Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Fine tuning

  1. Oct 29, 2003 #1


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    i came across this site


    it gives a list, example....

    strong nuclear force constant
    if larger: no hydrogen; nuclei essential for life would be unstable.
    if smaller: no elements other than hydrogen

    what do you think?
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 31, 2003 #2
    A series of claims without any proof, those creationists are really a bad thing
    Evidently, with other parameters, the universe would be different, but my bet is that life would arise equally
    Last edited: Oct 31, 2003
  4. Nov 1, 2003 #3


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Hugh Ross is one of the easier to listen to Creationists given his better understanding of astronomy. However, he is still trying to force fit Bible literalism and science (mostly astronomy) together. His "Global Flood" was a universal changing of the laws of physics.

    But to be fair, we should address the specific points in the link provided. First off, notice how each is "if larger...if smaller". Well, how much larger/smaller? The site says "More than two dozen parameters for the universe must have values falling within narrowly defined ranges for life of any kind to exist." They need to define how narrow.

    If the universe is only 1 million years younger, then does that undo everything? No. Actually, that claim of theirs is bogus...the universe was younger...substantially (completely) younger in the past and yet we're still here. And it will be older, and hopefully we'll still be here.

    oh wait, look at that claim again...
    "More than two dozen parameters for the universe must have values falling within narrowly defined ranges for life of any kind to exist."

    ANY kind of life? That's quite the claim since no one knows what other possible may exist in the universe. We're just beginning to search. As Bible literalists are want to do, they are focusing on OUR particular kind of life (modern humans).

    I'd like to address each of those claims in the link provided (perhaps other members can help out here given my time contraints). But I'll mention that Carl Sagan had a chapter about this in his book Pale Blue Dot. "Narrowly defined" may not be that narrow...there are other possible configurations of the laws of physics that would still allow for enough time for our kind of life to form in an Earth-like environment.
  5. Nov 1, 2003 #4


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    And then there's the Anthropic Principle. They obviously hold the Strong form to be true in that the universe is as it is for the specific purpose of having humans in it. In the same Sagan book I mention above, he jokes that the universe is also balanced in such a way to allow rocks to exist, so perhaps we should call it a Lithic Principle.

    The Weak Anthropic Principle adherents would point out that humans evolved to fit the universe, so of course it appears to fit well. I like Douglas Adams' tidbit on this...

  6. Nov 1, 2003 #5


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    hummmm, from my selfish point of view i only care about
    the existence of humanity, im not a fan of creationalists
    but i can not find anything here that is untrue.
    maybe there are two ways of looking at it, humans are idealy
    adapted to the universe, or the universe is idealy adapted
    to humans.
  7. Nov 3, 2003 #6
    Andrei Linde proposed in 1983 the model of chaotic inflation. In it, there's a "mother" universe, and multitude of bubble universes inflating from the mother universe, each of these bubble universes with different parameters. In this model, we inhabit the bubble universe that has conditions for life
    Last edited: Nov 3, 2003
  8. Nov 3, 2003 #7


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Deeply profound or a boring quasi-tautology?

    There's not much doubt that things are finely tuned, or tightly constrained. As Phobos said, you can take your pick of flavour of the Anthropic Principle.

    Seems to me the 'logic' could go either way:
    - what an amazing coincidence! if the parameters were just the tiniest bit different we wouldn't be here!!
    - duh, the parameters have to be like that, otherwise we wouldn't be here to notice!

    Since we don't have any other universes (yet) to observe, 'life' under other parameters remains just theory ... and the realm of scifi authors (that in 'Diaspora' is one of my favourites).
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?