Intelligent Design, the best explanation of Origins
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.
Intelligent Design, the best explanation of Origins

This is my personal virtual library, where i collect information, which leads in my view to Intelligent Design as the best explanation of the origin of the physical Universe, life, and biodiversity

You are not connected. Please login or register

Intelligent Design, the best explanation of Origins » Astronomy & Cosmology and God » Fine tuning of the Universe

Fine tuning of the Universe

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3

Go down  Message [Page 3 of 3]

51Fine tuning of the Universe - Page 3 Empty Fine-Tuning Argument for God? on Sun Jun 07, 2020 4:03 pm


Fine-Tuning Argument for God? | Otangelo Vs Leophilius

Fine-Tuning Argument for God?

The fine-tuning of the laws and the constants of physics is one of the most extraordinary discoveries of the 20th century in physics. It makes a strong argument for design, which comes out of physics.

Albert Einstein
"The most incomprehensible thing about the Universe is that it is comprehensible"  

The more science advances, the more it discovers that the laws of physics and cosmological parameters must be finely tuned to permit a life-permitting universe.  Both the fundamental constants that describe the laws of physics and the cosmological parameters that determine the properties of our universe must fall within a range of values in order for the cosmos to develop astrophysical structures and ultimately the earth able to support life. The laws of physics need to have the right parameters to support the making of the building blocks that are needed for life to arise.

The thing that really does surprise us and which really does need explanation and that is the incredible improbability of the conditions that are necessary for our existence

We can make a syllogistic argument pointing to intelligent design as the best explanation of the fine-tuning of the universe. 

1.  The laws of physics and cosmological parameters are finely tuned to the extreme to permit life.  
2.  The fine-tuning of the universe is either due to chance, physical necessity, or intelligent design. 
3.  This fine-tuning is too improbable to be due to chance, and there was no physical necessity or constraint to permit only the parameters that actually exist. 
4.  Therefore, the fine-tuning is most likely due to intelligent design. 

The three possible explanations are

physical necessity
chance, or random, unguided natural events.

1. The initial conditions of the universe, subatomic particles, the Big Bang, the fundamental forces of the universe, the Solar System, the earth and the moon, are finely tuned to permit life. Over 150 fine-tuning parameters are known.
2. Finetuning is either due to chance, necessity, or design.
3. Finetuning is extremely unlikely due to chance. Neither had the parameters the necessity to be precisely what they are. Therefore, it is most probably due to a powerful creator which did set up the universe in the most precise exact fashion to permit life on earth.

"Incredulous" basically means "I don't believe it". Well, why should someone believe a "just so" story of the amazing capabilities of lucky accidents HOW the universe was finely adjusted to permit a life-permitting universe? That is the THING that i am incredulous about - a *certain scenario* ( natural, unguided lucky accidents precisely adjusted to an unimaginable extreme all laws of physics and cosmological parameters ) that's only *imagined* about how the amazing ability of lucky chaotic accidents defying known and reasonable principles of the limited range of chance, and physical necessity. There are a large number of constants that must be precisely adjusted. Codata lists about 360 different constants, which must precisely be tuned.

Fundamental Physical Constants --- Complete Listing 2018 CODATA adjustment

But the problem extends further, as John Gribbin and Martin Rees explain:
If we modify the value of one of the fundamental constants, something invariably goes wrong, leading to a universe that is inhospitable to life as we know it. When we adjust a second constant in an attempt to fix the problem(s), the result, generally, is to create three new problems for everyone that we “solve.” The conditions in our universe really do seem to be uniquely suitable for life forms like ourselves, and perhaps even for any form of organic chemistry.

Changes in the relative strengths of gravity and electromagnetism affect not only cosmological processes but also galaxies, stars, and planets. The strong and weak nuclear forces determine the composition of the universe and, thus, the properties of galaxies, stars, and planets. As a result, we ultimately can’t divorce the chemistry of life from planetary geophysics or stellar astrophysics. Although we have only scratched the surface, it should be clear that
there are many examples of “cosmic-scale” fine-tuning in chemistry, particle physics, astrophysics, and cosmology. Most published discussions of such fine-tuning are limited to the requirements for life, but cosmic finetuning
extends well beyond mere habitability.

A large cadre of researchers continues to make new discoveries of new parameters that have to be just right, at a regular basis. The materialistic mythology is that unguided random events explain why the universe operates based on mathematical principles and is finely adjusted to permit life on planet earth, but the system is far, far too complex to occur by accident, and requires that features to support many processes are required, making a path for its cosmic evolution very hard to surmise. Fine-tuning is the secret to a life-permitting universe. It's a whole bunch of puzzles we don't have answers for. The proponent of naturalism is "incredulous" that an intelligent creator/designer could exist, beyond and behind our entire space-time continuum, who is our Creator. But there is nothing ridiculous about that - especially if you can't personally examine reality to that depth - how do you know nature is all that exists? What IS ridiculous (IMO) is trying to imagine a *naturalistic origin* of this unimaginable precision. What we need, is giving a *plausible* account of how it came about to be in the first place, and the " No-God hypothesis" simply doesn't cut the cake.


Laws of physics:

The laws of physics are the 

Law of Universal Gravitation, 
Three Laws of Motion, 
Conservation of Mass and Energy, 
Laws of Thermodynamics, 
Electrostatic Laws

The laws of physics had to emerge with physical stuff at the same time. They are interdependent. There would not be one without the other. If there where not time, space, and matter, then the laws of physics would not have anything to enforce their mathematical laws upon. But physical stuff has to work upon these laws, forced upon them.

There is no scientific reason why there should be any laws at all. It would be perfectly logical for there to be chaos instead of order. Therefore the FACT of order itself suggests that somewhere at the bottom of all this there is a Mind at work. This Mind, which is uncaused, can be called 'God.' If someone asked me what's your definition of 'God', I would say 'That which is Uncaused and the source of all that is Caused.'

WH. McCrea
"The naive view implies that the universe suddenly came into existence and found a complete system of physical laws waiting to be obeyed. Actually, it seems more natural to suppose that the physical universe and the laws of physics are interdependent." —*

It seems to be one of the fundamental features of nature that fundamental physical laws are described in terms of a mathematical theory of great beauty and power, needing quite a high standard of mathematics for one to understand it. You may wonder: Why is nature constructed along these lines? One can only answer that our present knowledge seems to show that nature is so constructed. We simply have to accept it.

Paul Davies:
The universe obeys mathematical laws; they are like a hidden subtext in nature. Science reveals that there is a coherent scheme of things


Quark fine-tuning 

A quark is a type of elementary particle and a fundamental constituent of matter. 
A proton is composed of two up quarks, and one down quark. The mass of the down quark is slightly heavier than the up quark.
A neutron is made of two heavy down-quarks plus one light up-quark. Hence a neutron is a little heavier than a proton.

That heaviness has consequences. If if were not so,  the simplest atoms would not join and form molecules, and the universe would host no life.  More than 70 times heavier and there would be no life. While this may not seem too finely tuned, physics suggests that the down-quark could have been many trillions of times heavier. So we are actually left with the question: why does the down-quark appear so light?


A fine example of fine-tuning is the famous Higgs boson recently discovered in the atom smasher at CERN it's dubbed the god particle because it gives substance to all nature's other particles but it too is just right so that we can exist if the Higgs boson were not all so finely balanced in a similar way to the way the dark energy is that would be very dangerous because it would in effect mean that gravity was much stronger so the earth it would probably collapse into a black hole. The Higgs mass  requires fine-tuning on the order of 1-in-10^34


The four Fundamental Forces of nature
The gravitational force, The Strong Nuclear Force, The Weak Nuclear Force, The Electromagnetic Force, all four must be finely tuned for life. 

