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: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.