Comments on: arxiv Find: Stars in Other Universes

By: Fringe: What Happens If the Universal Constants Aren’t Constant? | Science Not Fiction | Discover Magazine

Thu, 21 May 2009 16:17:45 +0000

[...] my fellow Discover blogger Sean, over at Cosmic Variance, linked to a paper last year that found that stars, at the very minimum, could exist in as many as 25 percent of [...]

By: Stochastic Scribbles » Blog Archive » Is fine-tuning really fine-tuning?

Wed, 03 Sep 2008 18:55:41 +0000

[...] paper speculating about the probability of stars forming in alternative universes mentioned at Cosmic Variance got me thinking again about whether our universe is fine-tuned for the emergence of intelligent [...]

By: Lawrence B. Crowell

Lawrence B. Crowell — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 19:42:08 +0000

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

By: collin237

collin237 — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 05:12:46 +0000

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

By: Lawrence B. Crowell

Lawrence B. Crowell — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 00:02:50 +0000

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

By: Lawrence B. Crowell

Lawrence B. Crowell — Sun, 27 Jul 2008 20:57:00 +0000

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

By: John R Ramsden

John R Ramsden — Sun, 27 Jul 2008 20:07:40 +0000

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.

By: Garth A barber

Garth A barber — Sun, 27 Jul 2008 07:33:14 +0000

Lawrence

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?

Garth

By: Lawrence B. Crowell

Lawrence B. Crowell — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 22:41:21 +0000

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

By: Tom Snyder

Tom Snyder — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 02:46:03 +0000

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?