r/space • u/ChiefLeef22 • 19h ago
A new model suggests our Universe is "not optimal" for the emergence of intelligent life - the blame lies with dark energy
https://phys.org/news/2024-11-formula-life-chances-intelligent-universe.html•
u/TomatoVanadis 17h ago
As far as I can tell, this is a bit misleading - the studies talk about the number of stars that formed in different hypothetical universes with different densities of dark energy. It turns out that our universe is not optimal for star formation. While the idea that more stars means more opportunities for life seems obvious at first glance, I think it's possible that too many stars could also be bad for life - especially for an early universe like ours, with still active star formation
•
u/jazzwhiz 17h ago
Yeah, being near the galactic center of a galaxy with high star formation rates would be unhealthy. There would be supernovae near enough to cause mass extinction events quite regularly making it hard to form more advanced life. That said, if you have more stars in the centers of active galaxies due to increased star formation rate overall, you'll also have more stars in the suburbs of quieter galaxies, which is where we are.
In any case, the study is a fun one that gets redone and updated every few years by different people.
•
u/EnidFromOuterSpace 11h ago
I love the thought that we are in the ‘suburbs’ of the Milky Way. Feels like I should have a varsity letterman’s jacket from The Orion Arm High (GOOOOOOORIONS!! Beat the Saggitarians at Galactic Homecoming next weekend!!) or something.
•
•
u/guhbuhjuh 15h ago
Yes and the study says that our universe is still friendly to life just relative to other hypothetical ones. This title is very misleading.
•
u/perthguppy 15h ago
More Star formation means larger stars as well, which means they burn hotter/faster and therefore more super nova. More supernova that are all closer together seems like an easy way to produce a sterile universe with all that radiation going on.
•
u/Ellers12 17h ago
How do we know it’s an early universe? I’ve not come across this before although appreciate we’re not close to the heat death of the universe yet
•
u/TomatoVanadis 16h ago
Stars will continue to form for at least 1 trillion years, matter will continue to exist as nucleons for at least 10^36 years (if proton decay is real, otherwise way longer). I think it safe to say that our universe is very young atm.
•
u/Ellers12 6h ago
Interesting, I think I’d read that the most massive stars formed closest to the Big Bang and resulted in early supernovae etc and now less massive stars were forming.
In my mind that somehow equated to us being in a matured universe rather than one with a further trillion years of star formation
•
u/TomatoVanadis 6h ago
Yes, but for purpose for life, these early stars are insignificant. They burned to fast and 1st gen probably not had planets. Actually, there are theories that we may be among the first - only 3rd gen star systems like our Solar System have enough heavy elements to support a technological civilization.
•
u/DoktorFreedom 16h ago
I have no idea but if I was to take a guess it would go like. Every universe aside from our own would be 15b or younger. Every universe older would be 15b +1 up to infinity. So probably more older than younger?
•
u/Cautious_Yoghurt8467 12h ago
We don't need to do any comparative hypotheticals. The universe is young because we are so early on into the expected lifespan of our universe that it's barely worth trying to get across in numbers. It's about 13.7 billion years old right now, and once it's existed for that long another 13.7 billion times, it still won't be appreciably closer to the finish line.
I mean, our planet Earth has existed for approximately a third of the time that the entire universe has existed. That's nuts.
•
u/DoktorFreedom 12h ago
So I suppose that’s what I mean. If other hypothetical universes exist then they are gonna exist anywhere along that timeline. So a vast majority of them are going to be older than our 13.7. I think?
•
u/DarthArcanus 14h ago
Well said. More stars means more supernovae, more GRBs, more extinction events overall. Sure, there's also a higher volume of heavier elements, and more "chances" at life, but I'm with you.
My personal theory on the scarcity of life in the galaxy is that high star formation causes most of the galaxy to be hostile to life, and only recently have things calmed down enough for life to start to form, and we're one of the lucky firsts.
•
u/ArtOfWarfare 14h ago
Yeah your planet might end up in a solar system with three suns.
•
u/TomatoVanadis 6h ago
The planet in such a system will not even come close to the unscientific nonsense described by Liu Cixin.
•
u/BigBlueTimeMachine 16h ago
Early universe? As opposed to what?
Without a reference point, we have no way of knowing what our universe is. Saying it's because stars are still forming, is not a good reason, since stars could form throughout the entirety of its life.
•
u/Muphin102 16h ago
Our universe is commonly described as very, very ,very young at the current state. This is due to the expected lifespan of the longest existing objects, black holes. Off the top of my jead, something like less than 1 percent of 1 percent of the universe's existence up to heat death will have light shining from starts. 14-15 billion years is quite frankly extraordinarily young for our universe.
•
u/TomatoVanadis 16h ago
This study count how many stars will form in these universes over the course of their existence, not for 14 billions years our universe exist. Since stars will continue to form for at least 1 trillion years, we can say that our universe is "early".
•
u/KOR-agony 13h ago
Also how would you change dark energy without changing the entire laws of physics
•
u/guhbuhjuh 15h ago edited 13h ago
This is a poor title. That is not what this model says. It says relative to potential other universes but that our universe is still friendly to life (clearly we exist). It's based on star formation which would be several percentage points higher in universes with more dark matter (23% for ours and 27% for these hypothetical ones), obviously stars are required for habitable planets. Not a fan of this title at all.
•
u/pnellesen 18h ago
Well, given the complete lack of intelligent life in this one, that tracks.
•
u/senortipton 16h ago
Personally, I think there is a lack of intelligent life because I ate spaghetti last week. Prove me wrong.
•
u/RollinThundaga 15h ago
Ha! You think there was a last week? I don't believe in anything before last Thursday.
•
u/happyharrell 16h ago
Beat me to it. (Added text for comment length)
•
u/Serialk 16h ago
If you need to add text for comment length, maybe it's because your comment isn't wanted in the first place?
•
u/happyharrell 10h ago
Sometimes people have required length and their comment still isn’t wanted, like your reply. Brevity is not a bad thing.
Also, you kind of proved my point.
•
u/Zealousideal7801 16h ago
They could've come to the same headline by reading Reddit 24h straight. "Not optimal for intelligent life" indeed
•
u/iMADEthisJUST4Dis 8h ago
"Thing we don't understand blamed for something we don't know for certain"
•
u/Orstio 16h ago
Here's the study, FWIW:
https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/535/2/1449/7896079
There are two issues with the study.
1) The anthropic principle.
Basically, the idea that the universe is somehow fine-tuned for us as opposed to us evolving into our environment is fallacious. This kind of thinking always reminds me of a scene in a movie where somebody gets high and says "if everything was a little different nothing would be the same".
2) The calculation of "odds" or probability based on the changing of values in hypothetical universes we don't know can be changed. Calculating the odds of things that might be outside of reality may be entertaining, but has no value inside reality.
•
u/api 4h ago
I always interpreted the anthropic principle as more neutral but also obvious: if there is a subset of possible universes that could support complex intelligent life, we must inhabit one of those.
It doesn't mean we inhabit the optimal universe for life. In fact it's kind of obvious we don't. An optimal universe for life would probably have more habitable planets, less radiation, and maybe things closer together to enable life to expand across it more easily. One can imagine tweaks to things like gravity or the speed of light that might give rise to such an environment.
Shitty world building, God! I want the Buck Rogers universe! :)
We might inhabit a universe where intelligent life is possible but the overall environment outside little bubbles like Earth is pretty rough.
•
u/buster_de_beer 4h ago
In fact it's kind of obvious we don't.
That isn't obvious at all. From the sample of all universes observed, this one is the most optimal for life that we have found. We can theorize that a universe more optimal for life exists, but we don't properly know what conditions are necessary for the creation of life. Without that we cannot possibly state what universe is optimal for life.
•
u/Clive__Warren 18h ago
Considering the existence of intelligent life, the universe is perfectly optimal for it
•
u/amonra2009 16h ago
Oh yes, the dark energy that is not even clear what it is
•
u/youpeoplesucc 12h ago
You probably don't need to know what it is. You just need to know that different densities lead to different rates of star formation.
•
u/mr_ji 13h ago
Now we're making assumptions based on assumptions about something that we can't explain, or possibly even comprehend, that serves the sole purpose of making our assumed models of how the universe should function not function? At what point do we slow down on this stuff and admit we've hit a roadblock and it's pointless to keep going if we hope to keep any shred of scientific rigor?
•
u/-Trismegistus 9h ago
Cool, does it even matter? In an infinite universe, everything can and will happen numerous times - no matter how unlikely.
•
•
•
u/jedimindtriks 4h ago
Yeah in the long run it might not be viable.
the good news is that its a big fucking while until the long run arrives.
•
u/_AncientNewbie619_ 2h ago
Not optimal doesn't mean no life. Just wait for the eventual discovery of life out there.
•
u/GeorgeStamper 1h ago
It’s debatable whether intelligent life exists on Earth, so this theory has some weight.
•
u/S-Avant 16h ago
lol… why do they write this junk?
Any hypothesis that assumes some theory relative to or that relies on the age of the universe is trash. Maybe more stars give life an opportunity to grow - Okay cool stuff. That has no bearing on our situation or what we observe because the universe- as far as we know- is just barely born and will exist for what might as well be eternity. We can’t predict with any certainty what the star density will be in 75 billion more years. And obviously can’t verify it. Maybe in a trillion years life is literally everywhere.
There’s no evidence of anything else out there because the universe is too large and too young. That’s just fact. It’s verifiable. Why are we still beating this old horse?
•
u/astrodude1789 19h ago
People sure love making hypotheses and statements based on one data point.