Aliens Apart article, scientifically correct?

[jsmoody]

In the "Aliens Apart" article on Space.com, Seth Shostak states: "The universe appears to be remarkably suited for life. Its physical properties are finely tuned to permit our existence. Stars, planets and the kind of sticky chemistry that produces fish, ferns and folks wouldn't be possible if some of the cosmic constants were only slightly different."<br /><br />I would like to know where the supporting evidence for this would be...How do we know that if some of the cosmic constraints were different, life wouldn't be possible? So what if the spin of the electron had been sligtly different, or gravity weaker or stronger, etc. etc. Life may have been different, but not impossible. We don't know how long it took life to evolve in the Universe since we are the only observable case, maybe it took 13 billion years...because the conditions weren't exactly perfect. If they were perfect, maybe it would have only taken a couple of billion years. There are a lot of unknowns and variables that we don't know. I personally think his statment is innaccurate to say the least. In fact, I seem to detect just a hint of the pseudoscience of "Intelligent Design" here. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> No amount of belief makes something a fact" - James Randi </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

It's actually accurate. There are a number of physical constants of the Universe that need to be very close to what they are for atoms to exist, for stars to form and last long enough for life to evolve, for galaxies to form, etc.<br /><br />I'll see if I can find a summary of the "magic numbers" <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[vandivx]

I'd rather go with the orig poster opinion<br /><br />as you put it you are right of course but what you are actually saying is that if you alter something with everything else being equal you break the (currently existing) whole which is true but it misses the fact that if something were different the whole development would happen some other way and the resulting universe would be some other harmonious whole possibly with life more widespread or again less widespread and even with life missing<br /><br />but nobody can know anything about that, all we know that for the universe to exist as it does now those constants had to be the way we found them to be and they are what they are per necessity - because the stuff that gave rise to them was what it was, that is its identity was what it was and it had to result in those constants and the universe as we know it and it is futile to speculate how things might have been different if the basic stuff of nature was different thus giving rise to different constants... (there is good reason why this argument is circular)<br /><br />I am not sure if we can judge whether the universe is particularly conducive to life given we still only know life here on this single planet, the practical perspective is lacking and theoretical understanding is lacking as well, so far anyway and I'd say the position taken is probably based on some pseudoscience of "Intelligent Design" as the orig poster thinks<br /><br />""The universe appears to be remarkably suited for life. Its physical properties are finely tuned to permit our existence."<br /><br />the words 'remarkably' and 'finely tuned' do imply the 'pseudoscience of "Intelligent Design" ', there is no basis whatever for the term 'remarkably' and fine tuning implies the existence of a 'tuner' (as opposed to things (nature) being what they are and thus yielding the universe that we know necessarily without some tuning) but that may be too harsh criticism perhaps and lets just say that not enough i <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[dragon04]

<font color="yellow">There are a lot of unknowns and variables that we don't know. I personally think his statment is innaccurate to say the least. In fact, I seem to detect just a hint of the pseudoscience of "Intelligent Design" here.</font><br /><br />I didn't get that impression at all, and certainly not from a guy like Seth Shostak, if you frequently read what he writes.<br /><br />I guess it's all in the context you apply to the phrase "<b>appears</b> to be remarkably suited for life".<br /><br />What does life (as we know it) require? Light, water, and energy. That's all certainly abundant in the Universe.<br /><br />Onto life itself. One planet we know of certainly is full to the brim with carbon-based life, and we know that there is abundant carbon (and more importantly hydrocarbons) in the Universe. Everywhere we look, we find the stuff.<br /><br />In fact, by mass, Carbon is the 4th most abundant element in the Universe.<br /><br />In its infancy and "childhood", we know that the Universe <b>wasn't</b> so remarkably suited for life Not much but Hydrogen and Helium floating around until 2nd and 3rd generation stars were created as the result of countless supernovae.<br /><br />Identifyable processes, starting with stellar evolution and moving on to chemistry made you and I, and every other living thing.<br /><br />I think if anything, what Shostak might have been inferring is that life's done pretty darned good here on Earth, and since we see common elements and conditions all over the Universe, and that it all seems to operate off of the same general set of rules, it's not a stretch to consider life being everywhere.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Its physical properties are finely tuned to permit our existence.</font><br /><br />Again, that statement's accuracy depends on the context in which you take it. "Finely tuned" is just that, and not necessarily so tuned by a crafting hand.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[vandivx]

"What does life (as we know it) require? Light, water, and energy. That's all certainly abundant in the Universe."<br /><br />I think we don't know what is instrumental for life to start from inorganic matter, certainly this life needs that stuff you mention (water etc.) for it to be sustained, naturally, but it doesn't follow that those lead to its development in the first place<br /><br />certainly, this planet is teeming with life BUT it is all life based on one specific template as fas as we were able to ascertain so far, if this planet is supposedly so good for rise of life (given it has all those things you named) why don't we find life forms with other DNA arrangement here on Earth living in some nooks and crannies (perhaps because it failed to win the competetion for dominance with our kind of life and was relegated to mere mean survival and never made it beyond early microbial stages)<br /><br />there was thread on these forum not long ago on just this subject, that there is search for 'alien' life on Earth, that is other life (forms) with origin independent from the prevalent life as we know it - search for microbial life with DNA patterns different from that which is common to all life as we know it so far<br /><br />I mean one would expect to find at least some upstart life forms that we could say they were sui generi and had independent start as life forms, sort of parralel life on this planet which would not branch off from the prevalent life forms that are here today but started independently alongside - given that claim that Earth is thought to be such hotbed to life I'd expect to find some evidence like that<br /><br />because such evidence is (so far) lacking it would seem that one line of theory how life came to be here is still open - that it was seeded here from outside (comets, meteorites, aliens visiting here eons ago...) and it took root here because it found the conditions it needed here but sans seeding event it might not have arisen here to this da <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[thebigcat]

