The Speed of Light Can Be Fine-tuned: Counter to Victor Stenger's "The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning"

Alright, ya'll (now that I am officially a Texas resident, I can say ya'll). I am going to attempt something kinda crazy.

As an undergraduate biology student, I am going to try to make the claim that a physicist who has been doing physics for about twice as long as I have been alive is wrong about something related to physics concerning the fine-tuning argument (oh wait, I actually do this kind of thing all the time, haha). At this point, I would not be at all surprised if I am wrong about this, but I'm going to give it a shot. If anyone (especially physicists) can point out an error in my thinking please let me know!

Also, I would like to state from the get go that I mean no disrespect to Dr. Stenger! His contributions to physics have been great and numerous. I am also indebted to him for writing many excellent books which have made it possible for me to understand the material I am about to talk about.

------------------------------------------------------

Although I hate to give away the punch line right away, here is the point of what I am about to say: Stenger thinks that the speed of light is not fine-tuned. I think that it is.

-------------------------------------------------------

To start out with, here is a summary of Stenger's argument (found on pages 55-60 of The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning):

Think about space and time. How do we measure them? Well, we try to measure them as accurately as possible. For example, according to Dr. Stenger, "In 1960, the meter was defined as 1,650,763.73 wavelengths in a vacuum of the electromagnetic radiation that results from the transition between the 2p10 and 5d5 energy levels of the Krypton-86 atom," and "In 1967, the second was defined as 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the Cesium-133 atom (Stenger 55)." For anyone who is not familiar with the physics involved in these statements, these are extremely accurate methods for measuring distance and time.

Now then, remember the "c" from E=mc^2 (Einstein's equation)? This "c" represents the speed of light in a vacuum. In his special theory of relativity, Einstein makes the claim that c is a universal constant. This claim has been overwhelmingly supported.

Because this next part is extremely important, possibly confusing, and seems to be the heart of Dr. Stenger's argument, I have elected to quote Dr. Stenger on this paragraph.

In the Standard (SI) system of units, the distance between two points

in space is measured in meters. Until 1983, the meter was defined 

independently of the second. In that year, by international agreement,

it was mandated that the meter would be defined as the distance

between two points when the time it takes light to go between the

points in a vacuum is 1/299,792,458 second. That is, the speed of

light in a vacuum is c = 299,792,458 meters per second by

definition. (55) (italics Stenger's, underlining mine)

This has an interesting implication! We measure time on clocks, right? According to this we measure distance on a clock as well! A meter is the distance traveled by light in a given amount of time. According to Dr. Stenger, this means that "The quantity c cannot be fine-tuned. It is fixed by defninition."

Here is a quick illustration: If we start a beam of light in a vacuum at point A, and wait for 1/299,792,458 second to pass, the light will have traveled to point B. Thus, the distance between A and B is one meter.

At this point, it will be a good idea to introduce a little bit of Einstein's Theory of Relativity for those who are not familiar with it. While this may be confusing, it is one of the coolest things that humans have ever figured out about the universe!!! There should be no surprise that some of the most amazing stuff ever discovered is a bit hard to understand. If it weren't so intense, we would have figured it out a lot sooner. As it is, I would personally like to thank Einstein for being awesome

In addition, I encourage everyone to learn more about relativity!!! It will blow your mind and change the way you see the world!

For now, here is Josh's tidbit on relativity:

Let's say I am standing by the side of the road and I measure the speed of a car relative to me. I get the value 30 mph. Now lets say that I am riding on a bike going 10 mph in the same direction as the car. This time when I measure the speed of the car relative to me I get 20 mph. One more time- now I am biking in the opposite direction as the car at a rate of 10 mph. This time when I measure the speed of the car relative to me I get 40 mph.

With light things are different. The speed of light remains constant no matter how fast you are moving with reference to other objects.

This means that in all three measurements I took in the previous example, I would have gotten the same value for the speed of light (as opposed to getting differing values with the car).

I hope that this screams against your intuition. Light travels at the speed of light independently of the motion of other objects. This is not true for objects that have mass!!! This has the implication that time and space are not absolute.

Think about this commonly cited example: If your twin brother leaves earth on a space ship (thus traveling at a velocity greater than yours), and 50 years passes for you, when you brother returns to earth the same amount of time WILL NOT have passed for him!!! Rather, due to his increased velocity relative to you, time will have been traveling slower for him relative to your time.
End Josh's tidbit on relativity (go youtube relativity right now and learn more! Other people explain this better than I do)

I suspect that Stenger was thinking along these lines when he talks about the universal nature of c. In the case of light (which has no mass), "no matter how fast you are moving with respect to the source of the light you are measuring, you will get exactly 299,792,458 meters per second" (56). Thanks to Einstein, we now know that space and time are not independent of one another. We don't just have three dimensions of space with time as a separate, independent entity- we have four dimensions (three of space and one of time).

