**Fine-tuning arguments in short sentences**

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t3169-fine-tuning-arguments-in-short-sentences

Following is a list of Fine-tuning arguments in rather short sentences, without references, etc. Just leaving the argument.

Fine-tuning of the Big bang

Fine-tuning of the initial conditions of the universe

Fine-tuning of the fundamental forces of the universe

Fine-tuning of subatomic particles, and atoms

If amongst these, hundreds, even thousands of parameters that had to be finely adjusted to permit life, just ONE was not right, no life.

If the Pauli Exclusion Principle was not in place, you would not read these lines. How can based on such overwhelming evidence of design atheists claim that there is no evidence of God's existence? That is just silly and foolish. There are NO rational alternative explanations. The multiverse escape invention is baseless speculation and just pushes the problem further back, without solving it

Our deepest understanding of the laws of nature is summarized in a set of equations. 5 Using these equations, we can make very precise calculations of the most elementary physical phenomena, calculations that are confirmed by experimental evidence. But to make these predictions, we have to plug in some numbers that cannot themselves be calculated but are derived from measurements of some of the most basic features of the physical universe. These numbers specify such crucial quantities as the masses of fundamental particles and the strengths of their mutual interactions. After extensive experiments under all manner of conditions, physicists have found that these numbers appear not to change in different times and places, so they are called the fundamental constants of nature.

The standard model of particle physics and the standard model of cosmology (together, the standard models) contain 31 fundamental constants. 25 constants are from particle physics, and 6 are from cosmology. About ten to twelve out of these constants exhibit significant fine-tuning.

There is no explanation for the

**particular values that physical constants**appear to have throughout our universe, such as Planck’s constant or the gravitational constant. The conservation of charge, momentum, angular momentum, and energy, these conservation laws can be related to symmetries of mathematical identities.

A universe governed by Maxwell’s Laws “all the way down”, with no quantum regime at small scales would not result in stable atoms — electrons would radiate their kinetic energy and spiral rapidly into the nucleus — and hence no chemistry would be possible. We don’t need to know what the parameters are to know that life in such a universe would be impossible.

The physical forces that govern the universe remain constant - they do not change across the universe.

If we change one fundamental constant, one force law, the whole edifice of the universe would tumble. There HAVE to be four forces in nature, or there would be no life.

The existence of life in the universe depends on the fundamental laws of nature having the precise mathematical structures that they do. For example, both Newton’s universal law of gravitation and Coulomb’s law of electrostatic attraction describes forces that diminish with the square of the distance. Nevertheless, without violating any logical principle or more fundamental law of physics, these forces could have diminished with the cube (or higher exponent) of the distance. That would have made the forces they describe too weak to allow for the possibility of life in the universe. Conversely, these forces might just as well have diminished in a strictly linear way. That would have made them too strong to allow for life in the universe.

Life depends upon the existence of various different kinds of forces—which are described with different kinds of laws— acting in concert.

1. a long-range attractive force (such as gravity) that can cause galaxies, stars, and planetary systems to congeal from chemical elements in order to provide stable platforms for life;

2. a force such as the electromagnetic force to make possible chemical reactions and energy transmission through a vacuum;

3. a force such as the strong nuclear force operating at short distances to bind the nuclei of atoms together and overcome repulsive electrostatic forces;

4. the quantization of energy to make possible the formation of stable atoms and thus life;

5. the operation of a principle in the physical world such as the Pauli exclusion principle that (a) enables complex material structures to form and yet (b) limits the atomic weight of elements (by limiting the number of neutrons in the lowest nuclear shell). Thus, the forces at work in the universe itself (and the mathematical laws of physics describing them) display a fine-tuning that requires explanation. Yet, clearly, no physical explanation of this structure is possible, because it is precisely physics (and its most fundamental laws) that manifests this structure and requires explanation. Indeed, clearly physics does not explain itself.

**Paraphrasing Hoyle:**Why does it appear that a super-intellect had been “monkeying” with the laws of physics? Why are the Standard Model parameters intriguingly finely tuned to be life-friendly? Why does the universe look as if it has been designed by an intelligent creator expressly for the purpose of spawning sentient beings? Why is the universe “just right” for life, in many intriguing ways? How can we account for this appearance of judicious design?

