Village Journals
Resonate your identity with Naseeb journals. Express your opinions, share your thoughts, post your writings and connect with like minded people through the power of expression.
Resonate your identity with Naseeb journals. Express your opinions, share your thoughts, post your writings and connect with like minded people through the power of expression.
The Fundamental Physical Constants of the Universe
"Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists, and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist.? -Stephen Hawking (British astrophysicist), A Brief History of Time (1988)
Intelligent design theory, as defined, ?holds that certain features of the universe and living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, and are not the result of an undirected, chance-based process such as Darwinian evolution" www.ideacenter.org). Thus, since ID theory studies the signs of intelligence not only in living things but also in the universe at large, I thought I would write a piece about ID?s perspective on something more cosmological in nature (something that extends back in time all the way to the very conception of the universe at the Big Bang about 15 billion years ago).
So-called ?fundamental physical constants,? which govern the cosmological structure of the universe and the quantum structure of the atom, determine whether living beings can inhabit the universe. The fact that the values of the fundamental physical constants, such as the gravitational fine structure constant, fine structure constants of the strong and weak nuclear forces, and electromagnetic fine structure constant, all fall precisely in the narrow range that permits a habitable universe has been a cause for immense curiosity among physicists and astronomers. That the values of these constants fall precisely in the range that allows living beings to exist has stumped many a physicist in the last few decades. An official list of the fundamental physical constants is at the Physics Laboratory of the National Institute of Standards and Technology website here physics.nist.gov).
The question that I want to consider is, ?How did these constants come to fall precisely in the thin sub-set of values that allow life to exist in the universe?? Dr. Walter Bradley www.baylor.edu), Distinguished Professor of Engineering, at Baylor University in Texas offers interesting insights. In 1999, he wrote a paper titled The Designed 'Just So' Universe www.leaderu.com). Interested readers (and indeed physics, quantum mechanics, or astronomy admirers like me) are encouraged to read the paper, but I intend to capture just the gist of the paper?s key points and summary here. He offers an instructive engineering perspective in detecting purposefully designed features of the universe.
About the dimensionless, fine structure constants that govern the four forces in the universe (gravitation, strong, weak, and electromagnetic forces), Dr. Bradley says that ?modest changes in any of these constants produce dramatic changes in the universe which render it unsuitable for life.? About the dimensioned constants (Planck's constant, speed of light, gravitational force constant, mass of the proton, electron, and neutron, unit charge for the electron or proton, and weak and strong nuclear forces and electromagnetic coupling constants, and Boltzmann's constant), he informs us that ?parametric studies which systematically varied the constants have shown that changes in any of the constants produces a dramatically different universe which is unsuitable for life of any imaginable type.? An important point to note is that these are real scientists who have arrived at these findings, scientists who use the scientific method of investigation.
He summarizes the paper thus:
?? for the universe to have stars which generate elemental diversity, provide long-term sources of energy of a suitable wavelength of radiation to facilitate chemical reactions, and satisfy many other requirements for a suitable habitat for life and for the origin of life, the mathematical form of the laws of nature, the 19 universal constants (not all of which are listed in Table 2), and many initial conditions have to be ?JUST SO?.?
Note that he also states above that the laws (mathematical equations) of nature (Hamilton's equations of mechanics, Maxwell's equations of electrodynamics, Boltzmann?s equations of statistical mechanics, Schrodinger?s equations of quantum mechanics, and Einstein?s equations of general relativity ? see Table 1 of his paper) and many initial conditions at the Big Bang have to be ?just so? (just the way they are or were) in order to allow for a habitable universe. (The Big Bang is a term used for the indescribably explosive eruption of space and time from a ?tremendously dense and hot state? approximately 15 billion years ago en.wikipedia.org).
Like several other scientists who, in the last few decades, have discarded or, at best, doubt the unproven speculation that the universe, following the Big Bang, just by coincidence happen to strike the precise deck of wild cards of these numbers, he too expresses a similar view about the purported ?accidentally correct ?selection?? of these physical constraints:
?There are so many different requirements that are interrelated, it seem difficult to imagine how all of these "accidentally" happened to be exactly what they need to be. Because of the many cross constraints, it appears unlikely that there is an alternative set of values for these constants which would "work". Furthermore, the necessary values range over thirty orders of magnitude , making their accidentally correct "selection" all the more remarkable.?
Finally, he, like other physicists and astronomers, has reached the following conclusion, emphasizing that SCIENTISTS have gradually come to the understanding that the universe may not be a ?fortuitous cosmic accident? after all and that our ?carefully crafted habitat? is evidence for intelligent design of the universe:
?It is quite easy to understand why so many scientists have changed their minds in the past 30 years, agreeing that it takes a great deal of faith to believe the universe can be explained as nothing more than a fortuitous cosmic accident. Evidence for an intelligent designer becomes more compelling the more we understand about our carefully crafted habitat.?
