Errr. How did the first universe start?
Alan,
A Fair question--there are many others. All I wanted to do with this post is give the basic idea.
Who says that there was a first universe?
David, a single finite evolving biocentric universe is simpler and more accurate than Lee's ideas:
In General Relativity's most natural universe with a cosmological constant, the vacuum has negative density when,
P=-u=-rho*c^2
In this static state, pressure is proportional to -rho, but pressure is negative in an expanding universe, and so energy density is positive.
The vacuum energy density is less than the matter energy density, but it is still positive, so positive matter density can be obtained locally by condensing energy from this negative pressure vacuum into a fininte region of space, until the energy density over this region equals that of the matter density. This will, in-turn, cause negative pressure to increase, via the rarefaction of vacuum energy, so this expanding universe does not run-away, because the increase in "mass-energy" is offset by the increase in negative pressure that results when you make particles from Einstein's negative energy vacuum.
In this model, G=0 when there is no matter, so you have to condense the matter density from the existing structure in order to get rho>0 from the matterless spacetime structure, and in doing so the pressure of the vacuum necessarily becomes less than zero, P(less-than)0.
The off-set increase in both mass-energy and negative pressure means that an expanding universe is not unstable, nor will it "run-away", because Dr. Einstein's equation...
g=(4pi/3)G(rho(matter)-2rho(vacuum))R=0
... works just fine with vacuum expansion, while at the same time repairing the gravitational flaw in Dirac's Large Numbers Hypothesis when both particles in the pair leave real holes in the vacuum.
The graviational acceleraton is zero if the density of the static vacuum is -0.5*rho(matter) because,
rho+3P/c^2=0.
If you condense enough of this vacuum energy over a finite region of space to achieve postive matter-density, then the local increase in mass-energy is immediately offset by the increase in negative pressure that occurs via the rarefying effect that real particle creation has on the vacuum.
That means that created particles have positive mass, regardless of sign, and this resolves a very important failure of particle theory, becuase it explains how and why there is no contradiction with the asymmetry that appears to exist between matter and antimatter. This is the reason that we don't observe nearly as much antimatter as particle theory predicts exists, because the energy that comprises the observed antimatter particles normally exists in a more rarefied state than observed antiparticles do.
Increasing tension between the vacuum and ordinary matter will eventually become so great that this near-static state of punctuated equilibrium will end when our universe "leaps" relatively quickly to a higher order of entropic efficiency, by way of another Big Bang, which naturally projects the characteristics of this universe inherently into the next.
**That defines the causal mechanism for the Anthropic Principle, thereby giving it real causal meaning, while removing the "tautologous" distinction as well as the "circular reasoning" that has haunted it since Robert Dicke first noted that humans can only exist in our universe when Dirac's Large Numbers Hypothesis is true. The universe is constrained by the physics that enables it to evolve.
Hey Dave, you, as a phycisist, do you believe in the multi-verse theory? Do you think this guys' essay proves it?
Benji,
No, I do not believe in any multiverse scenario. But I think the concept is kind of interesting. I have to finish reading the paper and try to understand his falsifiability claims.
Regardless, I will guarantee you that whatever falsifiability claims, they are highly subject to theoretical interpretaion, and this always includes a whole slew of assumptions about infinities and other similar such unproven idealizations that have also been taken for granted by science.
*Multiverse reasoning* can never supercede the observed universe in origins science, unless it proves to be the mechanism for the final theory.
String theorists haven't been able to substantiate that claim in the 25 years that they've been trying since they first proclaimed it, based on "unfounded projections"... of course.
Using unproven theoretical assumptions to make further theoretical projections necessarily compounds their distance from reality.
Assuming that projected mathematical idealizations can be representations for reality is purely religious non-sense.
island,
You may be right--why don't you read the paper and comment on the falsifiability claims?
I'll do that if you read my proposed alternate that resurects Einstein's static model with a cosmological constant, since the obvious mechanism for matter generation proves that it is not unstable, which IS the only reason that he abandoned it.
