arxiv Find: Stars in Other Universes

By Sean Carroll | July 24, 2008 9:27 am

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?

  • Freiddie

    Now this is an interesting article…

  • King Cynic

    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?

  • Neil B.

    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:
    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.

  • Jim Clarage

    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.

  • Alex R

    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:

  • Garth A barber

    Jim Clarage

    So I agree that anthropic reasoning takes great hubris in assuming it knows what physical conditions are and are not genuinely anthropic.

    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’.


  • Isabel Lugo

    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.

  • Jim Clarage


    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.

  • Mike

    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.

  • Brian Mingus

    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.

  • Blake Stacey

    Didn’t Weinberg have an argument for there being a 20% slop in the triple-alpha “fine tuning”?

  • Otis

    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

    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.

  • King Cynic

    Dear Otis,

    The problem is not with reductive materialism. It’s with Sean’s assumption that an objective morality exists.

  • Sean

    The problem, actually, is that Otis is completely crazy, and I never said anything like “morality should be derivable from particle physics.”

  • Neil B.

    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.

  • Alex R

    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.

  • Blake Stacey

    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.

  • marc s


    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.

  • Greg Egan

    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.

  • Blake Stacey

    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).

  • Otis

    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.

  • JCF

    “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.”

  • jch

    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!

  • Peter Erwin

    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.

  • Pingback: Last July Friday 2008 « blueollie()

  • Blake Stacey

    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. . . .

  • Garth A barber

    Blake –

    Hoyle’s result wasn’t really a prediction from any “Anthropic” Principle, but rather from an Organic one.

    Hoyle was organic.

    Blake –

    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. . . .

    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….


  • Blake Stacey

    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).

    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.

    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.

  • Greg Egan

    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.

  • John Merryman


    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.

  • Tom Snyder

    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?

  • Lawrence B. Crowell

    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

  • Garth A barber


    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.

    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?


  • John R Ramsden

    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.

  • Lawrence B. Crowell

    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
    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

  • 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

  • collin237

    Lawrence, I would like to set up a private correspondence with you to discuss physics.

  • Lawrence B. Crowell

    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

    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()


Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!

Cosmic Variance

Random samplings from a universe of ideas.

About Sean Carroll

Sean Carroll is a Senior Research Associate in the Department of Physics at the California Institute of Technology. His research interests include theoretical aspects of cosmology, field theory, and gravitation. His most recent book is The Particle at the End of the Universe, about the Large Hadron Collider and the search for the Higgs boson. Here are some of his favorite blog posts, home page, and email: carroll [at] .


See More

Collapse bottom bar