It is also possible that universes with different laws of physics can allow life to exist
The typical Hollywood action hero makes his living by dodging death at the last minute. Dozens of bad guys repeatedly shoot him in the crossfire - and miss by millimeters. Cars explode a split second too late, and he is just enough to take cover from the bursting flames. The hero's friends always come to save the day just before the villain slits his throat. If any of these things had happened just a little bit differently, he could have been told, "Hasta la vista, baby." And yet, even if we haven't seen the movie before, something tells us that at the end the hero will still be intact.
The story of our universe is in some ways similar to a Hollywood action movie. Some physicists claimed that a slight change in one of the laws of physics would result in a catastrophe that would destroy the normal development of the universe and make our existence impossible. For example, if the strong nuclear force, which keeps atomic nuclei from breaking apart, was a little stronger or a little weaker, the stars would make very little carbon and other elements that seem necessary to make planets, not to mention life. If the proton were 0.2% heavier than it is now, all the primordial hydrogen would have decayed almost immediately into neutrons, and no atoms would have been formed. And so on.
The laws of physics - and in particular the constants of nature embedded in these laws, such as the strength of the fundamental forces - may seem as if we have fine-tuned them to allow our existence. Some physicists and cosmologists, who did not want to need a supernatural explanation, which by definition would be outside the scope of science, began in the 70s to try to solve the riddle by hypothesizing that our universe is merely one universe out of many, all of which exist and each of which has its own laws. According to this "enthropic" way of thinking, it is possible that we simply inhabit the rare universe where by chance the right conditions have come together to allow the creation of life.
Amazingly, the dominant theory in modern cosmology, which came into being in the 80s, holds that such "parallel universes" may really exist and that, in fact, a large number of universes could continuously emerge from the primordial vacuum in the same way that our universe emerged in the Big Bang. Our universe will be just one universe out of many pocket universes that belong to a larger space known as the multiverse. In the vast majority of these universes, the laws of physics may not allow the formation of matter as we know it, or the formation of galaxies, stars, planets, and life. But in view of the huge number of possibilities, Teva will have a good chance of hitting the "correct" set of rules at least once.
However, our latest research suggests that some of these other universes, assuming they exist, may not be so hostile to life after all. We have discovered outstanding examples of alternative values for the fundamental constants, from which an alternative set of physics laws arises, which may still lead to interesting worlds and possibly to the creation of life. The basic idea is that one aspect of the laws of nature must be changed and then compensate for the change through changes in other aspects.
Our work did not touch the most serious tuning problem of theoretical physics: the smallness of the "cosmological constant," thanks to which our universe did not collapse and disappear a fraction of a second after the big bang, and is not torn apart by exponentially accelerating expansion. However, the examples of alternative universes that may allow life raise interesting questions and stimulate further research into the question of how unique our universe is.
For your sake I will forget my weaknesses
Scientists have a common way to find out if a certain constant of nature is precisely tuned or not: they make this "constant" variable and play with it gently while all other constants remain unchanged. Based on the newly created laws of nature, scientists "run the movie" of the universe, they perform calculations, what-if scenarios and computer simulations, to see which disaster will occur first. There is no reason for them to play only one variable at a time. This situation is similar to trying to drive a car when you can change the position along the horizontal axis only or the vertical axis only, but not along both: if you are not driving on top of a lattice, you will end up falling off the road. Instead, you can try to play with several variables at the same time.
In an attempt to find alternative sets of laws that still allow the construction of complex systems capable of sustaining life, one of us (Perez) and his colleagues were not content with introducing minor changes to one of the known laws of physics: they completely eliminated one of the four fundamental forces of nature.
From the very name given to them, the elemental forces sound like properties that no self-respecting universe could do without. Without the strong nuclear force that binds quarks together to form protons and neutrons, and then binds these nucleons to form atomic nuclei, matter as we know it would not exist. Without the electromagnetic force, there would be no light; Also, there were no atoms and no chemical bonds. Without gravity, there would be no force to solidify matter to form galaxies, stars and planets.
The fourth force, the weak nuclear force, has a more elusive presence in our everyday lives, but it still plays an important role in the history of our universe. Among other things, thanks to the weak force, the reactions that turn neutrons into protons and vice versa are possible. In the first moments of the big bang, the quarks, which are among the first forms of matter that appeared, combined into threes to form protons and neutrons, particles that were given the collective name baryons. Then groups with four protons could undergo fusion and become helium-4 nuclei, which consist of two protons and two neutrons. This process, the big bang nucleosynthesis, occurred when our universe was a few seconds old, and it was already cold enough for baryons to form but still hot enough for the baryons to undergo nuclear fusion.
