Life, the Multiverse and Everything
In “Looking for Life in the Multiverse,” Alejandro Jenkins and Gilad Perez say that life would be possible in a universe without the weak nuclear force. But they fail to note that the weak force is unique in treating matter and antimatter asymmetrically. Only because of this asymmetry did matter slightly outweigh antimatter before nearly all antimatter annihilated with an equal amount of matter, within the first seconds after the big bang. Everything we see—including stars, which are essential to life—is composed of that slight excess of matter. A universe without the asymmetric weak force would have virtually no normal matter and hence no life in any form we might recognize.
Robert L. Piccioni
The writer is author of Everyone’s Guide to Atoms, Einstein, and the Universe
THE AUTHORS REPLY: By itself, the weak nuclear force cannot distinguish between matter and antimatter, because it preserves what physicists call charge-parity (CP) symmetry, meaning that it treats a particle in the same way as the mirror image of the corresponding antiparticle. As Piccioni points out, however, it is possible to combine the weak force with other interactions in such a way that this CP symmetry is broken.
Today we know that CP asymmetry is way too small to account for the fact that our universe contains as much matter as it does, but no antimatter. Some new physical interactions at high energies, as yet undetected, are needed to resolve this fascinating puzzle. These other interactions could also produce an excess of matter over antimatter in a weakless universe. We did not cover this interesting point in our Scientific American article because of space limitations.
That information about “Life, the Universe, and Everything” could be found on none other than page 42 of this issue was ironic, given that this number had been specified in 1979 as the “Answer to the Ultimate Question” in Douglas Adams’s classic text, The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy. For those of us who can barely get around the monoverse we find ourselves living in, it is a comfort to know that Scientific American has provided additional evidence that a convergence of multiverses arises from this locus, 42, as predicted by Adams.
William D. Brown
Seekonk, Mass.
Proceeding, with Care
In “Big Need for a Little Testing” [Perspectives], the editors write that “many companies are hesitant to invest in nanotechnology R&D, fearing the exposure to legal action that could result if one day a technology is deemed dangerous. Procter & Gamble, for example, is not pursuing nanotechnology because of the long-term risk of litigation.”
Contrary to what was stated, P&G is interested in nanotechnology, and we are actively pursuing the benefits it can deliver. We believe it holds great potential to bring exciting new levels of performance to products people use everyday. Nanotechnology opens up many possibilities to boost performance, reduce environmental impact and improve sustainability in virtually every consumer product category. As with any new technology, however, the potential for adverse effects must be understood, and the technology should advance only as fast as our ability to thoroughly evaluate it. We are taking an appropriately cautious approach with nanotechnology. In addition to our own research programs, we are also working together with others in the industry, with university labs and with government scientists to ensure the right tools are in place for the responsible development of this promising technology.
Mark Lafranconi
Section Head, Central Product Safety
Procter & Gamble
See what we're tweeting about
8 Comments
Add CommentGreat philosophers, Plato, Aristotle,Thomas of Aquino,Cusanussaid we should not believe a theory that is not confirmed by physical observations. Weak nuclear forces are hypotheses that are not confirmed by experiment
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe whole "theory" of Multiverse is an amounnt of useless intellectual work
Mathematicians speak of n-dimensional universes,with n dimensions, I wondered what is a zero-dimensional universe. That universe would contain entities without intrinsic dimensions such as gravity.We give gravity the dimensions of force or acceleration but gravity is independent of its
place and time coordinates.A zero "space" would be a"space" necessitating a new vocabulary,because if there are no coordinates "space " cannot exist. And because these is no time zero- entities would be eternal Aristotle learned the world was never created and will always exist His cosmology is until now the only cosmology not contradicted by science
Regarding the asymmetry between matter and antimatter: it occurs to me that if the initial universe was spinning as matter was condensed from initial energy, perhaps no antimatter could be produced. The direction of universal spin is asymmetric.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDavid Cota - I prefer the simplest solution that meets the observational evidence. Of course, I am not a physicist, so I'm just guessing, but as I understand the only characteristic property known to vary between particles and antiparticles is their charge.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt seems that particle charge may be related in some way to particle spin and polarization. If the energy from which all matter was initially derived was polarized and spinning, it could only spin in one direction. This universal spin may have imparted similarly directed spin to fundamental particles as they were initially produced.
This seems to me to be the simplest explanation: an asymmetrical spin universally applied to fundamental particles, preferentially producing positively charged particles.
Unless their is some evidence that precludes this possibility, I think it should be the most favored potential explanation. I haven't read or heard of this anywhere, which doesn't ensure its originality, but I also perform my own thought experiments.
David Cota...thanks for the link...still reviewing...one thing struck me as not right...that is that antimatter is reverse time...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRe: Nuclear Inferno - Kevin Capps has ther right idea but the wrong comparison. A better compartive analysis would be Mt. St. Helens. There, the total energy releases was equivalent to 27,000 hiroshima size nuclear weapons creating over 1 cubic mile of ejecta including an ash cloud that reached over 12 miles in height and pumped ash directly into the stratosphere for over 10 straight hours.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd while the eruption was certainly cataclysmic for those lifeforms inhabiting the 100's of square miles devastated by the eruption, it hardly caused anything approaching a global castastrophy.
Why do you say the weak force 'treats' matter and antimatter 'asymmetrically'? It would be easier for me to understand if it were the case that the weak force's influence 'affects' them 'asymmetrically'. There is a world of difference between 'treat' and 'affect' in my vocabulary.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI've noticed working with relational databases that the absence of a relationship between data sets does not mean that the state does not exist. In other words, maybe we just can't understand zero dimensional universe or a multi universe due to our limitations of our own existence. Philosophically speaking this limitation of observing a weak force is akin to Jung's observation of the collective subconscious. It's just something we will never be able to observe, but is doesn't mean the state doesn't exist.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'll not boast to know or understand most of what's discussed here. I'm merely a curious passerby who, every now and then, is struck by fleeting glimpses of possibilities. I've always been curious about the world around me, the galaxy, the Universe and its seemingly violent origin. I read what I can (thanks Sci American) and watch what I can regarding postulations involving such matters.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere was an excellent show on Discovery Channel the other day that hooked my brain, reeled me in like so much Blue Fin. This show was about, as many on Discovery Science are, the singularity and her extravagant birthing of every atom that now fills the expanse. To know that the four fundamental laws were bound up inside the singularity, having not a shred of effect until their release, made me ponder long and hard.
I've flip-flopped between atheist and agnostic labels only long enough for my ego to give way and settle with agnostic. Don't get me wrong, if there is a creator or league of creators, my guess would be that whatever their goals were in bringing the entirety into being had nothing to do with needing to be worshipped. This brings me back to the pre-release singularity. Understanding that the laws of physics could not even be set into play until detonation kept striking me that the singularity almost seems, at first blush, like a device. To know that step after step after step had to be taken to achieve each and every milestone, including (but certainly not ending at) life's formation seems so far beyond coincidence to become laughable at the very suggestion.
Let me restate that this is not a "God" argument. I do not believe in a "God" or "Gods". Let us conceive for a moment, however, that the singularity was a device. If there is any truth to the multiverse, perhaps this device is used to seed other universes in order to propogate galaxies and life across a raft of universes. Spreading DNA onward is at the very core of what life actually IS.
My own thinking on this is that if the singularity were a device that contained the four columns that support the physics that rule this space and all the ingredients to spin up life across the void - then it was done out of need. Perhaps when this universe begins growing cold and slows toward death, we too will need to launch our own device into the heart of the void in order to restart the process. It might very well be the only way life goes on. Perhaps not humanity itself, but simply life. And won't that be enough?