Dennis Overbye: Zillions of Universes? Or Did Ours Get Lucky?

[Dudley_DUright]

An interesting report on a cosmology conference at one of my alma maters, Case Western Reserve University

Cosmology used to be a heartless science, all about dark matter lost in mind-bending abysses and exploding stars. But whenever physicists and astronomers gather, the subject that roils lunch, coffee breaks or renegade cigarette breaks tends to be not dark matter or the fate of the universe. Rather it is about the role and meaning of life in the cosmos.

Cosmologists held an unusual debate on the question during a recent conference, "The Future of Cosmology," at Case Western Reserve University here.

According to a controversial notion known as the anthropic principle, certain otherwise baffling features of the universe can only be understood by including ourselves in the equation. The universe must be suitable for life, otherwise we would not be here to wonder about it.

The features in question are mysterious numbers in the equations of physics and cosmology, denoting, say, the amount of matter in the universe or the number of dimensions, which don't seem predictable by any known theory — yet. They are like the knobs on God's control console, and they seem almost miraculously tuned to allow life.

more...

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/28/science/space/28COSM.html?8hpib

[damnraddem]

1. Well, to get lucky, our universe would have had to ...

find at least one other universe that wanted to have sex.

[papau]

2. Hawkings is wrong - the anthropic principle has no "power" and shows us

nothing to answer our questions. And he has admitted this in latter writings where he notes he may have been too hell bent to exclude the creator god concept that he forgot how logic worked as he attributed some magic to the anthropic principle.

That said - the I am here because I am here and that means the physics must be right for me to be here and that means the laws of physics must be these laws everywhere - the "and that means" dies about here - the anthropic principle makes for fun discussion over a drink - but is of no use.

We are still with the 1963 Bell's many universe - or action at a distance for no known reason to the observer - problem (the latter can be seen as information transfer that is faster than light).

[pmbryant]

3. Much ado about not much?

Is this all philosophical discussion that can go on endlessly with no one being able to prove the other one correct or incorrect? That's what it sounds like to me at this point.

Very interesting discussion, but I don't know if these questions are answerable scientifically.

(EDIT: Unless of course, someone finds a theory that predicts all these 'unpredictable' numbers. String theory is the current rage, of course, but I suspect that that is not the right course.)

:shrug:

--Peter

[trotsky]

4. Maybe someday we'll have the computing power...

to simulate universes with differing constants, allowing billions of years to pass by in seconds and see if a completely different form of life, based on a completely different set of physical laws, can arise.

It is my guess that while rare, life-harboring universes aren't so rare as to be unique.