The Goldilocks Enigma

Edited:

observer.guardian.co.uk
Paul Davies goes a long way towards suggesting that he believes the creation of life to be somehow the 'goal' of the universe without suggesting that it is the work of a higher intelligence or God. That is to say he tends towards the belief that the principle of life 'builds purpose into the workings of the cosmos at a fundamental (rather than an incidental) level, without positing an unexplained pre-existing purposive agent to inject purpose miraculously.' This belief is his tentative solution to the 'Goldilocks Enigma', the 'reason' why planets such as our own are 'not too hot and not too cold but just right'.



The evolutionary physics that defines the "just-right" conditions for the goldilocks constraint applies to other systems that are similarly developed, time and location-wise, as ours is:

http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~imamura/209/mar31/anthropic.html

The goldilocks enigma constrains the parameters to a balance of extremes... so it only applies to galaxies that formed on the same evolutionary time/location "plane" as we did. Planets orbiting stars in galaxies that are too old or too new, too large or too small, do not fit the "coincidentally balanced" nature as the average of extremes... etc... etc... ect... all the way down to the local ecobalances of the ones that do:

http://www.lepp.cornell.edu/spr/2006-02/msg0073181.html

This also resolves the alleged, Fermi "Paradox", as well, since we should not YET expect to hear from similarly developed intelligent life, because their radio transmissions have not had time to reach us... YET... either.

Um... just an FYI, but that's a testable prediction about where and when life will most likely be found elsewhere in the universe.

This paper by A. Feoli, and S. Rampone, further discusses this in context with similarly developed systems, but they fail to take the balance of extremes that defines the "Goldilocks Enigma" into account here, because they apply the mediocrity principle, instead, so their formula and anthropic statement are not quite accurately inserted into the Drake Equation, as would be the case if they'd considered the entire set of anthropic balance points that evolve, (time and location-wise), from the observed, nearly-balanced stucture of the universe itself, all the way down to our own local ecobalance... so their solution and anthropic statement are dramatically generalized and overstated, rather than being specific and pointed toward a fine layer of similarly evolved galaxies, stars, and planets:

"Is the Strong Anthropic Principle Too Weak?"
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9812093

We discuss the Carter's formula about the mankind evolution probability following the derivation proposed by Barrow and Tipler. We stress the relation between the existence of billions of galaxies and the evolution of at least one intelligent life, whose living time is not trivial, all over the Universe. We show that the existence probability and the lifetime of a civilization depend not only on the evolutionary critical steps, but also on the number of places where the life can arise. In the light of these results, we propose a stronger version of Anthropic Principle.


... and uh... when you apply the Goldilocks Enigma, rather than the mediocrity principle, to the Drake Equation, then a much more accurate and testable formula falls-out along with a more accurate statement about a strong biocentric principle... just in case nobody noticed.





UPDATE:
Peter Woit made the following statement in the comments section of his "rewiew" of Davies' book, and it is important as it applies to this thread, so I'm bringing it in now:

The “principle of mediocrity”, or more generally, the use of a multiverse model that gives an a priori statistical distribution of values of observables, combined with the anthropic principle as a selection effect, can in certain cases give predictions.

As this applies to our obseverd universe.

The "cosmological principle" gives a "mediocre" multiverse-"like" priori statistical distribution of values of observables, but this is not what is observed and is the reason for the anthropic physics that defines the "Goldilocks Enigma", so the combined effect of the Cosmological Principle with the Goldilocks Constraint... defines a Biocentric Cosmological Principle.

The average of extreme opposing runaway tendencies that are common to the anthropic coincidences make many testable predictions about the observed universe.

Like, life will not be found on Mars or Venus, but it will be found in other systems that meet the goldilocks criterion.

'Read em, and weep'... where "weep" is like a code-word to anticentrists to willfully ignore the hard evidence.

Failure of the System... and they want me to get a PhD!

The failure of string theory "is not so much a particular theory but a style of doing science that was well suited to the problems we faced in the middle part of the twentieth century but is ill suited to the kinds of fundamental problems we face now." According to Mr. Smolin, there are five such fundamental problems for which we need a new style of science to solve:

1. Combine general relativity and quantum theory into a single theory that can claim to be the complete theory of nature. This is called the problem of quantum gravity.

2. Resolve the problems in the foundations of quantum mechanics, either by making sense of the theory as it stands or by inventing a new theory that does make sense.

3. Determine whether or not the various particles and forces can be unified in a theory that explains them all as manifestations of a single, fundamental entity.

4. Explain how the values of the free constants in the standard model of particle physics are chosen in nature.

Yet, for Mr. Smolin, the deeper problem is not string theory per se; it is in the social structure of science itself. In a penultimate chapter on "how science really works," Mr. Smolin sings the praises of thinking outside of the box, including and especially the staid and delimiting box of academia. The system is set up to create scientists who are risk-averse, and granting tenure doesn't help: "Too much job security, too much power, and too little accountability for older people. Too little job security, too little power, and too much accountability for younger people in the prime of their creative, risk-taking years."

Mr. Smolin concludes that we must do two things: "We must recognize and fight the symptoms of groupthink, and we must open the doors to a wide range of independent thinkers, being sure to make room for the peculiar characters needed to make a revolution." How can you spot one of these young revolutionaries? Easy. Find someone already doing science this way, or "find at least one accomplished person in the candidate's field who is deeply excited about what the candidate is trying to do," and, just to be sure, "find at least one professor who thinks the candidate is a terrible scientist and bound to fail."

Fringe Science, huh?

I've been hearing the term, "fringe" lately from a "few" people who actually know enough about the subject to know better than to completely deny real physics when they see it, but who don't seem to understand a few things about how science works in this case, per the scientific method, to determine the preferred theory:

The anthropic physics will obviously carry different meanings, depending upon which cosmological model is actually in effect, so that's the reason that the interpretation of the anthropic physics that is commonly discussed here is anything but "fringe", because Einstein's General Theory with a cosmological constant is still the most conservative mainstream approach to explaining an expanding universe, contrary to popularized hype about whatever speculated exotic energy, like, "quintessence" or whatever other craziness.

There also seems to be some misunderstanding of what is expected of me because of advanced math which can still be done from this that appears to be directly relevant to quantum gravity.

Well, that's wrong, because I don't have to prove a damned thing about quantum gravity to make my point, and so anybody that wants to write down that part of it will surely get the credit, and all I can say, given the current lack of progress in quantum gravity, is, that's... "your loss"... because I don't need it.

It's one thing if there is no indication for it, but I have repeatedly demonstrated to the relevant powers that be that there is good reason to look.

Regardless of any of that, I've given very clear evidence that the most natural extension of Dr. Einstein's general theory with a cosmological constant is and always was valid, until proven otherwise, so it isn't me that's violating the scientific method, kids.

And as Dr. E would no doubt tell you... the anthropic physics in that cosmological model derives that his very own concept of purpose in nature had been vindicated, and "god"... damned sure does not throw dice!'.

So I really don't see where or how the ball is supposed to be in my court to do a damned thing, because I'm not the one that has made a bunch of otherwise unfounded assumptions.

It is a fact as it stands now that you guys are all dead-wrong and looking real stupid in Einstein's eyes, until you prove HIM wrong, since I have repeatedly demonstrated that this is not just my imagination.

I really wish that some nice PhD that may be looking-in again would speak-up to explain to me why modern physics treats Einstein's with such disrespect, considering that they are apparently much further from being correct than he ever was.

Quackery or Honest Decent Scientific Observation?

Given the following, (which isn't even a scientific stretch, since Wheeler proved that number 1 is theoretically plausible, and nobody that can honestly read the writing on the wall is going to dispute number 2):

1) A literal anthropic constraint on the forces.
2) The basic tennents of evolutionary theory are correct.

Then there is a self-evident prediction that falls, because it would be utterly absurd to think that a true anthropic constraint on the forces would not *necessarily* include the human evolutionary process, so it is NOT unreasonable to ask in a scientific context if the INDICATED reciprocal connection means that there is a mechanism that scientists should look for, which would enable our universe to "leap" *relatively rapidly* to a higher odering of the same basic structure, because this sure as heck would explain a lot of stuff in perfect context with direct observation, including the asymmetry problem, the flatness problem, the horizon problem, etc etc etc... don't forget causality!

Number 2 is, of course, the well supported theory of evolution, and number 1 is supported by the fact that the actual structure of the universe occurs in **dramatic contrast** to the modeled **expectation**... so many fixed balance points that are commonly or "coincidentally" pointing directly toward carbon-based life, indicate that there is some good physical reason for it that is somehow "specially" related to the existence of carbon-based life.

If it's right, then it is readily supportable and everything falls into place easily, (which, it does), to define the preferred theory, since it resolves the mentioned problems way more simply than any current approach, but that's just the way that it falls out, this has nothing to do with me, so my honest observations do not warrent that people automatically reject, thereby insulting me for making them. That makes me say to myself that these people already have their non-scientific minds made-up right from the get-go, and history proves that they will recognize nothing that you offer as evidence after that.

All I'm after here is an honest admission that this is quite evident given two scientifically supported features of our world that relate our existence to our observed universe, but I'm NOT asking for a multiverse theory or any other rationale for why it might not be true.

"They" really hate this because they can't use it as an excuse not to look if you take their "explain-it-away" rationale away from them, which, unfortunately, is the current pattern of modern physicists and neodarwinians alike, regardless of claims to the contrary, which are designed to cover-up their failure to fully represent science. Normally, an indication FOR something directly relevant would set-off a frenzy among scientists looking in all directions, but this is not normally restricted to looking only away from the strongest implication, unless there is some pre-existing non-scientific motivation to do so.

There is no "opinion" involved here, in other words, I'm only asking for honest recognition that it's the prediction is QUITE APPARRENTLY THERE without straining your eyes.

Good luck with that... has been my experience, and I'll guarantee you that this has nothing to do with my honesty, but it does have everything to do with people foaming at the mouth, while calling me everything from an IDist, to the arrogant reactions of snobs who pre-reject any sort of implication for anthropic specialness out of hand.

My point is that the prediction is so apparent that it is equally obvious when people are very motivated not to see it, and the fact that nobody else has figured-out something this obvious before now proves that people are also very motivated not to look any further than generic statements about it before they form their opinion, and that's just wrong, as I've clearly shown here, because of the potential science that isn't even hidden if you just open your eyes.

I don't accept pure skepticism as an excuse to be self-dishonest in order to continue with a barrage of debate rhetoric. Healthy skepticism is one thing, but the pure devil's advocate approach isn't honest.

Ground Rules For This Forum... for, "anon"

Why is it that my so-called "critics" never take me up on it when I offer to take their bullshit to the moderated physics forum?

1) Shoot this down or face the music.

These links should help clear-up any questions:
http://www.lns.cornell.edu/spr/2006-02/msg0073320.html
http://www.lns.cornell.edu/spr/2006-03/msg0073465.html

In Einstein's static model, G=0 when there is no matter density.

He brought in the cosmological constant to counterbalance the runaway recollapse effect that occurs in this model because we do have matter, but in order to get rho>0 out of Einstein's matter-less spacetime structure, you have to condense the matter density from the zero pressure metric, and in doing so the pressure of the vacuum necessarily becomes less than zero, P<0, which causes expansion.

*Note that the background changes everytime that you do this.

It is plainly evident from this that most natural way to create new matter in Einstein's model, ("the most compatible with the spirit of general relativity"), also holds it flat and stable, so any other conclusions that have been made since Einstein abandoned his finite universe without this knowledge are therefore subject to suspect review!

Theorists don't always get my meaning here, and they automatically think that I'm referring to our current understanding of the quantum vacuum, but that isn't even necessary if in 1917 Dr. Einstein tells Friedmann, DeSitter and "company" that his finite expanding model is NOT unstable, because, like Hoyle's flawed steady-state model, Einsteins universe expands due to continuous particle creation, except that Einstein actually has a built-in mechanism for this!

So where does it go from here if we are unable to disprove Einstein's finite closed spherical universe, given this "new-light" on the subject?... which no honest physicists has ever even tried to do.


2) Add the anthropic principle to this finite, closed, bounded structure and what you get is a very strong statement about biocentric structure that "evolves" perpetually forward to higher orders of entropic efficiency.


Don't hand me ANY crap unless you can disprove number one, or, failing that, don't forget that it is the default cosmological model with all the ugly trimmings, until you do.

Calling Out My Critic

Anonymous said...
Guys like John Baez do real physics research. You play at doing physics research.

I've been a very respectful follower of John Baez for more years than I'd care to admit, and I have on many occassions reached for his wisdom when an authoritative "appeal" was needed, because I could always count on him for the most conservative mainstream approach to doing *honest* physics. I have great respect for his ability to communicate and teach, as well, in fact, it was one of his negative mass puzzles that helped me to understand what I had found here:

a href=http://www.lns.cornell.edu/spr/2003-08/msg0053200.html

That's the simple truth, and no amount of claiming any scientist who counters your fringe theories are 'wilfully ignorant' will change that.

That's the problem, they don't. Read the linked articles to the physicist moderated research group, they DON'T counter anything, just as you've yet to offer anything except spout-off with zero meaningful content. You act like you've read enough of my blog to have the opinion that a valid working model of the most natural extension of Einstein's general theory with a cosmological constant, is "fringe".

You just don't get it, you clowns are the ones that let me down, (if I seem just a little cynical). I did nothing wrong. I was just studying gravity and following along with everybody else. You are the ones that continually fail to recognize that I have repeatedly given sufficient evidence to warrent that Einstein deserves another little look-see before you can claim a damned thing:

Back to 1917
Back 2
Back 3
Back 4

The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that "god" doesn't throw dice
Real Objects of Negative Orthodoxy, not Mass

If I'm "playing", then the rest of you are just hopelessly lost in la-la fairy-land, just like John Horgan says.

And just an FYI, but it was Brandon Carter who called your anti-anthropic mentality "anticentrist dogma", so don't blame me for verifying that he was absolutely correct until you've actually produced an argument that proves him wrong.

You're a great comedian though. All this AP stuff is comedy gold. It's kept me amused for ages.

Your idea of constructive criticism is right on par with the rest of what I've run into lately. Come back when you're ready to offer something besides absolutely meaningless rhetoric, because issue avoidance is real common and cheap, thanks anyway.

Horganism and John Baez

Don’t go into particle physics! Especially don’t waste your time on string theory, or loop-space theory, or multi-universe theories, or any of the other pseudo-scientific crap in physics and cosmology that we science journalists love so much.

John Horgan's position is this, and it's not bad. He essentially thinks that he is fully qualified to know where and when things went wrong, as he was tight in the loop of cutting-edge theory when grand predictions were made by many leading physicists that did not pan out in reasonable time. He sees them as grasping at straws now, because he experienced first-hand, the break in the timeline of theoretical progress, and he is absolutely correct when he says this!

Neither String Theory, nor Loop Quantum Gravity has produced what they should have long ago, so many treasured assumptions about both are becoming more highly suspect every day. Does that stop anyone?... hell no... they just invent some more fantasy fizixes to try to fix a carried flaw, which can't be done.

None of them want to admit this, and they continue to grasp at straws, while thumbing their noses at the possibility that they missed something fundamental in the development of quantum theory, when Dirac's Equation should have unified both, SR and GR with QM, instead of only SR. These people will scoff at any suggestion in this direction, they are the "cutting-edge", after all, and some stuff about quantum theory is verified to extremely high degrees of accuracy, even though they can't tell you what that really means.

Brilliant mathematical physicists like, John Baez, do not just drop completely out of physics to purely persue math for no reason. I hope that I don't misquote him, but his explanation was a resigned admission that;

"Somebody will write down a theory of quantum gravity, but it isn't going to be me".

Guys like John Baez don't hang it up if there's any realistic hope in their mind, and I don't care what optimism for background independence or whatever new approach that he may express in public.

Guys like John Baez don't hang it up if there's any realistic hope for the methods that have most-hotly been persued.

This is a clear indication of a more-fundamental flaw than theorists are going to be willing to recognize until they are grasping for literal straws of survival as the walls of modern theoretical physics begin to crumble when John Baez' actions and public admission becomes a fulfilled prediction about a major flaw that exists in all of particle theory.

Mark my words.

Not Even Wrong... the cluelessly motivated and the willfully ignorant discuss the Anthropic Principle

The Goldiocks Enigma



I can't believe that anyone would ask Peter Woit, professed fearless leader of the Loop Quantum Anthropic Priciple Haters Association... to review a book about anthropic physics:

My problem with anthropic reasoning isn’t that it is never a legitimate form of logical argument, the problem is that it may not be science, since you can’t use it to make falsifiable predictions.

Woit doesn't know that the goldilocks constraint makes testable predictions.

John Baez doesn't have a clue either.

The list goes on and on...

I've responded to John Baez on the moderated research group, but it isn't like they didn't have to willfully ignore stuff that I've already explained about it, which makes what they're saying nothing more than dogmatic denial:
[and I'll put the link here when it is approved]

I'd never experienced the unscientific motivations that actually drive theoretical physics, until I accidentally discovered the anthropic principle, myself.

But I never would have dreamed that the vast amount of knowlege that was hidden just below the surface of the biggest freaking nightmare of my life was so easy to find because only me-n-Paul Davies are honest enough to take a straight look.

Somebody shoot me.



Update:
I got rejected on my first attempt by Igor, who told me that I hadn't included any physics. So I did that and resubmitted.

Biocentric Structuring

"The Millennium Simulation, used the largest supercomputer in Europe, at the German Astrophysical Virtual Observatory, for over a month to model the history of the Universe in a cube over 2 billion light years on a side, holding 20 million galaxies."


Neurons




Neuron



The Millennium Simulation


Neurons


I'd hate to think what a thought might cause... ;)

Masters of the universe

I really like the review that I linked in the title, and I recommend reading it in it's entirity. So much so, that I wrote to Tim Adams and told him so. Here are some segments that I cut out and they might not be in perfect context, much-less the correct sequence:


TheObserver Review

by Tim Adams

What is the purpose of existence? Is there an afterlife? Is there anyone else out there? It's not every day we confront the big questions about life, the universe and everything. But, seizing on our increased interest in this search for meaning, three of our finest thinkers - scientist Richard Dawkins, cosmologist Paul Davies and playwright Michael Frayn - are getting to grips with these existential dilemmas in their new books. Could Tim Adams find the answers?

From The Goldilocks Enigma by Paul Davies:
I do take life, mind and purpose seriously, and I concede that the universe at least appears to be designed with a high level of ingenuity. I cannot accept these features as a package of marvels which just happen to be, which exist reasonlessly. It seems to me that there is a genuine scheme of things - the universe is 'about' something. But I am equally uneasy about dumping the whole set of problems in the lap of an arbitrary god, or abandoning all further thought and declaring existence ultimately to be a mystery.

I went to see Richard Dawkins to talk about some of this at his home in Oxford.

Speaking to Dawkins you have the sense that religion has become a persistent kind of affront to him. When I put this to Paul Davies on the phone in Arizona, where he now works, he suggests that part of that is no doubt a fact of Dawkins's discipline: 'Biologists have a particular problem with the crazy Intelligent Design people [the 'American Taliban' as Dawkins has it, who persist in believing that nature is the work of a Creator] because the argument goes to the core of their subject, and it has become so politicised that it has to be constantly shot down.

I thought that this was very interesting though:


From the God Delusion by Richard Dawkins:
Darwinism teaches us to be wary of the easy assumption that design is the only alternative to chance, and to seek out graded ramps of slowly increasing complexity


STOP THE BUS!!! "Alternatives to chance" are not accidental, Richard, so are you admitting that there is a natural *HIGHER* purpose to these graded ramps? I didn't think so, it's called "double-speak" and you aren't being honest with yourself. What's new?


Davies can see a point where scientific theory of the universe and religious faith might meet, though he draws a very clear distinction between what he calls religious practice and religious philosophy. He is happy to sit down and talk with professors of theology, or accept the highly lucrative Templeton Prize (to Dawkins's scorn) which seeks to reward 'research or discoveries about spiritual realities'.

But, he says, he has no need of religion himself, beyond his sense of life-affirming laws: 'Sentient beings have a certain meaning and that lies in interpreting the observable world,' he says. 'And for me that is purpose enough. We have a partial understanding at least of how it all works. We are not the pinnacle of creation but neither are we completely insignificant either.

Happy Birthday, t' Hooft

Gerard 't Hooft

Quantum Gravity as a Dissipative Deterministic System
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9903084

Determinism beneath Quantum Mechanics
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0212095

The mathematical basis for deterministic quantum mechanics
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0604008

While 't Hooft's initial theory explained the uncertainty of quantum mechanics, such as the impossibility of precisely measuring both the location and momentum of a particle, it had what he considered to be a major stumbling block, because the states could end up with negative energy, which is assumed to be physically impossible, BECAUSE...

... that's the same wall that Dirac hit, and he rationalized the negative energy solutions by reinterpreting the vacuum state so that all of the negative energy states are filled, and all of the positive energy states are empty.

Dirac's theory was flawed in-spite it's success at predicting the existence of the "Positron", because it can't fully account for particles of negative energy, since it is restricted to positive energy particles, but the Quantum Field Theory representaton for this is not an accurate representation of Dirac's negative energy states.

The difference between Dirac's hole theory and quantum field theory
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0401208
Dirac's hole theory and quantum field theory are generally thought to be equivalent. In fact field theory can be derived from hole theory through the process of second quantization. However, it can be shown that problems worked in both theories yield different results.

This is the problem that keeps getting carried and compounded by orders of magnitude into every new theory, including t'Hooft's.

The negative energy solutions are the same problem that physicists have continually rationalized to become something that they are not.

KISS - Keep It Simple Stooooopid.

If you reach into the vacuum and rip out a chunk of it's energy to make a real massive particle with, then you will leave a real hole in the vacuum that will necessarily increase negative pressure and energy while driving vacuum expansion.

Don't hide from it, deal with it.

Lee Smolin and the Gentlemans Approach to Exposing String Theory...

So you're calling bullshit on a big chunk of modern physics...
-Adam Rogers

Lee Smolin is an extremely non-combative dissenter to the modern approach to quantum gravity, but he also has a certain degree of fame as a respectable groundbreaking physicist, and he has written previous books on quantum gravity. So it's no suprise that his feet are being put to the coals when he says that String Theory is in a LOT of trouble.

This is Lee's new book:

The Trouble With Physics: "The Rise of String Theory, The Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next"


The following is the introduction to an interview with Lee, by Adam Rogers of "WIRED Magazine", one of many interviews that are sure to take place now that Lee's new book has finally hit the market:

Physics Wars
By Adam Rogers
String theory was supposed to reconcile the subatomic world with the vast reaches of spacetime. Now Lee Smolin wants to unravel it.

The universe has a problem. The math that describes gravity and the structure of spacetime – general relativity – conflicts with the math that describes the interactions of subatomic particles – quantum mechanics. For the past two decades, the dominant approach to unifying the two has been string theory, which basically says that the universe is made of infinitesimally small, vibrating filaments of energy moving through multiple dimensions. It's wacky stuff, but no weirder than a lot of other science. Yet in his new book, The Trouble With Physics, theoretician Lee Smolin argues that string theory is not only weird, it might be wrong. A founding scientist at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Waterloo, Ontario, Smolin says that string theory is unconvincing – maybe even nonscientific – and that physicists have embraced it at the expense of other promising research. At home in Toronto, Smolin talked about physicist cliques and the true nature of the universe