You searched for Fine-Tuning - Reasons to Believe

Is Fine-Tuning a Valid Argument for God?

Hugh Ross — Fri, 02 Dec 2022 13:00:00 +0000

Question of the week: How do you respond to an atheist who says, “When something is designed and finely tuned it is done so to conform with its surroundings. An omnipotent Creator does not need to comply with external restrictions. If he does need to conform then he loses his right to be titled omnipotent. If fine-tuning is a valid argument for God, why does 99.999999% of our universe want to kill us?

My answer: For detailed responses see my books, Why the Universe Is the Way It Is, The Creator and the Cosmos, 4th edition, and Designed to the Core. Your atheist friend overlooks that God performs multiple different kinds of miracles, some within the laws of physics, such as fine-tuning, others outside the laws of physics, like the creation of space and time and the creation of spirit beings. He also overlooks that, given the laws of physics that God designed to govern the universe, the universe must be precisely the total mass and size that it is to get one planet on which physical, intelligent life can possibly exist. Also, the laws of physics themselves are exquisitely designed to be tools in God’s hands for him to rapidly and efficiently eradicate evil and suffering.

The fine-tuning argument for God is one by analogy: Does the level of fine-tuning of the environment for a specified purpose greatly exceed what we human beings are capable of, or is it analogous to what happens in nature without any intelligent agency? As I explain in Why the Universe Is the Way It Is, God had more than one purpose for designing the universe the way he did. There are at least a dozen distinct purposes. The stupendous marvel of the universe is that it is exquisitely designed to simultaneously fulfill all dozen of these purposes and perhaps several more that we have yet to discover. That 99.999999% of the universe is hostile to our existence suggests, but does not prove, that God intends to fulfill his multiple purposes for creating the universe with just one species of intelligent, spiritual life on just one planet.

The post Is Fine-Tuning a Valid Argument for God? appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

Exploring Fine-Tuning at Every Cosmic Level

Hugh Ross — Mon, 11 Jul 2022 12:00:00 +0000

Designed to the Core is the sixth book I’ve written on cosmic fine-tuning. It’s the only one of the six, however, where I describe and document fine-tuning for the existence of humans on all cosmic size scales.

Each chapter in Designed to the Core showcases astounding realities, discovered within the past few years, about the interior features of humanity’s home on all its size scales. Ultimately, my goal is to probe the meaning of what can be seen and measured. At no other time in human history has our knowledge of the heavens and Earth increased at such a rapid rate. In my own discipline of astrophysics, the knowledge base doubles every five years. I’m so grateful to my Creator that he placed me on Earth at the time he did and gave me the mind and technology that he did so that I can discover and understand—to a degree never before possible in human history—the glory of God revealed in the heavens.

Overwhelming Impression of Design
As I searched through the scientific literature in preparation for writing Designed to the Core, I was blown away by the recognition that, at every cosmic size scale, humans exist within an incredibly narrow time window and equally incredibly small space that permits our existence. The fact that all these relatively independent narrow time windows and spatial regions, for the first time in the universe’s history, simultaneously overlap one another defies any conceivable naturalistic explanation and testifies of the great care of the Creator for human beings.

Every astronomer and physicist I’ve engaged, regardless of their worldview, agrees that the universe is exquisitely fine-tuned to make the existence of life, and humans in particular, possible. As agnostic astronomer Paul Davies wrote in his book The Cosmic Blueprint concerning the features of the universe, “The impression of design is overwhelming.”¹ The design Davies refers to is that the presence of intelligent physical observers in the universe (beings capable of measuring astronomical bodies and phenomena) requires that multiple characteristics of the universe fit within certain limited, fine-tuned ranges.

Fine-Tuning and the Fine-Tuner
Fine-tuning requires a shaping source. The greater the degree and pervasiveness of fine-tuning, the more capable must be the fine-tuner. Therefore, pursuing evidence of cosmic fine-tuning for humanity’s benefit has profound personal, philosophical, and theological significance.

If the observed fine-tuned designs prove to be of little or no consequence, then one could surmise that no intentionality or purpose is implied. On the other hand, if the observed fine-tuning is multifaceted and each facet is crucial for making human existence possible, then the fine-tuning source must be more than a mindless, impersonal force or process. The more numerous, specific, and purposeful the fine-tuned requirements, the more the required features reveal about the characteristics and identity of the fine-tuner.

Is Cosmic Fine-Tuning Meaningful?
Not everyone agrees, however, that the observed cosmic fine-tuning is meaningful. Many astronomers and physicists point out that for human observers the sample size of universes is one and always will be one. With a sample size of just one, skeptics argue that one cannot make a statistically significant argument for a personal, intentional fine-tuner. Who is to say that our universe is exceptional?

While the sample size limitation is true for universes, such is not the case for supergalaxy clusters, galaxy clusters, galaxies, stars, planets, moons, and comet belts. In each case, the sample size is in the millions or much greater. The fine-tuning argument for the existence and operation of the God of the Bible becomes far more compelling if one can demonstrate we live in an extraordinarily exceptional region of the cosmic web and that our supergalaxy cluster, galaxy cluster, galaxy group, galaxy, galactic arm, galactic bubble, galactic fluff, planetary system, comet-asteroid belt system, moon, and planet all possess unique, fine-tuned characteristics that make it possible for humans to exist and thrive.

If on all size scales, from the largest cosmic structures to the tiniest, one sees multiple characteristics that must fit within very limited fine-tuned ranges, then it becomes unreasonable for any rational person to deny that a personal, intelligent, intentional, purposeful Fine-Tuner exists. The argument for such a Fine-Tuner becomes all the more compelling if one can demonstrate that—at all cosmic size scales—the more we discover and learn, the stronger the evidence becomes for the existence and operation of this Fine-Tuner. This latter point parrots a theme in the Psalms and the book of Job: the more we learn about nature, the more evidence we will uncover for the supernatural handiwork of God.

Sharing the Excitement of Discovery
My wife, Kathy, will tell you I was on cloud nine doing the research for Designed to the Core. I couldn’t help but share with her my excitement and thrill at what I was reading in the latest scientific literature. The scientists writing the papers typically were silent about the philosophical implications of their discoveries. I couldn’t keep quiet. I had to write about it.

Everyone who has read the book so far has had the same experience I had in writing it. They were blown away by the astounding philosophical implications of the discoveries. My desire is that you, too, will learn of the exacting care that our loving Creator has taken to design a cosmos in such intelligent, exquisite detail. I also hope that your excitement will fuel discussions with others about their purpose in God’s grand cosmic design.

Endnote

Paul Davies, The Cosmic Blueprint (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1988), 203.

The post Exploring Fine-Tuning at Every Cosmic Level appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

Do Natural Explanations Rule Out the Universe's Fine-Tuning?

Jeff Zweerink — Mon, 27 Jun 2022 12:24:00 +0000

For many years, mowing my yard required a high degree of fine-tuning. My mower required gasoline and the gas can usually sloshed the fuel all over the mower, concrete, and surrounding grass. Unless I tuned the position of the can, the rate of flow, distance from the tank opening, and numerous muscle movements, the gas would not make it into the tank so that the lawn mower would start. A few years ago when I finally started using the funnel that came with the gas can, the fuel reliably made it into the tank regardless of how fast I poured (and most of the other parameters that appeared finely tuned). Consequently, I recognized that all the fine-tuning required for my mower to work was not real, it just appeared fine-tuned. That conclusion might seem odd, but it parallels how some scientists seek to explain the fine-tuning observed in the universe.