Mach's Principle is valid in that model... so think about that in conjunction with an anthropic cosmological principle, and you've got real physical teleology that doesn't know where to quit.
I'm always the nobody when I least desire it... 
"If another universe with different physics is ever observed, then I for one will abandon cosmological ID. On the other hand, if there is a legitimate falsification test for a multiverse model that produces a negative result—well that would indirectly strengthen cosmological ID."
It does not follow that multiverses will falsify cosmo ID, just as it doesn't follow that no multiverses will strengthen cosmo ID. Once again you are incorrect. There is no necessary requirement for cosmo ID to involve only 1 universe, since one could easily say that the designer made all the universes (if there are more). Don't designers typically make prototypes and rough drafts?
Similarly, not finding other universes does nothing to scientifically strengthen the metaphysical claim that of "goddidit."
GCT, I can be "incorrect" if I say that "if another universe with different physics is ever observed, then I for one will abandon cosmological ID." All I can do is be shown to be truthful or a liar, if another universe is detected.
"There is no necessary requirement for cosmo ID to involve only 1 universe"
In fact, there is. For Cosmological ID is not the theory that God made the universe, it is the theory that He left behind evidence that He created the universe. The evidence for design is based on both the fine tuning of the universe and the uniqueness of the universe.
"Similarly, not finding other universes does nothing to scientifically strengthen the metaphysical claim that of 'goddidit.'"
If the main threat to fine-tuning-as-evidence-for-design is removed (multiverses falsified) it certainly strengthens ID--in the absence of a new explanation emerging. I agree that it doesn't prove ID.
You might abandon cosmo ID, but it wouldn't be for a coherent reason.
Even if cosmo ID is the "theory" that god left behind evidence that she created the universe, finding another universe does nothing to counter the fact that a god may or may not have created the universe. Fine tuning and uniqueness don't provide evidence for or against the existence of god, and therefore can not provide evidence for or against the creation of the universe by said god.
Well, GCT, you said a lot of stuff that makes absolutely no sense since David has openly expressed that he sees the implications for specailness, (which is not a valid interpretational representation in a multiverse), as his personal evidence for intelligent design.
A multiverse falsifies the implications for specialness that Dr. Susskind has so aptly pointed out are a valid if there is no multiverse.
Which is why he said that they'd be more "hard-pressed" to answer the IDers... if that is indeed the case, so...
... sorry, you're the one that's irrationally... OUT OF CONTEXT!
~
David I'm reading the paper, and I can tell you right off the bat that he's (purposely?) excluding the non-probablistic interpretation, so when he says that some might argue that A and B might both be true... he fails to consider that "C" is all that is actually observed and we can't assume that things can be different than this if C can answer the question without the need for the added complexity, which does not necessarily improve accuracy.
He uses inflationary theory as his example for how B is used to explain it via string theory, but inflationary theory is a band-aid theory that was tacked on to big bang theory to account for the causality problem that's associated with the flatness and horizon problems.
Inflation is only necessary if you project backwards to an idealization that is not evidenced to be provable, which, in this case is absolute symmetry in the energy at the moment of the big bang.
If you do not project beyond C, then it makes much more logical sense that the universe had volume when our big bang occured, because this would account for the fact that things are the way that they are.
This is a much simpler representation of what Lee is talking about when he says that a black hole bounce will transfer stucturing information "like a family tree".
Each universe has an ancestor, which is another universe."
If we have a big bang right now, then you will get similar results, because characteristics of this universe will be convolved into the next universe.
A universe with pre-existing volume is what is indicated by the horizon problem without projecting to an idealization.
Idealizations do not exist because nothing is perfect(ly) symmetrical.
The imperfection represents the imbalance in the energy, (the asymmetry), that keeps things moving perpetually in the direction of a reconcilliation of this imbalance, that cannot be satisfied.
