The Habitable Epoch of the Early Universe- 15 million years after the Big Bang

[n2doc]

Last edited Wed Dec 11, 2013, 09:35 AM - Edit history (1)

In the redshift range 100< ( 1+z)<110, the cosmic microwave background (CMB) had a temperature of 273-300K (0-30 degrees Celsius), allowing early rocky planets (if any existed) to have liquid water chemistry on their surface and be habitable, irrespective of their distance from a star. In the standard LCDM cosmology, the first star-forming halos within our Hubble volume started collapsing at these redshifts, allowing the chemistry of life to possibly begin when the Universe was merely 15 million years old. The possibility of life starting when the average matter density was a million times bigger than it is today argues against the anthropic explanation for the low value of the cosmological constant.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1312.0613

[DetlefK]

1. The anthropic principle, another name for God.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

"Isn't it strange how nature is exactly right to accommodate life-forms exactly like us?"

[idwiyo]

2. "life" as we know it. Carbon based, adapted to specific conditions.

There is nothing special about us. There is nothing "miraculous" in the make up of the Universe. "Anthropic principle" is nothing more than another name for creationism.

I can't believe that anyone with even 2 functioning brain cells can seriously argue that Universe is the way it is so it accommodate us.

[Locut0s]

4. I don't like the "Anthropic principle", I feel it's a NON problem...

But I don't see it as being creationism or intelligent design. It just seems like a "non" problem. In fact the scientific explanations created to get around the "problem" are solidly rooted in science and have nothing to do with creationism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant#Anthropic_principle

I'm just not entirely convinced it's something that needs explaining in the first place.

[idwiyo]

5. I can't see how it's anything else but. "Universe is the way it is so WE can exist"

implying there is something special, that Universe just couldn't be any other way, it's entire purpose is to accommodate us.

Intelligent design, pure and simple.

[Locut0s]

6. Sort of...

The heart of it is really. The universe could be one of Trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions of different ways. The VAST majority of those different ways the universe COULD have turned out would mean life would not be possible on eath. But we ARE alive. SO, given that there IS NO GOD, why is it that the universe happens to be so amazingly fine tuned so that we exist?

It's actually saying the opposite of what you said. Not that the Universe just couldn't be any other way but that the universe could but just about ANY other way and most of those other ways don't have life. It's like rolling 10 thousands dice and getting them all to come up ones. Cause all those ones are the only way WE could exist. All the other possibilities would mean a lifeless universe.

The most common solutions to this is that there are multiple universes or the various constants of the universe vary throughout space. We simply happen to live in the one universe that has the right numbers. In other words we are NOT special.

[Shankapotomus]

8. or that the Universe is like

the wavelengths of light that, due to the limitations of our perceptions, we can only detect a small section. Much in the same way some colors escape us that are detectable to some birds, perhaps each entity, according to the limitations of its perceptions, perceives and interacts with only the portion of the Universe available to their pitiful senses?

[Locut0s]

3. Does this really argue against the anthropic principle?...

Seems to me it just says early in the Universe's history the "habitable zone" around stars was much larger than it is today. Which means the cosmological constant didn't need to have been as fine tuned as we thought for life on these planets. But it doesn't change things for US now does it? Life on earth evolved long after this epoch of time. So aren't we back to the same question when looking at it from the point of view of life on earth?

[BlueJazz]

7. Yep....and Venus and Mars could have been teaming with life had the formation of those...

....2 planets been a little different. Give Mars some mass and an iron core and we would have a nice twin to visit. The changes to Venus would (most likely) have to be more severe but (I believe) a form of intelligent life could have arose.