Finally, Stenger points out that it is possible to set the speed of light to 1 so that the units for distance will be the same as the units for time. This is pretty cool, because "Setting c = 1 gets rid of a lot of c's in equations, not only making them simpler but helping to emphasize that the value of c has no fundamental role in physics" (Stenger, 57).

To summarize my summary of Stenger's argument, I will use one final quote from Stenger:

As we have seen above, c is by definition 299,792,458

meters per second or one light-year per year. While light

moves at this speed in a vacuum, c is fundamentally the

speed beyond which a physical body cannot be accelerated

according to Einstein's theory of special relativity. But its

value is arbitrary. As we have seen, according to the current

operational definitions of time and distance, the meter is

defined as the distance light goes between two points in 

space in 1/299,792,458 second. (59-60)

And so ends my summary of Dr. Stenger's argument. I have done my best to accurately represent his ideas. I also recommend purchasing his book and reading the text for yourself to get the best understanding.

It may be a good idea to read this summary a few time to acquire maximal understanding.

-------------------------------------------------------

 

And now, the long awaited reason why Josh disagrees with Dr. Stenger:

As I pointed out before, Dr. Stenger states that according to international agreement "the meter would be defined as the distance between two points when the time it takes light to go between the points in a vacuum is 1/299,792,458 second. That is, the speed of light in a vacuum is c = 299,792,458 meters per second by definition." (55)

I contend that what Dr. Stenger just asserted has nothing to do with whether or not the speed of light can be fine-tuned. While we may have defined light to be a certain speed, the speed of light could have a different value in phase space (see http://honestsearchfortruth.blogspot.com/2012/05/fine-tuning-argument-phase-space.html). It could take 2 minutes for light to reach us from the sun. It could take 2 years for light to reach us from the sun.

______________________________

Quick brainstorm break: What do ya'll think about this?

While holding everything else in the universe constant, we could change the speed of light to 200,000,000 meters per second.Then our 'definition' of light would be that it travels 200,000,000 meters per second. But then, our definition of the meter would be the distance light travels in 1/200,000,000 second... I'm not sure if those italics make sense or mean anything for this argument. Maybe any mistakes I'm making are related to those italicized thoughts of mine.

________________________________________________

Once again, as I pointed out before, Stenger states "no matter where you are in this universe or any other, no matter how fast you are moving with respect to the source of the light you are measuring, you will get exactly 299,792,458 meters per second" (56).

I contend that this statement has no bearing on whether or not c is fine-tuned. The speed of light could simply have a different value in this universe and all the other ones. We would simply measure a different value (or... we wouldn't, because if c is significantly smaller or larger life as we know it is impossible, but I digress).

If the universe were fundamentally altered, as is assumed by the fine-tuning argument, the speed of light could be something other than what we currently measure it to be. It is possible for the speed of light to be be fine-tuned. Not only that- it IS fine-tuned. According to Rich Deem, "if [the speed of light were] faster: stars would be too luminous for life support [and] if slower: stars would be insufficiently luminous for life support" (http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/designun.html).

A last statement from Stenger: "c is fundamentally the speed beyond which a physical body cannot be accelerated according to Einstein's theory of special relativity. But its value is arbitrary. As we have seen, according to the current operational definitions of time and distance, the meter is defined as the distance light goes between two points in space in 1/299,792,458 second" (59-60)

Once again, I contend that this statement does not give any actual reason prohibiting c from being fine-tuned. The speed beyond which a physical body cannot be accelerated could have a value other than 299,792,458 meters per second.

Keep in mind that we are considering the possibility of an outside intelligence making fundamental changes to the universe. We should not rule out this possibility from the get-go. An outside intelligence could alter the speed of light while holding distance and time constant, stretch space while holding the speed of light and time constant, or change the rate of passage of time while holding the speed of light and distance constant.

-----------------------------------------------------

In short: The ratio of the speed of light to distance and time could be different. It is possible for the speed of light to be fine-tuned.

-----------------------------------------------------

A final thought: perhaps we would have to stretch/compress space up to make this proposed alteration of the speed of light work, but this would merely turn into another two parameters which could be fine-tuned: the 'stretched-ness' of space, and the 'flow-rate' of time.

Thanks for reading! I fully realize I may be making some sort of silly mistake being a physics newb compared to Dr. Stenger. Please help me out if you think I am wrong!

