![]() However, the CC also represents one of the most significant theoretical problems in modern physics. This led to the widely accepted cosmological theory known as the lambda cold dark matter (LCDM) model. With the realization that cosmic expansion is accelerating, physicists began postulating that Einstein's CC could be the mysterious force known as "dark energy" (DE). While Einstein ditched the CC a few years later when he learned that astronomers had proven that the universe is expanding, the idea has been reinterpreted since the 1990s. Denoted by the character Lambda, the CC was a force that would "counterbalance gravity" and thus ensure the universe remained static (a popular view at the time). The first has to do with the cosmological constant (CC), an idea Einstein proposed in 1917 as a temporary addition to his field equations for general relativity. Like the geocentric model of antiquity, it contains suspiciously precise assumptions, which he proceeds to address one by one. Had the cosmos and the laws of physics themselves evolved differently, the stability required for living creatures to exist (in all their complexity) would not be possible.īut as Barnes notes in his summary paper, this logic runs afoul of the same old problem. The fine-tuned universe argument dates back to the 1970s when physics began to note that small changes to the fundamental constants of nature, or in the universe's initial conditions, would rule out life as we know it. Meanwhile, says Barnes, the fine-tuning argument is a "surprising fact about the laws of nature as we know them." Since we do not have a population of intelligent life and civilizations to select from, the principle itself cannot be falsified. Put another way, Barnes states that the anthropic principle is an unfalsifiable statement (aka a tautology) that results from the "selection effect" of our own existence. The anthropic principle says that if physical life-forms exist, they must observe that they are in a universe that is capable of sustaining their existence." Fine-tuning refers to the fact that small changes to the constants of nature would have resulted in a universe incapable of supporting life. "I understand the relationship between fine-tuning and the anthropic principle as follows. ![]() "īut as Barnes explained to Universe Today via email, there are some significant differences between the anthropic principle and the fine-tuned universe: ![]() When addressing the coincidence between humanity's existence and a universe that is old enough and governed by physics that favor the emergence of intelligent life (i.e., us), they derived a simple maxim: "Any account of the coincidence must consider how the universe makes beings that are capable of measuring. In a previous paper, Barnes and Lewis argued that far from being a case of arrogance or "religion in disguise," the anthropic principle is a necessary part of science. This stands in stark contrast to the cosmological principle-aka Copernican principle, named after Nicolaus Copernicus, who formulated the heliocentric model of the universe-which states that there is nothing unique or special about humans or our place in the universe. In some respects, this idea is similar to the anthropic principle, which states that any attempt to explain the properties of the universe cannot ignore our existence as lifeforms. The authors also summarized these arguments in an invited contribution paper, which appeared in the Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Physics (1st ed.) In this paper, titled "The Fine-Tuning of the Universe for Life," Barnes explains how "fine-tuning" consists of explaining observations by employing a "suspiciously precise assumption." This, he argues, has been symptomatic of incomplete theories throughout history and is a common feature of modern cosmology and particle physics. Lewis argued that a fine-tuned universe makes sense from a physics standpoint. In his book, " A Fortunate Universe: Life in a Finely Tuned Cosmos," he and Sydney astrophysics professor Geraint F. Barnes, a postdoctoral researcher at the Sidney Institute for Astronomy (SIA) in Australia. But can this really be the case, or is it possible that life can emerge under different physical constants, and we just don't know it? This question was recently tackled by Luke A.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |