fc you have an incredible troll power of blocking out truth and calling your educator a liar. its a bit sick... you should see someone.
The
fine-tuned Universe is the proposition that the conditions that allow
life in the
Universe can only occur when certain universal
fundamental physical constants lie within a very narrow range, so that if any of several fundamental constants were only slightly different, the Universe would be unlikely to be conducive to the establishment and development of
matter, astronomical structures, elemental diversity, or life as it is understood.
[1] The proposition is discussed among
philosophers,
scientists,
theologians, and proponents and detractors of
creationism.
Physicist
Paul Davies has asserted that "There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the Universe is in several respects ‘fine-tuned' for life". However, he continues, "the conclusion is not so much that the Universe is fine-tuned for life; rather it is fine-tuned for the building blocks and environments that life requires." He also states that "'
anthropic' reasoning fails to distinguish between minimally
biophilic universes, in which life is permitted, but only marginally possible, and optimally biophilic universes, in which life flourishes because
biogenesis occurs frequently".
[2] Among scientists who find the evidence persuasive, a variety of
natural explanations have been proposed, such as the
anthropic principle along with
multiple universes.
George F. R. Ellisobserves "that no possible astronomical observations can ever see those other universes. The arguments are indirect at best. And even if the multiverse exists, it leaves the deep mysteries of nature unexplained."
[3]
History[edit]
In 1913, the
chemist Lawrence Joseph Henderson (1878–1942) wrote
The Fitness of the Environment, one of the first books to explore concepts of fine tuning in the Universe. Henderson discusses the importance of
water and the
environment with respect to living things, pointing out that life depends entirely on the very specific environmental conditions on Earth, especially with regard to the prevalence and properties of water.
[4]
In 1961, the physicist
Robert H. Dicke claimed that certain forces in
physics, such as
gravity and
electromagnetism, must be perfectly fine-tuned for life to exist anywhere in the Universe.
[5][6] Fred Hoyle also argued for a fine-tuned Universe in his 1984 book
Intelligent Universe. He compares "the chance of obtaining even a single functioning protein by chance combination of
amino acids to a
star system full of blind men solving
Rubik's Cube simultaneously".
[7]
John Gribbin and
Martin Rees wrote a detailed history and defence of the fine-tuning argument in their book
Cosmic Coincidences (1989). According to Gribbin and Rees, carbon-based life was not haphazardly arrived at, but the deliberate end of a Universe "tailor-made for man."
[8]
Premise[edit]
The premise of the fine-tuned Universe assertion is that a small change in several of the
dimensionless fundamental physical constants would make the Universe radically different. As
Stephen Hawking has noted, "The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life."
[9]
If, for example, the strong nuclear force were 2% stronger than it is (i.e., if the
coupling constant representing its strength were 2% larger), while the other constants were left unchanged,
diprotons would be stable and hydrogen would
fuse into them instead of
deuterium and
helium.
[10] This would drastically alter the physics of
stars, and presumably preclude the existence of life similar to what we observe on Earth. The existence of the diproton would short-circuit the slow fusion of hydrogen into deuterium. Hydrogen would fuse so easily that it is likely that all of the Universe's hydrogen would be consumed in the first few minutes after the
Big Bang.
[10] However, some of the fundamental constants describe the properties of the unstable strange, charmed, bottom and top
quarks and mu and tau
leptons that seem to play little part in the Universe or the structure of matter.[
citation needed]
The precise formulation of the idea is made difficult by the fact that physicists do not yet know how many independent physical constants there are. The current
standard model of particle physics has 25 freely adjustable parameters with an additional parameter, the
cosmological constant, for gravitation. However, because the standard model is not mathematically self-consistent under certain conditions (e.g., at very high energies, at which both
quantum mechanics and
general relativity are relevant), physicists believe that it is underlaid by some other theory, such as a
grand unified theory,
string theory, or
loop quantum gravity. In some candidate theories, the actual number of independent physical constants may be as small as one. For example, the cosmological constant may be a fundamental constant, but attempts have also been made to calculate it from other constants, and according to the author of one such calculation, "the small value of the cosmological constant is telling us that a remarkably precise and totally unexpected relation exists among all the parameters of the
Standard Model of particle physics, the bare cosmological constant and unknown physics."
[11]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe
