One universe or many? Panel holds unusual debate

[FLO]

Scientific debates are as old as science. But in science, “debate” usually means a battle of ideas in general, not an actual, politician-style duel in front of an audience.

Occasionally, though, the latter also happens. And when the topic is as esoteric as the existence of multiple universes, sparks can fly.

Such was the scene Wednesday evening at the American Museum of Natural History in New York.

Museum staff put together five top physicists and astronomers to debate whether universes beyond our own exist, then watched as the experts clashed over a question that’s nearly unanswerable, yet very much alive in modern physics.

New universes may appear constantly in a “continual genesis,” declared Michio Kaku, a theoretical physicist at City College of New York and key supporter of the idea that there exist multiple universes, or a “multiverse.”

“The multiverse is like a bubble bath,” with a bubble representing each universe, he added. There are “multiple universes bubbling, colliding and budding off each other” all the time.

Another panelist backed the multiverse idea, but three more insisted there’s virtually no evidence for the highly speculative concept.

Source: World Science

http://tinyurl.com/qebbm

[Albireo380]

I have just read Michio Kaku's book "Hyperspace" and am working my way through "Parallel Worlds". Hard stuff ( I have to take a lot of what he says "on faith"), but very well written and really at the cutting edge of cosmology. He pts forward some compelling arguments in favour of a Multiverse.

I would recommend the books to anyone interested in cosmology.

Tom

[Mike Godfrey]

Hi Guys,

I have seen Michio's 'Time' series which was good fun but I haven't read any of his books regarding multiverses or string theory.

I have always been sceptical about this theory as its a nice way of avoiding the anthropic principle's implications of a universe that is just right for life, and designed for habitation .With Multiverses this would mean that we are here by chance -one of many universes-so theres no intent or design behind the fine tuning of our universe.

Still an interesting idea.

Cheers,

Mike

[Albireo380]

Interesting Mike,

Surely we are designed to fit in with the Universe we find ourselves in, not the Universe designed to fit "Earth-type" life. Let's not get too anthropocentric - look how many stars there are out there - we are insignificant - and so might all life be. Why does life have to be important in the Universe? - it might be a complete by product. Although, I rather hope we aren't.

Wow - this is all getting a bit heavy - think I will stop now.

Tom

[Mike Godfrey]

Hey Albereo,

I don't think we are designed for the universe or vice versa but that there would nothing existing at all including the possibility of life if the universe had different characteristics -as an example heres one of those characteristics:

The force of gravity affects the interaction of particles. In order for life as we know it to form, the force of gravity must be 1040 (10 to the 40th power) times weaker than the force of electromagnetism. The relationship of gravity to electromagnetism as it currently exists is this: The positively charged particles must equal in charge the numbers negatively charged particles or else electromagnetism will dominate gravity, and stars, galaxies and planets will not form. The numbers of electrons must equal the numbers of protons to better than one part of 1037 (10 to the 37th power).(Wiki)

To me the probability of life arising by chance is the same as the probability of the force of gravity being exactly what we need it to be(I know this is a bit of a tautology) but the probabilities of everything being just right by blind chance are very low.

Anyhow more important than this is that bottle of Malt.

Cheers ,

Mike

[Albireo380]

I agree - the Malt it is - cheers

Tom

[Kaptain Klevtsov]

Hey Albereo,

I don't think we are designed for the universe or vice versa but that there would nothing existing at all including the possibility of life if the universe had different characteristics -as an example heres one of those characteristics:

The force of gravity affects the interaction of particles. In order for life as we know it to form, the force of gravity must be 1040 (10 to the 40th power) times weaker than the force of electromagnetism. The relationship of gravity to electromagnetism as it currently exists is this: The positively charged particles must equal in charge the numbers negatively charged particles or else electromagnetism will dominate gravity, and stars, galaxies and planets will not form. The numbers of electrons must equal the numbers of protons to better than one part of 1037 (10 to the 37th power).(Wiki)

To me the probability of life arising by chance is the same as the probability of the force of gravity being exactly what we need it to be(I know this is a bit of a tautology) but the probabilities of everything being just right by blind chance are very low.

Anyhow more important than this is that bottle of Malt.

Cheers ,

Mike

But the electrons and protons came from a single uncharged particle which was broken in half. To get more "left handed" halves than "right handed" halves would therefore be ludicrous. The argument that this is somehow wierd is wrong as far as I understand it.

To use a Basil Fawlty-ism the "bl**ding obvious" continues. For us to be here means that the zillions of random occurences over the last oodles of years HAD to happen in a way which would lead to us being here. Right down to your mum meeting your dad and my parents meeting. If it werent that way, the universe would not be as it is and i wouldn't be typing a reply to you.

