Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The gods must be crazy (Physics article)
U.S. News and World Report ^ | September 8, 2003 | Charles W. Petit

Posted on 09/12/2003 9:39:02 PM PDT by RightWingAtheist

More than 60 years ago, G. H. Hardy, an English mathematician besotted with abstraction, wrote, " `Imaginary' universes are so much more beautiful than this stupidly constructed `real' one." Were Hardy around today, he'd find plenty of company. From astronomers peering out into space to particle physicists inspecting atomic innards, the more scientists study the universe, the more preposterous, random, and, yes, ugly it becomes.

But hold it. How can the universe be thought ugly? This realm of wheeling galaxies whose stars explode gloriously to seed space with the building blocks of life? A cosmos that bore at least one planet on which mortals find joy in sunsets? Mathematically minded scholars admire such things, too. But for generations they have expected to discover a few simple, elegant rules from which the cosmos's workings spring.

Today, that search is going to extreme lengths, as scientists posit hidden realms, such as extra dimensions or parallel subuniverses, that could help make sense of our apparently random cosmos. They're also planning giant experiments that may turn up hints of these shadow universes. "Some wonderful discoveries are out there, and we are building machines to do this very soon," exults Maria Spiropulu, a young experimental physicist at the University of Chicago's Enrico Fermi Institute.

Cosmology desperately needs such a revelation. Once an academic playground where theorists freely speculated about the nature of the universe, the field now swarms with real data. Astronomers and physicists are busy compiling the universe's stats--its age, composition, and the nature and strength of the forces at work in it. But instead of becoming simpler, as scientists had hoped, this new portrait of the universe is an ever more random-seeming hodgepodge of apparently unconnected constants, particles, forces, and masses.

Fading glow. The last straw for noted physicist John Bahcall of the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, N.J., came last March, when NASA trucked out what, by any measure, was a genuine triumph. A satellite called the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe had plotted, in unprecedented detail, tiny temperature variations in the microwave background radiation that fills the sky. This fading glow of the big bang reveals our universe at about 370,000 years (less than a 10,000th of its current age) and holds clues to its exact age and mix of matter and energy (box, below). The agency had invited Bahcall to comment. He dutifully noted his pride. "Every astronomer will remember when they first heard the results from WMAP," he said. Then he confessed. He had hoped against hope that growing evidence of the nature of our universe would turn out to be wrong. "The WMAP results have convinced me," he said. "We have to learn to understand this unattractive universe because we have no other choice."

Bahcall later explained: "It really is strange and--to our perhaps uneducated eyes--arbitrary, ugly, or accidental. To live in a universe where only 4 percent of matter is ordinary matter I find awkward at best, implausible at the least, but there it is." Even worse, he said, was WMAP's confirmation that most of the substance of the universe consists of a mysterious "dark energy" that is pushing all of space apart. "If I didn't have all of these facts in front of me, and you came up with a universe like that, I'd either ask what you've been smoking or tell you to stop telling fairy tales."

WMAP's data on the universe at large only underscore the puzzles physicists find right down to the smallest scales of matter. One is the "hierarchy" problem of the immense disparity in forces. The gravitational pull of an electron on a proton is less than a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of their electromagnetic attraction. Why these forces are so vastly different is, to scientists, just plain weird. Similarly, physicists have long known that there is no such thing as empty space. Even the vacuum boils with particles and antiparticles appearing and disappearing in a subatomic quantum foam. That foam could generate "vacuum energy"--an antigravity effect very much like that dark energy astronomers have now detected. Trouble is, standard physics suggests that the vacuum energy, if it exists at all, should be incredibly larger than what is observed, by a factor of 1 followed by 55 zeroes.

Then there is the "fine-tuning" problem. The universe appears marvelously constructed to produce stars, planets, and life. Scientists have calculated that if the force binding atomic nuclei were just 0.5 percent different, the processes that forge atoms inside stars would have failed to produce either carbon or oxygen--key ingredients for life. If gravity were only slightly stronger or weaker, stars like our sun could not have formed. Yet physicists see no reason why the constants of nature are set just so.

To some, this is all good news. Perhaps, as many religious people say, God exists and wanted it this way--case closed. For many scientists, who try to avoid supernatural explanations, the accumulation of mysteries merely signals that the time is right for a breakthrough.

