![\"Cat's](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/186\/2015\/04\/640px-NGC6543.jpg\")
<\/a>\u00a0<\/p>\n
***<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n Some time back, I read Geraint F. Lewis and Luke A. Barnes, A Fortunate Universe: Life in a Finely Tuned Cosmos<\/i> (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016).\u00a0 Here are just a few of the passages from the book that I marked for future use:<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n Consider gravity. \u00a0Newton described gravity with his famous \u2018inverse square\u2019 law: \u00a0any two masses attract each other, with a force that decreases with the square of the distance. \u00a0Einstein\u2019s General Theory of Relativity is a more accurate and more difficult improvement on Newton\u2019s theory. \u00a0In both theories, a quantity known as Newton\u2019s gravitational constant appears, which is usually given the symbol of G<\/i> and has a value of \u00a06.67 x 10-11<\/sup><\/span> m3<\/sup><\/span> kg-1<\/sup><\/span> s-2<\/sup><\/span>.<\/span><\/p>\n If the value of G<\/i> were different, what would happen? \u00a0We need to be a bit careful here. \u00a0Suppose we\u2019ve transported you to another universe and asked you to measure G<\/i>. \u00a0You\u2019ll need to calibrate your instruments to measure metres, seconds and kilograms. \u00a0But wait . . . that platinum-iridium lump is back in our Universe! \u00a0Thankfully, changing G<\/i> doesn\u2019t affect the elements, so we can (in principle!) make what we need. \u00a0With some caesium 133, you can calibrate your clocks to measure seconds. \u00a0Measuring the speed of light gives the metre: \u00a0the distance light travels in 1\/299, 792, 458 of a second. \u00a0We can then construct a replica platinum-iridium lump to give us the kilogram. \u00a0You can then measure G<\/i>.<\/span><\/p>\n Nothing in Newton\u2019s or Einstein\u2019s theory tells us the value of G<\/i>. \u00a0We have to ask nature, measuring from experiment.<\/span><\/p>\n In Newton\u2019s theory, if G<\/i> were twice as large, the gravitational force between masses would be twice as large. \u00a0In Einstein\u2019s deeper understanding of gravity, G<\/i> measures how strongly mass and energy distort the geometry of spacetime. \u00a0Changing the value of G<\/i> affects just about everything in astrophysics, from the expansion of the Universe and the formation of galaxies to the size and stability of stars and planets.<\/span><\/p>\n Similar constants appear in all of the force laws, where they are called coupling constants<\/i>. \u00a0The only way we have of knowing the value of these constants is to measure them from nature.\u00a0 (pages 30-32)<\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n Let me repeat two of those sentences: \u00a0(1)\u00a0\u201cNothing in Newton\u2019s or Einstein\u2019s theory tells us the value of\u00a0G<\/i>. \u00a0We have to ask nature, measuring from experiment.\u201d \u00a0(2) \u201cThe only way we have of knowing the value of these constants is to measure them from nature.\u201d<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n In other words, important as these constants are to the emergence of the Universe and of life within it, there is (so far as we now know) nothing inevitable about them. \u00a0Neither Newton\u2019s theory nor Einstein\u2019s theory predicts their specific values. \u00a0That is \u2014 once again, so far as we know \u2014 they\u2019re both contingent. \u00a0They could have been otherwise. \u00a0And, in many cases, had they\u00a0been even slightly different than they actually are, neither we nor the planets, stars, and galaxies would be here.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n \u2018Almost everything is already discovered\u2019, a young Max Planck was told in 1874. \u00a0Planck, who would become one of the greatest scientists of the twentieth century, had travelled to Munich to embark on a career in physics, only to be told by Professor Philipp von Jolly to study something else, as \u2018theoretical physics was approaching a degree of completion which geometry had possessed for hundreds of year.'\u201d\u00a0 (p. 183) [Quoted from Friedel Weinert, The Scientist as Philosopher: Philosophical Consequences of Great Scientific Discoveries<\/i> (New York: Springer, 2004), 193.]<\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n Science is facing a seemingly simple question whose answer would completely change what we think about the physical world. \u00a0And that question is \u2018Why is the Universe just right for the formation of complex, intelligent beings? . . . \u00a0Why, in the almost infinite sea of possibilities, was our Universe born with the conditions that allow life to arise?\u2019\u00a0 (pp. 1, 2)<\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n Also, even our best and deepest physical theories have loose ends. \u00a0There are numbers in the equations that the theory cannot predict. \u00a0We just have to measure them. \u00a0They are called the constants of nature. \u00a0Why do they have the value that we measure? \u00a0If that question has an answer, it must go beyond our current theories.\u00a0 (p. 8)<\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n Luke:<\/b> \u00a0Maybe it\u2019s like the lottery \u2014 a winning ticket isn\u2019t too unlikely because lots of people buy different tickets.<\/span><\/p>\n That last idea, applied to the fine-tuning of the Universe for life, is rather ambitious. \u00a0It supposes that a universe that is right for life exists because there are untold multitudes of universes with different properties. \u00a0In the cosmic lottery, we got lucky.<\/span><\/p>\n Geraint:<\/b> \u00a0Sounds like science fiction.<\/span><\/p>\n Luke:<\/b> \u00a0Some think so. \u00a0Others, seeing the lack of plausible ideas for explaining the values of the constants of nature, take the idea seriously.<\/span><\/p>\n Geraint:<\/b> \u00a0And us?<\/span><\/p>\n Luke:<\/b> \u00a0We\u2019re writing a book about it.\u00a0 (p. 9)<\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n Every cell in your body, for example, has molecular machines for moving itself, tagging and transporting molecules, processing food, defending against invaders, DNA duplication and repair, producing proteins and receiving and processing outside signals. \u00a0On top of all that, this entire machine can tear itself in half and produce a complete working copy in about 20 minutes. \u00a0A modern computer is pretty great, but it can\u2019t do that.\u00a0 (pp. 11-12)<\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n Our models are mixtures of well-tested theories, reasonable assumptions and guesses; as Richard Feynman [d. 1988; 1965 Nobel laureate in physics] noted, \u2018it is not unscientific to make a guess.\u2019 \u00a0Science happens when we ask the Universe whether we guessed right. \u00a0Otherwise, the experimenter is doing little more than stamp collecting, and the theorist is just playing with numbers!\u00a0 (26)<\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n A bank vault is robbed. \u00a0The armoured door was opened without force; the robbers used the access code. \u00a0The police arrive on the scene.<\/span><\/p>\n Drebin: \u00a0Maybe they guessed the code.<\/span><\/p>\n Hocken: \u00a0No way, Frank. \u00a0There are a trillion combinations. \u00a0The system shows that they entered the code correctly on the first attempt. \u00a0Surely the odds agains that are astronomical.<\/span><\/p>\n Drebin: \u00a0But it\u2019s still possible, right?\u00a0 (28)<\/span><\/p>\n The fine-tuning of the Universe for life, then, is fine-tuning applied specifically to the fact that this universe supports life forms. \u00a0The claim is that small changes in the free parameters of the laws of nature as we know them have dramatic, uncompensated and detrimental effects on the ability of the Universe to support the complexity needed for physical life forms.\u00a0 (29)<\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n Here\u2019s one of those parameters for consideration:<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n The electron is one of the fundamental particles of the Universe. \u00a0Electron orbits around the nuclei of atoms dictate the processes of chemistry. \u00a0With the appropriate experimental equipment, we can measure the mass of an individual proton: \u00a09.109 382 15 x 10-31<\/sup><\/span>\u00a0kg (and, with our most accurate equipment, we know this value has an uncertainty of 0.000 000 45 x\u00a010-31<\/sup><\/span>\u00a0kg). \u00a0If you measure the mass of any electron in the Universe, you get the same answer!<\/span><\/p>\n When we measure the mass of an object in kilograms, we are implicitly comparing it to a lump of platinum-iridium alloy held in uniform conditions at the International Bureau of Weights and Measure laboratories in the outer reaches of Paris. \u00a0There is nothing special about this lump, and so nothing special about the kilogram. \u00a0Nothing changes if we were to express the mass of the electron in pounds, long tons, grains or carats.<\/span><\/p>\n However, the mass of the electron relative to other particles in the Universe is important. \u00a0Each member of the menagerie of fundamental particles comes with a mass, and while some are zero, many are just plain, unexplained numbers.<\/span><\/p>\n Here we can play our \u2018what if?\u2019 games. \u00a0If we change the relative masses of the fundamental particles, what effect does this have on a complex, multi-cellular, balding primate sitting and typing on a planet orbiting a star? \u00a0We\u2019ll see in later chapters that the existence of life depends critically upon particle masses. \u00a0Universes with different mass ratios are often sterile.\u00a0 (29-30)<\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" \u00a0 \u00a0 *** \u00a0 Some time back, I read Geraint F. Lewis and Luke A. Barnes, A Fortunate Universe: Life in a Finely Tuned Cosmos (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016).\u00a0 Here are just a few of the passages from the book that I marked for future use: \u00a0 Consider gravity. \u00a0Newton described gravity with his […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1019,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[28388,9409,551,6234,120,572,16193,16403,18125,10127,545,28394,4684,123,28391,16424],"class_list":["post-94352","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-a-fortunate-universe","tag-appearance-of-design","tag-argument-from-design","tag-cosmic-design","tag-design","tag-design-argument","tag-design-inference","tag-designed","tag-designer","tag-fine-tuned","tag-fine-tuning","tag-geraint-f-lewis","tag-gravity","tag-intelligent-design","tag-luke-a-barnes","tag-universal-design-intuition"],"yoast_head":"\n