Why is the Universe the way it is?

[Time_Travel]

Welcome to hypography, Time_Travel!

 

There are a lot of questions in this sentence and the ones following it. I recommend taking them one at a time – for example, learn enough classical mechanics to understand why rotating bodies in low to moderate eccentricity elliptic orbits are much more likely than other possibilities. This is a lot of work, but also a lot of fun :phones:

 

 

All questions are one question, the name of the topic.

[HydrogenBond]

If we had multiple universes, each with different physical laws, that would imply a high level of entropy. If we assume a dimensional split into multi-universes there would increasing disorder with respect to the mother universe. Increasing entropy is endothermic and will absorb energy, converting some of the original mass/energy into entropy. If we do the math, and start with the universal mass-energy M, the first split into two would create M=m1 + m2 +entropy. This should place a limit on the number of splits since mass-energy becomes entropy.

 

To get the most splits or multiple universes, from any given amount of mother universe mass-energy, entropy needs to be as low as possible per split. One way to do this is to keep the laws of nature the same. That will remove the extra level of entropy generated by the large differences that can appear, relative to the mother cell universe, because of conflicting laws. Adding new laws to new universes take a lot of energy to define all the extra multi-dimensional universal entropy.

 

Let us do this another way. Instead of splits, say the multi-universes each appear in their own dimensional reference. If the laws of nature for each are different, the composite of all this multi-dimesional universe defines very high entropy. If we could lower the entropy, but creating better order between all the universes, this will lower entropy and give off extra energy to all the mulit-universes to share. This mystery energy would appear to add something extra to each universe.

[JMJones0424]

HB- I seriously think you need to re-evaluate the definition of entropy, or find a more suitable term for the concept you are trying to describe when you use the term entropy. Your use of the term is inconsistent with its definition.

[Time_Travel]

Are there any proof for the Multi Universe Theory to be supported strongly.

[CraigD]

I’ve not had much free time to engage in this thread, but want to interject briefly to head off a few common misconceptions I believe are evidenced by some of its posts.

 

The first is a muddling (confusion/conflation) of the anthropic principle of cosmology with the many-worlds interpretation of quantum physics.

 

The anthropic principle is simply an answer to the very deep (and self-referential) question “if, as best science suggests, so many variables must be so nearly exactly right for the universe to have resulted in creatures like us humans capable of asking this question, how did that in fact happen, when there are so many more scenarios in which it does not?” This answer is: “because if it hadn’t, you wouldn’t be thinking this right now, because we wouldn’t exist.”

 

The MWI is a way of presenting the hard-to-imagine formalism of quantum physics, in particular its inherent quality of uncertainty – there being measurements the outcome of which cannot even in principle be predicted – as an imaginary inverted tree-shaped flow of many universe in which each time the outcome of an uncertain event occurs, the universe splits (“bifurcates”) into two copies identical but for differing in the result of a measurement of that event (It’s important to stress that “measure an event” in this context means “interact in a way that preserves information about the event”, not something requiring the participation of some sort of “conscious” being like a human).

 

The MWI is alluded to in many science fiction stories, the antropic principle less so. Both are referred to, I think by Moontanman’s (who’s perspective on them I think differs somewhat with but agrees pretty much with my own) in

I once read in one of those imaginative but somewhat less than evidence based books ( I honestly do not remember either the author or title of the book) That in a truly infinite universe where the laws of nature are random and can be anything absolutely everything must happen, an infinite number of times, even those things that we think are impossible. Somewhere am infinite number of Star Ship Enterprises are real and battling the Borg, somewhere vampires really prey on people and somewhere dragons really do eat virgins. Somewhere there is nothing at all and somewhere there is significantly less than nothing. We just happen to be in one of the infinite number of space/times where none of these things are real and we are. It's kind of a cop out way to think of the universe but it just might be the real situation.

 

The anthropic principle doesn’t require or imply, and isn’t required nor implied by, the MWI. A universe without the quantum uncertainty required for an MWI to be meaningful could still, in principle, be “just right” and have in it beings asking the antropic principle’s question. In principle, a universe with uncertainty illustrated well by the MWI might have no “world” in it that includes us (imaginary universes like this, described just to make a specific point, are commonly called “toy universes”).

