Showing posts with label goldilocks enigma. Show all posts
Showing posts with label goldilocks enigma. Show all posts

Wednesday, February 28, 2007

Inflationary Theory... A Warped Speculation

The article that's linked in the title talks about how Alan Guth recently held-up a picture of a monkey to portray Neil Turok and what he thought of his cyclic cosmology. Well, Neil Turok can take heart in knowing that there is theoretical support that indicates that the so-called "evidence for inflationary theory" can just as easily mean something that doesn't require band-aids to big bang theory, like inflationary theory, in order to account for the flatness and horizon problems, but especially the magnetic monopole problem... i.e., observational inconsistencies. When you project backwards to the point that extraordinarily rapid expansion becomes necessary, then the most obvious solution to the problem without inflation is simply that the universe had certain volume when the big bang occurred, and... duh'.

Well, "lo.and.behold" that's exactly where we find - "RE-Heating and Thermalization"... surprise... surprise. Could it be that we were in such a big hurry to get to a **pre-assumed** cosmic singularity that we did not pay attention to what projecting the physics backwards was telling us?... I think so...

The actual mechanism that is behind inflation is not even known, but the theory is designed to make predictions that can be matched to the observational data, so it's success at accomplishing this has enabled inflationary theory to become a part of the standard hot big bang cosmology in spite of its many known flaws, and even though it has only been partially justified. The hypothetical particle or field thought to be responsible for inflation is now called the "inflaton"... uh-huh, prove it.

Since all attempts at grand unification have failed, it is now assumed that inflation will be included in a supersymmetric theory, (like string theory), or maybe a supersymmetric grand unified theory, because they can't handle the most apparent implication for a pre-existing time asymmetry, I guess. The standard interpretation is that thermodynamic arrow of time necessarily requires low entropy initial conditions, which John Page pointed-out would be extremely improbable. Rather than solving this problem, the inflation theory further aggravates it because the reheating or thermalization at the end of the inflation era, necessarily increases entropy, meaning that the initial state of the universe had to be even more orderly than in other Big Bang theories that don't have an inflationary phase.

As I noted a couple of posts ago, Lawrence Krauss pointed out that the amplitude of the quadrupole moment of the CMBR is unexpectedly low, and the other low multipoles are observed to be preferentially aligned with the ecliptic plane. This is a signature of what is known as, "non-Gaussianity", which contradicts the simplest models of inflation, requiring more bandaids and cream.

If the microwave background at the multipoles is correlated with the geometry and direction of motion of the solar system, and the incoherence manifests via octopole and quadrupole components in a closed and bounded universe, then there should be a center of gravity at the center of the visible universe that correlates to the ecliptic.

So maybe we're not exactly the "center" of the universe as Krauss thought, rather we're on a centrally preferred "plane" along with a lot of other similarly evolved galaxies, which, with very high probability, will include similarly developed environments and carbon based life, per this Goldilocks Enigma...

Sunday, February 11, 2007

The Goldilocks Enigma, again...

Circumstellar Habitable Zone - Ecobalance - Ecosphere

The evolving physics that define the vast array of coincidetally balanced, "just-right" conditions that make up the Goldilocks Enigma, ranges dramatically in magnitude and time, from the near-"flat", balanced structuring of the universe, itself, all the way down to our own local self-regulating ecobalance, whose chaotic cycles we directly contribute to enhance over time. These "ecospheres" began unfolding at the moment of the big bang, but it took most of 14 billion years to bring them all to "fruition", so claims that this structure defining physics isn't **necessarily** pointed directly at carbon based life, are, at least *apparently* absurd, and must be justified with something more than "somewhat" established cutting-edge physics speculations.

The relevant anthropic physics isn't strictly geocentric, however, because the same conditions also apply to other galaxy systems that are similarly evolved, time and location-wise, as ours is:

The Goldilocks Enigma constrains the parameters to a balance of extremes... so it only applies to the ecosphere of 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, and life will only arise on planets in galaxies, (and universes), where ALL of the anthropic coincidences are simultaneously in effect.

The "cosmological principle" derives a "mediocre" a 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 extends to the observed universe to produce a biocentric cosmological principle.

This also addresses 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.

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 their large scale equation, as would be the case if they'd considered the entire set of anthropic balance points that evolve, so their solution and anthropic statement are 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?"

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.

When you apply the Goldilocks Enigma, rather than the mediocrity principle, then a much more accurate and testable formula falls-out along with a more accurate statement about a strong biocentric principle, so this "coincidental" Enigma extends to include every similarly evolved galaxy that exists in the same common "layer" of galaxies as we do. The average of extreme opposing runaway tendencies that are common to the anthropic coincidences make many testable predictions about the observed universe.

Like, life, (past or present), will not be found on Mars nor Venus, but it will be found in other galaxy systems along the layer of spacetime that makes-up the goldilocks enigma. Venus suffers from the runaway greenhouse effect, whereas Mars represents the cold stagnate proof of what will happen if extremist environmentalists get things all their way too, so heed the lesson of this anthropic coincidence.

Tuesday, November 07, 2006

A Very Strong Anthropic Principle

Steven Weinberg quoted by Susskind in and interview by Greg Ross of American Scientist

Finally, I have heard the objection that, in trying to explain why the laws of nature are so well suited for the appearance and evolution of life, anthropic arguments take on some of the flavor of religion. I think that just the opposite is the case. Just as Darwin and Wallace explained how the wonderful adaptations of living forms could arise without supernatural intervention, so the string landscape may explain how the constants of nature that we observe can take values suitable for life without being fine-tuned by a benevolent creator. I found this parallel well understood in a surprising place, a New York Times op-ed article by Christoph Schönborn, Cardinal Archbishop of Vienna. His article concludes as follows:

Now, at the beginning of the 21st century, faced with scientific claims like neo-Darwinism and the multiverse hypothesis in cosmology invented to avoid the overwhelming evidence for purpose and design found in modern science, the Catholic Church will again defend human nature by proclaiming that the immanent design evident in nature is real. Scientific theories that try to explain away the appearance of design as the result of "chance and necessity" are not scientific at all, but, as John Paul put it, an abdication of human intelligence.

There is evident irony in the fact that the cardinal seems to understand the issue much better than some physicists

-Greg Ross

That's not "irony", Greg, it is what Brandon Carter correctly identified as, "anticentrist dogma"... and it still does rule the minds of the vast majority of physicists.

Good reasons why science should not ignore the most apparent implications of the physics.

Evidence - Implication - Theory

1) It is an unavoidable fact that the anthropic coincidences are observed to be uniquely related to the structuring of the universe in a way that defies the most natural expectation for the evolution of the universe in a manner that is also highly-pointed toward the production of carbon based life at a specific time in its history, (and over an equally specific, fine-layer or region of the goldilocks zone of the observed universe). If you disallow unproven and speculative physics theory, then an evidentially supported implication does necessarily exist that carbon-based life is somehow "specially" relevant to the structure mechanism of the universe, and weak, multiverse interpretations do not supercede this fact, unless a multiverse is proven to be more than cutting-edge theoretical speculation.

That's the "undeniable fact" that compells Richard Dawkins and Leonard Susskind to admit that the universe "appears designed" for life! There is no valid "weak" interpretation without a multiverse, because what is otherwise unexpectedly observed without the admission of speculation, is most-apparently geared toward the production of carbon-base life, and even intelligent life. Their confidence comes from the fact that their admissions are qualified by their shared "beleif" in unproven multiverse theories, but their interpretation is strictly limited to equally non-evidenced "causes", like supernatural forces and intelligent design.

These arguments do not erase the fact that the prevailing evidence still most apparentely does indicate that we are somehow relevantly linked to the structure mechanism, until they prove it isn't so, so we must remain open to evidence in support of this, or we are not honest scientists, and we are no better than those who would intentionally abuse the science. We certainly do not automatically dismiss the "appearance" by first looking for rationale around the most apparent implication of evidence.

That's like pretending that your number one suspect doesn't even exist! There can be nothing other than self-dishonesty and pre-conceived prejudicial anticipation of the meaning that motivates this approach, and often *automatically* elicites false, ill-considered, and, therefore, necessarily flawed assumptions, that most often elicite equally false accusations about "geocentrism" and "creationism". That's not science, it's irrational reactionary skepticism that is driven without justification by sheer disbelief and denial.

2) At the very least, we can't honestly deny that an evidentially supported implication for a direct anthropic connection to the forces *most-apparently* does exist, unless we are willing to say that Leonard Susskind and Richard Dawkins, (as well as other historically noted and respected physicists), are lying to us about their true perception of the evidence. We must, therefore, be open to science that might be indicitive of this, or we cannot call ourselves honest unbiased scientists.

As such, it is unavoidable that we embrace the logically implicated possibilty that a true anthropic constraint on the forces of the universe might *necessarily* include a reciprocal connection to the human evolutionary process. Scientists should think long and hard about that, because this relates the human evolutionary process to the ever elusive structure mechanism, so the answer to the riddle of the near-flat expanding universe, as well as the rest of the anthropic coincidences, is expected to be revealed via this asymmetrical thermodynamic function, per the least action principle.

Given the potential impact that this has on the most accurate cosmological principle and model, any remote possibility that the above is true should be more than enough to make it so that it's not unreasonable to expect scientists giving equal time to this *distinct* possibility, since, (per the open admission of our mentioned scientists), the anthropic connection is the first *most-apparent* implication of the evidence without an infinite sea of potential to lose the *most obvious* implication in. There can't be any argument about the fact that the strong biocentric implication exists, unless someone can prove that the multiverse exists, or if you can otherwise prove that the stability mechansim is not inherently geared toward the production of carbon based life for some very practical physical reason, over a "golden region" of the observed universe.

That's what makes Leonard Susskind say that "we will be hard-pressed to answer the IDists"... if the landscape fails, although Lenny doesn't seem to be aware that *natural bias* is the default, if we're not here by accident, so ID doesn't even enter the picture and can't be inferred without direct proof. If we are not here by accident, then the default scientific approach is that there is simply some relevant physical reason why we are "needed" into existence by the natural physical process of our evolving universe, and this is what our intricate link to the commonly-balanced nature of the forces most logically indicates is going to be the case.

There is no valid basis for invoking weak multiverse interpretations to wipe-away the otherwise indicated significance, unless you're just debating with an extremist creationist. A scientist is obligated to accept the fact that she or he is being directed toward a bunch of balance points in nature that are intricately related to both the structure of the universe and the existence of carbon based life, and this is expected to somehow account for the otherwise completely unexpected structuring of the universe.

You can know that you're dealing with a self-dishonest scientist if they do not recognize that the above statements are factual and correct.

Anybody that wants to try, is welcome to prove me wrong about any of the above statements, if only you could...

Tuesday, October 10, 2006

Absolute Symmetry

It should be self-evident that the observed near-perfectly balanced structuring of our universe is indicitive that the big bang was an effort that was *aimed* toward absolute symmetry as the nearly missed goal of the effort.

The fact that the near-miss was extremely closer to absolute than not, is a dead give-away that this was a very nearly-missed attempt at perfection.

The time asymmetry is most apparently indicitive of an inherent imbalance, which will necessarily move to be satisfied, but the near-perfectly balanced configuration indicates that this effort produces the most energy-efficient structuring for economically achieving this "goal".

It should be equally obvious that it is inherent asymmetry which prevents this apparent "goal" from ever being attained, but the energy-maximizing configuration indicates that energy is universally conserved by the similarly balanced anthropic anomalies.

Makes you wonder where scientists gets their crazy ideas otherwise... ;)

Monday, October 09, 2006

Answering Paul Davies Plea for Sanity

“I wanted to get away from the feeling in so many scientific quarters that life and human beings are a completely irrelevant embellishment, a side issue of no significance. I don’t think we’re the centre of the universe or the pinnacle of creation, but the fact that human beings have the ability to understand how the world is put together is something that cries out for explanation.”

I copied the following few paragraphs from various parts of this book reivew of The Goldilocks Enigma in order to point out the problems and the solution that Davies rightfully says is necessary:

Why is the cosmos ideally set up to support life? Physicist Paul Davies tells Stuart Wavell about the point where science meets religion.
Goldilocks and the riddle of the perfect universe

Anyone expecting Davies to recant his non-religious views and join the intelligent design lobby will be disappointed. “We can’t dump all this in the lap of an arbitrary god and say we can’t inquire any further,” he says. “The universe looks ingenious, it looks like a fix, and words like meaning and purpose come to mind. But it doesn’t mean that we’re going to have a miracle-working cosmic magician meddling with events.”

Then there’s the viewpoint of Richard Dawkins, the ardent Darwinist and recent author of The God Delusion, who holds that life is essentially pointless and came about by chance before natural selection took over. Close compares Dawkins to religious fundamentalists, “who know they are right in their position, just as Richard knows he is right in his position”.

Davies wants to rise above such bickering. “I want to get away from this notion that something has to be accepted on faith,” he says. “That just becomes a sterile argument. These people can argue all night, but you’re never going to prove or disprove the other person’s position.”

The only way to satisfy Davies plea is to explain how the Anthropic constraint on the forces unifies them into a theory of everything:

In quantum field theory, a postiron has the same gravitational properties as an electron because the negative energy states are really the postivite energy states of antiparticles. That means that matter generation from this energy makes no difference to the gravity of the universe, and even general relativity supports this conclusion if the universe is infinite, since gravity is essentially curvature that caused by the energy that's contained in a region of space. In this situation, pair production changes this energy from photons to the mass of other particle pairs, but the energy curvature and gravitation of the universe remain the same.

But that's not what happens if the universe is finite.

You can't condense huge volumes of rarefied mass-energy from a finite closed vacuum and then contain the matter energy-density to a finite region of space without increasing negative pressure, because the gravitational acceleraton is zero when the density of the vacuum is -0.5*rho(matter).

This drastically changes the effect when... rho+3P/c^2=0 in a finite universe, because you have no choice but to condense this energy in order to attain the matter density when the negative energy states have negative pressure, because... P=-u=-rho*c^2

So there is no net change on the gravity of the universe, because the effect is two-fold... an increasing antigravitational *effect* is offset by increase in positive gravitational curvature.

But that means that tension between the vacuum must increase as particle pair creation drives vacuum expansion if the universe is finite, and the offset increase in both, negative pressure, and positive gavitational curvature necessarily holds the vaccum flat and stable as it expands, so it cannot run-away! Increasing tension between the vacuum and ordinary matter leads to a prediction that the integrity of the forces that bind this finite structure will surely eventually be compromised by this process and we will have another big bang.

So the second law of thermodynamics is never violated when the entropy of the universe always increases via the described perpetually inherent thermodynamic structuring, which enables the universe to continuously "evolve".

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