The Anthropic Principle, Alpha and 'Universal Constants' - General

The Anthropic Principle: [quote] In [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics"]physics[/URL] and [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmology"]cosmology[/URL], the [B]anthropic principle[/B] is the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy"]philosophical argument[/URL] that observations of the physical [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe"]Universe[/URL] must be compatible with the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscious"]conscious[/URL] [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life"]life[/URL] that observes it. Some proponents of the argument reason that it explains why the Universe has the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_universe"]age[/URL] and the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_physical_constant"]fundamental physical constants[/URL] necessary to accommodate conscious life. As a result, they believe that the fact that the Universe's fundamental constants are within the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe"]narrow range thought to allow life[/URL] is not remarkable. [/quote][URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle[/URL] Simply put, many people say the ‘fine tuning’ of the universal constants as [I] too perfect to be random [/I] (these people are usually creationists and such-like).Constants are often dimensionless numbers which could have any value, yet are [I] perfect [/I] for life to exist as they are, and if they were changed even slightly then life as we know it would probably not exist. This is often used as fuel to push the 'intelligent designer' agenda. However, the Anthropic principle argues that the universe must be in this [I] perfect [/I] state in order to be observed by us. So we are not lucky, the state of the universe is a pre-requisite of our conscious observation of it. With this said, there would still need to me a broad spectrum of [I] non-perfect [/I] environments (or universes) to make this statement entirely viable. Over the last 50 years, one of the most popular ideas for this is the multiverse idea, whereby there are a seemingly infinitesimal amount of universes un-suitable for life, and this just happens to be the lucky universe (or one of the lucky universes). Now, there is an important assumption involved in all of this, one that has been assumed by science for over the last 100 years if not more. Reason being, no evidence had ever been found to the contrary. This is that all universal constants are indeed [I]constant[/I]. The speed of light is one such constant, and has always been measured to be constant whenever observed. Another is the ‘Fine Structure Constant’, also known as Alpha ([I]α[/I]). [quote] In [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics"]physics[/URL], the [B]fine-structure constant[/B] (usually denoted [I]α[/I], the Greek letter [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha"]alpha[/URL]) is a [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_physical_constant"]fundamental physical constant[/URL], namely the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coupling_constant"]coupling constant[/URL] characterizing the strength of the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_interaction"]electromagnetic interaction[/URL]. The numerical value of [I]α[/I] is the same in all [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_of_units"]systems of units[/URL], because [I]α[/I] is a [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensionless_quantity"]dimensionless quantity[/URL]. [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnold_Sommerfeld"]Arnold Sommerfeld[/URL] introduced the fine-structure constant in 1916. [/quote]Alpha is essentially descriptive of the interaction of electromagnetic radiation with matter, its value being 1/137(ish). If the value of alpha changed by more than 5% of its current value then matter and light could not interact the way they do, and the universe might be a totally different place. Now, up until the last decade [I]precision cosmology[/I] was seen as an oxymoron by many as data gained from astronomic observations were usually anything but precise due to technological restrictions. Over past ten years things have changed, and today astronomers/physicists are able to deduce changes of only a few parts in a million over vast distances of space. This has led to some intriguing data, which I must add [B] is still to be verified [/B], but if true, has far reaching implications for all of physics: [quote] ScienceDaily (Sep. 9, 2010) — [B] A team of astrophysicists based in Australia and England has uncovered evidence that the laws of physics are different in different parts of the universe. [/B] The team -- from the University of New South Wales, Swinburne University of Technology and the University of Cambridge -- has submitted a report of the discovery for publication in the journal Physical Review Letters. A preliminary version of the paper is currently under peer review. The report describes how one of the supposed fundamental constants of Nature appears not to be constant after all. Instead, this 'magic number' known as the fine-structure constant -- 'alpha' for short -- appears to vary throughout the universe. "After measuring alpha in around 300 distant galaxies, a consistency emerged: this magic number, which tells us the strength of electromagnetism, is not the same everywhere as it is here on Earth, and seems to vary continuously along a preferred axis through the universe," Professor John Webb from the University of New South Wales said. "The implications for our current understanding of science are profound. If the laws of physics turn out to be merely 'local by-laws', it might be that whilst our observable part of the universe favours the existence of life and human beings, other far more distant regions may exist where different laws preclude the formation of life, at least as we know it." "If our results are correct, clearly we shall need new physical theories to satisfactorily describe them." The researchers' conclusions are based on new measurements taken with the Very Large Telescope (VLT) in Chile, along with their previous measurements from the world's largest optical telescopes at the Keck Observatory in Hawaii. Mr Julian King from the University of New South Wales explained how, after combining the two sets of measurements, the new result 'struck' them. "The Keck telescopes and the VLT are in different hemispheres -- they look in different directions through the universe. Looking to the north with Keck we see, on average, a smaller alpha in distant galaxies, but when looking south with the VLT we see a larger alpha." "It varies by only a tiny amount -- about one part in 100,000 -- over most of the observable universe, but it's possible that much larger variations could occur beyond our observable horizon," Mr King said. The discovery will force scientists to rethink their understanding of Nature's laws. "The fine structure constant, and other fundamental constants, are absolutely central to our current theory of physics. If they really do vary, we'll need a better, deeper theory," Dr Michael Murphy from Swinburne University said. "While a 'varying constant' would shake our understanding of the world around us extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. What we're finding is extraordinary, no doubt about that." "It's one of the biggest questions of modern science -- are the laws of physics the same everywhere in the universe and throughout its entire history? We're determined to answer this burning question one way or the other." Other researchers involved in the research are Professor Victor Flambaum and PhD student Matthew Bainbridge from the University of New South Wales, and Professor Bob Carswell at the University of Cambridge (UK). [/quote][URL]http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/100909004112.htm[/URL] They first noticed a change in alpha back in 1999, though this was assumed to be a difference in alpha [I]in time[/I], seeing as the observed galaxies were very far away (thus the light took time to reach us and so we were observing the past). Physicists assumed that if the data was correct then maybe the value of alpha is changing universally as time passes. But then new observations were made in the opposite direction, and at the same distance. These observations showed the same deviation in the alpha constant, [I]but in the opposite direction [/I]. What this would mean is that alpha is not changing with time, but is rather a variable across space. This is still to be verified, so it isn’t concrete yet. Many physicists have tried to pick holes in the way the data was gathered. Needless to say the data is currently being independently verified, and the results of this could have profound implications. Now for my speculation: If the value of Alpha can change across space, why not the value of the other constants? Could all the constants be subject to flux across vast distances of space? Alpha is the most easily observed seeing as it relates to the absorption and transmission of light, so maybe when we have the technology to find even smaller incremental changes in observations we will be able to confirm this. For now, the only thing that we can work with is the available data on Alpha. But this doesn’t have to stop us hypothesising. I like to imagine Alpha as a gradient spread across all of space. At one point, its value would be 0, at the other end the maximum value for alpha. In this sense every possible value for this constant would be exhausted. Now, imagine this for all the other constants too, changing across space so gradually that it is hard for us to observe. If this was the case then all of physics would change across expanses of the universe so large that we cannot observe them beyond our great cosmic horizon. In this sense, every possible combination of all the physical constants could exist within this universe. There would no longer be a need for multiple universes where constants were different, as all these different environments would be here within our own. Even additional constants that don’t affect us could be explained as being at their zero value in our own location, so as to not affect us and our observable physical laws. This would be just as in keeping with the anthropic principle, but with one added bonus. Anthropic principal sceptics often say that we cannot observe multiverses, so suggesting as such is un-falsifiable and we may as well be talking of an intelligent designer. This gradient idea squashes that rebuttal, as these constants [I]can[/I] be observed, perhaps even in the laboratory rather than across space if we can refine our technology to detect changes across such a small distance. So Facepunch, what say you? Which way do you want the data to go? Anyone who knows more about this and has any corrections, they would be more than welcome. I understand I probably haven't hit the nail square on the head. [B]tl;dr – Some stuff might or might not be changing. Maybe. [/B] (on a side note, I know I’ve been mentioning Alpha a lot. How long still some smart arse posts a picture of the gay robot from Power Rangers? eh)

What is so shocking about finding ourselves in a universe that is "perfect" for life? Really if it was any other way we wouldnt be here now would we?

[QUOTE=superdinoman;25859337]What is so shocking about finding ourselves in a universe that is "perfect" for life? Really if it was any other way we wouldnt be here now would we?[/QUOTE] Read the thread. That is what the whole thing is about.

holy shit the environment we evolved to survive in is PERFECT for us! holy shit god must have made it specifically for us

Again, read the thread. [quote] This is often used as fuel to push the 'intelligent designer' agenda. However, the Anthropic principle argues that the universe must be in this [I] perfect [/I] state in order to be observed by us. So we are not lucky, the state of the universe is a pre-requisite of our conscious observation of it. [/quote]

Holy shit that means dinosaurs are still alive even after all those years!?!?

[QUOTE=Cl0cK;25859560]Holy shit that means dinosaurs are still alive even after all those years!?!?[/QUOTE] Birds man. [QUOTE=Kade;25859413]Read the thread.[/QUOTE] Did but kind of old news is kind of old. Dont you know a wizard did it?

[QUOTE=Cl0cK;25859560]Holy shit that means dinosaurs are still alive even after all those years!?!?[/QUOTE] you win. I give up :(

This is quite interesting, have they tested for any differences in other constants? (I'm sure the gravitational constant would be quite easy to test) And I don't really understand the use of the alpha constant, is it related to planck's constant?

The reason this is bullshit is because the only form of life we know is us. As far as we know, there could be much more complicated versions of life that don't exist because they are not compatible with our universe.

[QUOTE=2 > 1;25862077]This is quite interesting, have they tested for any differences in other constants? (I'm sure the gravitational constant would be quite easy to test)[/QUOTE] I'm not sure, I imagine it could be easy, but it would have to be done in the lab with very precises measurements. Is it the gravitational constant which is in flux if/when a gravity wave passes? If so I believe there are projects being developed to look out for those. [editline]5th November 2010[/editline] [QUOTE=A Dead Guy;25862128]The reason this is bullshit is because the only form of life we know is us. As far as we know, there could be much more complicated versions of life that don't exist because they are not compatible with our universe.[/QUOTE] How is this bullshit because of that? It completely agrees with everything that you just said. Quote me one part which doesn't. The Anthropic principal says this, and that is the reason the multiversal theory is in place. All this is is a suggestion that we wouldn't need a multiversal theory if universal constants were instead fluctuating gradients across vast areas of space.

[QUOTE=Kade;25862224]I'm not sure, I imagine it could be easy, but it would have to be done in the lab with very precises measurements. Is it the gravitational constant which is in flux if/when a gravity wave passes? If so I believe there are projects being developed to look out for those. [/QUOTE] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant[/url] I don't think it would be too hard to test, from my limited knowledge, but you know about this a lot more than me. I'm starting uni next year, going to do a double degree of robotics engineering and a maths degree, and for my electives i'll be picking physics stuff so hopefully I'll learn more.

[QUOTE=2 > 1;25862414][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant[/url] I don't think it would be too hard to test, from my limited knowledge, but you know about this a lot more than me. I'm starting uni next year, going to do a double degree of robotics engineering and a maths degree, and for my electives i'll be picking physics stuff so hopefully I'll learn more.[/QUOTE] That sounds like a really good degree path, good luck. I wish I had done something similar. I did music, which has left me with very limited options in the current economic climate. From reading through that wiki I think it is G which would be the variable in gravity waves. The thing is, we're still very unsure of the mechanism for how gravity works. A gravity wave could essentially be similar to an acoustic wave, and so any variation in G could be caused by a movement of theoretical G particles or something similar, rather than the underlying constant. I think the problem is, Alpha is a dimensionless constant, so there are no mechanisms behind it (that we have discovered yet anyway), whereas G is dimensional, and is comprised of acceleration over time. These parts could vary (through processes like gravity waves) and alter our perception of G, but the actual individual strength of G for one individual graviton could stay the same.

[QUOTE=Kade;25867574]From reading through that wiki I think it is G which would be the variable in gravity waves. The thing is, we're still very unsure of the mechanism for how gravity works. A gravity wave could essentially be similar to an acoustic wave, and so any variation in G could be caused by a movement of theoretical G particles or something similar, rather than the underlying constant. I think the problem is, Alpha is a dimensionless constant, so there are no mechanisms behind it (that we have discovered yet anyway), whereas G is dimensional, and is comprised of acceleration over time. These parts could vary (through processes like gravity waves) and alter our perception of G, but the actual individual strength of G for one individual graviton could stay the same.[/QUOTE] Nupe, G remains a constant in gravity waves, since they're in a (relatively) fixed position. The variable would the viscosity/density/inertial mass of the fluid medium the gravity wave is acting through, and any atmospheric pressure changes. Gravity waves are sinusoidal so it won't just be one variable they rely on. Don't quote me on that, though. But what you said about Gravity and Acoustic waves being similar, you're right. They both share the standard model. The difference being the driving mechanism behind an acoustic wave will have impulse, or a frequency. Gravitational fields are constant and would rely other outside interactions to initiate.

[QUOTE=BloodStream;25867680]Nupe, G remains a constant in gravity waves, since they're in a (relatively) fixed position. The variable would the viscosity/density/inertial mass of the fluid medium the gravity wave is acting through. Gravity waves are sinusoidal so it won't just be one variable they rely on. Don't quote me on that, though.[/QUOTE] If that's the case, what is the medium gravity waves travel through? I assumed it would be the gravity field itself (aka the strength of graviton interactions in a specific region of space, rather than the amount of gravitons in the region). This is the only way I can see of obtaining some form of gravitational constant which is dimensionless, as alpha is. Dimensional constants are much harder to apply this change idea to, since they are made of components themselves.

Oh. SHIT [editline]5th November 2010[/editline] [QUOTE=Kade;25867755]If that's the case, what is the medium gravity waves travel through? I assumed it would be the gravity field itself (aka the strength of graviton interactions in a specific region of space, rather than the amount of gravitons in the region). This is the only way I can see of obtaining some form of gravitational constant which is dimensionless, as alpha is. Dimensional constants are much harder to apply this change idea to, since they are made of components themselves.[/QUOTE] Gravity, like light doesn't travel through a medium.

[QUOTE=Empty_Shadow;25867773]Gravity, like light doesn't travel through a medium.[/QUOTE] He said Gravity waves. Totally different thing to a gravitational field. And gravitational fields do travel through a medium, anyway. The Higgs field is considered the medium. And, Gravity waves are most commonly found in fluid mediums. An easy way to describe it would be to show what happens when you drop a buoyant object into a body of water. It bobs up and down; that's the gravity wave. I realise I might have misunderstood what you meant by "gravity waves" now that I've read over your conversation more thoroughly. I'll stop derailing now, sorry.

Gravity waves don't have a medium.

[QUOTE=BloodStream;25867790]He said Gravity waves. Totally different thing to a gravitational field. And gravitational fields do travel through a medium, anyway. The Higgs field is considered the medium.[/QUOTE] I thought the Higgs field was only related to the mass of particles? Can it account for how they gravitate towards each-other too?

I'm no expert on the subject, and haven't researched heavily, but I thought the higgs field was what allowed gravitons to be exchanged between two bodies of mass?

If you factor in how mindbendingly large space is, you'd realize how, over time, it is easy for perfect life to form. To put this into perspective: our planet Earth is a grain of sand in New York. The nearest star to our planet is a larger grain of sand in London. Think of that scale, then imagine this: that distance is only a trillionth of the size of our galaxy, and there are trillions and trillions, an insurmountable number, of galaxies in the universe. [i]Seriously[/i], Facepunch, you do not even know. Do you think you're sitting still right now, by the way? If you could look at yourself from that inky black void of space, you would see that you are turning a giant somersault once every twenty-four hours as the Earth turns on its axis at about sixteen hundred kilometers per hour. You are also making a circle around the sun at the speed of 107,200 kilometers per hour. Also, our solar system revolves around the center of our galaxy, the Milky Way, at the rate of 69,200 kilometers an hour. The whole galaxy is traveling toward the star Vega at about twenty kilometers per second while it's possible the universe folds through other universes at light speed. So, you see, you are definitely not sitting still in your chair. I just felt like any of you holding on to the idea of creationism should know this. If you apply such a [b]HUGE[/B] place over the course of a few [B]BILLION[/b] years, "perfect" life is bound to form.

