Ecology: biology of interaction. 2.17. (supplement) Anthropogenic paradox

Ukrainian (latest version) / Russian language (updates stopped)

2.16. (supplement) Search for Life in the Solar System

D. Shabanov, M. Kravchenko. Ecology: Biology of Interactions Section 2. Biospherology

3.01. Ecosystems and Biogeocenoses

2.17. (supplement) The Anthropic Paradox When you stand alone on an empty plateau, under the bottomless dome of Asia, in whose blue a pilot or an angel occasionally spreads his starch; when you involuntarily startle, feeling how small you are, remember: the space that seems to need nothing actually greatly needs an external gaze, a criterion of emptiness. And only you can serve this service. Iosif Brodsky. “Nazidanie” (1987) Studying the features of humanity’s relationship with its environment, we take our existence as a given fact. Could it have been otherwise? Nevertheless, according to modern views, the existence of humanity, as well as life on Earth in general, is the result of a combination of a whole range of favorable predispositions. These are: — a large Earth mass sufficient to retain a powerful atmospheric layer, but not so large that the atmosphere would condense as on giant planets; — a strong magnetic field that deflects high‑energy cosmic particles; — the presence of a large amount of water in three different phases, which stabilizes the climate; — an optimally chosen orbit (if it were 5 % smaller or 1 % larger, life would be impossible); — an active lithosphere that enables biogeochemical cycles; — the presence of an exceptionally large satellite—the Moon, providing tides, etc. The ratio of the diameters of Earth and Moon is 4:1, whereas Jupiter’s diameter exceeds Callisto’s by a factor of 20, Saturn is 30 times larger in diameter than Titan, and Mars is 200 and 400 times larger than Phobos and Deimos, respectively. Most likely, the Moon was knocked out of Earth as a result of the so‑called Giant Impact. It turns out that for an impact to tear a substantial piece from Earth, the impacting body must have strictly defined parameters and strike at a strictly defined angle. A remarkable feature of the Sun–Earth–Moon system is that from the Earth’s surface the Sun and Moon appear as celestial bodies of the same size. This is a consequence of a random (or is it truly “random”?) correspondence between their actual sizes and their distances from our planet. Functions of the Moon: providing tides that create tidal zones necessary for life to emerge on land. Its tidal pull slowed Earth’s rotation from 4 to 24 hours per day, with the surface rotation slowing more than the rotation of the molten metallic core. This led to Earth possessing a powerful magnetic field that shields living organisms from cosmic rays. Turbulent processes in the core cause periodic 180° reversals of the magnetic field, which apparently played a substantial role in the turnover and development of biota (and ultimately the emergence of humans). Finally, it should be noted that a huge prehistory is a necessary condition for our appearance. Generations of stars had to succeed one another so that the material from which the Solar System formed acquired sufficient elemental diversity. A colossal, extensive history of the biosphere had to pass before our species arose within it. To develop our capacity to contemplate cosmological problems, a majestic history of human cultural development had to unfold. In addition, one must recall the enormous number of astonishing coincidences that seem to be found in the ratios of the fundamental physical constants characterizing our Universe. For a whole set of cosmic constants, the surprisingly frequent number 1 × 10^40 appears. For example, gravity is that many times weaker than the electric force, the Hubble time is that many times longer than the Compton time, and the Compton time is that many times longer than the Planck time. Roughly that many protons exist in the Hubble volume (the observable part of the Universe), and the total number of particles in a typical star is approximately this number raised to the 3/2 power. It is important that changing these characteristics could have led to a substantial alteration of the Universe. If the gravitational constant were slightly larger, the Universe would have collapsed; if smaller, it would have dispersed. If the number of protons were not 10^80 but, say, 10^86, the Universe would have collapsed, and with 10^77 galaxies would not have formed. The ratio of protons to electrons is conveniently about 10^9 (this magnitude can also serve as a measure of the Universe’s entropy), because the existence of the Universe is possible only within a range from 10^3 to 10^11. An even stricter limit: small changes in the Universe’s entropy would affect the existing ratio of hydrogen to helium nuclei (and all other nuclei), preventing the formation of complex systems composed of heterogeneous atoms. The observed proton‑to‑electron ratio is the result of the matter‑antimatter balance at the moment of the Universe’s formation (electrons are viewed as traces of proton–antiproton annihilation). There was no symmetry in the creation of matter and antimatter; matter formed a million times more than antimatter, and the magnitude of this excess was fortuitously suitable for creating a world with the observed properties. The ratios of neutrino numbers and masses are remarkably chosen; importantly, the mass difference between the proton and neutron is close to the electron mass. The favorable ratio of protons to neutrons is regarded as a result of “numerical magic” in the relationships among the main physical constants: the Boltzmann constant, the speed of light, etc. (as presented by P. Davis, 1985). The probability of a random coincidence of all these cosmological parameters that enable the existence of space‑time, matter, atoms, galaxies and stars, according to modern understanding, is essentially zero (many of the discussed correspondences are not listed here). Apparently, there are factors unaccounted for in ordinary cosmogonic models. Might these factors also manifest in the future, influencing the potential habitability of Earth for humanity? The presented paradoxes gave rise to the so‑called anthropic paradox (other names: the anthropic principle, the anthropological principle). This principle has a relatively long history. It was first formulated in 1955 by Kazakh astronomer Hryhoriy Idlis and Russian physicist Abram Zelmanov. The idea gained wide dissemination after it was proposed in 1973 by English physicist Brandon Carter. Carter proposed the anthropic paradox in two forms: “strong” and “weak”. “Strong” formulation: “The properties of the Universe are such as they must be in order to permit the existence of humans.” An alternative version: “Here is humanity. What must the Universe be like?” “Weak” formulations: “We are witnesses of processes of a certain type because other processes occur without witnesses”; “What we expect to observe must be limited by the conditions necessary for our existence as observers.” This approach is based on an implicit assumption of other universes in which observers do not exist. Does the assumption of other universes remove the paradoxical nature of our Universe’s existence? A special variant of the “strong” formulation is the participatory anthropic principle, formulated in 1983 by American physicist John Wheeler: “Observers are necessary for the Universe to acquire being.” Quantum uncertainty leads to the possibility that different developmental pathways can be realized simultaneously, and only through interaction with an observer does one of these pathways become actualized, i.e., acquires being (as in the well‑known “Schrödinger’s cat” paradox: the cat that would die in one quantum outcome and remain alive in another can be simultaneously dead and alive until the observer “records” one of these states). By analogy with these formulations one can propose a “very strong” version, one possible form of which is the participatory anthropic principle: “The existence of the Universe, humanity and each individual are interrelated parts of a single process.” At the present stage this statement cannot be proved. It does not necessarily entail (though it does not exclude) an appeal to God. At minimum, it reflects the close link between one’s own being and the capacity to know the Universe, reflected in the psyche of every person (“Cogito, ergo sum,” “I think, therefore I am” – René Descartes). The paradoxical nature of the proposed “very strong” formulation is no greater than the paradoxical nature of our own being.

2.16. (supplement) Search for Life in the Solar System

D. Shabanov, M. Kravchenko. Ecology: Biology of Interactions Section 2. Biospherology

3.01. Ecosystems and Biogeocenoses