- #1
fedorfan
- 115
- 0
Would laws be different if the big bang happened a different way? Like, if the big bang happened again would gravity, particles, and anything be different in physics?
bluestone35 said:I am new to the list. Not a scientist in any manner, just an artist w/ great curiosity. Forgive me if I trip over my own ignorance. It seems that the"'exquisitely tuned' for life" idea suggests the anthropic principle. From reading some of the postings, I suspect that Leonard Susskind is not one of the favored gurus, but he does write convincingly regarding the A/P. While I am reluctant to pose such a broad question, I wonder what the current thoughts are regarding the A/P.
Ben Mahmoud
http://benmahmoud.com
franznietzsche said:The weak anthropic principle is tautology. Of course we see conditions that permit life, since there is life in the universe, so conditions in the universe permit life.
SpaceTiger said:But the question is the extent to which this is an explanation of what we observe. That it's true is uncontroversial. That it's relevant is not.
franznietzsche said:I don't see that it can be used as an explanation of anything--unless one accepts the strong anthropic principle as well.
Using the statement 'we observe conditions that permit life because we are alive' as an explanation for why the conditions of the universe permit life confuses cause and effect.
SpaceTiger said:Suppose there were N self-contained "universes", only one of which could support life. What is the answer to the question, "Why do the conditions of my universe permit life?" Certainly I can correctly say that if they didn't, I wouldn't be around to ask. Granted, that's not a complete answer, because I can go on and ask, "why do the conditions of any universe permit life?", but in this hypothetical case, it tells us something, it tells us why we don't live in one of the N-1 other "universes".
The point is that our observations of the universe might be biased by our very existence. If the above hypothetical case were true, it would be foolish of me to attempt a theory of universe formation that always led to conditions that support life. On the other hand, it's possible that all N self-contained universe can support life. Then, there is no bias and our theories would want to make a concerted effort to explain the parameters of our universe from something more fundamental. This latter case is preferred by scientists because it means that there is more information in our own universe -- studying it will tell us more about how the universe came to be. In fact, many scientists would say that we should always disregard the anthropic principle because it amounts to "giving up". The more biased our surroundings, the less point there is in studying them.
franznietzsche said:This of course, supposes that there are other universes--a by definition untestable proposition.
I would argue that the anthropic principle is a waste of time because it provides nothing of scientific value--except the recognition that the fundamental configuration of the universe that we see, may not be the only possible one. But it does not explain anything.
SpaceTiger said:The argument doesn't require the existence of other universes, only the possibility of existence given what we know.
How does it provide the "recognition that the fundamental configuration of the universe that we see, may not be the only possible one"? Why is this recognition not possible without the anthropic principle? Why does the issue of bias not arise if there is only one universe? What do you mean by "it does not explain anything"? Is that merely a semantic objection or do you believe that there are no logical connections between our existence and the parameters of our universe?
franznietzsche said:Some seem to suggest that our existence causes the parameters of our universe to take the values they do--this is what I am rejecting.
SpaceTiger said:I agree with you about the strong anthropic principle -- it is basically a religious statement. I also agree with you that our existence did not cause the universe. However, I stand by my use of the word "explanation". The anthropic principle does not explain why the universe came about in the way it did, but it does tell us why we observe what we do. The latter question is the one the scientific method is directly addressing, though the former is the one we would really like to answer.
If a certain characteristic of the universe is required for us to exist, then our observation of that characteristic tells us nothing. Without being able to observe other universes (or other iterations of our own), the anthropic principle may be the only viable explanation for that observation.
franznietzsche said:Much better to say that the explanation is simply 'we can only observe universes that allow us to exist' (again, tautology), than the way it is normally posited.
SpaceTiger said:That's rather terse. I wouldn't expect a non-scientist to fully appreciate the consequences of that statement without further explanation.
Many people think that expansion of the universe is some sort of super-physical force that stretches everything in it. Like, if the universe is expanding does that mean the stars in the galaxies are getting further apart? The Earth further from the Sun? The Moon from the Earth? The atoms in the Earth from each other?bluestone35 said:This may not be to the point, but I have been thinking about the inflation model. As I understand it, space expanded at a very rapid rate, thereby separating the contents of that space. I think that would mean the spatial relationships between the electron shells and the nuculii would change; the spatial relationships between quarks would change. Does this mean the force fields changed?
When you say "change" you really should be saying "created".fedorfan said:So particles wouldn't change? I wouldn't think that they would, atleast the smallest particles. Because how could quarks change, theyre point objects, I don't understand how they would change except maybe how far they are apart from each other if the universe contracted again. What I am talking about is if they would change in terms of mass and size. I don't see any logical explanation why the smallest subatomic particles would change in terms of size and mass.
The existence of our universe is a fundamental question that has puzzled scientists and philosophers for centuries. While there is no definitive answer, many theories suggest that our universe was created by a cosmic event known as the Big Bang. This theory proposes that about 13.8 billion years ago, all matter and energy in the universe was compressed into an incredibly dense and hot singularity, which then expanded rapidly, giving rise to the universe as we know it.
The cause of the Big Bang is still a mystery and remains a subject of ongoing research and debate. Some theories suggest that the universe has always existed, while others propose that it was created by a higher power or a natural phenomenon. The exact cause of the Big Bang may never be fully understood, but scientists continue to study and gather evidence to support different theories.
Our universe is vast and complex, with billions of galaxies, stars, and planets. This complexity is a result of the laws of physics and the conditions present during the Big Bang. As the universe expanded and cooled, particles began to form, eventually leading to the creation of atoms, stars, and galaxies. The vastness and complexity of our universe are also a result of billions of years of evolution and interactions between different celestial bodies.
While we have not yet discovered any other universes, many theories suggest that our universe may not be the only one. The multiverse theory proposes that there could be an infinite number of universes, each with its own set of physical laws and properties. However, this theory is still highly debated, and further research and evidence are needed to confirm its validity.
As our understanding of the universe continues to evolve, we may eventually uncover some of its mysteries. However, it is unlikely that we will ever have a complete understanding of the universe, as it is constantly expanding and changing. The more we learn, the more questions we may have, and the search for answers will continue to push the boundaries of science and human knowledge.