Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

New evidence for anthropic theory that fundamental physics constants

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • New evidence for anthropic theory that fundamental physics constants

    It is likely the dice are indeed loaded and there are not many possibilities for the outcome of possible universes.

    Source: http://phys.org/news/2015-01-evidence-anthropic-theory-fundamental-physics.html#jCp



    New evidence for anthropic theory that fundamental physics constants underlie life-enabling universe

    The theory that an Anthropic Principle guided the physics and evolution of the universe was initially proposed by Brandon Carter while he was a post-doctoral researcher in astrophysics at the University of Cambridge; this theory was later debated by Cambridge scholar Stephen Hawking and a widening web of physicists around the world.

    German scholar Ulf-G Meißner, chair in theoretical nuclear physics at the Helmholtz Institute, University of Bonn, adds to a series of discoveries that support this Anthropic Principle.

    In a new study titled "Anthropic considerations in nuclear physics" and published in the Beijing-based journal Science Bulletin (previously titled Chinese Science Bulletin), Professor Meißner provides an overview of the Anthropic Principle (AP) in astrophysics and particle physics and states: "One can indeed perform physics tests of this rather abstract [AP] statement for specific processes like element generation."

    "This can be done with the help of high performance computers that allow us to simulate worlds in which the fundamental parameters underlying nuclear physics take values different from the ones in Nature," he explains.

    "Specific physics problems we want to address, namely how sensitive the generation of the light elements in the Big Bang is to changes in the light quark mass m_q and also, how robust the resonance condition in the triple alpha process, i.e. the closeness of the so-called Hoyle state to the energy of 4He+8Be, is under variations in m_q and the electromagnetic fine structure constant α_{EM}," he adds.

    Brandon Carter initially posited the theory: "The universe (and hence the fundamental parameters on which it depends) must be such as to admit the creation of observers within it at some stage."

    © Copyright Original Source




    Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-01-evidenc...ysics.html#jCp
    Last edited by shunyadragon; 01-23-2015, 11:29 AM.
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

  • #2
    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
    It is likely the dice are indeed loaded and there are not many possibilities for the outcome of possible universes.
    I know of no evidence, assuming the multiverse idea, that there could be any different constants than what we have. In other words there may be no dice and what we have is what we would always get.
    Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
      I know of no evidence, assuming the multiverse idea, that there could be any different constants than what we have. In other words there may be no dice and what we have is what we would always get.
      The determined values for these 'constants' have themselves not remained constant. The margin of error for these values, which is often unmentioned, is bigger than most people understand. The common phrase "if any of these constants were different by even a [insert tiny percentage], life wouldn't exist" isn't accurate (nor has it ever been).
      I'm not here anymore.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
        The determined values for these 'constants' have themselves not remained constant. The margin of error for these values, which is often unmentioned, is bigger than most people understand. The common phrase "if any of these constants were different by even a [insert tiny percentage], life wouldn't exist" isn't accurate (nor has it ever been).
        Roughly correct.
        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

        go with the flow the river knows . . .

        Frank

        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
          The determined values for these 'constants' have themselves not remained constant. The margin of error for these values, which is often unmentioned, is bigger than most people understand. The common phrase "if any of these constants were different by even a [insert tiny percentage], life wouldn't exist" isn't accurate (nor has it ever been).
          And how does that relate to my point? There is no evidence that I am aware of that multiple universes would be any different than what we got this time. The fact that there are small changes over time is a part of what we got this time.
          Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
            And how does that relate to my point? There is no evidence that I am aware of that multiple universes would be any different than what we got this time. The fact that there are small changes over time is a part of what we got this time.
            There aren't small changes over time. Our measurements and calculations have been refined, so our understanding of the values has changed over time.

            I wasn't sure if you would understand the relation or not. It's twofold. The anthropic principle as used for the fine-tuning argument doesn't really hold water if a range of values can produce a relatively similar outcome. The second half is that a different set of constants may still give rise to sentient life, but that doesn't mean it gives rise to us. Thus, saying it wouldn't be any different, even within the margins of error, is incorrect.

            What I didn't say, and should have, is that outside of the anthropic principle is a whole host of universes that see drastically different outcomes to the point that life can't exist at all. That's pretty much what fine-tuning relies upon, that without certain constants being what they are leads to runaway expansion or quick collapse. The evidence is in the math. I'm not sure what else you'd expect to see.
            I'm not here anymore.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
              There aren't small changes over time. Our measurements and calculations have been refined, so our understanding of the values has changed over time.

              I wasn't sure if you would understand the relation or not. It's twofold. The anthropic principle as used for the fine-tuning argument doesn't really hold water if a range of values can produce a relatively similar outcome. The second half is that a different set of constants may still give rise to sentient life, but that doesn't mean it gives rise to us. Thus, saying it wouldn't be any different, even within the margins of error, is incorrect.

              What I didn't say, and should have, is that outside of the anthropic principle is a whole host of universes that see drastically different outcomes to the point that life can't exist at all. That's pretty much what fine-tuning relies upon, that without certain constants being what they are leads to runaway expansion or quick collapse. The evidence is in the math. I'm not sure what else you'd expect to see.
              Good clarification of the problem.
              Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
              Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
              But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

              go with the flow the river knows . . .

              Frank

              I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                Good clarification of the problem.
                Good thing Shuny that we both believe that God created this universe to support life. No accidental forces of nature here.
                Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                Comment


                • #9
                  Did you guys even read the article? It's actually in support of the Anthropic Principle, not against it. It gives evidence that you can't tinker a whole lot with the parameters without ending up in a life-unfriendly world. Not that the parameters couldn't be tinkered with.

                  Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                  It is likely the dice are indeed loaded and there are not many possibilities for the outcome of possible universes.
                  You're being a bit vague, and you've got a broken title so its hard to know what you mean Shunya, but if you mean that the Antropic Principle has now been even further validated, and that the fine-tuning argument has been strengthened, you're correct.

                  If you mean that the parameters can't be toyed with (i.e 'the dice is loaded') you're wrong.

                  Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
                  The determined values for these 'constants' have themselves not remained constant. The margin of error for these values, which is often unmentioned, is bigger than most people understand.
                  The vacuum value of fine-structure constant is unvaried over time, and I'm not aware that any of these vacuum-values in fact changes, I'd love to see some articles on that.

                  Originally posted by Carrikature
                  The common phrase "if any of these constants were different by even a [insert tiny percentage], life wouldn't exist" isn't accurate (nor has it ever been).
                  For some of the parameters it undeniably is. Sure the mixing angle parameters for neutrino flavours might not have changed anything (though that remains to be proven), but the vacuum energy density is extremely finetuned, and as computer simulations show, the processes of nucleosynthesis in the early synthesis are highly sensitive to changes in quark masses (edit: the light quark masses), requiring their masses to remain within 3%, and its even worse for neutron decay.
                  Last edited by Leonhard; 01-24-2015, 10:00 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                    Did you guys even read the article? It's actually in support of the Anthropic Principle, not against it. It gives evidence that you can't tinker a whole lot with the parameters without ending up in a life-unfriendly world. Not that the parameters couldn't be tinkered with.
                    This last sentence is the kicker. I wasn't under the impression that the Anthropic Principle wasn't generally accepted. I distinguish that from the fine-tuning principle.


                    Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                    The vacuum value of fine-structure constant is unvaried over time, and I'm not aware that any of these vacuum-values in fact changes, I'd love to see some articles on that.

                    For some of the parameters it undeniably is. Sure the mixing angle parameters for neutrino flavours might not have changed anything (though that remains to be proven), but the vacuum energy density is extremely finetuned, and as computer simulations show, the processes of nucleosynthesis in the early synthesis are highly sensitive to changes in quark masses (edit: the light quark masses), requiring their masses to remain within 3%, and its even worse for neutron decay.
                    You should have read my clarifications to Jedidiah, first. Even if some of the parameters don't allow for much variance, the claim "if any of these constants" is still inaccurate.
                    I'm not here anymore.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                      Did you guys even read the article? It's actually in support of the Anthropic Principle, not against it. It gives evidence that you can't tinker a whole lot with the parameters without ending up in a life-unfriendly world. Not that the parameters couldn't be tinkered with.

                      You're being a bit vague, and you've got a broken title so its hard to know what you mean Shunya, but if you mean that the Antropic Principle has now been even further validated, and that the fine-tuning argument has been strengthened, you're correct.
                      Read again, the anthropic principle is generally accepted. An argument for the necessity of 'fine tuning' is a separate argument, and weakened. It was never a good argument anyway.

                      If you mean that the parameters can't be toyed with (i.e 'the dice is loaded') you're wrong.
                      No, it is not necessary to 'toy' with to make it work. The 'dice is loaded' means that the possibilities are naturally limited.
                      Last edited by shunyadragon; 01-24-2015, 11:35 AM.
                      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                      go with the flow the river knows . . .

                      Frank

                      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
                        This last sentence is the kicker. I wasn't under the impression that the Anthropic Principle wasn't generally accepted. I distinguish that from the fine-tuning principle.
                        What's the fine-tuning principle? Do you mean the fine-tuning argument, which is based off the anthropic principle?

                        You should have read my clarifications to Jedidiah, first. Even if some of the parameters don't allow for much variance, the claim "if any of these constants" is still inaccurate.
                        Granted.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                          No, it is not necessary to 'toy' with to make it work. The 'dice is loaded' means that the possibilities are naturally limited.
                          The article said nothing about the possibilities being naturally limited, the article stated that there's plenty of possibilities where the universe ends up with zero elements heavier than carbon. Meaning that the mass of the light quarks are highly fine-tuned.

                          That's not a natural limitation, in that it can't fall outside of those values, or that it's improbable that it will, it means that if we're to have life as we know it, the light quark masses must fall within a very narrow band.

                          I think you've misread the article.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
                            There aren't small changes over time. Our measurements and calculations have been refined, so our understanding of the values has changed over time.
                            I missed this. Thanks.
                            Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                              The article said nothing about the possibilities being naturally limited, the article stated that there's plenty of possibilities where the universe ends up with zero elements heavier than carbon. Meaning that the mass of the light quarks are highly fine-tuned.
                              Okay, I am getting out of my limited range of understanding, but . . .

                              When the article say's there are plenty of possibilities where the universe ends up with zero elements heavier than carbon it is speaking in terms of value possibilities. It is not saying that any of these values are actually potential realities is it?
                              Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by lee_merrill, 11-23-2020, 10:25 PM
                              3 responses
                              30 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post Christianbookworm  
                              Started by rogue06, 11-22-2020, 08:25 AM
                              4 responses
                              58 views
                              3 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by TheLurch, 11-19-2020, 02:11 PM
                              1 response
                              30 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by rogue06, 11-10-2020, 08:50 AM
                              0 responses
                              18 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by shunyadragon, 11-09-2020, 06:36 PM
                              2 responses
                              17 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Working...
                              X