Will the Laws of Physics Extend Beyond Our Universe? A Galaxy Classic
Chris Knight, the finest fictional physicist of our time, once said
"All science. No Philosophy. Wrong." It's true that an understanding
of existence outside of equations is vital for scientists, both in
terms of enjoying life and avoiding things like Agent Orange, but
beware careless combination of the two. A science/philosophy mixture
can lead to metaphysical claims that the laws of physics are nothing
but local zoning ordinances, as demonstrated by Lee Smolin.
Smolin is author of "the fecund universes theory" of cosmology which suggests that the rules of biology apply on the grandest scales, and is often referred to as "cosmological natural selection". Smolin summarized the idea in his book, The Life of the Cosmos.
The theory surmises that a collapsing black hole causes the emergence of a new universe on the "other side", whose fundamental constant parameters (speed of light, Planck length and so forth) may differ slightly from those of the universe where the black hole collapsed. Each universe therefore gives rise to as many new universes as it has black holes.
The Perimeter Institute theoretical physicist got together with philosopher Roberto Unger and arrived at three radically new conclusions. The first is that there is only one universe - the idea of a multiverse might be awesome science fiction, and essential to the slightly less credible string theory, but there's no reason to base your worldview on worlds where the Nazis won or the universal constant of gravitation has a different value.
The second idea is that time is real. Remember when you read that first sentence? Okay, you agree with us - this is one of those discussions that takes place at a level regular humans don't argue at. Some say that all of existence is a crystal of reality that we happen to move through, Dr Manhattan style, which is wonderfully imaginative but displays incredible cognitive disconnection. Even speaking the words aloud demonstrates the passage of time, and most arguments beyond that depend on bringing the debate to an extremely specific linguistic field of hyper-definitions that the opponent hasn't wasted their life learning, and will therefore "lose" at. Luckily for us, Lee agrees that time actually exists and we can move on to the real problem: the idea of physics as local rules.
His argument that physics can change over time and space is apparently based on an extremely specific strawman argument which depends on separating experimental procedure into initial conditions and laws. He says you can only arrive at laws by examining a large "configuration space" of possible setups. In the lab you can set up a large number of tests, in cosmology you can look at a wide variety of situations, so in both you can arrive at laws. His argument is that since you can't actually rearrange the stars themselves to set up different initial conditions in each place, you can't make conclusions about the physical laws there. He uses many, many more words to describe this idea.
It's all very intellectually stimulating, but mainly demonstrates the difference between metaphysics and useful physics. If you're going to claim that general relativity stops working beyond some sort of interstate-of-existence line, the burden of proof is on you to show that's the case - and strawman arguments on the nature of experimentation aren't going to cut it. You can say that the plank constant is a variable over time and space, but when we want to build an bridge or a fusion reactor we're going to stick with our silly, provincial, non-new-book-publishing "actual physics." And that's the difference.
Posted by Luke McKinney
Recommended Post
"Will DNA Prove to be the Life Code Throughout the Universe?"
Einstein used to say... "Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand."
Imagination is important as it is what awakens our curiosity and drives us to explore the possibilities. However it is equally important that we always keep ourselves grounded in solid scientific principles before representing that something imagined is anything more than a theory.
As an artist I love to visually explore many of the concepts of theoretical physics such as string theory, but when I study physics I keep in mind that such things are untested and thus are only a concept born of another person's imagination. In physics forums I often see someone talking about the math as if it is the ultimate test and they tend to get a bit upset when I point out that the mathematics is only a crude test of plausibility. Many things can be done mathematically. Take fractals for example, I have found that by altering my mathematical calculations that I can go beyond the ordinary geometric nature of the art form and imitate the universe itself.
Posted by: Randall Klopping | August 29, 2009 at 10:44 AM
I would hope that he is not presenting his idea as "theory". However, I do think he brings up an interesting point, and no it would not be anything practical, although I am not sure it entirely fits if you are also going to say that there is only one universe. If the multiverse is accepted, then it would be really easy to say that in each universe there might be another set of physical laws (and string theory pretty much predicts this). But to so the same of only one universe... thats sketchy. Its interesting to think about, but its like saying the side of the sun that we can't is always purple.
The funny thing about "parallel" universes is that it is generally conceptualized as another universe that is basically the same as this one, but with few changes like that the Nazis won. Theoretical physics predicts more that another universe might have rastically different physical properties, or that it might just be a soupy mess of pure super-dense energy in a space half as big as our galaxy.
But I think that the goals of physics and philosophy are really completely different, and although they could stimulate each other, it should not be used as a means to an end. No physical theory can be reached by relying too heavily on philosophy.
