Not particularly tall, nor particularly small, João de Almeida is a man of vision… His main vision was seeing a ghost when he was eight years old in his aunt’s house, and he’s been using this story as his standard way to impress others ever since. Now 41, he is a construction worker, married, with three children he didn’t manage to properly raise or love, living a half-life without any deep emotions or culture, without anything in the world he particularly cares about, including his wife, life, and kids. João could have turned out to be a better man, but not much. He didn’t pay much attention in school, partly because his teachers were stupid morons, like most in his birthplace: the countryside of a state at the northeast of Brazil called Pernambuco, where uglyness is as widespread as it is harmful to the good development of one’s aesthetic sense. The other reason he wouldn’t pay attention is unfair in an even deeper sense, he wouldn’t pay attention because his motivational system is a bit cracked up, and a little less adapted to society than the average is nowadays. We were all born with a savannah based motivational system, his was only a bit tougher than most of ours, where our softness grows with time, he remains an edgy, truculent, beasty ape. It is no coincidence João wound up being a construction worker in a 22 million people busy city, what is a coincidence is that he in particular might be remembered in the future, or at least might have a tiny inscription in written history, and that is because, today, he woke me up at 7 AM, approximately 4 hours before I wished for.
João de Almeida is part of a large class of objects about which this tale of ours is, these are the objects that distinguish what the world is, and what the world ought to be. The world would be a better place without him, and his main traits as a person, as a thinker, or as a family man are the sort of things that make us wish against deterministic views of the physical universe, to better accommodate our desire that the whole of his effect on earth might soon be erased by quantum randomness.
Philosophers, but not ordinary people, have the exotic habit of thinking there must be an object for each and every word they are able to come up with. Usually this is taken as a reason to disregard all their locutions as mere noise, and go on with one’s life, but there is an up-side to it, philosophers create many words, and many expressions, way more than most other specialized sectors in society, thus they render our language more complete. One of the philosophers achievements was to create names for fallacies, mistakes of reasoning. The Naturalistic Fallacy consists of thinking that something should be a particular way because it is (naturally) this way. Closely related is the is-ought problem, the problem that is had by those who are unable to distinguish what the World is like from what it ought to be like, those to whom João de Almeida, AIDS, and the disproportionate success of Astrology are invisible.
I have nothing whatsoever against poor, dirty, sad, stupid, unlucky João. If something I have unbearable pity for him and all those whose life experience must be as tough as his, and whose contributions to the world stay well behind those of Beethoven, Michael Jackson or Douglas Hofstadter. I don’t like the fact that I’m making fun of him, but I dislike this fact less than I dislike his existence. If I could choose, he’d be a funny, intelligent happy individual, whose vision actually spans entire oceans, whose dreams are made of stuff mere mortals cannot fathom, and whose achievements abound in trophies and medals that would trigger deep anger in the greek Gods. He would be one of the worlds great athletes, video-game players, and architects, his designs would be recognized from Istanbul to the desert villages in Australia, his mind worth millions and his main emotion would be love, which he would express in a constant desire to give back to the world the luck he feels he has, both while looking at his girls eyes, and while seeing the shiny eyes of those who saw his latest mastercraft. I dislike, therefore, not his existence as a particular immortal soul trapped in a stupid body living a sad life, but his existence as a set of properties that gathered by chance in a chancy unfair universe into the same person, a person that happened to be unworthy for all including himself, whom shall suffer the burden of living hell while he lasts, only to disappear afterwards into inexistence, freeing the world from a presence that brought sorrow about four times more than it brought cheerfulness.
