When it comes to universes, perhaps one is enough after all.
Many theories in physics and cosmology require the existence of alternate, or parallel, universes. But Dr. Lee Smolin of the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Waterloo, Canada, explains the flaws of theories that suggest our universe is just one of many, and which also perpetuate the notion that time does not exist. Smolin, author of the bestselling science book The Trouble with Physics and a founding member of the Perimeter Institute, explains his views in the June issue of Physics World.
Smolin explains how theories describing a myriad of possible universes, or a multiverse, with many dimensions and particles and forces have become more popular in the last few years. However, through his work with the Brazilian philosopher Roberto Mangabeira Unger, Smolin believes that multiverse theories, which imply that time is not a fundamental concept, are profoundly mistaken
Smolin says a timeless multiverse means our laws of physics can be determined from experiment. And he explains the unclear connection between fundamental laws, which are unique and applicable universally, and effective laws, which hold based on what we can actually observe.
Smolin suggests new principles that rethink the notion of physical law to apply to a single universe. These principles say there is only one universe; that all that is real is real in a moment, as part of a succession of moments; and that everything real in each moment is a process of change leading to future moments. As he explains, If there is just one universe, there is no reason for a separation into laws and initial conditions, as we want a law to explain just one history of one universe.
He hopes these principles will bring a fresh adventure in science.
If we accept there is only one universe and that time is a fundamental property of nature, then this opens up the possibility that the laws of physics evolve with time. As Smolin writes, The notion of transcending our time-bound experiences in order to discover truths that hold timelessly is an unrealizable fantasy. When science succeeds, we do nothing of the sort; what we physicists really do is discover laws that hold in the universe we experience within time. This, I would claim, should be enough; anything beyond that is more a religious urge for transcendence than science.
Full Version: What If There Is Only One Universe?
I have a feeling it will be some time before scientists definitively determine whether or not there is a multiverse. Call it a yearning for some kind of transcendence, but even if we do accept the big bang theory of a single universe, I am still left with the question: where did the initial particles and elements that brought forth the big bang come from? Another universe? A transcendent intelligence? The first moments of the universe's causal chain remains a profound mystery.
I'm intrigued by the following statement from the above text....
"the laws of physics evolve with time"
"the laws of physics evolve with time"
There is only one universe - the mind ...
QUOTE(GodConsciousness @ Jun 07, 2009, 05:17 AM) 
I have a feeling it will be some time before scientists definitively determine whether or not there is a multiverse.
I think that it may be impossible to ever know.
QUOTE(Rick @ Jun 10, 2009, 12:33 PM)
QUOTE(GodConsciousness @ Jun 07, 2009, 05:17 AM)
I have a feeling it will be some time before scientists definitively determine whether or not there is a multiverse.
I think that it may be impossible to ever know.
Always the optimistic!
Somebody's got to damp down the overly-rampant enthusiasm!
But really, to paraphrase Clint Eastwood, a species has to know its limitations.
But really, to paraphrase Clint Eastwood, a species has to know its limitations.
QUOTE(Rick @ Jun 10, 2009, 05:01 PM)
... a species has to know its limitations...
But how can we know it unless we keep pushing the boundaries!
There may be no limit to what can be known. We are witnessing the fruits of evolved intelligence over the past 14 billion years or so of the universe's history. Who knows how far intelligence will evolve in another 15 billion years or trillion years. The future of the universe, mind, and intelligence appears potentially infinite.
QUOTE(GodConsciousness @ Jun 11, 2009, 01:18 PM)
There may be no limit to what can be known. We are witnessing the fruits of evolved intelligence over the past 14 billion years or so of the universe's history. Who knows how far intelligence will evolve in another 15 billion years or trillion years. The future of the universe, mind, and intelligence appears potentially infinite.
QUOTE(Hey Hey @ Jun 11, 2009, 12:18 PM)
QUOTE(GodConsciousness @ Jun 11, 2009, 01:18 PM)
There may be no limit to what can be known. We are witnessing the fruits of evolved intelligence over the past 14 billion years or so of the universe's history. Who knows how far intelligence will evolve in another 15 billion years or trillion years. The future of the universe, mind, and intelligence appears potentially infinite.
Plus it took us (is it 2 or 3?) billion years for life to figure out how to go from single to multicell organisms.
QUOTE(code buttons @ Jun 11, 2009, 04:47 PM)
QUOTE(Hey Hey @ Jun 11, 2009, 12:18 PM)
QUOTE(GodConsciousness @ Jun 11, 2009, 01:18 PM)
There may be no limit to what can be known. We are witnessing the fruits of evolved intelligence over the past 14 billion years or so of the universe's history. Who knows how far intelligence will evolve in another 15 billion years or trillion years. The future of the universe, mind, and intelligence appears potentially infinite.
Plus it took us (is it 2 or 3?) billion years for life to figure out how to go from single to multicell organisms.
.... with most thinkers from the current evolutionary stage of the human species still mired in outdated temporal modes, repeatedly asking the same questions over and over, never finding they're enlightening answers! Many may benefit from re-thinking the questions they ask, how they ask them, and from which angles they're asked!
QUOTE(Trip like I do @ Jun 07, 2009, 02:38 PM)
I'm intrigued by the following statement from the above text....
"the laws of physics evolve with time"
.... I'm still intrigued by this statement!
QUOTE(Trip like I do @ Jun 12, 2009, 01:42 AM)
QUOTE(Trip like I do @ Jun 07, 2009, 02:38 PM)
I'm intrigued by the following statement from the above text....
"the laws of physics evolve with time"
.... I'm still intrigued by this statement!
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c-decay.html
the decay of c-decay
"If you propose that the universe and all in it is the product of an act of creation only 6-7000 years ago, many people ask - 'How is it that objects millions of light years away can be seen? Surely such light would take millions of years to reach us.'"
- Barry Setterfield, "The Velocity of Light and the Age of the Universe, Part 1," Ex Nihilo, vol. 4, no. 1, 1981
The above quote is, to my knowledge, the first salvo by Australian creationist Barry Setterfield regarding his hypothesis of "c-decay," the notion of the decreasing speed of light that has been used for years as evidence for a young universe. Setterfield's hypothesis, while initially embraced by the majority of the creationist community, received heavy criticism from the scientific establishment for several years since its introduction in 1981, and was finally rejected by the creationists themselves after it became such a major embarrassment that even the San Diego-based Institute for Creation Research rejected it
.... not quite where my mind is going with that statement!
the decay of c-decay
"If you propose that the universe and all in it is the product of an act of creation only 6-7000 years ago, many people ask - 'How is it that objects millions of light years away can be seen? Surely such light would take millions of years to reach us.'"
- Barry Setterfield, "The Velocity of Light and the Age of the Universe, Part 1," Ex Nihilo, vol. 4, no. 1, 1981
The above quote is, to my knowledge, the first salvo by Australian creationist Barry Setterfield regarding his hypothesis of "c-decay," the notion of the decreasing speed of light that has been used for years as evidence for a young universe. Setterfield's hypothesis, while initially embraced by the majority of the creationist community, received heavy criticism from the scientific establishment for several years since its introduction in 1981, and was finally rejected by the creationists themselves after it became such a major embarrassment that even the San Diego-based Institute for Creation Research rejected it
.... not quite where my mind is going with that statement!
If the laws of physics are evolving with time does that mean that time cannot go backwards?
So much for a single universe theory. How about a single universe with time and season dimensions?
If you go 10 miles in 1 second and then 200 miles in a second, at the same time, then from an overview of a single combined 1 second interval the original 10 mile mark would be at 1/20th per/second mark, with a steady rate of speed for the duration of the second. Did time for the original 10 mi/sec go backwards?
0------------------>| 10 miles in 1 sec.
0------------------>| 200 miles in 1 sec.
0->|<--------------| 200 miles in 1 sec.
-->10 miles in 1/20th sec. in forward time or is it 10 mi/sec pushed back by forward time to a 1/20th per sec mark?
To the observer it looks like the 10 mile/sec mark is being pushed back to zero.
And I live in the same universe that you do! hee! hee!
Therefore at the 1/20th mark in real forward time again at 10 miles per second speed it would take 20 seconds to elapse the history of the exercise. But the exercise is also played out in the real time of 200 miles/sec. Or just 1 second of time. I call the example of real elapsed time with the 20 second expenditure within the real time of the current second "a parsec" of the current real time.
All Rights Reserved!
The Theory of Space 0/0 Dynamics by PJS
Peter Jeffrey Spencer
So much for a single universe theory. How about a single universe with time and season dimensions?
If you go 10 miles in 1 second and then 200 miles in a second, at the same time, then from an overview of a single combined 1 second interval the original 10 mile mark would be at 1/20th per/second mark, with a steady rate of speed for the duration of the second. Did time for the original 10 mi/sec go backwards?
0------------------>| 10 miles in 1 sec.
0------------------>| 200 miles in 1 sec.
0->|<--------------| 200 miles in 1 sec.
-->10 miles in 1/20th sec. in forward time or is it 10 mi/sec pushed back by forward time to a 1/20th per sec mark?
To the observer it looks like the 10 mile/sec mark is being pushed back to zero.
And I live in the same universe that you do! hee! hee!
Therefore at the 1/20th mark in real forward time again at 10 miles per second speed it would take 20 seconds to elapse the history of the exercise. But the exercise is also played out in the real time of 200 miles/sec. Or just 1 second of time. I call the example of real elapsed time with the 20 second expenditure within the real time of the current second "a parsec" of the current real time.
All Rights Reserved!
The Theory of Space 0/0 Dynamics by PJS
Peter Jeffrey Spencer
.... are the laws of physics about to evolve with time
QUOTE(Trip like I do @ Jun 07, 2009, 03:07 AM)
When it comes to universes, perhaps one is enough after all.
Many theories in physics and cosmology require the existence of alternate, or parallel, universes. But Dr. Lee Smolin of the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Waterloo, Canada, explains the flaws of theories that suggest our universe is just one of many, and which also perpetuate the notion that time does not exist. Smolin, author of the bestselling science book ‘The Trouble with Physics’ and a founding member of the Perimeter Institute, explains his views in the June issue of Physics World.
Smolin explains how theories describing a myriad of possible universes, or a “multiverseâ€, with many dimensions and particles and forces have become more popular in the last few years. However, through his work with the Brazilian philosopher Roberto Mangabeira Unger, Smolin believes that multiverse theories, which imply that time is not a fundamental concept, are “profoundly mistakenâ€.
Smolin says a timeless multiverse means our laws of physics can’t be determined from experiment. And he explains the unclear connection between fundamental laws, which are unique and applicable universally, and effective laws, which hold based on what we can actually observe.
Smolin suggests new principles that rethink the notion of physical law to apply to a single universe. These principles say there is only one universe; that all that is real is real in a moment, as part of a succession of moments; and that everything real in each moment is a process of change leading to future moments. As he explains, “If there is just one universe, there is no reason for a separation into laws and initial conditions, as we want a law to explain just one history of one universe.â€
He hopes these principles will bring a fresh adventure in science.
If we accept there is only one universe and that time is a fundamental property of nature, then this opens up the possibility that the laws of physics evolve with time. As Smolin writes, “The notion of transcending our time-bound experiences in order to discover truths that hold timelessly is an unrealizable fantasy. When science succeeds, we do nothing of the sort; what we physicists really do is discover laws that hold in the universe we experience within time. This, I would claim, should be enough; anything beyond that is more a religious urge for transcendence than science.â€
QUOTE(Hey Hey @ Nov 30, 2009, 10:09 PM)
QUOTE(Trip like I do @ Jun 07, 2009, 03:07 AM)
When it comes to universes, perhaps one is enough after all.
Many theories in physics and cosmology require the existence of alternate, or parallel, universes. But Dr. Lee Smolin of the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Waterloo, Canada, explains the flaws of theories that suggest our universe is just one of many, and which also perpetuate the notion that time does not exist. Smolin, author of the bestselling science book ‘The Trouble with Physics’ and a founding member of the Perimeter Institute, explains his views in the June issue of Physics World.
Smolin explains how theories describing a myriad of possible universes, or a “multiverseâ€, with many dimensions and particles and forces have become more popular in the last few years. However, through his work with the Brazilian philosopher Roberto Mangabeira Unger, Smolin believes that multiverse theories, which imply that time is not a fundamental concept, are “profoundly mistakenâ€.
Smolin says a timeless multiverse means our laws of physics can’t be determined from experiment. And he explains the unclear connection between fundamental laws, which are unique and applicable universally, and effective laws, which hold based on what we can actually observe.
Smolin suggests new principles that rethink the notion of physical law to apply to a single universe. These principles say there is only one universe; that all that is real is real in a moment, as part of a succession of moments; and that everything real in each moment is a process of change leading to future moments. As he explains, “If there is just one universe, there is no reason for a separation into laws and initial conditions, as we want a law to explain just one history of one universe.â€
He hopes these principles will bring a fresh adventure in science.
If we accept there is only one universe and that time is a fundamental property of nature, then this opens up the possibility that the laws of physics evolve with time. As Smolin writes, “The notion of transcending our time-bound experiences in order to discover truths that hold timelessly is an unrealizable fantasy. When science succeeds, we do nothing of the sort; what we physicists really do is discover laws that hold in the universe we experience within time. This, I would claim, should be enough; anything beyond that is more a religious urge for transcendence than science.â€
"stupid evil bastard".... nice link!
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.