Skip to comments.
Is Our Universe Too Perfect to be Random?
Cosmiverse, Nature, Stanford University, NASA ^
| August 14, 2002
| n/a
Posted on 08/14/2002 9:58:35 PM PDT by prisoner6
Is Our Universe Too Perfect to be Random?
August 14, 2002 08:30 CDT
It's a question as big as the Cosmos itself: could the prevailing theoretical view of the universe be flawed? In order for the cosmos -- as we currently understand it -- to exist, it would have required outside help. In other words, it would have required a miracle to create our view of the universe, or outside intervention from "God".
If the universe is ever-more-rapidly expanding as we believe it to be, then it is destined to eventually repeat itself. According to a recent report in the journal Nature, that's the view of Leonard Susskind and his team from Stanford University, California.
What are the chances that such an event would produce worlds like ours? Extremely small, they say, somewhere between the proverbial "slim to none".
Therefore, one of two things must be true: either space is not accelerating for the reasons we believe it is, or some yet-undiscovered principle of physics is at work, say the researchers. This principle would have to be able to pick out those few initial states that lead to the creation of a Universe such as ours, and then guide cosmic evolution so that it doesn't happen that way.
Susskind's team, with all its collective scientific research and thinking skills, agrees that it almost seems as if something else is influencing what happened at the creation of our Universe. An "unknown agent", if you will, that intervened in the creation of our Universe for reasons yet unknown.
Before all you Creationists start jumping for joy, sit back down a minute. There's a flaw in your theory. The problem stems from the observation in 1998 that the Universe's expansion seems to be speeding up. The most popular explanation for that happening is that there's a cosmological constant-a repulsive force that opposes gravity.
If what we believe now holds true, other galaxies will eventually disappear as they zoom away from us faster than the speed of light. Once that happens, nothing that occurs in those parts of the galaxy can affect our world. The planets will become separate entities, each isolated behind a boundary called a de Sitter horizon.
That means that the Universe will fragment into a virtual foam of bubbles, each separated by a de Sitter horizon, in effect creating a de Sitter space. Each of the bubbles, isolated from the others, would eventually settle into what the researchers call "a bland, lifeless uniformity". Once that happens, our history effectively ends. We think.
Thermodynamics would argue otherwise, say Susskind and his colleagues. If you wait long enough, everything that can happen-will happen. With infinite patience, they say, a drop of ink dispersed into a glass of water will eventually gather its molecules back into a single drop. Okay, you'd have to wait an absurdly long time, but theoretically it could happen.
It's equally possible that a Universe that is driven to become a de Sitter space by a cosmological constant will, after an absurdly long time, return to something resembling its original condition. At that point, a new cosmic history would be born and begin to unfold-including the appearance of life and everything we believe came after that. What are the chances that a cosmic recurrence such as the one we've described here will actually happen? They're beyond "extremely slim".
Cosmologists have a response to that. It's called the anthropic principle. That says that regardless of how unlikely the Universe seems, the very fact that we are here to wonder about its origins and ask such questions resolves the paradox. If things were otherwise, they argue, then life wouldn't exist and the questions could never be raised.
The research done by Susskind's team shows that the anthropic principle won't help here, because a vast number of Universes would allow life that might look very different from the one in which we now live. All of the habitable Universes would result from "miraculous statistical events.
Even if "something" did set the peculiar conditions of our universe, those conditions would only apply to that one occurrence. Future occurrences would produce a very different result. If that is true, then the only conclusion we could reach would be that we are in the first unfolding of this carefully crafted Universe. This seems too much like "special pleading", according to the researchers, who spoke with Nature.
So, in the end, is there no cosmological constant after all? Or could we be missing something fundamental?
Source: Nature; Stanford University; NASA
TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: chaos; creationism; crevolist; god; order; science; universe
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-115 next last
Or could we be missing something fundamental? Science finds religion?
prisoner6
1
posted on
08/14/2002 9:58:35 PM PDT
by
prisoner6
To: prisoner6
Science is laws/design...evolution is schlock---garbage!
To: prisoner6
Compared to say, what?
To: f.Christian
Evolution is a worn out philosophy of science that is experiencing the Second Law of Thermodynamics in a very personal way. <</shields up>>
To: prisoner6
Yes to the title question.
5
posted on
08/14/2002 10:05:08 PM PDT
by
wardaddy
To: prisoner6
What are the chances that such an event would produce worlds like ours? Extremely small, they say, somewhere between the proverbial "slim to none".
------------------------
This statement is true of any complex ungoverned radom event.
6
posted on
08/14/2002 10:05:30 PM PDT
by
RLK
To: *crevo_list
To: prisoner6
Give them more Grant money, they need to keep talking among themselves!
/sarcasm
To: LiteKeeper
Evolution is a worn out philosophy of science that is experiencing the Second Law of Thermodynamics in a very personal way. <</shields up>>Worn out rag---ideology...perpetuated by idiots/devils!
To: prisoner6
 
 
|
 |
 |
 |
| Speed-of-light debate flashes again |
|
|
| Scientists make their case for an inconstant constant |
|
|
 |
|
|
| SYDNEY, Aug. 8 — Australian scientists have proposed that the speed of light may not be a constant, a revolutionary idea that could unseat one of the most cherished laws of modern physics — Einstein’s theory of relativity. |
|
|
div.showcase {font-family:arial;font-size:10px;color:black;margin-left:10px;}
span.scBul {font-family:verdana;}
a.scLink {text-decoration:none;}
div.scSpon {text-align:center;}
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
<!--
FONT.LVtext { color:#000000; }
FONT.LVQuizText { color:#CC0000; }
FONT.LVPerctext { color:#663366; }
-->
|
|
THE TEAM, led by theoretical physicist Paul Davies of Sydney’s Macquarie University, says it is possible that the speed of light has slowed over billions of years. If so, physicists will have to rethink many of their basic ideas about the laws of the universe.
“That means giving up the theory of relativity and E=mc2 and all that sort of stuff,” Davies told Reuters.
“But of course it doesn’t mean we just throw the books in the bin, because it’s in the nature of scientific revolution that the old theories become incorporated in the new ones.”
Davies and astrophysicists Tamara Davis and Charles Lineweaver from the University of New South Wales published the proposal in Thursday’s edition of scientific journal Nature.
BASED ON QUASAR DATA
The suggestion that the speed of light can change is based on data collected by UNSW astronomer John Webb, who posed a conundrum when he found that light from a distant quasar, a starlike object, had apparently absorbed the wrong type of photons from interstellar clouds on its 12-billion-year journey to earth. |
|
|
|
|
|
A.acollink { font-size: 10px/11px; font-family:arial; TEXT-DECORATION:NONE; }
A.acollink:hover { color: cc0000 }
a.yblnk {text-decoration:none;color:000099;font-family:arial;font-size:13px;}
a:visited.yblnk {color:3366cc;}
a:active.yblnk {color:000099;}
a:hover.yblnk {color:cc0000;}
.ybText {font-family:arial;font-size:13px;}
.ybBulRed {color:cc0000;font-family:verdana;font-size:14px;vertical-align:top;width:10px;}
.ybBulOly {color:ff6600;font-family:verdana;font-size:14px;vertical-align:top;width:10px;}
Davies said fundamentally Webb’s observations meant that the structure of atoms emitting quasar light was slightly but ever so significantly different to the structure of atoms in humans.
The discrepancy could only be explained if either the electron charge, or the speed of light, had changed.
“But two of the cherished laws of the universe are the law that electron charge shall not change and that the speed of light shall not change, so whichever way you look at it we’re in trouble,” Davies said.
ANALYZING THE DILEMMA
To establish which of the two constants might not be that constant after all, Davies’ team resorted to the study of black holes, mysterious matter-sucking bodies so massive that not even light can escape their gravitational grip. |
|
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
They also applied another dogma of physics, the second law of thermodynamics, which Davies summarizes as “you can’t get something for nothing.”
After considering that a change in the electron charge over time would violate the second law of thermodynamics, they concluded that the only option was to challenge the constancy of the speed of light.
More study of quasar light is needed in order to validate Webb’s observations, and to back up the proposal that light speed may vary, a theory Davies stresses represents only the first chink in the armor of the theory of relativity.
The latest research report follows up on similar claims made by Webb and other scientists last year, in a paper published in Physical Review Letters. After that study was published, some outside experts speculated the observations might be the result of a slight observational or statistical error. Others suggested it was more likely that the electron charge had changed over time.
IMPLICATIONS UNCLEAR
As the debate continues, the implications are as unclear as the unexplored depths of the universe themselves.
“When one of the cornerstones of physics collapses, it’s not obvious what you hang onto and what you discard,” Davies said. |
|
|
|
|
|
A.acollink { font-size: 10px/11px; font-family:arial; TEXT-DECORATION:NONE; }
A.acollink:hover { color: cc0000 }
a.yblnk {text-decoration:none;color:000099;font-family:arial;font-size:13px;}
a:visited.yblnk {color:3366cc;}
a:active.yblnk {color:000099;}
a:hover.yblnk {color:cc0000;}
.ybText {font-family:arial;font-size:13px;}
.ybBulRed {color:cc0000;font-family:verdana;font-size:14px;vertical-align:top;width:10px;}
.ybBulOly {color:ff6600;font-family:verdana;font-size:14px;vertical-align:top;width:10px;}
|
|
|
|
|
The light speed debate |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is the speed of light changeable? The answer could have implications for religious as well as scientific debate: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
“If what we’re seeing is the beginnings of a paradigm shift in physics like what happened 100 years ago with the theory of relativity and quantum theory, it is very hard to know what sort of reasoning to bring to bear.”
It could be that the possible change in light speed will only matter in the study of the large-scale structure of the universe, its origins and evolution.
For example, varying light speed could explain why two distant and causally unconnected parts of the universe can be so similar even if, according to conventional thought, there has not been enough time for light or other forces to pass between them.
It may only matter when scientists are studying effects over billions of years or billions of light years.
Or there may be startling implications that could change not only the way cosmologists view the universe but also its potential for human exploitation.
“For example, there’s a cherished law that says nothing can go faster than light and that follows from the theory of relativity,” Davies said. The accepted speed of light is 186,000 miles (300,000 kilometers) per second.
“Maybe it’s possible to get around that restriction, in which case it would enthrall ‘Star Trek’ fans, because at the moment even at the speed of light it would take 100,000 years to cross the galaxy. It’s a bit of a bore really, and if the speed of light limit could go, then who knows? All bets are off,” Davies said.
© 2002 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters.
MSNBC’s Alan Boyle contributed to this report.
|
|
|
|
.botnavlink {text-decoration:none; color:;}
.botnavlink:visited {text-decoration:none; color:;}
.top10lnk {text-decoration:none; color:#CC0000; font-weight:bold; font-size:15pt;}
.top10txt {text-decoration:none; color:; font-size:8pt;}
10
posted on
08/14/2002 10:12:38 PM PDT
by
mjp
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
To: Dimensio
As I see it, evolution is an ideological doctrine. If it were only a "scientific theory", it would have died a natural death 50 - 70 years ago; the evidence against it is too overwhelming and has been all along. The people defending it are doing so because they do not like the alternatives to an atheistic basis for science and do not like the logical implications of abandoning their atheistic paradigm and, in conducting themselves that way, they have achieved a degree of immunity to what most people call logic.
488 posted on 7/29/02 5:18 AM Pacific by medved
To: prisoner6
If a scientist/atheist had an absolute "proof" of God staring them in the face, they would explain it away in obscure terms. It's a shame, really, but hey, I know where I'm going.. if He changed me, He can change anyone...
12
posted on
08/14/2002 10:15:02 PM PDT
by
goodieD
To: goodieD; exDemMom
Running joke is 'evo-science'...biggest cult of oxy-moonie-morons---art bells!
Like patrickhenry..."search for the creator via evolution"---
"total--only evolution" too---
The pope encyclical rightwingprofessor-whack thinks/interprets..."professes evolution"---
Nebullis..."preschool evolution---INTENSIVELY"---
donh..."if the sun can create crystals-snowflakes...human life would certainly follow"---
dominick harr..."just like a ball bouncing down the stairs----evolution created everything"---
jennyp..."anarchist evolutionary capitalism---Christianity is communism"---
and patrickhenry doesn't know..."if prior to darwin---if science existed"...
SkyRat...Divine hammer-retribution from above via evolution!
Running sores of evo schlock!
To: prisoner6
This world is too perfect not to have God design it. Some examples:
1- Water is at it's peak density at 4 degrees centigrade. Just 4 degrees ABOVE freezing. If it were below the freezing point, all the seas would freeze solid.
2- All mammals are the result of 5,000,000 (or more) sperm racing toward a single egg. Nobody could design a more perfect system to find out the strongest of the species.
3- If the earth were 10% closer or further away from the sun, the oceans would boil away or freeze solid.
4- Plants produce oxygen, absorb co2. Mammals absorb oxygen, produce co2. Perfect for a balance of nature.
I have other examples, but would love to hear from others that believe this is true.
14
posted on
08/14/2002 10:24:39 PM PDT
by
Lokibob
To: Physicist; ThinkPlease; RadioAstronomer; PatrickHenry; VadeRetro; Scully; Piltdown_Woman; ...
Multiple targets; fire at will.
To: longshadow
Creation/God...Christianity---secular-govt.-humanism/SCIENCE---CIVILIZATION!
Originally the word liberal meant social conservatives(no govt religion--none) who advocated growth and progress---mostly technological(knowledge being absolute/unchanging)based on law--reality... UNDER GOD---the nature of GOD/man/govt. does not change. These were the Classical liberals...founding fathers-PRINCIPLES---stable/SANE scientific reality/society---industrial progress...moral/social character-values(private/personal) GROWTH!
Evolution...Atheism-dehumanism---TYRANNY...
Then came the SPLIT SCHIZOPHRENIA/America---
To: prisoner6
Is Our Universe Too Perfect to be Random?
I HATE questions like this! It's way to subjective. I mean, really, who defines what is and what is not "too perfect" for randomness? And why does that guy get to set the standard. The universe is awesome, wonderful, and full of so much strangeness, but this is somehow supposed to be an argument for a created Universe. Seems circular to me.
Either believe God created the Universe or don't, but I think it's just silly to sit around trying to "prove" the "other guys" in error, especially when this type of argument relies on the existance subjective entity in the first place.
To: Lokibob
I totally agree with your points with one exception...
All mammals are the result of 5,000,000 (or more) sperm racing toward a single egg.
Well, in MY case I doubt there are that many. And, those that are there don't race. They kinda loiter around awhile, suck down a few brews, then draw lots to see which one has to do the dirty work.
After they send the unlucky lil fella on his mission, the rest go back to brews and talking politics.
prisoner6
To: prisoner6
Is Our Universe Too Perfect to be Random? The answer is a resounding NO. In a perfect universe, the likes of Tom Daschle, Janet Reno, the Clintons, Ted Kennedy, Chuck Shumer, and Osama bin Laden would not exist.
19
posted on
08/14/2002 10:50:50 PM PDT
by
Mr. Mojo
To: prisoner6
LOL
20
posted on
08/14/2002 11:00:31 PM PDT
by
dtel
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-115 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson
Clarifying Einstein's rules of the road
"Mysteries of the Universe"
Nature Magazine