In the nucleosynthesis of the big bang, the hydrogen and helium were created that would later be used as the raw material from which stars would be formed. In these stars, through nuclear fusion and other processes, essentially all other naturally occurring elements will be forged. To this day, the fusion of four protons to form helium 4 continues to take place in the heart of our sun, and thanks to it, most of the energy we receive from the sun is produced.
Without the weak nuclear force it seems inconceivable that a universe could contain anything resembling complex chemistry, certainly not life. However, in 2006 Perez's group discovered a physical set of laws that was based solely on the other three forces of nature and still produced a usable universe.
Eliminating the weak nuclear force required several revisions to what is known as the Standard Model of particle physics, the theory that describes all forces except gravity. The team showed that it is possible to tune the system in such a way as to allow the other three forces, and some other essential variables such as the quark masses, to behave similarly to their behavior in our world. We must emphasize that this choice was conservative, and was intended to facilitate the calculations describing the evolution of the universe. It is quite possible that there is a wide range of other universes that lack the weak force, but they are habitable and do not resemble our universe at all.
In a universe lacking the weak force, it is impossible to create helium from protons through fusion, because in this process two protons must become neutrons. But there can be other pathways to create the elements. For example, the amount of matter in our universe is vastly greater than the amount of antimatter, but it is enough to slightly adjust the variable responsible for this asymmetry to make sure that the nucleosynthesis of the big bang will leave behind a considerable amount of deuterium nuclei. Deuterium, also known as hydrogen 2, is an isotope of hydrogen that has a neutron in its nucleus in addition to a proton. In that case the stars could shine by fusing a proton and a deuterium nucleus to form a helium-3 nucleus (consisting of two protons and one neutron).
Such stars, lacking the weak force, would be colder and smaller than the stars in our universe. According to computer simulations conducted by astrophysicist Adam Burroughs of Princeton University, they will be able to burn for about seven billion years - roughly the current age of our Sun - and radiate energy at a rate of a few percent of what our Sun radiates.
The Next Generation
Just like stars in our universe, stars in a universe without the weak force would also be able to synthesize heavy elements like iron through nuclear fusion. But the typical reactions in our stars that lead to the creation of elements heavier than iron will suffer a decline, primarily because the nuclei will not have enough neutrons available to capture to transform them into heavier isotopes - the first step in creating heavier elements. It is possible that small amounts of heavy elements, up to strontium, could form inside weak-force stars by other mechanisms.
In our universe, supernova explosions scatter the newly synthesized elements in space, and synthesize more of these elements themselves. There can be several types of supernovae: in a universe lacking the weak force, there will be no supernova explosions caused by the collapse of high-mass stars, because it is the emission of neutrons, produced through the weak force, that transfers from the core of the star the energy that strengthens the shock wave that causes the explosion. However, another type of supernova – a thermonuclear explosion of a star driven by accretion, rather than gravitational collapse – will still occur. Thus, the elements will still have the possibility to disperse in the interstellar space and germinate new stars and planets there.
Given the relative coldness of weak-force stars, a weak-force Earth-like body would have to be six times closer to its Sun to remain as hot as our Earth. The sun would appear much larger to the eyes of the inhabitants of such a planet. Earths devoid of the weak force would be markedly different from our Earth in other aspects. In our world, plate tectonics and volcanic activity are driven by the radioactive decay of uranium and thorium deep within the planet. Without these heavy elements, a typical weak-force Earth would have a dull and featureless geology compared to our own—unless gravitational processes provide an alternative heat source, as occurs on some of Saturn's and Jupiter's moons.
In contrast, the chemistry will be very similar to the chemistry of our world. One difference would be that the periodic table would stop at iron, except for very tiny traces of other elements. But this limitation will not prevent the development of life forms similar to what we know. Thus, even a universe with only three fundamental forces could accommodate life.
Another approach, taken by the second author of the paper (Jenkins) and his colleagues, looks for alternative sets of rules through other changes in the standard model, smaller than the elimination of the weak force, although they also involve changing several variables at the same time. In 2008, the team tested how much the masses of the three lightest of the six quarks – up quark, down quark and strange quark – could change without making organic chemistry impossible. Changing the quark masses will inevitably affect the question of which baryons and which atomic nuclei will be able to exist without rapidly disintegrating. The different selection of atomic nuclei will in turn affect the chemistry.
Chemistry with a different flavor
It seems plausible that intelligent life (unless it is very different from our life), requires a certain type of organic chemistry, which by definition is the chemistry that includes carbon. The chemical properties of carbon arise from the fact that the electric charge of its nucleus is 6, so that six electrons circle around a neutral carbon atom in an arrangement that allows carbon to create a huge variety of complex molecules. (Many science fiction writers have suggested that life could be based on zinc (silicon), the element below carbon in the periodic table, instead of carbon, but this idea is questionable: no zinc-based molecules of any significant level of complexity are known to exist.) Moreover, to For complex organic molecules to be formed, the presence of elements with the chemistry of hydrogen (nuclear charge 1) and oxygen (nuclear charge 8) is necessary. Therefore, to see if such organic chemistry could exist, the team had to calculate and test whether nuclei with a charge of 1, 6, or 8 would undergo radioactive decay before they could participate in chemical reactions.