Examples of Fine-Tuning
As scientists gain increasing knowledge of the beginning and history of the universe, they continue to discover aspects of the universe that must take exacting values for life to exist. Stars’ interior furnaces produce the carbon and oxygen that all life requires. Three finely tuned “coincidences” (a meta-stable beryllium-8 nucleus, a specific nuclear energy level in carbon, and no similar nuclear energy level for oxygen) ensure that stars produce the proper abundance of carbon and oxygen. The form and strengths of the four fundamental forces govern these coincidences and, without fine-tuning, the coincidences don’t occur. Incidentally, the finely tuned values of those forces also ensure that our universe keeps sufficient hydrogen—another element critical for life.

For stars to exist (at least those capable of producing carbon and oxygen), the geometry of the universe must match a specific value to incredible precision. If larger or smaller by a small fraction, the universe either forms no stars or only massive stars that quickly turn into black holes. For more fine-tuning examples, see the extensive catalog of various aspects of the universe that appear fine-tuned for life compiled by my colleague Hugh Ross.

Proposed Explanations of Fine-Tuning
How do scientists account for the fine-tuning? Sometimes, ongoing research appears to explain a fine-tuned aspect of the universe by natural means. One illustrative example relates to the geometry of the universe mentioned above. Back in the 1980s, the dominant quantity known to contribute to the energy budget of the universe was mass (the product of density and volume), and this posed a problem. Even without knowing much about dark matter or anything about dark energy, scientists knew the geometry of our universe is remarkably close to flat—not flat like a piece of paper, but flat in a geometry sense. However, flat is an unstable geometry for our universe such that any small deviations from flatness grow quickly and result in a closed or open universe. Measuring a flat geometry today required the mass density of the universe to vary by no more than one part in 10⁶⁰ in the earliest moments of the universe. The discovery of dark matter and dark energy did not explain this fine-tuning. Eventually, scientists found a mechanism called inflation that ensures the flatness we see today.

Two relevant points about inflation warrant mention. First, getting inflation to work seems to require a high degree of fine-tuning (more on that in a future blog). Second, inflation does not remove the requirement of a precise density to get a flat geometry—it simply provides a mechanism to ensure that density happens. Inflation basically acts like the aforementioned funnel that produces universes with a flat geometry regardless of any deviations from flat that might have existed in the earliest moments of the universe. But this is not the only way scientists propose to explain fine-tuning.

A recent article highlights two common classes of explanations and a third, new one.¹ To see how the three methods work, let’s look at the fine-tuning seen in dark energy. When scientists discovered dark energy back in the 1990s, they realized that the measured amount of dark energy was orders of magnitude smaller than the expected amount based on our understanding of the laws of physics. In fact, the measured value was 120 orders of magnitude smaller. One possible explanation for the discrepancy utilizes an undiscovered symmetry in the universe to explain why something we expect to be very large cancels out to almost zero. A second possible explanation argues that the sample size is much larger than we originally thought. So, the dark energy assumes an unexpectedly small value in our universe, but in a vast multiverse all the more natural values for dark energy arise.

The third, new explanation posits that some trigger mechanism serves to make the value what we measure. Like dark energy, the Higgs boson mass in our universe has an unexpectedly small value. However, we know that the Higgs field couples to itself and makes the Higgs boson that scientists discovered in 2012. If the Higgs field also couples to other particles and fields in specific ways, certain values of the Higgs mass would trigger the formation of a multiverse like the one we inhabit, the model explains. When the Higgs mass is not near these values, no substantial universe forms. The explanation requires multiple Higgs bosons, which adds a predictive aspect so future data could falsify or validate the model.²

Fine-Tuning Is Robust
Each of these explanatory approaches shares two features. First, they all recognize that our universe depends on some parameter meeting exacting conditions. Second, they each posit some mechanism, much like a funnel, that drives our universe toward that exacting condition. As we continue to understand more about our universe, we often find fascinating explanations of how things work, and those explanations add to the evidence that our universe seems fine-tuned for our existence.

Endnotes

1. Francesco Riva, “A Third Way to Explain Fine Tuning,” Physics 14 (November 15, 2021): 157, https://physics.aps.org/articles/v14/157.

2. Nima Arkani-Hamed, Raffaele Tito D’Agnolo, and Hyung Do Kim, “Weak Scale as a Trigger,” Physical Review D 104, no. 9 (November 15, 2021): 095014, https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.104.095014.

The post Do Natural Explanations Rule Out the Universe's Fine-Tuning? appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

A Planet's Surface Ocean Formation Requires Fine-Tuning

Hugh Ross — Mon, 29 Nov 2021 13:00:00 +0000

Is Earth the only known rocky planet that shows evidence of a long-standing supply of surface water? Researchers continue to construct models to test for this planetary feature, and the results carry implications for life.

Without surface liquid water there is no possibility for the existence of physical life.¹ Liquid water has been present on Earth’s surface in the form of large oceans for the past 3.825 billion years.² It was briefly present as small lakes and rivers on Mars at multiple latitudes 3.6–3.8 billion years ago.³ And, until six weeks ago, the question of whether it had ever been present on Venus’s surface remained unanswered.

Previous Research on Surface Ocean Formation
Past studies sought to identify conditions that would permit rocky planets such as Earth, Mars, or Venus to possess surface liquid water in the form of oceans, seas, or lakes. These studies assumed that surface liquid water was present in the first place. After all, water (H₂0/OH) is the third most abundant molecule in the universe after H₂ and H₃. Though rocky planets start off hot, due to their initial accretion energy (energy gained as a result of planetesimals merging and condensing to form the planet)⁴, they cool down. In the cooling process, water vapor condenses out from the atmosphere to form oceans. The question, then, was when such water existed and how long it remained on the rocky planet.

Researchers explored this question using one-dimensional numerical climate models.⁵ These models, however, could not consider the effects of atmospheric clouds and atmospheric circulation patterns. Consequently, the models produced highly uncertain estimates of the timing and duration of surface liquid water.

New Research on Surface Ocean Formation
For the first time, a team of planetary astronomers has constructed and applied three-dimensional global climate models to simulate the conditions on early Earth and early Venus.⁶ The team of six planetary astronomers led by Martin Turbet demonstrated that for both early Earth and early Venus, water clouds preferentially formed on the nightside (the side of the planet not exposed to the Sun).

The accumulation of clouds on the nightside mitigates the thermal cooling to interplanetary space that would otherwise occur. Furthermore, water vapor is a powerful greenhouse gas. Turbet’s team calculated the net warming effect of the water clouds on surfaces of early Earth and Venus. For early Earth, it is 50 watts per square meter (W/m²). For early Venus, it is 120 W/m². These values compare with 340.5 and 675 W/m² of total warming, respectively, on the surfaces of Earth and Venus today.

