1. The gravitational coupling constantâi.e., the force of gravity, determines what kinds of stars are possible in the universe. If the gravitational force were slightly stronger, star formation would proceed more efficiently and all Stars would be more massive than our sun by at least 1.4 times. These large stars are important in that they alone manufacture elements heavier than iron, and they alone disperse elements heavier than beryllium to the interstellar medium. Such elements are essential for the formation of planets as well as of living things in any form. However, these Stars burn too rapidly and too unevenly to maintain life-supporting conditions on surrounding planets. Stars as small as our sun are necessary for that. On the other hand, if the gravitational force were slightly weaker, all stars would have less than 0.8 times the mass of the sun. Though such stars burn long and evenly enough to maintain life-supporting planets, no heavy elements essential for building such planets or life would exist. 2. The strong nuclear force coupling constant holds together the particles in the nucleus of an atom. If the strong nuclear force were slightly weaker, multi-proton nuclei would not hold together. Hydrogen would be the only element in the universe. If this force were slightly stronger, not only would hydrogen be rare in the universe, but the supply of the various life-essential elements heavier than iron (elements resulting from the fission of very heavy elements) would be insufficient. Either way, life would be impossible.a 3. The weak nuclear force coupling constant affects the behavior of leptons. Leptons form a whole class of elementary particles (e.g. neutrinos, electrons, and photons) that do not participate in strong nuclear reactions. The most familiar weak interaction effect is radioactivity, in particular, the beta decay reaction: neutron à proton + electron + neutrino The availability of neutrons as the universe cools through temperatures appropriate for nuclear fusion determines the amount of helium produced during the first few minutes of the big bang. If the weak nuclear force coupling constant were slightly larger, neutrons would decay more readily, and therefore would be less available. Hence, little or no helium would be produced from the big bang. Without the necessary helium, heavy elements sufficient for the constructing of life would not be made by the nuclear furnaces inside stars. On the other hand, if this constant were slightly smaller, the big bang would burn most or all of the hydrogen into helium, with a subsequent over-abundance of heavy elements made by stars, and again life would not be possible. A second, possibly more delicate, balance occurs for supernovae. It appears that an outward surge of neutrinos determines whether or not a supernova is able to eject its heavy elements into outer space. If the weak nuclear force coupling constant were slightly larger, neutrinos would pass through a supernova's envelop without disturbing it. Hence, the heavy elements produced by the supernova would remain in the core. If the constant were slightly smaller, the neutrinos would not be capable of blowing away the envelop. Again, the heavy elements essential for life would remain trapped forever within the cores of supernovae. 4. The electromagnetic coupling constant binds electrons to protons in atoms. The characteristics of the orbits of electrons about atoms determines to what degree atoms will bond together to form molecules. If the electromagnetic coupling constant were slightly smaller, no electrons would be held in orbits about nuclei. If it were slightly larger, an atom could not "share" an electron orbit with other atoms. Either way, molecules, and hence life, would be impossible. 5. The ratio of electron to proton mass also determines the characteristics of (he orbits of electrons about nuclei. A proton is 1836 times more massive than an electron. if the electron to proton mass ratio were slightly larger or slightly smaller, again, molecules would not form, and life would be impossible. 6. The age of the universe governs what kinds of stars exist. It takes about three billion years for the first stars to form. It takes another ten or twelve billion years for supernovae to spew out enough heavy elements to make possible stars like our sun, stars capable of spawning rocky planets. Yet another few billion years is necessary for solar-type stars to stabilize sufficiently to support advanced life on any of its planets. Hence, if the universe were just a couple of billion years younger, no environment suitable for life would exist. However, if the universe were about ten (or more) billion years older than it is, there would be no solar-type stars in a stable burning phase in the right part of a galaxy. In other words, the window of time during which life is possible in the universe is relatively narrow. 7. The expansion rate of the universe determines what kinds of stars, if any, form in the universe. If the rate of expansion were slightly less, the whole universe would have recollapsed before any solar-type stars could have settled into a stable burning phase. If the universe were expanding slightly more rapidly, no galaxies (and hence no stars) would condense from the general expansion. How critical is this expansion rate? According to Alan Guth,6it must be fine-tuned to an accuracy of one part in 1055. Guth, however, suggests that his inflationary model, given certain values for the four fundamental forces of physics, may provide a natural explanation for the critical expansion rate. 8. The entropy level of the universe affects the condensation of massive systems. The universe contains 100,000,000 photons for every baryon. This makes the universe extremely entropic, i.e. a very efficient radiator and a very poor engine. If the entropy level for the universe were slightly larger, no galactic systems would form (and therefore no stars). If the entropy level were slightly smaller, the galactic systems that formed would effectively trap radiation and prevent any fragmentation of the Systems into stars Either way the universe would be devoid of stars and, thus, of life. (Some models for the universe relate this coincidence to a dependence of entropy upon the gravitational coupling constant.7, 8.) 9. The mass of the universe (actually mass + energy, since E = mc2) determines how much nuclear burning takes place as the universe cools from the hot big bang. If the mass were slightly larger, too much deuterium (hydrogen atoms with nuclei containing both a proton and a neutron) would form during the cooling of the big bang. Deuterium is a powerful catalyst for subsequent nuclear burning in Stars. This extra deuterium would cause stars to burn much too rapidly to sustain life on any possible planet. On the other hand, if the mass of the universe were slightly smaller, no helium would be generated during the cooling of the big bang. Without helium, stars cannot produce the heavy elements necessary for life. Thus, we see a reason why the universe is as big as it is. If it were any smaller (or larger), not even one planet like the earth would be possible. 10. The uniformity of the universe determines its stellar components. Our universe has a high degree of uniformity. Such uniformity is considered to arise most probably from a brief period of inflationary expansion near the time of the origin of the universe. If the inflation (or some other mechanism) had not smoothed the universe to the degree we see, the universe would have developed into a plethora of black holes separated by virtually empty space. On the other hand, if the universe were smoothed beyond this degree, stars, star clusters, and galaxies may never have formed at all. Either way, the resultant universe would be incapable of supporting life. next post
11. The stability of the proton affects the quantity of matter in the universe and also the radiation level as it pertains to higher life forms. Each proton contains three quarks. Through the agency of other particles (called bosons) quarks decay into antiquarks, pions, and positive electrons. Currently in our universe this decay process occurs on the average of only once per proton per 1032 years.b If that rate were greater, the biological consequences for large animals and man would be catastrophic, for the proton decays would deliver lethal doses of radiation. On the other hand, if the proton were more stable (less easily formed and less likely to decay), less matter would have emerged from events occurring in the first split second of the universe's existence. There would be insufficient matter in the universe for life to be possible. 12. The fine structure constants relate directly to each of the four fundamental forces of physics (gravitational, electromagnetic, strong nuclear, and weak nuclear). Compared to the coupling constants, the fine structure constants typically yield stricter design constraints for the universe. For example, the electromagnetic fine structure constant affects the opacity of stellar material. (Opacity is the degree to which a material permits radiant energy to pass through). In star formation, gravity pulls material together while thermal motions tend to pull it apart. An increase in the opacity of this material will limit the effect of thermal motions. Hence, smaller clumps of material will be able to overcome the resistance of the thermal motions. If the electromagnetic fine structure constant were slightly larger, all stars would be less than 0.7 times the mass of the sun. If the electromagnetic fine structure constant were slightly smaller, all stars would be more than 1.8 times the mass of the sun. 13. The velocity of light can be expressed in a variety of ways as a function of any one of the fundamental forces of physics or as a function of one of the fine structure constants. Hence, in the case of this constant, too, the slightest change, up or down, would negate any possibility for life in the universe. 14. The 8Be, 12C, and 16O nuclear energy levels affect the manufacture and abundance of elements essential to life. Atomic nuclei exist in various discrete energy levels. A transition from one level to another occurs through the emission or capture of a photon that possesses precisely the energy difference between the two levels. The first coincidence here is that 8Be decays in just 10-15 seconds. Because 8Be is so highly unstable, it slows down the fusion process. If it were more stable, fusion of heavier elements would proceed so readily that catastrophic stellar explosions would result. Such explosions would prevent the formation of many heavy elements essential for life. On the other hand, if 8Be were even more unstable, element production beyond 8Be would not occur. The second coincidence is that 12C happens to have a nuclear energy level very slightly above the sum of the energy levels for 8Be and 4He. Anything other than this precise nuclear energy level for 12C would guarantee insufficient carbon production for life. The third coincidence is that 16O has exactly the right nuclear energy level either to prevent all the carbon from turning into oxygen or to facilitate sufficient production of 16O for life. Fred Hoyle, who discovered these coincidences in 1953, concluded that "a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology."10 15. The distance between stars affects the orbits and even the existence of planets. The average distance between stars in our part of the galaxy is about 30 trillion miles. If this distance were slightly smaller, the gravitational interaction between stars would be so strong as to destabilize planetary orbits. this destabilization would create extreme temperature variations on the planet. If this distance were slightly larger, the heavy element debris thrown out by supernovae would be so thinly distributed that rocky planets like earth would never form. The average distance between stars is just right to make possible a planetary system such as our own. 16. The rate of luminosity increase for stars affects the temperature conditions on surrounding planets. Small stars, like the sun, settle into a stable burning phase once the hydrogen fusion process ignites within their core. However, during this stable burning phase such stars undergo a very gradual increase in their luminosity. This gradual increase is perfectly suitable for the gradual introduction of life forms, in a sequence from primitive to advanced, upon a planet. If the rate of increase were slightly greater, a runaway green house effectc would be fell sometime between the introduction of the primitive and the introduction of the advanced life forms. If the rate of increase were slightly smaller, a runaway freezingd of the oceans and lakes would occur. Either way, the planet's temperature would become too extreme for advanced life or even for the long-term survival of primitive life. This list of sensitive constants is by no means complete. And yet it demonstrates why a growing number of physicists and astronomers have become convinced that the universe was not only divinely brought into existence but also divinely designed. American astronomer George Greenstein expresses his thoughts: As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agencyâor, rather, Agencyâmust be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?11 this is from a website by hugh rosst - when you look at these suggestions of fine tuning it seems amazing to me that anyone could have a completely closed mind to the possiblity to design. I know some of these points are disputed but when you put them all together - no wonder chairs of phyisics depts concede the universe looks spectacularly designed and to combat the conclusion of design they propose the existence of billions of parallel universes. (an an falsifiable, untestable speculation)>
and for those of you like KJ who were trying to argue that Professor Susskind was not saying what I wrote above then here is an article where he debtate the anthropic principle with Lee Smolin. http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/smolin_susskind04/smolin_susskind.html Now for the emotional. Please note I am not saying Profesor Susskind says the universe is designed. What i am saying is that his logic is that if there is only one universe our universe looks spectacularly designed. (He of course argues that you cant draw such a conclusion because there are billiions of universes)
TraderNik: Sure, because you have no idea what design in nature would look like. Therefore, it could be right in front of your face and you wouldn't recognize it. TraderNik: I previously destroyed this assertion of yours by pointing out that Richard Dawkins who is an atheist and a scientist thinks things in nature look designed. So do many ID advocates that are agnostics. So FAITH IN GOD has nothing to do with it.
By the way if you read the articles from the cite I gave you above -- You will see two very qualified men Physicists arguing about the ramifications of the the fine tunings in the universe. One argues that information is passed on through black holes when the parallel universes are made (selected) and Susskind argues that the overwhelming majority no longer support the idea that information could be passed on from one universe to another through a black hole. Now while neither of these guys believe in design they do seem to take the Anthropic Priniciple very seriously. here is the final paragraph from Susskind. " But what I find especially mystifying is Smolin's tendency to set himself up as an arbiter of good and bad science. Among the people who feel that the anthropic principle deserves to be taken seriously, are some very famous physicists and cosmologists with extraordinary histories of scientific accomplishment. They include Steven Weinberg [2], Joseph Polchinski [3], Andrei Linde [4], and Sir Martin Rees [5]. These people are not fools, nor do they need to be told what constitutes good science." [2] Professor of Physics, University of Texas and Nobel Prize winner 1979. [3] Professor of Physics, Kavli Institute for Theoretical Phyiscs. [4] Professor of Physics, Stanford University, Winner of many awards and prizes including the Dirac Medal and Franklin Medal. [5] Astronomer Royal of Great Britain.
Since you have now indirectly attacked me, I'm forced to respond. You are arguing exactly the reverse of what is required to prove your hypothesis. In order to actually conduct a probability experiment we must be able to initiate multiple trials and see what the statistical outcome is over those multiple trials. And, in the case of the universe, we cannot do this, so the probability experiment is rendered meaningless. Now, if you could restart the universe at your leisure, and every time you did so, the result is human life appears on Earth at approximately the same time and in the same place, then I'd say you are on to a very important proof that this universe appears to be spectacularly well designed, and moreover that quantum physics is an illusion created by a designer. But, you can't -- so your probability hypothesis is nothing more than a speculation, because you cannot test it. Anticipating that you will now argue that all of the independent events are too impossible to all have coalesced to produce humanity when and where it has, my response is still the same: you cannot conduct the experiment more than once to see what would happen the next time. If the next time you conducted the test, the result is the same, then you win and the universe is starting to look pretty designed. But if it doesn't, then you don't know, and if you do the test another quadrillion times and humanity pops up never again, then the fact we are here is probably just an interesting coincidence and nothing more. You are arguing the reverse: that the fact that we are here is proof that the universe is designed because it is so unlikely. But, that's not how this probability experiment works.
I could engage you in this sophistry but instead I will remain steadfast in the science that I have provided and the knowledge that I just cited you to powerful reasons for any open minded person to reconsider his/her position. One side- KJ and others here at ET saying no evidence of design or even a reason to investigate because they say so. Otherside some nobel prize winning physicists saying the Anthropic Principle should be taken seriously because of scientific observatons and theories. But what I find especially mystifying is Smolin's tendency to set himself up as an arbiter of good and bad science. Among the people who feel that the anthropic principle deserves to be taken seriously, are some very famous physicists and cosmologists with extraordinary histories of scientific accomplishment. They include Steven Weinberg [2], Joseph Polchinski [3], Andrei Linde [4], and Sir Martin Rees [5]. These people are not fools, nor do they need to be told what constitutes good science. ________________________ [1] Of course you might say that the distance to the sun determines the temperature. But that just replaces the question with another, "Why is our planet at the precise distance that it is?" [2] Professor of Physics, University of Texas and Nobel Prize winner 1979. [3] Professor of Physics, Kavli Institute for Theoretical Phyiscs. [4] Professor of Physics, Stanford University, Winner of many awards and prizes including the Dirac Medal and Franklin Medal. [5] Astronomer Royal of Great Britain. Please see the cite I gave a few posts ago.
The flipside of ID is multiverse. And multiverse is the only real viable alternative to a non-designed universe. But strangely, multiverse is equally as unprovable as ID.