This is the second time. I tend to work mostly off line. That way I do not
have an open port, and in some ways this is a big part of my defense
against malware and hacking. If I am not online I can’t be attacked.
However, in writing in the group editor, big mistake, I hit send and my
message disappeared. Writing one long thing in Word, again off-line.
I read past the point of Hoyle’s tri-alpha physics. Too bad he did not get
the Nobel for that, even though he was wrong on steady state theory. I have
not gotten to the point about coincidence, providence and multiverse.
My thinking is that what is real is a quantum mechanical issue. Reality is
the postulate that a system has some existential content prior to a
measurement that is related to the outcome of that measurement. The EPR
argument and Bell inequalities show you can’t have locality and reality
applied as postulates to a system. You can use one or the other, but not
both. So what is real, certainly if we appeal to Bohr is the classical
world. The classical state of the universe is a set of quantum states that
are stable against quantum noise and decoherence.
The upper bound on the cosmological constant is Λ = 1/ℓ_p^2 for ℓ_p the
Planck length of 10^{-35}m. Therefore the Planck value of a cosmological
constant for a quantum cosmology is Λ = 10^{70}m^{-2}. This is evaluate
from
〈0|H|0〉 = sum_{n=0}^∞nħω = E_{planck} (with cut off at Planck energy_)
and with cosmological constant this is ~ 1/E_planck^2 = 10^{70}m^{-2} the
observed is 10^{-52}m^{-2}. This is the source of the conundrum. What we
observe is Λ = 10^{-52}m^{-2}. This is the source of this huge disparity.
The Higgs field, which bears some relationship IMO to the quartic potential
of inflationary cosmology, has M = 125GeV and it in a condensate with the
weak interaction bosons confers mass to them. The Yukawa Lagrangians give
fermions mass. This is very small, far smaller than the Planck energy. This
with the wide gap in cosmological constants enforces a classicality. The
domain of quantum gravitation is so far removed from quantum physics that
decoherent large masses obey classical physics. Classicaliity in some way
is what is reality.
In string/M-theory the cosmological constant emerges from Yang-Mills gauge
fluxes through D-branes wrapped on Calabi-Yau compactified spaces. There
are 10^{500} or more of these configurations, so this is a huge sample
space. This is computed with the Hodge triangle of Eguchi-Hansen 3-forms.
This is only really known for a static situation, which is still tough.
Then there is the Vafa swampland, where it turns out strings and branes do
not work in spacetimes with Λ > 0, and so things are broken here.
Finally when it comes to observers if k = 0 there are an infinite number of
them and it might then be Wheeler delayed choice is an ensemble. This
delayed choice measurement is where the slit an electron passed through is
given by a measurement after the wave has passed the slits. So IGUS or ET
in the universe may fix these values through their measurements.
LC
On Thursday, October 15, 2020 at 9:16:18 AM UTC-5 Jason wrote:
> Hi Lawrence,
>
> First I want to thank you for your highly detailed reply. I have some
> further comments and questions below, if you don't mind.
>
> On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 5:48 AM Lawrence Crowell <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> There is nothing wrong in particular with the idea of fine tuning. This
>> does not logically imply a fine tuner. If there is a fine tuner, then it is
>> reasonable to say there is fine tuning. However, the converse or modus
>> tolens does not hold; fine tuning does not logically imply a fine tuner.
>> Therefore, fine tuning is a necessary condition of a fine tuner, but not
>> sufficient.
>>
>
> Towards the end I use fine-tuning, and Bayesian inference to decide the
> trilemma as defined by Martin Rees: coincidence, providence, or multiverse.
>
> Given the appearance of fine tuning, we update our priors and effectively
> rule out coincidence and providence with high confidence. So we cannot
> decide there is a fine tuner, but we can be confident in "not coincidence"
> whose probability is equal to (fine-tuner or multiverse). The article
> concludes with a decision that both answers imply the existence of
> something beyond this universe, and quite plausibly the existence of
> universes of a higher order and complexity than our own, containing
> entities superior to ourselves.
>
>
>
>>
>> I started reading this, but it is clearly not something I am going to
>> finish over early morning coffee. Yet the article so far covers in layman's
>> terms stuff I am well acquainted with. The multiverse is often cited as a
>> way around this. A vast plurality of cosmologies is a way to argue how the
>> particular observable cosmos is fine tuned. It is similar to the argument
>> with planets; given a large number of them it is not surprising that a few
>> are such that life may emerge. Of course with this multiverse I suspect
>> that many of these are not real cosmologies.
>>
>> The cosmological constant for all putative cosmologies in the string
>> landscape, based on D-brane theory with gauge fluxes through branes wrapped
>> on Calabi-Yau spaces, have cosmological constants Λ much larger than that
>> for the observable universe. The Hubble constant H = (a'/a), a the scale
>> factor and a' = da/dt, also equals H = √(Λc^2/3) is numerically H =
>> 72km/sec-Mpc and 68km/sec-Mpc, where these two come from galaxy data and
>> CMB data. This corresponds to a cosmological constant Λ ≃ 10^{-52}m^{-2}.
>> Most putative cosmologies have much larger values, and many orders of
>> magnitude larger. Such a de Sitter or FLRW spacetime would expand so
>> rapidly that nothing could form. In fact many have Λ ≃ 10^{66}m/s^2 with
>> the upper bound Λ ≃ 10^{70}m/s^2. The difference between this and what we
>> observe is the 122 order of magnitude issue.
>>
>
>
> Given the uncertainties around the probability distributions for the other
> constants of nature, the article uses Λ as the chief variable in deriving
> the improbability of the tuning.
>
> Is there a difference assumed between how Λ emerges in string theory vs.
> how it is assumed to emerge from quantum field theory? Is it, in both
> cases, the sum of order-one positive and negative numbers?
>
> I have seen some say it is tuned to 60decimal places, and others that it
> is tuned to 120 decimal places. What accounts for this difference in
> estimation, is it based on the assumption of supersymmetry?
>
>
>>
>> The observed cosmological constant is a manifestation of the quantum
>> vacuum energy density, or in particular that vacuum energy density that
>> plays a role in gravitation. This vacuum energy ρ defines the cosmological
>> constant Λ = 8πGρ/3c^3 and for the observable universe this is quite small,
>> far smaller than the 123 order of magnitude larger figure a naïve summation
>> of QFT modes would suggest. However, there is a difference between the high
>> energy vacuum, or called false vacuum, and the low energy physical vacuum.
>> A quantum tunneling from the false to physical vacuum results in a gap of
>> mass-energy density in every volume of space, and this generates matter and
>> radiation. The sort of skewed Ginsburg-Landau potential involved is seen in
>> the figure below.
>> [image: quartic asymmetric potential.png]
>>
>>
>
> This is something I wondered about. Is it assumed that a high Λ (or high
> vacuum energy) is what powered inflation, and then later this decayed to
> its much smaller value, which drives a doubling in billions of years rather
> than in 10^-35 seconds? Wouldn't that require one of the quantum fields to
> disappear, or at least undergo significant change?
>
>
>
>
>> There is a linear term in fields that skews this, and this I think is
>> some manifestation of renormalization theory, where the large majority of
>> these are analogous to virtual particles that give a mass-renormalization
>> of cosmologies. This would I think sweep the vast majority of these out of
>> ontological existence or classicality. I do not know if this is complete so
>> there is the reduction of the multiverse to a single universe, or whether
>> this is a reduction of the multiverse to a much smaller set.
>>
>> It has to be noted that the tuning for flat, spherical or hyperbolic
>> geometry or topology of a spatial surface is not that hard to understand.
>> The Hamiltonian for the Friedman-Lemaitre-Robertson-Walker (FLRW) spacetime
>> is
>>
>> ℋ = ½(a’/a)^2 - 4πGρ/3c^2 + k/a^2,
>>
>> so that the Hamiltonian constraint Nℋ = 0 in ADM general relativity means
>> it is not hard to see this is zero. The energy density is ρ = ρ_vac +
>> ρ_energy for the vacuum and mass-energy in the spacetime. The additional
>> term k/a^2 gives flat, spherical and hyperbolic space for k = 0, k = 1 and
>> k = -1. If k = 0 then the vacuum energy density is constant. This is in
>> various ways more reasonable.
>>
>> In this renormalization possibility somehow the observable universe may
>> have emerged. In ways not entirely clear this may have selected the world
>> we observe. So there are open questions. Maybe even the role of conscious
>> observers in the universe play some Wheeler delayed choice experiment in
>> measuring the early universe to select for the observed universe.
>>
>
> I've thought about this with regards to the measurements of the constants.
> If we imagine measuring constants to more and more decimal places, and get
> so far along that we reach decimal places no longer significant to
> fine-tuning or AP, then do we reach a point where we are exploring a random
> variable and getting back random digits for those constants? (In effect,
> collapsing them from their prior state of being undetermined).
>
> Jason
>
>
>>
>> LC
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, October 14, 2020 at 9:38:40 PM UTC-5 Jason wrote:
>>
>>> I just finished an article on all the science behind fine-tuning, and
>>> how the evidence suggests an infinite, and possibly complete reality. I
>>> thought others on this list might appreciate it:
>>> https://alwaysasking.com/was-the-universe-made-for-life/
>>>
>>> I welcome any discussion, feedback, or corrections.
>>>
>>> Jason
>>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to [email protected].
>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/c67a54a2-64bc-4818-b8d5-c9bcf361940en%40googlegroups.com
>>
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/c67a54a2-64bc-4818-b8d5-c9bcf361940en%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>> .
>>
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9d28d570-e1c8-4b5e-9e91-368ba4656678n%40googlegroups.com.
