The elegant universe

w1z4rd

Karmic Sangoma
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
52,146
Reaction score
8,340
Location
127.0.0.1
A really cool site deals with newtonian physics, einsteinian physics and strong and M theory. I think I posted this here a while back, but now that we have this section some people might enjoy it more:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html

I was able to get hold of a copy and its a pretty fascinating program.

What do you think of M and string theory? Are there alternative theories you find plausible?
 
Nice link, thanx

A theory of everything? Possible, but are we actually advanced enough scientifically to put the micro and macro together? Certainly a challenging concept that and one that may be plausible with the new supercomputers, from the mathematical side.

I like the idea of multiple dimension, and parallel existences, of dimensions beyond our own that would operate, or do operate on different laws of physics.
 
Bump.
Solar System Is Pretty Special, According To New Computer Simulation
Prevailing theoretical models attempting to explain the formation of the solar system have assumed it to be average in every way. Now a new study by Northwestern University astronomers, using recent data from the 300 exoplanets discovered orbiting other stars, turns that view on its head.
The solar system, it turns out, is pretty special indeed. The study illustrates that if early conditions had been just slightly different, very unpleasant things could have happened -- like planets being thrown into the sun or jettisoned into deep space.

Using large-scale computer simulations, the Northwestern researchers are the first to model the formation of planetary systems from beginning to end, starting with the generic disk of gas and dust that is left behind after the formation of the central star and ending with a full planetary system. Because of computing limitations, earlier models provided only brief glimpses of the process.

The researchers ran more than a hundred simulations, and the results show that the average planetary system's origin was full of violence and drama but that the formation of something like our solar system required conditions to be "just right."

The study was recently published in the journal Science.

Before the discovery in the early 1990s of the first planets outside the solar system, our system's nine (now eight) planets were the only ones known to us. This limited the planetary formation models, and astronomers had no reason to think the solar system unusual.

"But we now know that these other planetary systems don't look like the solar system at all," said Frederic A. Rasio, a theoretical astrophysicist and professor of physics and astronomy in Northwestern's Weinberg College of Arts and Sciences. He is senior author of the Science paper.

"The shapes of the exoplanets' orbits are elongated, not nice and circular. Planets are not where we expect them to be. Many giant planets similar to Jupiter, known as 'hot Jupiters,' are so close to the star they have orbits of mere days. Clearly we needed to start fresh in explaining planetary formation and this greater variety of planets we now see."

Using the wealth of exoplanet data collected during the last 15 years, Rasio and his colleagues have been working to understand planet formation in a much broader sense than was possible previously. Modeling an entire planetary system -- the varied physical phenomena associated with gas, gravity and grains of material, on such a variety of scales -- was a daunting challenge.

The work required very powerful computers. The researchers also had to judiciously decide what information was important and what was not, so as to speed up the calculations. They decided to follow the growth of planets, the gravitational interaction between planets, and the whole planetary system in its entire spatial extent. They chose not to follow the gas disk's fluid dynamics in fine detail, but rather more generally. As a result, they were able to run simulations spanning a planetary system's entire formation.

The simulations suggest that an average planetary system's origin is extremely dramatic. The gas disk that gives birth to the planets also pushes them mercilessly toward the central star, where they crowd together or are engulfed. Among the growing planets, there is cut-throat competition for gas, a chaotic process that produces a rich variety of planet masses.

Also, as the planets approach each other, they frequently lock into dynamical resonances that drive the orbits of all participants to be increasingly elongated. Such a gravitational embrace often results in a slingshot encounter that flings the planets elsewhere in the system; occasionally, one is ejected into deep space. Despite its best efforts to kill its offspring, the gas disk eventually is consumed and dissipates, and a young planetary system emerges.

"Such a turbulent history would seem to leave little room for the sedate solar system, and our simulations show exactly that," said Rasio. "Conditions must be just right for the solar system to emerge."

Too massive a gas disk, for example, and planet formation is an anarchic mess, producing "hot Jupiters" and noncircular orbits galore. Too low-mass a disk, and nothing bigger than Neptune -- an "ice giant" with only a small amount of gas -- will grow.

"We now better understand the process of planet formation and can explain the properties of the strange exoplanets we've observed," said Rasio. "We also know that the solar system is special and understand at some level what makes it special."

"The solar system had to be born under just the right conditions to become this quiet place we see. The vast majority of other planetary systems didn't have these special properties at birth and became something very different."
 
Article from the American Institute of Physics (AIP). (Related to post #5)

Maybe We Are Special, The Solar System Says

Historically, humans have often felt the need to be special, and just as often have been disappointed. The Earth, as it turned out, wasn't at the center of the universe. Humans are smart, but in the end, they evolve, live and die just like all the other living things on the planet. In astronomy, the prevailing theoretical models of how the solar system got here have assume that, based on past experience, we're probably just an average solar system.

But according to a new study by Northwestern University astronomers looking at 300 planets orbiting other stars, we might really be special. "We now know that these other planetary systems don't look like [our] solar system at all," said Frederic Rasio, an astronomer at Northwestern, in Chicago. Computer simulations used by Rasio's team showed that the birth of a planetary system is a very violent affair, with the gas disk that gives birth to the planets pushing them toward the central star, where they often crowd together to be engulfed. Gravitational encounters between growing planets fling some across the planetary system, or into deep space. "Such a turbulent history would seem to leave little room for the sedate solar system, and our simulations show exactly that," said Rasio in a news release from Northwestern University. Our solar system "had to be born under just the right conditions to become the quiet place we see," he said. "The vast majority of other planetary systems didn't have these special properties at birth and became something very different."

The Copernican principle states the Earth is not in a central, specially favoured position. Recent scientific evidence seems to undermine this contemporary scientific worldview.
 
Article from the American Institute of Physics (AIP). (Related to post #5)

Maybe We Are Special, The Solar System Says



The Copernican principle states the Earth is not in a central, specially favoured position. Recent scientific evidence seems to undermine this contemporary scientific worldview.

I don't think that 300 planets orbiting other stars is a very representative sample, considering there are hundreds of billions of solar systems out there.
 
They used the data from the 300 planets and known physical laws to create simulations, and came to the conclusion from those simulations. Off course the simulations will be refined as more and more data from other planetary systems come in.
 
Last edited:
I don't think that 300 planets orbiting other stars is a very representative sample, considering there are hundreds of billions of solar systems out there.

I absolutely agree. 300 planets out of trillions is barely a statement at all. That's close to 0%. People keep thinking that because we're here that we are special or that there's a reason. Know this - there are trillions of planets out there and there will obviously be many that fit the conditions for living. Also, conditions on other planets may not be supportive of what we need to survive, but that does not mean other beings/creatures can't live/survive on those planets. Obviously there will be other lifeforms that thrive in different envirnonments and quite possibly in environments that we can't live and survive in.
 
Last edited:
I don't think that 300 planets orbiting other stars is a very representative sample, considering there are hundreds of billions of solar systems out there.

I absolutely agree. 300 planets out of trillions is barely a statement at all. That's close to 0%. People keep thinking that because we're here that we are special or that there's a reason. Know this - there are trillions of planets out there and there will obviously be many that fit the conditions for living. Also, conditions on other planets may not be supportive of what we need to survive, but that does not mean other beings/creatures can't ive/survive on those planets. Obviously there will be other lifeforms that thrive in different envirnonments and quite possibly in environments that we can't live and survive in.

Well thats all we have atm thus it will have to do.

If myth could be believed then Newton started out with an apple :p

Be patient... what do you guys always tell us? A theory evolves :D

Thanks for this thread some very nice posts so far though.
 
Obviously there will be other lifeforms that thrive in different envirnonments and quite possibly in environments that we can't live and survive in.

Yeah, we get them here.. like fish. Though to be honest, there are some very insane local bacteria... the kinda that breath in iron and 'poo' chlorine. I love the way life adapts :P
 
Yeah, we get them here.. like fish. Though to be honest, there are some very insane local bacteria... the kinda that breath in iron and 'poo' chlorine. I love the way life adapts :P

At the moment of typing up my post, I was thinking of extremophiles :)
 
It is a bit odd to see people react negatively to science that might actually point to our solar system being a little special. If our solar system is special or rare in some way it would be of great scientific interest to scientists who are actually doing research on planetary formation. Unfortunately, metaphysical biases do tend to lead to disconformation bias.

Our universe also seem to be special... fine tuned.

The anthropic principle just won't go away:
The universe seems to be built for us?
Article from Discover magazine discussed at this blog.
Few interesting snippets from the article.
Physicists don’t like coincidences. They like even less the notion that life is somehow central to the universe, and yet recent discoveries are forcing them to confront that very idea. Life, it seems, is not an incidental component of the universe, burped up out of a random chemical brew on a lonely planet…. In some strange sense, it appears that we are not adapted to the universe; the universe is adapted to us.

Call it a fluke, a mystery, a miracle. Or call it the biggest problem in physics. Short of invoking a benevolent creator, many physicists see only one possible explanation: Our universe may be but one of perhaps infinitely many universes in an inconceivably vast multiverse.

When I ask Linde whether physicists will ever be able to prove that the multiverse is real, he has a simple answer. “Nothing else fits the data… we don’t have any alternative explanations…

So how coherent is this multiverse idea?
In an infinite multiverse:
Monkeys will fly out of my butt an infinite number of times.
I will give birth to a T-Rex who will become president an infinite number of times.
Life will spontaneously arise from the primordial ooze an infinite number of times.
Earth will be visited by the intelligent designer an infinite number of times
YEC will be true an infinite number of times.
The Idea that we are living in a computer simulation is true an infinite number of times.

Thus:
Anything that can logically happen will an infinite number of times predictions and science would be impossible .
Is it really testable? Is it scientific to posit something that is untestable. Is it merely just metaphysically soothing for some... Wishful thinkng...
 
Last edited:
A really cool site deals with newtonian physics, einsteinian physics and strong and M theory. I think I posted this here a while back, but now that we have this section some people might enjoy it more:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html

I was able to get hold of a copy and its a pretty fascinating program.

What do you think of M and string theory? Are there alternative theories you find plausible?

I think I was stoned when I watched this. It was insane! :D
 
It is a bit odd to see people react negatively to science that might actually point to our solar system being a little special. If our solar system is special or rare in some way it would be of great scientific interest to scientists who are actually doing research on planetary formation. Unfortunately, metaphysical biases do tend to lead to disconformation bias.

Our universe also seem to be special... fine tuned.

The anthropic principle just won't go away:
The universe seems to be built for us?
Article from Discover magazine discussed at this blog.
Few interesting snippets from the article.




So how coherent is this multiverse idea?
In an infinite multiverse:


Thus:

Is it really testable? Is it scientific to posit something that is untestable. Is it merely just metaphysically soothing for some... Wishful thinkng...

No one is reacting negatively towards feeling special. The fact is we are special, relative to our universe. Being able to talk about it proves this, but really, how much more special do you want to feel? We are about as special as the piece of sperm that proceeded to become you, as opposed to the millions that persihed. That doesn't mean that no one else is screwing and it certainly doesn't make it more special than any other life forms anywhere on earth, or in the universe for that matter.

Your exaggerated posts and biased research leaves me with a question. Who are you trying to convince? Us or yourself?
 
Biased research? Point it out please. And convince you of what?

Article:
Science's Alternative to an Intelligent Creator: the Multiverse Theory

All the articles you post are in some way related to some sort of creator of the universe, yet you never post anything that could even remotely be indicative of our existence being mere chance. That is biased, but I concede that it's what you believe.

The style of your posts is reminiscent of a person who isn't exactly sure that what they are propagating will be taken to heart, hence the multiple links and long stories.

Like this:

Physicists don’t like coincidences. They like even less the notion that life is somehow central to the universe, and yet recent discoveries are forcing them to confront that very idea. Life, it seems, is not an incidental component of the universe, burped up out of a random chemical brew on a lonely planet…. In some strange sense, it appears that we are not adapted to the universe; the universe is adapted to us.

Call it a fluke, a mystery, a miracle. Or call it the biggest problem in physics. Short of invoking a benevolent creator, many physicists see only one possible explanation: Our universe may be but one of perhaps infinitely many universes in an inconceivably vast multiverse.

I just cannot see a scientist taking such a stance.
 
All the articles you post are in some way related to some sort of creator of the universe, yet you never post anything that could even remotely be indicative of our existence being mere chance. That is biased, but I concede that it's what you believe.
I guess some like chance, some like agency (natural and otherwise), and some like chance and agency (natural and otherwise). We are not all the same.

The style of your posts is reminiscent of a person who isn't exactly sure that what they are propagating will be taken to heart, hence the multiple links and long stories
Like this:
QUOTE Physicists don’t like coincidences. They like even less the notion that life is somehow central to the universe, and yet recent discoveries are forcing them to confront that very idea. Life, it seems, is not an incidental component of the universe, burped up out of a random chemical brew on a lonely planet…. In some strange sense, it appears that we are not adapted to the universe; the universe is adapted to us.

Call it a fluke, a mystery, a miracle. Or call it the biggest problem in physics. Short of invoking a benevolent creator, many physicists see only one possible explanation: Our universe may be but one of perhaps infinitely many universes in an inconceivably vast multiverse./QUOTE


I just cannot see a scientist taking such a stance.
The quote above was actually written by a scientist.
 
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X