Quantum Physics and the like...

Have an environmental cause? Announce and discuss here.

Moderators: Shari, collnarra, Butts, beach_defender, Forum Moderators

User avatar
Kunji
Huey's Right Hand
Posts: 21014
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 11:10 am
Location: 40 - nil

Post by Kunji » Sun Apr 20, 2008 11:12 pm

AlbyAl wrote:(please no multiverses)


Why not Al? The parameters that are in place for our Universe are so sensitive that if you tweak some eg the parameter of Strong Force, the Universe - as we know it - would not have been able to form. All these different settings seems like its a coincidence that we can live in a Universe that has matter that can be stable enough to form Stars and Planets. Maybe there are an infinite amount of still born Universes out there, somehow connected to our one. We are lucky in that case.

In M-Theory, it states that new Universes can be created by membranes colliding with eachother.

You should check out Parallel Worlds by Micho Kaku. Its an exciting read.

AlbyAl
regular
Posts: 362
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 2:20 pm
Location: Often

Post by AlbyAl » Mon Apr 21, 2008 10:22 am

[email protected] wrote:
AlbyAl wrote:(please no multiverses)


Why not Al? The parameters that are in place for our Universe are so sensitive that if you tweak some eg the parameter of Strong Force, the Universe - as we know it - would not have been able to form. All these different settings seems like its a coincidence that we can live in a Universe that has matter that can be stable enough to form Stars and Planets. Maybe there are an infinite amount of still born Universes out there, somehow connected to our one. We are lucky in that case.

In M-Theory, it states that new Universes can be created by membranes colliding with eachother.

You should check out Parallel Worlds by Micho Kaku. Its an exciting read.


Thanks for the reference Coops - I'll check it.

The fundamental problem with the 'Goldilocks Enigma' as Davies calls it - or some variation therof - whether you postulate the universe is surprisingly 'just right' for matter to form or for life to emerge - is that we have no alternate state of affairs which serves as counter evidence - it is all pure speculation that the basic laws of physics(so far) could be otherwise. As you say "it seems like a coincidence". But we have no way of judging that type of 'chance' - we only have the state of affairs before us. We can hypothesise all we like - and develop further and further in knowing how this state of affairs came about - but other universes with completely different laws - pure speculation. You might say - "But useful thought experiment." OK - I could defer to your sense of 'useful'. But it gets up my nose when Davies et al impose the value of 'surprisingly amenable to life' or some such on the universe. (one tiny blue planet only has life as far we know - the universe is NOT friendly to life)
We also can't really say that the basic physical parameters are 'so sensitive': they just ARE. Might as well assert that they are incredibly robust - in fact - THAT makes more sense, given everywhere we look the same laws seem to be in place. Any suggestion of 'tweaking' the basic forces of course suggests a Designer ... God ... and Davies mischievously uses this sort of language to smuggle in his 'Natural Religion'. Tweaking? All such metaphors imply a point OUTSIDE the universe, arranging the settings. (they are not 'settings' as if 'dials' can be turned otherwise) Impossible - except as a flight of fancy. We can always enjoy our imagination, but it is not science, nor sure knowledge. (I'm not saying you subscribe to these views - just drawing out some connections I know of)

User avatar
Buff_Brad
barnacle
Posts: 2328
Joined: Sat Nov 17, 2007 4:43 pm
Location: Wall Street

Post by Buff_Brad » Mon Apr 21, 2008 11:11 am

AlbyAl wrote: But it gets up my nose when Davies et al impose the value of 'surprisingly amenable to life' or some such on the universe. (one tiny blue planet only has life as far we know - the universe is NOT friendly to life)


My gut feel is that the universe (like our ocean) is teeming with life - to put into perspective the distances involved in travelling to other worlds blah blah. If a map of our galaxy was made the size of the Earth how far do you think the Earth and the Sun would be away from one another on the three dimensional Earth sized map (of our galaxy)?







2mm :shock:

So light takes roughly 9mins to travel those 2mm -- 45 fcuking mins to travel 1 cm. Over 100,000 years just to get out of our galaxy (if you go through the middle bit and out the other side. ) And that's travelling that fast!! No wonder we haven't been visited (or so it seems by "others"). But I reckon they are out there.....you just need water , relative stable temps and you got it. Multiverses String and M-Theory? Great theories but to prove??? Prob not in our lifetimes unfortunately.

AlbyAl wrote:We also can't really say that the basic physical parameters are 'so sensitive': they just ARE.


Yeah agree , only gut feel but I think this universe is enough to consider for the moment and maybe the "parameters" are sorta mean reverting ....... but WHY? I hate not knowing........I think its time for a nice cuppa and to read the sports.
Last edited by Buff_Brad on Mon Apr 21, 2008 2:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Chamberess
Owl status
Posts: 4613
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 8:35 am
Location: wouldn't you like to know...

Post by Chamberess » Mon Apr 21, 2008 11:26 am

Buff_Brad wrote:but WHY? I hate not knowing........I think its time for a nice cuppa and to read the sports.


too much of a head f**k for you? :lol:

User avatar
Buff_Brad
barnacle
Posts: 2328
Joined: Sat Nov 17, 2007 4:43 pm
Location: Wall Street

Post by Buff_Brad » Mon Apr 21, 2008 11:34 am

Chamberess wrote:
Buff_Brad wrote:but WHY? I hate not knowing........I think its time for a nice cuppa and to read the sports.


too much of a head f**k for you? :lol:


Exactly. 8)

User avatar
Chamberess
Owl status
Posts: 4613
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 8:35 am
Location: wouldn't you like to know...

Post by Chamberess » Mon Apr 21, 2008 11:43 am

May i recommend the Marrakech green tea blend from T2..has a bit of a kick to it :wink:

User avatar
Damage
Owl status
Posts: 3727
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 12:35 pm

Post by Damage » Mon Apr 21, 2008 12:12 pm

I'm actually quite worried ( :lol: well ok not that worried) that it might turn out that we actually exist in a 'false' vacuum sate (which has a certain energy & may decay to a lower energy state) instead of a 'true' vacuum state (ie it's 'safe' as it has zero energy and won't decay) which is what we have assumed that we have been living in all along.

This would have pretty big consequences as the universe could essentially 'reset' itself within a small fraction of a second .... and wipe the slate clean (and us) to start over again.

Note that the universe is not destroyed or ceases to exist but rather just shifts to another 'form'. :shock: :lol:

Best analogy I can think of is how steel (iron and carbon) changes crystalline structure as it cools down from many thousands of degrees to just above its melting point.

What if the universe also did this as it 'ages' or 'cools down'. :?

Could CERN unwittingly trigger some sort of 'quantum tunnelling' effect that helps push us over the edge towards that lower energy state (recrystallisation from one 'form' into another). :?:

User avatar
ric_vidal
Snowy McAllister
Posts: 6287
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2004 4:34 pm

Post by ric_vidal » Mon Apr 21, 2008 12:12 pm

AlbyAl wrote:(one tiny blue planet only has life as far we know - the universe is NOT friendly to life)

As we understand or perceive it.

AlbyAl wrote:Any suggestion of 'tweaking' the basic forces of course suggests a Designer ... God ... and Davies mischievously uses this sort of language to smuggle in his 'Natural Religion'. Tweaking? All such metaphors imply a point OUTSIDE the universe, arranging the settings. (they are not 'settings' as if 'dials' can be turned otherwise) Impossible - except as a flight of fancy.

Wash your mouth out with soap AA, there’ll be no talk of outside influences that can’t be proven by science.

User avatar
Damage
Owl status
Posts: 3727
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 12:35 pm

Post by Damage » Mon Apr 21, 2008 12:13 pm

Is our Universe in a `false vacuum state'?

Paris, AFP:

Until recently, a common idea was that the energy unleashed in the Big Bang happened when a "false vacuum" -- a bubble of high energy with repulsive gravity -- broke down into a safe, zero-energy "ordinary" vacuum. But recent evidence has emerged that places a cosmic question-mark over this cosy thought.

Astronomers may have unwittingly hastened the end of the Universe by simply looking at it, according to a theory reported in next Saturday's New Scientist.

The novel idea is being aired by two US physicists, who attack the notion that the Universe, believed to have been created in the "Big Bang" some 13.7 billion years ago, will go on, well, forever.

In fact, the poor old cosmos is in a rather delicate state, they say.

Until recently, a common idea was that the energy unleashed in the Big Bang happened when a "false vacuum" -- a bubble of high energy with repulsive gravity -- broke down into a safe, zero-energy "ordinary" vacuum.

But recent evidence has emerged that places a cosmic question-mark over this cosy thought.

For one thing, cosmologists have discovered that the Universe is still expanding.

And, they believe, a strange, yet-to-be-detected form of energy called dark energy pervades the Universe, which would explain why the sum of all the visible sources of energy fall way short of what should be out there.

Dark energy, goes the thinking, is a result of the Big Bang and is accelerating the Universe's expansion.

