Stars Could Shine In Many Universes

A commonplace of cosmologists who argue the anthropic principle is the assumption that if any or a few of the constants of nature took on an even slightly different value, life could not have evolved — perhaps even stars and galaxies would not form. Science News reports on a new calculation showing that, to the contrary, star formation could happen in up to one-quarter of universes with different values of three important constants. "In fact, all universes can support the existence of stars, provided that the definition of star is interpreted broadly," said the researcher, Fred Adams. "...calculations suggest that, contrary to some previous claims, stars are not only common in our cosmos but are also ablaze in myriad other universes, where the laws of physics may be drastically different... Had Adams found that the range of parameters that allowed for stars was very small, that would have suggested that the laws of physics in our universe have been 'fine-tuned' to allow for star formation... Instead, Adams' study shows that our universe doesn't seem particularly special in that regard."

Comments

so

[thermian]

This hypothesis, if true, shows that the universe is actually a rather robust structure.

I like that a lot more then the 'one tiny bit off and you get nothing' thing. It sounds more plausible to me.

Re:so

[cathector]

good clarification.

yes, i was limiting the scope of agents to those admitted by "accepted science".

so with scoping in mind, my complaint is that irreducible complexity arguments tend to translate into "accepted scientific agents do not currently explain such-and-such, therefore we must look outside accepted scientific agents".

.. which strictly speaking, yes, proper scientific method can't shut the door out-of-hand on agents such as gods. for example, consider a world in which gods actually did create such-and-such. if the scientists of that world always reject gods as possible agents, then they will clearly never arrive at the correct explanation of such-and-such.

however, appeals to agents outside the scope of accepted science have historically always fallen, so it seems prudent not to resort to them now, and instead to keep hammering on the stuff within accepted science. qv the god of the gaps, etc.

Still dumb

[Bombula]

So science uncovers yet another way in which our world and universe are mediocre instead of special. Is this surprising? Even if the universe were fine tuned so that the characteristics we see are a unique product of its basic configuration, what's to say there aren't an infinite number of other universes which also harbor unique characteristics as a result of their own basic configurations - features that may make them more conducive to what we would call life? Perhaps there are universes in which life is fantastically abundant and our universe is, by comparison, a bland underperformer? Or perhaps life is itself a silly concept? Maybe whole universes are organized such that they are sentient. Perhaps even in our own universe there is complexity in dark matter and dark energy that might be called life, perhaps in great abundance (there is, after all, much more dark matter and energy). Or perhaps rules of logic and consistency - the basis of mathematics, upon which we interpret our universe's configuration - is itself specific to our universe, and in other universes logic and consistency look different or aren't even meaningful.

Even if we are rare, why does that make is so special? It's rare to win the lottery, but it's got to happen to someone doesn't it? If we hadn't won the lottery, we wouldn't be here to talk about it, would we?

Re:Still dumb

[Chappster]

The anthropic principle is one of Creationists' favorite argument for the 'proof' of the existence of god. It is one of the most annoying, under-the-belt argument that has absolutely no actual bearing on anything whatsoever, but philosophers like Dinesh D'Souza play with it like a flute.

With studies like this, that argument is useless. It shows that the philosophers who use this argument are just blowing steam out of their pompous asses without any actual research. I really wish that I could see the faces on the folks who put this idea in to print, who are now making a fortune off of their hog-wash book.

What's even sadder, is that people will still use this argument, even though this research proves that it's near-completely invalid. I'm glad that somebody actually went forward and put work into this, though.

Re:In lameness terms, please?

[Hurricane78]

I'm sorry, but it's the "mathematical phantasy" thing.
Or more correctly: It's a tought experiment, to find out if the universe has some special fine-tuned constants, because this would pose some interesting questions on why they are exactly like this.

Of course, as far as our knowledge goes, the universe could be a 4d sphere (with a 3d surface). So there is still the question "is there an 'outside' to the universe"? If so, what is there? Other universes?

A completely different, and more realistic POV is to see our universe as the cone or our event horizon. So there could be space outside that we'll never see, but that is perfectly normal "space". Of course this would pose the question, that if the constants are different in "another universe" (= another place outside our event horizon), then why is there no visible gradient when you get near the border of that horizon?

weakless universe

[xPsi]

Here's another similar idea trying to construct a so-called "weakless" universe, where no weak nuclear interactions exist (see abstract below). A bit technical, but good stuff.

"A universe without weak interactions is constructed that undergoes big-bang nucleosynthesis, matter domination, structure formation, and star formation. The stars in this universe are able to burn for billions of years, synthesize elements up to iron, and undergo supernova explosions, dispersing heavy elements into the interstellar medium.

There's no evidence such universes exist. But it is still a good exercise to help keep some perspective on what is possible, even in principle, given what we know about physical law. It also highlights that people who make "anthropic principle-like" claims based on fine-tuning haven't bothered to go back to the underlying laws of physics and actually look for other stable configurations, even in theory.

Re:Words mean something

[I7D]

That's being closed minded (no offense). Scientists once thought the atom was the smallest block of matter. We now know that there are protons/neutrons/quarks/etc. Nobody is fighting to have the atom back, though.

Re:Zug zug

[MichaelSmith]

There's also the semi-popular negaverse. In fact, there's two.

Don't forget the Planiverse.

Re:This makes no sense!

[Shag]

I didn't know that astrologers used telescopes.

At the visitor information station on Mauna Kea, I am routinely approached by followers of astronomy (henceforth "gullibles") during the evening stargazing sessions. It usually goes something like this:

Gullible: It's my birthday, can you point out my sign?
Me: (points at the ground)

Anyone who subscribes to pseudoscientific nonsense but doesn't even read enough of it to know that their sign is the one the Sun is in when they're born, should be duct-taped in place and forced to listen to Weird Al's "Your Horoscope for Today."

To their credit, no Christians have asked me to point out the star from when Jesus was born. Yet.

doesn't help

[Anonymous Coward]

Other religious writings place their god as part of or within this physical time-space-matter-energy universe.

I'll post this yet again, because this wrong assertion just keeps getting made:

No. You obviously lack the familiarity you claim to have with other religions, even very closely related ones, and with religion in general. Islam and Judaism make this same claim, and even about roughly the same God! Hinduism and Daoism have very different spins on this idea. Zoroastrianism has exactly the same theological concept (Ahura Mazda, the uncreated creator) that you just claimed was true only of Christianity. Only one of the few, major counterexamples I just gave is younger than Christianity, and most are *much* older. It is either naive or arrogant of you to think that your religion (in this case, Christianity) is the lone bastion in all human history of people being in some way "reasonable" about their religion, above and beyond how poor that reason actually is.

The record tells us that those who came to arrest Jesus fell down backwards at the sound of the name of God.

"The" record? There are many books, and many holy books, but they do not constitute historical "record". The Bible claims a lot of unlikely events happened. So does the Koran, so do the Vedas, and so does the New York Times. Not every claim that gets made or reported is true.

The Bible tells us that God just is.

But it is just as easy for the universe itself "just to exist". Religious claims of special creation don't solve any mystery at all, and they are worse because they require belief without evidence.