For nearly half a century, theoretical physicists have made a series of discoveries that certain constants in fundamental physics seem extraordinarily fine-tuned to allow for the emergence of a life-enabling universe. Constants that crisscross the Standard Model of Particle Physics guided the formation of hydrogen nuclei during the Big Bang, along with the carbon and oxygen atoms initially fused at the center of massive first-generation stars that exploded as supernovae; these processes in turn set the stage for solar systems and planets capable of supporting carbon-based life dependent on water and oxygen.
The theory that an Anthropic Principle guided the physics and evolution of the universe was initially proposed by Brandon Carter while he was a post-doctoral researcher in astrophysics at the University of Cambridge; this theory was later debated by Cambridge scholar Stephen Hawking and a widening web of physicists around the world.
German scholar Ulf-G Meißner, chair in theoretical nuclear physics at the Helmholtz Institute, University of Bonn, adds to a series of discoveries that support this Anthropic Principle.
http://phys.org/news/2015-01-evidence-anthropic-theory-fundamental-physics.html
[Abstract]: Anthropic considerations in nuclear physics: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11434-014-0670-2
(Score: 4, Interesting) by kaszz on Sunday January 18 2015, @06:52AM
You have to consider the basic fact that unless conditions were just right for you to exist you can't think of the question why you exist in the first place. If chance gets to try out many circumstances it will eventually be right for someone to ask why they were so lucky. It doesn't mean automatically that it was engineered to be that way.
If this universe is a simulation to test what it takes to create "life" then there would be many previous incarnations of universes but no further ones because this one obviously succeeded. Perhaps there's a hint here why we haven't detected any other intelligent life.
Obviously your parents were fine tuned enough for you to exist and be born to read this. If they had sex with someone else instead or just at a different time, you wouldn't read this and neither be around to think about any question either. At the finer level two locations in time isn't really equal as ordinary physics may hint.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 18 2015, @08:19AM
I agree that there may be a hint as to why we haven't detected any other intelligent life, but it runs contrary to your (overweening) presumption that this one "obviously succeeded".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 18 2015, @08:29AM
If this universe is a simulation to test what it takes to create "life" then there would be many previous incarnations of universes but no further ones because this one obviously succeeded. Perhaps there's a hint here why we haven't detected any other intelligent life.
Let's not get ahead of ourselves. Based on what humans have done to each other and to the planet I wouldn't be so quick to state that this experiment has "obviously succeeded".
(Score: 3, Informative) by kaszz on Sunday January 18 2015, @09:22AM
The experiment only need to get to the point that life comes to existence. That life makes itself a misery is something that happens later.. ;)
You can build a house and then blow it up. You still have built a house regardless.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 18 2015, @12:33PM
That's all fine if it's your experiment, but I have serious doubts as to whether the simulation that we're in is actually your simulation using your definition of "life". As such, your declaration of success is both a) wild optimism without foundation, and b) irrelevant to the actual status of the simulation.
[slippery slope...]
If the sim was a failure (by the standards of the host) , then it's likely that it should be destroyed, or securely contained so it doesn't go and infect other sims (or the host).
[++treacherous footing...]
If this sim has succeeded and created intelligent life (according to the simulation parameters), then it's not unreasonable to conclude that there are now at least two sources of intelligent life hanging around - us, in the sim, and the Creators outside. This presumes that the Creators determination of other intelligent life is similar to their own.
So, if we haven't detected any other intelligent life then it's because they haven't let on that they're there (yet). Unless, of course, He has been talking to us, and we've just been failing to hear His message(s) ...
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday January 18 2015, @08:47PM
That's all fine if it's your experiment
Well, it appears to me that this is your experiment too. Unless you happen to be in some other reality than me.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Tuesday January 20 2015, @01:11PM
"Supernatural" events may be the anomaly that shows where the entry to the rabbit hole begins.
(Score: 1) by Stardner on Sunday January 18 2015, @06:09PM
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Tuesday January 20 2015, @12:59PM
Well perhaps existence guided the physical world? or reality is just a really good illusion agreed upon between existing existences.
But never say never about what living beings may find out eventually.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Monday January 19 2015, @05:47PM
“This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.”