Posted by: Miles Roldan | August 29, 2009 at 11:19 AM
Building bridges with planks is O.K., while it doesn't necessarily represent a constant, such as Planck's, which shows that one should worry about spelling and context.
I'm still one of Luke's fans.
Simon Says
Posted by: Simon Says | August 29, 2009 at 11:51 AM
The mention of the Constants somehow got entangled with a perfectly practical solution (to some physical and mental problems), that may be achieved by being trained to understand that the human brain can be used as a tool. Nevertheless, this simple, tried and free concept, which was presented in writing to more than a 100 people suffering from easily cured problems - lumbago f.i., damaged discs, etc. - related to the spinal column, has invariably ended up in unexplained rejection.
In order to understand the above phenomenon, have made the following logical analysis:
2008 years ago, God, who populated Earth with a series of races, for better control and/or other considerations, observed that his favourite people, the Hebrews, of the Semite race, were living in miserable conditions created by their Establishement and their Roman Overlords. So; in view of the fact that there was no efficient media available to commuicate his idea of a solution, nor financial means to create one, he decided to create a Credible Representative, by impregnating a human woman, which appears less credible than fixing one's column by using the brain. Everyone knows the story, including the European Christian Jihad, organized to eliminate The Muslim Infidels living in the Holy Land, whose retaliative Jihad against the Infidels (any non muslim) continues today with no positive result in sight. This fact explains the mainly one sided Constant of Hate (Muslims vs. Hebrews et all)established by conflicting religions (Also see Ireland vs. the others; the Dark Skinned vs. the Honkies - semantics, semantics). Where; Religion = Dogmatic Proposal. Dogma = 1 step forward, two back (or no survival). All the sides believe that they are 100% right in their positions.
The above leaves me momentarily relieved, but still somewhat confused, since the System for the people to heal themselves is at hand, but it seems that most humans don't wat to see nor hear what is offered for free, even if it is good for them and clearly provable.
Simon Says
Simon Says
Posted by: Simon Says | August 29, 2009 at 02:20 PM
Nevermind that ^this^ has nothing at all to do with anything:
"...in view of the fact that there was no efficient media available to commuicate his idea of a solution, nor financial means to create one"
So, you're saying that God needs money (rofl)
OR a "media", what like the news? (again, rofl)
Please correct me if I got that wrong, if I did read it correctly then please, please, please tell me. (it will be fun)
Also could you post a summary explained more clearly because i've read it five times and still can't get what you are trying to say
Posted by: ThankGodForAtheism | August 29, 2009 at 03:33 PM
If we believe that the human mind is capable of knowing infinity, then these hypotheses would hold, but it isn't and they don't. I myself hope beyond hope that a universe exists where manimals don't mutilate each other, reproduce with no intention or means of taking care of their offspring, and generally treat each other like life doesn't matter. (Lest this sound too "Goddy", know that I love the tag of the poster above, Thank God For Atheism.) We cannot know what we can't perceive, and our brains/minds ARE limited, finite, and have huge blind spots. I detested Carl Sagan's very similar hypotheses for these same reasons. Arrogance in the face of infinity is fruitless, and this article's reasonings are some largely arrogant conclusions.
Posted by: Julianna | August 30, 2009 at 02:04 AM
@Randall Klopping, I very much agree with you - BTW: Very nice graphic website!
- When cosmological science a fine day finally states that every cosmological movement in the Universe is a result of a bipolar nature then they maybe can extend this bipolar law as far as their imagination can take them.
In the mean time the scientifical society – and all others - has to live with temporary agreements that produce one anomalistic result after another.
Gravity for instants: As a bipolar movement, gravity also goes both ways: As a pressure and as a concentrating force via cosmological swirling in molecular clouds, activated by cosmic explosions.
It really is “below as above” comparing the Earth weather phenomenon of left and right turning Hurricanes and high- and low pressures to many phenomenons in the Space.
Why make it difficult when it can be made easy and natural?
NB: @ThankGodForAtheists and @Julianna,
I’m also an Atheist – but I’m natural religious too. I just LOVE the Native Mythology but I don’t regard their gods and goddesses as personal beings but as archetypes for a diversity of cosmic creative forces.
