Laws of physics and the goldilocks zone

[Tank]

The laws of physics that apply to our earth do not apply elsewhere; ...

Actually it is a fundamental assumption of the scientific community that the laws of physics are universal and an electron here behaves in exactly the same way as an electron 10 billion light years away. Without that assumption all science falls down and loses all ability to predict anything. So far the vast, vast majority of observations have supported the assumption of universal laws. However every now and then something doesn't fit. So far these mismatches have all turned out to be caused by subtle problems with the 'laws' themselves. An example would be Newton's laws of motion which work until the effects of relativity kick in at high speeds and high gravity.

Another example would be the size of the universe which is essentially founded on our understanding of the behaviour of electromagnetic waves. Which we can only directly observe from inside the gravity well of a star, which we do know acts as a lens on EMR. So all the observations we make are seen through the distorting lens of gravity. We make compensations for this. But what if those compensations are wrong? The universe could be considerable older (bigger) or younger (smaller) if those compensations are wrong. So far no observations have contradicted the laws we have construed from those observations and that's the best we can hope for until we can travel out into interstellar space.

[Amicale]

The laws of physics that apply to our earth do not apply elsewhere; ...

Actually it is a fundamental assumption of the scientific community that the laws of physics are universal and an electron here behaves in exactly the same way as an electron 10 billion light years away. Without that assumption all science falls down and loses all ability to predict anything. So far the vast, vast majority of observations have supported the assumption of universal laws. However every now and then something doesn't fit. So far these mismatches have all turned out to be caused by subtle problems with the 'laws' themselves. An example would be Newton's laws of motion which work until the effects of relativity kick in at high speeds and high gravity.

Another example would be the size of the universe which is essentially founded on our understanding of the behaviour of electromagnetic waves. Which we can only directly observe from inside the gravity well of a star, which we do know acts as a lens on EMR. So all the observations we make are seen through the distorting lens of gravity. We make compensations for this. But what if those compensations are wrong? The universe could be considerable older (bigger) or younger (smaller) if those compensations are wrong. So far no observations have contradicted the laws we have construed from those observations and that's the best we can hope for until we can travel out into interstellar space.

Thank you! I sit corrected.  

See, I always figured that the laws on earth may not apply elsewhere, mostly because of stuff like gravity, weight, temperature, the existence of water here, etc. Basically, the things that make life possible here on earth just aren't found elsewhere. I probably mis-spoke. I probably should have said that specific laws (or maybe circumstances?) allowed life to happen here on earth, but the same thing didn't happen on other planets, so each planet and its atmosphere all appear to function in different ways. I agree with you that if an electron would behave the same way here as it would elsewhere, with maybe a few exceptions as you said.  It was the term "laws of physics" that got my tang toungled.

[Tank]

The laws of physics that apply to our earth do not apply elsewhere; ...

Actually it is a fundamental assumption of the scientific community that the laws of physics are universal and an electron here behaves in exactly the same way as an electron 10 billion light years away. Without that assumption all science falls down and loses all ability to predict anything. So far the vast, vast majority of observations have supported the assumption of universal laws. However every now and then something doesn't fit. So far these mismatches have all turned out to be caused by subtle problems with the 'laws' themselves. An example would be Newton's laws of motion which work until the effects of relativity kick in at high speeds and high gravity.

Another example would be the size of the universe which is essentially founded on our understanding of the behaviour of electromagnetic waves. Which we can only directly observe from inside the gravity well of a star, which we do know acts as a lens on EMR. So all the observations we make are seen through the distorting lens of gravity. We make compensations for this. But what if those compensations are wrong? The universe could be considerable older (bigger) or younger (smaller) if those compensations are wrong. So far no observations have contradicted the laws we have construed from those observations and that's the best we can hope for until we can travel out into interstellar space.

Thank you! I sit corrected.  

See, I always figured that the laws on earth may not apply elsewhere, mostly because of stuff like gravity, weight, temperature, the existence of water here, etc. Basically, the things that make life possible here on earth just aren't found elsewhere. I probably mis-spoke. I probably should have said that specific laws (or maybe circumstances?) allowed life to happen here on earth, but the same thing didn't happen on other planets, so each planet and its atmosphere all appear to function in different ways. I agree with you that if an electron would behave the same way here as it would elsewhere, with maybe a few exceptions as you said.  It was the term "laws of physics" that got my tang toungled.

You're right about the 'circumstances' being different (unique?) on each planet. One major factors considered to be critical for abiogenesis to happen is the availability of liquid water. This defines a range of distances a planet has to be from it's Sun. Thus a planet needs to be closer to a dim (cool) sun or further from a bright (hot) sun to be in what is called the Goldilocks Zone. Issues like planet size (too small, can't hold its atmosphere), it's core composition (not iron, no magnetic shield), crust recycling (Venus can't recycle its oxygen and carbon because it's crust it too thick for plate tectonics to work). So these and a miriad of other factors conspire to make a planet suitable to develop a biosphere that self regulates, and thus survives, long enough for natural selection to drive evolution.

[Crow]

Well abiogenesis may be have been possible on Mars or Europa which are the two main contenders in our solar system for finding forms of life. There is a huge call from the scientific community to start exploration whether life on either of these locations has taken place. With mars it is thought that life may have existed but died out as it shows signs that its environment was very similar to ours at one point, if so then even primitive life would have left a mark such as it has left its trail on earth. With Europa due to its large water mass and its geothermal activity it may be possible for life to have developed similarly to microbial life found in the deep ocean where life doesn't require the same criteria it does on the surface.

By looking at the diversity of life on earth and what is required for life to take place at the extreme end of the scale it is possible to make predictions on the most likely locations that life might arise. We do know that the elements required to support life are abundant throughout space and even though our local system exhibits no environments that are similar to our own there are locations that may have a variety of conditions that would allow life to arise. The ESA "cosmic vision" which is to commence in 2015 has a main goal of trying to discover what are the exact conditions required for life to emerge so that may yield some interesting results. Also search for planets in the habitable zone of suns in our galaxy have only really just begun but with the findings from Kepler the Kepler team went on to make a estimate that stated "at least 50 billion planets in the Milky Way of which at least 500 million are in the habitable zone" from there findings which they published last year.

[Reprobate]

You're right about the 'circumstances' being different (unique?) on each planet. One major factors considered to be critical for abiogenesis to happen is the availability of liquid water. This defines a range of distances a planet has to be from it's Sun. Thus a planet needs to be closer to a dim (cool) sun or further from a bright (hot) sun to be in what is called the Goldilocks Zone. Issues like planet size (too small, can't hold its atmosphere), it's core composition (not iron, no magnetic shield), crust recycling (Venus can't recycle its oxygen and carbon because it's crust it too thick for plate tectonics to work). So these and a miriad of other factors conspire to make a planet suitable to develop a biosphere that self regulates, and thus survives, long enough for natural selection to drive evolution.

The anthropic principle is based on the idea of the "Goldilocks Zone." While theist see the fact that the conditions on Earth are so perfectly suited to life that they have to have been fine-tuned by an intelligent being. My own thought is that the opposite is true; life is well suited to the existing conditions on Earth because all of the life forms we know of evolved here.

In addition to liquid water on Earth, the moon plays a huge part in the existence of life. It's presence stabilizes the planet's rotation allowing the climate to remain relatively static for long enough periods of time for evolution to occur.