[QUOTE=Xolo;25868206]If you factor in how mindbendingly large space is, you'd realize how, over time, it is easy for perfect life to form. To put this into perspective: our planet Earth is a grain of sand in New York. The nearest star to our planet is a larger grain of sand in London. Think of that scale, then imagine this: that distance is only a trillionth of the size of our galaxy, and there are trillions and trillions, an insurmountable number, of galaxies in the universe. [i]Seriously[/i], Facepunch, you do not even know. Do you think you're sitting still right now, by the way? If you could look at yourself from that inky black void of space, you would see that you are turning a giant somersault once every twenty-four hours as the Earth turns on its axis at about sixteen hundred kilometers per hour. You are also making a circle around the sun at the speed of 107,200 kilometers per hour. Also, our solar system revolves around the center of our galaxy, the Milky Way, at the rate of 69,200 kilometers an hour. The whole galaxy is traveling toward the star Vega at about twenty kilometers per second while it's possible the universe folds through other universes at light speed. So, you see, you are definitely not sitting still in your chair. I just felt like any of you holding on to the idea of creationism should know this. If you apply such a [b]HUGE[/B] place over the course of a few [B]BILLION[/b] years, "perfect" life is bound to form.[/QUOTE] This is all astronomy and relativity 101. Facepunch has seen many Carl Sagan inspired threads on this. As for your last point, this is similar to the 'give enough monkeys enough typewriters and enough time' scenario, whereas the suggestion in the OP goes deeper than this, suggesting (in keeping with the monkey/typewriter analogy) that the monkey and typewriter change throughout space into being every possible thing they could be (those being analogous to the universal constants) and thus disregarding the need fora multiverse theory and acting as a rebuttal against creationists who claim that a multiverse is an unfalsifiable concept.

What do you mean "change throughout space"? Do you mean "change over distances of space" (in which case you're talking out your ass) or are you just renaming multiverse theory?

You never mentioned Adam Sandler as a universal constant.

Regardless of how universal constants could be different, the universe would still eventually spawn negenthropic systems that can be interpreted as life. Some of them would then wonder why is universe so fine-tuned for them.

[QUOTE=Xolo;25868628]What do you mean "change throughout space"? Do you mean "change over distances of space" (in which case you're talking out your ass) or are you just renaming multiverse theory?[/QUOTE] Did you even read the OP and the new data on the change in Alpha across space? If Alpha is changing as the data suggests then how the fuck am I talking out of my ass?

I think this is really interesting (and kind of a pain in the ass - a part of me hopes it just isn't true, as it would totally shit on the cosmological principle and all that stuff) but what I'm wondering is, how much exactly does it change by per unit distance? And is it definitely on just one axis (can you divide the universe up into "slices" which have roughly the same value of alpha)? I want to know how far you could go before it would make life impossible.

[QUOTE=Turnips5;25870429]I think this is really interesting (and kind of a pain in the ass - a part of me hopes it just isn't true, as it would totally shit on the cosmological principle and all that stuff) but what I'm wondering is, how much exactly does it change by per unit distance? And is it definitely on just one axis (can you divide the universe up into "slices" which have roughly the same value of alpha)? I want to know how far you could go before it would make life impossible.[/QUOTE] I think I read that Alpha can change by 5% before things start to break down, so baring in mind it is about 1/137 it'd be five percent of that number. Distance wise, the variation of Alpha observed so far has been about 5 parts in a million each way, which i think is a diviation of 0.0005%, and that's for really really distant galaxies. So to get to a point where physics as we know it would be fundamentally different, you'd have to go ten thousand times as far away as these galaxies, if my calculations are correct. This is way beyond what we can observe, and perhaps further than we could ever reach travelling at SOL due to universal expansion.