If the strong nuclear force were very slightly weaker by just one part in 10,000 billion billion billion billion, then protons and neutrons would not stick together, and the only element possible in the universe, would be hydrogen only.
The weak nuclear force is what controls the rates at which radioactive elements decay. If this force were slightly stronger, the matter would decay into the heavy elements in a relatively short time. However, if it were significantly weaker, all matter would almost totally exist in the form of the lightest elements, especially hydrogen and helium ---there would be (for example) virtually no oxygen, carbon or nitrogen, which are essential for life.

Were gravity not almost exactly 10^36 times weaker then we wouldn't be here.

Gravity also needs fine-tuning for stars and planets to form, and for stars to burn stably over billions of years. It is roughly 10^39 times weaker than electromagnetism. Had it been only 10^33 times weaker, stars would be a billion times less massive and would burn a million times faster.

The cosmos threatened to recollapse within a fraction of a second or else to expand so fast that galaxy formation would be impossible. To avoid these disasters its rate of expansion at early instants needed to be fine-tuned to perhaps one part in 10^55 (which is 10 followed by 54 zeros).

The electromagnetic force must be finely tuned in many different ways, in order for life in our universe, and on earth, to be possible.

1. If the electromagnetic force were weaker than it is, chemicals could not bond properly and there would be insufficient carbon and oxygen to support life.
2. The electromagnetic force needs to be much weaker than the strong nuclear force for atoms to be stable 
3. The electromagnetic radiation range produced by the sun must be precisely tuned to the energies of the various chemical bonds on Earth. 
4. Ratio of electromagnetic and gravitational forces must be right in 10^40
5. A precise number of electrons must exist in the universe. Unless the number of electrons is equivalent to the number of protons to at least an accuracy of one part in 10^37, electromagnetic forces in the universe would have to overcome gravitational forces that galaxies, stars, and planets never would have formed. 
6. Electromagnetic repulsion between protons prevents most of their collisions from resulting in proton-proton fusion, this explaining how stars can burn so slowly
7. Matching the radiation from the sun to the chemical bonding energy requires that the magnitude of six constants be selected and finely adjusted, guaranteeing that the photons are sufficiently energetic, but not too energetic.
8. Most UV wavelengths are absorbed by oxygen and ozone in Earth’s atmosphere. Absorption of light by either Earth's atmosphere or by water where the necessary chemical reactions occur could render life on Earth impossible.
9. Strangely enough, the electromagnetic radiation of the sun is restricted to a tiny region of the total electromagnetic spectrum, equivalent to one card in a deck of 10^25, and that the very same infinitely minute region is precisely that required for life. 
10. There's a unique, non-dimensional atomic constant in physics known as “alpha” or the “electromagnetic fine structure constant” which underpins the whole of nature, the form and structure of the whole universe. It is better known by its reciprocal number which is essentially equivalent to 1/137.
11. The Balance of the Strong and Electromagnetic Forces must be just right. 
12. Stars need to produce carbon and oxygen in comparable amounts.


Multi Fine-tuning
In most analyses of the fine-tuning of the force strengths and constants of nature, only one parameter is adjusted at a time (to make the problems more tractable). This would correspond to changing one dial at a time on our Universe-Creating Machine while leaving the other dials unchanged. Even taken individually, each of these examples of fine-tuning is impressive. But in the real universe, the values of all the constants and force strengths must be satisfied simultaneously to have a universe hospitable to life.

Arguably the most impressive cluster of fine-tuning occurs at the level of chemistry. In fact, chemistry appears to be “overdetermined” in the sense that there are not enough free physical parameters to determine the many chemical processes that must be just so.

Astronomer Virginia Trimble observed early in the debate on fine-tuning:
The changes in these properties required to produce the dire consequences are often several orders of magnitude, but the constraints are still nontrivial, given the very wide range of numbers involved. Efforts to avoid one problem by changing several of the constraints at once generally produce some other problem. Thus we apparently live in a rather delicately balanced universe, from the point of view of hospitality to chemical life.

John Gribbin and Martin Rees reach a similar conclusion:
If we modify the value of one of the fundamental constants, something invariably goes wrong, leading to a universe that is inhospitable to life as we know it. When we adjust a second constant in an attempt to fix the problem(s), the result, generally, is to create three new problems for everyone that we “solve.” The conditions in our universe really do seem to be uniquely suitable for life forms like ourselves, and perhaps even for any form of organic chemistry.

Changes in the relative strengths of gravity and electromagnetism affect not only cosmological processes but also galaxies, stars, and planets. The strong and weak nuclear forces determine the composition of the universe and, thus, the properties of galaxies, stars, and planets. As a result, we ultimately can’t divorce the chemistry of life from planetary geophysics or stellar astrophysics. Although we have only scratched the surface, it should be clear that
there are many examples of “cosmic-scale” fine-tuning in chemistry, particle physics, astrophysics, and cosmology. Most published discussions of such fine-tuning are limited to the requirements for life, but cosmic finetuning
extends well beyond mere habitability.


Martin Rees, just six numbers

According to Martin Reese, cosmologist of the English Royal family,  6 numbers  need to be fine-tuned in order to have a life-permitting universe.

Rees writes here:
These six numbers constitute a ‘recipe’ for a universe. Moreover, the outcome is sensitive to their values: if any one of them were to be ‘untuned’, there would be no stars and no life.

The cosmological parameters include the
1. If the density parameter Ω (omega),  one second after the big bang had varied by one part in a million billion,  the universe would not be expanding.

2. The measure of nuclear efficiency, epsilon ε, has a value of 0.007. If it had a value of 0.006 there would be no other elements: hydrogen could not fuse into helium and the stars could not have cooked up carbon, iron, complex chemistry and, ultimately, us. Had it been a bit higher, at 0.008, protons would have fused in the big bang, leaving no hydrogen to fuel future stars or to make water.

3. The dark matter contribution  delta (δ)

4. In the Big Bang nucleosynthesis the baryon-to-photon ratio (η), must be just right

5. If the amplitude of primordial density fluctuations (Q), the one part in 100,000 ratios between the rest mass energy of matter and the force of gravity were a lot smaller, gas would never condense into galaxies.

6. Then we have the cosmological constant lambda λ, is finely tuned to 10^123 – if it were different, the expansion rate of the universe would be different, if positive, cause space to expand at such an enormous rate that almost every object in the Universe would fly apart, and would, if negative, cause the Universe to collapse almost instantaneously back in on itself.

These quantities must have just-right values in order for the universe to host stars, planets, and heavy elements in the periodic table.  The earth must be big enough to hold onto an atmosphere.


As Cambridge astronomer Fred Hoyle wrote: "Some super-calculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the chance of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be utterly minuscule. A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."

If the Holye state didn’t exist, stars could not produce the abundance of carbon they do. Life is carbon-based. 

it seems to me the same being that created space matter in time is the same being that fine-tuned the expansion rate to be precisely what it needed to be the gravitational force if we altered that by any more than one part in 10
to the 40th power we wouldn't be here what's one part in 10 to the 40th power?


Exemplifications of fine-tuning
take a tape measure and stretch it across the entire known universe that's a long way set the gravitational force at a particular inch mark on that tape measure I realize gravity's not measured in inches but this just give you a scale idea in your mind if the strength of gravity were different by one inch in either direction across a scale as wide as the entire known universe we wouldn't be here that's one in 10 to the 40th precision I don't have enough faith to believe at that value just landed there by chance

This probability is hard to imagine but an illustration may help. Imagine covering the whole of the USA with small coins, edge to edge. Now imagine piling other coins on each of these millions of coins. Now imagine continuing to pile coins on each coin until reaching the moon about 400,000 km away! If you were told that within this vast mountain of coins there was one coin different to all the others. The statistical chance of finding that one coin is about 1 in 10^55 . In other words, the evidence that our universe is designed is overwhelming!


Fine-tuning of the Solar system: 

Our sun is placed at the right distance from our galactic center
Our sun is placed in an arm of the Milky way where we can see and discover the universe


Our sun 
has the right mass, gives off the right amount of energy, its fusion reaction is finely tuned, contains the right amount of life requiring metals, is uncommonly stable, 


Our moon

If ther moon would not exist :

The day would be eight hours long.
The winds would be much stronger.
Complex life would probably not exist.

- the Moon's distance from the Earth provides tides to keep life thriving in our oceans. If Earth did not have a large revolving moon, we would have no tides, causing the ocean waters to remain stagnant and produce no oxygen for its creatures.
- the Moon's mass helps stabilize the Earth's tilt on its axis, which provides for the diversity of alternating seasons
- the Moon's nearly circular orbit (eccentricity ~ 0.05) makes it's influence extraordinarily reliable
- the Moon is 1/400th the size of the Sun, and at 1/400th its distance, enables educational perfect eclipses

If Earth had no Moon, we wouldn’t be here. 
A large moon stabilizes the rotation axis of the earth, yielding a more stable, life-friendly climate. Our Moon keeps Earth’s axial tilt, from varying over a large range. A larger tilt would cause larger climate fluctuations.At present, Earth tilts 23.5 degrees. 

The moon produces a physical effect over planet Earth, and it is the cause of the rise and fall of the tides.  The tides mix nutrients from the land with the oceans

Our planet rotates completely on its own axis once every 24 hours. But without the presence of the moon and its gravitational effect, the Earth would complete a rotation every 8 hours instead of 24, so one year on Earth would consist of 1095 days of 8 hours each. With a rotational speed as high as this, the winds would be much more powerful and violent than we know today, the atmosphere would have much more oxygen and the planet’s magnetic field would be three times more intense. Under these so different conditions, it is reasonable to assume that if plant and animal life would have developed, it would have evolved completely differently than it actually has. The 24-hour days in the rotation of our planet greatly favors the life forms that inhabit it, since the temperature variations are not too abrupt in the transition from day to night, as they would be in days of only 8 hours.

The sun and moon are roughly the same size in the sky when viewed from Earth. This means that, when we are lined up just right, the moon blocks the sun entirely, resulting in a total solar eclipse. We have accepted that there is no scientific reason for this.  There is nothing in physics that says the Moon and Sun must appear the same size in our skies. In fact, our Moon is the only satellite in our system that even comes close to doing this. It is truly amazing that the Moon and Sun discs match up—and they won’t forever as the Moon is slowly moving away from the Earth. A look at any total solar eclipse is proof of the astronomically unlikely situation that the Sun is 400 times larger than the Moon and 400 times farther away from Earth than the Moon. 1


Fine-tuning of the earth

The earth requires the right size and gravity. 
If the sun where closer to the earth, we would burn up; if farther away we would freeze. 
The earth requires to be tilted at 23 degrees
What we see is a planet that is perfectly balanced for our habitation. We see design in the perfect balance.
Many chemical processes necessary for life are dependent on elements we call ‘rare earth’ minerals. These only exist as ‘trace’ amounts, but without which life could not continue.

