Universe May Not Be "Fine-Tuned" for Life
The chemistry of life may be more robust than we thought against changes in the fundamental laws of physics.
kfc 04/15/2009
- 10 Comments
The anthropic principle is the idea that the physical laws that govern our Universe are precisely those that allow complex life like ours to emerge. Many scientists have wondered at the balance of these laws, arguing that any small change would alter the universe so radically that life would be impossible. Why is the Universe so finely tuned for life, they ask.
Nobody has come up with a reasonable answer to this question but today James MacDonald and Dermott Mullan at the University of Delaware argue that matters may be more robust than we thought.
Their argument is about the strong nuclear force. Various physicists have noted that if the strong force were just a little stronger, then protons would bind together more readily. That would mean that soon after the Big Bang, most protons would join together to form diprotons, leaving few if any single protons available to form hydrogen. Consequently, chemistry as we know it would be impossible.
But this reasoning fails to take other factors into account, say MacDonald and Mullan. The biggest factor is that protons and neutrons will always bind more strongly than protons and protons, regardless of the strength of the strong force. So although diprotons would form in this universe, they would also tend to decay into deuterons.
So hydrogen (and deuterium) chemistry would be just as likely in a Universe in which the strong force were stronger. (Of course, how the change would affect the the nucleosynthesis of other elements is another question.)
The work gives the lie to some of the more extraordinary claims regarding the anthropic principle. For example, some argue that since we are unable to find anything special about the combination of laws in our Universe, then maybe any permutation is possible. And if any permutation is possible, then perhaps these combinations exist in countless other universes. Of course, the only one we would experience is the one in
which the laws are fine-tuned for our existence.
That's an extraordinary line of argument. But the alternative--that organic chemistry is an emergent property of a wide range of the parameters governing the basic laws of physics--is even more jaw dropping.
MacDonald and Mullan's work gives a tantalising hint that this idea might be worth pursuing a little more diligently.
Ref: arxiv.org/abs/0904.1807: Big Bang Nucleosynthesis: The Strong Force meets the Weak Anthropic Principle
On Twitter
Become a Fan on Facebook
Subscribe to the Feed
Crackpot
3 Comments
The strong nuclear force
There is also another possibility: There is no strong nuclear force! It may just be a hypothetical construct to keep the Standard Model from falling apart (literally). Alternative models may not demand a strong (or weak) nuclear force: http://classicalatom.blogspot.com
Reply
Guest (Zephir_AWT)
Re: The strong nuclear force
The fact, something can be computed in less or more independent way doesn't mean, it doesn't exist at all. For example, the fact we can compute paths of planets by using of geocentric model doesn't mean, planetary forces doesn't exist.
Reply
deanlsinclair
1 Comment
Re: The strong nuclear force
I could not agree more with the comment about the strong nuclear force. My own version of a model of existence, "The Oscillator/Substance Model," URL: http://groups.google.com/group/oscillatorsubstance-theory does not include either the strong or weak nuclear forces and I agree that both are invented to support the idea that the neutron is a necessary component as such in the nuclei of atoms, one of the several fallacious bases of the Standard Model. The Standard Model "works" for the same reason that the "Geocentric Model of the Solar System works, if on wants to use it. Make enough assumptions that can be expressed mathematicfally and keep piling on other assumptions to make the first ones closer for a fit to observational fact and you finally get something that will more or less fit "Reality.
The Standard Model in based on a number of shaky premises. One is the "four forces of nature," one of which, gravitation, can be ignored or so they say. None of the four forces fit the law of forces. Electromagnetism and gravitation are observed phenomena which can be described mathematrically, they are not "Forces." The strong and weak nuclear forces have their basis in the idea that neutrons are present in nuclei per se. The idea of neutrons in nuclei is attractive but prabably is actually in error.
The other, probably fallacious bssis of the Standard Model is the idea that entities produced in atom smashing experiments are fundamental particles, it seems more sensible to consider them as alternate states of matter created by the conditions.
As to Quarks, 2/3 and 1/3 pairs...This has an interesting probable fit to the fact that an "inverting, vortex oscillator such as the proton and electron has two limits and a central "node" thru which it inverts. This could very well account for the "existence of Quarks."
Ciaux. Keep thinking "Crackpot. " You hold water quite well. Dean L. Sinclair
Reply