Why does beneath the surface complexity of nature lie a hidden subtext, written in a subtle mathematical code, the cosmic code which contains the rules on which the universe runs? Why lies beneath the surface of natural phenomena an abstract order, an order that cannot be seen or heard or felt, but only deduced? Why are the diverse physical systems making up the cosmos linked, deep down, by a network of coded mathematical relationships?

Why is the physical universe neither arbitrary nor absurd? Why is not just a meaningless jumble of objects and phenomena haphazardly juxtaposed, but rather, there is a coherent scheme of things? Why is there order in nature? This is a profound enigma: Where do the laws of nature come from? Why do they have the form that they do? And why are we capable of comprehending it?

So far as we can see today, the laws of physics cannot have existed from everlasting to everlasting. They must have come into being at the big bang. The laws must have come into being. As the great cosmic drama unfolds before us, it begins to look as though there is a “script” – a scheme of things. We are then bound to ask, who or what wrote the script? If these laws are not the product of divine providence, how can they be explained?

If the universe is absurd, the product of unguided events, why does it so convincingly mimic one that seems to have meaning and purpose? Did the script somehow, miraculously, write itself? Why do the laws of nature possess a mathematical basis? Why should the laws that govern the heavens and on Earth not be the mathematical manifestations of God’s ingenious handiwork? Why is a transcendent immutable eternal creator with the power to dictate the flow of events not the most case-adequate explanation?

The universe displays an abstract order, conditions that are regulated, it looks like a put-up job, a fix. There is a mathematical subtext, then does it not point to a creator? The laws are real things – abstract relationships between physical entities. They are relationships that really exist. Why is nature shadowed by this mathematical reality? Why should we attribute and explain the cosmic “coincidences” to chance? There is no logical reason why nature should have a mathematical subtext in the first place.

In order to “explain” something, in the everyday sense, you have to start somewhere. How can we terminate the chain of explanation, if not with an eternal creator? To avoid an infinite regress – a bottomless tower of turtles according to the famous metaphor – you have at some point to accept something as “given”, something which other people can acknowledge as true without further justification. If a cosmic selector is denied, then the equations must be accepted as “given,” and used as the unexplained foundation upon which an account of all physical existence is erected.

Everything we discover about the world ultimately boils down to bits of information. The physical universe was fundamentally based on instructional information, and matter is a derived phenomenon. What, exactly, determines that-which-exists and separates it from that-which-might-have-existed-but-doesn’t? From the bottomless pit of possible entities, something plucks out a subset and bestows upon its members the privilege of existing. What “breathes fire into the equations” and makes a life-permitting universe?

Not only do we need to identify a “fire-breathing actualizer” to promote the merely-possible to the actually-existing, we need to think about the origin of the rule itself – the rule that decides what gets fire breathed into it and what does not. Where did that rule come from? And why does that rule apply rather than some other rule? In short, how did the right stuff get selected? Are we not back with some version of a Designer/Creator/Selector entity, a necessary being who chooses “the Prescription” and “breathes fire” into it?

Certain stringent conditions must be satisfied in the underlying laws of physics that regulate the universe. That raises the question: Why does our bio-friendly universe look like a fix – or “a put-up job”? Stephen Hawking: “What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?” Who, or what does the choosing? Who, or what promotes the “merely possible” to the “actually existing”?

What are the chances that a randomly chosen theory of everything would describe a life-permitting universe? Negligible. If the universe is inherently mathematical, composed of a mathematical structure then does it not require a Cosmic Selector? What is it then that determines what exists? The physical world contains certain objects – stars, planets, atoms, living organisms, for example. Why do those things exist rather than others?

Why isn’t the universe filled with, say, pulsating green jelly, or interwoven chains, or disembodied thoughts … The possibilities are limited only by our imagination.

Why not stick to the view and favor the mind of a creator seriously as a fundamental and deeply significant feature of the physical universe. ? A preexisting God who is somehow self-explanatory? Galileo, Newton and their contemporaries regarded the laws as thoughts in the mind of God, and their elegant mathematical form as a manifestation of God’s rational plan for the universe. Newton, Galileo, and other early scientists treated their investigations as a religious quest. They thought that by exposing the patterns woven into the processes of nature they truly were glimpsing the mind of God.

“The great book of nature,” Galileo wrote, “can be read-only by those who know the language in which it was written. And this language is mathematics.” James Jeans: “The universe appears to have been designed by a pure mathematician.”

**Fine-tuning of the Big bang:**

The first thing that had to be finely tuned in the universe was the Big bang. Fast-forward a nanosecond or two and in the beginning, you had this cosmic soup of elementary stuff - electrons and quarks and neutrinos and photons and gravitons and muons and gluons and Higgs bosons a real vegetable soup. There had to have been a mechanism to produce this myriad of fundamentals instead of just one thing. There could have been a cosmos where the sum total of mass was pure neutrinos and all of the energy was purely kinetic. The evolution of the Universe is characterized by a delicate balance of its inventory, a balance between attraction and repulsion, between expansion and contraction.

**1.**Gravitational constant: 1/10^60

**2.**Omega, the density of dark matter: 1/10^62 or less

**3.**Hubble constant: 1 part in 10^60

**4.**Lambda: the cosmological constant: 10^122

**5.**Primordial Fluctuations: 1/100,000

**6.**Matter-antimatter symmetry: 1 in 10,000,000,000

**7.**The low-entropy state of the universe: 1 in 10^10^123

**8.**The universe would require 3 dimensions of space, and time, to be life-permitting.

**Gravity**

Gravity is the least important force at small scales but the most important at large scales. It is only because the minuscule gravitational forces of individual particles add up in large bodies that gravity can overwhelm the other forces.

**Gravity, like the other forces, must also be fine-tuned for life.**Gravity would alter the cosmos as a whole. For example, the expansion of the universe must be carefully balanced with the deceleration caused by gravity. Too much expansion energy and the atoms would fly apart before stars and galaxies could form; too little, and the universe would collapse before stars and galaxies could form. The density fluctuations of the universe when the cosmic microwave background was formed also must be a certain magnitude for gravity to coalesce them into galaxies later and for us to be able to detect them. Our ability to measure the cosmic microwave background radiation is bound to the habitability of the universe; had these fluctuations been significantly smaller, we wouldn’t be here.

**Omega, density of dark matter**

A cosmic density fine-tuned to flatness today to less than a per mille must have been initially fine-tuned to tens of orders of magnitude. Omega measures the density of material in the universe— including galaxies, diffuse gas, and dark matter. The number reveals the relative importance of gravity in an expanding universe. If gravity were too strong, the universe would have collapsed long before life could have evolved. Had it been too weak, no galaxies or stars could have formed.

The flatness problem (also known as the oldness problem) is a cosmological fine-tuning problem within the Big Bang model of the universe. Such problems arise from the observation that some of the initial conditions of the universe appear to be fine-tuned to very 'special' values, and those small deviations from these values would have extreme effects on the appearance of the universe at the current time. In the case of the flatness problem, the parameter which appears fine-tuned is the density of matter and energy in the universe. This value affects the curvature of space-time, with a very specific critical value being required for a flat universe. The current density of the universe is observed to be very close to this critical value. Since any departure of the total density from the critical value would increase rapidly over cosmic time, the early universe must have had a density even closer to the critical density, departing from it by

**one part in 10^62**or less. This leads cosmologists to question how the initial density came to be so closely fine-tuned to this 'special' value.

**Hubble constant H0**

The Hubble constant is the present rate of expansion of the universe, which astronomers determine by measuring the distances and redshifts of galaxies. So our existence tells us that the Universe must have expanded, and be expanding, neither too fast nor too slow, but at just the "right" rate to allow elements to be cooked in stars. This may not seem a particularly impressive insight. After all, perhaps there is a large range of expansion rates that qualify as "right" for stars like the Sun to exist. But when we convert the discussion into the proper description of the Universe, Einstein's mathematical description of space and time, and work backwards to see how critical the expansion rate must have been at the time of the Big Bang, we find that

__the Universe is balanced far more crucially than the metaphorical knife edge.__If we push back to the earliest time at which our theories of physics can be thought to have any validity, the implication is that the relevant number, the so-called "density parameter," was set, in the beginning, with an accuracy of 1 part in 10^60 . Changing that parameter, either way, by a fraction given by a decimal point followed by 60 zeroes and a 1, would have made the Universe unsuitable for life as we know it. If the rate of expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have recollapsed before it ever reached its present size. If the Universe had just a slightly higher matter density (red), it would be closed and have recollapsed already; if it had just a slightly lower density (and negative curvature), it would have expanded much faster and become much larger. The Big Bang, on its own, offers no explanation as to why the initial expansion rate at the moment of the Universe's birth balances the total energy density so perfectly, leaving no room for spatial curvature at all and a perfectly flat Universe. Our Universe appears perfectly spatially flat, with the initial total energy density and the initial expansion rate balancing one another to at least some 20+ significant digits

**Lambda**

**the cosmological constant**

If the state of the hot dense matter immediately after the Big Bang had been ever so slightly different, then the Universe would either have rapidly recollapsed, or would have expanded far too quickly into a chilling, eternal void. Either way, there would have been no ‘structure’ in the Universe in the form of stars and galaxies.

**The smallness of the cosmological constant is widely regarded as the single the greatest problem confronting current physics and cosmology.**

There are now two cosmological constant problems. The old cosmological constant problem is to understand in a natural way why the vacuum energy density ρV is not very much larger. We can reliably calculate some contributions to ρV , like the energy density in fluctuations in the gravitational field at graviton energies nearly up to the Planck scale, which is larger than is observationally allowed by some 120 orders of magnitude. Such terms in ρV can be cancelled by other contributions that we can’t calculate, but the cancellation then has to be accurate to 120 decimal places. How far could you rotate the dark-energy knob before the Oops! moment? If rotating it…by a full turn would vary the density across the full range, then the actual knob setting for our Universe is about 10^123 of a turn away from the halfway point. That means that if you want to tune the knob to allow galaxies to form, you have to get the angle by which you rotate it right to 123 decimal places!

That means that the probability that our universe contains galaxies is akin to exactly 1 possibility in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 . Unlikely doesn’t even begin to describe these odds. There are “only” 10^81 atoms in the observable universe, after all. The low entropy starting point is the ultimate reason that the universe has an arrow of time, without which the second law would not make sense. However, there is no universally accepted explanation of how the universe got into such a special state. Some unknown agent initially started the inflaton high up on its potential, and the rest is history. We are forced to conclude that in a recurrent world like de Sitter space our universe would be extraordinarily unlikely. A possibility is an unknown agent intervened in the evolution, and for reasons of its own restarted the universe in the state of low entropy characterizing inflation.

**The Amplitude of Primordial Fluctuations**

*Q***represents the amplitude of complex irregularities or ripples in the expanding universe that seed the growth of such structures as planets and galaxies.**

*Q***It is a ratio equal to 1/100,000.**If the ratio were smaller, the universe would be a lifeless cloud of cold gas. If it were larger, "great gobs of matter would have condensed into huge black holes," says Rees. Such a universe would be so violent that no stars or solar systems could survive.

Why Q is about is still a mystery. But its value is crucial: were it much smaller, or much bigger, the 'texture' of the universe would be quite different, and less conducive to the emergence of life forms. If Q were smaller than but the other cosmic numbers were unchanged, aggregations in the dark matter would take longer to develop and would be smaller and looser. The resultant galaxies would be anaemic structures, in which star formation would be slow and inefficient, and 'processed' material would be blown out of the galaxy rather than being recycled into new stars that could form planetary systems. If Q were smaller than loL6, gas would never condense into gravitationally bound structures at all, and such a universe would remain forever dark and featureless, even if its initial 'mix' of atoms, dark matter and radiation were the same as in our own. On the other hand, a universe where Q were substantially larger than - where the initial 'ripples' were replaced by large-amplitude waves - would be a turbulent and violent place.

**Matter/Antimatter Asymmetry**

Baryogenesis Due to matter/antimatter asymmetry (1 + 109 protons compared to 109 antiprotons), only one proton for 109 photons remained after annihilation. The theoretical prediction of antimatter made by Paul Dirac in 1931 is one of the most impressive discoveries (Dirac 1934). Antimatter is made of antiparticles that have the same (e.g. mass) or opposite (e.g. electric charge) characteristics but that annihilate with particles, leaving out at the end mostly photons. A symmetry between matter and antimatter led him to suggest that ‘maybe there exists a completely new Universe made of antimatter’. Now we know that antimatter exists but that there are very few antiparticles in the Universe. So, antiprotons (an antiproton is a proton but with a negative electric charge) are too rare to make any macroscopic objects. In this context, the challenge is to explain why antimatter is so rare (almost absent) in the observable Universe. Baryogenesis (i.e. the generation of protons and neutrons AND the elimination of their corresponding antiparticles) implying the emergence of the hydrogen nuclei is central to cosmology. Unfortunately, the problem is essentially unsolved and only general conditions of baryogenesis were well posed by A. Sakharov a long time ago (Sakharov 1979). Baryogenesis requires at least departure from thermal equilibrium, and the breaking of some fundamental symmetries, leading to a strong observed matter–antimatter asymmetry at the level of 1 proton per 1 billion of photons. Mechanisms for the generation of the matter–anti matter strongly depend on the reheating temperature at the end of inflation, the maximal temperature reached in the early Universe. Forthcoming results from the Large Hadronic Collisionner (LHC) at CERN in Geneva, BABAR collaboration, astrophysical observations and the Planck satellite mission will significantly constrain baryogenesis and thereby provide valuable information about the very early hot Universe.

**The low-entropy state of the universe**

This figure will give us an estimate of the total phase-space volume V available to the Creator, since this entropy should represent the logarithm of the volume of the (easily) largest compartment. Since 10123 is the logarithm of the volume, the volume must be the exponential of 10123, i. e. The Second Law of thermodynamics is one of the most fundamental principles of physics. The term “entropy” refers to an appropriate measure of disorder or

**lack of “specialness”**of the state of the universe. The problem of the apparently low entropy of the universe is one of the oldest problems of cosmology. The fact that the entropy of the universe is not at its theoretical maximum, coupled with the fact that entropy cannot decrease, means that the universe must have started in a very special, low entropy state. The initial state of the universe must be the most special of all, so any proposal for the actual nature of this initial state must account for its extreme specialness.

The low-entropy condition of the early universe is extreme in both respects: the universe is a very big system, and it was once in a very low entropy state. The odds of that happening by chance are staggeringly small. Roger Penrose, a mathematical physicist at Oxford University, estimates the probability to be roughly 1/10^10^123. That number is so small that if it were written out in ordinary decimal form, the decimal would be followed by more zeros than there are particles in the universe! It is even smaller than the ratio of the volume of a proton (a subatomic particle) to the entire volume of the visible universe. Imagine filling the whole universe with lottery tickets the size of protons, then choosing one ticket at random. Your chance of winning that lottery is much higher than the probability of the universe beginning in a state with such low entropy! Huw Price, a philosopher of science at Cambridge, has called the low-entropy condition of the early universe “the most underrated discovery in the history of physics.”

**The universe would require 3 dimensions of space, and time, to be life-permitting.**

If whatever exists were not such that it is accurately described on macroscopic scales by a model with three space dimensions, then life would not exist. If “whatever works” was four dimensional, then life would not exist, whether the number of dimensions is simply a human invention or an objective fact about the universe. We physicists need to confront the crisis facing us. A scientific theory [the multiverse/ Anthropic Principle/ string theory paradigm] that makes no predictions and therefore is not subject to experiment can never fail, but such a theory can never succeed either, as long as science stands for knowledge gained from rational argument borne out by evidence. The number of spatial dimensions of our universe seems to be a fortuitous contingent fact. It is easy to construct geometries for spaces with more or less than three dimensions (or space-times with more or less than three spatial dimensions). It turns out that mathematicians have shown that spaces with more than three dimensions have some significant problems. For example, given our laws of physics there are no stable orbits in spaces with more than three dimensions. It is hard to imagine how solar systems stable enough for life to slowly evolve could form without stable orbits. Additionally, consider the effect of long-range forces (like gravity and electromagnetism). These forces work according to the inverse square law (i.e. the effect of the force decreases by the square of the distance). So move ten times farther away from a gravitational field or a light source and the effect of the gravity or light is 100 times less. To intuitively see why this is, imagine a light bulb as sending out millions of thin straight wires in all directions. The farther we get away from this light, the more spread out these wires are. The closer we are to the light, the closer together the wires are. The more concentrated the wires, the stronger the force. But what would happen if we added one more spatial dimension to our universe? In this case, long-range forces would work according to an inverse cubed law. This is, of course, because there would be one more spatial dimension for the lines of force to be spread out within. So forces would decrease rapidly as you moved away from the source and increase rapidly as you moved closer. This would cause significant problems both at the atomic and at the cosmological scales. Rees explains the problem this way: An orbiting planet that was slowed down—even slightly—would then plunge ever faster into the sun, rather than merely shift into a slightly smaller orbit, because an inverse-cubed force strengthens so steeply towards the center; conversely an orbiting planet that was slightly speeded up would quickly spiral outwards into darkness.

Last edited by Otangelo on Sat Aug 07, 2021 8:11 pm; edited 4 times in total