arXiv blog

Deriving the Properties of the Universe

The properties of the universe can be derived by thinking about the origin of complexity, says a new theory.

kfc 01/18/2010

  • 13 Comments

Physicists and cosmologists have long noted that the laws of physics seem remarkably well tuned to allow the existence of life, an idea known as the anthropic principle.

It is sometimes used to explain why the laws of physics are the way they are. Answer: because if they were different, we wouldn't be here to see them.

To many people, that looks like a cop out. One problem is that this way of thinking is clearly biased towards a certain kind of carbon-based life that has evolved on a pale blue dot in an unremarkable corner of the cosmos. Surely there is a more objective way to explain the laws of physics.

Enter Raphael Bousso and Roni Harnik at the University of California, Berkeley and Stanford University respectively. They point out that the increase in entropy in any part of the Universe is a decent measure of the complexity that exists there. Perhaps the anthropic principle can be replaced with an entropic one?

Today, they outline their idea and it makes a fascinating read. By thinking about the way entropy increases, Bousso and Harnik derive the properties of an average Universe in which the complexity has risen to a level where observers would have evolved to witness it.

They make six predictions about such a Universe. They say "typical observers find themselves in a flat universe, at the onset of vacuum domination, surrounded by a recently produced bath of relativistic quanta.These quanta are neither very dilute nor condensed, and thus appear as a roughly thermal background."

Sound familiar? It so happens that we live in a (seemingly) flat universe, not so long after it has become largely a vacuum and we're bathed in photons that form a thermal background. That's the cosmic infrared background that is emitted by galactic dust heated by starlight (this is different from the cosmic microwave background which has a different origin).

That's a remarkably accurate set of predictions from a very general principle. The question, of course, is how far can you run with a theory like this.

It certainly has the feel of a powerful idea. But, just like the anthropic principle, it also has the scent of circular reasoning about it: the universe is the way it is because if it were different, the complexity necessary to observe it wouldn't be here to see it.

That may not be so hard to stomach, given the power of the new idea. Even a hardened physicist would have to accept.that Bousso and Harnik have a remarkably elegant way of capturing the state of the universe.

Ref:arxiv.org/abs/1001.1155: The Entropic Landscape

TRSF: Read the Best New Science Fiction inspired by today’s emerging technologies.

Print

Close Comments

To comment, please sign in or register

Forgot my password

L.E. Nielson

1 Comment

  • 755 Days Ago
  • 01/18/2010

Complexity

Find the physical mechanism that drives the engine of complexity and you will find that the origin and the meaning of life are one and the same.

Reply

ZephirAWT

299 Comments

  • 755 Days Ago
  • 01/18/2010

Re: Complexity

After all, we cannot talk about entropy, while not having some particular physical system on mind. Such system was proposed already: it's a concept of infinitelly dense Boltzmann gas as proposed by Aether Wave Theory. AWT is based on assumption, every object appears as a pin-point particle from sufficiently distant perspective, so that reality appears like composed of density fluctuations of particle gas.

Reply

ricklongworth

1 Comment

  • 755 Days Ago
  • 01/18/2010

properties

Well, my understanding is that evolution is that process.  Chemical evolution, then biological evolution.  It provides the meaning of life insofar as to provide an explanation for its origin and diversity.

Reply

ZephirAWT

299 Comments

  • 755 Days Ago
  • 01/18/2010

Re: properties

Before some time I believed, laws of evolution are these most fundamental ones - but after then I realized, spreading of waves through dispersive environment is sort of evolution too and it could be described in much more specific way. For example formation of photon solitons, particles or planets could be described by spreading of waves through vacuum, which leads into stable objects, the diameter of which correspond the wavelength of CMB radiation (smaller objects would disperse into energy, while larger objects would condense into more dense matter).

Having just an evolution on mind we couldn't derive such connections. It means, evolution itself is a process based on particle gas concept. After all, entropy as such is atemporal concept without geometry.

Reply

ZephirAWT

299 Comments

  • 755 Days Ago
  • 01/18/2010

The pure entropic description of Universe

Has a simple, but apparent problem: only objects smaller then the human scale are following thermodynamic laws of entropy, whereas these larger ones are condensing by gravity, instead.

http://aetherwavetheory.blogspot.com/2009/08/awt-and-cosmological-time-arrow.html

It means, pure entropic models of Universe are facing the same problem, like pure quantum mechanical description of it: the whole half of Universe - just this one larger, then we are - is fu*ing entropy and quantum mechanics laws effectively - simply because we are observing it from inside, not from outside.

Not saying about terrific absence of illustriousness of abstract entropic models: everyone can imagine giant nested density fluctuations of ultra dense particle gas (and we can simulate it by computers) - but who can imagine, how entropy is really behaving?

It means, we still need some robust underlying physical model to reconcile such finding with thermodynamical laws of entropy. And this is the motivation of AWT: positivism based on belief is simply not enough here.

Reply

Guest (NelsonJohnson)

  • 755 Days Ago
  • 01/18/2010

The Meaning Of Life

Monty Python?  As good as any, and probably better than most.

What is the utility of the word "life"?  What is the boundary between that which lives and that which does not?

What if there is no boundary?  What if, as the Lakota say, everything is alive, even the rocks and the stars.

One way of looking at life is as "that which moves."  That point of view disintegrates quickly, as a river moves but is not said to be "alive."

If everything is alive, then the meaning of life is perhaps best measured by complexity.  A rich, complex, interactive universe is all we have.  That we are aware of it is just the beginning of a universe that is aware of itself.

Reply

ZephirAWT

299 Comments

  • 755 Days Ago
  • 01/18/2010

What is the boundary between that which lives and that which does not

Nonliving matter doesn't ask questions about this boundary.

Reply

Advertisement

gabenyc

1 Comment

  • 754 Days Ago
  • 01/19/2010

Re: What is the boundary between that which lives and that which does not

"Nonliving matter doesn't ask questions about this boundary."

I believe that is his point. We are that matter.

Stuart Kauffman has been making this point for years.

Reply

ZephirAWT

299 Comments

  • 754 Days Ago
  • 01/19/2010

Re: What is the boundary between that which lives and that which does not

Within framework of AWT I'm collecting many examples of fuzzy boundary between evolution of non-living and living matter.

http://aetherwavetheory.blogspot.com/2009/02/awt-and-evolution-of-life.html

Recently was observed, bacteria are capable of decisions and silly oil droplets can solve mazes, for example.

http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2010/113/4
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100114143310.htm

Reply

jamesrcole

1 Comment

  • 755 Days Ago
  • 01/18/2010

this post makes the 'anthropic principle' to be the *cause* of the universe being as it is. 

if you take it to be that, of course it seems circular. 

but a more reasonable interpretation of the principle is simply the observation that if the universe were different we wouldn't be here to be thinking about right now. 

note that this alternative does not say anything about the cause of why the universe is one way or the other. 

Reply

Torbjorn_Larsson_OM

175 Comments

  • 750 Days Ago
  • 01/23/2010

Misunderstanding the AP

As jamesrcole observes, this article rather disappointingly inserts the religious anthropic reasoning of reverse causality in a physics context of the anthropic principle (AP) predicting that causality applies.

The fine-tuning argument, which is used mainly to shore up the religious idea of confusing a priori probabilities with a posteriori outcomes (and hence reverse causality teleology, "it has to be"), has been dead in the water ever since the weak-less universe.

That is, ever since people started to look into the actual evidence for religious fine-tuning (balance from varying parameters) as opposed to physical fine-tuning (balance in parameters).

[Those guys have continued to expand the distribution of alternate habitable universes, see Sci Am of Dec.]

All the AP claims is that there is a non-uniform distribution in outcomes of parameters. Field, string and inflationary theory seem to agree. So does tests such as Weinberg predicting the CC, a falsification test which AP passed by the way: it isn't in error so far.

Another mistake in the article is the claim that circular reasoning isn't admissible in science, inherited from philosophy.

But we can observe it is! Theories owns their observational facts twice over, as they build on them to predict them for testing. In fact, a fully tested theory predicts exactly all the data that goes into it. (Excluding those inherited from other theory.)

Circularity is broken by more observation that isn't predicted. (Or perhaps by discovering observational or theoretical error.) Philosophy is useless in science, as it predicts these type of things that are falsified from the get go. Theory of science has to reinvent rational reasoning all by itself.

But I'm going to enjoy the article, Boussou et al have replaced the old AP with general environmental principles, such as looking for dust maximization, dust that aggregates to planets to live on. (In their words, maximizing entropy production.)

Reply

Torbjorn_Larsson_OM

175 Comments

  • 750 Days Ago
  • 01/23/2010

Oh, and by the way, there is no such thing as "aether". Never was, never will be according to relativity.

@ ricklong...

"evolution is that process.  Chemical evolution, then biological evolution."

It is true that evolution is a process. But you are confusing things by adding abiogenesis ("chemical evolution") onto what is generally understood as evolution proper (biological evolution). That is creationist thinking.

You can define the process of biological evolution as heritable change in populations over time. [<a href="http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2007/01/what-is-evolution.html">Sandwalk</a>]

Inheritance in pro-biotic and proto-biotic systems is a global property of the system (say, chemistry of surfaces and metabolic chains), not a locally inherited one (genes and cellular machinery) as in biological systems.

@ ZephirAWT:

"laws of evolution are these most fundamental ones"

The laws of evolution are few, it is the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardy%E2%80%93Weinberg_principle">Hardy Weinberg equilibrium principle</a> and its generalizations. You are discussing something entirely outside of science of biology.

Remember, general evolution of systems isn't biological evolution specifically.

Reply

Torbjorn_Larsson_OM

175 Comments

  • 750 Days Ago
  • 01/23/2010

Evolution theory

I should also add that it is important to stick to the process definition, as we have a validated theory of evolution and have observed it thoroughly. While we still have many and entirely different theories of abiogenesis, most thoroughly untested.

Reply

Bio

The Physics arXiv Blog produces daily coverage of the best new ideas from an online forum called the Physics arXiv on which scientists post early versions of their latest ideas. Contact me at KentuckyFC @ arxivblog.com

Follow The Physics arXiv Blog on Twitter

Subscribe to the arXiv blog RSS Feed

Advertisement
Advertisement

Facebook

Advertisement