Image: SLIM FILMS
In Brief
- Multiple other universes—each with its own laws of physics—may have emerged from the same primordial vacuum that gave rise to ours.
- Assuming they exist, many of those universes may contain intricate structures and perhaps even some forms of life.
- These findings suggest that our universe may not be as “finely tuned” for the emergence of life as previously thought.
The typical Hollywood action hero skirts death for a living. Time and again, scores of bad guys shoot at him from multiple directions but miss by a hair. Cars explode just a fraction of a second too late for the fireball to catch him before he finds cover. And friends come to the rescue just before a villain’s knife slits his throat. If any one of those things happened just a little differently, the hero would be hasta la vista, baby. Yet even if we have not seen the movie before, something tells us that he will make it to the end in one piece.
In some respects, the story of our universe resembles a Hollywood action movie. Several physicists have argued that a slight change to one of the laws of physics would cause some disaster that would disrupt the normal evolution of the universe and make our existence impossible. For example, if the strong nuclear force that binds together atomic nuclei had been slightly stronger or weaker, stars would have forged very little of the carbon and other elements that seem necessary to form planets, let alone life. If the proton were just 0.2 percent heavier than it is, all primordial hydrogen would have decayed almost immediately into neutrons, and no atoms would have formed. The list goes on.
This article was originally published with the title Looking for Life in the Multiverse.
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
See what we're tweeting about
69 Comments
Add CommentGiven that we rrally do NOT understand physics and that all we have is incomplete theories that don't work fully, how can anyone say anything like this with a straight face?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA hypothesis is a hypothesis. Play with the math and see what happens. Politicians and economists say far more preposterous things everyday with a straight face but they assert that what they say is the 'truth.' This is just a theory and honest about it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow that weve progressed so far that we no longer have to consider whether unknown universes exist, we can spend our time speculating about their characteristics. No need to worry about the physical manifestation of quantum mass anymore we can be confused at a higher level about more important things& I heard that girls outnumber boys on Multiverse 12, and that geeks are cool&
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The real challenge, then, may be to explain why we do not live in a weakless universe."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMaybe because we live in the universe we live in- it is what it is.
"Our own work, however, does cast some doubt on the usefulness of anthropic reasoning"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo the universe doesn't care about us? What a surprise...
"The laws of physicsand in particular the constants of nature that enter into those laws, such as the strengths of the fundamental forcesmight therefore seem finely tuned to make our existence possible. Short of invoking a supernatural explanation..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis sentence is indicative of exactly the kind of faulty logic that allows supernatural theology to flourish unchecked throughout civilization. This statement assumes that life was "intended." In reality, any one of those small changes could have existed and we simply wouldn't be here to know about it.
The argument is: The Universe is this way, therefore life exists; not: Life exists, therefore the Universe is this way.
Philosophically, infinite universes makes more sense since how can one universe with a finite space be all there is? Finite Space in what? That makes no sense. Infinite universes do make sense, as true "space" has to be infinitely uncountable. Hugh Everett will most likely have the last laugh.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPhilosophically, infinite universes makes more sense since how can one universe with a finite space be all there is? Finite Space in what? That makes no sense. Infinite universes do make sense, as true "space" has to be infinitely uncountable. Hugh Everett will most likely have the last laugh.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOver-speculation ought not be the main business of science.
When words like "maybe", "perhaps" and "assume" are used too often, they tend to become meaningless if not unscientific.
There must be infinity,otherwise what is this universe expanding into,as for the laws if they were different there wouldn't be anyone to know to the difference.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPhysically, if no signal can be either sent or received beyond the boundary of our own universe, then in reality it makes no difference whether other universes exist or not. Until physical evidence can be presented that other universes impinge upon our own, unbounded speculation is futile, regardless of any mathematical game results. I suggest these efforts be redirected to enhance our continued survival in the known universe, lest we fail at that.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@jack.123
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI understand what you're saying, and I think I might be able to to point you in a different direction.
A lot of people struggle with the whole 'infinity' thing. Notions like, "The Universe must be mathematically infinite, because if it wasn't then what's on the other side?"
The thing is, when people refer to "the Universe" they're often referring to two different ideas without realizing the discrepancy. Some folks refer to EVERYTHING, including all the empty space, as the Universe. Some people, however, are referring to the amount of space (outer space) that expansion has actually taken matter/energy into. Usually science is referring to the latter.
Meaning, outer space is literally "nothing." There is no gas or matter in the "blank" areas of space. If you imagine a rock hitting the water, and ripples emanating out from that center then you have a fairly good analogy of the Universe. Everything outside of the outermost ripple (where the ripple has not yet reached) is "nothing." "Nothing" is the default.
So, technically, the Universe is not infinite, because it is still expanding. Theoretically, you could travel straight out to the very edge of the Universe, and then continue past it into an area of outer space in which nothing exists, or has ever existed. Sooner or later, the Universe will catch up with you and surround you with galaxies, but for now, you're all alone in "nothing." Of course, technically speaking, just by being there you've added matter to the mix and now the Universe DOES exist in that space (because you do.)
I have no idea if that makes sense to the casual reader - I tried to state it as simply as possible. I love that people are interested in this, though... it gives me hope for the future of scientific exploration.
Regards,
Michael
@Michael
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA very clearly put explanation Michael, but unfortunately wrong.
The Universe is not expanding into empty space, rather, space within the Universe is expanding. We may never know whether the Universe is infinite, however, because the VISIBLE Universe is bounded by the distance light has travelled in the 13.4 billion years since the Universe became transparent, around 300,000 years after the big bang.
A common analogy is to compare our three dimensional view of space with the two dimensional view of an ant crawling on a spotty balloon. If the balloon is inflated, the distance between spots increases, so the ant reasonably (though falsely) considers itself to be at the centre of the expansion. The ant could crawl in a straight line for its whole lifetime and never encounter an edge to this expansion, even though the surface area of the balloon is finite.
