![\"Earliest](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/186\/2016\/06\/NASA-WMAP-first-stars.jpg\")
<\/a>(Wikimedia Commons public domain image)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
I carry on now with my loose appropriation, for my own nefarious purposes, of the online \u201cList of Fine-Tuning Parameters\u201d<\/a> compiled by Jay W. Richards<\/a>.\u00a0 (My first entry taken from his list and explicitly dependent upon it is this one:\u00a0 \u201cAn initial survey of the \u201cfour fundamental forces\u201d and the \u201ccosmological constant.\u201d\u201d<\/a>)\u00a0 As I said in that first blog post, I claim no originality here, and I may never<\/em> claim any (though I\u2019ll eventually rework these notes in successive stages as I draw upon and incorporate materials from other sources for a much larger project that I have in mind).\u00a0 Dr. Richards follows his list of five \u201cCosmic Constants,\u201d which I briefly discussed in the prior blog entry mentioned just above, with a list of four \u201cInitial Conditions and \u2018Brute Facts\u2019.\u201d\u00a0 I\u2019ll discuss them briefly below.<\/p>\n Initial or boundary conditions are the conditions that were present at the beginning of the universe; they seem to be entirely independent of the physical constants already mentioned.\u00a0 One way of summarizing the initial conditions is to speak of the extremely low entropy (that is, the highly ordered) initial state of the universe. This refers to the initial distribution of mass energy at the very first point at which we can begin to determine what it was.\u00a0 In his book The Road to Reality<\/em>, the Nobel laureate mathematical physicist Roger Penrose estimates that the odds of the initial low entropy state of our universe occurred by chance alone are on the order of 1 in 1010(123)<\/sup><\/em>.<\/p>\n To say that this ratio is far beyond mortal human power to comprehend doesn\u2019t begin<\/em> to do it justice.\u00a0 Most of us don\u2019t even really deal with exponential notation anyway \u2014 or, at least, we haven\u2019t since our school days.\u00a0 So maybe a slight refresher is in order:<\/p>\n 102<\/sup><\/em> is 10 x 10, which, of course, equals 100.\u00a0 (Note that 102<\/sup><\/em> can be written out as a 1 followed by two zeros.)\u00a0 10<\/em>3<\/sup><\/em> would be 10 x 10 x 10 = 1000.\u00a0 (That\u2019s a 1 followed by three<\/em> zeros.)\u00a0 So 1010<\/sup><\/em> would be 10 x 10 x 10 x 10 x 10 x 10 x 10 x 10 x 10 x 10 = 10,000,000,000 \u2014 a rather large number.\u00a0 Ten billion.\u00a0 A 1 followed by ten zeroes.)\u00a0 More to the point, one in<\/em> ten billion would be a very small<\/em> number.\u00a0 But the number proposed by Roger Penrose is far, far smaller than that<\/em>.\u00a0 Because it\u2019s 1010(123)<\/sup><\/em>, which is a fraction in which the numerator is one and the denominator is ten billion multiplied by ten billion one hundred and twenty-three (123) times.<\/em>\u00a0 To put this into inconceivable perspective, the commonly accepted figure for the number of particles in the observable universe \u2014 that is, for the total number of protons, neutrons, neutrinos, and electrons \u2014 is\u00a01080<\/sup><\/em>.\u00a0 Which can\u2019t even really be said to begin<\/em> to approach the vast number proposed by Sir Roger.<\/p>\n Now, this ratio should be more than enough in and of itself to raise the question: Why does such a universe exist? \u201cIf someone is unmoved by this ratio,\u201d remarks Jay Richards, \u201cthen they probably won\u2019t be persuaded by additional examples of fine-tuning.\u201d<\/p>\n But we proceed a bit further, with \u201cbrute facts\u201d that just happen to be so but that are essential for life to exist in our universe:<\/p>\n If this ratio were even slightly different, the building blocks for life (such as DNA) could not have been formed.<\/p>\n If the velocity of light were higher than it is, stars would be too luminous. If it were lower than it is, stars would not be luminous enough.<\/p>\n If the ratio of the mass of neutrons over protons were greater than it actually is, there would be too few heavy elements in the universe for life to arise.\u00a0 If it were smaller than it is, luminous, life-giving, element-generating stars would quickly collapse into neutron stars or black holes.<\/p>\n Background, as I understand it:\u00a0 Immediately after the Big Bang, which is to say before the first stars in the universe were ever formed, the universe consisted of hydrogen (the first element in the periodic table), helium (the second element in the periodic table), and essentially nothing else. These are the lightest of the elements, and life cannot arise from them alone or survive on the basis of them alone.\u00a0 The early universe made almost nothing else for the simple and sufficient reason that it was so hot and dense in the earliest stages that any elements that it might fuse together it also immediately blasted apart again.\u00a0 Only when the universe had cooled down enough that elements weren\u2019t immediately split apart \u2014 perhaps a little more than three minutes into its existence \u2014 could other elements of the periodic table begin to appear.\u00a0 Even so, 99.999999% of the elements in the earliest universe were either hydrogen or helium, and not much new began to appear beyond helium until stars commenced to form, several hundred million years after the Big Bang.<\/p>\n Shouldn\u2019t such things make us at least a tad curious?<\/p>\n The Canadian philosopher John Andrew Leslie has created a parable to help us think about this question:<\/p>\n Suppose that you\u2019re about to be executed. Ten skilled marksmen armed with rifles are lined up a few feet away; you\u2019re blindfolded and placed against a wall. You hear the officer say \u201cFire!\u201d and the rifles roar. However, to your surprise and relief, you\u2019re still alive. Untouched, even.<\/p>\n How do you react?<\/p>\n Do you simply respond that, well, that\u2019s the way it is, and then walk away without any questions? Such a reaction would be remarkably incurious, even extremely strange.<\/p>\n Alternatively, you might reason that even the best riflemen sometimes miss and that, if enough executions happen, there must surely be one, somewhere, sometime, in which all 10 members of the firing squad completely miss their target at close range. You simply happen to be the lucky one. Question disposed of. Move along. There\u2019s nothing more to see.<\/p>\n\n
\n
\n
\n