 

The second and last (misconception I’d like to head off, not that may be evidenced in this thread) is a common misunderstanding of the difference between an interpretation, such as the MWI and a theory, such as the Standard Model of quantum physics.

 

A theory is a collection of techniques for explaining and predicting some measurable events. The Standard Model makes predictions about such things as what will be observed in the detectors of a piece of equipment when it’s operated in a specific way. When tested, these predictions have proven correct, so this theory is considered well-supported. Because it can make predictions about many important things, it’s considered a large, important theory.

 

An interpretation is a way of expressing the collection of techniques that make up a theory in a way that’s easy and helpful to understand. Interpretations must not contradict the theory they interpret, and add nothing to it. They are nonetheless valuable, because by aiding people in thinking about the theory, it makes them better able to imagine and design experiments, which can lead to expansion and correction, or even complete re-writing of the theory.

 

Thus, a question like

Are there any proof for the Multi Universe Theory to be supported strongly.

must be answered “the many-worlds/multi-universe interpretation isn’t a theory, so can neither be supported or not supported by experimental proof. As an interpretation of theories of quantum physics, it must be supported by these theories, or it’s not a valid interpretation of them.”

 

Sources can be found by following the Wikipedia links throughout my post.

[Time_Travel]

Can the CMB( Cosmic Microwave Background) Cold Spot support the MWI THEORY oops sorry MWI idea, like one of the scientist claim?

[modest]

Can the CMB( Cosmic Microwave Background) Cold Spot support the MWI THEORY oops sorry MWI idea, like one of the scientist claim?

 

The CMB anisotropy can be seen as evidence of quantized gravity of which the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is compatible. The anisotropy is not a test of many worlds—it is (in a sense) a test of quantum gravity and consistent with the many interpretations of quantum mechanics.

 

Q0 and Q38 of: The Everett Interpretation would speak to this.

 

~modest

[Time_Travel]

I have link here to one of my threads where one of the member gave us a clear explanation of the physical size of the Universe and also the time when it was at that size.

See this Post.

 

Accordingly our Universe was 10^(-33) cm when it was 10^(-43) sec old.

Now what is the PROBABILITY that protons, neutrinos were created in less than 1 sec along with the properties when they were created??

The 10,000 Faced die as suggested by Modest doesn't seems to work here because the Universe didn't had enough time to play that dice ( less than 1 sec) for the properties of protons and neutrons to be set and within 15 sec electrons were created and within 3 min hydrogen atom were created.

 

According to probability its highly impossible that the Universe had enough time to set and choose those properties. From this CAN WE interfere that our Universe is among many of the others where atomic and sub atomic properties were predetermined in all of them?????

[modest]

Accordingly our Universe was 10^(-33) cm when it was 10^(-43) sec old.

Now what is the PROBABILITY that protons, neutrinos were created in less than 1 sec along with the properties when they were created??

 

You would have to explain why the existence of subatomic particles in the early universe is somehow improbable. Scientists are looking at the conditions of the universe today, projecting it backward, and deducting what it was like a very long time ago.

 

The 10,000 Faced die as suggested by Modest doesn't seems to work here because the Universe didn't had enough time to play that dice ( less than 1 sec)

 

You are not following what I mean. Your posts seem to assign improbability to things in the past that would change the present. This is not really appropriate and I will explain why.

 

According to chaos theory, and the butterfly effect in particular, the initial conditions of a system are very sensitive to the system's long term evolution.

 

For example, something as small as a butterfly flapping its wings can be enough of a factor to determine if a tornado forms 100 years later or does not form. It's called the butterfly effect—they made a movie after it.

 

Now pretend that today Bob lives in Texas and a tornado does *not* hit Bob and does *not* kill him. But, if a butterfly had flapped its wings 100 years ago on a particular mountain top in Mexico then there would be a tornado today and Bob would die. Bob lives today because that butterfly didn't flap its wings. This is the butterfly effect and if you aren't following what I mean then stop here and read the link above then come back.

 

There are also a billion other things that could have happened in the distant past that would have changed conditions today sufficiently enough for Bob to be killed today by a tornado or not to have ever been born at all. But, none of those things happened and Bob does in fact live.

 

You seem to be looking at that kind of situation and saying "Wow, how very improbable that the butterfly didn't flap its wings". But, the only reason that looks improbable is because you are assuming that "Bob lives" is the desired outcome. There really is no reason to think that a butterfly flapping its wings or not would be probable or improbable. There's no reason to think that quarks and gluons existing a very long time ago in the early universe is probable or improbable. It is simply something that given the current state of the universe is the logical previous state of the universe.

 

That Bob lives today means that a number of very precise things had to happen in the past including some particular butterfly not flapping its wings and some particular quark existing in the early universe. Only by assuming that the quark had in mind the purpose of eventually letting Bob exist and the butterfly had in mind the purpose of affecting the weather in just such a precise way as to let Bob live on this day today do those things seem improbable.

 

~modest

[Time_Travel]

I really don't understand the necessity of bringing the Chaos theory and Butterfly effect here.

 

The Multiverse theory currently explains why the physical properties and chemistry and the mathematics of the Universe are the way they are atleast " THEORETICALLY if not practically".

I currently know that 2 theories the Probability theory and the Multi Verse theory to answer the question "Why is the Universe the way it is".

Are there any other possible theories??

[REASON]

Are there any other possible theories??

 

God decided that this is the way a physical universe would work.

[Moontanman]

God decided that this is the way a physical universe would work.

 

Yeah but who decided that God would decide that this the way a physical universe would work? Then again who decided that it would be decided that God would decide that is the way a physical universe would work?

[REASON]

Yeah but who decided that God would decide that this the way a physical universe would work? Then again who decided that it would be decided that God would decide that is the way a physical universe would work?

 

God's parents. Duh! :(

[Pyrotex]

I really don't understand the necessity of bringing the Chaos theory and Butterfly effect here....

Woops. Take another look. Because I see the necessity.

[Pyrotex]

God's parents. Duh! :(

God's grandparents! Duh! Duh!

 

[All 9 of them!] :(

[mhatch]

This is a fascinating thread! I found it because I was searching for the book of the same title 'Why Is The Universe The Way It Is?" by Dr. Hugh Ross.

 

This book provides some unique answers to the questions being discussed here, including scientific perspective (Dr. Hugh Ross has his PhD in Astronomy). Among the topics he discusses why the universe is:

• so vast & apparently wasteful
  
• so old
  
• so lonely (Fermi's paradox)
  
• so dark
  

 

and others. The second part of the book explores these elements from a biblical perspective. Dr. Ross and his orgainzation (Reasons To Believe) are not particularly fond of the Intelligent Design movement, but as scientists and Christians are committed to providing a scientifically testable creation model for the universe.

 

I know I haven't provided any specific answers to Time Traveller's question, but wanted to introduce this resource given it so directly speaks to the question.

 

-Mike

[Time_Travel]

This is a fascinating thread! I found it because I was searching for the book of the same title 'Why Is The Universe The Way It Is?" by Dr. Hugh Ross.

 

This book provides some unique answers to the questions being discussed here, including scientific perspective (Dr. Hugh Ross has his PhD in Astronomy). Among the topics he discusses why the universe is:

• so vast & apparently wasteful
  
• so old
  
• so lonely (Fermi's paradox)
  
• so dark
  

 

and others. The second part of the book explores these elements from a biblical perspective. Dr. Ross and his orgainzation (Reasons To Believe) are not particularly fond of the Intelligent Design movement, but as scientists and Christians are committed to providing a scientifically testable creation model for the universe.

 

I know I haven't provided any specific answers to Time Traveller's question, but wanted to introduce this resource given it so directly speaks to the question.

 

-Mike

 

 

 

Hi Mike. Nobody here or anywhere has a perfect and provable answer for this question.

Well i will see the link with curiosity as this person has the book name which is same as this thread's name.