Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Field of physics “turned on its head” soon?

arroba Email

This stuff gets better all the time. From Phys.org:

One problem is that conventional physics doesn’t really account for why the universe is so large, Arkani-Hamed said.

Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity showed that a huge amount of energy exists in the vacuum of space, and it should curve space and time. In fact, there should be so much curvature that the universe is a tiny, crumpled ball.

“That should make the universe horrendously different than what it is,” Arkani-Hamed said.

But quantum mechanics also poses a problem. The theory is good at describing the very small realm of particle physics, but it breaks down when physicists try to apply it to the universe as a whole.

“Everything that quantum mechanics is, is violated by our universe because we’re accelerating (referring to the idea that the universe is expanding) – we don’t know what the rules are,” Arkani-Hamed said. “When you try to apply quantum mechanics to the entire universe, quantum mechanics cries ‘uncle.'”

That guy’s name rang a bell. This from late 2013:

Nima Arkani-Hamed and others have proposed over 10^500 universes because fewer of them would not obviate fine-tuning. Why believe in them? As a New Scientist writer has explained

But the main reason for believing in an ensemble of universes is that it could explain why the laws governing our Universe appear to be so finely turned for our existence … This fine-tuning has two possible explanations. Either the Universe was designed specifically for us by a creator or there is a multitude of universes—a multiverse.

Cosmologists deserve credit for making the choice so clear. In that spirit, Discover Magazine offers the multiverse as “Science’s Alternative to an Intelligent Creator” (2008). More.

Okay. More boldly go. Then detox before you come back.

It matters that this stuff is considered “science” today.

See also: The Science Fictions series at your fingertips (cosmology).


In search of a road to reality

“Everything that quantum mechanics is, is violated by our universe because we’re accelerating (referring to the idea that the universe is expanding) – we don’t know what the rules are,” Arkani-Hamed said. “When you try to apply quantum mechanics to the entire universe, quantum mechanics cries ‘uncle.’” The universe is 'expanding' only if red-shifts are taken to be recession velocities. This is unnecessary, as red-shift can be accounted for by the light losing energy as it travels the vast expanses of space. E=hv, h is a constant (Plank's), v=frequency. Thus if E falls v falls. Since speed of light is a constant, a lowered frequency requires the wavelength to increase. An increase in wavelength is a shift to the red end of the spectrum. The claim that red-shift represents a recession velocity was first framed as a Doppler effect akin to sound. However the discovery of greatly red-shifted objects rendered this implausible. Thus it is now explained as space itself expanding, with no evidence that this is a physical reality. What do you think is a more reasonable explanation? http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Astrophysics/Download/4178 Goldman Stackz
As to why the universe is as big as it is, well that has to do with fine-tuning as well,
Evidence for Belief in God - Rich Deem Excerpt: Isn't the immense size of the universe evidence that humans are really insignificant, contradicting the idea that a God concerned with humanity created the universe? It turns out that the universe could not have been much smaller than it is in order for nuclear fusion to have occurred during the first 3 minutes after the Big Bang. Without this brief period of nucleosynthesis, the early universe would have consisted entirely of hydrogen. Likewise, the universe could not have been much larger than it is, or life would not have been possible. If the universe were just one part in 10^59 larger, the universe would have collapsed before life was possible. Since there are only 10^80 baryons in the universe, this means that an addition of just 10^21 baryons (about the mass of a grain of sand) would have made life impossible. The universe is exactly the size it must be for life to exist at all. http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/atheismintro2.html God created the entire universe for us - February 2012 Excerpt: If the sun were represented by the period at the end of this sentence, our galaxy would be the size of the continental United States.,,, Why didn't God create our modest solar system and a few stars and let it go at that? Because size matters. If the universe weren't as large as it is fusion would be inefficient. As a result, the universe would produce hydrogen, or hydrogen plus a small amount of helium. That means carbon and oxygen — both essential for life — would be missing. http://www.dailypilot.com/news/opinion/tn-dpt-0228-carnett-20120227,0,2022339.story
Here is a video of Astrophysicist Hugh Ross explaining the anthropic cosmological principle behind the immense size of the universe as well as behind the ancient age of the universe:
We Live At The Right Time In Cosmic History - Hugh Ross - video http://vimeo.com/31940671
To clearly illustrate the stunning, incomprehensible, degree of fine-tuning we are dealing with in the universe, Dr. Ross has used the illustration of adding or subtracting a single dime's worth of mass in the observable universe, during the Big Bang, would have been enough of a change in the mass density of the universe to make life impossible in this universe. This word picture he uses, with the dime, helps to demonstrate a number used to quantify that fine-tuning of mass for the universe, namely 1 part in 10^60 for mass density. Compared to the total mass of the observable universe, 1 part in 10^60 works out to about a tenth part of a dime, if not smaller.
Where Is the Cosmic Density Fine-Tuning? - Hugh Ross http://www.reasons.org/where-cosmic-density-fine-tuning
Actually, 1 in 10 to the 60th for the fine-tuning of the mass density for the universe may be equal to just 1 grain of sand instead of a tenth of a dime as Dr. Ross conservatively estimated!
Sand is made up of Silica this has the formula SiO2 silicon weighs 28 atomic units Oxygen weighs 16 atomic units so each SiO2 weighs 60 atomic units there are 6.023 x 10^23 atomic units in a gram. that is 6 with 23 zeros after it. so there would be 6.023 x 10^23 / 60 = 1x 10^22 SiO2s in a gram so 3 x 10^22 atoms in a gram Say a grain of sand is 1mm across it has a volume of 0.001cm3 1cm3 of sand weighs about 2.6g so a grain of sand will weigh 0.0026g so to find the number of atoms in a grain of sand we multiply the number of atoms per gram by the number of grams: 3 x 10^22 x 0.0026g = 7.8 x 10^19 atoms = 1 grain of sand http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=6447 thus 10^79 – atoms in the universe minus 10^60 – fine tuning of mass density equals 10^19 – or equals one grain of sand
Of related interest, to how big the universe is, is this website:
The Scale of The Universe - Part 2 - interactive graph (recently updated in 2012 with cool features) http://htwins.net/scale2/scale2.swf?bordercolor=white
The preceding interactive graph points out that the smallest scale visible to the human eye (as well as a human egg) is at 10^-4 meters, which 'just so happens' to be directly in the exponential center of all possible sizes of our physical reality (not just ‘nearly’ in the exponential center!). i.e. 10^-4 is, exponentially, right in the middle of 10^-35 meters, which is the smallest possible unit of length, which is Planck length, and 10^27 meters, which is the largest possible unit of 'observable' length since space-time was created in the Big Bang, which is the diameter of the universe. This is very interesting for, as far as I can tell, the limits to human vision (as well as the size of the human egg) could have, theoretically, been at very different positions than directly in the exponential middle of all possible sizes; Verse:
Hebrews 11:3 "By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible."
Also of note, contrary to what they think in the OP, Quantum Mechanics does apply to the large scale of the universe,,,
Macrorealism Emerging from Quantum Physics - Brukner, Caslav; Kofler, Johannes American Physical Society, APS March Meeting, - March 5-9, 2007 Excerpt: for unrestricted measurement accuracy a violation of macrorealism (i.e. a violation of the Leggett-Garg inequalities) is possible for arbitrary large systems.,, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007APS..MARB33005B LIVING IN A QUANTUM WORLD - Vlatko Vedral - 2011 Excerpt: Thus, the fact that quantum mechanics applies on all scales forces us to confront the theory’s deepest mysteries. We cannot simply write them off as mere details that matter only on the very smallest scales. For instance, space and time are two of the most fundamental classical concepts, but according to quantum mechanics they are secondary. The entanglements are primary. They interconnect quantum systems without reference to space and time. If there were a dividing line between the quantum and the classical worlds, we could use the space and time of the classical world to provide a framework for describing quantum processes. But without such a dividing line—and, indeed, with­out a truly classical world—we lose this framework. We must ex­plain space and time (4D space-time) as somehow emerging from fundamental­ly spaceless and timeless physics. http://phy.ntnu.edu.tw/~chchang/Notes10b/0611038.pdf
I believe where their confusion arises is that Quantum Mechanics does not take time (or space) into consideration, yet that does not preclude Quantum Mechanics from applying to the universe as a whole, not does it prevent Quantum Mechanics from taking primacy over General Relativity for describing the large scale structure of the universe as it relates to conscious observers
Wheeler's Classic Delayed Choice Experiment: Excerpt: Now, for many billions of years the photon is in transit in region 3. Yet we can choose (many billions of years later) which experimental set up to employ – the single wide-focus, or the two narrowly focused instruments. We have chosen whether to know which side of the galaxy the photon passed by (by choosing whether to use the two-telescope set up or not, which are the instruments that would give us the information about which side of the galaxy the photon passed). We have delayed this choice until a time long after the particles "have passed by one side of the galaxy, or the other side of the galaxy, or both sides of the galaxy," so to speak. Yet, it seems paradoxically that our later choice of whether to obtain this information determines which side of the galaxy the light passed, so to speak, billions of years ago. So it seems that time has nothing to do with effects of quantum mechanics. And, indeed, the original thought experiment was not based on any analysis of how particles evolve and behave over time – it was based on the mathematics. This is what the mathematics predicted for a result, and this is exactly the result obtained in the laboratory. http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/basic_delayed_choice.htm "Thus one decides the photon shall have come by one route or by both routes after it has already done its travel" John A. Wheeler
Why is the universe so big? If you ask me it is just the right size for moral free agents to operate in.... Andre
That Physics has uncovered the Fine Tunings is truly incredible. Kudos. But the choice is NOT God or Multiverse. The choice is God or God & Multiverse. ppolish

Leave a Reply