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.
M-theory is misnamed and over-rated. Sorry. It is not a theory unless it is falsifiable. This is not the “great white hope”. Many-worlds is a beautiful thing, and if one truly understands its implications, it is almost a perfect proof of transcendent intelligence. M-Theory is mathematical self-copulation. Sorry.
The anthropic principle holds that we exist because we can ~ although it really doesn’t matter which way you point the direction signs.
We could carry this on to even more "senses". The skin, for example, has sensory cells for a wide variety of events ~ pressure, heat, cold, pain, etc.
Not all critters have, or need, all senses currently in use.
We humans are special. If we need to see across the galaxy we have it in our power to build space telescopes.
Multiple Universes are very likely, almost assured, but not as a means for understanding why the flow of events goes as it does. More likely, an expanding envelope of and essentially fixed but incomprehensibly huge number of quantum possibilities was created in the big bang and this envelope expands with time and the collapses with the flow of events. Each decision and event also collapses huge numbers of quantum possibilities as events pass from possible to being history.
This provides that all possibilites actually existed at the very first moment of the Big Bang, but at moment x = 1 nanosecond, and innumerable number of possibilities passed from potential existence. These possibilities don't represent real universes, they represent possible paths, that once a particular path is chosen, all others are excluded from the flow of events.
Now, slowly physics is catching up to the notion that information is the real raw material of the Universe, and that matter and energy are but forms of information. The speculate that the quantity of information in the universe is fixed. So as trillions of possibilities die in an instant of a single choice information is not lost or created, but converted into the flow of time itself. Such that what could happen, now simply becomes what could have happened. Quantum Possibilities do not represent real information. The information is entirely contained in the state of "What did Happen" as represented by the state of all of the energy and matter and free information possessed by the beings inhabiting the Universe.
This "free" information is not really running around free, it is information freed from existing only as state information for matter and energy that flows in the course of natural events without a passing notice by any sentient being.
Much of the "clockwork" aspect of the vast movements of matter and energy in the Universe proceed without the release of any "free" information. Only in the interaction of a sentient observer and the stream of events creates the possibility for the event or state to be noted, perhaps recorded, and possibly interpreted such that the flow of future events can be guided by "choice" as opposed to simple probability.
Choice is specifically an act of will. In the case of a simple single celled animal or such, this will is simply to survive by finding nutrients needed before it is too late. As such this will is feeble in guiding the events of its existence. It uses tactics such as can be derived by natural selection and passed to future generations, but reproduction, and such is not related to the existence of the individual but the survival of the community of organisms.
This would mean that in the beginning of life, there needed to be an impossible number of new organisms created that had no particular need to reproduce as they were the stupid ones.. that came before the organisms that caught on to the trick of reproducing.
This would mean that reproducing organisms would have had to destroy the conditions that the non-reproducing possibilities could no longer be created by the oodle. The creation of the first reproducing cell is harder to understand than the very smallest first moments of the Universe at the instant of the Big Bang. And even moreso, the lack of a continuing process of aborted attempts at creating life not based on the "standard" model that controls the Earth is very interesting to say the least.
Imagine if you would, a scientist creating a Universe and is only able to communicate with it in an impossibly limited way, perhaps quantum entanglement. Information cannot cross the boundary of the Universes but just like quantum entanglement is not restricted by the speed of light, perhaps particles may be entangled between Universes. The scientist has a device that not only represents the state of a single particle but instead contains a large field of particles that may be influenced as well. Then the scientist derives how to determine that he has the field of entangle particles in some place where making a change makes a difference, perhaps by pattern recognition and experimental work on entangled particles in the same Universe. Which is a bit of a problem knowing where the particles you are entangled with are, when you cannot identify and separate them yourself. As I said, impossibly difficult. Need a very patient scientist with an extraordinary lifetime. But, via entanglement, small changes may be made to change probabilities. If you are willing to work it a couple of Billion years, you might come up with a organisms or even Civilizations on the other side that is capable of actually communicating with you. Isn't that interesting.
