AMR wrote:
In Planck units the cosmological constant = 10-120 controls the universe's rate of expansion. If it were larger than this extremely small number the universe would expand matter apart so rapidly stars and galaxies would not be able to form and needless to say life would no be possible.

You need to do a bit more reading. Some observations of accelerated expansion have put the value of the cosmological constant at where you say it is, but varying from this constant slightly or even largely does not doom the universe and life within it. The Cosmological constant is not that touchy.

Maybe you should go back to your Christian Creationist websites and pick a different natural constant from their lists, one that would really matter. Say, the strong force, or the weak force, or the electromagnetic force, or gravity. A value that that we actually know.

Then you can try to argue that infinitesimal differences would have drastic effects, but first you would have to show that these differences were possible.

Good luck with that.

Oldskeptic wrote:Maybe you should go back to your Christian Creationist websites and pick a different natural constant from their lists, one that would really matter. Say, the strong force, or the weak force, or the electromagnetic force, or gravity. A value that that we actually know.

I completely agree with your principle here Oldskeptic, but did I dream it, or didn't someone demonstrate that the universe could carry along quite nicely without the weak force?

Thommo wrote:
I completely agree with your principle here Oldskeptic, but did I dream it, or didn't someone demonstrate that the universe could carry along quite nicely without the weak force?

If I remember right it was a South American theoretical physicist with a really cool name that I can’t think of right now. It was a nice bit of theoretical physics, but it did little more than raise interesting questions and or conciseness. Being that he had to use four spatial dimensions for his calculations to work out it has little applicable value in this universe. Yet it did show that in theory a universe unlike ours could produce matter, stars, and potentially planets that could support life.

I’ll try to find the actual source, but it might take a while, unless the book that I read it in pops into my mind while I sleep.

Oldskeptic wrote:I’ll try to find the actual source, but it might take a while, unless the book that I read it in pops into my mind while I sleep.

Thanks, I'd appreciate it, but don't go to any trouble! I was just nitpicking really, it aid's our religious friends in picking out a better example of "fine tuning" - any of the other 3 fundamental forces, or rather the ratios between them, rather than the weak force or the cosmological constant.

Of course these examples are still subject to the main criticism, as you put it:

Oldskeptic wrote:Then you can try to argue that infinitesimal differences would have drastic effects, but first you would have to show that these differences were possible.

Oldskeptic wrote:In my experience it is theist apologists that ask, “If the universe can have existed forever then why not God?” But atheists don’t says that the universe has existed forever. But some like me that have some scientific knowledge do say that what the universe came from/is made of could be and by the 1st law of thermodynamics appears to be eternal.”

And just to forestall any claims that we are contradicting each other, this is what I meant when I said earlier "Bottom line: No one knows whether the universe has a beginning." I'm using the term "universe" to denote everything that exists and has existed, not just the current state of the universe.

A "Weakless" universe would have a hard time synthesizing oxygen, or atoms much larger than iron (e.g. uranium)

Problems in a weakless universe - L. Clavelli, R. E. White III:

. . . on closer examination the proposed "weakless" universe strongly inhibits the development of life in several different ways. One of the most critical barriers is that a weakless universe is unlikely to produce enough oxygen to support life. Since oxygen is an essential element in both water, the universal solvent needed for life, and in each of the four bases forming the DNA code for known living beings, we strongly question the hypothesis that a universe without weak interactions could generate life.

If you'd bother reading my earlier posts on this thread you'll find I mentioned the fine tuning implications of particle mass ratios, along with ratios of electric, nuclear, and gravitational forces. However leading theories of quantum gravity involving the Planck scale implied that the cosmological constant was on the order ˜1 in Planck units -- which turns out to be slightly off:

The CC [cosmological constant] is by far the most troubling parameter for effective field theorists since (1) it is the most technically unnatural parameter, i.e., it must be tuned to one part in 10120, and (2) we have no understanding why it should be numerically small but non-zero. As the CC is increased, holding everything else fixed, the universe eventually becomes CC dominated early enough that density perturbations in the universe do not have enough time to grow and go non-linear to form large scale structure.

A Universe without Weak interactions - Roni Harnik, Graham Kribs, Gilad Perez - Phys. Rev.D74:035006,2006.

