Landscape of Configuration Space?

By | December 4, 2005
7 Comments

I think this idea sounds a lot like this one. Here’s my favorite part:

String theory, according to Susskind, presents a compelling explanation of why the cosmological constant is so small, without invoking an intelligent designer. The answer lies in what Susskind calls “the Landscape,” which is the set of all possible universes that are compatible with string theory. The Landscape can be thought of as having various locations, corresponding to different values of the cosmological constant and other parameters. In Susskind’s estimate, the Landscape contains 10500 types of possible universes — a stupendously large number far bigger than a googol (which is 10100.)

10500 types of universes seems like a good start. But I wonder…how many do we get of each type?

  • https://www.blog.speculist.com Stephen Gordon

    I wander if that number 10^500 has a name?

    Should we have a contest? :-)

    Since the quote brought up ID…I maintain that even if our universe is just a small part of a massive multiverse, that still doesn’t answer the miracle of existence.

  • http://triticale.mu.nu triticale

    I wander if that number 10^500 has a name?

    But you stay put if it doesn’t?

    Should we have a contest? :-)

    Altavista.

  • https://www.blog.speculist.com Stephen Gordon

    Triticale:

    I wonder as I wander
    out under the sky…

    or is it the other way around?
    ;-)

  • http://drinktank.blogspot.com ivankirigin

    Ever heard this [insert politician you want to criticize as being dumb]-joke? For the sake of the joke, let’s call him Bushilerry:

    At a staff meeting, Bushilerry is being told about recent news from Iraq. Someone reading a long list of updates notes, “3 Brazilian soldiers died today”.

    Bushilerry stops him and exclaims, “What?! That’s horrible!”

    The staffer says, “I don’t quite understand”

    Bushilerry replied, “How much is a Brazillion?!”

    ———————–

    Since hearing the joke, I’ve been using Brazillion to mean a very large number, typically 30 Billion.

    How about Brazillion == 10^500.

    You could even have non-linear mappings to just have Brazillions as placeholders:
    1 Brazillion = 30 Billion
    2 Brazillion = A baker’s dozen
    3 Brazillion = 10^500

  • Phil Bowermaster

    Stephen:

    The mystery of existence remains a mystery no matter what. If something came from nothing, that’s mysterious. If the universe is self-drawing hands, that’s mysterious. If it’s elephants all the way down, those are some pretty mysterious elephants. And if God did it, then we’re up against the greatest mystery of all.

    BUT, what this could potentially clear up is the whole “amazing coincidence” of this universe working out to make life, us, this conversation, possible. If this is just one out of a Brazillion (personally, I always liked bazillion, as in “one bazillion semolians”) kinds of universes, then the universe one happens to end up in is remotely unlikely no matter which one that is. Enter the weak antrhopic principle — we could only be having this conversation in a universe that supports human life — and the “coincidence” is pretty much accounted for without intelligent intervention.

    Ivan –

    Brazillion is a workable choice. See above.

  • Karl Hallowell

    I heard Susskind talk about this about a year and a half ago in one of those “birthday” conferences (this one honored Albert Schwarz a noted professor at my university (University of California at Davis) who turned 70 early in 2004). Susskind is an effective speaker.Peter Woit mildly criticizes Susskind for his lack of math content, but IMHO that seemed effective even under the circumstances of a math conference. Certainly, the grad students attending picked up more from that talk than from most of the talks in the conference.

    As described in the above linked story, at the metascience level there is a debate over whether the numerous coupling constants and related terms are fixed by theory or just happen to have convenient values. Susskind is on the bleeding edge of the latter side.

    My take is that there’s so much currently wrong with string theory to accept it as a physical theory or to really worry about the “Landscape” or similar approaches.

    First, it doesn’t generate testable predictions. Second, we have the problem with coupling constants. We also have an unwarranted dependence on a background space (a real fundamental theory will describe space not be in it).

    Finally, we have some mathematical problems inherited from quantum field theory. In particular, the tricks for removing infinities from various theories is on partly shaky ground. Some tricks are pretty rigorous while others aren’t.

  • https://www.blog.speculist.com Stephen Gordon

    Phil:

    If it’s elephants all the way down, those are some pretty mysterious elephants.

    Indeed. But it’s turtles I tell ya! :-)

    this could potentially clear up is the whole “amazing coincidence” of this universe working out to make life, us, this conversation, possible.

    Yes it could. Within this universe. Obviously the ultimate mystery/miracle of multiverse existence would remain.

    I guess that’s a function of science – to push the mystery/miracles as far away from us as possible. But ultimate mysteries remain, at least for our present puny, puny minds.