I skimmed this book about a month ago to get the gist and it’s wonderful. Leonard Susskind has a flair for explaining complex ideas in simple terms and I commend him for it. Now, after going back over it I have discovered an anomaly! An aberration in the Cosmic Landscape that may be more form over the function described, but I think is worth chatting about. The description of the cosmological constant creates the impression in people’s minds about the cosmological constant and its relationship to Anthropic principle that leaves some ambiguity, or at least it did for me. Basically, I do not believe the uniqueness of the cosmological constant necessarily allows the deduction that the Anthropic principle is true.
While definitions may vary, most accepted definitions say Anthropic principle states that the universe exist so that we may exist to observe it! Let me be absolutely clear, Susskind does not completely adapt the conclusion that the cosmological constant proves the Anthropic principle. He simply analyzes this conclusion. But given the stated definition, it’s worth noting that the probability based arguments for the Anthropic principle lead to the conclusion that we are the only life capable of observation in our universe. Because some arguments use the cosmological constant as a linchpin to hold up Anthropic principles tenets, an analysis of the cosmological constant is necessary. The cosmological constant is an observed “vacuum energy” that exists throughout space. Its miniscule little vibrations (“quantum jitters”) that create sort of a background noise. The explanation of the value of why this cosmological constant is what it is, is one of the most important of all unsolved physics problems. It has puzzled scientists why the cosmological constant cancels out 119 decimal places to just the right value for the possibility of life.
This improbable event is critical to the Anthropic principle which states that the laws of physics, indeed the universe, exist so we may exist to observe them. The statement that the very laws of physics exist in all their Newtonian (substitute with favorite physicist, P.A.M. Dirac?) glory for us to exist is an absolute statement that requires a strong probability of p(exist) = 1. Stated differently, to say that the universe exists so that we may exist to observe it is to say that the probability of us being the only observing life in our universe is p (exists, but only us) = 1. But I don’t know if we can make such as strong statement. This probability of us being the only life capable of observation is linked to the remotely improbable event of the cosmological constant cancels out all 119 places necessitates a p(exists) = .999… (116 more 9’s but you get the point). This discrepancy of p = 1 * 10^-119 is significant. If you take into consideration the over 400 exoplanets discovered, some quite similar to earth, it may be possible to say, hypothetically, that p(exists) = 0.999999 because the chance of other life is still pretty remote (technically 1/409 planets have life so p(exists, only us) = 408/409 ?). But even the slightest probability of other observing (I use that word because that’s the word Anthropic principle uses) life invalidates the probability that we are the only observable life that exists a probability that must be 1 for us to conclude Anthropic principle is valid. It’s not so surprising because of the pretty extreme conclusions of the Anthropic principle, that it would require an extreme premise that we be the only observing life in the universe.
So, do aliens exist? Do they exist in a remote region of space by shear probability? Don’t know, and probably not. But I know Anthropic principle leads to some conclusions that push the limits of the laws of large numbers. I am not trying to disparage Anthropic principle (after all I am not a physicist, just a layperson) because after all this I do believe some form of it is actually partially true. And I am not just saying that because Susskind and other great minds may be believe it partly true. I simply believe the definition needs refining and Anthropic principle may be true for reasons dealing more with Quantum Mechanics which I will explain in a later post.
BTW: Susskind's book is awesome. Any inquisitive mind should buy it.
No comments:
Post a Comment