DNA as in it’s unique fingerprint, But if you change a little bit the laws of nature, or you change a little bit the constants of nature—like the charge on the electron—then the way the universe develops is so changed, it is very likely that intelligent life would not have been able to develop.
I recommend you read this – not being rude but there seems to be more to it. I didn’t understand everything the author claimed but there is plenty of evidence that there is some fine-tuned DNA-like evolution going on somewhere up there.
We’re sorry
An error occurred when we tried to process your request.We’re working on the problem and expect to resolve it shortly. Please note that if you were trying to place an order, it will not have been processed at this time. Please try again later.
We apologise for the inconvenience.
I guess the parameters are the fixed constants of nature. But there lies the problem. The Anthropic Principle is an unfalsifiable statement (aka. a tautology) that results from the “selection effect” of our own existence. Meanwhile, the fine-tuning argument is a surprising fact about the laws of nature as we know them.
Urr, nope, but thinking about this can help find the truth. From this teaching: “You could say that the history of the book of Genesis is kind of like the opposite of our belief in a 14 billion years ago Big Bang, considered to be out of date and foolish, but perhaps with more wisdom than we thought. Perhaps even Genesis is set for its own type of revolutionary rereading.”
Reverse the Big Bang, Find Genesis Within — Spiritual Sunshine: A Swedenborgian Community Online
Up until the James Webb telescope came online recently, most of us science-oriented people were pretty sure that the universe started about 14 billion years ago with the “Big Bang.” Now that we can see further out and further back into the universe, not only is our idea of the age of the univers... Read more
lol pls read: “This is kind of a mess. The question originally didn’t specify that the Big Bang was excluded. John Rennie and I both answered on the assumption that the Big Bang was the only logical place to look for a boundary. Our answers contradict one another. The new version of the question excludes the Big Bang. However, the OP has never explained why anyone would expect a boundary anywhere else”.
Excluding big bang itself, does spacetime have a boundary?
My understanding of big bang cosmology and General Relativity is that both matter and spacetime emerged together (I’m not considering time zero where there was a singularity). Does this mean that
The Nothingness, or Chaos, Void and Abyss is a world in Greek Mythology, which first appears around 700 BCE and ends in the 9th Century. lt’s based on the god of the same name. In Strange Case, they thought it was Chaos, but was later revealed to be Nyx in disguise, meaning Chaos was only mentione... Read more
So there is only one spacetime boundary despite there being two types of singularity that could take us to perhaps many other universes – all of which live outside of THE one nothing.
It’s happening already, read this: “A theory of everything, a grand unified theory of physics and nature, has been elusive for the world of Physics. While unifying various forces and interactions in nature, starting from the unification of electricity and magnetism in James Clerk Maxwell’s seminal work A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism [8] to the electroweak unification by Weinberg-Salam-Glashow [9-11] and research in the direction of establishing the Standard Model including the QCD sector by Murray Gell-Mann and Richard Feynman [12,13], has seen developments in a slow but surefooted manner, we now have a few candidate theories of everything, primary among which is String Theory [14]. Unfortunately, we are still some way off from establishing various areas of the theory in an empirical manner. Chief among this is the concept of supersymmetry [15], which is an important part of String Theory. There were no evidences found for supersymmetry in the first run of the Large Hadron Collider [16]. When the Large Hadron Collider discovered the Higgs Boson in 2011-12 [17-19], there were results that were problematic for the Minimum Supersymmetric Model (MSSM), since the value of the mass of the Higgs Boson at 125 GeV is relatively large for the model and could only be attained with large radiative loop corrections from top squarks that many theoreticians considered to be `unnatural’ [20]. In the absence of experiments that can test certain frontiers of Physics, particularly due to energy constraints particularly at the smallest of scales, the importance of simulations and computational research cannot be underplayed.”
Steven Weinberg, called it “a troubling thought” that humans might not be smart enough to understand the final Theory of Everything. “But I suspect in that case,” he wrote in an email, “we will also not be smart enough to design a computer that can find a final theory.” — MORE HERE https://mindmatters.ai/2020/12/can-a-powerful-enough-computer-work-out-a-theory-of-everything/
Can a Powerful Enough Computer Work Out a Theory of Everything?
No doubt DeepMind is working on it. It seems to have cracked the structure of the protein and other complex relationships, the whole shebang is likely next on the cards.
Artificial intelligence could be one of humanity’s most useful inventions. We research and build safe artificial intelligence systems. We’re committed to solving intelligence, to advance science and benefit humanity.
I’m linking to this. its a good place to start with regards to how Artificial Intelligence will solve our problems for us, probably by removing us alongside our problems.
Could Artificial Intelligence Solve The Problems Einstein Couldn’t?
One of the reasons A.I. has been so successful at solving games,” Dr. Thaler said, “is that games have a very well-defined notion of success.” He added, “If we could define what success means for physical laws, that would be an incredible breakthrough.
Can a Computer Devise a Theory of Everything? (Published 2020)
“In the recent past, neural networks have also helped in determining heavy quarks as well as identifying electrons [76]. We can use deep learning to solve Schrodinger’s equation, to find the ground state energy [77]. There is a growing need to turn noisy and large data sets into meaningful information as we try to increase our ability to prepare and control increasingly complex quantum systems experimentally. It is in this area that we can utilize machine learning, such as the use of algorithmic learning and Bayesian methods for Hamiltonian learning [78], to classify quantum states [79] and to characterize unknown unitary transformations [80]. Reconstruction of the Hamiltonian to identify an accurate model for quantum system dynamics, extracting information on unknown quantum states and engineering quantum gates with pairwise interactions, using both time-independent and time-dependent hamiltonians, are all better done using artificial intelligence.”
AI-ming for a Theory of Everything - Bengal Chronicle
Explorations into the nature of reality have been undertaken across the ages, and in the contemporary world, disparate tools, from gedanken experiments [1-4], experimental consistency checks [5,6] to machine learning and artificial intelligence are being used to illuminate the fundamental layers of... Read more
Great video you posted. Adding it as a link to others can see how the video explains how AI will take more of the work of our hands, even with creativity and understanding the Universe.
Cosmological natural selection also called the fecund universes, is a hypothesis proposed by Lee Smolin intended as a scientific alternative to the anthropic principle. It addresses the problem of complexity in our universe, which is largely unexplained. The hypothesis suggests that a process analog... Read more
Buy The Life of the Cosmos Revised ed. by Smolin, Lee (ISBN: 9780195126648) from Amazon’s Book Store. Everyday low prices and free delivery on eligible orders.
The most full proposal for the mechanism of cosmological natural selection comes from physicist Lee Smolin. Here is the mind-blowing hypothesis that he first outlined in 1992 in his book The Life of the Cosmos.
The Logic and Beauty of Cosmological Natural Selection
I have a prediction. There is a scientific hypothesis, formulated over 20 years ago, that we will one day look back on, when the evidence is in, and say “Of course that was right!
It could be right that we are only here due to this imbalance early on in the Universe. But, things get trickier all the time, antimatter may be just about to blow apart https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01955-3
The vanishing neutrinos that could upend fundamental physics
Best of Lawrence Krauss Amazing Arguments And Clever Comebacks Part 1. This video is a compilation of best moments of Lawrence Krauss’s amazing arguments and...
Got to say it’s sickening that people think time is just another dimension. IT does lots more than space could ever do. Just thank goodness we have both. Read this…
A Spacetime Surprise: Time Isn’t Just Another Dimension
Interesting…”As if the connection between entropy and the arrow of time is just a case of a starry eyed fanboy falling for a fashionable trend, as opposed to an undeniable and widely accepted fact about physics.”
(Phys.org)—An international team of researchers has conducted an experiment that shows that the arrow of time is a relative concept, not an absolute one. In a paper uploaded to the arXiv server, the team describe their experiment and its outcome, and also explain why their findings do not violate ... Read more
It’s impressive enough that our human brains are made up of the same ‘star stuff’ that forms the Universe, but new research suggests that this might not be the only thing the two have in common.
“Time is related to the space coordinates, but they are not equivalent. Pythagoras’s theorem treats all coordinates on an equal footing (see Euclidean space for more details). We can exchange two space coordinates without changing the length, but we can not simply exchange a space coordinate with time: they are fundamentally different.
It is an entirely different thing for two events to be separated in space and to be separated in time. Minkowski proposed that the formula for distance needed a change. He found that the correct formula was actually quite simple, differing only by a sign from Pythagoras’s theorem:
Where c is a constant and t is the time coordinate.[Note 2] Multiplication by c, which has the dimensions L T −1, converts the time to units of length and this constant has the same value as the speed of light.”
My question is: where does the negative sign come from ?”
In this article of Wikipedia, about spacetime interval, from which I post some extract here below, it is said (in bold the part concerning my question): “After Einstein derived special relativity formally from the (at first sight counter-intuitive) assumption that the speed of light is the same t.... Read more
There are 2 currently, and they don’t mix but so what? Who says they should fit each other. I get you. In one situation one set of laws wins, in another the other does. Just like jurisdiction in criminal laws and rules in languages. Scientists are intent on reductionalism at all costs but the Universe may not be that simple. And it evidently isn’t.
Relativity v quantum mechanics – the battle for the universe
Physicists have spent decades trying to reconcile two very different theories. But is a winner about to emerge – and transform our understanding of everything from time to gravity?
Good point. Or any laws at all. “The good news is that string theory has no free parameters. It has no dials that can be turned. It doesn’t make sense to ask which string theory describes our universe, because there is only one.”
There Are No Laws of Physics. Thereâs Only the Landscape. | Quanta Magazine
Scientists seek a single description of reality. But modern physics allows for many different descriptions, many equivalent to one another, connected through a
Hmm, I like this idea but I wonder what it means inside a black hole, if time becomes space. I mean. if time really does become space then there is no “when” right? and therefor this is a region where the Universe doesn’t have events, interactions and possibly any meaning. Confused.com doesn’t help here 🙂
More from Rovelli in his lecture. Very hard to disagree with and nice to see someone pushing the boundaries in a way that makes people look at things in a slightly different way. It’s still physics, but not as we know it Jim.
Rovelli really is your guy for this – I highly recommend his book where he convinced me that yep, events and not objects are the fundamental reality. Objects are so one dimensional after you have read this, I will never go back to my old way of thinking – he is a great explainer. Buy it and say goodbye to the silly old world of objects.
We’re sorry
An error occurred when we tried to process your request.We’re working on the problem and expect to resolve it shortly. Please note that if you were trying to place an order, it will not have been processed at this time. Please try again later.
We apologise for the inconvenience.
General relativity is a theory of gravitation that was developed by Albert Einstein between 1907 and 1915. According to general relativity, the observed
The idea that the universe splits into multiple realities with every measurement has become an increasingly popular proposed solution to the mysteries of
Scientific American, making it sound like Carroll is the only guy to belive quantum mechanics is real and not just an idea: “Aim an instrument at the electron to determine where it is, and you’ll find it in just one place. You might reasonably assume that the wave function is just a statistical approximation of the electron’s behavior, which can’t be more precise because electrons are tiny and our instruments crude. But you would be wrong, according to Carroll. The electron exists as a kind of probabilistic blur until you observe it, when it “collapses,” in physics lingo, into a single position.”
It is true that our particular form of life would have been impossible without “fine tuning” of the universe’s structure, but we do not know if there could have been equally fine-tuned, yet fantastically different universes supporting biological life. Anthropic principles fail to explain why our universe is in one such fine-tuned state, when “all things being equal”, it was much more likely to develop into chaos.
The gradual separation of physics from
philosophy over the last 400 years has had its advantages and
disadvantages. On one hand, the autonomy of quantitative physics has
enabled a robust development of mathematical theory which corresponds
to repeatable empirical measurements to an astoundingly high... Read more
People use the anthropic principle to argue that the Universe must be exactly as it is because we exist the way we do. And that’s not only untrue, it’s not even what the anthropic principle says.
How The Anthropic Principle Became The Most Abused Idea In Science
Giving a name to something you don’t know is there is a risky business, people will believe it before it has been observed. Is this idea based on science or something else?
Entropictastic! “Dark energy could be merely mimicking the cosmological constant, a scalar field changing so slowly that we have not yet been able to detect it. Or (whisper it quietly) perhaps dark energy does not even exist.”
20 years after discovering that the universe is expanding with increasing speed, scientists still argue about whether dark energy explains it. Keith Cooper explores the debate
I think Sean is doing us all a major favour by pushing this idea in order to help us start asking the right questions again. Bless him if he doesn’t even fully ‘believe’ in many worlds, but is championing it at risk of being a fall-guy for the benefit of future generations of physicists. For this, he needs a stack of medals. And yes, giving credit to Everrett makes him seem respectful for ousted thinkers of the past – but he has a difficult task in explaining many worlds to layman, like me, without confusing us by adding the maths. (Btw America, unlike the universal wave function there is more than just one math).
Why hasn’t he convinced my confused but open mind yet? Well, after watching and listening to everything I can find that he works tirelessly to put out (including the BBCs infinite monkey cage that just added more woo) and especially his fab great courses plus series on time (actually it was about entropy, but hey…) I talked to a bunch of people and many get “stuck” on the same handful of points he raises. None of us could find answers to a few things he states time and again, without actually explaining them in a way that resolves our questions – for example:
1 – Maybe entangled electrons are just like a pair of socks. You know, one is a righty so you can infer the other is a lefty – without any information travelling spookily. If this isn’t the case, I need to know which experiment actually shows they are undecided wave functions before they collapse into left or right (or spin up and down)?
2 – Different worlds that “don’t talk to each other” is a phrase he uses a lot but that is just a phrase, he doesn’t describe what this really means, like the Copenhagen interpretation it glosses over without giving a satisfactory explanation, just a soundbite, no? and if the world splits rather than makes new worlds, wouldn’t it already be thinner than the equivalent of a ‘many worlds’ plank length already. How far can this actually go without sharing out all the universe’s energy?
3 – He explains how the observation problem is totally misunderstood because people think it involves humans observing things, which will cause the wave function to collapse, ie decoherence. He explains that any particle of light or matter, or whatever, that can ‘sense’ where a particle is (or which way it is spinning for example), is enough to count as an observation. However, I have problems understanding when it is that light or matter DOESN’T sense another particle’s spin or position. Ie when is it where a wave function doesn’t collapse? Maybe he means only light that has never landed on something? (yet).
I would love him to take 5 minutes out to answer these as I am “in” if he can explain what he means properly without going into Hawking mode and just clicking the same phrases out again and again. However, I don’t think a couple of tweets would do the job.
Too shy to ask but if anyone can shed any ‘light’, on this ‘matter’ let me know. I will keep following his every word to see if he goes into more detail without adding maths. If you ever get to talk to him, thank him for all the hard work and inspiration. PS that blasted cat is surely an x cat now – stop flogging it in universities, just admit you don’t know the answers, thats what everyone else does, surely a university would be the first to express this, its what inspires new minds to come up with new ideas.
Sean Carroll Thinks We All Exist on Multiple Worlds
In his book Something Deeply Hidden, the physicist explores the idea of Many Worlds, which holds that the universe continually splits into new branches.
The idea that the universe splits into multiple realities with every measurement has become an increasingly popular proposed solution to the mysteries of
Just doesn’t cut it for me, I mean inventing more universes just to solve a small problem in our own seems like a cop out… and this is exactly the type of false solution we should avoid falling into, maybe just admit we don’t know the answer yet?
Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
The Many-Worlds Interpretation (MWI) of quantum
mechanics holds that there are many worlds which exist in parallel
at the same space and time as our own. The existence of the other worlds makes it
possible to remove randomness and action at a distance from quantum
theory and thus from all physics.
As per the universal law of attraction, any two bodies (having some mass) experience a force of 'attraction' which is proportionate to ...and ...inverse proportionate ....
Then comes my question: ...
Sean Carroll’s take on what is wrong with QM and why he believes many worlds is the simplest explanation of why physics has been barking up the wrong tree for almost a century. To be fair, it explains a lot but not everything we need to know in order to make progress.
DNA as in it’s unique fingerprint, But if you change a little bit the laws of nature, or you change a little bit the constants of nature—like the charge on the electron—then the way the universe develops is so changed, it is very likely that intelligent life would not have been able to develop.
The DNA of the universe are the parameters that govern its laws
(3 upvotes)Cosmological Natural Selection
(1 upvotes)this is kinda irrelevant, but interesting anyways… https://www.space.com/2157-cosmic-dna-double-helix-spotted-space.html
I recommend you read this – not being rude but there seems to be more to it. I didn’t understand everything the author claimed but there is plenty of evidence that there is some fine-tuned DNA-like evolution going on somewhere up there.
I guess the parameters are the fixed constants of nature. But there lies the problem. The Anthropic Principle is an unfalsifiable statement (aka. a tautology) that results from the “selection effect” of our own existence. Meanwhile, the fine-tuning argument is a surprising fact about the laws of nature as we know them.
Already exists. Potentially infinite bunk theories to wade through the chatterverse!
Artificial intelligence multiplies the number of skills that any person can have.
(5 upvotes)AI Detectors and Warnings
(7 upvotes)AI Voice generation for the film industry
(6 upvotes)An AI Generated ‘Theory of Everything’
(7 upvotes)AI Price Negotiator
(7 upvotes)AI personal stylist to help customers shop for clothing and fashion accessories
(7 upvotes)A social network for AI
(4 upvotes)However, our guy is better than your guy.
Urr, nope, but thinking about this can help find the truth. From this teaching: “You could say that the history of the book of Genesis is kind of like the opposite of our belief in a 14 billion years ago Big Bang, considered to be out of date and foolish, but perhaps with more wisdom than we thought. Perhaps even Genesis is set for its own type of revolutionary rereading.”
Or we sprouted from a hole in another universe… read this https://medium.com/the-infinite-universe/the-big-bang-may-be-a-black-hole-inside-another-universe-79ce12613c60
Glad they mention the singularities are problems with our math, not with the universe – which is an often mistake some educators make online.
lol pls read: “This is kind of a mess. The question originally didn’t specify that the Big Bang was excluded. John Rennie and I both answered on the assumption that the Big Bang was the only logical place to look for a boundary. Our answers contradict one another. The new version of the question excludes the Big Bang. However, the OP has never explained why anyone would expect a boundary anywhere else”.
Ahh, so if there is only one God, then it’s the God of nothing, rather than the many Gods for each thing.
So there is only one spacetime boundary despite there being two types of singularity that could take us to perhaps many other universes – all of which live outside of THE one nothing.
It’s happening already, read this: “A theory of everything, a grand unified theory of physics and nature, has been elusive for the world of Physics. While unifying various forces and interactions in nature, starting from the unification of electricity and magnetism in James Clerk Maxwell’s seminal work A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism [8] to the electroweak unification by Weinberg-Salam-Glashow [9-11] and research in the direction of establishing the Standard Model including the QCD sector by Murray Gell-Mann and Richard Feynman [12,13], has seen developments in a slow but surefooted manner, we now have a few candidate theories of everything, primary among which is String Theory [14]. Unfortunately, we are still some way off from establishing various areas of the theory in an empirical manner. Chief among this is the concept of supersymmetry [15], which is an important part of String Theory. There were no evidences found for supersymmetry in the first run of the Large Hadron Collider [16]. When the Large Hadron Collider discovered the Higgs Boson in 2011-12 [17-19], there were results that were problematic for the Minimum Supersymmetric Model (MSSM), since the value of the mass of the Higgs Boson at 125 GeV is relatively large for the model and could only be attained with large radiative loop corrections from top squarks that many theoreticians considered to be `unnatural’ [20]. In the absence of experiments that can test certain frontiers of Physics, particularly due to energy constraints particularly at the smallest of scales, the importance of simulations and computational research cannot be underplayed.”
Steven Weinberg, called it “a troubling thought” that humans might not be smart enough to understand the final Theory of Everything. “But I suspect in that case,” he wrote in an email, “we will also not be smart enough to design a computer that can find a final theory.” — MORE HERE https://mindmatters.ai/2020/12/can-a-powerful-enough-computer-work-out-a-theory-of-everything/
No doubt DeepMind is working on it. It seems to have cracked the structure of the protein and other complex relationships, the whole shebang is likely next on the cards.
https://www.deepmind.com/blog/alphafold-reveals-the-structure-of-the-protein-universe
An AI Generated ‘Theory of Everything’
(7 upvotes)An AI contest for deciphering ancient texts
(3 upvotes)AI Price Negotiator
(7 upvotes)Future machines will be as spiritual as humans, if not, moreso
(9 upvotes)Create robots to man the ISS
(2 upvotes)I’m linking to this. its a good place to start with regards to how Artificial Intelligence will solve our problems for us, probably by removing us alongside our problems.
One of the reasons A.I. has been so successful at solving games,” Dr. Thaler said, “is that games have a very well-defined notion of success.” He added, “If we could define what success means for physical laws, that would be an incredible breakthrough.
!Crack AI and you’ve cracked EVERYTHING!
“In the recent past, neural networks have also helped in determining heavy quarks as well as identifying electrons [76]. We can use deep learning to solve Schrodinger’s equation, to find the ground state energy [77]. There is a growing need to turn noisy and large data sets into meaningful information as we try to increase our ability to prepare and control increasingly complex quantum systems experimentally. It is in this area that we can utilize machine learning, such as the use of algorithmic learning and Bayesian methods for Hamiltonian learning [78], to classify quantum states [79] and to characterize unknown unitary transformations [80]. Reconstruction of the Hamiltonian to identify an accurate model for quantum system dynamics, extracting information on unknown quantum states and engineering quantum gates with pairwise interactions, using both time-independent and time-dependent hamiltonians, are all better done using artificial intelligence.”
Great video you posted. Adding it as a link to others can see how the video explains how AI will take more of the work of our hands, even with creativity and understanding the Universe.
Careful now! Behold the hawk in the chair. AI could undo us. Talking XXX rather than Science.
Here’s the best video on the subject, sorry.
read ‘Cosmological natural selection’
Agreed, highly recommended
The most full proposal for the mechanism of cosmological natural selection comes from physicist Lee Smolin. Here is the mind-blowing hypothesis that he first outlined in 1992 in his book The Life of the Cosmos.
No evidence but good arguments. We do still need evidence right? What if that is a quantum factor too, Probably not testable.
The DNA of the universe are the parameters that govern its laws
(3 upvotes)Cosmological Natural Selection
(1 upvotes)Feynman talks ‘reason’
It could be right that we are only here due to this imbalance early on in the Universe. But, things get trickier all the time, antimatter may be just about to blow apart https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01955-3
this idea was mentioned here recently too.
True, this kid is telling us we thought it PUSHES us to the earth. Oh well.
And Gravity Creates Something From Nothing!
Agreed. gravity is just the curvature of spacetime. Newton would have loved this if only we could have told him.
They still teach that gravity is a fundamental force, when they know it isn’t. Enough already.
Matter is just stored energy that makes time go slower
(3 upvotes)Gravity is just time curving into space
(3 upvotes)I saw this quote on a great video and have found it again. It’s at https://youtu.be/dIJXGQ4H0GQ
Ridiculing ideas is what makes progress
(2 upvotes)Forget Jesus, the STARS died so you could be here today!
(7 upvotes)Jesus long forgotten.
JC is a dead star – we are born from a dead star, therefor we are born for JC.
Forget Jesus, the STARS died so you could be here today!
(7 upvotes)You eat dead stars for breakfast
(11 upvotes)Got to say it’s sickening that people think time is just another dimension. IT does lots more than space could ever do. Just thank goodness we have both. Read this…
Interesting…”As if the connection between entropy and the arrow of time is just a case of a starry eyed fanboy falling for a fashionable trend, as opposed to an undeniable and widely accepted fact about physics.”