Noah's Flood and Coral- Planetary Flood Scenario

Hi everyone!

You may recall my post on the effects of Noah's flood on coral a few weeks back: http://honestsearchfortruth.blogspot.com/2012/05/noahs-flood-and-coral.html

In light of the large number of people who think that a global version of Noah's flood took place within the last 6000 years, I thought it would be a good idea to point out that I focused my research on a local flood.

The reason I did this was because there is no reason to do serious research on the effects of a global flood on coral. A global flood would very obviously kill 100% of the coral on earth. There is simply no mechanism left to allow for their survival. All stationary colonies would die due to ridiculously large increases in pressure, a temperature drop to between 0 and 5 degrees Celsius, and the absence of light. Gamete expulsion of any kind would fail due to the lack of habitat (the entire world, except for maybe the peak of the highest mountain would be unsuitable for coral. Keep in mind that gametes would not be able to travel the distance necessary to reach this lonely safe haven- if anyone wishes to debate this I would be happy to hear what you have to say). Polyp bailout would be useless for the same reason.

Here is a summary of the reasoning that goes along with a planetary flood (as opposed to a local one):

1. If a planetary flood took place, 100% of the coral on earth would die
2. There are an abundance of coral on earth today
3. 6000 years is not long enough for coral to evolve from species which survived the flood
4. Therefore, a global flood did not take place within the last 6000 years

 And so we can say with a very high degree of certainty that a global flood like the one described in Genesis (if you interpret Genesis to describe a global flood) did not happen.

A local flood is a different story. However, a local flood probably (but with a lower degree of certainty) would have killed 100% of coral on earth. That is why I focused my research on the local flood scenario, and you can check it out here! http://honestsearchfortruth.blogspot.com/2012/05/noahs-flood-and-coral.html

--------------------------------------------------
Response to a common response to my argument:

Keep in mind that to say something like "well God must have re-created coral after the flood!" would be to add information to Bible. The flow of Genesis is such that only the animals and people on the ark survive the flood. Aquatic organisms are never mentioned. Also, there is NO mention of God re-creating organisms after the flood.

If one were to allow for adding something like "oh, and even though the Bible doesn't say this, God also created organisms after the flood and that is why we see them today," you would also have to allow for additions to the the Bible in other places that suit another party's bias or fancy. For example, let's say I really want Jesus to happen to tap dance, do gymnastics, and be really good at juggling. The Bible doesn't mention him doing those things, nor does it mention him not doing those things. Anyway, if we allow for additions to the text in one place, you have to allow for additions on another place.

What this means is that instead of 'saving' the text by adding information, you actually destroy the reliability of the text. Also, I think Revelation says something bad happens to people who add stuff to the Bible.
-----------------------------------

Thank you for reading!

Parameters vs. Constants (Fine-Tuning)

For the sake of clarification, I think it will be helpful to describe what the difference between parameters and constants are, and why I am going to be using the term 'parameters' from now on.

Check this out for a summary of the fine-tuning argument if you aren't familiar with the argument already: http://honestsearchfortruth.blogspot.com/2012/05/fine-tuning-argument-phase-space.html

The fine-tuning argument utilizes constants such as the gravitational constant or the expansion rate of the universe. The argument makes the assumption that these 'constants' can take on a broad range of values. Because of this, it makes more sense to refer to them as 'parameters.' So, from now on I will be using the term 'parameter.'

By the way, fine-tuning argument aside, some of the physical constants of the universe actually do vary depending on energy levels.

Why the Multiverse is not Currently a Valid Response to the Fine Tuning Argument

The most common objection to the fine-tuning argument (see http://honestsearchfortruth.blogspot.com/2012/05/fine-tuning-argument-phase-space.html for a brief summary of the fine-tuning argument) is that there exist a very large number (possibly infinite) number of universes.

Unfortunately, the multiverse is currently an untested hypothesis. If you don't believe me, just ask page 24 of physicist Victor Stenger's The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning, which probably contains the strongest arguments to date against the fine-tuning argument. You could also ask other physicists like Brian Greene: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtdE662eY_M. Also, if you have the urge to read a post on string theory, let me know and I can do a post on string theory.

That is not to say that we will never be able to test for the existence of the multiverse. In fact, we will probably be able to test for the multiverse within our lifetimes thanks to the Large Hadron Collider in Geneva, Switzerland. Until we can test for the multiverse, we should not assume that it exists. To do so would be to make an assumption which currently does not have enough evidence to validate it.

In addition, the mere existence of the multiverse is not enough by itself to refute the fine-tuning argument. Two additional facts must be established.

