Life beyond our universe: Physicists explore the possibility of life in universes with laws different from our own
February 22, 2010 by Anne Trafton
(PhysOrg.com) -- Whether life exists elsewhere in our universe is a longstanding mystery. But for some scientists, there?s another interesting question: could there be life in a universe significantly different from our own?
A definitive answer is impossible, since we have no way of directly studying other universes. But cosmologists speculate that a multitude of other universes exist, each with its own laws of physics. Recently physicists at MIT have shown that in theory, alternate universes could be quite congenial to life, even if their physical laws are very different from our own.
In work recently featured in a cover story in Scientific American, MIT physics professor Robert Jaffe, former MIT postdoc, Alejandro Jenkins, and recent MIT graduate Itamar Kimchi showed that universes quite different from ours still have elements similar to carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen, and could therefore evolve life forms quite similar to us. Even when the masses of the elementary particles are dramatically altered, life may find a way.
“You could change them by significant amounts without eliminating the possibility of organic chemistry in the universe,” says Jenkins.
Pocket universes
Modern cosmology theory holds that our universe may be just one in a vast collection of universes known as the multiverse. MIT physicist Alan Guth has suggested that new universes (known as “pocket universes”) are constantly being created, but they cannot be seen from our universe.
In this view, “nature gets a lot of tries — the universe is an experiment that’s repeated over and over again, each time with slightly different physical laws, or even vastly different physical laws,” says Jaffe.
Some of these universes would collapse instants after forming; in others, the forces between particles would be so weak they could not give rise to atoms or molecules. However, if conditions were suitable, matter would coalesce into galaxies and planets, and if the right elements were present in those worlds, intelligent life could evolve.
Some physicists have theorized that only universes in which the laws of physics are “just so” could support life, and that if things were even a little bit different from our world, intelligent life would be impossible. In that case, our physical laws might be explained “anthropically,” meaning that they are as they are because if they were otherwise, no one would be around to notice them.
Jaffe and his collaborators felt that this proposed anthropic explanation should be subjected to more careful scrutiny, and decided to explore whether universes with different physical laws could support life.
This is a daunting question to answer in general, so as a start they decided to specialize to universes with nuclear and electromagnetic forces similar enough to ours that atoms exist. Although bizarre life forms might exist in universes different from ours, Jaffe and his collaborators decided to focus on life based on carbon chemistry. They defined as “congenial to life” those universes in which stable forms of hydrogen, carbon and oxygen would exist.
“If you don’t have a stable entity with the chemistry of hydrogen, you’re not going to have hydrocarbons, or complex carbohydrates, and you’re not going to have life,” says Jaffe. “The same goes for carbon and oxygen. Beyond those three we felt the rest is detail."
They set out to see what might happen to those elements if they altered the masses of elementary particles called quarks. There are six types of quarks, which are the building blocks of protons, neutrons and electrons. The MIT team focused on “up”, “down” and “strange” quarks, the most common and lightest quarks, which join together to form protons and neutrons and closely related particles called “hyperons.”
In our universe, the down quark is about twice as heavy as the up quark, resulting in neutrons that are 0.1 percent heavier than protons. Jaffe and his colleagues modeled one family of universes in which the down quark was lighter than the up quark, and protons were up to a percent heavier than neutrons. In this scenario, hydrogen would no longer be stable, but its slightly heavier isotopes deuterium or tritium could be. An isotope of carbon known as carbon-14 would also be stable, as would a form of oxygen, so the organic reactions necessary for life would be possible.
The team found a few other congenial universes, including a family where the up and strange quarks have roughly the same mass (in our universe, strange quarks are much heavier and can only be produced in high-energy collisions), while the down quark would be much lighter. In such a universe, atomic nuclei would be made of neutrons and a hyperon called the “sigma minus,” which would replace protons. They published their findings in the journal Physical Review D last year.
Fundamental forces
Jaffe and his collaborators focused on quarks because they know enough about quark interactions to predict what will happen when their masses change. However, “any attempt to address the problem in a broader context is going to be very difficult,” says Jaffe, because physicists are limited in their ability to predict the consequences of changing most other physical laws and constants.
A group of researchers at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory has done related studies examining whether congenial universes could arise even while lacking one of the four fundamental forces of our universe — the weak nuclear force, which enables the reactions that turn neutrons into protons, and vice versa. The researchers showed that tweaking the other three fundamental forces could compensate for the missing weak nuclear force and still allow stable elements to be formed.
That study and the MIT work are different from most other studies in this area in that they examined more than one constant. “Usually people vary one constant and look at the results, which is different than if you vary multiple constants,” says Mark Wise, professor of physics at Caltech, who was not involved in the research. Varying only one constant usually produces an inhospitable universe, which can lead to the erroneous conclusion that any other congenial universes are impossible.
One physical parameter that does appear to be extremely finely tuned is the cosmological constant — a measure of the pressure exerted by empty space, which causes the universe to expand or contract. When the constant is positive, space expands, when negative, the universe collapses on itself. In our universe, the cosmological constant is positive but very small — any larger value would cause the universe to expand too rapidly for galaxies to form. However, Wise and his colleagues have shown that it is theoretically possible that changes in primordial cosmological density perturbations could compensate at least for small changes to the value of the cosmological constant.
In the end, there is no way to know for sure what other universes are out there, or what life they may hold. But that will likely not stop physicists from exploring the possibilities, and in the process learning more about our own universe.
Provided by Massachusetts Institute of Technology (news : web)
-
Across the multiverse: FSU physicist considers the big picture
Jan 12, 2010 |
not rated yet |
0
-
Physicists Calculate Number of Parallel Universes
Oct 16, 2009 |
not rated yet |
0
-
MIT physicist to describe strange world of quarks, gluons
Feb 17, 2008 |
not rated yet |
0
-
Glasgow scientists predict mass of new particle
Jan 26, 2010 |
not rated yet |
0
-
What if there is only one universe?
Jun 04, 2009 |
not rated yet |
0
-
Engineers build first sub-10-nm carbon nanotube transistor
Feb 01, 2012 |
4.9 / 5 (30) |
30
-
Something old, something new: Evolution and the structural divergence of duplicate genes
Jan 31, 2012 |
4.6 / 5 (7) |
1
-
The hidden nanoworld of ice crystals: Revealing the dynamic behavior of quasi-liquid layers
Jan 30, 2012 |
5 / 5 (3) |
1
-
Stock market network reveals investor clustering
Jan 27, 2012 |
3.9 / 5 (23) |
8
-
Of microchemistry and molecules: Electronic microfluidic device synthesizes biocompatible probes
Jan 26, 2012 |
5 / 5 (1) |
0
-
Wind Turbine Power
40 minutes ago
-
Steam Table issues
2 hours ago
-
electrostatic induction in a conductor should be immpossible
6 hours ago
-
Help! Physics Momentum/Impulse problem!
9 hours ago
-
Gauss' law cubes, how to prove
10 hours ago
-
what is significance of torque
12 hours ago
- More from Physics Forums - General Physics
More news stories
SLAC, Stanford team focuses on high-energy electrons to treat cancer
Accelerator physicists at SLAC and cancer specialists from Stanford are working on a new technology that could dramatically reduce the time needed for cancer radiation treatments. The team ran an initial experiment ...
44 minutes ago |
not rated yet |
0
Measurements from high-energy collisions lead to better understanding of why meson particles disappear
For several years, physicists at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) at Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL), USA, have studied an unusual state of matter called the quarkgluon plasma, which they ...
1 hour ago |
not rated yet |
0
Quantum physicist explains $100K offer for proof scaled-up quantum computing is impossible
(PhysOrg.com) -- MIT researcher Scott Aaronson has certainly riled the physics community with his offer this past Friday, of $100,000 to anyone who can prove that scaled-up quantum computing is impossible. ...
Explained: Sigma
It's a question that arises with virtually every major new finding in science or medicine: What makes a result reliable enough to be taken seriously? The answer has to do with statistical significance -- but ...
Feb 09, 2012 |
5 / 5 (13) |
26
Physicists 'record' magnetic breakthrough
An international team of scientists has demonstrated a revolutionary new way of magnetic recording which will allow information to be processed hundreds of times faster than by current hard drive technology.
Feb 07, 2012 |
4.5 / 5 (39) |
14
|
The power of estrogen -- male snakes attract other males
A new study has shown that boosting the estrogen levels of male garter snakes causes them to secrete the same pheromones that females use to attract suitors, and turned the males into just about the sexiest ...
Could Venus be shifting gear?
(PhysOrg.com) -- ESAs Venus Express spacecraft has discovered that our cloud-covered neighbour spins a little slower than previously measured. Peering through the dense atmosphere in the infrared, the ...
Experts reveal how plants don't get sunburn
(PhysOrg.com) -- Experts at the University of Glasgow have discovered how plants survive the harmful rays of the sun.
Team isolates nerve cells involved in storing long term memory and gene proteins associated with them
(Medical Xpress) -- A research team in Taiwan has succeeded in isolating two nerve cells in fruit fly brains that are believed to be the major players in allowing for the formation of long term memories. Furthermore, ...
Fool's gold may prove an unlikely alternative to overexploited catalytic materials
Catalytic materials, which lower the energy barriers for chemical reactions, are used in everything from the commercial production of chemicals to catalytic converters in car engines. However, with current catalytic materials ...
News of plaque-clearing drug tops week of major advances against Alzheimer's disease
In the last eight days, scientists have delivered a powerful one-two punch in the fight to defeat Alzheimer's disease. At the same time, the White House and members of Congress are proposing increases in Alzheimer's research ...
Feb 22, 2010
Rank: 2.5 / 5 (19)
Think back to the beginning -- if a down quark happened which was lighter than the up quark, and protons up to a percent heavier than neutrons were created etc., etc., but they can't exist, and in what reality could they??? One which cannot be tested, let alone realized!
There is only one Universe, the one in which the logical assemblage of particles that can exist do exist. Laws are intangible, rules follow laws, so any other Universe is pure fantasy. Why can't these guys get into researching something constructive and useful?
Feb 22, 2010
Rank: 4.3 / 5 (11)
Feb 22, 2010
Rank: 4.4 / 5 (9)
Most people taking on this one try to theorize is carbon would be stable in these alternate universes and if so then life could probably exist as we know it today... the as we know it caveat is important, because until we can prove that life based on a different energy release mechanism exists then we must assume only life as we know it exists... unfortunately.
Feb 22, 2010
Rank: 2.2 / 5 (20)
Feb 22, 2010
Rank: 3 / 5 (5)
--> fundamental physical laws -->
--> fundamental forces -->
--> masses of fundamental particles
That should roughly be the direction of how it goes, not the other way around. This is not an Egg/Chicken problematic.
Altering the masses (and essentialy the ratio between them aswell) and calculating to see "how it fares" under given conditions is nothing more than a thought exercise. The masses of protons, neutrons, etc. and the ratios between them are all results of self-assembly based on the equilibrial states at a certain scale.
Well, atleast there is a chance that the scientists involved get smarter from all the brain-exercising ;-)
Feb 22, 2010
Rank: 4.4 / 5 (17)
And scientists don't believe in these things because of "faith" but because they are the logical or mathematical consequences of the theories which have demonstrated their reliability countless times and have not yet been disproved. I suppose you'd prefer they try to predict the weather or design a building by interpreting the entrails of a slain goat?
Feb 22, 2010
Rank: 4.8 / 5 (5)
With simulations like these, we could finally understand not only how large the constants are, but why are they as they are and what would happen if they werent...
Feb 22, 2010
Rank: 3.5 / 5 (8)
Wrong scientific thinking: There is no "truth" in science, there are instead models which are not (yet) falsified. "Truth" is a matter of philosophy, not of science.
This is a passe-partout. It's good for everything (inclusively reasoning about angels and demons) and thus good for nothing.
Speculating about multiverses will never be of any scientific use.
Wrong. String theory is not an invention, it is an ongoing discovery. A discovery with the option to answer some of the deepest questions of physics. An option that - by principle - no multiverse speculation has to offer.
Feb 22, 2010
Rank: 2.4 / 5 (8)
Wow. An expert in theology as well as string theory. I should be in awe. So on what do you base your knowledge that "travel between universes is impossible". On proof from immature branches of physics, which cannot be tested?
Feb 22, 2010
Rank: 2.9 / 5 (9)
Feb 22, 2010
Rank: 2.3 / 5 (8)
Their speculations cannot be tested even in principle so it's certainly not science.
If they can't handle real physics they need to change careers, wasting money which could have funded proper science on such nonsense is a disservice to everyone.
Feb 22, 2010
Rank: 3 / 5 (7)
Feb 22, 2010
Rank: 2.7 / 5 (7)
Feb 22, 2010
Rank: 2.3 / 5 (3)
Semantics arguments are the most head-splitting kind.
