Shulou(Shulou.com)11/24 Report--

This article comes from the official account of Wechat: back to Park (ID:fanpu2019), by George Ellis, translated by Liu Yihan and Zhang Yi

In the past two decades, whether the theory of physics can go beyond the "falsifiable" paradigm has aroused extensive discussion among physicists and philosophers of science. What should people, including physicists, think of theories that lack empirical evidence? Is such a scientific theory still scientific? This article can be seen as a response to the argument. Professor George Ellis (George Ellis), a famous theoretical physicist, systematically examined various theories of the multiverse-including dozens of different types of inflation theories, anthropic principles, etc.-and considered some arguments to the contrary, and concluded that the lack of experimental proof is the real problem-and will remain so in the future.

Theoretical physics and cosmology are in a strange situation. Since the 17th century, scientific theory has been bound by experiments. String theory (string theory) and multiverse theory (multiverse) have shrugged off this shackle over the past 20 years or so, and their proponents argue that this is not the time for theory to succumb to experiments.

That's what's weird.

A multiverse is a collection, set, or ensemble that may not be connected to each other. It is possible because no one knows if they exist. Max Tegmark envisioned four different multiuniverses, and Green (B. Green) envisioned nine. There's nothing more than that.

Cosmologist Martin Rees believes that our universe cannot end in the visible horizon (visual horizon). "this shell is no more physical than the boundary you see in the middle of the ocean," he wrote. " [2] beyond the visible horizon of the universe, there must be farther areas that we cannot see. Columbus (Christopher Columbus) had a similar view, after all, he was right.

Alan Guth, Andrei Linde and Alexander Vilenkin have all accepted the multiverse theory because it conforms to some current cosmological theories. Before the Hot Big Bang of the very early universe, almost immediately after the Big Bang, there was a period of extremely rapid exponential expansion. The various expansions of this period may have produced many different universes, and the parameters of these multiuniverses are very different [3].

Multiple universes appear simultaneously in cosmology and particle physics. Leonard Susskind believes that string theory is the correct theory of quantum gravity. Different string vacuum is very different, so their physical properties are different, or may change. In principle, each string vacuum represents a universe. They may have something to do with the expanding universe. Because no one is sure which is the real universe, Saskander tends to think that all multiuniverses are real.

Roger Penrose, Lee Smolin, Paul Steinhardt and Neil Turok all believe that multiverses are produced in time rather than space. As Smalling proposed, each time a new and expanding universe is created, their natural constants are different, which leads to endless evolution. But if, as Penrose said, if the natural constants are all the same, the result is eternal normalization.

Sean Carroll, Deutsch, Tegmark and David Wallace all claim that after each measurement, the quantum wave function of the universe splits into multiple branches. Each branch is a universe [4]. The idea was first proposed by Hugh Everett III III in his doctoral thesis at Princeton University. (editor's note: see "Fantasy of many Worlds: the strangest Scientific Theory is not self-consistent") multiple worlds appear because of the bifurcation of wave functions, after which the universes maintain some kind of superposition, fully obeying the linear, deterministic Schrodinger equation, and the wave function never collapses (collapse). Everett's plan does not require the Born rule rule. But the latter determines that the square of the amplitude of the wave function is a probability measure (measure of probability). So something has to take its place or have the same effect. Some physicists believe that the multiple worlds of quantum mechanics (many world) are the same as the multiple worlds of multiple universes. Other physicists claim that the multiverse is necessary to give accurate operational meaning to the probability prediction of quantum mechanics [5].

David Lewis and Dennis Sciama proposed a strong form of modal positivism, that is, reality. (translator's note: modal realism refers to the existence of other possible worlds besides the real world in which human beings live. People who believe in the existence of this possible world are called modal positivists. See, for example, Philosophy of Logic,Handbook of the Philosophy of Science,2007997-1022. A possible world can be identified by a set of criteria that are most consistent. One world where Lewis may be the emperor of Antarctica, and another where he is not the emperor, at least because of this criterion. Otherwise, the two worlds are ontologically identical. A multiverse is a collection of all possible worlds.

This raises an interesting question: is the multiple universe an appropriate scientific object? What is the set in which the criterion is true in multiple universes? It cannot be the union of true criteria in some universes, because these unions are inconsistent. It cannot be the intersection of the two, because in that case, only logic and mathematical truth will be left.

Tegmack is not to be outdone, arguing that all consistent mathematical structures exist in disconnected universes. He also believes that there is nothing in the universe except for the consistent mathematical structure. He himself is a consistent mathematical structure. This view gives the mathematical structure unprecedented initiative.

Physical constants have been fine-tuned (finely tuned) [6]. Life cannot exist in a universe outside the fine-tuning temperature range. Martin Rees identified six physical constants, whose exact values are essential to life. They are: n, the ratio of electromagnetic force to gravitation; ε, a measure of the fusion efficiency of hydrogen to helium; Ω, the ratio of the mass density of the universe to its critical density; A, the hypothetical cosmological constant; Q, the ratio of gravitational energy to its equivalent mass energy required to separate a cluster of galaxies; and D, space dimension. Reese believes that life would not have been possible if the set of dimensionless physical parameters C = had been slightly different.

Weinberg, Saskander, Carroll, Tegmark, Hawking, Leonard Mlodinow and Reese themselves all argue that what is impossible in one universe is inevitable in multiple universes.

The response to these views is mediocre, perhaps because, if C is a necessary condition for the existence of life, then the existence of life itself is sufficient to show that C has all its value.

Any direct observation of the universe outside the field of vision is limited by our visual horizon. The Big Bang phase of the universe ended about 13.8 billion years ago. Until then, light could not pass through the universe. The farthest galaxy in the event horizon is about 3 × 138 = 41.4 billion light-years away. The rate of expansion of the universe is not constant-so multiply it by factor 3. The universe beyond this distance cannot be observed at all.

It is possible for us to live in a universe small enough to be included in the event horizon. If so, we will see multiple images of galaxies and some of the same circles in the cosmic microwave background (CMB). The small universe can rule out multiple universes (theories). But if the universe were not so small, the problem of the multiverse would still be inconclusive.

The particle event horizon (particle horizon) refers to the maximum distance a particle takes from the time of the Big Bang or t = 0 to the present. In a static universe, the event horizon of particles can be defined as the product of time elapsed from t = 0 and the speed of light. But because the universe is expanding, the event horizon of particles must be defined as the product of the speed of light and conformal time (conformal time). Conformal time is a time scale that scales the speed of light to 1 by scaling time. Since we have no observational or causal connection with anything beyond the event horizon of the particle, if any, we cannot directly test any conjecture about its properties [7].

Some physicists have proposed that, according to the assumption of string theory, the universe we live in must be open and have negative curvature [8]. Therefore, any observation that our universe has positive curvature, through the Contraposition method, is a kind of reasoning of formal logic, which means to deduce a direct reasoning of a new judgment by changing the quality of judgment. ), are bound to become evidence against string theory and against the derivation of multiple universes [9]. Other physicists believe that collisions between [multiple] universes may leave observable marks in the microwave background sky [10]. If these traces can be measured, they may support some models of multiple universes.

Tom Shanks and his graduate student Ruari MacKenzie Mackenzie wrote in the monthly Proceedings of the Royal Astronomical Society (Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society) that the cold zone (cold regions) under the cosmic microwave background may be evidence of such collisions [11]. But these cold zones may also be the result of statistical fluctuations [12].

This is not strong evidence to confirm the multiverse hypothesis.

The inflation theory of the universe in the early stage of inflation asserts that the universe experienced an incredibly short but highly accelerated period of expansion between the Big Bang and the Big Bang. This seems to be supported by data [13]. The theory was put forward by Gus to solve the well-known but not widely concerned problems in classical Big Bang cosmology [14]. We have observed that the temperature of the universe is uniform on a large scale, and the uniformity of the cosmic background radiation is one-fifth of 10. In classical Big Bang cosmology, it is impossible to achieve thermal equilibrium between two regions that are beyond the event horizon of particles.

Inflation cosmology (Inflationary cosmology) provides an explanation. This is the same explanation given by evolutionary biologists in explaining why two species are so similar-they share a common ancestor and particles in thermal equilibrium in the same region of space share a common origin. Inflation triggered a sharp acceleration of expansion within the universe, and in the same way, when the history of cause and effect goes back to the Big Bang, it also reveals a sharp deceleration and contraction of the universe. Two points where causality can never occur in standard Big Bang cosmology can be found in the same region of space under the theory of inflation.

The resulting smoothness is the same as we saw in CMB.

Inflation occurs because of the acceleration of the expansion factor. The simplest way is to drive inflation by positive scalar field potential V (φ). In the classic Friedman-Robertson-Friedmann-Robertson-Walker universe, the scalar field is equivalent to a perfect fluid (perfect fluid) for everything! Inflation theory includes a large model system, including old inflation, new inflation, R2 inflation, SUGRA (supergravity) inflation, double inflation and power law (power-law) inflation, natural inflation and mixed inflation (Natural and Hybrid inflation), Extended inflation and auxiliary inflation (Assisted), supersymmetric F (SUSY,supersymmetry F-term) inflation and D (D-term) inflation, membrane (brane) inflation. There are also supernatural (supernatural) inflation, SUSY P-term (SUSY P-inflation), K inflation, warped brane inflation, tachyon inflation and roulette inflation.

More than 70 available inflation models are included in the ASPIC library of the Cosmology Rapid Fortran program [15]. It is usually assumed that the inflation field is some kind of quantized particle called dilator (inflaton), but this assumption obviously does not help much. Unless the dilator turns out to be the Higgs boson, we may never be able to discover it further. After all, the energy that can be achieved by the Collider experiment is limited. To achieve higher energy, cosmic rays need to be observed, but we haven't found any particles that may be linked to inflation. The properties of V (φ) can be restricted by CMB data [16]. Saskander believes that Coleman-de Lucia (Coleman-de Luccia) tunneling theory is a way of inflation, but the mathematical feasibility of eternal inflation theory (eternal inflation) has not been determined [17].

The anthropic constraint Einstein-with some philosophical aversion to the expanding universe-introduced the cosmological constant An into the field equation of general relativity, without which the static solution of the field equation could not be obtained. When A = 0, we go back to Einstein's primitive field equation. When A > 0, the field equation has a static solution, corresponding to a spherical universe filled with dust, whose mass density is ρ = A / 8 π G.

Einstein thought that the cosmological constant had a deforming effect on his primitive equation. There is no doubt that he is right on this point. The static solution he used is proved to be unstable [18]. In the 1920s, when Edwin Hubble provided startling evidence that the universe was expanding, Einstein began to regret the introduction of the cosmological constant. His original equation is compatible with the expanding universe. He happily Hermann Weyl said, "if the world is not quasi-static, then throw away the cosmological (constant) term." [20]

Nevertheless, the cosmological constant appears again and again in general relativity. Lorentz invariance shows that an effective cosmological constant An eff can appear in the field equation. This cosmological constant contributes a small amount to the total effective vacuum energy:

Cosmological observations show that the absolute value of ρ V is about 10-47 GeV4. There is a problem [21]. In cosmology, the cosmological constant is usually expressed as the ratio of the energy density produced by the cosmological constant to the critical density of the universe, Ω A. Planck satellite data shows Ω A ≈ 0.6911 ±0.0062. This value is small, but it is not zero. Weinberg noted: "our understanding of the current cosmic expansion rate shows that the effective value of the cosmological constant An is much smaller than the cosmic constant caused by quantum fluctuations in any known elementary particle theory." [22]

The quantum field theory obviously can't get the size of A very well.

If you don't use quantum theory, what else can you use? Weinberg added: "maybe A must be small enough for the universe to evolve to a smooth state where there is almost nothing, otherwise there would be no scientists to worry about it." [23] Weinberg formalized his inference and gave the prediction of A value, but his explanation contained many situational qualifying words: perhaps, must, allow, otherwise. But why does A have to be small enough or big enough to contain everything? There is no basic theory to explain why A should be able to take different values.

Physicists like Reese and Carroll support Weinberg's view because it provides content for the idea of anthropological constraints: "the necessary condition for a cosmological constant is that it is not too large for gravitational bound states to occur." [24] this consideration strictly limits the size of An eff from the upper and lower bounds. Weinberg noted: "if An eff is a large positive value, the universe enters the de Sitt stage of exponential expansion in the very early stage and continues." [25] this is not a good thing for the emergence of life. If An eff is negative, the universe will collapse into a singularity at some point, which may be too short for the evolution of life.

To determine the upper bound, Weinberg uses Peabs's simple spherical descent model (spherical infall model) to track the nonlinear growth of inhomogeneity in matter density [26]. He imagined that the early universe evolved according to the standard Big Bang universe theory, in which the cosmological constant was An and the curvature k of the cosmic background space was zero. The evolving universe is disturbed uniformly but nonlinearly. They are the only way for gravitational clustering and galaxy formation. The evolution of the universe is controlled by uniform excess density Δ ρ (t), positive curvature constant Δ k > 0, and scale factor a (t). The perturbation model is based on the Friedmann equation.

Where according to the definition ρ v = A / 8 π G.

The intensity of disturbance is as follows:

Weinberg then considered whether the universe would collapse again and lead to condensation, and concluded that the anthropic upper limit of A was

This is based on the assumption that the universe leads to large-scale structures.

Weinberg's argument is purely anthropological, which provides limits on cosmological constants. It was the introduction of the multiverse theory that enabled Weinberg to clearly point out the expectation of the cosmological constant based on the average suitable for the production of life in multiple universes. Only when p γ can be changed, its average value and expectation are meaningful. Since it cannot change in one universe at any given time t, it must change in many different universes. To talk about the average value of p γ is to talk about it in the set or ensemble of the universe (ensemble) M = {U1, U2, … Un,... The average in}.

It is true that the absolute value of p γ in the Uk of any universe must be less than the mass density needed for the evolution of the universe. If this is true, p γ only needs to be less than the mass density of the universe at the time of galaxy formation. In a paper in collaboration with Martel and Paul Shapiro, Weinberg went on to derive the "possible values" of many cosmological constants [27]. The core of this article is to assume that the A defined on M forms a probability distribution, which is proportional to "destined to be condensed into proportion of matter from the background" [28], and the mass concentration of these substances is sufficient to form an observer. This ratio is calculated according to the density fluctuation during the recombination period through the standard cosmological theory. Comparing the possible value of p γ with the observed range of cosmological constant, it can be found that even if all p γ values have the same a priori probability, it is reasonable to have a small positive p γ value.

It must be emphasized that Weinberg's conclusion does not prove the existence of multiverses, which is only one of the hypotheses demonstrated. In fact, it's just a limited conformance test. Weinberg's calculation takes into account the change of A value and only A value changes. When other constants change at the same time, the results are different [29]. Glenn Starkman and Roberto Trotta note that different ways of giving probability to the universe will also lead to different anthropomorphic predictions:

In the framework of probability as frequency, anthropic reasoning is not clear (ill-defined), and why one weight scheme is chosen instead of another? the lack of this basic motivation makes it impossible for the anthropic principle to explain the value of A, and probably cannot explain the values of other physical parameters [30].

This is reminiscent of Everett's theory. In any case, a more complex analysis of vacuum energy by William Unruh et al shows that one can obtain observations of A from quantum field theory without introducing multiple universes [32].

Like a dream bubble, how much does the universe weigh? As long as the universe can expand infinitely, as in the theory of eternal inflation, the answer must be that the universe will eventually be infinite [33]. In the philosophy of mathematics, there is a typical difference between potential infinity and actual infinity: when natural numbers are defined with the help of successor function S (n) = n + 1. At the same time, they always remain potential [infinite]. They are finite for any given n, but not for the set of all natural numbers, whose potential is ℵ0. After Georg Cantor, set theorists believe that it is indeed infinity in the practical sense. It doesn't have any potential meaning. Physicists have long been skeptical of practical infinity, and with good reason. The Hilbert Hotel (Hilbert Hotel) has an infinite number of rooms. Let's assume that all the rooms are full. However, if you use the function f: n → n + 1 to move tenants in each other room, there will always be a new room. This is not a logical paradox, because infinity is not a concrete number. But physicists have never accepted that the Hilbert Hotel can be expressed in any physical entity.

In almost all inflationary scenarios, the formation of the universe is endless. If multiple universes are infinite, they may be potentially infinite at any time [34]. But the multiverse is a collection of them all. If nature creates them endlessly, just as it continuously creates natural numbers, then the potential of the collection of multiple universes is ℵ0. The potential of the set of all subsets of the multiverse is 2 ℵ0.

This is what most physicists do not want to see.

If the multiverse is not scientific, philosophers can always save it by expanding the boundaries of science. This argument holds that the theory does not need empirical evidence to prove it. Davyd (Richard Dawid) made the same point in a paper called "the significance of non-empirical proof in basic Physics" (The Significance of Non-Empirical Confirmation in Fundamental Physics). "in the absence of empirical evidence, scientists can judge the feasibility of a theory on the basis of a wide range of arguments," he wrote. " [35]

Davyd said, "one goes smoothly." The theory of specific sets satisfying conditions has been valid in the past, which increases the possibility that new theories that meet the same conditions will continue to work in the future. This argument reflects the great victory of people's hopes over the experiment. In 1974, Howard Georgi and Glashow proposed an ingenious grand unified theory (grand unified theory), which was expected to unify the strong and the weak. It predicts that protons will decay due to spontaneous symmetry breaking (spontaneous symmetry breaking). This is people's hope. As far as the present experiment can determine, protons do not decay, which is experience.

Davyd notes that if meta-induction (meta-induction) is indeed a tough teacher, there will always be arguments about the link between unexpected interpretations. The development of theory is to solve a specific problem. Physicists have found that once theory is developed, it can explain a very different series of problems. Davyd believes that this proves the feasibility of the theory. It would be a good idea to associate existing physical theories with the world of existing physical entities. But this idea cannot be applied to some pure mathematical physics or cosmology, or some aspects of the theory have been adjusted to obtain the additional results needed. Amazing mathematical relationships are not necessarily physical.

Davyd argues that if all other attempts fail and there is no better way than a theory, then it is better than nothing. Of course, in daily life or in physics, it is difficult to know when it is appropriate to come to the conclusion that there is no other way. It is possible that there is a lack of imagination or a narrow range of models. In any case, this view is not reliable. If a theory is true, then the fact that there is no alternative theory is superfluous, and if it is not true, it does not matter. For the example of multiple universes, there is another option: there is no multiverse, as I have already mentioned, and the mechanism proposed by Andrew et al can explain the A value, or it just happens to be set to make gravity conform to the unimodular theory.

Carlo Rovelli responded to Davyd by saying:

Scientists often rely on non-empirical arguments to trust theories. Before finding empirical evidence, they will select, develop and believe in theories. The whole history of science supports this point. Davyd uses the Bayesian paradigm (Bayesian paradigm) to describe how scientists evaluate theories. Bayes confirms that the theoretical use of the verb "corroboration" has its professional significance, which is very different from the usual usage of laymen and scientists. In Bayesian theory, "corroboration" refers to any evidence that is good for a paper, no matter how weak. For people like laymen and scientists, "corroboration" has another meaning: it means "strong enough evidence to accept that theory is a reliable belief". The difference between reliable theory and speculative theory may not always be clear, but they are the basic elements of science. It is the existence of reliable theory that highlights the value of science to society. Davyd's advantage is that he emphasizes and analyzes some of the non-empirical arguments that scientists use in their "preliminary evaluation" of the theory. His flaw is that he confuses the key difference between these non-empirical arguments and [empirical] confirmation: confirmation is the process of making a theory reliable, accepted by the entire scientific community, and has the potential to be applied to society. Davyd's problem is that he failed to show that only empirical evidence is persuasive [36].

Listen, listen!

reference

[1] see, Max Tegmark, Our Mathematical Universe: My Quest for the Ultimate Nature of Reality (New York: Knopf, 2014); Max Tegmark, "Parallel Universes," Scientific American 288, no. 5 (2003): 40-51; Daniel Kleitman, "It's You, Again," Inference: International Review of Science 2, no. 3 (2016), and a letter in reponse, Sheldon Glashow, "A Hand-Waving Exact Science," Inference: International Review of Science 2, no. 4 (2016) Brian Greene, The Hidden Reality: Parallel Universes and the Deep Laws of the Cosmos (New York: Knopf, 2011).

Martin Rees, "Multiverse," Edge (2017).

[3] Andrei Linde, "Eternally Existing Self-Reproducing Chaotic Inflationary Universe," Physics Letters B 175, no. 4 (1986): 395400; Alexander Vilenkin, Many Worlds in One: The Search for Other Universes (New York: Hill and Wang, 2007); Alan Guth, "Eternal Inflation and its Implications," Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 40 (2007): 6811-26. For an example of an inflationary universe that does not lead to a multiverse, see Viatcheslav Mukhanov, "Inflation Without Selfreproduction," Fortschritte der Physik 63 (2015): 36-41, arXiv:1409.2335.

David Deutsch, The Fabric of Reality: The Science of Parallel Universes-and Its Implications (New York: Viking Adult, 1997).

[5] see, Raphael Bousso and Leonard Susskind, "The Multiverse Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics," (2011), arXiv:1105.3796; Dan Falk, "The Multiple Multiverses May Be One and the Same," Nautilus (2017); Peter Woit, "Cosmological Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics," Not Even Wrong, May 19, 2011.

[6] see Martin Rees, Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces That Shape The Universe (New York: Basic Books, 2001); Steven Weinberg, "Living in the Multiverse," (presented at the Symposium "Expectations of a Final Theory" at Trinity College, Cambridge, September 2, 2005), arXiv:hep-th / 0511037; Leonard Susskind, The Cosmic Landscape: String Theory and the Illusion of Intelligent Design (New York: Little, Brown and Company, 2005); Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, The Grand Design (New York: Bantam Books, 2010).

[7] This will remain true if we consider observations for, say, another fifty thousand years.

Ben Freivogel et al., "Observational Consequences of a Landscape," Journal of High Energy Physics 0603 Journal of High Energy Physics 039 (2006), arXiv:hep-th/0505232.

[9] but some physicists refute this. See, Roman Buniy, Stephen Hsu, and Anthony Zee (2008) "Does String Theory Predict an Open Universe?" Physics Letters B 660, no. 4 (2008): 38285, doi:10.1016 / j.physletb.2008.01.007.

Anthony Aguirre and Matthew Johnson, "A Status Report on the Observability of Cosmic Bubble Collisions," Reports on Progress in Physics 74, no. 7 (2011), arXiv:0908.4105.

[11] see, "New Survey Hints at Ancient Origin for the Cold Spot," Royal Astronomical Society, April 27, 2017; "Parallel Universes Do Exist and Researchers May Have the Strongest Evidence," Physics-Astronomy, April 26, 2014.

[12] the standard interpretation of the Planck data is given in the Planck Sky Survey team report. See, for example, Planck Collaboration et al., "Planck 2015 Results. XIII. Cosmological Parameters," Astronomy & Astrophysics 594, no. A13 (2016), arXiv:1502.01589. The report does not mention multiverses. The interpretation of cold spot depends on the statistics of usage. See, Ray Zhang and Dragan Huterer, "Disks in the Sky: A Reassessment of the WMAP 'Cold Spot'," (2009), arXiv:0908.3988v2.

Planck Collaboration et al., "Planck 2015 Results. XIII. Cosmological Parameters," Astronomy & Astrophysics 594, no. A13 (2016), arXiv:1502.01589.

Alan Guth, The Inflationary Universe: The Quest for a New Theory of Cosmic Origins (New York: Perseus Books, 1997).

[15] ASPIC (Accurate slow-roll predictions for inflationary cosmology, the accurate slow roll prediction of inflation cosmology).

[16] Jerome Martin, Christophe Ringeval, and Vincent Vennin, "Encyclopaedia Inflationaris," Physics of the Dark Universe 5-6 (2014): 75-235, arXiv:1303.3787v3.

Ikjyot Singh Kohli, and Michael Haslam, "Mathematical Issues in Eternal Inflation," Classical and Quantum Gravity 32, no. 7 (2015), arXiv:1408.2249.

[18] this is demonstrated by Arthur Eddington. See his On the Instability of Einstein's Spherical World, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 90 (1930): 668-78.

[19] Hubble is based on Vesto Slipher's early work.

[20] Albert Einstein, 1923c. Postcard to Weir (Postcard to Hermann Weyl, May 23, 1923). ETH-Bibliothek, Z ü rich, Einstein Archive.

[21] see Steven Weinberg, "The Cosmological Constant Problem," Reviews of Modern Physics 61, no. 1 (1989): 1-23; Sean Carroll, "The Cosmological Constant," Living Reviews in Relativity 4, no. 1 (2001), arXiv:astro-ph / 0004075v2.

[22] Steven Weinberg, "Anthropic Bound on the Cosmological Constant," Physical Review Letters 59 (1987): 2meme 607, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.59.2607.

[23] Steven Weinberg, "Anthropic Bound on the Cosmological Constant," Physical Review Letters 59 (1987): 2meme 607, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.59.2607.

[24] Steven Weinberg, "Anthropic Bound on the Cosmological Constant," Physical Review Letters 59 (1987): 2meme 608, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.59.2607.

Steven Weinberg, "The Cosmological Constant Problem," Reviews of Modern Physics 61, no. 1 (1989), doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.61.1.

[26] P. J. E. Peebles: "The Gravitational Instability of the Universe," The Astrophysical Journal 147 (1967): 859.

[27] Hugo Martel, Paul Shapiro, and Steven Weinberg, "Likely Values of the Cosmological Constant," The Astrophysical Journal 492 (1998): 29

Hugo Martel, Paul Shapiro, and Steven Weinberg, "Likely Values of the Cosmological Constant," The Astrophysical Journal 492 (1998): 29.

Anthony Aguirre, "On Making Predictions in a Multiverse: Conundrums, Dangers, and Coincidences," in Universe or Multiverse? Ed. Bernard Carr (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 36786, arXiv:astro-ph/0506519.

[30] Glenn Starkman and Roberto Trotta, "Why Anthropic Reasoning Cannot Predict A," Physical Review Letters 97, no. 20 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0607227v2.

[31] Andrei Linde and Mahdiyar Noorbala, "Measure Problem for Eternal and Non-Eternal Inflation," Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 1009 Andrei Linde and Mahdiyar Noorbala (2010), arXiv:1006.2170.

Qingdi Wang, Zhen Zhu, and William Unruh, "How the Huge Energy of Quantum Vacuum Gravitates to Drive the Slow Accelerating Expansion of the Universe," Physical Review D 95, no. 103504 (2017), arXiv:1703.00543.

[33] see Alexander Vilenkin, Many Worlds in One: The Search for Other Universes (New York: Hill and Wang, 2007).

[34] Note why the statement "at any time" (at any moment) here is significantly difficult. George Ellis and William Stoeger, "A Note on Infinities in Eternal Inflation" General Relativity and Gravitation 41, no. 7 (2010): 1475-84, arXiv:1001.4590.

Richard Dawid, "The Significance of Non-Empirical Confirmation in Fundamental Physics," (2017), arXiv:1702.01133.

Carlo Rovelli, "The Dangers of Non-Empirical Confirmation," (2016), arXiv:1609.01966.

A brief introduction to the author

George Ellis (George Ellis) is an emeritus professor of complex systems in the Department of Mathematics and Applied Mathematics (University of Cape Town in South Africa) of the University of the Cape of good Hope in South Africa. Professor Ellis spans three fields: gravity and cosmology, complexity and causality, brain and behavior, from observing the different properties of the universe at different scales to studying the nature of basic emotional systems in the human brain. Professor Ellis has published more than 500 academic papers and a considerable number of research monographs. As early as 1973, he collaborated with Stephen Hawking to publish the masterpiece large-scale structure of Space-time (The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time). His most recent book is "how does Physics shape thinking?" Top-down causality in the human context "(How Can Physics Underlie the Mind? Top-Down Causation in the Human Context), published by Springer Press in 2016.

This article is translated by the author's authorization from: Physics on Edge, https://inference-review.com/article/physics-on-edge, DOI: 10.37282, 991819.17.34.

Welcome to subscribe "Shulou Technology Information " to get latest news, interesting things and hot topics in the IT industry, and controls the hottest and latest Internet news, technology news and IT industry trends.