rabjot_singh@yahoo.co.in
SPNer
Dear All,
Presenting befor you a scientific concept that acknowledges the existence of a creator.
FINE TUNING OF THE WORLD – THE WORK OF A SUPREME BEING – OR IT ALL HAPPENED BY CHANCE.
INTRODUCTION
"There are many . . . lucky accidents in physics. Without such accidents, water could not exist as liquid, chains of carbon atoms could not form complex organic molecules, and hydrogen atoms could not form breakable bridges between molecules"--in short, life as we know it would be impossible.
Scientists and others call this extraordinary balancing of the fundamental physical structure of the universe for life the "fine-tuning of the cosmos." It has been extensively discussed by philosophers, theologians, and scientists, especially since the early 1970s, with many articles and books written on the topic.
Fine Tuning is the presence of balance amongst various factors that resulted in the Existence of our Universe…….can it all happen by chance?.........read it for yourself & decide
MAIN CONCEPT
So far, physicists have discovered four forces in nature - gravity, the weak force, electromagnetism, and the strong nuclear force that binds protons and neutrons together in an atom. Using one of the standard dimensionless measures of force strengths, gravity is the weakest of the forces, and the strong nuclear force is the strongest, being a factor of 1040 - or ten thousand billion, billion, billion, billion - times stronger than gravity. These forces are so designed in strength on our planet earth that it definitely indicates their designing by a higher power.
Various calculations show that the strength of each of the forces of nature must fall into a very accurate balance to give rise to a life-permitting region for intelligent life to exist. As the first example, consider gravity. If we increased the strength of gravity on earth a billionfold, for instance, the force of gravity would be so great that any land-based organism anywhere near the size of human beings would be crushed. "In an imaginary strong gravity world, even insects would need thick legs to support them, and no animals could get much larger." . Now, the above argument assumes that the size of the planet on which life formed would be an earth-sized planet. Could life forms of comparable intelligence to ourselves develop on a much smaller planet in such a strong-gravity world? The answer is no. A planet with a gravitational pull of a thousand times that of earth -- which would make the existence of organisms of our size very improbable-- would have a diameter of about 40 feet or 12 meters, once again not large enough to sustain the sort of large-scale ecosystem necessary for organisms like us to evolve. Of course, a billion-fold increase in the strength of gravity is a lot, but compared to the total range of strengths of the forces in nature (which span a range of 1040 as we saw above), this still amounts to afine-tuning of one part in 1031. (Indeed, other calculations show that stars with life-times of more than a billion years, as compared to our sun's life-time of ten billion years, could not exist if gravity were increased by more than a factor of 3000. This would have significant intelligent life-inhibiting
On the other hand, if the strong force were slightly increased or decreased, the existence of complex life would be seriously inhibited, if not rendered impossible. For instance, using the latest equations and codes for stellar evolution it can be showed that a small increase or decrease in the strong force - by as little as 1% -- would drastically decrease, by thirty to a thousandfold, either the total amount of carbon or oxygen formed in stars .Since the carbon and oxygen on planets comes from previous stars that have exploded or blown off their outer layers, this means that very little oxygen would be available for the existence of carbon-based life. At the very least, this would have a life-inhibiting effect given the many important, and seemingly irreplaceable, roles oxygen plays in living processes, such as that of being essential for water. Other arguments can be given for the other two forces - the electromagnetic force and the weak force -- being fine-tuned
There are other cases of the fine-tuning of the constants of physics besides the strength of the forces, however. Probably the most widely discussed among physicists and cosmologists - and esoteric-- is the fine-tuning of what is known as the cosmological constant. The cosmological constant was a term that great Einstein included in his central equation of his theory of gravity - General relativity --. A positive cosmological constant acts as a sort of anti-gravity, a repulsive force that acts against Gravity Force. If the cosmological constant had a significant positive value, space would expand so rapidly that all matter would quickly disperse, and thus galaxies, stars, and even small aggregates of matter could never form. The upshot is that it must fall exceedingly close to zero for complex life to be possible in our universe.
Further examples of the fine-tuning of the fundamental constants of physics can also be given, such as that of mass difference between the neutron and the proton. If, for example, the mass of the neutron were slightly increased by about one part in seven hundred, stable hydrogen burning stars would cease to exist.
Besides the constants of physics, however, there is also the fine-tuning of the laws. If the laws of nature were not just right, life would probably be impossible. For example, consider again the four forces of nature. If gravity did not exist, masses would not clump together to form stars or planets, and hence the existence of complex, intelligent life would be seriously inhibited, if not rendered impossible; if the electromagnetic force didn't exist, there would be no chemistry; if the strong force didn't exist, protons and neutrons could not bind together and hence no atoms with atomic number greater than hydrogen would exist; and if the strong force were a long-range force (like gravity and electromagnetism) instead of a short range force that only acts between protons and neutrons in the nucleus, all matter would either almost instantaneously undergo nuclear fusion and explode or be sucked together forming a black hole.
Finally, in his book Nature's Destiny, biochemist Michael Denton extensively discusses various higher-level features of the natural world, such as the many unique properties of carbon, oxygen, water, and the electromagnetic spectrum, that are conducive to the existence of complex biochemical systems. As one of many examples Denton presents, both the atmosphere and water are transparent to electromagnetic radiation in a thin band in the visible region, but nowhere else except radio waves. If instead either of them absorbed electromagnetic radiation in the visible region, the existence of terrestrial life would be seriously inhibited, if not rendered impossible.
Thus, the evidence for fine-tuning is extensive, even if one has doubts about some individual cases. As philosopher John Leslie has pointed out, "clues heaped upon clues can constitute weighty evidence despite doubts about each element in the pile".
Imaginatively, one could think of each instance of fine-tuning mentioned above as a radio dial: unless all the dials are set exactly right, complex, intelligent life would be impossible Or, one could think of the values of the initial conditions of the universe and the constants of physics as coordinates on a dart board that fills the whole galaxy, and the conditions necessary for life to exist as an extremely small target, say less than a trillionth of an inch: unless the dart hits the target, complex life would be impossible. The fact that the dials are perfectly set, or the dart has hit the target, strongly suggests that some intelligent being set the dials or aimed the dart, for it seems enormously improbable that such a coincidence could have happened by chance.
Now such beauty, elegance, and ingenuity make sense if the universe was designed by God. As theoretical physicist Paul Davies writes, "If nature is so 'clever' as to exploit mechanisms that amaze us with their ingenuity, is that not persuasive evidence for the existence of intelligent design behind the universe? If the world's finest minds can unravel only with difficulty the deeper workings of nature, how could it be supposed that those workings are merely a mindless accident, a product of blind chance?
Presenting befor you a scientific concept that acknowledges the existence of a creator.
FINE TUNING OF THE WORLD – THE WORK OF A SUPREME BEING – OR IT ALL HAPPENED BY CHANCE.
INTRODUCTION
"There are many . . . lucky accidents in physics. Without such accidents, water could not exist as liquid, chains of carbon atoms could not form complex organic molecules, and hydrogen atoms could not form breakable bridges between molecules"--in short, life as we know it would be impossible.
Scientists and others call this extraordinary balancing of the fundamental physical structure of the universe for life the "fine-tuning of the cosmos." It has been extensively discussed by philosophers, theologians, and scientists, especially since the early 1970s, with many articles and books written on the topic.
Fine Tuning is the presence of balance amongst various factors that resulted in the Existence of our Universe…….can it all happen by chance?.........read it for yourself & decide
MAIN CONCEPT
So far, physicists have discovered four forces in nature - gravity, the weak force, electromagnetism, and the strong nuclear force that binds protons and neutrons together in an atom. Using one of the standard dimensionless measures of force strengths, gravity is the weakest of the forces, and the strong nuclear force is the strongest, being a factor of 1040 - or ten thousand billion, billion, billion, billion - times stronger than gravity. These forces are so designed in strength on our planet earth that it definitely indicates their designing by a higher power.
Various calculations show that the strength of each of the forces of nature must fall into a very accurate balance to give rise to a life-permitting region for intelligent life to exist. As the first example, consider gravity. If we increased the strength of gravity on earth a billionfold, for instance, the force of gravity would be so great that any land-based organism anywhere near the size of human beings would be crushed. "In an imaginary strong gravity world, even insects would need thick legs to support them, and no animals could get much larger." . Now, the above argument assumes that the size of the planet on which life formed would be an earth-sized planet. Could life forms of comparable intelligence to ourselves develop on a much smaller planet in such a strong-gravity world? The answer is no. A planet with a gravitational pull of a thousand times that of earth -- which would make the existence of organisms of our size very improbable-- would have a diameter of about 40 feet or 12 meters, once again not large enough to sustain the sort of large-scale ecosystem necessary for organisms like us to evolve. Of course, a billion-fold increase in the strength of gravity is a lot, but compared to the total range of strengths of the forces in nature (which span a range of 1040 as we saw above), this still amounts to afine-tuning of one part in 1031. (Indeed, other calculations show that stars with life-times of more than a billion years, as compared to our sun's life-time of ten billion years, could not exist if gravity were increased by more than a factor of 3000. This would have significant intelligent life-inhibiting
On the other hand, if the strong force were slightly increased or decreased, the existence of complex life would be seriously inhibited, if not rendered impossible. For instance, using the latest equations and codes for stellar evolution it can be showed that a small increase or decrease in the strong force - by as little as 1% -- would drastically decrease, by thirty to a thousandfold, either the total amount of carbon or oxygen formed in stars .Since the carbon and oxygen on planets comes from previous stars that have exploded or blown off their outer layers, this means that very little oxygen would be available for the existence of carbon-based life. At the very least, this would have a life-inhibiting effect given the many important, and seemingly irreplaceable, roles oxygen plays in living processes, such as that of being essential for water. Other arguments can be given for the other two forces - the electromagnetic force and the weak force -- being fine-tuned
There are other cases of the fine-tuning of the constants of physics besides the strength of the forces, however. Probably the most widely discussed among physicists and cosmologists - and esoteric-- is the fine-tuning of what is known as the cosmological constant. The cosmological constant was a term that great Einstein included in his central equation of his theory of gravity - General relativity --. A positive cosmological constant acts as a sort of anti-gravity, a repulsive force that acts against Gravity Force. If the cosmological constant had a significant positive value, space would expand so rapidly that all matter would quickly disperse, and thus galaxies, stars, and even small aggregates of matter could never form. The upshot is that it must fall exceedingly close to zero for complex life to be possible in our universe.
Further examples of the fine-tuning of the fundamental constants of physics can also be given, such as that of mass difference between the neutron and the proton. If, for example, the mass of the neutron were slightly increased by about one part in seven hundred, stable hydrogen burning stars would cease to exist.
Besides the constants of physics, however, there is also the fine-tuning of the laws. If the laws of nature were not just right, life would probably be impossible. For example, consider again the four forces of nature. If gravity did not exist, masses would not clump together to form stars or planets, and hence the existence of complex, intelligent life would be seriously inhibited, if not rendered impossible; if the electromagnetic force didn't exist, there would be no chemistry; if the strong force didn't exist, protons and neutrons could not bind together and hence no atoms with atomic number greater than hydrogen would exist; and if the strong force were a long-range force (like gravity and electromagnetism) instead of a short range force that only acts between protons and neutrons in the nucleus, all matter would either almost instantaneously undergo nuclear fusion and explode or be sucked together forming a black hole.
Finally, in his book Nature's Destiny, biochemist Michael Denton extensively discusses various higher-level features of the natural world, such as the many unique properties of carbon, oxygen, water, and the electromagnetic spectrum, that are conducive to the existence of complex biochemical systems. As one of many examples Denton presents, both the atmosphere and water are transparent to electromagnetic radiation in a thin band in the visible region, but nowhere else except radio waves. If instead either of them absorbed electromagnetic radiation in the visible region, the existence of terrestrial life would be seriously inhibited, if not rendered impossible.
Thus, the evidence for fine-tuning is extensive, even if one has doubts about some individual cases. As philosopher John Leslie has pointed out, "clues heaped upon clues can constitute weighty evidence despite doubts about each element in the pile".
Imaginatively, one could think of each instance of fine-tuning mentioned above as a radio dial: unless all the dials are set exactly right, complex, intelligent life would be impossible Or, one could think of the values of the initial conditions of the universe and the constants of physics as coordinates on a dart board that fills the whole galaxy, and the conditions necessary for life to exist as an extremely small target, say less than a trillionth of an inch: unless the dart hits the target, complex life would be impossible. The fact that the dials are perfectly set, or the dart has hit the target, strongly suggests that some intelligent being set the dials or aimed the dart, for it seems enormously improbable that such a coincidence could have happened by chance.
Now such beauty, elegance, and ingenuity make sense if the universe was designed by God. As theoretical physicist Paul Davies writes, "If nature is so 'clever' as to exploit mechanisms that amaze us with their ingenuity, is that not persuasive evidence for the existence of intelligent design behind the universe? If the world's finest minds can unravel only with difficulty the deeper workings of nature, how could it be supposed that those workings are merely a mindless accident, a product of blind chance?