The stability of the nucleus depends, among other things, on its mass, and it itself depends on the masses of the bullions from which the nucleus is made. Calculating the masses of the baryons and nuclei, when the starting point is the masses of the quarks, is an incredibly challenging task even in our universe. But after adjusting the strength of the interaction between the quarks, one can use the baryon masses measured in our universe to estimate how small changes in the quark masses will affect the masses of the nuclei.
In our world, the neutron is about 0.1% heavier than the proton. If we change the quark masses so that the neutron is 2% heavier than the proton, no long-lived form of carbon or oxygen will exist. If the masses of the quarks are adjusted in such a way that the proton is heavier than the neutron, the proton in the hydrogen nucleus will capture the electron around it and become a neutron, so that hydrogen atoms cannot exist for a long time. But deuterium or tritium (hydrogen 3) may still be stable, as are certain forms of oxygen and carbon. Indeed, we discovered that only in the event that the proton is heavier than the neutron by more than one percent, there will not be any stable form of hydrogen.
If deuterium (or tritium) replaces hydrogen 1, the oceans will be made of heavy water, whose physical and chemical properties differ slightly from the properties of normal water. Still, it does not seem that such worlds pose a fundamental obstacle to the development of a particular form of organic life.
In our world, the quark whose mass is the third largest (when they are arranged from light to heavy), the "strange" quark, is too heavy to participate in the processes of nuclear physics. But if its mass were smaller by at least one order of magnitude, the nucleus could be composed not only of protons and neutrons but also of other baryons containing strange quarks.
For example, the team identified a universe where an up quark and a strange quark would have roughly the same mass, while the down quark would be much lighter. The atomic nuclei will not be made of protons and neutrons but of neutrons and another baryon, known as Σ- ("sigma minus"). It is worth noting that even in such a radically different universe there will be stable forms of hydrogen, carbon and oxygen and therefore organic chemistry will be able to exist in it. The question, whether these elements will be produced in sufficient quantity for life to develop somewhere within them, remains unanswered for the time being.
But if life can grow, it will happen again in a very similar way to what happened in our world. Physicists in such a world might frown upon the fact that an up quark and a strange quark have nearly the same mass. They might even imagine that this amazing coincidence has an anthropic explanation, based on the need for organic chemistry. And yet we know that such an explanation would be wrong, because in our world there is organic chemistry even though the mass of the down quark is quite different from the mass of the strange quark.
But in universes where the three light quarks have roughly the same mass, there is likely to be no organic chemistry at all: any nucleus with an electric charge greater than two units will decay almost immediately. Unfortunately, it is very difficult to map in detail the histories of the universes whose physical variables are different from the variables in our universe. This issue requires further research.
String landscape architecture
The precise tuning of the constants has been raised by some theoretical physicists as indirect evidence for the existence of a multiverse. Do our findings therefore cast doubt on the concept of the multiverse? We do not think so, for two reasons. The first comes from observation combined with theory. Astronomical data strongly supports the hypothesis that our universe began as a tiny patch of space-time, perhaps a billionth the size of a proton, which underwent a phase of rapid and exponential growth known as inflation. There is still no clear theoretical model of inflation in cosmology, but the theory dictates that other patches could have inflated at a different rate and that each patch could have created a "pocket" that might become a universe in its own right, characterized by its own values that are constants of nature. The space between the pocket universes could continue to expand so fast that it would not be possible to pass or send messages from one pocket to another, even at the speed of light.
The second reason to suspect the existence of the multiverse is that one quantity still seems to be tuned with unusual precision: the cosmological constant, which represents the amount of energy contained in empty space. Experts in quantum physics claim that even space empty of anything else must contain energy. According to Einstein's theory of general relativity, all forms of energy exert gravity. If this energy is positive, it causes space-time to expand with increasing acceleration at an exponential rate. If it is negative, the universe will collapse again in a "big crash." It seems that quantum theory implies that the cosmological constant should be so large - whether positive or negative - that space itself will expand too quickly for structures such as galaxies to have a chance to form, or that the universe will only exist for a fraction of a second before collapsing again.
One way to explain why our universe has avoided such catastrophes is that another factor in the equations canceled out the effects of the cosmological constant. The problem is that this factor will have to be adjusted with the precision of a hair strand. Any deviation, even at the hundredth place after the decimal point, will create a universe lacking significant structure.
