Possibility of a Conscious Universe: Proving Life and Awareness

In summary, the conversation discusses the idea of whether the universe is conscious and alive. The definition of life and consciousness is debated, with some arguing that it only applies to living organisms. However, others believe that even elementary particles possess consciousness and that the universe as a whole is conscious. Ultimately, the concept of synergy is brought up, highlighting the unique properties that arise when multiple things come together. The term "Quantum Decoherence" is mentioned as a way to understand the universe's tendency towards coherence and organization.
  • #176


Originally posted by Mentat

Exactly! That's why the universe can't be conscious; it has to be "set up to work" that way, and it's not. [/B]

Like you know.

I say the Universe IS set up that way!


Neurons of the brain might be a view in MICROCOSM of a MACRO-MECHANISM that allows the Universe to gather and process information.
 
Space news on Phys.org
  • #177


Originally posted by heusdens
Our minds have formulated clear and distinct categories for phenomena. Like we know about life and about death, and that they are opposites. Using Aristotelian logic, something which is dead can not be life, and vice versa.
In reality though we don't see this clear distinction. It's lifeless matter that changes and become living matter in the course of time. Consciousness, as the highest order of order in material, costed more as 3 billion years to form. Now where did all of a sudden consciousness arise our of no-consciousness? This distinct line, seperating the two, in reality doesn't exist, what we see is continuous, and gradual steps, small changes, that contribute in the larger framework to large changes. We see quantity turn into quality.

Actually, you just made my point: consciousness didn't SUDDENLY arise. It has always been part of the Universe. However, like matter -- baryonic matter -- it needed to EVOLVE.

I've decided to say more on the Everything from Nothing thread.
 
  • #178


Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Like you know.

I say the Universe IS set up that way!


Neurons of the brain might be a view in MICROCOSM of a MACRO-MECHANISM that allows the Universe to gather and process information.

M. Gaspar, the questioning of the universes' conscousness cannot be answered. "Like you know" goes for all of us.

One fundamental characteristic of life is reproduction. The universe posseses this. take the first law of thermodynamics. The mass of the universe is constant, never changing.
Additionally, this criteria would exclude life forms created by design. Surely, if we had been created by an intelligent God, it would not follow that we were any less alive?

Following are some of the applications that authors draw from this definition:

Note that a single human being does not satisfy the above sufficient condition to be considered living, but it is made up of cells some of which do satisfy it. A male—female pair would collectively be a system capable of self-reproduction, and so this system would satisfy the sufficient condition. In any biosphere we can imagine, some systems contained therein would satisfy it . . .

A virus satisfies the above sufficient condition, and so we consider it a living organism . . .

Automobiles, for example, must be considered alive since they contain a great deal of information, and they can self-reproduce in the sense that there are human mechanics who can make a copy of the automobile. These mechanics are to automobiles what a living cell’s biochemical machinery is to a virus. The form of automobiles in the environment is preserved by natural selection: there is a fierce struggle for existence going on between various "races" of automobiles! In America, Japanese automobiles are competing with native American automobiles for scarce resources—money paid to the manufacturer—that will result in either more American or more Japanese automobiles being built!

At least the authors are applying their definition consistently. But in doing so, they have shown that it cannot handle the easy examples. For surely a single human being is an easy example of something that is alive, and an automobile is an easy example of something that is not alive. A virus, on the other hand, is a difficult example that is considered a living thing by some biologists but not by others; it is a borderline case at best.

To summarize, the Barrow/Tipler definition of life fails two of the criteria we proposed at the start: it doesn’t handle the easy cases, and it isn’t simple (they have to add special clauses to handle cases like mules and human reproduction).

I love this essay! here's the url for those who wish to read the essay: http://baharna.com/philos/life.htm#criteria
 
  • #179


Originally posted by MajinVegeta
M. Gaspar, the questioning of the universes' conscousness cannot be answered. "Like you know" goes for all of us.

One fundamental characteristic of life is reproduction. The universe posseses this. take the first law of thermodynamics. The mass of the universe is constant, never changing.


I love this essay! here's the url for those who wish to read the essay: http://baharna.com/philos/life.htm#criteria


I suppose, now and again, I make statements as if I "know"...but, actually, I'm fully aware that I'm only SPECULATING...so your point is well taken.

Still, when someone says definitively that the Universe is not "set up" to "think"...it begs the response "Like you know."

I suspect that our biological definition of life might not be as COMPREHENSIVE as some of us would like to believe.

For instance, if it is "true" that the Universe keeps "giving birth" to ITSELF...this would satisfy MY definition of "living".

That we cannot "know" for certain that the Universe is conscious (or not) does not mean we cannot "take the case" that It is and try to "make the case" that It is within this Forum.

Ideas evolve.
 
  • #180
I was telling my sister about this discussion, and she insisted there was no point in discussing something we couldn't give a definite answer to.

Anyway, how does the universe give birth to itself? Well, then again, I could see your point. Quantum fluctuations actually caused the universe as we know it to come into exitence. So, it sort of did, give birth to itself. But, as I stated before (in "Everything came from Nothing") that the universe seems to have no goal in its evolution.
On the other hand, neither do we. We live, and we die. The universe is born, then it collapses into a singularity(the Big Crunch) and dies. And it happens all over again; because black holes/singularities evaporate. so its like a cycle. Does it have a purpose?
 
  • #181
Originally posted by MajinVegeta
Anyway, how does the universe give birth to itself? Well, then again, I could see your point. Quantum fluctuations actually caused the universe as we know it to come into existence. So, it sort of did, give birth to itself.

This is stated in a weird way, which makes it quite incomprohensible, and the reasoning is wrong. There is no point in discussing the 'birth' of the universe, as there was no such 'birth'.
If you state that quantum fluctuations caused the birth of the universe, then in other words those quantum fluctuations happened outside time and space? This really makes no sense.
Perhaps a good idea for a concept that uses quantum fluctuations and a scalar field to explain this, is in the theory of eternal inflation.
 
  • #182
Of course time had to exist in order for the BB to occur. Otherwise it wouldn't make sense. Space had to exist as well, for strings to exist.
what's the theory of eternal inflation?
 
  • #183


Originally posted by M. Gaspar
You reject, out of hand, that there is not a kernal of consciousness in everything. You have accepted (without question?) that the Universe is a dead machine with pockets of life that came together by accident.

Let me say again that, when I use the word "accident" I am NOT leading to what I consider to be a crackpot idea: that an "Outside God" with "a Plan" "created the Universe". No.

Instead, I am leading to my recurring contention that the living, conscious Universe -- through natural processes and ingredients -- gives rise to dynamic coherent systems ... EACH OF WHICH IS CONSCIOUS to some degree.

The reasoning is wrong here, in that you assume because of the material process going on in the universe, that amongst others has formed us out of lifeless matter, in the course of a very long material process, therefore the process (universe) needs to be called consciouss too. This conclusion has no basis in reality, but is nothing but a misconception, since the reasoning is wrong.

If a painting is beautifull, and was made out of materials as paint using a paint brush and handled by a painter, do we conclude then (on the basis that the painting is beautifull) that the painting process, the paint, paint brush or painter therefore must be beautifull too?
 
  • #184
Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Let me say again that, when I use the word "accident" I am NOT leading to what I consider to be a crackpot idea: that an "Outside God" with "a Plan" "created the Universe". No.
I can now see that you've obtained your B.S. degree here and, that what you're preaching is the "medium phase" of acceptance between the material world and a spiritual world, and yet if you don't follow through with "its conclusion," all you're really doing is sitting on the fence.

In which case we can either have three "crackpot realities" or, one "consolidated reality."

Now why does this bring to mind the notion of the Holy Trinity? Where the one God is perceived as three, and the three Gods are perceived as one, when in fact it's really only "One God" to begin with. Whereas the idea of three Gods is perceived as insane, and the idea of One God reflects reality as a whole.
 
  • #185
Iacchus...

Actually, if I didn't have to use the term "God" ever again, I would be quite content...because I see the common concept of "God" as an EXTRANEOUS IDEA!

I am not "on the fence". I am solidly on the side of the fence that sees the Universe as a living, conscious Entity that's responsive to all of its parts.

I do NOT see the Universe as something that was "created by" the Great Outsider who has a "Plan" for everything and who knows how it's all going to turn out.

That, to me, is the fairy tail version of the cosmos, born of primitive minds that love their stories!

For me, it is enough that the Universe is an eternal Entity of energy that's EVOLVING.

And I don't think it needs to be "worshipped"...only appreciated .

Now, you have either read this post carefully and -- because you UNDERSTAND what I have said -- you want to rescind your last post to me OR...you still don't get that I don't "believe in God": I believe in the living Entity that is the Universe.

I guess that makes me an IDEALISTIC MATERIALIST!
 
  • #186
Heaven and Hell

Do you or don't you believe in God? If you understood that in fact there was an afterlife, as I do--yeah right!--then I don't think you would be holding the silly notion of a "conscious entity" without ascribing its proper title, i.e., "God." Indeed, you would take the whole thing far more personally.

From the thread, https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1596" ...

From the thread, https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1244&perpage=15&pagenumber=3" ...

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Originally posted by megashawn
If god does truly care, then there is not a heaven or hell, merely afterlife. For any decent person would never inflict life long suffering upon another decent being. If god is not atleast this good, I'll have no part.
The thing of it is is that you have to separate people according to what they believe, otherwise there would be nothing but constant antagonism in the afterlife, in which case it's necessary for hell to exist if only for this reason. Whereas everyone comes into what's called their "ruling love" (that which they love most), which is what guides them and detemines their state of existence in the afterlife.

While it's for this reason that both heaven and hell are very diversified (more than you can imagine), in order to accommodate the myriad of distinctions to be made here. So in this respect everybody finds their own bliss, even for those who are in hell who, as I understand (although rather sado-masochistic in nature), wouldn't have it any other way. This is the only way you can make "everybody" happy.
From the thread, https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1072" ...

"Man after death is his own love or his own will.

This has been proved to me by manifold experience. The entire heaven is divided into societies according to differences of good of love; and every spirit who is taken up into heaven and becomes an angel is taken to the society where his love is; and when he arives there he is, as it were, at home, and in the house where he was born; this the angel perceives, and is affiliated with those there that are like himself. When he goes away to another place he feels constantly a kind of resistance, and a longing to return to his like, thus to his ruling love. Thus are affiliations brought about in heaven; and in a like manner in hell, where all are affiliated in accordance with loves that are the opposite of heavenly loves." ~ http://www.swedenborg.com/" [Broken], Heaven and Hell
This is a very good book by the way, and it's highly recommended.

Originally posted by quantumcarl
That's all very interesting. Hard to prove, mind you!
If in fact heaven and hell does exist, then it only makes sense that it be done in accord with "ruling love." For then it's possible for an interaction (influx) to exist between these states and the current state of reality in the natural world, without out none becoming the wiser of it. Whereas much as everything gets "broken down" into its essential elements in nature, the same could be applied in the spiritual sense, thus giving it a sense of being organic in makeup ... by which everything is allowed to proceed as "normal" without anyone getting too alarmed about it.

Although from time to time the two realities do get breeched, with all sorts of unpredictable results, much of which can be judged as unhealthy for the "sanity" of the respective individuals involved.

Been there and done that!

http://www.dionysus.org/x0501.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #187
I am not "on the fence". I am solidly on the side of the fence that sees the Universe as a living, conscious Entity that's responsive to all of its parts.

The question "Is the universe conscious?" cannot be answered. First of all, you present no reliable evidence that follows the proper criteria for identifying a conscious being. And, most importantly, we have no way of knowing. As I have repeatedly pointed out on this thread, the universe is to us as the atom is to an electron.
An electron has no way of knowing whether or not the atom is alive or not.
 
  • #188
MV

Originally posted by MajinVegeta
The question "Is the universe conscious?" cannot be answered. First of all, you present no reliable evidence that follows the proper criteria for identifying a conscious being. And, most importantly, we have no way of knowing. As I have repeatedly pointed out on this thread, the universe is to us as the atom is to an electron.
An electron has no way of knowing whether or not the atom is alive or not.

As I just said on another thread...

"Speculation" is not a four-letter word. It precedes theory...which precedes testing.

AND...some things can only be "known" by their "effects."

If you do not like to speculate about whether the Universe is conscious or not simply because we can't "prove" or "disprove" it, then why do I keep meeting you here?

I say there IS a way to DISCERN the consciousnes of the Universe...by It's EFFECT(S)...and will make a case for this in a future posting.
 
  • #189


Originally posted by Iacchus32
Do you or don't you believe in God? If you understood that in fact there was an afterlife, as I do--yeah right!--then I don't think you would be holding the silly notion of a "conscious entity" without ascribing its proper title, i.e., "God." Indeed, you would take the whole thing far more personally.


(WHY IS MY RESPONSE BOLD?)

I cannot believe that, after my last posting, you are still asking me whether I believe in "God"!

No, I do NOT believe in the "God" as described by most...as the Great Outsider or the Big Ringmaster in the Sky!

I see the Universe as a physical/mental/and, yes, SPIRITUAL Being that's EVOLVING with -- and through -- the rest of us.

Do I believe that the dynamic, coherent system of energy that is my consciousness (and spirit?) will continue on AFTER the the vehicle it has been inhabiting goes to the recylcing bin...to await ANOTHER vehicle, or to "float around" doing whatever it is that disembodied coherent systems of consciousness do?

Yes!

As to Heaven and Hell...I believe these are FUNDAMENTALLY STATES OF MIND . I do NOT believe that the Great Outsider "judges" us, then sends us to either eternal damnation or bliss.

I believe, that at the moment of "death", our "spirit" judges ITSELF...by experiencing every emotional effect on every being we have ever effected, directly or indirectly, through our ACTIONS. When I say "experience", I mean REALLY FEEL every emotion we have ever caused in each particular lifetime.

Thus, the very EXPERIENCING of our EFFECT is what constitutes a "Heaven" or "Hell".

Think about Hitler: His spirit is probably STILL PROCESSING the pain he caused directly and indirectly.

The Great Outsider is EXTRANEOUS to this PROCESS...which is a NATURAL FUNCTION of the Universe.

Are we clear now about where I stand?
 
Last edited:
  • #190


Originally posted by M. Gaspar
As I just said on another thread...

"Speculation" is not a four-letter word. It precedes theory...which precedes testing.

As I said in the same thread, you are wrong about this chain. Theory is preceded by rigorous testing, not the other way around. You are confusing theory and hypothesis.

AND...some things can only be "known" by their "effects."

Sure, but there is no "effect" that shows any evidence, whatsoever, that the universe is conscious of anything.

If you do not like to speculate about whether the Universe is conscious or not simply because we can't "prove" or "disprove" it, then why do I keep meeting you here?

Don't you realize your error? You are trying to prove a speculation. You can do that in Philosophy. However, you are trying to make your philosophy compatible with science. This you cannot do, until you rigorously test, and make accurate predictions with, your hypothesis.

I say there IS a way to DISCERN the consciousnes of the Universe...by It's EFFECT(S)...and will make a case for this in a future posting.

I await these future postings, as I cannot see any evidence of the universe's being conscious.
 
  • #191


Originally posted by Mentat


Sure, but there is no "effect" that shows any evidence, whatsoever, that the universe is conscious of anything.

I await these future postings, as I cannot see any evidence of the universe's being conscious. [/B]


Actually, Mentat, you may be seeing "evidence" all the time...but just not recognizing it as such.

Meanwhile, you have nudged me into a GREAT DIRECTION ...and now I am PROCESSING...hoping to come back with something that satisfies more rigorous minds than mine.
 
  • #192
M. Gaspar:
We cannot in any way notice the effects that you speak of. Besides, I guess it is appropriate to say that the definition of life is relative. For one, we only base the criteria for life according to what we have observed on earth. Consequently, we cannot infer whether or not the universe is conscious without criteria upon which to base our conclusion on.
 
  • #193
Originally posted by MajinVegeta
M. Gaspar:
We cannot in any way notice the effects that you speak of. Besides, I guess it is appropriate to say that the definition of life is relative. For one, we only base the criteria for life according to what we have observed on earth. Consequently, we cannot infer whether or not the universe is conscious without criteria upon which to base our conclusion on.

I have not, as yet, pointed to any effects...so how can you say that we cannot in any way notice them?
 
  • #194
Then do tell the effects.
 
  • #195
Originally posted by MajinVegeta
The question "Is the universe conscious?" cannot be answered. First of all, you present no reliable evidence that follows the proper criteria for identifying a conscious being. And, most importantly, we have no way of knowing. As I have repeatedly pointed out on this thread, the universe is to us as the atom is to an electron.
An electron has no way of knowing whether or not the atom is alive or not.

I don't know to what "proper criteria" you refer...but I will say that ideas EVOLVE...like everything else. Thus, present definitions might be expanded.

As to "reliable evidence"...I haven't presented ANY "evidence" at all ...as yet.

Finally (but not really), your contention that certain questions "cannot be answered" might be true. However, sometimes a statement such as that turns out to be a little premature.

There was a time when we had "no way of knowing" whether atoms existed...let alone elementary particles.

We, at present, have "no way of knowing" whether "Dark Matter" or "Dark Energy" exist..as they are only predicted by their EFFECT.

For the sake of exploration -- or even conversation -- let us not jump to conclusions that curse the quest.
 
Last edited:
  • #196
Originally posted by MajinVegeta
Then do tell the effects.

In due time.
 
  • #197


Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Actually, Mentat, you may be seeing "evidence" all the time...but just not recognizing it as such.

Meanwhile, you have nudged me into a GREAT DIRECTION ...and now I am PROCESSING...hoping to come back with something that satisfies more rigorous minds than mine.

Flattery. Your mind is every bit as rigorous as mine. I just happen to disagree with you, which is a quality that you don't have :wink:.
 
  • #198
Originally posted by M. Gaspar
In due time.

Are you working on your own hypothesis?
 
  • #199
Originally posted by MajinVegeta
Of course time had to exist in order for the BB to occur. Otherwise it wouldn't make sense. Space had to exist as well, for strings to exist.
what's the theory of eternal inflation?

The theory of inflation is a further developed inflation theory.
Inflation theory initially explained what happened at the begin of the big bang, a rapid (exponentially) expansion of space, which flattens out all the inhomogenities, and causes the visible universe to be so homogenous as it looks now.
The theory of eternal inflation, just states that inflation can reproduce itself, and therefore this scenario doesn't need to have a beginning in time.

The theory of inflation is somewhat complex, it is in fact field dynamics. In inflation theory the material reality is brought back to one or more sclarar fields, that change in time/space. Such changes, can built up in small regions to such an extend that inflation (the rapid expansion of space) occurs, causing the effect of a big bang.

The theory of eternal inflation is developed by Andrei Linde. So far it is a good candidate for describing the beginning of the universe, and solves a number of difficulties in the current big bang theory (why is space so flat, why is the universe so homogeneous, why is the universe so large, what caused galaxy formation, etc).

For more info search in google with the following key words:
"inflation" "eternal" "andrei linde"
 
  • #200
Inflation for beginners

Inflation for Beginners

JOHN GRIBBIN

INFLATION has become a cosmological buzzword in the 1990s. No self-respecting theory of the Universe is complete without a reference to inflation -- and at the same time there is now a bewildering variety of different versions of inflation to choose from. Clearly, what's needed is a beginner's guide to inflation, where newcomers to cosmology can find out just what this exciting development is all about. This is it -- new readers start here.

The reason why something like inflation was needed in cosmology was highlighted by discussions of two key problems in the 1970s. The first of these is the horizon problem -- the puzzle that the Universe looks the same on opposite sides of the sky (opposite horizons) even though there has not been time since the Big Bang for light (or anything else) to travel across the Universe and back. So how do the opposite horizons "know" how to keep in step with each other? The second puzzle is called the flatness problem This is the puzzle that the spacetime of the Universe is very nearly flat, which means that the Universe sits just on the dividing line between eternal expansion and eventual recollapse.

The flatness problem can be understood in terms of the density of the Universe. The density parameter is a measure of the amount of gravitating material in the Universe, usually denoted by the Greek letter omega (O), and also known as the flatness parameter. It is defined in such a way that if spacetime is exactly flat then O = 1. Before the development of the idea of inflation, one of the great puzzles in cosmology was the fact that the actual density of the Universe today is very close to this critical value -- certainly within a factor of 10. This is curious because as the Universe expands away from the Big Bang the expansion will push the density parameter away from the critical value.

If the Universe starts out with the parameter less than one, O gets smaller as the Universe ages, while if it starts out bigger than one O gets bigger as the Universe ages. The fact that O is between 0.1 and 1 today means that in the first second of the Big Bang it was precisely 1 to within 1 part in 1060). This makes the value of the density parameter in the beginning one of the most precisely determined numbers in all of science, and the natural inference is that the value is, and always has been, exactly 1. One important implication of this is that there must be a large amount of dark matter in the Universe. Another is that the Universe was made flat by inflation.

Inflation is a general term for models of the very early Universe which involve a short period of extremely rapid (exponential) expansion, blowing the size of what is now the observable Universe up from a region far smaller than a proton to about the size of a grapefruit (or even bigger) in a small fraction of a second. This process would smooth out spacetime to make the Universe flat, and would also resolve the horizon problem by taking regions of space that were once close enough to have got to know each other well and spreading them far apart, on opposite sides of the visible Universe today.

Inflation became established as the standard model of the very early Universe in the 1980s. It achieved this success not only because it resolves many puzzles about the nature of the Universe, but because it did so using the grand unified theories (GUTs) and understanding of quantum theory developed by particle physicists completely independently of any cosmological studies. These theories of the particle world had been developed with no thought that they might be applied in cosmology (they were in no sense "designed" to tackle all the problems they turned out to solve), and their success in this area suggested to many people that they must be telling us something of fundamental importance about the Universe.

The marriage of particle physics (the study of the very small) and cosmology (the study of the very large) seems to provide an explanation of how the Universe began, and how it got to be the way it is. Inflation is therefore regarded as the most important development in cosmological thinking since the discovery that the Universe is expanding first suggested that it began in a Big Bang.

Taken at face value, the observed expansion of the Universe implies that it was born out of a singularity, a point of infinite density, some 15 billion years ago (cosmologists still disagree about exactly how old the Universe is, but the exact age doesn't affect the argument). Quantum physics tells us that it is meaningless to talk in quite such extreme terms, and that instead we should consider the expansion as having started from a region no bigger across than the so-called Planck length (10-35m), when the density was not infinite but "only" some 1094 grams per cubic centimetre. These are the absolute limits on size and density allowed by quantum physics.

On that picture, the first puzzle is how anything that dense could ever expand -- it would have an enormously strong gravitational field, turning it into a black hole and snuffing it out of existence (back into the singularity) as soon as it was born. But it turns out that inflation can prevent this happening, while quantum physics allows the entire Universe to appear, in this supercompact form, out of nothing at all, as a cosmic free lunch. The idea that the Universe may have appeared out of nothing at all, and contains zero energy overall, was developed by Edward Tryon, of the City University in New York, who suggested in the 1970s, that it might have appeared out of nothing as a so-called vacuum fluctuation, allowed by quantum theory.

Quantum uncertainty allows the temporary creation of bubbles of energy, or pairs of particles (such as electron-positron pairs) out of nothing, provided that they disappear in a short time. The less energy is involved, the longer the bubble can exist. Curiously, the energy in a gravitational field is negative, while the energy locked up in matter is positive. If the Universe is exactly flat , then as Tryon pointed out the two numbers cancel out, and the overall energy of the Universe is precisely zero. In that case, the quantum rules allow it to last forever. If you find this mind-blowing, you are in good company. George Gamow told in his book My World Line (Viking, New York, reprinted 1970) how he was having a conversation with Albert Einstein while walking through Princeton in the 1940s. Gamow casually mentioned that one of his colleagues had pointed out to him that according to Einstein's equations a star could be created out of nothing at all, because its negative gravitational energy precisely cancels out its positive mass energy. "Einstein stopped in his tracks," says Gamow, "and, since we were crossing a street, several cars had to stop to avoid running us down".

Unfortunately, if a quantum bubble (about as big as the Planck length) containing all the mass-energy of the Universe (or even a star) did appear out of nothing at all, its intense gravitational field would (unless something else intervened) snuff it out of existence immediately, crushing it into a singularity. So the free lunch Universe seemed at first like an irrelevant speculation -- but, as with the problems involving the extreme flatness of spacetime, and its appearance of extreme homogeneity and isotropy (most clearly indicated by the uniformity of the background radiation), the development of the inflationary scenario showed how to remove this difficulty and allow such a quantum fluctuation to expand exponentially up to macroscopic size before gravity could crush it out of existence.. All of these problems would be resolved if something gave the Universe a violent outward push (in effect, acting like antigravity) when it was still about a Planck length in size. Such a small region of space would be too tiny, initially, to contain irregularities, so it would start off homogeneous and isotropic. There would have been plenty of time for signals traveling at the speed of light to have criss-crossed the ridiculously tiny volume, so there is no horizon problem -- both sides of the embryonic universe are "aware" of each other. And spacetime itself gets flattened by the expansion, in much the same way that the wrinkly surface of a prune becomes a smooth, flat surface when the prune is placed in water and swells up. As in the standard Big Bang model, we can still think of the Universe as like the skin of an expanding balloon, but now we have to think of it as an absolutely enormous balloon that was hugely inflated during the first split second of its existence.

[to be continued]
 
  • #201
Inflation for beginners [part 2]

The reason why the GUTs created such a sensation when they were applied to cosmology is that they predict the existence of exactly the right kind of mechanisms to do this trick. They are called scalar fields, and they are associated with the splitting apart of the original grand unified force into the fundamental forces we know today, as the Universe began to expand and cool. Gravity itself would have split off at the Planck time, 10-43 of a second, and the strong nuclear force by about 10(exp-35) of a second. Within about 10-32 of a second, the scalar fields would have done their work, doubling the size of the Universe at least once every 10-34 of a second (some versions of inflation suggest even more rapid expansion than this).

This may sound modest, but it would mean that in 1032 of a second there were 100 doublings. This rapid expansion is enough to take a quantum fluctuation 1020 times smaller than a proton and inflate it to a sphere about 10 cm across in about 15 x 1033 seconds. At that point, the scalar field has done its work of kick-starting the Universe, and is settling down, giving up its energy and leaving a hot fireball expanding so rapidly that even though gravity can now begin to do its work of pulling everything back into a Big Crunch it will take hundreds of billions of years to first halt the expansion and then reverse it.

Curiously, this kind of exponential expansion of spacetime is exactly described by one of the first cosmological models developed using the general theory of relativity, by Willem de Sitter in 1917. For more than half a century, this de Sitter model seemed to be only a mathematical curiosity, of no relevance to the real Universe; but it is now one of the cornerstones of inflationary cosmology.

When the general theory of relativity was published in 1916, de Sitter reviewed the theory and developed his own ideas in a series of three papers which he sent to the Royal Astronomical Society in London. The third of these papers included discussion of possible cosmological models -- both what turned out to be an expanding universe (the first model of this kind to be developed, although the implications were not fully appreciated in 1917) and an oscillating universe model.

De Sitter's solution to Einstein's equations seemed to describe an empty, static Universe (empty spacetime). But in the early 1920s it was realized that if a tiny amount of matter was added to the model (in the form of particles scattered throughout the spacetime), they would recede from each other exponentially fast as the spacetime expanded. This means that the distance between two particles would double repeatedly on the same timescale, so they would be twice as far apart after one tick of some cosmic clock, four times as far apart after two ticks, eight times as far apart after three ticks, sixteen times as far apart after four ticks, and so on. It would be as if each step you took down the road took you twice as far as the previous step.

This seemed to be completely unrealistic; even when the expansion of the Universe was discovered, later in the 1920s, it turned out to be much more sedate. In the expanding Universe as we see it now, the distances between "particles" (clusters of galaxies) increase steadily -- they take one step for each click of the cosmic clock, so the distance is increased by a total of two steps after two clicks, three steps after three clicks, and so on. In the 1980s, however, when the theory of inflation suggested that the Universe really did undergo a stage of exponential expansion during the first split-second after its birth, this inflationary exponential expansion turned out to be exactly described by the de Sitter model, the first successful cosmological solution to Einstein's equations of the general theory of relativity.

One of the peculiarities of inflation is that it seems to take place faster than the speed of light. Even light takes 30 billionths of a second (3 x 10(exp-10) sec) to cross a single centimetre, and yet inflation expands the Universe from a size much smaller than a proton to 10 cm across in only 15 x 10(exp-33) sec. This is possible because it is spacetime itself that is expanding, carrying matter along for the ride; nothing is moving through spacetime faster than light, either during inflation or ever since. Indeed, it is just because the expansion takes place so quickly that matter has no time to move while it is going on and the process "freezes in" the original uniformity of the primordial quantum bubble that became our Universe.

The inflationary scenario has already gone through several stages of development during its short history. The first inflationary model was developed by Alexei Starobinsky, at the L. D. Landau Institute of Theoretical Physics in Moscow, at the end of the 1970s -- but it was not then called "inflation". It was a very complicated model based on a quantum theory of gravity, but it caused a sensation among cosmologists in what was then the Soviet Union, becoming known as the "Starobinsky model" of the Universe. Unfortunately, because of the difficulties Soviet scientists still had in traveling abroad or communicating with colleagues outside the Soviet sphere of influence at that time, the news did not spread outside their country.

In 1981, Alan Guth, then at MIT, published a different version of the inflationary scenario, not knowing anything of Starobinsky's work. This version was more accessible in both senses of the word -- it was easier to understand, and Guth was based in the US, able to discuss his ideas freely with colleagues around the world. And as a bonus, Guth came up with the catchy name "inflation" for the process he was describing. There were obvious flaws with the specific details of Guth's original model (which he acknowledged at the time). In particular, Guth's model left the Universe after inflation filled with a mess of bubbles, all expanding in their own way and colliding with one another. We see no evidence for these bubbles in the real Universe, so obviously the simplest model of inflation couldn't be right. But it was this version of the idea that made every cosmologist aware of the power of inflation.

In October 1981, there was an international meeting in Moscow, where inflation was a major talking point. Stephen Hawking presented a paper claiming that inflation could not be made to work at all, but the Russian cosmologist Andrei Linde presented an improved version, called "new inflation", which got around the difficulties with Guth's model. Ironically, Linde was the official translator for Hawking's talk, and had the embarrassing task of offering the audience the counter-argument to his own work! But after the formal presentations Hawking was persuaded that Linde was right, and inflation might be made to work after all. Within a few months, the new inflationary scenario was also published by Andreas Albrecht and Paul Steinhardt, of the University of Pennsylvania, and by the end of 1982 inflation was well established. Linde has been involved in most of the significant developments with the theory since then. The next step forward came with the realization that there need not be anything special about the Planck- sized region of spacetime that expanded to become our Universe. If that was part of some larger region of spacetime in which all kinds of scalar fields were at work, then only the regions in which those fields produced inflation could lead to the emergence of a large universe like our own. Linde called this "chaotic inflation", because the scalar fields can have any value at different places in the early super-universe; it is the standard version of inflation today, and can be regarded as an example of the kind of reasoning associated with the anthropic principle (but note that this use of the term "chaos" is like the everyday meaning implying a complicated mess, and has nothing to do with the mathematical subject known as "chaos theory").

The idea of chaotic inflation led to what is (so far) the ultimate development of the inflationary scenario. The great unanswered question in standard Big Bang cosmology is what came "before" the singularity. It is often said that the question is meaningless, since time itself began at the singularity. But chaotic inflation suggests that our Universe grew out of a quantum fluctuation in some pre-existing region of spacetime, and that exactly equivalent processes can create regions of inflation within our own Universe. In effect, new universes bud off from our Universe, and our Universe may itself have budded off from another universe, in a process which had no beginning and will have no end. A variation on this theme suggests that the "budding" process takes place through black holes, and that every time a black hole collapses into a singularity it "bounces" out into another set of spacetime dimensions, creating a new inflationary universe -- this is called the baby universe scenario.

[to be continued]
 
  • #202
Inflation for beginners [part 3]

There are similarities between the idea of eternal inflation and a self-reproducing universe and the version of the Steady State hypothesis developed in England by Fred Hoyle and Jayant Narlikar, with their C-field playing the part of the scalar field that drives inflation. As Hoyle wryly pointed out at a meeting of the Royal Astronomical Society in London in December 1994, the relevant equations in inflation theory are exactly the same as in his version of the Steady State idea, but with the letter "C" replaced by the Greek "Ø". "This," said Hoyle (tongue firmly in cheek) "makes all the difference in the world".

Modern proponents of the inflationary scenario arrived at these equations entirely independently of Hoyle's approach, and are reluctant to accept this analogy, having cut their cosmological teeth on the Big Bang model. Indeed, when Guth was asked, in 1980, how the then new idea of inflation related to the Steady State theory, he is reported as replying "what is the Steady State theory?" But although inflation is generally regarded as a development of Big Bang cosmology, it is better seen as marrying the best features of both the Big Bang and the Steady State scenarios.

This might all seem like a philosophical debate as futile as the argument about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, except for the fact that observations of the background radiation by COBE showed exactly the pattern of tiny irregularities that the inflationary scenario predicts. One of the first worries about the idea of inflation (long ago in 1981) was that it might be too good to be true. In particular, if the process was so efficient at smoothing out the Universe, how could irregularities as large as galaxies, clusters of galaxies and so on ever have arisen? But when the researchers looked more closely at the equations they realized that quantum fluctuations should still have been producing tiny ripples in the structure of the Universe even when our Universe was only something like 10(exp-25) of a centimetre across -- a hundred million times bigger than the Planck length.

The theory said that inflation should have left behind an expanded version of these fluctuations, in the form of irregularities in the distribution of matter and energy in the Universe. These density perturbations would have left an imprint on the background radiation at the time matter and radiation decoupled (about 300,000 years after the Big Bang), producing exactly the kind of nonuniformity in the background radiation that has now been seen, initially by COBE and later by other instruments. After decoupling, the density fluctuations grew to become the large scale structure of the Universe revealed today by the distribution of galaxies. This means that the COBE observations are actually giving us information about what was happening in the Universe when it was less than 10-20 of a second old.

No other theory can explain both why the Universe is so uniform overall, and yet contains exactly the kind of "ripples" represented by the distribution of galaxies through space and by the variations in the background radiation. This does not prove that the inflationary scenario is correct, but it is worth remembering that had COBE found a different pattern of fluctuations (or no fluctuations at all) that would have proved the inflationary scenario wrong. In the best scientific tradition, the theory made a major and unambiguous prediction which did "come true". Inflation also predicts that the primordial perturbations may have left a trace in the form of gravitational radiation with particular characteristics, and it is hoped that detectors sensitive enough to identify this characteristic radiation may be developed within the next ten or twenty years.

The clean simplicity of this simple picture of inflation has now, however, begun to be obscured by refinements, as inflationary cosmologists add bells and whistles to their models to make them match more closely the Universe we see about us. Some of the bells and whistles, it has to be said, are studied just for fun. Linde himself has taken great delight in pushing inflation to extremes, and offering entertaining new insights into how the Universe might be constructed. For example, could our Universe exist on the inside of a single magnetic monopole produced by cosmic inflation? According to Linde, it is at least possible, and may be likely. And in a delicious touch of irony, Linde, who now works at Stanford University, made this outrageous claim in a lecture at a workshop on the Birth of the Universe held recently in Rome, where the view of Creation is usually rather different. One of the reasons why theorists came up with the idea of inflation in the first place was precisely to get rid of magnetic monopoles -- strange particles carrying isolated north or south magnetic fields, predicted by many Grand Unified Theories of physics but never found in nature. Standard models of inflation solve the "monopole problem" by arguing that the seed from which our entire visible Universe grew was a quantum fluctuation so small that it only contained one monopole. That monopole is still out there, somewhere in the Universe, but it is highly unlikely that it will ever pass our way.

But Linde has discovered that, according to theory, the conditions that create inflation persist inside a magnetic monopole even after inflation has halted in the Universe at large. Such a monopole would look like a magnetically charged black hole, connecting our Universe through a wormhole in spacetime to another region of inflating spacetime. Within this region of inflation, quantum processes can produce monopole-antimonopole pairs, which then separate exponentially rapidly as a result of the inflation. Inflation then stops, leaving an expanding Universe rather like our own which may contain one or two monopoles, within each of which there are more regions of inflating spacetime.

The result is a never-ending fractal structure, with inflating universes embedded inside each other and connected through the magnetic monopole wormholes. Our Universe may be inside a monopole which is inside another universe which is inside another monopole, and so on indefinitely. What Linde calls "the continuous creation of exponentially expanding space" means that "monopoles by themselves can solve the monopole problem". Although it seems bizarre, the idea is, he stresses, "so simple that it certainly deserves further investigation".

That variation on the theme really is just for fun, and it is hard to see how it could ever be compared with observations of the real Universe. But most of the modifications to inflation now being made are in response to new observations, and in particular to the suggestion that spacetime may not be quite "flat" after all. In the mid-1990s, many studies (including observations made by the refurbished Hubble Space Telescope) began to suggest that there might not be quite enough matter in the Universe to make it perfectly flat -- most of the observations suggest that there is only 20 per cent or 30 per cent as much matter around as the simplest versions of inflation require. The shortfall is embarrassing, because one of the most widely publicised predictions of simple inflation was the firm requirement of exactly 100 per cent of this critical density of matter. But there are ways around the difficulty; and here are two of them to be going on with.

The first suggestion is almost heretical, in the light of the way astronomy has developed since the time of Copernicus. Is it possible that we are living near the centre of the Universe? For centuries, the history of astronomy has seen humankind displaced from any special position. First the Earth was seen to revolve around the Sun, then the Sun was seen to be an insignificant member of the Milky Way Galaxy, then the Galaxy was seen to be an ordinary member of the cosmos. But now comes the suggestion that the "ordinary" place to find observers like us may be in the middle of a bubble in a much greater volume of expanding space.

The conventional version of inflation says that our entire visible Universe is just one of many bubbles of inflation, each doing their own thing somewhere out in an eternal sea of chaotic inflation, but that the process of rapid expansion forces spacetime in all the bubbles to be flat. A useful analogy is with the bubbles that form in a bottle of fizzy cola when the top is opened. But that suggestion, along with other cherished cosmological beliefs, has now been challenged by Linde, working with his son Dmitri Linde (of CalTech) and Arthur Mezhlumian (also of Stanford).

Linde and his colleagues point out that the Universe we live in is like a hole in a sea of superdense, exponentially expanding inflationary cosmic material, within which there are other holes. All kinds of bubble universes will exist, and it is possible to work out the statistical nature of their properties. In particular, the two Lindes and Mezhlumian have calculated the probability of finding yourself in a region of this super- Universe with a particular density -- for example, the density of "our" Universe.

[to be continued]
 
  • #203
Inflation for beginners [end]

A double dose of inflation may be something to make the Government's hair turn grey -- but it could be just what cosmologists need to rescue their favourite theory of the origin of the Universe. By turning inflation on twice, they have found a way to have all the benefits of the inflationary scenario, while still leaving the Universe in an "open" state, so that it will expand forever.
In those simplest inflation models, remember, the big snag is that after inflation even the observable Universe is left like a mass of bubbles, each expanding in its own way. We see no sign of this structure, which has led to all the refinements of the basic model. Now, however, Martin Bucher and Neil Turok, of Princeton University, working with Alfred Goldhaber, of the State University of New York, have turned this difficulty to advantage.

They suggest that after the Universe had been homogenised by the original bout of inflation, a second burst of inflation could have occurred within one of the bubbles. As inflation begins (essentially at a point), the density is effectively "reset" to zero, and rises towards the critical density as inflation proceeds and energy from the inflation process is turned into mass. But because the Universe has already been homogenised, there is no need to require this bout of inflation to last until the density reaches the critical value. It can stop a little sooner, leaving an open bubble (what we see as our entire visible Universe) to carry on expanding at a more sedate rate. They actually use what looked like the fatal flaw in Guth's model as the basis for their scenario. According to Bucher and his colleagues, an end product looking very much like the Universe we live in can arise naturally in this way, with no "fine tuning" of the inflationary parameters. All they have done is to use the very simplest possible version of inflation, going back to Alan Guth's work, but to apply it twice. And you don't have to stop there. Once any portion of expanding spacetime has been smoothed out by inflation, new inflationary bubbles arising inside that volume of spacetime will all be pre-smoothed and can end up with any amount of matter from zero to the critical density (but no more). This should be enough to make everybody happy. Indeed, the biggest problem now is that the vocabulary of cosmology doesn't quite seem adequate to the task of describing all this activity.

The term Universe, with the capital "U", is usually used for everything that we can ever have knowledge of, the entire span of space and time accessible to our instruments, now and in the future. This may seem like a fairly comprehensive definition, and in the past it has traditionally been regarded as synonymous with the entirety of everything that exists. But the development of ideas such as inflation suggests that there may be something else beyond the boundaries of the observable Universe -- regions of space and time that are unobservable in principle, not just because light from them has not yet had time to reach us, or because our telescopes are not sensitive enough to detect their light.

This has led to some ambiguity in the use of the term "Universe". Some people restrict it to the observable Universe, while others argue that it should be used to refer to all of space and time. If we use "Universe" as the name for our own expanding bubble of spacetime, everything that is in principle visible to our telescopes, then maybe the term "Cosmos" can be used to refer to the entirety of space and time, within which (if the inflationary scenario is correct) there may be an indefinitely large number of other expanding bubbles of spacetime, other universes with which we can never communicate. Cosmologists ought to be happy with the suggestion, since it makes their subject infinitely bigger and therefore infinitely more important!

Further reading: John Gribbin, Companion to the Cosmos, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London, 1996.
 
  • #204
Originally posted by MajinVegeta
Are you working on your own hypothesis?

Yes, I THOUGHT I was...but the more I "surf the net" the more I have come to see that I've been "scooped"!

Still, I seem to bring out enough disagreement within these threads to keep it interesting (for me)...while pointing to the "fact" that so many "aren't there yet".

:wink:
 
  • #205
Iacchus:

Here it is. Input welcome.
 
  • #206
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #207
Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Is the Universe conscious? Is It a living Entity? How might one set about "proving" It's "alive" and "conscious"?

conscious is a byproduct of a series of evolutionary events that took place on earth. why are humans always trying to personify inanimate objects by giving them a concious. i think we simply cannot understand what it truly means to be 'unconcious'.
 
  • #208


Originally posted by maximus
i think we simply cannot understand what it truly means to be 'unconcious'.
That must be true!
"understand" is contradicting with "unconscious".
It's like eating soup with a fork.

By using the brain you will not 'know' what unconsciousness is.

Learning how to create THETA brainwaves may give you although some access to deeper areas of collective unconsciousness (CG Jung) and areas of interconnectedness.
 
Last edited:
  • #209


Originally posted by pelastration


It's like eating soup with a fork.


i have occasionally eaten soup with a fork.
 
  • #210


Originally posted by maximus
i have occasionally eaten soup with a fork.

yah ... I do it always with Chinese sticks.
 
<h2>1. What is the concept of a conscious universe?</h2><p>The concept of a conscious universe suggests that the universe itself is conscious and aware, rather than just being a collection of unconscious matter. This idea proposes that the universe has a purpose and that consciousness is a fundamental aspect of it.</p><h2>2. How is the possibility of a conscious universe being studied?</h2><p>The study of a conscious universe is a complex and ongoing process. Scientists are exploring various theories and conducting experiments to understand the nature and potential of consciousness in the universe. Some approaches include studying the brain, quantum mechanics, and the concept of panpsychism.</p><h2>3. What evidence supports the idea of a conscious universe?</h2><p>While there is no definitive evidence yet, some scientists argue that certain phenomena, such as the observer effect in quantum mechanics, suggest the presence of consciousness in the universe. Additionally, the complexity and order of the universe may also be seen as evidence of a conscious design.</p><h2>4. What are the potential implications of a conscious universe?</h2><p>If proven, the concept of a conscious universe could have significant implications for our understanding of the universe and our place in it. It could also impact our understanding of consciousness and its role in the universe, potentially leading to new scientific and philosophical discoveries.</p><h2>5. Is there a consensus among scientists about the possibility of a conscious universe?</h2><p>There is currently no consensus among scientists about the concept of a conscious universe. Some argue that it is a valid and promising theory, while others remain skeptical and believe that more evidence is needed to support it. As research and understanding continue to evolve, we may gain a better understanding of the possibility of a conscious universe.</p>

1. What is the concept of a conscious universe?

The concept of a conscious universe suggests that the universe itself is conscious and aware, rather than just being a collection of unconscious matter. This idea proposes that the universe has a purpose and that consciousness is a fundamental aspect of it.

2. How is the possibility of a conscious universe being studied?

The study of a conscious universe is a complex and ongoing process. Scientists are exploring various theories and conducting experiments to understand the nature and potential of consciousness in the universe. Some approaches include studying the brain, quantum mechanics, and the concept of panpsychism.

3. What evidence supports the idea of a conscious universe?

While there is no definitive evidence yet, some scientists argue that certain phenomena, such as the observer effect in quantum mechanics, suggest the presence of consciousness in the universe. Additionally, the complexity and order of the universe may also be seen as evidence of a conscious design.

4. What are the potential implications of a conscious universe?

If proven, the concept of a conscious universe could have significant implications for our understanding of the universe and our place in it. It could also impact our understanding of consciousness and its role in the universe, potentially leading to new scientific and philosophical discoveries.

5. Is there a consensus among scientists about the possibility of a conscious universe?

There is currently no consensus among scientists about the concept of a conscious universe. Some argue that it is a valid and promising theory, while others remain skeptical and believe that more evidence is needed to support it. As research and understanding continue to evolve, we may gain a better understanding of the possibility of a conscious universe.

Similar threads

Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
3
Views
312
  • Cosmology
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
924
  • Cosmology
Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Back
Top