Give me one set of laws of physics for alternate universe

[Saint]

Some scientists bull-shitt that the big bang can create 10^500 types of different universes with different laws of physics.

I challenge you, can you propose just one set of laws of physics of the (10^500-1) alternate universes?
E.g. , what other possibly structure of their atoms?
what other gravitation law?

Please suggest you alternate models (don't just talk only).

 

[DaveC426913]

Some scientists bull-shitt that the big bang can create 10^500 types of different universes with different laws of physics.

I challenge you, can you propose just one set of laws of physics of the (10^500-1) alternate universes?
E.g. , what other possibly structure of their atoms?
what other gravitation law?

Please suggest you alternate models (don't just talk only).

If any one of about 25 universal constants were not what they are in our universe, that universe would be very different. Mostly what would happen is that subatomic particles would not form atoms and/or that atoms would not form molecules.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensionless_physical_constant#Standard_model

 

[dumbest man on earth]

If any one of about 25 universal constants were not what they are in our universe, that universe would be very different. Mostly what would happen is that subatomic particles would not form atoms and/or that atoms would not form molecules.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensionless_physical_constant#Standard_model

Would the Fine Structure Constant be one of those " about 25 universal constants ?
Caught this some years ago : http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.107.191101
"Indications of a Spatial Variation of the Fine Structure Constant"

Or, if you prefer, a pop-science take on it from arstechnica : https://arstechnica.com/science/201...nstant-or-maybe-they-are-we-dont-know-really/
"Fundamental constants are not constant—or maybe they are, we don’t really know"

The more we learn, the more we learn we don't know much...

...as an aside : this Member "Saint" seems, to me at least, to not be entirely fluent in English, so...maybe, go easy...

 

[DaveC426913]

...as an aside : this Member "Saint" seems, to me at least, to not be entirely fluent in English, so...maybe, go easy...

I have no problem with language; I have a problem with attitude.
Saint has an anti-science agenda.

 

[exchemist]

This interests me, as someone who does not follow cosmology much. I am familiar with the idea of multiverses, in the QM sense of alternative histories or many worlds, but do cosmologists argue that there are likely to be numerous alternatives with different values of fundamental constants? I recall Asimov exploring this as fiction, in "The Gods Themselves", but does it have a serious place in cosmological thinking?

Or is it just more metaphysical speculations by scientists that love an audience?

 

[DaveC426913]

This interests me, as someone who does not follow cosmology much. I am familiar with the idea of multiverses, in the QM sense of alternative histories or many worlds, but do cosmologists argue that there are likely to be numerous alternatives with different values of fundamental constants? I recall Asimov exploring this as fiction, in "The Gods Themselves", but does it have a serious place in cosmological thinking?

Or is it just more metaphysical speculations by scientists that love an audience?

It's not a question of alternatives, it's a question of spectacular coincidences. Our universe - it's very atoms - are dependent on all these values being pretty much exactly whst they are.

If any one of the values are off by even a tiny fraction, our universe would not even have atoms.

It raises the question: why are they the values they are?

 

[Sarkus]

It's not a question of alternatives, it's a question of spectacular coincidences. Our universe - it's very atoms - are dependent on all these values being pretty much exactly whst they are.

If any one of the values are off by even a tiny fraction, our universe would not even have atoms.

It raises the question: why are they the values they are?

This is just a matter of perspective.
Looking from the outside in, it might seem that there would need to be spectacular coincidence for everything to be as it is.
But this is no different than shuffling a deck of cards and turning them over one by one. At the end do you go: "wow, what spectacular coincidence to have them all turn out as they did!"? If we have a notion before we turn over the first card of what the order needs to be, then yes, quite incredible that you'd get it all correct. But asking the question after the event, when you can have no knowledge of anything other than this particular result, is to approach the issue with a certain unintentional bias, I think.

We are within the universe and can only look outward. We have no idea if we are the only one or one of many, one of an infinite number perhaps. If there are an infinite number, each with slightly different values then we are not a matter of coincidence but surely a matter of certainty.

 

[origin]

Here is one. One of the multiverses could have the value of the Universal Gas Constant (R) as 8.413 J / mol K.

OMG, that would be a hoot, huh?

My thoughts on this matter can be summed up thusly; Lets figure out this universe before we worry about other universes...

 

[dumbest man on earth]

I have no problem with language; I have a problem with attitude.
Saint has an anti-science agenda.

Okay...anti-science agenda - Check!
Any thoughts on the Fine Structure Constant paper ?
: http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.107.191101
"Indications of a Spatial Variation of the Fine Structure Constant"

 

[DaveC426913]

This is just a matter of perspective.
Looking from the outside in, it might seem that there would need to be spectacular coincidence for everything to be as it is.
But this is no different than shuffling a deck of cards and turning them over one by one. At the end do you go: "wow, what spectacular coincidence to have them all turn out as they did!"?

Well, as pointed out, not all deck shuffles are equal.

It seems that, having shuffled this deck of cards, we have turned themed them over to find they are all in exact unshuffled order. i.e. one of the extermely few orders where such things as atoms can exist. In virtually all other orders, we get a formless universe, with no chemistry, gravity or EM radiation.

It's more like tossing a deck on the floor and having them miraculously land in the form of a house of cards. Every other time we throw the deck on the floor, we just get a flat, formless, structureless pile of cards.

All random piles of cards are equal.

But some are more equal than others.

 

[exchemist]

It's not a question of alternatives, it's a question of spectacular coincidences. Our universe - it's very atoms - are dependent on all these values being pretty much exactly whst they are.

If any one of the values are off by even a tiny fraction, our universe would not even have atoms.

It raises the question: why are they the values they are?

Ah you mean the Anthropic Principle and all that.

I must say I've never bought the metaphysical idea that there must be an infinite array of other universes that we (or even matter) can't inhabit, just because of this arrangement of constants. Everything around that exists around us does so by an exact and elaborate chain of coincidence, given that there are alternative outcomes to almost every event. That doesn't mean it is useful to think there somewhere (that we can never experience) all these other options must be explored. Just because any given outcome is of vanishingly low probability it doesn't mean that it can't happen.

But I don't see that this is science. It's more metaphysics, isn't it?

 

[exchemist]

This is just a matter of perspective.
Looking from the outside in, it might seem that there would need to be spectacular coincidence for everything to be as it is.
But this is no different than shuffling a deck of cards and turning them over one by one. At the end do you go: "wow, what spectacular coincidence to have them all turn out as they did!"? If we have a notion before we turn over the first card of what the order needs to be, then yes, quite incredible that you'd get it all correct. But asking the question after the event, when you can have no knowledge of anything other than this particular result, is to approach the issue with a certain unintentional bias, I think.

We are within the universe and can only look outward. We have no idea if we are the only one or one of many, one of an infinite number perhaps. If there are an infinite number, each with slightly different values then we are not a matter of coincidence but surely a matter of certainty.

Exactly!

 

[Sarkus]

Well, as pointed out, not all deck shuffles are equal.

It seems that, having shuffled this deck of cards, we have turned themed them over to find they are all in exact unshuffled order. i.e. one of the extermely few orders where such things as atoms can exist. In virtually all other orders, we get a formless universe, with no chemistry, gravity or EM radiation.

But if every shuffle is done, the successful ones are guaranteed.
This is the point of perspective: we are looking up out of one of those successful shuffles and calculating the odds of it having occurred just as it did, or claiming it to be highly coincidental... but there is zero evidence of it being that.
If every possibility happens then we are a certainty, not a matter of coincidence, not a matter of chance, but a certainty.
There is likewise no evidence that every possibility did/has occurred, which is why it is simply a matter of perspective.
Sure, pre-define an outcome before an event and then probability and coincidence has meaning, but after the event, when we have zero evidence or knowledge of what else there is outside of the result we inhabit, seems rather meaningless to me.
As said with the shuffling of the cards, what is the chance of the deck turning over exactly in the order it did?
If you have a predetermined notion of the outcome you want and it happens in the only dealing then sure, the chances were 1 in 10^68 or something around there. But if every possible outcome is dealt... what were the chances then?

It's more like tossing a deck on the floor and having them miraculously land in the form of a house of cards. Every other time we throw the deck on the floor, we just get a flat, formless, structureless pile of cards.

But if the house of cards is a possible outcome, and the deck is thrown at the floor an infinite number of times, the house of cards will occur, as long as there is a non-zero probability.
For people in that house to then look up and marvel at it having happened... that merely speaks to their assumption that there were not an infinite occurrences. And who is to say that there were not?

 

[paddoboy]

I have no problem with language; I have a problem with attitude.
Saint has an anti-science agenda.

That was and is as obvious as dog's balls! and illustrated in the very first sentence.

Some scientists bull-shitt that the big bang can create 10^500 types of different universes with different laws of physics.

And then we are supposed to handle them with kid gloves?

 

[Saint]

I read The Grand Design,
Stephen Hawking said there is 10^500 options of universes could be formed.
Since his "imagination" is so good, then please give me another set of laws of physics that can form a fantastic world.
Can he?
Write the laws and simulate it with computer.

 

[Saint]

Today's scientists talk more than doing experiments to validate their hypothesis.
They talked nonsense.
e.g., after finding some bones in cave, they said "these bones were our ancestors existed billions years ago on earth."

 

[paddoboy]

I read The Grand Design,
Stephen Hawking said there is 10^500 options of universes could be formed.
Since his "imagination" is so good, then please give me another set of laws of physics that can form a fantastic world.
Can he?
Write the laws and simulate it with computer.

Did you? I bet it really sent you into a spin when Hawking proclaimed,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grand_Design_(book)
"It argues that invoking God is not necessary to explain the origins of the universe, and that the Big Bang is a consequence of the laws of physics alone.[2] In response to criticism, Hawking has said; "One can't prove that God doesn't exist, but science makes God unnecessary."

You see, some experiments just can't be done. eg: We are 99.9999999999999999% sure that the power of the Sun and stars is driven by Nuclear fusion, but we can never actually grab hold of a bit of star and check that out directly.
Science makes logical and reasonable assumptions, and many successful predictions keep happening due to those reasonable logical assumptions.
I could go on, if you like.

 

[DaveC426913]

But if every shuffle is done, the successful ones are guaranteed.

But if the house of cards is a possible outcome, and the deck is thrown at the floor an infinite number of times, the house of cards will occur, as long as there is a non-zero probability.

But what is the basis for positing that every possible outcome (or even any fraction thereof) was explored?

Who says the deck was thrown at the ground more than once?

i.e. Why is there any reason to think that any more than one universe was created, and it happened to be this one?



Whatever the odds are that some perturbation in 'what went before' spawned a whole universe -

- the odds would be twice as unlikely again that it happened twice - i.e. two perturbations giving rise to two universes.

Logically, it happening a nigh-infinite number of times is nigh-infinitely unlikely.

i.e. even harder to fathom than it happening merely once.

 

[James R]

Saint:

Some scientists bull-shitt that the big bang can create 10^500 types of different universes with different laws of physics.

How do you know this is bullshit? Do you understand the details of their arguments?

I challenge you, can you propose just one set of laws of physics of the (10^500-1) alternate universes?
E.g. , what other possibly structure of their atoms?
what other gravitation law?

As others have said, above, that 10^500 number is most likely a back-of-the-envelope calculation of the possibilities you get by varying some of the fundamental constants of nature. For example, if you alter the strength of gravity, or change the speed of light, or alter Planck's constant, then you end up with a different universe.

That number 10^500 might sound specific, but I think it's more likely to be a rough estimate based on some kind of reasoning. To understand whether it is reasonable or not, you'd need to look at the actual argument that led to that particular figure.

I read The Grand Design,
Stephen Hawking said there is 10^500 options of universes could be formed.

I assume that Hawking must have made some kind of argument for the 10^500 figure, and not just an assertion. If his argument isn't in the book, then you're right to question the figure. Having said that, I have seen similar figures tossed around. It's not hard to come up with such numbers using considerations such as the one I mentioned above.

Since his "imagination" is so good, then please give me another set of laws of physics that can form a fantastic world.
Can he?
Write the laws and simulate it with computer.

It's not hard to do that. In fact, you can try it yourself online if you want.

On the web, you will find many planetary orbit simulators. Some of them let you alter the value of G, the gravitational constant. Try playing with that number and you will see that it makes quite a difference to the kinds of solar system you can make.

And that's just one example with one fundamental constant.

Note: if you make G too big, then the entire universe won't last more than a fraction of a second before it collapses under it's own weight.

Today's scientists talk more than doing experiments to validate their hypothesis.
They talked nonsense.
e.g., after finding some bones in cave, they said "these bones were our ancestors existed billions years ago on earth."

Are you familiar with how fossils are dated and classified?

Can you give a specific example of this "nonsense" you refer to?

 

[rpenner]

In my experience, 10^500 is commonly given as an estimate of the types of high-dimensions manifolds and analogues of manifolds which are admissible by string theory in the speculative hypothesis that string theory is a fundamental physical theory.

The problem of figuring out which of those 10^500 options causes string theory to replicate the low-energy phenomena of the Standard Model is mostly an open question and 10^500 is too large a number to take less-than-brilliant stabs at solving the problem via trial and error.