Steven Weinberg, the Nobel Prize-winning theorist from the University of Texas at Austin, proposed an anthropic explanation in 1987. He calculated an upper bound for the value of the cosmological constant that would still be consistent with life. If the value is greater, space will expand so fast that the structures necessary to create life will not be found in the universe. In a sense, therefore, our very existence predicts the low value of the constant.
Then, in the late 90s, astronomers discovered that the expansion of the universe was indeed accelerating, an acceleration behind which was a mysterious form of "dark energy." The observed rate taught that the cosmological constant is positive and tiny, within the limits of Weinberg's prediction, and this means that dark energy is very sparse.
Thus it seems that the cosmological constant is tuned with unusual precision. Moreover, our teams' methods of the weak nuclear force and quark masses seem to have failed in this case, as it seems impossible to find a habitable universe where the value of the cosmological constant is substantially higher than what we currently observe. In a multiverse, the vast majority of universes could have a cosmological constant that would not fit the creation of any structure.
If we look for an equivalent from the real world, and not from the world of action movies, we can think of sending thousands of people on a foot journey to cross a mountainous desert. The few who manage to finish the journey alive may tell stories filled with teetering on chasms, encounters with venomous snakes and other brushes with death that seem too close to be true.
It seems that theoretical arguments rooted in string theory - a speculative extension of the standard model that tries to describe all forces as vibrations of microscopic strings - confirm such a scenario. These arguments raise the possibility that during inflation, the cosmological constant and other variables could have taken on a value from a wide and practically unlimited range of different values, a range known as the landscape of string theory.
However, our own work does cast some doubt on the effectiveness of anthropic constraints, at least when they go beyond the case of the cosmological constant. It also raises important questions. For example, if life is indeed possible in a universe without a weak force, then why does our universe have such a force at all? In fact, to particle physicists, the weak force in our universe is not weak enough, in a sense. Its observed value seems unnaturally strong within the standard model. (The leading explanation for this mystery requires the existence of new particles and forces that physicists hope to discover at the recently opened Large Hadron Collider, LHC, at the CERN laboratory near Geneva.)
As a result, many theorists hypothesize that in most universes the weak interactions will be so weak that they can essentially be ignored. The real challenge will therefore be to explain why we do not live in a universe devoid of the weak force.
Ultimately, only a deeper knowledge of how universes are born can answer such questions. In particular, we may discover physical principles at a more fundamental level, which will teach that nature favors certain sets of laws over others.
We may never find direct evidence of the existence of other universes, and certainly we will never get to visit one. But we may need to learn more about them if we want to understand our true place in the multiverse - or whatever is out there.
48 תגובות
Rabbi Yakum Hakan Kiyam
What is the distance of gravitational lensing of galaxy clusters?
Does the cluster of galaxies in Perseus have a gravitational pull?
Was the year 2011 supernova?
Send a comment.
What is the distance of gravitational lensing of galaxy clusters?
Does the cluster of galaxies in Perseus have a gravitational pull?
Did the year 2011 have supernovas?
I have an idea how to explain that there are additional universes.
It is possible that the explosion speed of the material that made up the bang was different. And the types of interactions between matter and energy also differ from location to universe. And so other laws are created in every universe.
Arya, that was indeed the case 🙂
https://www.hayadan.org.il/how-the-galaxy-formed-1412084/#comment-148422
Adi or someone - I enjoyed reading the correspondence with the Academy regarding the addition of God to the memory. Where and in what context was the link first published? Was it a bra they proudly displayed?
Guess, really, regarding the secondary question (Michael challenge response 39), it's a matter of half a minute - determine two generalized coordinates (for example, the location of the large prism and the location of the small prism relative to it), write down the Lagrangian and derive the Euler-Lagrange equations, we're waiting impatiently.
It amazes me how arrogant a person has to be to call a bunch of unfounded stories (yes! unfounded, because everything you write about angular momentum is exactly the opposite of what should happen according to the laws of physics, which this delusional "scientist" discovered, well, what's his name, Newton .
And to write "the black hole throws out at a very high speed two jets of matter...which is thrown - due to the force of gravity" is unfounded - please, explain to us the mechanism of the ejection of matter from a black hole due to gravity, I appreciate your answer on the subject.
Your "theory" has already been contradicted several times, from my memory only, and I don't usually follow talkbacks, I don't have the mental capacity of Michael :), and you continue to stick the link to it on every fresh web page without shame), in the field Which according to all signs he has no understanding of it, in the very respectable word "theory".