That's the same thing that my previously given physics derives, as well.
... AND...
... the previously given physics represents the most conservative mainstream approach to explaining the expansion of the universe, since Einstein's GR with a cosmological constant is still more-definitively proven than completely unproven conjecture about other *possibe* worlds.
Island,
Mr. Heddle's implication (and def. of ID) is that A)there is a god and B) that this god left evidence of her work. B follows from A. Without being able to show A, then one can not show B. Do multiverses show A or show not A? No, they do not. It simply does not follow that multiverses will show or refute cosmological ID. The designer could well have made multiple universes and still decided that our universe is "special" since it is where we were chosen to reside.
Your charges of irrationality and of being out of context are completely mislaid in this case.
Do multiverses show A or show not A?
They show that there is no evidence for A, which is good reason to dump the claim that's based on the fact that there is evidence for A.
No, it doesn't negate the possibility that there is a god, but it does negate the possibility that you can uses the anthropic principle as evidence for cosmological ID.
Get a grip.
I wrote this earlier in my response to what Lee says:
This is a much simpler representation of what Lee is talking about when he says that a black hole bounce will transfer stucturing information...
Well, that got cut-off... I'll try to remember what I said and try again.
In the mean time:
Lee said:
The second is the complexity problem. Our universe has an array of complex and nonequilibrium structures spread out over a huge range of scales from clusters of galaxies to living cells. It is not too hard to see that this remarkable circumstance depends on the
parameters being fine tuned into narrow windows. Were the neutron heavier by only one percent, the proton light by the same amount, the electron twice as massive, its electric charge twenty percent stronger, the neutrino as massive as the electron etc. there would be no stable nuclei at all. There would be no stars, no chemistry. The universe would be just hydrogen gas. The anthropic observation stated in the introduction is one way to state the complexity problem.
Quantum mechanics depends very much on Hamiltonian mechanics, and so it isn't inherently able to describe dissipative structure.
I understand that it can be done however, by way of the "Lindblad equation", which derives that flatness acts as a natural damper that keeps the imbalanced universe from evolving inhomogeneously, so this is the most natural configuration... IF the universe is finite and closed... AND if there is an inherent asymmetry in the energy.
Trying again:
Lee says that a black hole bounce will transfer stucturing information...
"like a family tree. Each universe has an ancestor, which is another universe."
I don't think that this is a valid representation if evolution is progressive, because you need a mechanism like this to enable the system to evolve to higher levels of energy efficiency... like this:
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/ASYMTRANS.html
That's the same thing that happens when you generate matter from the vacuum energy in Einstein's static model, the effect of the second law of thermodynamics is reversed by way of "asymmetric transitions".
Lee wrote:
The first is the naturality problem. Many of these parameters, when expressed in terms of dimensionless ratios, are extremely tiny or extremely large numbers.
This is also simply explained by the physics in my first post, that I keep referring to, the asymmetry grows as a greater volume of Einstein's vacuum energy is required each time that you make a particle, so that the number of particles in the universe is disproportionally equal to the size of the univere in astronomical units.
That also clarifies Dirac's cosmological interpretation and I believe that it also says a lot about his hole theory which was circumvented when they translated to QFT. Negative energy took on a whole nother meaning when Dirac failed to unify GR and QM, but that's because his cosmological model did not take into account the fact that a negative pressure energy mimics the antigravitational effect that popped out of the Dirac Equations in the form of negative mass solutions.
THAT... is where the ball got dropped.
Island,
What you don't seem to get is that having a single universe does not necessarily flow from the statement, "God exists and left evidence behind of His existence." Having multiverses out there does nothing to prove or disprove god's existence any more than having a single universe does. If there are multiple universes, god could still have created one or more of them and could still have left behind evidence. It's really a simple concept.
Addendum,
Island, if you are asserting that one provides support for god by showing the evidence that god exists, then you are engaging in nothing but circular arguments.
