Is there anything in fundamental physics that isn't needed for life?

[pears]

So I wasn't sure where to post this question, and it's more of a silly pondering than a serious speculation, but, I've often wondered if all known phenonmena in the universe are required for the existence of life. For example it's the electrons in the atom that give rise to the chemical phenomena on which life is based, it's gravity that causes the production of carbon in stars etc.

 

For example neutrinos. What are they? Do they interact with anything and are they truly fundamental or just another aspect of some other phenomena?

 

Please forgive my ignorance of the subject and the probably silliness of the question. I realize the question is rather broad and vague. I am looking for obvious flaws in the idea so I can see whether it's worthwhile pondering on it (for my own amusement) or not.

 

Thanks

[Ophiolite]

You seem to be asking indirectly about the concept of fine tuning This can initiate fierce arguments. The most measured answer you might receive is that any change in the fundamental physics would produce some change in life, though such changes might appear minor. If substantial changes were made in one or more fundamental particle, or force, then life as we know it would likely be impossible, but life in some other form might well be possible, even inevitable.

Edited December 31, 2013 by Ophiolite

[pears]

Oh It wasn't supposed to be an argument about fine tuning but about whether the set of all fundamental physical phenomena is greater than the set of physical phenomena required for life. I guess probably not many people will be interested in responding then.

[Ophiolite]

I may be messed up in my thinking, but for me the key word is fundamental. Any change in a fundamental will automatically change the physical controls on any derived variables/scenarios/entities. I am fairly certain that all fundamentals are required for life. Whether they need to be as they are for some form of life is open to debate and discussion.

[swansont]

The problem is that you can't arbitrarily get rid of some part of science, because it's all inter-related. Changing or omitting a part necessarily requires a change in all of it, so it really does boil down to a fine-tuning argument. Take your example of neutrinos: they are required because of various conservation laws. No neutrinos means getting rid of those conservation laws, which changes all of physics. A solution to what physics might be like without conservation of lepton number and angular momentum (two resulting changes) is not obvious.

[pears]

Oh OK thanks. My understanding of physics is very much in the learning phase. Thanks for your responses

 

P.S. Please feel free to close the thread if you want to as I think you've answered my question and there probably isn't much else to say on it.

Edited December 31, 2013 by pears

[imatfaal]

No way the thread should be closed - it is a good question. As mentioned above, everything seems connected - there are no branches of physics (I believe) that exist without reference to the totality. We can calculate the trajectory of a shell through equations a few centuries old and without reference to quantum mechanics or the standard model of particle physics etc - but we know that we are making (completely valid) simplifications and that in reality everything is interconnected and cannot be viewed as happening in a vacuum. Everything is physics - or as Rutherford apparently phrased it "All science is either physics or stamp collecting."

[pears]

Well thanks for your vote of confidence in the topic, however I do think my original question somewhat flawed now. I hadn't pictured physical reality as something seamless, more like discrete blocks that fitted together like a jigsaw puzzle. It's definitely something for me to ponder on

[StringJunky]

pears, on 01 Jan 2014 - 3:04 PM, said:

I hadn't pictured physical reality as something seamless, more like discrete blocks that fitted together like a jigsaw puzzle. It's definitely something for me to ponder on

It's not wasted, you learnt something important and an aspect of the human thought process: the need to segment what we perceive into little interconnected boxes which is not necessarily a reflection of reality. We actually process analogue phenomena in a digital way. As an artist teacher once said to me; "Lines? I see no lines!" We have to do this or else we couldn't communicate.

[Bill Angel]

Everything is physics - or as Rutherford apparently phrased it "All science is either physics or stamp collecting."

That's a good quote for illustrating why some physicists dislike the anthropic principle and the idea that our universe is part of a multi verse. If as some cosmologists speculate there are 10^500 universes, each with slightly different physical laws, and we occupy the universe that has that set of physical laws compatible with the development of life, it's like saying that the multiverse is an album containing 10^500 postage stamps, each with a slightly different design. Then all physics is doing is determining the design of the postage stamp that we happen to live on (or in).

Edited January 2, 2014 by Bill Angel