You don't tend to give "training" to scientists (response 38)? So maybe you should start practicing (or are you also running a correspondence with the academy on this issue? Hm for the link by the way, my wife and I couldn't stop laughing, here it is for those who missed it: http://www.kaspit.com/hebrew/hebrew.htm) and by the way they write Galaxy and not Gaklaxy, and unfortunately you will not be able to contact the academy on this matter.
My blessing is given to you
Hezi,
Citing unfounded materials from the "Hidvarot" website is not very wise. No one on this site has a scientific education. Even our science minister, a man wearing a kippah, has already said that there is no contradiction between evolution and the big bang theory and the Torah. Also Rabbi Kook, who was ultra-Orthodox. So why do you insist on rejecting these things?
Stubbornness and skepticism are good qualities, when channeled in the right directions. You won't get anything out of trying and knocking down physical models that are accepted by all of science, unless you have better models, then that's another thing.
Several responses to Hezi's comments:
1. Michael, you don't have to wonder every time why you answer my chest. As a sober person, you probably understood a long time ago that Hezi is convinced of his righteousness and it seems that you, I or the entire faculty of the 1000 leading universities in the world combined will not be able to sway him from his positions. You write your comments so that a person reading his comments does not get confused and mistakenly think that his words are based on something, hence the importance of mentioning the secondary question.
2. As for Hazi's claim that physicists do not know how galaxies were formed. Of course there is no complete certainty since no one was there when it happened and since the required physics is complex, difficult and includes many variables. However, thanks to the existence of computers, it is now possible to do numerical simulations and thus create fairly good models. In 2008, an article was published in Nature by a number of physicists from the Hebrew University, under the permission of Prof. Avishai Dekel, which contained a new theory about the formation of galaxies. Theory "This is a conservative community that only knows how to quote what scientists once said"). If so, whoever believes that after all some scientists are smart, should know that there are more glaciated formation theories than the Hazi Azil theory. https://www.hayadan.org.il/how-the-galaxy-formed-1412084/
3. By the way, I haven't delved into your theory, but just from a cursory reading I would like to emphasize to you that most galaxies do not have a jet emitted along the axis of rotation of the black hole and this only applies to about 15% of a certain type of active galaxies (having an AGN - active galactic nucleus) - See the Wikipedia entry about AGN and for more detail the REVIEW article written in the field in 1995 by Urry&Padovani. Needless to say, the Milky Way obviously does not have an AGN.
4. As for your claims that it is not possible to predict stability or instability of a substance, this is complete nonsense since physicists knew how to predict the typical decay times of subatomic particles even before they were discovered (but when they already expected their existence based on symmetry principles).
Have a good week everyone
Chest:
Indeed I know that you do not value scientists and your faith is only subject to nonsense.
A long article is written when there is a lot to say.
For example, if there are many testimonies, then the very act of writing them dictates the length of the article.
Rather, the nonsense you write is short because they are just stupid slogans designed for brainwashing.
And as for your senility - here's a reminder:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/explained-why-many-surveys-of-distant-galaxies-miss-90-of-their-targets-0204105/#comment-265008
Michael,
As you know, I don't tend to give training in "scientists"
who still claim that life developed "on its own" and that the universe was created in the big bang from a place the size of a pin...
I didn't read the link you provided, I just hate long articles.
A long article is proof for me that it is brainwashing.
It will not be known about Ino Hida in physics, her writing...
Chest:
I don't know why I'm answering you because you always talk nonsense, but I thought you might be interested in ignoring another fact:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/study-validates-general-relativity-on-cosmic-scale-existence-of-dark-matter-2504105/
By the way - have you already solved the question I gave you in high school physics?
A- Acceptable models for the formation of galaxies are incorrect. No accepted model explains the amazing symmetry of the arms.
B- How do you prove that different laws of physics cannot create stable matter?
C- This reminds me of the old claim that there would be no life without photosynthesis. It has been shown that there are thriving life systems in the depths of the ocean, without any photosynthesis.
D- There is a theory for the formation of galaxies here, which does not have any need for restrictive assumptions
http://www.kaspit.com/assil2.htm
Hezi
You are confusing several topics here-
1. To the best of my knowledge, there are models that explain the formation of galaxies from the primordial state of the universe.
2. If various laws of physics cannot create stable matter, then there is no debate that they did not create galaxies.
3. It has nothing to do with the constants of nature. The only difference between antimatter and normal matter is a reversal in the electrical charge. Antimatter obeys exactly the same laws of physics that its counterpart, normal matter, obeys.
mirom,
I have an allergy to long letters…
These are speculations and not proven facts.
If you still don't know how galaxies form,
How can you claim that a small change in the laws will not create galaxies?
I have a hypothesis that even within our galaxy there are places where the laws of physics are at least slightly different
From the laws we know...
For example: it is likely that the amount of antimatter is infinitely greater than what we tend to think.
chest-
Read the article. A minimal change in the laws of physics will lead not only to the non-formation of a galaxy but also to the non-formation of stable matter.
On what basis do you claim this?
Hezi
If the laws of physics were even slightly different in another galaxy - it would not exist.
Is it possible to prove that in every galaxy, the laws of physics are the same as the laws of physics in our galaxy?
It is not about all the laws of physics, but only a small part of them.
Of course not…
If this is the case,
How can it be proven that in this respect not every galaxy can be a "parallel universe"?
Good night dear Sabdarmish,
There are those for whom the night is still long.
I'm actually not talking about the problem of fine tuning necessarily in the context of the formation of life. Even if the constants of nature were radically different and life would not have been created at all, or would have created a universe completely different from ours - my conclusion remains the same. How did the constants of nature get the value they got?
I don't see any way to solve this problem when the model we are using is the single universe model. Such a question can only be answered by inferring the existence of other universes, in which the constants of nature have taken on different values. This model solves the problem almost completely, and in the single universe model it will remain at the absurd level.
Hence my clear preference for the parallel universes hypothesis.
I hope you won't be angry, because I rudely took away from you the ability to respond for a few hours 😉
To Mirum Golan
Have you moved on to the anthropic principle?
I disagree with you that it stems from a series of universes.
In Hebrew Wikipedia it is defined as:-
The anthropic principle in its basic form means that any theory of the universe must be consistent with the existence of carbon-based intelligent life in the time and place we are in. End quote.
Actually this is a philosophical question if the attitude of "I exist therefore everything is done so that I exist" is correct? Something bothers me and it's hard for me to define what.
But maybe it's because it's already after midnight and my atrophic personality is screaming for bed
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
post Scriptum. Wait, now after midnight, let's see what's new in science
In any case - what Yehuda says about Ockham's Razor is true.
This is not a scientific criterion but an aesthetic criterion.
As I explained inEssays on beauty - There is a lot of logic in our preference for aesthetic theories, but this logic is not related to the truths of the theories, but to our ability to make use of them.
To Mirum Golan
I must add that the English Wikipedia agrees with you
Occam's razor (or Ockham's razor[1]), is the meta-theoretical principle that "entities should not be multiplied beyond what is necessary" (entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem) and the conclusion thereof, that the simplest solution is usually the correct one.
But I still think that in this case Hebrew is more careful in explaining and I choose it
Good day Mirom
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Joseph:
Ockham's razor actually prefers other universes.
See a response I gave Judah about this about a million years ago.
https://www.hayadan.org.il/will-a-baby-universe-eat-ours-3103082/#comment-43606
To Mirum Golan
There are various quotes called "Occam's Razor". In the Hebrew Wikipedia there is an expansion on this topic and it is worth reading
They in the passage write:-
"A common mistake is to claim that Occam's Razor is supposed to provide a tool for choosing between true and false theories, and this is not the case. The razor helps us choose from different true theories, ..." ” end quote.
So maybe you'll change your mind after you read there and see that neither Galileo nor Newton exactly liked the aforementioned razor.
Good Day
Yehuda
Joseph,
Who determined that the razor requires thrift in the universes? In the same way, it can be stated that all the life forms known to us were "created" at some stage, and did not develop from countless earlier life forms. Why? It saves organisms. I hope you understand why your argument is invalid.
In my last comments I showed that there is a real need for an explanation of the initial state of the universe. All the constants of nature in our universe were created in the Big Bang, along with all the masses of the elementary particles and Planck's constants. The speed of light was given one specific upper value. And all of this we have no way to explain, apart from the lights of the programming of a fabric of universes which contains different ranges of constants of nature, particle masses, the speed of light, etc. This is the only way the anthropic principle can work.
Yehuda:
It does not belong to MOND.
The idea of a parallel universe exerting a repulsive force on our universe is intrinsic to the idea of MOND and can be tested experimentally without photons.
For example - according to this theory, there should be places in the space (of our universe!) that are very difficult and perhaps impossible to reach because of the force of repulsion.
In principle, such places can be found.
From:
The intention was not to mock your words but to point out the fact that the freedom that a theory allows is not evidence.
No theory can contradict the existence of additional dimensions that do not depend on the dimensions in which we live, therefore in any theory we can add as many universes as we want.
To Mirum Golan and later to S.Y.'s response.
Even if you accept the 'Ockham's razor' that requires ontological thrift, it seems that it is better to be thrifty in universes and not to inflate universes. Beyond that, the fact that a physical theory allows for the existence of additional universes, still does not give us a theoretical reason to assume their existence. Only if it is proven that the existence of additional universes is necessary for the completeness of the physical explanation and there is no reasonable alternative explanation, then it is appropriate to consider expanding our ontology and in the process assume the existence of additional universes. (Milgrom's article published on this site offers a similar direction when he claims that an explanation for the speed of the expansion of galaxies can only come from the existence of a twin universe. This explanation confronts the explanation of the existence of dark matter.)
Michael,
The very fact that you try to scoff at my words only does the same to yours. Note that I didn't say there was direct evidence, so don't expect much. But what I have shown is certainly indirect evidence, as far as science is concerned.
To Michael
Let's politely say that after the discovery of the Saul galaxy, we both conclude (it happens sometimes) that the MOND theory is a fad, it has passed away. Attempts of parallel universes to revive her will not convince me.
And regarding the strange interaction between the two universes, how will you even know about it when not even one photon can pass between them and tell you about it because at such a moment the parallelism of the two universes is dropped.
Baside that. How are you?
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda,
We are not dealing with cars, but with cosmology. The cosmos cannot be described without relativity, therefore Newton does not even have anything to do with the subject, as he is only a special case of relativity. In order not to take it out of context, here is Occam's law - the simplest solution is usually the correct one. So what is simpler, a single and singular universe that is completely coincidentally controlled by dozens of mathematical and physical constants that can make life possible, or a perfectly reasonable possibility that our universe is part of many universes, and therefore there is no problem of coincidence regarding this "tuning" fact, since it is only an illusion of the observer ?
To Mirum Golan
I don't remember Popper mentioning parallel universes in his words, but Oleani is wrong.
But it is not possible to check anything about the existence of a parallel universe because it must be done by checking from our universe to a universe that we have nothing to do with. Once someone sees this kind of connection then both universes are our universes.
And about what you are doing is a common mistake in using Occam's Razor
William of Occam in Scotland lived in the twelfth or thirteenth century and he was a thrifty and ascetic monk to such an extent that even the Pope at the time excommunicated him. All the aforementioned William said is that if you have two options to do something, choose the more economical option.
Does it follow that the more economical option is the more correct one?, no and no!, William of Occam was absolutely not talking about correctness. Two examples to understand my words:-
A. Newton's theory is no more correct than relativity even though it is simpler.
B. In this context, if you want to use formulas to check the speed of an average car, do not choose the relativity formulas but rather the simpler Newton formulas. This is what William of Occam meant in his rule called "Occam's Razor".
And dear Noam
I'm not talking about my theory at all in any comment here so please don't drag me into this kind of argument
Good day to you and everyone
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Rah:
At the end of the introductory chapter in the link I gave you it says:
Quarks were introduced as parts of an ordering scheme for hadrons, and there was little evidence for their physical existence until 1968.[6][7] All six flavors of quark have since been observed in accelerator experiments; the top quark, first observed at Fermilab in 1995, was the last to be discovered.[5]
From:
These are not evidences.
The theory of the ancient Greeks also allowed another system of gods to rule another universe.
Yehuda:
A person you liked to quote in the past - Mordechai Milgrom - offers another universe as an explanation for dark energy.
https://www.hayadan.org.il/twin-universes-2602107/
This kind of theory can in principle be tested experimentally because it describes an interaction between our universe and the parallel universe, even though the two universes cannot unite.
Yehuda,
It is certain that you do not agree with Popper, since your theory is not a scientific theory at all according to this criterion.
si,
Let's start with the fact that Popper makes a distinction between theories that relate to our universe and theories that relate to other universes, is already a matter of doubt. Why exactly, cannot the existence of other universes be inferred through phenomena in our universe? unexplained.
You are right on a certain level, and that is that these ideas cannot be refuted at the moment. But in the absence of empirical evidence to the contrary, there is a very beautiful tool loved by all of us - Ockham. It is clearly improbable that our universe is the only one, since there are several dozen mathematical constants in it that there is no way to explain why they took one specific value, and not another. The same also applies to the masses of the elementary particles.
Many times we tend to use Ockham's razor against parallel universes theories, without realizing that it actually comes at the expense of supporters of the single universe theory.
And what about the following problem:-
According to the philosopher Popper, every theory must be refutable, but every theory that discusses parallel universes cannot be refutable from our universe because there is not and cannot be a connection between the universes because then both are one universe and not parallel/separate. Therefore, this whole article has no value Scientific and legal of this kind that appears in the article:-
"Astonishingly, the dominant theory in modern cosmology, which came into being in the 80s, holds that such "parallel universes" may really exist." End quote., it is not scientific at all.
This article can be at most an entertaining and fictional conversation in which everyone can add and subtract as much as they can without the fear of being scientifically disproved.
Please respond gently
Shabbat Shalom
Sabdarmish Yehuda
post Scriptum. Not to imply that I agree with Popper's strict demand, but that is beside the point.
R.H.
As far as I know it is not possible at all (regardless of what energy) to split bullions into the quarks of which they are composed. The theory indicating this is called "asymptotic freedom" and for it they received a Nobel Prize: Gross, Wiltsek and Pulitzer. In the accelerators, they were able to produce what is known in Zerjon Mark as gluons-quarks, the article you probably remember from the scientist
"Physicists broke a law of nature for a fraction of a second at the RHIC accelerator in Brookhaven". In Brookhaven, a soup of almost free corks is produced by the collision of heavy ions, for example: gold.
Michael,
Among these indirect evidences, is the fact that several (mainstream) theories in science today, such as quantum mechanics, and string theory - allow the existence of other universes as a result of them. And it is important to remember that this is despite the fact that there is a conflict between quantum mechanics and string theory on certain issues! Quantum mechanics defines something called "alternative history lines" (I'm not sure what their exact Hebrew name is), while string theory calls them "landscape". Again, there is no direct evidence, but when two significant and separate theories point to the possibility of the same thing's existence, it is certainly evidence that strengthens the possibility of its existence.
As long as there is no answer to the question, it is a philosophical question
From:
I know the theory and I have nothing against it, but you mentioned that there is increasing indirect evidence for the existence of other universes and this is unfamiliar to me.
What are you talking about?
On this occasion, I would like to draw your attention to an interesting theory that can shed some light on the mystery of the existence of other universes: according to the fecund universes theory of the Jewish physicist Lee Smolin, the principles of evolution and natural selection exist on all possible scales - including the cosmological scale. The theory is based on the assumption that when a black hole is formed, a new universe is created at its other "end", and the constants of nature in that universe (such as the speed of light, the Planck length, etc.) can be slightly different from those of the "parent" universe. Each universe sets up a number of new universes that is identical to the number of black holes that are created in it, and thus there is a parallel here to reproduction as well as mutation.
The equivalent of "natural selection" is the limitation of nature to the length of time a universe can exist or to the number of universes it can create before it ceases to exist. For example, a universe with constants that would not allow its prolonged existence, would cease to exist even before it created new universes, and thus would not transfer its properties to new universes. The more the constants in a certain universe are more suitable for star formation, the greater the chance that black holes will also be formed - and therefore it will transfer its properties to more new universes than other universes.
I know that this is a theory that is currently irrefutable (Smolin himself also stated that he is aware of this), but due to the increasing indirect evidence for the existence of other universes, in my opinion, it puts in a quite conceivable order all the things that science currently has no way to explain. I'm not saying I'm on her side either, but there's no doubt that it's a unique theory.
Michael, quarks were not observed in a particle accelerator. What you see are only the hadrons composed of 3 or 5 quarks. There is still no device with energy that can split the hadron into its individual quarks.
Yossi the Black - If this is hard for you to believe, what do you say about multiples of Planck's constant?
The issue of whether the universe is suitable for us or because the parameters in the universe are sufficient for us to live is a philosophical question, but the fact is that no one can ask this question in a universe whose parameters are not suitable for life, and therefore there is a kind of bias here.
Joseph:
We also do difficult things in life.
If it's hard for you to believe - try a little harder and you'll succeed!
Especially when it comes to simple amounts.
Why is it easy for you to believe that the anti-electron (the positron in our language) has a charge that is twice (1 – ) the charge of the electron?
Why is it easy for you to believe that the charge of the proton is exactly the sum of the charges of a neutron and a positron?
Beyond the above, you must understand that a packet is also a fact.
The quarks have already been observed in particle accelerators, as can be seen for example here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark
From:
Of course we are also dealing with the problem you described and surely you remember this article as well
https://www.hayadan.org.il/ground-problem-of-metaphysics-part-2-0704103/
which you even responded to in the discussion below
Mirom, in my opinion the thinking should be the opposite: in a universe where the constants are like this, there is hydrogen, etc., we exist. We are the result and not the cause or cause. In other possibilities of universes (which may or may not exist), there are or are not other things.
As far as I understand[1], quarks don't really exist.
It is hard for me to believe that one constant of nature (the charge of the electron) is *exactly* an integral multiple of another constant (the up and down quark charges). It is much easier to assume that the proton was formed from the union of a neutron and an antielectron.
---
1. If a real physicist lifts the glove and explains to the audience where I was wrong, I can always claim that I made a reservation "to the best of my understanding" before I wrote the above nonsense.
This is an article that touches on one of the most interesting topics in science. However, I came out of it with exactly the same level of understanding that I entered it in... The final conclusion from this entire long article is that we do not have the faintest clue why the constants of nature and the particle masses got the values we know.
Every time I think about it, until we begin to understand why it is like this - we are equal to monkeys in terms of our understanding of the universe, literally. Such a basic question simply cannot be ignored.