Apologetics may be simply defined as the defense of the Christian faith. The word "apologetics" derives from the Greek word apologia, which was originally used as a speech of defense.

The Fine Tuning Of The Universe

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Fine Tuning Of The Universe

    The fact this is a life permitting universe is astounding. Physical constants are fine tuned to a remarkable degree. If there was only one or two physical constants, then there would be no reason to think that the universe is fine tuned. There would also be no one around to think anything because there are several physical constants and all of them must be fine tuned within a remarkably small range in order for any life to exist in this universe.



    Constants of Space and Time.
    Planck length (the minimum interval of space), l[SIZE=10px]p = 1.62 x 10[/SIZE][SIZE=8px]-33 cm.[/SIZE]

    Planck time (the minimum interval of time), tp = 5.39 x 10-44 sec.

    Planck’s constant (this determines the minimum unit of energy emission), h = 6.6 x 10-34 joule seconds.

    Velocity of light, c = 300,000 km/sec.

    Energy Constants.
    Gravitational attraction constant, G = 6.67 x 10-11 Nm2/kg2.

    Weak force coupling constant, gw = 1.43 x 10-62.

    Strong nuclear force coupling constant, gs = 15.

    Individuating Constants (Composition of the Electromagnetic Force).
    Rest mass of a proton, mp =1.67 x 10-27 kg.

    Rest mass of an electron, me = 9.11 x 10-31 kg.

    The electron or proton unit charge, e = 1.6 x 10-19 coulombs.

    Minimum mass in our universe, (hc/G)½ = 2.18 x 10-8 kg.

    Large-Scale and Fine Structure Constants.
    Rest mass (the current observable mass of the universe) = 1053 kg.

    Boltzmann’s constant, k = 1.38 x 10-23 J/°K

    Hubble constant, H = 2 x 10-18 (SI units[FONT=Times New Roman]—[/FONT]le système international d’unités [metric units]).

    Cosmological constant, [FONT=Times New Roman]Λ < [/FONT]10-53 (SI units).

    Cosmic photon/proton ratio, S = 109 (SI units).

    Permittivity of free space, [FONT=Times New Roman]ε [/FONT]= 8.85 x 10-12 (SI units).

    Electromagnetic fine structure constant, [FONT=Times New Roman]α [/FONT]= 7.30 x 10-3 (SI units).

    Weak fine structure constant, [FONT=Times New Roman]α[/FONT]w = 3.05 x 10-12 (SI units).

    Gravitational fine structure constant [FONT=Times New Roman]α[/FONT]G = 5.90 x 10-39 (SI units).

    New Proofs for the Existence of God: Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy by Robert J. Spitzer

  • #2
    That’s an excellent video and I love the effort to relate how utterly unlikely this universe is, if not designed.

    The video assumes the Big Bang. But, the necessary precision of those numbers do not require the Big Bang. For example, no one can look at the value of gravitational constant and calculate from that how long ago the Big Bang happened. But, given any date of the assumed Big Bang, whether 5 billion or 100 trillion years ago, this universe couldn’t exist now if the gravitational constant was even slightly different. In fact, the further back the Big Bang is placed, the more precise the gravitational constant would have to be, because then there would be more time for imprecision to have destroyed the universe.

    The universe is “flat”. If you flew straight a billion miles and made a 90-degree turn, repeating three more times, you’d end up exactly where you started (in a curved universe, you wouldn’t end up in the same place). In the Big Bang model, there is only one instant in eternity when the universe is flat (don’t we live at a privileged time). Gravity curves the universe, according to the density of the universe. Going back in time, the universe would curve one direction; going forward in time, as the universe expands, the universe would curve the opposite direction. We have a gravitational constant that would give us a flat universe at 14 billion years, if the Big Bang was 14 billion years ago. If we changed the gravitational constant even a little from the value that gave us a flat universe at 14 billion years, the universe wouldn’t be flat now.
    Last edited by Cornelius; 01-13-2016, 08:44 PM. Reason: spelling
    Comment>

    • #3
      Reminded me of a page in Josh and Sean McDowells' book, "More than a Carpenter".

      Fine-tuning the universe Imagine you are trekking through the mountains and come across an abandoned cabin. As you approach the cabin, you notice something very strange. Inside, the refrigerator is filled with your favorite food, the temperature is set just as you like it, your favorite song is playing in the background, and all your favorite books, magazines, and DVDs are sitting on the table. What would you conclude? Since chance would be out of the question, you would likely conclude that someone was expecting your arrival.

      In recent decades, scientists have begun to realize that this scenario mirrors the universe as a whole. The universe seems to have been crafted uniquely with us in mind. “As we look out into the universe and identify the many accidents of physics and astronomy that have worked to our benefit,” says physicist Freeman J. Dyson, “it almost seems as if the universe must in some sense have known that we were coming.”21 This is why British astronomer Fred Hoyle remarked, “A commonsense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature.”22 Physicists agree that life is balanced on a razor’s edge.

      Consider a couple of examples. First, if the law of gravity varied just slightly, the universe would not be habitable for life. In relation to the other forces in nature, gravity must be fine-tuned to one part in 1040 (that’s one part in 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 ,000).23 Second, Cambridge physicist Stephen Hawking observed that, “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 even reached its present size.”24

      There are actually nineteen such universal constants that must each be perfectly fine-tuned.25 Clearly, the odds against us being here are vanishingly small. In fact, Oxford physicist Roger Penrose concluded that if we jointly considered all the laws of nature that must be fine-tuned, we would be unable to write down such an enormous number, since the necessary digits would be greater than the number of elementary particles in the universe.26

      The evidence for design is so compelling that Paul Davies, a renowned physicist at Arizona State University, has concluded that the bio-friendly nature of our universe looks like a “fix.” He put it this way: “The cliché that ‘life is balanced on a knife-edge’ is a staggering understatement in this case: no knife in the universe could have an edge that fine.”27 No scientific explanation for the universe, says Davies, can be complete without accounting for this overwhelming appearance of design. Some try to explain away the fine-tuning by positing the existence of multiple universes, but the empirical evidence for them is nonexistent. The most economical and reliable explanation for why the universe is so precisely fine-tuned is because a Creator—God—made it that way.

      McDowell, Josh D.; Sean McDowell (2011-08-17). More Than a Carpenter (Kindle Locations 831-842). Tyndale House Publishers. Kindle Edition.
      Comment>

      • #4
        Paul Davis is correct. If the values above are changed the universe as we know it could not exist and consequently life could not exist. In fact the precision of these constants scream design.

        1. Strong nuclear force constant
        • if larger: no hydrogen; nuclei essential for life would be unstable
        • if smaller: no elements other than hydrogen
        2. Weak nuclear force constant
        • if larger: too much hydrogen converted to helium in big bang, hence too much heavy element material made by star burning; no expulsion of heavy elements from stars
        • if smaller: too little helium produced from big bang, hence too little heavy element material made by star burning; no expulsion of heavy elements from stars
        3. Gravitational force constant
        • if larger: stars too hot; they would burn up quickly and unevenly
        • if smaller: stars too cool; nuclear fusion would not ignite; no heavy element production
        4. Electromagnetic force constant
        • if larger: insufficient chemical bonding; elements more massive than boron would be too unstable for fusion
        • if smaller: insufficient chemical bonding
        5. Ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant
        • if larger: no stars less than 1.4 solar masses, hence short and uneven stellar burning
        • if smaller: no stars more than 0.8 solar masses. hence no heavy element production
        6. Ratio of electron to proton mass
        • if larger: insufficient chemical bonding
        • if smaller: insufficient chemical bonding
        7. Ratio of number of protons to number of electrons
        • if larger: electromagnetism dominates gravity preventing galaxy, star and planet formation
        • if smaller: electromagnetism dominates gravity preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation
        8. Expansion rate of the universe
        • if larger: no galaxy formation
        • if smaller: universe collapses prior to star formation
        9. Entropy level of the universe
        • if larger: no star condensation within the proto-galaxies
        • if smaller: no proto-galaxy formation
        10. Mass density of the universe
        • if larger: too much deuterium from big bang, hence stars burn too rapidly
        • if smaller: insufficient helium from big bang, hence too few heavy elements forming
        11. Velocity of light
        • if larger: stars would be too luminous
        • if smaller: stars would not be luminous enough
        12. Age of the universe
        • if older: no solar-type stars in a stable burning phase in the right part of the galaxy
        • if younger: solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would not yet have formed
        13. Initial uniformity of radiation
        • if smoother: stars, star clusters, and galaxies would not have formed
        • if coarser: universe by now would be mostly black holes and empty space
        14. Fine structure constant (a number used to describe the fine structure splitting of spectral lines)
        • if larger: no stars more than 0.7 solar masses
        • if smaller: no stars less than 1.8 solar masses
        15. Average distance between galaxies
        • if larger: insufficient gas would be infused into our galaxy to sustain star formation over an adequate time span
        • if smaller: the sun’s orbit would be too radically disturbed
        16. Galaxy cluster type
        • if too rich: galaxy collisions and mergers would disrupt solar orbit
        • if too sparse: insufficient infusion of gas to sustain star formation for a long enough time
        17. Average distance between stars
        • if larger: heavy element density too thin for rocky planets to form
        • if smaller: planetary orbits would become destabilized
        18. Decay rate of the proton
        • if greater: life would be exterminated by the release of radiation
        • if smaller: insufficient matter in the universe for life
        [SIZE=10px]19. 12[/SIZE]C to [SIZE=10px]16[/SIZE]O nuclear energy level ratio
        • if larger: insufficient oxygen
        • if smaller: insufficient carbon
        20. Ground state energy level for [SIZE=10px]4[/SIZE]He
        • if larger: insufficient carbon and oxygen
        • if smaller: insufficient carbon and oxygen
        21. Decay rate of [SIZE=10px]8[/SIZE]Be
        • if slower:heavy element fusion would generate catastrophic explosions in all the stars
        • if faster: no element production beyond beryllium, hence no life chemistry possible
        22. Mass excess of the neutron over the proton
        • if greater: neutron decay would leave too few neutrons to form the heavy elements essential for life
        • if smaller: proton decay would cause all stars to rapidly collapse into neutron stars or black holes
        23. Initial excess of nucleons over anti-nucleons
        • if greater: too much radiation for planets to form
        • if smaller: not enough matter for galaxies or stars to form
        24. Polarity of the water molecule
        • if greater: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too great for life to exist
        • if smaller: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too small for life; liquid water would be too inferior a solvent for life chemistry to proceed; ice would not float, leading to a runaway freeze-up
        25. Supernovae eruptions
        • if too close: radiation would exterminate life on the planet
        • if too far: not enough heavy element ashes for the formation of rocky planets
        • if too infrequent: not enough heavy element ashes for the formation of rocky planets
        • if too frequent: life on the planet would be exterminated
        • if too soon: not enough heavy element ashes for the formation of rocky planets
        • if too late: life on the planet would be exterminated by radiation
        26.White dwarf binaries
        • if too few: insufficient fluorine produced for life chemistry to proceed
        • if too many: disruption of planetary orbits from stellar density; life on the planet would be exterminated
        • if too soon: not enough heavy elements made for efficient fluorine production
        • if too late: fluorine made too late for incorporation in protoplanet
        27. Ratio of the mass of exotic matter to ordinary matter
        • if smaller: galaxies would not form
        • if larger: universe would collapse before solar-type stars can form
        Last edited by Origen; 01-13-2016, 08:30 PM.
        Comment>

        • #5
          Originally posted by Origen View Post
          12. Age of the universe
          • if older: no solar-type stars in a stable burning phase in the right part of the galaxy
          • if younger: solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would not yet have formed
          Just how old do you think the universe is?
          Clyde Herrin's Blog
          Comment>

          • #6
            Originally posted by theophilus View Post
            Just how old do you think the universe is?
            The physical constants given above are obviously based on the big bang model of the universe. However it irrelevant if one is an OEC or a YEC in regard to the physical constants. In either case those physical constants must be fined tuned for a life permitting universe and that calls for design. The issue of OEC verses YEC is a non-issue for me.

            Comment>

            • #7
              Originally posted by theophilus View Post
              Just how old do you think the universe is?

              If you found a wooden arrow that had pierced a peanut on someone's head, and someone told you that the arrow was shot from a guy holding a longbow on Mars, you could both marvel at the extreme precision needed. If the angle of the shot were off by the smallest fraction of a degree or if the speed of by the smallest fraction of a unit of speed, then the arrow would have missed. But, that's no proof that there's someone on Mars with a longbow capable of flinging an arrow all the way to Earth, let alone getting the aim and speed down perfectly. You might even argue that such a bow is impossible. And, that a wooden arrow would shatter at takeoff from the required force, or burn up in Earth's atmosphere once it made it to Earth. Would you say to yourself, "It must be true because of the perfect precision needed"? Not in the least.

              The Big Bang is scientifically impossible for numerous reasons. Yes, the gravitational constant has to be perfectly what it is to give us a livable universe today from the Big Bang (whatever the date of the Big Bang!). And, yet, with the current gravitational constant, the early universe couldn't have expanded in the first place under its own gravity. See the paradox here, the smallest change in the gravitational constant and the universe would have collapsed on itself long ago or blew apart long ago, and yet logically it wouldn't have expanded in the first place because of gravity.

              Advocates of the Big Bang have hypothesized that there's a repulsive force in the universe stronger than gravity. (HA, the dominate force of the universe is undetectable and Atheists believe in it as long as it's not God) So, the gravitational constant is offset by the unknown repulsive force constant, and if either one of them were off by 10 to the power of the number of atoms in the universe, we wouldn't be here. (I'm simplifying the web of Atheists nonsense, but the point is valid.)

              There are also many examples of "fine tuning" of the universe have nothing to do with the history of the universe.



              Comment>
              Working...
              X
              Articles - News - SiteMap