An international team of researchers has conducted an experiment that shows that the arrow of time is a relative concept, not an absolute one.
Just forward!
Our brains certainly are! You have got to read this to get the bigger picture https://www.sciencealert.com/human-consciousness-could-be-a-result-of-entropy-study-science
That’s one way of looking at it. and yes, there is only one way to go. Forward Christian soldiers, to our destiny!
Adding the video as a link – why doesn’t IdeaMill do previews when you add links to the idea description too?
“Time is related to the space coordinates, but they are not equivalent. Pythagoras’s theorem treats all coordinates on an equal footing (see Euclidean space for more details). We can exchange two space coordinates without changing the length, but we can not simply exchange a space coordinate with time: they are fundamentally different.
It is an entirely different thing for two events to be separated in space and to be separated in time. Minkowski proposed that the formula for distance needed a change. He found that the correct formula was actually quite simple, differing only by a sign from Pythagoras’s theorem:
Where c is a constant and t is the time coordinate.[Note 2] Multiplication by c, which has the dimensions L T −1, converts the time to units of length and this constant has the same value as the speed of light.”
My question is: where does the negative sign come from ?”
its more than an idea, but i guess it was an idea before it was an equation. Brian Cox does well explaining this here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkCWywO93b8
…. as mentioned in a “closer to truth” youtube video.
There are 2 currently, and they don’t mix but so what? Who says they should fit each other. I get you. In one situation one set of laws wins, in another the other does. Just like jurisdiction in criminal laws and rules in languages. Scientists are intent on reductionalism at all costs but the Universe may not be that simple. And it evidently isn’t.
Alpha, may give us a lawless universe.
Good point. Or any laws at all. “The good news is that string theory has no free parameters. It has no dials that can be turned. It doesn’t make sense to ask which string theory describes our universe, because there is only one.”
The laws of physics are just very compact restatements of everything that happens in the universe
(2 upvotes)There doesn’t have to be just 1 set of physical laws
(1 upvotes)Hmm, I like this idea but I wonder what it means inside a black hole, if time becomes space. I mean. if time really does become space then there is no “when” right? and therefor this is a region where the Universe doesn’t have events, interactions and possibly any meaning. Confused.com doesn’t help here 🙂
More from Rovelli in his lecture. Very hard to disagree with and nice to see someone pushing the boundaries in a way that makes people look at things in a slightly different way. It’s still physics, but not as we know it Jim.
Not sure if this is the original idea but its mentioned by Carlo Rovelli in a Closer To Truth video.
Sick to death of this “spooky” shit. Get over it.
Rovelli really is your guy for this – I highly recommend his book where he convinced me that yep, events and not objects are the fundamental reality. Objects are so one dimensional after you have read this, I will never go back to my old way of thinking – he is a great explainer. Buy it and say goodbye to the silly old world of objects.
The next Einstein, and Wheeler, need to think SMALL…
Was a great idea… til quantum mechanics.
Gravity isn’t a force, and Einstein was wrong – just still the best explanation we have at the moment.
Can it uncurve though? I guess you would need something with negative mass in order to flatten it back out again, no?
Arvin Ash is having a bash …
OMG it’s worse than that, we’re dead Jim – “The Multiverse Idea Is Rotting Culture”
It’s SCIENCE jim, but not as we KNOW it.
Scientific American, making it sound like Carroll is the only guy to belive quantum mechanics is real and not just an idea: “Aim an instrument at the electron to determine where it is, and you’ll find it in just one place. You might reasonably assume that the wave function is just a statistical approximation of the electron’s behavior, which can’t be more precise because electrons are tiny and our instruments crude. But you would be wrong, according to Carroll. The electron exists as a kind of probabilistic blur until you observe it, when it “collapses,” in physics lingo, into a single position.”
Manyworlds is a trick of the mind – disputed and pretty much debunked in his own podcast.
It is true that our particular form of life would have been impossible without “fine tuning” of the universe’s structure, but we do not know if there could have been equally fine-tuned, yet fantastically different universes supporting biological life. Anthropic principles fail to explain why our universe is in one such fine-tuned state, when “all things being equal”, it was much more likely to develop into chaos.
People use the anthropic principle to argue that the Universe must be exactly as it is because we exist the way we do. And that’s not only untrue, it’s not even what the anthropic principle says.
“Although our situation is not necessarily central, it is inevitably privileged to some extent.”
Giving a name to something you don’t know is there is a risky business, people will believe it before it has been observed. Is this idea based on science or something else?
Entropictastic! “Dark energy could be merely mimicking the cosmological constant, a scalar field changing so slowly that we have not yet been able to detect it. Or (whisper it quietly) perhaps dark energy does not even exist.”
I think Sean is doing us all a major favour by pushing this idea in order to help us start asking the right questions again. Bless him if he doesn’t even fully ‘believe’ in many worlds, but is championing it at risk of being a fall-guy for the benefit of future generations of physicists. For this, he needs a stack of medals. And yes, giving credit to Everrett makes him seem respectful for ousted thinkers of the past – but he has a difficult task in explaining many worlds to layman, like me, without confusing us by adding the maths. (Btw America, unlike the universal wave function there is more than just one math).
Why hasn’t he convinced my confused but open mind yet? Well, after watching and listening to everything I can find that he works tirelessly to put out (including the BBCs infinite monkey cage that just added more woo) and especially his fab great courses plus series on time (actually it was about entropy, but hey…) I talked to a bunch of people and many get “stuck” on the same handful of points he raises. None of us could find answers to a few things he states time and again, without actually explaining them in a way that resolves our questions – for example:
1 – Maybe entangled electrons are just like a pair of socks. You know, one is a righty so you can infer the other is a lefty – without any information travelling spookily. If this isn’t the case, I need to know which experiment actually shows they are undecided wave functions before they collapse into left or right (or spin up and down)?
2 – Different worlds that “don’t talk to each other” is a phrase he uses a lot but that is just a phrase, he doesn’t describe what this really means, like the Copenhagen interpretation it glosses over without giving a satisfactory explanation, just a soundbite, no? and if the world splits rather than makes new worlds, wouldn’t it already be thinner than the equivalent of a ‘many worlds’ plank length already. How far can this actually go without sharing out all the universe’s energy?
3 – He explains how the observation problem is totally misunderstood because people think it involves humans observing things, which will cause the wave function to collapse, ie decoherence. He explains that any particle of light or matter, or whatever, that can ‘sense’ where a particle is (or which way it is spinning for example), is enough to count as an observation. However, I have problems understanding when it is that light or matter DOESN’T sense another particle’s spin or position. Ie when is it where a wave function doesn’t collapse? Maybe he means only light that has never landed on something? (yet).
I would love him to take 5 minutes out to answer these as I am “in” if he can explain what he means properly without going into Hawking mode and just clicking the same phrases out again and again. However, I don’t think a couple of tweets would do the job.
Too shy to ask but if anyone can shed any ‘light’, on this ‘matter’ let me know. I will keep following his every word to see if he goes into more detail without adding maths. If you ever get to talk to him, thank him for all the hard work and inspiration. PS that blasted cat is surely an x cat now – stop flogging it in universities, just admit you don’t know the answers, thats what everyone else does, surely a university would be the first to express this, its what inspires new minds to come up with new ideas.
Many worlds has many problems, not quite debunked but not understood either.
Just doesn’t cut it for me, I mean inventing more universes just to solve a small problem in our own seems like a cop out… and this is exactly the type of false solution we should avoid falling into, maybe just admit we don’t know the answer yet?
An attractive idea, its a sucker for sure…
Great idea, but nobody knows why gravity only sucks, see the new scientist article here https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227122-800-gravity-mysteries-why-does-gravity-only-pull/
Sean Carroll’s take on what is wrong with QM and why he believes many worlds is the simplest explanation of why physics has been barking up the wrong tree for almost a century. To be fair, it explains a lot but not everything we need to know in order to make progress.