اشترك بالحزمة الذهبية واحصل على وصول غير محدود شمرا أكاديميا
تسجيل مستخدم جديدThe Great Debate
113
0
0.0
(
0
)
تأليف
I. Horvath
اسأل ChatGPT حول البحث
ﻻ يوجد ملخص باللغة العربية
A hundred years ago (1920) in the auditorium of the Smithsonian Institutions U.S. National Museum there were two lectures under the auspices of the George Ellery Hale Lecture series, what has come to be called the Great Debate. In the debate, Harlow Shapley and Heber Curtis argued over the Scale of the Universe. Curtis argued that the Universe is composed of many galaxies like our own and they are relatively small. Shapley argued that the Universe was composed of only one big Galaxy. In Shapleys model, our Sun was far from the center of this great island Universe.
قيم البحث
اقرأ أيضاً
Typicality arguments attempt to use the Copernican Principle to draw conclusions about the cosmos and presently unknown conscious beings within it. The most notorious is the Doomsday Argument, which purports to constrain humanitys future from its cur
rent lifespan alone. These arguments rest on a likelihood calculation that penalizes models in proportion to the number of distinguishable observers. I argue that such reasoning leads to solipsism, the belief that one is the only being in the world, and is therefore unacceptable. Using variants of the Sleeping Beauty thought experiment as a guide, I present a framework for evaluating observations in a large cosmos: Fine Graining with Auxiliary Indexicals (FGAI). FGAI requires the construction of specific models of physical outcomes and observations. Valid typicality arguments then emerge from the combinatorial properties of third-person physical microhypotheses. Indexical (observer-relative) facts do not directly constrain physical theories. Instead they serve to weight different provisional evaluations of credence. These weights define a probabilistic reference class of locations. As indexical knowledge changes, the weights shift. I show that the self-applied Doomsday Argument fails in FGAI, even though it can work for an external observer. I also discuss how FGAI could handle observations in large universes with Boltzmann brains.
Are some cosmologists trying to return human beings to the centre of the cosmos? In the view of some critics, the so-called anthropic principle is a desperate attempt to salvage a scrap of dignity for our species after a few centuries of demotion at
the hands of science. It is all things archaic and backwards - teleology, theology, religion, anthropocentrism - trying to sneak back in scientific camouflage. We argue that this is a mistake. The anthropic principle is not mere human arrogance, nor is it religion in disguise. It is a necessary part of the science of the universe.
We critically examine the evidence available of the early ideas on the bending of light due to a gravitational attraction, which led to the concept of gravitational lenses, and attempt to present an undistorted historical perspective. Contrary to a w
idespread but baseless claim, Newton was not the precursor to the idea, and the first Query in his {sl Opticks} is totally unrelated to this phenomenon. We briefly review the roles of Voltaire, Marat, Cavendish, Soldner and Einstein in their attempts to quantify the gravitational deflection of light. The first, but unpublished, calculations of the lensing effect produced by this deflection are found in Einsteins 1912 notebooks, where he derived the lensing equation and the formation of images in a gravitational lens. The brief 1924 paper by Chwolson which presents, without calculations, the formation of double images and rings by a gravitational lens passed mostly unnoticed. The unjustly forgotten and true pioneer of the subject is F. Link, who not only published the first detailed lensing calculations in 1936, nine months prior to Einsteins famous paper in {sl Science}, but also extended the theory to include the effects of finite-size sources and lenses, binary sources, and limb darkening that same year. Link correctly predicted that the microlensing effect would be easier to observe in crowded fields or in galaxies, as observations confirmed five decades later. The calculations made by Link are far more detailed than those by Tikhov and Bogorodsky. We discuss briefly some papers of the early 1960s which marked the renaissance of this theoretical subject prior to the first detection of a gravitational lens in 1979, and we conclude with the unpublished chapter of Petrous 1981 PhD thesis addressing the microlensing of stars in the Magellanic clouds by dark objects in the Galactic halo.
Although the extragalactic nature of quasars was discussed as early as 1960, it was rejected largely because of preconceived ideas about what appeared to be an unrealistically high radio and optical luminosity. Following the 1962 occultations of the
strong radio source 3C 273 at Parkes, and the subsequent identification with an apparent stellar object, Maarten Schmidt recognized that the relatively simple hydrogen line Balmer series spectrum implied a redshift of 0.16 Successive radio and optical measurements quickly led to the identification of other quasars with increasingly large redshifts and the general, although for some decades not universal, acceptance of quasars as being by far the most distant and the most luminous objects in the Universe. Curiously, 3C 273, which is one of the strongest extragalactic sources in the sky, was first cataloged in 1959 and the magnitude 13 optical counterpart was observed at least as early as 1887. Since 1960, much fainter optical counterparts were being routinely identified using accurate radio interferometer positions, measured primarily at the Caltech Owens Valley Radio Observatory. However, 3C 273 eluded identification until the series of lunar occultation observations led by Cyril Hazard, although inexplicably there was an earlier mis-identification with a faint galaxy located about an arc minute away from the true position. Ironically, due to calculation error, the occultation position used by Schmidt to determine the redshift of 3C 273 was in error by 14 arcseconds, and a good occultation position was not derived until after Schmidt had obtained his 200 inch spectrum.
The physical processes that determine the properties of our everyday world, and of the wider cosmos, are determined by some key numbers: the constants of micro-physics and the parameters that describe the expanding universe in which we have emerged.
We identify various steps in the emergence of stars, planets and life that are dependent on these fundamental numbers, and explore how these steps might have been changed, or completely prevented, if the numbers were different. We then outline some cosmological models where physical reality is vastly more extensive than the universe that astronomers observe (perhaps even involving many big bangs), which could perhaps encompass domains governed by different physics. Although the concept of a multiverse is still speculative, we argue that attempts to determine whether it exists constitute a genuinely scientific endeavor. If we indeed inhabit a multiverse, then we may have to accept that there can be no explanation other than anthropic reasoning for some features our world.
سجل دخول لتتمكن من نشر تعليقات
التعليقات
جاري جلب التعليقات
سجل دخول لتتمكن من متابعة معايير البحث التي قمت باختيارها
