Defending the Christian Worldview, Creationism, and Intelligent Design
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.
Defending the Christian Worldview, Creationism, and Intelligent Design

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


You are not connected. Please login or register

Defending the Christian Worldview, Creationism, and Intelligent Design » Astronomy & Cosmology and God » Quantum and particle physics » Fine-tuning of atoms

Fine-tuning of atoms

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

1Fine-tuning of atoms Empty Fine-tuning of atoms Mon Dec 17, 2018 3:20 pm

Otangelo


Admin

Fine-tuning of atoms 

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2763-fine-tuning-of-atoms

Planck: As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear-headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force that brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together.

Leonard Susskind The Cosmic Landscape: String Theory and the Illusion of Intelligent Design 2006, page 176
Complex atomic nuclei are not likely to result from random collisions of particles, even in the early hot universe.
https://3lib.net/book/2472017/1d5be1

Why Fine-tuning Seems Designed
Free (three quarks) positive protons and electrons could just join up, and given their opposite electric charges. It could also have been that an equal number of electrons and protons had been formed post-Big Bang then the cosmos would be a soup on neutrons and perhaps neutrinos, but that would then be pretty much that.  How is it that an electron, protons, and neutrons can arrange themselves just so as to eventually produce macro stuff, including us? How to go from particle physics to chemistry?
https://www.closertotruth.com/series/why-fine-tuning-seems-designed

Man Ho Chan The fine-tuned universe and the existence of God 5-24-2017
In the period called Big Bang Nucleosynthesis, hydrogen, helium, and a tiny amount of lithium were formed in the first three minutes since Big Bang.
https://philarchive.org/archive/CHATFU-2

A More Finely Tuned Universe
Why do fundamental particles possess the specific values of mass that they have? Presently, physicists have no explanation for this and similar questions.   If the masses of particles or the values of fundamental constants were much different from what physicists have measured, carbon-based intelligent beings might not be here to measure them, because fundamental particles might not assemble into stable atoms, atoms might not form rocky planets and dying stars might not produce the chemical elements we find in our bodies.
https://www.insidescience.org/news/more-finely-tuned-universe

The mass of the proton and the neutron as an example of fine-tuning for life
Protons have a mass of 938.27 MeV. Neutrons have a mass of 939.56 MeV. The difference between them is small: a neutron is about 1.29 MeV heavier than a proton. There is no obvious reason why protons and neutrons should have just these masses, but if they were even slightly different, we wouldn’t be here.  
http://www.focus.org.uk/proton_neutron.php

Paul Davies Yes, the universe looks like a fix. But that doesn't mean that a god fixed it 26 Jun 2007
For example, neutrons are just a tad heavier than protons. If it were the other way around, atoms couldn't exist, because all the protons in the universe would have decayed into neutrons shortly after the big bang. No protons, then no atomic nuclei, and no atoms. No atoms, no chemistry, no life. Like Baby Bear's porridge in the story of Goldilocks, the universe seems to be just right for life. So what's going on?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2007/jun/26/spaceexploration.comment

Nigel Warburton: Is the Universe a conscious mind? August 2019.
The strong nuclear force (the force that binds together the elements in the nucleus of an atom) has a value of 0.007. If that value had been 0.006 or less, the Universe would have contained nothing but hydrogen. If it had been 0.008 or higher, the hydrogen would have fused to make heavier elements. In either case, any kind of chemical complexity would have been physically impossible. And without chemical complexity there can be no life. 
https://aeon.co/essays/cosmopsychism-explains-why-the-universe-is-fine-tuned-for-life

Stephen C. Meyer: The return of the God hypothesis, page 185
For instance, to make life possible, the masses of the fundamental particles must meet an exacting combination of constraints. There is the fine-tuning of the masses of the two naturally occurring quarks, the up quark and down quark, in relation to the range of expected possible values. The fine-tuning of the masses of those quarks are considerable: 1 part in 10^21 . In addition, the difference in masses between the quarks cannot exceed one megaelectron volt, the equivalent of one-thousandth of 1 percent of the mass of the largest known quark, without producing either a neutron-only or a proton-only universe, both exceedingly boring and incompatible with life and even with simple chemistry. Equally problematic, increasing the mass of electrons by a factor of 2.5 would result in all the protons in all the atoms capturing all the orbiting electrons and turning them into neutrons. In that case, neither atoms, nor chemistry, nor life could exist. What’s more, the mass of the electron has to be less than the difference between the masses of the neutron and the proton and that difference represents fine-tuning of roughly 1 part in a 1000. In addition, if the mass of a special particle known as a neutrino were increased by a factor of 10, stars and galaxies would never have formed. The mass of a neutrino is about one-millionth that of an electron, so the allowable change is minuscule compared to its possible range. The combination of all these precisely fine-tuned conditions—including the fine-tuning of the laws and constants of physics, the initial arrangement of matter and energy, and various other contingent features of the universe —presents a remarkably restrictive set of criteria. These requirements for the existence of life, again defying our ability to describe their extreme improbability, have seemed to many physicists to require some explanation.

Strikingly, the masses of “up quarks” and “down quarks,” the constituent parts of protons and neutrons, need to have precise values to allow for the production of the elements, including carbon, essential for a life-friendly universe. Indeed, the masses of these quarks must have simultaneously nine different conditions for the right nuclear reactions to have occurred in the early universe. The “right” reactions are ones that would produce the right elements (such as carbon and oxygen) in the right abundance necessary for life. The fine-tuning of the masses of these two naturally occurring quarks in relation to the range of expected possible values for the mass of any fundamental particle is exquisite. Physicists conceive of that range as extending between a mass of zero and the so-called Planck mass, an important unit of measure in quantum physics. But the value of the “up quark” must have a precise mass of between zero and just one billion trillionth of the Planck mass, corresponding to a fine-tuning of roughly 1 part in 10^21. The mass of the “down quark” must have a similarly precise fine-tuning.
https://3lib.net/book/15644088/9c418b

Brad Lemley Why is There Life? November 01, 2000
Of Rees's six numbers, two relate to basic forces, two determine the size and large-scale texture of the universe, and two fix the properties of space itself. 
Fine-tuning of atoms Epsilon, the .007 figure, which describes the strength of the force that binds atomic nuclei together and determines how all atoms on Earth are made.
https://web.archive.org/web/20140722210250/http://discovermagazine.com/2000/nov/cover/

Consider the ingredients you need:
The strong nuclear force particles;
The weak nuclear force particles;
The electromagnetic force particles;
Up-quarks and  down-quarks

Luke A. Barnes The Fine-Tuning of the Universe for Intelligent Life  June 11, 2012
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1112.4647.pdf
Fine-tuning of atoms The_fi11
The life-permitting region (shown in white) in the (α, β) (left) and (α, αs) (right) parameter space, with other constants held at their values in our universe. Our universe is shown as a blue cross. 

1. For hydrogen to exist — to power stars and form water and organic compounds — we must have mass electron < mass neutron − mass proton. Otherwise, the electron will be captured by the proton to form a neutron 
2. For stable atoms, we need the radius of the electron orbit to be significantly larger than the nuclear radius. 
3. We require that the typical energy of chemical reactions is much smaller than the typical energy of nuclear reactions. This ensures that the atomic constituents of chemical species maintain their identity in chemical reactions.
4. Unless β 1/4 << 1, stable ordered molecular structures (like chromosomes) are not stable. The atoms will too easily stray from their place in the lattice and the substance will spontaneously melt 
5. The stability of the proton requires α . ( down quark md − up quark mu)/141 MeV, so that the extra electromagnetic mass-energy of a proton relative to a neutron is more than counter-balanced by the bare quark masses 
6. Unless α << 1, the electrons in atoms and molecules are unstable to the creation of pairs. The limit shown is α < 0.2.. 
7. As in Equation 10, stars will not be stable unless β & α 2/100. 
8. Unless αs/αs,0 . 1.003 + 0.031α/α0, the diproton has a bound state, which affects stellar burning and big bang nucleosynthesis. 
9. Unless αs . 0.3α 1/2 , carbon and all larger elements are unstable 
10. Unless αs/αs,0 & 0.91, the deuteron is unstable and the main nuclear reaction in stars (pp) does not proceed. A similar effect would be achieved35 unless md − mu + me < 3.4 MeV which makes the pp reaction energetically unfavourable. This region is numerically very similar to Region 1 in the left plot.

Fine-tuning of atoms Anthro10
Parameter space of the masses of the up and down quark. The axes span ∼ 60 orders of magnitude.
Fine-tuning of atoms The_ri12
The figure  zooms in on a region of parameter space, showing boundaries of 9 independent life-permitting criteria
Each point on the graph corresponds to possible values for the masses of the up and down quarks (Mu , Md ). The masses are scaled by the Planck mass, Mpl , since Planck units are the most natural in cosmology. Each of the nine lines on the graph separate the regions corresponding to life-permitting and non-life-permitting universes for a specific criterion such as allowing for the existence of stable protons. In a universe capable of supporting life, all nine criteria must be met simultaneously, so the life-permitting region is the intersection of all nine life-permitting regions, marked in gray. That area corresponds to a minuscule proportion of all plausible values. 

1. Above the blue line, there is only one stable element, which consists of a single particle ∆++. This element has the chemistry of helium, an inert, monatomic gas (above 4 K) with no known stable chemical compounds. 
2. Above this red line, the deuteron is strongly unstable, decaying via the strong force. The first step in stellar nucleosynthesis in hydrogen-burning stars would fail. 
3. Above the green curve, neutrons in nuclei decay, so that hydrogen is the only stable element. 
4. Below this red curve, the diproton is stable15. Two protons can fuse to helium-2 via a very fast electromagnetic reaction, rather than the much slower, weak nuclear pp-chain. 
5. Above this red line, the production of deuterium in stars absorbs energy rather than releasing it. Also, the deuterium is unstable to weak decay. 
6. Below this red line, a proton in a nucleus can capture an orbiting electron and become a neutron. Thus, atoms are unstable. 
7. Below the orange curve, isolated protons are unstable, leaving no hydrogen left over from the early universe to power long-lived stars and play a crucial role in organic chemistry. 
8. Below this green curve, protons in nuclei decay, so that any atoms that formed would disintegrate into a cloud of neutrons. 
9. Below this blue line, the only stable element consists of a single particle ∆−, which can combine with a positron to produce an element with the chemistry of hydrogen. A handful of chemical reactions are possible, with their most complex product being (an analogue of) H2.

Why Cosmic Fine-tuning Demands Explanation
Fine-tuning is necessary in order to form the protons and the neutrons; and of course electrons. And all of these bits and pieces have to mesh like a clock - or even a watch. You can't just assemble these bits and pieces in just any old way and expect things to work out. These processes have nothing to do with the emergence of atoms from the fundamental particles, forces and fields that form the bedrock of the atomic realm. It's all governed by the laws, principles and relationships of quantum mechanics, all of which had to come from somewhere or from someone or from something. For example, there's the Pauli Exclusion Principle which requires that not more than two electrons can occupy exactly the same 'orbit' and then only if they have differing quantum values, like spin-up and spin-down. This prevents all electrons being together like commuters crowded into a Tokyo subway carriage at rush hour. Then there's the energy levels that electrons are allowed to have while 'orbiting' around the nucleus. That can be in this level or that level or the next level but not at in-between levels. This prevents electrons from spiraling down and impacting the positively charged nucleus which, being negatively charged, electrons would otherwise want to do. Design and fine-tuning by any other name still appears to be design and fine-tuning.

Consider further that the partial (fractional) electrical charges on the up-quarks and the down-quarks had to arrange themselves just-so such that a proton is a unity of positive electric charge and a neutron is a unity of electric charge neutrality. Then, the positive electric charge on the proton has to balance just so (to an infinite number of decimal places, at least as close to infinity as one can actually measure and calculate) the negative electric charge of the electron. How can the electric charge of the electron be EXACTLY equal and opposite to that of the proton when they otherwise share nothing in common?

If hydrogen atoms couldn't link up with oxygen atoms there could be no water and no water implies no life could arise. The same applies to dozens of other essential molecules that life requires.

On the other hand, why isn't there a universal solvent or acid that disassembles molecules? Everything can be stored in at least one kind of container. That too seems to be essential for life as is the requirement that some things need to be in solution some of the time. An atom is literally 99.99% empty space. And the part which supposedly is matter, might be just pure energy. And as such, the whole universe is simply held together by Gods power and his word: information.

Who fine-tuned the atomic parameters? Why fine-tuning? Well fine-tuning implies that something(s) exist against all the odds. Fine-tuning requires a tuner. The universe started with the design and fine-tuned engineering of the humble atom
https://www.closertotruth.com/series/why-cosmic-fine-tuning-demands-explanation

Sean D. Pitman, MD: The Detection of Intelligent Design Simple Stuff Mindless Nature Cannot Do
The proton mass is 1836 times that of an electron.  If this ratio were off even slightly, molecules would not form properly.  It is also interesting to note that although protons are very different in size and mass, the charges are exactly the same in opposite degree.  If this were not the case, again, molecules necessary to support complex life could not form.  The same is true of the electromagnetic coupling constant between protons and electrons - it is very precisely balanced to support complex life. 
http://www.detectingdesign.com/detectingdesign.html

John Prytz: Is The Atom An Example Of Cosmic Design And Fine-Tuning? Feb.7.2016
The electron, the proton, and the quark are all entities within the realm of particle hence quantum physics. All three carry an electrical charge. All three have mass. After those observations, things get interesting, or messy, depending on your point of view. The electric charge of the proton is exactly equal and the opposite of the electric charge on the electron, despite the proton being nearly 2000 times more massive. There’s no set-in-concrete theoretical reason why this should be so. It cannot be determined from first principles, only experimentally measured.  An electron has a negative charge exactly equal and opposite to that of a proton. Note: the charge is exactly equal, even though the proton has a far greater mass than the electron (some 2000 times heavier in fact, not that there has to be of necessity any relationship between mass and charge).

Now that’s strange since the electron is a fundamental particle but the positively charged proton is a composite particle, made up of a trio of quarks (as is the neutron with no net charge). The proton has two quarks each with a positive 2/3rds charge (up quark) and one quark with a negative 1/3rd charge (down quark) for an overall balance of one positive charge. (The neutron, on the other hand, has one up quark with a positive 2/3rds charge and two down quarks each with a negative 1/3rd charge, for an overall balance of zero charge – neither positive nor negative.)

Now you might suggest that an electron might be a fusion of a trio of down quarks, each with a negative 1/3rd charge, except the electron, again, isn’t a composite particle, and the mass is all wrong for that scenario. If an electron were a composite of a trio of down quarks, each with a minus 1/3rd charge, the electron would be thirty times more massive than it is – not something particle physicists would fail to take notice of.

Further, the force particle that governs the electron is the photon; that which governs the quarks inside the proton and the neutron is the gluon, which further differentiates the two things – quarks and electrons. In any event, if you could have a composite particle of a trio of negative 1/3rd down quarks, if that were the case, and it is the case, and it’s called the Negative Delta, you’d also need a composite particle that’s the fusion of a trio of positive 2/3rds up quarks for an overall charge of plus two. To the best of my knowledge, there is only one such critter in the particle zoo and it’s called the Doubly Positive Delta. I’m sure you’ve never heard of these Delta particles, which goes to show how much bearing or impact they have on life, the Universe, and everything.

In case you were wondering, there would be an anti-quark of minus 2/3rds charge, and an anti-quark of a positive 1/3rd charge, to yield an antiproton and an anti-neutron. The anti-proton would of course have an equal and opposite charge to the anti-electron (which has a formal name – the position). So things are equally as mysterious in the realm of the anti-world.
https://www.scientificexploration.org/forum/is-the-atom-an-example-of-cosmic-design-and-fine-tuning?fbclid=IwAR25Qb-8HnDFbuvaKqSfJBuRTJ0QahExap_tg93SwZnHljdZcgBJMYpTDy0

Question: How do you get 1/3rd or 2/3rds of an electric charge in any event? Of course one could just multiply by three and that does away with the fractions, but that doesn’t resolve the larger issues, like for that matter, what exactly is electric charge and how does it come to be?

Is the Universe Fine Tuned for Life?
The Right Atoms
In order for life to be possible, sufficient quantities of essential elements must be available – which means atoms of various sizes must be able to form.  For that to occur, other delicate balances must exist among the constants of physics – the strong and weak nuclear forces, gravity, and nuclear ground state energies.*
The strong nuclear force is the force which governs he degree to which protons and neutrons “stick together” in atomic nuclei.  If this force was weaker that it is, protons and neutrons would not stick together.  In that case only one element would exist in the universe – hydrogen (the hydrogen atom has only one proton and no neutrons in its nuclei).  If this force were too strong, however, protons and neutrons would have such an affinity for each other that not one would remain alone.  In such a universe, there would be no hydrogen – only heavy elements.  And life chemistry is impossible without hydrogen.
How delicate is the balance for the strong nuclear force?  If it were just 2% weaker, or .3% stronger than it actually is, life would be impossible – and not just our form of life.  We are talking about any form of life, at any time, anywhere in the universe.
There is also the weak nuclear force – the force that, among other things, governs the rate of radioactive decay.  If this force were much stronger than it is, all matter in the universe would quickly be converted into “heavy” elements.  On the other hand, if it were much weaker, then all matter in the universe would remain in the form of just the lightest elements.  To have the elements that are essential for life chemistry – carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, phosphorus, for example – these forces must be delicately balanced.
The strength of gravity is responsible for determining how hot the nuclear furnaces in the cores of stars will burn.  If the force of gravity were any stronger, then stars would be so hot tht they would burn up too quickly and too erratically for life to form.  In addition, a planet that is capable of sustaining life (such as earth) must be supported by a start that is stable, and long burning.  On the other hand, if the gravitational force weaker than it is, stars would never become hot enough to ignite nuclear fusion.*
The Right Nucleons
The universe is also fine tuned to the extent that there is just enough nucleons (protons and neutrons) to form the elements essential for life. After the “big bang”, all of the galaxies and stars that make up the universe today were form from left over nucleons from this initial singularity.  Turns out that if the initial excess of nucleons over anti-nucleons were any smaller, there would not be enough matter for galaxies, stars and the heavy elements to form. If the excess were any greater, galaxies would form, but they would condense to the point that none of them would fragment to form stars and planets.*
The Right Electrons
Not must the universe have just the right number of nucleons – a precise number of electrons must also exist. Unless the number of electrons is equivalent to the number of protons to an accuracy of one part in 10(37) or better, electromagnetic forces in the universe would have so overcome gravitational forces that galaxies, stars, and planets never would have formed. *
https://evidencetobelieve.com/fine-tuning-of-the-universe-2/

ANIL ANANTHASWAMYIs the Universe Fine-Tuned for Life? MARCH 7, 2012
Take, for instance, the neutron. It is 1.00137841870 times heavier than the proton, which is what allows it to decay into a proton, electron and neutrino—a process that determined the relative abundances of hydrogen and helium after the big bang and gave us a universe dominated by hydrogen. If the neutron-to-proton mass ratio were even slightly different, we would be living in a very different universe: one, perhaps, with far too much helium, in which stars would have burned out too quickly for life to evolve, or one in which protons decayed into neutrons rather than the other way around, leaving the universe without atoms. So, in fact, we wouldn’t be living here at all—we wouldn’t exist.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/is-the-universe-fine-tuned-for-life/

Dr. Walter L. Bradley: Is There Scientific Evidence for the Existence of God? How the Recent Discoveries Support a Designed Universe 20 August 2010
The Rest Mass of Subatomic Particles - Key to Universe Rich in Elemental Diversity
Scientists have been surprised to discover the extraordinary tuning of the masses of the elementary particles to each other and to the forces in nature. Stephen Hawking has noted that the difference in the rest mass of the neutron and the rest mass of the proton must be approximately equal to twice the mass of the electron. The mass-energy of the proton is 938.28 MeV and the mass-energy of the neutron is 939.57 MeV. The mass-energy of the electron is 0.51 MeV, or approximately half of the difference in neutron and proton mass-energies, just as Hawking indicated it must be. If the mass-energy of the proton plus the mass-energy of the electron were not slightly smaller than the mass-energy of the neutron, then electrons would combine with protons to form neutrons, with all atomic structure collapsing, leaving an inhospitable world composed only of neutrons.
On the other hand, if this difference were larger, then neutrons would all decay into protons and electrons, leaving a world of pure hydrogen, since neutrons are necessary for protons to combine to build heavier nuclei and the associated elements. As things stand, the neutron is just heavy enough to ensure that the Big Bang would yield one neutron to every seven protons, allowing for an abundant supply of hydrogen for star fuel and enough neutrons to build up the heavier elements in the universe.

The Nuclear Weak Coupling Force - Tuned to Give an Ideal Balance Between Hydrogen (as Fuel for Sun) and Heavier Elements as Building Blocks for Life
The weak force governs certain interactions at the subatomic or nuclear level. If the weak force coupling constant were slightly larger, neutrons would decay more rapidly, reducing the production of deuterons, and thus of helium and elements with heavier nuclei. On the other hand, if the weak force coupling constant were slightly weaker, the Big Bang would have burned almost all of the hydrogen into helium, with the ultimate outcome being a universe with little or no hydrogen and many heavier elements instead. This would leave no long-lived stars and no hydrogen-containing compounds, especially water. In 1991, Breuer noted that the appropriate mix of hydrogen and helium to provide hydrogen-containing compounds, long-term stars, and heavier elements is approximately 75 percent hydrogen and 25 percent helium, which is just what we find in our universe.{32}

This is obviously only an illustrative--but not exhaustive--list of cosmic "coincidences." Clearly, the four forces in nature and the universal constants must be very carefully calibrated or scaled to provide a universe that satisfies the key requirements for life that we enumerated in our initial "needs statement": for example, elemental diversity, an abundance of oxygen and carbon, and a long-term energy source (our sun) that is precisely matched to the bonding strength of organic molecules, with minimal absorption by water or Earth's terrestrial atmosphere.

John Wheeler, formerly Professor of Physics at Princeton, in discussing these observations asks:
Is man an unimportant bit of dust on an unimportant planet in an unimportant galaxy somewhere in the vastness of space? No! The necessity to produce life lies at the center of the universe's whole machinery and design.....Slight variations in physical laws such as gravity or electromagnetism would make life impossible
https://web.archive.org/web/20110805203154/http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9403/evidence.html#ref21

John D. Barrow The Anthropic Cosmological Principle 1986 page 295
Remarkably, it transpires that the gross properties of all atomic and molecular systems are controlled by only two dimension-less physical parameters the fine structure constant,(1/137: It is the "coupling constant" or measure of the strength of the electromagnetic force that governs how electrically charged elementary particles (e.g., electron, muon) and light (photons) interact. ), and the electron to proton mass ratio, where the protons is 1836 heavier than the electron. No physical theory has yet been able to explain the numerical values of these two pure numbers that determine, to within an order of magnitude or so, all the qualitative features of bound states of the electromagnetic interaction. The difference between simple order of magnitude estimates for physical parameters involving powers of alpha and beta and the exact calculations of the quantum theory (which agree remarkably with observation) consists only of geometrical factors like 4pi/3 and integral quantum numbers. We shall see also that the particular values of alpha and beta are responsible for various 'coincidences' of Nature on which the possibility of our own existence is contingent. The first physicist to stress the all-encompassing role of alpha and beta in determining the inevitable structure of atomic systems seems to have been Max Born. In 1935 he delivered a lecture to the Indian Scientific Association entitled 'The Mysterious Number 137' which highlighted the importance of the fine structure constant in atomic physics. Electrons moving in orbits of quantized angular momentum about a central nucleus. The centripedal force required to sustain the rotational motion is supplied by the electromagnetic attraction between the positively charged nucleus and the negatively charged electron). The hydrogen atom can be modelled by two particles: a nuclear proton bound by the Coulomb force to an orbiting electron. 

Our universe is determined by the fact that only the choice mN / mc = 1837 guarantees that there are long chain molecules of the right kinds and size as to make biological phenomena possible. It could be for instance that the slightest variation in these parameters would change critically the size and length of the rings in the DNA helix as to invalidate its typical way of replicating itself. In this sense we could say that mN / me = 1837 just because we are here.

The Exclusion Principle plays a key role in Nature. Aside from guaranteeing the stability of matter and the 'large' size of atomic and molecular structures, it creates the shell structure of atomic electrons. These electronic heirarchies are responsible for the existence and enormous diversity of chemical properties. One could imagine a world in which the Exclusion Principle did not exist or one in which electrons were bosons but it would be a world of compact, superdense bodies with little scope for complex structures or living organisms and any two molecules that encountered one another would release huge quantities of binding energy.

