ConradDJ
Gold Member
- 322
- 1
I find it remarkable that physicists are sometimes willing to take “the anthropic principle” seriously, in any of its forms, since its explanatory power at the physical level is nil. Okay, say the universe is structured the way it is just so it can support conscious observers. That tells us nothing at all about fundamental physics, because we have no idea what kind of physics might be needed for this. All we know is that consciousness exists in our universe – though apparently only under very unusual conditions.
On the other hand, atoms are not unusual at all. And virtually everything we know about physics is relevant to their unique and complicated structure. So if we’re going to suppose that our universe is “finely tuned” in order to support something, why aren’t atoms the obvious candidate? Prima facie, atoms and molecules seem to have the same central role in the physical world that living organisms have in biology, or that individual minds have in relation to consciousness.
And we actually have a chance of answering this question: What does it take, physically, to support something like atoms and molecules? In other words, what kinds of basic laws and principles do we need to make physical systems that –
(a) have a definite spatial configuration that’s stable over time?
(b) can serve as a universal standard for defining spatial distances and angles, as well as time-intervals, frequencies, energies, etc?
(c) can serve as “building-blocks” by forming stable configurations with other such systems, to make larger and more complex systems?
(d) can change their internal and external configurations in definite and predictable ways, in response to interactions with other systems?
I think it’s clear that apart from atomic matter, nothing we know of in physics has anything like this kind of functionality. Nuclear particles can fuse into many distinct types of nuclei, and can interact with other nuclei to a certain extent. But you can’t build clocks or measuring rods using only nuclear matter – by themselves, they don’t work at all to define intervals in space and time. And communication between nuclei (via gravity or neutrinos, for example) is extremely limited, as compared with electromagnetic communication among atoms, with their complex, flexible and sensitive electron-shells.
So before atoms came into being, in our universe (during the mis-named “era of recombination”), there were no physical means to observe or even define anything at all. Regardless of what we understand “measurements” to be, in quantum theory, we can be fairly confident that they didn’t occur, before there were atoms.
Now this question – about what it takes, in principle, to make a basic, functional measuring tool / building-block / communications device / information-storage unit – doesn’t have a simple or obvious answer. There are a lot of different kinds of physical principles involved in atomic structure. And unfortunately, it’s not the kind of question physicists are used to dealing with. But it does seem potentially tractable, and highly relevant to discussions of “the landscape” of possible physics.
But then, maybe the attraction of “the anthropic principle” is that seems big and important without actually challenging us to wrestle with this kind of question?
On the other hand, atoms are not unusual at all. And virtually everything we know about physics is relevant to their unique and complicated structure. So if we’re going to suppose that our universe is “finely tuned” in order to support something, why aren’t atoms the obvious candidate? Prima facie, atoms and molecules seem to have the same central role in the physical world that living organisms have in biology, or that individual minds have in relation to consciousness.
And we actually have a chance of answering this question: What does it take, physically, to support something like atoms and molecules? In other words, what kinds of basic laws and principles do we need to make physical systems that –
(a) have a definite spatial configuration that’s stable over time?
(b) can serve as a universal standard for defining spatial distances and angles, as well as time-intervals, frequencies, energies, etc?
(c) can serve as “building-blocks” by forming stable configurations with other such systems, to make larger and more complex systems?
(d) can change their internal and external configurations in definite and predictable ways, in response to interactions with other systems?
I think it’s clear that apart from atomic matter, nothing we know of in physics has anything like this kind of functionality. Nuclear particles can fuse into many distinct types of nuclei, and can interact with other nuclei to a certain extent. But you can’t build clocks or measuring rods using only nuclear matter – by themselves, they don’t work at all to define intervals in space and time. And communication between nuclei (via gravity or neutrinos, for example) is extremely limited, as compared with electromagnetic communication among atoms, with their complex, flexible and sensitive electron-shells.
So before atoms came into being, in our universe (during the mis-named “era of recombination”), there were no physical means to observe or even define anything at all. Regardless of what we understand “measurements” to be, in quantum theory, we can be fairly confident that they didn’t occur, before there were atoms.
Now this question – about what it takes, in principle, to make a basic, functional measuring tool / building-block / communications device / information-storage unit – doesn’t have a simple or obvious answer. There are a lot of different kinds of physical principles involved in atomic structure. And unfortunately, it’s not the kind of question physicists are used to dealing with. But it does seem potentially tractable, and highly relevant to discussions of “the landscape” of possible physics.
But then, maybe the attraction of “the anthropic principle” is that seems big and important without actually challenging us to wrestle with this kind of question?