Douglas Adams - The Salmon of Doubt
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Tuesday January 20 2015, @01:08PM
And anyone that hints that the surroundings will go on regardless of any thinking entities within will be splashed to death to show that the society is modern and progressive .. ;-)
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 18 2015, @07:19AM
The only way any such evidence becomes meaningful is to suggest the existence of other universes with different constants. But you cannot observe such alternative universes. If you could, that "other universe" is by definition part of our universe.
Therefore, it's BS. Q.E.D.
(Score: 1, Troll) by kaszz on Sunday January 18 2015, @07:42AM
You can observe alternative universes through some subtle and indirect methods using hardcore physics.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 18 2015, @12:01PM
hardcore speculation, not hardcore experimental evidence
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 18 2015, @09:28AM
You cannot observe most mathematical concepts because they don't exist. That doesn't make math BS.
(Score: 2) by TGV on Sunday January 18 2015, @04:37PM
Not math per se, but most mathematical statements would be BS when interpreted in physics. E.g., E = 1/2 m c^2. Interesting, but BS.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 19 2015, @11:27AM
It is the kinetic energy of an object of mass m going with the (non-relativistic) speed of sound (c is generally used to denote the speed of waves; using it for vacuum speed of light is just a special case of that, although probably the most commonly used one). Not BS at all.
What you (and frankly, most people) don't get is that any application of mathematics consists of two things: First, the mathematical statement (E = 1/2 m c^2), and second, a definition of the terms used (that is, a statement of how that mathematical equation related to the real world; here: E = non-relativistic (Newtonian) kinetic energy, m = mass of the moving body, c = velocity of the moving body = velocity of sound).
In physics, there exist naming conventions which often allow to make the latter implicit, but those are not unique (for example, E may refer to any type of energy, or to the electric field strength). If the exact meaning cannot be derived from context, it has to be uniquely stated.
And since those assignments are not part of mathematics, it's not the mathematical statement that would be BS (well, unless the mathematics is wrong), but the complete statement which has the mathematical statement only as part.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Sunday January 18 2015, @09:34AM
I cannot observe your thoughts. Sure, I can observe your behaviour and what you say and write, but I can also observe the behaviour and output of a computer program which I'm pretty sure has no thoughts. Sure I could observe your brain activity, in principle down to the single neuron, but I cannot prove that any of that activity is related to any thoughts you might have. So according to your logic I have to conclude that the assumption that you think is BS.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Sunday January 18 2015, @03:31PM
Is it the fault of the mirror, that the gaze reflected in its surface belongs to a monkey?
You're betting on the pantomime horse...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 20 2015, @11:12AM
No, it's the fault of Cornelius [nydailynews.com] gazing into the mirror. ;-)
(Score: 2) by theluggage on Sunday January 18 2015, @06:17PM
But you cannot observe such alternative universes. If you could
...if you could, then some definitions of the word "universe" might have to be refined - that's all (its already possible that the actual universe might extend beyond the observable universe [wikipedia.org]). You can't base arguments about reality on the English-language definitions of the words "universe" and "observe".
Not saying TFA is true, though. However if the assertion is correct - that there is only a very small range of parameters for a universe that can possibly allow life to evolve - then the possibilities seem to be:
I don't think any of those can be proven/disproven, but they're enough to start getting Bayesian on...
(Score: 2) by edIII on Sunday January 18 2015, @07:58PM
Somewhat obvious. Yes, it's meaningful to suggest the existence of multiple universes with each having slightly different parameters.
Yet. We've been unable to properly observe pretty much everything in the heavens. At some point things like the Hubble get made, and then get fixed, and we have better data from more sophisticated equipment. How might such data be obtained? I have absolutely no idea, just like Socrates had no idea how nuclear power works.
That must be a strict interpretation of universe then. From my understanding, and I realize that multi-verses and other such notions are not exactly hard science, there *can* be multiple universes where inhabitants in one universe are completely isolated from inhabitants in another.
In other words, you seem to be making a declarative statement that all spacetime must assemble into a single "container" according to the idea of totality. That totality is an abstraction itself, and I don't think it can be strictly interpreted to disallow multiple contiguous collections of spacetime in their own topologies. If that turns out to be true, then you are certainly wrong as you could not observe such a universe from your own.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by jheath314 on Sunday January 18 2015, @07:27AM
A puddle might think to itself (if it could think) "this rut I live in was obviously designed for me, given how perfectly it fits my every contour."
(Score: 2, Interesting) by PiMuNu on Sunday January 18 2015, @07:33AM
To express that more carefully, you are saying "sentience is highly probable no matter what physical constants are" - another untestable hypothesis. Is it true that EITHER "there are many universes" OR "sentience is highly probably no matter what physical constants are"? are there any other scenarios in which sentience appears? God (but whence god?)? "Luck"?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 18 2015, @08:34AM
Just the massive size of the universe itself demands that there are other life forms. It's pure hubris to think that we are the only living thinking beings to evolve.
(Score: 4, Informative) by maxwell demon on Sunday January 18 2015, @09:39AM
On the other hand, those other parts of the universe have the exact same fundamental constants, for the simple reasons that they are part of the universe. Thus even if our universe happens to be so full of life that we are in an exceptional situation that we don't have daily contact to extraterrestrials, that would tell you nothing about whether life could also exist with other values of the fundamental constants.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 18 2015, @08:49AM
these processes in turn set the stage for solar systems and planets capable of supporting carbon-based life dependent on water and oxygen.
Just because we are carbon based forms of life doesn't mean all life in the universe has to be, or will be, carbon based. We may not even be able to identify some other forms of life if/when we encounter them.
As far as we know this universe was simply a process to create supernovae that exploded in order to measure the gravitational collapse necessary to create black holes. The matter jettisoned once the outer layers have been blown away could just be the garbage left over from the actual experiments. Just because it happened to form planetary nebula, yadda yadda yadda, and also life in at least one instance doesn't mean that life was the intended (or anticipated) result of this experiment.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by maxwell demon on Sunday January 18 2015, @09:52AM
You misunderstand the anthropic principle. It is not about intention. To take your idea of the universe just being an experiment to study black hole formation. Now it is reasonable that (assuming the experiments are not too expensive) the experimenter would not just do one experiment, but several, with different values of the fundamental constants, so he can study the effect different constants have on black hole formation. Now it happened that one of those sets turned out to enable the creation of life in that universe, and some of that life gained consciousness, started to explore the laws of the universe they are in, and started to wonder why the fundamental constants of that universe have exactly the values they have. The answer to that is, that this is the only of the universes which allowed the development of life, therefore it's not a surprise that living beings find themselves in that universe, and thus find the constants have those values.
That's the point of the anthropic principle: We see the world we see because if the world were different, we would not be there to see it. Thus from the very existence of us we can conclude that the world is so that we are possible. This does in no way imply that the world is that way in order to enable life. The connection is a purely logical one.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 18 2015, @12:46PM
The answer to that is, that this is the only of the universes which allowed the development of life, therefore it's not a surprise that living beings find themselves in that universe, and thus find the constants have those values.
This is the only of the universes that we are aware of which allowed the development of life. If life in each universe is restricted to observing only its own universe then any form of life able to contemplate the question would come to the same conclusion. Basically "I think therefore my universe is the only one with constants that produced life."
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Sunday January 18 2015, @01:48PM
In the hypothetical setting I described, there was only one universe that developed life, and therefore my statement was 100% correct.
But more generally you're of course right, there could be several different life-bearing universes. Indeed, it could be even that there are different types of life in our universe, and while we wonder why the universe seems to be fine-tuned to carbon-based life, maybe there are somewhere intelligent beings in our universe wondering why the universe seems fine-tuned for silicon-based life.
The whole point of my post was to refute that the anthropic principle needs the assumption of an intention behind the existence of life. I didn't intend to explore all aspects of the anthropic principle with that post.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Sunday January 18 2015, @07:34PM
I think carbon is a safe bet if only because of basic chemistry -- carbon is unique in its versatility, ie. the endless range of compounds it can make, and its potential for sustained (rather than explosive) energy production. Silicon, some folks' next bet, makes compounds that tend to be too stable -- it might make life but that life would be unlikely to evolve.
As to the original question, it's like baseball.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 19 2015, @05:11PM
In a universe where the fundamental constants were a bit different, I don't see a compelling reason why not all bonds should be weaker, so that carbon would burn explosively, while silicon would have just the right bonding strength.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 18 2015, @01:12PM
if "life" would have had a influence in how the (still changing) fundamental constants came into being then murder would be triple doubley bad because life would fundamental.
it's always strange to read about how "this and that" influences life but never the other way around even though life has to obey all fundamental laws and they always work both ways; for example nothing with mass just attracts without itself being attracted (except maybe blackholes).