The team of astronomers also calculated the degree to which both Earth and Venus would need to cool down from their initial high accretion temperatures for liquid water to condense out from their atmospheres to form surface liquid water. The surface of Venus would need to receive no more than 325 W/m² of warming and Earth no more than 312.5 W/m².

Venus attained a minimum surface warming of 500 W/m² about 4 billion years ago. However, this minimum is 54% greater than what is needed for liquid water to condense out from Venus’s primordial atmosphere. Consequently, astronomers are now certain that Venus has never possessed any surface liquid water. They are also certain that, at best, only minuscule quantities of water vapor remained in Venus’s atmosphere. The planet’s atmospheric temperature and its atmospheric electric field operated to quickly desiccate Venus’s atmosphere.⁷

The reason why Earth possesses the quantity of surface liquid water that it does is that the Sun was fainter in the past than at the present. As the Sun continues to fuse hydrogen into helium in its nuclear furnace, the increasing amounts of helium boost the Sun’s core density, which causes the Sun’s nuclear furnace to burn more efficiently. The figure shows the Sun’s luminosity history. It shows that between 4.3–1.3 billion years ago Earth was cool enough for liquid water to condense out from its atmosphere to form oceans.

Sun’s Luminosity History
When the Sun was accreting and losing large quantities of matter during its first 400 million years, its luminosity changed radically. At one point during its first 100 million years, the Sun’s luminosity rose to nearly twice its present level (off-scale in the diagram).
Credit: Hugh Ross

Implications for Rocky Exoplanets
Astronomers define the liquid water habitable zone as the range of orbital distances of a planet from its host star where the surface temperature of the planet permits the existence of liquid water. For physical life to have any chance of existing on a rocky exoplanet (rocky planet beyond the solar system), it must do more than simply reside in the liquid water habitable zone.

Thanks to the research achievements of Turbet’s team, we now know that additional specific features are required for a planet to possess surface liquid water for long enough to be of any benefit for life. The planet must begin with an atmosphere thick enough for substantial amounts of liquid water to condense out from it. However, the atmosphere must not be so thick that it heats up the planet’s surface above the maximum value permitting liquid water to condense out. On the other hand, the atmosphere must not be so thin that the water condensing out from it quickly freezes.

Likewise, the planet’s host star must be fine-tuned. Its luminosity level, luminosity enhancement history, and luminosity stability must each fall within specified ranges for any of its planets to possibly possess long-lasting surface liquid water.

The bottom line is that the team’s research findings establish that the requirements for habitability are much more restrictive than previously thought, even without taking into account the other dozen known planetary habitable zones.⁸ Turbet and his colleagues have provided yet more evidence for the rare Earth and rare solar system doctrines.

Design Implications for the Sun and Earth
The team established that a fainter young Sun is necessary for Earth to possess any surface liquid water at all. Today, Earth is too warm by about 9% for any significant quantity of surface water to condense out of its atmosphere. Fortunately, thanks to a fainter Sun in the past (see figure), liquid water did condense out and form the oceans and lakes that cover about 71% of Earth’s surface.

The Sun will continue to get brighter. Within just several million years, the Sun will become so bright that Earth’s oceans, lakes, and rivers will evaporate into our troposphere and leak into the stratosphere, where solar ultraviolet radiation will photodissociate the water. Earth is thus doomed to lose all its water. It will become bone dry.

The good news and the reason why we can flourish on Earth is that our planet has a highly fine-tuned orbit about a highly fine-tuned star. Our star and our planet possess all the exquisitely fine-tuned features to permit surface liquid water to begin to form 4.3 billion years ago and become abundant by 3.85 billion years ago.⁹ These features meant that the Creator could pack Earth with superabundant, superdiverse life throughout the past 3.825 billion years and thereby endow the planet with resources for the humans he would create. That endowment includes over 76 quadrillion tons of valuable biodeposits—coal, oil, natural gas, gypsum, limestone, marble, and topsoil—plus all the metal ores concentrated by sulfate-reducing bacteria. Thanks to this treasure chest, humans were able to launch and enjoy global high-technology civilization and use that civilization to quickly fulfill the purposes for which God created us.

Endnotes

Fazale Rana and Hugh Ross, Origins of Life (Covina, CA: RTB Press, 2014), 201–209; Hugh Ross, “Earth’s Surface Water Percentage Is Fine-Tuned for Life,” Today’s New Reason to Believe (blog), Reasons to Believe, March 18, 2019.
Craig E. Manning, Stephen J. Mojzsis, and T. Mark Harrison, “Geology, Age, and Origin of Supracrustal Rocks at Akilia, West Greenland,” American Journal of Science 306 (May 2006): 303–366, doi:10.2475/05.2206.02; David C. Catling and Kevin J. Zahnle, “The Archean Atmosphere” Science Advances 6, no. 9 (February 26, 2020): id. eaax1420, doi:10.1126/sciadv.aax1420.
Lu Pan et al., “Voluminous Silica Precipitated from Martian Waters during Late-Stage Aqueous Alteration,” Planetary Science Journal 2, no. 2 (April 2021): id. 65, doi:10.3847/PSJ/abe541.
L. T. Elkins-Tanton, “Linked Magma Ocean Solidification and Atmospheric Growth for Earth and Mars,” Earth and Planetary Science Letters 271, nos. 1–4 (July 2008): 181–191, doi:10.1016/epsl.2208.03.062; T. Lebrun et al., “Thermal Evolution of an Early Magma Ocean in Interaction with the Atmosphere,” Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets 118, no. 6 (June 2013): 1155–1176, doi:10.1002/jgre.20068.
Keiko Hamano, Yutaka Abe, and Hidenori Genda, “Emergence of Two Types of Terrestrial Planet on Solidification of Magma Ocean,” Nature 497, no. 7451 (May 30, 2013): 607–610, doi:10.1038/nature12163.
Martin Turbet et al., “Day-Night Cloud Asymmetry Prevents Early Oceans on Venus But Not on Earth,” Nature 598, no. 7880 (October 14, 2021): 276–280, doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03873-w.
Hugh Ross, “‘Electric Wind’ Becomes 9th Habitable Zone,” Today’s New Reason to Believe (blog), Reasons to Believe, July 4, 2016.
Hugh Ross, “Complex Life’s Narrow Requirements for Atmospheric Gases,” Today’s New Reason to Believe (blog), Reasons to Believe, July 1, 2019; Hugh Ross, “Tiny Habitable Zones for Complex Life,” Today’s New Reason to Believe (blog), Reasons to Believe, March 4, 2019; Hugh Ross, “Moon’s Early Magnetic Field Made Human Existence Possible,” Today’s New Reason to Believe (blog), Reasons to Believe, November 16, 2020.
Hugh Ross, Improbable Planet (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2016).

The post A Planet's Surface Ocean Formation Requires Fine-Tuning appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

Does the Puddle Analogy Explain Cosmic Fine-Tuning?

Hugh Ross — Mon, 07 Jun 2021 12:00:00 +0000

Is the universe fine-tuned for human existence? If so, how do we know it and is such design intentional?

