What is a hypothesis in physics. Life appeared right after the Big Bang! Development and testing

Slide 2

What is a hypothesis?

A hypothesis is a statement that is neither true until proven nor false until disproven, but is used as a working theory. Most often, hypotheses are used in natural sciences, such as physics, and describe the causes of natural phenomena. A hypothesis that has been confirmed becomes the basis for the following assumptions. Hypothesis is a word of Greek origin, literally translated as “foundation”, “assumption”. In the modern sense, an unproven theory or assumption. A hypothesis is put forward based on observations or experiments. Subsequently, the hypothesis can be proven, which indicates the validity of this hypothesis, or refuted, which indicates its fallacy.

Slide 3

Types of Hypotheses

Scientific hypothesis Metaphysical hypothesis

Slide 4

Scientific Hypothesis is...

...such a hypothesis, which explains all known scientific facts based on the use of a mental abstract model of the objects and phenomena of the real world being studied, does not contain internal logical contradictions and, from the analysis of the properties of the model, derives consequences that were previously unknown and can be experimentally verified. After testing the predicted consequences, a scientific hypothesis can either be confirmed or refuted by the results of the experiment. With experimental confirmation of the predicted consequences, the hypothesis receives recognition as a SCIENTIFIC THEORY.

Slide 5

Scientific hypothesis

The existence of the atomic nucleus Ernest Rutherford

Slide 6

Scientific Hypothesis

Existence of electromagnetic waves Maxwell

Slide 7

Scientists

Isaac Newton Einstein

Slide 8

Metaphysical hypothesis is...

...untestable hypotheses. The impossibility of scientific proof or refutation of a metaphysical hypothesis does not deprive it of its right to exist. Accepting or rejecting such a hypothesis is a matter of a person's belief in its truth or disbelief in it.

A hypothesis is an argument about a particular phenomenon, which is based on the subjective view of a person directing his actions in some established direction. If the result is not yet known to the person, then a generalized assumption is created, and checking it allows you to adjust the overall focus of the work. This is the scientific concept of a hypothesis. Is it possible to simplify the meaning of this concept?

Explanation in “non-scientific” language

A hypothesis is the ability to predict, predict the results of work, and this is the most important component of virtually every scientific discovery. It helps to calculate future errors and blunders and reduce their number significantly. In this case, a hypothesis generated directly during work can be partially proven. If the result is known, there is no point in the assumption, and then no hypotheses are put forward. This is a simple definition of the concept of hypothesis. Now we can talk about how it is built and discuss its most interesting types.

How is a hypothesis born?

Creating an argument in the human mind is not a simple thought process. The researcher must be able to create and update acquired knowledge, and he must also have the following qualities:

Problem vision. This is the ability to show the paths of scientific development, establish its main trends and connect disparate tasks together. Combines the problem vision with the already acquired skills and knowledge, instinct and abilities of a person in research.
Alternative character. This trait allows a person to draw interesting conclusions and find something completely new in known facts.
Intuition. This term refers to an unconscious process and is not based on logical reasoning.

What is the essence of the hypothesis?

A hypothesis reflects objective reality. In this it is similar to different forms of thinking, but it is also different from them. The main specificity of a hypothesis is that it reflects facts in the material world in a conjectural manner; it does not assert categorically and reliably. Therefore, a hypothesis is an assumption.

Everyone knows that when establishing a concept through the closest genus and difference, it will also be necessary to indicate distinctive features. The closest genus for a hypothesis in the form of any result of an activity is the concept of “assumption”. What is the difference between a hypothesis and a guess, fantasy, prediction, guessing? The most shocking hypotheses are not based on speculation alone; they all have certain characteristics. To answer this question, you will need to identify essential features.

Features of the hypothesis

If we talk about this concept, then it is worth establishing its characteristic features.

A hypothesis is a special form of development of scientific knowledge. It is hypotheses that allow science to move from individual facts to a specific phenomenon, generalization of knowledge and knowledge of the laws of development of a particular phenomenon.
A hypothesis is based on making assumptions that are associated with a theoretical explanation of certain phenomena. This concept acts as a separate judgment or a whole line of interrelated judgments, natural phenomena. Judgment is always problematic for researchers, because this concept speaks of probabilistic theoretical knowledge. It happens that hypotheses are put forward on the basis of deduction. An example is K. A. Timiryazev’s shocking hypothesis about photosynthesis. It was confirmed, but initially it all started from assumptions in the law of conservation of energy.
A hypothesis is an educated guess that is based on some specific facts. Therefore, a hypothesis cannot be called a chaotic and subconscious process; it is a completely logical and logical mechanism that allows a person to expand his knowledge to obtain new information - to understand objective reality. Again, we can recall the shocking hypothesis of N. Copernicus about the new heliocentric system, which revealed the idea that the Earth revolves around the Sun. He outlined all his ideas in the work “On the Rotation of the Celestial Spheres”, all guesses were based on a real factual basis and the inconsistency of the then still valid geocentric concept was shown.

These distinctive features, taken together, will distinguish a hypothesis from other types of assumption, as well as establish its essence. As you can see, a hypothesis is a probabilistic assumption about the causes of a particular phenomenon, the reliability of which cannot now be verified and proven, but this assumption allows us to explain some of the causes of the phenomenon.

It is important to remember that the term “hypothesis” is always used in a dual sense. A hypothesis is an assumption that explains a phenomenon. A hypothesis is also spoken of as a method of thinking that puts forward some assumption, and then develops the development and proof of this fact.

A hypothesis is often constructed in the form of an assumption about the cause of past phenomena. As an example, we can cite our knowledge of the formation of the solar system, the earth's core, the birth of the earth, and so on.

When does a hypothesis cease to exist?

This is only possible in a couple of cases:

The hypothesis receives confirmation and turns into a reliable fact - it becomes part of the general theory.
The hypothesis is refuted and becomes only false knowledge.

This can happen during hypothesis testing, when the accumulated knowledge is sufficient to establish the truth.

What is included in the structure of a hypothesis?

A hypothesis is built from the following elements:

basis - the accumulation of various facts, statements (whether justified or not);
form - the accumulation of various conclusions that will lead from the basis of a hypothesis to an assumption;
assumption - conclusions from facts, statements that describe and justify a hypothesis.

It is worth noting that hypotheses are always the same in logical structure, but they differ in content and functions performed.

What can be said about the concept of hypothesis and types?

In the process of the evolution of knowledge, hypotheses begin to differ in cognitive qualities, as well as in the object of study. Let's take a closer look at each of these types.

Based on their functions in the cognitive process, descriptive and explanatory hypotheses are distinguished:

A descriptive hypothesis is a statement that speaks about the inherent properties of the object under study. Typically, an assumption allows us to answer the questions “What is this or that object?” or “What properties does the object have?” This type of hypothesis can be put forward in order to identify the composition or structure of an object, reveal its mechanism of action or features of its activity, and determine functional features. Among descriptive hypotheses there are existential hypotheses that speak of the existence of some object.
An explanatory hypothesis is a statement based on the reasons for the appearance of a particular object. Such hypotheses make it possible to explain why a certain event occurred or what are the reasons for the appearance of an object.

History shows that with the development of knowledge, more and more existential hypotheses appear that tell about the existence of a specific object. Next, descriptive hypotheses appear that tell about the properties of those objects, and finally explanatory hypotheses are born that reveal the mechanism and reasons for the appearance of the object. As you can see, there is a gradual complication of the hypothesis in the process of learning new things.

What hypotheses are there for the object of study? There are general and private.

General hypotheses help to substantiate assumptions about natural relationships and empirical regulators. They act as a kind of scaffolding in the development of scientific knowledge. Once hypotheses are proven, they become scientific theories and contribute to science.
A partial hypothesis is an assumption with justification about the origin and quality of facts, events or phenomena. If there was a single circumstance that caused the appearance of other facts, then knowledge takes the form of hypotheses.
There is also such a type of hypothesis as a working one. This is an assumption put forward at the beginning of the study, which is a conditional assumption and allows you to combine facts and observations into a single whole and give them an initial explanation. The main specificity of the working hypothesis is that it is accepted conditionally or temporarily. It is extremely important for the researcher to systematize the acquired knowledge given at the beginning of the study. Afterwards they will need to be processed and a further route to be outlined. A working hypothesis is exactly what is needed for this.

What is a version?

The concept of a scientific hypothesis has already been clarified, but there is another such unusual term - version. What is it? In political, historical or sociological research, as well as in forensic investigative practice, often when explaining certain facts or their combination, a number of hypotheses are put forward that can explain the facts in different ways. These hypotheses are called versions.

There are public and private versions.

The general version is an assumption that tells about the crime as a whole in the form of a single system of certain circumstances and actions. This version answers not just one, but a whole series of questions.
A private version is an assumption that explains the individual circumstances of a crime. From private versions, one general version is built.

What standards must a hypothesis meet?

The very concept of a hypothesis in the rules of law must meet certain requirements:

it cannot have several theses;
the judgment must be framed clearly and logically;
the argument should not include judgments or concepts of an ambiguous nature that cannot yet be clarified by the researcher;
the judgment must include a method for solving the problem in order to become part of the study;
when presenting an assumption, it is prohibited to use value judgments, because the hypothesis must be confirmed by facts, after which it will be tested and applied to a wide range;
the hypothesis must correspond to a given topic, subject of research, tasks; all assumptions unnaturally tied to the topic are eliminated;
the hypothesis cannot contradict existing theories, but there are exceptions.

How is a hypothesis developed?

A person's hypotheses are a thought process. Of course, it is difficult to imagine a general and unified process for constructing a hypothesis: all because the conditions for developing an assumption depend on practical activities and on the specifics of a particular problem. However, it is still possible to identify the general boundaries of the stages of the thought process that lead to the emergence of a hypothesis. This:

putting forward a hypothesis;
development;
examination.

Now we need to consider each stage of the emergence of the hypothesis.

Proposing a hypothesis

To put forward a hypothesis, you will need to have some facts related to a certain phenomenon, and they must justify the probability of the assumption, explain the unknown. Therefore, first there is a collection of materials, knowledge and facts related to a specific phenomenon, which will be further explained.

Based on the materials, an assumption is made about what this phenomenon is, or, in other words, a hypothesis is formulated in a narrow sense. An assumption in this case is a certain judgment that is expressed as a result of processing the collected facts. The facts on which the hypothesis is based can be logically understood. This is how the main content of the hypothesis appears. The assumption must answer questions about the essence, causes of the phenomenon, and so on.

Development and testing

Once a hypothesis is put forward, its development begins. If we assume the assumption made to be true, then a number of definite consequences should appear. In this case, logical consequences cannot be identified with the conclusions of the cause-and-effect chain. Logical consequences are thoughts that explain not only the circumstances of a phenomenon, but also the reasons for its occurrence, and so on. Comparing the facts from the hypothesis with already established data allows you to confirm or refute the hypothesis.

This is only possible as a result of testing the hypothesis in practice. A hypothesis is always generated by practice, and only practice can decide whether a hypothesis is true or false. Testing in practice allows you to transform a hypothesis into reliable knowledge about the process (whether it is false or true). Therefore, one should not reduce the truth of a hypothesis to a specific and unified logical action; When checking in practice, different methods and methods of proof or refutation are used.

Confirmation or refutation of the hypothesis

The work hypothesis is often used in the scientific world. This method allows you to confirm or refute individual facts in legal or economic practice through perception. Examples include the discovery of the planet Neptune, the discovery of clean water in Lake Baikal, the establishment of islands in the Arctic Ocean, and so on. All this was once hypotheses, but now it is scientifically established facts. The problem is that in some cases it is difficult or impossible to proceed with practice, and testing all assumptions is not possible.

For example, now there is a shocking hypothesis that modern Russian is deeper than Old Russian, but the problem is that it is now impossible to hear oral Old Russian speech. It is impossible to verify in practice whether the Russian Tsar Ivan the Terrible became a monk or not.

In cases where prognostic hypotheses are put forward, it is inappropriate to expect their immediate and direct confirmation in practice. That is why in the scientific world they use such logical proof or refutation of hypotheses. Logical proof or refutation proceeds in an indirect way, because phenomena from the past or today are learned that are inaccessible to sensory perception.

The main ways of logical proof of a hypothesis or its refutation:

Inductive way. More complete confirmation or refutation of a hypothesis and the derivation of certain consequences from it thanks to arguments that include laws and facts.
Deductive way. Derivation or refutation of a hypothesis from a number of other, more general, but already proven ones.
Inclusion of a hypothesis in the system of scientific knowledge, where it is consistent with other facts.

Logical proof or refutation can take place in the direct or indirect form of proof or refutation.

The important role of hypothesis

Having revealed the problem of the essence and structure of the hypothesis, it is also worth noting its important role in practical and theoretical activity. A hypothesis is a necessary form of development of scientific knowledge; without it it is impossible to understand something new. It plays an important role in the scientific world and serves as the foundation for the formation of virtually every scientific theory. All significant discoveries in science did not arise in a ready-made form; these were the most shocking hypotheses, which sometimes they did not even want to consider.

Everything always starts small. All physics was built on countless shocking hypotheses, which were confirmed or refuted by scientific practice. Therefore, it is worth mentioning some interesting ideas.

Some particles move from the future to the past. Physicists have their own set of rules and prohibitions, which are considered to be canon, but with the advent of tachyons, it would seem that all norms have been shaken. A tachyon is a particle that can violate all accepted laws of physics at once: its mass is imaginary, and it moves faster than the speed of light. The theory has been put forward that tachyons can travel back in time. The particle was introduced by theorist Gerald Feinberg in 1967 and declared that tachyons were a new class of particles. The scientist argued that this is actually a generalization of antimatter. Feinberg had a lot of like-minded people, and the idea took root for a long time, however, refutations still appeared. Tachyons have not completely disappeared from physics, but still no one has been able to detect them either in space or in accelerators. If the hypothesis were true, people would be able to contact their ancestors.
A drop of water polymer could destroy the oceans. This one of the most shocking hypotheses suggests that water can be transformed into a polymer - this is a component in which individual molecules become links in a large chain. In this case, the properties of water should change. The hypothesis was put forward by chemist Nikolai Fedyakin after an experiment with water vapor. The hypothesis has frightened scientists for a long time, because it was assumed that one drop of an aqueous polymer could turn all the water on the planet into a polymer. However, the refutation of the most shocking hypothesis was not long in coming. The scientist’s experiment was repeated, but no confirmation of the theory was found.

There were a lot of such shocking hypotheses at one time, but many of them were not confirmed after a series of scientific experiments, but they were not forgotten. Fantasy and scientific justification are the two main components for every scientist.

