5 ms·
They also go wrong with large scale phenomena like inflation, dark matter, and dark energy.
by lilgreenland 3y ago
They also go wrong with large scale phenomena like inflation, dark matter, and dark energy.
- azalemeth 3y agoThere's also the problem of fine tuning -- why is the fine structure constant roughly 1/137? If it were different from its current value by a tiny amount, the universe as we know it wouldn't exist. Is the anthropocentric principal the only explanation we have -- it has the value it has because it produces a universe in which we're able to observe it? And I guess less formally there's also the problem of complexity: condensed matter physics exists because trying to solve the standard model for a solid directly is both incredibly infeasible (think "cost of flipping bits in the calculation far extends that of all matter in the observable universe") and fails to capture the emergent phenomena in a natural way.
- robertlagrant 3y agoThe other theory is there are infinite universes somehow being created all the time by every choice. Which to my mind isn't very Occam's Razor-ish. But it does exist as a theory.
- mr_mitm 3y agoYou mean the Many-Worlds interpretation? That's not every choice, but every quantum measurement. And it's not necessarily an infinite number. And it's not a theory, but an interpretation. And it's actually very Occam's Razor-ish (at least that's what proponents claim), because it needs less postulates than the standard Copenhagen interpretation. The many worlds are a consequence, not a postulate.
- naasking 3y agoIt's the multiverse theory, typically discussed under the framework of string theory.
- oneshtein 3y agoIMHO, "Inflation" is false theory, because it doesn't obey law of conservation of energy. If no inflation, then no Big Bang, so our Visible Universe is much older. If our Universe is much older, then life evolved multiple times already. Red stars are shallow gravity wells, so they are primary target of an expansive civilization, because it easy to enter/exit them, so they are colonized first and their light is captured fully.
- Thiez 3y agoCool story. Now explain why almost everything we see is moving away from us, where fresh hydrogen for stars comes from in an ancient universe, where the cosmic background radiation comes from, why the distant universe appears 'younger'... Note that the 'laws' of physics are no better than normal scientific theories, scientists just had more hubris back then.
- robertlagrant 3y agoI don't even know where "fresh" hydrogen comes from for new stars in our current universe. Why would it be different for an older one?
- ninkendo 3y agoWe have a good idea where it comes from: It was created in the big bang, and as stars form (and explode, or form neutron stars and collide) they turn it into heavier elements. Over time there is less hydrogen, which is why the universe can’t be infinitely old. Since it’s only ~13.7B years old, the amount of hydrogen we see makes sense with our models. It’s a much much bigger problem if the universe significantly older than we think it is… if we were to believe the Wikipedia article on this[0], we’d only expect stars to exist at all for about 100 trillion years, but given that the distribution of hydrogen availability is likely to follow an inverse exponential decay curve of some sort, we’d probably see much lower amounts of hydrogen much earlier than that. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_of_an_expanding_universe#The_Stelliferous_Era https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_of_an_expanding_univers...
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]