Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

See what pretzels people make of themselves, to deny fine-tuning of the universe for life?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

From Real Clear Science:

To try to test how fine-tuned Hoyle’s resonance is, Meissner’s team ran a series of simulations with different average quark masses and with different fine structure constant values. As described in a paper published in December in the journal Science Bulletin, they found that if they gave either constant a value around two to three percent larger or smaller than its measured value, dying stars could still produce enough carbon to account for the amount we see on Earth. Previously, other groups found similar results for the fine structure constant, but Meissner’s group was the first to study what happens if the quarks’ mass varies.

Meissner acknowledges that the research does not answer why the values are what they are. To explain this, some physicists invoke a concept called the “multiverse,” in which “parallel” universes with many different possible values of the constants exist, and we, unsurprisingly, find ourselves in one in which complex life can evolve. Meissner says his team’s work “gives some credit” to this concept, but does not explain how the many universes would be generated.

“This paper strengthens the case for the fine-tuning of the universe,” agrees Luke Barnes, an astrophysicist at the University of Sydney. Meissner’s team’s model of the carbon atom is more advanced than previous efforts, he said, especially because they can change the mass of the quarks.

Then we hear, “Others are less impressed.”

Why? Because there could be universes with different parameters from ours that could support types of life we can’t even imagine:

“Maybe if you change the quark masses not by three percent but by 50 percent you could end up with a situation where life as we know it couldn’t exist, but life as we don’t know it could exist,” he said.

In short, if we can just leave evidence out of it, we can dispense with fine-tuning.

See also: Copernicus, you are not going to believe who is using your name. Or how.

and How crazy it all gets when we ignore evidence in favour of speculation

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments
I like Science, CH. Fine tuning is a current dilemma in Cosmology/Physics, and Design in Nature is a hot topic in Biology/GeoPhysics/ Chemistry etc. Cool stuff on UD;)ppolish
February 26, 2015
February
02
Feb
26
26
2015
03:33 PM
3
03
33
PM
PDT
Did you ever consider it's not there at all considering the conspicuous absence of life? You seem to have an attachment to fine tuning.CHartsil
February 26, 2015
February
02
Feb
26
26
2015
03:09 PM
3
03
09
PM
PDT
CH, the fine tuning for life was there even before life was there. Even if Earth life is the only life - that does not affect the fact of fine tuning for life. There are virtually infinite ways to have a lifeless universe. But only an incredibly fine tuned one to have life, any life. You can ignore/deny, but science certainly isn't. It has them stumped. Proposing Multiverse. What else can they do? Not ignore/deny lol.ppolish
February 26, 2015
February
02
Feb
26
26
2015
02:51 PM
2
02
51
PM
PDT
"CH, it may help you understand how fine tuned the Universe is for life if you imagine lots of other life in the Universe." >Having to imagine lots of other life. >There not actually being lots of other life.CHartsil
February 26, 2015
February
02
Feb
26
26
2015
02:36 PM
2
02
36
PM
PDT
CH, it may help you understand how fine tuned the Universe is for life if you imagine lots of other life in the Universe. The fine tuning maths are the same regardless of the quantity of life, but it may help you grasp the fine tuning "problem" science is struggling with if you imagine lots of life.ppolish
February 26, 2015
February
02
Feb
26
26
2015
02:24 PM
2
02
24
PM
PDT
CH. imagine not just 400 trillion doors but 400 trillion raised to 400 trillion. And I pick the one door with the car. That is not luck. Do YOU understand now? Don't feel stupid if you don't understand. Brightest Cosmologists and Physicists are stumped too:)ppolish
February 26, 2015
February
02
Feb
26
26
2015
01:33 PM
1
01
33
PM
PDT
>There's a 40 billion ton mountain containing .0001oz of gold. It's clearly fine tuned for gold mining >I'm on Let's Make A Deal and 1 out of these 400 trillion doors has a car behind it. This was clearly fine tuned for me to win a car >One planet in a galaxy of billions of planets in a universe of hundreds of billions of galaxies harbors life. It was clearly fine tuned for life. Understand now?CHartsil
February 26, 2015
February
02
Feb
26
26
2015
12:53 PM
12
12
53
PM
PDT
Mountains of evidence, CH, mountains of evidence. The paper BA77 just linked to shows a great experiment meant to test fine tuning. If they showed that "dark energy" had changed - it would have been major headline news. "COSMO CONSTANT NOT FINE TUNED - IT EVOLVED!!" But nope, just another science paper confirming the awesome fine tuning. Boo Hiss,ppolish
February 26, 2015
February
02
Feb
26
26
2015
12:44 PM
12
12
44
PM
PDT
ppolish are you still honestly under the impression that 1 planet out of 400 trillion containing life = the universe being fine tuned for life?CHartsil
February 26, 2015
February
02
Feb
26
26
2015
12:32 PM
12
12
32
PM
PDT
Great paper BA77! Evidence of the incredible fine tuning continues to be confirmed. "Dark Energy" is the PC way to describe the baddest bad boy of fine tuning - the Cosmological Constant. Many are hoping to see the Cosmological Constant "evolve" ie change over time. Nope, this evidence, like all other measurements, reveal it as a constant. An awesomely fine tuned constant. Fine tuned to one hundred plus decimal place since forever:)ppolish
February 26, 2015
February
02
Feb
26
26
2015
12:28 PM
12
12
28
PM
PDT
40: What exactly did he know that was beyond human knowledge? 41: Ditto. You just keep making the same assertion that things would be different with zero reasoning or justification behind it. You missed the point of the decks of cards, the point is odds. "Probabilities when we have absolute Nothingness? What are the probabilities for Nothing to create something?" If there was absolutely nothing, that's a loaded question as there would then also be no law of causality.CHartsil
February 26, 2015
February
02
Feb
26
26
2015
12:26 PM
12
12
26
PM
PDT
Psalm 119:89-91 Your eternal word, O Lord, stands firm in heaven. Your faithfulness extends to every generation, as enduring as the earth you created. Your regulations remain true to this day, for everything serves your plans. Distant quasar spectrum reveals no sign of changes in mass ratio of proton and electron over 12 billion years - Feb 25, 2015 Excerpt: A team of space researchers working with data from the VLT in Chile has found via measuring the spectrum of a distant quasar by analyzing absorption lines in a galaxy in front of it, that there was no measurable change in the mass ratio of protons and electrons over a span of 12 billion years.,,, Some theories suggest that dark energy, the mysterious force that has the universe continuing to expand, might be a field that evolves over time—if so, that might mean that some of the constants we take for granted, such as gravity, the speed of light, etc., might actually evolve as well. In this new effort, the researchers sought to test that idea by looking to see if the mass of protons or electrons (both of which are considered to be fundamental constants) and the ratio that describes their mass difference, changed over the course of billions of years.,,, Their measurements showed no deviation (with a precision of 10^–6) from the current constant, suggesting that the ratio has remained constant for at least 12 billon years. And this, the researchers claim, suggests that if dark energy is evolving, it has not done so over that time span. http://phys.org/news/2015-02-distant-quasar-spectrum-reveals-mass.html C. S. Lewis put it this way: “Men became scientific because they expected law in nature and they expected law in nature because they believed in a lawgiver.” https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/eric-metaxas-uses-science-against-atheism/#comment-550404bornagain77
February 26, 2015
February
02
Feb
26
26
2015
07:55 AM
7
07
55
AM
PDT
CHartsil i am starting to believe that you are a troll...
If it were different, it would be different. (Not existing is different)
non existent is not different, difference needs something to exist to consider it different from something else, nothingness cannot provide difference. My nothing is different from your nothing..see? It sounds stupid.
Still no justification behind it.
Stephen Hawking has calculated that if the rate of the universe's expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller or bigger by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have collapsed into a fireball...
1: No, it’s merely emphasizing that one possibility being highly unlikely doesn’t mean it can’t happen without intelligent input.
Your lottery machine must be created first to have probabilities on something physical, it can't draw something from nothing but from something, this something began to exist therefor the Lottery Machine began to exist also.
2: Burden shifting. If you’re claiming it’s impossible that the universe could’ve turned out any other way then it’s your burden to show it.
The Universe couldn't turn out differently if you change the Hubble Constant, some constants can be changed and have a different Universe but not the Hubble Constant.
I“Your analogy feels good to people who are ideologically committed to downplaying the relevance of probability calculations for specific events” Projection
Probabilities when we have absolute Nothingness? What are the probabilities for Nothing to create something?JimFit
February 25, 2015
February
02
Feb
25
25
2015
06:43 PM
6
06
43
PM
PDT
Guys your arguing with someone that denies that a man having a. Wrist so nde when he was times at having it with no functional brain beliefs that this isn't good evidence for conscious awareness without a functioning brain. Chartsil is determined to believe what he wants despite the evidence. No different than what David Koresh and his branch davidians believed in Waco Texas . You can't convince a dogmatic person no matter how good the evidence is . Some people have made up their minds no matter where the evidences leads . I'm sure glad doctor Antony Flew was more open minded than this .wallstreeter43
February 25, 2015
February
02
Feb
25
25
2015
04:30 PM
4
04
30
PM
PDT
"Not different, change the Hubble Constant and the Universe recollapses on itself, NO UNIVERSE AT ALL!" >If it were different, it would be different. (Not existing is different) Still no justification behind it. drc 1: No, it's merely emphasizing that one possibility being highly unlikely doesn't mean it can't happen without intelligent input. 2: Burden shifting. If you're claiming it's impossible that the universe could've turned out any other way then it's your burden to show it. "Your analogy feels good to people who are ideologically committed to downplaying the relevance of probability calculations for specific events" ProjectionCHartsil
February 25, 2015
February
02
Feb
25
25
2015
10:42 AM
10
10
42
AM
PDT
CHartsil, I tried, and tried, but I just couldn't let the "improbable events happen all the time" foolishness with the cards go unanswered. It is 100% true that ridiculously improbable events happen all the time - it is also 100% true that this fact is completely irrelevant to calculations of probability that a specific event (such as abiogenisis, or a fine-tuned universe, or planet, etc.) could have occurred. Your card deck examples suffers from two horrible flaws, that make it irrelevant: 1) It only applies if all outcomes have equal value 2) It denies the possibility of impossibility For example - the only probability that matters in your "deal cards from 1024 decks" is the probability that you will have an arrangement of cards from 1024 decks when you are done. Which probability is 100%. Because you don't care what result you end up with - yes, the specific probability of what occurred is ridiculously improbably, but it is also meaningless. If you want to take your analogy to its absurd end - what is the probability that a specific grain of sand would end up in your shoe after a trip to the beach? or that you would open your eyes at the exact nanosecond that you did this morning? Or that all the atoms in the universe would occupy the exact position that they do at this exact point in time? All these have hugely improbable odds, and they are all exactly 0% pertinent to whether the universe is fine-tuned to a precise (specific) set of characteristics - because they aren't being compared to a specific outcome, and they are all events that HAD to happen - all the atoms HAVE to occupy some position, if your eyes opened it HAD to happen at some point it time, if you get sand in your shoe it HAD to be some particular grain of sand. And none of those events relate to any specific type of outcome. To accept your premise that "because highly improbable events occur all the time, the fact that a specific highly improbably event occurred should not be surprising", we would have to basically throw out the value of probability calculations altogether. What is the probability that a million people will all win the PowerBall lotto at the same time? Doesn't matter - improbable events happen all the time! What is the probability that if I throw a deck of cards in the air, it will fall into a 7-tiered card-house? Doesn't matter, improbable events happen all the time! Should I be suspicious if someone wins the maximum jackpot on 100-consecutive slot machine pulls in a row? Nope - improbable events happen all the time! Your analogy feels good to people who are ideologically committed to downplaying the relevance of probability calculations for specific events (e.g. Evolutionists), but has exactly no relevance and carries no weight with anyone who rationally considers the likelihood of specific events occurring. IOW - keep the card deck analogy in your pocket for when you're preaching to the True-Believer Evolutionary choir, but don't expect rational thinkers to take you seriously.drc466
February 25, 2015
February
02
Feb
25
25
2015
07:55 AM
7
07
55
AM
PDT
Yes we get it. You still have yet to give any reason as to why they should be different. That paper is a long drawn out version of the same thing. You’re still looking back on something that’s already happened and trying to apply odds to it.
Not different, change the Hubble Constant and the Universe recollapses on itself, NO UNIVERSE AT ALL! It is true that, given the fact that we’re here and we’re alive, we should expect to observe a life-permitting universe. This is called the Anthropic Principle. But that expectation, and our observations which confirm it, do nothing to explain why the universe is life-permitting when it didn’t have to be. A life-prohibiting universe is vastly more probable than a life-permitting one, so why does a life-permitting universe exist? What is the best explanation? Is it chance, necessity, or design? Fine-tuning cries out for an explanation, but the anthropic principle is not the answer. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is helpful once more: “While trivially true, [the anthropic] principle has no explanatory power, and does not constitute a substantive alternative explanation.”JimFit
February 24, 2015
February
02
Feb
24
24
2015
05:29 PM
5
05
29
PM
PDT
>If things were different they would be different. Yes we get it. You still have yet to give any reason as to why they should be different. That paper is a long drawn out version of the same thing. You're still looking back on something that's already happened and trying to apply odds to it.CHartsil
February 24, 2015
February
02
Feb
24
24
2015
05:24 PM
5
05
24
PM
PDT
You’re still beating the dead horse of “The universe was designed for life because .000000000000001% of it can sustain life”
If the Universe was smaller there would be no life because the universe had to contain sufficient matter to form galaxies and stars, without which life would not have appeared. Please debunk this paper about the Fine Tuning, militant atheist Victor Stenger failed to do it and it was his field of study. http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1112/1112.4647v1.pdfJimFit
February 24, 2015
February
02
Feb
24
24
2015
05:17 PM
5
05
17
PM
PDT
Appeal to authority. You're still beating the dead horse of "The universe was designed for life because .000000000000001% of it can sustain life" "the very plausible conclusion that you are indulging ideologically motivated selective hyperskepticism." Says the person with the motive of supporting a creator. See; ProjectionCHartsil
February 24, 2015
February
02
Feb
24
24
2015
04:54 PM
4
04
54
PM
PDT
CH: Kindly see here, and the onward linked, especially both Robin Collins and Luke Barnes: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/id-foundations-6-introducing-the-cosmological-design-inference/ The matter is not as you seem to imagine, even after being directed to where you can find out more. KF PS: Brazen dismissal may comfort you and your peers, but others looking on at the balance on the merits will for example listen to a Nobel-equivalent prize holding astrophysicist (and life-long agnostic) such as Sir Fred Hoyle:
From 1953 onward, Willy Fowler and I have always been intrigued by the remarkable relation of the 7.65 MeV energy level in the nucleus of 12 C to the 7.12 MeV level in 16 O. If you wanted to produce carbon and oxygen in roughly equal quantities by stellar nucleosynthesis, these are the two levels you would have to fix, and your fixing would have to be just where these levels are actually found to be. Another put-up job? . . . I am inclined to think so. A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has “monkeyed” with the physics as well as the chemistry and biology, and there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature.[F. Hoyle, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 20 (1982): 16.]
. . . and draw the very plausible conclusion that you are indulging ideologically motivated selective hyperskepticism.kairosfocus
February 24, 2015
February
02
Feb
24
24
2015
02:13 PM
2
02
13
PM
PDT
Fine tuning remains specious assertion. A driveway with a plant growing in a crack wasn't fine tuned for that plant to grow there. We were produced by the universe so it appears as if it was designed for us. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-texas-sharpshooterCHartsil
February 24, 2015
February
02
Feb
24
24
2015
01:33 PM
1
01
33
PM
PDT
CH, watch this quick vid by much respected Atheist Physicist Susskind; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cT4zZIHR3s&feature=youtube_gdata_player Fine Tuning is real, and it's spectacular;$ppolish
February 24, 2015
February
02
Feb
24
24
2015
01:19 PM
1
01
19
PM
PDT
"But Science shows that a Universe with even one live planet has to be incredibly fine tuned. Do some homework." What science? There's no remotely logical person who would think that because one planet has life on it, the universe is fine tuned for life.CHartsil
February 24, 2015
February
02
Feb
24
24
2015
01:16 PM
1
01
16
PM
PDT
The claim was fine tuning, I expressed skepticism of fine tuning. It’s your burden to demonstrate it. That’s how it works.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1112/1112.4647v1.pdfJimFit
February 24, 2015
February
02
Feb
24
24
2015
01:15 PM
1
01
15
PM
PDT
"The argument isn’t that the one mine (planet) is fine tuned. The argument is that the collective of the mines (universe) is fine tuned for that one mine/planet. No word twisting or dodging, thanks." I thought your mines were universes not planets. It was not obvious what you were trying to suggest. But Science shows that a Universe with even one live planet has to be incredibly fine tuned. Do some homework.ppolish
February 24, 2015
February
02
Feb
24
24
2015
01:12 PM
1
01
12
PM
PDT
The claim was fine tuning, I expressed skepticism of fine tuning. It's your burden to demonstrate it. That's how it works.CHartsil
February 24, 2015
February
02
Feb
24
24
2015
01:03 PM
1
01
03
PM
PDT
Burden shifting
No its not since everything follows Determinism.JimFit
February 24, 2015
February
02
Feb
24
24
2015
01:01 PM
1
01
01
PM
PDT
"can you please prove me that something random DID occurred in this chain of events that leads to life to support that you are a random cosmic mistake without purpose?" Burden shifting "Heck yea that one mine is fine tuned for diamond mining. Incredibly fine tuned." The argument isn't that the one mine (planet) is fine tuned. The argument is that the collective of the mines (universe) is fine tuned for that one mine/planet. No word twisting or dodging, thanks.CHartsil
February 24, 2015
February
02
Feb
24
24
2015
12:53 PM
12
12
53
PM
PDT
"Far from doing away with a transcendent Creator, the multiverse theory actually injects that very concept at almost every level of its logical structure. Gods and worlds, creators and creatures, lie embedded in each other, forming an infinite regress in unbounded space." From the NYTimes article linked below. Although Davies says scientists have long contemplated the multiverse, it really only kicked into high gear after 1998 - the year that the theoretical cosmological constant was actually observed in Nature. Oh boy. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/12/opinion/a-brief-history-of-the-multiverse.htmlppolish
February 24, 2015
February
02
Feb
24
24
2015
12:49 PM
12
12
49
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply