The Fine Tunings of the Universe

[bfp]

The Fine Tuning of the Universe


According to growing numbers of scientists, the laws and constants of nature are so "finely-tuned," and so many "coincidences" have occurred to allow for the possibility of life, the universe must have come into existence through intentional planning and intelligence.

In fact, this "fine-tuning" is so pronounced, and the "coincidences" are so numerous, many scientists have come to espouse The Anthropic Principle, which contends that the universe was brought into existence intentionally for the sake of producing mankind. Even those who do not accept The Anthropic Principle admit to the "fine-tuning" and conclude that the universe is "too contrived" to be a chance event.

In a BBC science documentary, "The Anthropic Principle," some of the greatest scientific minds of our day describe the recent findings which compel this conclusion.

Dr. Dennis Scania, the distinguished head of Cambridge University Observatories: If you change a little bit the laws of nature, or you change a little bit the constants of nature -- like the charge on the electron -- then the way the universe develops is so changed, it is very likely that intelligent life would not have been able to develop.

Dr. David D. Deutsch, Institute of Mathematics, Oxford University:

If we nudge one of these constants just a few percent in one direction, stars burn out within a million years of their formation, and there is no time for evolution. If we nudge it a few percent in the other direction, then no elements heavier than helium form. No carbon, no life. Not even any chemistry. No complexity at all.

Dr. Paul Davies, noted author and professor of theoretical physics at Adelaide University:

"The really amazing thing is not that life on Earth is balanced on a knife-edge, but that the entire universe is balanced on a knife-edge, and would be total chaos if any of the natural 'constants' were off even slightly. You see," Davies adds, "even if you dismiss man as a chance happening, the fact remains that the universe seems unreasonably suited to the existence of life -- almost contrived -- you might say a 'put-up job'."

According to the latest scientific thinking, the matter of the universe originated in a huge explosion of energy called "The Big Bang." At first, the universe was only hydrogen and helium, which congealed into stars. Subsequently, all the other elements were manufactured inside the stars. The four most abundant elements in the universe are: hydrogen, helium, oxygen and carbon.

When Sir Fred Hoyle was researching how carbon came to be, in the "blast-furnaces" of the stars, his calculations indicated that it is very difficult to explain how the stars generated the necessary quantity of carbon upon which life on earth depends. Hoyle found that there were numerous "fortunate" one-time occurrences which seemed to indicate that purposeful "adjustments" had been made in the laws of physics and chemistry in order to produce the necessary carbon.

Hoyle sums up his findings as follows:

A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintendent has monkeyed with the physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. I do not believe that any physicist who examined the evidence could fail to draw the inference that the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately designed with regard to the consequences they produce within stars. Adds Dr. David D. Deutch: If anyone claims not to be surprised by the special features that the universe has, he is hiding his head in the sand. These special features ARE surprising and unlikely.

Universal Acceptance Of Fine Tuning
Besides the BBC video, the scientific establishment's most prestigious journals, and its most famous physicists and cosmologists, have all gone on record as recognizing the objective truth of the fine-tuning. The August '97 issue of "Science" (the most prestigious peer-reviewed scientific journal in the United States) featured an article entitled "Science and God: A Warming Trend?" Here is an excerpt:

The fact that the universe exhibits many features that foster organic life -- such as precisely those physical constants that result in planets and long-lived stars -- also has led some scientists to speculate that some divine influence may be present.

In his best-selling book, "A Brief History of Time", Stephen Hawking (perhaps the world's most famous cosmologist) refers to the phenomenon as "remarkable."

"The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers (i.e. the constants of physics) seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life". "For example," Hawking writes, "if the electric charge of the electron had been only slightly different, stars would have been unable to burn hydrogen and helium, or else they would not have exploded. It seems clear that there are relatively few ranges of values for the numbers (for the constants) that would allow for development of any form of intelligent life. Most sets of values would give rise to universes that, although they might be very beautiful, would contain no one able to wonder at that beauty."

Hawking then goes on to say that he can appreciate taking this as possible evidence of "a divine purpose in Creation and the choice of the laws of science (by God)" (ibid. p. 125).

Dr. Gerald Schroeder, author of "Genesis and the Big Bang" and "The Science of Life" was formerly with the M.I.T. physics department. He adds the following examples:

1) Professor Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate in high energy physics (a field of science that deals with the very early universe), writing in the journal "Scientific American", reflects on

how surprising it is that the laws of nature and the initial conditions of the universe should allow for the existence of beings who could observe it. Life as we know it would be impossible if any one of several physical quantities had slightly different values.

Although Weinberg is a self-described agnostic, he cannot but be astounded by the extent of the fine-tuning. He goes on to describe how a beryllium isotope having the minuscule half life of 0.0000000000000001 seconds must find and absorb a helium nucleus in that split of time before decaying. This occurs only because of a totally unexpected, exquisitely precise, energy match between the two nuclei. If this did not occur there would be none of the heavier elements. No carbon, no nitrogen, no life. Our universe would be composed of hydrogen and helium. But this is not the end of Professor Weinberg's wonder at our well-tuned universe. He continues:

One constant does seem to require an incredible fine-tuning -- The existence of life of any kind seems to require a cancellation between different contributions to the vacuum energy, accurate to about 120 decimal places.

This means that if the energies of the Big Bang were, in arbitrary units, not:

10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0 000000000000000000,

but instead:
10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0 000000000000000001,

there would be no life of any sort in the entire universe because as Weinberg states:

the universe either would go through a complete cycle of expansion and contraction before life could arise, or would expand so rapidly that no galaxies or stars could form.

2) Michael Turner, the widely quoted astrophysicist at the University of Chicago and Fermilab, describes the fine-tuning of the universe with a simile:

The precision is as if one could throw a dart across the entire universe and hit a bulls eye one millimeter in diameter on the other side.

3) Roger Penrose, the Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford, discovers that the likelihood of the universe having usable energy (low entropy) at the creation is even more astounding,

namely, an accuracy of one part out of ten to the power of ten to the power of 123. This is an extraordinary figure. One could not possibly even write the number down in full, in our ordinary denary (power of ten) notation: it would be one followed by ten to the power of 123 successive zeros! (That is a million billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion zeros.)

Penrose continues,

Even if we were to write a zero on each separate proton and on each separate neutron in the entire universe -- and we could throw in all the other particles as well for good measure -- we should fall far short of writing down the figure needed. The precision needed to set the universe on its course is to be in no way inferior to all that extraordinary precision that we have already become accustomed to in the superb dynamical equations (Newton's, Maxwell's, Einstein's) which govern the behavior of things from moment to moment.

Cosmologists debate whether the space-time continuum is finite or infinite, bounded or unbounded. In all scenarios, the fine-tuning remains the same.

It is appropriate to complete this section on "fine tuning" with the eloquent words of Professor John Wheeler:

To my mind, there must be at the bottom of it all, not an utterly simple equation, but an utterly simple IDEA. And to me that idea, when we finally discover it, will be so compelling, and so inevitable, so beautiful, we will all say to each other, "How could it have ever been otherwise?"

[molecule]

thats all really interesting, but all I have to do is open my eyes, and look around, to come up with the same conclusion. Something, somehow, started all this, this is not by chance. Evolution-cool, BigBang- fine, whatever. Something started it all. Thanks for the interesting read.

[zymote]

In any complex system, patterns of order and chaos naturally arise. If the system, and thereby these patterns are sufficently complex we call this intelligence. The human brain is an extremely complex system, giving rise to sentience. How much more complex is the entirety of the universe, as compared to the human brain?

Personally I think the notion of "fine tuning" or even the existence of a creator is a moot point - the incredibly complex system of the universe will naturally develop an intelligence on a scale that we can effectively consider infinite. As proven by Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, we cannot make any sort of effective judgement about the entirety of the universe, as we are a part of it and the act of observation has an effect on the outcome of said observation.

And by our standards, the universe can't really be balanced on the edge of oblivion. The fact are pretty clear: It's been around way, way longer than any system we would have any right to call unstable.

That, coupled with the fact that it infinitely more complex, and therefore intelligent, than our limited human perceptions make all this fine tuning stuff seem like a load of crap to me, and the product of a decidedly finite ego.

It seems highly unlikely we'll ever know exactly how the system fits together, so quit wasting your time. Go get some pussy while you've got the chance.

[Xodiac]

Personally I think the notion of "fine tuning" or even the existence of a creator is a moot point - the incredibly complex system of the universe will naturally develop an intelligence on a scale that we can effectively consider infinite. As proven by Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, we cannot make any sort of effective judgement about the entirety of the universe, as we are a part of it and the act of observation has an effect on the outcome of said observation.

Yep. We see that PEOPLE make complex things, so when we see something complex, we assume that some personification made it on purpose.

Originally Posted by molecule

thats all really interesting, but all I have to do is open my eyes, and look around, to come up with the same conclusion. Something, somehow, started all this, this is not by chance. Evolution-cool, BigBang- fine, whatever. Something started it all. Thanks for the interesting read.

That's called the "Prime Mover" argument. God is that thing which sent the universe in motion.

[bfp]

Originally Posted by zymote

In any complex system, patterns of order and chaos naturally arise. If the system, and thereby these patterns are sufficently complex we call this intelligence. The human brain is an extremely complex system, giving rise to sentience. How much more complex is the entirety of the universe, as compared to the human brain?

That's the point. We are an uncommon happenstance. And no, any scientist will tell you that you 'cannot' create order from disorder. That's the main point here. If it's so easy, why can't we create a living cell, or a living organism from the advanced technology that we have today? How on earth was a living cell able to form from rocks and water? Without the help from an extrordinary intelligence? We can create hybrid strands of DNA and bond them together, but it can't stay alive in order to reproduce. The underlying wisdom from reproduction is the secret to keeping things in line.

As proven by Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, we cannot make any sort of effective judgement about the entirety of the universe, as we are a part of it and the act of observation has an effect on the outcome of said observation.

We can study the universe, and we can study phyisics, quantum physics, quantum mechanics, etc in order to learn how the universe works, and come to the conclusion on how we were brought into the system that was created over 15 billion years ago.

And by our standards, the universe can't really be balanced on the edge of oblivion. The fact are pretty clear: It's been around way, way longer than any system we would have any right to call unstable.

Sure you can make that argument. But the universe was set on a basic standard of princples. If it were 'any' different, we may not even be here today. Regarding temperature, the choice of certain particles. The movement of certain particles in order to keep force and matter compounded to create objects that we think is matter. If it were any different, we may not even be here. The resounding affects of what we have today, if it were done any different, would create a totally different equation as space-time expands into oblivion.

That, coupled with the fact that it infinitely more complex, and therefore intelligent, than our limited human perceptions make all this fine tuning stuff seem like a load of crap to me, and the product of a decidedly finite ego.

True, but doesn't the 'complexity' prove that a higher intelligence is out there? Something able to create the complexities capable to form what we have today? God created us in his own image. God is 'us' in general.

It seems highly unlikely we'll ever know exactly how the system fits together, so quit wasting your time. Go get some pussy while you've got the chance.

Were closer than we ever have been. We have made so many advancements over the past 150 years. There are so many deminsions waiting to be uncovered. We have learned of 13 new laws I do believe, and an expected 14-16 new laws are waiting to be uncovered (as a guestimate).