If the balloon is REALLY big, the ant could not travel fast enough to ever reach its starting point. In our case, unless the Universe ever contracts again, light itself does not travel fast enough to ever "circumnavigate" a finite expanding Universe.
Regards
Ian
Michael F – I’m a very casual guy, but is your view of a material universe expanding into nothingness supported by current evidence?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs I understand, space, or distance, within our universe, between all galaxies, is expanding, not just some peripheral edge of matter spilling into a preexisting external space that had previously been outside our material, and spatial, universe.
Also, as I understand, quantum particles continuously materialize and are detected as they collide with their antiparticles, annihilating each other, releasing energy. Presuming that the particles must have appeared through some conversion of energy permeating space, even though that space may effectively qualify as materially empty, it seems as though it should not be considered as a complete void. That space contains energy that may be converted into matter seems to indicate that any detected outer space must also be mathematically considered an essential component contained within the boundaries of our universe.
We tend to conceive of the universe spatially, that is, the most distant observed objects occupy the spatial periphery of the universe. However, it should be realized that those observations actually represent the conditions of the much earlier universe, which must have been dimensionally smaller, and do not represent any current spatial periphery. The current spatial periphery of the universe is, theoretically, unobservable and therefore not realistically conceivable.
Theoretically, or more correctly, hypothetically, the action of anyone travelling beyond any boundary of our universe must be considered as an extension of our universe, not as a trip outside our universe.
In my experience, theoreticians often mathematically represent real processes, omitting essential factors, presenting their results as evidence of some assertion, reviewed only by similarly theoretical mathematicians. I am hopeful that critical analysis will not be omitted from future scientific research.
I should add to my previous post:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt was reported some time back (may have been in this magazine - "Universe is Football Shaped?" or something similar) that astronomers were analysing patterns of ancient galaxy formation, looking for matching patterns on opposite sides of the visible universe.
If found, this could be evidence for the Universe being finite.
Ian
I find it astonishing that physicists have only just discovered multi-factorial analysis. This was developed, for agricultural research, by R A Fisher in the 1920's. Since the 1980's it has become quite common in engineering, both in research and in manufacturing. A good introductory textbook is Douglas Montgomery "Design and analysis of Experiments".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy name is Luis Cano, I'm from Colombia and I want to share a thought. I've been thinking if there is a needing of dark matter explanation as a particle or something. I belive that force does not come from this universe matter, maybe are the influence of other universe's matter at a single point here in our universe.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this�could this be useful to connect the quantum world and multiple paths with the gravity force?
I have to confess I'm a Lawyer, but I'll love science whole my life.
Very interesting theoretical speculation. But I think that there could be many universes that are almost exactly like this one, kind of like that show Sliders from a while back. Why would the laws have to be vastly different? I think there could be universe pockets ad infinitum with the same laws as the one we exist in currently Anyway, every decision and point in our lives may be breaking off creating a new universe pocket right along with ours. Everything is connected.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTHE question is (at least to me it is): In what respects is the multiverse (or What Is going on) infinite, and in what respects is it limited?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNothing unreal exists.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you think so, prove it.
I am fully aware of Scientific American's brief on stories like this: an austere presentation of the facts. But really, is it necessary that this piece not only kill all the poetry and mystery of this topic, but stomp on the corpse ' til it's just a greasy spot in the road?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJack.123--that's a common misconeption. Space isn't expanding into anything. It's space itself that's expanding, that is, more of it is coming into existence over time. And it's also true that more and more "dark energy" is being created as the universe expands.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEllen Jackson, author
THE MYSTERIOUS UNIVERSE
I think it is a heck of a lot easier to believe that God created the universe than it is to believe we just popped out perfect.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe big bang theory has holes in it the size of China.
My God doesn't have any holes.
I think it's much easier to believe that God created everything and holds it together just the way it supposed to be, than it is to believe that we just popped out of nowhere.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe big bang theory is filled with so many holes it looks like Swiss Cheese.
My Go doesn't do holes. :)
"The whole world is you, though you keep thinking there is something else."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHsueh Feng
"The whole world is you, though you keep thinking there is something else."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHsueh Feng
This all nonsense. Multiverses, multi dimensions, this force that force; and don't get me started on string theory. All invented by scientists to try to make their outlandish theories work. Mankind will never understand what we call the Universe. And the fact that life as we know it exists is no more than a fortuitous accident.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis all nonsense. Multiverses, multi dimensions, this force that force; and don't get me started on string theory. All invented by scientists to try to make their outlandish theories work. Mankind will never understand what we call the Universe. And the fact that life as we know it exists is no more than a fortuitous accident.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI wonder if the authors could comment on the logical consistency of tinkering with the laws of physics. For example if one removes the weak interaction from the standard model is one really left with a self consistent theory? I don't pretend to know but it seems to me that one cannot just arbitrarily throw out or change pieces of physics. Suppose we decide that we are going to throw out magnetic forces. I believe that this would violate the special theory of relativity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMultiple other universeseach with its own laws of physicsmay have emerged from the same primordial vacuum&
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEvery single day, in countless examples, one finds scientists and scientific writers not excluding the sanctified Stephen Hawking making statements that their own intelligence, such as it is, should forbid. And when challenged particularly about the so-called Big Bang they resort to intellectually fascist defences - such as the one I regularly encounter, when I ask simple, relevant and logical questions such as: What exploded in the Big Bang? , or What existed before the Big Bang? - which go along the lines That is an illegitimate question.
Now we have a writer who blithely tells us that multiple universes emerged from a primordial vacuum . But nothing can emerge from a vacuum, if indeed it is a vacuum. Isnt that a blindingly obvious objection to this inane proposition? The writers addition of the word primordial is nothing but a portentous attempt to pretend to be saying something profound. I am lead to believe that cosmologists and physicists are the least qualified people to speculate about the origin or even the purpose of life. Because speculation of this kind is necessarily metaphysical, always has been, and always will be, no matter what advances in human knowledge may be made in the future. Apart from the absurdity of the proposition that something came from nothing (absurdity, I must hasten to add, if we are having our discussion in the physical realm; it might be worth pondering if we make it in the metaphysical realm), even more absurd is the notion of a primordial vacuum , whatever that may be, for in the physical universe that we inhabit, vacuums are always contained by matter. Moreover, why should there be any logic or intelligence or common sense in the speculation that the non-being state of our universe would be a vacuum?