Great deal of faith it does take to believe in a miraculous accident?
I think that he captures the point succinctly that ?discoveries in astronomy and cosmology in the last half of the twentieth century have provided extremely compelling evidence for a designed universe.?
There exist mistaken views that the theory of intelligent design is creationism, god-of-the-gaps argument, negative argument, anti-science, pseudo-science, science stopper, ancient myth from 6th century BC, Christian fundamentalism, religion masquerading as science, faith-based idea, or that the theory lacks positive scientific evidence. I presented an extended response to such objections in the Tug of War post. Yet again with regard to such objections and indeed to drive home the point of this particular post, I want to ask the following questions:
1. In light of the issues discussed in Dr. Walter?s paper, does it not seem that it is anti-science, pseudo-science, myth, speculation, superstition, or argument by miracle to believe that a habitable universe formed by an unguided and accidental mechanism from the super-charged explosive chaos of the Big Bang?
2. I would like to pose a special question for atheists or for folks who believe in an unguided and accidental creation of the universe (not to imply that there are any such people in this forum). These groups, typically, also argue that ?faith-based idea, inadequately supported with evidence? and ?religion? are synonymous terms. Question: from what has been discussed in Dr. Walter?s paper, is it not a ?faith-based idea, inadequately supported with evidence? or ?religion? (as per your own definition) to believe that the universe formed from the Big Bang by an unguided and accidental mechanism? Proponents of accidental creation of the universe should answer (as ?yes or no? and justify if ?no?) the explicit question that I have asked, without inventing another unproven speculation, ?faith-based idea, inadequately supported with evidence,? or ?religion? about multiple or parallel universes, about an infinite series of Big Bangs and Big Crunches, or about an infinite number of baby universes popping out of an infinite number of black hole singularities spread throughout an infinite universe.
3. Based on current scientific observation and evidence (the physical ?cross constraints? and the life-friendly values of the fundamental physical constants in the razor thin ?habitable zone? of values out of the entire possible set of values that span 30 to 40 orders of magnitude or ?10 followed by 30 to 40 zeroes?), is it not a plausible scientific hypothesis that the universe has been intelligently designed and that the values of the constants have been precisely tuned and carefully controlled despite the super-charged explosive chaos of the Big Bang?
Let?s stop and think about this for a moment. This is one of the most stupendously extraordinary phenomena, to say the least. If there were the slightest deviation in the values of these numbers, you, dear reader, would not have been at Naseeb or, for that matter, in the universe itself. Of course, Naseeb itself would not have existed if the electromagnetic fine structure constant did not permit human subsistence and entrepreneurship in the universe. There would be no life, only the ubiquitous dead of electrons, protons, photons, quarks, hot plasma, quantum waves, black holes, and radiation. The hot and dense universe would have imploded back onto itself shortly after the Big Bang into a super-massive heat death wiping out into ?nothingness? the entire space-time continuum due to a gigantic and lethal gravitational collapse, or it would have run away with such a rapid, uncontrollable, disorderly, and accelerating inflationary expansion that not a single galaxy, star, planet, and chemical, or any other sort of, reaction would have had a chance to subsist. Yet, here we are, here is Naseeb, and as far as I can tell from Naseeb profiles that I have had the pleasure of cruising through so far, all of us seem to be consciously alive and well (well ? perhaps a few of us are not as well as I cheerfully imagine, but consciously alive we are, nonetheless).
Nadeem
Intelligent design theory, as defined, ?holds that certain features of the universe and living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, and are not the result of an undirected, chance-based process such as Darwinian evolution" www.ideacenter.org). Thus, since ID theory studies the signs of intelligence not only in living things but also in the universe at large, I thought I would write a piece about ID?s perspective on something more cosmological in nature (something that extends back in time all the way to the very conception of the universe at the Big Bang about 15 billion years ago).
So-called ?fundamental physical constants,? which govern the cosmological structure of the universe and the quantum structure of the atom, determine whether living beings can inhabit the universe. The fact that the values of the fundamental physical constants, such as the gravitational fine structure constant, fine structure constants of the strong and weak nuclear forces, and electromagnetic fine structure constant, all fall precisely in the narrow range that permits a habitable universe has been a cause for immense curiosity among physicists and astronomers. That the values of these constants fall precisely in the range that allows living beings to exist has stumped many a physicist in the last few decades. An official list of the fundamental physical constants is at the Physics Laboratory of the National Institute of Standards and Technology website here physics.nist.gov).
The question that I want to consider is, ?How did these constants come to fall precisely in the thin sub-set of values that allow life to exist in the universe?? Dr. Walter Bradley www.baylor.edu), Distinguished Professor of Engineering, at Baylor University in Texas offers interesting insights. In 1999, he wrote a paper titled The Designed 'Just So' Universe www.leaderu.com). Interested readers (and indeed physics, quantum mechanics, or astronomy admirers like me) are encouraged to read the paper, but I intend to capture just the gist of the paper?s key points and summary here. He offers an instructive engineering perspective in detecting purposefully designed features of the universe.
About the dimensionless, fine structure constants that govern the four forces in the universe (gravitation, strong, weak, and electromagnetic forces), Dr. Bradley says that ?modest changes in any of these constants produce dramatic changes in the universe which render it unsuitable for life.? About the dimensioned constants (Planck's constant, speed of light, gravitational force constant, mass of the proton, electron, and neutron, unit charge for the electron or proton, and weak and strong nuclear forces and electromagnetic coupling constants, and Boltzmann's constant), he informs us that ?parametric studies which systematically varied the constants have shown that changes in any of the constants produces a dramatically different universe which is unsuitable for life of any imaginable type.? An important point to note is that these are real scientists who have arrived at these findings, scientists who use the scientific method of investigation.
He summarizes the paper thus:
?? for the universe to have stars which generate elemental diversity, provide long-term sources of energy of a suitable wavelength of radiation to facilitate chemical reactions, and satisfy many other requirements for a suitable habitat for life and for the origin of life, the mathematical form of the laws of nature, the 19 universal constants (not all of which are listed in Table 2), and many initial conditions have to be ?JUST SO?.?
Note that he also states above that the laws (mathematical equations) of nature (Hamilton's equations of mechanics, Maxwell's equations of electrodynamics, Boltzmann?s equations of statistical mechanics, Schrodinger?s equations of quantum mechanics, and Einstein?s equations of general relativity ? see Table 1 of his paper) and many initial conditions at the Big Bang have to be ?just so? (just the way they are or were) in order to allow for a habitable universe. (The Big Bang is a term used for the indescribably explosive eruption of space and time from a ?tremendously dense and hot state? approximately 15 billion years ago en.wikipedia.org).
Like several other scientists who, in the last few decades, have discarded or, at best, doubt the unproven speculation that the universe, following the Big Bang, just by coincidence happen to strike the precise deck of wild cards of these numbers, he too expresses a similar view about the purported ?accidentally correct ?selection?? of these physical constraints:
?There are so many different requirements that are interrelated, it seem difficult to imagine how all of these "accidentally" happened to be exactly what they need to be. Because of the many cross constraints, it appears unlikely that there is an alternative set of values for these constants which would "work". Furthermore, the necessary values range over thirty orders of magnitude , making their accidentally correct "selection" all the more remarkable.?
Finally, he, like other physicists and astronomers, has reached the following conclusion, emphasizing that SCIENTISTS have gradually come to the understanding that the universe may not be a ?fortuitous cosmic accident? after all and that our ?carefully crafted habitat? is evidence for intelligent design of the universe:
?It is quite easy to understand why so many scientists have changed their minds in the past 30 years, agreeing that it takes a great deal of faith to believe the universe can be explained as nothing more than a fortuitous cosmic accident. Evidence for an intelligent designer becomes more compelling the more we understand about our carefully crafted habitat.?
Great deal of faith it does take to believe in a miraculous accident?
I think that he captures the point succinctly that ?discoveries in astronomy and cosmology in the last half of the twentieth century have provided extremely compelling evidence for a designed universe.?
There exist mistaken views that the theory of intelligent design is creationism, god-of-the-gaps argument, negative argument, anti-science, pseudo-science, science stopper, ancient myth from 6th century BC, Christian fundamentalism, religion masquerading as science, faith-based idea, or that the theory lacks positive scientific evidence. I presented an extended response to such objections in the Tug of War post. Yet again with regard to such objections and indeed to drive home the point of this particular post, I want to ask the following questions:
1. In light of the issues discussed in Dr. Walter?s paper, does it not seem that it is anti-science, pseudo-science, myth, speculation, superstition, or argument by miracle to believe that a habitable universe formed by an unguided and accidental mechanism from the super-charged explosive chaos of the Big Bang?
2. I would like to pose a special question for atheists or for folks who believe in an unguided and accidental creation of the universe (not to imply that there are any such people in this forum). These groups, typically, also argue that ?faith-based idea, inadequately supported with evidence? and ?religion? are synonymous terms. Question: from what has been discussed in Dr. Walter?s paper, is it not a ?faith-based idea, inadequately supported with evidence? or ?religion? (as per your own definition) to believe that the universe formed from the Big Bang by an unguided and accidental mechanism? Proponents of accidental creation of the universe should answer (as ?yes or no? and justify if ?no?) the explicit question that I have asked, without inventing another unproven speculation, ?faith-based idea, inadequately supported with evidence,? or ?religion? about multiple or parallel universes, about an infinite series of Big Bangs and Big Crunches, or about an infinite number of baby universes popping out of an infinite number of black hole singularities spread throughout an infinite universe.
