• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

The Degree of Fine-Tuning in our Universe – and Others Fred C. Adams1;2 1Physics Department, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA 2Astronomy Department, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA Abstract Both the fundamental constants that describe the laws of physics and the cosmolog- ical parameters that determine the properties of our universe must fall within a range of values in order for the cosmos to develop astrophysical structures and ultimately support life. This paper reviews the current constraints on these quantities. The dis- cussion starts with an assessment of the parameters that are allowed to vary. The stan- dard model of particle physics contains both coupling constants (α, αs; αw) and particle masses (mu; md; me), and the allowed ranges of these parameters are discussed first. We then consider cosmological parameters, including the total energy density of the uni- verse (Ω), the contribution from vacuum energy (ρΛ), the baryon-to-photon ratio (η), the dark matter contribution (δ), and the amplitude of primordial density fluctuations (Q). These quantities are constrained by the requirements that the universe lives for a sufficiently long time, emerges from the epoch of Big Bang Nucleosynthesis with an acceptable chemical composition, and can successfully produce large scale structures such as galaxies. On smaller scales, stars and planets must be able to form and func- tion. The stars must be sufficiently long-lived, have high enough surface temperatures, and have smaller masses than their host galaxies. The planets must be massive enough to hold onto an atmosphere, yet small enough to remain non-degenerate, and contain enough particles to support a biosphere of sufficient complexity. These requirements place constraints on the gravitational structure constant (αG), the fine structure constant (α), and composite parameters (C?) that specify nuclear reaction rates. We then con- sider specific instances of possible fine-tuning in stellar nucleosynthesis, including the triple alpha reaction that produces carbon, the case of unstable deuterium, and the pos- sibility of stable diprotons. For all of the issues outlined above, viable universes exist over a range of parameter space, which is delineated herein. Finally, for universes with significantly different parameters, new types of astrophysical processes can generate energy and thereby support habitability. arXiv:1902.03928v1 [astro-ph.CO] 11 Feb 2019 Keywords: Fine-tuning, Multiverse, Fundamental Constants, Cosmology, Stellar Evolution, Nucleosynthesis, Habitability Preprint submitted to Physics Reports February 12, 2019 Table of Contents 1. Introduction .............................................................5 1.1. Types of Fine-Tuning Arguments 1.2. Scales of the Universe 1.3. Formulation of the Fine-Tuning Problem 1.4. Scope of this Review 2. Particle Physics Parameters ..............................................13 2.1. The Standard Model of Particle Physics 2.2. Constraints on Light Quark Masses 2.2.1. Stability of Quarks within Hadrons 2.2.2. Stability of Protons and Neutrons within Nuclei 2.2.3. Stability of Free Protons and Hydrogen 2.2.4. Unbound Deuterium and Bound Diprotons 2.2.5. Plane of Allowed Quark Masses 2.2.6. Summary of Quark Constraints 2.2.7. Mass Difference between the Neutron and Proton 2.2.8. Constraints on the Higgs Parameters 2.3. Constraints on the α-β Plane 2.4. Constraints on the Strong Coupling Constant 2.5. Additional Considerations 2.5.1. Charge Quantization 2.5.2. Constraint from Proton Decay 3. Cosmological Parameters and the Cosmic Inventory ......................33 3.1. Review of Parameters 3.2. Constraints on the Cosmic Inventory 3.3. The Flatness Problem 3.4. Quantum Fluctuations and Inflationary Dynamics 3.5. Eternal Inflation 4. The Cosmological Constant and/or Dark Energy ..........................49 4.1. The Cosmological Constant Problem 4.2. Bounds on the Vacuum Energy Density from Structure Formation 2 5. Big Bang Nucleosynthesis ................................................55 5.1. BBN Parameters and Processes 5.2. BBN Abundances with Parameter Variations 5.2.1. Variations in the Baryon to Photon Ratio 5.2.2. Variations in the Gravitational Constant 5.2.3. Variations in the Neutron Lifetime 5.2.4. Variations in the Fine Structure Constant 5.2.5. Variations in both G and η 5.3. BBN without the Weak Interaction 6. Galaxy Formation and Large Scale Structure .............................68 6.1. Mass and Density Scales of Galaxy Formation 6.2. Structure of Dark Matter Halos 6.3. Bounds on the Amplitude of Primordial Fluctuations from Planet Scattering 6.4. Constraints from the Galactic Background Radiation 6.5. Variations in the Abundances of Dark Matter and Baryons 