Posted on 09/09/2001 1:05:44 PM PDT by telos
A GROUP of astronomers and cosmologists has warned that the laws thought to govern the universe, including Albert Einstein's theory of relativity, must be rewritten. The group, which includes Professor Stephen Hawking and Sir Martin Rees, the astronomer royal, say such laws may only work for our universe but not in others that are now also thought to exist. "It is becoming increasingly likely that the rules we had thought were fundamental through time and space are actually just bylaws for our bit of it," said Rees, whose new book, Our Cosmic Habitat, is published next month. "Creation is emerging as even stranger than we thought." Among the ideas facing revision is Einstein's belief that the speed of light must always be the same - 186,000 miles a second in a vacuum. There is growing evidence that light moved much faster during the early stages of our universe. Rees, Hawking and others are so concerned at the impact of such ideas that they recently organised a private conference in Cambridge for more than 30 leading cosmologists. Cosmology - the study of the origins and future of our universe - became popular in the early 20th century for physicists who wanted to think the unthinkable about creation. Einstein's theory of relativity, which describes how gravity controls the behaviour of our universe, was one of cosmology's greatest triumphs. But Einstein said there was an even deeper issue, which he described as whether God had any choice. In other words, could the laws that governed the way our universe formed after the big bang have worked any differently? He concluded that they could not. In the past 40 years, however, the increasing power of astronomical instruments has turned cosmology from a theoretical science into a practical one and forced scientists to re-examine Einstein's conclusions. Among the most striking claims is that our universe only exists because of a fine balance between several crucial factors. One is the rate at which nuclear fusion releases energy in stars such as the sun by squashing hydrogen atoms into helium and then other elements. Astronomers have found that exactly 0.7% of the mass of the hydrogen is converted into starlight and that if this figure had been just a fraction different then carbon and other elements essential to life could never have formed. Another puzzle is the so-called "smoothness" of our universe, by which astronomers mean the distribution of matter and radiation. In theory, the big bang could have produced a universe where all the matter clumped together into a few black holes, or another in which it was spread out evenly, forming nothing but a thin vapour. "It could be that the laws that govern our universe are unchangeable but it is a remarkable coincidence that these laws are also exactly what is needed to produce life," said Rees. "It seems too good to be true." What he, Hawking and others such as Neil Turok, professor of maths and physics at Cambridge, are now looking at is the idea that our universe is just one of an infinite number of universes, with different laws of nature operating in each. Some universes would have all their matter clumped together into a few huge black holes while others would be nothing more than a thin uniform freezing gas. However, Hawking and his colleagues increasingly disagree over how this "multiverse" could work. At the conference Hawking dismissed the idea of a series of big bangs on the grounds that it extended into the infinite past and so could never have a beginning.
According to the big bang theory, the separation between points A and B [in a diagram] grew from zero to 90 million light-years during a time interval of only 300,000 years. The rate of separation, therefore, was much larger than the speed of light. For a subtle reason, however, this does not violate the stricture on faster-than-light travel. The complication stems from the fact that, in general relativity, space itself is plastic, capable of bending and stretching. In the big bang theory, the space stretches as the universe expands. The restriction on velocities remains valid, in the sense that no particle can ever win a race with a light beam. Nonetheless, the distance between two particles can increase due to the stretching of the space between them, and general relativity places no restriction on how fast the stretching can occur.
What is the referent of "this" in your sentence and what is a serve serving argument?
If you are saying that Smolin's argument is self serving, that is not correct. Smolin addresses the mystery that the laws of physics need to be extremely fine tuned (in their current version) to reach our universe. For the vast majority of parameter settings (e.g. choice of the Planck Mass and other fundamental constants) life would be impossible. Why did it happen that the constants were so balanced on a needle? Smolin shows that two simple and plausible hypotheses cause this fine tuning to happen automatically, by evolution. His theory is also falsifiable, making various predictions. He argues that the available evidence indicates his theory is correct, i.e. his predictions will be verified, but it is certainly far from conclusive. It may become more conclusive, however, with more research.
I gather some posters here think that the proposed variation of physical laws is somehow an argument for a creator and against the theory of evolution, but in fact it is a plank in the proposal of evolution on a much grander scale, evolution of the laws of physics itself, leading to laws of physics that support life, as well as leading to life.
Ha, I try not to get too theological...
I guess I have always been satisfied with an anthropic explaination, ie. that the laws of physics had to be the way they are in our univers precisely b/c they had to support us (which is easiy if you assume infinite Universes with varying laws of physics). Maybe its a cop out...
This is a pretty good book for the layperson on the required precision of certain physical constants, ratios, writtwn by Matthew Rees: Just Six Numbers. I seem to recall that it wasn't really meaty
Yes. That's what I vaguely remembered. Another way of putting it is to think of it as not as a case of photons speeding up per se, but of the photons being displaced by the spatial inflation. They, along with the matter, are just going along for the ride. Measured in a local frame of reference, nothing was physically breaking the cosmic speed limit.
It's an almost lawyerly explanation to get out of a cosmic speeding ticket, doncha think?
Light (and it's velocity) is NOT a thermodynamic phenomonon. Entropy has NOTHING to do with the speed of light.
First of all, let me admit that I am no scientist, I do not even play one on TV. I am a Fundamentalist Christian who believes in a young universe. Now I did not say all of that to invite flames, I just wanted you guys to know where I was coming from and that I am not trying to hide my bias.
I do have a serious question, I have almost finished a book by Dr. Russell Humphries called Starlight and Time. In that book (booklet really) Humphries attempts to reconcile how, in a young universe, light from stars that are millions of light years away could have possibly be observed on Earth.
He says that with Einstein's General(?) Theory if you start with the assumption that the universe is boundless the Theory will produce the result that the universe started with a black hole.
However, if you start with the assumption that the universe does indeed have a boundary then the Theory will produce the result that the universe began with a white hole.
He then goes on to explain how as you move further and further away from the event horizon that time seems to slow down.
Anyhow, I would like your opinions about that theory. Please don't just brush it aside because it was thought up by a young Earth Creationist. If you have the time and/or inclination I would greatly appreciate your thoughts on this subject.
Thanks in advance.
-ksen
Lawyers wouldn't do that well, trust me. But I see that there really is a difference with this space stretching business. Once the space has come into existence, photons would presumably be restricted to travel at c, within the existing space. But at the "frontier" it's different.
If you ever come across the book maybe you could take a look at it, it is under 100 pages. Or I will post an excerpt for you scientific types to hash over, or discard. Ever since I have started it I have desired to know what you guys (you, PH, VadeRetro, etc.) would have to say.
Sorry I could not be clearer than I was.
-ksen
In particular, that doesn't fit into anything I've ever heard of. I suspect your author doesn't know what an "event horizon" is all about. I respectfully suggest that you get another source of information on the subject.
The lack of clarity originated in me, not Guth. In the passage I quoted, he referred to a diagram. The diagram is a picture of the universe at 300,000 years of age, "when the cosmic background radiation was released." I guess my hopping around for passages to quote left the impression that inflation had been going on that long. Guth doesn't say that.
Somehow I knew it wouldn't take much more than 10 posts to get to the subject of religion...I am well conditioned after three years on this forum.
BUMP
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.