Posted on 11/27/2008 11:21:48 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Our universe is perfectly tailored for life. That may be the work of God or the result of our universe being one of many.
Linde’s recent research has helped solidify the connection between string theory and the multiverse. Some physicists have long embraced the notion that the extra dimensions of string theory play a key role in shaping the properties of new universes spawned during eternal chaotic inflation. When a new universe sprouts from its parent, the concept goes, only three of the dimensions of space predicted by string theory will inflate into large, full-blown, inhabitable spaces. The other dimensions of space will remain essentially invisible—but nonetheless will influence the form the universe takes. Linde and his colleagues figured out how the invisible dimensions stayed compact and went on to propose billions of permutations, each giving rise to a unique universe.
Linde’s ideas may make the notion of a multiverse more plausible, but they do not prove that other universes are really out there. The staggering challenge is to think of a way to confirm the existence of other universes when every conceivable experiment or observation must be confined to our own. Does it make sense to talk about other universes if they can never be detected?
I put that question to Cambridge University astrophysicist Martin Rees, the United Kingdom’s Astronomer Royal. We meet at his residence at Trinity College, in rooms on the west side of a meticulously groomed courtyard, directly across from an office once occupied by Isaac Newton.
Rees, an early supporter of Linde’s ideas, agrees that it may never be possible to observe other universes directly, but he argues that scientists may still be able to make a convincing case for their existence. To do that, he says, physicists will need a theory of the multiverse that makes new but testable predictions about properties of our own universe. If experiments confirmed such a theory’s predictions about the universe we can see, Rees believes, they would also make a strong case for the reality of those we cannot. String theory is still very much a work in progress, but it could form the basis for the sort of theory that Rees has in mind.
“If a theory did gain credibility by explaining previously unexplained features of the physical world, then we should take seriously its further predictions, even if those predictions aren’t directly testable,” he says. “Fifty years ago we all thought of the Big Bang as very speculative. Now the Big Bang from one millisecond onward is as well established as anything about the early history of Earth.”
The credibility of string theory and the multiverse may get a boost within the next year or two, once physicists start analyzing results from the Large Hadron Collider, the new, $8 billion particle accelerator built on the Swiss-French border. If string theory is right, the collider should produce a host of new particles. There is even a small chance that it may find evidence for the mysterious extra dimensions of string theory. “If you measure something which confirms certain elaborations of string theory, then you’ve got indirect evidence for the multiverse,” says Bernard Carr, a cosmologist at Queen Mary University of London.
Support for the multiverse might also come from some upcoming space missions. Susskind says there is a chance that the European Space Agency’s Planck satellite, scheduled for launch early next year, could lend a hand. Some multiverse models predict that our universe must have a specific geometry that would bend the path of light rays in specific ways that might be detectable by Planck, which will analyze radiation left from the Big Bang. If Planck’s observations match the predictions, it would suggest the existence of the multiverse.
When I ask Linde whether physicists will ever be able to prove that the multiverse is real, he has a simple answer. “Nothing else fits the data,” he tells me. “We don’t have any alternative explanation for the dark energy; we don’t have any alternative explanation for the smallness of the mass of the electron; we don’t have any alternative explanation for many properties of particles.
“What I am saying is, look at it with open eyes. These are experimental facts, and these facts fit one theory: the multiverse theory. They do not fit any other theory so far. I’m not saying these properties necessarily imply the multiverse theory is right, but you asked me if there is any experimental evidence, and the answer is yes. It was Arthur Conan Doyle who said, ‘When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.’”
What About God?
For many physicists, the multiverse remains a desperate measure, ruled out by the impossibility of confirmation. Critics see the anthropic principle as a step backward, a return to a human-centered way of looking at the universe that Copernicus discredited five centuries ago. They complain that using the anthropic principle to explain the properties of the universe is like saying that ships were created so that barnacles could stick to them.
“If you allow yourself to hypothesize an almost unlimited portfolio of different worlds, you can explain anything,” says John Polkinghorne, formerly a theoretical particle physicist at Cambridge University and, for the past 26 years, an ordained Anglican priest. If a theory allows anything to be possible, it explains nothing; a theory of anything is not the same as a theory of everything, he adds.
Supporters of the multiverse theory say that critics are on the wrong side of history. “Throughout the history of science, the universe has always gotten bigger,” Carr says. “We’ve gone from geocentric to heliocentric to galactocentric. Then in the 1920s there was this huge shift when we realized that our galaxy wasn’t the universe. I just see this as one more step in the progression. Every time this expansion has occurred, the more conservative scientists have said, ‘This isn’t science.’ This is just the same process repeating itself.”
If the multiverse is the final stage of the Copernican revolution, with our universe but a speck in an infinite megacosmos, where does humanity fit in? If the life-friendly fine-tuning of our universe is just a chance occurrence, something that inevitably arises in an endless array of universes, is there any need for a fine-tuner—for a god?
“I don’t think that the multiverse idea destroys the possibility of an intelligent, benevolent creator,” Weinberg says. “What it does is remove one of the arguments for it, just as Darwin’s theory of evolution made it unnecessary to appeal to a benevolent designer to understand how life developed with such remarkable abilities to survive and breed.”
On the other hand, if there is no multiverse, where does that leave physicists? “If there is only one universe,” Carr says, “you might have to have a fine-tuner. If you don’t want God, you’d better have a multiverse.”
As for Linde, he is especially interested in the mystery of consciousness and has speculated that consciousness may be a fundamental component of the universe, much like space and time. He wonders whether the physical universe, its laws, and conscious observers might form an integrated whole. A complete description of reality, he says, could require all three of those components, which he posits emerged simultaneously. “Without someone observing the universe,” he says, “the universe is actually dead.”
Yet for all of his boldness, Linde hesitates when I ask whether he truly believes that the multiverse idea will one day be as well established as Newton’s law of gravity and the Big Bang. “I do not want to predict the future,” he answers. “I once predicted my own future. I had a very firm prediction. I knew that I was going to die in the hospital at the Academy of Sciences in Moscow near where I worked. I would go there for all my physical examinations. Once, when I had an ulcer, I was lying there in bed, thinking I knew this was the place where I was going to die. Why? Because I knew I would always be living in Russia. Moscow was the only place in Russia where I could do physics. This was the only hospital for the Academy of Sciences, and so on. It was quite completely predictable.
“Then I ended up in the United States. On one of my returns to Moscow, I looked at this hospital at the Academy of Sciences, and it was in ruins. There was a tree growing from the roof. And I looked at it and I thought, What can you predict? What can you know about the future?”
Cosmic Coincidences
If these cosmic traits were just slightly altered, life as we know it would be impossible. A few examples:
• Stars like the sun produce energy by fusing two hydrogen atoms into a single helium atom. During that reaction, 0.007 percent of the mass of the hydrogen atoms is converted into energy, via Einstein’s famous e = mc2 equation. But if that percentage were, say, 0.006 or 0.008, the universe would be far more hostile to life. The lower number would result in a universe filled only with hydrogen; the higher number would leave a universe with no hydrogen (and therefore no water) and no stars like the sun.
• The early universe was delicately poised between runaway expansion and terminal collapse. Had the universe contained much more matter, additional gravity would have made it implode. If it contained less, the universe would have expanded too quickly for galaxies to form.
• Had matter in the universe been more evenly distributed, it would not have clumped together to form galaxies. Had matter been clumpier, it would have condensed into black holes.
• Atomic nuclei are bound together by the so-called strong force. If that force were slightly more powerful, all the protons in the early universe would have paired off and there would be no hydrogen, which fuels long-lived stars. Water would not exist, nor would any known form of life.
So how does this differ from religion?
It doesn't but godless liberals "feel" good about it.
They concoct the idea that God's wondrous infinite creation is instead muti-infinite subsets of His creation and think they've proven He doesn't exist.
Next thing ya know they'll be trying to convince people they actually know something about science!
|
I argued against the perspective of the author. You've attempted a proof against my statement by "correcting" his and using the correction against me. That is an informal fallacy.
You better have a solution for something that might be?
I love the logic that comes out of the ID camp.
In other words, it is an application of the scientific method. Nothing unusual about that—that’s what science does.
So how does this differ from religion?
Science relies on evidence, and the testing of theories based on that evidence. Religion relies on dogma and belief, and is not subject to tests using the scientific method.
Uh-huh...now show us all the godless liberal NEA lunatics lining up to sue the proponents of this multiverse “theory” into silence because they can not come up with the demanded “scientific evidence” or “proof”.
They will NEED a theory? Now that’s curious, the same courtesy wasn’t extended to the chemist and others that proposed that chemicals don’t just up and form life all by themselves.
Quite the disconnect, per usual.
The laws of my multiverse preclude the emergence of Marx, Engels, Stalin, Hitler and Obama. Maybe I’m in the wrong multiverse. How do I get over to the one where Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Hamilton and Franklin reside(d)?
Hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, etc shows that the tailoring for life was somewhat less than perfect.
Astrophysics Ping!
and Multivac answered the last question "Can entropy be reversed?" by stating..
"Let there be light!"
Oops! Meant for that ping to go to my hubby!
I think it possible that there exists multiple universes. But I’m not a physicist. Does belief in science make me a bad freeper?
# [ The Beginning ] In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Genesis 1:1-3 (in Context) Genesis 1 (Whole Chapter)
# Genesis 2:1
Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array.
Genesis 2:1-3 (in Context) Genesis 2 (Whole Chapter)
# Genesis 2:4
[ Adam and Eve ] This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created. When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens-
Genesis 2:3-5 (in Context) Genesis 2 (Whole Chapter)
Did these scientists use genesis as a text book? Should they have to make their work quicker?
The fact that you can recognize perfection, and imperfection, indicates an awareness that supersedes the system you live in. How is that possible?
Do you have any understanding of irreducible complexity?
Are good and evil real? Is there really such a thing as right or wrong?
If there is no supreme moral force in the universe, no judge of behavior, then all behavior is equally valid. Opinions as to what is right or wrong are merely that - opinions. You can impose your definition of right and wrong on others by force but they have no meaning.
I could rape you, and cut out your intestines and eat them raw while you scream and watch. If there is no supreme moral force who has fixed standards for behavior then the only meaning one can assign to these actions is that the strong overcame the weak and I satisfied my hunger. You can assign no real values. Well you can, but that is just your opinion. Frankly in a godless universe my actions would be "good". Survival of the fittest. This is where you try to argue that there is a different standard for cultures as opposed to individuals. Tell that to Islam which has conquered 20 plus countries in the last 25 years.
If there is no God then nothing has any meaning.
Atheists don't think. I used to not think a lot.
You think that atheists don't think. And atheists think that theists don't think.
I think that many atheists don't think, and many theists don't think. SOME atheists think, and SOME theists think as well.
I think that generally, atheists think more than theists think. But I will certainly grant you that MANY atheists don't think any more than the non-thinking theists do.
Of course, whose thinking is better is certainly up for debate. Personally, I think it's difficult to think your way into being an atheist. But, I can see both sides.
What do you think?
I'm not sure why you use the word "bizarre" when speaking about the circumstances of our existence. They appear to me to be planned, not just merely happenstance.
I have always had just one question. What triggered single celled organisms to cooperate and become multi-cell creatures? I mean, I understand the theory of evolution and such and I understand the creationist theory and the intelligent design theories. But what I don’t understand and what has never been satisfactorily answered to me is what mechanism brought on multi-cellular life.
I guess my feelings on life are that God brought the Universe into being and through his guiding hand brought life to the level we are at. Be this through evolution or other means, I don’t know. The tripping block for me in regards to “accidental life” is that there is no mechanism except intelligence that can make the huge leap from single cell to multi-cell life.
If someone has a viable theory, please share it. I’m not taking sides or making challenges, I’m just curious as to what may have caused the change and specifically why.
Mike
It doesn’t really seem that difficult to me.
And it wouldn’t seem to be all one big jump, either. In between single-celled organisms and true multi-celled organisms are creatures that serve more as a colony of interdependent cells, like sponges.
From the wikipedia article on multi-celled organisms:
Hypotheses for origin
There are various mechanisms which are disputed as being the first responsible for the emergence of multicellularity, but it is difficult to say which is correct. This is because all the suggested mechanisms are viable, but establishing which was responsible for the first multicellular life requires mostly speculation.[3]
One hypothesis is that a group of function-specific cells aggregated into a slug-like mass called a grex, which moved as a multicellular unit. Another hypothesis is that a primitive cell underwent nucleus division, thereby becoming a syncytium. A membrane would then form around each neucleus (and the cellular space and organelles occupied in the space), thereby resulting in a group of connected and specialised cells in one organism (this mechanism is observable in Drosophila). A third theory is that, as a unicellular organism divided, the daughter cells failed to separate, thereby resulting in a conglomeration of identical cells in one organism which could each then specialize.
LOL
I think, unfortunately, you might be right.
It has been my experience that many atheists do think - deeply - up to a point. But they conclude that a God could not have created this hell hole and based on that premise reject the entire concept of God - ignoring the philosophical and scientific arguments to the contrary. Arguments that I was forced to conclude were irrefutable.
I still wonder at times if free will is worth the cost. But the fact that I hate the suffering, and know deeply that it is wrong, merely means that I posses a bit of divine spark that allows me a glimpse from God's eyes. Otherwise I just wouldn't care.
Reasons to run to God rather than away from him.
All cells, even the simplest, are miniature factories and are orders of magnitude more complicated than any human factory.
DNA is like the master computer - the essential part of every cell that dictates all its actions. It is essentially a computer program that is vastly more complicated than anything written by human programmers to date. For example, if one were to take the DNA in a single human body, DNA being a series of coded instructions, straighten it out and lay it end-to-end, it would extend for 50 billion kilometers - from the earth to beyond the solar system.
DNA manages an amount of information almost beyond human comprehension, doing an incredible amount of things in a tiny fraction of a second. It gives instructions to each part of the cell about such typical factory functions as:
Generating power
Manufacturing a great quantity and variety of products (proteins)
Designating the function and relationship of these products
Guiding key parts (molecules) to the final precise destinations
Packaging certain molecules in membrane-bound sacs
Managing transfer of information
Assuring a level of quality far beyond any current human standard
Disposal of waste
Growth
Reproduction
I don't have space to talk about the other cell functions - but they are equally impressive. But in general:
Each cell is unimaginably complex. Each must live in community with its surrounding neighbors, doing it own specialized part in the whole
Each cell is surrounded by a membrane thinner than a spider's web that must function precisely, or the cell will die.
Each cell generates its own electrical field, which at times is larger than the electrical field near a high voltage power line.
Each cell contains specialized energy factories that synthesize adenosine triphosphate (ATP) which is the main energy source at the cellular level. Every cell contains hundreds of these factories, called ATP motors, embedded in the surfaces of the mitochondria. Each motor is 200,000 times smaller than a pinhead. At the center of each ATP motor is a tiny wheel that turns about a hundred revolutions per second and produces 3 ATP molecules per rotation!
Cells don't stockpile ATP. Instead they make it as needed from food consumed. Active people can produce their body weight in ATP every day!
Each cell has its own internal clock, switching on and off in cycles from 2 to 26 hours, never varying.
This is a grossly simplified description of the simplest of cells. In reality it is orders of magnitude more complex. Believing that a cell, even the most primitive, could form from some chemical soup struck by lightening is on par with believing that lightening could strike the desert, blow a bunch of rocks into the air, with the result that a modern highrise would be left standing, complete with furniture, lights, functional communications equipment and computers playing pacman.
Order from chaos? Not on that scale. Never. That is why so many biologists have gone from being atheist to agnostic.
We have only explored a very tiny part of the universe, and 99% of what we have explored is hostile and often deadly to life, including large areas of this very planet.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.