Fred Adams wonders whether we could still have stars if the constants of nature were very different. Answer: very possibly! It’s in arxiv:0807.3697:
Motivated by the possible existence of other universes, with possible variations in the laws of physics, this paper explores the parameter space of fundamental constants that allows for the existence of stars. To make this problem tractable, we develop a semi-analytical stellar structure model that allows for physical understanding of these stars with unconventional parameters, as well as a means to survey the relevant parameter space. In this work, the most important quantities that determine stellar properties — and are allowed to vary — are the gravitational constant $G$, the fine structure constant $alpha$, and a composite parameter $C$ that determines nuclear reaction rates. Working within this model, we delineate the portion of parameter space that allows for the existence of stars. Our main finding is that a sizable fraction of the parameter space (roughly one fourth) provides the values necessary for stellar objects to operate through sustained nuclear fusion. As a result, the set of parameters necessary to support stars are not particularly rare. In addition, we briefly consider the possibility that unconventional stars (e.g., black holes, dark matter stars) play the role filled by stars in our universe and constrain the allowed parameter space.
I’ve never thought that our knowledge of what constituted “intelligent life” was anywhere near good enough to start making statements about the conditions under which it could form, apart from fairly weak stuff like “life probably can’t exist if the universe only lasts for a Planck time.” So when anthropic arguments start to hinge on thinking that fractional changes in the mass of this or that nucleus would result in a universe with no observers, it seems more prudent to admit that we just don’t know. But putting any anthropic considerations aside, it’s still interesting to ask what the universe would look like if the constants of nature were completely different. How robust are the starry skies?
Now this is an interesting article…
It’s an interesting idea, but I wonder about whether it is possible to convert a “fraction of parameter space covered” into a probability estimate. In order to do a real probability calculation, one has to be able to say how probable any particular set of parameter values is compared to any other set. Is there anything in physics that allows us to make such statements at present?
I’m not shocked to hear that stars can at least exist for awhile in universes with other constants. The main anthropic argument is that they won’t last long enough (and other issues) for LAWKI to develop and evolve if say, alpha is a little different (Island, if you’re out there, sorry to bring that up again!) There is also the fine-tuning of the nuclear carbon transition, as brought up by Hoyle as perhaps the first anthropic-based physical prediction, and it turned out true. If you’re a fan of e.g. silicon life, OK maybe that can happen but really Si doesn’t have the range and property connectivity to enough elements to likely be a go. (I very much enjoyed the Star Trek episode about the tunneling critters with the shiny eggs, I am not a carbon chauvinist and actually wish they’d take boron more into account as well. I am just a realist. But REM Robert L. Forward and the “Cheela” made directly of subatomic particles living on a neutron star, very cool idea. That guy was really creative in many ways.) Also note, and I invite comments: alpha is dimensionless, but saying e.g. “what if the speed of light is different in another universe” (or, even that it changes in ours!) is problematical because of the conventions about how to define a standard for quantities showing net MLT units. IOW, a lot of that must be defined in relative terms, and I don’t mean just the crude quesiton like what if (or meaningfully, could?) the whole universe doubled in size, etc.
But the big question about the universe, as I tried to explain, is the reification of a particular or even a set of “possible worlds” at all, and not others. As I like to say, that would be like the number 23 being made up in brass numerals and not any other numbers, despite all numbers just being the same in ultimate platonic “kind” in the mindspace. To minimize groans at the inevitable mention of M**** Realism, just check the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modal_realism.
Hence people like the quirky but over-maligned Frank Tipler and the more “mainstream” Max Tegmark say that “every possible world exists”, but they don’t really appreciate that means every stinking possible description, like cartoon worlds and ones that start like ours but just fall to pieces at given times, etc. It’s a horrible mess, and gives no Bayesian reverse-engineering confidence that we should find ourselves in a universe that, *even though orderly up to this point*, continues to be so after any given reference time (lots of you don’t get that and need to re/read Hume on the empty conventionality of “laws” as far as our direct experience is concerned, not just when he picks on God or the Self etc. as you more likely prefer.) Hence I believe in some sort of “management” out there, which may or may not be a lot like “God” as commonly imagined.
It is not even clear that stars are a necessary condition for life. The discovery of thermophilic bacteria has shown life can exist without sunlight, and even without an oxygen source as we usually understand it– oh yes and survive at temperatures approaching the boiling point of water. Of course stars are needed to synthesize the chemical elements from which these bacteria are constructed… but even this might not be necessary since there are other nucleosynthesis mechanisms, e.g., depending on conditions of early universe.
So I agree that anthropic reasoning takes great hubris in assuming it knows what physical conditions are and are not genuinely anthropic.
I’ll echo what Neil B said about the Hoyle result: if the fundamental constants aren’t “just right”, stars can’t burn helium to make carbon. I’m a bit surprised that this famous anthropic prediction wasn’t even mentioned in this paper — how does helium burn in Adams’s model stars?
Pingback: pligg.com
Jim Clarage
The basic “genuine” anthropic conditions are required to allow the existence of immense complexity, such as in the human brain.
It seems that a propitious universe at least requires the existence of carbon – (who has been able to get anything approaching biochemistry going with silicon or boron?) – or some ‘alien’ equivalent and a sustained (~ Gyrs ?) stability of environmental conditions whereby the evolution of complex forms can take place.
Note the improbable occurrence of carbon requires a resonance in energy levels that exists in the process that creates carbon from beryllium and yet does not exist in the next process that creates oxygen from carbon; otherwise all the carbon would be transmuted into heavier elements.
I would not say these basic and obvious requirements demonstrate “great hubris”, they would be highly improbable in any one typical universe existing in ‘parameter space’.
Garth
I’d like to echo King Cynic’s comment. If we knew that possible fundamental constants were chosen uniformly from the parameter space, then this one-fourth figure would be meaningful.
Now, we don’t know how fundamental constants are “chosen” (as far as I know — but I’m not a physicist). But since they seem to be able to range over many orders of magnitude, it seems not unreasonable to assume that their logarithms are uniformly distributed over the possible range — and this is implicit in what Adams seems to want, namely to think of this “one-fourth” as a probability. He never explicitly points out a probabilistic interpretation, but it seems like the natural way to read it to me. But this may reflect my own bias as a probabilist.
Still, “one-fourth” is far from both zero and one. So this seems to say that there are reasonable choices of parameters for a universe which support stellar evolution, and reasonable choices of parameters that fail to do so.
Garth,
Fair enough. My word choice “hubris” might have been a bit dramatic (I think its etymology is from greek drama). I guess my point was that in biology we don’t know and can’t sample or predict biological “paramter space” as well as in physics. The observation of thermophilic bacteria is a good example, and shocked most in the field, who never would have predicted life was possible in this particular “extreme” point in the biology parameter space.
I’d also say we (at least I) don’t really know if a billion years is really necessary for bacteria to arise from elements, or if that long timescale just reflects say environmental contingencies (e.g., how long it took our particular planet to cool to certain temperature).
But I agree with your good point about the existence and stability of carbon being key. This seems more fundamental than the star question.
It’s not necessary to think abstractly about what constitutes “intelligent life.” We are humans, and we understand what a human is quite precisely. We can ask, our are observations typical of those made by other humans, in distant regions of the multiverse. Principle of mediocrity says they should be. Surely, for somewhat different types of stars, chances of life to evolve into humans instead of something else changes. But, types of stars in any universe also carry variety. It might not be unreasonable to assume the probability for humans to evolve is not much changed if typical stellar characteristics are not much changed. This allows to probe for other selection effects upon scanning physical parameters.
IANAP, but I did attempt to RTFP and its apparent that some of the authors of the wordier replies to this thread did not. Hint Hint.
Didn’t Weinberg have an argument for there being a 20% slop in the triple-alpha “fine tuning”?
There are some significant implications of a parametric space for universes. First, if the approximately 20 dimensionless parameters of particle physics (including the fine structure constant) are in fact randomly generated by the inflationary mechanism, then attempts to explain their observed values by some theoretical model will not be possible. Science will have come up against a dead end, in the same way that science cannot really explain why humans are the way they are. Evolutionary biology says that humans are random and contingent and that there is no reason or purpose for the way that they happened to turn out.
There is a second implication that more immediately applies to this post. Consider that Sean Carroll is of the opinion that objective human morality does exist and that it can, in principle, be derived from the equations of motion of particle physics. (Please see his lecture at Beyond Belief 2007 http://thesciencenetwork.org/BeyondBelief2/watch/carroll.php).
Sean has thrown his lot with “totalitarian reductionist scientific reasoning.” Everything happens as the result of material particles obeying their physical equations of motion. And that includes human morality. Sean gave the example of child slavery. That child slavery is immoral should, in principle, be derivable from the equations of motion of elementary particles.
However, from inflationary cosmology, we now learn that the values of the fundamental parameters that govern the behavior of materialistic particles are random across the infinite ensemble of universes. Therefore, if Sean’s reductionist reasoning is correct, then in other universes with different equations, child slavery would not be immoral. In fact, since the ensemble is an infinite set, there would be an infinite number of universes in which the practice of child slavery is upright and moral. Perhaps we live in one of those. At least that is the way it was on our planet for all but the past few generations of human existence.
In any case, according to reductionist materialism, we will never know if child slavery (or any other type of human behavior) is actually wrong until the particle physicists solve the equations and tell us.
Dear Otis,
The problem is not with reductive materialism. It’s with Sean’s assumption that an objective morality exists.
The problem, actually, is that Otis is completely crazy, and I never said anything like “morality should be derivable from particle physics.”
Otis, Sean, whoever: How in the world can we speak that “parameters of particle physics (including the fine structure constant) are in fact randomly generated by the inflationary mechanism”? If those constants are generated, what are the other, presumably stable parameters that the “inflationary mechanism” etc. uses to generate them; what is its functional basis? I know you want to avoid “turtles all the way down”, but that doesn’t mean you can just blow off what “runs” the so-called “mechanism” behind generating the physical constants if such there is. After all, if it’s a “mechanism” it has some sort of rules and fundamental entities behind it. You might want to say “strings”, well then: if I ask about why a violin string vibrates the way it does, you can appeal to the atoms comprising it and their laws. But what are fundamental strings “made of”, what is it about them that makes them act as they do? If you just say there’s something that just is what it is, and those strings are it, then the same ultimate challenge comes up about why that ultimate something and not some other way to be, per justifying the forcing of selective reification (since you’ve blown off explanatory, more fundamental constituents to kick the can down the road with.)
Those kinds of issues are why some are attracted to modal realist type ideas, where there are all these conceptual entities that just are what they are. Nothing to explain anymore (it’s like a picture gallery of all possible graphs etc, and you’re in the one you’re in; and that’s that.) However, such a mess-of-everything has the problems I already described.
BTW, any explanation of ethics in terms of motions of particles means a person doesn’t understand the fundamental logic involved. They can’t or won’t (yet at least) frame the issue.
Blake Stacey, thanks for the link. Weinberg references a 1989 Nature paper by Livio, Hollowell, Weiss, and Truran, which I don’t have easy access to. Presumably what really matters is the dependence of the energy of the C12 resonance on the more fundamental constants (such as the fine structure constant, light quark masses, and the QCD scale) which determine it. If indeed there’s a lot of slop in the “fundamental” constants, then the original anthropic argument doesn’t really hold.
My gut feeling is that you could change something like a quark mass a fair bit without affecting resonances in the C12 nucleus (I mean, even such a simple thing as a nucleon mass has a larger contribution from binding interactions than from the masses of its constituent quarks). For that matter, you might be able to change the charge of some of that stuff going on in the higher generations without affecting stellar nucleosynthesis. I’m talking through my fedora here, but I do recall it took a while to confirm that the top quark had the charge one would expect from following the Standard Model pattern (+2/3 instead of +4/3), and none of the colloquia I attended tried to make that judgment on anthropic grounds.
Blake–
Light quark masses can’t be changed by more than a percent or so without messing up carbo-synthesis. You’re right that nucleon masses aren’t affected much, but pion masses are (they vary as the square root of quark masses), and that strongly affects the nucleon-nucleon potential (recall that one pion exchange gives an exponential dependence on the pion mass). It’s been shown that if the Higgs vacuum value (thus the quark masses) were different by more than a percent, carbon wouldn’t form. I have no idea what the implications are for the anthropic principle.
I think it’s (mildly) interesting to note that in a multiverse of all possible algorithms, most conscious experience would arise as a consequence of uniform phenomenological laws that can be encoded in fairly short algorithms.
Why? Though this is a bit sensitive to the computing model and measure-on-algorithms you choose, in general I think it follows from the fact that most “junk” inserted into an algorithm that doesn’t simply ruin it would have no phenomenological effect at all, rather than producing erratic phenomena. If I can write a short program that encodes, say, the standard model, GR, and the initial conditions of our universe (and no doubt future physicists will find further opportunities to compress this), there will be countless billions of longer programs that have the same effect, but also do random, inconsequential calculations that have no impact whatsoever on the universe being enacted by the core algorithm. So a random program of N bits that produces consciousness at all will probably be doing so in a way that corresponds to a much, much shorter program doing all the useful stuff, with the rest of the program being harmless and irrelevant.
The red herring Neil B. keeps hyperventilating about — where the laws of physics might suddenly fail all around us, because we really don’t depend on them at all — only arises by focusing on a tiny subset of algorithms: “storybook programs” or look-up tables that simply dictate that “A happens, then B happens, then C happens …” where A, B, C … are just random bit strings. Within the set of storybook programs, it’s incredibly unlikely that consciousness will be present at all, but where it is, it’s additionally incredibly unlikely that the universe will contain other kinds of order. That you continue to be conscious is completely independent of whether apples continue to fall from trees, so you should be amazed that they continue to fall.
But the proportion of conscious experience arising from “storybook programs” would be utterly swamped by the proportion produced by short programs encoding uniform laws. We could probably encode the Big Bang and the known laws of physics in a couple of kilobytes of source code. Contrast that with the size of a storybook program needed to spell out in detail even one hour of human experience. The number of ways the Big Bang program could be padded with harmless, phenomenologically invisible junk out to the length of the One Hour storybook program would vastly outnumber any count of storybook programs of the same length that gave rise to consciousness at all.
marc s,
Aha! Thanks for pointing that out. I hadn’t considered the effect on the pion masses (like I said, I was pretty much making that up while I went along).
From Sean: I never said anything like “morality should be derivable from particle physics.”
Well maybe. In this case folks can very well decide for themselves by viewing the link given in response #13.
It would be helpful if Sean would explain what he meant in his talk when he implied that human morality can be expressed as the working out of the laws of physics.
His talk was a clear attempt to open the door to the idea that the tough issues of morality and right and wrong might someday be resolved by appealing to the reductionism of the equations of physics.
“But putting any such anthropic considerations aside, it’s still interesting to ask what the universe would look like if the constants of nature were completely different.”
This, presumably, would be an observation in the abstract. For an intelligent observer to be there to do the looking, this imagined universe would necessarily be anthropically constituted, which probably means it would be darn close to what we have here, from the standpoints of age, stellar formation, atomic structure, electron charge, force proportionalities, variety of elements, number of large-scale dimensions (3+1), etc., etc., rather than “completely different.”
It’s not a new idea. Theories with varying constants have been around for a while. John Barrow used the term “gravitational memory” to describe the possibility of having primordial black holes which collapsed when G had a different value from what it is now. Bernard Carr studied the consequences for the subsequent evolution of these PBHs. It always looked like a dead end to me cause they managed to prove that the PBHs do not retain the formation G value but they evolve to acquire the background value of G. I see now that by twisting a bit the approach and conclusions you can call the attention of a lot of people. This will teach me to look at things from different perspectives!
Alex R @ 5 said:
I’ll echo what Neil B said about the Hoyle result: if the fundamental constants aren’t “just right”, stars can’t burn helium to make carbon. I’m a bit surprised that this famous anthropic prediction wasn’t even mentioned in this paper — how does helium burn in Adams’s model stars?
It’s not really an anthropic prediction (though Hoyle misled himself into thinking it was). It was a prediction based solely on the observed fact that there is a significant amount of carbon in the universe. The fact that carbon has complex chemistry, and that our life is largely based on that chemistry, is interesting but fundamentally irrelevant. See, for example, Lee Smolin’s discussion in hep-th/0407213.