Slashdot Log In
Stars Could Shine In Many Universes
Posted by
kdawson
on Sun Aug 17, 2008 02:48 PM
from the light-of-other-days dept.
from the light-of-other-days dept.
A commonplace of cosmologists who argue the anthropic principle is the assumption that if any or a few of the constants of nature took on an even slightly different value, life could not have evolved — perhaps even stars and galaxies would not form. Science News reports on a new calculation showing that, to the contrary, star formation could happen in up to one-quarter of universes with different values of three important constants. "In fact, all universes can support the existence of stars, provided that the definition of star is interpreted broadly," said the researcher, Fred Adams. "...calculations suggest that, contrary to some previous claims, stars are not only common in our cosmos but are also ablaze in myriad other universes, where the laws of physics may be drastically different... Had Adams found that the range of parameters that allowed for stars was very small, that would have suggested that the laws of physics in our universe have been 'fine-tuned' to allow for star formation... Instead, Adams' study shows that our universe doesn't seem particularly special in that regard."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Zug zug (Score:5, Funny)
I dont read slashdot for 2 days and I missed the fact that there are more than 1 universes... shit!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Zug zug (Score:5, Informative)
Taken 4 at a time you come out with something like 8000 different "universes", each with their own physical laws.
The big goal of string theory is to figure out why our 4 dimensions are the uncoiled ones. It may be that those are the only ones that give a stable "universe", or it may be that there are other universes which use a different combination of those dimensions. At this point we just don't know.
Parent
Re:Zug zug (Score:5, Insightful)
You watched NOVA and some SA articles, appear to have utterly failed to comprehend what QM is, but don't worry, /. is the perfect place to make believe that a few dozen TV shows and four or five page articles makes you an expert.
QM is in fact one of the most successful scientific theories in history, predicting and explaining a very large number of phenomena. It's responsible for a goodly portion of the technology you're using right now to broadcast to the world the extent of your idiocy.
Parent
Re:Zug zug (Score:5, Insightful)
That's how you know you have a really powerful theory: when it lets you meaningfully ask more questions. When Newton figured out how gravity worked we could suddenly ask all sorts of questions about planets, stars, solar systems, and other interesting bits of the universe. Quantum mechanics does the same thing for our ability to investigate the very small, and parts of reality itself.
Which part of quantum mechanics are you referring to, that predicts other universes? Do you mean certain interpretations of Feynman's sum over paths method? That's not really a prediction, just a convenient what-if explanation for an interesting trick Feynman figured out for calculating probability waves. It's very interesting, but not a requirement for QM to work.
Parent
Re:Zug zug (Score:5, Insightful)
I BELIEVE that Jesus Christ was who he said he was and is, namely God. He demonstrated this by the unique powers over the forces of nature and more importantly over death. However, science cannot observe or demonstrate this and therefore it belongs into the realm of faith, in this case religious faith. Of course, everyone who has faith, believes it to be the truth. Faith can turn out to be true in the end, but it is still faith and will always remain faith, never science.
Just wondering why you chose Christianity over, say, Islam or Buddhism or Shamanism. Feel free to ignore my question if you want, but it always interests me to know why people choose a particular religion (which almost always originated or was historically propagated within their cultural group). Do you apply the concepts of rigorous hypothesis testing to Biblical claims, or do you just accept everything the Bible says (and do you read the original Greek and Aramaic, and why do you discount the apocryphal and gnostic works yet accept the concept of the Trinity, etc.)?
Parent
Re:Zug zug (Score:4, Informative)
I cannot speak for Arminw, but here are the reasons why I believe the Bible.
First, unlike most religious books, much of the Bible is essentially a book about history and the reflections of its worldview as seen in historical events. This historical account has proven to be incredibly accurate -- far more so than any other writings from its time frame. It contains details that have stood up against tremendous scrutiny, and whenever someone thinks they have found an error in its account, archaeology eventually proves that the Biblical account was actually correct from the start (if you want examples, I can give you some, but for the sake of brevity, I will move on).
Further, the textual scrutiny and techniques given to ensure the accuracy of our manuscripts is unparalleled by any other work of ancient writings. The entire Old Testament except for the book of Ester was found in the Dead Sea Scrolls dating back to 100 B.C. These manuscripts were found to be nearly identical to the manuscripts that had been used to translate most versions of the Bible. This means that the Bible we have today -- especially in the Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic -- are essentially identical to the original writings with an accuracy that no other ancient document can touch.
These two facts make the writing of the Bible highly reliable as a record of ancient history and culture. If the Bible is so accurate in these little things, it makes me take what it says about God, life, the state of humanity, and how we should live our lives very seriously. It is one of the few religions to state that man is basically evil -- we are all capable of horrendous acts. This, I think, best explains the sorrows and atrocities we see in the world today.
It also explains how our universe came into being. Unlike most religions, it identifies the source of all things while most theories do not. Evolution cannot explain where the matter and energy came from in the first place. The theory of aliens populating our planet does not explain where the aliens themselves came from. Reincarnation does not explain the original source of our souls. Also, where did the laws of our universe come from? Why are we able to describe mathematically how our universe works with accuracy and predictability with formulas that are simple and eloquent? If the universe is run by collective consciousness or random chance, how could such an unchanging and perfect system come into being?
The Bible identifies God as the uncaused cause -- the singularity of eternal existence from which all things derive their existence. God created the laws that govern our universe and ensures that they remain unchanged to this day. The Bible also tells us that far from being an impersonal force, God desires to have a relationship with His creation, and that the Bible was His way of communicating with us.
Regarding the apocryphal and gnostic works, there were rules and procedures for choosing which books were considered scriptural. One of the most important rules was that the author needed to be a witness of Jesus Christ or directly associated with the original Apostles. Many of the gnostic gospels were actually written two to three hundred years after the events of the New Testament. The "Gospel of Judas" was written, for example, around 290 A.D., and its account is such a vast departure from the rest of the gospels, it would be hard to argue its accuracy and be intellectually honest. Another rule was the agreement of these works with the established scriptures -- the Old Testament. In short, it was a rigorous process and ultimately, these excluded works are a red herring. The fundamental aspects of Christianity can be found throughout all of the books of the Bible so that even if you removed some of the existing books, you would lose none of the essential doctrines.
This post is already getting quite long, and so I will pass on a detailed discussion of the Trinity, but it should be noted that the roots of this doctrine can even be found in the Jewish custom of Passover, the physical manifestations of God in the Old Testament (the incarnate God, Jesus Christ) and even the use of plural forms when God speaks in Creation ("let Us create...").
I hope this has helped.
Parent
Re:Zug zug (Score:4, Informative)
QM certainly works. It demonstratively works. However the actual workings of QM are odd. In fact that it's easier to understand them if you invent an infinite number of parallel dimensions or dead/alive cats or any number of very bizarre but oddly more understandable things. Even clearly bizarre they tend to seem less bizarre than things actually work that way.
It's not complex. It's just weird. It's something that we just aren't good getting our heads around. Sure QM works and works every time we just have a tough time understanding how something be there and not be there, have a state and not have a state or be several places at the same time because we aren't use to this in our everyday lives. They don't compute... but we use quantum phenomenon to run our computers without fail or error. They just work.
Parent
Re:Zug zug (Score:4, Funny)
yeah but in another universe he trounced MightyMartian with the ultimate comeback, and MM flew back to Mars to cry to his mama!
Parent
Re:Zug zug (Score:4, Funny)
When I was small and liked to make shit up, I designed "flyingpigs theory" which has 1,235.656565 universes. So there. It's string theory, but with a more realistic name and a bigger number (so it must be better right?).
there's a difference between theory and hypothesis.
one has a grounding in reality, one can be made up by 10 year-olds and still be 'valid'
guess which yours is
Parent
Re:Zug zug (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, and "atom" means "indivisible." Therefore, "atom smasher" is an oxymoron, and particle physics is just the product of deranged imagination.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Zug zug (Score:4, Interesting)
There's also the semi-popular negaverse [wikipedia.org]. In fact, there's two.
