Brian Greene: Why is our universe fine-tuned for life?

reply to post by Ericthenewbie

Hi Eric,
I will admit I did not watch the video.
Only cause I can't under the circumstances.
Ever since I heard the nonsense about the event horizon I immediately knew it was a farce.
If there is expansion there has to be space to expand into.
So that alone predicts infinity. Of course if you throttle your mind by the speed of light you cannot progress.In order to perceive beyond the horizon requires faith.
I recommend breaking the light barrier like we did the sound barrier so that we can see without limitation.
I really do wish I could watch the video. And I thank you for presenting it and being capable of dealing with it's complexities..
I think it would be nice if you explained where there might be some similarities or conflict with the theories within the video in comparison to how I look at things. You know just for the sake of conversation.
the best ljb
===============================================================================
PS "What I mean by that is current knowledge and observation of our universe through the newly discovered ever increasingly faster expansion of the universe would dictate in theory that what we know today could one day be this so called "event horizon" you discuss, where "the boundary in space time beyond which events cannot affect an outside observer" is in reality something we in fact observed and affected us at an earlier point in history. "
==============================================================================
Do you mean us as in humans or just the universe in general??

reply to post by longjohnbritches


Usually in time, Tedtalks provide transcripts of their presenter's presentations but regretfully, this one is not available yet. Once it is, I'll add it to the thread for those like yourself who are interested but unable to watch.

I must reiterate that I'm not an expert by any means and others on ATS have a much better grasp of the concepts/theories presented and their differences from previous concepts/theories and would definitely be better able to explain than myself.

I think phishyblankwaters has given the best summary of the presentation thus far.

That being said, his biography from Columbia University states the following;

His area of research is superstring theory, a theory that purports to give us a quantum theory of gravity as well as a unified theory of all forces and all matter. As such, superstring theory has the potential to realize Einstein's long sought dream of a single, all encompassing, theory of the universe. One of the strangest features of superstring theory is that it requires the universe to have more than three spatial dimensions. Much of his research has focused on the physical implications and mathematical properties of these extra dimensions --- studies that collectively go under the heading "quantum geometry".

Quantum geometry differs in substantial ways from the classical geometry underlying general relativity. For instance, topology change (the "tearing" of space) is a sensible feature of quantum geometry even though, from a classical perspective, it involves singularities. As another example, two different classical spacetime geometries can give rise to identical physical implications, again at odds with conclusions based on classical general relativity.

Superstring theory is most relevant under extreme physical conditions such as those that existed at the time of the big bang. Recently, Columbia have formed a new institute called ISCAP (Institute for Strings, Cosmology, and Astroparticle Physics) dedicated to understanding the interface of superstring theory and cosmology. One primary focus of ISCAP is the search for subtle signatures of string theory that may be imprinted in the precision cosmological data that will be collected through a variety of experiments over the next decade.

I'm not sure if the above adds enough detail to justify his presentation but at the very least, it gives a general idea of where he is coming from.

What I mean by that is current knowledge and observation of our universe through the newly discovered ever increasingly faster expansion of the universe would dictate in theory that what we know today could one day be this so called "event horizon" you discuss, where "the boundary in space time beyond which events cannot affect an outside observer" is in reality something we in fact observed and affected us at an earlier point in history.

My above quote is related to the human perspective of what was presented in the presentation but by no means does it encompass everything he discussed. It's more so "if what he says has merit, what are the implications to us as humans" type question.

It seems to me that the idea expressed here several times that "He has it wrong" and that life is tailored to the universe, not the opposite, is missing the point. If you watched the presentation you would realize that he is not saying that in another universe of rocky worlds, suns, and novas, that life wouldn't exist. He is saying that the suns, galaxies, novas, and rocky worlds would not exist at all because changing any of his fundamental numbers means they could never form in the first place.

In that sense the Anthropic Principle holds. The universe is the way it is because if it weren't, we wouldn't be here to observe it. Still, in an infinite number of universes, our life is inevitable. What he does not address and, indeed, he's not in a position to address, is the role of thought in the creation of the universe. I personally believe that it is in this area that the next major breakthroughs will take place, and that it will be as huge a breakthrough as the difference between Newtonian mechanics and quantum mechanics.

