Wednesday, April 15, 2009
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.
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
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Comments
Crackpot
04/15/2009
Posts:2
Zephir_AWT
04/15/2009
Posts:9
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
deanlsinclai...
04/20/2009
Posts:1
Zephir_AWT
04/15/2009
Posts:9
And then there are those who are utterly clueless about why physicists say that the universe is fine-tuned over a specific region and time in the history of the universe. Why these people have some great need to express their lame and uneducated opinion about it, I'll never know...
http://evolutionarydesign.blogspot.com/2007/02/goldilocks-enigma-again.html
island
04/15/2009
Posts:2
Physics has been upside down since the day it denied life force as the source of the universe.
It assumes the universe made life and somehow we think, create, love, and hold values because of protons and electrons.Hahahahaha
Archie
04/16/2009
Posts:9
z0rr0
04/16/2009
Posts:53
or
Life is finely tuned for the universe
Considering the diversity of species that live on our planet from the hottest regions to the coldest I would guess biology is more adaptable to its conditions.
Using the available data of our universe as a template it would appear that it would remain fairly constant.
jdquarg
04/20/2009
Posts:1
Archie
10/09/2009
Posts:9