the Earth's has a just-right ozone layer which filters out ultraviolet radiation and helps mitigate temperature swings
the Earth's surface gravity strength preventing the atmosphere from losing water to space too rapidly
the Earth's spin rate on its axis provides for a range of day and nightime temperatures to allow life to thrive
the atmosphere's composition (oxygen, nitrogren, etc.) is just right for life
the atmosphere's pressure enables our lungs to function and water to evaporate at an optimal rate to support life
the atmosphere's transparency to allow an optimal range of life-giving solar radiation to reach the surface
the atmosphere's capacity to hold water vapor providing for stable temperature and rainfall ranges  
efficient life-giving photosynthesis depends on quantum physics
The earth requires sufficient amount of water. 
the water molecule's astounding robustness results from finely balanced quantum effects. "Water's life-giving properties exist on a knife-edge. It turns out that life as we know it relies on incredibly delicate, balance of quantum forces. 
water is an unrivaled solvent; its low viscosity permits the tiniest blood vessels; its high specific heat stabilizes biosphere temperatures; its low thermal conductivity as a solid insulates frozen-over lakes and as a liquid its high conductivity lets organisms distribute heat; its an efficient lubricant; is only mildly reactive; has an anomalous (fish-saving) expansion when it freezes; its high vapor tension keeps moisture in the atmosphere; and it tastes great too!
VOLCANIC ACTIVITY: Volcanic activity is responsible for bringing heaver elements and gasses to the surface, as well as oxygen. Without this activity, the planet would never have sustained life in the first place.
EARTH’S MAGNETIC FIELD: We are bombarded daily with deadly rays from the sun, but are protected by the earth’s magnetic field.
SEASONS: Because of the earths tilt, we have seasons, and no part of the earth is extremely hot or cold. The seasons have balancing effect of the temperature on the surface and cause the winds and sea currents which we and all life depend on for a temperate climate.

Last edited by Admin on Thu Jun 11, 2020 2:53 am; edited 16 times in total

52Fine tuning of the Universe - Page 3 Empty Re: Fine tuning of the Universe on Mon Jun 08, 2020 8:45 am


The weak anthropic principle
Physical necessity

Douglas Adam's Puddle thinking

The weak anthropic principle is just tautological. It just says the same thing twice.

Physical necessity:
On the very face of it, this is an extraordinarily implausible explanation of the fine tuning. It would require us to say that a life-prohibiting universe is physically impossible – such a thing could not exist. And that is an extremely radical view. Why take such a radical position? The constants, as we have seen, are not determined by the laws of nature. Nature’s laws could hold, and the constants could take any of a wide range of values, so there is nothing about the laws of nature that require the constants to have the values that they do.

Arbitrary Quantities
As for the arbitrary quantities, remember those are completely independent of the laws of nature – they are just put in as initial conditions on which the laws of nature then operate. Nothing seems to make these quantities necessary in the values they have. The opponent of design is taking a very radical line which would require some sort of evidence, some sort of proof. But there isn’t any proof that these constants and quantities are physically necessary. This alternative is just put forth as a bare possibility; and possibilities come cheap. What we are looking for is probabilities or plausibilities, and there just isn’t any evidence that the constants and quantities are physically necessary in the way that this alternative imagines.

Puddle thinking
Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking…” He doesn’t seem to realize that, in order for a puddle to wake up and think its first thought, a vast number of interconnected and incredibly unlikely coincidences have to occur.

The Big Bang had to happen, and the Big Bang had to explode with just the right amount of force to allow matter to disperse and allow galaxies to form. Had the Big Bang not been precisely fine-tuned, our universe might consist of nothing but tenuous hydrogen gas—or a single supermassive black hole. The laws of nature had to be laid down at the instant of the Big Bang, and had to be fine-tuned to an accuracy of one part in the trillions before the universe itself could exist, much less a contemplative puddle.

The electromagnetic force, the gravitational force, the strong nuclear force, and the weak nuclear force all had to be perfectly balanced in order for stars to form and begin cooking up the elements needed to make planets—silicon, nickel, iron, oxygen, magnesium, and so forth. Adams’ pensive puddle could not find itself sitting in “an interesting hole” unless the hole was situated on a planet orbiting a star that was part of a galaxy that was created by the incredibly fine-tuned forces and conditions of the Big Bang.

