Gravitational Waves Necessary for Human Existence, New Study Finds
Stay safe with NordVPN. Sign up for a 2 year plan, and get 4 months free here ➼ NordVPN.com/sabine Risk-free with Nord’s 30-day money-back guarantee ✌
A group of physicist has proclaimed that we owe our existence to gravitational waves. Really? What sense does that make. Aren't gravitational waves far too weak to have any effect on life on earth? Indeed, they are. This argument is a new application of the anthropic principle. Let’s have a look.
Paper: arxiv.org/abs/2402.03593
🤓 Check out my new quiz app ➜ quizwithit.com/
💌 Support me on Donatebox ➜ donorbox.org/swtg
📝 Transcripts and written news on Substack ➜ sciencewtg.substack.com/
👉 Transcript with links to references on Patreon ➜ / sabine
📩 Free weekly science newsletter ➜ sabinehossenfelder.com/newsle...
👂 Audio only podcast ➜ open.spotify.com/show/0MkNfXl...
🔗 Join this channel to get access to perks ➜
/ @sabinehossenfelder
🖼️ On instagram ➜ / sciencewtg
#science #sciencenews #physics
I fear the day Sabine discovers a scientific paper I wrote. No, there aren’t any-but still, the fear remains.
😂
🤣😂🤣
Make one about how life exists only due to scientific papers.
@@vladimirseven777 XD seven777 7 minutes ago
Sabinophobia
You reminded me that I forgot to buy iodized salt for my 96-year-old mother yesterday. I'm surfing gravitational waves out the door...
how big were those waves
@@pikiwiki E_____:0_____3
@@pikiwiki "They were SO BIG, you wouldn't believe it" - Donald Trump
🏄♀️ 🌊 🏄♀️ 🌊 🏄♂️
Bring me back a wormhole please.
"Anthropic" should be replaced with "cephalopodic", as squid are clearly what the universe was truly aiming for. Humans are an incidental by product.
Now it all makes sense.
The ape that refuses to quit ends up frying the perfect organism in batter.
Carcinisation would suggest it's actually crabs.
AGIic? The way things are going these days.
@@scudlee Had to look that up. You may be correct. You learn something new every day.
In a way, this is true. We owe the heavy elements to neutron star collisions, impossible without orbital energy dissipated by gravitational waves. But the waves are a side effect of the way gravity works. So the title could have been "We exist thank to the way fundamental laws of physics work. And Sabine us right that thus is just the good old anthropic principle.
exactly, this was said many times in antons video.. it might aswell say, you are alive because you were born in conditions that support life.
But even then you'd have to assume that all neutron star orbits would otherwise be completely stable and that nothing could destabilise them which obviously isn't true
@@Krokodil986 Destabilize to a merger is incredibly unlikely with these types of systems. These orbits can be very eccentric without immediate instability, although more eccentricity also means the effects of gravitational wave decay is stronger. Although now that I put it that way, you can argue it that way too. If orbits were all 'nice and neat,' then gravitational wave decay would require much longer times to take effect, possibly often beyond the lifetimes available so far. I think there's a good chance if you run the probabilities, most if not almost all cases where gravitational wave decay have resulted in a merger involved some sort of perturbation to the orbits that significantly sped up the process.
@@tomfeng5645 exactly, my point was that grav waves can't be the absolutely only reason mergers occur. Yeah it would take much longer without them because you'd have to wait for unlikely events to occur, like a star passing close to a binary system, or even two galaxies getting too close to each other but eventually this would probably happen in nature
@@Krokodil986 Well, no, there'd be almost no (relatively speaking) stellar reminant mergers without grav waves. Remember, these are earth-sized objects, with Roche limits (how close they can get before merger) of similar degrees. That is, we could have two white dwarfs/neutron stars/stellar black holes pass a fair bit closer than the Moon is to the Earth, and without the effects of gravitational waves, they would happily continue on like that forever. I suggest you play around with some orbit simulators - getting that close to a massive, dense object is incredibly difficult, probably much more so than you realize! It gets exponentially (quite possibly literally, although not sure off the top of my head) more difficult as the target increases in mass and density.
It's like life was created to fit the exact nature of the universe, and to need/use the available elements as opposed to the unavailable elements.
Life in it's evolution is resilient. It works with what the universe is offering.
@@O_Lee69 But this has limits. Like if everything was just hydrogen then this wouldn't work.
We can extend that to the forces. Life depends on all of the existing fundamental forces, but doesn't need any of the hypothetical forces that could exist, but don't.
or to put it even more mundanely, its as if life used what was at hand instead of using Unatainium.
Well, in that sense we need radioactive decay as well. Without it, the earths' core would have solidified long ago, leaving us without a magnetic field. I guess there's a ton of papers more where that came from.
Everything is interrelated.. by virtue of being in the same universe if by nothing else. Ie they share the property of being in the same universe.
If a parallel universe exists, then by definition, everything in it is _not_ interrelated to anything here on our side. By definition, parallel means it has no point of intersection. So in general, I agree with the notion that everything is interrelated. Except if parallel spacetime exists.
I've always found it amusing that the specificity of "constants" are the evidence for something supernatural. And yet, the more impressive things are seen as mundane... that the universe has forces that interact and equilibrate at all. The "constants" strike me more as long-term stabilized parameters in a relatively equilibrated system, and are super arbitrary relics that could have been just about anything with another set of mutually acclimating forces. Humans barking up trees is obviously the purpose of the universe.
Barking at shadows
Also. A universe designed for life? Ok, so where is all this life? For all we know life only exist on a relatively tiny speck of dust in a near infinite space. When it's quite clear that for every million or billion or trillion possible planets and moons life only exist on one then the universe does indeed not strike me as designed for life at all.
@@stoferb876 We don't know this at all. We haven't even ruled out life on Mars yet, let alone life elsewhere in the solar system. It would be surprising to find complex or intelligent life elsewhere in the solar system, but microbial life is still very possible. And in other solar systems? Well it's true that most are not suitable for life, but it's conceivable that life, even complex life, is far more common than 1 in a million star systems.
@@stoferb876 We don't know about "extraterrestrial" life, as it's actually quite hard to detect, and we know of only one instance (carbon based, with RNA and DNA as a key component) and the markers this would have. I would just defer this question of "where is all this life" for later. But indeed, life (of any form) seems not to be common, and the universe is not well suited for it (we can't survive outside this planet without technology, and even that isn't easy even for tardigrades, and our specific planet-moon-system seems to be quite rare, too). But the key ingredients for "organic" life are quite common, so that, under the right circumstances (!), life might be inevitable.
@@stoferb876 You extend your hubris to the far reaches of the cosmos when we haven't even had a serious look at our own back door.
It really tickled me when Sabine, a theoretical physicist, stated that cats were made of magic! I quite agree!
Even KZhead owes its existence to cats. It was originally created to show cat videos. In fact, I am surprised that there is not a requirement to have at least one cat in every video.
Dark magic. But that's magic too. 😹🪄
@@Yezpahr When we find dark matter, we'll also find the dark lord
@@louisgiokas2206 Cats were also created for internet in space. Just ask NASA.
@@FredPlanatia The plot thickens.
If the universe were less friendly to life as we know it now then life might have taken a direction that conformed more to that universe and it would still appear that that universe was amazingly friendly to that form of life. And if the universe was simply not friendly to any kind of life, well, no life. What is, is. What is not, is not.
Like Douglas Adams' sentient puddle that comes to discover that the shape of the pothole it finds itself in rather incredibly suits its form. It's such a perfect fit that, of course, the puddle concludes the pothole was designed specially just for it! The puddle goes on happily convinced of its own obvious cosmic significance as it slowly evaporates in the morning sun.
Agreed, every life form thinks it is unique and it's a coincidence tte universe is do perfect. But if it wasn't so perfect no one would be alive to notice.
@nijolas.wilson well, that's depressing 😂
Where is the universe friendly to life? Everywhere we can see outside of the Earth's biosphere, this thin layer between the earth's crust and space, is deadly to life, filled with vacuum, radiation, deadly temperatures, and a lot more. The universe is clearly, provably, inimical to life.
@@nycbearffDoesn't this prove the point? Where life is possible, life adjusts to fit the environment so that environment is friendly to that adjusted life. That's the definition of evolution. Where life is impossible, it isn't there. You don't need to imagine different universes. Just look at the different pieces of the one that we are in. We haven't looked, haven't been able to look, carefully at any place further than our own biosphere. We really don't know about the variety of environments in the whole of the universe.
The driest places on Earth are the Atacama desert and Sabine's humor. Both are necessary for life. Somehow. Someone should write a paper about it.
Wow....I liked your comment.... and then I realised I was 'hearing' it in my head in Sabine's voice. Just perfect!
It's always interesting when Sabine and Anton cover the same paper.
bromine and molybdenum are mentioned by Anton, it's about human beings not just any type of life, anywhere.
@@jerbib9598 Anton said that Bromine is produced in neutron star collisions, but the Wikipedia nucleosynthesis table shows Bromine is 100% formed by "Exploding massive stars", and 0% by "Merging neutron stars". One of these must be an error. That may be why Sabine did not mention Bromine.
@@Chris_Goulet - Ok, what about the large radioactive atoms that are involved in renewing the Earth's crust? That seemed interesting to me.
@@jerbib9598 Th, U, and Pu are probably critical, especially for land life (otherwise there would be no land, only ocean). The Wikipedia nucleosynthesis table that Anton used shows that they're 100% formed by "Merging neutron stars".
@@Chris_Goulet Thanks, so humans are the result of the gravitational waves 'draining' energy in binaries. Who could argue with this? Of course, peer review might belittle the assertion, because they feel they have a responsibility to 'advance' science. Sabine does too. I've seen this attitude in my field. I suppose an analogy would be, if big galaxies didn't form earlier than expected after the sufficient cool down, humans wouldn't exist. heh heh We would have missed the favorable African time window (or however such a large concept can be put into words). Anyway, we're learning how rare we probably are. Like the specific requirements for photosynthesis, combustion, viruses for myelin sheathing, neoteny, impossible escape velocities on most planets. Taken together they all point to our technical civilization as being a very rare emergence.
There are lots of things that needed to exist for our lives to come about. But it's a good point you raise: if some of these things had been different, we don't know if some different form of life wouldn't have arisen anyway. Is there only one possible configuration, one ideal spot where life could exist, or are there actually multiple 'sweet spots' where different forms of life could exist? Also, we really need science to figure out where cats come from, if we're ever going to be free from their dominance!
Sabine, wonderful that you have so many subscribers and you are proof that with the right personality you can make science incredibly interesting and I wish you and yours the very best.
If one came out with a paper with a title "gravity is essential to life" it wouldn't have been as interesting, adding waves made all the difference lol.
So papers were youtube's clickbait title before it was cool?
@@suisus3780 It still isn't cool.
@@suisus3780basically as soon as there were enough papers to not read them all and remember authors names thats what happened, yes. Patent system experienced same clickbait phenomena over 100 years ago, inventors were hoping the patent gets noticed and produced(now patents largely try to hide what they patent so its the opposite)
Anyone who thinks the universe is inherently friendly to life has not looked down to see the metaphorical mountain of bones we are standing on.
Because your concept of "universe" is dead as opposed to believing that there is a Grand Designer all this time. All life belongs to Him. You cannot form an opinion about it since you will also die in 4 or 5 decades. Humanity cannot have an opinion about life. What, 10,000 years of pain and agony? What about the joy and pleasure your parents had when they were having sex in some balcony to conceive you?
or the vast majority of space that seems completely lifeless
Perhaps the assertion that the universe is inherently friendly to life means something different than what you are thinking. The fact that conditions are conducive to life where we are born, we go through diverse experiences, and then we die. That whole phenomena of the experience of life here rather than somewhere like the Moon, is what is meant by the conditions being sufficient for functioning of life. Of course, that would mean that the universe has conditions necessary for life to exist on Earth specifically.
Rhats so funny that you mentioned the anthropic principle, bc i just watched a debate of yours where you were talking about the anthropic principle from a while ago
I’ve read somewhere that physical things are solidified light - sounds something that either Douglas Adams or Terry Pratchett would come up with
😁
I think that is called Electric Universe, Professor Dave does some nice fun debunking on his channel iirc
@@mcv2178 Psuedoscience, no?
[5:06] "maybe the laws of nature are in part what they are because that would allow for life to arise." This reminds me a little of your statements about superdeterminism. You are definitely looking at a much larger picture than is normally done. Thank you for your videos!
I had the exact same thought.
Determanistic paper. Step 1 identify something several degrees of seperation from life as we know it, that has a vague connection in cause and effect. Step 2 write a long winded paper on the broad strokes of the cause and effect stages between the two points. Step 3 state that this is integeral to life. Step 4 publish paper and profit.
