text:
Astrobiology

Astrobiology is a scientific field within the life and environmental sciences that studies the origins, early evolution, distribution, and future of life in the universe by investigating its deterministic conditions and contingent events. As a discipline, astrobiology is founded on the premise that life may exist beyond Earth.

Research in astrobiology comprises three main areas: the study of habitable environments in the Solar System and beyond, the search for planetary biosignatures of past or present extraterrestrial life, and the study of the origin and early evolution of life on Earth.

The field of astrobiology has its origins in the 20th century with the advent of space exploration and the discovery of exoplanets. Early astrobiology research focused on the search for extraterrestrial life and the study of the potential for life to exist on other planets. In the 1960s and 1970s, NASA began its astrobiology pursuits within the Viking program, which was the first US mission to land on Mars and search for signs of life. This mission, along with other early space exploration missions, laid the foundation for the development of astrobiology as a discipline.

Regarding habitable environments, astrobiology investigates potential locations beyond Earth that could support life, such as Mars, Europa, and exoplanets, through research into the extremophiles populating austere environments on Earth, like volcanic and deep sea environments. Research within this topic is conducted utilising the methodology of the geosciences, especially geobiology, for astrobiological applications.

The search for biosignatures involves the identification of signs of past or present life in the form of organic compounds, isotopic ratios, or microbial fossils. Research within this topic is conducted utilising the methodology of planetary and environmental science, especially atmospheric science, for astrobiological applications, and is often conducted through remote sensing and in situ missions.

Astrobiology also concerns the study of the origin and early evolution of life on Earth to try to understand the conditions that are necessary for life to form on other planets. This research seeks to understand how life emerged from non-living matter and how it evolved to become the diverse array of organisms we see today. Research within this topic is conducted utilising the methodology of paleosciences, especially paleobiology, for astrobiological applications.

Astrobiology is a rapidly developing field with a strong interdisciplinary aspect that holds many challenges and opportunities for scientists. Astrobiology programs and research centres are present in many universities and research institutions around the world, and space agencies like NASA and ESA have dedicated departments and programs for astrobiology research.

Overview
The term astrobiology was first proposed by the Russian astronomer Gavriil Tikhov in 1953. It is etymologically derived from the Greek ἄστρον, "star"; βίος, "life"; and -λογία, -logia, "study". A close synonym is exobiology from the Greek Έξω, "external"; βίος, "life"; and -λογία, -logia, "study", coined by American molecular biologist Joshua Lederberg; exobiology is considered to have a narrow scope limited to search of life external to Earth. Another associated term is xenobiology, from the Greek ξένος, "foreign"; βίος, "life"; and -λογία, "study", coined by American science fiction writer Robert Heinlein in his work The Star Beast; xenobiology is now used in a more specialised sense, referring to 'biology based on foreign chemistry', whether of extraterrestrial or terrestrial (typically synthetic) origin.

While the potential for extraterrestrial life, especially intelligent life, has been explored throughout human history within philosophy and narrative, the question is a verifiable hypothesis and thus a valid line of scientific inquiry; planetary scientist David Grinspoon calls it a field of natural philosophy, grounding speculation on the unknown in known scientific theory.

The modern field of astrobiology can be traced back to the 1950s and 1960s with the advent of space exploration, when scientists began to seriously consider the possibility of life on other planets. In 1957, the Soviet Union launched Sputnik 1, the first artificial satellite, which marked the beginning of the Space Age. This event led to an increase in the study of the potential for life on other planets, as scientists began to consider the possibilities opened up by the new technology of space exploration. In 1959, NASA funded its first exobiology project, and in 1960, NASA founded the Exobiology Program, now one of four main elements of NASA's current Astrobiology Program. In 1971, NASA funded Project Cyclops, part of the search for extraterrestrial intelligence, to search radio frequencies of the electromagnetic spectrum for interstellar communications transmitted by extraterrestrial life outside the Solar System. In the 1960s-1970s, NASA established the Viking program, which was the first US mission to land on Mars and search for metabolic signs of present life; the results were inconclusive.

In the 1980s and 1990s, the field began to expand and diversify as new discoveries and technologies emerged. The discovery of microbial life in extreme environments on Earth, such as deep-sea hydrothermal vents, helped to clarify the feasibility of potential life existing in harsh conditions. The development of new techniques for the detection of biosignatures, such as the use of stable isotopes, also played a significant role in the evolution of the field.

The contemporary landscape of astrobiology emerged in the early 21st century, focused on utilising Earth and environmental science for applications within comparate space environments. Missions included the ESA's Beagle 2, which failed minutes after landing on Mars, NASA's Phoenix lander, which probed the environment for past and present planetary habitability of microbial life on Mars and researched the history of water, and NASA's Curiosity rover, currently probing the environment for past and present planetary habitability of microbial life on Mars.

Planetary habitability
Astrobiological research makes a number of simplifying assumptions when studying the necessary components for planetary habitability.

Carbon and Organic Compounds: Carbon is the fourth most abundant element in the universe and the energy required to make or break a bond is at just the appropriate level for building molecules which are not only stable, but also reactive. The fact that carbon atoms bond readily to other carbon atoms allows for the building of extremely long and complex molecules. As such, astrobiological research presumes that the vast majority of life forms in the Milky Way galaxy are based on carbon chemistries, as are all life forms on Earth. However, theoretical astrobiology entertains the potential for other organic molecular bases for life, thus astrobiological research often focuses on identifying environments that have the potential to support life based on the presence of organic compounds.

Liquid water: Liquid water is a common molecule that provides an excellent environment for the formation of complicated carbon-based molecules, and is generally considered necessary for life as we know it to exist. Thus, astrobiological research presumes that extraterrestrial life similarly depends upon access to liquid water, and often focuses on identifying environments that have the potential to support liquid water. Some researchers posit environments of water-ammonia mixtures as possible solvents for hypothetical types of biochemistry.

Environmental Stability: Where organisms adaptively evolve to the conditions of the environments in which they reside, environmental stability is considered necessary for life to exist. This presupposes the necessity of a stable temperature, pressure, and radiation levels; resultantly, astrobiological research focuses on planets orbiting Sun-like red dwarf stars. This is because very large stars have relatively short lifetimes, meaning that life might not have time to emerge on planets orbiting them; very small stars provide so little heat and warmth that only planets in very close orbits around them would not be frozen solid, and in such close orbits these planets would be tidally locked to the star; whereas the long lifetimes of red dwarfs could allow the development of habitable environments on planets with thick atmospheres. This is significant as red dwarfs are extremely common. (See also: Habitability of red dwarf systems).

Energy source: It is assumed that any life elsewhere in the universe would also require an energy source. Previously, it was assumed that this would necessarily be from a sun-like star, however with developments within extremophile research contemporary astrobiological research often focuses on identifying environments that have the potential to support life based on the availability of an energy source, such as the presence of volcanic activity on a planet or moon that could provide a source of heat and energy.

It is important to note that these assumptions are based on our current understanding of life on Earth and the conditions under which it can exist. As our understanding of life and the potential for it to exist in different environments evolves, these assumptions may change.

Methods
Astrobiological research concerning the study of habitable environments in our solar system and beyond utilises methods within the geosciences. Research within this branch primarily concerns the geobiology of organisms that can survive in extreme environments on Earth, such as in volcanic or deep sea environments, to understand the limits of life, and the conditions under which life might be able to survive on other planets. This includes, but is not limited to;

Deep-sea extremophiles: Researchers are studying organisms that live in the extreme environments of deep-sea hydrothermal vents and cold seeps. These organisms survive in the absence of sunlight, and some are able to survive in high temperatures and pressures, and use chemical energy instead of sunlight to produce food.

Desert extremophiles: Researchers are studying organisms that can survive in extreme dry, high temperature conditions, such as in deserts.

Microbes in extreme environments: Researchers are investigating the diversity and activity of microorganisms in environments such as deep mines, subsurface soil, cold glaciers and polar ice, and high-altitude environments.

Research also regards the long-term survival of life on Earth, and the possibilities and hazards of life on other planets, including;

Biodiversity and ecosystem resilience: Scientists are studying how the diversity of life and the interactions between different species contribute to the resilience of ecosystems and their ability to recover from disturbances.

Climate change and extinction: Researchers are investigating the impacts of climate change on different species and ecosystems, and how they may lead to extinction or adaptation. This includes the evolution of Earth's climate and geology, and their potential impact on the habitability of the planet in the future, especially for humans.

Human impact on the biosphere: Scientists are studying the ways in which human activities, such as deforestation, pollution, and the introduction of invasive species, are affecting the biosphere and the long-term survival of life on Earth.

Long-term preservation of life: Researchers are exploring ways to preserve samples of life on Earth for long periods of time, such as cryopreservation and genomic preservation, in the event of a catastrophic event that could wipe out most of life on Earth.

Emerging astrobiological research concerning the search for planetary biosignatures of past or present extraterrestrial life utilise methodologies within planetary sciences. These include;

The study of microbial life in the subsurface of Mars: Scientists are using data from Mars rover missions to study the composition of the subsurface of Mars, searching for biosignatures of past or present microbial life.

The study of subsurface oceans on icy moons: Discoveries of subsurface oceans on moons such as Europa  and Enceladus  showed habitability zones, making them viable targets for the search for extraterrestrial life. Currently, missions like the Europa Clipper were planned for searching for biosignatures within these environments.

The study of the atmospheres of planets: Scientists are studying the potential for life to exist in the atmospheres of planets, with a focus on the study of the physical and chemical conditions necessary for such life to exist, namely the detection of organic molecules and biosignature gases; for example, the study of the possibility of life in the atmospheres of exoplanets that orbit red dwarfs and the study of the potential for microbial life in the upper atmosphere of Venus.

Telescopes and remote sensing of exoplanets: The discovery of thousands of exoplanets has opened up new opportunities for the search for biosignatures. Scientists are using telescopes such as the James Webb Space Telescope and the Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite to search for biosignatures on exoplanets. They are also developing new techniques for the detection of biosignatures, such as the use of remote sensing to search for biosignatures in the atmosphere of exoplanets.

SETI and CETI: Scientists search for signals from intelligent extraterrestrial civilizations using radio and optical telescopes within the discipline of extraterrestrial intelligence communications (CETI). CETI focuses on composing and deciphering messages that could theoretically be understood by another technological civilization. Communication attempts by humans have included broadcasting mathematical languages, pictorial systems such as the Arecibo message, and computational approaches to detecting and deciphering 'natural' language communication. While some high-profile scientists, such as Carl Sagan, have advocated the transmission of messages, theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking warned against it, suggesting that aliens may raid Earth for its resources.

Emerging astrobiological research concerning the study of the origin and early evolution of life on Earth utilises methodologies within the palaeosciences. These include;

The study of the early atmosphere: Researchers are investigating the role of the early atmosphere in providing the right conditions for the emergence of life, such as the presence of gases that could have helped to stabilise the climate and the formation of organic molecules.

The study of the early magnetic field: Researchers are investigating the role of the early magnetic field in protecting the Earth from harmful radiation and helping to stabilise the climate. This research has immense astrobiological implications where the subjects of current astrobiological research like Mars lack such a field.

The study of prebiotic chemistry: Scientists are studying the chemical reactions that could have occurred on the early Earth that led to the formation of the building blocks of life- amino acids, nucleotides, and lipids- and how these molecules could have formed spontaneously under early Earth conditions.

The study of impact events: Scientists are investigating the potential role of impact events- especially meteorites- in the delivery of water and organic molecules to early Earth.

The study of the primordial soup: Researchers are investigating the conditions and ingredients that were present on the early Earth that could have led to the formation of the first living organisms, such as the presence of water and organic molecules, and how these ingredients could have led to the formation of the first living organisms. This includes the role of water in the formation of the first cells and in catalysing chemical reactions.

The study of the role of minerals: Scientists are investigating the role of minerals like clay in catalysing the formation of organic molecules, thus playing a role in the emergence of life on Earth.

The study of the role of energy and electricity: Scientists are investigating the potential sources of energy and electricity that could have been available on the early Earth, and their role in the formation of organic molecules, thus the emergence of life.

The study of the early oceans: Scientists are investigating the composition and chemistry of the early oceans and how it may have played a role in the emergence of life, such as the presence of dissolved minerals that could have helped to catalyse the formation of organic molecules.

The study of hydrothermal vents: Scientists are investigating the potential role of hydrothermal vents in the origin of life, as these environments may have provided the energy and chemical building blocks needed for its emergence.

The study of plate tectonics: Scientists are investigating the role of plate tectonics in creating a diverse range of environments on the early Earth.

The study of the early biosphere: Researchers are investigating the diversity and activity of microorganisms in the early Earth, and how these organisms may have played a role in the emergence of life.

The study of microbial fossils: Scientists are investigating the presence of microbial fossils in ancient rocks, which can provide clues about the early evolution of life on Earth and the emergence of the first organisms.

Research
The systematic search for possible life outside Earth is a valid multidisciplinary scientific endeavor. However, hypotheses and predictions as to its existence and origin vary widely, and at the present, the development of hypotheses firmly grounded on science may be considered astrobiology's most concrete practical application. It has been proposed that viruses are likely to be encountered on other life-bearing planets, and may be present even if there are no biological cells.

Research outcomes
, no evidence of extraterrestrial life has been identified. Examination of the Allan Hills 84001 meteorite, which was recovered in Antarctica in 1984 and originated from Mars, is thought by David McKay, as well as few other scientists, to contain microfossils of extraterrestrial origin; this interpretation is controversial. Yamato 000593, the second largest meteorite from Mars, was found on Earth in 2000. At a microscopic level, spheres are found in the meteorite that are rich in carbon compared to surrounding areas that lack such spheres. The carbon-rich spheres may have been formed by biotic activity according to some NASA scientists.

On 5 March 2011, Richard B. Hoover, a scientist with the Marshall Space Flight Center, speculated on the finding of alleged microfossils similar to cyanobacteria in CI1 carbonaceous meteorites in the fringe Journal of Cosmology, a story widely reported on by mainstream media. However, NASA formally distanced itself from Hoover's claim. According to American astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson: "At the moment, life on Earth is the only known life in the universe, but there are compelling arguments to suggest we are not alone."

Astronomy
Most astronomy-related astrobiology research falls into the category of extrasolar planet (exoplanet) detection, the hypothesis being that if life arose on Earth, then it could also arise on other planets with similar characteristics. To that end, a number of instruments designed to detect Earth-sized exoplanets have been considered, most notably NASA's Terrestrial Planet Finder (TPF) and ESA's Darwin programs, both of which have been cancelled. NASA launched the Kepler mission in March 2009, and the French Space Agency launched the COROT space mission in 2006. There are also several less ambitious ground-based efforts underway.

The goal of these missions is not only to detect Earth-sized planets but also to directly detect light from the planet so that it may be studied spectroscopically. By examining planetary spectra, it would be possible to determine the basic composition of an extrasolar planet's atmosphere and/or surface. Given this knowledge, it may be possible to assess the likelihood of life being found on that planet. A NASA research group, the Virtual Planet Laboratory, is using computer modeling to generate a wide variety of virtual planets to see what they would look like if viewed by TPF or Darwin. It is hoped that once these missions come online, their spectra can be cross-checked with these virtual planetary spectra for features that might indicate the presence of life.

An estimate for the number of planets with intelligent communicative extraterrestrial life can be gleaned from the Drake equation, essentially an equation expressing the probability of intelligent life as the product of factors such as the fraction of planets that might be habitable and the fraction of planets on which life might arise:
 * $$N = R^{*} ~ \times ~ f_{p} ~ \times ~ n_{e} ~ \times ~ f_{l} ~ \times ~ f_{i} ~ \times ~ f_{c} ~ \times ~ L$$

where:
 * N = The number of communicative civilizations
 * R* = The rate of formation of suitable stars (stars such as the Sun)
 * fp = The fraction of those stars with planets (current evidence indicates that planetary systems may be common for stars like the Sun)
 * ne = The number of Earth-sized worlds per planetary system
 * fl = The fraction of those Earth-sized planets where life actually develops
 * fi = The fraction of life sites where intelligence develops
 * fc = The fraction of communicative planets (those on which electromagnetic communications technology develops)
 * L = The "lifetime" of communicating civilizations

However, whilst the rationale behind the equation is sound, it is unlikely that the equation will be constrained to reasonable limits of error any time soon. The problem with the formula is that it is not used to generate or support hypotheses because it contains factors that can never be verified. The first term, R*, number of stars, is generally constrained within a few orders of magnitude. The second and third terms, fp, stars with planets and fe, planets with habitable conditions, are being evaluated for the star's neighborhood. Drake originally formulated the equation merely as an agenda for discussion at the Green Bank conference, but some applications of the formula had been taken literally and related to simplistic or pseudoscientific arguments. Another associated topic is the Fermi paradox, which suggests that if intelligent life is common in the universe, then there should be obvious signs of it.

Another active research area in astrobiology is planetary system formation. It has been suggested that the peculiarities of the Solar System (for example, the presence of Jupiter as a protective shield) may have greatly increased the probability of intelligent life arising on Earth.

Biology
Biology cannot state that a process or phenomenon, by being mathematically possible, has to exist forcibly in an extraterrestrial body. Biologists specify what is speculative and what is not. The discovery of extremophiles, organisms able to survive in extreme environments, became a core research element for astrobiologists, as they are important to understand four areas in the limits of life in planetary context: the potential for panspermia, forward contamination due to human exploration ventures, planetary colonization by humans, and the exploration of extinct and extant extraterrestrial life.

Until the 1970s, life was thought to be entirely dependent on energy from the Sun. Plants on Earth's surface capture energy from sunlight to photosynthesize sugars from carbon dioxide and water, releasing oxygen in the process that is then consumed by oxygen-respiring organisms, passing their energy up the food chain. Even life in the ocean depths, where sunlight cannot reach, was thought to obtain its nourishment either from consuming organic detritus rained down from the surface waters or from eating animals that did. The world's ability to support life was thought to depend on its access to sunlight. However, in 1977, during an exploratory dive to the Galapagos Rift in the deep-sea exploration submersible Alvin, scientists discovered colonies of giant tube worms, clams, crustaceans, mussels, and other assorted creatures clustered around undersea volcanic features known as black smokers. These creatures thrive despite having no access to sunlight, and it was soon discovered that they form an entirely independent ecosystem. Although most of these multicellular lifeforms need dissolved oxygen (produced by oxygenic photosynthesis) for their aerobic cellular respiration and thus are not completely independent from sunlight by themselves, the basis for their food chain is a form of bacterium that derives its energy from oxidization of reactive chemicals, such as hydrogen or hydrogen sulfide, that bubble up from the Earth's interior. Other lifeforms entirely decoupled from the energy from sunlight are green sulfur bacteria which are capturing geothermal light for anoxygenic photosynthesis or bacteria running chemolithoautotrophy based on the radioactive decay of uranium. This chemosynthesis revolutionized the study of biology and astrobiology by revealing that life need not be sunlight-dependent; it only requires water and an energy gradient in order to exist.

Biologists have found extremophiles that thrive in ice, boiling water, acid, alkali, the water core of nuclear reactors, salt crystals, toxic waste and in a range of other extreme habitats that were previously thought to be inhospitable for life. This opened up a new avenue in astrobiology by massively expanding the number of possible extraterrestrial habitats. Characterization of these organisms, their environments and their evolutionary pathways, is considered a crucial component to understanding how life might evolve elsewhere in the universe. For example, some organisms able to withstand exposure to the vacuum and radiation of outer space include the lichen fungi Rhizocarpon geographicum and Rusavskia elegans, the bacterium Bacillus safensis, Deinococcus radiodurans, Bacillus subtilis, yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae, seeds from Arabidopsis thaliana ('mouse-ear cress'), as well as the invertebrate animal Tardigrade. While tardigrades are not considered true extremophiles, they are considered extremotolerant microorganisms that have contributed to the field of astrobiology. Their extreme radiation tolerance and presence of DNA protection proteins may provide answers as to whether life can survive away from the protection of the Earth's atmosphere.

Jupiter's moon, Europa,   and Saturn's moon, Enceladus, are now considered the most likely locations for extant extraterrestrial life in the Solar System due to their subsurface water oceans where radiogenic and tidal heating enables liquid water to exist.

The origin of life, known as abiogenesis, distinct from the evolution of life, is another ongoing field of research. Oparin and Haldane postulated that the conditions on the early Earth were conducive to the formation of organic compounds from inorganic elements and thus to the formation of many of the chemicals common to all forms of life we see today. The study of this process, known as prebiotic chemistry, has made some progress, but it is still unclear whether or not life could have formed in such a manner on Earth. The alternative hypothesis of panspermia is that the first elements of life may have formed on another planet with even more favorable conditions (or even in interstellar space, asteroids, etc.) and then have been carried over to Earth.

The cosmic dust permeating the universe contains complex organic compounds ("amorphous organic solids with a mixed aromatic-aliphatic structure") that could be created naturally, and rapidly, by stars. Further, a scientist suggested that these compounds may have been related to the development of life on Earth and said that, "If this is the case, life on Earth may have had an easier time getting started as these organics can serve as basic ingredients for life."

More than 20% of the carbon in the universe may be associated with polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), possible starting materials for the formation of life. PAHs seem to have been formed shortly after the Big Bang, are widespread throughout the universe, and are associated with new stars and exoplanets. PAHs are subjected to interstellar medium conditions and are transformed through hydrogenation, oxygenation and hydroxylation, to more complex organics—"a step along the path toward amino acids and nucleotides, the raw materials of proteins and DNA, respectively".

In October 2020, astronomers proposed the idea of detecting life on distant planets by studying the shadows of trees at certain times of the day to find patterns that could be detected through observation of exoplanets.

Philosophy
David Grinspoon called astrobiology a field of natural philosophy. Astrobiology intersects with philosophy by raising questions about the nature and existence of life beyond Earth. Philosophical implications include the definition of life itself, issues in the philosophy of mind and cognitive science in case intelligent life is found, epistemological questions about the nature of proof, ethical considerations of space exploration, along with the broader impact of discovering extraterrestrial life on human thought and society.

Dunér has emphasized philosophy of astrobiology as an ongoing existential exercise in individual and collective self-understanding, whose major task is constructing and debating concepts such as the concept of life. Key issues, for Dunér, are questions of resource money and monetary planning, epistemological questions regarding astrobiological knowledge, linguistics issues about interstellar communication, cognitive issues such as the definition of intelligence, along with the possibility of interplanetary contamination. Persson also emphasized key philosophical questions in astrobiology. They include ethical justification of resources, the question of life in general, the epistemological issues and knowledge about being alone in the universe, ethics towards extraterrestrial life, the question of politics and governing uninhabited worlds, along with questions of ecology.

For von Hegner, the question of astrobiology and the possibility of astrophilosophy differs. For him, the discipline needs to bifurcate into astrobiology and astrophilosophy since discussions made possible by astrobiology, but which have been astrophilosophical in nature, have existed as long as there have been discussions about extra-terrestrial life. Astrobiology is a self-corrective interaction among observation, hypothesis, experiment, and theory, pertaining to the exploration of all natural phenomena. Astrophilosophy consists of methods of dialectic analysis and logical argumentation, pertaining to the clarification of the nature of reality. Šekrst argues that astrobiology requires the affirmation of astrophilosophy, but not as a separate cognate to astrobiology. The stance of conceptual speciesm, according to Šekrst, permeates astrobiology since the very name astrobiology tries to talk about not just biology, but about life in a general way, which includes terrestrial life as a subset. This leads us to either redefine philosophy, or consider the need for astrophilosophy as a more general discipline, to which philosophy is just a subset that deals with questions such as the nature of the human mind and other anthropocentric questions.

Most of the philosophy of astrobiology deals with two main questions: the question of life and the ethics of space exploration. Kolb specifically emphasizes the question of viruses, for which the question whether they are alive or not is based on the definitions of life that include self-replication. Schneider tried to defined exo-life, but concluded that we often start with our own prejudices and that defining extraterrestrial life seems futile using human concepts. For Dick, astrobiology relies on metaphysical assumption that there is extraterrestrial life, which reaffirms questions in the philosophy of cosmology, such as fine-tuning or the anthropic principle.

Rare Earth hypothesis
The Rare Earth hypothesis postulates that multicellular life forms found on Earth may actually be more of a rarity than scientists assume. According to this hypothesis, life on Earth (and more, multi-cellular life) is possible because of a conjunction of the right circumstances (galaxy and location within it, planetary system, star, orbit, planetary size, atmosphere, etc.); and the chance for all those circumstances to repeat elsewhere may be rare. It provides a possible answer to the Fermi paradox which suggests, "If extraterrestrial aliens are common, why aren't they obvious?" It is apparently in opposition to the principle of mediocrity, assumed by famed astronomers Frank Drake, Carl Sagan, and others. The principle of mediocrity suggests that life on Earth is not exceptional, and it is more than likely to be found on innumerable other worlds.

Missions
Research into the environmental limits of life and the workings of extreme ecosystems is ongoing, enabling researchers to better predict what planetary environments might be most likely to harbor life. Missions such as the Phoenix lander, Mars Science Laboratory, ExoMars, Mars 2020 rover to Mars, and the Cassini probe to Saturn's moons aim to further explore the possibilities of life on other planets in the Solar System.

 * Viking program

The two Viking landers each carried four types of biological experiments to the surface of Mars in the late 1970s. These were the only Mars landers to carry out experiments looking specifically for metabolism by current microbial life on Mars. The landers used a robotic arm to collect soil samples into sealed test containers on the craft. The two landers were identical, so the same tests were carried out at two places on Mars' surface; Viking 1 near the equator and Viking 2 further north. The result was inconclusive, and is still disputed by some scientists. Norman Horowitz was the chief of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory bioscience section for the Mariner and Viking missions from 1965 to 1976. Horowitz considered that the great versatility of the carbon atom makes it the element most likely to provide solutions, even exotic solutions, to the problems of survival of life on other planets. However, he also considered that the conditions found on Mars were incompatible with carbon based life.

Beagle 2 was an unsuccessful British Mars lander that formed part of the European Space Agency's 2003 Mars Express mission. Its primary purpose was to search for signs of life on Mars, past or present. Although it landed safely, it was unable to correctly deploy its solar panels and telecom antenna.
 * Beagle 2

EXPOSE is a multi-user facility mounted in 2008 outside the International Space Station dedicated to astrobiology. EXPOSE was developed by the European Space Agency (ESA) for long-term spaceflights that allow exposure of organic chemicals and biological samples to outer space in low Earth orbit.
 * EXPOSE

The Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) mission landed the Curiosity rover that is currently in operation on Mars. It was launched 26 November 2011, and landed at Gale Crater on 6 August 2012. Mission objectives are to help assess Mars' habitability and in doing so, determine whether Mars is or has ever been able to support life, collect data for a future human mission, study Martian geology, its climate, and further assess the role that water, an essential ingredient for life as we know it, played in forming minerals on Mars.
 * Mars Science Laboratory

The Tanpopo mission is an orbital astrobiology experiment investigating the potential interplanetary transfer of life, organic compounds, and possible terrestrial particles in the low Earth orbit. The purpose is to assess the panspermia hypothesis and the possibility of natural interplanetary transport of microbial life as well as prebiotic organic compounds. Early mission results show evidence that some clumps of microorganism can survive for at least one year in space. This may support the idea that clumps greater than 0.5 millimeters of microorganisms could be one way for life to spread from planet to planet.
 * Tanpopo

ExoMars is a robotic mission to Mars to search for possible biosignatures of Martian life, past or present. This astrobiological mission is currently under development by the European Space Agency (ESA) in partnership with the Russian Federal Space Agency (Roscosmos); it is planned for a 2022 launch.
 * ExoMars rover

Mars 2020 successfully landed its rover Perseverance in Jezero Crater on 18 February 2021. It will investigate environments on Mars relevant to astrobiology, investigate its surface geological processes and history, including the assessment of its past habitability and potential for preservation of biosignatures and biomolecules within accessible geological materials. The Science Definition Team is proposing the rover collect and package at least 31 samples of rock cores and soil for a later mission to bring back for more definitive analysis in laboratories on Earth. The rover could make measurements and technology demonstrations to help designers of a human expedition understand any hazards posed by Martian dust and demonstrate how to collect carbon dioxide (CO2), which could be a resource for making molecular oxygen (O2) and rocket fuel.
 * Mars 2020

Europa Clipper is a mission planned by NASA for a 2025 launch that will conduct detailed reconnaissance of Jupiter's moon Europa and will investigate whether its internal ocean could harbor conditions suitable for life. It will also aid in the selection of future landing sites.
 * Europa Clipper

Dragonfly is a NASA mission scheduled to land on Titan in 2036 to assess its microbial habitability and study its prebiotic chemistry. Dragonfly is a rotorcraft lander that will perform controlled flights between multiple locations on the surface, which allows sampling of diverse regions and geological contexts.
 * Dragonfly

Proposed concepts
Icebreaker Life is a lander mission that was proposed for NASA's Discovery Program for the 2021 launch opportunity, but it was not selected for development. It would have had a stationary lander that would be a near copy of the successful 2008 Phoenix and it would have carried an upgraded astrobiology scientific payload, including a 1-meter-long core drill to sample ice-cemented ground in the northern plains to conduct a search for organic molecules and evidence of current or past life on Mars. One of the key goals of the Icebreaker Life mission is to test the hypothesis that the ice-rich ground in the polar regions has significant concentrations of organics due to protection by the ice from oxidants and radiation.
 * Icebreaker Life

Journey to Enceladus and Titan (JET) is an astrobiology mission concept to assess the habitability potential of Saturn's moons Enceladus and Titan by means of an orbiter.
 * Journey to Enceladus and Titan

Enceladus Life Finder (ELF) is a proposed astrobiology mission concept for a space probe intended to assess the habitability of the internal aquatic ocean of Enceladus, Saturn's sixth-largest moon.
 * Enceladus Life Finder

Life Investigation For Enceladus (LIFE) is a proposed astrobiology sample-return mission concept. The spacecraft would enter into Saturn orbit and enable multiple flybys through Enceladus' icy plumes to collect icy plume particles and volatiles and return them to Earth on a capsule. The spacecraft may sample Enceladus' plumes, the E ring of Saturn, and the upper atmosphere of Titan.
 * Life Investigation For Enceladus

Oceanus is an orbiter proposed in 2017 for the New Frontiers mission No. 4. It would travel to the moon of Saturn, Titan, to assess its habitability. Oceanus' objectives are to reveal Titan's organic chemistry, geology, gravity, topography, collect 3D reconnaissance data, catalog the organics and determine where they may interact with liquid water.
 * Oceanus

Explorer of Enceladus and Titan (E2T) is an orbiter mission concept that would investigate the evolution and habitability of the Saturnian satellites Enceladus and Titan. The mission concept was proposed in 2017 by the European Space Agency.
 * Explorer of Enceladus and Titan

General references

 * The International Journal of Astrobiology, published by Cambridge University Press, is the forum for practitioners in this interdisciplinary field.
 * Astrobiology, published by Mary Ann Liebert, Inc., is a peer-reviewed journal that explores the origins of life, evolution, distribution, and destiny in the universe.
 * Loeb, Avi (2021). Extraterrestrial: The First Sign of Intelligent Life Beyond Earth. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. ISBN 978-0358278146
 * Loeb, Avi (2021). Extraterrestrial: The First Sign of Intelligent Life Beyond Earth. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. ISBN 978-0358278146
 * Loeb, Avi (2021). Extraterrestrial: The First Sign of Intelligent Life Beyond Earth. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. ISBN 978-0358278146
 * Loeb, Avi (2021). Extraterrestrial: The First Sign of Intelligent Life Beyond Earth. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. ISBN 978-0358278146
 * Loeb, Avi (2021). Extraterrestrial: The First Sign of Intelligent Life Beyond Earth. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. ISBN 978-0358278146

title: Astrobiology


text:
Air show

An air show (or airshow, air fair, air tattoo) is a public event where aircraft are exhibited. They often include aerobatics demonstrations, without they are called "static air shows" with aircraft parked on the ground.

The largest air show measured by number of exhibitors and size of exhibit space is Le Bourget, followed by Farnborough, with the Dubai Airshow and Singapore Airshow both claiming third place. The largest air show or fly-in by number of participating aircraft is EAA AirVenture Oshkosh, with approximately 10,000 aircraft participating annually. The biggest military airshow in the world is the Royal International Air Tattoo, at RAF Fairford in England. On the other hand, FIDAE in II Air Brigade of the FACH, next to the Arturo Merino Benítez International Airport in Santiago, Chile, is the largest aerospace fair in Latin America and the Southern Hemisphere.

Outline

Some airshows are held as a business venture or as a trade event where aircraft, avionics and other services are promoted to potential customers. Many air shows are held in support of local, national or military charities. Military air firms often organise air shows at military airfields as a public relations exercise to thank the local community, promote military careers and raise the profile of the military.

Air "seasons" vary around the world. The United States enjoys a long season that generally runs from March to November, covering the spring, summer, and fall seasons. Other countries often have much shorter seasons. In Japan air shows are generally events held at Japan Air Self-Defense Force bases regularly throughout the year. The European season usually starts in late April or Early May and is usually over by mid October. The Middle East, Australia, and New Zealand hold their events between January and March. However, for many acts, the "off-season" does not mean a period of inactivity; pilots and performers use this time for maintenance and practice.

The type of displays seen at shows are constrained by a number of factors, including the weather and visibility. Most aviation authorities now publish rules and guidance on minimum display heights and criteria for differing conditions. In addition to the weather, pilots and organizers must also consider local airspace restrictions. Most exhibitors will plan "full", "rolling" and "flat" display for varying weather and airspace conditions.

The types of shows vary greatly. Some are large scale military events with large flying displays and ground exhibitions while others held at small local airstrips can often feature just one or two hours of flying with just a few stalls on the ground. Air displays can be held during day or night with the latter becoming increasingly popular. Air shows often, but do not always, take place over airfields; some have been held over the grounds of stately homes or castles and over the sea at coastal resorts.

The first public international airshow, at which many types of aircraft were displayed and flown, was the Grande Semaine d'Aviation de la Champagne, held Aug. 22–29, 1909 in Reims. This had been preceded by what may have been the first ever gathering of enthusiasts, June 28 – July 19 of the same year at the airfield at La Brayelle, near Douai.

Attractions

Before World War II, air shows were associated with long-distance air races, often lasting many days and covering thousands of miles. While the Reno Air Races keep this tradition alive, most air shows today primarily feature a series of aerial demos of short duration.

Most air shows feature warbirds, aerobatics, and demonstrations of modern military aircraft, and many air shows offer a variety of other aeronautical attractions as well, such as wing-walking, radio-controlled aircraft, water/slurry drops from firefighting aircraft, simulated helicopter rescues and sky diving.

Specialist aerobatic aircraft have powerful piston engines, light weight and big control surfaces, making them capable of very high roll rates and accelerations. A skilled pilot will be able to climb vertically, perform very tight turns, tumble his aircraft end-over-end and perform manoeuvres during loops.

Larger airshows can be headlined by military jet demonstration teams, such as the United States Navy Blue Angels, United States Air Force Thunderbirds, Royal Canadian Air Force Snowbirds, Royal Air Force Red Arrows, and Swiss Air Force Patrouille Suisse, among many others.

Solo military demos, also known as tactical demos, feature one aircraft. The demonstration focuses on the capabilities of modern military aircraft. The display will usually demonstrate the aircraft's very short (and often very loud) rolls, fast speeds, slow approach speeds, as well as their ability to quickly make tight turns, to climb quickly, and their ability to be precisely controlled at a large range of speeds. Manoeuvres include aileron rolls, barrel rolls, hesitation rolls, Cuban-8s, tight turns, high-alpha flight, a high-speed pass, double Immelmans, and touch-and-gos. Tactical demos may include simulated bomb drops, sometimes with pyrotechnics on the ground for effect. Aircraft with special characteristics that give them unique capabilities will often display those in their demos; For example, Russian fighters with thrust vectoring may be used to perform the cobra maneuver or the Kulbit, while VTOL aircraft such as the Harrier may display such vertical capabilities or perform complex maneuvers with them. Some military air shows also feature demonstrations of aircraft ordnance in airstrikes and close air support, using either blanks or live munitions.

Safety

Air shows may present some risk to spectators and aviators. Accidents have occurred, sometimes with a large loss of life, such as the 1988 Ramstein air show disaster (70 deaths) in Germany and the 2002 Sknyliv air show disaster (77 deaths) in Ukraine.

Because of these accidents, the various aviation authorities around the world have set rules and guidance for those running and participating in air displays. For example, after the breakup of an aircraft at 1952 Farnborough air show (31 deaths), the separation between display and spectators was increased. Air displays are often monitored by aviation authorities to ensure safe procedures.

In the United Kingdom, local authorities will first need to approve any application for an event to which the public is admitted. The first priority must be to arrange insurance cover and details can be obtained from local authorities. An added complication is a whole raft of legislation concerning health & safety, in particular corporate manslaughter, which can involve the event organiser being charged with a criminal offence if any of the insurances and risk assessments are not fully completed well in advance of the event.

Rules govern the distance from the crowds that aircraft must fly. These vary according to the rating of the pilot/crew, the type of aircraft and the way the aircraft is being flown. For instance, slower, lighter aircraft are usually allowed closer and lower to the crowd than larger, faster types. Also, a fighter jet flying straight and level will be able to do so closer to the crowd and lower than if it were performing a roll or a loop.

Pilots can get authorizations for differing types of displays (e.g., limbo flying, basic aerobatics to unlimited aerobatics) and to differing minimum base heights above the ground. To gain such authorisations, the pilots will have to demonstrate to an examiner that they can perform to those limits without endangering themselves, ground crew or spectators.

Despite display rules and guidances, accidents have continued to happen. However, air show accidents are rare and where there is proper supervision air shows have impressive safety records. Each year, organizations such as International Council of Air Shows and European Airshow Council meet and discuss various subjects including air show safety where accidents are discussed and lessons learned.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Air show


text:
Anthropic principle

The anthropic principle, also known as the observation selection effect, is the hypothesis, first proposed in 1957 by Robert Dicke, that the range of possible observations that could be made about the universe is limited by the fact that observations could happen only in a universe capable of developing intelligent life. As Steven Weinberg puts it: "Where else could we be, except on a planet that can sustain life?" Proponents of the anthropic principle argue that it explains why the universe has the age and the fundamental physical constants necessary to accommodate conscious life, since if either had been different, no one would have been around to make observations. Anthropic reasoning is often used to deal with the idea that the universe seems to be finely tuned for the existence of life.

There are many different formulations of the anthropic principle. Philosopher Nick Bostrom counts them at thirty, but the underlying principles can be divided into "weak" and "strong" forms, depending on the types of cosmological claims they entail.

 * The weak anthropic principle (WAP), as defined by Brandon Carter, states that the universe's ostensible fine tuning is the result of selection bias (specifically survivorship bias). Most such arguments draw upon some notion of the multiverse for there to be a statistical population of universes from which to select. However, a single vast universe is sufficient for most forms of the WAP that do not specifically deal with fine tuning.
 * Carter distinguished the WAP from the strong anthropic principle (SAP), which considers the universe in some sense compelled to eventually have conscious and sapient life emerge within it.
 * A form of the latter known as the participatory anthropic principle, articulated by John Archibald Wheeler, suggests on the basis of quantum mechanics that the universe, as a condition of its existence, must be observed, thus implying one or more observers.
 * Stronger yet is the final anthropic principle (FAP), proposed by John D. Barrow and Frank Tipler, which views the universe's structure as expressible by bits of information in such a way that information processing is inevitable and eternal.

Definition and basis
The principle was formulated as a response to a series of observations that the laws of nature and parameters of the universe have values that are consistent with conditions for life as it is known rather than values that would not be consistent with life on Earth. The anthropic principle states that this is an  a posteriori necessity, because if life were impossible, no living entity would be there to observe it, and thus it would not be known. That is, it must be possible to observe some universe, and hence, the laws and constants of any such universe must accommodate that possibility.

The term anthropic in "anthropic principle" has been argued to be a misnomer. While singling out the currently observable kind of carbon-based life, none of the finely tuned phenomena require human life or some kind of carbon chauvinism. Any form of life or any form of heavy atom, stone, star, or galaxy would do; nothing specifically human or anthropic is involved.

The anthropic principle has given rise to some confusion and controversy, partly because the phrase has been applied to several distinct ideas. All versions of the principle have been accused of discouraging the search for a deeper physical understanding of the universe. The anthropic principle is often criticized for lacking falsifiability and therefore its critics may point out that the anthropic principle is a non-scientific concept, even though the weak anthropic principle, "conditions that are observed in the universe must allow the observer to exist", is "easy" to support in mathematics and philosophy (i.e., it is a tautology or truism). However, building a substantive argument based on a tautological foundation is problematic. Stronger variants of the anthropic principle are not tautologies and thus make claims considered controversial by some and that are contingent upon empirical verification.

Anthropic observations
In 1961, Robert Dicke noted that the age of the universe, as seen by living observers, cannot be random. Instead, biological factors constrain the universe to be more or less in a "golden age", neither too young nor too old. If the universe were one tenth as old as its present age, there would not have been sufficient time to build up appreciable levels of metallicity (levels of elements besides hydrogen and helium) especially carbon, by nucleosynthesis. Small rocky planets did not yet exist. If the universe were 10 times older than it actually is, most stars would be too old to remain on the main sequence and would have turned into white dwarfs, aside from the dimmest red dwarfs, and stable planetary systems would have already come to an end. Thus, Dicke explained the coincidence between large dimensionless numbers constructed from the constants of physics and the age of the universe, a coincidence that inspired Dirac's varying-G theory.

Dicke later reasoned that the density of matter in the universe must be almost exactly the critical density needed to prevent the Big Crunch (the "Dicke coincidences" argument). The most recent measurements may suggest that the observed density of baryonic matter, and some theoretical predictions of the amount of dark matter, account for about 30% of this critical density, with the rest contributed by a cosmological constant. Steven Weinberg gave an anthropic explanation for this fact: he noted that the cosmological constant has a remarkably low value, some 120 orders of magnitude smaller than the value particle physics predicts (this has been described as the "worst prediction in physics"). However, if the cosmological constant were only several orders of magnitude larger than its observed value, the universe would suffer catastrophic inflation, which would preclude the formation of stars, and hence life.

The observed values of the dimensionless physical constants (such as the fine-structure constant) governing the four fundamental interactions are balanced as if fine-tuned to permit the formation of commonly found matter and subsequently the emergence of life. A slight increase in the strong interaction (up to 50% for some authors ) would bind the dineutron and the diproton and convert all hydrogen in the early universe to helium; likewise, an increase in the weak interaction also would convert all hydrogen to helium. Water, as well as sufficiently long-lived stable stars, both essential for the emergence of life as it is known, would not exist. More generally, small changes in the relative strengths of the four fundamental interactions can greatly affect the universe's age, structure, and capacity for life.

Origin
The phrase "anthropic principle" first appeared in Brandon Carter's contribution to a 1973 Kraków symposium honouring Copernicus's 500th birthday. Carter, a theoretical astrophysicist, articulated the Anthropic Principle in reaction to the Copernican Principle, which states that humans do not occupy a privileged position in the Universe. Carter said: "Although our situation is not necessarily central, it is inevitably privileged to some extent." Specifically, Carter disagreed with using the Copernican principle to justify the Perfect Cosmological Principle, which states that all large regions and times in the universe must be statistically identical. The latter principle underlies the steady-state theory, which had recently been falsified by the 1965 discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation. This discovery was unequivocal evidence that the universe has changed radically over time (for example, via the Big Bang).

Carter defined two forms of the anthropic principle, a "weak" one which referred only to anthropic selection of privileged spacetime locations in the universe, and a more controversial "strong" form that addressed the values of the fundamental constants of physics.

Roger Penrose explained the weak form as follows:

"The argument can be used to explain why the conditions happen to be just right for the existence of (intelligent) life on the Earth at the present time. For if they were not just right, then we should not have found ourselves to be here now, but somewhere else, at some other appropriate time. This principle was used very effectively by Brandon Carter and Robert Dicke to resolve an issue that had puzzled physicists for a good many years. The issue concerned various striking numerical relations that are observed to hold between the physical constants (the gravitational constant, the mass of the proton, the age of the universe, etc.). A puzzling aspect of this was that some of the relations hold only at the present epoch in the Earth's history, so we appear, coincidentally, to be living at a very special time (give or take a few million years!). This was later explained, by Carter and Dicke, by the fact that this epoch coincided with the lifetime of what are called main-sequence stars, such as the Sun. At any other epoch, the argument ran, there would be no intelligent life around to measure the physical constants in question—so the coincidence had to hold, simply because there would be intelligent life around only at the particular time that the coincidence did hold!"

One reason this is plausible is that there are many other places and times in which humans could have evolved. But when applying the strong principle, there is only one universe, with one set of fundamental parameters, so what exactly is the point being made? Carter offers two possibilities: First, humans can use their own existence to make "predictions" about the parameters. But second, "as a last resort", humans can convert these predictions into explanations by assuming that there is more than one universe, in fact a large and possibly infinite collection of universes, something that is now called the multiverse ("world ensemble" was Carter's term), in which the parameters (and perhaps the laws of physics) vary across universes. The strong principle then becomes an example of a selection effect, exactly analogous to the weak principle. Postulating a multiverse is certainly a radical step, but taking it could provide at least a partial answer to a question seemingly out of the reach of normal science: "Why do the fundamental laws of physics take the particular form we observe and not another?"

Since Carter's 1973 paper, the term anthropic principle has been extended to cover a number of ideas that differ in important ways from his. Particular confusion was caused by the 1986 book The Anthropic Cosmological Principle by John D. Barrow and Frank Tipler, which distinguished between a "weak" and "strong" anthropic principle in a way very different from Carter's, as discussed in the next section.

Carter was not the first to invoke some form of the anthropic principle. In fact, the evolutionary biologist Alfred Russel Wallace anticipated the anthropic principle as long ago as 1904: "Such a vast and complex universe as that which we know exists around us, may have been absolutely required [...] in order to produce a world that should be precisely adapted in every detail for the orderly development of life culminating in man." In 1957, Robert Dicke wrote: "The age of the Universe 'now' is not random but conditioned by biological factors [...] [changes in the values of the fundamental constants of physics] would preclude the existence of man to consider the problem."

Ludwig Boltzmann may have been one of the first in modern science to use anthropic reasoning. Prior to knowledge of the Big Bang Boltzmann's thermodynamic concepts painted a picture of a universe that had inexplicably low entropy. Boltzmann suggested several explanations, one of which relied on fluctuations that could produce pockets of low entropy or Boltzmann universes. While most of the universe is featureless in this model, to Boltzmann, it is unremarkable that humanity happens to inhabit a Boltzmann universe, as that is the only place where intelligent life could be.

Variants
Weak anthropic principle (WAP) (Carter): "... our location in the universe is necessarily privileged to the extent of being compatible with our existence as observers." For Carter, "location" refers to our location in time as well as space.

Strong anthropic principle (SAP) (Carter): "[T]he universe (and hence the fundamental parameters on which it depends) must be such as to admit the creation of observers within it at some stage. To paraphrase Descartes, cogito ergo mundus talis est." The Latin tag ("I think, therefore the world is such [as it is]") makes it clear that "must" indicates a deduction from the fact of our existence; the statement is thus a truism.

In their 1986 book, The anthropic cosmological principle, John Barrow and Frank Tipler depart from Carter and define the WAP and SAP as follows:

Weak anthropic principle (WAP) (Barrow and Tipler): "The observed values of all physical and cosmological quantities are not equally probable but they take on values restricted by the requirement that there exist sites where carbon-based life can evolve and by the requirements that the universe be old enough for it to have already done so." Unlike Carter they restrict the principle to carbon-based life, rather than just "observers". A more important difference is that they apply the WAP to the fundamental physical constants, such as the fine-structure constant, the number of spacetime dimensions, and the cosmological constant—topics that fall under Carter's SAP.

Strong anthropic principle (SAP) (Barrow and Tipler): "The Universe must have those properties which allow life to develop within it at some stage in its history." This looks very similar to Carter's SAP, but unlike the case with Carter's SAP, the "must" is an imperative, as shown by the following three possible elaborations of the SAP, each proposed by Barrow and Tipler:
 * "There exists one possible Universe 'designed' with the goal of generating and sustaining 'observers'."
 * This can be seen as simply the classic design argument restated in the garb of contemporary cosmology. It implies that the purpose of the universe is to give rise to intelligent life, with the laws of nature and their fundamental physical constants set to ensure that life emerges and evolves.
 * "Observers are necessary to bring the Universe into being."
 * Barrow and Tipler believe that this is a valid conclusion from quantum mechanics, as John Archibald Wheeler has suggested, especially via his idea that information is the fundamental reality (see It from bit) and his Participatory anthropic principle (PAP) which is an interpretation of quantum mechanics associated with the ideas of John von Neumann and Eugene Wigner.
 * "An ensemble of other different universes is necessary for the existence of our Universe."
 * By contrast, Carter merely says that an ensemble of universes is necessary for the SAP to count as an explanation.

The philosophers John Leslie and Nick Bostrom reject the Barrow and Tipler SAP as a fundamental misreading of Carter. For Bostrom, Carter's anthropic principle just warns us to make allowance for anthropic bias—that is, the bias created by anthropic selection effects (which Bostrom calls "observation" selection effects)—the necessity for observers to exist in order to get a result. He writes:

"Many 'anthropic principles' are simply confused. Some, especially those drawing inspiration from Brandon Carter's seminal papers, are sound, but... they are too weak to do any real scientific work. In particular, I argue that existing methodology does not permit any observational consequences to be derived from contemporary cosmological theories, though these theories quite plainly can be and are being tested empirically by astronomers. What is needed to bridge this methodological gap is a more adequate formulation of how observation selection effects are to be taken into account."

Strong self-sampling assumption (SSSA) (Bostrom): "Each observer-moment should reason as if it were randomly selected from the class of all observer-moments in its reference class." Analysing an observer's experience into a sequence of "observer-moments" helps avoid certain paradoxes; but the main ambiguity is the selection of the appropriate "reference class": for Carter's WAP this might correspond to all real or potential observer-moments in our universe; for the SAP, to all in the multiverse. Bostrom's mathematical development shows that choosing either too broad or too narrow a reference class leads to counter-intuitive results, but he is not able to prescribe an ideal choice.

According to Jürgen Schmidhuber, the anthropic principle essentially just says that the conditional probability of finding yourself in a universe compatible with your existence is always 1. It does not allow for any additional nontrivial predictions such as "gravity won't change tomorrow". To gain more predictive power, additional assumptions on the prior distribution of alternative universes are necessary.

Playwright and novelist Michael Frayn describes a form of the strong anthropic principle in his 2006 book The Human Touch, which explores what he characterises as "the central oddity of the Universe":

"It's this simple paradox. The Universe is very old and very large. Humankind, by comparison, is only a tiny disturbance in one small corner of it – and a very recent one. Yet the Universe is only very large and very old because we are here to say it is... And yet, of course, we all know perfectly well that it is what it is whether we are here or not."

Character of anthropic reasoning
Carter chose to focus on a tautological aspect of his ideas, which has resulted in much confusion. In fact, anthropic reasoning interests scientists because of something that is only implicit in the above formal definitions, namely that humans should give serious consideration to there being other universes with different values of the "fundamental parameters"—that is, the dimensionless physical constants and initial conditions for the Big Bang. Carter and others have argued that life would not be possible in most such universes. In other words, the universe humans live in is fine tuned to permit life. Collins & Hawking (1973) characterized Carter's then-unpublished big idea as the postulate that "there is not one universe but a whole infinite ensemble of universes with all possible initial conditions". If this is granted, the anthropic principle provides a plausible explanation for the fine tuning of our universe: the "typical" universe is not fine-tuned, but given enough universes, a small fraction will be capable of supporting intelligent life. Ours must be one of these, and so the observed fine tuning should be no cause for wonder.

Although philosophers have discussed related concepts for centuries, in the early 1970s the only genuine physical theory yielding a multiverse of sorts was the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. This would allow variation in initial conditions, but not in the truly fundamental constants. Since that time a number of mechanisms for producing a multiverse have been suggested: see the review by Max Tegmark. An important development in the 1980s was the combination of inflation theory with the hypothesis that some parameters are determined by symmetry breaking in the early universe, which allows parameters previously thought of as "fundamental constants" to vary over very large distances, thus eroding the distinction between Carter's weak and strong principles. At the beginning of the 21st century, the string landscape emerged as a mechanism for varying essentially all the constants, including the number of spatial dimensions.

The anthropic idea that fundamental parameters are selected from a multitude of different possibilities (each actual in some universe or other) contrasts with the traditional hope of physicists for a theory of everything having no free parameters. As Albert Einstein said: "What really interests me is whether God had any choice in the creation of the world." In 2002, some proponents of the leading candidate for a "theory of everything", string theory, proclaimed "the end of the anthropic principle" since there would be no free parameters to select. In 2003, however, Leonard Susskind stated: "... it seems plausible that the landscape is unimaginably large and diverse. This is the behavior that gives credence to the anthropic principle."

The modern form of a design argument is put forth by intelligent design. Proponents of intelligent design often cite the fine-tuning observations that (in part) preceded the formulation of the anthropic principle by Carter as a proof of an intelligent designer. Opponents of intelligent design are not limited to those who hypothesize that other universes exist; they may also argue, anti-anthropically, that the universe is less fine-tuned than often claimed, or that accepting fine tuning as a brute fact is less astonishing than the idea of an intelligent creator. Furthermore, even accepting fine tuning, Sober (2005) and Ikeda and Jefferys, argue that the anthropic principle as conventionally stated actually undermines intelligent design.

Paul Davies's book The Goldilocks Enigma (2006) reviews the current state of the fine-tuning debate in detail, and concludes by enumerating the following responses to that debate:
 * 1) The absurd universe: Our universe just happens to be the way it is.
 * 2) The unique universe: There is a deep underlying unity in physics that necessitates the Universe being the way it is. A Theory of Everything will explain why the various features of the Universe must have exactly the values that have been recorded.
 * 3) The multiverse: Multiple universes exist, having all possible combinations of characteristics, and humans inevitably find themselves within a universe that allows us to exist.
 * 4) Intelligent design: A creator designed the Universe with the purpose of supporting complexity and the emergence of intelligence.
 * 5) The life principle: There is an underlying principle that constrains the Universe to evolve towards life and mind.
 * 6) The self-explaining universe: A closed explanatory or causal loop: "perhaps only universes with a capacity for consciousness can exist". This is Wheeler's participatory anthropic principle (PAP).
 * 7) The fake universe: Humans live inside a virtual reality simulation.

Omitted here is Lee Smolin's model of cosmological natural selection, also known as fecund universes, which proposes that universes have "offspring" that are more plentiful if they resemble our universe. Also see Gardner (2005).

Clearly each of these hypotheses resolve some aspects of the puzzle, while leaving others unanswered. Followers of Carter would admit only option 3 as an anthropic explanation, whereas 3 through 6 are covered by different versions of Barrow and Tipler's SAP (which would also include 7 if it is considered a variant of 4, as in Tipler 1994).

The anthropic principle, at least as Carter conceived it, can be applied on scales much smaller than the whole universe. For example, Carter (1983) inverted the usual line of reasoning and pointed out that when interpreting the evolutionary record, one must take into account cosmological and astrophysical considerations. With this in mind, Carter concluded that given the best estimates of the age of the universe, the evolutionary chain culminating in Homo sapiens probably admits only one or two low probability links.

Observational evidence
No possible observational evidence bears on Carter's WAP, as it is merely advice to the scientist and asserts nothing debatable. The obvious test of Barrow's SAP, which says that the universe is "required" to support life, is to find evidence of life in universes other than ours. Any other universe is, by most definitions, unobservable (otherwise it would be included in our portion of this universe). Thus, in principle Barrow's SAP cannot be falsified by observing a universe in which an observer cannot exist.

Philosopher John Leslie states that the Carter SAP (with multiverse) predicts the following:
 * Physical theory will evolve so as to strengthen the hypothesis that early phase transitions occur probabilistically rather than deterministically, in which case there will be no deep physical reason for the values of fundamental constants;
 * Various theories for generating multiple universes will prove robust;
 * Evidence that the universe is fine tuned will continue to accumulate;
 * No life with a non-carbon chemistry will be discovered;
 * Mathematical studies of galaxy formation will confirm that it is sensitive to the rate of expansion of the universe.

Hogan has emphasised that it would be very strange if all fundamental constants were strictly determined, since this would leave us with no ready explanation for apparent fine tuning. In fact, humans might have to resort to something akin to Barrow and Tipler's SAP: there would be no option for such a universe not to support life.

Probabilistic predictions of parameter values can be made given: The probability of observing value X is then proportional to N(X) P(X). A generic feature of an analysis of this nature is that the expected values of the fundamental physical constants should not be "over-tuned", i.e. if there is some perfectly tuned predicted value (e.g. zero), the observed value need be no closer to that predicted value than what is required to make life possible. The small but finite value of the cosmological constant can be regarded as a successful prediction in this sense.
 * 1) a particular multiverse with a "measure", i.e. a well defined "density of universes" (so, for parameter X, one can calculate the prior probability P(X0) dX that X is in the range X0 < X < X0 + dX), and
 * 2) an estimate of the number of observers in each universe, N(X) (e.g., this might be taken as proportional to the number of stars in the universe).

One thing that would not count as evidence for the anthropic principle is evidence that the Earth or the Solar System occupied a privileged position in the universe, in violation of the Copernican principle (for possible counterevidence to this principle, see Copernican principle), unless there was some reason to think that that position was a necessary condition for our existence as observers.

The nucleosynthesis of carbon-12
Fred Hoyle may have invoked anthropic reasoning to predict an astrophysical phenomenon. He is said to have reasoned, from the prevalence on Earth of life forms whose chemistry was based on carbon-12 nuclei, that there must be an undiscovered resonance in the carbon-12 nucleus facilitating its synthesis in stellar interiors via the triple-alpha process. He then calculated the energy of this undiscovered resonance to be 7.6 million electronvolts. Willie Fowler's research group soon found this resonance, and its measured energy was close to Hoyle's prediction.

However, in 2010 Helge Kragh argued that Hoyle did not use anthropic reasoning in making his prediction, since he made his prediction in 1953 and anthropic reasoning did not come into prominence until 1980. He called this an "anthropic myth", saying that Hoyle and others made an after-the-fact connection between carbon and life decades after the discovery of the resonance.

"An investigation of the historical circumstances of the prediction and its subsequent experimental confirmation shows that Hoyle and his contemporaries did not associate the level in the carbon nucleus with life at all."

Cosmic inflation
Don Page criticized the entire theory of cosmic inflation as follows. He emphasized that initial conditions that made possible a thermodynamic arrow of time in a universe with a Big Bang origin, must include the assumption that at the initial singularity, the entropy of the universe was low and therefore extremely improbable. Paul Davies rebutted this criticism by invoking an inflationary version of the anthropic principle. While Davies accepted the premise that the initial state of the visible universe (which filled a microscopic amount of space before inflating) had to possess a very low entropy value—due to random quantum fluctuations—to account for the observed thermodynamic arrow of time, he deemed this fact an advantage for the theory. That the tiny patch of space from which our observable universe grew had to be extremely orderly, to allow the post-inflation universe to have an arrow of time, makes it unnecessary to adopt any "ad hoc" hypotheses about the initial entropy state, hypotheses other Big Bang theories require.

String theory
String theory predicts a large number of possible universes, called the "backgrounds" or "vacua". The set of these vacua is often called the "multiverse" or "anthropic landscape" or "string landscape". Leonard Susskind has argued that the existence of a large number of vacua puts anthropic reasoning on firm ground: only universes whose properties are such as to allow observers to exist are observed, while a possibly much larger set of universes lacking such properties go unnoticed.

Steven Weinberg believes the anthropic principle may be appropriated by cosmologists committed to nontheism, and refers to that principle as a "turning point" in modern science because applying it to the string landscape "may explain how the constants of nature that we observe can take values suitable for life without being fine-tuned by a benevolent creator". Others—most notably David Gross but also Lubos Motl, Peter Woit, and Lee Smolin—argue that this is not predictive. Max Tegmark, Mario Livio, and Martin Rees argue that only some aspects of a physical theory need be observable and/or testable for the theory to be accepted, and that many well-accepted theories are far from completely testable at present.

Jürgen Schmidhuber (2000–2002) points out that Ray Solomonoff's theory of universal inductive inference and its extensions already provide a framework for maximizing our confidence in any theory, given a limited sequence of physical observations, and some prior distribution on the set of possible explanations of the universe.

Zhi-Wei Wang and Samuel L. Braunstein proved that life's existence in the universe depends on various fundamental constants. It suggests that without a complete understanding of these constants, one might incorrectly perceive the universe as being intelligently designed for life. This perspective challenges the view that our universe is unique in its ability to support life.

Dimensions of spacetime

There are two kinds of dimensions: spatial (bidirectional) and temporal (unidirectional). Let the number of spatial dimensions be N and the number of temporal dimensions be T. That N = 3 and T = 1, setting aside the compactified dimensions invoked by string theory and undetectable to date, can be explained by appealing to the physical consequences of letting N differ from 3 and T differ from 1. The argument is often of an anthropic character and possibly the first of its kind, albeit before the complete concept came into vogue.

The implicit notion that the dimensionality of the universe is special is first attributed to Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, who in the Discourse on Metaphysics suggested that the world is "the one which is at the same time the simplest in hypothesis and the richest in phenomena". Immanuel Kant argued that 3-dimensional space was a consequence of the inverse square law of universal gravitation. While Kant's argument is historically important, John D. Barrow said that it "gets the punch-line back to front: it is the three-dimensionality of space that explains why we see inverse-square force laws in Nature, not vice-versa" (Barrow 2002:204).

In 1920, Paul Ehrenfest showed that if there is only a single time dimension and more than three spatial dimensions, the orbit of a planet about its Sun cannot remain stable. The same is true of a star's orbit around the center of its galaxy. Ehrenfest also showed that if there are an even number of spatial dimensions, then the different parts of a wave impulse will travel at different speeds. If there are $$5 + 2k$$ spatial dimensions, where k is a positive whole number, then wave impulses become distorted. In 1922, Hermann Weyl claimed that Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism can be expressed in terms of an action only for a four-dimensional manifold. Finally, Tangherlini showed in 1963 that when there are more than three spatial dimensions, electron orbitals around nuclei cannot be stable; electrons would either fall into the nucleus or disperse.

Max Tegmark expands on the preceding argument in the following anthropic manner. If T differs from 1, the behavior of physical systems could not be predicted reliably from knowledge of the relevant partial differential equations. In such a universe, intelligent life capable of manipulating technology could not emerge. Moreover, if T > 1, Tegmark maintains that protons and electrons would be unstable and could decay into particles having greater mass than themselves. (This is not a problem if the particles have a sufficiently low temperature.) Lastly, if N < 3, gravitation of any kind becomes problematic, and the universe would probably be too simple to contain observers. For example, when N < 3, nerves cannot cross without intersecting. Hence anthropic and other arguments rule out all cases except N = 3 and T = 1, which describes the world around us.

On the other hand, in view of creating black holes from an ideal monatomic gas under its self-gravity, Wei-Xiang Feng showed that (3 + 1)-dimensional spacetime is the marginal dimensionality. Moreover, it is the unique dimensionality that can afford a "stable" gas sphere with a "positive" cosmological constant. However, a self-gravitating gas cannot be stably bound if the mass sphere is larger than ~1021 solar masses, due to the small positivity of the cosmological constant observed.

In 2019, James Scargill argued that complex life may be possible with two spatial dimensions. According to Scargill, a purely scalar theory of gravity may enable a local gravitational force, and 2D networks may be sufficient for complex neural networks.

Metaphysical interpretations
Some of the metaphysical disputes and speculations include, for example, attempts to back Pierre Teilhard de Chardin's earlier interpretation of the universe as being Christ centered (compare Omega Point), expressing a creatio evolutiva instead the elder notion of creatio continua. From a strictly secular, humanist perspective, it allows as well to put human beings back in the center, an anthropogenic shift in cosmology. Karl W. Giberson has laconically stated that"What emerges is the suggestion that cosmology may at last be in possession of some raw material for a postmodern creation myth."

William Sims Bainbridge disagreed with de Chardin's optimism about a future Omega point at the end of history, arguing that logically, humans are trapped at the Omicron point, in the middle of the Greek alphabet rather than advancing to the end, because the universe does not need to have any characteristics that would support our further technical progress, if the anthropic principle merely requires it to be suitable for our evolution to this point.

The anthropic cosmological principle
A thorough extant study of the anthropic principle is the book The anthropic cosmological principle by John D. Barrow, a cosmologist, and Frank J. Tipler, a cosmologist and mathematical physicist. This book sets out in detail the many known anthropic coincidences and constraints, including many found by its authors. While the book is primarily a work of theoretical astrophysics, it also touches on quantum physics, chemistry, and earth science. An entire chapter argues that Homo sapiens is, with high probability, the only intelligent species in the Milky Way.

The book begins with an extensive review of many topics in the history of ideas the authors deem relevant to the anthropic principle, because the authors believe that principle has important antecedents in the notions of teleology and intelligent design. They discuss the writings of Fichte, Hegel, Bergson, and Alfred North Whitehead, and the Omega Point cosmology of Teilhard de Chardin. Barrow and Tipler carefully distinguish teleological reasoning from eutaxiological reasoning; the former asserts that order must have a consequent purpose; the latter asserts more modestly that order must have a planned cause. They attribute this important but nearly always overlooked distinction to an obscure 1883 book by L. E. Hicks.

Seeing little sense in a principle requiring intelligent life to emerge while remaining indifferent to the possibility of its eventual extinction, Barrow and Tipler propose the final anthropic principle (FAP): Intelligent information-processing must come into existence in the universe, and, once it comes into existence, it will never die out.

Barrow and Tipler submit that the FAP is both a valid physical statement and "closely connected with moral values". FAP places strong constraints on the structure of the universe, constraints developed further in Tipler's The Physics of Immortality. One such constraint is that the universe must end in a Big Crunch, which seems unlikely in view of the tentative conclusions drawn since 1998 about dark energy, based on observations of very distant supernovas.

In his review of Barrow and Tipler, Martin Gardner ridiculed the FAP by quoting the last two sentences of their book as defining a completely ridiculous anthropic principle (CRAP):

"At the instant the Omega Point is reached, life will have gained control of all matter and forces not only in a single universe, but in all universes whose existence is logically possible; life will have spread into all spatial regions in all universes which could logically exist, and will have stored an infinite amount of information, including all bits of knowledge that it is logically possible to know. And this is the end."

Reception and controversies
Carter has frequently expressed regret for his own choice of the word "anthropic", because it conveys the misleading impression that the principle involves humans in particular, to the exclusion of non-human intelligence more broadly. Others have criticised the word "principle" as being too grandiose to describe straightforward applications of selection effects.

A common criticism of Carter's SAP is that it is an easy deus ex machina that discourages searches for physical explanations. To quote Penrose again: "It tends to be invoked by theorists whenever they do not have a good enough theory to explain the observed facts."

Carter's SAP and Barrow and Tipler's WAP have been dismissed as truisms or trivial tautologies—that is, statements true solely by virtue of their logical form and not because a substantive claim is made and supported by observation of reality. As such, they are criticized as an elaborate way of saying, "If things were different, they would be different", which is a valid statement, but does not make a claim of some factual alternative over another.

Critics of the Barrow and Tipler SAP claim that it is neither testable nor falsifiable, and thus is not a scientific statement but rather a philosophical one. The same criticism has been leveled against the hypothesis of a multiverse, although some argue that it does make falsifiable predictions. A modified version of this criticism is that humanity understands so little about the emergence of life, especially intelligent life, that it is effectively impossible to calculate the number of observers in each universe. Also, the prior distribution of universes as a function of the fundamental constants is easily modified to get any desired result.

Many criticisms focus on versions of the strong anthropic principle, such as Barrow and Tipler's anthropic cosmological principle, which are teleological notions that tend to describe the existence of life as a necessary prerequisite for the observable constants of physics. Similarly, Stephen Jay Gould, Michael Shermer, and others claim that the stronger versions of the anthropic principle seem to reverse known causes and effects. Gould compared the claim that the universe is fine-tuned for the benefit of our kind of life to saying that sausages were made long and narrow so that they could fit into modern hotdog buns, or saying that ships had been invented to house barnacles. These critics cite the vast physical, fossil, genetic, and other biological evidence consistent with life having been fine-tuned through natural selection to adapt to the physical and geophysical environment in which life exists. Life appears to have adapted to the universe, and not vice versa.

Some applications of the anthropic principle have been criticized as an argument by lack of imagination, for tacitly assuming that carbon compounds and water are the only possible chemistry of life (sometimes called "carbon chauvinism", see also alternative biochemistry). The range of fundamental physical constants consistent with the evolution of carbon-based life may also be wider than those who advocate a fine-tuned universe have argued. For instance, Harnik et al. propose a Weakless Universe in which the weak nuclear force is eliminated. They show that this has no significant effect on the other fundamental interactions, provided some adjustments are made in how those interactions work. However, if some of the fine-tuned details of our universe were violated, that would rule out complex structures of any kind—stars, planets, galaxies, etc.

Lee Smolin has offered a theory designed to improve on the lack of imagination that anthropic principles have been accused of. He puts forth his fecund universes theory, which assumes universes have "offspring" through the creation of black holes whose offspring universes have values of physical constants that depend on those of the mother universe.

The philosophers of cosmology John Earman, Ernan McMullin, and Jesús Mosterín contend that "in its weak version, the anthropic principle is a mere tautology, which does not allow us to explain anything or to predict anything that we did not already know. In its strong version, it is a gratuitous speculation". A further criticism by Mosterín concerns the flawed "anthropic" inference from the assumption of an infinity of worlds to the existence of one like ours:

"The suggestion that an infinity of objects characterized by certain numbers or properties implies the existence among them of objects with any combination of those numbers or characteristics [...] is mistaken. An infinity does not imply at all that any arrangement is present or repeated. [...] The assumption that all possible worlds are realized in an infinite universe is equivalent to the assertion that any infinite set of numbers contains all numbers (or at least all Gödel numbers of the [defining] sequences), which is obviously false."

title: Anthropic principle