After more than 40 years that included five long-running TV series (even an animated version) and a string of movies, the writers of the latest Star Trek blockbuster in theaters decided to move to a new universe—one that has created fresh opportunities for stories and the chance to modernize and update the franchise. In the movie last summer Kirk, Spock and the rest of the gang were back. But a critical change—a time-jumping, revenge-seeking mad­man who caused the death of Kirk’s father and then destroyed the planet Vulcan—shattered the well-trod timeline of events that longtime fans have come to know so well.

Many Star Trek fans, old and new, like the new, parallel universe, which is intriguingly darker and gives beloved characters and the too-good-to-be-interesting Starfleet a helpful kick-start for future movies. One thing that struck me, however, was how similar the two universes actually were, aside from the cataclysms that brought forth the new timeline. They had the same starring roles (albeit with new, younger actors) and revolved around the same key worlds, the same Federation of Planets, and so on.

In science, as opposed to science fiction, parallel universes aren’t necessarily so parallel. Beyond simple changes in character development, alternative universes may have wholly different laws of physics. Nevertheless, a number of them could prove to be congenial to life, which so far seems to be so rare in our own reality. According to prevailing cosmological theory, our universe spawned from a microscopic region of a primordial vacuum in a burst of exponential expansion called inflation; the vacuum may produce other universes as well. In numerous other universes, theorists long held, the laws of physics may not permit the formation of matter or galaxies as we know them—leaving our home unique.

But recent studies by Alejandro Jenkins and Gilad Perez, authors of our cover story, “Looking for Life in the Multiverse,” show that some other universes may not be so inhospitable after all. “We have found examples of alternative values of the fundamental constants, and thus of alternative sets of physical laws, that might still lead to very interesting words and perhaps to life,” they write. In other words, scientists get a “disaster” for life if their models vary just one “constant” of nature, but if they vary more than one they can find values that are compatible with the formation of complex structures and perhaps intelligent life. What would these universes be like?

Many of us are captivated by the search for other beings in the vast cosmos beyond Earth. So it is ironic that we sometimes place such a paltry value on life that already exists on our own planet. Seven horrific tropical diseases, mostly caused by parasitic worms, ruin the lives and health of a billion impoverished people around the world by making them chronically sick, yet these ailments get less attention and money than HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis. In his feature article, Peter Jay Hotez presents “A Plan to Defeat Neglected Tropical Diseases.” Surely there is a way to provide the necessary drugs—which can cost just 50 cents per person—so that all people can thrive.

This article was originally published with the title Life Quest.

4 Comments

1. 1. Rogeregon 12:22 PM 12/16/09

   "Nevertheless, a number of them could prove to be congenial to life, which so far seems to be so rare in our own reality."
   
   How do we know how rare life is in our universe? A large fraction of star systems out there could have one or more planets full of life. Of course, it's possible-though I feel unlikely-that Earth is the only place in our universe with any life, or life could simply be very, very rare. But we really have no idea!
   
   I just don't see how such a statement can be made when there is nothing to tell us one way or the other! But I'm used to today's "Scientific American" spewing quasi-science and pushing "facts" that are nothing of the sort!

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

2. 2. PotatoChip 08:35 PM 12/16/09

   I think when physicists say that life is rare, what they mean is something like this: According to prevailing cosmological theory, all of the stars and planets in the universe combined account for 0.4% of the total amount of the energy density in the universe. Life (as we know it) would have to be a small fraction of that.
   
   As an analogy, let’s say that you lived in an oasis in a huge desert, and you started to wonder how far away the next oasis was, or how many of them there were in the desert. Even if you decided that there were a lot of them, there still wouldn’t be much life overall. Physicists are including the inhospitable sand in between, which makes up the vast majority.
   
   Since 99.6% of the energy density in the universe is made up of dark energy, dark matter and intergalactic gas (according to theory), there could be billions of planets with life, and life would still be rare.
   
   Of course, prevailing cosmological theory could be wrong, but this piece is careful to declare that as a predicate.
   
   Aside from that, this piece is downright schizophrenic. The author can’t decide whether to write about Star Trek, the values of the fundamental constants or medical research funding.
   

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

3. 3. alohajohnson in reply to PotatoChip 03:32 PM 12/17/09

   Agree with everything but the "schizophrenic"- this is the editor's intro to the current issue, and, as always, this feature touches on some of the key subjects in the current edition. A more succinct discussion is probably found in the link to the article "Looking for Life in the Multiverse"

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

4. 4. PotatoChip 07:04 PM 12/17/09

   Aloha, thanks for the clarification. I stand corrected.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this