One definition of the anthropic principle states that humanity’s existence places severe constraints on the physical constants and structure and history of the whole cosmos, and specifically on the Milky Way Galaxy, the solar system, Earth, and Earth’s early life.¹ Another definition is that the presence of intelligent observers (beings capable of measuring astronomical bodies and phenomena) requires that multiple characteristics of the universe and the laws of physics fit within certain narrowly limited fine-tuned ranges.

Fine-Tuning and the Fine-Tuner
Fine-tuning requires a shaping source. The greater the degree and pervasiveness of fine-tuning, the more capable must be the fine-tuner. Therefore, pursuing evidence of cosmic fine-tuning for the specific benefit of humanity holds profound personal and philosophical significance.

If the observed fine-tuned designs prove to be of little or no consequence, then one could surmise that no intentionality is implied. On the other hand, if the observed fine-tuning is multifaceted and each facet is crucial for making human existence possible, then the fine-tuning source must be more than a mindless, impersonal force or process. The more numerous, specific, and purposeful the fine-tuned requirements, the more these required features reveal about the characteristics and identity of the fine-tuner.

Is Cosmic Fine-Tuning Real?
Not everyone agrees, however, that cosmic fine-tuning is real. Many allege the design is mere anthropomorphism or anthropocentrism. They contend that the observed cosmic fine-tuning is akin to a puddle noting that the hole in which it finds itself is perfectly fit for it. So, the puddle concludes that someone must have precisely manufactured the hole specifically for it.

This puddle argument against cosmic fine-tuning and the implied cosmic fine-tuner dates back at least 50 years to Douglas Adams but has become especially popular in the twenty-first century. I encountered it from one of the anonymous peer reviewers of my recently published paper, “Black Holes as Evidence of God’s Care.” (Open access to the paper is here. Open access to the peer reviewer’s critique is here.) In that paper (and in my book The Creator and the Cosmos²), I cite rebuttals to the puddle argument published by philosophers William Lane Craig³ and Richard Swinburne.⁴

Problems with “Puddle Thinking”
A few weeks ago, Australian astronomers Geraint Lewis and Luke Barnes published what, in my opinion, is the most eloquent and lay-accessible rebuttal to the puddle argument.⁵ They begin by giving the puddle the name Doug. Doug the puddle observes an exact match between his shape and the shape of the hole in which he dwells. Doug concludes that Someone must have designed the hole just for him. What Doug fails to realize is that given the fluidity of the water, the solidity of the hole, and the force of gravity, he will always take on the identical shape of his hole. Lewis and Barnes point out the obvious: any hole will do for a puddle.

The puddle analogy for humanity’s existence in the universe is fatally flawed. The two astronomers explain that not every conceivable universe will do for physical life. Physical life is not like a fluid. It will not and cannot adjust to any universe. The fine-tuning that astronomers observe indicates that even very slight alterations to the universe’s characteristics would rule out the possible existence of physical life. For human life, and especially for global human civilization, the constraints on the universe’s characteristics are exponentially more fine-tuned.

Figure: Hot Spring in Yellowstone National Park
Image credit: Hugh Ross

Characteristics of the Fine-Tuner
Lewis and Barnes conclude that the fallacies in the puddle argument imply that the cosmic fine-tuning that astronomers observe cannot be dismissed as unworthy of our attention. Such features are of utmost importance. Lewis and Barnes suggest the fine-tuner could be a divine mind or a programmer desiring to simulate an interesting universe.

I see an opportunity to proceed further. The degree of fine-tuning will inform us on how intelligent, knowledgable, and powerful is the divine mind or transcendent programmer. Looking beyond the universe as a whole and the laws of physics to explore the fine-tuning of our supercluster of galaxies, our galaxy cluster, our galaxy group, our galactic neighborhood, our star, our planetary system, our moon, and our planet will reveal the extent of the fine-tuning and whether or not the fine-tuning is specific to our species on Earth. These factors have the potential to determine a lower limit to the divine mind’s care and love for our species.

Deepening our exploration of the degree and extent of cosmic fine-tuning likely will reveal multiple purposes for the fine-tuning. When I wrote Why the Universe Is the Way It Is in 2008, I posited 11 distinct purposes for why the divine mind manufactured the universe in the manner that he did. Today, we can identify several more. These distinct purposes tell us much about the characteristics, attributes, and plans of the divine mind. I am particularly impressed that the case for cosmic fine-tuning and a personal, all-powerful, all-loving divine mind is powerfully manifested in a purposeful context. That context is that the features and histories of the universe, the Laniakea Supercluster, the Virgo Cluster, the Local Group, the Local Bubble, the Local Fluff, the Sun, the solar system, the Moon, and Earth must be fine-tuned for billions of humans to possess the opportunity to be eternally redeemed within just thousands of years. Given the fine-tuning evidence, it seems inescapable that the divine mind must be the Creator God of the Bible.

Endnotes

Brandon Carter, “Large Number Coincidences and the Anthropic Principle in Cosmology,” IAU Symposium 63, Krakow, Poland: Confrontation of Cosmological Theories with Observational Data (Dordrecht, Netherlands: D. Reidel Publishing, 1974): 291–298; John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986).
Hugh Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos, 4th ed. (Covina, CA: RTB Press, 2018), 153–163.
William Lane Craig, “Barrow and Tipler on the Anthropic Principle vs. Divine Design,” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 38 (1988): 389–395, doi:10.1093/bjps/39.3.389.
Richard Swinburne, “Argument from the Fine-Tuning of the Universe,” in Physical Cosmology and Philosophy, ed. John Leslie (New York: Macmillan, 1990), 165–166.
Geraint F. Lewis and Luke A. Barnes, “The Trouble with ‘Puddle Thinking’: A User’s Guide to the Anthropic Principle,” Proceedings and Journal of the Royal Society of New South Wales
154, no. 1 (June 2021), forthcoming.

The post Does the Puddle Analogy Explain Cosmic Fine-Tuning? appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

More Anthropic Reasons for the Extreme Fine-Tuning of Dark Energy

Hugh Ross — Mon, 11 Feb 2019 11:00:00 +0000

Years ago, in a paper published in the Astrophysical Journal, theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss referred to dark energy as presenting “the most extreme fine-tuning problem known in physics.”¹ Dark energy is energy embedded in the universe’s space surface that makes up about 70 percent of all the stuff of the universe (see figure 1). Krauss determined that the fine-tuning level is more extreme than one part in 10¹²⁰! He has been joined by several other theoretical physicists who conclude that the required fine-tuning of dark energy is “the most difficult problem in physics.”²The obvious question is does this most difficult problem point to a causal agent with the capacity to fine-tune to a degree far, far beyond anything we humans are capable of manifesting?

Figure 1: Relative abundance components of the universe. Diagram credit: Hugh Ross

Dark energy is the dominant factor controlling cosmic expansion. The larger the constant or constants governing dark energy, the more rapidly the universe expands from the cosmic creation event.

If the constant(s) governing dark energy is much larger than what we observe, then galaxies and stars will never form. If the constant(s) governing dark energy is much smaller than what we observe, then too much of the matter of the universe collapses into black holes and neutron stars.

