I fear the day Sabine discovers a scientific paper I wrote. No, there aren’t any-but still, the fear remains.

"Anthropic" should be replaced with "cephalopodic", as squid are clearly what the universe was truly aiming for. Humans are an incidental by product.

You reminded me that I forgot to buy iodized salt for my 96-year-old mother yesterday. I'm surfing gravitational waves out the door...

In a way, this is true. We owe the heavy elements to neutron star collisions, impossible without orbital energy dissipated by gravitational waves. But the waves are a side effect of the way gravity works. So the title could have been "We exist thank to the way fundamental laws of physics work. And Sabine us right that thus is just the good old anthropic principle.

Well, in that sense we need radioactive decay as well. Without it, the earths' core would have solidified long ago, leaving us without a magnetic field. I guess there's a ton of papers more where that came from.

It's like life was created to fit the exact nature of the universe, and to need/use the available elements as opposed to the unavailable elements.

I've always found it amusing that the specificity of "constants" are the evidence for something supernatural. And yet, the more impressive things are seen as mundane... that the universe has forces that interact and equilibrate at all. The "constants" strike me more as long-term stabilized parameters in a relatively equilibrated system, and are super arbitrary relics that could have been just about anything with another set of mutually acclimating forces. Humans barking up trees is obviously the purpose of the universe.

It really tickled me when Sabine, a theoretical physicist, stated that cats were made of magic! I quite agree!

If the universe were less friendly to life as we know it now then life might have taken a direction that conformed more to that universe and it would still appear that that universe was amazingly friendly to that form of life. And if the universe was simply not friendly to any kind of life, well, no life. What is, is. What is not, is not.

The driest places on Earth are the Atacama desert and Sabine's humor. Both are necessary for life. Somehow. Someone should write a paper about it.

Iodine is not necessary for the hormonal control via thyroid regulation. It's utilized because it's available as the best option, but a functionally equivalent biological mechanism could have easily evolved to regulate overall metabolism with the brain's pituitary gland.

There are lots of things that needed to exist for our lives to come about. But it's a good point you raise: if some of these things had been different, we don't know if some different form of life wouldn't have arisen anyway. Is there only one possible configuration, one ideal spot where life could exist, or are there actually multiple 'sweet spots' where different forms of life could exist? Also, we really need science to figure out where cats come from, if we're ever going to be free from their dominance!

Anyone who thinks the universe is inherently friendly to life has not looked down to see the metaphorical mountain of bones we are standing on.

If one came out with a paper with a title "gravity is essential to life" it wouldn't have been as interesting, adding waves made all the difference lol.

To be fair, if any law of the universe was even slightly different, humanity wouldn’t exist at all. So I guess the title of the paper is accurate, if unhelpful?

Determanistic paper. Step 1 identify something several degrees of seperation from life as we know it, that has a vague connection in cause and effect. Step 2 write a long winded paper on the broad strokes of the cause and effect stages between the two points. Step 3 state that this is integeral to life. Step 4 publish paper and profit.

I’ve read somewhere that physical things are solidified light - sounds something that either Douglas Adams or Terry Pratchett would come up with

Sabine, wonderful that you have so many subscribers and you are proof that with the right personality you can make science incredibly interesting and I wish you and yours the very best.

If we accept infinity, we can fill it with big bangs and big collapses or any other scenario, just get rid of the idea that the universe needs a beginning and an end, then eventually everything which is possible will happen. So the fact that there are so many things exactly right only means that all the time they are not there isn't any life (us) to observe all these "coincidences". The idea that time and space should somehow be finite only comes from our own limitations, nature doesn't have any reason to comply with that.

It's always interesting when Sabine and Anton cover the same paper.

Rhats so funny that you mentioned the anthropic principle, bc i just watched a debate of yours where you were talking about the anthropic principle from a while ago

John Wheeler suggested that the universe provides the conditions for life so that conscious observers can develop in order to perceive the universe and "close the loop." He called this his participatory universe or participatory anthropic principle. Under this view, universes which fail to produce conscious observers are somehow impossible.

I mean, different laws in a universe would garner different results, but by the very nature of our universe existing it is most reasonable to assume that other universes with other less stable configurations also have tried to exist. We live in this one because, in the course of infinity, this one was habitable. Another consideration is the nature of efficiency. Much like an electrical circuit will choose the most efficient path, it may be that the formation of the universe settled on the most efficient, stable configuration. Much like a bubble will always be a sphere, the universe may have had some strange happenings at first, as it flopped around in different configurations, but ultimately settled into the life supporting form it is in now.