GCT... This is the last time that I'm going to explain this:
Without evidence that we're not here by accident, there is no valid theory that we aren't.
Without evidence that we're not here by accident there is no validity to saying that:
"God exists and left evidence behind of His existence."
If there are multiple universes, god could still have created one or more of them and could still have left behind evidence.
The anthropic principle is not evidence that we are not here by accident if there are many possible universes, where we had to happen in one of them.
...**could*** still have left behind evidence
Woulda' Coulda' Shoulda'... what evidence?... since the AP DOES NOT COUNT AS SUCH given this scenario...
What evidence can be counted as evidence that we are not here by accident if there is evidence that we had to accidentally occur in some universe somewhere?
What evidence?
Island, if you are asserting that one provides support for god by showing the evidence that god exists
No, I would never say that because I don't make the leap of faith that David makes to assume that evidence that we aren't here by accident can ever possibly constitute evidence for intelligent design without direct proof, since you can get a perfectly viable need for intelligent life from the thermodynamics of our universe.
Like this:
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/...9/30/
2003204990
That's a different story.
And I not "asserting" anything. I'm factually stating that that the antropic principle seves as evidence that we are not here by accident.
And I'm factually stating that evidence that we *are* here by accident can't constitute evidence that we aren't here by accident... because there is evidence that we HAD TO HAPPEN in some universe, given infinite potential for the to happen that you get with multiverse theories.
Island, if you are asserting that one provides support for god by showing the evidence that god exists, then you are engaging in nothing but circular arguments.
Whoa... I should have read the whole statement more carefully before I bothered to answer this.
So evidence that something exists is a circular argument that doesn't serve as evidence that something exists...
I'm thinkin I'm done with ole' GCT... lol
You're right Island that I was not precise and I should have "previewed" my addendum.
If one assumes god exists and then finds evidence based on that assumption to prove that god exists, then one is engaging in circular logic, or begging the question. An example of this would be the idea that somehow the anthropic principle shows that god exists. I was making the point that one does not prove A (that god exists) by showing B (evidence left behind by god) independently of A. If one wants to show B, then they also have to show A since B is dependent on A. So, to make the claim that a single universe somehow supports B, when it can't be shown to support A is begging the question. Curiosly enough, and upon reading your last couple comments, on this point I think we are in agreement.
Now, let's look at some of your statements (that we don't agree on), shall we?
"Without evidence that we're not here by accident, there is no valid theory that we aren't."
Excuse me? We are to assume that we aren't here by accident unless proven that we are? That's a good laugh.
"The anthropic principle is not evidence that we are not here by accident if there are many possible universes, where we had to happen in one of them."
If we are arguing ID, and what it says, then why are you arguing the AP? Regardless, the AP is not really evidence of anything unless you make a metaphysical jump based on unwarranted assumptions. It can't be based on a reasoned scientific conclusion. So sorry to burst your bubble, but I'll have to once again. The universe is not under and was never under any constraint to produce life. If we are indeed helping to cause the universe to expand, so be it, but if the universe had collapsed on itself at any time in it's existence it would be just as natural as it is now. To impute some sort of survival instinct on the universe to want to expand and produce humans to do it is quackery quite frankly.
Also, many possible universes does not necessarily entail that "we had to happen accidentally in one of them." One of the arguments of the IDists is that god had to breathe life onto the Earth anyway, so if that is the case, then ID is still completely valid with multiple universes. That's the whole point. Single universe or multiple universe, either one works with ID because neither one would prove or disprove god or goddidit.
"Without evidence that we're not here by accident, there is no valid theory that we aren't."
Excuse me? We are to assume that we aren't here by accident unless proven that we are? That's a good laugh.
That isn't what I said, but I'm not surprised that you can't read.
[SNIP]
Um, yes Island, you did say that. If you didn't mean to say that then just say so. Hey, I said something pretty boneheaded myself. I corrected it. It's OK for you to do the same.
Hmmm, OK Island, I see what you are saying and once again I stick my foot in my mouth. That's two boneheads for me in the last two days. I'll admit it. I was confused by all the negatives thrown in there, but it is my fault. I admit it.
I still stand by my statements, however, that you make unwarranted assumptions about the universe to show your "design."
No, that's false.
It isn't called the anthropic principle because there is no implication that we are not here by accident.
Lenny Susskind didn't say that... 'there is no denying that the universe appears designed'... because the anthropic principle does not leave this impression.
He did not say, 'as things stand now we will be in a very awkward position. Without any explanation of nature's fine-tunings we will be hard pressed to answer the ID critics... because there is no evidence that we are not here by accident.
Every last ounce of argument that you can put forth against this implication is designed to offer alternatives to the most obvious conclusion, but that is the wrong way to do science.
Rather than to make every attempt to downplay significance... a real scientist would try to find out what good physical reason might there be why we are special players in the thermodynamic game.
That's the problem in this debate, and it arises from knee-jerk reactionism to the constant pressure from creationists who abuse the principle as evidence for god.
Antifanaticism... not science.
No Island, the real problem in this debate is your insistance that "we are special players" in this game. You have no science to back that up. Oh, you have science, but you make unwarranted leaps from the science to your metaphysical positions. See, science can't make pronouncements of that kind, because they lie outside the realm of science.
If you are correct about Susskind's arguments, then I believe he is incorrect for making them. Unfortunately, it's something we see quite often. IMO, the IDists have done one thing astonishingly well, and that is the frame the debate in certain terms. Now, we have to somehow show that the obvious design is only apparent? How absurd. There is no obvious design to begin with.
You have no science to back that up.
No that's false.
Come back when you have something that you can actually dispute.
http://www.anthropic-principle.ORG
David Heddle,
I would like to know how you would suggest that I handle situations like this, where willful denial supercedes rational thinking?
I don't know what more that I can say, other than what you and I know from studying physics, which is that there is an implication for specialness exist that physicists, at least don't deny:
http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~imamura.../
anthropic.html
We may occupy a preferred place or preferred time in the Universe (we may also occupy a preferred universe)
That doesn't mean that the answer is automatically...
"NO WAY... that can't be possible"
... and then they read-on to find rationale that downplays this implied significance and they latch onto that, like it negates the implication because it might negate the implication... or whatever.
When it actually means that physicists and evobiologists should bear in mind that there is evidence that we might not be here by accident when they interpret evidence, rather than the willful igorance, can't see the evidence for the trees, thing, like GCT keeps doing. I've been down that road million times and I've thorougly debunked every ill-considered point:
http://www.geocities.com/
natures...insArchive.html
http://www.geocities.com/
natures...hropicBias.html
This could be critically important to humanity if the most accurate cosmological principle is anthropic in nature, because this explains why symmetry is broken in the manner that it is, and why supersymmetry is just so much wishful thinking as is unification.
It's the ToE in other words, and we're supposed to contribute to the effort if my physics is right... which, I already know, it is. So our awareness of this is critical.
I see that you simply don't answer people when that kind of stuff happens, but I've also seen where this only leads others to believe that you can't respond.
... and I really hate that, when I know that I have science on my side.
I think that I hate YECs a little less than I hate willfully ignorant antifanatics.
To label me a fanatic is a nice little exercise in pot calling the kettle black.
Do you want me to admit that we might be special, that we might hold a special place in the universe and/or a special time. Certainly. That might very well be the case. You can't show that with science though. For the same reason that science can't show god or not god, you can't show special or not special, because special depends on metaphysical factors.
I've read your little page, and you make assumptions that you shouldn't make. The idea behind science is to eliminate assumptions, not make unfounded ones by which you can make some grand pronouncements about universal design. Your "theory" amounts to not much more than a pantheistic philosophy of the universe itself being god.
You can't show that with science though.
No, that's false, and I make no unfounded assumptions.
Go away little boy.
One comment. Cosmological ID, or any ID theory is not "proof that God exists".
What is happening is that people are pointing to certain facts and saying that they need an explanation. The explanantion provided by ID is that the evidence points to a designer.
This is a long way from proof that God, in the Christian sense exists.
ID is a theory to explain the facts, just as naturalism is. Neither are 'provable' in any rationally binding sense. What we are debating is which is the best exlpanantion.
Matt,
"What we are debating is which is the best exlpanantion."
I guess the intended audience for my comment is Christians...
We must ask exactly which phenomenas should be attributed to God's direct action and under what evidence. Should we attribute everything not explainalbe by current scientific knowledge to God's direct action ?
The questions I raise above are based on two observations:
1. theological consequences: Attributing something to God's direct action has theological consequences. For example, historically people have attributed earthquake, tsunami, and other catastrophic events to God's direct action. Nowadays, most people including Christians don't do that anymore.
If we attribute fine-tuning as an evidence left by God. It raises many theological questions. For example, did God leave this evidence intentionally or not ? I personally would be interested in seeing more discussion along this line.
2. We can similarly argue that "God moves things around" is an explanation of how earth moves around the sun. It is totally compatible with observations/data and probably with Bible too. Is there any time in the history that such explanation should be held by a Christian ? Why or why not ?
P.S. For Christians who believe God is omniscience, omnipotent, and so on, catastrophic events still have important theological consequences even if it is not from God's direct action.
If we attribute fine-tuning as an evidence left by God. It raises many theological questions. For example, did God leave this evidence intentionally or not ? I personally would be interested in seeing more discussion along this line.
Why would god play hide-n-seek by leaving hints and clues, instead of simply making his presence known?
As an agnostic, I would never leap to interpret evidence that we are not here by accident to mean that there must be a supernatural entity responsible for it, especially since this can be explained via natural causes.
You have to do better than that or I'm a lost sheep, pal.
GTC
Don’t let Island get to you. Island is desperate to get people to believe his hypothesis but cant. The reason he can’t is not because everyone is conspiring against him and his hypothesis, but because he demands that you start from an unproven stand point, and because he demands it in a combative fashion, people want to disagree with him from page one.
Many people are not ready to simply disregard the multi-verse idea. Mankind has made to many blunders in science by making such assumptions. Nothing observed in nature so far, exists as an exclusive body.
So until the multi-verse hypothesis is decided one way or the other the Anthropic Principle will remain a simple yet interesting hypothesis.
Later
Frank,
Well said.
Hi there,
interesting post. I read this paper just recently and found your blog through google. I have a very simple question: what happens to energy conservation?
I mean, the new baby universes ought to have considerably smaller energy than the mother universes. 10^18 black holes in our univers is an absolute number which should give a relative amount of matter that goes into black holes (relative to the total mass in the universe). Even if the relative amount is optimized, the total number of black holes decreases substantially in each generation. In case the energy was initially infinite, it won't be so in the second generation. Did I get something wrong?
Best, B.
David, I just found this year-old post. One crucial statement seems to me to be self-contradictory:
"Instead of collapsing down to a singularity, the black hole, at some point, begins to expand—producing a new region of spacetime that is not causally connected with the universe in which the black hole was originally formed."
Let me translate this so that the terms used throughout for causation are uniform:
"causing a new region of spacetime that is not causally connected with the universe in which the black hole was originally formed"
Does that make any sense? If one universe can cause another universe, then they are indeed causally connected. Maybe what Smolin wants to say can be expressed differently, but this clearly can't be what he means if so, because this is just a contradiction.
Jeremy,
The devil is in the details, and indeed the new universe is causally disconnected--no information can flow from it back to its parent. It might be helpful to recognize that at least part and perhaps most of our own universe is in the same relationship to us. And more and more of our observable universe is slipping over the horizon.
Commenting by HaloScan
