The universe has fundamental laws that we can observe. We also exist in it, the things from which we are created, and all this also obeys fundamental laws. Based on this, two very simple statements can be constructed with which it would be very difficult to argue:
- We must be ready to accept the fact that our location in the Universe must necessarily be adapted so that we can exist as observers.
- The Universe (and hence the fundamental parameters on which it depends) must have the ability to create observers at a certain stage.
These two conditions, first expressed by physicist Brandon Carter in 1973, are known as the weak and strong anthropic principles, respectively. They simply say that we exist in a universe that has fundamental constants, laws, and the like. And our existence proves that the universe allows beings like us to exist inside it (sorry for the tautology, but as it is).
These simple, self-evident facts, in fact, carry a lot of weight. They tell us that the Universe exists with such properties that an intelligent observer could evolve in it. This is the opposite of properties incompatible with intelligent life, which cannot describe our universe on earth, which no one has ever observed. We are here to observe the Universe, and our active act of observing means that the Universe is designed to ensure our existence. This is the essence of the anthropic principle.
And it allows us to make a number of quite relevant scientific statements and predictions about the universe. The fact that we are carbon observers tells us that the universe had to create carbon in some way. Based on this, Fred Hoyle predicted that the excited state of the carbon-12 nucleus must exist at a certain energy so that the three helium-4 nuclei could fuse into carbon-12 in the interiors of stars. Five years later, the discovery of Hoyle's theoretical state and the mechanism of its appearance - the triple alpha process - was discovered and confirmed by nuclear physicist Willie Fowler and led us to understand how heavy elements lined up in the early history of the universe.
Promotional video:
Calculating the value of the vacuum energy of our Universe - the energy inherent in empty space - within the framework of quantum field theory gives an absurd value, too high. The energy of empty space determines how fast the expansion rate of the universe (or the rate of contraction) increases; if it were too high, life, planets, stars, atoms and molecules would never form. But since there are galaxies, stars, planets and people in the Universe, the value of the vacuum energy of the Universe, as calculated by Steven Weinberg in 1987, should not exceed 10-118 times the value that we deduced in our naive calculations. When we found dark energy in 1998, we were able to measure this number for the first time, and it turned out to be 10-120 of our predictions. The anthropic principle has shown usthat our calculations turned out to be incorrect.
Nevertheless, two surprisingly simple statements, weak and strong anthropic principles, have managed to distort so much that they are now tied to illogical and anti-scientific statements. People argue that the anthropic principle supports the theory of multiple universes; that the anthropic principle speaks in favor of the string picture of the world; that the anthropic principle requires us to have a giant gas giant to protect us from asteroids; that the anthropic principle explains why we are as far from the galactic center as we are. In other words, humans use the anthropic principle to claim that the universe is exactly what it is because we exist. But this is not only wrong, it also has nothing to do with the anthropic principle.
The Anthropic Principle simply states that we - observers - exist. And that we exist in this universe, which means that the universe exists in such a way as to allow observers to exist. If you establish the laws of physics that do not allow observers to exist, you will get anything but our Universe. Our existence means that the Universe allows us to exist, but this does not mean that the Universe should have developed this way. This does not mean that our existence is necessary. And this does not mean that the Universe should have raised us exactly as we are. In other words, you cannot say that "The universe is as it is, because we are here." This is not an anthropic principle - it is a logical fallacy.
In 1986, John Barrow and Frank Tipler wrote a fascinating book, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, which revised these principles. They wrote:
The observed values of all physical and cosmological quantities are not equally probable, but they take on values limited by the requirement for places where carbon-based life can develop and the requirement that the universe be old enough to already do so.
The universe must have such properties that allow life to develop in it at a certain stage in history.
So instead of saying “our existence as observers means that the laws of the universe must be such that observers can exist,” we get “the universe must allow intelligent life based on carbon to exist, and universes in which life does not develop, not allowed . Barrow and Tipler go further and offer alternative interpretations, including the following:
- The universe, as it exists, was designed to create and maintain observers.
- Observers are necessary for the universe to exist.
- An ensemble of Universes with different fundamental laws and constants is necessary for the existence of our Universe.
If the last point sounds like a bad interpretation of multiple universes, it's because all of Barrow and Tipler's scripts are based on bad interpretations of the principle of self-evidence.
Yes, we exist in the Universe and observe the laws of nature as they are. By observing what unknowns may be limited by the fact of our existence, we can learn something about our universe. In this sense, the anthropic principle has scientific value. But if we start to twirl the anthropic principle as we please, we will turn it into a bad instrument.
ILYA KHEL