The really compelling question I have is, What kind of software did he use to produce those wonderful images! It certainly wasn't Powerpoint!

reply to post by Ericthenewbie


Thank you Sir Eric
You have gone the distance and I am grateful.
The ball is now firmly in my court and will force me back into some books and enjoyment.
Pushing the envelope.
s+f and adulates ljb

I have indeed watched the video's and much like dark matter/energy, black holes and other mathematical constructs so prevalent in modern cosmology, have seen nothing to change my mind as to this being anything other than numbers on a screen. While I don't doubt the importance of theoretical physics or the usefulness of exploring these ideas, they forever lay beyond the realm of experimentation and therefore are firmly in the domain of thought rather than empiricism.

"Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality." - Nikola Tesla

Originally posted by Orwells Ghost
I have indeed watched the video's and much like dark matter/energy, black holes and other mathematical constructs so prevalent in modern cosmology, have seen nothing to change my mind as to this being anything other than numbers on a screen. While I don't doubt the importance of theoretical physics or the usefulness of exploring these ideas, they forever lay beyond the realm of experimentation and therefore are firmly in the domain of thought rather than empiricism.

"Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality." - Nikola Tesla

Well said,
But as an optimist. I myself will never stop bumping up against the restraints, the bubble challenging, confinement of science.
Records seem to always be broken, new theories and hypostasis become common knowledge.
I stress this to all I know.
The key is and can only be, that the conclusion at this point in science OF THE SPEED OF LIGHT is incorrect. And this is not whacked logic.
Am I wrong?? Will you look into the possibilities?
Unbiased? ljb
The measurment may be correct??
But what I mean is the formula or the application could be off by a factor of
-+8477655245389608-squaredx1mickymouse.

How can anyone claim with a straight face that a universe which is 99.99999999% completely uninhabitable is '"fine tuned" for life?

reply to post by Orwells Ghost


To start, Nikola Tesla also said;

“I do not hesitate to state here for future reference and as a test of the accuracy of my scientific forecast that flying machines and ships propelled by electricity transmitted without wire will have ceased to be a wonder in ten years from now. I would say five were it not that there is such a thing as “inertia of human opinion” resisting revolutionary ideas.”

&

“If Edison had a needle to find in a haystack, he would proceed at once with the diligence of the bee to examine straw after straw until he found the object of his search... I was a sorry witness of such doings, knowing that a little theory and calculation would have saved him ninety per cent of his labor.”

So although as an Inventor, Tesla believed that mathematical equations could render one into a different realm not based in reality he does not dismiss it's place in scientific study. He also saw that "human opinion" could delay scientific discoveries.

To be clear , I never dismissed that theories need to be tested beyond math with empiricism in order to be considered factual with sensory perception because I do believe that it is important that we push these findings beyond their mathematical equations. However I also think that rationalism (which asserts that knowledge may be derived from reason independently of the senses) and a form of semi-empirical (sometimes used to describe theoretical methods that make use of basic axioms, established scientific laws, and previous experimental results in order to engage in reasoned model building and theoretical inquiry) have an important place in the begining of scientific discovery as well.

If rationalism/semi-empirical practices had not been used by Ernest Rutherford in 1920 to conceptualize the existence of the neutron and later expanded upon by Walther Bothe/Herman Becker, in 1932 James Chadwick would not have performed a series of experiments to establish it's existence.

Can we agree that science is non-static?

If you agree that it is non-static.. can you then appreciate the relevance/importance of an idea outside of sensory perception being established and further structured into a theory through mathematics that eventual can be tested through experiment empirically?

Although I find your statement;

I have indeed watched the video's and much like dark matter/energy, black holes and other mathematical constructs so prevalent in modern cosmology, have seen nothing to change my mind as to this being anything other than numbers on a screen

to be somewhat limiting for future discoveries..I will give you that "Dark Matter" hasn't moved beyond the mathematics as of yet and that "Plasma Cosmology" is a better explanation for it at this time. I will however disagree that "Black Holes" are at the same point of discovery as we are currently pushing the mathematical theory using empiricism to test aspects of them in labs;

Black Hole Effect Created in Lab

At the end of the day the theories presented in Brian's presentation are only theories based on mathematics at this point but you have to agree that it would be naive to say they aren't possibilities in reality and could in time have empirical evidence to support those theories.