Thankyou for your many moments of clarity.

[5:06] "maybe the laws of nature are in part what they are because that would allow for life to arise." This reminds me a little of your statements about superdeterminism. You are definitely looking at a much larger picture than is normally done. Thank you for your videos!

The Anthropic principle is sooo fascinating. A system can only observe its environment and itself when it exists.

A Few Years Ago I Read a NewsPaper Headline that Stated "Local Company Invents New Form Of Energy" I have Never Laughed so Hard over a Cup of Coffee and Paper in the Morning. My Physics Prof enjoyed it as well. XD

Suddenly feel like saying: I owe you, folks! Lets extend our gratitude not only to the farest shores of this boundless universe, but first of all to you, Sabine 😊. Thank you for a perfect Start in the Day.🙏🙏🙏

Thank you for the video.

i had the same reaction when i saw the title in another video...how does such a small effect affect life? but when i saw the reasoning was it doesn't do anything directly to earth it is part of a process that leads to a component of life forms, so it was more like "ohh ok i see howyou got that.." but it felt more like figuring out a joke/puzzle. ui guess another challenge would be to show there's a universal phenomenon that hasno influence on the developmeny of the universe and hence life and hence..us.

I loved the IC (JC) pun!

"Except cats who are made of magic" ... ha ha, your comic timing and delivery is really getting good.

The whole anthropic always feels a bit circular. That the universe is 'perfect' for the life that exists because it is optimal for the conditions of the universe. It's entirely possible the universe could have been way more perfect for different life.

I/We Certify That Sabinae has read this Article While it conveys a message, a more professional closing for a peer review would be something like: Being Nice... "She recommenda a positive rejection of this paper in its current form." "The hypothesis requires further investigation before publication." And she has filed it in her "In BOX" as Bull Pucky. Yours truely...The Editor Ceritified PUCKY. HAHAH LOL It has soo many holes and incomplete ideas. A block of Swiss cheese has more to offer. The papers only use is foder for the chimney.

As soon as you said atoms, I knew exactly where this was going.

In our real life experience at the mall with a coin drop in a funnel we have, given that angular momentum must be conserved, the coin's speed increases as it goes further down the funnel. Eventually, the coin gets to the narrowest point of the funnel, where it orbits fastest, and then falls into a collection box beneath the bottom of the funnel. The final fall through must be caused by friction between; the coin, the air and the funnel. Looking at neutron stars, if we didn't have a loss of energy somewhere in the system how much longer would it take for them to hit each other? Or would they destroy each other by tidal forces? I hope there is a difference and that we can look for the difference through theory and measurements. Loss of energy seems the most likely to me and gravity waves could be it.

I love reading about research like that, about 5 years ago just ranting about why life may be rare for my non-sceincy peeps on social media, I hinted at the necessity of some isotopes that are so rare they only come from cosmic events like blackhole-neutron star mergers that only happen about 6 times per year in the Milky Way. Sorta nice to see more research on the topic.

This reminds me of the new study that proves that sunlight is necessary for the production of hot peppers. I was very surprised to learn that, too

I find it difficult to imagine in all the billions of cubic light-years of space that any matter could clump together with other matter to make anything by chance.

Sabine: "...laws of nature are what they are and that would allow life." Exactly. This doesn't exclude a creator, it just takes the human narcissistic navel gazing of anthropic means out of it.

If it wasn’t for gravitas there wouldn’t be any VPN, then there wouldn’t be any NordVPN, and no Sabine … no KZfaq physics, no life on planet … watsitsname. But I do like her style, I’m always looking out for more of it!

this reminds me of the experiment with Prof. Laithwaite, when he spins the magnetic fields and observed the iron filings moving around. But he says something along the lines of "its almost as if they are alive, and can do work"

A famous example of the Anthropic Principle is the anime "Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya" You can go watch it now. Please try the (non-chronological) broadcast order. Don't look at the episode titles (because they will spoil you stuff. The movie is amazing. Do it!

......hhhmmmmm, fascinating. Thank you dear Dr. PEACE and God bless.

The universe is not at all friendly to life. The fragility of it and the fact that the universe is mostly vacuum or other unliveable areas aside, we keep having to make more life for it not to be extinguished entirely even in ideal circumstances!

Most of the most common elements in the periodic table are essential for life.

These are the sorts of Academic papers that are most common, sadly. Making an obvious statement of logical inference and declaring that you've done something miraculous simply by taking the time to write your obvious observation down. The thing that shocked them most, I believe, was that their ability to apply logic was so wanting that they thought their observation a brilliant stroke of genius rather than simple elementary deduction. All that before Sabine's pointed observations that they assume a lot about how & why life forms in the first place. I would point out that we know exponentially less about the universe than we know. I personally wouldn't assume anything so grandiose before we know why we have words like dark matter and dark energy. Or figure out why space itself seems to cease to exist at the quantum level.

I am writing a study paper. "The Big Bang is required for human existence"

But don't Stars make heavy elements beyond Iron? I've read they do, it's just that before Iron fusion produces energy, but for >Iron fusion cosumes it. So in small qunatities heavier elements are produced too. Am I wrong?

I'm now considering writing a paper for review: The Necessity of Both Water and Oxygen for Anthropic Existence and That Humans' Were Originally FISH

This Video is almost the same as if I would say: Human life only possible because of Water. I guess the mixture is important. All together makes life just possible

Heavy elements come more from the gas shells around supernovas, the gases that were pushed away by the heat of the stellar core. The star collapses to 2-3 times nuclear density and snaps back to that density, expelling some neutrons from the surface. These neutrons are absorbed by the nuclei in the gas shell, and it is their radioactive decay that makes supernovae so bright. And creates heavy elements past Fe56.

I'd only run across this theory recently. What I read didn't state that gravitational waves were actually necessary to life, but that without it creating the heavier elements, it would certainly be different. Now I have to go back and read it all over again!

I have a somewhat long comment on this, so I've sorted it for reading pleasure. TOPIC DISCUSSION: If you put 1m grains of sand in a churner, then check the churner after maybe 3 hours of churning, you will likely see complex clumps/clusters that work under a shape-governed ruleset aside the noise of the sand. The complex structures build even more complex structures if the clusters clump in a certain way. THE YAP: This kind of thing happens everywhere all the time, but instead of sand; it's the superfluid of space. The churning of the superfluid of space consistently creates particles that last for a blip, or sometimes create a structure complex enough for the particle to stay. Look at virtual and real particles as bubbles in water as an example. TOPIC POINT: No matter what weight you give to this fluid, the laws of physics will always conform to it, since that's what emerges the laws of physics; life exists because emergent complex structures in an existence of noise can have even more complex structures made of complex sub-structures(the structures within the main structure). EXTRA YAP: Temporary structures exist because once a structure looses stability(a.k.a meaning) it dissipates. At all words, it doesn't matter much if you subscribe to a weird model. /:

You have a very good sense of humor for a German person ;).

4:08 I also strongly believe that Carbon is one of the most important element. Not only for "Life" , but for much more.

Thoughts on Dr. Becky's video about the new JWST results potentially "solving" the hubble tension?

This feels like another way of saying everything's connected

The content of this paper was a surprise, given the title. I was expecting a discussion of how human life evolved under particular conditions of gravitation unique to planet Earth which conditions are now necessary to sustain these life forms. No doubt my predisposition to doubt the possibility of "sailing away" from this planet is showing. A question I frequently ask myself is whether the collective frequencies of all Matter, Energy, Space and Time etc. on planet Mars will be so profoundly different than those on Earth that humans will be unable to survive within the context of a Martian orientation to the rest of the universe. This gets down to the difference between what conditions are necessary and what conditions would be sufficient for the sustenance of Earth-Human life on planet Mars. Without splitting hairs, we can say that human life evolved on this planet within the exact set of conditions that prevailed during that period of evolution. The fact that conditions changed during that period or remained the same does not invalidate the proposition that the extant conditions WERE the conditions extant over that stretch of time. And this set of conditions, static or dynamic as the case may be, can be listed, measured and evaluated by science. Or can it? There is a difference between the list of conditions that science can evaluate and the list of ALL conditions that may influence the sustenance of human life, because the latter would have to INCLUDE conditions that science is not yet able to evaluate. One might assert that science already knows every condition necessary for the sustenance of human life. But that is not likely. To the brave pioneers who will be the first to contribute data points to this controversy (and their mortal particles to the planet Mars), I salute you (even if what's his name is one of them).

it's not enough to have life some other way, it must be this way, the way that produced me. brilliant paper.

Dear Sabine In Cixin Liu’s book the three body problem, (currently adapted for and playing on Netflix) the antagonist boasts about having created a sentient computer from a single proton - by “unfolding” it’s presumably 11 hidden higher dimensions I know this is an probably unfair question but just entertain the thought. Please …. 1. Is it possible to unfurl/ collapse higher dimensions into our 3 dimensional reality ? (eg. Something akin to origami ? The reverse of when you fold a sheet of paper into a box) 2. If so what would be you approach ? 3. Lastly, would a process of unfurling/ collapsing higher dimensions into lower ones exist inside the singularity of a black hole ?

I really like this lady. Does she have a podcast?!

You don't need gravitational waves to have most of the elements heavier than iron, since these are very well created during supernova explosions. Hence the famous sentence "we are all stardust".

"The atoms not the cats" but we need a scientific paper to find out where the darn cats come from. Don't we?

ahhh... I finally figured out why there is so much more matter than antimatter. Its because if there were close to equal amounts they'd annihilate eachother, leaving too little matter to clump together to make stars and planets, on which eventually life would evolve to ask the question: "Why more matter?

Please explain why heavy elements were not made during the big bang. A lot of things collided and were put under great pressure then as well.

I'd like to add a bit more detail about the eclipse argument. I think this is expounded in the book "The Privileged Planet", but I haven't read it. 1) The sun has to be ~.5° in the sky, for "habitability". It could be farther away, but then it would have to be bigger in order to be sending just the right amount of energy to have liquid water/etc. (It can't be brighter and smaller, because then it would be the wrong kind of star, or ... something; I asked Gonzalez face-to-face (on 4/8, appropriately) and he said something along those lines; I worry about misquoting him, though.) 2) The moon has to be freakishly large, like our moon, in order to get tides and all the other good things the moon does for us to make Earth "habitable". Therefore, on a "habitable" planet, the moon and sun are likely to be .5° in the sky, thus causing nice eclipses like we have. No idea how sound or not that argument is. The observation is paired with other observations: 1/1 ratio of moon/sun angular size is quite rare, no other surface in our solar system has nice eclipses except for Earth. Also, this facilitates interesting scientific measurements, such as how during total eclipses we've used spectral lines to discover helium in 1868, or observed lensing in 1919 to confirm relativity. The book makes a big deal about habitability characteristics like this facilitating scientific discovery; I suspect a Texas Sharpshooter here, but, again, I haven't read the book. Also it seems like Saturnians could use Titan's shadows to do spectography, but what do I know. I think the idea that a planet where carbon-based chemistry is going to work etc is probably kinda rare is not controversial, but I don't know if I know enough to be convinced that it couldn't happen without a big moon, or with an even-bigger moon.

i agree with your assessment. I would agree that G.W. might have contributed to life on Earth, but necessary for life, that is a we bit of a stretch, and cannot be proven as an affirmative argument in the for category, but there is more evidence in the nay category.

Love your work 🎉❤

My cat Lucy is trained in the ancient art of scratchola!😸 She's got "The Magic" and is a real grand wizard of cuteness!😺😹

it's strange to who grew up with the classical model to imagine two bodies orbiting each other to just decay and crash but then if we can detect gravity waves when it's losing some tiny amount of emergy..so it makes sense. but how is that energy received? if space slightly changes by stretching and compression what does it "feel" like? we don't actually move if we're sitting still in space and space is changing size, right? if a photon hits me from far away it increases the energy level of one of my electrons and i guess enough of that would feel..warm. but what do gravitational waves feel like? if there was energy loss there shouldn't there be energy gain somewhere along the path it travels?

Danke!

Anthropic comes from the Greek word meaning “man” not human 3:29. We use anthropic as in “pertaining to humankind” or “mankind”. Accuracy lends itself to credibility, even if we know the context of “man” in this way is interpreted as “humankind.”

I have this suspicion that life of some form or other is possible under an unimaginable variety of conditions, including conditions that would be present in universes different than ours. Until we know just how easy or difficult it is for life of one form or another to evolve from nonlife, we can't really estimate whether or not our particular universe is especially conducive to the formation of life. And by the way, you and Anton Petrov ought to consider joining up, I think you might make a good team for creating science KZfaq videos.

Given how big the universe is and how little of it we can survive in, it is not friendly to life but incredibly hostile.

The apple falls to the ground, because the emptiness of the apple wants to merge with the emptiness of the earth. Mass of bodies, motion of bodies, electromagnetic field of bodies... are of secondary importance. Is this a primary gravity or attraction? What do you think or know? Enter yourself and go to the end or beginning, what have you become?

Why not Use conventional Propulsion while warping the space around You

What is the argument that similar apparent sizes of the sun and moon were necessary or helpful in biogenesis? I'm not talkiong about the relatively large size of the moon (those arguments I am somewhat aware of) but the apparent similarity of it with the sun

I love that she uses logic ruthlessly. Waiting for her next book... patiently 🙏

For me it's a symptom, Sabine. A symptom of the fear some scientists seem to have of life. I don't know what it is... But every time we discover something that suggests life should be out there, something like that pops up. And I'm not talking about little green men - neither gray. I'm talking about freaking microorganisms! Anyway, stay safe there with your family! 🖖😊

I am sure Philip Goff will take this and run with fine-tuned arguments. He will be happier even because some gravitational waves may be from even before Big Bang.

How about this? The Universe has always been this way. And the fact that we formed based on the conditions, we can talk about it made us (unintentionally)

I read some rather involved posts that we're critical of constants as mundane ... and fine tuning ... and underlying structure predating God ... I'll give you more clues about our univers: and a question. If you tie a constants to have a geometric meaning, does a constant have more consequence? Yes If you have a string of any length and bend it at any point you like. You can compute an area. Make the side lengths equal you have a sqr. You make unequal sides you make rectangles of decreasing area: quantum deformation trees String length =10 10= 5+5 sqrt area =25 10= 4+6 rect area =24 10= 3+7 rect area =21 10= 2+8 rect area =16 10= 1+9 rect area =09 An what you may not recognize: the deformations are quantum 25 max area 24 = 25-1 rect 21 = 25-1-2 rect 16 = 25-1-2-2 rect 09 = 25-1-2-2-2 rect

CERN has served its purpose, more work is needed in the post-actinides instead, now.

Is the merging of neutron stars as the source of the second half of the periodic table, rather than the size of the star allowing some stars to super nova, if they have the right size, the new orthodoxy?

As you previously mentioned, PHD “bullshit” for grant money. 😂

2:25 Strange, where does that energy go? Does it mean space-time contains energy?

Hi Sabine, is the Universe some kind of sorting algorithm that "runs on it self" and sorts for complexity, whatever that is? Liebe Grüße aus Tübingen 😄

Cats are multi-dimensional beings that love boxes. Our universe would not exist without them.

Duh! It's self-evident the universe is conducive for life. We're here! How do we know we're here? As Rene Decarte said, "Cogoto, ergo sum!"

Don't forget that radioactive decay of elements heavier than Iron is thought to provide much of the heating (50% ?) in the Earth's core that results in plate tectonics and our protective magnetic field.

1: "No, you don't get it: Science is my grandparent, but not yours." 2: "Nobody will believe that this is a candid drama anymore."

Well processes that use sulphur were present in early life and thats created by neutron collisions. But i always considered waves a byproducts of the collision then again without gravitational wave collisions would be less in occurrence.

Nice move with the Iodine and Carbon. IC = Iesos Christos, right? Add Yttrium for Yahve, and of course there's Thorium and a bunch of others, enough for a sizable pantheon.

Arguing that the universe is suspiciously well suited to life is a bit like a puddle of water arguing that it is suspiciously well suited to fit into its hole in the road.

This paper does seem like a stretch of inference. I wonder what will be discovered however when the space based more widely separated interferometers are platformed.

Life on Earth 🌍 is rare and special 🧘🏿🧘🏿🧘🏿‍♂️🧘🏿‍♀️🧘🏿😀

I wonder if it's really necessary for significant amounts of heavy elements, heavier than Fe, to come from ripped neutron stars. If that's the case, there will probably be very few planets with higher lifeforms, only a small fraction of those in habitable zones. Can we track those heavy elements in space far away? How can those elements ever get away from the extreme gravity, and what happens to the neutron matter when a neutron star is ripped apart? Will much of it instantly and violently turn back into normal matter?

Even without gravitational waves neutron stars would lose energy if they orbit each other. Both stars have magnetic fields which interact and create heat and therefore radiation. It would only take longer till the neutron stars would merge together. The question might be if enough neutron stars would merge and create enough heavy elements before the universe would have been expanded to much. Then the next cloud of hydrogen, which could collapse into a new star but needs a push from the merging neutron stars would be to far away...

Cats are made of magic. Best line I've heard on this channel.