I also challenge the worthless anthropic principle that our universe has been fine-tuned in order to create the universe we inhabit. This assumes that the human universe we inhabit was an intended consequence of an early universe, rather than a co-incidental outcome. It can happen, as we know, that if I leave my home for a foreign city, I can by an apparently miraculous co-incidence, bump into a friend from my home town. Calculated as an intended outcome, the co-incidence represents odds of a staggering unlikeliness. But it was of course no more an intended outcome than the current universe is an intended outcome. It is the same conceptual error as the one made by creationists, who look at the complexity of say an eye, and declare that evolution could never have caused so complex and remarkable an organ. Their amazement would be justified only if nature had set out to create an eye many millions of years ago. Of course, it didnt.
Village Idiot, you don't actually know whether the universe set out to develop the eye or not. Your contention that "of course, it didn't" is an untestable speculation which may be compatible with the statistical arguments about the rate of evolution over time, but correlation does not prove causation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't like the term "intelligent design." I use "intentional" design but what I really mean is that there is an inherent impetus built into all matter to produce life and in fact to eventually produce intelligent life. This impulse-to-intelligence is so strong that I would expect all extraterrestial life to progress to intelligence even if it employs radically different bio-chemical pathways to do it, and I would expect life to exist in parallel universes even if other physical laws and constants are different.
The miracle of the eye actually used to make Darwin physically ill, it upset him so much. However, you certainly can argue that anything can develop incrementally given a sufficiently long time. The better counter-argument from my point of view is that the eye is only one of a myriad miracles it took to produce myself, my computer, and the Internet this morning.
First, the first cell had to form, with a cell wall already smart enough to let wanted items in and to excrete unwanted things. Then within the cell there had to be a memory unit to hold the instructions for building the proteins that would be needed and even capable of building a new, baby memory unit so that the cell can reproduce. Also within the first cell there has to be the factory units that carry out the plans from the memory unit, and transportation units that accurate deliver in-put materials in a timely manner and whisk away the finished products.
Imagine that you have a vast enclosed factory floor, totally empty, and in the middle sits a HewlitPackard w2007 PC like mine and it has programs in it capable of building an exact copy of itself, plus the factory itself, plus all the forges, self-driving forklifts, milling machines, welders, paint department, insulators, capacitors, resistors, circuit boards, and a myriad other things.
My computer is probably up to the task and computers have evolved remarkably rapidly in the past century. However, the computers were helped out by men who got really rich in some cases doing so.
Besides the first cell there are the miracles of oxygen freeing and nitrogen fixing bacteria, the rotary flagellum, immune systems to police intruders, and so many parts which multi-task on time to an amazing extent.
The physical move will have a lot in this matter. In addition to the complex nature that we live there are other universes with other different characteristics that are interwoven each with its own peculiarities, that is beyond matter that exists in our universe there are several ways to express other universe as if they were "overlapping." Several phenomena tell us lead us to realize that there is something beyond matter and when we begin to better understand him some answers are emerging that help understand the "unexplained or supernatural."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOverall a very interesting article. I enjoy these types of thought. Some things I would like to comment on though would be
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The real challenge, then, may be to explain why we do not live in a weakless universe."
I would disagree with this being a challenge. As we can see with our universe, having the weak force present allows for life to evolve equally as well as in a weakless universe. It is simply a matter of chance that we ended up with a Universe that allows life and has a weak force. In conclusion it could have gone either way, this "model" simply works just as well and we happened to form in it.
Another statement I would like to make, and I realise is quite possibly more philosophical than scientific, is the fact that scientists continue to try and tweak the fundamentals of our universe to see what effects they can get, but I have yet to find an article in which scientists talk about the possibility of fundamentals that are completely alien to us. Perhaps other universes are built upon "fundamental laws" that are not even remotely like anything we know. I do understand though that contemplating something like that would be like an observer situated in a "weakless universe" trying to comprehend the mechanics of the weak force, or even soemthing anyone can do, try imagining a colour yo've never seen. Still though it would be nice for this possibility to either be recognised or, if there is any theoretical evidence to rebut this, I would love a link.
Overall a very interesting article. I enjoy these types of thought experiments that go outside the box. Some things I would like to comment on though would be,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The real challenge, then, may be to explain why we do not live in a weakless universe."
I would disagree with this being a challenge. As we can see with our universe, having the weak force present allows for life to evolve equally as well as in a weakless universe. It is simply a matter of chance that we ended up with a universe that allows life and has a weak force. In conclusion it could have gone either way, this "model" simply works just as well and we happened to form in it.
Another statement I would like to make, and I realise is quite possibly more philosophical than scientific, is the fact that scientists continue to try and tweak the fundamentals of our universe to see what effects they can get, but I have yet to find an article in which scientists talk about the possibility of fundamentals that are completely alien to us. Perhaps other universes are built upon "fundamental laws" that are not even remotely like anything we know. I do understand though that contemplating something like that would be like an observer situated in a "weakless universe" trying to comprehend the mechanics of the weak force, or even something anyone can do, try imagining a colour you've never seen. Still though it would be nice for this possibility to either be recognised or, if there is any theoretical evidence to rebut this, I would love a link.
"Philosophically, infinite universes makes more sense since how can one universe with a finite space be all there is? Finite Space in what? That makes no sense. Infinite universes do make sense, as true "space" has to be infinitely uncountable. Hugh Everett will most likely have the last laugh."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthink about this: Finite...Begins and ends
infinite: never begins never ends... agreed?
so by you saying we live in an infinite universe...is to say the universe never began and will never end?
is this what your saying....seriously?
To be strictly empirical, in an Occam's-razor type of way, one must never believe in things not seen (or at least detectable by some test on another.) Cosmologists routinely violate this rule by supposing the the universe must extend much farther than we can actually see, which is only about 13.7 billion years.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThey realize that if the universe is not vastly bigger than what we can see, then the Earth is in an uncannily privileged position, in that we are exactly at the center of the visible universe!
Well, they can't have that. So today's cosmologists became proponents of believing in things not seen of the first order.
They also lecture us that spacetime began with, and accompanied, the creation of matter in the Big Bang. The B.B. did not happen in an "empty" region of space, there was no space at all! There was nothing, then it all started at a "tiny" little point (although with no outside reference points at all, the term "tiny" is totally meaningless.)
Similarly, now that it is know that due to the acceleration of the expansion of the universe, billions of years from now all the existing galaxies will run away out of sight of each other.
Eventually, the large universe we see at the moment will disappear. Even the rest of the Milky Way galaxy will drop out of sight. This may make for a curiously lopsided view of a much smaller visible universe, but some people say that we have a lopsided view already in that the W-map seemed to show a polarized universe.
After billions of years, the ancient tales about other galaxies, long ago and far away, will seem like tribal memories and may not be believed. Towards the end humans will come to see themselves as totally at the center of a small universe, which may be nature's way of spiritually preparing them for the end.
"These finding suggest that our universe may not be as 'finely tuned' . . . ."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat findings? Computer doodles? Speculative musings on the utterly unknowable? This is theology, not science. And scientists wonder in their hubris why the public believes the claim of man made global warming has been cooked up by the rigged computer programs of self-aggrandizing scientists on a quasi-theological mission.
How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat strikes me as the rough equivalent of what these authors have been working on. While I can imagine it might be fun for physicists to speculate about these issues over a beer at the local tavern, I sincerely hope that nobody is actually blowing research money on such a useless topic. It's bad enough that this was included in Sci Am...but to make it the cover story??? Ridiculous.
The universe is both finite and infinite, there is not boundary to how far the universe can continue to expand, it creates an ever changing and morphing boundary. Therefore, the universe is both finite and infinite. The universe doesn't need to conform to a human's evolved logic.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHadron,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI was thinking the same. For logical consistency, it cannot be allowed to modify or remove any law in physics.
A good example is geometry. 3 different geometries (Euclidian, Hyperbolic, Riemann) (each internally consistent) are developed by just changing the same axiom (one of the 5 axioms of Euclid which says the shortest path between 2 points is a straight line).
So for each complete physical theory only the most basic laws (axioms) can be modified; not any arbitrarily selected law in it.
Typo correction:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"For logical consistency, it cannot be allowed to modify or remove any arbitrarily selected law in physics."
As an USAF pilot flying a F-86-D over Germany South of Frankfurt, just after the sun set, I was making a 90 radar pass on my wing may and read a return at 3o,000 ft that when I locked on to it I got my true airspoeed and no angle of drift. I asked the controller at LogRoll Control, the USAF radar controling the air space over wester Europe if they had a contact between my aircraft and my wing man. They said they did, but thought it was interference on their radar screen as it had drifted up to about 30,000 ft from below 10,000 and tey had no known traffic in the air space near us. I got into about 1 mile from gthe object, and even though there was still enough light to see my wing man's aircraft I ci=ould not see the object. After making a 90 turn to the West and a 270 right back towards the radra object I was flying Southerly when I locked my radar on the return on my scope and looked in front of me to try to see the object. At this time it lighted up. It was about 100 ft high and maybe 60 ft wide and pointed on the top and bottom. It was a very strong return and I asked permission to fire on it as it was an unknown in West Germany's airspace and obviously not one of ouers. I was denighes permission to fire and as I got about 2 miles from it still showing my true air speed and no side movement it immediately sped away from me at over 1500 knots, giving it a true air speed of over 2,000 kts. This happened is less than 2 seconds. I followed it towards Munich until in was out to about 6 miles and it stopped then went straight down I followed it until I chickend out at about 10.000 ft. We both were low on fuel so we landed at a base outside Munich and after taking back off we heard Logroll Controll giving several ather scranbled fighters directions trying to locate the radar return we had chased. No one found it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow looking bach on it I beleive it was not a solid object, but an energy force that could be controlled by some one or thing. It could not have had any mass as it could stop ot 30,000 ft and then instantly go 2,000 kts as well as stop and go straight down with no turn radius, There were many witnesses at Logroll control and a similar object is reported to have been chased over England at about the same time.
Think about it: If you want to exprore other planets and solar systems an energy source the you can controll can go at the speed of light ans send back information to it's controller at the speed of light and it does not have the problem of tae energy and life support of sending a solid object. A.O. Greene LTCOL
What modeling & simulation (M&S) software did they use for the graphs & charts in the article "Looking for Life in the Multiverse"?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat types of software did they use to create the models & graphs contained in this article? Where can you go to download some of these modeling & simulation (M&S) programs? I am taking courses, which can be applied to a PhD in M&S & am interested in obtaining these tools.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDo you know what types of modeling & simulation software they used for the graphs in this article?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswe are all each other's aliens. if you were to film a movie with alternate cameras would that produce the same movie? would be cool huh. point is that it is interesting to try to know every perception on a human level but confusing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisStrange is our situation here on earth, everyone comes but for a short visit not knowing why, yet seeming to divine a purpose. Einstein
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthis quote, i think, was given to let one accel his/her own idea of their existence, cause every time you get a group of people talking about it they determine 100 years aint nothin, in every way possible. possibilities may be finite but step back and be relative to your years. you are an observer, use it endlessly. people were put here to map the universe cause we understand it.cause it dont understand us. unless you want to believe in aliens >great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds. Einstein ( its an aweful waste of space, otherwise) we are sitting on a mote of dust in the path of a giant sunbeam. SIMPLIFY only until things have been simplified can we know what they are(simplified=translation) (aliens=co-conspirators)
END of universe is coming
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is an interesting article on the consequences of changes in physical parameters. Our understanding of them seems to be improving.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHowever it cant claim to have much to do with life, since we understand so little about life. We only know one example of it.