However strange it seems to us that we are here you cannot argue that this isn't the case, we just ARE here.

Im fairly sure that this is what you said in the first bit, but the second bit needed clearing up.

Now if I'm wrong somebody tell me.

Captain Chaos

[Mike Godfrey]

Hi Captain C,

sorry for the confusion -must be the effect of working nights :shock:

you said 'For us to be here means that the zillions of random occurrences over the last oodles of years HAD to happen in a way which would lead to us being here.' Thats my point the probability of us being here is so low that it is beyond mere accident (possibly beyond the universal probability bound) and cannot be random and must be something else such as intent.

The force of gravity example wasn't very clear I admit, what I was trying to do was give just one example out of many that demonstrated how the universe we are in needed things to be just right for Galaxy's etc to exist .

If Gravity was stronger than it is compared to the electromagnetic force nothing would exist as this would stop atoms from interacting to form molecules etc .

The roughly equal numbers of +ve and -ve particles need to be equal as otherwise other forces such as electromagnetic would dominate matter rather than gravity-the fact is that the number of +ve and -ve forces are roughly equal .

As Freeman Dyson once wrote, "The more I examine the universe and study the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense must have known that we were coming. There are some striking examples in the laws of nuclear physics of numerical accidents that seem to conspire to make the universe habitable

Cheers,

Mike

[Kaptain Klevtsov]

I agree about the conspiracy, I mean what are the chances of that happening? Million to one? Billion to one? Million billion to one?

So if there are a million / billion / million billion stars, then statistically it islikely to happen, life will form against all the odds. At my last guess there were a gazillion stars out there, a gazillion divided by a million billion = plenty of stars have life.

I cannot agree about the intent though, that would mean that something had the intent and intent implies cogniscence. ( if that's how you spell it). That gives us a "not my fault" get-out clause where we don't need to find out why it all happened. the fact is that we don't have to, but its fun, interesting and a challenge.

My take on it is that, for all the required coincidence, the thing is that we are here. End of. If we were not here, then we would look back at a different history which would get to the point (now) when we aren't here. Because we are here implies that the history leads here and not elsewhere. Its only because it is so unlikely that we even ponder on it. It's kind of like an orphan wondering if he had real parents, the obvious answer is yes, there's no other way it could have happened.

Captain Chaos

[Mike Godfrey]

Hi Guys,

your right Captain Chaos the chances of a universe fit for life are incredibly low so low as to be bordering on the miraculous yet here we are!

With the multiverse idea those chances are explained away by having many universes so our universe is the one that holds life-no big deal.What I'm saying is that the multiverse idea is an example of a theory used to avoid implications of intent-which is why I think the debate got so heated on the panel .

I'm still a newbie on this forum so I don't know much but I wondered what evidence for multiverses there is ?

Cheers dudes

Mike

[Ant]

This is the trouble with chance / probability.

Take a simple 6 sided dice. The odds / probability of rolling any given number is 6 to 1. Yet it's possible (although unlikely) to roll that number.

Even if there is one universe and the chances are stacked heavily against life evolving - it is possible. The Multiverse theory just makes it much more likely.

I watched the "Planet Earth" program on BBC1 two weeks ago (the Caves episode), there was a cave that had a stream of surfuric acid running through it - an unlikely place for life. But it actually had fish swimming about in it!

I also watched the Horizon Program on Parellel universes, and I have to say that the theory of the multiverse was quite plausable to me (me being a non physicist).

Ant

[Rob]

I watched a program around 2 years ago on channel 4 about multiverse's. I went into deep detail for the argument of life and claimed a random number of universes will be produced before one with the right chemical balance will arrive. The cycle will continue.... so on, and so on.

This would mean a number of life containing unverse's could exsist? its then a case of getting from one to another!!??. What is an interesing thought though (which I offten ponder) is, how big is the vacum that holds these multiverse's :shock: - whats beyond the beyond :shock: :?

Big old subject here - Great thread, thankyou.

Rob

[Naz]

"whats beyond the beyond"

Exactly Rob, when I first got interested in astronomy as a teenager, too many moons ago, that is one thing I could not grasp, still can't!

we are used to boundaries, be it walls, borders, edges etc. but in space, the more we look the further we see, both in time and distance.

there was a play on tv in the 60's where if I recall, there was astronomers seeking the edge of the universe from their ground based observations. As they improved their techniques they got further and further, but still no end.

At the end of the program, the camera zoomed of the Earth and into space, out of the solar system, past the Milky Way, into the blackness, then there was light, and two God like figures were looking into a glass tank with a galaxy suspended in it. they passed some comment about the human developement and the danger that may come if they escape the tank! :shock::shock:

The graphics were poor by modern standards, and typical ill informed script, (it was in B&Was well), but food for thought?

naz :?