In an infinite multiverse, physics will no longer help us understand the future.
Physicists always want to figure out all the basic laws of physics, and hope to make a prediction of the physical world in which we live. For example, we can derive the quality of other new particles, such as dark matter, by explaining the physical law of why the Higgs particle can only be 125 gigahertz instead of other values. However, it now appears that this idea is too naive. Our "star theory" - string theory never do any "prophecy", but only left us "reverie space". These "reverie spaces" have their own observable physical constants, which are physically achievable in this infinite expansion of the multiverse.
Is it not that the string theory can not be observed? If the multiverse is large enough and diverse enough to make the dark matter in some areas made up of leptons, and in other areas it is made up of baryons, how can we predict the nature of the region in which we live? In fact, string theory is caused by long-term controversy because of this reason. If a physical theory can not make a prediction of the real world, then it can only be regarded as a physical phenomenon at best.
But in fact there is a little controversy in the cosmology is often overlooked. Cosmological research is the need to predict the reality of the universe: the basic physical law allows us to infer in the past, predict the future. So no matter what kind of prophecy we make, we need to clearly define the ground state. But for the universe, what is the ground state? What determines the ground state of the universe? This is like the classic philosophy of the world on the issue of the discussion.
To this end, cosmology gives its answer: it is not a prophet enemy, but a friend.
The key to solving the problem is to do probabilistic prediction. By calculating what is a small probability event in a multiverse and a large probability event, we can make a corresponding statistical prediction. This is nothing new in physics research. It is like we have studied the movement of the gas in a box, and although we can not keep track of the trajectories of each gas molecule, we can accurately calculate the motion of the gas as a whole. The study of the multiverse, we have to do is to develop a set of similar statistical research methods.
We can have three kinds of understanding. First, although the universe is very large, we may only be able to explore some of its part of the state, like the previously described a box of gas. In this case we can predict the universe, because its initial state is fleeting, no need to consider. Second, we may be able to exhaust the infinite variety of states of the multiverse, including its initial state, but we can not make any predictions until we know the initial state. The last one, although we can explore the universe of infinite variety of state, but since the universe since the birth of the ongoing expansion, so today we can not understand its initial state.
But in general, the first understanding is to get the most physicists agree, because we already have a very complete statistical theory as a research basis. Unfortunately, the predictions based on statistical theory do not correspond to our actual observations. As for the second kind of trouble, because our physical law at this stage is not enough to let us understand the beginning of the birth of the universe. But rather the last kind of understanding now seems the most promising.
But it still faces many problems. Its fundamental lies in the universe of time and space in a continuous expansion of the state. This leads to the emergence of many paradoxes and puzzles, so that we must innovate the existing physics can make a breakthrough.
The study of cosmology based on statistics was first traced back to 1895, a paper published by Austrian physicist Ludwig Boltzmann. Although his discussion at the time was wrong, we could find the root of the problem from the error.
Boltzmann derives a bold inference based on its study of gases. If we are to get the exact state of a gas, then we need to know the state of each of the gas molecules. This is impossible. But we can measure and predict some of the macroscopic properties of the gas, including temperature, pressure and so on.
Cooking gas
Although you can not know the movement of each gas molecule, but you can almost accurately predict the overall state of the gas. It is only when you apply a similar research method to a continually expanding universe.
Statistics provides us with a simple method of research. When a molecule constantly moves irregularly, they can be reorganized or reorganized in any possible way. This will make the initial state of motion of the gas difficult to detect, and let us have the possibility of ignoring its initial state. Because we can not track the position of all the molecules, they have been in a state of motion, so we assume that they appear in any position the possibility is equal.
This provides us with a way to estimate a coarse-grained (macroscopic) state of the gas: we only need to calculate the continuous microscopic state in a macroscopic state. For example, gas molecules are more likely to be distributed throughout the box than a corner in a corner, since gas molecules are gathered in the corner of the box only in very rare cases.
If this method is used to study, although the sum of all the possibilities will be very much, but it must be limited, otherwise the system will never be able to calculate all the state. In a box of gases, this limitation is determined by the uncertainty of the quantum mechanism. Since the position of each molecule can not be accurately measured, the gas is only limited in configuration.
The first gathering of the gas is then likely to be scattered, the reason is simple: statistical data show that the possibility of their scattered than the possibility of gathering high. If the original configuration of these molecules is a very rare state, then, after constant irregular movement, they will tend to a more general state.
For a moment, the group of swirling clouds turned into a man
But when we take into account the time dimension, our intuitive understanding of the gas is likely to be changed. If we let the gas in the box exist for a long enough time, some unusual conditions are likely to occur. Eventually they will be unexpectedly gathered in the corner of the box.
Based on this, Boltzmann published his cosmic inference. Our universe is structurally complex, just as the gas gathered in the corner of the box - is not in steady state. Cosmologists tend to think of this as the ground of the universe, but Bolzman pointed out that after the passage of the era, even a very chaotic universe, it may randomly evolve into a highly orderly state. Boltzmann attributed the conclusion to his assistant Dr. Schuetz, who wrote:
"This is likely to indicate that our world is not in a state of thermal equilibrium, but even far from each other, but can we think about the world in which we live and how small it is compared to the universe? The universe is so vast, A very small part can form our world, so it seems no longer small.
"If this idea is correct, our universe will be more and more close to the heat balance state; but because the universe is so large, then at some time in the future node, there may be other world away from the balance of the state Development, just as we are now. "
This is a very convincing idea, but it is a pity that it has been proved to be wrong.
First questioned the idea of astronomy and physicist Sir Arthur Eddington, who in 1931 presented our now known "Boltzmann brain". He envisioned the universe as a gas in a box, and in most cases it was in a thermodynamic equilibrium - like a pot of alienated porridge. As for some complex structures, including life, only in some very rare circumstances will evolve out. At this point, the gas re-integration of the formation of stars, and we are in the solar system and so on. There is no so-called gradual evolution in this process. It is more like a group of rotating clouds, a moment will be turned into adult.
The key to the problem is quantification. A slight fluctuation in the universe to create a very small corner of an orderly structure, the odds of a low than a large fluctuations in a huge space to form an orderly structure. Boltzmann and Dr. Schuetz argue that this probability is so low as we are in the universe where we are now in the absence of any other stars. Therefore, this theory is contradictory to our actual observations. If this theory is concerned, the sky we observe at night should be empty.
If this point of view continue to derive, and ultimately can be retained in this theory should be a stable in the vicinity of the observer. We can think of it as a long-standing lonely brain, long enough to be able to realize that they are on the verge of death: this is Boltzmann's brain.
According to this theory, we humans are nothing but a special form of Boltzmann brain, and mistakenly think that they see a vast balance of the universe. But all these phantoms may be broken in the next moment, and then we will find that the universe is empty. But if this illusion is not broken until you read this article, then you can safely throw it aside.
On the theory of the initial state of the universe, physicists have to innovate their thinking patterns
So what can we conclude? Obviously, the universe is not a box of gas. One of the keys to the Boltzmann theory is that the different configurations of all gas molecules must be finite (although potentially very large). This assumption must be wrong. Otherwise, we are all Boltzmann brain.
Therefore, we must seek new ways to carry out cosmological research. In the preceding sentence, the second case we refer to is that the universe has an infinite state of possibility. So that Boltzmann used to calculate the probability of occurrence of different things will be invalid.
But if so we must reopen the discussion of the initial state of the universe. When we study the gas in a box, we can ignore the initial state of the molecule, but for a system with an infinite configuration we can not ignore its initial state, because we need an infinite time to exhaust all the configuration. To make a prediction, we need a theory that gives the initial state. But until now, we still have no suitable candidates. Now a lot of physical theory is based on the previous state of the universe as a reference, but the theory of the initial state of the universe need to be the conclusion of the previous state of the universe. For this reason physicists need to reform their thinking mode.