For life we need a phenotype, and a genotype, and differential survival. This drives evolution. How do we know that this requires carbon atoms? Do we know that magnetic fields in stars or interstellar clouds can't do this? Do we know that dark matter cant do this?
Until we can put some boundaries on what physical structures can and cant support life processes, we cant use the anthropic principle.
Like string theory, scientific supposition.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLike string theory, scientific supposition.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf multiverse is true and existing we must have some overlaps. Or is it just a drop from the great wall and we see space elongation as CBR, equal expansion rate in all directions?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm really tired of hearing about this issue. It doesn't seem like real, worthwhile science to me. Obviously the weak anthropic principle applies: If the constants weren't just right, and life can't exist, how could there be life to investigate it. It's conjecture and pseudo-science masking as the real thing. I have a feeling that all of the major magazines to which this topic applies, feel the need to throw a bone to the "intelligent design" people, as I'm sure they can bring you some extra revenue. But it greatly decreases your credibility when you pander to the most ignorant sector of society. The whole idea that there is even a possibility of a designer for the universe is just philosophical masturbation at best, and downright dangerous to the intellectual welfare of the country at worst.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI've been reading articles pretty much like this for the last 12 years that I've been studying astronomy, and it's always the same basic thing. It starts out with some facts designed to make you think that something really special and amazing is going on in the universe, then a bunch of pointless conjecture. Look, of course the weak anthropic principle applies: If the constants were different and atoms couldn't form, say, of course there would be no stars, or life, so there would be no one to investigate it it and bla, bla, bla. Computer modeling, where you tweak a few parameters and see what kind of laws you'd end up with, is a fruitless exercise in pseudo-science. What actual, useful or insightful knowledge is ever gained from these studies? None. Conjecture, and unprovable hypothesis may sell magazines, especially to the the irrational, ignorant and scientifically illiterate group that advocates "intelligent design". This is nothing more than Creationism in sheep's clothing. I see no logic whatsoever in pandering to these people. There goal is to discredit the scientific method, and the fact that you'd throw them a bone in the form of an article that even loosely suggests the ludicrous concept of I.D., just makes me take your magazine a little less seriously. This used to be one of the absolute best science magazine, because you didn't dumb it down like the others. But over the last couple years my enthusiasm for reading it each month has virtually disappeared, and that's a shame. If you, and other science news magazines keep pandering to the ignorant, and ignoring you core readership of intelligent, rational, scientifically minded people, you'll be reduced to nothing more than a tabloid.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI just read a couple of very frightening statistics: 50% of people in this country don't know that the Earth revolves around the Sun, and takes a year to do so! And 60% of Americans believe in Noah's ark, literally! Those are frightening numbers to those of us who don't want to live in a world run by a bunch of morons with the intellect of someone from the bronze age. Your magazine has the power to a force of good! Please don't let political correctness, or greed your sole motivating factor.
I have two problems with your article on multiverses. Problem number one. You use computers and programs from this universe to model a different physics of another universe. To give a poor analogy, that is like asking prostitutes what it is like to be President of the United States. Problem number two. You mention that one of the criteria for your considering a different multiverse physics to be valid is if it can sustain life. To give another poor analogy, that is like defining a planet as a planet that has life on it. There are eight other planets in this solar system(including Pluto, because it has a moon) that don't have life and would be excluded from this definition. This universe is no respecter of life, why should your criteria require life?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour January article "Looking for Life in the Multiverse" hints at some basic metaphysical questions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirst, in universal terms, just how big is big? If there are a nearly infinite number of solar systems in our galaxy and nearly infinite of galaxies within our universe does that imply a nearly infinite of universes within the multiverse?
And if this multiverse has an outer limit (call this collection a "megaverse") could it not imply the possible existence of a near infinite number of megaverses (an ultraverse?) organized in some fashion which is in turn organized and on to some ultimate theoretical level?
Second, would not the existence of additional universes "out there" combined with basic Newtonian gravitation offer a far simplier explanation for the accelerating expansion of our universe than the incredible complexities of dark matter?
As a simple model, our own Milky Way has, for billions of years, been engaged in a courtship ritual with the Andromada Galaxy. As the two galaxies near each other, gravitational forces cause them to accelerate and distort. Would not the exact same gravitational forces between multiple universes cause an identical distortion? That is. our universe is not being pushed apart by some mysterious dark force but, rather, being pulled apart by simple gravitational attraction?
Finally, would multiple universes solve the ultimate mystery of the "Big Bang?" Within our own universe there are periodic cataclysmic events known as Novas where, suddently, accumulations of matter explode. If there are indeed multiverses then, by some admittedly unknown physical property, could there not be the equivalent of a Nova that would create an entire new universe? That is, the "big bang" could have been, at the multiverse level, just a minor nova like pop.
Just some thoughts.
Frank Greene
241 Ootsima Way
Loudon, TN
(865) 458-6032
How do you discover if any of the conjectures of "Life in the Multiverse" are true? What can be tested, or observed? Making up a world and showing that mathematically it could have interesting properties seems like science fiction. Perhaps Michael Shermer should review this type of article.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn my balloon inside balloon theory of twin cyclic universes , I have said that each cycle will give birth to a set of laws after every bounce not bigbang and we may a set of laws suitable to our existance by rare chance. Multiverse may not be necessary to assume unless we have definite clues to carry forward that concept. But cyclic twin matter and antimatter universes is reality to search for further clues.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Destropic Principle
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBy Jo�o Carlos Holland de Barcellos
Translated by D�bora Policastro
Abstract: The Destropic Principle is an argument that establishes that every universe is equiprobable, and the possibility of life is not a more special feature than any other. This opposes to the anthropic principle when it is used to argue that there is a necessity for a divinity, or multiple universes, in order to explain the configuration of our universe, particularly, the capability of harboring life.
In order to explain life in our universe, I will refute the anthropic principle when it is used as an argument of the necessity of a deity or multiple universes. I had already outlined this argument in my previous article on the theme, The Anthropic Principle and The Jocaxian-Nothingness [1], but now I intend to go a little deeper in the analysis.
It is not a very intuitive argument, and that is why we should use an analogy to understand the idea behind. But first, I will summarize the anthropic principle and how it is used by creationists and religious people in general to justify God:
Introduction
The physical laws, usually written in the form of mathematical equations, are considered to be responsible for the characteristics of the universe and its evolution in time. These laws, as we know today, are composed by equations in which we can see some numerical constants (parameters). As examples we can cite, among others: the speed of light, the mass of the electron, the electric charge of the proton, etc. [2]
It is argued, without demonstration, that a little alteration (it is not clear what would the magnitude of this alteration be) in any of these constants would make the possibility of life in the universe not feasible. Those who claim that also conclude that a universe created with physical laws generated at random would hardly be able to trigger life.
Handicap
In all fairness, we need to note that a universe with random laws does not need to follow the pattern of physical laws we have in our universe, that is, the mathematical equations that would define a randomly generated universe could be totally different from the ones we have in our current universe (in principle it would not even be necessary to describe such universes through mathematical equations). That way, the parameters we have today would not apply to any of the equations in this random universe. Thus, it is totally FALSE to claim that all possible universes can be described maintaining the same equations of our particular universe and varying only the constants present in them.
However, in order to refute the anthropic principle on its own support base, we should consider true the fact that all possible universes keep the same structure of equations as ours. We also assume that these equations are true, but knowing in advance that this is not true, since there is a theoretical incompatibility between the theory of relativity and the quantum mechanics. Besides that, we also suppose that any alteration in one of the fundamental constants would make the possibility of life impracticable, although no one has shown it yet.
An analogy
In order to understand the idea of the Destropic Principle , we will make an analogy with the real numbers of the equations which rule the several possible universes. Suppose that each of the possible universes can be represented by a real number between zero and ten. We can justify that by thinking that we can concatenate all the fundamental constants in a single numeric parameter.
In our analogy, the parameter 4,22341 , for example, would represent an U1 universe, which would be different from an U2 universe, represented by the parameter 6,123333... , and so on. Thus, each of these numeric parameters would completely define the characteristics of the universe represented by them.
Suppose there is a machine that randomly generates real numbers between zero and ten. Each generated number would be the parameter that would define a universe. We can see that the possibility of predicting what number the machine will generate is very small, almost zero. However, the machine will certainly generate a number.
Suppose our universe is represented by U1 ( 4,22341 ). Then we can ask: what is the probability of the number of our universe being chosen, once there are infinite possible numbers? There are infinite real numbers between zero and ten, therefore it is almost impossible to foresee that the number 4,22341 , which is the parameter that defines the characteristics of our universe, will be chosen.
Thereby, when the machine generates a number representing a parameter of the universe, the answer to the question How probable would the generation of a universe like ours be? will be As likely as the generation of any other specific universe .
Equiprobable
In our model of random generation of universes all universes are equiprobable, since any real number between zero and ten would have the same probability of being generated. No universe is more likely to be generated than the other. So, whatever the number generated by the machine was, it would be as unlikely to be predicted as any other number. We then conclude that our universe is so likely to be generated as any other.
Life
However, someone could retort:
-Our universe is the only one where the possibility of life exists .
The possibility of life is a peculiarity of our universe. Any other generated universe would also have its specific peculiarities. For example: maybe one of them could be made of tiny colored crystal balls, the other could form elastic goos, others, perfect spheres, and so on. If, for example, the generated universe produced little blue crystal balls, then we could make the same exclamation:
-Only this universe produces little glowing balls!
Or:
Only in this universe there is possibility of producing elastic goos!
And so on. For us, humans, life can be more important than little glowing balls, or elastic goos, but this is only a human valuation. There is no logic reason to suppose that a universe with life is more important than a universe that produces little glowing crystal balls, or elastic goos.
Therefore, we cannot claim that our universe is special and unique, because it is as special and unique as any other universe that was generated at random. All universes would have their specific features, generated by their also unique physical constants.
Another Formality
In order to clarify this idea, we can redo our argument using another formality:
Suppose the universes are described by six fundamental constants (the exact number does not matter, the following reasoning is for any number of constants).
Thus, any U universe could be defined by a system of equations that uses six basic constants. We represent this dependence as follows:
U= U (A, B, C, D, E, F).
Our U1 universe in particular is described in that formality as:
U1= U (A1, B1, C1, D1, E1, F1)
Now, consider a U2 Universe with constants different from U1:
U2 = U (A2, B2, C2, D2, E2, F2)
As U1, by definition, contains the parameters of our universe, it will generate a universe that may harbor life , but cannot generate lofe . Similarly, U2 can generate lofe , but cannot generate life . Lofe is a random feature of U2, as the characteristic of being able to form a group of particles where the density is exactly 0,12221 (a random number), for example. Only U2 can generate lofe , and any change in the parameters would make the generation of lofe not feasible.
Of course, the same way, another universe, U3, with other constants
U3 = U (A3, B3, C3, D3, E3, F3)
would not make life feasible, nor lofe , but would make lufe viable.
lufe is a physical condition that occurs when the particles are subject to the regime of forces generated by the constants of U3 (A3&F3). Any change in one of these constants would make lufe not viable.
Note that there is no INTRINSIC importance about the universe generating life , lofe , or lufe . It does not make any difference to the generating machine or to the universe itself. Especially because the universe and the random machine do not have consciousness or desires. What differs to the machine is the value of the fundamental constants, not what they will generate or not. For the generating machine and even for the generated universe, it is irrelevant if it will be able to harbor life, lofe , lufe , or present any other peculiarity. Each universe has its own feature. If U1 allows life , it does not allow lofe , nor lufe ; if U2 allows lofe , it does not allow life nor lufe ; if U3 allows lufe , it does not allow life , nor lofe . It goes that way for any generated universe.
Thus, we can see that our universe does not have anything special, once nothing is intrinsically special. Life is as important as Lofe or Lufe . The universe is not worried if lofe generates consciousness or not, nor if lufe generates a cluster of an incredible yellow glow which would never exist in U1 or if lofe generates micro colored pyramids with their own indescribably beautiful glow. That matters to humans, little egocentric beings of U1 that care about life , maybe because they are alive.
Thereby, the probability of generating a universe that has lufe is equivalent to another one that has life or lofe . There is nothing miraculous or magical about our universe that makes it REALLY special. Therefore, there is no sense in saying that the probability of our universe being that way is the work of some deity. Whatever the generated universe was, its probability of having that feature is exactly the same as the probability of our universe being exactly as it is.
It is like choosing at random a real number between zero and ten. They are all equally probable and difficult to be chosen. None is more or less special than the others.
The Destropic Principle
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBy João Carlos Holland de Barcellos
Translated by Débora Policastro
Abstract: The “Destropic Principle” is an argument that establishes that every universe is equiprobable, and the possibility of life is not a more special feature than any other. This opposes to the “anthropic principle” when it is used to argue that there is a necessity for a divinity, or multiple universes, in order to explain the configuration of our universe, particularly, the capability of harboring life.
In order to explain life in our universe, I will refute the “anthropic principle” when it is used as an argument of the necessity of a deity or multiple universes. I had already outlined this argument in my previous article on the theme, The Anthropic Principle and The Jocaxian-Nothingness” [1], but now I intend to go a little deeper in the analysis.
It is not a very intuitive argument, and that is why we should use an analogy to understand the idea behind. But first, I will summarize the anthropic principle and how it is used by creationists and religious people in general to justify God:
Introduction
The physical laws, usually written in the form of mathematical equations, are considered to be responsible for the characteristics of the universe and its evolution in time. These laws, as we know today, are composed by equations in which we can see some numerical constants (parameters). As examples we can cite, among others: the speed of light, the mass of the electron, the electric charge of the proton, etc. [2]
It is argued, without demonstration, that a little alteration (it is not clear what would the magnitude of this alteration be) in any of these constants would make the possibility of life in the universe not feasible. Those who claim that also conclude that a universe created with physical laws generated at random would hardly be able to trigger life.
Handicap
In all fairness, we need to note that a universe with random laws does not need to follow the pattern of physical laws we have in our universe, that is, the mathematical equations that would define a randomly generated universe could be totally different from the ones we have in our current universe (in principle it would not even be necessary to describe such universes through mathematical equations). That way, the parameters we have today would not apply to any of the equations in this random universe. Thus, it is totally FALSE to claim that all possible universes can be described maintaining the same equations of our particular universe and varying only the constants present in them.
However, in order to refute the “anthropic principle” on its own support base, we should consider true the fact that all possible universes keep the same structure of equations as ours. We also assume that these equations are true, but knowing in advance that this is not true, since there is a theoretical incompatibility between the theory of relativity and the quantum mechanics. Besides that, we also suppose that any alteration in one of the fundamental constants would make the possibility of life impracticable, although no one has shown it yet.
An analogy
In order to understand the idea of the “Destropic Principle”, we will make an analogy with the real numbers of the equations which rule the several possible universes. Suppose that each of the possible universes can be represented by a real number between zero and ten. We can justify that by thinking that we can concatenate all the fundamental constants in a single numeric parameter.
In our analogy, the parameter “4,22341”, for example, would represent an U1 universe, which would be different from an U2 universe, represented by the parameter “6,123333...”, and so on. Thus, each of these numeric parameters would completely define the characteristics of the universe represented by them.
Suppose there is a machine that randomly generates real numbers between zero and ten. Each generated number would be the parameter that would define a universe. We can see that the possibility of predicting what number the machine will generate is very small, almost zero. However, the machine will certainly generate a number.
Suppose our universe is represented by U1 (“4,22341”). Then we can ask: what is the probability of the number of our universe being chosen, once there are infinite possible numbers? There are infinite real numbers between zero and ten, therefore it is almost impossible to foresee that the number “4,22341”, which is the parameter that defines the characteristics of our universe, will be chosen.
Thereby, when the machine generates a number representing a parameter of the universe, the answer to the question “How probable would the generation of a universe like ours be?” will be “As likely as the generation of any other specific universe”.
Equiprobable
In our model of random generation of universes all universes are equiprobable, since any real number between zero and ten would have the same probability of being generated. No universe is more likely to be generated than the other. So, whatever the number generated by the machine was, it would be as unlikely to be predicted as any other number. We then conclude that our universe is so likely to be generated as any other.
Life
However, someone could retort:
“-Our universe is the only one where the possibility of life exists”.
The possibility of life is a peculiarity of our universe. Any other generated universe would also have its specific peculiarities. For example: maybe one of them could be made of tiny colored crystal balls, the other could form elastic goos, others, perfect spheres, and so on. If, for example, the generated universe produced little blue crystal balls, then we could make the same exclamation:
“-Only this universe produces little glowing balls!”
Or:
“Only in this universe there is possibility of producing elastic goos!”
And so on. For us, humans, life can be more important than little glowing balls, or elastic goos, but this is only a human valuation. There is no logic reason to suppose that a universe with life is more important than a universe that produces little glowing crystal balls, or elastic goos.
Therefore, we cannot claim that our universe is special and unique, because it is as special and unique as any other universe that was generated at random. All universes would have their specific features, generated by their also unique physical constants.
Another Formality
In order to clarify this idea, we can redo our argument using another formality:
Suppose the universes are described by six fundamental constants (the exact number does not matter, the following reasoning is for any number of constants).
Thus, any U universe could be defined by a system of equations that uses six basic constants. We represent this dependence as follows:
U= U (A, B, C, D, E, F).
Our U1 universe in particular is described in that formality as:
U1= U (A1, B1, C1, D1, E1, F1)
Now, consider a U2 Universe with constants different from U1:
U2 = U (A2, B2, C2, D2, E2, F2)
As U1, by definition, contains the parameters of our universe, it will generate a universe that may harbor “life”, but cannot generate “lofe”. Similarly, U2 can generate “lofe”, but cannot generate “life”. “Lofe” is a random feature of U2, as the characteristic of being able to form a group of particles where the density is exactly 0,12221 (a random number), for example. Only U2 can generate “lofe”, and any change in the parameters would make the generation of “lofe” not feasible.
Of course, the same way, another universe, U3, with other constants
U3 = U (A3, B3, C3, D3, E3, F3)
would not make “life” feasible, nor “lofe”, but would make “lufe” viable.
“lufe” is a physical condition that occurs when the particles are subject to the regime of forces generated by the constants of U3 (A3…F3). Any change in one of these constants would make “lufe” not viable.
Note that there is no INTRINSIC importance about the universe generating “life”, “lofe”, or “lufe”. It does not make any difference to the generating machine or to the universe itself. Especially because the universe and the random machine do not have consciousness or desires. What differs to the machine is the value of the fundamental constants, not what they will generate or not. For the generating machine and even for the generated universe, it is irrelevant if it will be able to harbor life, “lofe”, “lufe”, or present any other peculiarity. Each universe has its own feature. If U1 allows “life”, it does not allow “lofe”, nor “lufe”; if U2 allows “lofe”, it does not allow “life” nor “lufe”; if U3 allows “lufe”, it does not allow “life”, nor “lofe”. It goes that way for any generated universe.
Thus, we can see that our universe does not have anything special, once nothing is intrinsically special. “Life” is as important as “Lofe” or “Lufe”. The universe is not worried if “lofe” generates consciousness or not, nor if “lufe” generates a cluster of an incredible yellow glow which would never exist in U1 or if “lofe” generates micro colored pyramids with their own indescribably beautiful glow. That matters to humans, little egocentric beings of U1 that care about “life”, maybe because they are alive.
Thereby, the probability of generating a universe that has “lufe” is equivalent to another one that has “life” or “lofe”. There is nothing miraculous or magical about our universe that makes it REALLY special. Therefore, there is no sense in saying that the probability of our universe being that way is the work of some deity. Whatever the generated universe was, its probability of having that feature is exactly the same as the probability of our universe being exactly as it is.
It is like choosing at random a real number between zero and ten. They are all equally probable and difficult to be chosen. None is more or less special than the others.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn Looking for Life in the Multiverse, Alejandro Jenkins and Gilad Perez write that the prevailing theory in modern cosmology suggests that parallel universes exit. This claim has no more scientific relevance than to say that eighteenth century cosmology suggests deism.
Even if we developed a unified field theory with a model that can predict the relative strength and range of forces, it must be realized that a model is only an artifact that allows us to organize empirical data. For example, such a model might suggest to some that the electromagnet force in a weakless multiverse could occur without electroweak symmetry breaking. This suggestion cannot be tested since a model is invalid beyond the boundaries for which it can be tested.
By definition we cannot interact with a multiverse. We are thus unable to perform any experiments or make any observations to confirm any hypothesis regarding multiverses. Multiverses cannot exist in scientific theory.
A large part of the mission and responsibility of SA should be to inform an educated public about science issues. SA publishes many good articles based on the scientific method.
Much of the general public fails to understand that scientific theory is not just opinion but is knowledge based on empirical evidence. Articles about whimsical notions such as multiverses are counterproductive since they enforce the publics misconception of science.
Fred Etcheverry
Santa Cruz, CA
This is all sheer philosophy, because scientists cannot agree or come up with a precise enough definition on what our universe is. Quantum entanglement that instantly links one atoms spin and motion in 2 seperate places at the same time and over vast cosmic distances, and applying mathematical limits, already yields the same idea as a multi-verse. A multiverse implies our universe is not 100 percent information, but anyone can figure that out just by having a simple concept of God and animals, without resulting to the creation of non-scientific multiverses that have not been discovered? Throwing in both parallel universes, and then multiverses, is ludicrous for science. infinite parallel universes already can change the laws of physics. We can all reason out these ideas ourselves without delving deeply into someones philosophical reflections on life and multiverses.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswww.quantauniverse.com
It may just be philosophy but a multiverse in 26 dimensions can be derived from superstring theory.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://knol.google.com/k/implications-of-a-conjectured-multiverse-string-theory-in-26-dimensions#
I think, if it would have another universes with others physics laws, could have another life forms or some with similar life as us or none form of life. In this aspect the posibilites are infinites.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat is the smallest and the largest possible black hole and what is the probability of our own self being one with its free will.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswhat is the smallest and largest possible size of a black hole and what is the probability of we being one of them with and/or without free will.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDURGADAS DATTA published balloon inside balloon theory and ether=gravity=dark energy theory and explained why Einstein is wrong in his space-time continuum approach and unnecessary postulates . Please read those theories published in ASTRONOMY.NET in year 2002 and links available in --durgadas datta facebook-- . We have to come out from Einsteins ideas of space-time and make them separate and the postulates are un necessary as ether is highly exotic very very fast and not drag able . So first come out from Einstein and then un particle quantum physics and then marry revised relativity of durgadas datta and quantum physics in a new spherical coordinates string theory of spherical vibrating strings no loop concept but spherical vibration concept in a computer controlled spherical coordinated taking space and time separate . For detailed theory of new strings as said above please write to e-mail: durgadas.ddatta@gmail.com
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBounderies help define the exisence of what is bound. Time between birth and death do same to an individual human as he experiences himself. Now step back and consider that bounded life space, that historical memory of the person. It did not go anywhere. It is still suspended in timespace where it originally experienced itself. It now is quite different however. Instead of the individual it is more like a city. Its former kind of consciousness gone it is more spce-like. It is a very different being from what it had been when the light rays played on its members.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe full article is an excellent expose of an interesting thought experiment! Now if I could only read it again and forward it on on-line. Open your archives SA!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this