Galaxies and stars of any kind will not form in the universe if the value of the dark energy constant, Λ, is greater than a hundred times more than what astronomers observe. However, a team of nine astrophysicists led by Luke Barnes used detailed computer simulations to demonstrate that increases in the value of Λ, even by a factor of 10–20 times, has only a small effect on star formation history and efficiency.³ The reason for such a small effect is that the rate of star formation in our universe peaks when the universe is about 3.5 billion years old, which is well before Λ would begin to accelerate the expansion rate of the universe. In fact, Barnes et al. showed that galaxies and stars will form in the universe even for values of Λ as high as 50 times greater than the observed value. This factor of 50 caused some astronomers to question the anthropic nature of Λ, the implication that Λ was personally fine-tuned (designed) to an extreme degree to make possible the existence of human beings in the universe.

Now, two papers have been published that establish that Λ must be fine-tuned to a very extreme degree after all. In the most recent issue of the journal Astrobiology, a team of six Japanese astrophysicists led by Tomonori Totani provides calculations that show that Λ must be as small as what we observe to prevent advanced life from being wiped out by lethal radiation from nearby supernovae (see figure 2).⁴ Totani’s team demonstrated that as the value of Λ increases from the observed value to 50 times the observed value, the density of stars in the universe proportionately increases. With an increase in the density of stars comes an increase in the number of nearby supernova eruptions in the vicinity of a planet that could potentially support advanced life.

Figure 2: Supernova 1994D in the Galaxy NGC 4536. At the height of its supernova eruption, Supernova 1994D (lower left) was as bright as all the rest of the more than 100 billion stars in the NGC 4536 galaxy. Image credit: High-Z Supernova Search Team, NASA, Hubble Space Telescope

A number of research studies establish that high-energy gamma and cosmic rays from a core-collapse supernova within 10 parsecs (32.6 light-years) of Earth would prove lethal for all terrestrial animals and especially for human beings.⁵ For the solar neighborhood the expected number of such nearby supernova events is 1 per 500,000,000 years.⁶ For global human civilization to be possible terrestrial animals must be abundant throughout the past 400,000,000 years. Therefore, Totani’s group concludes that for global human civilization to be possible the value of Λ cannot be significantly larger than the observed value.

As it is, humans must live in a large spiral galaxy and in a fine-tuned location in a large spiral galaxy for the frequency of lethal supernova events to be less than 1 per 500,000,000 years. If we were located in one of the much more common spheroidal or elliptical galaxies, or if we were closer to our galaxy’s bulge or one of our galaxy’s globular clusters or spiral arms, we would be exposed to a much higher frequency of lethal supernova events. That higher frequency would rule out our possible existence. This limitation on our location within the universe yields another reason why the value of Λ cannot be any greater than what astronomers observe.

A separate research study establishes that the value of Λ cannot be any smaller than what we observe. A paper published in Physical Review Letters by five theoretical astrophysicists led by Tsvi Piran showed that in a universe where Λ does not presently dominate the control of the cosmic expansion rate (true if Λ is just the tiniest smaller in value than what we observe) the density of dwarf galaxies skyrockets.⁷ In such a universe, a planet like Earth would be exposed to a lethal-to-animals gamma-ray burst event at a rate much higher than 1 per 400,000,000 years. Consequently, for our existence to be possible the value of Λ cannot be any smaller than what astronomers observe.

The bottom line is that dark energy really does present scientists with the most extreme fine-tuning problem known in physics. If the value of Λ were the slightest bit greater, nearby supernovae would have ruled out our existence. If the value of Λ were the slightest bit lesser, nearby gamma-ray burst events would have ruled out our existence. Thus, the value of Λ ranks as the most spectacular measurable scientific evidence for the supernatural, super-intelligent design of the universe to make possible the existence of human beings.

Featured image: Cosmic expansion history. Diagram credit: NASA/ESA

PS: For those of you curious as to how much of the annual expansion of your waistline you can blame on dark energy, the answer is less than a quadrillionth of an inch. If your waistline expands by a measure greater than a quadrillionth of an inch per year, some other cause is responsible for that expansion.

Endnotes

Lawrence M. Krauss, “The End of the Age Problem and the Case for a Cosmological Constant Revisited,” Astrophysical Journal 501 (July 10, 1998): 461, doi:10.1086/305846.
Robert R. Caldwell and Marc Kamionkowski, “The Physics of Cosmic Acceleration,” Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science 59 (November 2009): 397–429, doi:10.1146/annurev-nucl-010709-151330; Sean M. Carroll, “The Cosmological Constant,” Living Reviews in Relativity 4:1 (December 2001), doi:10.12942/lrr-2001-1.
Luke A. Barnes et al., “Galaxy Formation Efficiency and the Multiverse Explanation of the Cosmological Constant with EAGLE Simulations,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 477 (April 2018): 3727–3743, doi:10.1093/mnras/sty846.
Tomonori Totani et al., “Lethal Radiation from Nearby Supernovae Helps Explain the Small Cosmological Constant,” Astrobiology 19, no. 3 (January 2019): 126–131, doi:10.1089/ast.2018.1895.
Neil Gehers et al., “Ozone Depletion from Nearby Supernovae,” Astrophysical Journal 585, no. 2 (March 10, 2003): 1169–76, doi:10.1086/346127; G. C. Reid, J. R. McAfee, and P. J. Crutzen, “Effects of Intense Stratospheric Ionisation Events,” Nature 275 (October 12, 1978): 489–92, doi:10.1038/275489a0; R. C. Whitten et al., “Effect of Nearby Supernova Explosions on Atmospheric Ozone,” Nature 263 (September 30, 1976): 398–400, doi:10.1038/263398a0.
Gehers et al., “Ozone Depletion from Nearby Supernovae.”
Tsvi Piran et al., “Cosmic Explosions, Life in the Universe, and the Cosmological Constant,” Physical Review Letters 116 (February 23, 2016): id. 081301, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.081301.

The post More Anthropic Reasons for the Extreme Fine-Tuning of Dark Energy appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

Exoplanets’ Climate Instabilities Reveal Earth’s Fine-Tuning

Hugh Ross — Mon, 30 Jul 2018 09:00:00 +0000

In my last three blogs I described the inevitable climate instabilities that occur on Earth as a result of subtle variations in Earth’s rotation axis tilt and shape of its orbit about the Sun. For the first time, astronomers are paying serious attention to how similar variations affect the possible habitability of planets beyond our solar system. These studies are revealing extraordinarily fine-tuned design features in the solar system—and Earth in particular—that make Earth habitable not only for life, but also for animals, human beings, and global human civilization.

Natural Drivers of Climate Instability
As I mentioned in my blog, “The End of Civilization As We Know It? Part 3,”¹ the ice age cycle of the past 2.59 million years of Earth’s history and the climate instability that the ice age cycle generates is predominantly driven by two natural factors. The first and most impactful factor is cyclical variations in Earth’s rotation axis tilt, aka obliquity. The second factor is cyclical variations in the elliptical shape, or eccentricity of Earth’s orbit about the Sun.

I will explain the scientific details of these two features for much of this post, especially because exoplanet researchers typically have not been definitive on whether possible liquid water could mean a planet may be habitable. If the details get too technical, you can move to the subheading beginning with the word, “Consequences.”

For Earth, the cyclical variations in its obliquity and orbital eccentricity are remarkably low. Earth’s obliquity varies by only 2.4°, from 22.1° to 24.5° (see figure 1). Earth’s orbital eccentricity varies by only 0.0678, from 0.000055 to 0.0679 (see figure 2), where a value of 0.0 describes a perfectly circular orbit and a value of 1.0 describes an orbit where the maximum orbital diameter divided by the minimum orbital diameter = infinity (that is, the minimum orbital diameter = 0.0).

Figure 1: Extent of Earth’s Obliquity Variation. The two sets of yellow lines delineate the maximum variation in Earth’s rotation axis tilt (obliquity). image credit: NASA

Figure 2: Extent of Earth’s Orbital Eccentricity Variation. The red line shows Earth’s minimum orbital eccentricity. The orange line shows Earth’s maximum orbital eccentricity. image credit: Hugh Ross

Earth’s Anomalous Obliquity Stability
For reasons that I explained in my previous post, the lower a planet’s obliquity, the cooler the planet becomes. Likewise, the lower the planet’s orbital eccentricity, the cooler the planet becomes.

What keeps the variations in Earth’s obliquity so extremely low is that Earth, a relatively small planet, is orbited by a single very large moon that is only an average of 238,000 miles away. Compared to all other known moons, our Moon, relative to its host planet’s mass, is at least fifty times more massive.

Our Moon is an anomaly. It did not form like other known moons. As I describe in much detail in chapter 5 of Improbable Planet,² it formed as a result of a low-velocity collision between the primordial Earth, at a time when Earth possessed a very deep ocean and a very thick atmosphere, and another planet.

So many features and events in this collision must be exquisitely fine-tuned in order to achieve a planet-moon system where advanced life on the planet is possible, that one Moon-formation expert, Robin Canup, complained about all the required “cosmic coincidences,”³ and another, Tim Elliott, noted that all the necessary fine-tuning features have led to “philosophical disquiet“⁴ among his peers. All this fine-tuning implies that it will be extremely unlikely that terrestrial planets sufficiently distant from their host stars to avoid tidal locking with their host stars and to conceivably possess liquid water on their surfaces will possess obliquity variations that are not much larger than Earth’s.

Earth’s Anomalous Orbital Eccentricity Stability
Changes in the gravitational forces exerted upon it by Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune, in that order of importance, have caused Earth’s orbital eccentricity variations. The solar system’s gas giant planets all orbit the Sun at more than four times the outer edge of the liquid water habitable zone—with orbital eccentricities that are low (0.0489, 0.0565, 0.0464, and 0.0095 respectively) and with masses less than 0.1 percent the host star’s mass. This is a unique feature of the solar system’s gas giant planets compared to the other 2,842 known planetary systems.⁵

The great distances of Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune from Earth, their relatively small masses, and their low eccentricities explain why the variations in Earth’s orbital eccentricity are so very low. It is extremely unlikely that extrasolar terrestrial planets sufficiently distant from their host stars to avoid tidal locking with those stars and that conceivably possess liquid water on their surfaces will possess orbital eccentricity variations that are not much larger than Earth’s. (A planetary system with no gas giant planets is not an option since the existence of such planets is crucial to prevent a conceivably habitable terrestrial planet from absorbing too many impacts from asteroids and comets from within and beyond the planetary system.⁶)

Frequency of High Obliquity Variations for Exoplanets
In the first of two research papers, a team led by astronomer Russell Deitrick of the University of Washington ran computer simulations of obliquity variations for both hypothetical and known exoplanets.⁷ They determined that the largest drivers of obliquity variations for Earth-sized planets where all the planets in the planetary system are close to coplanar (orbiting their host star in the same plane; that is, with the same approximate orbital inclination), are secular spin-orbit resonances. This resonance means the natural frequency of the planet’s rotation axis is near the frequency of its orbital inclination variations. Where the planets in a planetary system have distinctly different orbital inclinations, those differences make a major contribution to obliquity variations.

Dietrick’s team also showed that the obliquity variations generated for Earth-sized planets depend strongly on the planet’s initial orbital eccentricity and inclination. The larger a planet’s initial orbital eccentricity or orbital inclination, the greater the eventual degree of obliquity variations it generates. Unless the initial orbital eccentricity and orbital inclination are both very close to zero degrees, the planet’s obliquity variations will become much larger than Earth’s.

In the common event where one or more planets are scattered out of a planetary system either by planet-planet interactions, gravitational disturbances from a passing star, or galactic effects, the remaining planets will experience their orbital eccentricities and inclinations being boosted to high values.⁸ Dietrick’s team additionally demonstrated that a single large moon orbiting a small planet is no guarantee of stable tiny obliquity variations for the planet. Earth has minuscule obliquity variations only because the Moon induces a torque on Earth’s equatorial bulge that is much larger than the one induced by the Sun.⁹

Figure 3 shows the obliquity variations experienced by Mars. While larger terrestrial planets typically will possess obliquity variations smaller than Mars, they are still very likely to be much larger than Earth’s. The bottom line is that it is nothing short of amazing that Earth has such small obliquity variations.

Figure 3: Extent of Mars’s Obliquity Variations. The two sets of yellow lines delineate the maximum variation in Mars’s rotation axis tilt (obliquity). image credit: European Space Agency

Frequency of High Orbital Inclination Variations for Exoplanets
In the second¹⁰ of their two research papers, Deitrick’s team completed their analysis of the frequency of large orbital eccentricity variations for exoplanets. They showed that large orbital eccentricity variations will be just as frequently generated as large obliquity variations. Also, the larger either a planet’s initial orbital eccentricity or initial orbital inclination is, the more likely that large orbital eccentricity variations will be generated.

They demonstrated that an increase in orbital eccentricity does not always warm up an Earth-like planet. Owing to Kepler’s second law of motion, a planet will spend more time when the orbital distance is farthest from its host star than when it is nearest. If the orbital period is sufficiently long and the orbital eccentricity large, the planet can completely freeze over when the planet is in that part of its orbit when it is most distant from its host star.

Figure 4 shows the orbital eccentricity variations typically experienced by Earth-like exoplanets orbiting Sun-like stars. Here the Earth-like planets are at the appropriate distance from their host stars that it becomes conceivable for them to possess surface liquid water. As is the case for obliquity variations, it is nothing short of amazing that Earth has such low orbital eccentricity variations.

Figure 4: Typical Orbital Eccentricity Variations for Earth-Like Exoplanets. The red line shows the planet’s minimum orbital eccentricity. The orange line shows the planet’s maximum orbital eccentricity. image credit: Hugh Ross

Consequences of Large Obliquity and Orbital Eccentricity Variations
The main focus of Deitrick’s team’s second paper is the habitability consequences of an Earth-like planet possessing either large obliquity variations or large orbital eccentricity variations, or both. The most significant consequence they established is that “large amplitude changes in obliquity and eccentricity cause the ice edge, the lowest latitude extent of the ice caps, to become unstable and grow to the equator.”¹¹

That is, planets experiencing such variations are doomed to experience a runaway glaciation where the entire surface of the planet becomes covered in ice. Since ice reflects light from the host star much more efficiently than any other possible planetary surface cover, the glaciation cover likely will remain even when the planet’s obliquity and orbital eccentricity changes would otherwise warm the planet. The exception to this permanent glaciation catastrophe would be cases where the planet’s obliquity variation or orbital eccentricity variation is so large that the planet oscillates between all its surface water being evaporated into steam and all its surface water being frozen into ice.

Dietrick’s team demonstrated that obliquity variations are almost always the dominant factor in determining the degree of a planet’s climate changes. The exception is when the orbital eccentricity variations exceed 0.2, for example, when the lowest value for the orbital eccentricity is less than 0.1 and the highest value exceeds 0.3.

For Earth, its carbonate-silicate cycle has rescued it a few times from slushball events, where the ice edges of the ice caps reached down into tropical latitudes but stopped short of the equator.¹² Dietrick’s team explained that a possible carbonate-silicate cycle on an exoplanet with either large obliquity or large orbital eccentricity variations will not help. Possible carbonate-silicate cycles operate on timescales of a half-million years or more. For Earth-like planets, severe climate changes generated by large obliquity or orbital eccentricity variations will operate on timescales of a few years or less. Such planets will evolve from completely ice-free to completely ice-covered in only thousands of years.

Deitrick’s team intends to bring out more follow-up papers in order to determine in detail the nature of consequences for exoplanets experiencing large obliquity or orbital eccentricity variations. What they have produced so far, however, establishes that the so-called liquid water habitable zone for exoplanets is severely impacted by probable large planetary obliquity and orbital eccentricity variations. Thus, the estimated number of exoplanets that are presumed to possibly possess stable surface liquid water needs to be diminished by at least a few orders of magnitude.

Supernatural Implications
Deitrick and his team do not discuss what their research implies about Earth’s habitability. Their excellent work shows that the fine-tuning designs that have made Earth continuously habitable for 3.8 billion years of abundant, diverse life, and has made possible the existence of a large population of human beings enjoying global, high-technology civilization, has been grossly underestimated by most scientists. Their research adds to the already overwhelming scientific evidence that a supernatural, superintendent Creator personally designed Earth for the specific benefit of life and of human beings in particular.

Endnotes

Hugh Ross, “The End of Civilization As We Know It? Part 3,” Today’s New Reason to Believe (blog), Reasons to Believe, July 23, 2018, https://www.reasons.org/todays-new-reason-to-believe/2018/07/23/the-end-of-civilization-as-we-know-it-part-3.
Hugh Ross, Improbable Planet: How Earth Became Humanity’s Home (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2016), 48–60, https://support.reasons.org/purchase/improbable-planet.
Robin M. Canup, “Lunar Conspiracies,” Nature 504 (December 5, 2013): 27, doi:10.1038/504027a.
Tim Elliott, “A Chip Off the Old Block,” in “Planetary Science: Shadows Cast on Moon’s Origin,” Nature 504 (December 5, 2013): 90, doi:10.1038/504090a.
Exoplanet TEAM, Catalog in The Extrasolar Planets Encylopedia (July 13, 2018 update), https://exoplanet.eu/catalog/.
Ross, Improbable Planet, 44–48.
Russell Deitrick et al., “Exo-Milankovitch Cycles. I. Orbits and Rotation States,” Astronomical Journal 155 (February 2018): id. 60, doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aaa301.
Sean N. Raymond, Philip J. Armitage, and Noel Gorelick, “Planet-Planet Scattering in Planetesimal Disks,” Astrophysical Journal Letters 699 (July 10, 2009): id. L88, doi:10.1088/004-637X/699/2/L88; Rory Barnes et al., “Origin and Dynamics of the Mutually Inclined Orbits of µ Andromedae c and d,” Astrophysical Journal 726 (January 10, 2011): id. 71, doi:10.1088/0004-637X/726/2/71; Nathan A. Kaib, Sean N. Raymond, and Martin Duncan, “Planetary System Disruption by Galactic Perturbations to Wide Binary Stars,” Nature 493 (January 17, 2013): 381–84, doi:10.1038/nature11780.
Deitrick et al., “Exo-Milankovitch Cycles. I.,” 18.
Russell Deitrick et al., “Exo-Milankovitch Cycles. II. Climates of G-Dwarf Planets in Dynamically Hot Systems,” Astronomical Journal 155 (June 2018): id. 266, doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aac214.
Deitrick et al., “Exo-Milankovitch Cycles. II.,” 1.
Hugh Ross, Improbable Planet: 159–62, 171–72.

The post Exoplanets’ Climate Instabilities Reveal Earth’s Fine-Tuning appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

Persuasive Reasons: Thoughts on Fine-Tuning

Jeff Zweerink — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 15:00:00 +0000

Recently, I wrote about what I find as the most persuasive argument (scientifically speaking) for the truth of Christianity. Big bang cosmology reveals a marked correspondence between the biblical description of the universe and our best scientific explanation. The fine-tuning argument ranks second on my list of most persuasive arguments, but only because it has a less-direct connection to the Bible.

What Is Fine-Tuning?

Before getting into the details, it’s worth noting that a great wealth of scientific knowledge demonstrates the fine-tuning required for life to exist. By fine-tuning, I mean that (1) life requires some parameter to have particular value, and (2) the parameter in question has an unusual or atypical value. For example, life requires that the universe contains sufficient carbon and oxygen as well as hydrogen. When scientists assess what strengths of the electromagnetic and strong nuclear forces lead to sufficient quantities of these three elements, only a small range of values meet life’s requirements. The fine-tuning arises because small changes to these values lead to an apparently lifeless universe.

Evidence of Fine-Tuning Is Pervasive

Evidence of fine-tuning abounds in the universe. As scientists tried to understand why the universe contains carbon, they recognized that it requires two finely tuned energy states—one in the nucleus of carbon and the other in oxygen. Fred Hoyle first postulated the existence of these two states decades ago, and scientists experimentally verified them a few years later. More recent studies show that changing the quark masses or the fine structure constant by a few percent results in a universe with insufficient carbon and oxygen for life.

The chemical composition of the Sun (and the planets orbiting it) requires that the Sun must have formed in the aftermath of a few supernovae as well as some other specific kinds of stars. This means that the Sun must have formed in a large cluster containing thousands of stars. However, unless the Sun were ejected from this cluster early in its history, the interactions with the stars in the cluster would have disrupted the planetary orbits.

Plate tectonics on Earth play a critical role in regulating the temperature of the planet. Scientific studies indicate that Earth’s composition and size are tuned to provide long-lasting, active plate tectonics.

Along with plate tectonics, the Earth’s atmosphere and cloud cover also helped maintain an environment where liquid water could exist for billions of years. All of these factors, as well as the different kinds of life over Earth’s history, had to change and adjust in concert with one another or else the planet would have become uninhabitable.

As scientists probe the workings of life itself, they find incredibly well-designed systems. My personal favorite, the programming seen in the genetic code, shows a level of sophistication, error correction, and flexibility unmatched by those written by the best computer programmers on Earth.

A Common Objection

Most scientists recognize that the parameters must occupy a small range of values to permit life as we know it. The most straightforward conclusion, in my opinion, is that God fashioned the universe in a highly specific way in order to support life. Some object to this conclusion and assert that many different configurations would still support life. While we cannot verify this assertion in an experimental way (that would require making a new universe), scientists can assess whether multiple configurations of these parameters lead to a universe with the necessary requirements for life. These studies indicate that some parameters have flexibility while others don’t. Additionally, the existence of a few other states that might support life doesn’t change the central point that ratio of life-supporting states to life-prohibiting ones is incredibly small.

Fine-Tuning Points to God

The pervasive evidence of fine-tuning provides a compelling case that a supernatural Designer exists. One has to do some additional work to connect this Designer with the God of the Bible, but big bang cosmology helps out with that task.

The post Persuasive Reasons: Thoughts on Fine-Tuning appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

Fine-Tuning: Responding to a Common Objection

Jeff Zweerink — Fri, 02 Dec 2016 21:47:00 +0000

I received an email asking this question:

I have heard another rebuttal to the fine-tuning argument . . . that maybe you can address. The rebuttal goes like this: “Yes, you are right that changing just one constant a little bit would make human life impossible. But there are ways you can change multiple constants at the same time and still have human life arise. So the constants aren’t really as fine-tuned as you say.” Can you respond to that argument?

Virtually all scientists readily acknowledge that tweaking just one of the fundamental constants (e.g., the electromagnetic coupling constant, α), even by small amounts, results in a universe devoid of life. Increasing α causes greater repulsion between like charges, disrupting the stability of elements with more than a few protons. However, decreasing α would result in weaker forces between atoms, negatively affecting the chemical bonding that life requires. Some of these negative consequences are avoided by changing other fundamental constants. Where larger α affects the stability of heavier elements, increasing the strength of the strong nuclear force restores this stability.

When scientists investigate how the universe would change as these two quantities vary, they still find evidence for fine-tuning. Only a small window allows for a universe with sufficient carbon and oxygen, as well as hydrogen, for life to exist. But what if a bunch of parameters are adjusted?

The graphics below illustrate the two commonly considered options. The top image shows that we live on a island in the vast ocean of possible configurations of the constants of physics. Change any one too much and life ends up drowning in the ocean. The key question is, what happens when we zoom out to see the rest of the ocean?

Zooming out, do we get the first photo or the second?

Is our island alone and isolated, or do many islands capable of sustaining life exist?

Maybe Other Islands Remove the Fine-Tuning

Well, one team of physicists asked just that question to see if a universe without a weak nuclear force could support all the life-essential processes. They simulated universes with no weak interaction and adjusted the other parameters (both fundamental—like gravity, electromagnetic, and strong nuclear interactions—as well as cosmological—like baryon number and dark matter density) to try and obtain a universe that behaves similarly to ours. Their research demonstrated that it was possible to find another configuration of parameters that yielded a universe that appeared to be capable of supporting life.¹ (Another team disputes that the alternate universe would produce enough oxygen though.)²

In order to find that island, the scientists had to carefully tune a whole bunch of parameters. While the success of this endeavor indicates that other islands might exist, it also shows that the islands are small and have sharp cliffs.

. . . Or Maybe They Don’t

The team also tried a similar analysis focusing on the cosmological constant (or dark energy). The discovery of dark energy in the late 1990s shocked cosmologists because the amount of this bizarre “stuff” was far less than expected. Instead of a value near the Planck scale (as expected from the best model of the physical laws available), the actual value is roughly 120 orders of magnitude smaller! The team tried to find universes capable of supporting life where the dark energy had values near the Planck scale. They found that no adjustment of the other parameters gave a universe that produced stars that burned for billions of years, synthesized elements up to iron, and underwent supernova explosions necessary for distributing the elements for planet formation.

No amount of changing the fundamental constants gives an island where the dark energy has the value predicted by our best scientific theories! In other words, all the livable universes had a fine-tuned value for the dark energy.

Ultimately, the fine-tuning argument doesn’t rest on the premise that our universe is the only possible configuration. It only requires that of all the possible configurations, only a small fraction meets all the necessary conditions for life. Research into finding other potentially livable universes confirms that our universe belongs to a relatively small group (that may contain only one member)—even if a multiverse exists.

Endnotes

Roni Harnik, Graham D. Kribs, and Gilad Perez, “A Universe without Weak Interactions,” Physical Review D 74 (August 2006): 035006, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.74.035006.
L. Clavelli and R. E. White III, “Problems in a Weakless Universe,” submitted September 5, 2006, arXiv:hep-ph/0609050.

The post Fine-Tuning: Responding to a Common Objection appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

Fine-Tuning the Ratio of Small to Large Stars

Hugh Ross — Tue, 08 Nov 2011 10:00:00 +0000

For decades, astronomers have assumed that the ratio of small-mass stars to high-mass stars observed in our Milky Way Galaxy (MWG) is a universal constant for all galaxies. A growing body of data, however, now challenges that assumption.

Astronomers refer to this ratio as the stellar initial mass function (IMF). The IMF is important for establishing whether a galaxy could possibly host life since it determines the galaxy’s chemical enrichment history. High-mass stars produce more elements that are heavier than helium and only high-mass stars produce elements heavier than iron. Life, especially advanced life, requires that the abundance of elements in the periodic table be available at specified levels.

Furthermore, for planetary systems, the abundance of elements heavier than helium is strongly correlated with the size and number of asteroid and comet belts. As I explained in a previous Today’s New Reason to Believe article, for advanced life to be possible on a planet, the number, sizes, and locations of asteroid and comet belts in its planetary system must be fine-tuned. Too many high-mass stars would mean that the planet on which advanced life could conceivably exist would be buffeted by destructive gravitational perturbations exerted by the high-mass stars.

The latest and most potent challenge to the IMF being a universal constant for all galaxies comes from an analysis by the Calar Alto Legacy Integral Field Array (CALIFA) survey team.¹ The CALIFA survey is an integral field spectral survey of 600 nearby galaxies. The study is designed to investigate how galaxies form and evolve over the history of the universe.

The CALIFA team performed detailed observations of 24 early-type galaxies characterized by old stellar populations where only stars less massive than the Sun are still burning. Analysis of these observations showed that the IMF not only varies from galaxy to galaxy but also varies within each galaxy. The IMF depends strongly on distance from the center of each galaxy and on the age of the galaxy. These characteristics led the CALIFA team to conclude that the local abundance of elements heavier than helium is a major factor in determining the IMF.

The variations in the IMF noted by the CALIFA team yield more evidence for fine-tuning design in the position of a planet capable of sustaining advanced life. Such a planet must reside in an environment with the just-right IMF, which implies that it must reside in the just-right position within a galaxy that possesses the just-right mean IMF.

References

Ignacio Martín-Navarro et al., “IMF–Metallicity: A Tight Local Relation Revealed by the CALIFA Survey,” Astrophysical Journal Letters 806 (June 2015): id. L31, doi:10.1088/2041-8205/806/2/L31.

The post Fine-Tuning the Ratio of Small to Large Stars appeared first on Reasons to Believe.