And in order for that puddle to wake up one morning and think at all, it would need to be a lot more complex than a mere puddle of water. A thinking puddle would be a very complex puddle. Even if that puddle were comprised of exotic alien nerve cells suspended in a matrix of liquid ammonia, it would certainly need something like lipid molecules and protein structures and nucleic acids in order to become sufficiently evolved as to wake up and contemplate its own existence.

Such components require the existence of carbon. And if you know anything about where carbon comes from, you know that carbon doesn’t grow on trees. It is formed in an amazingly fine-tuned process involving the precise placement of a nuclear resonance level in a beryllium atom. Any enlightened plashet would have to conclude that a superintellect had monkeyed with physics, chemistry, and the biological composition of pools and puddles.

The rest of Douglas Adams’ scenario, in which “the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and … the puddle gets smaller and smaller” is meaningless in view of the fact that dozens and dozens of events, forces, and conditions have to interact in a fine-tuned way in order for the sun to exist, the air to exist, the sky to exist, and the hole in the ground to exist, so that a puddle can wake up one morning and wonder about its place in the cosmic order.

No analogy is perfect, of course, but The Puddle Analogy is downright misleading. It misrepresents the essence of the fine-tuning argument. An analogy should simplify, but not over-simplify.

Is the universe hostile to life?
The fact to be explained is why the universe is life-permitting rather than life-prohibiting.

It should be obvious by now that the fine-tuning argument holds in the relation to the universe as a whole, and is not meant to address the question of why you cannot live on the sun or breathe on the moon. Of course, sources of energy (stars) are needed to drive life and evolution, and of course, you cannot live on them. Nor can you live in the, by necessity, frighteningly large stretches of empty space between them and planets. So what is the point? Nobody would deny that the light bulb is an invention that greatly enhances modern life. But when you would try to hold your hand around a light bulb that is turned on, you would burn it to pieces. Is the light bulb then "hostile to life"? Certainly not. This modest example, however, indicates how utterly irrelevant the argument really is – one of those false arguments that appear to be brought forth and rehashed solely in order to avoid the deeper issues. 3

The "many-universes generator" seems like it would need to be designed. For instance, in all current worked-out proposals for what this "universe generator" could be--such as the oscillating big bang and the vacuum fluctuation models explained above--the "generator" itself is governed by a complex set of physical laws that allow it to produce the universes.

Now let's suppose there was a multiverse generator. He would have had to make up to 10^123 attempts to get one universe with the right expansion rate. He would have made 10^18 attempts after 30 billion years.
Once he had that right, to get a universe with atoms, he would have to make the following number of trials:
the right Ratio of Electrons: Protons 1:10^37
Ratio of Electromagnetic Force: Gravity 1:10^40
If a multiverse generator existed, he must have been VERY busy in the last trillion trillion trillion years to get out only our universe......
does that make sense?

Life on other planets
This log log prior can handle a very wide range of PETI values, from 1 to 1010^122 while remaining responsive to evidence about extraterrestrial societies.

53Fine tuning of the Universe - Page 3 Empty Re: Fine tuning of the Universe on Fri Nov 06, 2020 1:46 pm


Evidence for Fine-Tuning
Thanks to impressive progress in both cosmology and (sub) nuclear physics, over the second half of the 20th Century it began to be realized that the above scenario is predicated on seemingly exquisite fine-tuning of some of the constants of Nature and initial conditions of the Universe. We just give some of the best known and best understood cases here.

One of the first examples was the ‘Beryllium bottleneck’ studied by Hoyle in 1951, which is concerned with the mechanism through which stars produce carbon and oxygen.11 This was not only a major correct scientific prediction based on ‘anthropic reasoning’ in the sense that some previously unknown physical effect (viz. the energy level in question) had to exist in order to explain some crucial condition for life; it involves dramatic fine-tuning, too, in that the nucleon-nucleon force must lie near its actual strength within about one part in a thousand in order to obtain the observed abundances of carbon and oxygen, which happen to be the right amounts needed for life .