One of the newest, most daring hypotheses is that the explanation lies somewhere weird, near yet far: in extra dimensions. As in the land of Narnia in writer C. S. Lewis's novel The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, behind obscure passages in this rambling mansion we call a universe may be hidden wings that make the house beautiful. "There may be a whole new universe of large, higher dimensions beyond the ones we can see and every bit as big and rich," says Joseph Lykken of the University of Chicago and the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory.

Earlier this year, at a meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Spiropulu organized a session for Lykken and other, mostly young physicists to discuss such extra dimensions and how to find them. Sean Carroll, also of the University of Chicago, is fond of calling the universe preposterous. He explained the appeal of extra dimensions, saying, "One way to tackle a tough problem is to spread it out."

While it may sound like science fiction, extra dimensionality has a solid pedigree in string theory, born in the past 35 years as a way to simplify fundamental particles like quarks and electrons. Traditional physics regards them as points, with a diameter of zero. Zeros wreak havoc in equations, but if fundamental particles are seen instead as tiny vibrating strings and loops, their math quickly settles down. Among string theory's triumphs is that it unites the theory describing gravity, Einstein's general relativity, with the theory governing nature's other forces, quantum mechanics.

Wrinkle in time. Standard string theory requires at least seven extra dimensions, but, unlike the ones we know, they are "compacted," or wrapped into tiny arcs less than a trillionth the size of a proton. In the past few years, however, theorists have concluded that some extra dimensions could be as infinite as our familiar up, forward, and sideways. Another wrinkle in string theory, called M theory, holds that higher dimensions can form membranes--branes for short. Our universe might occupy one brane, while others, perhaps just a short "distance" away, may be home to different physics.

Confused? Don't feel bad. Even experienced physicists have a hard time visualizing such things. With branes, says Harvard University's Lisa Randall, another panelist at the meeting, "the [apparent] weakness of gravity starts to make perfect sense. It's not weak. It only looks that way to us." She and a colleague, Raman Sundrum of Johns Hopkins University, propose that gravity loses its strength as it leaks out of our familiar universe into the "bulk"--that unseen realm of higher dimensions. Other theorists, like Savas Dimopoulos of Stanford University, suggest that gravity originates in a parallel "braneworld" and seems weak to us because only a portion of its strength leaks onto our brane. Dimopoulos also thinks that dark matter, a mystery ingredient of the universe known only from its gravitational pull, is the shadowy echo of a parallel braneworld, or even a sign of folds in our own braneworld that allow gravity to take shortcuts to distant neighborhoods.

M theory has many other variants and oddball jargon, including flat branes, weak branes, colliding branes, skinny branes and, Spiropulu jokes, "my big fat Greek brane." But best of all, large higher dimensions like branes should be much easier to detect than the ultratiny packets of the original string theory. Experimenters see a good chance that a new, more powerful version of Fermilab's Tevatron particle accelerator or the European Large Hadron Collider, due in a few years, may slam protons, electrons, and other particles together so hard that signals of big extra dimensions will finally turn up. Such hints could take the form of so-called supersymmetric particles, predicted by string theory; "gravitons" that carry the force of gravity; or even tiny black holes that would evaporate instantly but leave a telltale signal.

Nobody pretends yet to know the answer. String theorist James Cline of Canada's McGill University sees rapid progress toward a new kind of physics, whatever it is. "There may be large extra dimensions; there may not be," he says. "These are wonderful times. New things are coming out every day. I think the chances that any one of the ideas around today is true are slim. But when we do find the right answer, it will look, and smell, just right."

In other words, it will be beautiful.


TOPICS: Extended News; Miscellaneous; Philosophy; Technical
KEYWORDS: astronomy; cosmology; crevolist; physics; science; stringtheory; theories
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-84 next last
To: visualops
The real question in quantum mechanics, and I believe it remains so, is whether quantum superpostions of objects at the macro level really do exist. We know that quantum effects at the particle scale are real enough, as can be seen in the classic two-slit experiment, but do they scale up to the macro level that we live in, or do they collapse at some particular scale?
41 posted on 09/13/2003 2:34:26 PM PDT by -YYZ-
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: concerned about politics
"The Bible also speaks of 3 heavens in an unseen area."

Do you happen to know where? I'd love to check that out.
42 posted on 09/13/2003 2:53:46 PM PDT by keats5 (And don't you dare correct my spelling!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: visualops
Well, I didn't understand all that. But I think they should have used a rat instead.
43 posted on 09/13/2003 3:14:46 PM PDT by keats5 (And don't you dare correct my spelling!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
Thanks for that poem. That's priceless.
44 posted on 09/13/2003 3:19:45 PM PDT by keats5 (And don't you dare correct my spelling!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: RightWingAtheist
anyone have a physics ping list? add me!
45 posted on 09/13/2003 3:20:54 PM PDT by Capitalism2003
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: -YYZ-
Fate...do we change the path by imagining a choice?

I'm into fractals myself.
# --- L-System Parser/Mutator --- Lj Lapre
18 # recursion level
10 # basic angle
200 # starting thickness
^^^^^C # axiom
#-------------------------------------- Creature
C=LBW
#-------------------------------------- Body
B=[[''aH]|[g]]
a=Fs+;'a # upper part
g=Ft+;'g # lower part
s=[::cc!!!!&&[FFcccZ]^^^^FFcccZ] # upper spikes
t=[c!!!!&[FF]^^FF] # lower spikes
#-------------------------------------- Lungs
L=O # 8 recursions delay
O=P
P=Q
Q=R
R=U
U=X
X=Y
Y=V
V=[cc!!!&&&&&&&&&[Zp]|[Zp]]
p=h>>>>>>>>>>>>h>>>>>>>>>>>>h
h=[++++!F'''p]
#-------------------------------------- Head
H=[cccci[>>>>>dcFFF][<<<< d=Z!&Z!&:'d # left
e=Z!^Z!^:'e # right
i=-:"i
#-------------------------------------- Wing
W=[%[!!cb][<<<!!cb][>>>!!cb]]
b=Fl!+Fl+;'b # arc
l=[-cc{--z++z++z--|--z++z++z}]
#-------------------------------------- End
@


46 posted on 09/13/2003 4:46:22 PM PDT by visualops (Support independant musicians - shop for music without the RIAA label!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Jmouse007
“I WILL DESTROY THE WISDOM OF THE WISE, AND THE CLEVERNESS OF THE CLEVER I WILL SET ASIDE.”

That's what the underachievers always say to the honor students...

47 posted on 09/13/2003 5:49:40 PM PDT by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: RightWingAtheist
I believe Einstein once said something to the effect that the universe is wonderful not because it is beyond our understanding, but by virtue of the fact that we can understand it.

Wow, talk about a wrong turn!

Here's what Einstein really said:

"Physical concepts are free creations of the human mind, and are not, however it may seem, uniquely determined by the external world. In our endeavour to understand reality we are somewhat like a man trying to understand the mechanism of a closed watch. He sees the face and the moving hands, even hears its ticking, but he has no way of opening the case."

Einstein sounds to me like a man who knows his limitations, unlike the arrogant twits referred to in this article.

Here's another Einstein quote:

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."

Cheers.

48 posted on 09/13/2003 5:56:03 PM PDT by Stallone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Gary Boldwater
Pink Matter Alert II
49 posted on 09/13/2003 7:41:56 PM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: visualops
Interesting, I played around a bit with fractals myself in university. Interesting thing about them is that you'd never really know what beauty hides inside those simple computations without the power of computer visualization.

Is that some kind of computer language? Awfully strange looking one, but not so much stranger than a densely written Perl prog full of regular expressions and pattern matching and special variables. Or LISP - never could quite get the hang of using recursion to do everything.
50 posted on 09/13/2003 7:47:13 PM PDT by -YYZ-
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: RightWingAtheist
simplify fundamental particles like quarks[?]

Never. Over my dead body.

51 posted on 09/13/2003 8:00:43 PM PDT by TopQuark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Piltdown_Woman
Do you suppose they'll heat up their manifolds?
52 posted on 09/13/2003 8:12:40 PM PDT by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote life support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: -YYZ-
Do they scale up? ... How else to explain the sudden appearance then disappearance of Angels? Superposition

I happen to believe in Angels, so the question I ask is, "What is the where/when realm of these real beings?" Are they, by definition, existing in a realm that is extra-dimensional to our senses but able to 'condense' to appear in our sensory range?

53 posted on 09/13/2003 8:20:06 PM PDT by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote life support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: -YYZ-
That's not a computer language, but a formula. Various formulas (sets of rules really) "grow" the 3-dimensional fractals. There's alot more to it than that of course. These are Lindenmayer-Systems string rewriting techniques developed by Astrid Lindenmayer in 1968 which can be used to model the morphology of a variety of organisms. The program I use is Laurens Lapré’s LSystem, which can export the fractals as DXF files that I can texture and render in other 3D programs.
54 posted on 09/14/2003 12:24:11 AM PDT by visualops (Support independant musicians - shop for music without the RIAA label! visualops.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: spunkets
A measurement is a quantified observation of anything that can be observed.

Look up what an "operational" definition is. Your definition is not "operational" until you define "observer" which is really the crux of the matter.

Suppose, for example, that we are doing an experiment along the lines of the classic two-slit single electron diffraction experiment. When the electron emerges through the slits it has no definite position, only a "wave" function that gives the probability of "measuring" it at various locations. While this "wave" is indeed a mathematical abstraction, we find that this mathematical abstraction appears to interfere with itself in a well-recognized interference pattern in the real world. However, when a "measurement" of the position of the electron is made, there is no longer a "wave" probability function. At the instant of "measurement" the electron is in a single position with probability one.

The question then is, what constitutes a "measurement"? Or in your wording (begging the question), what constitutes an "observer"?

Could a single particle be an "observer"? In a practical sense this question would seem to be unknowable for us, since we must then observe the "observer" particle to read its "observation." I believe, however, that experiments have succeeded in demonstrating that a system consisting of more than one particle into superposed states. If I am correct on that, the experimental evidence would suggest that if a single particle attempted to "observe" an electron in a superposed position, then rather than the "observation" forcing the electron to be found in a single position, the "observation" would force the "observer" particle into a superposed state. And this is what current quantum theory would predict.

The problem is that quantum theory currently predicts this outcome for any number of particles--even the enormous number of particles in a human body. How is it that our "observations" force the electron to manifest a single position, instead of the superposition of the electron forcing our "observations" into a superposed state?

The only useful understanding from the mathematical statement-superposition of states- is, that the entity is not interacting with anything at the moment.

But the "entity" WILL be continually interacting with other particles--virtual particles a la Richard Feynman. Also, as stated above, if the "entity" interacts with one other particle, then quantum theory predicts that they will both end in superposed states.

They are not reality itself.

Judging from this statement, it seems that you do at least believe in an objective reality. So, when we set up a single electron diffraction experiment, what is "really" happening?

In otherwords, it can't be observed by anything any other entity that could observe it.

Here your grammar is such that I can't make out your intent. Did you mean "In other words, it can't be observed by any other entity that could observe it?" That would be a grammatically-correct self-contradicting sentence.

When considering the word observer in physics, consider that a window and a ball are observers.

Here your grammar is fine, but I still can't make out your intent. Sarcasm? Irony? Absurdity? Seriousness? A reference to a ball breaking a window?

55 posted on 09/14/2003 6:48:03 AM PDT by Kyrie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: concerned about politics; RightWingAtheist
An excerpt from Quantum Questions:
“I should like to stress the following:

1) Modern science, in its beginnings, was characterized by a conscious modesty; it made statements about strictly limited relations that are only valid within the framework of these limitations.

2) This modesty was largely lost during the nineteenth century.

Physical knowledge was considered to make assertions about nature as a whole. Physics wished to turn philosopher, and the demand was voiced from many quarters that all true philosophers must be scientific.

3) Today physics is undergoing a basic change, the most characteristic trait of which is a return to its original self-limitation.

4) The philosophic content of a science is only preserved if science is conscious of its limits. Great discoveries of the properties of individual phenomena are possible only if the nature of the phenomena is not generalized a priori. Only by leaving open the question of the ultimate essence of a body, of matter, of energy, etc., can physics reach an understanding of the individual properties of the phenomena that we designate by the concepts, an understanding which alone may lead us to real philosophical insight.”

Werner Heisenberg from “If Science Is Conscious of Its Limits...”


56 posted on 09/14/2003 8:57:55 AM PDT by D-fendr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Kyrie
"Could a single particle be an "observer"?

Yes. It is in fact a perfect observer of all things it has the capacity to observe. For instance, an election will never see an comprhend a dog pee, but it can see the electrostatic field created by the dog's stream.

"In a practical sense this question would seem to be unknowable for us, since we must then observe the "observer" particle to read its "observation."

You are just introducing a second observer here. In reality that particular second observer is composed of a multitude of varied observers all working together.

"When the electron emerges through the slits it has no definite position, only a "wave" function that gives the probability of "measuring" it at various locations. While this "wave" is indeed a mathematical abstraction, we find that this mathematical abstraction appears to interfere with itself in a well-recognized interference pattern in the real world."

The wave function you are refering to is complex. By itself there is nothing observable given by it. If the wave function is multiplied by it's complex conjugate a probability amplitude is obtained that gives the probability of finding an electron as a function of coordinate behind the slited screen. Any single electron will be found and if you keep firing them at the slit, a pattern will be found that is the same as the probability amplitude vs distance behind the screen.

What I was saying before is that these particles are neither particles, nor waves. They are something else. Particles and waves are mathematical concepts that allow modeling of reality. In the case of massive particles like the electron, the wave function is complex. That means nothing can be observed directly about the particle. Only the product of wave function with it's complex conjugate has meaning. That product will given the probability of observing a particle like entity having certain properties.

A massive particle can never interfere with itself. It will never cancel itself, nor will it multiply itself into something bigger. Considering the features of the experiment that way leads to error. Consider the toss of a die. On any particular role the die ends up rolling a particular way that it can and ends up with a particular face pointing perpendicular to the table. The observers are the die of a particular mass and geometry, the gravitational field, the randomness of the tosser's toss and the table top and it's physical characteristics. On any particular role the die has a definite and particular motion through space and there's a particular outcome. The same with the electron. Notice no information is given about the die itself in this experiment only the outcome of one, or many rolls is given. If the number of rolls approaches infinity, the envelope of the probability distribution of outcomes is given. The same with the slit experiment. On any particular role, or shot at the slit, the projectile has a definite path and ends up in a particular way. In niether experiment is the path and the projectiles nature discerned.

"superposed states"

Consider in the die experiment that the face taken as perpendicular to the table top s obtained while the die is still in motion. THat is done with a camera as the die crosses a line on the table. It is in a superposition of states before(their are six of them) and it is in a superposition of states after. In reality the superposition of states in QM is the same. Before and after the camera shot, the particulars are not known. In physical experiments the particles never settle down, they keep going. In the slit experiment they keep going after they are detected somewhere on the other side of the slit.

"A reference to a ball breaking a window?"

In physics the idea of observer is simple. The observer is just an entity that will act according to physical laws and w/o error. Balls and windows are perfect observers, humans are not. Both the ball and window will see each other at the moment they interact and act accordingly. Before they interact, they will not know each other though.

You are thinking of single particle QM. In that conception the action of single particles is quantized. In field theory the action of fields is quantized. There if the fields are small, the number of particles arising out of that field is indeterminate. The field has more of a reality than the idea of single particle does. For the electromagnetic field the wave function is real. The fields can be observed directly. The square of the field gives the energy flux. If the field is small though the number of photons is indeterminate.

57 posted on 09/14/2003 10:22:26 AM PDT by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Movemout
"There is no likelihood man can ever tap the power of the atom," ... Robert Milken, Nobel Prize winner in physics, 1923

Well, in spite of his frequent stubbornness to the point of being short-sighted, and his sloppy note-taking which has caused many to (unjustly) cast doubts on his ethics, Millikan is still one of my heroes. A great scientist, a great educator, and a great conservative whose political ideas deserve to be resurrected and re-appraised.

58 posted on 09/14/2003 5:48:52 PM PDT by RightWingAtheist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: ovrtaxt
Such a negative attitude in this article. Ugly? Random? I was waiting for the subject of Einstein's search for the Grand Unification Theory to come up when I read this

I didn't read the article as being negative, just cautiously optimistic. And the search for the "grand unifaction theory" preceeds Einstein; ever since Faraday united electricity and magnetism, and especially after Maxwell united them with light, the key word in the narrative of physics has been unity We've succeeded in uniting electromagnetism with the nuclear forces, but gravity, the stubborn old goat, just won't fit in.

No reason? Denial of deliberate or intelligent design at even this level? What do these physicists want, a Book spelling it all out?

No, just evidence.

59 posted on 09/14/2003 5:56:20 PM PDT by RightWingAtheist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: RightWingAtheist
then the Bible writers just made a lucky guess, like Democritus did when he predicted the existence of atoms

Ummmm, no. Democritus determined that matter must come in small particles, based on amomg other things, the observed fact that a gallon of water plus a gallon of alcohol does not make two gallons of mixture...

60 posted on 09/14/2003 6:07:30 PM PDT by null and void (<----Awake and filled with terrible resolve)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-84 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson