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?
Pingback: Last July Friday 2008 « blueollie
What Peter Erwin said. Hoyle’s result wasn’t really a prediction from any “Anthropic” Principle, but rather from an Organic one. Furthermore, of all the kinds of “predictions” purportedly drawn from such principles, Hoyle’s belongs to the least controversial. His argument takes the existence of carbon atoms as a datum, and makes a prediction on that basis — “the carbon-12 nucleus has a resonance in such-and-such a range” — a prediction which, moreover, can be falsified by later experiments. If we had no other way of probing the resonances of nuclei, Hoyle’s idea would be a lot more controversial than it is.
I note, idly, that Adams’s preprint concerns itself with the existence of “stars” (gravitationally bound energy-producing objects, which might be powered by something other than nuclear fusion), not the production of heavy elements, which he explicitly shrugs off to future work. Now, if Smolin’s idea of natural selection acting on universes has any merit, then what matters is the number of collapsed stars, not, strictly speaking, the carbon content. . . .
Blake –
Hoyle was organic.
Blake –
Leaving aside the fact that Smolin’s hypothesis is highly speculative, (we do not know what happens at the ‘singularity’ of blackholes, and, even if they are throats to other universes whether the process would preserve and yet subtly change the physical constants of the progenitor in the way biological sexual reproduction preserves and mixes the gene pool), it depends on the ‘fact’ that those conditions that maximize the existence of carbon in any particular universe also happen to maximize the number of black holes in it.
This alone would seem to be a remarkable coincidence….
Garth
Yes, I recognize that Smolin’s proposal is speculative in the extreme (if I didn’t make that qualification clear in my earlier comment, I apologize — sometimes it’s hard to put the emphases into text that one would use in speech).
Well, let’s think about it, for the moment taking as given the bit about properties of a universe somehow being transmitted with mutations. What do we need in order to have a fecund universe? Fitness, in the biologist’s sense of having many offspring, isn’t necessarily the number of stellar-collapse black holes, but rather the number of gravitational singularities, those being the places where baby universes supposedly sprout off.
The arXiv preprint by Fred Adams which we are supposedly discussing in this thread talks about a few other kinds of objects which, although they don’t produce energy by nuclear fusion, are also lumped into a general category of “stars”. For example, a degenerate dark matter star might radiate via annihilation of dark-matter particles. (Yes, we’re piling speculation on top of hypotheticality supported by guesswork about an enigma, but so what?) What happens if an agglomeration of this stuff undergoes gravitational collapse — does it make a black hole the way a collapsing fusion-powered star does, and would this lead to a baby universe spawning off, carrying some mutated versions of the parent universe’s physical laws?
Basically, the question is whether multiple local maxima could exist in the “fitness landscape” of possible cosmological parameters, created by alternate ways of producing daughter universes.
Given the speculation-to-the-nth nature of such ideas, I should probably bow out here — Greg Egan is the SF writer in these parts, after all.
Blake, please, don’t leave me alone in the dark, there are Giger monsters here. And trolls. Many, many trolls.
Otis,
I don’t think you need to go to particle physics to explain morality. Computational bits explain it quite well. The problem is that we order reality top down, but it evolves bottom up. So while we think in terms of good and bad as a metaphysical dual between the forces of light and darkness, it is actually the fundamental binary code of biological calculation. Single celled organisms distinguish between what is beneficial and what is detrimental. While objectively it is relative, ie. what is good for the fox is bad for the chicken, the subjective perspective of the chicken tends to view it in more absolute terms than does the fox.
Life functions by creating and consuming itself in a bootstrap process. Where would civilization be without the eons of muscle power before we learned to harness carbon based forms of energy? In fact that carbon based energy was originally organic. We have lived in an economic updraft that allows us to ignore some of the more harsh realities of life on this little blue dot, but they are still the foundation on which we rest because evolutionary growth is bottom up, not descended from an ideal. Moral or otherwise.
The only yin/yang dualism which monastic traditions internalize is that of good and bad, yet between light and dark are all the colors of the spectrum, not just shades of grey.
Skimming the paper by Adams made me curious about something. My knowledge of the relevant physics is quite limited so please excuse any silly remarks.
The paper makes use of a nuclear reaction rate constant C that the author refers to as a composite constant. I suppose, then, that C is a phenomenological constant that depends in a complicated way on more fundamental parameters of the standard model of particles. Might the value of C be very sensitive to changes in these more fundamental parameters? For example, does p-p burning require a stable deuteron? If so, could a relatively small change in the standard model parameters lead to an unstable deuteron and hence reduce C to zero (for the p-p reaction)?
I guess what I’m basically asking is whether or not the existence of nuclear-burning stars might in fact be more sensitive to changes in fundamental constants (parameters) than implied by the paper. Or, are there good reasons for believing that C is not highly sensitive to changes in the standard model parameters?
There is a measure of slop in how one could vary gauge coupling constants and get a universe which is generically similar to what we observe. There might be stars, chemical elements which sit on a periodic table and so forth. However, on a finer grained observation things might radically depart. This might well manifest itself with complex molecules. Polypeptides have on the amine-carboxyl bonds certain angles or dihedral angles which sum together to define the global shape of the molecule. In molecular biology the basic rule is that shape determines function. So let’s suppose some of these angles deviate by some small amount. This would mean that along the chain of amino acid residues there would be an overall accumulation of angle changes which could lead to a radically different shape to the molecule. It might then be nonfunctional if it could come into existence, or maybe given some “luck” would serve some other function.
15 years ago after PCR was devised by Mollus, previously one had to do laborious plasmid replications in E-coli, the idea was that transgenic technology would explode. There was a problem however. You can take a gene from one organism and endonuclease splice it into another organism’s DNA and produce the polypeptide. This leads to the catch, for often these proteins would come out with oddball shapes which rendered them unfunctional. There are sets of chaperon protein complexes which reshape peptides. So while for better or worse transgenic technology is here, it only works with a rather select few genes.
There might be stars in these other cosmologies, but the tougher question is whether there would be life?
I tend to think that there is some “maximal complexity” principle, or maybe more accurately a maximal entanglement principle to the universe. A universe with too many black holes would hold to much data on their horizons, and similarly a universe with a larger cosmological constant would hold too much data on the cosmological event horizon. Our “goldilocks” universe is one which permits entanglements across many scales, and I think this is involved with supplying the Cauchy data for the C^{oo} on the AdS. I could go into far more detail on this, but I might be accussed of theory mongering.
As such I suspect the constants of the universe are fixed to what they are by the initial and final states of the universe in a grand path integral. I think in effect they couldn’t be any (or much) different from what we observe.
Lawrence B. Crowell
Lawrence
Are you therefore concluding that in the multiverse all the universes would be propitious for life?
Is so, why should the “maximal entanglement principle” produce a fecund universe rather than otherwise?
Garth
Lawrence (#33), like many readers no doubt, I love your posts. Have you considered starting a blog or a web site to air these intriguing speculations in more detail, and of course your sound knowledge of more established physics? (and advertise the physics books you’ve written!)
I wonder if there are so many states of quantum systems in combination that even if some constants that affect these changed then one lot of “miraculous” coincidences favouring life would be replaced by another no less felicitous bunch. sort of like tweaking a kaleidoscope – the pattern might change but the overall effect would be much the same.
I think frankly that there may be only one spacetime universe. I am a bit conservative on this, for I think that physics is best if there is a minimal number of unobservable entities in the theory. I think it might be likely that these so called other universes are small amplitudes, or residual quantum fluctuations for alternate spacetime configuration variables, which cause tiny deviations from an einselected classical-like spacetime — the universe we observe.
A quantum system decoheres because its off diagonal “overlap” terms in the density matrix are taken up by the larger environment. This leads to an entropy associated with the system (wave collpase etc) with
$latex
S = -k Tr(rho log(rho)
$
This means that on a coarse grained scale there is a loss of information concerning the entanglement of the system, or the loss of these overlap terms. It might be the case that in order to get the boundary conditions on the AdS conformal infinity there is the need for a maximal entanglement or complexity in the universe to supply that Cauchy data. Alternatively, if the AdS conformal infinity, an empty Minkowski spacetime, is the endpoint of the grand path integral it might act as an a posteriori selection of states — similar to a Wheeler Delayed Choice experiment
Lawrence B. Crowell
John R Ramsden: Lawrence (#33), like many readers no doubt, I love your posts. Have you considered starting a blog or a web site
Of course I have, and everyday it is something I will do tomorrow. I’ll get to to it one of these days. Maybe before the year is out.
Lawrence B. Crowell
Lawrence, I would like to set up a private correspondence with you to discuss physics.
If you correspond to me put something about cosmic variance or some such thing. I have pretty fast wrist action again spam that gets through filters
lcrowell@swcp.com
Lawrence B. Crowell
Pingback: Stochastic Scribbles » Blog Archive » Is fine-tuning really fine-tuning?
Pingback: Fringe: What Happens If the Universal Constants Aren’t Constant? | Science Not Fiction | Discover Magazine