :cry: It seems the choice tends to be a balance.

/Fredrik
 
  • #35
For those interested you can listen to a short 15 minute discussion about the Universe/Multiverse debate http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/science/thematerialworld_20070531.shtml" with Martin Rees, Neil Turok and Bernard Carr.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

Graduate Can Cosmic Inflation and String Theory change fundamental laws?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
Graduate Elsevier handbook re: Cosmic Natural Selection
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Graduate Foundations of Space and Time (edited by Ellis et al, to appear)
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
5K
Graduate Before the Big Bang now a topic for wider audience
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K