Fundamental Rules of the Universe

[logo908]

Do you think that some fundamental rules of reality were 'created' when the universe was made, and that it was basically random? Or was it basically necessity?

For instance pi and e have certain values. Why is pi what it is? Well the only way to draw a circle is with that ratio. In a different universe could it be different? If the big bang happened again would it be the same?

 

[reallyscrued]

I love when people smoke a bowl then post in HT.

Pi and e are what they are because they are derived. They aren't really a natural phenomenon but just a way humans can make more sense of mathematics.

In a different universe, would a circle be different? Well in our ..."universe" a circle is an infinite number of points equidistant from a center point, not sure how you can alter that.

 

[SphinxnihpS]

I think he is thinking of, the fundamental universal constants.

Gravitational constant
Reduced Planck constant
Speed of light in a vacuum
Coulomb constant
Boltzmann's constant

The way the OP has it framed out gives me the impression he has recently seen something regarding arguments for Special Creation versus Evolution. Ironically, these scientific constants are often mentioned in Creationist argument in support of a designer (god). They argue that if one or any combination of the constants were of a different value, the universe would certainly be utterly inhospitable to life as we know it. They combine this argument with a common type of fallacy to reach their conclusion, which is: The universe is the perfect place for life as is, but if there were any fundamental changes to it, it would be lethal, therefore a designer must have created it specifically for life.

This false argument is very eloquently debunked by Neil Tyson

 

[ShawnD1]

Do you think that some fundamental rules of reality were 'created' when the universe was made, and that it was basically random? Or was it basically necessity?

An interesting point was implied in The Elegant Universe. Greene asks what sets these variables then gives an example of how changing the variables could destroy the universe. The implied meaning is that the variables have these values because they need to be that way in order for the universe to be stable.

People ask similar questions about why crystals make such ordered patterns. The reason is simple: they make those patterns because that's the most stable form to take. Similar to forming a crystal, the universe is the way it is because this is the most stable form.

 

[logo908]

I think he is thinking of, the fundamental universal constants.

Gravitational constant
Reduced Planck constant
Speed of light in a vacuum
Coulomb constant
Boltzmann's constant

The way the OP has it framed out gives me the impression he has recently seen something regarding arguments for Special Creation versus Evolution. Ironically, these scientific constants are often mentioned in Creationist argument in support of a designer (god). They argue that if one or any combination of the constants were of a different value, the universe would certainly be utterly inhospitable to life as we know it. They combine this argument with a common type of fallacy to reach their conclusion, which is: The universe is the perfect place for life as is, but if there were any fundamental changes to it, it would be lethal, therefore a designer must have created it specifically for life.

This false argument is very eloquently debunked by Neil Tyson

Wasn't going there at all.

But relating it to crystals is interesting. Crystal do take their shape because thermodynamically that is the most stable. I'm not sure if you could talk about fundamental constants being what they are as a consequence of thermodynamics. It seems believable that at the time of the big bang these constants were basically randomly generated and perhaps our universe was then built around them.

And I guess it's easier to imagine physical constants as being unique to our universe rather than mathematical constants like e and pi, but maybe that's just due to the limits of our own minds.

 

[SphinxnihpS]

Wasn't going there at all.

But relating it to crystals is interesting. Crystal do take their shape because thermodynamically that is the most stable. I'm not sure if you could talk about fundamental constants being what they are as a consequence of thermodynamics. It seems believable that at the time of the big bang these constants were basically randomly generated and perhaps our universe was then built around them.

And I guess it's easier to imagine physical constants as being unique to our universe rather than mathematical constants like e and pi, but maybe that's just due to the limits of our own minds.

The five constants above are observed physical phenomena. They could be any value. Gravity could be 10x stronger than it is, but it is not. It is what it is.

PI can never change, no matter what universe you are in. I'm not saying physical constants change from universe to universe, but in theory they could be different in another universe. A circle will still be circular no matter where you go because it is noting more than a human conception, and its ratio of circumference to diameter will always be Pi. As far as this goes, the human mind has no limitation. What exactly the limitations of the human mind are, is something to think about.

 

[silverpig]

I love when people smoke a bowl then post in HT.

Pi and e are what they are because they are derived. They aren't really a natural phenomenon but just a way humans can make more sense of mathematics.

In a different universe, would a circle be different? Well in our ..."universe" a circle is an infinite number of points equidistant from a center point, not sure how you can alter that.

Curve space and you can. Pi is only 3.141... in a flat spacetime. Draw a circle on a sphere and you'll measure pi to be smaller.

 

[SphinxnihpS]

Curve space and you can. Pi is only 3.141... in a flat spacetime. Draw a circle on a sphere and you'll measure pi to be smaller.

Please illustrate. I say no.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

Silverpig is right. If you draw a circle on a sphere, then assuming that the center of the circle lies on the surface of the sphere (which is pretty fair, otherwise it wouldn't be called drawing it on the sphere...) then the radius of the circle suddenly becomes much larger.

So say you do this, you draw a circle on a sphere. Then the center of that circle would be on the surface as well, kind of like the white(ish) dot on this picture:

So then taking out the wireframe of the sphere, and just leaving the radius, circumference, and a diameter, you get something that looks like this:

In other words, a cone.

Now, since the radius of our 3D circle (which now happens to be the slantHeight) is longer than the Radius as depicted in the cone, the ratio between the radius and the circumference is decreased, i.e. it is no longer 3.14159265358979323... but something appreciably smaller. In fact, by modulating the position of the circle in the sphere pi can be made smaller than 1.

Obviously I have made a few shortcuts for simplicity; in reality, taking the straight-length from the center to the circumference, as I did, in fact lessens the effect; running the radius along the outside of the circle, since it is a longer distance, would have an even greater impact on pi.

However, this obviously only works in a reality where a circle is our plane equivalent; i.e. it won't work in this universe, or at least it won't under our current conditions. Which is why pi is known as a constant.

 

[SphinxnihpS]

Silverpig is right. If you draw a circle on a sphere, then assuming that the center of the circle lies on the surface of the sphere (which is pretty fair, otherwise it wouldn't be called drawing it on the sphere...) then the radius of the circle suddenly becomes much larger.

So say you do this, you draw a circle on a sphere. Then the center of that circle would be on the surface as well, kind of like the white(ish) dot on this picture:

So then taking out the wireframe of the sphere, and just leaving the radius, circumference, and a diameter, you get something that looks like this:

In other words, a cone.

Now, since the radius of our 3D circle (which now happens to be the slantHeight) is longer than the Radius as depicted in the cone, the ratio between the radius and the circumference is decreased, i.e. it is no longer 3.14159265358979323... but something appreciably smaller. In fact, by modulating the position of the circle in the sphere pi can be made smaller than 1.

Obviously I have made a few shortcuts for simplicity; in reality, taking the straight-length from the center to the circumference, as I did, in fact lessens the effect; running the radius along the outside of the circle, since it is a longer distance, would have an even greater impact on pi.

However, this obviously only works in a reality where a circle is our plane equivalent; i.e. it won't work in this universe, or at least it won't under our current conditions. Which is why pi is known as a constant.

The only problem is that is not a circle then. No matter where you draw a circle, the center is still on the same plane as the edge. A circle by definition is two-dimensional. Anything else is not a circle.

 

[Paperlantern]

I love when people smoke a bowl then post in HT.

This made me LOL.

The only problem is that is not a circle then. No matter where you draw a circle, the center is still on the same plane as the edge. A circle by definition is two-dimensional. Anything else is not a circle.

And I agree with this. You cant call a cone a circle.

Course then you could look at the big picture and argue that any circle drawn on the surface of the earth, which is spherical, will always have attributes such that are present in Mr. Pedantic's depiction. Albeit just on an extremely minute scale.

However it still comes back to the fact that a circle IS a 2d object and as soon as you use a z axis, it becomes a cone, or a cylendar, or some other 3 dimensional shape.

 

[silverpig]

The only problem is that is not a circle then. No matter where you draw a circle, the center is still on the same plane as the edge. A circle by definition is two-dimensional. Anything else is not a circle.

It is two dimensional. The sphere isn't 3D. It's a 2D surface that is curved. A circle can live on this curved surface and be distorted. And yes, it is still a circle.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbolic_geometry

http://blog.plover.com/math/pi.html

 

[logo908]

I agree with the circle having a different value of pi in curved space. An example of non-euclidean geometry I guess.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

The only problem is that is not a circle then. No matter where you draw a circle, the center is still on the same plane as the edge. A circle by definition is two-dimensional. Anything else is not a circle.

It is in 2 dimensions. It's just that you need a different perspective to view it as such, one that isn't really possible in our current universe. All that is required is a reality in which the plane equivalent is curved.

 

[William Gaatjes]

An interesting point was implied in The Elegant Universe. Greene asks what sets these variables then gives an example of how changing the variables could destroy the universe. The implied meaning is that the variables have these values because they need to be that way in order for the universe to be stable.

People ask similar questions about why crystals make such ordered patterns. The reason is simple: they make those patterns because that's the most stable form to take. Similar to forming a crystal, the universe is the way it is because this is the most stable form.

Very good post indeed. I have seen those series. But now i have a philosophical question for you ...

Chaos is needed to create energy differences to sustain and create life. Think of heat, electricity, gravity. Life needs these energy differences but these energy differences must not be too large or too small. Now i had the idea that sooner or later the entire universe will cease to exist simply because of that which created the universe will die out and the universe has no more energy differences. It becomes stable. When looking at nature, a certain amount of chaos means life, stability and too much order equals death. This can be found everywhere in nature. I have the idea, that the universe seems stable but it is not. It will become stable one day. I wonder about the following : The universe resides in a bigger "space". Maybe a space of virtual particles, i do not know for sure. With that in mind, it is possible to have multiple universes. To come back to virtual particles. These virtual particles only appear as building blocks of our "particles" in the universe when certain conditions are met. When the universe came to be, something happened. That was the cause of so many virtual particles becoming real particles. I think that cause is that where the result is that which we perceive as time. Time is not a constant. It is fading, meaning it is getting slower if it was possible to perceive it while being seperate of the universe.
This also means that time travel is not possible. At least when time is locked with the universe. And i think that is the case.

What do you think of the start of the universe or anybody else think of it ?

 

[mjrpes3]

PI is as it is because we represent it as a base-10 irrational number. However, you could as well represent it as a generalized continued fraction:

 

[mjrpes3]

Part of the "rules" we set for the universe are there because it's our way of representing in mathematical form a pattern of what otherwise might be emergent behavior of simpler systems.

Gravitation would be a candidate for this, since the force is an inverse-square law, and this would fit with the force being transmitted by a rays of graviton particles emitting from a source, like photons from the sun. The gravitons/photons may be emitting in a fundamentally chaotic fashion, but since there are so many of them being emitted at any one time the net effect is very consistent, and we can represent this pattern of consistency with a universal law.

So, taking this to the extreme and presuming for a moment that all the laws and forces and matter we observe in the universe are emergent behavior of a chaotic soup of fundamental particles, are the any laws that are still being followed? I'd venture to say, yes, there are at least three things that still must be presumed:

1. fundamental particles exist
2. they change in relation to each other
3. they can interact with each other

Can you get more fundamental than this? Who knows... you are already in metaphysical land. Enjoy the stay!

 

[logo908]

So I was browsing wikipedia and unintentionally came upon something relevant to this thread.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse#Level_II:_Universes_with_different_physical_constants

I just watched a video where Kaku basically says its been shown experimentally that the idea of a multiverse is a reality but I'm not sure if I buy it... Obviously I can't say why I don't buy it because the physics is beyond me but to me it seems that it is generally not accepted in the scientific community, at least until we get some hard evidence for string theory like the Higgs.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

Could you link that video? I'm aware that other dimensions (which probably entails other universes) exist in theory. However, I don't know of any study or article that can prove, in practise, the existence of an alternate (or any other kind of) universe.

 

[silverpig]

So I was browsing wikipedia and unintentionally came upon something relevant to this thread.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse#Level_II:_Universes_with_different_physical_constants

I just watched a video where Kaku basically says its been shown experimentally that the idea of a multiverse is a reality but I'm not sure if I buy it... Obviously I can't say why I don't buy it because the physics is beyond me but to me it seems that it is generally not accepted in the scientific community, at least until we get some hard evidence for string theory like the Higgs.

Higgs fits into the standard model...

 

[eddyg17]

Sure, if gravity was 9.80 or 9.82 instead of 9.81 m/s^2 life as we know it would not exist. Boldface on the key words. If gravity was 9.80 maybe life as we do not know would have risen, perhaps.

These constants just are, they are the hand which we were dealt.

 

[alyarb]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth&..._gravities_in_various_cities_around_the_world

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

Sure, if gravity was 9.80 or 9.82 instead of 9.81 m/s^2 life as we know it would not exist. Boldface on the key words. If gravity was 9.80 maybe life as we do not know would have risen, perhaps.

These constants just are, they are the hand which we were dealt.

9.81m/s^2 is not some universal constant. It is purely true (roughly) on Earth because of Earth's radius and mass. I think you mean the Gravitational constant; 6.67x10^-11m^3kg^-1s^2?

 

[A_Dying_Wren]

Very good post indeed. I have seen those series. But now i have a philosophical question for you ...

Chaos is needed to create energy differences to sustain and create life. Think of heat, electricity, gravity. Life needs these energy differences but these energy differences must not be too large or too small. Now i had the idea that sooner or later the entire universe will cease to exist simply because of that which created the universe will die out and the universe has no more energy differences. It becomes stable. When looking at nature, a certain amount of chaos means life, stability and too much order equals death. This can be found everywhere in nature. I have the idea, that the universe seems stable but it is not. It will become stable one day. I wonder about the following : The universe resides in a bigger "space". Maybe a space of virtual particles, i do not know for sure. With that in mind, it is possible to have multiple universes. To come back to virtual particles. These virtual particles only appear as building blocks of our "particles" in the universe when certain conditions are met. When the universe came to be, something happened. That was the cause of so many virtual particles becoming real particles. I think that cause is that where the result is that which we perceive as time. Time is not a constant. It is fading, meaning it is getting slower if it was possible to perceive it while being seperate of the universe.
This also means that time travel is not possible. At least when time is locked with the universe. And i think that is the case.

What do you think of the start of the universe or anybody else think of it ?

I marvel at your ability to posit a "philosophical question", state a very well established hypothesis (look up heat death) as that of your own, state another completely conjectural hypothesis about virtual particles, somehow jump to "time is not constant" along with a string of random assertions and then come to your highly generic "philosophical question".

Some links would be nice if these are indeed valid theories (besides the heat death one).

Referring back to the OP, I suspect that once we uncover the Theory of Everything, either the constants as we know them will spring from it or there will be a mechanism in there for generating the constants such that the multiple universe theory is supported.

 

[Yeem]

I remember reading somewhere recently that our so-called 'constants' are changing, and it's baffling scientists.

Can't recall where I saw it (possibly sciencedaily or some such site), but if it's true, we're so wrong when it comes to physics that it's not even funny.