If so, the Universe is not in a nice, stable zero-vacuum state but simply another "false vacuum" state that may abruptly decay again -- and with cataclysmic consequences.

The energy shift from the decay would destroy everything in the Universe, "wiping the slate clean," says Lawrence Krauss of Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio.



8)

User avatar
Kunji
Huey's Right Hand
Posts: 21014
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 11:10 am
Location: 40 - nil

Post by Kunji » Mon Apr 21, 2008 1:14 pm

AlbyAl wrote:
[email protected] wrote:
AlbyAl wrote:(please no multiverses)


Why not Al? The parameters that are in place for our Universe are so sensitive that if you tweak some eg the parameter of Strong Force, the Universe - as we know it - would not have been able to form. All these different settings seems like its a coincidence that we can live in a Universe that has matter that can be stable enough to form Stars and Planets. Maybe there are an infinite amount of still born Universes out there, somehow connected to our one. We are lucky in that case.

In M-Theory, it states that new Universes can be created by membranes colliding with eachother.

You should check out Parallel Worlds by Micho Kaku. Its an exciting read.


Thanks for the reference Coops - I'll check it.

The fundamental problem with the 'Goldilocks Enigma' as Davies calls it - or some variation therof - whether you postulate the universe is surprisingly 'just right' for matter to form or for life to emerge - is that we have no alternate state of affairs which serves as counter evidence - it is all pure speculation that the basic laws of physics(so far) could be otherwise. As you say "it seems like a coincidence". But we have no way of judging that type of 'chance' - we only have the state of affairs before us. We can hypothesise all we like - and develop further and further in knowing how this state of affairs came about - but other universes with completely different laws - pure speculation. You might say - "But useful thought experiment." OK - I could defer to your sense of 'useful'. But it gets up my nose when Davies et al impose the value of 'surprisingly amenable to life' or some such on the universe. (one tiny blue planet only has life as far we know - the universe is NOT friendly to life)
We also can't really say that the basic physical parameters are 'so sensitive': they just ARE. Might as well assert that they are incredibly robust - in fact - THAT makes more sense, given everywhere we look the same laws seem to be in place. Any suggestion of 'tweaking' the basic forces of course suggests a Designer ... God ... and Davies mischievously uses this sort of language to smuggle in his 'Natural Religion'. Tweaking? All such metaphors imply a point OUTSIDE the universe, arranging the settings. (they are not 'settings' as if 'dials' can be turned otherwise) Impossible - except as a flight of fancy. We can always enjoy our imagination, but it is not science, nor sure knowledge. (I'm not saying you subscribe to these views - just drawing out some connections I know of)


The Goldielocks Enigma is an excellent book. He has done another good one called The Fifth Miracle which is basically about how life might evolve in our Universe in different chemical situations caused by physical processes. And about Panspermia and other cool theories.

AlbyAl
regular
Posts: 362
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 2:20 pm
Location: Often

Post by AlbyAl » Mon Apr 21, 2008 9:17 pm

If so, the Universe is not in a nice, stable zero-vacuum state but simply another "false vacuum" state that may abruptly decay again -- and with cataclysmic consequences. (from Damage's quote)


That 's a mighty big 'if so', which makes for a great story and a week or two of attention - OK - in the science community - some papers, some arguments probably about the maths etc, but it still stands as another marginal hypothesis grounded finally in the unstable territory of our descriptions of the Big Bang, Inflation etc. They are proliferating, and I don't know enough to pass any sort of reasonable opinion; its 'interesting', but I actually find the counterfactual imaginative stuff more about sexing up science for lay-people. Don't get me wrong - it IS interesting in a general cultural way, and a damn-sight better than most of the junk that counts as Entertainment, but, being a skeptic, I want to know the epistemological credentials: you know: what knowledge and evidential status does this stuff have.

COOps - Having read some Davies (including the Goldilocks Enigma) my opinion is plummeting: Goldilocks is really Argument from Design (18th Century re existence of God) subtly dressed up in (very interesting for sure) recent cosmology. There is a huge gulf between presenting modern cosmology and then showing this suggests a Designer or even 'Order' - and all the obvious logical flaws in this argument are present front and centre: no direct evidence; who designed the designer?; no grounds for assuming the cosmos has surprising order; designer must surely be more complex than the designed etc. I think Davies is a bit of a charlatan (and in Aust. unis - where I work, most do as well) He exploits his knowledge to great effect, and a nice read, but employs the bog-standard argumentative figures of rationalist deism, nicely camouflaged.
We might say that science is limited in what it can show us, because its methods are restrictive, and we should be imaginative, or open our minds to other possibiliites. Well, we can always do this - in so many ways we can't count them - but they will have to contend with the 25 centuries of accumulated proven methodology if any of them want to explain in different terms the terrain that western science has shown itself to be so powerful in understanding and commanding.
I can always assert and believe 'there are fairies at the bottom of the garden' (or there's lots of other universes) (Or this one is sitting in a pimple on the end of a giant's nose) but once I want that to be 'knowledge' I'll have to start proving my fairies exist etc

User avatar
Damage
Owl status
Posts: 3727
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 12:35 pm

Post by Damage » Wed Apr 23, 2008 10:41 am

AlbyAl wrote:If so, the Universe is not in a nice, stable zero-vacuum state but simply another "false vacuum" state that may abruptly decay again -- and with cataclysmic consequences. (from Damage's quote)

That 's a mighty big 'if so'


Well I did say i wasn't THAT worried. :D

But see thats just the thing. Its been going on for centuries if not tens of thousands of years. The small cracks in the floor that when pursued either lead to a dirty big dead end or a massive conduit of Cross City Tunnel proportions* and subsequently a re-alignment of human understanding & endevour. (read: Pasteur, Curie, Da Vinci, Rutherford, Florey and for that matter the greatest of them all....David Campese).

In fact Howard Florey has a great quote attributed to him:

"'People sometimes think that I and the others worked on penicillin because we were interested in suffering humanity. I don't think it ever crossed our minds about suffering humanity. This was an interesting scientific exercise, and because it was of some use in medicine is very gratifying, but this was not the reason that we started working on it.'


*possibly not a good example.

User avatar
Damage
Owl status
Posts: 3727
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 12:35 pm

Post by Damage » Mon Sep 08, 2008 4:18 pm


User avatar
oldman
Snowy McAllister
Posts: 6949
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 1:11 pm
Location: Probably Maroubra, goddammit!

Post by oldman » Mon Sep 08, 2008 5:09 pm

Paris AFP wrote:And, they believe, a strange, yet-to-be-detected form of energy called dark energy pervades the Universe, which would explain why the sum of all the visible sources of energy fall way short of what should be out there.

Dark energy, goes the thinking, is a result of the Big Bang and is accelerating the Universe's expansion.

Well, it's a good thing that we have moved on from superstitious imaginings to .... ah,.......... this wonderful scientific theory!

If so, the Universe is not in a nice, stable zero-vacuum state but simply another "false vacuum" state that may abruptly decay again -- and with cataclysmic consequences.

The energy shift from the decay would destroy everything in the Universe, "wiping the slate clean,"

Well at least the scientists would have been wiped clean doing what they loved. The rest of us will be wiped clean as well. This has an uncanny resonance with the religious 'rapture'.

Nice rap there Damage. It will be funny if they don't find the Higgs bosun. Boy, that was an expensive experiment. OK, shut it down! (probably could have bought world peace for the same price)

I used to think that one day science would sort of 'come together' with spirituality, in some way finding both common ground and with science reaching into the spiritual and perhaps finding and proving some of the precepts. Nowadays I'm thinking that scientific speculation is looking more and more like those biblical spruikers of the deep south of the USA. :wink:

User avatar
Damage
Owl status
Posts: 3727
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 12:35 pm

Post by Damage » Mon Sep 08, 2008 5:51 pm

oldman wrote: Nowadays I'm thinking that scientific speculation is looking more and more like those biblical spruikers of the deep south of the USA. :wink:


Thats because your a moron. :wink:

User avatar
Damage
Owl status
Posts: 3727
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 12:35 pm

Post by Damage » Mon Sep 08, 2008 5:52 pm

Ok ok your not really a moron. :wink:

User avatar
oldman
Snowy McAllister
Posts: 6949
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 1:11 pm
Location: Probably Maroubra, goddammit!

Post by oldman » Mon Sep 08, 2008 6:06 pm

Damage wrote:Thats because your a moron. :wink:

That's you're a moron, damage, you're!

Come on damage, you have to admit that most of the far out scientific speculation about multiple universes, string theory, big bang makes believing in a holy ghost a relatively mild pursuit. :lol: :wink:

User avatar
Damage
Owl status
Posts: 3727
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 12:35 pm

Post by Damage » Tue Sep 09, 2008 9:00 am

oldman wrote:
Come on damage, you have to admit that most of the far out scientific speculation makes believing in a holy ghost a relatively mild pursuit. :lol: :wink:



Thats what they said about Copernicus, Galileo and Da Vinci you moron. :wink:

:D

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest