Does nothing exist?

This is art.

quote:

Originally posted by Madhatter:
The bit I always have trouble with is that the big bang was the start of time, as well as space - so the concept of what caused it is meaningless. 'Cause' implies something within time.

I think trying to understand this sort of stuff is like my goldfish trying to understand the internet.

Not that I've got a goldfish.

My wife thinks these sort of discussions are a waste of time and that art is far more important. I disagree.

I'm currently reading a new anthology of 'hard sci-fi' short stories. Excellent.

Chris

An interview with David Bohm

Mark,

You may be interested in this.

Regards,

Acad

Does nothing exist ?

I am lost for words.

And I think everybody else is as well, if only they could admit it. And I don't just mean everybody else on this forum.

String Theory, Quantum Loop, Relativity and lots of others are interesting. Some have proven themselves to be very useful in making our lives better (or worse). One of them might be, or might lead us to, the Theory of Everything. Who knows?

Meanwhile, I might sceptically concede the semantics that "time began with the Big Bang" if that is how you want to define "time" or if that is what String Theory at present indicates etc etc. I simply ask for some other agreed terminology to describe the concept of "time" or "existence" or "whatever" that preceded the beginning of "time". And another term to describe what "exists" outside (or inside some inner concept of) our Universe. And yet a further term to describe the concept of "forever" moving apart, if that is the future of our Universe or the particles or energies that comprise our Universe.

My point has been that we simply don't know what lies "beyond". If we never can know(*), then to try to discover it would be pointless. But that wouldn't necessarily make what lies beyond, meaningless. (Even if what lies "beyond" is "Nothing")(**).

Cheers

Don

(*) who knows?
(**) OTOH it just might be "God"..........

quote:

Originally posted by acad tsunami:
An interview with David Bohm

Mark,

You may be interested in this.

Regards,

Acad

Wow! Fascinating! Thanks Acad.

This bit particularly hits a nerve:

E: Well this is it. Everywhere in ordinary life, as well as in most other philosophical discourses, the most despised, disgusting, unspeakable idea is nothing. People literally spit it out, "Do you want to be nothing?".
D.B.: That's part of the thing to say the distinction of being a nothing.
E: But that "oblivion" seems to be the most hideous end that you could possibly come to.
D.B.: On the other hand, the Buddhists are perfectly happy with the idea. It depends on the background.
E: I don't know about that because nothing still has this rider of 'nothing as such'. 'Nothing as such' may be close to what I understand but I still think that if something arises out of it, then something still arises out of it. In other words, if it were nothing there would be nothing to talk about. You would know nothing; everyone would know nothing and be nothing. Being and not-being wouldn't be in any way relevant or irrelevant to nothing. And you wouldn't be talking about Buddhas and Buddhism and philosophies and the rest of it. This is the trick because yes, I am familiar with some of the teachings that have been laid down along these lines, and for a while I was led to believe that the exponents of same were quite right. But then I also began to see that as a result of such views, something is being produced - like some following, some belief system, which eventually and inevitably turns into the same old disruption routine.
D.B.: Well, I think that's another question as to the search for security. The old brain is searching for security; it's built to do that, and at a certain level it makes sense.

Mark

Mark,

I'm glad it resonated with you. If you read the Goswami interview I mentioned earlier on my previous post I think you may enjoy that to. I thoroughly recommend you read his book 'The Self Aware Universe' its an excellent read. In the interview you will see there are links to other articles and you will have a chance to dig into the bits that interest you the most.

Regards,

Acad

Acad

I did read that link, thanks. Another interesting read.

regards

Mark

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chillkram:
Man's role for me is only of a 'bit part' player, of observer and interpreter, but nothing else.

Hello Mark

I think Goswami challenges this very effectively. Also, in quantum mechanics, the act of observation seems to have great power.

Best wishes from Ears

quote:

Originally posted by Ears:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chillkram:
Man's role for me is only of a 'bit part' player, of observer and interpreter, but nothing else.

Hello Mark

I think Goswami challenges this very effectively. Also, in quantum mechanics, the act of observation seems to have great power.

Best wishes from Ears

Agreed his view is fascinating, I particularly like the argument for 'free will' it has never sat comfortably with me that we are subject to the 'causal power of matter' and are acting according to some pre-ordained mathematical pattern.

I perhaps did not express myself as well as I would have liked above as what I meant was that, in my opinion, man is only a small component of the wider universe, interacts with, observes and interprets as opposed to a Cartesian dualist view which attributes more significance to the human conscious in terms of it existing as a separate entity to the material universe.

When I say a small component I mean in relation to the fact that the universe is unimaginably huge and I allow for consciouses other than ours in their infinite numbers as their non-existence is unfathomable, in my opinion.

In this respect we are a 'bit part' player. Our view of the universe is most often egocentric.

That said, I rule out nothing as a closed mind learns nothing. I am happy to listen to all views and become frustrated when scientists, who often have the most closed minds of all in my opinion, think that we are close to finding the 'ultimate truth'.

They have always said that.

Mark

quote:

Originally posted by Chillkram:
Agreed his view is fascinating, I particularly like the argument for 'free will' it has never sat comfortably with me that we are subject to the 'causal power of matter' and are acting according to some pre-ordained mathematical pattern.

I perhaps did not express myself as well as I would have liked above as what I meant was that, in my opinion, man is only a small component of the wider universe, interacts with, observes and interprets as opposed to a Cartesian dualist view which attributes more significance to the human conscious in terms of it existing as a separate entity to the material universe.

When I say a small component I mean in relation to the fact that the universe is unimaginably huge and I allow for consciouses other than ours in their infinite numbers as their non-existence is unfathomable, in my opinion.

In this respect we are a 'bit part' player. Our view of the universe is most often egocentric.

That said, I rule out nothing as a closed mind learns nothing. I am happy to listen to all views and become frustrated when scientists, who often have the most closed minds of all in my opinion, think that we are close to finding the 'ultimate truth'.

They have always said that.

Mark

Hello Mark

Agreed, I have always felt that I have a choice from achievable options, and am baffled when philosophers / scientists suggest otherwise, though I do accept that an individual cannot just will anything.

If we reject the Cartesian dualist view (as I do), we need to address the relationship between man and the rest of the universe, because if these are seen as two separate entities, by what means are they able to interact? Similarly, wouldn't you say that "multiple consciousnesses" must really be part of one and the same thing?

So if we put aside dualism (and triadism, and so on, if I've got the right word), and instead concentrate on the interconnectedness of everything, it is possible to conceive of the totality of consciousness being far from a "bit part" player.

I agree about the scientists who think we are about to solve everything, especially when their basic philosophy does not stand up to scrutiny.

To go back to the original question about "nothing", "nothing" has no meaning without "something". Defining "something" (or "existence" in this case) is exactly where this thread has gone.

Thanks for the interesting reading, and best wishes from Ears.

If nothing does exist, please tell me where it is. I can only tell where it isn´t.

quote:

Originally posted by acad tsunami:

quote:

Originally posted by Martin Payne:
the latest results from String Theory suggest that our Big Bang may have happened inside a "parent" universe

Hello Martin,

The latest 'results'? Can you explain the use of this word here? What are these 'results' the result of?

Regards,

Acad

Acad,

[another long one, I'm afraid]

The story starts back around 1915 when Albert Einstein published General Relativity, which described a four-dimensional space-time instead of the three-dimensional space that had been understood previously.

In this theory, time is explained as a fourth dimension, and the distance of one light year in space is equivalent to a distance (ie duration) of one year in time. When something seems to be stationary in space, it should really be thought of as rushing forward through time at the speed of light (ie one light year per year, or about 300,000 Km/s [I will use this appoximate speed for all examples]).


You can ignore this note, as it doesn't affect the story, but I think it is very interesting:-

quote:

This explained the weirdnesses of Special Relativity.

Nothing can travel through space-time faster than light. If something (eg a bullet) is moving through space at 1Km/s then it is deflected slightly away from travelling through time at full speed. Think of the movement over one second as a triangle with a hypotenuse 300,000 Km long.

In the diagram below (very much not to scale!!):-

the horizontal is the travel through space - 1 Km (left to right) in this example;
the vertical is the travel through time (time proceeds as you go up the screen);
the hypotenuse (diagonal) is the travel through space-time, which is always 300,000 Km in one second.

    (space)
   ---1km--->
   __________
^  |        /m  e
|  |       /K  m
|  |      /0  i
T  |     /0  t
i  |    /0  /
m  |   /,  e
e  |  /0  c
|  | /0  a
|  |/3  p
       S

The vertical track is 299,999.999,998 km long, so the duration of time is about two trillionths slower than it would have been for a static bullet. This is the famous Time Dilation for a moving object, and is basically unmeasurably small for all Earth-bound objects.


Things get a little different for an object travelling through space at 200,000 Km/s (2/3rd the speed of light). Drawing the diagram for one second of travel again, the hypotenuse (space-time track) is 300,000 Km as always and the space track is 200,000 Km. The time track works out to about 224,000 Km, ie time is running 25.5% slower than it would for an object at rest.

Anyway, to get back to the story, Einstein had shown that large masses (eg the Earth) caused distortions in space-time - think of a lump of foam rubber being pinched in the middle (the location of the mass) and thereby pulled into a different shape.

When an object travels in a straight line (properly known as a "geodesic") through distorted space-time, it seems to follow a curved path through normal space, which we interpret as the object being pulled towards the large mass.

This meant that gravity (a force) in three-dimensional space had been explained as the result of geometry in four dimensions.



In terms of cosmology, it was also shown that the total mass of the universe caused an overall warping of the whole of space-time, and that depending on the actual density of mass involved, the universe could take on a shape that is bent right back on itself, like a piece of paper bent over so opposite sides touch, or the surface of a sphere where you can travel until you get back to where you started. This is a "closed" space.



Now, scientists always like to see if a theory can be extended to cover further situations, and they didn't like the fact that Relativity only explained the force of gravity.

Two theoreticians, Kaluza & Klein, found that by extending General Relativity to six dimensions they could get a "unified" theory that seemed to also include Electromagnetism. The biggest problem was that we only see four dimensions, so presumably this was just some fluke without any real meaning?



Roll forwards some decades, and String Theory now includes 11 dimensions, which between them cover gravity, electromagnetism, and the weak & strong nuclear forces, just as Kaluza & Klein predicted.

The reason why we only see four space-time dimensions is because something has caused the other seven to be curled back on themselves so incredibly tightly that they are much much smaller than the size of an atom.

This is a bit weird, the three space dimensions are as large as the width of the universe (and continally expanding as a result of the Big Bang), the time dimension stretches from the Big Bang forward to the end of the universe (if there is an end), and the other dimensions are sub-microscopic.



Now, string theory says that particles such as the electron are not points, but tiny lines (strings!) vibrating and tumbling. These strings are so small that they are smaller than the extra dimensions. This means that they can actually move & rotate through all 11 dimensions, not just the usual four. (By analogy, think of a rat in a sewer - it is small enough to travel up any drainpipe, but an aligator would be trapped in just the main pipe and could only go forwards or backwards).

The movement of the strings through the fifth & sixth dimensions create the electromagnetic fields, just as Kaluza & Klein had suggested. However, the size & "shape" of those dimensions defines how electromagetism behaves and how strong these forces are.

The other five dimensions define the behaviour of the other two forces.

Each of those seven dimensions could have some quite weird shapes. For instance, a particle may have to go all the way around some dimension several times to get back to the place it started.

The dimensions can also get wrapped around each other in complex ways. Consider a piece of paper where all the edges are wrapped back onto the opposite sides. This could form either a sphere, or a torus (donut), or a klein bottle, etc. Multiple dimensions can form much more complex shapes, and these shapes all affect how the various forces behave.

By very crude estimates, there might be 10-to-the-500 (one hundred million million million [and keep repeating million 80 more times]) different possible configurations of those dimensions, and we exist in just one of them.



This caused much disappointment to the theorists. They had been desperate to find a theory which could pontificate that the various forces had to have exactly the strengths that we observe. Instead they had a theory which said all of the strengths & properties could have any random value, depending on the properties of the fifth, sixth & other dimensions.



Why was this so disappointing?

There are many aspects of the laws of our universe which seem incredibly finely "chosen" to allow us (ie some intelligent observer) to exist. If neutrons did not exist, then no atom more complex than hydrogen could form. If the electromagnetic forces were much weaker or stronger, atoms might not exist, or not be built up to more complex forms inside stars. If the weak force had a different value, then antimatter might have destroyed all matter during the Big Bang, or supernovae might not occur to disperse those complex atoms to make planets & our bodies. If the gravitational forces were much weaker or stronger, then galaxies and stars would never form, or stars would burn out in days instead of aeons. If inflation was much stronger, then the universe would have gone straight from Bang to Rip without forming any matter first. If inflation was much weaker (or negative), then the Big Bang would have collapsed during the first nanosecond. There are far too many such examples for comfort - the universe almost seems to have been designed for us.

The value which is most difficult to explain relates to the energy of the vacuum (also known as Zero Point energy, as referred to by someone in a recent post).

The vacuum is not empty. Even in "empty" space, "virtual" particles are constantly being created & then destroyed again (because of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principal). Although these are only temporary or "virtual" particles, they still have mass & energy while they exist. The total of this is the vacuum energy.

According to standard quantum mechanics, the vacuum energy should be extraordinarily high - 10-to-the-120th times higher than is actually observed. (This has been described as the least successful prediction in the whole history of physics). Although various factors could "conspire" to reduce the "standard" value, the coincidence necessary to reduce it by 120 orders of magnitude is absurd.



The question therefore becomes "why does our universe have exactly the right properties of the seven hidden dimensions to make our universe habitable?"

Of course, one could say that God made it that way, but there is also another possibility, and that is the "result" I mentioned previously.



Each different configuration of the hidden dimensions has a different value for the vacuum energy. This extra mass / energy affects the shape of the universe (as mentioned above).

Imagine a universe somewhere that has the maximum possible value for the vacuum energy (the "standard quantum mechanics" value). From what I understand, such a universe would undergo a permanent Rip much more violent even than our own forthcoming Big Rip.

At some infinitesimal point in this universe, one of those hidden dimensions might suddenly undergo a twist or a change - for instance, at that spot maybe you now only need to go around that dimension nine times instead of ten, or its diameter gets slightly bigger or smaller. This spot would have different laws of physics than the space around it, a slightly lower value for its vacuum energy (such a transition can never go to something with a higher energy), and a slightly less violent Rip.

This spot will immediately start to expand, although not quite as fast as the space around it.

Basically, this event constitutes the creation of a "child" universe (one of many, in fact) within the "parent" universe. This is what I described in my previous post. To an observer within a child universe, the creation event presumably appears as a Big Bang. This universe would be just as uninhabitable as its parent (due to the Rip) but (perhaps over a period of billions or trillions of years) the Child will spawn various Grandchildren dotted throughout its volume, each with again slightly lower values of vacuum energy, and a slightly less violent Rip.

After this repeats countless times, with each Child being slightly less violent than the Parent, we can end up creating universes with a vacuum energy 10-to-the-120 times smaller than the maximum value, ie the value that we observe. In fact, there are many possible configurations with the same vacuum energy as our universe, and they will all exist somewhere "out there" (although not all will be inhabitable).

Note that all of the child universes of a particular parent will inherit the parent's properties, except each will have some small random mutation(s).

One may have slightly stronger gravity, another may have a slightly different list of particle types, the particles may have slightly different masses, or the speed of light may be different. Each of the Grandchildren will again be a mutation of the particular Child that spawned them.

The similarities to asexual reproduction & evolution on Earth (eg bacteria) are striking. I guess there is even a form of selection - that a universe must exist (either without collapsing back to a Big Crunch, or by going through Big Bounces) long enough to spawn children.



The picture that we end up with, is of the Earth at the centre of the "visible universe" - a sphere nearly 100 billion light years across, which is a tiny part of the universe which was created by our big bang. A series of universes are "nested" outside our own, surrounding us with shell after concentric shell of parents, grandparents and great grandparents, possibly going back through trillions of generations back to the "progenitor" universe.

As well as this chain of ancestors, there will also be a vast family tree of Aunt/Uncle universes (siblings of our Parent, Grandparent, etc...) & Cousin universes (Children & Grandchildren of our various Aunts/Uncles).

That's some image, I reckon.



If this is the true picture, then it may also tell us of the fate of our own part of our universe. We are not in any sort of "final" configuration. It is just as likely that at random points within our universe the configuration may again decay to some lower value, and Children will be spawned. Those Children will expand outwards and consume huge parts (but probably not all) of our universe.

One can hope this will never happen to our area of space, at least until billions of years in the future, but it could happen to us tomorrow. If it did, we might not see the Child expanding towards us, just be suddenly destroyed by it.

Even though the Child may destroy our part of this universe, it may itself be inhabitable, although possibly in quite different ways to our own. We would not survive being engulfed, however.



By this method, cosmologists have envisaged a scheme where every one of the 10-to-the-500 possible configurations exists as multiple universes throughout the multiverse.

That is such an extraordinary range of possiblities that it guarantees that many universes (some like ours, some very different) will exist which are conducive to life.



Now, does that make you feel small???

cheers, Martin

Great!

Recommended reading feding into the discussion from Martin is.

"just Six numbers" by Martin Reese, who penned this quote:

"As the start of the twenty-first century, we have identified six numbers that seem especially significant. Two of them relate to the basic forces; two fix the size and overall 'texture' of our Universe and determine whether it will continue for ever; and two more fix the properties of space itself:

These six numbers constitute a 'recipe' for a universe. Moreover, the outcome is sensitive to their values: if any one of them were to be 'untuned', there would be no stars and no life. Is this tuning just a brute fact, a coincidence? Or is it the providence of a benign Creator? I take the view that it is neither. An infinity of other universes may well exist where the numbers are different. Most would be stillborn or sterile. We could only have emerged (and therefore we naturally now find ourselves) in a universe with the 'right' combination. This realisation offers a radically new perspective on our Universe, on our place in it, and on the nature of physical laws.

For example: The cosmic number omega = 1 measures the amount of material in our Universe - galaxies, diffuse gas, and 'dark matter'. Omega tells us the relative importance of gravity and expansion energy in the Universe. A universe within which omega was too high would have collapsed long ago; had omega been too low, no galaxies would have formed. The inflationary theory of the Big Bang says omega should be one; astronomers have yet to measure its exact value.

It is astonishing that an expanding universe, whose starting point is so 'simple' that it can be specified by just a few numbers, can evolve (if these numbers are suitable tuned) into our intricately structured cosmos."

For a longer read of this go to First Science

Oh how insignificant we are. just a roll of the cosmic dice. I wonder how many times the numbers have been slightly changed and the universe resulting or not, was so very very different. Maybe you could argue that without the right numbers you get "nothing"

regards
geoff

Martin,

As always, an exceptionally clear and interesting read. You have painted nice pictures of what where we might fit, within the "bigger" picture. And yes, the picture it paints makes me feel small, but not small enough!!!!!!!!(IMHO)

Now the next bit is going to sound like trivial, irritating, nit-picking, (and I do apologise becuase i find what you write so facinating and believable) but....

quote:

The vacuum is not empty. Even in "empty" space, "virtual" particles are constantly being created & then destroyed again (because of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principal). Although these are only temporary or "virtual" particles, they still have mass & energy while they exist. The total of this is the vacuum energy.

According to standard quantum mechanics, the vacuum energy should be extraordinarily high - 10-to-the-120th times higher than is actually observed. (This has been described as the least successful prediction in the whole history of physics). Although various factors could "conspire" to reduce the "standard" value, the coincidence necessary to reduce it by 120 orders of magnitude is absurd.

In the first paragraph, the bit in brackets "(because of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principal)" is typical of the way many scientists (and others) express things that sends an involuntary shiver down my spine. I am absolutely certain that "the vacum is not empty.... destroyed again" because of the Heisenburg Uncertainty Principal)(*). Rather, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principal predicts that The vacum will not be empty.......etc etc. In other words, the Universe/Multiverse/Whatever is what it is, and scientists (and theologians) keep comming up with brilliant ideas to descibe it and predict bits of it that we can't (yet) observe or measure.

In the second paragraph "According to standard quantum mechanics, the vacum should be....(more) than actually observed" suggests two immediate possibilities - quantum mechanics ain't a very good model, or the observations ain't very good. Of course it could be both etc etc. And this is true of an awful lot of our models and measurements. But don't stop searching/refining!!!!

I read the "just six numbers" a little while back. Left me imagining infinite universes/multiverses/whatever each with slight variations. Some with life like ours, or similar; some with life very different to ours; some simply unimaginabley different with/without life; some so different that to refer to life/emptyness/time would be simply pointless.

But overall, I am left with a feeling of insignificance, wonder, joy, despair, curiosity.........

Cheers

Don

(*) just to complete the irritation, should Principal be Principle? [i never was any good at English, as my spelling demonstrates]

And apologies again for picking just a tiny lttle bit of your post to use as an illustration of a point of principle.

I've lent my copy of 'Just six numbers' to a friend. Must get it back.

Mark

quote:

Originally posted by Don Atkinson:
Martin,

As always, an exceptionally clear and interesting read. You have painted nice pictures of what where we might fit, within the "bigger" picture. And yes, the picture it paints makes me feel small, but not small enough!!!!!!!!(IMHO)

Don,

many thanks. Positive comments on the previous posts encouraged me to pen this one.

quote:

Now the next bit is going to sound like trivial, irritating, nit-picking, (and I do apologise becuase i find what you write so facinating and believable) but....

Hardly. I filled in the broad strokes whilst hoping that the mental images generated are as similar to mine as possible. Whilst I can't claim to be more than an interested layman in these subjects, I hope I have gathered an accurate mental picture over the years of how our world came to be, and the underlying mechanics of how it operates.

quote:

quote:

The vacuum is not empty. Even in "empty" space, "virtual" particles are constantly being created & then destroyed again (because of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principal). Although these are only temporary or "virtual" particles, they still have mass & energy while they exist. The total of this is the vacuum energy.

According to standard quantum mechanics, the vacuum energy should be extraordinarily high - 10-to-the-120th times higher than is actually observed. (This has been described as the least successful prediction in the whole history of physics). Although various factors could "conspire" to reduce the "standard" value, the coincidence necessary to reduce it by 120 orders of magnitude is absurd.

In the first paragraph, the bit in brackets "(because of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principal)" is typical of the way many scientists (and others) express things that sends an involuntary shiver down my spine. I am absolutely certain that "the vacum is not empty.... destroyed again" because of the Heisenburg Uncertainty Principal)(*). Rather, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principal predicts that The vacum will not be empty.......etc etc. In other words, the Universe/Multiverse/Whatever is what it is, and scientists (and theologians) keep comming up with brilliant ideas to descibe it and predict bits of it that we can't (yet) observe or measure.

In 1948, physicist Hendrik Casimir formulated an experiment which could detect the energy of the vacuum, if it existed.

49 years later (in 1997) this "Casimir Effect" was experimentally demonstrated, and proved the existence of Vacuum Energy.



How did this work?

The "virtual" particles which constitute the vacuum energy will be created with a wide range of energies.

A particle with lower energy has a longer wavelength.

If you have two parallel metal plates close together, then particles with an electomagnetic wavelength longer than the gap cannot exist between those plates.

The vast majority of virtual particles have wavelengths far too small to be measured by any feasible experiment, and those which aren't would have very little energy. However, another experiment reported in 2001 showed that when the "plates" (or in this case, a plate & a cantilever) are less then 0.003 mm apart, there is less vacuum energy inside the aparatus than there is outside (and by approximately the estimated amount).

This diagram from Wikipedia shows an exagerated version, with no large waves able to form within the cavity, and therefore an imbalance between cavity & outside.

quote:

In the second paragraph "According to standard quantum mechanics, the vacuum [energy] should be....(more) than actually observed" suggests two immediate possibilities - quantum mechanics ain't a very good model, or the observations ain't very good.

Hmm, bad phrasing on my part, I think. Quantum Mechanics doesn't specify exactly what the value should be.

There are a number of factors which should add and subtract to form the actual figure. The calculation of exactly what those factors should be is currently beyond us, but we might expect that the result will be somewhere fairly close to the various figures that go into the calculation.

As an analogy, imagine an economy where you can spend any fraction of a pound that you wish, not just pennies.

Suppose that you worked freelance on a weird contract where you had no idea how much you would be paid at the end of the week until you saw your wage slip. Nevertheless, you spend whatever random amount you have to to live for that week, and hope that you come out with a profit at the end:-

If you saw the following, you wouldn't think it bizarre:-

Expenses:-  £588.23476349263923472340891237642357634591281230912812309123098410307
Wages:-     £714.81470373957028465021987587623489712362348975234988887147980820406
Remainder:- £126.57994024693104992681096349981132077771067744322176578024882410101

If you saw this result you would think "bloody hell, what a fix":-

Expenses:-  £714.31948576786234092135876234876234878725872398723474869491231717593
Wages:-     £714.31948576786234092135876234876234878725872398723474869491231824563
Remainder:- £  0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000106970

[These examples are only similar for the first 60 decimal places, but we are talking of 120 digits cancelling in the real world).



Theorists guessed, from the same reasonable principles you'd apply to your bank account, that the "remainder" after adding/subtracting many figures together (not just two as in the examples above) wouldn't be vastly different from the figures that went in.

Unfortunately, this guess at the ballpark amount of the "remainder" could not be correct, because such a universe would not support life, and it seemed utterly improbably that the figures would cancel to the necessary degree by chance.

The "Anthropic Principal" suggests that we must live in a universe that can support our existence. There are several versions of this principal, with different philosophical implications.



The Weak Anthropic Principle basically says that if the universe didn't have the right properties, we wouldn't exist, which would be hard luck on us. However, we do exist, so ain't it lucky the "right" universe was created from the Big Bang.



The Strong Anthropic Principle basically says that so many universes exist in the multiverse that one of them was bound to have suitable properties eventually. This theory predated the "string landscape" expounded in my post above, but is the same idea without the "how" explained.



The Final Anthropic Principle basically says that an "intelligent observer" is necessary to "collapse the waveform of the universe". This one's a bit tricky!

This means that when the universe was created, it had the possibility of many different sets of laws.

Rather than choosing any one set of laws, all possibilities co-existed in a shadowy situation known as the "superposition of states", made famous by the Schrodinger's Cat thought experiment.

This means that "our" universe existed purely as a potential (rather than a solid fact) at the same time that all other "possible" universes also existed as competing "potentials". Each potential universe evolved side-by-side until one of them gave rise to an "intelligence". The intelligence would then "collapse the waveform" (cause to be real) the entire universe which had given rise to it, at the same time as eliminating all the other possibilities (causing them never to have existed).

Bollocks, if you ask me (but they didn't...) People simply want to have their impact on the universe, and what could be more impactful that causing it to exist?

It does seem to be another valid way for an unlikely combimation of factors to "conspire" to form life. [There is also an alternative "many worlds" interpretation of this, which I may expand later).

quote:

Of course it could be both etc etc. And this is true of an awful lot of our models and measurements. But don't stop searching/refining!!!!

A few years ago, cosmologists were convinced that the fate of the universe was related only to the density of matter & energy within it. Recently, they've discovered that inflation (anti-gravity) plays its part, too.

Scientists know that Quantum Theory & General Relativity cannot be the final answers, because they contradict each other in certain ways, whilst neither has ever failed to make a correct prediction. (The Vacuum Energy thing was a guess rather than a prediction).

String Theory, Loop Quantum Gravity, etc are possibly better & more fundamental descriptions of the universe, and the energu which has gone into this searching/refining is extraordinary.

quote:

I read the "just six numbers" a little while back. Left me imagining infinite universes/multiverses/whatever each with slight variations. Some with life like ours, or similar; some with life very different to ours; some simply unimaginabley different with/without life; some so different that to refer to life/emptyness/time would be simply pointless.

Yes, that is my mental image of things, too.

quote:

(*) just to complete the irritation, should Principal be Principle? [i never was any good at English, as my spelling demonstrates]

Yup!

quote:

And apologies again for picking just a tiny lttle bit of your post to use as an illustration of a point of principle.

All feedback appreciated.



cheers, Martin

'Professor Stephen Hawking told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that scientists may be within 20 years of reaching his prediction in A Brief History of Time that mankind would one day "know the mind of God" by understanding all the laws which govern the universe'.

What a blooming idiot!

I think Martin will reach that point well before 20 years.

Cheers

Don

(and for the avoidance of doubt, I'm not at all suggesting that Martin is an idiot)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Don Atkinson:
I think Martin will reach that point well before 20 years.


Sadly not. Martin likes to bang on about string theory as if there is some experimental evidence for its validity as a correct description of reality, in fact it is completely devoid of any experimental evidence whatsoever.

Anyone who doubts what I say would do well to read Peter Woit's book 'Not even wrong'. String theory is mathematical speculation (perhaps even masturbation)and not science. For example the physical scale that strings are said to operate (i.e. beneath the plank limit)is completely beyond any possible experimental investigation and thus lies within the realm of pure fantasy.

I asked a question which he clearly could not answer and instead droned on about issues not relevant to the question and all kinds of other stuff I am completely familiar with and which I did not ask about.

Not Even Wrong: The Failure of String Theory & the Continuing Challenge to Unify the Laws of Physics

Not Even Wrong - Author's website

What 'Not Even Wrong' means

quote:

Originally posted by acad tsunami:

quote:

Originally posted by Don Atkinson:
I think Martin will reach that point well before 20 years.


Sadly not. Martin likes to bang on about string theory as if there is some experimental evidence for its validity as a correct description of reality, in fact it is completely devoid of any experimental evidence whatsoever.

Excuse me. In one of my other posts I said that:-

quote:

Scientists know that Quantum Theory & General Relativity cannot be the final answers, because they contradict each other in certain ways, whilst neither has ever failed to make a correct prediction... String Theory, Loop Quantum Gravity, etc are possibly better & more fundamental descriptions of the universe, and the energu which has gone into this searching/refining is extraordinary.

(Italics & bold added for emphasis).

I hope you will agree this makes exactly your point (although not very obviously to a layman).

I have seen a number of suggestions for string theory effects which may be experimentally tested.

It is conceivable that the LHC will find evidence for a fifth dimension (by detection of micro black holes), or supersymetric particles, for instance. Of course, neither would be a specific proof of string theory.

If it is discovered that the "constants" of nature (eg speed of light) have changed over time, then this would also lend some support, since string theory has a mechanism to explain how such changes may be caused. Of course, there has already been one claimed detection of a change to the fine structure constant, but one must take these things with a pinch of salt until confirmed.

IIRC, when Einstein published General Relativity, the only evidence that Newtonian gravity was insufficient was the precession of the orbit of Mercury, and it took decades for much evidence to be produced. (There was an observation of gravitational bending of light by the sun in 1919, but it is disputed whether this really demonstrated anything).

quote:

String theory is mathematical speculation (perhaps even masturbation)and not science. For example the physical scale that strings are said to operate (i.e. beneath the plank limit)is completely beyond any possible experimental investigation and thus lies within the realm of pure fantasy.

I've never heard it suggested that strings are smaller than the Planck limit. Indeed ISTR that M-theory suggests that anything smaller than the Plank limit in one of the five variations of string theory is equivalent to a larger-than-Planck size in the complimentary variation.

There is no doubt, though, that directly accessing the Planck scale is far beyond any conceivable experiment.

quote:

I asked a question which he clearly could not answer and instead droned on about issues not relevant to the question and all kinds of other stuff I am completely familiar with and which I did not ask about.

I can't know what you're already familiar with!

Anyway, I presume you are referring to :-

quote:

Originally posted by acad tsunami:

quote:

Originally posted by Martin Payne:

the latest results from String Theory suggest that our Big Bang may have happened inside a "parent" universe

Hello Martin,

The latest 'results'? Can you explain the use of this word here? What are these 'results' the result of?

My posting was intended to be a direct answer (with historical perspective) to what I took to be a simple question, ie in what way does "String Theory suggest that our Big Bang may have happened inside a "parent" universe". If you wanted me to critique String Theory instead of explaining it, your question might have been a little less cryptic!

Can you please clarify what you were looking for here?

Theorists do seem to be at an impasse with String Theory - needing either a major new idea to send them off in a new direction, or some evidence to direct speculation.

It is also my understanding that String Theory cannot be a Theory of Everything because it does not actually include a description of what space-time is - it simply takes it for granted and then describes things which exist in space.

Loop Quantum Gravity sounds interesting to fill this hole, although in its current form it doesn't seem to describe much other than empty space and its variability at the planck scale, Newtonian (and, apparently, General Relativity) gravity, & possibly an explanation of what a particle/string actually is (ie a braid in spacetime).

cheers, Martin

PS I will be incommunicado until Tuesday. I've printed off a few of Mr Woit's articles from arXiv & elsewhere, so perhaps by the time I come back I'll have a better idea of what he's trying to say (or maybe not, we'll see!)

Well, one thing is for sure. I find Martin's explanations of various theories interesting, easy to read and understand. Whether I agree with what he says is completely separate. I can't conduct experiments to decide one way or the other and I doubt whether many others on this forum could either.

As to "conclusions" eg there is only one universe; God can't possibly exist; the speed of light is constant and always was/will be etc etc....well, we can all speculate, including Martin.

We don't need to fall out about it or get upset.

Cheers

Don

The final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God.

The argument goes something like this:

'I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, 'for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'

"'But,' says Man, 'The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.'

"'Oh dear,' says God, 'I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly vanished in a puff of logic. "

And:

It is known that there are an infinite number of worlds, simply because there is an infinite amount of space for them. However, not every one of them is inhabited. Therefore, there must be a finite number of inhabited worlds. Any finite number divided by infinity is as near to nothing as makes no odds, so the average population of all the planets in the Universe can be said to be zero. From this it follows that the population of the whole Universe is also zero, and that any people you may meet from time to time are merely the products of a deranged imagination.

Simple really.

Jamie,

I'm not entirely convinced but amusing nonetheless.

Acad