Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Two Good Articles On Multiverse Study


Storm

Recommended Posts

I was perusing my Google plus feed today and I ran across an article on the study of the possibility of a multiverse. I enjoyed reading the article and found out it was part two of a two part article on the multiverse theory. I found both articles to be interesting and I thought I might share them with you all in the hopes that it might help explain this interesting area of study. Enjoy!

 

Article 1:

http://www.quantamagazine.org/20141103-in-a-multiverse-what-are-the-odds/

 

Article 2:

http://www.quantamagazine.org/20141110-multiverse-collisions-may-dot-the-sky/

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you have Netflix, watch 'The Inexplicable Universe with Neil Degrasse Tyson' . One or two of the episodes goes into detail about why scientists actually believe the field points to a multiverse.

 

Its an overall interesting show regardless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for these links, Storm.  smile.png

 

I'll take some time to read and digest.  

Fyi, Peter Woit, the Net's most virulent critic of the multiverse has this to say about the Quanta articles.

 

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/

(Please scroll down to the, 'Advertisements for the Multiverse' entry for Nov 15.)

.

.

.

I pay close attention to Woit, btw.

Not because I'm siding with him or against him.  This issue isn't one of sides but of explanatory power and evidence.  Because he's so critical of the multiversal paradigm, if he gives credit to something relating to it, then, whatever that is - it deserves looking at it more closely.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I certainly cant claim to be knowledgeable about the multiverse theory, but I found the articles to be informational and interesting. I understand that with all theories and scientific studies in general, that there are often "opponents" to these theories. Like recently, I read that a group recently published a paper that argued that the recent Higgs Boson discovery is likely not what it appears. They apparently believe that a different type of boson was really found and that the Higgs still has yet to be found. I have no idea whether or not this is a true disagreement or not, but I am familiar enough with scientific study to understand that there are always those who may disagree. I would like to hear what you think about the articles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I certainly cant claim to be knowledgeable about the multiverse theory, but I found the articles to be informational and interesting. I understand that with all theories and scientific studies in general, that there are often "opponents" to these theories. Like recently, I read that a group recently published a paper that argued that the recent Higgs Boson discovery is likely not what it appears. They apparently believe that a different type of boson was really found and that the Higgs still has yet to be found. I have no idea whether or not this is a true disagreement or not, but I am familiar enough with scientific study to understand that there are always those who may disagree. I would like to hear what you think about the articles.

 

I'll get back to you about them after the weekend, Storm.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, a paper was published and I think it's reasonable at this point to continue to question the Higgs discovery or at least hold off making a definitive judgment. What is true is that the current data we have is explained by this "new" particle being the Higgs boson. However, the arguments appear to stem from the fact that other particles and or models may also explain the data. What does this mean? I think the most reasonable approach is to say that we need more data and "better" data. The LHC is set to go online at higher energies with even better detectors so the data will improve and more of it will be coming in. I'll take a wait and see approach and must also admit considerable ignorance.

 

However, particle accelerators have been an exceptionally good way of learning about the world so I'm reasonably confident we will have better answers if not better questions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I certainly cant claim to be knowledgeable about the multiverse theory, but I found the articles to be informational and interesting. I understand that with all theories and scientific studies in general, that there are often "opponents" to these theories. Like recently, I read that a group recently published a paper that argued that the recent Higgs Boson discovery is likely not what it appears. They apparently believe that a different type of boson was really found and that the Higgs still has yet to be found. I have no idea whether or not this is a true disagreement or not, but I am familiar enough with scientific study to understand that there are always those who may disagree. I would like to hear what you think about the articles.

 

Hey Storm!

 

I've had a long look at both articles and they both get a thumbs up from me.  goodjob.gif

They cover the bases well and give an up-to-date summary of where we are right now, when it comes to theoretical vs. observational cosmology.

 

I'd like to comment on three things.

 

1.  The Measure Problem.

This issue is of paramount importance. That's because, if the scientists can't get any traction on this and can't find a workable way to calculate the chances of a universe like ours coming into existence, then (by default) we're left with an infinite multiverse and... infinity cannot be divided by any integer.  Meaning that scientists won't be able to say if our universe is typical or unusual.   Meaning that science cannot give a coherent answer about the origin of the universe.  Meaning that, in an infinite mutliverse, anything that nature permits to happen - will happen.  Not just once, but an infinite number of times.  Leading to the bizarre conclusions of the Infinite Replication Paradox.  http://www.rationalskepticism.org/philosophy/afterlife-under-physicalism-t21843.html (See post #2, by teuton)

 

2. The Absolute Need for Observational Confirmation.

The search for the 'imprint' of a universe collision on the CMB is a long shot, imho.  The Planck satellite map of the CMB contains over a billion data points.  So mainframes have to splice-and-dice these every-which-way, looking for the telltale rings that might be where another universe 'bumped' into ours.  Needle in a haystack?  I'd love to be proved wrong by some hard evidence tho'.

 

Then there's the spurious 'detection' of gravitational waves by the BICEP2 experiment this March.

They would have been the smoking gun evidence for Inflation and with that foundation firmly in place, the reality of a multiverse comes one step closer.  Such an Inflationary multiverse also becomes harder to deny if it's confirmed by such evidence.

 

3. So What Is This, 'Simple Natural Structure'...?

Paul Steinhardt, a theoretical physicist at Princeton University and one of the early contributors to the theory of eternal inflation, saw the multiverse as a “fatal flaw” in the reasoning he had helped advance, and he remains stridently anti-multiverse today. “Our universe has a simple, natural structure,” he said in September. “The multiverse idea is baroque, unnatural, untestable and, in the end, dangerous to science and society.”

 

Here's what I don't get, Storm.

Is Steinhardt saying that our (the observable) universe has a simple, natural structure?  Because that makes no sense at all.  An analysis of only the observable universe shows evidence of incredibly fine tuning (see first two paragraphs of article one) leading us to conclude that the fundamental constants have been finely-tuned for our existence and benefit.  Enter the Christian apologists with their Intelligent Designer!  The multiverse neatly answers the fine-tuning argument.

So, I can only conclude that Steinhardt's 'simple, natural structure' must the Ekpyrotic model he champions, here...  http://wwwphy.princeton.edu/~steinh/cycliccosmology.html  You agree?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I certainly cant claim to be knowledgeable about the multiverse theory, but I found the articles to be informational and interesting. I understand that with all theories and scientific studies in general, that there are often "opponents" to these theories. Like recently, I read that a group recently published a paper that argued that the recent Higgs Boson discovery is likely not what it appears. They apparently believe that a different type of boson was really found and that the Higgs still has yet to be found. I have no idea whether or not this is a true disagreement or not, but I am familiar enough with scientific study to understand that there are always those who may disagree. I would like to hear what you think about the articles.

 

Hey Storm!

 

I've had a long look at both articles and they both get a thumbs up from me.  goodjob.gif

They cover the bases well and give an up-to-date summary of where we are right now, when it comes to theoretical vs. observational cosmology.

 

I'd like to comment on three things.

 

1.  The Measure Problem.

This issue is of paramount importance. That's because, if the scientists can't get any traction on this and can't find a workable way to calculate the chances of a universe like ours coming into existence, then (by default) we're left with an infinite multiverse and... infinity cannot be divided by any integer.  Meaning that scientists won't be able to say if our universe is typical or unusual.   Meaning that science cannot give a coherent answer about the origin of the universe.  Meaning that, in an infinite mutliverse, anything that nature permits to happen - will happen.  Not just once, but an infinite number of times.  Leading to the bizarre conclusions of the Infinite Replication Paradox.  http://www.rationalskepticism.org/philosophy/afterlife-under-physicalism-t21843.html (See post #2, by teuton)

 

2. The Absolute Need for Observational Confirmation.

The search for the 'imprint' of a universe collision on the CMB is a long shot, imho.  The Planck satellite map of the CMB contains over a billion data points.  So mainframes have to splice-and-dice these every-which-way, looking for the telltale rings that might be where another universe 'bumped' into ours.  Needle in a haystack?  I'd love to be proved wrong by some hard evidence tho'.

 

Then there's the spurious 'detection' of gravitational waves by the BICEP2 experiment this March.

They would have been the smoking gun evidence for Inflation and with that foundation firmly in place, the reality of a multiverse comes one step closer.  Such an Inflationary multiverse also becomes harder to deny if it's confirmed by such evidence.

 

3. So What Is This, 'Simple Natural Structure'...?

Paul Steinhardt, a theoretical physicist at Princeton University and one of the early contributors to the theory of eternal inflation, saw the multiverse as a “fatal flaw” in the reasoning he had helped advance, and he remains stridently anti-multiverse today. “Our universe has a simple, natural structure,” he said in September. “The multiverse idea is baroque, unnatural, untestable and, in the end, dangerous to science and society.”

 

Here's what I don't get, Storm.

Is Steinhardt saying that our (the observable) universe has a simple, natural structure?  Because that makes no sense at all.  An analysis of only the observable universe shows evidence of incredibly fine tuning (see first two paragraphs of article one) leading us to conclude that the fundamental constants have been finely-tuned for our existence and benefit.  Enter the Christian apologists with their Intelligent Designer!  The multiverse neatly answers the fine-tuning argument.

So, I can only conclude that Steinhardt's 'simple, natural structure' must the Ekpyrotic model he champions, here...  http://wwwphy.princeton.edu/~steinh/cycliccosmology.html  You agree?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

So, based on my cursory reading of this last section (3) you wrote, my initial reaction to your question regarding Mr. Steinhardt is that he is sticking to his guns and holding on to something that he likes and is being stubborn in regards to an idea being different than the one he had a part of initially. However, I don't know Mr. Steinhardt and this may or may not be the case.

 

I certainly don't have enough of an complete understanding of the multiverse theory, or even the current Big Bang model theory to give you a strong answer. Just bits and pieces that I have picked up from you and others, as well as reading occasional articles. I wish I could say I have a strong interest in astronomy and the like, but I am more in tune with Human Behavior and Psychology of the mind. I wish I had the time and intellectual capacity to understand the cosmos and the theories regarding its formation. So, I cannot give any sort of logical answer to your question regarding the Ekpyrotic model. If I had to take a stab at it, I would say that it appears that he is arguing that the model he understands is simply something that he can, in fact, understand and that it follows a systemic pattern that he can comprehend to some degree and that makes sense to his understanding of the way the universe works. The multiverse theory presents problems for his ideas and hypotheses and because he, nor anyone else, knows much about them or could at this point even study the multiverses, they simply present serious problems and hurt his particular position regarding the start of the universe. What we as humans know and understand appears to be natural for us, whereas, the unknown is mysterious and unnatural to us. Maybe that is what he is referring to.

 

However, thinking about this raised a couple questions that you may or may not be able to answer.

 

Question 1: If there is a multiverse, would it be possible, or likely, that the other universes would have different physical laws or they would be entirely different than our own in some unknown way?

 

Question 2: In regards to your fine tuned statement: "An analysis of only the observable universe shows evidence of incredibly fine tuning (see first two paragraphs of article one) leading us to conclude that the fundamental constants have been finely-tuned for our existence and benefit.  Enter the Christian apologists with their Intelligent Designer!  The multiverse neatly answers the fine-tuning argument." Would this be a theoretical case of the water filling the pothole or the pothole being created to hold the water type scenario, if you understand what I am referring to? Is the universe fine tuned because of the laws that restrict what it can do, or is it fine tuned because after the initial moment of chaos, the constants reached a state of "equilibrium" (if you will) and that worked out to be a highly functional and tuned process?

 

Thanks for your time in reading and sharing your opinion. I am glad that the articles panned out to be good. I enjoyed reading them and I feel like I learned a bit more and feel more comfortable in understating the possible theories that are coming forth.

 

Thanks

 

Storm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Storm!

 

Thanks for the reply.  smile.png

 

About Paul Steinhardt...

His Ekpyrotic model seems to be a perfectly reasonable alternative to the Inflationary paradigm.  Right now both are in with a chance of being the 'right' answer.  Here I use the word, 'right' to mean the theory/model with sufficient explanatory power to tell us HOW our universe came into being.  The deciding factor is, as always, one of evidence.  When the BICEP2 team announced their finding, the apparent strength of the gravitational wave signal ruled out Steinhardt's model.  An Ekpyrotic origin for our universe wouldn't have generated such a powerful signal in the B-mode polarization of the CMB.

 

So Steinhardt conceded and gave a nod to Guth and Linde's Inflationary paradigm.

But we now know that the BICEP data was thoroughly contaminated with foreground dust from the Milky Way, which mimicked the B-mode polarization and fooled that science team into thinking they had found the smoking gun for Inflationary gravitational waves.  So Steinhardt has since retracted his concession and we're back at square one.  Both options are now back on the table and we're back to a holding pattern, waiting for the deciding evidence to come in.  A chronology of these events can be found over at 'Not Even Wrong', Paul Woit's blog that I linked to in post # 3.

 

The road ahead isn't an easy one, btw.

Since we now know that every part of the sky is filled with polarization-mimicking dust, this foreground signal has to be subtracted from any surveys of the cosmic microwave background that are looking for B-mode polarization.  Ok, the B-mode signal could be out there, just waiting to be detected - but we're looking thru a dirty window and we need to get rid of the foreground crap, to see what's in the background.  This calls for hyper-accurate surveys of that galactic dust, so that as much of it's signal can be subtracted from any CMB data.  The best shot we have at this right now is the Planck satellite data.  It's made at least three whole-sky surveys at nine different frequencies, so by rigorously applying that data, we have a chance of pinning down a lot of the dust polarization.  Once the density and polarization of the galactic dust is known, those numbers can be subtracted from the CMB data (hopefully!) yielding a 'clean' view of the CMB B-mode polarization.

 

Assuming we can do this, whatever the CMB then tells us will decide which cosmological model is 'right'.

As best as I understand things Storm, a strong B-mode signal will favor Inflation and weaker one will favor Ekpyrosis.  Ok, it's not really that simple, but that is the general gist of things.  So it's still all to play for. The BICEP and Planck teams have been working together since early summer, trying to nail down the stats and 'peel' the foreground dust signals away from the background microwave data.  Various science blogs indicate that their results will be published very soon.  Soon as in, next month or early next year.  So watch this space!  (Pun intended. wink.png )

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now to your questions, Storm.

 

1.

If there is a multiverse, would it be possible, or likely, that other universes would have different physical laws or would they be entirely different than our own in some unknown way?

 

Yes and... Maybe.

A fundamental function of Inflation is that the starting conditions of each 'pocket' universe are decided by purely random factors.  This give us the 'Yes' for other universes having different physical laws.  The 'Maybe' applies to universes differing from ours in some unknown way.  Since the way these universes differ from ours is unknown to us, there's no way anyone can give a definitive answer to that question.  Maybe they are different, maybe they aren't.

 

2.

The pothole and the water.  As I mentioned yesterday, a multiverse fully answers the question of fine-tuning.  Since each new universe has it's physical laws 'locked into place' by random factors when it inflates, a sufficiently large sample of universes will display every possible combination of these physical laws.  One way to think of it Storm is to imagine a bucket filled with a thousand dice.  Every time it gets tipped out, the numbers are decided purely by random factors.  But, if this is done again and again for long enough, eventually even the most unlikely combination of numbers will turn up.  Every possible combination of numbers will turn up, provided the bucket is tipped out enough times. Even where every dice shows a 6.

 

Now, out of the zillions of times this is done, if you sample only one of those results, there's a chance that you'll pick the result where every dice was a 6.  "This can't be random!" you might say.  Somebody or something must have deliberately arranged this result, because nature could never be this ordered.  "A thousand 6's can't possibly be random!  Right?"

 

Wrong!

If the bucket is tipped out often enough, this kind of result will happen. It's not just statistically probable - it's statistically certain.  The problem we humans have is that we only have one sample to go on - our universe.  For us, the bucket's been tipped out only once - leaving us uncertain of the wider picture. That uncertainty is called the Measure Problem.  (Well addressed in the two Quanta articles.)  The true picture could be that the bucket has been tipped out more times than there are grains of sand on this planet - and we'd never know!

 

Anyway, we appear to live in a Fine-Tuned universe.

A universe where the physical laws appear to be carefully arranged to permit us to exist.  A universe where every dice came up 6.  But, since there's a growing body of evidence indicating that we live in either an Inflationary or Ekpyrotic universe, we shouldn't just assume that the observable universe is all there is.  With Inflation, the bucket is tipped out as many times as there are pocket universes.  So our particular pocket could just be one of the many where every dice came up 6.  With Ekpyrosis, the universe goes thru an eternal cycle of birth, death and re-birth.  Each 'birth' is another throw of the dice, randomly deciding the physical laws that prevail until the next cycle.  In this scenario, we just happen to exist in a cycle where the dice all came up 6.