-
one could argue that "humans" are a crystallized culmination of the entropy force, seeking out energy that needs to be liberated, be it oil, gas, coal or atoms.
i'm pretty sure the fact that we go watch a movie in the cinema or transport home groceries from walmart are just a side effect we think is the real reason why we do it.
now the question is if we can get to the next step of destroying/liberating all the energy stuck in blackholes ...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 19 2015, @05:15PM
There is one important ingredient to the universe that does not work both ways: Time. The past influences the future, but the future doesn't influence the past. Since the fundamental constants were already fixed in the big bang and life didn't appear after much later, life cannot have influenced the values of the fundamental constants.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Sunday January 18 2015, @05:44PM
This is "evidence" in favor of the weak Anthropic principle, i.e. if we couldn't be here, we wouldn't see it, but not in favor of the strong anthropic principle. And even as evidence in favor of the weak Anthropic principle, I'm not sure it adds anything to what was already known. To do that they've really got to get the model complete enough that it predicts the existence of life without special (i.e., ad hoc) tweaks. Then you could try that model on other potentially existing universes and see whether that model predicted life there. Even that wouldn't be proof, but only decent evidence, eliminating a sheaf of universes from being observed (for certain meanings of observed). It wouldn't say anything about universes with variations that weren't considered. This universe may be an "island of stability", and there may be other such islands.
I really think that people who even consider such models do so from a biased position. (If they didn't hold such a position, why would they bother?) As such their arguments need to be evaluated quite skeptically. This is probably really a "We don't know." kind of question.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 18 2015, @06:12PM
*ducks*
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 19 2015, @05:17PM
The universe was designed by ducks?
(Score: 2) by The Archon V2.0 on Monday January 19 2015, @07:57PM
Sunday services to be held at the pond. Make sure your offering to Jesus Crested Duck is in corn, none of this stale bread crap.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Sunday January 18 2015, @07:35PM
The anthropic principle (AP) doesn't (and can't) provide any new knowledge.
Sure, it's an interesting concept to play around with (especially if you're a cosmologist working on how our universe came to be what it is today), but it isn't physics. At best, it's metaphysics.
If I understand the idea correctly, if various constants had different values, baryonic matter would be unable to form, resulting in something else, but not a universe that could produce us.
Since there isn't any way to test this empirically (even if it can be postulated via the mathematics of the Standard Model) and it can't be falsified, hence it's not science.
It's like saying, "If my cat was a dog, he wouldn't be a cat, he'd be a dog."
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 18 2015, @07:47PM
"It's like saying, 'If my cat was a dog, he wouldn't be a cat, he'd be a dog.' "
Or "if my mother had balls, she'd be my father".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 19 2015, @04:47AM
Agreed. Metaphysics at best.
But if you think how they came upon this, it's simply ass-backwards way of thinking. It is very similar to saying "hey, this apple must have been designed for *me*, otherwise it would be poison to me if you just change a few minute details". It is 100% correct, and 100% irrelevant. But what is missing is that we evolved to eat the apple and to get energy from it. If it was "designed" for anyone, it would have less fructose and more glucose, but then who's counting. The same principle applies to the magical cosmological constants. Life, as we know it, came upon based on our version of the (local?) universe. If the universe was different, most certainly we would not be able to exist in it. But perhaps different life would emerge.
Next they'll say it's magical how 20% of atmosphere is oxygen and almost all the rest is generally inert nitrogen instead of some poisonous to us gas...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 19 2015, @05:25PM
No, it isn't. There is no "for me" in the anthropic principle. It's like saying "I didn't die from that apple I just ate, therefore that apple was not poisonous, or else I would not be here to think about the question whether that apple would have been poisonous." It doesn't imply the apple was not poisonous because of me, nor does it imply that the apple was designed for me. It just means that from the fact that I'm still alive I can conclude that the apple was so that it didn't kill me. Not more, not less.
(Score: 1) by Ayn Anonymous on Sunday January 18 2015, @11:24PM
The less hairy white apes take themselves way to important.
You are a destructive species with a God delusion.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 19 2015, @04:55PM
It is far more likely that life (as we define it) is fine-tuned to the physical constants of the universe, rather than the reverse.