In the 19th century paleoclimatic changes were explained by changes in the composition of the atmosphere, in particular, with changes in the content of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

As is known, the earth's atmosphere contains about 0.03% carbon dioxide (by volume). This concentration is enough to “warm” the atmosphere, increasing the “greenhouse effect”. Increasing carbon dioxide concentrations can affect climate, particularly temperature.

On Earth, the average annual temperature is maintained for a long time at 14 o C with fluctuations of ±5 o C.

Calculations show that if there were no carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, then the air temperature on Earth would be 21 o C lower than today and would be equal to -7 o C.

Doubling the carbon dioxide content compared to the current state would cause an increase in the average annual temperature to +18 o C.

Thus, warm periods in the geological history of the Earth can be associated with a high content of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and cold periods with a low content.

The glaciation that supposedly occurred after the Carboniferous period could have been caused by the rapidly developing vegetation during this period, which significantly reduced the carbon dioxide content in the atmosphere.

At the same time, if biological or chemical processes are not able to absorb the incoming flow (Carbon dioxide can come both from natural sources (volcanoes, fires, etc.) and from fuel combustion as a result of anthropogenic activities) of carbon dioxide, then its concentration increases, this can lead to an increase in atmospheric temperature.

It is believed that over the past 100 years, as a result of the combustion of fossil fuels, the global temperature has increased by 0.5 degrees. A further increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere may be one of the possible causes of climate warming in the 21st century.

What will happen if the CO 2 concentration doubles?

In northern mid-latitude regions, summer droughts can reduce productive potential by 10-30%, which will entail an increase in the average price of world agricultural products by at least 10%. In a number of areas, the duration of the warm period of the year will significantly increase. This could lead to an increase in productivity due to agricultural adaptation with the introduction of late-maturing and generally higher-yielding varieties. In some parts of the world, the climatic boundaries of the agricultural zone are expected to shift by 200-300 km with a warming of one degree. May occur a significant shift in major forest areas, with forest boundaries in the northern hemisphere potentially shifting several hundred kilometers towards the north. Polar deserts, tundra and boreal forests are expected to decline by approximately 20%. In the northern regions of the Central Asian part of Russia, the zonal border will move north by 500-600 km. The tundra zone may disappear altogether in northern Europe. An increase in air temperature by 1-2 o C, accompanied by a simultaneous reduction in precipitation by 10%, can cause a reduction in average annual river flow by 40-70%. An increase in air temperature causes an increase in flow due to snow melting from 16 to 81%. At the same time, summer runoff decreases by 30-68% and at the same time soil moisture decreases by 14-36%.

Changes in precipitation and air temperature can radically change the spread of viral diseases, moving the border of their spread to high latitudes.

The ice of Greenland may completely disappear in the next thousand years, which will lead to a rise in the average level of the World Ocean by six to seven meters. British scientists from the University of Reading came to this conclusion after modeling global climate change. The Greenland glacier is the second largest after the Antarctic glacier - its the thickness is about 3 thousand m (2.85 million cubic km of frozen water). Until now, the volume of ice in this area has remained virtually unchanged: melted masses and calved icebergs have been compensated by falling snow. If the average temperature in the Greenland region increases by only three degrees Celsius, an intensive process of melting of centuries-old ice will begin. Moreover, according to NASA experts, Greenland is already losing about 50 cubic meters. km of frozen water per year.

The start of melting of the Greenland glacier, as shown by modeling results, can be expected as early as 2035.

And if the temperature in this area rises by 8 degrees Celsius, the ice will completely disappear within a thousand years.

It is clear that an increase in the average level of the World Ocean will lead to the fact that many islands will find themselves under water. A similar fate, in particular, awaits Bangladesh and certain areas of Florida. The problem can only be solved if there is a sharp reduction in carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere.

Global warming will lead to intensive melting of ice (Greenland, Antarctica, Arctic) and by 2050 an increase in the level of the world ocean by 30-50 cm, and by 2100 to 1 m. At the same time, an increase in surface water temperature by 0.2- 0.5 o C which will lead to a change in almost all components of the heat balance.

Due to climate warming, the area of productive zones of the World Ocean will decrease by approximately 7%. At the same time, the primary production of the World Ocean as a whole may decrease by 5-10%.

The melting of glaciers in archipelagos in the Russian sector of the Arctic could lead to their disappearance in 150-250 years.

Global warming of 2 °C will shift the southern boundary of the climate zone currently associated with permafrost in most of Siberia to the northeast by at least 500-700 km.

All this will lead to global restructuring of the world economy and social upheaval. Although the CO2 doubling scenario is unlikely, it should be considered.

The above forecasts show that the use of natural resources should be oriented, on the one hand, to reducing the consumption of organic fuel, and on the other, to increasing the productivity of vegetation (increasing CO absorption 2 ). To increase the productivity of natural vegetation cover, careful treatment of forests and swamps is necessary, and comprehensive reclamation is necessary to increase the productivity of agricultural land.

The “greenhouse” or “greenhouse” effect of the atmosphere can also be caused by a change in the content of water vapor in the air. As moisture content increases, the temperature increases, and as moisture content decreases, it decreases.

Thus, changes in atmospheric parameters can lead to cooling. For example, reducing the moisture content of the air by half can lower the average temperature of the earth's surface by about 5 degrees.

Cooling can be caused not only by these reasons, but also as a result of changes in the transparency of the atmosphere due to the release of volcanic dust and ash, nuclear explosions, forest fires, etc.

For example, contamination of the atmosphere with volcanic products increases the albedo (reflectivity) of the Earth as a planet and reduces the flow of solar radiation onto the earth's surface, and this leads to cooling.

Volcanoes are sources of huge masses of dust and ash. For example, it is estimated that the eruption of the Krakatoa volcano (Indonesia) in 1883 released 18 km 3 of loose material into the air, and the Katmai volcano (Alaska) in 1912 released about 21 km 3 of dust and ash into the atmosphere.

According to Humphreys, fine dust fractions can remain in the atmosphere for many years. The abundance of suspended solids emitted into the atmosphere, their rapid spread throughout the globe and their long-term preservation in a suspended state reduces the arrival of solar short-wave radiation on the earth's surface. At the same time, the duration of sunshine is reduced.

After the eruption of Katmai in 1912, even in Algeria the radiation intensity was reduced by 20%. In the city of Pavlovsk, near St. Petersburg, the coefficient of atmospheric transparency after the eruption of this volcano, instead of the normal value of 0.765, decreased to 0.588, and in August - to 0.560. On some days, the solar radiation voltage was only 20% of the normal value. In Moscow, the number of hours of sunshine in 1912 was equal to only 75% of what was observed in adjacent years. [Alisov B.P., Poltaraus B.P. 1974]

Interesting data on the weakening of solar radiation by solid impurities in the atmosphere are reported by V. B. Shostakovich. He reports that in the dry summer of 1915, forest fires engulfed an area of 1.6 million km 2 in Siberia, and smoke was observed over an area of. 6 million km 2. This area is equal in size to the area of Europe. At the same time, solar radiation decreased. August 1915 to 65%. The fires lasted about 50 days and caused a delay in the ripening of cereals by 10 - 15 days.

Wechsler describes a similar impact from the huge forest fires in 1950. He reports that because of the smoke, the daily sum of solar radiation intensity on cloudless days in Washington was 52% of normal for a cloudless day. A similar situation could be observed in 1972 and 2002 in Russia.

Brooks is a proponent of the influence of atmospheric haze on climate. According to his data, all cold years since 1700 followed major volcanic eruptions. Cold 1784-- 1786 - after the eruption of Mount Asama (Japan) in 1783. Cold 1816 (“year without summer”) - after the eruption of Tomboro (Sumbawa Island) in 1815. Cold years 1884 - 1886 - after the eruption of Krakatoa in 1883. Cold 1912 - 1913 -- after the eruption of Katmai (Alaska) in 1912 (see Fig. 5.5).

An active supporter of the hypothesis of volcanic causality, which explains climate fluctuations and changes, is one of the largest climatologists in Russia, M. I. Budyko. He showed that after a volcanic eruption, with an average decrease in direct radiation by 10%, the average annual temperature of the Northern Hemisphere decreases by about 2 - 3 o C.

Calculations by M. I. Budyko, in addition, prove that as a result of atmospheric pollution by volcanic dust, the total radiation is more significantly attenuated in the polar region and less in tropical latitudes. In this case, the temperature decrease should be more significant at high latitudes and relatively small at low latitudes.

Over the past half century, the Earth has become significantly darker. This conclusion was reached by scientists at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Research. Global measurements show that from the late 50s to the early 90s of the last century, the amount of sunlight reaching the earth's surface decreased by 10%. In some regions, such as Asia, the United States and Europe, there is even less light. In Hong Kong (Hong Kong), for example, it “got dark” by 37%. Researchers attribute this to environmental pollution, although the dynamics of “global dimming” are not entirely clear. Scientists have long known that particles of substances that pollute the atmosphere to some extent reflect sunlight, preventing it from reaching the ground. The process has been going on for a long time and is not unexpected, Dr. Hansen emphasized, but “its consequences are enormous.” Experts do not predict the imminent onset of eternal night. Moreover, some are optimistic, pointing out that as a result of the fight against environmental pollution, the air over some areas of the planet has become cleaner. Still, the phenomenon of “global dimming” needs to be studied in depth.

From the above facts it follows that mechanical impurities emitted into the atmosphere by volcanoes and formed as a result of anthropogenic activity can have a significant impact on the climate.

For complete glaciation of the globe to occur, a decrease in the influx of total solar radiation by only 2% is sufficient.

The hypothesis of the influence of atmospheric pollution on climate was accepted when modeling the consequences of a nuclear war, which was carried out by scientists from the Computing Center of the Russian Academy of Sciences under the leadership of academician. N.N. Moiseeva. They showed that as a result of nuclear explosions, dust clouds are formed, weakening the intensity of the flow of solar rays. This leads to a significant cooling throughout the planet and to the death of the biosphere in the process of “nuclear winter”.

The need for great precision in maintaining natural conditions on Earth and the inadmissibility of changing them is evidenced by the statements of many scientists.

For example, former President of the New York Academy of Sciences Cressey Morrison in his book “Man Is Not Alone” says that people are now at the dawn of the scientific era, and every new discovery reveals the fact that “the universe was conceived and created by a great constructive Intelligence. The presence of living organisms on our planet presupposes such an incredible number of all kinds of conditions for their existence that the coincidence of all these conditions cannot be a matter of chance. The earth is distant from the sun exactly at the distance at which the sun's rays warm us enough, but not too much. The earth has an elliptical tilt of twenty-three degrees, giving rise to different seasons; Without this tilt, water vapor evaporating from the surface of the ocean would move along a north-south line, piling up ice on our continents.

If the moon were only fifty thousand miles away, instead of about two hundred and forty thousand miles away, our ocean tides would be so enormous that they would flood our land twice a day...

If our atmosphere were more rarefied, burning meteorites (which burn by the millions in space) would hit our earth every day from different directions, producing fires...

These examples and many others show that there is not a single chance in a million that life on our planet was an accident” (quoted from materials by A.D Shakhovsky).

Conclusions to the fifth chapter

Climatic conditions are decisive for many processes on which the existence of the biosphere on Earth depends.

Climate change as a result of anthropogenic activities is dangerous if it occurs on a global scale.

A significant change in climatic conditions is possible with an increase in the content of “greenhouse” gases in the atmosphere (carbon dioxide, water vapor, etc.)

To compensate for the greenhouse effect, it is necessary to increase the productivity of natural and artificial cenoses.

A significant change in climatic conditions is also possible when the atmosphere is polluted with mechanical impurities.

The use of natural resources should be oriented, on the one hand, to reducing the consumption of organic fuel, and on the other, to increasing the productivity of vegetation (increasing CO 2 absorption).

HYPOTHESIS

Philosophy: Encyclopedic Dictionary. - M.: Gardariki. Edited by A.A. Ivina. 2004 .

HYPOTHESIS

(from the Greek hypothesis - basis, foundation)

a well-thought-out assumption, expressed in the form of scientific concepts, which should, in a certain place, fill the gaps of empirical knowledge or connect various empirical knowledge into a whole, or give a preliminary explanation of a fact or group of facts. A hypothesis is scientific only if it is confirmed by facts: “Hypotheses non fingo” (Latin) – “I do not invent hypotheses” (Newton). A hypothesis can exist only as long as it does not contradict reliable facts of experience, otherwise it becomes simply a fiction; it is verified (tested) by the relevant facts of experience, especially experiment, obtaining truths; it is fruitful as a heuristic or if it can lead to new knowledge and new ways of knowing. “The essential thing about a hypothesis is that it leads to new observations and investigations, whereby our conjecture is confirmed, refuted, or modified—in short, expanded” (Mach). The facts of experience of any limited scientific field, together with realized, strictly proven hypotheses or connecting, the only possible hypotheses, form a theory (Poincaré, Science and Hypothesis, 1906).

Philosophical Encyclopedic Dictionary. 2010 .

HYPOTHESIS

(from Greek ὑπόϑεσις – basis, assumption)

1) A special kind of assumption about directly unobservable forms of connection between phenomena or the causes that produce these phenomena.

3) A complex technique that includes both making an assumption and its subsequent proof.

Hypothesis as an assumption. G. plays a dual role: either as an assumption about one or another form of connection between observed phenomena, or as an assumption about the connection between observed phenomena and internal ones. the basis that produces them. G. of the first kind are called descriptive, and of the second - explanatory. As a scientific assumption, G. differs from an arbitrary guess in that it satisfies a number of requirements. The fulfillment of these requirements forms the consistency of the G. The first condition: the G. must explain the entire range of phenomena for which it is put forward for analysis, if possible without contradicting previously established ones. facts and scientific provisions. However, if the explanation of these phenomena on the basis of consistency with known facts fails, statements are put forward that enter into agreement with previously proven positions. This is how many foundations arose. G. science.

The second condition: the fundamental verifiability of G. A hypothesis is an assumption about a certain directly unobservable basis of phenomena and can be verified only by comparing the consequences derived from it with experience. The inaccessibility of consequences to experimental verification means the unverifiability of G. It is necessary to distinguish between two types of unverifiability: practical. and principled. The first is that the consequences cannot be verified at the given level of development of science and technology, but in principle their verification is possible. G. that are practically unverifiable at the moment cannot be discarded, but they must be put forward with a certain caution; cannot concentrate his fundamentals. efforts to develop such G. The fundamental unverifiability of G. lies in the fact that it cannot give consequences that can be compared with experience. A striking example of a fundamentally untestable hypothesis is provided by the explanation proposed by Lorenz and Fitzgerald for the absence of an interference pattern in the Michelson experiment. The reduction in the length of any body assumed by them in the direction of its movement cannot in principle be detected by any measurement, because Together with the moving body, the scale ruler also experiences the same contraction, with the help of which the scale will be produced. G., which do not lead to any observable consequences, except those for which they are specifically put forward to explain, and will be fundamentally unverifiable. The requirement for the fundamental verifiability of G. is, in the very essence of the matter, a deeply materialistic requirement, although it tries to use it in one’s own interests, especially one that empties the content from the requirement of verifiability, reducing it to the notorious beginning of fundamental observability (see Verifiability principle) or to the requirement of an operationalist definition of concepts (see Operationalism). Positivist speculation on the requirement of fundamental verifiability should not lead to declaring this very requirement to be positivist. The fundamental verifiability of a system is an extremely important condition for its consistency, directed against arbitrary constructions that do not allow any external detection and do not manifest themselves in any way outside.

The third condition: the applicability of G. to the widest possible range of phenomena. G. should be used to deduce not only those phenomena for which it is specifically put forward to explain, but also possibly wider phenomena that would seem to be not directly related to the original ones. Because it represents a single coherent whole and the separate exists only in that connection that leads to the general, G., proposed to explain the cl.-l. a relatively narrow group of phenomena (if it correctly covers them) will certainly prove to be valid for explaining some other phenomena. On the contrary, if G. does not explain anything except that specific one. group of phenomena, for the understanding of which it was specially proposed, this means that it does not grasp the general basis of these phenomena, what it means. its part is arbitrary. Such G. are hypothetical, i.e. G., put forward exclusively and only to explain this, are few in number. groups of facts. For example, quantum theory was originally proposed by Planck in 1900 to explain one relatively narrow group of facts—black body radiation. Basic The assumption of this theory about the existence of discrete portions of energy - quanta - was unusual and sharply contradicted the classical one. ideas. However, the quantum theory, for all its unusualness and the apparent ad hoc nature of the theory, turned out to be able to subsequently explain an exceptionally wide range of facts. In the particular region of black body radiation, it found a common basis that reveals itself in many other phenomena. This is exactly the nature of scientific research. G. in general.

Fourth condition: the greatest possible fundamental simplicity of G. This should not be understood as a requirement for ease, accessibility or simplicity of mathematics. forms G. Valid. G.'s simplicity lies in its ability, based on a single basis, to explain as wide a range of different phenomena as possible, without resorting to the arts. constructions and arbitrary assumptions, without putting forward in each new case more and more new G. ad hoc. Simplicity of scientific G. and theories have a source and should not be confused with the subjectivist interpretation of simplicity in the spirit, for example, of the principle of economy of thinking. In understanding the objective source of simplicity scientific. theories there is a fundamental difference between metaphysical. and dialectical materialism, which proceeds from the recognition of the inexhaustibility of the material world and rejects metaphysics. belief in some abs. simplicity of nature. The simplicity of geometry is relative, since the “simplicity” of the phenomena being explained is relative. Behind the apparent simplicity of the observed phenomena, their inner nature reveals. complexity. Science constantly has to abandon old simple concepts and create new ones that at first glance may seem much more complex. The task is not to stop at stating this complexity, but to move on, to reveal that inner. unity and dialectic. contradictions, that common connection, edge lies at the basis of this complexity. Therefore, with further progress of knowledge, new theoretical theories. constructions necessarily acquire fundamental simplicity, although not coinciding with the simplicity of the previous theory. Compliance with basic conditions of consistency of a hypothesis do not yet turn it into a theory, but in their absence, the assumption cannot at all claim to be a scientific one. G.

Hypothesis as a conclusion. G.'s inference consists in transferring the subject from one judgment, which has a given predicate, to another, which has a similar and some unknown yet. M. Karinsky was the first to draw attention to G. as a special conclusion; The advancement of any G. always begins with the study of the range of phenomena for which this G. is created to explain. With logical point of view, this means that the formulation of a set judgment for the construction of a group occurs: X is P1 and P2 and P3, etc., where P1, P2 are the signs of the group of phenomena being studied discovered by research, and X is the yet unknown bearer of these signs (their ). Among the available judgments, one is looking for one that, if possible, would contain the same particular predicates P1, P2, etc., but with an already known subject (): S is P1 and P2 and P3, etc. From the two available judgments the conclusion is drawn: X is P1 and P2 and P3; S is P1 and P2 and P3, therefore X = S.

The given inference is G.’s inference (in this sense, a hypothetical inference), and the judgment obtained in the conclusion is G. In appearance, it is hypothetical. the inference resembles the second categorical figure. a syllogism, but with two assertions, premises, which, as is known, represents a logically invalid form of conclusion. But this turns out to be external. The predicate of an attitudinal judgment, in contrast to the predicate in the premises of the second figure, has a complex structure and, to a greater or lesser extent, turns out to be specific, which gives the possibility of qualities. assessing the probability that if the predicates coincide, there is similarity in the subjects. It is known that in the presence of a general distinguishing figure, the second figure gives a reliable one and, with two, it will confirm. judgments. In this case, the coincidence of predicates makes the probability of coincidence of subjects equal to 1. In the case of non-selective judgments, this probability ranges from 0 to 1. Ordinary ones will affirm. the premises in the second figure do not provide grounds for assessing this probability, and therefore are logically invalid here. In a hypothetical In conclusion, this is made on the basis of the complex nature of the predicate, which to a greater or lesser extent brings it closer to specificity. predicate of a distinguishing proposition.

American astrophysicist Abraham Loeb, having carried out the appropriate calculations, found that, in principle, the first life could have appeared in the Universe 15 million years after the Big Bang. Conditions at that time were such that liquid water could exist on solid planets even when they were outside the habitable zone of their star.

To some, the question of when, in principle, life could appear in our Universe may seem idle and insignificant. Why do we care at what point in time the conditions of our universe became such that organic molecules had the opportunity to create complex structures? We know for sure that on our planet this happened no later than 3.9 billion years ago (this is the age of the oldest sedimentary rocks on Earth, in which traces of the life activity of the first microorganisms were discovered), and this information, at first glance, may be sufficient in order to build on this basis all hypotheses about the development of life on Earth.

In fact, this question is much more complex and interesting for earthlings from a practical point of view. Take, for example, the hypothesis of panspermia, which is very popular today, according to which life does not originate on each planet separately, but, having once appeared at the very beginning of the development of the Universe, travels through different galaxies, systems and planets (in the form of so-called “spores of life” " - the simplest organisms that are in a state of rest during travel). However, there is still no reliable evidence for this hypothesis, since living organisms have not yet been found on any planet other than Earth.

However, if it is not possible to obtain direct evidence, then scientists can also use indirect evidence - for example, if it is established, at least theoretically, that life could have originated earlier than 4 billion years ago (let me remind you, the age of our Universe is estimated as 13.830 ± 0.075 billion years, so, as you can see, there was more than enough time for this), then the panspermia hypothesis will move from the category of philosophical to the rank of strictly scientific. It should be noted that one of the most ardent adherents of this theory, Academician V.I. Vernadsky generally believed that life is the same fundamental property of the matter of the Universe, like, for example, gravity. Thus, it is logical to assume that the appearance of living organisms is quite possible at the very early stages of the origin of our universe.

Probably, it was precisely such thoughts that prompted Dr. Abraham Loeb from Harvard University (USA) to think about the question of when life could have arisen in the Universe and what were the conditions for its existence in the earliest era. He carried out the corresponding calculations using data on the cosmic microwave background radiation and found out that this could well have happened when the first star-forming halos appeared inside our Hubble volume (this is the name for the region of the expanding Universe surrounding the observer, outside of which objects move away from the observer at a speed greater than than the speed of light), that is, just... 15 million years after the Big Bang.

According to the researcher’s calculations, in this early era, the average density of matter in the Universe was a million times higher than today’s, and the temperature of the cosmic microwave background radiation was 273-300 K (0-30 °C). It follows from this: if solid planets existed then, then liquid water on their surface could exist regardless of the degree of their distance from their sun. If we explain this using the example of objects in our solar system, then endless oceans could splash freely on Uranus’s satellite Triton, and on Jupiter’s satellite Europa, and on the famous Saturnian Titan, and even on dwarf planets like Pluto and objects from the Oort cloud (subject to the presence of the latter have sufficient gravity to hold water masses)!

Thus, it turns out that already 15 million years after the birth of the Universe there were all the conditions for life to arise on some planets - after all, the presence of water is the main condition for the beginning of the process of formation of complex organic molecules from simple components. True, Dr. Loeb notes that there is one “but” in his constructions. A date of 15 million years from the Big Bang corresponds to the redshift parameter z (it determines the magnitude of the displacement relative to the point where the observer is located) with a value of 110. And according to previous calculations, the time of appearance of heavy elements in the Universe, without which the formation of rocky planets is impossible, corresponds to z value equal to 78, and this is already 700 million years after the same Big Bang. In other words, there was nothing for liquid water to exist on then, since there were no solid planets themselves.

However, Abraham Loeb notes, this is exactly the picture that emerges if we accept that the distribution of matter 15 million years after the birth of our universe was Gaussian (that is, normal). However, it is quite possible that it was completely different in those days. And if so, then the likelihood that somewhere in the Universe there were already systems with rocky planets increases very, very much. Proof of this assumption can be found in objects that astronomers often find lately - these are stars and galaxies whose age is much younger than the end of the reionization era (after which the appearance of heavy elements began).

Thus, if Dr. Loeb's calculations are correct, then it turns out that life could have arisen on literally every planet in the early Universe. Moreover, it turns out that the first planetary systems should be filled with it almost “to capacity”, since at least some of these planets retained their potential suitability for life for a very long time. Well, since no one can still refute the potential possibility of transfer of living organisms and their spores by meteorites and comets, it is logical to assume that in this case, even after the temperature of the relict radiation dropped, these “pioneers of life” could colonize other planetary bodies even before the death of their primary biospheres - after all, fortunately, the distances between planetary systems at that time were many times smaller than today.