Why do the existing laws of nature exist, what is everything made of, how did complexity develop and what is the essence of the singularity in the big bang. These are just some of the questions that are currently at the forefront of physics, as described by a panel of senior physicists as part of a conference held in Canada
A panel of the world's leading physicists who recently gathered at the Perimeter Institute at the University of Waterloo in Canada discussed the question of what keeps them from sleeping at night. The discussion took place as part of an event from the quantum to the cosmos, a gathering of physicists that lasted no less than ten days.
Why this universe with existing laws of nature?
In their search for the fundamental laws of nature, physicists work under a long-standing paradigm: an explanation of why the universe must be the way we see it. However, if it is possible to think of other laws, why should the universes described by those laws not exist elsewhere in space?
We may find that there is no alternative to the universe we know, says Sean Carroll of Caltech. "However, I suspect that something is wrong." Carroll says that it is easy to imagine a nature that allows multiple universes to exist under different laws. "Therefore in our universe the question becomes why these laws and not others?"
What is everything made of?
Today it is clear that the ordinary matter in the universe - atoms, stars and galaxies consists of about 4% of all the energy in the universe. The other 96% disturb the rest of Catherine Paris of the University of Michigan. In particular, she deals with the dark matter, and in her opinion this issue may be resolved. She pointed to new data from experiments such as those conducted by NASA using the Fermi satellite that convey consistency with the idea that the dark matter particles in our galaxy evaporate with each other at a measurable rate, and this process allows their properties to be revealed.
However, the discovery of dark energy, which seems to be accelerating the expansion of the universe, has created a new series of puzzles for which there are no immediate answers in sight. Among other things, these puzzles include the nature of dark energy itself and the question of why it has such a small value, which enables the formation of galaxies, stars and the appearance of life.
How did complexity evolve?
From the unpredictable behavior of financial markets to the rise of life from inanimate matter, Leo Kadanoff, a physicist and applied mathematician at the University of Chicago, discovered that the most interesting question lies in the rise of complex systems. Kadanoff worries that particle physicists and cosmologists are missing an important trick because they focus on the very small and the very large. "We still don't know how normal glass keeps its shape." Kadanoff said. "The investigation of familiar things is just as important on the way to understanding." Life itself, he said, will be understood only by deciphering how simple components with simple interrelationships between them can lead to a complex phenomenon.
Is string theory correct?
Physicist David Tong of Cambridge is enthralled by the mathematical beauty of string theory - the idea that the elementary particles we observe are not specks like dust grains but tiny strings. However, he admits that this brought him to a philosophical crisis when he realized that it is possible that he may live his entire life without knowing whether this is the true description of all reality. Even experiments such as the LHC and the Planck satellite, which are in a position to reveal new physics, will not be able to say anything definitive about the strings. Tong found comfort in knowing that string theory methods could help solve less fundamental problems, such as the behavior of quarks and exotic metals. "This is a useful theory," he said. "That's why I try to concentrate on that."
What is the singularity?
The director of the Perimeter Institute, the cosmologist Neil Turok, the great mystery is the one that started it all - the Big Bang. The accepted theory manages to reach backwards and identify a hot and compressed state in which the universe began, where we know that the known laws of physics break down. "We don't know how to describe him." Turk said. "How can anyone claim to have a theory of everything without reference to what happened then?" Turok hopes that string theory and well-known developments known as the holographic principle show that a singularity in three dimensions can be translated into a mathematical entity that can be handled in two dimensions (which shows that the third dimension and gravity itself are an illusion). "These tools give us a new way to think about the problem, and this is satisfying, mathematically." said.
What is reality really?
Matter may, on some level, lie beneath our understanding, but Anton Zelinger, professor of physics at the University of Vienna, hopes that physics can scratch the surface of something bigger. Zelinger specializes in quantum experiments that show that there seems to be an influence of the viewer on the shaping of reality. "The real breakthrough may come when we begin to understand the connections between reality, knowledge and our actions." said. The perception seems distorted but it is based in reality. Zelinger and others have shown that separate particles can somehow be in bound quantum states, so that an observation of one will affect the outcome of the other. No one has yet investigated how the universe seems to know it is being watched."
Where can physics take us?
Perhaps the biggest question of all is whether the process of investigation that has so far revealed so many details about the universe since the time of Galileo and Kepler is headed for a dead end? "I fear that we are reaching the limits of the empirical sciences," says Lawrence Krauss of Arizona State University. In particular, Krauss wonders if knowledge of other universes, such as those proposed by Carroll, would be required to understand why our universe is the way it is. If such knowledge is inaccessible, this will mark the end of the ability to deepen our understanding further.
Turok said that this is the reason for the existence of the Perimeter Institute, to enable the thinking of the world's brightest young minds in a non-pressure environment. By optimizing the conditions for thought formation, it may be possible to avoid this impasse.
"We are used to thinking of physical theories as accidents" Turok said. "We are required to ask if there are strategic ways to accelerate understanding and discoveries. It's possible that then, all the problematic physics can get a little rest - or at least move towards solving more mundane problems.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QePNKlCpgl4
50 תגובות
When I grow up I will work at NASA. Come on scientists. Keep working.. Well done.
About the Big Bang:
The big bang happened, after that galaxies were formed and then the earth. The bacteria will connect, and slowly create life as it is. Like such a puzzle. Interesting...
Point and Yossi:
Yossi is not talking about dark energy but about atoms of space and time.
Although Yossi has already insured himself and defined anyone who opposes his opinion as someone who does not have an open mind, I allow myself to say that the theory does not make sense for many reasons.
One of them is that if the "atoms of space" move apart - it is necessary to explain what happens in the ever-increasing space between them. Is it filled with new "atoms"? How are they created?
Another is the discovery described in this article
https://www.hayadan.org.il/gama_ray_blust_0311098/
There are many more reasons to reject the theory but I don't think any more are needed.
Yossi, you are talking about the dark energy. Dark matter has mass. And it has to do with the Higgs field. That is why it is so important for us to find the Higgs boson.
Is it possible that the dark matter is actually the "atoms" of space and time that repel and spread and we don't have the tools to measure them because we are actually inside them? - You need an open mind to examine this theory which is "mine" original. I would appreciate comments. Joseph
I think the nickname "functional chemistry" is more appropriate for humanities faculties.
to love
The important question is whose conspiracy is the one who claims that the "permanent" is permanent or the one who claims that the "permanent" is not permanent.
I mean, who bears the burden of proof?
What did you actually do here?, out of the infinite possibilities of formulas you decided to take the one that has an unchanging constant throughout history, meaning one possibility out of the infinite possibilities. In that I claim that the "constants" change, I have appropriated all the possibilities except perhaps the one that decides that the "constant" is a constant without quotation marks.
I think the burden of proof is on you and the other scientists who think in terms of unchanging constants throughout history since the big bang.
Shabbat Shalom
Sabdarmish Yehuda
A professor who also worked in the secret military programs - tells where we really stand in the world of physics
Dr. Paul Czysz is a Professor of Aeronautical Engineering at Parks College in St. Louis. He spent 8 years in the Air Force at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, and another 30 years working for McDonnell-Douglas in the field of exotic technologies
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=E8B228E3EFFF882E&search_query=%22Paul+Czysz%22
Yehuda
Indeed the thin structure constant contains the speed of light, the constant itself has no units. There are several theories that assume that it changed during the evolution of the universe, that is, it is not constant. Today all observations indicate that it is indeed permanent. So that the speed of light will change during the evolution of the universe and the fine structure constant will remain constant
There must be some kind of conspiracy of nature. I am not a follower of conspiracy theories and I think that those who believe in them have the burden of proof.
to love
The fine structure constant contains the speed of light. If it is not constant then the thin structure constant is also not constant
Do you have proof that the speed of light has been constant over the years since the big bang?, I would love to know
Yehuda
Elijah:
I don't know why you thought that your last answer somehow defends the claim you made in the previous answer.
There is no serious scientist who does not engage in the philosophy of science.
The whole function of the philosophy of science is to find out better what knowledge is and how it is acquired in the most reliable way. It has no role in providing answers to the questions in which the discussion described in the article deals.
Nor does any other philosophy have standing in this matter and only science can deal with them seriously.
When I say "science" I also mean mathematics and logic - and all scientists deal with these as well.
Mathematics and logic are associated in the university with the field of exact sciences and not with the field of humanities - and in my opinion - quite rightly.
Michael,
The scientists work within certain basic assumptions. The non-scientific philosophy is the one that examines these basic assumptions. You are surely familiar with David Yom's criticism of the concept of causality as well as the very use of inductive logic, which are the heart of science. Without them it is absolutely impossible to formulate natural laws and to believe that there is a connection between two consecutive phenomena. His critique gave birth to virtually the entire field called philosophy of science. Mathematics, by the way, originates from logic and is not inductive but deductive - exactly the opposite of science.
sympathetic,
Following on from my answer to Michael, please be careful in using the word "proof" when it comes to science.
The anthropic principle is actually tautology at its best, and I don't see where it denies the existence of God. After all, with its help it can be argued that the universe was created for man. Sound familiar? Besides, God is not a scientific hypothesis and therefore Laplace was right.
The opposite must be said: if the universe was different then we (not really us) would also be different, because evolution would have turned to different channels. That is, the universe is not adapted to man, but man is adapted to the universe.
And yet, science today can only observe as far as the big bang where the laws of physics began. Meaning all those constants derive from something that was "before" the universe. Also, one can always ask why these constants are like that - and here we are back to the original question.
To Judah
Some of the constants of nature determine the emission spectrum of atoms, i.e. the energies of the photons they emit. Since we observe light from a large number of galaxies at different distances, that is, different regions of the universe and different times - the light takes time to reach us and therefore we see the galaxies as they were (I assume that you are aware of all this). Since the emission lines of the photons - the atomic spectrum of various elements does not differ depending on the galaxy (beyond the redshift), it can be assumed that the constants of nature responsible for the spectrum lines are indeed constants of nature - in this case the fine (or fine) structure constant.
In addition, science is not based on guesswork. When a hypothesis is raised, it is necessary to show how in principle it can be refuted or confirmed, otherwise it is not science (in my opinion...).
to love
The assumption of constants that have always been and will be the same cannot be proven because even the formulas containing those constants have not been tested throughout the universe since time immemorial.
Beyond that it's just a guess.
Good Day
Yehuda
Elijah:
In my opinion, the most serious philosophers are the scientists.
Philosophy is - according to its definition - the love of wisdom.
Wisdom is based mainly on knowledge and understanding and we have no way of obtaining these except through science.
The main working tool of the philosophers is logic and this tool is developed by the mathematicians.
Science tries to discover every answer that can be discovered and the statement that a certain subject belongs to the field of "philosophy" or to the field of religion will never deter (and should not deter) a scientist who tries to shed light on that subject.
Eliyahu
By the way, the question of what everything consists of is also a question that can be assumed to have an absolute answer until recently they believed
Scientists that all the components of matter in the universe are given by the standard model 3 generations of quarks leptons and bosons carrying interaction. Today the question has been re-opened following claims of dark matter and dark energy introduced to explain astronomical observations.
Eliyahu
One of the attempts to explain why the universe is the way it is is based on a Darwinian anthropic principle (again, thanks Michael), that is, the universe is the way it is because if it were so, we wouldn't be here to ask the question. Is this constraint enough - the fact of our existence to derive the constants in the physical theories? Some think so. This kind of answer can be seen as a scientific answer that denies the existence of God. As Laplace answered Napoleon when asked why his theory did not include God "I did not need this hypothesis".
I am afraid that some of the questions do not belong to science at all but to philosophy.
To the question "Why this universe with existing laws of nature?" There can be no scientific answer and this is because science studies the universe as it is, or rather describes it based on the most up-to-date knowledge. Therefore the answer of science will always be "so". Philosophers and theologians will include God, but he too is actually still "like that".
As above, "What is everything made of?" This is a question that presupposes a final reduction; that the matter can be continued to be broken down until we reach some indivisible particle or factor. But the science that deals with decomposition can only report that there is a particle that we *still* have not been able to break down. Science has no "authority "To reach cosmic conclusions.
"What is the singularity?" If in the singularity the laws of physics do not hold, then there is no way to logically extrapolate from the physical universe to that singularity.
"What is reality really?" Any description that science reaches will not be an absolute description and there will necessarily be another, more "true" "reality" of which our observations are only a reflection.
I heard him.
Sounds like he's pretty frustrated even though he found a way to sell himself condolences.
Michael:
The name does give the appropriate feeling.
As long as they look for the theory of everything it will be relevant.
On second thought, it seems quite appropriate to attach this name to the field of strings and membranes as well.
After all, they also admit that theory deals with theory, heard the third guy from the left on the panel that this is his main occupation. He says something close to that.
Higgs:
Those who were the first were probably the Pythagoreans.
They were of course much more extreme because they thought everything was related to rational numbers.
Marius Cohen wrote a very nice article on the subject in Galileo and there he called the approach "Platonic Pythagorean".
I think it's a pretty apt nickname.
Since we are currently the only experimenters in the universe,
Maybe as I think they said the laws are created by us?
Michael:
The story about the mathematics of the universe is quite old since the time of Aristotle.
The first to propose the approach during the development of quantum physics was John Wheeler back in 1950.
His approach is called "It from Bit"
He may not be the officer like this guy at least not at first as far as I know.
He was a student of Bohr and he also did not like the Copenhagen interpretation.
His hypothesis was that the origin of physical reality/reality is not physical, but originates from the pure information patterns and the like. But this is of course not different from what Aristotle thought.
Higgs:
I think you're missing the whole point because I just don't understand what you're saying.
Not important.
In any case, there is nothing practical in the whole matter.
That's exactly what I'm talking about, this ignorance.
In my opinion, it is useless to replace one ignorance (in the physical world for example) with another (mathematical).
I want to remind you that Stegmark is talking about mathematical structures and not about our knowledge of them.
Our lack of knowledge about the buildings (of which we certainly never tried to describe even a zero percentage of them and certainly not to investigate all of them) is really irrelevant
I'm sorry but I don't understand what you're saying
Michael
Yes precisely in relation to the structures because the consequences of these sentences indicate that the mathematical structures are not of the same skin. There are a lot of structures that there is no way to relate them to others.
And there are many unsolved problems no less than in physics.
Just as we have not found a way to link relativity to quanta.
So there is no point in replacing one form of presentation of a problem with another form of presentation.
You are also invited to carefully read the words of Tagmark, who refers to structures only, while the Gadel theorem talks about the relationship between structures and axioms.
The constants are not constant, so it is appropriate to present a physical model that will explain how and why they change, otherwise it is better to leave them constant.
Higgs:
Mathematics is not an island, and an increasing theorem does not make it so.
The source of your claim is really unclear to me.
to love
I actually liked your comment that it is about the possibility of other universes with different constants.
But why go to other universes?
In my humble opinion most of the physical "constants" have already changed in our universe since the big bang.
In my opinion, the speed of light was greater in the past and is getting smaller with time.
The gravitational constant is also getting smaller. And more, so that there may be other universes where the speed of light at the moment is different. But as I said in my previous response (3) it should not change for us.
good week
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Michael
Mathematics is not one piece but islands. The matter has already been proven by Godel's incompleteness theorems.
Therefore there is no point in identifying all physics with mathematics. That is, it is clear that there is no one answer to all physical questions because there is no one mathematics. It is already better to deal with the physical meanings and problems as presented. than to try and convert the matter into mathematics which itself is incomplete.
Michael
thanks for the correction
sympathetic:
The gathering did not discuss Tagmark's theory, but if this theory is correct - it contains the answers to the questions even without discussing it.
Tagmark calls the theory "crazy" but he does so with love and spreads it with faith.
Regarding the anthropic principle - it is of course familiar to us (at least to me - and I have presented it several times here on the site) and of course it is also relevant to the questions discussed.
Because it is not related to entropy and originates from the word "anthropos" which means "man", it is customary to write the word with the letter T and not with the letter T
"multiple worlds" i.e. "multiple worlds"
Michael and point
To the best of my understanding, the conference did not discuss multiple worlds theories in which parallel universes live side by side resulting from quantum dimensionality. Nor is it related to Tagmark's theory, which he also calls a crazy theory.
The questions we discussed are why the laws of nature are the way they are or why the constants of nature that define the laws of nature are the way they are (ie have certain values). Recently, a semi-Darwinist fashion has spread in cosmology that tries to explain why the constants of nature have the values measured by us. The theory is based on the entropic principle (not related to entropy). According to this principle, the constants of nature must be such that they allow a life similar to ours so that someone can in time ask the question about the constants of nature (a kind of circular logic). The Derwent approach says that many universes were created, each with equal probability and each of them with different fiscal constants (different speed of light, Planck's constant with a different value, etc..) since most universes were not stable, they collapsed (a kind of Derwenist selection) and only the universes that survived allowed life like ours …
Finally a video file in the body of the article: upgrading
point:
I don't fall into any trap.
Nor am I claiming that what he says is true (or wrong).
I'm just saying it's interesting.
As for the words - it does not create any problem for the math.
Mathematics is defined by us in words and we define words in it as needed and in the end - we never feel that something is truly understood until we have been able to formulate it mathematically and therefore not only is mathematics extremely successful but it will probably forever succeed in describing the world for us in the best way we are capable of.
Michael. Do not fall into the mouth of all kinds of bored and despairing Platonists who believe in the existence of the concepts we think.
The idea is not even true because we explain physics not only with mathematics but also with words. (Equations alone have no meaning).
point:
I guess you wanted to joke a little (although there is often something serious behind every joke).
I don't believe you believe you know all the answers.
Point and Ehud:
I have already mentioned Tagmark in other discussions.
An interesting guy who thinks that there really are no "physical" universes at all, but that everything is mathematics - and within mathematics there are all the universes at the same time - without them occupying "real" space or extending over "real" time.
Read about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Tegmark
From there there are links to articles with his ideas, the abridgments of which appear in this article:
http://arxiv.org/abs/0709.4024
I don't know if it's true (and probably - no one knows and it's likely that no one would know) but it seems the closest anyone has ever come to proposing a (possibly wrong) theory of everything.
It also offers a simple answer to the question of why mathematics manages to describe the real world so well.
Ehud, there are infinite universes, and the universe you describe is also there, and we live in a universe that allows us to exist (referring to me and you specifically and not to life in general).
Sabdarmish Yehuda
The question about other possible universes is a question that can be better formulated in the context of physical constants. The theories that exist today are based on constants whose numerical value is determined from measurements and not theoretically, for example: the thin structure constant, the gravitation constant, the speed of light, etc. The question regarding additional universes is the question of why our universe has the physical constants that it has, whether it was possible to have a (stable) universe that has other constants.
point
The claim is that there is a possibility of having a stable universe that would allow life even with physical constants different from those known to us today. So why do constants have the value they do?
Thanks. It was fascinating. Despite this - the article needs a little proofreading...
Thanks fixed.
"In particular, she deals with the dark matter, and in her opinion this subject may be disposed of"
to be resolved, with a 't'.
Regarding the question: - "Why must the universe be as we see it. However, if other laws can be thought of, why shouldn't the universes that those laws describe exist somewhere else in space?".
I think this question has no meaning. The answer lies in the possibility of connecting our universe to a different universe.
If there is a connection then there will be a quick adjustment between the laws of the two universes. I deliberately do not say that the adjustment will be made at the speed of light because the speed of light in the other universe may be different from the speed of our universe.
And if there is no connection between the two universes then there is no connection so why do we care about it.
So in both cases we are left with only our universe.
Shabbat Shalom
Yehuda Sabdarmish
1) Out of the infinity of universes, we live in a universe that allows our existence.
2) Everything is made of nothing.
3) Complexity cannot be understood. That's what supercomputers are for.
4) String theory is incorrect.
5) The singularity is the closest to anything we are able to understand.
6) We will know about reality in 20 years, when supercomputers will symbolize our brains.
7) We can always hope that outsiders will come and discover new knowledge for us.
Great questions, let's hope we get to hear the answers.