6.6. Gravitational Potential of Galaxies 6.7. Cooling Considerations 7. Stars and Stellar Evolution ..............................................83 7.1. Analytic Model for Stellar Structure 7.2. Minimum Stellar Temperatures 7.3. Stellar Lifetime Constraints 7.4. The Triple-Alpha Reaction for Carbon Production 7.5. Effects of Unstable Deuterium and Bound Diprotons on Stars 7.5.1. Universes with Stable Diprotons 7.5.2. Universes with Unstable Deuterium 7.6. Stellar Constraints on Nuclear Forces 7.6.1. Stellar Evolution without the Weak Interaction 7.6.2. Stellar Constraint on the Weak Interaction 7.6.3. Supernova Constraint on the Weak Interaction 7.6.3. Supernova Constraint on the Nucleon Potential 8. Planets ................................................................110 8.1. Mass Scale for Non-Degenerate Planets 8.2. Mass Scale for Atmospheric Retention 8.3. Allowed Range of Parameter Space for Planets 8.4. Planet Formation 8.5. Planets and Stellar Convection 3 9. Exotic Astrophysical Scenarios ..........................................118 9.1. Dark Matter Halos as Astrophysical Objects 9.1.1. Power from Dark Matter Annihilation 9.1.2. Time Evolution of Dark Matter Halos 9.2. Dark Matter Capture and Annihilation in White Dwarfs 9.3. Black Holes as Stellar Power Sources 9.4. Degenerate Dark Matter Stars 9.5. Nuclear-Free Universe 10. Conclusion ............................................................134 10.1. Summary of Fine-Tuning Constraints 10.2. General Trends 10.3. Anthropic Arguments 10.4. Is our Universe Maximally Habitable? 10.5. Open Issues 10.6. Insights and Perspective Appendix A. Mass Scales in terms of Fundamental Constants . 150 Appendix B. Number of Space-Time Dimensions . 155 B.1. Stability of Classical Orbits B.2. Stability of Atoms: Bound Quantum States Appendix C. Chemistry and Biological Molecules . 162 Appendix D. Global Bounds on the Structure Constants . 166 Appendix E. Probability Considerations ...................................169 Appendix F: Nuclei and the Semi-Empirical Mass Formula . 173 References ...............................................................178 4 1. Introduction The laws of physics in our universe support the development and operations of biology — and hence observers — which in turn require the existence of a range of astrophysical structures. The cosmos synthesizes light nuclei during its early history and later produces a wide variety of stars, which forge the remaining entries of the periodic table. On larger scales, galaxies condense out of the expanding universe and provide deep gravitational potential wells that collect and organize the necessary ingre- dients. On smaller scales, planets form alongside their host stars and provide suitable environments for the genesis and maintenance of life. Within our universe, the laws of physics have the proper form to support all of these building blocks that are needed for observers to arise. However, a large and growing body of research has argued that relatively small changes in the laws of physics could render the universe incapable of supporting life. In other words, the universe could be fine-tuned for the development of complexity. The overarching goal of this contribution is to review the current ar- guments concerning the possible fine-tuning of the universe and make a quantitative assessment of its severity. Current cosmological theories argue that our universe may be only one compo- nent of a vast collection of universes that make up a much larger region of space- time, often called the “multiverse” or the “megaverse” [119, 165, 172, 186, 196, 227, 261, 357, 445]. This ensemble is depicted schematically in Figure 1. Parallel de- velopments in string theory and its generalizations indicate that the vacuum struc- ture of the universe could be sampled from an enormous number of possible states [92, 264, 281, 309, 467, 501]. The potential energy function for this configuration space is depicted schematically in Figure 2, where each minimum corresponds to a different low-energy universe. If each individual universe within the multiverse (rep- resented by a particular bubble in Figure 1) samples the underlying distribution of possible vacuum states (by choosing a particular local minimum represented in Figure 2), the laws of physics could vary from region to region within the ensemble. In this scenario, our universe represents one small subdomain of the entire space-time with one particular implementation of the possible versions of physical law. Other domains could have elementary particles with different properties and/or different cosmological parameters. A fundamental question thus arises: What versions of the laws of physics are necessary for the development of astrophysical structures, which are in turn neces- sary for the development

Load more

  212

Copy Link