It will be interesting to see what comes out of the CERN experiments and the ISCAP institute experiments over the next few years.

reply to post by Ericthenewbie


Hi eric.
I just wanted to let you in on a little occurrence I had yesterday afternoon.
I was having a cup of coffee with an old friend.
He is Mathman personified.
Any who I told him I was having conversation on line about the Cosmos.
He started to get all upset about damn fool Internet trash and the like.
I asked him to take a breath it's just talk.
So I reminded him about many of our previous discussions. I must admit I was probing him some.
He is atheist. But that had never been part of our math and technology talks in the past.
Well we got to the point after his many extreme cranky attempts at not getting cornered by my persistence. He at times was quoting Hawkins and others of his ilk.
But when we digressed back to the center line between the pre Big Bang and the beginning of it, He really didn't have a Pre in his explanation except, And this is the good part.
To explain ,in his exact words--- He held his hands in a tight double fist and shook them for emphasis.
He looked deep into my soul and said, Here it is, this compact mass of matter and his eyes flittered upwards for a moment and he said of course you have to have faith thhhhhhhh.
Then he got a little grumbly for a moment, softened a little and said you know , you know what I mean don't you? That doesn't mean it's God!!! So all I said was well then what do you call it besides faith.
Not much formula wise there but a neat experience in conceptualization.
I love the man always will. Hate math but love concepts.
ljb

reply to post by longjohnbritches


Interesting yet somewhat frustrating story.

What I mean by that is I need to understand your friend's definition of "faith"... do you mean "faith" as a firm belief in something for which there is no proof (complete trust) or do you mean "faith" as a belief and trust in and loyalty to God (belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion)?

There's a big difference in my mind.

That aside.. I always find it interesting that society has an inability not to categorize/label things. If one doesn't know, why can't one just say they don't know and leave it at that. Not knowing now doesn't mean it can't be known later.

Interestingly enough Brian Greene does address the "bang" component of the "big bang" in his presentation by talking about "inflationary cosmology"...in a nut shell there's the idea that multiple "big bangs" occured each creating a different universe leading to as he says a "multiverse" reality.

Originally posted by Ericthenewbie
reply to post by longjohnbritches

 

Interesting yet somewhat frustrating story.

What I mean by that is I need to understand your friend's definition of "faith"... do you mean "faith" as a firm belief in something for which there is no proof (complete trust) or do you mean "faith" as a belief and trust in and loyalty to God (belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion)?

There's a big difference in my mind.

That aside.. I always find it interesting that society has an inability not to categorize/label things. If one doesn't know, why can't one just say they don't know and leave it at that. Not knowing now doesn't mean it can't be known later.

Interestingly enough Brian Greene does address the "bang" component of the "big bang" in his presentation by talking about "inflationary cosmology"...in a nut shell there's the idea that multiple "big bangs" occured each creating a different universe leading to as he says a "multiverse" reality.

Hi eric
My spidy sense tells me you are a genuine article.
So bare with my mania.
I am going to post the wiki meaning of faith just for reference.
When I was way younger I was upset with the inaccuracies of language.
Or at least the confusion it causes modern society
To say the least I jumped on it like Brian Green on string theory or whatever.
What I found out was that humans will always try to use language to insert there ideas into an others thinking.
Quite normal behavior.
My approach was to under the terminology first. Words like omnipotent, final,. exact, fact and all the rest.
End all do all stuff. What I came up with was ---
The sub nano micro, nano, infinite nano conversion from present To future require only ONE thing.FAITH


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith

Faith
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For other uses, see Faith (disambiguation).


Mino da Fiesole, Faith (Armani).
Faith is confidence or trust in a person or entity.[1][2] Depending on the religion, faith is belief in a single god or multiple gods or in the doctrines or teachings of the religion. Informal usage of faith can be quite broad, including trust or belief without proof,[2] and "faith" is often used as a substitute for "hope",

Search all that is know to man. And you know what???
I have FAITH that you do now. ljb

reply to post by Ericthenewbie

I am in agreement with the existance of a Multiverse as this would explain Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Behavior...but he tend to offer up concepts without any sufficient Logical Lines of Proof.

This tens to be the difference between a Scientist or Physicist who is actively looking for answers using the Scientific Method...and some guy with a bit of Knowledge...Degrees and all...who has become an ENTERTAINER!

One of my Jobs is in the field of Entertainment so I can see the telltale signs right off the bat. He has become much more motivated by garnishing a favorable response and playing to the crowd than he is a true seeker of fact.

It is not his fault...this transition is inevitable when a persons expertise is used in conjuction with entertainment as apposed to a person using a TALENT for the purpose of Entertainment. I have been in Entertainment a long time and I have seen certain people get confused with the reality of WHO they really are...and the LEGEND of WHO they THINK they are. This is unfortunate but inevitable in this case.

This does not mean the guy is a charleton...he has just lost track of WHO he really is...and in the Entertainment Business...knowing who you really are...is EVERYTHING. Split Infinity

Think of a infinite number of universes that come and go....ours just happens to be one that is fine tuned for life.

reply to post by SplitInfinity


Like this dude?? TUPAC CHOPRA

Who is Tupac Chopra? - Yahoo! Answers
answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080225162407AALibKa

Feb 21, 2008 ... A Holistic rapper from India if you're joking, it's Depak Chopra if you're not. He is an endocrynologist M.D. that is a leading authority on holistic ...

reply to post by longjohnbritches

Oh...MAN! Have you just hit a raw nerve. I absolutely...cannot stand people of this nature. I have to go to 4 CD release parties a year by contract. Usually either NY or LA. I have several jobs...one is helping my family run several sucessful companies...the second is I am a world class musician and record and tour but I am older and I did this much more in the 80's...the third job works in conjuction with the entertainment job as extensive travel allows me to be in places that if another U.S. Citizen would show up who is at my physical stature...would allert the natives like a neon sign...so I am a Patriot.

I am older so in order to keep up with 20 somethings..I have to stay in top shape and since I am in a band...this is a prerequisite anyways. I go and do things like this and then I come home and by contract have to be seen and show up to parties of the Rich and the Stupid and the Damned!

At EVERY ONE OF THESE STUPID CD RELEASE PARTY is some new GURU who the Self Annointed...WHAT IS HOT CROWD...has determined is all enlighted and as they book him or her for private sessions to determine if their CHAKRA is balanced or in order...and huge amounts of money are paid...I occasionaly...if I decide to have a Jack and Diet Coke instead of a Light Beer...will engage the Guru and his Followers in conversation. It turns into a Mental Bloodbath...and I cannot help myself. The poor Multi-Million Dollar Actress who can't find meaning in her life. The rediculously overdressed Metro-Sexual who proclaims to be Bi...but is not. The Corporate wife with 20 face lifts and lips like a Blowfish...wanting to be young again who decides she will host a Guru Party. And then there is me...Wealthy...but wearing Jeans and a Golf Shirt. And with a few Jacks in me...I start tearing down this Guru's Sales pitch like a Sledge Hammer against a Styrofoam Wall. I hate when I do this...but secretly...deep inside...I know it needs to be done. Split Infinity

reply to post by SplitInfinity


Let's drink to that Realism and LUST for real life and copulation!
With a partner of your choice of course.
Divide infinity and you conqure humnity.
Fn crack me up. ljb

reply to post by longjohnbritches

Dude...I am ALWAYS up for a drink and toast for the Love of Life and Woman!...which I love everything about...even the Bitching as I know it is Biochemical and not their fault.

I only get peeved when people believe it is important to make up their own reality and world where they have say on who is in and who is not...as if they are qualified to judge. I have met young women who are aspiring artists and when I first meet them they are humble and eager to learn...6 months later...they get lucky s someone decides they are to be the next thing and they start talking about themselves in third person and all of a sudden have a list of things that must be before they will perform.

In the old days...it was a JOKE...NO BROWN M&M's...so some sorry SOB had to fill a Crystal bowl with them and hand pick out all the brown ones. It was a JOKE!

Now day's...these people are dead serious...no this...need that...no square mirrors in the dressing room...I have heard it all. I long for the Day's when I was on tour with Heart and Ann and Nancy Wilson would stay in their Hotel till 20 minutes before showtime...they were always on time and pro's...and they never talked bad about anyone. Split Infinity

Originally posted by roadgravel
"Why does our universe appear so exquisitely tuned to create the conditions necessary for life"

Maybe it is the other way around.

Life is tuned to exist within the conditions of the universe.

Just a quick thought here: If the universe is such a mother of life, then we'd be complaining about those people on the moon. The Jovian diet would be very popular, and we'd be in a war with Neptunians for their ice.

Originally posted by Ericthenewbie
I'm aware that Brian Greene has been discussed previously on ATS (see thread at bottom) and for those familiar with his work, consider this an update,

S&F Good stuff. Thanx!

It got me thinking that we might be living inside one cell of a sponge. Does anyone know how the tiny pockets of a sponge are created? I'm thinking if the cells are formed inside the sponge (instead of on the surface) this formation could be the equivalent of a Big Bang.

Okay, where's my Nobel prize for this!

P.S. I wonder how many of the other universes have that same .000000-138 number? What are the odds???

reply to post by Ericthenewbie


I personally think we are only at the tip of understanding - each year the law of accelerating returns ensures we have finer instruments to gauge the cosmos around us, which then equates to a deeper level of understanding.

We are only limited by our technological advances, and I think 10 years will see an abundance of discoveries and new understandings in to how we "fit" into the greater galaxy / universe.

I'm thoroughly enchanted with the information which is coming out - s&f!