Posted on 12/25/2011 7:25:35 AM PST by SeekAndFind
In the fifth century B.C., the philosopher Democritus proposed that all matter was made of tiny and indivisible atoms, which came in various sizes and textures—some hard and some soft, some smooth and some thorny. The atoms themselves were taken as givens. In the nineteenth century, scientists discovered that the chemical properties of atoms repeat periodically (and created the periodic table to reflect this fact), but the origins of such patterns remained mysterious. It wasn’t until the twentieth century that scientists learned that the properties of an atom are determined by the number and placement of its electrons, the subatomic particles that orbit its nucleus. And we now know that all atoms heavier than helium were created in the nuclear furnaces of stars.
The history of science can be viewed as the recasting of phenomena that were once thought to be accidents as phenomena that can be understood in terms of fundamental causes and principles. One can add to the list of the fully explained: the hue of the sky, the orbits of planets, the angle of the wake of a boat moving through a lake, the six-sided patterns of snowflakes, the weight of a flying bustard, the temperature of boiling water, the size of raindrops, the circular shape of the sun. All these phenomena and many more, once thought to have been fixed at the beginning of time or to be the result of random events thereafter, have been explained as necessary consequences of the fundamental laws of nature—laws discovered by human beings.
This long and appealing trend may be coming to an end. Dramatic developments in cosmological findings and thought have led some of the world’s premier physicists to propose that our universe is only one of an enormous number of universes with wildly varying properties, and that some of the most basic features of our particular universe are indeed mere accidents—a random throw of the cosmic dice. In which case, there is no hope of ever explaining our universe’s features in terms of fundamental causes and principles.
It is perhaps impossible to say how far apart the different universes may be, or whether they exist simultaneously in time. Some may have stars and galaxies like ours. Some may not. Some may be finite in size. Some may be infinite. Physicists call the totality of universes the “multiverse.” Alan Guth, a pioneer in cosmological thought, says that “the multiple-universe idea severely limits our hopes to understand the world from fundamental principles.” And the philosophical ethos of science is torn from its roots. As put to me recently by Nobel Prize–winning physicist Steven Weinberg, a man as careful in his words as in his mathematical calculations, “We now find ourselves at a historic fork in the road we travel to understand the laws of nature. If the multiverse idea is correct, the style of fundamental physics will be radically changed.”
The scientists most distressed by Weinberg’s “fork in the road” are theoretical physicists. Theoretical physics is the deepest and purest branch of science. It is the outpost of science closest to philosophy, and religion.
CLICK ABOVE LINK FOR THE REST
They left off the solution to the solar neutrino problem.
Solved. They change flavors.
Drink enough of his coffee and I have heard the door appears before you in a fleeting pass from reality.
A kinky buzzard?.....my Uncle Ed?
Actually, I did not address the discussion of theories in Physics, which is what this article protends. Try not to get snarky when it isn’t necessary.
You know exactly what you were saying. This is the last time I address you, so cherish this moment.
Gutsy Lady! Love the impish humor she displays. Even those repressive burkhas can’t squelch some human spirits.
You are showing yourself to be a sad case. Enjoy your last word.
An INTJ.....oh.......J........I see.
Thank you for providing the complete text.
NULL AND VOID. This is the long version of our discussion.
How ‘bout that?
Isn’t it interesting that 10500 alternate universes is considered ‘for all intents and purposes’ to be ‘an infinite number of alternate universes’? I mean, the lengths to which some minds will stumble to avoid considering that the number of alternate resulting universes may be how God keeps this particular one from coming out of balance never seems to occur to such ‘seekers’!
Yes, there’s a way to experimentally verify this multi-verse thesis. You just haven’t thought of it yet, but it’s there.
There he assumed you could create a new universe WITHIN the existing universe we know, and it could have "designer features". His Lava Lamp World pursued one such idea.
Most folks know him best from his River World series, but he had some short stories where folks "practiced at their future lives as office workers" in a sort of "pre-Heaven". Then they would be born and take it from there.
>>The recognition of this finetuning led British physicist Brandon Carter to articulate what he called the anthropic principle, which states that the universe must have the parameters it does because we are here to observe it.<<
Sounds a little like wimping out...
(Some may be finite in size. Some may be infinite.
Now how is that possible? )
There are different uses and contexts for the word “infinite.” Infinite is the number of things a two-year-old can make sticky with just one drop of honey. Or, it is the space between a liberal’s ears.
But in this context, I suspect it applies where this universe is for all intents infinite in dimensions we understand, but our universe may exist like the cards in a deck with many other universes. Given what Einstein said about dimensions our universe has at least 11. Seven of those are unknowable to us except as mathematical constructs. The four dimensions we know are called “space-time.” They consist of height, length, width and time. But those things interact with gravity. The speed which an object made of those dimensions is moving also affects our perceptions of the object. The faster the object goes the smaller and more massive an object in those dimensions gets.
The problem perceiving our universe on its own comes in when we start to look at equations and they imply things we can’t see, like the other seven dimensions. If you’ve ever dealt with “imaginary” numbers, which commonly occur and have real world implications in engineering, you start to appreciate what the authors are saying.
Now, how can there be dimensions we can’t experience? Imagine you’re a stick figure man on a two dimensional piece of paper. Somebody sticks a pencil through the paper, the sum total of your universe. What do you, the stick figure man, see of the pencil? You see only the part that appears in your two dimensional world, a line. You then come up with an equation that explains how it starts like a tiny line (the pencil point) and then becomes a line, (the body of the pencil is dynamically moving only in the third dimension), then the line varies in length (the metal clamped eraser passing by) then it changes in texture (the eraser) then it disappears leaving a discontinuity (hole) in your universe.
The other seven dimensions in our universe would be similarly difficult to conceptualize because, like the stick figure man, we have no direct experience with them, only with the mathematics that describes them. We know they do exist, however, because we can conduct tests that show they do. Particle accelerators, for example, can make particles appear and disappear. You have to ask, where did they come from? Where did they go? The answer is in the math describing those other dimensions.
As for the multiple universes, each of which can be finite or infinite, those are elements in repeating equations, one portion of which represents our universe. But other terms which pop out of the equations, like our imaginary numbers which do have real world implications, may or may not represent other universes. Or, they just could be artifacts of the rules we used to construct our math which describes our universe.
It is. That statement is as far as reason takes us without positing the existence of some outside agency - dare I say the "G" word? - to provide the order that is being observed, not created as a construct of human perception. Fundamentally the "things are the way we see them because we see them that way" argument is solipsistic nonsense. The recognition of something that is there before it is perceived is observably - that word again - the way human beings, including scientists, who are among the most human of beings, deal with the world. It's the reason scientific progress is mentioned in terms of discoveries. That isn't simply loose terminology, it's really the way human beings think.
That leads into some uncomfortable territory for some. One can, of course, have order without Someone or Something putting it there, but the existence of that order itself, mysterious and squirmy as it tends to be, is the inescapable root of both science and theology.
People do not have an innate knowledge of the nature of God - that has to be sought - but they do have an innate knowledge of order. A fellow who claims not to believe in gravity because it hasn't been given to him in the form of a mathematical proof will still move his foot out of the way of a rock you drop on it. And if he's stubborn enough not to, it still will hurt.
Just some grumblings on Christmas Day. My very best to you!
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.