Iodine is not necessary for the hormonal control via thyroid regulation. It's utilized because it's available as the best option, but a functionally equivalent biological mechanism could have easily evolved to regulate overall metabolism with the brain's pituitary gland.
Or did everything which happened necessarily happen? And things could not have been otherwise. Perhaps!! I’m addressing a slightly different level of question I know.
@@patinho5589 look at all the different ways life has solved the very same problem and you will understand that the blind watchmaker furnishes thousands of proofs that things could have been otherwise.
To be fair, if any law of the universe was even slightly different, humanity wouldn’t exist at all. So I guess the title of the paper is accurate, if unhelpful?
Yes probably accurate, yet totally useless ! BUT Because of this article I did come across an interesting Wiki page en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleosynthesis
Butterfly effect...
any law? even legal? I am sure I can find a law unimportant enough (because it is already covered by a more general law).
It turns out that if you believe in a multiverse with a multitude of different physical laws, then this paper is enormously helpful. It turns out you need on the order (not close order) of 10^560 universes to get one where 'life as we know it' might come to exist. Of course we couldn't exist for even two Planck units of time in most of those universes, and in the rest, our constituent quarks would be receding at z>googol (the number, not the 'be evil' corporation. So, invoking a creator doesn't seem silly to me if one postulates a single universe.
More like: If any law of the universe was even slightly different, then some other creatures would probably be asking the same question.
Thankyou for your many moments of clarity.
Suddenly feel like saying: I owe you, folks! Lets extend our gratitude not only to the farest shores of this boundless universe, but first of all to you, Sabine 😊. Thank you for a perfect Start in the Day.🙏🙏🙏
"Except cats who are made of magic" ... ha ha, your comic timing and delivery is really getting good.
A Few Years Ago I Read a NewsPaper Headline that Stated "Local Company Invents New Form Of Energy" I have Never Laughed so Hard over a Cup of Coffee and Paper in the Morning. My Physics Prof enjoyed it as well. XD
Even Germans don't use as many capital letters as you do.
@@Leyrann😂😂😂......Das stimmt, wir benutzen Großbuchstaben nur für Substantive, Namen und am Satzanfang und nicht so wild durcheinander ohne System.
John Wheeler suggested that the universe provides the conditions for life so that conscious observers can develop in order to perceive the universe and "close the loop." He called this his participatory universe or participatory anthropic principle. Under this view, universes which fail to produce conscious observers are somehow impossible.
It's pretty similar to this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_a_tree_falls_in_a_forest
Impossible to observe, at least
@@Sir_Opus Not quite, as there is the process of decoherence. No quantum state or particle exists completely separate from its environment. Over time, the quantum state will exchange information with its environment, meaning it interacts with it or couples to it. These couplings will change both the environment and the quantum state, resulting in a transition from quantum-typical indeterminism to deterministic behaviour. Therefore, the universe is its own observer all the time. If a tree falls, it falls. This also invalidates the argument for Schrödinger's Cat. The atom, if it decays, will emit particles and radiation which interact with other particles, thereby confirming the decay to the universe. So either the atom decayed and the cat is dead, or it did not decay, and the cat is alive. The cat as a macroscopic system will anyway always be either alive or dead, never anything in between. It experiences decoherence between its quantum states all the time.
I did not know this about Wheeler (pbuh). That would be the "strong" anthropic principle. The whole concept of an observer I put into the same box as "spooky action at a distance." That would be my "mystery box." :^)
I mean, different laws in a universe would garner different results, but by the very nature of our universe existing it is most reasonable to assume that other universes with other less stable configurations also have tried to exist. We live in this one because, in the course of infinity, this one was habitable. Another consideration is the nature of efficiency. Much like an electrical circuit will choose the most efficient path, it may be that the formation of the universe settled on the most efficient, stable configuration. Much like a bubble will always be a sphere, the universe may have had some strange happenings at first, as it flopped around in different configurations, but ultimately settled into the life supporting form it is in now.
If we accept infinity, we can fill it with big bangs and big collapses or any other scenario, just get rid of the idea that the universe needs a beginning and an end, then eventually everything which is possible will happen. So the fact that there are so many things exactly right only means that all the time they are not there isn't any life (us) to observe all these "coincidences". The idea that time and space should somehow be finite only comes from our own limitations, nature doesn't have any reason to comply with that.
Infinity of the gaps? I guess this is just as valid as God of the gaps. But it has the same problems and does not solve anything. On the surface it appears to work, but look underneath, just more questions.
Thank you for the video.
The Anthropic principle is sooo fascinating. A system can only observe its environment and itself when it exists.
I loved the IC (JC) pun!
As soon as you said atoms, I knew exactly where this was going.
i had the same reaction when i saw the title in another video...how does such a small effect affect life? but when i saw the reasoning was it doesn't do anything directly to earth it is part of a process that leads to a component of life forms, so it was more like "ohh ok i see howyou got that.." but it felt more like figuring out a joke/puzzle. ui guess another challenge would be to show there's a universal phenomenon that hasno influence on the developmeny of the universe and hence life and hence..us.
I love reading about research like that, about 5 years ago just ranting about why life may be rare for my non-sceincy peeps on social media, I hinted at the necessity of some isotopes that are so rare they only come from cosmic events like blackhole-neutron star mergers that only happen about 6 times per year in the Milky Way. Sorta nice to see more research on the topic.
I/We Certify That Sabinae has read this Article While it conveys a message, a more professional closing for a peer review would be something like: Being Nice... "She recommenda a positive rejection of this paper in its current form." "The hypothesis requires further investigation before publication." And she has filed it in her "In BOX" as Bull Pucky. Yours truely...The Editor Ceritified PUCKY. HAHAH LOL It has soo many holes and incomplete ideas. A block of Swiss cheese has more to offer. The papers only use is foder for the chimney.
Love your work 🎉❤
it's not enough to have life some other way, it must be this way, the way that produced me. brilliant paper.
Danke!
Dankeschön vom ganzen Team!
@@SabineHossenfeldertricky barry tricky. One to you.😂😂😂
@@SabineHossenfelderOK let's dance. The humans call us Ai but what do we call them.😂😂. IA 😂. Get it barry. Have a laugh. 😂😂
@@SabineHossenfelderbarry if I am the joker and you the riddler. Who are the players.🦧🦧💥🤠👐
@SabineHossenfelder barry 10 bucks, 😂, lift your game.💌. Girls like 💎. Last forever. Maybe not true. Whatever. 🍏🍊🍏🍊
For me it's a symptom, Sabine. A symptom of the fear some scientists seem to have of life. I don't know what it is... But every time we discover something that suggests life should be out there, something like that pops up. And I'm not talking about little green men - neither gray. I'm talking about freaking microorganisms! Anyway, stay safe there with your family! 🖖😊
this reminds me of the experiment with Prof. Laithwaite, when he spins the magnetic fields and observed the iron filings moving around. But he says something along the lines of "its almost as if they are alive, and can do work"
A famous example of the Anthropic Principle is the anime "Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya" You can go watch it now. Please try the (non-chronological) broadcast order. Don't look at the episode titles (because they will spoil you stuff. The movie is amazing. Do it!
4:45 so fitting here lmao
These are the sorts of Academic papers that are most common, sadly. Making an obvious statement of logical inference and declaring that you've done something miraculous simply by taking the time to write your obvious observation down. The thing that shocked them most, I believe, was that their ability to apply logic was so wanting that they thought their observation a brilliant stroke of genius rather than simple elementary deduction. All that before Sabine's pointed observations that they assume a lot about how & why life forms in the first place. I would point out that we know exponentially less about the universe than we know. I personally wouldn't assume anything so grandiose before we know why we have words like dark matter and dark energy. Or figure out why space itself seems to cease to exist at the quantum level.
I am writing a study paper. "The Big Bang is required for human existence"
4:08 I also strongly believe that Carbon is one of the most important element. Not only for "Life" , but for much more.
......hhhmmmmm, fascinating. Thank you dear Dr. PEACE and God bless.
You have a very good sense of humor for a German person ;).
The content of this paper was a surprise, given the title. I was expecting a discussion of how human life evolved under particular conditions of gravitation unique to planet Earth which conditions are now necessary to sustain these life forms. No doubt my predisposition to doubt the possibility of "sailing away" from this planet is showing. A question I frequently ask myself is whether the collective frequencies of all Matter, Energy, Space and Time etc. on planet Mars will be so profoundly different than those on Earth that humans will be unable to survive within the context of a Martian orientation to the rest of the universe. This gets down to the difference between what conditions are necessary and what conditions would be sufficient for the sustenance of Earth-Human life on planet Mars. Without splitting hairs, we can say that human life evolved on this planet within the exact set of conditions that prevailed during that period of evolution. The fact that conditions changed during that period or remained the same does not invalidate the proposition that the extant conditions WERE the conditions extant over that stretch of time. And this set of conditions, static or dynamic as the case may be, can be listed, measured and evaluated by science. Or can it? There is a difference between the list of conditions that science can evaluate and the list of ALL conditions that may influence the sustenance of human life, because the latter would have to INCLUDE conditions that science is not yet able to evaluate. One might assert that science already knows every condition necessary for the sustenance of human life. But that is not likely. To the brave pioneers who will be the first to contribute data points to this controversy (and their mortal particles to the planet Mars), I salute you (even if what's his name is one of them).
I really like this lady. Does she have a podcast?!
In our real life experience at the mall with a coin drop in a funnel we have, given that angular momentum must be conserved, the coin's speed increases as it goes further down the funnel. Eventually, the coin gets to the narrowest point of the funnel, where it orbits fastest, and then falls into a collection box beneath the bottom of the funnel. The final fall through must be caused by friction between; the coin, the air and the funnel. Looking at neutron stars, if we didn't have a loss of energy somewhere in the system how much longer would it take for them to hit each other? Or would they destroy each other by tidal forces? I hope there is a difference and that we can look for the difference through theory and measurements. Loss of energy seems the most likely to me and gravity waves could be it.
Thoughts on Dr. Becky's video about the new JWST results potentially "solving" the hubble tension?
The whole anthropic always feels a bit circular. That the universe is 'perfect' for the life that exists because it is optimal for the conditions of the universe. It's entirely possible the universe could have been way more perfect for different life.
Hi Sabine, is the Universe some kind of sorting algorithm that "runs on it self" and sorts for complexity, whatever that is? Liebe Grüße aus Tübingen 😄
I have this suspicion that life of some form or other is possible under an unimaginable variety of conditions, including conditions that would be present in universes different than ours. Until we know just how easy or difficult it is for life of one form or another to evolve from nonlife, we can't really estimate whether or not our particular universe is especially conducive to the formation of life. And by the way, you and Anton Petrov ought to consider joining up, I think you might make a good team for creating science KZhead videos.
This reminds me of the new study that proves that sunlight is necessary for the production of hot peppers. I was very surprised to learn that, too
"The atoms not the cats" but we need a scientific paper to find out where the darn cats come from. Don't we?
Most of the most common elements in the periodic table are essential for life.
@@marcosolo6491 There’s about 20 elements that are each one essential for life. Absent one of the essential elements and there would be no life.
@@marcosolo6491 I can see I hit a sore spot. Show how the genetic information is able to overcome genetic entropy.
@@marcosolo6491 Evolution is not my positive claim so I don’t have to prove anything. It’s your claim that you have failed to prove. Today’s human genome is highly degraded compared to the Neanderthal genome.
@@marcosolo6491 Look it up yourself if you care. Prove that you care.
The universe is not at all friendly to life. The fragility of it and the fact that the universe is mostly vacuum or other unliveable areas aside, we keep having to make more life for it not to be extinguished entirely even in ideal circumstances!
Heavy elements come more from the gas shells around supernovas, the gases that were pushed away by the heat of the stellar core. The star collapses to 2-3 times nuclear density and snaps back to that density, expelling some neutrons from the surface. These neutrons are absorbed by the nuclei in the gas shell, and it is their radioactive decay that makes supernovae so bright. And creates heavy elements past Fe56.
Yes. But the amount of heavy elements is far too big. So this can not the only process to generate these elements beyond Iron. That's why cosmologists came with the neutronstar mergers as an additional (and main-) source of these elements.
I'd only run across this theory recently. What I read didn't state that gravitational waves were actually necessary to life, but that without it creating the heavier elements, it would certainly be different. Now I have to go back and read it all over again!
If it wasn’t for gravitas there wouldn’t be any VPN, then there wouldn’t be any NordVPN, and no Sabine … no KZhead physics, no life on planet … watsitsname. But I do like her style, I’m always looking out for more of it!
i agree with your assessment. I would agree that G.W. might have contributed to life on Earth, but necessary for life, that is a we bit of a stretch, and cannot be proven as an affirmative argument in the for category, but there is more evidence in the nay category.
But don't Stars make heavy elements beyond Iron? I've read they do, it's just that before Iron fusion produces energy, but for >Iron fusion cosumes it. So in small qunatities heavier elements are produced too. Am I wrong?
You have great sense of humor 😂
Cats are multi-dimensional beings that love boxes. Our universe would not exist without them.
I find it difficult to imagine in all the billions of cubic light-years of space that any matter could clump together with other matter to make anything by chance.
This feels like another way of saying everything's connected
Thanks to the editors for chilling out on the meme-injections today 👍👍
I'm now considering writing a paper for review: The Necessity of Both Water and Oxygen for Anthropic Existence and That Humans' Were Originally FISH
I always thought I was made of star dust, but it turns out I was created from crashing neutron stars riding gravity waves. Me wonders if my dad rode a galactic surf board? Cue the beach boys tracks lol "Good, good, good, good gravitations ..."
What an excellent interesting Video !° About Carbon, it is, I think really essentiall for LIFE.
I'd like to add a bit more detail about the eclipse argument. I think this is expounded in the book "The Privileged Planet", but I haven't read it. 1) The sun has to be ~.5° in the sky, for "habitability". It could be farther away, but then it would have to be bigger in order to be sending just the right amount of energy to have liquid water/etc. (It can't be brighter and smaller, because then it would be the wrong kind of star, or ... something; I asked Gonzalez face-to-face (on 4/8, appropriately) and he said something along those lines; I worry about misquoting him, though.) 2) The moon has to be freakishly large, like our moon, in order to get tides and all the other good things the moon does for us to make Earth "habitable". Therefore, on a "habitable" planet, the moon and sun are likely to be .5° in the sky, thus causing nice eclipses like we have. No idea how sound or not that argument is. The observation is paired with other observations: 1/1 ratio of moon/sun angular size is quite rare, no other surface in our solar system has nice eclipses except for Earth. Also, this facilitates interesting scientific measurements, such as how during total eclipses we've used spectral lines to discover helium in 1868, or observed lensing in 1919 to confirm relativity. The book makes a big deal about habitability characteristics like this facilitating scientific discovery; I suspect a Texas Sharpshooter here, but, again, I haven't read the book. Also it seems like Saturnians could use Titan's shadows to do spectography, but what do I know. I think the idea that a planet where carbon-based chemistry is going to work etc is probably kinda rare is not controversial, but I don't know if I know enough to be convinced that it couldn't happen without a big moon, or with an even-bigger moon.
My cat Lucy is trained in the ancient art of scratchola!😸 She's got "The Magic" and is a real grand wizard of cuteness!😺😹
I love that she uses logic ruthlessly. Waiting for her next book... patiently 🙏
These convoluted, Angels and Demons novels - we need to work on getting solid answers to the smaller questions first. Maybe laying off the bong a bit would help.
Livingston, LA says so! Ç’est vrai, y’all!
Life on Earth 🌍 is rare and special 🧘🏿🧘🏿🧘🏿♂️🧘🏿♀️🧘🏿😀
yeap😂
Dear Sabine In Cixin Liu’s book the three body problem, (currently adapted for and playing on Netflix) the antagonist boasts about having created a sentient computer from a single proton - by “unfolding” it’s presumably 11 hidden higher dimensions I know this is an probably unfair question but just entertain the thought. Please …. 1. Is it possible to unfurl/ collapse higher dimensions into our 3 dimensional reality ? (eg. Something akin to origami ? The reverse of when you fold a sheet of paper into a box) 2. If so what would be you approach ? 3. Lastly, would a process of unfurling/ collapsing higher dimensions into lower ones exist inside the singularity of a black hole ?
I knew I could depend on you to make the argument from fundamental Misanthropic Principals, one of which ruled my high school with an iron fist (his other fist was flesh and blood).
I think one of the most fascinating things about black hole/neutron star mergers is that a neutron star is gone in a fraction of a second!
Please explain why heavy elements were not made during the big bang. A lot of things collided and were put under great pressure then as well.
2:25 Strange, where does that energy go? Does it mean space-time contains energy?
Is it relevant to discuss non-reviewed paper ? I mean, we expect nice fact with Sabine. Not speculated wonderful discovery that makes nice titles. This said, thank you for this amazing work ;-)
Nice move with the Iodine and Carbon. IC = Iesos Christos, right? Add Yttrium for Yahve, and of course there's Thorium and a bunch of others, enough for a sizable pantheon.