Another well-understood example from nuclear physics is the mass difference between protons and neutrons, or, more precisely, between the down quark and the up quark. This mass difference is positive (making the neutron
heavier than the proton); if it weren’t, the proton would fall apart and there would be no chemistry as we know it. On the other hand, the difference can’t be too large, for otherwise stars (or hydrogen bombs, for that matter) could not be fueled by nuclear fusion and stars like our Sun would not exist. Both require a fine-tuning of the mass difference by about 10 %.

Moving from fundamental forces to initial conditions, the solar system seems fine-tuned for life in various ways, most notably in the distance between the Sun and the Earth: if this had been greater (or smaller) by at most a few precent it would have been too cold (or too hot) for at least complex life to develop. Furthermore, to that effect the solar system must remain stable for billions of years, and after the first billion years or so the Earth should not be hit by comets or asteroids too often. Both conditions are sensitive to the precise number and configuration of the planets.

Turning from the solar system to initial conditions of our Universe, but still staying safely within the realm of well-understood physics and cosmology, Rees and others have drawn attention to the fine-tuning of another cosmological number called Q, which gives the size of inhomogeneities, or ‘ripples’, in the early Universe and is of the order Q * 0.00001, or one part in a hundred thousand. This parameter is fine-tuned by a factor of about ten on both sides: if it had been less than a tenth of its current value, then no galaxies would have been formed (and hence no stars and planets). If, on the other hand, it had been more than ten times its actual value, then matter would have been too lumpy, so that there wouldn’t be any stars (and planets) either, but only black holes. Either way, a key condition for life would be violated.

The expansion of the Universe is controlled by a number called Ω, defined as the ratio between the actual matter density in the Universe and the so-called critical density. If Ω ≤ 1, then the Universe would expand forever, whereas Ω > 1 would portend a recollapse. Thus Ω = 1 is a critical point. It is remarkable enough that currently Ω ≈ 1 (within a few percent); what is astonishing is that this is the case at such a high age of the Universe. Namely, for Ω to retain its (almost) critical value for billions of years, it must have had this value right from the very beginning to a precision of at least 55 decimal places.This leads us straight to Einstein’s cosmological constant Λ, which he introduced into his theory of gravity in 1917 in order to (at least theoretically) stabilize the Universe against contracting or expanding, to subsequently delete it in 1929 after Hubble’s landmark observation of the expansion of the Universe (famously calling its introduction his “biggest blunder”). Ironically, Λ made a come-back in 1998 as the leading theoretical explanation of the (empirical) discovery that the expansion of the Universe is currently accelerating. For us, the point is that even the currently accepted value of Λ remains very close to zero, whereas according to (quantum field) theory it should be about 55 (some even say 120) orders of magnitude larger. This is often seen as a fine-tuning problem, because some compensating mechanism must be at work to cancel its very large natural value with a precision of (once again) 55 decimal places. The fine-tuning of all numbers considered so far seems to be dwarfed by a knock-down FTA given by Roger Penrose, who claims that in order to produce a Universe that even very roughly looks like ours, its initial conditions (among some generic set) must have been fine-tuned with a precision of one to 10^123 , arguably the largest number ever conceived: all atoms in the Universe would not suffice to write it out in full. Penrose’s argument is an extreme version of an idea originally due to Boltzmann, who near the end of the 19th Century argued that the direction of time is a consequence of the increase of entropy in the future but not in the past, which requires an extremely unlikely initial state. However, this kind of reasoning is as brilliant as it is controversial. More generally, the more extreme the asserted fine-tuning is, the more adventurous the underlying arguments are (or so we think). To be on the safe side, the fine-tuning of Ω, Λ, and Penrose’s initial condition should perhaps be ignored, leaving us with the other examples. But these should certainly suffice to make a case for fine-tuning that is serious enough to urge the reader to at least make a bet on one the five options listed above.

Sponsored content

Back to top  Message [Page 3 of 3]

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum