Naked Science Forum
Non Life Sciences => Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology => Topic started by: Mr. Scientist on 07/10/2009 23:59:47
-
It seems amazing to calculate the odds of this vacuum arising from the ashes of some proverbial ''nothingness''. Since the wave function governs every possible chance of any reality arising, it must mean that it ruled the very initial standards during the first instants of big bang. Essentially quantum mechanics states that every period in which the universe exists, exists alone for the wave function of possibilities; this means that when big bang occurred, the state which we observe today was in fact chosen from an infinite amount of other possible realities.
This means that for this specific reality (that is this specific space and time concerning matter and energy) was chosen from another possible infinite amount of realities.
With resorting to parallel universes, the chance of our universe appearing was inevitable. If you have every situation arise (as you would expect in an infinite amount of universes) then you would also not expect any reality to no manifest itself. So multiple universe theory can serve to satisfy an answer to why reality seems as though it is...
... But equally, i have expressed my displeasure for multiple universe theories... I personally do not attend to the idea that there are other definitions of the whole, we call ''universe'', outside the known laws of QM. As far as multiple universes are concerned, is that our universe we observe everyday is not very important, since every universe-possibility that is probable, already exists, somewhere 'out there.'
The definition of universe should mean ''everything'' - or ''everything which exists.''
So if any one here likes parallel universes, could they explain to me how it would make quantum mechanics more barable?
-
You are starting from the wrong place with your thinking. The fact that the earth and its life exists is the best place. From initially seeing the need of an outside designer "god" we have learned that it is quite plausible that life on earth evolved from simple things as soon as conditions became stable enough for it to do so.
Looking at our physical universe we see also that the the laws appear to be "tuned" in a way to enable complexity and it initially appears (like the evolution of life) to be very improbable. However we have two good observations firstly "the big Bang" which clearly shows our universe's hot dense origins and continued expansion and secondly the Heisenberg uncertainty principle which shows that the physical laws become less and less well defined as energies rise and times become shorter. so our physical laws have "evolved" from the big bang in a similar way. That is, processes which extend the longevity of interactions are favoured. That is, ANY universe which starts from uncertainty WILL develop complexity. It is not an improbable thing but a racing certainty! Look at my writings on "Evolutionary Cosmology" in the new theories area to see more detail.
-
However we have two good observations firstly "the big Bang" which clearly shows our universe's hot dense origins and continued expansion and secondly the Heisenberg uncertainty principle which shows that the physical laws become less and less well defined as energies rise and times become shorter.
I think that you have ascribed as observations two things that are merely theories.
-
"merely theories" ie the best description of reallity that science can come up with.
-
You are starting from the wrong place with your thinking. The fact that the earth and its life exists is the best place. From initially seeing the need of an outside designer "god" we have learned that it is quite plausible that life on earth evolved from simple things as soon as conditions became stable enough for it to do so.
Looking at our physical universe we see also that the the laws appear to be "tuned" in a way to enable complexity and it initially appears (like the evolution of life) to be very improbable. However we have two good observations firstly "the big Bang" which clearly shows our universe's hot dense origins and continued expansion and secondly the Heisenberg uncertainty principle which shows that the physical laws become less and less well defined as energies rise and times become shorter. so our physical laws have "evolved" from the big bang in a similar way. That is, processes which extend the longevity of interactions are favoured. That is, ANY universe which starts from uncertainty WILL develop complexity. It is not an improbable thing but a racing certainty! Look at my writings on "Evolutionary Cosmology" in the new theories area to see more detail.
Oh, i don't believe i have started in the wrong place. Taking into account that any universe with life-giving properties will give rise to organisms with this itself just being a matter of time. To say our universe is a life-conducting vacuum is best analysed from when space and time first arrived on the scene.
-
Hmmm.... I'll admit my knowledge of QM is superficial, but I recently listened to a podcast from Scientific American in which a scientist from the University of Arizona used the term "thermodynamic gradient". My understanding, and my concept of how the universe came to be leads me to the conclusion that the universe does not run "up hill".
My vague memories of chemistry and physics in college dredged up a quote, paraphrased, that the universe would be happiest with an evenly distributed volume of hydrogen, at just around absolute zero. That's a roundabout way of saying that the laws of the universe seem to hate complexity. It would make sense if we started with complexity, and "devolved" to the current state, but that's clearly not where the evidence is pointing.
I've just never been comfortable with the idea that the incredible complexity of our universe sort of "fell" together. Oh, well, that question won't be answered in my lifetime (unless the LHC spits out a miracle).
-
We think the universe hates complexity. We even think that the universe and eveything in it 'does' things according to a least amount of action. But if this is a universe in its ground state - in its most simplest form - then i'll be damned its still complex.