There is an aspect of physics that is essential for the existence and stability of atomic systems—quantization. In 1913 Niels Bohr proposed the radical revision of the naive atomic models that imagined the electrons to orbit a nucleus in the manner of a mini solar system. The quantization principle he used restricted the energy of the orbital electrons to certain discrete values: multiples of a universal energy quantum fixed by Planck's constant. In the non-quantum atom, electrons can possess all possible energies. They can reside at any orbital radius so long as their velocity is sufficient to establish an equilibrium between centrifugal and Coulomb forces. All atoms would be different under these circumstances and, worse still, the continuous buffeting of electrons by photons and other particles would cause a steady change in electron orbit (and hence chemistry). The quantum principle avoids this: if one electron is added to a proton there is only one orbital radius available to it in quantum theory and consequently all hydrogen atoms are identical. This could not be the case in a non-quantum theory. Likewise, tiny environmental perturbations do not upset the structure of the atom because an entire quantum of energy must be added before the electron orbital is altered. Thus, despite its traditional reputation as the harbinger of chance and indeterminism, quantum theory is the basis for the fidelity and large-scale stability of Nature. 

https://3lib.net/book/1131892/9a639b

Fine-tuning of atoms Atoms10


1. https://www.scientificexploration.org/forum/is-the-atom-an-example-of-cosmic-design-and-fine-tuning?fbclid=IwAR25Qb-8HnDFbuvaKqSfJBuRTJ0QahExap_tg93SwZnHljdZcgBJMYpTDy0
3. https://aeon.co/essays/cosmopsychism-explains-why-the-universe-is-fine-tuned-for-life
4. http://www.detectingdesign.com/detectingdesign.html

More links:
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/vixra/electric-charge-an-example-of-fine-tuning-t121.html

Thayer Watkins What holds the nucleus of an atom together?
https://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/nucleus.htm



Last edited by Otangelo on Mon Aug 01, 2022 5:50 pm; edited 31 times in total

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

2Fine-tuning of atoms Empty Re: Fine-tuning of atoms Wed Jun 23, 2021 2:31 pm

Otangelo


Admin

Stability of atoms, by chance, or design?

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2962-stability-of-atoms#7602

David Tong: Particle Physics 
What are we made of? What are the fundamental building blocks of the universe from which you, me, and everything else is constructed? Every experiment that we’ve ever performed can be explained in terms of a collection of particles interacting through a handful of forces. The description is given through the Standard Model. The language in which the Standard Model is written is known as quantum field theory. Matter is made of indivisible objects called atoms.The proton contains two up quarks and a down quark, while the neutron contains two down quarks and an up. Both quarks have fractional electric charge. In units in which the electron has charge −1, the up quark has charge +2/3 and the down quark charge − 1/3 . This then gives the familiar charges of the proton ( 2/3 + 2/3 − 1/3 = +1) and the neutron (- 1/3 − 1/3 + 2/3 = 0).

All the particles that we described above interact through a handful of forces. It’s usually said that there are four fundamental forces at play in the universe. In fact, by any logical count, we should say that there are five forces, with the interaction of the Higgs boson providing the fifth.

The magnitude of the charge of the proton is exactly the same as the electron; they differ only in sign. Atoms contain an equal number of electrons and protons and so are themselves neutral. The fact that the masses of the proton and neutron are so close remains something of a mystery. It is related to the fact that two smaller particles called quarks have almost negligible masses but this, in turn, is not something that we can explain for more fundamental reasons. Nonetheless, the approximate equality mproton ≈ mneutron is important and is the reason that the atomic weights A are so close to integers for the light elements. For now, these numbers simply tell us that the electrons contribute less than 0.1% of the mass of an atom. 
http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/tong/pp/pp.pdf

Even given the above fine-tuning, if any one of the three short-range forces had been just a tiny bit different in strength, or if the masses of some elementary particles had been a little unlike they are, there would have been no recognizable chemistry in either the inorganic or the organic domain. Thus there would have been no Earth, no carbon, et cetera, let alone the human brains to study those. 8

Every atom has a nucleus of protons and neutrons and a cloud of electrons swirling around it. When an atom binds with another atom to make a molecule, the charged protons and electrons interact to hold them together. The mass of a proton is nearly 2,000 times the mass of the electron (1,836.15267389 times, to be precise). But if this ratio changed by only a small amount, the stability of many common chemicals would be compromised. In the end, this would prevent the formation of many molecules, including DNA, the building blocks of life. 3

The photon is very exceptional. It is the only elementary particle, other than the graviton, that has no mass… Atoms, molecules, and life are entirely dependent on the curious fact that the photon has no mass. 6 From a theoretical point of view the existence of massive photons is perfectly compatible with the general principles of elementary particle physics. This possibility cannot be discarded either from an experimental viewpoint 7

Atoms are made up of subatomic particles: neutrons, protons, and electrons. Protons, which are positively charged, and neutrons, which have no charge, compose the nucleus of the atom. Negatively charged electrons orbit the nucleus. These three particles are responsible for building the 92 naturally occurring elements.  Think periodic table. For example, a stable carbon atom is made of six protons, six neutrons, and six electrons. 5 Neutrons and protons can be broken into smaller bits. Particle accelerators are used to smash atoms apart. In the process, scientists have discovered that protons and neutrons are made of quarks. Specifically, they are made of a combination of up quarks and down quarks. Protons are composed of two up quarks and one down quark. Neutrons are composed of two down quarks and one up quark. So what happens if we change the masses of the three fundamental particles—the down quark, the up quark, and the electron?

If the mass of the down quark was increased 3 times, we would have a hydrogen-only universe. Here, no neutron is safe. Even inside nuclei, neutrons decay. Once again, kiss your chemistry textbook goodbye, as we’d be left with one type of atom and one chemical reaction. Increase the mass by 3 times, and you construct a universe with nothing but hydrogen.
Increase the mass of an electron by a factor of 2.5, and we’re in the neutron universe again.

Atoms are a marvelous piece of precise engineering.
Consider the ingredients you need: the strong nuclear force particles; the weak nuclear force particles; the electromagnetic force particles; up-quarks and down-quarks in order to form the protons and the neutrons; and of course electrons. And all of these bits and pieces have to mesh like a clock - or even a watch. You can't just assemble these bits and pieces in just any old way and expect things to work out. 4 It's all governed by the laws, principles and relationships of quantum mechanics, all of which had to come from somewhere or from someone or from something.

For example, there's the Pauli Exclusion Principle which requires that not more than two electrons can occupy exactly the same 'orbit' and then only if they have differing quantum values, like spin-up and spin-down. This prevents all electrons from being together like commuters crowded into a Tokyo subway carriage at rush hour.
Then there are the energy levels that electrons are allowed to have while 'orbiting' around the nucleus. That can be in this level or that level or the next level but not at in-between levels. This prevents electrons from spiraling down and impacting the positively charged nucleus which, being negatively charged, electrons would otherwise want to do. Design and fine-tuning by any other name still appear to be design and fine-tuning.

Consider further that the partial (fractional) electrical charges on the up-quarks and the down-quarks had to arrange themselves just-so such that a proton is a unity of positive electric charge and a neutron is a unity of electric charge neutrality. Then, the positive electric charge on the proton has to balance just so (to an infinite number of decimal places, at least as close to infinity as one can actually measure and calculate) the negative electric charge of the electron. How can the electric charge of the electron be EXACTLY equal and opposite to that of the proton when they otherwise share nothing in common?

Atoms by themselves do not in and of themselves form life. Atoms have to have just so configurations to link together to form molecules. If hydrogen atoms couldn't link up with oxygen atoms there could be no water and no water implies no life could arise. The same applies to dozens of other essential molecules that life and the human species require.

On the other hand, why isn't there a universal solvent or acid that disassembles molecules? Everything can be stored in at least one kind of container. That too seems to be essential for life as is the requirement that some things need to be in solution some of the time.

So who was the designer of the atom?  Who fine-tuned the atomic parameters? Why fine-tuning? Well, fine-tuning implies that something(s) exist against all the odds. The unstated assumption being that fine-tuning requires a tuner. Regarding that fine-tuning, noted physicist Freeman Dyson once said that "it's almost as though the universe knew we were coming". It All started with the design and fine-tuned engineering of the humble atom. Who is the designer; who is the tuner? The atom is astonishingly precisely designed and fine-tuned to suggest that an eternal powerful creator with us in mind is a sufficiently warranted hypothesis has quite some considerable merit.

Finally, consider that, or so it's claimed and I suspect with very good experimental reasoning, that an atom is literally 99.99% empty space. Yet we have the illusion that there is no empty space. That 99.99% emptiness suggests our computer/software programmer is being very economic with the bits and bytes while also being able to program in the illusion that there is no empty space.

One other point needs to be considered at this juncture. Why are all of the individual fundamentals the same? Why are all spin-up electrons or up-quarks or first-generation neutrinos or even photons identical to all other spin-up electrons or up-quarks or first-generation neutrinos or even photons? Perhaps the answer lies in the plausibility that each type of fundamental has been assigned its own unique computer/software coding.

The vast majority of all possible universes are stone dead, and our own is extremely atypical. The use of correct logic when confronting a theory with observation isn’t optional. If most of space is uninhabitable, then we should clearly expect to find ourselves in a place that’s special in the sense of being habitable.

An atom is stable because of a balanced nucleus that does not contain excess energy. If the forces between the protons and the neutrons in the nucleus are unbalanced, then the atom is unstable. Stable atoms retain their form indefinitely, while unstable atoms undergo radioactive decay.

The proton mass depends on another knob that has a very wide range of variation and needs to be fine-tuned to one in 10^33 to get any stable atoms other than hydrogen.

It is one of the laws of nature that nature prefers every system to be in the most stable state possible, which is the lowest energy state, such as the ground state, in going towards equilibrium, because of the nature’s requirement for favoring a least entropy state, ie having least disorder or chaos. Thus you would see smallest particles from atoms and its constituents to the large-scale structures like galaxies and constellations, everything is tending to an equilibrium, trying to shed its energy and reach stability.

Thus, whenever any system such as an electron or an atom reaches an excited state, it attempts to fall back to the ground state, either directly or through intermediate energy states.

Bohr's starting point was to realize that classical mechanics by itself could never explain the atom's stability. A stable atom has a certain size so that any equation describing it must contain some fundamental constant or combination of constants with a dimension of length. The classical fundamental constants--namely, the charges and the masses of the electron and the nucleus--can not be combined to make a length. Bohr noticed, however, that the quantum constant formulated by the German physicist Max Planck has dimensions which, when combined with the mass and charge of the electron, produce a measure of length. Numerically, the measure is close to the known size of atoms. This encouraged Bohr to use Planck's constant in searching for a theory of the atom.

Electrons and all the nucleotides play a significant role in the stability of the atom. But the most basic stability is explained by neutrons and protons in the nucleus, the nucleus is a compact mass due to the close packing of protons they experience strong repulsion forces. These forces are compensated by attraction forces between the nucleotides, this force is called nuclear force. So this nuclear force makes an atom stable, as the mass number increases repulsion forces between the protons starts dominating the nuclear force, this causes the phenomenon called radioactivity which makes an atom unstable.

Protons have a mass of 938.27 MeV.  Neutrons have a mass of 939.56 MeV.  So the difference between them is small: a neutron is about 1.29 MeV heavier than a proton. There is no obvious reason why protons and neutrons should have just these masses, but if they were even slightly different, we wouldn’t be here. 1

There are relatively tight constraints on about 5 combinations of parameters and small changes in these combinations lead to major changes in the structure of the world. Briefly stated, it is that the weak interactions must overlap with the strong interactions.  The allowed parameter space seems to very small and the world as we know it seems highly fine-tuned for the existence of atoms and nuclei. One has to see the many constraints in order appreciate just how very small a portion of parameter space is available which leads to atomic structure. 2

ANIL ANANTHASWAMY: Is the Universe Fine-Tuned for Life? MARCH 7, 2012 
Take, for instance, the neutron. It is 1.00137841870 times heavier than the proton, which is what allows it to decay into a proton, electron and neutrino—a process that determined the relative abundances of hydrogen and helium after the big bang and gave us a universe dominated by hydrogen. If the neutron-to-proton mass ratio were even slightly different, we would be living in a very different universe: one, perhaps, with far too much helium, in which stars would have burned out too quickly for life to evolve, or one in which protons decayed into neutrons rather than the other way around, leaving the universe without atoms. So, in fact, we wouldn’t be living here at all—we wouldn’t exist.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/is-the-universe-fine-tuned-for-life/

Fine-tuning of atoms Qweqwe10

1. http://www.focus.org.uk/proton_neutron.php
2. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1601.05136.pdf
3. https://biologos.org/common-questions/what-do-fine-tuning-and-the-multiverse-say-about-god/
4. https://www.scientificexploration.org/forum/is-the-atom-an-example-of-cosmic-design-and-fine-tuning
5. https://www.str.org/w/we-live-in-a-very-fortunate-universe
6. https://crossexamined.org/many-changes-laws-physics-life-prohibiting/
7. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1005.3480.pdf
8. https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2F978-3-319-26300-7.pdf


https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

3Fine-tuning of atoms Empty Re: Fine-tuning of atoms Fri Jun 25, 2021 6:42 am

Otangelo


Admin

Fine-tuning of atoms

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2795-fine-tuning-of-atoms#6498

It appears that the standard model of physics contains around 26 of these constants and further it appears that changing most of these by even the smallest amount can result in changes to chemistry, nuclear physics and space itself that would cause life to be impossible. 2  There appears, to use Davies’ often used phrase “some fine tuning” going on. So if the constants are changing, or have changed – why did they change to a value that today makes life possible?

The way that the laws of nature, expressed in mathematics, describe the relationships between space, time and matter has a great formal coherence.  1 There are fundamental constants in physics that are apparently arbitrary—numbers that seem to exist entirely in their own right, without reference to the rest of the universe. No obvious reason seems to exist for them to be as they are; they are simply the way the world is.

The fine structure constant is one of the fundamental constants in nature, just like the speed of light or Planck's constant. It is there, and that's all we know for sure. We don't really have a compelling theory on its origin, nor a mechanism that explains its value  3


The fine structure constant is one such parameter: This number, which has become ubiquitous in physics, remains mysterious. One of the pioneers of quantum theory, Wolfgang Pauli said of it, “When I die, my first question to the devil will be: What is the meaning of the fine structure constant?”

Michael Murphy writes that “All ‘everyday’ phenomena are gravitational and electromagnetic. Thus G and α are the most important constants for ‘everyday’ physics” .

The laws of physics seem peculiarly well suited to life. The laws of physics: - or more precisely the constants of nature like the charge on an electron or G or α - are consistent with the existence of life.


1. https://www.economist.com/the-world-if/2017/07/13/reflections-on-the-fine-structure-constant
2. http://www.bretthall.org/fine-structure.html
3. https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/377440/where-does-the-fine-structure-constant-come-from

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

4Fine-tuning of atoms Empty Re: Fine-tuning of atoms Wed Oct 20, 2021 2:17 pm

Otangelo


Admin

Luke Barnes: A Fortunate Universe Life in a Finely Tuned Cosmos page 274
Claim: All these fine-tuning cases involve turning one dial at a time, keeping all the others fixed at their value in our Universe. But maybe if we could look behind the curtains, we’d find the Wizard of Oz moving the dials together. If you let more than one dial vary at a time, it turns out that there is a range of life-permitting universes. So the Universe is not fine-tuned for life.
Reply: This is a surprisingly persistent myth and one with no basis in fact whatsoever. There never was a time when fine-tuning investigations varied just one parameter. The original anthropic principle paper by Brandon Carter in 1974 identified a peculiar relationship between the mass of the proton, the mass of the electron, the strength of gravity, and the strength of electromagnetism. Stars can transport energy from their nuclear burning cores to their surface in two different ways – in the form of radiation, or via convective currents in which warmer gas rises and colder gas falls in cycles. In universes that subscribe to Carter’s coincidence, both kinds of stars are possible. Carter conjectured that life requires both kinds for heavy element production and planet formation. Physicists William Press and Alan Lightman showed in 1983 that the same coincidence must hold for stars to emit photons with the right energy to power chemical reactions. This is quite a coincidence, given the number of cosmic dials one must tune for the energy of a photon of light emerging from a star to be roughly equal to the energy of chemical bonds. The whole point of this relation and many more like them, with which the early anthropic literature is entirely concerned, is that they relate a number of different fundamental constants. More recent work has shown that spinning multiple dials is usually as destructive as spinning one. Suppose we spin the up quark, down quark, and electron mass dials. Protons and neutrons in the atomic nucleus are made of these three particles: two up quarks and one down quark make a proton, and one up quark and two down quarks make a neutron. Think of Figure 1 as a three-dimensional cube, where one dial sets the up quark mass, one sets the down quark mass, and the other sets the electron mass. When you’ve dialed in the masses, the stylus is at a particular point in the block. 

When physicists talk of ‘parameter space’, this is something like what we have in mind. What are the ranges of our dials? Or, to put it another way, how wide is our block? On the lower end, particles can have zero mass – the photon, for example. What about the upper end?  A particle with a mass equal to the Planck mass is the maximum mass that our theories could possibly handle. The Planck mass is roughly 24,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (2.4 × 10^22) times the mass of the electron! This mass is so large that, to help illustrate the interesting bits in our block, we need to use a logarithmic scale. It’s an easy idea: instead of each click of the dial moving the masses in the usual 0, 1, 2, 3 ... manner, we instead multiply by ten: ...,.0.01, 0.1, 1, 10, 100, ...  In a specific model Stephen Barr investigated, the lower mass limit set by something called ‘dynamical breaking of chiral symmetry’ to be about 60 orders of magnitude – 10^60 – smaller than the Planck mass. We will do the same for each side of our block. 

We’ll carve off parts of the block that we have identified as being unsuitable for life. 
For example, in Figure 2 we’ve carved off the disastrous Delta-plus-plus universe a), with one stable element and no chemical reactions, as well as the simply appalling Delta-minus universe b), with one element and one chemical reaction. In fact, we’ll go a step further by carving off the hydrogen-only universe c) and the ‘worst universe so far, the neutron universe d) – no elements, no chemistry. Stable atoms have a few more regions to avoid. We’ll carve off the parts where protons and neutrons don’t stick to create nuclei. We’ll carve off the regions where the electron can be captured by the nucleus, reducing atoms to piles of neutrons. We’ll carve off the parts where anything with the chemistry of hydrogen is unstable. 
Figure 3 shows what remains. Further, our dials are messing with stars’ nuclear fuel and the source of their internal pressure. We’ll carve off the region with no stable stars at all, as identified by Fred Adams. We’ll also ensure that the first product of stellar burning (the deuteron) is stable and that its production releases energy rather than absorbing it since this would upset the gravity vs. thermal energy balance in a star. 
Figure 4 shows what survives our slicing and dicing. Finally, we carve off universes in which the Hoyle resonance fails to allow stars to produce both carbon and oxygen, which leads to 
Figure 5. What remains is a thin shaft of life-permitting universes extending to small values of the up quark mass, surrounded by a vast wasteland. Remember that we needed to use a logarithmic scale; we can now see why. If we used a normal (linear) scale from zero to the Planck mass e), we would need a block of at least 10 light-years (a hundred billion kilometers) high for the life-permitting region visible to the human eye. The problem with this reaction is obvious. Sure, there are many dials. But there are also many requirements for life. Adding more dials opens up more space, but most of this space is dead. We see no trace whatsoever of a vast oasis of life. Life is similarly confined in cosmological parameter space. Max Tegmark, Anthony Aguirre, Martin Rees and Frank Wilczek (2001) find eight constraints on seven dials f) . Again, life is left to huddle on a tiny island. (Wilczek is a Nobel Prize-winning particle physicist, and Rees is the Astronomer Royal and former president of the Royal Society.) We’d love to plot all seven dimensions for you – blasted two-dimensional paper! This myth may have started because, when fine-tuning is presented to lay audiences, it is often illustrated by describing what happens when one parameter is varied. Martin Rees, for example, does this in his excellent book Just Six Numbers. Rees knows that the equations of fine-tuning involve more than one parameter – he derived many of those equations. 

Two fallacies must be avoided. 
The first is focusing on the shape of the life-permitting island, rather than its size. As we saw above, the life-permitting island is not a single blob. In general, it could snake through the dimensions of parameter space. We could say that life is possible for a range of values, but this would be misleading. We still need to carefully adjust the dials. A random spin of each dial is unlikely to result in success. 
The second fallacy is comparing the life-permitting range to the value of the constant in our Universe. Here’s an analogy. Suppose you throw a dart at a board and it lands inside the bullseye, 3 mm from the exact center (see Figure 6). Not bad, eh? Not so fast, says your friend. You could have landed twice as far from the center and still scored a bullseye. So your throw is only ‘fine-tuned’ within a factor of 2 ... not very impressive at all! Something has gone wrong here. It is the size of the bullseye compared to the size of the wall – not compared to where your dart landed – that makes a bullseye evidence of either your dart-throwing prowess or your determination (despite your terrible aim) to keep throwing until you hit the bullseye. Increasing the mass of the down quark by a factor of 6 results in the atom-, chemistry-, star- and planet-free neutron universe. This might seem like plenty of room. While ‘a factor of 6’ is fine for stating the limits of the fine-tuning region, it gives a misleading impression of its size. Compared to the highest energies that particle accelerators have reached, the life-permitting range is less than one in a hundred thousand. Compared to the Planck mass, it is one part in 10^20. The range of possible values of a constant (in a given theory) is often far larger than the actual value.
https://3lib.net/book/3335826/1b6fa8

Nucleosynthesis - evidence of design
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t3141-nucleosynthesis-evidence-of-design

a) The Delta-Plus-Plus Universe: 
Let’s start by increasing the mass of the down quark by a factor of about 70. Down quarks would readily transform into up quarks (and other stuff), even inside protons and neutrons. Thus, they would rapidly decay into the new ‘most stable’ title-holder, our old friend the Δ++ particle. We would find ourselves in the ‘Delta-plus-plus universe’. As we’ve seen, the Δ++ particle is a baryon containing three up quarks. Unlike the proton and neutron, however, the extra charge, and hence electromagnetic repulsion, on the Δ++ particles makes them much harder to bind together. Individual Δ++ particles can capture two electrons to make a helium-like element. And this will be the only element in the universe. Farewell, periodic table! The online PubChem database in our Universe lists 60, 770, 909 chemical compounds (and counting); in the Δ++ universe, it would list just one. And, being like helium, it would undergo zero chemical reactions.

b) The Delta-Minus Universe: 
Beginning with our Universe again, let’s instead of increase the mass of the up quark by a factor of 130. Again, the proton and neutron will be replaced by one kind of stable particle made of three down quarks, known as the Δ− . Within this Δ− universe, with no neutrons to help dilute the repulsive force of their negative charge, there again will be just one type of atom, and, in a dramatic improvement on the Δ++ universe, one chemical reaction! Two Δ− particles can form a molecule, assuming that we replace all electrons with their positively charged alter-ego, the positron.

c) The Hydrogen Universe: 
To create a hydrogen-only universe, we increase the mass of the down quark by at least a factor of 3. Here, no neutron is safe. Even inside nuclei, neutrons decay. Once again, kiss your chemistry textbook goodbye, as we’d be left with one type of atom and one chemical reaction.

d) The Neutron Universe: 
If you think the hydrogen universe is rather featureless, let’s instead increase the mass of the up quark by a factor of 6. The result is that the proton falls apart. In a reversal of what we see in our Universe, the proton, including protons buried in the apparent safety of the atomic nucleus, decay into neutrons, positrons and neutrinos. This is by far the worst universe we’ve so far encountered: no atoms, no chemical reactions. Just endless, featureless space filled with inert, boring neutrons. There is more than one way to create a neutron universe. Decrease the mass of the down quark by just 8 percent and protons in atoms will capture the electrons in orbit around them, forming neutrons. Atoms would dissolve into clouds of featureless, chemical-free neutrons. What about the other particle of everyday stuff, the electron? Since the electron (and its antiparticle, the positron) is involved in the decay of neutron and proton, it too can sterilize a universe. For example, increase its mass by a factor of 2.5, and we’re in the neutron universe again. The situation is summarized in Figure below.

e) Planck mass:  https://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/p/Planck+Mass

f) Fine-tuning of atoms: https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2763-fine-tuning-of-atoms


Fine-tuning of atoms Luke_b10
Figure 1 A three-dimensional cube, representing ‘parameter space’. To help visualize the possible values of the masses of the fundamental particles, we imagine choosing a point in the block. As we spin the dials and choose different masses, our stylus moves through the block. Where can life flourish?

Fine-tuning of atoms Luke_b11
Figure 2 Carving off failed universes, Stage 1. Starting with the block of Figure 1, we carve off the Delta-plus-plus, Delta-minus, hydrogen-only and neutron-only universes, in which there is at most one chemical element and one possible chemical reaction.

Fine-tuning of atoms Luke_b12
Figure 3 Carving off failed universes, Stage 2. We remove regions of the block where atomic nuclei fail to be stable at all

Fine-tuning of atoms Luke_b14
Figure 4 Carving off failed universes, Stage 3. If a universe fails to support stable stars, then it is cut out of our block.

Fine-tuning of atoms Luke_b15
Figure 5 Carving off failed universes, Stage 4. A special property of carbon nuclei (the Hoyle resonance) allows stars in our Universe to make both carbon and oxygen. We remove from the block universes in which this fails.

Fine-tuning of atoms Luke_b16
Figure 6 A dart lands inside the bullseye. It could have landed twice as far away from the center and still scored a bullseye. Does that mean that the throw was only ‘fine-tuned’ to within a factor of 2, or that scoring a bullseye was a fifty-fifty chance? Obviously not! The smallness of the bullseye compared to the size of the wall – the set of places that the dart could have landed – could be evidence of dart-throwing prowess.

Fine-tuning of atoms DGCNvzU

Fine-tuning of atoms DerJH34

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

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