1. Physical constants must vary from universe to universe
2. There must be a large enough number of universes to counter-act the unlikeliness of fine-tuning

It is important to note that string theory does have the implication that physical constants will vary from one universe to the next, and that there will be a large number of universes.

Anyway, while it is easy to assume that the coolest, most cutting edge, sexiest hypotheses in physics will turn out to be true, it is not a good idea to assume what the conclusion will be before the evidence has been gathered. Once we get a reasonable amount of evidence, we can include the multiverse in our discussion. Until then, we must argue fine-tuning without it while including the caveat that if the multiverse turns out to exist, it is very likely that the fine-tuning argument will be drastically weakened.

The Fine-Tuning Argument- Phase Space

Let's map out fundamental physical constants in phase space to get a better feel for the fine-tuning argument (anthropic principle)! In this post I am neither agreeing with or disagreeing with the fine-tuning argument. Rather, I am attempting to explain what the fine tuning argument is so that accurate debate can be made. Also, a shout-out to Roger Penrose who phrased the fine-tuning argument this way.

Physical Constants in Phase Space

We will start out with one constant, and one axis. Let's make the value of X be the gravitational constant, G.

The value of the gravitational constant could be one of many numbers, but in our universe it is about

6.67300 × 10-11 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2. Let's make a mark on our axis to represent this value.

According to the fine-tuning argument, if we moved the smiley face either slightly to the right or slightly to the left, our universe would not have developed in such a way as to allow for life.

But there is more than just one constant that needs to be set at a specific value for a universe to develop in which life can survive! And so, we shall add another axis to our figure. This time we will use the ratio of the electromagnetic force to the gravitational force between an electron and a proton, also known as "N". We will represent our specific value for N as a green smiley-face on the Y axis.

Once again, as the argument goes, if N were slightly larger or smaller, the universe would not develop in such a way as to be suitable for life.

Notice how the percentage of phase space which allows for a life-friendly universe is now represented by the place where G and N intersect:

For fun, lets add one more constant. But which one should we choose? Hhhhhmmmmye... Why not the fractional rate of expansion of the universe? This is also known as the Hubble parameter, or H. I'll go ahead and throw in all the additional info as well.

Once again, the turquoise region is the only region in phase space which allows for life, and once again, by adding an additional constant we have significantly reduced the proportion of phase space which will allow for life as we know it.



According to proponents of the fine-tuning argument, there can be as many as 36 of these constants. This would mean that our phase space would have 36 dimensions instead of the 3 we have displayed on this post.

Debate on the fine-tuning argument has to do with the following topics:

• How many (if any) constants are there?
• How 'finely-tuned' must the constants be?
• Is it even possible for the constants to vary?
• Are there multiple universes, each with differing values for the constants?
• If there are multiple universes, how many are there?
• If there are multiple universes, is there a way to tell whether or not the constants truly vary from one to the next?

And so there you go! A brief overview of the fine tuning argument!

The Parable of the King's Servant

There was once a servant of the King. Even though the servant had never actually seen the King nor heard him speak, he loved the King very much and served him with his entire life. In fact, the only way that the servant knew the King or what he wanted was through messengers who brought letters from time to time. Through reading the letters the servant became intensely attached to and dependent upon his ruler, for the letters contained encouragement during his hardest trials and just instructions for his life.

One day, at the appointed time for the messenger to bring his message, there arrived not just the usual messenger, but 7 more! And they came from all directions- from the North, the North-East, the East, the South-East, the South, the South-West, the West, and the North-West for a total of 8. Startled by this highly unusual occurrence, the servant asked the messengers for an explanation.

Immediately the messengers blurted out all at once differing and highly confusing messages, waving scraps of paper around in the air and trying to make the most noise. One said said the King was never actually the King and that the messages were sent from imposters, another claimed that another person was the true King, another said there were many Kings, another that there may be a King- but he doesn't care about his servants or perform any actions, another that it was necessary to rebel against the King, another trying to convince everyone that it is impossible to actually know who the King is or even if a King actually does exist, the usual messenger who brought the usual and expected message saying the usual things, and a final man screaming "all of us are bringing the same message!"

Unable to accurately decipher what any of the messengers were saying due to the uproar and being quite distraught by this unusual occurrence, the servant called out demanding silence.

Then the servant addressed all of the messengers and said, "I will listen to what all of you have to say. Does anyone have evidence to validate their claim?"

Several of the messengers shouted back, "Listen to my message only!" and "How dare you even consider these others?" and "You already know in your heart that I am bringing the true message. Really, you do!" and "It would be impossible for you to listen to all of us! Therefore you should just ignore everyone else and listen to me!" and "let me explain to you what this other messenger is really saying, I know what he means better than he does- and after all he is wrong!" and "evidence doesn't matter!"