3. Based on current scientific observation and evidence (the physical ?cross constraints? and the life-friendly values of the fundamental physical constants in the razor thin ?habitable zone? of values out of the entire possible set of values that span 30 to 40 orders of magnitude or ?10 followed by 30 to 40 zeroes?), is it not a plausible scientific hypothesis that the universe has been intelligently designed and that the values of the constants have been precisely tuned and carefully controlled despite the super-charged explosive chaos of the Big Bang?
Let?s stop and think about this for a moment. This is one of the most stupendously extraordinary phenomena, to say the least. If there were the slightest deviation in the values of these numbers, you, dear reader, would not have been at Naseeb or, for that matter, in the universe itself. Of course, Naseeb itself would not have existed if the electromagnetic fine structure constant did not permit human subsistence and entrepreneurship in the universe. There would be no life, only the ubiquitous dead of electrons, protons, photons, quarks, hot plasma, quantum waves, black holes, and radiation. The hot and dense universe would have imploded back onto itself shortly after the Big Bang into a super-massive heat death wiping out into ?nothingness? the entire space-time continuum due to a gigantic and lethal gravitational collapse, or it would have run away with such a rapid, uncontrollable, disorderly, and accelerating inflationary expansion that not a single galaxy, star, planet, and chemical, or any other sort of, reaction would have had a chance to subsist. Yet, here we are, here is Naseeb, and as far as I can tell from Naseeb profiles that I have had the pleasure of cruising through so far, all of us seem to be consciously alive and well (well ? perhaps a few of us are not as well as I cheerfully imagine, but consciously alive we are, nonetheless).
Nadeem
Comments on this journal
Strong nuclear force (N)
"The cosmos is so vast because there is one crucially important huge number N in nature, equal to 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0 00,000,000,000. This number measures the strength of the electrical forces that hold atoms together, divided by the force of gravity between them. If N had a few less zeros, only a short-lived miniature universe could exist: no creatures could grow larger than insects, and there would be no time for biological evolution."
Weak nuclear force (E)
"Another number, E, whose value is 0.007, defines how firmly atomic nuclei bind together and how all the atoms on Earth were made. Its value controls the power from the Sun and, more sensitively, how stars transmute hydrogen into all the atoms of the periodic table. Carbon and oxygen are common, whereas gold and uranium are rare, because of what happens in the stars. If E were 0.006 or 0.008, we could not exist."
Amount of matter in universe (W)
"The cosmic number W (omega) measures the amount of material in our universe - galaxies, diffuse gas, and 'dark matter'. W tells us the relative importance of gravity and expansion energy in the universe. If this ratio were too high relative to a particular 'critical' value, the universe would have collapsed long ago; had it been too low, no galaxies or stars would have formed. The initial expansion speed seems to have been finely tuned."
Cosmic repulsion (l)
"Measuring the fourth number, l (lambda), was the biggest scientific news of 1998. An unsuspected new force - a cosmic 'antigravity' - controls the expansion of our universe, even though it has no discernible effect on scales less than a billion light-years. It is destined to become ever more dominant over gravity and other forces as our universe becomes ever darker and emptier. Fortunately for us (and very surprisingly to theorists), l is very small. Otherwise its effect would have stopped galaxies and stars from forming, and cosmic evolution would have been stifled before it could even begin."
The fabric of our universe (Q)
"The fabric of our universe depends on one number Q, which represents the ratio of two fundamental energies and is about 1/100,000 in value. If Q were even smaller, the universe would be inert and structureless; if Q were much larger, it would be a violent place, in which no stars or solar systems could survive, dominated by vast black holes."
Number of spatial dimensions (D)
"The sixth crucial number has been known for centuries, although it's now viewed in a new perspective. It is the number of spatial dimensions in our world, D, and equals three. Life couldn't exist if D were two or four. Time is a fourth dimension, but distinctively different from the others in that it has a built-in arrow: we 'move' only towards the future. Near black holes, space is so warped that light moves in circles, and time can stand still. Furthermore, close to the time of the Big Bang, and also on microscopic scales, space may reveal its deepest underlying structure of all: the vibrations and harmonies of objects called 'superstrings', in a ten-dimensional arena."
Source: Martin Rees (Professor of Cosmology & Astrophysics, University of Cambridge), Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces that Shape the Universe (Great Britain: Basic Books, 2001) 2-3.