 

I hope this has been of some help.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, BAA, for your explanations. They were helpful. My curiosity brings me to be excited about the future of what science can determine regarding the multiverse, despite my limited understanding of the whole thing.

 

As far as the fine tuned universe, I still struggle to some degree because I wonder if its simply because the observable universe we can see (i.e. life and planets etc.) seem to have adapted to what it has available. So (and maybe we're on the same page and I just don't see it) while its statistically probable and likely that the bucket would tip over and roll all 6's, to me it seems more like the bucket just spilled out everything and the rest just adapted to whatever came out, so that what ended as the result was perceived as all sixes (maybe).

 

I hope that makes sense. I may be completely wrong about my thinking in regards to this, but I liken it to our universe started because of some (at this point) unknown triggered event. The results of that event created some laws that have not changed since the event and other laws that came to be because of those initial laws, but were the result of adaptations. In a ripple effect, these laws continued to progress (if you will) and adapt and become eventually what we know now. And our universe found some sort of synchronicity, and, possibly based on some variation of Kuramoto Model, the laws and such interacted with each other and eventually they synced up and we have the "fine tuning" that we observe at this point in what we understand.

 

This is all based on my limited understanding of everything and may be way off. But its what I think at this point. Discussions like these definitely get the thinking juices flowing.

 

Thanks for your time in working on this and explaining what you can. I appreciate it, and look forward to seeing what you have to say in the future.

 

Regards,

Storm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, BAA, for your explanations. They were helpful. My curiosity brings me to be excited about the future of what science can determine regarding the multiverse, despite my limited understanding of the whole thing.

 

As far as the fine tuned universe, I still struggle to some degree because I wonder if its simply because the observable universe we can see (i.e. life and planets etc.) seem to have adapted to what it has available. So (and maybe we're on the same page and I just don't see it) while its statistically probable and likely that the bucket would tip over and roll all 6's, to me it seems more like the bucket just spilled out everything and the rest just adapted to whatever came out, so that what ended as the result was perceived as all sixes (maybe).

 

I hope that makes sense. I may be completely wrong about my thinking in regards to this, but I liken it to our universe started because of some (at this point) unknown triggered event. The results of that event created some laws that have not changed since the event and other laws that came to be because of those initial laws, but were the result of adaptations. In a ripple effect, these laws continued to progress (if you will) and adapt and become eventually what we know now. And our universe found some sort of synchronicity, and, possibly based on some variation of Kuramoto Model, the laws and such interacted with each other and eventually they synced up and we have the "fine tuning" that we observe at this point in what we understand.

 

This is all based on my limited understanding of everything and may be way off. But its what I think at this point. Discussions like these definitely get the thinking juices flowing.

 

Thanks for your time in working on this and explaining what you can. I appreciate it, and look forward to seeing what you have to say in the future.

 

Regards,

Storm

 

Interesting response Storm!

 

Thanks for getting me to think some more about this.  smile.png

 

Perhaps the best way I can reply to your questions about adaptation, interaction and synchronicity is to refer you to this Wiki page...  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe

 

My layman's understanding of these things is that this chronology details a strictly one-way process.

Our universe is considered to have originated from a single, unified superforce and has come to be the way we see it now by a series of catastrophic and irreversible changes (as detailed in each succeeding epoch) as various forces split off from the original, single force.  

 

This means that no type of energy or particle in a given epoch can possibly interact with anything from any other preceding or following epoch.  So the baryons and anti-baryons from the Baryogenic epoch couldn't have interacted with the Electroweak forces of that earlier epoch.  This is because the Electroweak forces later became the baryons and anti-baryons of the Baryogenic epoch.

 

Something cannot interact with itself, earlier in it's own history.  

That's an causal impossibility and it also contradicts the established principle of the Arrow of Time, as first defined by Sir Arthur Eddington.    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_of_time

 

So, while the laws governing each epoch depended on what preceded them, any possible interactions, adaptations or synchronicity that might have occurred within a given epoch are limited strictly to that epoch.  Once an epoch is over, whatever happened during it is over and done with and cannot be reversed, interacted with or undone.  

.

.

.

Does that help address your question about laws interacting with each other, Storm?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks BAA. Your explanations helped on one front. But I cannot help but let my mind wander into thought about it all.

 

I am assuming that all the questions I am about to bring forth have been asked by others in the cosmology field and that I may be asking things that have been addressed elsewhere. That being said, I have been pondering the following (in no particular order):

 

So we understand that our universe came from some singular event, about which the details remain unknown. So theoretically, our universe could have come about due to two other universes colliding and that collision creating the singularity that brought forth our universe. If this was the case, and that it is certainly possible that both of those universes had their own set of physical laws that may or may not have been the same, I wonder if that even brought forth entirely new physical laws, or if particular laws from both universes "asserted" themselves into our new universe.

 

Then I consider that not all physical laws have existed since the singular event. So, then I begin to ponder if there are Primary laws and secondary laws and such. Doing a cursory search on the interweb yielded no significant answers that I can say answer this query, mostly philosophical stuff. Clearly atomic laws came first, then elemental laws, and so on. There is clearly a system involved in the appearance of the laws, although that particular system may or may not be known (at least by me). It just makes me wonder if the laws always existed and then as the system grew and evolved, that the laws just took effect when the system became relevant to them, or if the laws just evolved with the system and became what we know today. So, I wonder if the theory of evolution applied to our physical laws as well at some point in the past to the point where useless laws became extinct and only the ones that provided what the universe needed remained. Certainly food for thought, as far as I can tell.

 

This is a curious thing to me. I hope you might be able to shed some light on this for me, or anyone else who might be privy to this type of information.

 

Thanks

Storm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks BAA. Your explanations helped on one front. But I cannot help but let my mind wander into thought about it all.

 

I am assuming that all the questions I am about to bring forth have been asked by others in the cosmology field and that I may be asking things that have been addressed elsewhere. That being said, I have been pondering the following (in no particular order):

 

So we understand that our universe came from some singular event, about which the details remain unknown. So theoretically, our universe could have come about due to two other universes colliding and that collision creating the singularity that brought forth our universe. If this was the case, and that it is certainly possible that both of those universes had their own set of physical laws that may or may not have been the same, I wonder if that even brought forth entirely new physical laws, or if particular laws from both universes "asserted" themselves into our new universe.

 

The collision option sounds a lot like Paul Steinhardt's Ekpyrotic model. 

However, to avoid the problem of infinite regression, he posits that these collisions have been going thru an eternal cycle.  If you posit two colliding universes that create a singularity, you have a similar problem... as far as I can see.  Where did these two universes (with their own sets of laws) originate from?  Previous colliding universes?  And where did they come from?  And so on.  

 

Then I consider that not all physical laws have existed since the singular event. So, then I begin to ponder if there are Primary laws and secondary laws and such. Doing a cursory search on the interweb yielded no significant answers that I can say answer this query, mostly philosophical stuff. Clearly atomic laws came first, then elemental laws, and so on. There is clearly a system involved in the appearance of the laws, although that particular system may or may not be known (at least by me). It just makes me wonder if the laws always existed and then as the system grew and evolved, that the laws just took effect when the system became relevant to them, or if the laws just evolved with the system and became what we know today. So, I wonder if the theory of evolution applied to our physical laws as well at some point in the past to the point where useless laws became extinct and only the ones that provided what the universe needed remained. Certainly food for thought, as far as I can tell.

 

Sorry Storm, but I can only repeat to you what I've read in books by Alan Guth, Stephen Hawking and Michiko Kaku.

The laws which happen to apply in any given pocket universe are derived from one source only.  Random factors that occur after it's own particular hot Big Bang.  There's no evolution involved as far I understand it because there's no pressure on any given pocket universe to survive or not.  This Wiki helps to explain what I mean.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatness_problem

 

End_of_universe.jpg

 

There are usually thought to be three possible outcomes, when it comes to the 'survival' of life-friendly universes.

Those where the gravitational forces overwhelm Inflation - leading to 'closed' universe that swiftly collapses back to quantum-size.  (The sphere.)  Those where Inflation overwhelms the gravitational forces - leading to an 'open' universe.  (The saddle-shape.)  Here runaway inflation ensures that all particles are too widely spaced to even interact with one another.  Such a universe is sterile and unable to form any atomic nuclei at all.  Not even Hydrogen.  It will be cold and dead - forever.

 

The sweet spot is the 'flat' universe, where the value of Omega (the balance between Inflation and gravity) is exactly one.

This page describes just how exact the balance is.  http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/F/Flatness+Problem  Sure enough, our pocket universe has been measured to have exactly this flat geometry.

 

However, I must reiterate that there is no selection involved in the survival of life-friendly pocket universes.

To posit a selective force or agency is to step into the Intelligent Design camp, where a Creator God fine-tunes universes for life.  Since pocket universes are spatially and causally disconnected from each other at the moment of their 'birth' there is no natural interaction between them either. 

 

Any evolution that appears to happen regarding the physical laws in a given universe cannot (imho) involve these three factors.

Fine-tuning by an intelligent agency.  Interaction between pocket universes.  Laws interacting with themselves in violation of the sequence of events described here...  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe

 

This is a curious thing to me. I hope you might be able to shed some light on this for me, or anyone else who might be privy to this type of information.

 

Thanks

Storm

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

However, I must reiterate that there is no selection involved in the survival of life-friendly pocket universes.

To posit a selective force or agency is to step into the Intelligent Design camp, where a Creator God fine-tunes universes for life.  Since pocket universes are spatially and causally disconnected from each other at the moment of their 'birth' there is no natural interaction between them either. 

Ok. So based on this, then would it be safe to make the assumption that the laws existed since the beginning and that the system eventually grew and expanded and at certain points the already pre-existing laws became relevant and asserted their rules on the universe?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

However, I must reiterate that there is no selection involved in the survival of life-friendly pocket universes.

To posit a selective force or agency is to step into the Intelligent Design camp, where a Creator God fine-tunes universes for life.  Since pocket universes are spatially and causally disconnected from each other at the moment of their 'birth' there is no natural interaction between them either. 

Ok. So based on this, then would it be safe to make the assumption that the laws existed since the beginning and that the system eventually grew and expanded and at certain points the already pre-existing laws became relevant and asserted their rules on the universe?

 

 

That's not an assumption... I'd ...make, Storm.

 

That there are laws that pre-exist a given universe.

 

I don't recall reading that the likes of Guth et al make that assumption either.

As far as I know, neither does Steinhardt's Ekpyrotic model make that assumption.  In that paradigm, the eternally-colliding and re-colliding branes don't have a set of laws pre-written into them.  If they did, then every cycle would (by definition) be the same.  The same universe with the same laws and the same events repeating itself over and over again endlessly.  

 

But (and forgive me if this totally wrong) I think Steinhardt follows the same path as Guth when it comes to the evolution of universes after each hot Big Bang.  After each 'birth' every universe is permitted to evolve by itself, according to purely random and undecided factors.  In the same way, each of Guth's pocket universes is also allowed to evolve along the same unwritten lines.  With Steinhardt you get spontaneity and diversity with every new cycle.  With Guth you get spontaneity and diversity with each new pocket universe that 'buds' off from the others.

 

This diversity is the very reason why an Inflationary multiverse (or an eternal Ekpyrotic cycle) answers the Fine-Tuning problem so well.  Both paradigms require tip out the bucket of dice, over and over and over again - yielding sufficient numbers or iterations of universes to explain why our universe appears to be so well tuned.

 

The answer is - it isn't.

 

Given a sufficiently large sample it's inevitable that universes like ours will come into existence.  And both Inflation and Ekpyrosis give us these sufficiently large samples.  additionally, both paradigms are well-supported by strong lines of evidence.

.

.

.

Question.

When a bucket of dice is tipped out, is the result pre-decided or is the result determined by purely random factors?

.

.

.

Thanks,

 

BAA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But (and forgive me if this totally wrong) I think Steinhardt follows the same path as Guth when it comes to the evolution of universes after each hot Big Bang.  After each 'birth' every universe is permitted to evolve by itself, according to purely random and undecided factors.  In the same way, each of Guth's pocket universes is also allowed to evolve along the same unwritten lines.  With Steinhardt you get spontaneity and diversity with every new cycle.  With Guth you get spontaneity and diversity with each new pocket universe that 'buds' off from the others.

This sort of answers my question, however, it leads to me seeking more information. So each universe is evolving regardless of the model you choose to subscribe to, but, (and this question may not have any possible way to be answered at this point, based on the limits of our understanding at this point in time) I still wonder at what point the laws came into play. You confirmed that we don't know whether or not any other universes in a multiverse system have the same or different physical laws, so we cant say for certain that these laws are more than universal (that is, they apply to everything everywhere across all universes at all times and points in time and space... for arguments sake I'll term it multiversal), so what determined that these laws came about?

 

I think the bucket argument works, but it doesn't necessarily answer all the questions, if you understand what I am getting at. If all the laws are multiversal, then that works, but how does that play on the bucket analogy?I would argue that the results weren't truly random, but that there were forces at play that affected the outcomes. So, this might lead to a Which came first scenario: the multiversal laws or the universal laws and how they developed our universe.

 

 

Question.

When a bucket of dice is tipped out, is the result pre-decided or is the result determined by purely random factors?

My answer is that its purely random. But it might be affected by what I mentioned above.

 

I'm enjoying this discussion, however, I suspect that its going to reach a point where my limited knowledge will stymie my ability to sufficiently contribute. But I appreciate the effort you are putting into answering my questions.

 

Thanks...

Storm

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

But (and forgive me if this totally wrong) I think Steinhardt follows the same path as Guth when it comes to the evolution of universes after each hot Big Bang.  After each 'birth' every universe is permitted to evolve by itself, according to purely random and undecided factors.  In the same way, each of Guth's pocket universes is also allowed to evolve along the same unwritten lines.  With Steinhardt you get spontaneity and diversity with every new cycle.  With Guth you get spontaneity and diversity with each new pocket universe that 'buds' off from the others.

This sort of answers my question, however, it leads to me seeking more information. So each universe is evolving regardless of the model you choose to subscribe to, but, (and this question may not have any possible way to be answered at this point, based on the limits of our understanding at this point in time) I still wonder at what point the laws came into play.

 

Storm,

 

My (superficial and quite basic) understanding of these things runs like this.

Complex laws do not exist in either the Inflationary or Ekpyrotic paradigm until either model gives 'birth' to a new universe.  In Inflationary theory, the pure superforce is the very simplest of things - not the most complex of things.  Complexity arises when this purity and simplicity fracture randomly into lower and lower energy states.  Likewise, the two colliding Ekpyrotic branes are also very simple things - but their collision enables complex systems to emerge from that fiery meeting.

 

You confirmed that we don't know whether or not any other universes in a multiverse system have the same or different physical laws, so we cant say for certain that these laws are more than universal (that is, they apply to everything everywhere across all universes at all times and points in time and space... for arguments sake I'll term it multiversal), so what determined that these laws came about?

 

Nothing determined anything ...before each universe came into it's own existence.

 

This is not a top-down system, where a greater order of complexity imposes itself upon simpler things.  This is a bottom-up system, where complexity arises randomly as the purity and simplicity of either universe-generating paradigm fractures and breaks down into smaller and more complex systems.  Breakage yields complexity.  Complexity is not imposed from above.

 

I think the bucket argument works, but it doesn't necessarily answer all the questions, if you understand what I am getting at. If all the laws are multiversal, then that works, but how does that play on the bucket analogy?

 

Only the very simplest laws can be considered as multiversal or brane-bound.

Other, more complex sets and systems of laws are found only in each are every separate universe or in each new cycle of brane collisions.  Therefore, simplicity is the lowest common denominator at work in both paradigms.  The complexity we see around us arises from that simplicity breaking down.

 

I would argue that the results weren't truly random, but that there were forces at play that affected the outcomes.

 

Indeed.

But WHEN do you think the bucket is being tipped out?  

Is it being tipped out AFTER a whole suite of complex laws are ALREADY at work?

Or is it being being tipped out BEFORE these complex laws come into play, when things are very simple indeed?

 

So, this might lead to a Which came first scenario: the multiversal laws or the universal laws and how they developed our universe.

 

By definition (in both paradigms) simplicity came first, to be followed by complexity.

 

 

Question.

When a bucket of dice is tipped out, is the result pre-decided or is the result determined by purely random factors?

My answer is that its purely random. But it might be affected by what I mentioned above.

 

I'm enjoying this discussion, however, I suspect that its going to reach a point where my limited knowledge will stymie my ability to sufficiently contribute. But I appreciate the effort you are putting into answering my questions.

 

Thanks...

Storm

 

 

 

Not a problem.  This is fun.  smile.png

 

BAA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

But (and forgive me if this totally wrong) I think Steinhardt follows the same path as Guth when it comes to the evolution of universes after each hot Big Bang.  After each 'birth' every universe is permitted to evolve by itself, according to purely random and undecided factors.  In the same way, each of Guth's pocket universes is also allowed to evolve along the same unwritten lines.  With Steinhardt you get spontaneity and diversity with every new cycle.  With Guth you get spontaneity and diversity with each new pocket universe that 'buds' off from the others.

This sort of answers my question, however, it leads to me seeking more information. So each universe is evolving regardless of the model you choose to subscribe to, but, (and this question may not have any possible way to be answered at this point, based on the limits of our understanding at this point in time) I still wonder at what point the laws came into play.

 

Storm,

 

My (superficial and quite basic) understanding of these things runs like this.

Complex laws do not exist in either the Inflationary or Ekpyrotic paradigm until either model gives 'birth' to a new universe.  In Inflationary theory, the pure superforce is the very simplest of things - not the most complex of things.  Complexity arises when this purity and simplicity fracture randomly into lower and lower energy states.  Likewise, the two colliding Ekpyrotic branes are also very simple things - but their collision enables complex systems to emerge from that fiery meeting.

 

Ok. That makes sense. So you are essentially saying that regardless of the complexity of the event causing scenario, the result should most likely start out simple and evolve to the complex. Would it be a far stretch to ask whether or not other multiverses that may exist still affect our universe in ways that influence the laws?

 

You confirmed that we don't know whether or not any other universes in a multiverse system have the same or different physical laws, so we cant say for certain that these laws are more than universal (that is, they apply to everything everywhere across all universes at all times and points in time and space... for arguments sake I'll term it multiversal), so what determined that these laws came about?

 

Nothing determined anything ...before each universe came into it's own existence. I addressed this in my previous question.

 

This is not a top-down system, where a greater order of complexity imposes itself upon simpler things.  This is a bottom-up system, where complexity arises randomly as the purity and simplicity of either universe-generating paradigm fractures and breaks down into smaller and more complex systems.  Breakage yields complexity.  Complexity is not imposed from above.

 

I guess my response to this still hinges on the answer to my previous question.

 

I think the bucket argument works, but it doesn't necessarily answer all the questions, if you understand what I am getting at. If all the laws are multiversal, then that works, but how does that play on the bucket analogy?

 

Only the very simplest laws can be considered as multiversal or brane-bound. As far as we understand at this point in our limited knowledge base.

Other, more complex sets and systems of laws are found only in each are every separate universe or in each new cycle of brane collisions.  Therefore, simplicity is the lowest common denominator at work in both paradigms.  The complexity we see around us arises from that simplicity breaking down.

 

Thanks for explaining this. It helps me see where I was failing to see things from thec orrect perspective.

I would argue that the results weren't truly random, but that there were forces at play that affected the outcomes.

 

Indeed.

But WHEN do you think the bucket is being tipped out?  

Is it being tipped out AFTER a whole suite of complex laws are ALREADY at work?

Or is it being being tipped out BEFORE these complex laws come into play, when things are very simple indeed?

 

Truthfully, I would argue that it might make more sense if you are trying to roll all 6's with a bucket of dice, however instead of trying to roll them all at once, you take the bucket and dump it out and then put any non 6's back in and roll them again and continue this process until you get all 6's. This reduces the statistical probability each successive time, but yet still employs randomness. But as laws become developed, the new laws are influenced by the new existing laws. Thus accounting for the seemingly "fine tuning" of the universe.

 

So, this might lead to a Which came first scenario: the multiversal laws or the universal laws and how they developed our universe.

 

By definition (in both paradigms) simplicity came first, to be followed by complexity.

Understood and agreed.

 

 

Question.

When a bucket of dice is tipped out, is the result pre-decided or is the result determined by purely random factors?

My answer is that its purely random. But it might be affected by what I mentioned above.

 

I'm enjoying this discussion, however, I suspect that its going to reach a point where my limited knowledge will stymie my ability to sufficiently contribute. But I appreciate the effort you are putting into answering my questions.

 

Thanks...

Storm

 

 

 

Not a problem.  This is fun.  smile.png

 

BAA.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

But (and forgive me if this totally wrong) I think Steinhardt follows the same path as Guth when it comes to the evolution of universes after each hot Big Bang.  After each 'birth' every universe is permitted to evolve by itself, according to purely random and undecided factors.  In the same way, each of Guth's pocket universes is also allowed to evolve along the same unwritten lines.  With Steinhardt you get spontaneity and diversity with every new cycle.  With Guth you get spontaneity and diversity with each new pocket universe that 'buds' off from the others.

This sort of answers my question, however, it leads to me seeking more information. So each universe is evolving regardless of the model you choose to subscribe to, but, (and this question may not have any possible way to be answered at this point, based on the limits of our understanding at this point in time) I still wonder at what point the laws came into play.

 

Storm,

 

My (superficial and quite basic) understanding of these things runs like this.

Complex laws do not exist in either the Inflationary or Ekpyrotic paradigm until either model gives 'birth' to a new universe.  In Inflationary theory, the pure superforce is the very simplest of things - not the most complex of things.  Complexity arises when this purity and simplicity fracture randomly into lower and lower energy states.  Likewise, the two colliding Ekpyrotic branes are also very simple things - but their collision enables complex systems to emerge from that fiery meeting.

 

Ok. That makes sense. So you are essentially saying that regardless of the complexity of the event causing scenario, the result should most likely start out simple and evolve to the complex. Would it be a far stretch to ask whether or not other multiverses that may exist still affect our universe in ways that influence the laws?

 

If they are causally disconnected, then I don't see how.  

According to Guth each pocket universe's own Big Bang erases all trace of what 'preceded' it.  I'd imagine that each new Ekpyrotic collision does that same job in Steinhardt's cyclic paradigm.

 

You confirmed that we don't know whether or not any other universes in a multiverse system have the same or different physical laws, so we cant say for certain that these laws are more than universal (that is, they apply to everything everywhere across all universes at all times and points in time and space... for arguments sake I'll term it multiversal), so what determined that these laws came about?

 

Nothing determined anything ...before each universe came into it's own existence. I addressed this in my previous question. Ok.

 

This is not a top-down system, where a greater order of complexity imposes itself upon simpler things.  This is a bottom-up system, where complexity arises randomly as the purity and simplicity of either universe-generating paradigm fractures and breaks down into smaller and more complex systems.  Breakage yields complexity.  Complexity is not imposed from above.

 

I guess my response to this still hinges on the answer to my previous question.  Ok.

 

I think the bucket argument works, but it doesn't necessarily answer all the questions, if you understand what I am getting at. If all the laws are multiversal, then that works, but how does that play on the bucket analogy?

 

Only the very simplest laws can be considered as multiversal or brane-bound. As far as we understand at this point in our limited knowledge base.

 

 

Agreed.

 

Other, more complex sets and systems of laws are found only in each are every separate universe or in each new cycle of brane collisions.  Therefore, simplicity is the lowest common denominator at work in both paradigms.  The complexity we see around us arises from that simplicity breaking down.

 

Thanks for explaining this. It helps me see where I was failing to see things from the correct perspective.

 

I would argue that the results weren't truly random, but that there were forces at play that affected the outcomes.

 

Indeed.

But WHEN do you think the bucket is being tipped out?  

Is it being tipped out AFTER a whole suite of complex laws are ALREADY at work?

Or is it being being tipped out BEFORE these complex laws come into play, when things are very simple indeed?

 

Truthfully, I would argue that it might make more sense if you are trying to roll all 6's with a bucket of dice, however instead of trying to roll them all at once, you take the bucket and dump it out and then put any non 6's back in and roll them again and continue this process until you get all 6's. This reduces the statistical probability each successive time, but yet still employs randomness. But as laws become developed, the new laws are influenced by the new existing laws. Thus accounting for the seemingly "fine tuning" of the universe.

 

 

But as I understand it Storm, there's no 'trying' involved.

Trying implies an aim or goal or an achieved end.  As we know, evolution is a reactive, open-ended process.  It's not a prescriptive or proactive process that sets out to achieve a specific aim or end.  

 

Also, if I read Guth right about the 'erasure' that takes place with Big Bang, this sets everything back to zero, re-setting the probabilities back to zero.

 

So, this might lead to a Which came first scenario: the multiversal laws or the universal laws and how they developed our universe.

 

By definition (in both paradigms) simplicity came first, to be followed by complexity.

Understood and agreed. Ok.

 

 

Question.

When a bucket of dice is tipped out, is the result pre-decided or is the result determined by purely random factors?

My answer is that its purely random. But it might be affected by what I mentioned above.  Ok.

 

I'm enjoying this discussion, however, I suspect that its going to reach a point where my limited knowledge will stymie my ability to sufficiently contribute. But I appreciate the effort you are putting into answering my questions.

 

Thanks...

Storm

 

 

 

Not a problem.  This is fun.  smile.png

 

BAA.

 

 

 

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Storm,

 

In the interests of fairness and full disclosure, please read this... http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=7385#comments

 

I post this so that my comments about the multiverse in this thread should be seen for what they are.

They aren't gospel.  They're my understanding of this fiendishly complex subject, derived from my readings of books by various scientists.  

 

While the many lines of evidence and confirmed predictions aren't in dispute - what they mean and what they point to is still a matter of fierce debate in scientific circles.  

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BAA

I understand that you are a layman. Hopefully others see that as well. But I appreciate your knowledge on all of this and your willingness to discuss this with me and others.

 

I am glad you posted this link though. Definitely helped me. In particular,A comment left by a participant kind of agreed with my earlier statement about the bucket and dice.

This one:

GM says:

 

@ Travis

That analogy is not really very good. The features of a particular planetary system may be “accidental”, but they are not completely random, they are what they are because of simple and understood laws of physics, even if the process is extremely complicated . And it’s worth remembering that historically we actually made a lot of progress towards understanding those laws by studying such accidents.

 

So my description of the bucket analogy wasn't entirely accurate. Maybe it might be more accurate to say: While dumping the dice out at once will result in a random result, its more like the final result of the first die affects the result of the second die and those results affect the next die and so on. So while the results are random, the final results of all the dice have been influenced in some way by the preceding dice. There is what you might say, a systematic randomness to the whole process.

 

What do you think of this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Storm,

 

I have no problem with this.

It seems to agree with what I've read from Guth, Hawking et al and with the principles laid down by Eddington's Arrow of Time (see post # 12).  The notion of, 'the first influencing all that follow it' also agrees with the Wiki Chronology of the Universe (also # 12), where each succeeding epoch is influenced by it's predecessor.  Your idea about how the dice interact with each other doesn't appear to violate causality, either. 

.

.

.

Thanks,

 

BAA. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.