The Anthropic Principle - Cosmology Lovers dive-in
In 1973, Brandon Carter published a paper (attached below) which tries to explain the "coincidences" in Physics of our universe from an Anthropic (human-centered) point of view.
Very crudely, he insists that although we as living creatures have no "special" status in this universe (Copernican Theory), we are still "privileged". So many universal constants in physics are just right so as to promote life (the gravitational constant, the binding force or coupling constant, etc). If the gravitational constant were slightly larger or smaller than it actually is, stars and planets would not exist in a fashion so as to promote life. The coupling constant is "marginally strong enough", to bind protons and neutrons in a nucleus. Had it been slightly weaker, only Hydrogen would exist and no life was possible. His theory says that: it is no coincidence that these constants are just right in our universe; for if they were not, we would not exist to notice the difference!
That is, we exist because of the rightness of these constants and hence it should be no surprise to find them "just right"!
That makes some sense. He makes a strong argument. But it also raises the questions of "multiverses". Assuming that there are infinite universes each with a set of its own universal constants, obviously, very few of them would be "right" for life existence, and the rest of them would go unnoticed for the lack of life. Of course, I assume, "multiverse" was not a widely accepted idea at that point in time (recent developments have divided physicists and some of them believe it to be a possibility, thanks to String/M-theory, etc.)
This makes a good read, all lovers of basic sciences, dive in. Let us discuss our views and ideas. Of course, if you do not agree with this principle/idea, you would join the league with Leonard Susskind, one of the greatest minds alive! You cannot go wrong on either side 😀
Very crudely, he insists that although we as living creatures have no "special" status in this universe (Copernican Theory), we are still "privileged". So many universal constants in physics are just right so as to promote life (the gravitational constant, the binding force or coupling constant, etc). If the gravitational constant were slightly larger or smaller than it actually is, stars and planets would not exist in a fashion so as to promote life. The coupling constant is "marginally strong enough", to bind protons and neutrons in a nucleus. Had it been slightly weaker, only Hydrogen would exist and no life was possible. His theory says that: it is no coincidence that these constants are just right in our universe; for if they were not, we would not exist to notice the difference!
That is, we exist because of the rightness of these constants and hence it should be no surprise to find them "just right"!
That makes some sense. He makes a strong argument. But it also raises the questions of "multiverses". Assuming that there are infinite universes each with a set of its own universal constants, obviously, very few of them would be "right" for life existence, and the rest of them would go unnoticed for the lack of life. Of course, I assume, "multiverse" was not a widely accepted idea at that point in time (recent developments have divided physicists and some of them believe it to be a possibility, thanks to String/M-theory, etc.)
This makes a good read, all lovers of basic sciences, dive in. Let us discuss our views and ideas. Of course, if you do not agree with this principle/idea, you would join the league with Leonard Susskind, one of the greatest minds alive! You cannot go wrong on either side 😀
0
