Oldness/Flatness Problem

[otseng]

This has been mentioned a couple of times in different threads: Anthropic Principle and Intelligent Creation (God) as opposed to Evolution. But, I'd like to put this in its own thread.

So for debate. Why is the universe flat? That is, why does it have Euclidean geometry?

[Bugmaster]

I actually don't know enough physics to discuss whether the Universe is flat or not (wasn't our local area of it considered to be hyperbolic at some point ?). But why is this question in the "Science and Religion" subforum ? How is this a religious question at all ?

It sounds more like a scientific question to me. The Universe appears to be flat, now let's figure out why. There are points of light in our skies that appear to wander back and forth, now let's figure out why. A candle will not burn in a sealed airtight jar, now let's figure out why... etc., etc. I don't see what role religion has to play in answering any of these questions.

[otseng]

How is this a religious question at all ?

There are two main points that make it "religious".

One, is that odds are totally against the universe being flat. Yet, it is. I argue that this is a result of intelligent design.

Two, this means the universe is bounded. And together with the evidence of uniform radiation from all directions, we can conclude that we are at the center of the universe.

These two implications are what makes it religious.

[Bugmaster]

One, is that odds are totally against the universe being flat. Yet, it is. I argue that this is a result of intelligent design.

You can't really calculate the odds based on just one data point (ourselves). This is the Weak Anthropic Principle in action, again. There are probably some silicoids in some other Universe right now, wondering how marvellous it is that their universe is hyperbolic in shape, and supports rocky life.

Additionally, I'd argue that, if God really did create the Universe to support human life, then he's not very good at creating Universes. The vast majority of places in our own Universe will kill a human being instantly.

Two, this means the universe is bounded. And together with the evidence of uniform radiation from all directions, we can conclude that we are at the center of the universe.

I'm not sure how the flatness of the Universe (assuming that it's flat) implies that the Universe is bounded; if you went over that in your thread, I'll have to read your reasoning when I have more time.

However, there's a bigger problem with your argument. You observe some unusual physical condition, and you immediately conclude that God did it. Why ? The only reason you'd jump to this conclusion would be that you could prove, logically, that no natural explanation for your observation could possibly exist. But, I haven't seen you do that yet.

[otseng]

There are probably some silicoids in some other Universe right now, wondering how marvellous it is that their universe is hyperbolic in shape, and supports rocky life.

Do you have any evidence for this claim?

Additionally, I'd argue that, if God really did create the Universe to support human life, then he's not very good at creating Universes. The vast majority of places in our own Universe will kill a human being instantly.

That's why we're here on Earth.

I'm not sure how the flatness of the Universe (assuming that it's flat) implies that the Universe is bounded; if you went over that in your thread, I'll have to read your reasoning when I have more time.

If the universe is flat, that is, there is no curvature to the universe, then the shape of the universe would be a sphere. A sphere is a bounded shape. If the universe curved in on itself, then it would be unbounded.

However, there's a bigger problem with your argument. You observe some unusual physical condition, and you immediately conclude that God did it. Why ? The only reason you'd jump to this conclusion would be that you could prove, logically, that no natural explanation for your observation could possibly exist. But, I haven't seen you do that yet.

Statistically, there is no reason why it should be the magical Euclidean number. I am also awaiting a natural explanation how this number came to be.

[QED]

There are probably some silicoids in some other Universe right now, wondering how marvellous it is that their universe is hyperbolic in shape, and supports rocky life.

Do you have any evidence for this claim?

I personally think we have very good reasons to make this sort of claim. It's a definite possibility having explanatory powers very much on par with an assumed creator also existing outside of time and space. Furthermore we already have Physicists discussing the real possibility of creating their own big-bang universes. In this case and with others (such as Lee Smolin's Cosmological Natural Selection) we have the potential for scientifically testing the existence of multiple universes. Historically speaking, whenever we are met with an apparent horizon we discover that there is much more that lies beyond than ever imagined.

In addition to the above we also have specific predictions for the existence of an ensemble of universes coming out of Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Cosmology. These cannot be waived away as mere possibilities as, although very much open to interpretation, the effects are ultimately commensurate with the concept of multiple universes at some level.

However, there's a bigger problem with your argument. You observe some unusual physical condition, and you immediately conclude that God did it. Why ? The only reason you'd jump to this conclusion would be that you could prove, logically, that no natural explanation for your observation could possibly exist. But, I haven't seen you do that yet.

Statistically, there is no reason why it should be the magical Euclidean number. I am also awaiting a natural explanation how this number came to be.

There are such things. As BM says the facts are there for all to ponder over and a significant body of people are devoted to gaining just such an understanding using techniques already honed in developing the most accurate models of the world thus far known.

The "inflationary scenario", developed by Starobinsky and by Guth, offers a solution to the flatness-oldness problem and the horizon problem.

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_04.htm

What can we do now otseng? I don't think that anyone here is trained to give lectures on scalar fields, but an understanding of the source for the above quote from UCLA Division of Astronomy and Astrophysics does constitute a natural explanation for your impressive number. There are of course a number of "ifs" and a number of recent refinements emerging, for example, from Loop Quantum Cosmology.

Based on the remarkable success of Quantum Theories against experimental evidence so far, I think these natural extensions will eventually zero-in on a fuly consistent model for universal origin -- regardless of what initiated it. It seems to me that we have only two contenders for the role of "filling in the numbers":

(1) Deliberate design, wherein a super-intelligent being operating outside of existence as we know it performs the sort of act that we are familiar with in our humble existence (creativity).
(2) A natural process which inevitably yields the results we now observe.

The latter covers a great many possibilities including but not restricted to those already mentioned (e.g. multiple universes). But in each case of (2) we get a distorted view of the "probabilities" involved as per the WAP. We simply can't escape the selection effect imposed by our singular observational standpoint.

[micatala]

How is this a religious question at all ?

There are two main points that make it "religious".

One, is that odds are totally against the universe being flat. Yet, it is. I argue that this is a result of intelligent design.

Two, this means the universe is bounded. And together with the evidence of uniform radiation from all directions, we can conclude that we are at the center of the universe.

These two implications are what makes it religious.

A couple of comments, perhaps of the nitpicking and overly technical variety.

Do we know that all possible values for the constant governing the flatness of the universe are equally likely?

Assuming the sample space of the this constant is continuous and we don't have any values which are 'much more likely' than others, then otseng is correct and the probability of flatness would be essentially, or even mathematically zero.

However, lots of events which are mathematically impossible on this basis happen every day. True, we probably don't feel these other events are as 'important' as the nature of our universe, but from a probability standpoint, this is beside the point. The value we place on an outcome is irrelevant to the probability of that outcome.

From a subjective standpoint, I do find the flatness problem one that does inspire a certain amount of awe, a sense of mystery, and a feeling of being a part of a truly wonderful and intriguing universe. I will allow that, from a subjective standpoint, it connects with my faith that there is a God. However, I don't see it is a very compelling argument for the existence of God, or for intelligent design.

On the 'center of the universe' question.

Imagine you have a perfectly uniform sphere, uniform in color and with no rotation happening. What would be the center of the surface of this sphere?



[/i]

[otseng]

There are probably some silicoids in some other Universe right now, wondering how marvellous it is that their universe is hyperbolic in shape, and supports rocky life.

Do you have any evidence for this claim?

I personally think we have very good reasons to make this sort of claim. It's a definite possibility having explanatory powers very much on par with an assumed creator also existing outside of time and space. Furthermore we already have Physicists discussing the real possibility of creating their own big-bang universes. In this case and with others (such as Lee Smolin's Cosmological Natural Selection) we have the potential for scientifically testing the existence of multiple universes. Historically speaking, whenever we are met with an apparent horizon we discover that there is much more that lies beyond than ever imagined.

In other words, though there are possibilities, but there are no current available evidence.

Further, we don't even know if there are any other lifeforms in our own universe (and evidence suggests that there are not any). How are we then to say there are other lifeforms in other universes? Even if other universes do exist?

What can we do now otseng? I don't think that anyone here is trained to give lectures on scalar fields, but an understanding of the source for the above quote from UCLA Division of Astronomy and Astrophysics does constitute a natural explanation for your impressive number. There are of course a number of "ifs" and a number of recent refinements emerging, for example, from Loop Quantum Cosmology.

There are a number of "ifs" and assumptions to the "solution". So, I would not consider it a "solution", but rather a possible explanation.

Imagine you have a perfectly uniform sphere, uniform in color and with no rotation happening. What would be the center of the surface of this sphere?

On the surface of a sphere, there would be no center. (Or some might say any point is the center)

From current evidence, the universe is flat. So, the analogy would not be be on the surface of a sphere, but on the surface of a circle.

So, on the surface of a circle, there would be only one center.

One way to get around this is to say the actual universe is much larger than the observable universe. So, the actual universe is a large sphere. But the observable universe is a small circle on the sphere. So, it would appear to us that we are at the center. But in the actual universe, it is only an illusion. (BTW, this seems to be one of the assumptions in the "solution" cited above.)

There are some problems with this though. One is, what evidence do we have that the actual universe is much larger than the observable universe?

[McCulloch]

One way to get around this is to say the actual universe is much larger than the observable universe. So, the actual universe is a large sphere. But the observable universe is a small circle on the sphere. So, it would appear to us that we are at the center. But in the actual universe, it is only an illusion. (BTW, this seems to be one of the assumptions in the "solution" cited above.)

There are some problems with this though. One is, what evidence do we have that the actual universe is much larger than the observable universe?

Given that we can observe roughly the same distance in every direction, then we must be in the center of the observable universe. So, your question about whether the actual universe is identical with the observable universe becomes a key issue.

Two possibilities:

1. The observable universe is identical with the actual universe.
2. The observable universe is a subset of the actual universe.

I have not seen any compelling reason to believe (1). In fact, since the observable universe seems to be somewhat uniform, there does not seem to be any reason that it just ends at the point where it becomes unobservable from our vantage point. I would expect that in a bounded finite universe, that there would be some quantifiable difference between the space near the boundaries and at the center.

[otseng]

Given that we can observe roughly the same distance in every direction, then we must be in the center of the observable universe.

It's more than just that we see the same distance in every direction.

We conclude that the universe is isotropic because the CMBR is basically the same in every direction. If we were not at the center, then we would not expect it to be the same in all directions.

Also, according to Hubble's Law, the rate that objects are receding from us is directly proportional to their distance. If we were not at the center, then Hubble's law should not apply.

The only way to "solve" these problems though is to assume the universe is curved. However, this assumption is proven to be false by measurements showing that the universe is indeed flat.

I have not seen any compelling reason to believe (The observable universe is identical with the actual universe.)

I would not go so far as to say it is "identical". The size of the universe is not dependent on the resolution power of our telescopes. However, I see no evidence that it should be signficantly larger than the observable universe. That is, I see no evidence that we are just in a small circle on a large sphere.

I would expect that in a bounded finite universe, that there would be some quantifiable difference between the space near the boundaries and at the center.

There might be differences, but I don't know what that would be. What difference would you expect?

[Goat]

Given that we can observe roughly the same distance in every direction, then we must be in the center of the observable universe.

It's more than just that we see the same distance in every direction.

We conclude that the universe is isotropic because the CMBR is basically the same in every direction. If we were not at the center, then we would not expect it to be the same in all directions.

According to who?? Why?


Also, according to Hubble's Law, the rate that objects are receding from us is directly proportional to their distance. If we were not at the center, then Hubble's law should not apply.
[/quote]

According to who?? Why?