Furthermore:

"How can we calculate the energy density of the vacuum? This is one of the major unsolved problems in physics. The simplest calculation involves summing the quantum mechanical zero-point energies of all the fields known in Nature. This gives an answer about 120 orders of magnitude higher than the upper limits on Lambda set by cosmological observations. This is probably the worst theoretical prediction in the history of of physics! Nobody knows how to make sense of this result. Some physical mechanism must exist that makes the cosmological constant very small."

General relativity: an introduction for physicists By Michael Paul Hobson, George Efstathiou, Anthony N. Lasenby Cambridge University Press, 2006 (emphasis mine)

The internets are wonderful aren't they? In my research for the above citations I discovered that Steven Weinberg, no theist, relied on the anthropic cosmological principle just as Hoyle had done in the early '50s with his prediction of the triple alpha process resonance state; he actually pointed out this problem with the cosmological constant as far back as 1986: S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 59, 2607 (1987).

The cc is, as you yourselves have conceded, just one parameter. Martin Rees points points also to several others. For example the strong force (among other factors) ξ the force binding protons and neutrons, basically allowing the efficiency of thermonuclear fusion of hydrogen to helium in stars, ξ = 0.007, if it were 0.008 little hydrogen would survive the big bang, if it were 0.006 a proton could not be bonded with a neutron. Ouch!

Just one more example of many others I could elaborate on but it really shouldn't be my job to spoon feed all this to you, again the internets are a great resource . . . .

Recall your challenge?:

Oldskeptic says:
Pick a different natural constant from their lists, one that would really matter. Say, the strong force, or the weak force, or the electromagnetic force, or gravity. A value that that we actually know.

Then you can try to argue that infinitesimal differences would have drastic effects, but first you would have to show that these differences were possible.

Good luck with that.

You say I would have to show that "differences were possible". It is in fact only the possibility that differences are possible (or at least not disproved by our current knowledge) that allows for multi-verse weak anthropic arguments. Pal, if I could demonstrate differences were not possible your argument would be destroyed beyond all your imaginings. Just think if we lived in a reality in which both fine tuning AND invariance of physical constants could be proved; At once all of the colossal improbabilities would be stamped on all possible universes!

Thommo
Now let's consider the scenario you're presenting us with:-

X possible universes are placed in a bag, Y of them have cosmological constant=10-120, one universe is selected randomly. What is the probability the universe selected has cosmological constant=10-120?

There's a major problem - We don't know X or Y. We don't know what proportion of possible universes have cosmological constant in the "required" range, the question cannot be answered and we can assert neither probability nor improbability.

See above.

Guess who I heard back from?

I would say that no cyclic process that has any quantum probability for being disturbed (however small that probability may be) could have persisted indefinitely toward the past (or future).

All best,

BG

I just e-mailed him back for clarification, though. I was hoping he could generalize across all [edit] cosmological models, not just the cyclic one.

I don't have time to catch up w/ the recent posts. Just wanted to share my brush with awesomeness

I happened on this Discover column ="How Finely-Tuned is the Universe" announcing a new paper on the subject:

Sean wrote:Unitary Evolution and Cosmological Fine-Tuning
Authors: Sean M. Carroll, Heywood Tam
(Submitted on 8 Jul 2010)
Abstract: Inflationary cosmology attempts to provide a natural explanation for the flatness and homogeneity of the observable universe. In the context of reversible (unitary) evolution, this goal is difficult to satisfy, as Liouville’s theorem implies that no dynamical process can evolve a large number of initial states into a small number of final states. We use the invariant measure on solutions to Einstein’s equation to quantify the problems of cosmological fine-tuning. The most natural interpretation of the measure is the flatness problem does not exist; almost all Robertson-Walker cosmologies are spatially flat. The homogeneity of the early universe, however, does represent a substantial fine-tuning; the horizon problem is real. When perturbations are taken into account, inflation only occurs in a negligibly small fraction of cosmological histories, less than 10-6.6×10^7. We argue that while inflation does not affect the number of initial conditions that evolve into a late universe like our own, it nevertheless provides an appealing target for true theories of initial conditions, by allowing for small patches of space with sub-Planckian curvature to grow into reasonable universes.

Continuing:

We revisit this question, bringing to bear some mathematical heavy machinery developed in the 1980’s by Gary Gibbons, Stephen Hawking, and John Stewart. Previous discussions have invoked general ideas of entropy or reversibility, but we were able to do a relatively down-to-earth calculation using conventional cosmological models. And we tried our best to explicitly list all of the caveats of the argument, which is important in a context like this where we don’t know all the rules.
We find that inflation is very unlikely, in the sense that a negligibly small fraction of possible universes experience a period of inflation. On the other hand, our universe is unlikely, by exactly the same criterion. So the observable universe didn’t “just happen”; it is either picked out by some general principle, perhaps something to do with the wave function of the universe, or it’s generated dynamically by some process within a larger multiverse. And inflation might end up playing a crucial role in the story. We don’t know yet ...

I think it is particularly appropriate that the third and fourth comments are, respectively:

3. Paul Says:
July 8th, 2010 at 6:52 pm
Hmmm…it seems like your paper can also conclude that perhaps God fine-tuned the universe to be what it is so that we can exist. Good work. Well, you can also explain the findings by appealing to a “multiverse”. However, both the multiverse and God are unobservable. So let’s just choose God.
4. Jennifer Ouellette Says:
July 8th, 2010 at 7:00 pm
I choose the multiverse. It’s far less cranky and vindictive.

Ichthus77 wrote:Guess who I heard back from?

I would say that no cyclic process that has any quantum probability for being disturbed (however small that probability may be) could have persisted indefinitely toward the past (or future).

All best,

BG

I just e-mailed him back for clarification, though. I was hoping he could generalize across all cosomological models, not just the cyclic one.

I don't have time to catch up w/ the recent posts. Just wanted to share my brush with awesomeness

Let us know when you've studied enough advanced physics and cosmology to even understand what he says, much less to pontificate on the religious significance of what he says.

AMR wrote:

Thommo
Now let's consider the scenario you're presenting us with:-

X possible universes are placed in a bag, Y of them have cosmological constant=10-120, one universe is selected randomly. What is the probability the universe selected has cosmological constant=10-120?

There's a major problem - We don't know X or Y. We don't know what proportion of possible universes have cosmological constant in the "required" range, the question cannot be answered and we can assert neither probability nor improbability.

See above.

Above is a bunch of stuff that I already knew about and that doesn't address the point.

AMR wrote:Pal, if I could demonstrate differences were not possible your argument would be destroyed beyond all your imaginings. Just think if we lived in a reality in which both fine tuning AND invariance of physical constants could be proved; At once all of the colossal improbabilities would be stamped on all possible universes!.

You need to rethink this, fine tuning AND fixed determination of physical constants is a self-contradictory combination.

Fine tuning (as physicists use it) is a problem that refers to discovering the reason for the value of free variables in current physical theories, it is used as an example of ways in which current physical theories are incomplete. There is only a fine tuning problem (in the creationist sense) if there are free variables in a "theory of everything", i.e. there are physical constants which cannot be explained, not physical constants which have not been explained.

Now the problem with what you said above is that you suggested imagining a reality in which the constants are both free and fixed. This is nonsense. All of this is the reason why there is no "fine tuning" problem with π or e.

You should have bolded this part:

This is probably the worst theoretical prediction in the history of of physics! Nobody knows how to make sense of this result. Some physical mechanism must exist that makes the cosmological constant very small."

AMR wrote:
You say I would have to show that "differences were possible". It is in fact only the possibility that differences are possible (or at least not disproved by our current knowledge) that allows for multi-verse weak anthropic arguments.

Why are you switching from a universe where life is possible to “multi-verse weak anthropic arguments”? Did I miss something?

AMR wrote:
Pal, if I could demonstrate differences were not possible your argument would be destroyed beyond all your imaginings. Just think if we lived in a reality in which both fine tuning AND invariance of physical constants could be proved; At once all of the colossal improbabilities would be stamped on all possible universes!

But other possible universes that are different from this one is not part of any argument that I make. On the other hand if it could be shown that in fact there is no possibility of variance of values then the fine-tuning argument used as an argument for an intelligent designer/creator god is gone. Wasn’t that what we were talking about?

Let’s try this apologist fine-tuning argument as it concerns liquid water::
1)Without liquid water there would be no life as we know it.
2)Without oxygen and hydrogen there would be no free H2O.
3)Without the values of the weak, strong, and electromagnetic forces being very close to where they are there no hydrogen and oxygen to form free H2O.
4)Without gravity there would be no means for free H2O form liquid water.
5)The values of the weak and strong and electro magnetic forces are where they need to be for free H2O to exist, and gravity exists.
6)Liquid water would not exist unless these values were fine-tuned for the existence of liquid water.
7)Therefore fine-tuning exists.
8)Fine-tuning can only be accomplished by an intelligent designer/creator.

All of this is correct until you get to #6 where these fine-tuning arguments veer away from observation into biased speculation.

Lets go back and redo #6 without using the assumption that there is fine-tuning in an argument that’s purpose it to prove or support fine-tuning.

6) If these forces could be other than they are and if any did vary sufficiently then liquid water could not form.

Putting #6 this way #7 cannot follow, and then #8 cannot follow #7.

What should follow after the #6 that makes no assumptions is a question, not a statement.

7) Can these values vary, and if so under what circumstances could we expect them to?

The fine-tuning using apologist could invoke God at this point, but it would be just another unsupported assertion.

Ichthus77 wrote:
I just e-mailed him back for clarification, though. I was hoping he could generalize across all cosomological [sic] models, not just the cyclic one.

While you’re at it why don’t you ask him to explain the 1st law of thermodynamics to you and whether he thinks that it can be violated in any closed system?

It don’t usually bring up spelling errors because we all do it, but I really hope for your sake that you didn’t commit the one above in an email to Brian Greene when asking for clarifications to cosmological questions.

But I don’t see why this matters here at all? It is only you that thinks that increasing entropy causing a fatal flaw in current cyclical models means something important other than to cyclical models of this universe.

Do you plan to address the 1st law of thermodynamics as it pertains to an eternal universe?

Oldskeptic wrote:
... Lets go back and redo #6 without using the assumption that there is fine-tuning in an argument that’s purpose it to prove or support fine-tuning.

6) If these forces could be other than they are and if any did vary sufficiently then liquid water could not form.

Putting #6 this way #7 cannot follow, and then #8 cannot follow #7.

What should follow after the #6 that makes no assumptions is a question, not a statement.

7) Can these values vary, and if so under what circumstances could we expect them to?

The fine-tuning using apologist could invoke God at this point, but it would be just another unsupported assertion.

Yep, the only reason the christians use the "Fine Tuning Argument" is because they have already jumped to a conclusion about the answer to your #7 -- their answer being biased by their pre-existing belief in the creator/tuner.

I won't be surprised if your logical exposition is ignored, though. The radiance of their god blinds them to simple logical reality

Old Skeptic--whew--thank goodness no I didn't spell it wrong in my reply to him. Curious? Here it is:

Thankyou so much

Would you say that “consideration of entropy buildup” (and/or perhaps quantum mechanics) ensures that not just a cyclic process, but “the physical universe” in any cosmological model, cannot persist indefinitely toward the past (or future)?

That is ultimately what I am wondering about.

Thanks

Maryann Spikes

I'm glad you are all having fun insulting my clear lack of knowledge in this area.

Oh, p.s. ... I don't want to bombard him w/ questions just yet. The whole reason I was reading his book (some education folks referred me to it) was to find out if the conservation of matter/energy applies only to the matter/energy of the present moment, or if it applies to ALL the matter/energy from the past-present-future as a whole. If the latter, maybe the disappearance/appearance of certain things on the quantum level (talking out my arse here) balances out by way of exchange with a different moment? That would require past/future moments are full of matter/energy, not empty. The closest I got was one part of the book that says conservation laws have never been observed to be violated. "To date, no experiment contradicts this law of perfect energy balance." This seems to apply only to the present moment. But, the Large Hadron Collider "may reveal processes that appear to violate energy conservation." This is (of course you prob'ly know this) supposed to show there are dimensions into which this energy can slip. But--if there is conservation of the past-present-future as a whole, then there would still be a trade-off, no? And how would you be able to tell the difference (between conservation only applying to "now" and conservation only applying to "past-present-future" as a whole)? So, if there is energy loss, it would have to be into a reeeeally weird dimension completely removed from past/future moments (if the conservation thing applies to them). Why there would be no trade-off between dimensions, though...that confuses me. Why wouldn't conservation be going on in those dimensions--why would they be able to take on new energy without a trade-off?

Given an eternity, I would know all the answers. For now I just have to sound ignorant. I hope he does reply back to me on that one question, though.

Ichthus77 wrote:Oh, p.s. ... I don't want to bombard him w/ questions just yet. The whole reason I was reading his book (some education folks referred me to it) was to find out if the conservation of matter/energy applies only to the matter/energy of the present moment, or if it applies to ALL the matter/energy from the past-present-future as a whole. If the latter, maybe the disappearance/appearance of certain things on the quantum level (talking out my arse here) balances out by way of exchange with a different moment? That would require past/future moments are full of matter/energy, not empty. The closest I got was one part of the book that says conservation laws have never been observed to be violated. "To date, no experiment contradicts this law of perfect energy balance." This seems to apply only to the present moment. But, the Large Hadron Collider "may reveal processes that appear to violate energy conservation." This is (of course you prob'ly know this) supposed to show there are dimensions into which this energy can slip. But--if there is conservation of the past-present-future as a whole, then there would still be a trade-off, no? And how would you be able to tell the difference (between conservation only applying to "now" and conservation only applying to "past-present-future" as a whole)? So, if there is energy loss, it would have to be into a reeeeally weird dimension completely removed from past/future moments (if the conservation thing applies to them). Why there would be no trade-off between dimensions, though...that confuses me. Why wouldn't conservation be going on in those dimensions--why would they be able to take on new energy without a trade-off?

Given an eternity, I would know all the answers. For now I just have to sound ignorant. I hope he does reply back to me on that one question, though.

Don't mean to be rude (well, maybe a little ;) ) but I think you're going to struggle with theoretical physics if you can't even comprehend Shrunk's point he made way back here...

Shrunk wrote:Suppose I were to argue this: Everything in the universe has a cause, except that which does not have a cause. If the singularity that existed prior to the Big Bang required a cause, this cause would have to be an uncaused cause, such as that proposed by theists. However, since there is no God, this cannot be the case. Therefore the initial singularity is not itself caused.

I doubt you would accept that argument, nor should you. However, that argument is not less valid than the one you are making.

Shrunk has used your cosmological argument EXACTLY AS YOU DID, but this time to disprove God.

Have you anything to say that demonstrates you've even understood this??

Ichthus77 wrote:
Oh, p.s. ... I don't want to bombard him w/ questions just yet. The whole reason I was reading his book (some education folks referred me to it) was to find out if the conservation of matter/energy applies only to the matter/energy of the present moment, or if it applies to ALL the matter/energy from the past-present-future as a whole.

The 1st law of thermodynamics holds in all closed systems at all times.

Well, let me slow down enough.

Shrunk: Everything in the universe has a cause, except that which does not have a cause. [Ichthus: The uncaused cause is the thing from which all things get their thingness, but is not itself physical (the physical having a beginning), so "everything in the universe" is incorrect phrasing.]
My phrasing: Everything which has a beginning is caused by that which has no beginning (uncaused cause).

Shrunk: If the singularity that existed prior to the Big Bang required a cause, this cause would have to be an uncaused cause, such as that proposed by theists.
My phrasing: The universe has a beginning, in any cosmological model (I'm pretty sure, anyway).

Shrunk: However, since there is no God, this cannot be the case. [Ichthus: Since God is the uncaused cause (if there is one), this is jumping the gun a bit. Do you or do you not agree with the earlier premises?]
My phrasing: [ n/a ]

Shrunk: Therefore the initial singularity is not itself caused. [Ichthus: Does not follow from first two premises]
My phrasing: The universe, in any cosmological model, is caused by an uncaused cause.

Who is "his" in that post Icthus77?

The only person here who has discussed "thingness" is you that I can see, but you're attributing it to someone else in this thread?

Yeah--the part in bold is my reply to him. He is Shrunk. I edited it a bit to make it less confusing.