When an atheistic materialistic naturalist either posits a ‘multiverse’ or insists on the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics (an absolutely pointless thing to insist on, since ‘interpretations’ of quantum mechanics are needed only if one wants to fit quantum physics into the bed of Procrustes created by Newton’s false start on physics), he comes very close to admitting the intellectual bankruptcy of his own position.
At very least he denies himself access to both Occam’s razor and the insistence that he believes only in empirically verifiable facts, and with it any claim to benefit from a supposedly privileged position for scientific knowledge. And, absent those supports, there is really no compelling argument for atheism, materialism, or naturalism.
Science talks about multiple universes with a straight face when there’s not one shred of evidence to support that they exist. But if we are told about the multiple universes and they are called *heaven* and *hell*, then it’s OK to mock and ridicule them.
Looks like science is just catching up to Scripture again.
That’s a little different than what they’re talking about here, I think. Admittedly, my understanding of these things is only as good as one could expect from a layman with a passing interest in these subjects. Still, one might suppose that this splitting of universes into every possibility extends right back to the big bang, with every possible universe having come into existence at that time. That of course assumes that there is any truth in the many-worlds interpretation, and that the current belief in the universe having a starting point (the big bang). I’m not sure any of that is true, although the big bang at least does seem to be the explanation that best fits the evidence that we have at this time.
“Does belief in science make me a bad freeper?”
Not, but it certainly often appears that it puts you in a minority with a lot of others here.
Bump for later
Agree. How many dimensions are the mathematicians and subatomic physicists predicting now? It is 11, or 17? Something like that. And we have only five, stretch six, senses with which to apprehend them.
ANYTHING but GOD!!!
If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.
Sums up the E position quite well!
"Changing environments...
"EVOLUTIONARY 'pressure'...
"Loss of habitat...
"Limited gene pool... (Oh wait - that CAN'T work!)
"Sexual preferences...
"LOTS of time...
"A multi-verse to me would make God even more likely"
Couldn't, theoretically, one of these "universes" be what we call Heaven? Doesn't this make Heaven - as an actual place - even *more* likely?
“If I knew God I’d be Him”
But as an argument to logic-based atheism aren't these multiverses an extension of actual "places" which might both exist and explain the words of the Bible? This is my point, such as it is.
His main tack seemed to be that all possible outcomes to any quantum event take place even as we're able to observe but one as it's wave function collapses. It's a pretty neat trick that takes us from the center of the universe as it were. But even Everett knew it was entirely theoretical. Its universality, he thought, was in its appeal.
This same "universe" has brought us together to discuss this stuff. Do you know how monumental the odds of such a thing happening are?
It's enough for me.
God's goodness to You and Yours....
It is called civilization not God. You can find such behavior throughout the history of mankind - often in the name of God. As humans climb Masslow's Hierarchy of Needs they tend to avoid such behavior as part of enlightened self interest.
So civilization is your God - your supreme moral force. Woopee. So the Nazi opinion of what was right (a sick but somewhat rational (darwinist) world view) was only right until superseded by an opinion with more force.
What makes us right and them wrong? We won. Absolutely no other reason. Because we are back to the basic premise. No God - no supreme law - right and wrong are opinions - and all behavior is equally valid.
Please articulate to me how one value is better than another when there is no supreme law. All you can tell me is your opinion. You could argue that this is better or that is advantageous. When the definition of better or advantageous is merely your opinion - it means nothing.
Nothing.
I restate - in a Godless universe all behavior is equally valid - or rather - equally meaningless. I guess I'm back to raping you and eating your liver.
Masslow’s Hierarchy of Needs - the realization at each stage of accomplishment that there still exists an inner emptiness that has not yet been filled. It is really hard on celebrities who gain “everything” and sickeningly realize they still have nothing.
Tend to avoid what behavior? The strong overcoming the weak? Bullshit. What is “enlightened” self interest? Your worthless opinion.
That empty hole in your center - that is God missing from your life. Your blind and staggering climb toward perfection - your realization this world is fallen. You think you can become God and be whole and perfect? Will man some day become perfect? By your definition or Achmeds?
Funny thing about self interest - opinions vary. Please explain to me why I should not rape people.
"It is called civilization not God". Define civilization.
“Smoke me a kipper; I’ll be back in time for breakfast.”
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.