Slashdot Mirror
Scientists Find That Conditions For Life May Hinge On How Fast the Universe Is Expanding (sciencemag.org)
sciencehabit writes: Scientists have known for several years now that stars, galaxies, and almost everything in the universe is moving away from us (and from everything else) at a faster and faster pace. Now, it turns out that the unknown forces behind the rate of this accelerating expansion - a mathematical value called the cosmological constant - may play a previously unexplored role in creating the right conditions for life. That is the conclusion that a group of physicists who studied the effects of massive cosmic explosions, called gamma ray bursts, on planets made. They found that when it comes to growing life, it's better to be far away from your neighbors - and the cosmological constant helps thin out the neighborhood.
I feel like my quality of life goes up the further I live from my neighbors.
Close gamma ray bursts are bad, duh.
"when it comes to growing life, it's better to be far away from your neighbors -" . ... Not only that but I found its easier to create life if you are far away from your in-laws.
so...does that mean the expanding universe provides more chances for more life?
I ain't fucking with no gamma rays, that's for damn sure.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Actually, the design of the universe suggests that our universe is merely one "bud" in a complex "vine" of universes. Each bud may have varied parameters.
The Anthropic Principle suggests that we are not in a "bad" bud (conditions poor for forming complex life) because if we were, we wouldn't be around to ponder why we were in a bad bud.
It's somewhat comparable to the fact there are not many books written by people who live at the bottom of the ocean because humans can't survive there very long. (Please, no Sponge-Bob jokes.)
But we really don't know what's out there beyond our universe yet. Too early to say. We just have spotty hints.
Table-ized A.I.
This just affirms my belief that the Universe was always ordained (pun intended) to allow life to emerge.
It is, and was (at the start) a mathematical certainty.
We start with a singular point, it expands, becomes more complex, elements are created and eventually planets then life.
There's a lot of yatta yatta in between those points but you get my drift.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
Or, there could be "zillions" of universes all with different laws of physics. The vast majority are probably "duds" in terms of complex life. We are not "lucky" in the usual sense, but only in the sense that ponderers of existence will only exist in universes that allow ponderers to form. There are no existence-ponderers in the dud universes (by definition of "dud" here). I'd call that a form of feedback-based perspective, not luck.
Or, maybe there's something weird going on with quantum physics-like probabilities in terms of observers influencing things; guiding or pruning them in a way. Okay, time to put down Sheldon's bong...
Table-ized A.I.
Are we talking about only carbon based lifeforms that are similar size to us and have the same senses that we evolved based on conditions on Earth surface? Then there is no doubt that we will find our universe to be specially designed for "life", since we are obviously there.
Or are we talking about intelligence that might exist thanks to complex matter and energy interactions on event horizons of black holes? The range of hospitable univeses for that might be slightly different.
Unless you're really close to a gamma ray burst, your planet will not be radiation-sterilized. And since most life is in the oceans and underground, it will not notice when the ozone layer is burned off. Anyway, the effect would be temporary. I have a feeling that this is a case of physicists who don't understand the difference between the resilience of familiar lifeforms and the resilience of life.
Many a boy on his way to school has been scared for life by those unfortunate NSFL events.
But what can the family do? They love her dearly and like to keep their elders close, even when she would be better off in the dementia ward of the local nursing home.
Actually, the design of the universe suggests that our universe is merely one "bud" in a complex "vine" of universes. Each bud may have varied parameters
There is nothing that suggests this. It could be a possibility, but completely untestable as far as we know so far.
TFS mentions a "cosmological constant" as the reason for the acceleration of the expansion of the universe. I thought that the cosmological constant was a so-called "fudge factor" to back the steady state theory-- and that Einstein said it was the biggest blunder of his career. Can someone enlighten me about which constant is being referred to in the summary?
"No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session." -- Judge Gideon J. Tucker
As all are aware Einstein's math showed an expanding Universe so came up with the cosmological constant to keep the universe a closed system and satisfy the then common understanding of the Universe at the time.
He later removed it calling it the worst mistake in his life. How is this article able to disprove Einstein which is a sure sign it's wrong, yet make it to the mainstream.
They must be ready for a fight to justify their claim over a bad choice of what to call it.
And decide, in drove, to go lobby the government for more funs in how to get a clue.
This isn't entirely untestable. If i recall, supposedly signatures for some of this should be written into the microwave background radiation. however we haven't currently seen any of those patterns.
You raise a worthy query.
But I'd like to raise a couple of concerns. First, you could just have done a quick websearch on "Cosmological Constant". The Wikipedia article alone is enough to answer your query although the math there might turn some away. Second, though, and much more concerning to me is this strange apparent deification of Einstein. The man was a decent scientist. But he was surrounded by and worked with many other incredibly talented folk. On many things he was correct. However, he was on the wrong side of many debates. One of the cool things about Einstein was that he was able to admit when he was wrong (though it may have taken a bit of time and patience for folk to demonstrate where and why he was wrong).
But the Cosmological Constant? Nah. That one is easy. He added it, as you've described as much because of what he wanted to be true rather than what evidence had shown to be true. But when he did so, the evidence wasn't so strong either way. Pretty much as soon as the evidence rolled in, he backed off.
So why is it back in play now? Well, you need to understand it's been back for years now. This aspect isn't new. The authors of this article don't need to defend it. Indeed, nobody really does. Why? Because more evidence keeps rolling in and now we know we need it. Evidence trumps theories.
But this isn't a binary thing. It's not off/on. It, at the very least, is negative/zero/positive. Einstein set it to a negative value. He'd hoped this resulted in a static universe. Now we know that even that isn't correct. It's static, but unstable. When removing it, he essentially set it to zero. This matched an expanding universe. But as the evidence kept rolling in, it's clear that the universe isn't just expanding - it's expanding at an ever increasing rate. To get that, you need a positive value.
On many things he was correct. However, he was on the wrong side of many debates. One of the cool things about Einstein was that he was able to admit when he was wrong (though it may have taken a bit of time and patience for folk to demonstrate where and why he was wrong).
He was on the wrong side of the debate regarding quantum physics. He denied accepting that quantums play by different rules than everything else and that it makes no sense how they behave. In his defense what he argued against wasn't proven until long after his death. We still can't explain why quantum physics is as it is, but we can observe it and tell it does what should be impossible for "normal" physics, like sending information faster than light and making electrons flow in wave patterns even when they are alone, as in sending all electrons at once makes them interact like a wave. Sending them one by one makes them interact in the same way and provides the same result with a wave pattern shaped distribution. I wouldn't accept a theory like that either if nobody could provide any proof or evidence for it.
The thing about "Einsteins worst mistake in his life" is that he came up with the Cosmic Constant because it made observations and math fit together. He then failed to proof it for years and without any proof at all, he declared that the lack of proof meant it was wrong, hence his mistake. It has been proven recently, which mean the mistake was actually declaring something correct to be a mistake.
Unfortunately for this claim, there's a fascinating "clumping" effect as larger gas clouds collect, forming supernova capable stars within the cloud, and then causing a cascade of stellar formation when the first supernovae explode. The result is that local concentrqtions are disrupted into new, more stqable, more evenly populated states. The supernovae act much like "backfires" in stellar formation by triggering early formaton, which partially exhausts the resources of the cloud.
The result is a surprising normalization of stellar clusters and of the availability of heavier isotopes in these clusters. The phenomenon is described at http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pa....
Greg Egan wrote the greatest science fiction novel ever (in terms of scale if nothing else, and there was plenty of else) with GRB's as the driver of the (truly amazing) plot. p.s.: if you think rotating neutron stars make trouble, just wait...
I seem to recall reading that you're correct and that the MBR would have a "fingerprint" if there were other universes. Another thing I recall is that we might be able to see it at the very edge of the universe much the same way we should be able to see (in theory) the information about what is in a black hole by looking at the outside of the black hole. It was either reading something or by a documentary from Brian Greene.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
It reduces the chances that your planet will be obliterated by the Vogons for an intergalactic highway construction project
Maybe once things have expanded and the species have learned enough not to destroy each other, someone will change the cosmological constant and bring them back together.
Hmm... I have to refer back to Brian Greene again. IIRC...
Einstein was right, he thought he was wrong. It's seen as unfortunate that he died believing he was wrong about when he was actually right. At the other end of the spectrum, it's also unfortunate that he died believing that God does play dice.
At least that's how I recall him saying it. Buggered if I know... I'm just pretty sure that's what Brian Greene (or maybe one of the many physicists in his documentary) said. It was either his series on the universe or his series on quantum mechanics, both from Nova.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
There is a SciFi book about this, Calculating God. The plot device is that aliens have discovered that this is indeed testable, and there could not have been anywhere near enough "buds." (That said, the god they find is not most religions' idea of God.)
As all are aware Einstein's math showed an expanding Universe so came up with the cosmological constant...
Not quite. Originally, Einstein found when he applied the general field equations to the universe's structure, 2 possible solutions emerged: either a contracting or an expanding. Since this was prior to Hubble's discovery that other galaxies were moving away from us, the universe was believed to be static. Einstein tried to fix this by hypothesizing another factor that opposed gravity, and eventually overcame it, at certain distances. Thus the two would keep each other in balance and retain the static universe.
After Hubble's discovery, which showed the universe to be dynamic, Einstein removed the cosmological constant. It was re-added when it was discovered that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, and is now attributed to so-called Dark Energy.
From the article: "As it turns out, our universe seems to get it just about right. The existing cosmological constant means the rate of expansion is large enough that it minimizes planets’ exposure to gamma ray bursts, but small enough to form lots of hydrogen-burning stars around which life can exist. (A faster expansion rate would make it hard for gas clouds to collapse into stars.)"
The circumstantial evidence that we're in fact inside a simulation seems to accumulating.
For one, the expansion rate is not constant. Second, continue with the lies and you will stay colloquially on "The List" held on a near to you hard drive, ((maybe even on the nearest memory device to you!) of which you might even consider to be yours!), which can be used after your death by the police or judge as evidence of your wrongdoing. For example, the psychiatrists might have a hard time not leaving evidence of wrongdoing.
The universe is not expanding. Instead we are falling into a gravity well, which is what is disturbing our observations and making it appear as if everything else is growing bigger.
What we call 'time' is really just an illusion caused by our motion towards a singularity: we are moving towards it with almost the speed of light, so attempting motion in any other direction costs a great deal of energy. Time is directional because of gravity: we are attracted to the singularity.
I think, in the background of this article and others like it hovers the assumption that life is a rare, unlikely event. I would argue that the opposite is the case: life is something that must arise in any dynamic system, unless there are specific conditions against it. Since the Miller-Urey experiment in the 50es we have seen a growing body of evidence suggesting that the components of life are generated all the time, everywhere, cosmologically speaking, and that life itself is simply another level of chemical complexity, to put it simply.
I said 'dynamic system' for a reason: dynamic systems are mathematical abstractions of the physical world, and even on that level you can begin to see glimpses of something central for life: spotaneous, localised decreases in entropy. Drawing lines from there to life itself is of course wildly speculative, but I am very much in favour of the idea that the universe is teeming with life; read Stephen Baxter's "exultant (sic)" for some interesting thoughts about this idea (as well as some good SF).
It reminds me of the old philosophical science question... whats the one thing an intelligent fish will never think of to build a rocket .. the answer is fire.
Because of propaganda, one of the biggest stumbling blocks for Creationists is that there is no theory of abiogenesis. Also because of propaganda, scientists dismiss abiogenesis as an important theoretical foundation for evolution. I’ll give you a computer analogy: Evolution ignoring abiogenesis is like learning algorithms and data structures without learning computer architecture. Actually, most software engineers are like this, and they’re quite successful, but ignorance of the underlying hardware is at least a mild handicap.
Unfortunately, (a) the conditions for abiogenesis probably no longer exist on earth, and (b) if life did spontaneously form from chemicals, it would get eaten right away by life on earth, so we’d never notice it happening. This is going to be a tough nut to crack.
Another stubling block is that the evidence for evolution is presented in such a weak manner. If you look in a textbook, you mostly see drawings and theory, but none of the actual evidence is presented. You can find progressions of small fossils that can be photographed at actual size and put them in tables, where there are columns for their size and weight measurements and columns for radiometric dating, and so forth. THAT is the actual evidence. It’s a bit dry, which is probably why nobody presents it that way. People want hollywood discovery channel crap, but it’s not actual evidence, just glitz, and the skeptics reject it. So far, I have been profoundly disappointed with the evidence for evolution presented in an accessible form. It seems beneath the scientists to do this, and it makes them look not credible.
This is why I stick to things like geology. There are numerous radiometric dating methods, where you can take lots of rock samples from the same layers and perform different tests and end up with tight agreement on multi-billion-year ages.
And the most damning argument to anyone who wants to argue that the universe is young is SN1987A. Look it up.
Life depends on my very arcane research.
Please give me more funding.
From a probability perspective, the Drake equations are crap. If there are 10 to the 29th stars in the universe, then that means in order for life to be unique in the universe, we need 29 events in a row with a 1 in 10 chance of occurring. If we're just trying to be unique in this here local galaxy of 100 billion stars, then we only needs 11 events in a row with a 1 in 10 chance of happening.
On many things he was correct. However, he was on the wrong side of many debates. One of the cool things about Einstein was that he was able to admit when he was wrong (though it may have taken a bit of time and patience for folk to demonstrate where and why he was wrong).
He was on the wrong side of the debate regarding quantum physics. He denied accepting that quantums play by different rules than everything else and that it makes no sense how they behave. In his defense what he argued against wasn't proven until long after his death. We still can't explain why quantum physics is as it is, but we can observe it and tell it does what should be impossible for "normal" physics, like sending information faster than light and making electrons flow in wave patterns even when they are alone, as in sending all electrons at once makes them interact like a wave. Sending them one by one makes them interact in the same way and provides the same result with a wave pattern shaped distribution. I wouldn't accept a theory like that either if nobody could provide any proof or evidence for it.
It's non-intuitive.
This is a section of what I was told a longer religious presentation and all that survived, very informative (double slit experiment).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I've seen an experiment closing an opening until it was the size of the electron, it showed a particle until it's size was dialed in at which point it became a wave.
Kool useless knowledge:
"In 1906, J.J. Thompson had received the Nobel Prize for proving that electrons are particles; in 1937 he saw his son awarded the Nobel Prize for proving that electrons are waves. Both father and son were correct, and both awards were fully merited."
We can't swim in nor live in nuclear blasts, but we invented/discovered them anyhow.
Table-ized A.I.
That's a pretty selective set of criteria, but if you're willing to broaden them a bit, there's Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot,... No idea what they would have thought of "Universe Ordained Life", but they weren't exactly religious, either.
Just a few quotes out of many by ole Adolf regarding his staunch Catholicism. Where does the atheism come in? It could easily be argued that his Catholicism is the focal point that inspires his genocidal tendencies.
Personally I never met the guy so I wont presume; Even educated guesses are still guesses.
On a side note many secularists (rather than atheists) subscribe to free thinking rather than subscribing to any sever school of irrational thought, be it religious or political (such as Communism).
“I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator.”
[Adolph Hitler, _Mein Kampf_, pp. 46]
“What we have to fight foris the freedom and independence of the fatherland, so that our people may be enabled to fulfill the mission assigned to it by the Creator.”
[Adolph Hitler, _Mein Kampf_, pp. 125]
“This human world of ours would be inconceivable without the practical existence of a religious belief.”
[Adolph Hitler, _Mein Kampf_, pp.152]
“I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so”
[Adolph Hitler, to Gen. Gerhard Engel, 1941]
“I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord’s work.”
[Adolph Hitler, Speech, Reichstag, 1936]
Hmm... I have to refer back to Brian Greene again. IIRC...
I've read his book "The Elegant Universe". He's very much into string theory, his description of gravity and it's ability to transverse dimensions explains dark matter to me - right or wrong I'm comfortable with my understanding of it. It's best described in the DVD's that comes with the book. The book itself is easy reading and the library normally carries it.
But it's the 8 episode series season 1 of "How the Universe works" narrated by Mike Rowe (of Dirty Jobs) I've watched untold times, it puts me to sleep at night :) it's Mike's voice, knocks me right out. and the series does indeed explain how the Universe works, I've learned much from it. The series is on Youtube https://www.google.com/search?... (best if watched in order 1-8)
As are the DVD's supplied with "The Elegant Universe" https://www.youtube.com/result... (1-3)