Don't forget the Planiverse [wikipedia.org].
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah, except that by definition the Universe encompasses all that we can observe, so if we could observe these other Universes by definition they would become part of our Universe. Planes of existence might be a better phrase for it.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Pretty much. In fact, all universes could have stars given that your parameters for what constitutes star is broad enough. In our universe, it's a ball of incandescant gas, in another universe it's a radioactive rock, in another universe it's a feces throwing monkey. Not much to see here. How clever.
This isn't science, it's philosophy.
Re:Popper Is Turning in his Grave (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:Popper Is Turning in his Grave (Score:4, Informative)
Would you all screw off about Popper. No one has ever done science the way Popper said they do, and even he backed off on is ridiculous claims in later years.
Parent
so (Score:5, Interesting)
This hypothesis, if true, shows that the universe is actually a rather robust structure.
I like that a lot more then the 'one tiny bit off and you get nothing' thing. It sounds more plausible to me.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:so (Score:5, Insightful)
slightly OT, the thing i really dislike about Intelligent Design arguments is that they're essentially a way of just giving up trying to explain things. they equate to "it's irreducibly complex, therefore we can learn no more", or "the chances approach zero, therefore we can learn no more". but science constantly discovers new things, throws old things out, etc. an essence of science is *not* deciding you've learned as much as you can or that you've arrived at the ultimate explanation.
Parent
Re:so (Score:5, Insightful)
How did this tired chestnut become a meme among supposedly smart people? "God did it" refers to agency, just like "time and chance" refers to agency. The "how" is a completely different matter. As a child, I remember asking my father, "How did you do that, Dad"? If anything, it whetted my curiosity to know more.
Whatever position one holds on the "irreducible complexity" argument, the argument is not "therefore we can learn no more." Rather, the argument is "the agency of time, chance, and unguided selection couldn't be the cause of such-and-such an object."
Parent
Re:so (Score:5, Interesting)
good clarification.
yes, i was limiting the scope of agents to those admitted by "accepted science".
so with scoping in mind, my complaint is that irreducible complexity arguments tend to translate into "accepted scientific agents do not currently explain such-and-such, therefore we must look outside accepted scientific agents".
however, appeals to agents outside the scope of accepted science have historically always fallen, so it seems prudent not to resort to them now, and instead to keep hammering on the stuff within accepted science. qv the god of the gaps, etc.
Parent
Re:so (Score:5, Insightful)
As already pointed out by another reply, this only applies specifically to star formation, which was just one piece that has to be in place for life to work out. Even if this particular one has a 25% chance of happening, there are still a lot of others. Like existing long enough to make heavy elements, or having the right ratio between gravity and electromagnetic forces.
Parent
We don't even understand gravity or dark matter! (Score:3, Insightful)
What is the point of stars...if you have no matter (Score:5, Insightful)
This hypothesis, if true...
The Standard Model has 19 free parameters [wikipedia.org] (not including G) and even more if you include the new neutrino mixing results. This guy varies TWO of them plus G and then claims that 25% of possible universes would form stars? I remain completely unconvinced. While the strength of gravity, EM and the strong interactions may be important for stars the other parameters control some other vaguely important things like whether there is any matter in the universe.
In addition these parameters also have major effects directly on the functioning of stars. For example if the electron mass were larger the orbit of the electron in the atom shrinks and fusion becomes a lot easier [wikipedia.org]. One would presume that this would greatly affect star formation. In addition there are other effects caused by varying the parameters: tweaking with these may well change the type of matter in the universe such as less hydrogen and more helium etc. He does at one point mention this and then states that he would not expect it to vary much from our universe without giving a reference. To me this seems completely non-obvious but I'm not a cosmologist so perhaps it is obvious to them?
So as I said I remain totally unconvinced that this paper really shows anything meaningful at all.
Parent
don't fear infinity (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not convinced in the slightest that a multiverse exists (in any sense of the word), but I agree that assuming things like Brane cosmology are true, the logical conclusion is that these other universes would, based on probability, have something recognizable to us as 'stars' and even 'life'
Possibility always wins when we play the probability game.
As I said above, I think the multiverse theories ar
Re:don't fear infinity (Score:5, Insightful)
As I said above, I think the multiverse theories are a pantload of stink.
The interesting thing about a way of describing the universe is that it doesn't have to be true to be userful, provided it produces useful results.
Think for a moment of Copernicus.
His model wasn't accurate at all, not even slightly, it was nowhere near as useful in real terms then the Ptolemaic model, but it allowed the universe to be viewed in a different way, eventually leading to our current, vastly more accurate description.
Ours too may be wrong, but you need ways of describing reality which produce useful results. They don't have to be 'real' to be useful.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Scientists are saying no such thing. The argument is not that a universe that is slightly different could not support any life. The argument is that is could not support human life. For example, Fred Hoyle argued that if certain physical constants were just a little different, carbon atoms could not form ring-shaped molecules. All life as we know it is based on those carbon rings, so those changes would preclude our existence.
And before you start picking at flaws in that argument, let me point out something
A commonplace of cosmologists (Score:3, Funny)
That's funny, I always thought they came in herds.
Or maybe in packages - contents may have expanded during shipping.
Still dumb (Score:5, Interesting)
Even if we are rare, why does that make is so special? It's rare to win the lottery, but it's got to happen to someone doesn't it? If we hadn't won the lottery, we wouldn't be here to talk about it, would we?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
With studies like this, that argument is useless. It shows that the philosophers who use this argument are just blowing steam out of their pompous asses without any actual research. I really wish that I could see the faces
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The anthropic principle is one of Creationists' favorite argument for the 'proof' of the existence of god.
The anthropic principle is only "'proof' of the existence of god" if it is misinterpreted. Simply stated, it describes the selection bias at play in humanity's observations of the universe. Increasing the number of universes that can support stars (much less life) has no bearing on the anthropic principle, as either way we're 100% sure we live in a universe which does support both.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Still dumb (Score:4, Informative)
Until it sets g too low and the universe expands forever instead of collapsing, or time doesn't increment. Or maybe our glorious intelligent designer has put a constraint in to make sure this can't happen :)
Parent
Re:Still dumb (Score:5, Insightful)
There are several kinds of low probability events. A lottery has a low probability of any one ticket winning, but a very high probability that somebody will win because there are so many tickets. For universes to work like that, there have to be enough universes that as you put it, "it's got to happen to someone". Science hasn't "uncovered" (again, your word) this situation, unless they have proved that parallel universes definitely exist, there are definitely enough of them for the low probabilities to sum, and the meta-laws of these universes allow summing the low probabilities.
Uncovered would mean:
1. Scientist observes parallel universes.
2. Scientist counts enough of them to prove the low odds can sum to likely odds, or finds a good proof there are enough. A good proof has to be more rigorous than is usual in physics, because our universe's physics may not be the ruleset in any of these others. Probably this means the proof has to meet formal mathematical standards.
3. Scientist has to have a Theory of Everything for our universe.
4. Scientist has to derive similar theories for the other universes and a meta-theory that combines them.
5. Scientist then has to show that the meta-ToE allows low probability events to sum.
I'm pretty sure none of those steps have happened. If I'm wrong, I'd like to predict what discoveries get awarded the next ten Nobel prizes in physics, and probably a Fields medal or two.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The important part about this idea is that the universe is more mediocre than we expected. Specifically cosmologists are interested in asking the question
What does "significantly different" mean? Originally our ego-centric view promoted the idea of "c
The obvious question (Score:3, Insightful)
So just how is "they exist but it is mathematically impossible for them to affect our universe in any way or for us to measure them or conduct any empirical experiment upon them" any different from "they don't exist"? Are they, perchance, Invisible Pink Universes?
