Physics has a lot of data and several models that work really well, but they don't really fit into a single coherent system. QM vs Relativity etc. The density needed to form a black hole decreases linearly with radius, sho why is the universe not one?
I feel like this explains it pretty well.
https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/ask-ethan-50-why-didnt...
tl;dr: Schwarzschild’s solution is a static one, meaning that the metric of space does not evolve as time progresses.
So would universes come in existance with varying degrees of stability. No one has to say 'this is a stable universe'. We can say 'this universe has been stable for quite a long while'. Long enough to spawn us and the very interesting universe around us.
Just like in biology, merely the fact that we could be here, is the reason we're here.
Of course, that's assuming that for some reason big bangs with varying values for universal constants are a constant occurrence. Unfortunately, this is not likely to be something we're ever going to be able to measure/observe. Though there are/have been (theoretical) experiments to see if universal constants really are constant. If they're not, that would be a nice indicator that the universe really is unstable enough to create stability.
It's actually quite a neat concept, if very similar to the anthropic principle. Unfortunately, it offers no predictions.
Of course verifying this probably requires that we inspect most of our universe directly...
New child universes are spawned with new values for various constants. Stable arrangements (combinations) persist, spawning new grandchildren universes. Unstable arrangements blink out of existence.
Edit: I want to apologize for volunteering an answer to the question of how natural selection might work at a cosmic level with some speculation I've read. I regret the error.
Selection need not be wholly external. It can be emergent from within the system, as it is with life viewed collectively as it manifests ecology and coevolution. But in the end there is still the basic criterion of mortality and reproductive fitness that serves as a top level goal function to orient the entire system. There is the environment and the implied goal of genetic survival.
What might the top level goal function be for an evolving universe? And where would it come from? How can "all that there is" possess an environment?
Of course in an eternal universe model with changing physical laws you could have a random walk across state space, but this amounts to saying the digits of pi contain Shakespeare. They do but it doesn't tell us any more than infinite multiverse theories. In fact we might call this an infinite multiverse theory linearized across time instead of parallelized across dimensions.
Reproductive fitness is necessary to apply the concept of evolution, but mortality isn't.
> but it doesn't tell us why there is something to > observe (instead of nothing), and why the laws and > fundamental constants are the way they are.
I'm no physicist, but I simply cannot imagine candidate answers to such questions.
See above. My comment was in response to ansible's reply to themgt. themgt was asking why the universe looks the way it does, and ansible responded with the anthropic principle. The problem with ansible's line of thinking is that the anthropic principle tells me a great deal about me (why I can exist and observe), but not much about the universe, which was themgt's question.
In response to your broader objection that there are some basic questions in physics that can't be answered, let me point out that the entire project of physics is to seek material causes for the structure of the universe. So if nature is all that exists, and the universe itself only has material causes, what are those causes? The entire field of cosmology dedicated to answering exactly this question, and many believe it's capable of doing so.
As far as Leibniz's famous question "why is there something rather than nothing?" is concerned: admittedly this is a metaphysical question, not a physical question. Still, I think we owe it to ourselves to answer this question too, and not simply dismiss it out of hand.
> I'm no physicist, but I simply cannot imagine candidate answers to such questions.
Even if this is true, it tells us something about you but not about the universe. By analogy, somehow my body "knew" to put my liver in my torso, not in my neck. I cannot begin to imagine what physical processes led to the proper placement of my liver, but we certainly shouldn't take this to mean there are no reasons.
Moreover, we shouldn't sell ourselves short in these matters. Undoubtedly, given enough study I could discover what others have said about organ placement during embryonic development and have a fairly robust understanding of the best of our knowledge regarding the topic. The same is true of cosmology and philosophy.
That is the big, big question.
On the one hand, I can easily imaging that there is nothing, nowhere, ever.
But on the other hand, doesn't it necessarily seem the case that there should be something existing somewhere, for at least some time? How can nothing exist... ever?
Even after all this time, I still can't wrap my head around this question.
Funny you mention it, this was Leibniz's exact dilemma. He realized there must be two classes of existence: necessary (things that must exist), and contingent (things that don't have to exist). Not many things must exist, if you really think about it, and he came to the conclusion that God is the most reasonable explanation for why any contingent thing exists at all.
Worth your 5 minutes, if you're interested in this question:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPCzEP0oD7I
If you're interested enough to dedicate 100 minutes, here's a 3 part discussion with responses to objections.
https://youtu.be/EfpAqqadQVA?list=PLIpO3BUiq2IFMS3AP3Yi2oDfc...
https://youtu.be/NgXML-wI1tQ?list=PLIpO3BUiq2IFMS3AP3Yi2oDfc...
https://youtu.be/Y4J5vR3rgp4?list=PLIpO3BUiq2IFMS3AP3Yi2oDfc...