There are many different kinds of utopias, my definition of ’utopia’ spans across a vast realm of worlds, these are worlds that will never be, for this or that reason, and that someone, somewhere, seems to think are so deliciously better than ours to be worth going into detail. I have not read and probably won’t read Thomas Morus particular Utopia, the classic book from which the term has taken its power… I know though that his project was to describe. Other utopians delve differently into their worlds, inscribing them into stories, J.R.R. Tolkien, notably, has described an utopia as the outfit clothing a particular story, the story of how The Fellowship of The Ring has tried to take the One Ring into the fire of doom, in the land of Mordor. The world of The Lord of The Rings fits my definition of utopia in as much as it actually is the dream world of some thousands of young aspiring elves all around the world, it is irrelevant that Tolkien himself did not intent to describe it as the world as it should be, as long as someone, in a stuffy sweaty underventilated room in the south of germany, finds it attractive enough to call it his personal ideal world. Words are not necessarily the only way of putting an utopia into the world, or, more precisely, to describe some features of an utopia in such a way as to carry one’s imagination across it. James Cameron’s movie, Avatar, brings into sight a world of magic, beauty unknown of and a deep non-disgusting religiousness that takes us as far as understanding a way in which the feeling of being one with the universe could be not just experienced but justified. Avatar is not a collection of words, but of images and sounds… Pandora, the amazing planet within it is very much an utopia, like Tolkien’s Middle Earth or Morus’s Utopia itself.
My own way of describing Utopia will be not the Story one, first, I will describe a particular aspect of how the world is now, then, how it should be were we living in an ideal world.
Since our task is to imagine a possible world, it is only proper to describe the constraints on variation we are subject to, that is, the borderlines and limits of what can and cannot be done in this particular attempt to describe an ideal world. To see that this is necessary, consider the following utopia:
Absolute Utopia: This World is spatially infinite in all directions, and each and every point of absolute utopia instantiates, or realizes, an infinite amount of pleasure.
Even though it is a World vastly better than ours, it is very much less interesting for all kinds of purposes one might put an utopia to use here. In general people will vary only the aspects that they are able to intuitively think different, or to think that it ¨makes sense¨ to vary. This of course is far from consensus, like all things that ignorant people remark as ¨common sense¨.
In most Utopian visions, there are changes in aspects of the world that correspond to the upper areas of the tree of knowledge. The World of the Lord of The Rings, Middle Earth, has very different societies from our own, and it also varies in terms of biology, having quite a few other talking species. Pandora, Avatar’s world varies also, explicitly, in local physics, since it is a less massive planet than ours, allowing for a lesser gravitational pull. Middle earth does not vary explicitly in physics. Magic is possible but that doesn’t rule out F=MA. What it does rule out is the homogeneity of physical law everywhere, as consequence of some explicit facts, such as teleportation, magic, unnending holes etc… The definition of explicit and implicit variations should not bother us too much. Almost all the Utopias change the sociology of their world, since almost anyone can see and feel desperate with some of the sociological conditions of his own society. Inter-society differences in sociology are very much visible, since much of our cognition is dedicated to it, compare for instance you level of awareness of cultural differences between your own and that of Japan, if you are Japanese, use South Africa instead. There is a lot that pops into mind. When it comes to physics though we have very much less awareness of the physical differences between our world and a world with 2 extra dimensions. In fact, since the stakes on how many dimensions are there are still out among physicists, it is reasonable to say we do not even know one clear difference between a universe with, say, 10 or 12 dimensions. We are much more aware of differences that belong to a particular kind of difference, those that in the Savannah world could turn out to be matters of life and death in the long run, for us or for our children. I see apples because those of my potential ancestors who didn’t did not exert their potential to become ancestors. My ancestors who do not see electrons or bacteria are pretty fine, thanks for asking. It is easier to imagine a world without elephants than to imagine a world without viruses basically because it is easier to imagine a world with elephants than with viruses. Elephants are right there, we may want to say. You get home tired after a day at work, you feel like you could bypass anything, nothing whatsoever will make you diverge from your couch, your destined path, ’nothing’ here may include bills, a friend’s request, the sudden memory that there is a test tommorrow, or a frowning look from an expecting wife, but it certainly is not ranging over elephants. If there was an elephant in your living room, you can be pretty sure you’d leave the couch for another occasion.
Just like there is a pattern of variation in the scope of our words when we speak, there is pattern of variation in our possible worlds when we vary them. Both are mostly unconcious. When I say ¨nothing will stop me from X-ing¨, it is proper for a well behaved senior language using individual to understand that I’m referring to ¨nothing within the set of requests he may have for my about his problems¨, not to enormous mammals in my living room. We can think of the scope of ¨nothing will stop me from X-ing¨ as being represented by a series of circles larger and larger, like in a target. Every point in our target is an object that could or not be counted among the things which would not stop me from X-ing in a particular situation. Those nearer to the center are those that in almost all cases and contexts would not stop me from X-ing, for instance ¨An electron with inverted spin in Jupiter’s biggest crater¨. In normal language use, we know that things that I someone may tell me are nearer to the center than elephants in our living room. This can also be illustrated as a conditional, ¨If someone says ’nothing will stop me from X-ing’ referring to possible things that may stop him, and those include an elephant, then they also include particular babble-babble locutions from a friend who needs a simple favor¨. We have this target in our mind automatically.
This is part of the magic of language, or more specifically, part of the magic of generative languages spoken by beings whose language instinct developed a principle of assuming that someone is trying to convey the maximum amount of useful information in all ambiguous cases. Of course cases are not so clear cut as electron-blablabla-elephant, sometimes we may actually not be sure what would be more or less likely. Is he saying nothing I can say will change his mind, or is he saying that nothing his wife can say will change his mind? Which of the dots are nearer to the center? We do not know, there is still imprecision lurking in his use of ’nothing’. Besides imprecision as to what is more or less distant from the center due to our lack of knowledge of what he means, there is also persistent imprecision, meaning that it is not always the case that conditionals will work to describe the relation between two possible obstacles, it is always the case that nothing ranges over electrons in Jupiter before it ranges over elephants in our room, but it is not always the case that it ranges over our requests before his wife’s request. We could transcribe this to our analogy by saying that, first, we put some blurring goggles that allow for the range of his use of ’nothing’ to have cloudy borders, second, we have each point being able to move throughout an area according to context, so that there are cases where clearly ’nothing’ includes me but not her, her, but not me, both of us, and none of us. If one is strict and demanding for even more precision, create a function from each context do a different target which precisely describes the circles at that moment and context, and let the whole series constitute the range over which ’nothing’ spans… Now, for every two dots, say, a phrase of mine and one of hers, there is a proportion in which one or the other is nearer to the center. If I’m more likely to be ignored when he is X-ing then it may be Me=70% her=30% or something like that. Now, from this analogy of a target with the scope of the word ’nothing’ we can define an object’s visibility in the use of a word as follows.
Visibility: An object is more visible to a word if it is more likely to be within the circle over which that word ranges in different contexts than another object.
The clear cut conditional cases, such as electron versus elephant will create conditional visibility. That is, an elephant is visible for the word ’nothing’ as said by mister Lazy only if an electron with inverted spin also is. Note here that there is no requirement that mister Lazy himself thinks of electrons or elephants, he may be considering explicitly only the bills that may have come in through the mail. In fact, this is precisely the point, visibility for language differs from the visibility for people. Our use of words is much more precise sometimes, and much less others, than we think they are. We take a lot for granted when we use language. We also take a lot for granted when we build utopias.
One of the critics main criticism to fantasy worlds, utopias and futuristic scenarios is that they extrapolate one aspect of the world (say, flying machines) without extrapolating equivalently another (say, computing machines) thus rendering a world with flying cars but without the internet, if our dreamer is living in the nineteen sixties. Avatar’s Pandora has low gravity, the Navi, its blue inhabitants, very similar psychology to ours and a vast knowledge of nature, but not the knowledge of an artifact as simple as the wheel. In Middle Earth there are wizards able to defeat a Balrog but unable to crush a door into pieces. The notion of visibility, to sum it up, is not as well defined in the case of utopian creators as it is in the case of words. Our words come from a long and intrincate history of users, survivors, speakers etc….. but an utopia is the dream of one, maybe two people, and what was visible to them at the time depends not on long settled semantical rules of thumb, but on the goggles they were using the particular days they went through the process of writing theirs worlds.
One of the ways in which the world is is this: The world is a place where those who create utopias do not state clearly what they will allow to vary and what will not vary when they consider what is desirable. Can I make some twists in physics? Am I allowed to change how many fingers we have? Is it ok to suppose we are all females? Can I change the looks of Barack Obama, the president of the United States? Can I fuse Brazil and Egypt into only one country? What about having Brazil be a dictatorship and not a democracy? Can alchemy be a reality? What about astrology? Can I make everyone look pretty? What about making everyone think that everyone looks pretty? Could there be only black people and southeast asians? Can I abolish the emotional state called ’rage’?
All this questions fall unanswered if we begin to ask ourselves about any particular world whether its conceiver did or did not allow himself to do that.
One of the ways in which the world should be is: A place where utopians state somewhat precisely what they will allow to vary, so that we can admire more how they made great stuff out of their materials, just like we do for ice sculptors.
Due to our psychology, it is only natural to dream of utopias with different political systems and similar laws of chemestry, physics. It is only natural to extrapolate on our technologies, but consider our psychological nature as unchaged. Since we do not want to commit the Naturalistic Fallacy once again, we are not going to let what is only natural guide our conception of what is good. I’d like to describe how the World is and how it should be in some of its aspects, in levels of complexity as different from one another as quantum electrodynamics is different from a mating ritual among birds of paradise.
Chapter One: The Physics of Utopia
How it is: According to current theories on the physics of our cosmos, there is a lot going on both in microscopic and in macroscopic level that is very interesting. Interesting, but not necessarily desirable. I’ll point out a few characteristics of the physical world as we know it, we know we live in an expanding universe, which means that galaxies and planets are getting more and more apart as time goes on. It is widely believed that this all began some thirteen billion years ago in a great explosion of energy (and mass, and time) and that ever since things have been, on average, getting more disorganized. We call this the second law of thermodynamics, and we realized that one of its consequences is that the conditions that make life possible on earth will span a limited amount of time. Another interesting fact about our world is that it seems to be composed not of little balls as it was once thought, but of many different kinds of subatomic particles, each of them having probabilistic conditions of coming up from one or another kind of interaction of particles and forces. We have quarks up and down, that together compose electrons, protons, we have some particles like mesons, with similar charge but different mass from more known particles. Some of those are said to carry forces, some of them are very stable and tend to persist once they are there. Others have either a short lifespan or a high probability of disappearing soon after appearing. All and all we currently (2010) hold, according to the Standard Model of particle physics, that there are twelve kinds of fundamental particles, and that it is quite likely that greater energy levels than the ones we are able to examine would produce even more kinds. We think so because those twelve are not completely independent, we can organize them in a table similar to the periodic table by their properties, and it is the case that as we go to right on this table, we notice that it took interactions with much more energy to find out the existence of those particles than it took to find out about the first ones. So, if each line is considered a class of particles, we have no reason to suppose that there is no more particles in that class if we were able to make the corresponding experiences.
This picture of the microscopic world is far more complex than the dreams of most physicists, basically because if you are a physicist, it feels very good and warm inside when you do not need to put many experimental values in your equations to calculate the future. A chaotic universe, in which every instant has no correlation with its antecedent is a physicists nighmare (or would be if it were detectable as such, and if physicists were a physical possibility under these conditions). The standard model of particle physics has some uncertainties yet, but it holds against the vast majority of other models we could think of. The world seems to behave as it does because those twelve particles behave as they do.
Back into macroscopic land, we have reason to suppose that the universe is not just expanding, but is infinite in extension. We can only observe a part of the universe, our particular world, but that is because light travels at a particular speed, so we can only gaze back so far, and can only gaze sideways so far. Let us assume that a light emitting object is midway between us, and the farthest distances that we can see, if its light has reached us, it has probably hit the last place whose light we can see, and beyond. This is not the reason we ascribe infinity to our universe though, since it would only guarantee that the universe is a little bit bigger than it looks. The reason is that we assume some things are homogeneous, that they behave the same way no matter where they are, these are things like the physics of subatomic particles, the relative probability that an atom under a particular pressure will emit radiation, the contraction of space that constitutes gravity when matter is around. One of those things that seems homogeneous is the likelihood that a bubble like the one we call observable universe will arise in a particular spot. It is tiny. We think it is tiny, very very tiny because we can imagine worlds with some very different standards, places where there are different numbers of dimensions, more or less extended, more or less energetic, more or less entangled with one another. Places where the physical constants vary a little bit, with gravity’s pull being a tiny bit stronger, or where they vary a lot, where gravity goes not with the square, but with the cube of the cube of the distance between to massive objects. Just because we can think these things can vary is of course no evidence that they do, so no evidence that it is highly unlikely to turn up in a universe like ours. What makes us think that they can and do vary, and that therefore we must be a tiny speck of dust in a vast or infinite space is that our universe seems very fine-tuned to allow for life. Just like we do not live in lava because it is too hot, and we do not live in air because we are too heavy, it seems that we live in the observable-universe we live because its conditions are those that would give rise to beings like us, that think about the meaning of life and dance in nightclubs. If there were too many dimensions, gravity would be too strong, if there were only two dimensions, your digestive tract would split you in half. This idea, the idea that the reason we live in ground level is analogous to the reason we live in this particular observable-universe is called anthropic principle. The anthropic principle has the interesting consequence that it gives us a reason for why something that could, on a first look, sound ridiculously implausible, be exactly what we find out around us. This is what happens when a ridiculous implausibility is necessary for us to exist. Ask yourself, isn’t it ridiculously implausible that your parents met where they met, lived as they lived, and did what they did before you were born? It is much more likely that they would have done any of the other infinite possibilities, if you sum them up. The one possibility that turned out to be actual is extremely unlikely, against all other. Yet, this one is the one that happened. Now, if it didn’t happen this way, it would not be you asking, in fact you may even have not existed. So it is less absurd that exactly that sequence of events took place once you account for your existence. This is as valid for your relation to your parents lives as it is true of human existence and parent-observable-universes. It doesn’t matter if it is a chance of one in a million, or a trillion, or one in 10^500 (current string theorist’s evaluation of the likelihood of our particular kind of bubble amongst the bubbles) if it is a requirement for you to be there, and asking the question, and you actually are there asking the question, then this is the one thing that happened.
But who told physicists that those constants that they believe can vary actually can vary? I mean, we know a lot about our universe, but one of the things we do not know is if it is possible for gravity to be stronger, if it could have been the case that gravitational pull was pulling harder. We think it is, like we think the mass of a proton could have been a little bit different, but we base this reasoning solely in our intuitions about what is and what is not possible. In fact, philosophers of the analytic tradition spent lots and lots of papers discussing if it is the case that conceivability is or not a guide to possibility. Some people would even go as far as saying that the very notion of probability is just a way of modeling some epistemic uncertainties of ours, but that nothing is possible or impossible per se. There are the things that happen, and the things that don’t, and that is that. I am not convinced that things could not have been different on the one hand, and I’m also not convinced that if we thing something could have been different, then it actually could have been different. I do not profess to know how are we to measure the scope of all possible worlds, or of all possible physical constants within one universe, etc… This seems to me an enterprise similar to the one of someone who wished to establish once and for all that a particular coin will fall heads every future time it is flipped. He may even be right, but that is either enormously unlikely or because he is going to cheat and melt the coin right away after stating. Philosophers cheat when they pretend what we can conceive defines what is possible, and are playing a sheer game of luck when they say they have found out what is possible. So do physicists.
So far we went through the second law of thermodynamics, the expanding universe, the standard model of particle physics and the bubbles-universe theories, which state we are in one out of so many bubbles within a huge universe, quite likely an infinite one.
Back into the microscopic world, we think nowadays that both the dynamics of electrons and photons (called electrodynamics) and the dynamics of atomic nucleai (called nuclear physics) work according to quantum physics. So we have quantum electrodynamics on the one hand and quantum chromodynamics on the other hand as our ways of looking at microscopic behavior of particles. Quantum physics can be described in many degrees of detail, I’ll go with the simplest one, for a deeper and clear account, check out Yudkwosky’s ¨The Quantum Physics Sequence¨ in his blog called Less Wrong.
In quantum physics if a particle is at a point at a time, and you know it, it does not mean you will know where it is ten seconds later, even if you have a very well designed experimental setting in which you would think it is obvious you could calculate where it went. What you have is an equation that describes, for a particle, a position and a time, many different ways in which it may develop throughout time. It also gives you the relative likelihood that it will go to a particular area. So you will end up with answers to questions like: ¨How likely is it that this photon will end up in this area of sixteen square centimeters if I throw it from here through this hole?¨ ¨If a photon goes through this this hole from this source, is it more likely to end up in that area or in that area?¨ ¨How likely is it that the red quark up is in this particular cube? How much is it more likely than in that other cube?¨ …. You get answers to those questions, but you do not get answers to these: ¨What will happen if I throw a photon there, exactly?¨ ¨What is the exact spot at which that fermion is right now?¨ ¨Give me an area such that you are absolutely sure that a photon will arrive there if it goes through this hole¨ …. We cannot be sure of exact spots because these subatomic particles do not behave like billiard balls, they will not go necessarily in a straight line, or end up in a particular hole, they behave like dice, sometimes they go to one place, sometimes to another. But differently from dice, they do not have the same likelihood of ending up in each place in which they can end up. You can think of this as either dice which have the same number in more than one face, or as dice that have faces of different size. Both analogies are adequate to describe possible places where a photon, a quark strange, or a meson pi might end up, given it is in a place of choice. Since there are different probabilities of ending up in areas (or volumes) of the same size, for any given quantum behaving particle, you could also represent the possible arrival places for a particle by painting the areas with a corresponding intensity of grey.
The darker the shade, the more likely it is that a particle will end up in a particular area. Now, if you wanted, you could stablish areas of one square centimeter, and paint each of the likelihood that a photon will end up there. But our quantum physics is precise enough that you wouldn’t actually need such big pixels as a square centimeter, the equations that work for tiny tiny particles are so precise that for any small area you can imagine, say 1/1000 centimeter, it will give you precisely how dark is that region. We end up not with many grey squares, but with a degradée of shades of grey, growing darker in some areas and lighter in others. This representation of the possible arrival places of a particle in a given experimental setting is a representation of something, this something was given the name of probability cloud (for volumes) probability wave (for lines and areas). A probabilistic wave, that thing physicists talk about when they say that ¨Beware! The wavefunction is about to collapse¨, is no more than the mathematical equivalent of a computed designed area of shades of gray corresponding to where is a particle going to end up if it was at place X at time Y with charge Z and neighbors H, J, K, and some other stuff…
Back to the macroscopic world, not only we have information about how many areas the size of our universe are there (Vilenkin 2001), but also we have good reasons to believe that every time one of those quantum dice are thrown, there is a splitting and many worlds, separated in all ways, become actual. We only observe particles arriving at one place, but that is because we could not be in both, or all universes at the same time. There is a copy of us there, a little bit different, but it is there, seeing the exact result we are not seeing in the Geiger counter. This is a flavor of the many-world interpretation of quantum mechanics. Some people say it may not be true, though we have interesting arguments (1995XXXX) in favor of it. For instance, I quote Eliezer Yudkowsky, on a moody day, complaining about many-world rivals, also called, collapse postulate theories:
“Well, first: Does any collapse theory have any experimental support? No.
With that out of the way…
If collapse actually worked the way its adherents say it does, it would be:
- The only non-linear evolution in all of quantum mechanics.
- The only non-unitary evolution in all of quantum mechanics.
- The only non-differentiable (in fact, discontinuous) phenomenon in all of quantum mechanics.
- The only phenomenon in all of quantum mechanics that is non-local in the configuration space.
- The only phenomenon in all of physics that violates CPT symmetry.
- The only phenomenon in all of physics that violates Liouville’s Theorem (has a many-to-one mapping from initial conditions to outcomes).
- The only phenomenon in all of physics that is acausal / non-deterministic / inherently random.
- The only phenomenon in all of physics that is non-local in spacetime and propagates an influence faster than light.
WHAT DOES THE GOD-DAMNED COLLAPSE POSTULATE HAVE TO DO FOR PHYSICISTS TO REJECT IT? KILL A GOD-DAMNED PUPPY?”
Physicists do not want to reject the postulate because they want to be in only one universe at a time, not branching all the time into many many physicists, spread all over the board, wondering how is the world such a strange place. But it seems we are splitting all the time into so many quantum branches of ourselves. Let me try to restate the case of our current physical knowledge of cosmic proportions. It seems as though we live in an infinite universe which has many bubbles, these bubbles are things somewhat like our observable universe, which is one of them (or better, part of one). Since it is possible for a bubble to be born in some parts of this space, and space is homogenous, it is possible for bubbles to appear in a finite amount of space, say, 10^1000 cubic meters (or more if needed), space being infinite, there are infinite bubbles. Every time something happens down in quantum world (that is, always, just consider there are some 7,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 atoms in your body, 70% of you is water, and a water atom contains an average of 18 quarks, which behave in a quantum way) this gigantic structure (our bubble) splits into many many bubbles, in some of which you dance Futterwäcken, some of which you forget how to dance and some of which have an unnoticeable shift in the electron cloud of a particular atom in a jupiterian crater.
What about the mesoscopic world? In mesoscopic land things behave as they do when you look at them, because your visibility is greater at this level, you evolved to track objects of this size, like fruits, oceans, nails, and the sun. The formalization of the way they work was made by this Newton fella, and the main difference between his equations and the ones of the standard model is that his are deterministic, that is, a bit more billiard ball like. It turns out that those mesoscopic equations are taken to be approximations of what happens when you make the quantum dance again and again and again, a few trillion times, to get an object whose size we can see. Things our size respect:
Force=Mass times Acceleration
F = GMm/R2
F is the force of attraction between two objects in newtons (N)
G is the universal gravitational constant in N-m2/kg2
M and m are the masses of the two objects in kilograms (kg)
R is the distance in meters (m) between the objects, as measured from their centers of mass
Things of quantum size don’t respect many things… The quantum equations for instance, when applied to themselves lots and lots of times do not mimic the Newtonian or Einsteinian meso-equations, meaning there is a gap in our knowledge of how medium sized stuff is made of small sized stuff. One of the reasons for this gap could be that we are not accounting for the way we split among branches in our equations, along with all other objects around us, that split our bubble into many bubbles. It is quite unlikely that this will do the trick, but it is food for thought.
Our particular bubble is growing ever bigger, and that is why the average level of energy available to do work inside it is diminishing, that is why people talk about the heath death of the cosmos. Since every day there are less and less areas with high density of energy, we can expect the world as we know it inside our bubble to be buried in a cold debris of ruin, sooner or later, after 1040 years, black holes will dominate the universe. They will slowly evaporate via Hawking radiation. A black hole with a mass of around 1 solar mass will vanish in around 2×1066 years. However, many of these are likely to merge with supermassive black holes at the center of their galaxies through processes described above long before this happens. As the lifetime of a black hole is proportional to the cube of its mass, more massive black holes take longer to decay. A supermassive black hole with a mass of 1011 (100 billion) solar masses will evaporate in around 2×1099 years.
Of course we are not so sure of all this physics yet, also even though it is rational to distribute our credence according to evidence among many different hypothesis, not to settle for the most likely, I have described for each aspect only the particular theory more likely to be true these days, not all of them and how they would be distributed in terms of epistemic likelihood.
There is a lot of uncertainty in our physical picture of the world, and as far as it goes, it is the most precise picture we have among the sciences, I cannot affirm all that was described is true, but, as far as we are concerned, this is how it is.
In The Next Chapter………
How It Should Be In Utopia, Physics…….