Ask a Physicist

[Arius]

I would, because gravity is theoretical and we know how it works. So, something we understand much much less about would be highly theoretical.

Don't take me as to saying they don't exist. I'm saying they are a theory that might have a different explanation than our current. That we don't understand it.

I just said that.

I said that.

[Nodge]

Fizzecks doods;
Which ElectroActive Polymer has the highest tensile strength? Dielectric or Ionic, it's for bench testing an interesting actuator so any arrangementI'm not fussy.
Thanks!

[Alja-Markir]

Hoo boy, you mean commercially available in your part of the world? What scale of mass? What range of current? How many tensile vectors? Standard atmospheric conditions?

My prefered synther on the NSec post would know exactly what you'd need for a fine all purpose, but I doubt he has the lowtech and I'm not sure he'd deal with the restricted access routing on the rest. Even that aside, it'd be bulk which kinda defeats the purpose unless I had wanted to contravene a half dozen further dicti on top of all else.

~Alja~

[Nodge]

Never mind. Further research has yielded some results as it usually does. After a day of faffing about, it turns out that given the criteria of the test we effectively have a choice of one anyway D'oh.

[Alja-Markir]

Hrrm. And here I was thinking I'd drop a care package of sorts from low orbit for shits and giggles.

~Alja~

[Arius]

Care packages, raining down from the sky like hundreds of meteorites. Crushing small children and destroying homes.

[Alja-Markir]

It's like you can see into my fondest dreams.

~Alja~

[Master Gunner]

Don't those generally involve trebuchets and the Pacific Ocean though?

[Alja-Markir]

*squinty eye*

Launched from a trebuchet into the Pacific Ocean....

...

...while falling from orbit.

~Alja~

[Master Gunner]

That seems.....excessive.


Fucking Awesome, but excessive.

[Seraphroy]

That seems.....excessive.


Fucking Awesome, but excessive.

Aren't those the best kinds of dreams, though?

[Metcarfre]

I've heard it said of late that the various constants of the universe, such as the gravitational constant and the rates of various nuclear decompositions, as well as other constants, appear particularly suited to produce the universe we have and the ability to support life. The apparent precision of these constants appears to be highly unlikely to have occured in a random manner. This has given rise to a "multi-verse" hypothesis, where our universe is but one of a nigh-infinite series of universes with constants of varying values.

Is this something seriously considered by physicists or the mere blathering of those not well versed in the field?

[Master Gunner]

According to "A Brief History of Time" (a bit out of date, but yes, I actually read it), whether or not "other universes" exist is completely irrelevant, because if they're other universes, they can't interact with ours, and if they have no effect, they don't exist. If it were possible to bridge over and have one effect the other, then (because the universe is defined as "everything") there'd still just be "one" universe, but it would now also include the "other" one.

Sometimes I think we need to clean up a few definitions a bit.

[Metcarfre]

The relevance is that, were there to be but one universe, apparently as fine-tuned as ours to support life, it would lend credence to the idea of a Creator.

[Master Gunner]

If you go by the traditional sci-fi concept of alternate universes, for the sake of argument, then we'd only exist in the ones capable of supporting life (i.e. this one), then when you apply the actual concept of "the universe" to it (as I understand it, at least), all of those "other universes" in which we don't exist become irrelevant and "stop existing" for all intents and purposes.

So I guess the universe is that fine-tuned because we're around to talk about it being that fine-tuned.

[Nodge]

I've always found it a bit of a specious argument, it seems deeply subjective. It also does not take into account that in the long term what we consider to be a constant may turn out to be a variable. By way of comparison;
Imagine a puddle. It sits in a slight depression in the earth, the ground around it impacted to preserve water content and maintain temperature. From the puddles' perspective, might the ground not have been arranged for its' own benefit? As the sun rises and the puddle begins to evaporate, would the puddle begin to begrudge the depression in the ground that was its' Universe, or plead for mercy?
Answer: No, it's a puddle (shut up, Nodge).
What I'm trying to impart is the idea that it isn't that this Universe is shaped for life, it's that life has shaped itself for this universe.
Does that help?

[tamaness]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMamn4VbmBQ

from a youtube channel particularly suited to this discussion.

[Alja-Markir]

The relevance is that, were there to be but one universe, apparently as fine-tuned as ours to support life, it would lend credence to the idea of a Creator.

How the heck can anyone say, "Oh, the likelihood of these observed patterns forming as physical law is astoundingly low!"?

Has anyone witnessed the formation of physical laws? Hell no. You can't judge the odds of something you've never observed. Nuclear physics shouldn't make you believe in a higher order any more than the fact that water is a solvent or the fact that organic life is made of carbon. If, instead, water was a weakly reactive metalloid and organic life was made of boron, we'd still think those rules of reality made just as much sense (assuming we could still exist as life).

Humans merely observe how the universe is and how it operates. Physics merely describes those observations. That alone cannot be used to determine if the laws of reality themselves are or are not the product of a higher being of some sort.

Furthermore, "higher beings" do exist and can "bend" the laws of reality, but really all we do is find loopholes. As they say, any sufficiently advanced technology is indestinguishable from magic.

Humans press a button and turn on miniature worlds of electrical data called computers. Yet they think nothing of it, and it makes sense in its own right. Humans have simply figured out how to combine certain substances in certain arrangements, and then add certain amounts of energy in certain forms, and regulate it all appropriately to end up with a computer. It's no different in principle than starting a fire by rubbing sticks together.

I myself don't do much different, and even a lot of the technology I rely on to travel through time reliably I don't understand perfectly because others developed it, as well a lot of the physics behind it being hazy in my mind. The real reason I'm classified as a demi-god has less to do with my personal achievements or understanding than it does with the bizarre nature of my own reality which allows me to operate under a subset of physical laws most beings lack access to. I can, in the right circumstances, travel through time with only my physical form and personal will. It is excrutiatingly painful and incredibly dangerous and I nearly destroyed an entire star system the first time I did it, but it's still entirely possible.

Even the full fledged deities are more super powered life forms than masters of the universe. It's simply a difference in the technology scale. To use a crude analogy, the deities are like high tech space farers, I'm like a modern industrial world, and you guys are like hunter gatherers. If the deities came down and used their technology to do "impossible" things and "bend" the rules of reality, you all would think it divine intervention and miracles, magic in pure form. Meanwhile I'm a little less removed, and can understand it's simply an advanced understanding of the universe that they possess, and perhaps I too can find my way to that level of knowledge and power.

~Alja~

[Lyinginbedmon]

What people neglect is that the Big Bang functioned under laws of some kind and they've just normalised over time.

And that life on Earth is about as big a surprise as the universe being nice enough for it to be around period.

Really even if the laws were different "life" would probably still find a way.

[Alja-Markir]

Really even if the laws were different "life" would probably still find a way.

I can personally attest to this fact.

I still have the scars. But damn did it feel nice.

~Alja~

[Master Gunner]

Eh, I've had better.

[BritchesStitches]

The relevance is that, were there to be but one universe, apparently as fine-tuned as ours to support life, it would lend credence to the idea of a Creator.

How can you possibly say that??? The idea of the existence of a being capable of creating a "fine-tuned" universe is staggeringly less plausible than the existence of a fine-tuned universe.

[Metcarfre]

It's not really pertinent to the original question I had so just leave it at that.