I have a problem with the initial sentence: <i>The universe appears to be remarkably suited for life.</i> "Appears"?? The Universe <i>is</i> suited for life. Self-Evident. "Remarkably"?? How else could the Universe be ordered? The behaviors of particles and forces in the 'Verse are what they are for no other reason than that they are. There is no variable range for the spin of a muon.<br /><br />This is another example of a completely useless publication from Seth Smokestack. I would guess to say that the reason that the Dems in Congress are so eager to cut funding for a manned Mars mission is that he's the one with the loudest voice trying to convince them to do otherwise and they are smart enough to see through his babble. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[vandivx]

the term 'remarkably' begs comparison and there is none, the other planets are not suited to life at all, its not like they are 'less' suited for life than Earth which by comparison could then be said to be 'remarkably' suited for it<br /><br />but like that term 'appears' that you picked up I am not too hot on dismissing the man given I haven't read anything of his, still it doesn't bode well and one can't help being skeptical beforehand after reading such excerpt<br /><br />problem with writing anything on this subject is that if you want to do it right so it bears criticism you would have to make arguments that rely on rather fine grasp of logic that general public doesn't appreciate and the conclusion you arive at is dissapointing given that one would conclude with 'we just don't know'<br /><br />such ending may be exciting for us scientists (or would be scientists or just for those dabbling in science) because it leaves scope for speculation wide open but not for those who expect to be revealed some secrets and are not capable themselves to do some original thinking on the subject and like to be emotionally warmed up by such lines as that our planet is - that is 'appears to be' - 'remarkably suited for life' without examining the statement any too deeply<br /><br />on the subject itself - I find it discouraging that out of so many planets and moons in solar system only one planet has life on it (so far as we can tell) <br />it is not neccessary at all for nature's variables to be slightly different so that atoms don't form as said above, it is enough for mass size variables not being just right and instead of Earth we get lifeless planets which have either too little mass (so they don't have internal heat/magnetism source) or too much (and they don't have solid surface at some decent temperature) and they end up not capable to support life (as far as we can tell... one has to be carefull not to be too categorical) <br /><br />vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[h2ouniverse]

in reply to<br />-----------<br />I find it discouraging that out of so many planets and moons in solar system only one planet has life on it (so far as we can tell) <br />it is not neccessary at all for nature's variables to be slightly different so that atoms don't form as said above, it is enough for mass size variables not being just right and instead of Earth we get lifeless planets which have either too little mass (so they don't have internal heat/magnetism source) or too much (and they don't have solid surface at some decent temperature) and they end up not capable to support life <br />----------------<br /><br />We do not know vandivx.<br />Actually the vast majority of the bodies in Solar System have places at 20°C and with H2O molecules. It happens that only Earth has that on its surface in open air. Most other bodies satisfy these conditions but underground at huge depth. <br /><br />From observation of universe we can see that the number of stars and galaxies is tremendous, and that from deep cold to cores of stars many stability points exist (quarks, atoms, molecules, cristals, liquids, Bose-Einstein condensates, vitrous phases, differentiated bodies, orbits, stars, neutron stars, rings, ...)<br />In the Solar System we can see that H2O is extremely abundant, that planetary sizes cover many ranges with huge variablity in structure, that surface habitability zone is relatively wide (two planets inside) and subsurface habilitability extends to the whole Outer system. <br />On Earth we can see that biological evolution mechanisms can go extremely fast and cultural evolution mechanisms even faster.<br /><br />The levels of stability of information are extremely numerous, with a number increasing with the complexity level. So yes, the parameters are remarkable, whether there is or not a transcendent finality.<br /><br />People use to think they are either exceptional or common. The truth seems to be that they are both. Wherever we have looked at, we have found until now

 

[jsmoody]

But are they favorable? Maybe not. It took a couple of billion years on Earth for even the simplist of life forms to develop. Who's to say if conditions were different it would only have taken a few million or a few thousand. I wouldn't think the expansion rate would make much difference. And is carbon based life the only type possible? Maybe if conditions were slightly different, silicon would be better. There are just too many variables for anyone to draw a real conclusion. We don't know. Maybe there are parallel universes with totally different conditions where life also developed. I just found the article a little presumptuous to say the least.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> No amount of belief makes something a fact" - James Randi </div>

 

[thebigcat]

Wonderful. My question remains. If those values aren't what they are then what else could they be? Since we have no answer to that question, there is no other universe to use for comparison, the question is meaningless as is the thesis that these values are in any way responsible for the suitability of the universe to life. <br /><br />Point of fact, that opening statement by Sleestak is atrocious. It almost screams "Bull&%$#@! to follow".<br /><br />Sorry, but I have seen enough statements by both Seth Shostak and Bob Zubrin in recent years which really make me worry for the future of science education. Zubrin because, while I can't fault his enthusiasm for manned Mars exploration, he is really no more than a cheerleader (Gimme an M), and Shostak because he seems to have all of Carl Sagan's faults and none of his personal charisma. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[thebigcat]

One thing I should clarify. In no way should my last post be construed as being critical of the job that Shostak is doing at SETI. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>