For example, all we know about distant stars is complete conjecture and approximation based on testing various ideas to see which one fits. We simply don't know if "gravity" is exactly the same for all of them. Small variations of G would still light them up.
This world exists according to a singular, fundamental principle which is that a thing that comes into existence once makes results on the basis of what is inside of itself from the past, and makes itself exist continuously by repeating its activities endlessly. A thing's very activities become the cause through which it makes itself come into being in the future.
So, seeing the world from this principle, we can find two or three laws: The law of cause and effect, and the law of existing by changing through activities (repetition). Rather than coming up with theory and finding evidence, we can take any sample from the entire world and verify this theory as their method of operation.
(If you're wondering about the question of infinitely regressing this statement to the origin of the world, I can say that the same explanation applies. The world itself also repeats (ends and begins again) periodically and also displays the entire process of evolution according to the law of cause and effect.)
When people really understand this principle and see things in the world on the principle, they come to realize the fundamental problem in physics is gravity. People don't really understand what general relativity means. It's sort of like how most people don't know that Schrödinger was joking when he talked about not knowing if the cat would be alive or dead. That's why physics has gone on a massive detour over the last 100 years. Unless physicists solve the problem of gravity, humanity won't be able to recognize the cause of and survive through the collapse of the Earth's ecosystem. Things are more serious than people realize - even after all these years. It sounds fantastical to people who haven't confirmed, but what I point out here is undeniable after confirmation of facts. So, from one perspective, it's as if physicists don't have the willpower or courage to admit the reality of the situation today, which is what fundamentally prevents them from pursuing the way to confirm about gravity - it would result in them confronting today's reality. Realistically, it's a hard burden for anyone to bear. That's one of the reasons why a person who says what I say here is rarely welcomed.
Are you saying that a thing exists before it comes into existence?
"They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."
Yeah, maybe you're getting downvoted because the sheeple here can't cope with the audacity of your message. But maybe, just maybe, you're getting downvoted for making grandiose claims with nothing to back them up.
Funny enough, the article itself was about how physicists cannot find the proof to sustain their development of further theory. Doesn't it seem even slightly suspicious to you that the person who points out that fact about those scientists is being accused of the very thing they do?
You intimate that I do the same kinds of things as a clown. The only reason you can suggest that is that you exclude everything I said aside from a few words. That's quite obviously a deception tactic and if you included actual proof in your own words, you would have had to reference the rest of my words. But you can't do that because it won't support your point.
In fact, if you can disprove anything I said, I'll wire you all of my money immediately. Furthermore, if you can show that anything I've said cannot be verified, I'll do the same. Or if you prefer, you can take my head. But I'm quite certain that will never happen.
By the way, your reaction is also the proof of what I say. The problem is you don't understand what I said. It would be better to admit that instead of attacking one of the people who can solve your questions.
Do you mean you want me to say you haven't proved it here (which is obvious, you proved nothing), or that you don't have proof you aren't showing us?
I can't show you don't have a hidden proof. You can't show I don't have a unicorn.
The quote about clowns he gave you is a general quote. basically, just because people disagree with you / call you a fool / downvote you doesn't make you right. Sometimes it means you are right, but more often it means you are wrong.
When you say you will wire me all your money if I can prove anything you said wrong, what would convince you something you said was wrong?
I can imagine what a disproof of Newtown's laws of physics, or quantum mechanics, or general relativity wrong would look like. These are well-defined mathematical models, so just show something in the real world not following those mathematical rules. I'm not sure how I could prove your system is "wrong", as it doesn't predict anything.
I can use Newtown's laws to predict how my car behaves. I can use quantum physics to predict how my CPU will behave. I can use general relativity to predict mercury's orbit. What does your system allow me to predict accurately?
Are you open-minded enough to consider places where you're mistaken? You contradict yourself a few times. This is not intended as ad hominem but as an indicator that you may want to reconsider whether your judgement can be correct. One example of a few: In the beginning of your comment you said that someone calling me a fool doesn't make me right. Agreed. But you contradict yourself by saying that it does sometimes make me right. That's definitely not true.
I'm going to skip replying to the rest of what you said because I know it was not based on having understood what I said. I'm ready to weather the obvious conclusion you're going to draw from that.
I clearly am going to decide you are talking nonsense, as you suggest, as you have still never said anything understandable. You say "you didn't understand my explanation if you assert it makes no predictive claims.".
Why don't you just make a predictive claim that could be tested?
In other words, you're acting on the basis of what you do not know and informing others of your feelings. That tells me all I need to know about your ability to judge toxicity from teaching. It's never easy for people to learn something new. But you are only aware of how it feels to you, and you don't have the ability to distinguish whether it makes you change for the better or worse.