"I think, therefore, the world is such ..."

Please answer a simple question: why is the world around us and we ourselves, what are there? Why is the universe? Why is the speed of light equal to 300 thousand km/s, and the masses of proton and neutron are very close to each other?

To begin with: what is the universe? Until the second decade of the 20th century, the concept of “universe” was more abstract-philosophical than concrete physical. “The Universe is all that exists” is something like this. In the second half of the 19th century, physicists were sure that since the universe is all that is all, of course, the universe is endless in space, it always existed and will exist forever.

While philosophers were discussing about the Universe, physicists opened laws and patterns in nature. Rudolph Clausius in 1863 gave the formulation of the physical principle, which is now called the second start of thermodynamics: "Heat itself cannot move from the cold body to hot." Ludwig Bolzman in 1877 gave the second beginning a more general wording: “The isolated system strives for the most likely state. Only processes flow by themselves in which the system goes from a less probable state to a more likely. ”

The universe - isolated system - strives for the most likely state: thermal death. But the Universe exists forever, which means that it has long been (eternity back!) Was to reach thermal death! In the universe, in principle, already now there can be no life, because in the eternal universe there can be no movement.

But we exist! And a terrible physical and philosophical contradiction arises: we are, but we cannot be.

Firstly, it can be assumed that the universe is “actually” not eternal, but once had a beginning. The universe strives for thermal death, but so far it has not reached it, and we just live in this, still nonequilibrium stage.

The second option: in the endless and eternal universe fluctuations can spontaneously arise. For some time, the fluctuation will be nonequilibrium, and there can exist stars, planets, life, mind, that is, we.

But in any case, it turns out that we exist, a special state of the universe is necessary.

The first such formulation was the English physicist Samuel Tolver Preston proposed. In the article 1879, in the “Journal of Philosophy”, he wrote: “Based on the fact of our existence, we must be in that part of the Universe that is suitable for life.”

Ludwig Bolzman in 1890 actually repeated the thoughts of the throne about the existence in the universe (where thermal death has already come!) Flictuations with special physical conditions that allow the emergence of life.

The problem, however, was that, arguing about the universe and its units, physics, according to Bolzman, resorted to an unverified assumption (Unbeeweisbare Annahme) about the incredible state of the space in which we live. “And this is very unpleasant,” wrote Bolzman. It is very implausible that the probability of such a fluctuation in which we live.

To resolve this paradox, it was necessary to at least understand what the Universe actually represents, but no physical (not philosophical!) Information about this existed. Until the 1920s, astronomers believed that our Galaxy, the Milky Way, was the only star cluster in the Universe.

In the 1930s, two events occurred. Firstly, it was proved that a huge number of galaxies in the universe, and the Milky Way is only an ordinary spiral galaxy. Secondly, it turned out that the observed universe expands and, therefore, it is not at all endless in time or in space. In other words, there is still far from the thermal death of the Universe, and there is nothing to worry about.

But another interesting problem arose. In the 1930s, the values ​​of the world constant were already well known, and physicists began to manipulate these numbers. It suddenly turned out that combinations of a variety of world permanent leads to the same dimensionless number of about 1039.

Not only that: the world's constant and many known physical quantities themselves turned out to be as necessary for the development of life. Moreover, not every life, namely ours!

If, for example, the gravitational constant was less than in fact, then in the expanding universe the Galaxy would not have time to form, the universe would expand too quickly. And if the gravitational constant were more, then, again, the galaxies would not have time to form, but for the opposite reason: the universe would very quickly stop expanding, compression began, and it would “get chopped down” in the singularity earlier than the galaxy had time.

And if there were no galaxies, then there would be no stars. There were no stars - there would be no planets that form with the stars. There would be no planets ... You can not continue further. We would definitely not be.

Approximately the same thing would happen if any of the other constant ones had a different meaning. Instead of one paradox, physicists encountered even more mysterious. It turned out that the Universe has unique properties, as if specially fitted so that we arise. Now physicists call this phenomenon "a subtle fit of world permanent."

About the same, but from other positions, Bolzman and other physicists spoke at the end of the 19th century. The Universe (or, according to Bolzman - fluctuation in the Universe) is extremely unlikely. After all, the range of possible world constant is huge. But for some reason they turned out to be exactly as we are “needed” by people.

So, we are incredibly, amazingly, fabulously lucky that the universe is exactly like that?

* * *

In 1958, the Soviet astronomer Grigory Moiseevich Idlis, who worked at the Alma-Ata Observatory, published an article in the “Information Bulletin of the Academy of Sciences of the Kazakh SSR” in the “The main features of the observed astronomical universe as the characteristic properties of the inhabited space system”.

In Soviet cosmology of that time, the word "universe", which was used by Western physicists and cosmologists, was not in honor. Despite the fact that the theory of the Big Bang was already universally recognized in the West, it was customary to believe that the Universe is endless in space and time, and what we see in the sky is only an insignificant part of it, which is called metagalac. In principle, it was the old idea of ​​Bolzman, but on a new foundation.

“We,” Idlis argued, “can only observe the region of the Universe, which has the properties of a typical habitat. And we have no right to transfer the properties of this “our” region to the entire universe. In other words, the metagalaxy is unique and necessary for the emergence of living creatures observing the picture of the world that extends before us. ”

* * *

Physicist Brandon Carter comes from Australia, but he received education in Oxford and for a long time was engaged in research in the field of applied mathematics and theoretical physics. Carter divided all the coincidences known at that time into three groups and reported on his results at the memorial Cliffordda meeting in Princeton on February 21, 1970.

In the first group, Carter included coincidences that could be explained without going beyond modern physics and astrophysics. The second group included "such coincidences, the explanation of which, although simple, requires subjective and probabilistic considerations regarding our own position as observers in the universe." But the third group turned out to be the most interesting: “Coincions that cannot be given a direct physical explanation ... They are the necessary prerequisites for the existence of observers (ourselves) in the universe.”

It was then that Carter spoke about the ensemble of the universes: “Imagine that the universe is not one, but there are many universes. These universes are characterized by all possible combinations of fundamental physical constants. Among this set, universes will certainly be in which there is an observer (that is, we). ”

The main argument in favor of the real existence of more than one universe, but their huge set, became the work of Hugh Everett published in 1957 "The wording of quantum mechanics through correlated conditions." Everett argued that all possible results of physical observation or experiment were implemented without exception - but each result is realized in another universe.

Carter argued that Everett’s philosophy “The only interpretation of quantum theory ... which makes sense in the cosmological context, but also a suitable and natural tool for considering some constants.”

If there is an ensemble of universes, then the problems that physicists discussed for many decades disappear. In the endless ensemble of universes, there are probably universes with a variety of physical laws and constant. So, there is always such a universe where physical constants form a combination that is necessary for our lives.

Thus, ideas were gradually formed, which in 1973 were called “anthropic principles”. There are two of them - weak and strong. Carter gave the formulation of each during the 63rd symposium of the International Astronomical Union, dedicated to the celebration of the 500th anniversary from the birthday of Copernicus. The symposium took place in Krakow. At the meeting where Carter was supposed to perform, John Wheeler chaired him and said in his entrance word that he would talk about whether a person is involved in the design of the universe in a much more significant way than could be presented before. ”

Copernicus pushed the earth from the center of the universe, and the man ceased to be the "upper of the universe." But if Carter is right, then it is a person, an observer, that is the “navel” for which our universe exists!

The weak anthropic principle in the formulation of the crankcase sounded like this: "Our position in the Universe is necessarily privileged in terms of compatibility with our existence as observers."

The strong anthropic principle proceeded from the “philosophy of the ensemble of worlds”, according to which “the Universe (and, therefore, the fundamental parameters on which it depends) should be such as to allow the appearance of the observer inside it at some stage.”

It was then that Carter said, paraphrasing Descartes: “Cogito Ergo mundus talis est” (“I think, therefore, the world is such”).

The weak anthropic principle: "We are as follows, because such is the universe."

A strong anthropic principle: "The universe is as follows, because we are such."

* * *

True, there is another option, the probability of which is impossible to calculate, and indeed this version of the “anthropic principle” (both weak and strong) cannot have a relationship with science (but you can’t deprive it of the right to exist!).

The Universe was created by God-Cretaceous. He specifically designed just such a universe, because the goal was to create a reasonable person. It is enough to accept such a concept of the universe - and all issues are removed, all contradictions disappear. But ... science itself disappears. What can cosmology say if everything that surrounds us, and we ourselves are the essence of God's creation?

The question remains the question: which of the options for the anthropic principle - weak or strong - is realized in our real world? The probability of the first is almost zero. The probability of the second is almost one hundred percent. It seems to be not necessary to choose, everything is clear.

Yes, but ... scientists need not logical reasoning and beliefs, but physical evidence. Modern cosmologists, physicists, astrophysics are mostly convinced that there are infinitely many universes. But there is no evidence. We do not know a single other universe, except ours. We did not find a single other mind in our universe, except ours. Bye.

And then the "watershed" between physicists runs.

Some are convinced that if other universes exist, then it is impossible to detect them in principle. But many physicists and cosmologists are convinced that other universes have not yet been discovered.

Physicists have arguments. So far, there are only arguments, but if they are confirmed, they will become evidence of a “strong anthropic principle”.

One of the arguments: exploring the fluctuations of the relict microwave background, a group of English astrophysicists (Tom Shanks and his colleagues) found a strange “cold spot” in 2012. “ Perhaps, ” Shanks believes, “ the spot arose as a result of a clash of our Universe with a bubble of another ...”

Another opportunity: some modern physicists (for example, Leonard Sasskind) suggest that the Schrödinger equation has a non -linear component that is not taken into account. If so, then universes interact, and such interaction in the future will be found.

Scientists who are lucky enough to open other universes will receive the Nobel Prize. It is a pity that this will not Grigory Idlis, not Brandon Carter, not John Wiel ...

Pavel Amnuel