As for "winning the lottey", the question "why is the universe like it is" has only ever been a side-issue to the bigger question "why should any universe whatsoever exist at all -- the empty set is perfectly mathematically self-consistent; why sh
Finally! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Finally! (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
weakless universe (Score:4, Interesting)
"A universe without weak interactions is constructed that undergoes big-bang nucleosynthesis, matter domination, structure formation, and star formation. The stars in this universe are able to burn for billions of years, synthesize elements up to iron, and undergo supernova explosions, dispersing heavy elements into the interstellar medium.
There's no evidence such universes exist. But it is still a good exercise to help keep some perspective on what is possible, even in principle, given what we know about physical law. It also highlights that people who make "anthropic principle-like" claims based on fine-tuning haven't bothered to go back to the underlying laws of physics and actually look for other stable configurations, even in theory.
Words mean something (Score:4, Insightful)
I continue to be bothered by the use of the word "universe" to mean something other than "everything". Having to substitute "multiverse" to replace the word that didn't need to be replaced (rather a new word should have been invented for the new concept) bugs the crap out of me so much so that I hope all these new theories are proved wrong so we can maintain continuity of the language.
Re:Words mean something (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Misunderstanding of the Anthropic Principle (Score:5, Informative)
Proponents of the Anthropic Principle do not claim that universes which cannot support life are rare, or commonplace, or anything of the sort.
The Anthropic Principle merely says that we should not be surprised to find the universe conductive to our existence, even if such conditions are highly improbable, because the fact of our existence logically necessitates that we exist in a universe conductive to it.
Cut the "infinite universes" crap (Score:4, Informative)
This research is great because it points out that the constants and such that the universe exhibits aren't so special, however the way it's presented is quite ridiculous.
Firstly, these "universes" are purely theoretical, and they're function of the modification of a few constants, that doesn't mean they're actually out there.
Secondly, I just hate it when people say "myriads/an infinity of other universes". What you really mean by "infinity" in that case is not a large number of discrete universes, but continuous variations of a universe. Presenting something continuous as an infinite amount of discrete things is stupid and misleading, although somehow correct. Sure you can iterate some constant by the smallest increments you want, so you can cut the whole thing into an infinity of possibilities, but just because you're sampling something continuous discretely doesn't make it cease from being continuous and not discrete. That's exactly like saying the 3D space universe is actually made of an infinity of stacked up 2D universes that communicate between each other. A completely arbitrary way to look at things that misleads you on the real nature of things.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm sorry, but it's the "mathematical phantasy" thing.
Or more correctly: It's a tought experiment, to find out if the universe has some special fine-tuned constants, because this would pose some interesting questions on why they are exactly like this.
Of course, as far as our knowledge goes, the universe could be a 4d sphere (with a 3d surface). So there is still the question "is there an 'outside' to the universe"? If so, what is there? Other universes?
A completely different, and more realistic POV is to se
Re:In lameness terms, please? (Score:4, Insightful)
I think you mean to say anything outside the light-cone of the big bang is a different universe.
That is fairly defensible, I'd go with it.
Parent
Re:This makes no sense! (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:This makes no sense! (Score:4, Interesting)
I didn't know that astrologers used telescopes.
At the visitor information station on Mauna Kea, I am routinely approached by followers of astronomy (henceforth "gullibles") during the evening stargazing sessions. It usually goes something like this:
Gullible: It's my birthday, can you point out my sign?
Me: (points at the ground)
Anyone who subscribes to pseudoscientific nonsense but doesn't even read enough of it to know that their sign is the one the Sun is in when they're born, should be duct-taped in place and forced to listen to Weird Al's "Your Horoscope for Today."
To their credit, no Christians have asked me to point out the star from when Jesus was born. Yet.
Parent
Re:there are other marble bags? (Score:5, Funny)
i thought "uni" meant one and only. [slashdot.org]
doesn't "uni" mean one and only? [slashdot.org]
Which is why I find your double post so delightfully ironic!
Parent