I CANNOT IMPROVE ON WHAT GERALD SCHROEDER HAS WRITTEN: (http://www.geraldschroeder.com/FineTuning.aspx).
I LIFTED THE FOLLOWING FROM: http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1277-fine-tuning-of-the-universe.
I JUST SLIGHTLY MODIFIED THE LAYOUT:
“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'."
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).
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: 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000, but
instead: 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 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.
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.
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?"
ONLY THE MOST COURAGEOUS ACT OF BLIND FAITH CAN AVOID THE
OBVIOUS CONCLUSION: AN ALL-KNOWING AND ALL-POWERFUL DESIGNED IT ALL!
No comments:
Post a Comment