I think what frajo is saying is that its considered a different universe, because when youre in it, its all there is. It is the very fabric of reality that you occupy, all things included in however many spacial or time, or whatever kind of dimensions there are to it.
But I can also see the other argument that would state that if there is a multiverse, and even if each "universe" were a closed system with it's own dimensionality,Wouldnt we just call the multiverse the universe? The answer is yes, but we could never know if there is a multiverse, so its a moot point.
What we can do though is test for other dimensions within our universe that may be superimposed on our own, and fijo, I wouldnt be so hard on Gammakozy for believing that these demensions might be occupied.
Feb 23, 2010
Rank: 4.5 / 5 (2)
Mathematicians - needing no interpretation(s) at all - are a hapless lot too - the proof is in the pudding...not.
Both antagonized by the word 'life'.
Feb 23, 2010
Rank: not rated yet
Multiverse: http://en.wikiped...ltiverse
Feb 23, 2010
Rank: 4 / 5 (5)
Most scientists don't scoff at the idea or possibility of God. God if he exists is entirely outside the realm of science, so the issue is simply irrelevant.
Feb 23, 2010
Rank: 3.4 / 5 (5)
So its speculating. What of it? Many speculations once considered untestable were proven so given enough time and advances in technology. Multi-universe theories may not be a testable hypothesis today, but that doesn't means we can never discover echoes of their formation in this one.
Feb 23, 2010
Rank: 3.5 / 5 (2)
http://en.wikiped...rinciple
.."The observed values of the dimensionless physical constants (such as the fine-structure constant)... are balanced as if fine-tuned to permit the formation of commonly found matter and subsequently the emergence of life. A slight increase in the strong nuclear force would bind the dineutron and the diproton, and nuclear fusion would have converted all hydrogen in the early universe to helium. Water and the long-lived stable stars essential for the emergence of life would not exist. Small changes in the relative strengths of the four fundamental interactions can greatly affect the universe's age, structure, and capacity for life"..
Scientists can apparently say, whatever want today being payed for time.
Feb 23, 2010
Rank: 3 / 5 (2)
http://en.allexpe...oubt.htm
Life in the Universe are more diverse and
numerous than we could possibly imagine.
Feb 23, 2010
Rank: not rated yet
"The neutrality of the style of writing in this article is questioned"
I echo Parsec's statement that some conditions in other, separate, universes may someday be discernable. The ekpyrotic scenario harkens back to conditions before the Big Bang, for one.
Feb 23, 2010
Rank: 2.5 / 5 (2)
But as the ekpyrotic "BigBang" is only a special (repeating) event happening to colliding branes in a higher-dimensional world there is no notion of multiple universes. "Our" brane is not a universe separated from other universes but all branes are components of one common universe.
Whether we'll ever be able to get information from other branes remains an open question but it can't be ruled out.
Feb 23, 2010
Rank: not rated yet
If that is the case wouldnt modeling one, just be a video game? :)
Feb 23, 2010
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
Feb 23, 2010
Rank: 3 / 5 (2)
Yes.
Feb 23, 2010
Rank: not rated yet
But my point is, you cannot observe/interact with remote or parallel universe, until it's not based one similar physical principles - and after then the life similar to terrestrial one could evolve in it too. Therefore just the observability is the criterion of anthropocentric principle here.
Feb 23, 2010
Rank: 1 / 5 (3)
Feb 23, 2010
Rank: not rated yet
http://www.youtub...qO5zPmvU
Feb 24, 2010
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
Feb 24, 2010
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
Feb 24, 2010
Rank: not rated yet
Feb 24, 2010
Rank: not rated yet
Feb 24, 2010
Rank: not rated yet
Feb 25, 2010
Rank: 2.5 / 5 (2)
I fully agree. Even if there were multiple universes, how are they separated? How can 1 be completely independent of the rest? How can a Big Bang of one Universe not effect the rest? Why would we assume any other Universe would have any different properties than our own? In fact, I think we could well assume that a different Universe would have the same properties as our own because we know our Universe exists with these properties. We have no evidence other Universes exist with different properties so there is not as much of a reason to believe they would be different.
Feb 26, 2010
Rank: not rated yet
By some proposals, galaxies, which are not inside our own material universe, are supposed to fail to create shadow on the 2.7 Kelvin CMB radiation.
http://www.iop.or....web.pdf
Mar 01, 2010
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
Mar 01, 2010
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
http://www.physic...~steinh/