Does Our Solar System Exist in a Region of the Universe that's Just Right for Life'?
Follow the Daily Galaxy
Add Daily Galaxy to igoogle page AddThis Feed Button Join The Daily Galaxy Group on Facebook Follow The Daily Galaxy Group on twitter
 

« Carbon-12 --Does Its Creation in Stars Suggest a Universe Fine-Tuned for Life? (Today's Most Popular) | Main | Ceres --The Dwarf-Water Planet Unique in Our Solar System: NASA Asks "Could It Host Life?" »

August 28, 2013

Does Our Solar System Exist in a Region of the Universe that's Just Right for Life'?

 

Milky-Way-Switzerland-Vetter-2000

 

Many of our greatest scientists have been asking why does the universe appear to fe "fine-tuned" for life? The logic behind this question, sometimes known as the anthropic principle, says that's why we are here today, able to study the universe and learn about its laws. But if any of these constants were slightly different, we could never have come in to exist in the first place.

Analysis of the light from distant quasars in 2011 from data from the Very Large Telescope (VLT) in Chile showed that one of the constants of nature appears to be different in different parts of the cosmos, supporting the theory that our solar system is an area of the Universe that is "just right" for life, which negates Einstein's equivalence principle, which states that the laws of physics are the same everywhere.

"This finding was a real surprise to everyone," said John Webb of the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia. 
The change in the constant appears to have an orientation, creating a "preferred direction", or axis, across the cosmos, an idea that was dismissed more than 100 years ago with the creation of Einstein's special theory of relativity.

The report describes how the "magic number" known as the fine-structure constant –- dubbed alpha for short –- appears to vary throughout the Universe, says the team from the University of New South Wales, Swinburne University of Technology and the University of Cambridge. The work is currently under peer review.

“After measuring alpha in around 300 distant galaxies, a consistency emerged: this magic number, which tells us the strength of electromagnetism, is not the same everywhere as it is here on Earth, and seems to vary continuously along a preferred axis through the Universe,” said Webb.

“The implications for our current understanding of science are profound. If the laws of physics turn out to be merely “local by-laws”, it might be that whilst our observable part of the Universe favors the existence of life and human beings, other far more distant regions may exist where different laws preclude the formation of life, at least as we know it.

“If our results are correct, clearly we shall need new physical theories to satisfactorily describe them.”

The researchers' conclusions are based on new measurements taken with the Very Large Telescope (VLT) in Chile, along with their previous measurements from the world’s largest optical telescopes at the Keck Observatory, in Hawaii.

The core finding of the new study is the fine structure constant (alpha). This number determines the strength of interactions between light and matter. A decade ago, Webb used observations from the Keck telescope in Hawaii to analyze the light from distant galaxies called quasars. The data suggested that the value of alpha was very slightly smaller when the quasar light was emitted 12 billion years ago than it appears in laboratories on Earth today.

Webb's colleague Julian King, also of the University of New South Wales, has analyzed data from the Very Large Telescope (VLT) in Chile, which looks at a different region of the sky. The VLT data suggests that the value of alpha elsewhere in the Universe is very slightly bigger than on Earth.

The difference in both cases is around a millionth of the value alpha has in our region of space, and suggests that alpha varies in space rather than time. "I'd quietly hoped we'd simply find the same thing that Keck found," King says. "This was a real shock."

King says that after combining the two sets of measurements, the new result "struck" them: "The Keck telescopes and the VLT are in different hemispheres; they look in different directions through the Universe. Looking to the north with Keck we see, on average, a smaller alpha in distant galaxies, but when looking south with the VLT we see a larger alpha.

"It varies by only a tiny amount –- about one part in 100,000 -– over most of the observable Universe, but it's possible that much larger variations could occur beyond our observable horizon."

Co-author Dr. Michael Murphy, of Swinburne University of Technology, says the discovery will force scientists to rethink their understanding of Nature's laws.

"The fine structure constant, and other fundamental constants, are absolutely central to our current theory of physics. If they really do vary, we'll need a better, deeper theory," Dr. Murphy says.

While a "varying constant" would shake our understanding of the world around us, Dr. Murphy notes: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. What we're finding is extraordinary, no doubt about that.

"It's one of the biggest questions of modern science –- are the laws of physics the same everywhere in the Universe and throughout its entire history? We're determined to answer this burning question one way or the other."

The team's analysis of around 300 measurements of alpha in light coming from various points in the sky suggests the variation is not random but structured, like a bar magnet. The Universe seems to have a large alpha on one side and a smaller alpha on the other.

This "dipole" alignment nearly matches that of a stream of galaxies mysteriously moving towards the edge of the Universe. It does not, however, line up with another unexplained dipole, dubbed the axis of evil, in the afterglow of the Big Bang.

Earth sits somewhere in the middle of the extremes for alpha. If correct, the result would explain why alpha seems to have the finely tuned value that allows chemistry – and thus biology – to occur. Grow alpha by 4 per cent, for instance, and the stars would be unable to produce carbon, making our biochemistry impossible.

If the interpretation of the light is correct, it is "a huge deal", agrees Craig Hogan, head of the Fermilab Center for Particle Astrophysics in Batavia, Illinois. But like Cowie, he told New Scientist that he suspects there is an error somewhere in the analysis. "I think the result is not real," he says.

Michael Murphy of Swinburne University in Australia, a co-author of the paper, says that the evidence for changing constants is piling up. "We just report what we find, and no one has been able to explain away these results in a decade of trying," Murphy told New Scientist. "The fundamental constants being constant is an assumption. We're here to test physics, not to assume it."

The Daily Galaxy via http://www.science.unsw.edu.au and newscientist.com

Image credit: The Milky Way over Switzerland, (c) Stephane Vetter --With thanks.

 


Comments

What a bunch of anthropic non sense... Finely tuned, and what not ? A human is, in volume, 10-80 of the observable universe... If the universe would be filled with life, everywhere, life would still represent something like 10-50 of the universe... It would be nice if scientists would just do science, and not describe their findings with underlying religious ideas dating back from the antiquity when the earth was supposed to be flat, and had been made by a god. Whatever event created the universe didn't care a bit (because it was an event and not a conscience) about the existence of life on a subplanet around a dwarf star in an anonymous galaxy 14 billions of years later.

Here is another assumption: “Life can only be based on carbon”.

What if life can be based on every possible element? What if the stars elsewhere in the universe are able to produce element we haven’t even discovered yet? What if a universe of endless size, with non static rules, means endless complexity and the basis for life of endless diversity?

Maybe life in the far reaches of space is more strange and unfamiliar than we can ever imagine.

Does these other planets in our solar system have purpose? Yes! and I can prove it...

2 telescopes , pointing in different directions .
"It varies by only a tiny amount –- about one part in 100,000" .

1) what is the resolution of the telescopes ?
2) what is the accuracy of the telescopes ?
3) what is the correlation - the correspondence - between the telescopes ?

Actually, given the size of the discrepancy there would be no reason to think it would affect life. The biggest impact would be on our understanding of physics. That quantum mechanics and Relativity would need modification over time should come as no surprise to anyone. As for "fine tuned for life"; if life wasn't possible we wouldn't be here. That SHOULD end that line of reasoning, although it won't of course.

@Alain Really? and how has that hypotheses been tested? oh wait it hasn't anymore than the view you derided has been tested. both are philisophical views.

The implications drawn by the article are not supported by the information presented.
.
The article suggests that because it is theorized that a change in alpha of 4% could result in stars that don't produce elements in the current abundances, observations of 'tiny' variations in alpha, on the order of 0.001% somehow supports the idea that our area of the universe might be 'finely tuned' for life.
.
What seems to be missing is an appreciation/understanding of numbers, and any imagination about what possibilities might exist if the current regime were something different.


Post a comment

« Carbon-12 --Does Its Creation in Stars Suggest a Universe Fine-Tuned for Life? (Today's Most Popular) | Main | Ceres --The Dwarf-Water Planet Unique in Our Solar System: NASA Asks "Could It Host Life?" »




1


2


3


4


5


6


7


8





9


11


12


13


14


15

Our Partners

technology partners

A


19


B

About Us/Privacy Policy

For more information on The Daily Galaxy and to contact us please visit this page.



E