The servant then promptly bound and gagged all of the messengers, and attempted to remove the cotton that had been filling some of their ears.

Then the servant said to them all, "I really will listen to all of you. Because I care about the King, and following or not following the King has a drastic effect on the way I live my life, I truly wish to know which of you is correct. Just as I would want you to honestly consider a claim made by me, so shall I treat your claims. I will treat all of your evidence fairly and use the same criteria for all of you, for I would not want you to disregard my evidence or use uneven criteria against me."

From that day on the servant began questioning the messengers, unbinding them one at a time to learn everything they had to say. Perhaps one day the servant will find the truth.

Noah's Flood (Even a Local Flood) Would Have Killed 100% of Earth's Coral

I hope everyone will forgive me for being gone for so long! My work has slid away from popular writing and moved in a more scholarly direction. Unfortunately, scholarly stuff takes more time. Fortunately, scholarly stuff gives you better conclusions. Anyway, here is a bit on coral and Noah's Flood that I have been working on over the past semester under my marine biology professor for Honors Credit. Arguments about Noah's flood seem to revolve mostly around numbers of animals, ark logistics, animal distributions post flood, and where the heck the water came from/went, and I am here to tell the 'figure out whether or not Noah's flood happened' community that CORAL ARE PEOPLE TOO!!! So stop ignoring them. Anyway, I hope ya'll like scientifickee-style writing. I know I do.

 --------------------------------------

The Effects of a Proposed Model for the Genesis Flood Account on the Mortality of Mature Coral, Coral Gametes, and Swimming Coral

(or)

Noah's Flood Would Have Killed ALL of the Coral Even if it Was a Local Flood <--easier to read and more to the point title for blog purposes

Abstract

The purpose of this inquiry is to examine the historical reliability of the flood account in Genesis. Using modern knowledge of brooding and broadcasting species of coral, I will attempt to deduce whether a cataclysmic flood like the one described in Genesis would cause the extinction of coral. If the flood described in Genesis would cause the extinction of coral, and yet coral are alive today, the Genesis account loses reliability as a historical document. Interpretation is key when comparing Genesis to scientific information. I do not examine every possible interpretation of Genesis, but instead select a single, conservative interpretation to compare with my findings. I acknowledge that alternative interpretations of Genesis are valid, and may result in alternative conclusions. I hypothesize that a global flood of 5137 meters lasting for about one year would cause the extinction of all coral species including (a) mature coral attached to the bottom, (b) coral gametes suspended in the water, (c) coral planula larvae, and (d) pieces of mature coral that break free from the stationary colonies. If my hypothesis is demonstrated to be valid, it is unlikely that the proposed interpretation of Genesis could have taken place. 

Introduction

                In chapters 4-7 of Genesis, a cataclysmic flood is claimed to have taken place within the last 6000 years. According to Genesis, God decides to judge the earth for its wickedness by flooding it with water. However, God also decides to save a few humans and animals through a man named Noah, whom God instructs to build a massive ark. Once Noah completes his ark, God causes huge amounts of rain to fall and “opens the gates of the deep,” causing the water level to rise. Only Noah, his family, and any animals taken along survive the flood. After about one year the waters subside and Noah is able to disembark upon a cleansed earth (ESV Genesis 6-9).

                Due to the multiplicity of valid interpretations of Genesis, I have decided to develop an argument which is valid for almost every interpretation of Genesis which stays true to the text. According to Genesis, a flood took place which covered “all the highest mountains” (Genesis 7:19). This flood could have been global, covering all of the highest mountains on earth, or regional, covering all of the highest mountains in the region. However, even if the flood covered “only the mountains in the region”, sea level around the world would still have to rise to a level at least as high as these mountains. It is impossible to have a flood in which the highest mountains in a region are covered and sea level elsewhere is lower because water fills the container in which it resides. In short, a regional flood which covers mountains in one region may not result in total planetary submersion, but will cause a global flood equal to the height of those mountains.

                For the purposes of this inquiry, I have selected Mount Ararat (elevation 5,137 meters) as the highest of the mountains which would have been covered by the flood. I have selected Mount Ararat for two reasons. First, it is probably in the region that Genesis is talking about. Second, it is the highest mountain in the area, and would therefore be included in the category of “highest mountains” for the region. I acknowledge that peaks in other regions could have been the actual mountains covered by the flood, which could result in alternative conclusions. These alternative scenarios could be the subject for future study.

                In addition, I will make several assumptions which are necessary at this time for the sake of argument. First, I assume that Mount Ararat was at about the same elevation during Noah’s time as it is today. Second, I assume that sea levels before and after the flood were about equal. Third, I assume a somewhat uniform rate of sea level rise (5137 meters over 40 days and 40 nights) and a slower, more gradual decline in sea level which comes to completion about one year after the flood started. Fourth, I assume that currents generated by the flood would be capable of carrying water-bound coral very long distances. Fifth, I assume that after less than a year of growth in a new environment, coral species will still be capable of polyp bailout. In the future I hope to address these issues so that fewer assumptions are necessary.

While I will rely primarily on general information concerning coral, I have selected three representative species of coral when specific information is needed. These species are Diplori labyrinthiformis, Diploria strigosa, and Diploria clivosa.

The interpretation of Genesis 6-9 I use is as follows: Within the last 6000 years, God caused sea level to rise to a depth greater than 5000 meters in 40 days and 40 nights. After about 10 months, the water subsided to the level that it was before the flood.

Background

                 Coral are marine animals of the class Anthozoa and phylum Cnidaria. Coral generally live in colonies consisting of many identical polyps. They have the ability to capture prey using nematocysts, but primarily receive sustenance from symbiotic algae known as zooxanthellae. Because the zooxanthellae require light for photosynthesis, coral typically live in shallow, clear water. Coral reproduce sexually once a year, typically during the summer and fall months. . Coral reproduce sexually through either broadcast spawning or brooding. Broadcasting species discharge sperm and eggs into the water at specific times each year (Gleason). The positively buoyant gametes float to the surface, meet, and form zygotes. The zygotes develop into free-swimming planula larvae which settle on the bottom and become primary polyps. Over time the primary polyps grow and reproduce asexually until they are large enough to generate gametes of their own. Brooding species do not release eggs into the water. Rather, eggs are kept inside of the coral’s body and negatively buoyant sperm are discharged into the environment. Once the sperm reach the eggs,  planula larvae develop inside of the coral for some time before being released. The mature planula larvae swim away from the parent coral, find a place on the bottom to settle, and form a new colony. Coral can also reproduce asexually through fragmentation and parthenogenesis. Fragmentation occurs when a piece of coral breaks off from the colony and settles in a new location. Parthenogenesis takes place when unfertilized eggs transform into larvae (Richmond 176-178).

                Mature coral do not typically move, but through the process of polyp bailout coral can actively leave their skeletons behind, transform into swimming coral, and find a new location to settle (Richmond 176).

Methods

I conducted a keyword search on coral to find scientific literature using the Mendeley search engine.

They key words I used are as follows:

• Coral
• Coral reproduction
• Coral sexual reproduction
• Coral asexual reproduction
• Coral broadcasting
• Coral brooding
• Coral and temperature
• Coral and depth
• Coral and salinity
• Coral and pressure
• Coral and light
• Planula larvae
• Coral gametes
• Buoyancy of coral gametes
• Survivability of coral gametes
• Competency of planula larvae
• Timing of coral reproduction

After collecting scientific papers through my keyword search, I compiled information pertaining to the survival capabilities of mature coral, gametes, planula larvae, and pieces of mature coral that break free from the stationary colonies. My goal was to examine every potential venue for the survival of coral species.

I started by examining the effects of a 5,137 meter increase in depth on mature coral. I gathered information on the effects of depth increase on pressure, temperature, and light penetration. Next I gathered information on the expulsion of coral gametes during broadcast spawning, the motion of gametes through the water, and potential mechanisms for gamete survival and reproduction. I then found information pertaining to the motion of planula larvae produced by brooding corals. I focused on information concerning whether or not these larvae have tendencies to swim up towards the surface, down towards the bottom, or both sequentially. I also collected information pertaining to alternative forms of coral reproduction, including fragmentation and budding as they relate to potential mechanisms for coral survival. Finally, I determined the timing of spawning for three coral species: D. labyrinthiformis, D. clivosa, and D. strigosa. In future studies I hope to include information on additional coral species.

Results

For every increase in depth of 10 meters, pressure increases by 1 atm (Castro and Huber 48). Therefore, an increase in depth of 5,137 meters would cause the amount of pressure on all mature, stationary coral on the planet to increase by 513.7 atmospheres. Less drastic increases in depth (Less than 100 meters) have been shown to decrease the growth rates in coral (Logan).

As depth increases, temperature drops. As depth increases from the surface to 200 meters the temperature quickly decreases. As depth continues to increase past 200 meters the temperature continues to drop, but at a slower rate. Once the depth becomes greater than 1000 meters, the temperature remains fairly constant at a range of 0 to 5 degrees Celsius (Castro and Huber 52-54).

As depth increases, the amount of light able to penetrate decreases. The maximum depth at which photosynthesis occurs is about 200 meters, depending on how clear the water is. Some light can penetrate deeper than 200 meters, but it is not enough for photosynthesis. At depths greater than 1000 meters, no light penetrates (Castro and Huber 332).

Mature coral colonies attached to the bottom are not capable of avoiding the dramatic environmental changes introduced by the flood. Coral tissue which actively leaves the skeleton through polyp bailout, however, can swim through the water and change their location (Richmond 176).

During sexual reproduction through spawning, coral gametes are expelled into the water. Initially the gametes are positively buoyant and will rise to the surface. The gametes can potentially travel large distances. When sperm and eggs meet, they unite to form a planula larva which swims to the bottom to form a new colony (Richmond 187).

Brooding species expel only negatively buoyant sperm into the water. Eggs remain inside of the coral, waiting to be found by sperm. Once a sperm arrives, it unites with an egg to form a zygote. The zygote then becomes a planula larva which develops inside of the coral. After a period of development, the larva will exit the coral and swim until it finds a place to settle. For most species, once a planula larva settles on the bottom it commits to the location. However, for a few species, larvae can settle, decide that conditions are not right, transform back into a swimming larvae, and attempt to settle again. I did not find any instances in which a larvae could settle, switch locations, settle, and then switch locations again. The nutrient carrying ability of larvae limits the length of time that they can spend in the water without settling (Richmond 178-187).

D. strigosa and D. clivosa spawn anywhere from July to September. D. labyrinthiformis spawn anywhere from April to May. All three species are broadcasters which expel gametes once a year (Weil 417).

D. strigosa and D. clivosa have a minimum reproductive size over 100 square centimeters. D. labyrinthiformis has a minimum reproductive size over 50 square centimeters (Weil 417).

Discussion

Stationary coral that had been growing on the bottom before the flood would be subjected to a year-long increase in pressure of 513.7 atmospheres, a decrease in temperature to below 5 degrees Celsius, and the absence of light. These individuals would not have survived, leaving reef skeletons behind.

Mobile forms of coral have the potential to avoid these drastic environmental changes. In order for the gametes of broadcast spawners to survive, sea level rise due to the flood would have to correspond directly with the timing of gamete release into the environment. Positively buoyant gametes would be able to stay near the surface until gametes unite resulting in the formation of planula larvae, which swim towards the bottom to settle. It would not be impossible for currents to carry gametes and subsequent larvae quite far. While the vast majority of the broadcast spawner’s offspring would die, a unique combination of currents, species durability, avoidance of predators, and timing for the unification of sperm with eggs would make it possible for some of these coral to survive the initial sea level rise. Even though the timing of the flood (about one year) corresponds directly to the timing of spawning (once a year), any coral that survived the sea level rise due to broadcast spawning would not be able to produce gametes themselves because one year is not nearly enough time for single planulae larva to reach the minimum reproductive size. This does not, however, rule out the possibility of these corals reproducing asexually.

                Because of the differences in timing for spawning in D. strigosa and D. clivosa (Jul-Sep), compared to D. labyrinthiformis (Apr-May), and the rate at which the flood caused sea level rise (5137 meters over 40 days and 40 nights), it is unlikely that all three species would be able to send out potential survivors through broadcast spawning. If additional species of coral spawn at other times , then the number of coral species excluded from the window of opportunity during which coral could expel gametes will decrease. In short, if the timing is correct for certain species of coral, it will be incorrect for other species, in which case the gametes will be subjected to the increase in pressure, decrease in temperature, and decrease in light reception.

                Coral planulae which result from brooding species spend more time developing, which could potentially allow them to swim farther (Richmond 178-187). However, the larvae have a tendency to swim downwards in order to settle on the bottom. Depending on currents, it would be possible for a brooded planula spawned at the correct time to survive the initial rise in sea level and settle. As with broadcast spawning, however, a single year would not be long enough for settlement, development, and growth to the point that the brooding coral could produce gametes to brood.

When the water drops, any stationary coral that managed to settle in a place with appropriate depth, temperature, salinity, pH, and light (for example, near the peak of Mount Ararat or on the slopes of mountains around the world) would once again be killed due to lack of water. The only way for coral to survive would be to make it past the initial rise in sea level, settle and survive for a year, and then once again find a way to become mobile and make the long journey back as sea level dropped.

                It is important to note that brooding coral, like broadcasters, do not send out their planulae all at the same time (Weil 417). Once again, if the timing is correct for certain species of brooders, it will not be correct for other species, resulting in the death of 100% of either one group of species or the other.

                Two final ways for coral to become mobile and potentially survive the sea level rise both involve asexual reproduction. If pieces of coral broke free from the colony and were carried by currents up to a viable location, they could survive. I find this scenario extremely unlikely due to the negative buoyancy of coral structures.

                Some coral can also detach from the parent colony, transform into swimmers, and swim to alternate locations (Richmond 176). If currents were favorable, and the coral neglected to settle too early, they could potentially survive the sea level rise. This type of reproduction is extremely important to this inquiry because corals budding off of the parent colony could survive the decrease in sea level, unlike the processes of broadcasting and brooding.

Conclusions

It is certain that any stationary coral would die because of a year-long increase in pressure of 513.7 atmospheres, a decrease in temperature to below 5 degrees Celsius, and the coral would be well over 4000 meters below the photic zone.

The only way for all species of coral to survive the flood is through polyp bailout because it can take place at any time during the year and it provides a viable mechanism for surviving sea level decrease. Broadcast spawning (as well as parthenogenesis) and brooding may be more likely to allow some species of coral to survive the initial rise in sea level, but the timing of the flood would exclude species that do not expel gametes at the correct time. In addition, neither broadcast spawning nor brooding are viable mechanisms for surviving the decrease in sea level.

I neither reject nor confirm my hypothesis that a 5137 meter deep flood lasting for about one year would cause the extinction of coral at this point. However, I would strongly recommend readers to take into account the fact that polyp bailout is the only way for every species of coral to survive both the increase and decrease in water level (because it is the only method of survival that is not time sensitive). As opposed to broadcasting and parthenogenesis, polyp bailout is not a phenomenon in which an immense number of coral are ejected into the water. Polyp bailout is neither the standard method for reproduction, nor does it generate a large number of water-bound coral. Because of this, polyp bailout does not enjoy the increased odds of success due to sheer numbers. In future studies I will examine whether or not all species of coral are capable of polyp bailout, and whether or not a minimum size is required in order for polyp bailout to occur. In addition, I hope to determine the amount of time that gametes, larvae, and other forms of water-bound coral can survive before settling on the bottom.

Summary Table!

Survival method	Advantages	Disadvantages
Broadcast Spawning	·         Huge numbers	·         Time sensitive- if the timing allows one group of species to survive, another group will die. ·         Requires unification of sperm and egg ·         Once sperm and egg unite, they become negatively buoyant (the sink)
Brooding	·         Huge numbers ·         Increased maturity may allow for longer periods of time spent before settling ·         Sperm and eggs will unite before the larvae starts swimming	·         Time sensitive- if the timing allows one group of species to survive, another group will die. ·         Sperm are negatively buoyant ·         Larvae seek out the bottom to settle
Parthenogenesis	·         Huge numbers ·         Unification of sperm and eggs not required ·         Eggs will not become negatively buoyant due to merging with sperm ·         Eggs will spend more time suspended near the surface before changing into a larvae	·         Time sensitive- if the timing allows one group of species to survive, another group will die. ·         Once eggs do turn into larvae, they will become negatively buoyant (not as much of a disadvantage in this case)
Pieces of coral physically breaking off of the colony		·         Coral skeletons are negatively buoyant ·         Low numbers ·         Extreme currents required for any survival
Polyp Bailout	·         Not timing-sensitive ·         Coral are mobile	·         Low numbers ·         Larvae tend to seek out the bottom

 

Bibliography

Castro, Peter, and Michael E. Huber. Marine Biology. 8th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2010. Your Page Title. Web. 15 May 2012. <http://glencoe.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0011062009/student_view0/>.

English Standard Version Bible. London: Crossway, 2010.

Gleason, D. F., & Hofmann, D. K. (2011). Coral larvae: From gametes to recruits. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 408(1-2), 42-57. Elsevier B.V. doi:10.1016/j.jembe.2011.07.025

Logan, A., Yang, L., & Tomascik, T. (1994). Linear skeletal extension rates in two species of Diploria from high-latitude reefs in Bermuda. Coral Reefs, 13(4), 225-230.

Richmond, R. (1997). Reproduction and recruitment in corals: critical links in the persistence of reefs. Life and death of coral reefs. Chapman &amp; Hall,. Retrieved from http://www.kewalo.hawaii.edu/docs/richmond/Publications/1997Richmond.pdf

Weil, E., & Vargas, W. L. (2010). Comparative aspects of sexual reproduction in the Caribbean coral genus Diploria (Scleractinia: Faviidae). Marine Biology, 157(2), 413-426. doi:10.1007/s00227-009-1328-5