The multivariate universe also provides us with a third solution that allows us to use statistical methods to make predictions of the universe at the existing physical framework. In the multiverse, the space of the universe is in infinite expansion, and every moment it is possible to expand out of a different space. But the most critical is that the initial state of the universe does not prevent us from making predictions. Expansion is a process of steady progress, in the high energy state of the gradual expansion of the region and "annexation" those in a low energy state of the region. The total volume of the universe is increasing, and the number of spaces it contains in different states is increasing, but its ratio (and probability) remains stable.
It is easy to predict based on this theory. We only need to calculate how many observers are in the multiverse. The probability that we observe a result is the same as the observer ratio in the multiverse that observes the same result.
There is no common way to define a transient state in reality
For example, if 10% of the observer exists in a dark matter that is composed of a lepton (or a shaft), the other 90% of the dark matter is present by the baryon (opposite the lepton, also for WIMPs) Of the area, then we observe that the dark matter is composed of lepton is the possibility of 10%.
The best application of this theory comes from Stephen Weinberg of the University of Texas at Austin, who predicted its value ten years before the cosmology constant was observed. It is precisely because of the strong persuasiveness of the theory and the successful application of Weinberg that makes the multiverse cosmology attract the tireless research of numerous researchers, including me.
The main problem we are facing now is that the space of the universe is constantly expanding, so the observer's observations will be infinite, which makes it difficult to predict the probability of occurrence of the event. The ambiguity of this pair of steady-state behavior is also called "measurement problem".
Roughly speaking, we do the general steps as follows: Let us assume that the universe evolved out of a large but limited time and contained all observable content; then we calculated what might happen if the time became infinite. In this way, we can know what the equilibrium state of the universe should be. But the difficulty is that we have not found a suitable implementation method, because there is no real way to define a transient state in reality. Objects in distant time and space are too far away from each other and are moving away from each other, so we can not get in touch with them to synchronize the clock. From the mathematical level, we have a variety of ways to synchronize the clocks of each space, and different synchronization methods will enable us to predict different observations.
Never enough time
It is impossible to synchronize all the clocks in an infinite universe, which limits the ability of physics to a large extent.
One of the predictions of synchronizing the clock is that most of the space in the universe will be replaced by those areas with fast expansion, while the other tells us that, worse, many predictions show that the vast area of the observer is Boltzmann's brain , One we had the most want to exclude the possibility.
When the University of Alberta's Don Paige pointed out in a 2006 paper on the potential problems of Boltzmann's brains, the University of California at Berkeley's Raphael Bussau and I felt very excited because we Realize that we have mastered the "comeback" key. We found that we can use the Boltzmann brain to help us determine what kind of prediction to synchronize the time and space under the clock. So that any prophecy that we think is Boltzmann's brain must be wrong. Based on this understanding we are excited to start writing papers (because of fear that other people will not have a similar idea), two days will be completed. In the next few years, there have been some small teams using our theory to remove the interference to arrive at a reasonable inference. We think we have found a way to tame "infinite".
However, when everything seems to be smooth sailing, we encounter a problem beyond the scope of our understanding of the problem: the end of time the problem. Simply put it is our theory to predict that the universe is actually at the edge of self-destruction.
This dilemma arises from an ideological experiment by Alan Guth of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Vitaly Vanchurin of the University of Michigan in Duluth. This experiment is even unusual in theoretical physics. It assumes that before you throw a coin yet to know the result, you are placed into the cry box. If the coin is facing up, then you will wake up after a year, and if it is facing up, you will be awakened after 50 billion years. Now, suppose you have just woken up and have the opportunity to bet on whether they have been sleeping for 1 year or 50 billion years. Common sense tells us that if the gamble is fair, the odds should be 50
Physicists always want to figure out all the basic laws of physics, and hope to make a prediction of the physical world in which we live. For example, we can derive the quality of other new particles, such as dark matter, by explaining the physical law of why the Higgs particle can only be 125 gigahertz instead of other values. However, it now appears that this idea is too naive. Our "star theory" - string theory never do any "prophecy", but only left us "reverie space". These "reverie spaces" have their own observable physical constants, which are physically achievable in this infinite expansion of the multiverse.
Is it not that the string theory can not be observed? If the multiverse is large enough and diverse enough to make the dark matter in some areas made up of leptons, and in other areas it is made up of baryons, how can we predict the nature of the region in which we live? In fact, string theory is caused by long-term controversy because of this reason. If a physical theory can not make a prediction of the real world, then it can only be regarded as a physical phenomenon at best.
But in fact there is a little controversy in the cosmology is often overlooked. Cosmological research is the need to predict the reality of the universe: the basic physical law allows us to infer in the past, predict the future. So no matter what kind of prophecy we make, we need to clearly define the ground state. But for the universe, what is the ground state? What determines the ground state of the universe? This is like the classic philosophy of the world on the issue of the discussion.
To this end, cosmology gives its answer: it is not a prophet enemy, but a friend.
The key to solving the problem is to do probabilistic prediction. By calculating what is a small probability event in a multiverse and a large probability event, we can make a corresponding statistical prediction. This is nothing new in physics research. It is like we have studied the movement of the gas in a box, and although we can not keep track of the trajectories of each gas molecule, we can accurately calculate the motion of the gas as a whole. The study of the multiverse, we have to do is to develop a set of similar statistical research methods.
We can have three kinds of understanding. First, although the universe is very large, we may only be able to explore some of its part of the state, like the previously described a box of gas. In this case we can predict the universe, because its initial state is fleeting, no need to consider. Second, we may be able to exhaust the infinite variety of states of the multiverse, including its initial state, but we can not make any predictions until we know the initial state. The last one, although we can explore the universe of infinite variety of state, but since the universe since the birth of the ongoing expansion, so today we can not understand its initial state.
But in general, the first understanding is to get the most physicists agree, because we already have a very complete statistical theory as a research basis. Unfortunately, the predictions based on statistical theory do not correspond to our actual observations. As for the second kind of trouble, because our physical law at this stage is not enough to let us understand the beginning of the birth of the universe. But rather the last kind of understanding now seems the most promising.
But it still faces many problems. Its fundamental lies in the universe of time and space in a continuous expansion of the state. This leads to the emergence of many paradoxes and puzzles, so that we must innovate the existing physics can make a breakthrough.
The study of cosmology based on statistics was first traced back to 1895, a paper published by Austrian physicist Ludwig Boltzmann. Although his discussion at the time was wrong, we could find the root of the problem from the error.
Boltzmann derives a bold inference based on its study of gases. If we are to get the exact state of a gas, then we need to know the state of each of the gas molecules. This is impossible. But we can measure and predict some of the macroscopic properties of the gas, including temperature, pressure and so on.
Cooking gas
Although you can not know the movement of each gas molecule, but you can almost accurately predict the overall state of the gas. It is only when you apply a similar research method to a continually expanding universe.
Statistics provides us with a simple method of research. When a molecule constantly moves irregularly, they can be reorganized or reorganized in any possible way. This will make the initial state of motion of the gas difficult to detect, and let us have the possibility of ignoring its initial state. Because we can not track the position of all the molecules, they have been in a state of motion, so we assume that they appear in any position the possibility is equal.
This provides us with a way to estimate a coarse-grained (macroscopic) state of the gas: we only need to calculate the continuous microscopic state in a macroscopic state. For example, gas molecules are more likely to be distributed throughout the box than a corner in a corner, since gas molecules are gathered in the corner of the box only in very rare cases.
If this method is used to study, although the sum of all the possibilities will be very much, but it must be limited, otherwise the system will never be able to calculate all the state. In a box of gases, this limitation is determined by the uncertainty of the quantum mechanism. Since the position of each molecule can not be accurately measured, the gas is only limited in configuration.
The first gathering of the gas is then likely to be scattered, the reason is simple: statistical data show that the possibility of their scattered than the possibility of gathering high. If the original configuration of these molecules is a very rare state, then, after constant irregular movement, they will tend to a more general state.
For a moment, the group of swirling clouds turned into a man
But when we take into account the time dimension, our intuitive understanding of the gas is likely to be changed. If we let the gas in the box exist for a long enough time, some unusual conditions are likely to occur. Eventually they will be unexpectedly gathered in the corner of the box.
Based on this, Boltzmann published his cosmic inference. Our universe is structurally complex, just as the gas gathered in the corner of the box - is not in steady state. Cosmologists tend to think of this as the ground of the universe, but Bolzman pointed out that after the passage of the era, even a very chaotic universe, it may randomly evolve into a highly orderly state. Boltzmann attributed the conclusion to his assistant Dr. Schuetz, who wrote:
"This is likely to indicate that our world is not in a state of thermal equilibrium, but even far from each other, but can we think about the world in which we live and how small it is compared to the universe? The universe is so vast, A very small part can form our world, so it seems no longer small.
"If this idea is correct, our universe will be more and more close to the heat balance state; but because the universe is so large, then at some time in the future node, there may be other world away from the balance of the state Development, just as we are now. "
This is a very convincing idea, but it is a pity that it has been proved to be wrong.
First questioned the idea of astronomy and physicist Sir Arthur Eddington, who in 1931 presented our now known "Boltzmann brain". He envisioned the universe as a gas in a box, and in most cases it was in a thermodynamic equilibrium - like a pot of alienated porridge. As for some complex structures, including life, only in some very rare circumstances will evolve out. At this point, the gas re-integration of the formation of stars, and we are in the solar system and so on. There is no so-called gradual evolution in this process. It is more like a group of rotating clouds, a moment will be turned into adult.
The key to the problem is quantification. A slight fluctuation in the universe to create a very small corner of an orderly structure, the odds of a low than a large fluctuations in a huge space to form an orderly structure. Boltzmann and Dr. Schuetz argue that this probability is so low as we are in the universe where we are now in the absence of any other stars. Therefore, this theory is contradictory to our actual observations. If this theory is concerned, the sky we observe at night should be empty.
If this point of view continue to derive, and ultimately can be retained in this theory should be a stable in the vicinity of the observer. We can think of it as a long-standing lonely brain, long enough to be able to realize that they are on the verge of death: this is Boltzmann's brain.
According to this theory, we humans are nothing but a special form of Boltzmann brain, and mistakenly think that they see a vast balance of the universe. But all these phantoms may be broken in the next moment, and then we will find that the universe is empty. But if this illusion is not broken until you read this article, then you can safely throw it aside.
On the theory of the initial state of the universe, physicists have to innovate their thinking patterns
So what can we conclude? Obviously, the universe is not a box of gas. One of the keys to the Boltzmann theory is that the different configurations of all gas molecules must be finite (although potentially very large). This assumption must be wrong. Otherwise, we are all Boltzmann brain.
Therefore, we must seek new ways to carry out cosmological research. In the preceding sentence, the second case we refer to is that the universe has an infinite state of possibility. So that Boltzmann used to calculate the probability of occurrence of different things will be invalid.
But if so we must reopen the discussion of the initial state of the universe. When we study the gas in a box, we can ignore the initial state of the molecule, but for a system with an infinite configuration we can not ignore its initial state, because we need an infinite time to exhaust all the configuration. To make a prediction, we need a theory that gives the initial state. But until now, we still have no suitable candidates. Now a lot of physical theory is based on the previous state of the universe as a reference, but the theory of the initial state of the universe need to be the conclusion of the previous state of the universe. For this reason physicists need to reform their thinking mode.