Ivar Nielsen
www.native-science.net
Posted by: Ivar Nielsen | August 30, 2009 at 03:58 AM
Physics that we have built in the past few hundred years has been based on our understanding of the Universe more of the near period than of the far off period closer to the birth of the Universe. The conditions then were highly violent and simulation of such conditions appear difficult today. The laws of Physics that may have been valid form birth till about 1 billion years thereafter are difficult to work out as cosmological experimnets are difficult to provide us guiding data. Who says that the so-called physical constants should have been valid right from the beginning? In fact the theories do not demand that 'constants'should remain constant. In fact, c can vary but the speed of any physical object can not be higher than the same in a homogeneous space. In fact already experimental deviations have been established in the magnitude of velocity of light, mass/charge of the electron from cosmological measurements done on galactic objects born around 12 billion years back! Infact, the four force fields have also not emerged all together. They followed the requirement of universe's evolution logic. The first to appear was gravitational, then nuclear strong, electromagnetic and weak nuclear. The last controlled the stability limits of elements eventually. Infact, the strengths( relative values) as have been worked in Physics of the day, may not be so eversince the birth of the Universe. The sequential appearance itself is conditioned on us by the evolution logic of the universe. Man has no role to play. Science helps to know whats and hows of the processes / phenomenon under study but we can not talk of whys at all. That has been decided by the Universe's evolution pattern, as per the logic behind creation. It could well have been different but then science or man can not decide about it. Infact, we are unable even to conjecture what existed prior to the Big bang creation, as there was nothing physical available then. Such are the mysteries we need to decipher, besides many others like the nature of dark matter/energy and why these constitute 96% of matter/ energy while the visible universe is merely 4 % , why? we just do not know the answer. Let us be humble as a scientist and a human being, being neither the creator of the universe, nor we can ever create something to add in the universe, except through manipulation of matter/energy that exist already!
Posted by: Narendra Nath | August 30, 2009 at 04:51 AM
Am not an outright Atheist, and my comment on God having been in need of media and financing is just my way of having some fun. But, seriously, some of the religions' proposals; such as the 70 virgins to be expected as a reward by Islamist suicides; the promise for Christian "good guys" to sit for eternity at the side of God and to gaze into his face, is something just too much. Then, there is the great lot of guys who believe that there actually existed an ARK that was used to save all of the living species, which was built by one family on God's orders and specs... ??!!
Considering the above, how can one explain why people in great pain from column ailings aren't capabe of JUST TRYING out a simple, proven system that might be a solution to their misery.
Or is it that no one expects to receive a gift of something, being used to PAY for everything?
Simon Says
Posted by: Simon Says | August 30, 2009 at 06:28 AM
Anyone who has acquired some notion of in and finity, or of the size or parts of the "known" universe; should sit down and have a huge thinking session, before saying anything of "the God who created, or the God who wants us to act so and so, etc..." Haven't met a thinking human who is humble enough to acknowlege the fact that our brains and the consciousness within, are not yet developed enough to understand most of what exists; and a small inkling of what a human being really is, physically and on the Quantum scale. After this pondering session, he should make the following experiment: Get into the Internet and gather all the data he/she can on the human BRAIN. Then, all of the available data about the Human Gift of Sight (or hearing, or...) and try to get to some conclusions, without simplifying by inventing some deity. The brain is your's, never mind how you got it.
Even before I concluded that I've learned enough for my needs, including some Quantum knowlege (essential for understanding), I recovered the use of my left leg, by regenerating its kneecap, shattered in a motocycling accident and, years later, regenerated a damaged spine disc. As a by product, strengthened myself in many ways. This takes time, dedication and faith in what there exists to learn, to undestand and accept; such as the purpose of humankind's existence and the eventual capacity of using the Brain as a tool, in order to achieve enything each one needs for a better quality of life.
Conclusion; people want to see and hear only what they WANT to see and hear.
Simon Says
Posted by: Simon Says | August 30, 2009 at 06:58 AM
I have a problem with the one universe theory as this would preclude quantum mechanics and the famous Thomas Young double slit experiment. "Ghost" photons work exactly like real one. Put a barrier in front of one of the slits and the ghost photons react just as our own. As David Deutch points out, the characteristics of the phantoms operate under the same principles as our own so where do they come from? The Fractal approach of Palmer sounds very cool but does it provide for the "jitter" of subatomic particles? What is cool is that we are getting closer to unification as Strings are now being employed to explain high temperature super conductivity and various processes of the cosmos. Quantum gravity and M theory will unify but how that happens is anyone's guess. That's what make science an interesting profession.
As Einstein said, "Question Everything."
Posted by: remoran | August 30, 2009 at 07:20 AM
Scientists and physicists don't have the answers. Human eings lack the comprehension of things we don't understand.
If we don't have an answer to anything we doubt it and come up with answers that only fit into what we can accept. First off the universe and life was not created by the big bang theory...thats the most ridiculous and unintelligent answer, it makes us very feeble minded to beleive that.
An atomic bomb has the magnitude to destroy life, not create it, while leaving remains of toxic radiation. If the big bang theory were true, the magnitude would make the atomic bomb look like a firecracker....the amount of radiation would embed itself into matter, causing life to deteriate and become non exsistent. From an atomic or particle level its common sense that as humans we define that as a matter of energy. If energy can not be created nor destroyed but change from one form to the next, then who created the energy to begin with. Most scientists try to avoid the fact there is a higher power or a God that created everything. All that we have is so precise that its impossible to be a coincidence. To believe an explosion like the big bang theory would create starts, planets, animals, human beings, ect...is quite moronic. There's no way cells mutated and evolved on its own and all of a sudden you have a living breathing human being created. They seek answers they don't have and come up with lousy reasons with no facts or proof. Why not except the fact that something far greater than our coprehension existed and created everything...the reason is no-one wants to believe a God exists and that something out there is so powerful we can't control. I'm waiting for the day a particle accelerator creates life, organisms, and suns, planets, trees, animals, ect. All they do is take what has already been created by a higher power to try and understand on atomic and sub atomic level how things work...they'll never grasp the concept. Its not about religion or science, its because without an answer or understand of "how" or "what" created everything, they'll always doubt and try to debunk or come up with simple minded reasons for all creation. Its sad to see people getting sucked into the minds of scientists who don't have the answers, all they have is trial and error and experimental process to try and learn more about the existance of the universe. It doesn't matter if we know starts can explode or we discover black holes, or new planets...all of that is irrelevant, when you try to explain what actually created all of that first, its beyoned our intelligence. We have come along way in understanding many things, however theres certain answers that are left as unknowns, everything in the universe from life to light is so complex you'd have to be simple minded to believe its just a coicidence and that it started all on its own. Something out there created everything, something so powerful and beyond our capacity to accept and understand.
Posted by: light | August 30, 2009 at 10:34 AM
This article states the following:
"The first is that there is only one universe - the idea of a multiverse might be awesome science fiction, and essential to the slightly less credible string theory, but there's no reason to base your worldview on worlds where the Nazis won or the universal constant of gravitation has a different value."
It's true that other universes aren't relevant in our day-to-day lives. But what they're saying is that simply because we don't care about other universes, they don't exist? That seems like a big logical fallacy to me. It's like saying, "I don't care about Antarctica; therefore, Antarctica doesn't exist."
Posted by: Eric | August 30, 2009 at 10:45 AM
@light:
" If the big bang theory were true, the magnitude would make the atomic bomb look like a firecracker....the amount of radiation would embed itself into matter, causing life to deteriate and become non exsistent"
During the first instant of the Big Bang there was a (relatively) small explosion, what made everything so big was not the explosion, but a period of what is known as "Expansion". This Expansion is nothing like you can imagine, and not really comparable to an explosion, it was simply space getting bigger...
Imagine you were holding your hands in front of you and that the distance between your hands kept getting bigger and bigger and bigger etc. Scale wise it is something like an atom expanding to the size of a large building (though that may be wrong, please correct me if it is)...
Also, the density was such that any radiation from an explosion before the expansion would not have penetrated very far through the medium.
Posted by: Shmeeg | August 30, 2009 at 12:38 PM
http://drugmoneyforbumz.blogspot.com/
I've though of a lot of this before, and here's some of my drug induced rambling. If you'd be so kind I'd like to reflect off some of you to test my ideas and gain new ones. Comments would be appreciated.
Posted by: Ellis D | August 30, 2009 at 10:00 PM
Even if radiation were embedded in matter that wouldn't keep life from forming, hell we're all radioactive waste!!!!!! At first there was only hydrogen, no further material to make complex bonds required for us. It took nuclear reactions (in Stars) to create the more complex atoms such as carbon, etc. with many more electrons and protons. A stars exploded they scattered these building blocks across the universe, and they eventually came together in ways to create organisms such as ourselves. Radioactive waste.
Posted by: Ellis D | August 30, 2009 at 10:05 PM
Physics isn't even real. electronic cigarettes
Posted by: Jill H | August 31, 2009 at 08:34 AM
^^^TROLLLLLLLLLLLLLL!!!!11!!^^^
Posted by: ThankGodForAtheism | August 31, 2009 at 09:06 AM
Hello, I knew little about universe and all these. Nevertheless, I realized that to know universe is to practice Buddha's Dharma which extend beyond form (metaphysics). Buddha's truth is not related to science but IT IS A SCIENCE. Buddha had already knew universe a lot more than the modern scientist knew, he said universe is infinity 2500 years ago and that still conform with the science founding.
Posted by: william | September 15, 2009 at 07:32 PM