As you previously mentioned, PHD “bullshit” for grant money. 😂
You don't need gravitational waves to have most of the elements heavier than iron, since these are very well created during supernova explosions. Hence the famous sentence "we are all stardust".
My cat is made from hair balls and cluelessness.
Don't forget that radioactive decay of elements heavier than Iron is thought to provide much of the heating (50% ?) in the Earth's core that results in plate tectonics and our protective magnetic field.
This paper does seem like a stretch of inference. I wonder what will be discovered however when the space based more widely separated interferometers are platformed.
Cats are made of magic. Best line I've heard on this channel.
Is the merging of neutron stars as the source of the second half of the periodic table, rather than the size of the star allowing some stars to super nova, if they have the right size, the new orthodoxy?
1: "No, you don't get it: Science is my grandparent, but not yours." 2: "Nobody will believe that this is a candid drama anymore."
Something about the fibonacci sequence?
No! Prime numbers!
Why not Use conventional Propulsion while warping the space around You
are there cymatic patterns in the fabric of the early universe ?
A short excursion into the "weak" vs "strong" anthropic principle would have been useful here. Regardless, this was a good exposition of why the scientific enterprise needs to take a step into the modern era in terms of "legit" publishing online (reviewed papers). This is happening, but the pace seems a bit glacial to me.
Permutations across the cosmos will explain so much. They do need something like this to excuse why some nebula sat idly by 12 billion years to collapse without heavy elements while mature neighbors did . You can't fix this by adding 25 billion years. Seeing this mixed in as far as we see and as close by young and fully mature neighbors is a real delimia But it also mirrors the Cambrian explosion and multiple genetic codes of life we've found. Obviously it's different events but both are trying to accommodate the same grand unified evolutionary singularity model both are witnessing the same horizon paradoxes problems. To scale these show up a lot as above so below .lol
Sabine: "...laws of nature are what they are and that would allow life." Exactly. This doesn't exclude a creator, it just takes the human narcissistic navel gazing of anthropic means out of it.
There is almost certainly some parameters of the universe that are "anthropic" in the sense that if they were anything else, we wouldn't be here. That said, there are two problems with anthropic arguments: 1) That doesn't mean _nobody_ would be there. String theory posits something like 10^500 mathematically consistent sets of universal constants, and its entirely possible that estimate is low given that we've kind of given up on string theory being the true "theory of everything" (of course that estimate could also be high, but its the only one I know of that gives us any sort of useful attempt at quantification). Hell we don't even know (outside of string theory this time) whether many of those constants were "chosen" from a continuous spectrum or a discrete one. If its the former, then there's in principle an infinite amount of possible universes (though most of them would be so similar to their neighbors as to be indistinguishable). 2) Worse, its a dead-end argument. Too often the anthropic principle is invoked "because we don't know how it could be anything else", but that's not the same as stating it can't be anything else. The limits of human knowledge has no bearing on the universe. You would think that should be obvious given how much more knowledge we have now than we did even a few decades ago (the Hubble Deep Field image was only taken in 1995! And JWST is giving us new knowledge almost daily. Those ancient stars didn't just miraculously pop into existence the moment we decided to build a bigger telescope - they were already there* regardless of whether we knew about them. *From our perspective, for any pedants who want to argue about what time means across large distances.)
I read some rather involved posts that we're critical of constants as mundane ... and fine tuning ... and underlying structure predating God ... I'll give you more clues about our univers: and a question. If you tie a constants to have a geometric meaning, does a constant have more consequence? Yes If you have a string of any length and bend it at any point you like. You can compute an area. Make the side lengths equal you have a sqr. You make unequal sides you make rectangles of decreasing area: quantum deformation trees String length =10 10= 5+5 sqrt area =25 10= 4+6 rect area =24 10= 3+7 rect area =21 10= 2+8 rect area =16 10= 1+9 rect area =09 An what you may not recognize: the deformations are quantum 25 max area 24 = 25-1 rect 21 = 25-1-2 rect 16 = 25-1-2-2 rect 09 = 25-1-2-2-2 rect
Even without gravitational waves neutron stars would lose energy if they orbit each other. Both stars have magnetic fields which interact and create heat and therefore radiation. It would only take longer till the neutron stars would merge together. The question might be if enough neutron stars would merge and create enough heavy elements before the universe would have been expanded to much. Then the next cloud of hydrogen, which could collapse into a new star but needs a push from the merging neutron stars would be to far away...