The multivariate universe also provides us with a third solution that allows us to use statistical methods to make predictions of the universe at the existing physical framework. In the multiverse, the space of the universe is in infinite expansion, and every moment it is possible to expand out of a different space. But the most critical is that the initial state of the universe does not prevent us from making predictions. Expansion is a process of steady progress, in the high energy state of the gradual expansion of the region and "annexation" those in a low energy state of the region. The total volume of the universe is increasing, and the number of spaces it contains in different states is increasing, but its ratio (and probability) remains stable.
It is easy to predict based on this theory. We only need to calculate how many observers are in the multiverse. The probability that we observe a result is the same as the observer ratio in the multiverse that observes the same result.
There is no common way to define a transient state in reality
For example, if 10% of the observer exists in a dark matter that is composed of a lepton (or a shaft), the other 90% of the dark matter is present by the baryon (opposite the lepton, also for WIMPs) Of the area, then we observe that the dark matter is composed of lepton is the possibility of 10%.
The best application of this theory comes from Stephen Weinberg of the University of Texas at Austin, who predicted its value ten years before the cosmology constant was observed. It is precisely because of the strong persuasiveness of the theory and the successful application of Weinberg that makes the multiverse cosmology attract the tireless research of numerous researchers, including me.
The main problem we are facing now is that the space of the universe is constantly expanding, so the observer's observations will be infinite, which makes it difficult to predict the probability of occurrence of the event. The ambiguity of this pair of steady-state behavior is also called "measurement problem".
Roughly speaking, we do the general steps as follows: Let us assume that the universe evolved out of a large but limited time and contained all observable content; then we calculated what might happen if the time became infinite. In this way, we can know what the equilibrium state of the universe should be. But the difficulty is that we have not found a suitable implementation method, because there is no real way to define a transient state in reality. Objects in distant time and space are too far away from each other and are moving away from each other, so we can not get in touch with them to synchronize the clock. From the mathematical level, we have a variety of ways to synchronize the clocks of each space, and different synchronization methods will enable us to predict different observations.
Never enough time
It is impossible to synchronize all the clocks in an infinite universe, which limits the ability of physics to a large extent.
One of the predictions of synchronizing the clock is that most of the space in the universe will be replaced by those areas with fast expansion, while the other tells us that, worse, many predictions show that the vast area of the observer is Boltzmann's brain , One we had the most want to exclude the possibility.
When the University of Alberta's Don Paige pointed out in a 2006 paper on the potential problems of Boltzmann's brains, the University of California at Berkeley's Raphael Bussau and I felt very excited because we Realize that we have mastered the "comeback" key. We found that we can use the Boltzmann brain to help us determine what kind of prediction to synchronize the time and space under the clock. So that any prophecy that we think is Boltzmann's brain must be wrong. Based on this understanding we are excited to start writing papers (because of fear that other people will not have a similar idea), two days will be completed. In the next few years, there have been some small teams using our theory to remove the interference to arrive at a reasonable inference. We think we have found a way to tame "infinite".
However, when everything seems to be smooth sailing, we encounter a problem beyond the scope of our understanding of the problem: the end of time the problem. Simply put it is our theory to predict that the universe is actually at the edge of self-destruction.
This dilemma arises from an ideological experiment by Alan Guth of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Vitaly Vanchurin of the University of Michigan in Duluth. This experiment is even unusual in theoretical physics. It assumes that before you throw a coin yet to know the result, you are placed into the cry box. If the coin is facing up, then you will wake up after a year, and if it is facing up, you will be awakened after 50 billion years. Now, suppose you have just woken up and have the opportunity to bet on whether they have been sleeping for 1 year or 50 billion years. Common sense tells us that if the gamble is fair, the odds should be 50
评论
发表评论