finely-tuned universe

[morls (Stephen)]

This might be more of a philosphical post...

I've been reading a few quotes from Paul Davies - having read a few of his books years ago I wanted to catch up on things. One concept I remember very clearly from his explanations of the search for a grand unified theory of everything is that the numbers involved in calculating parameters such as the strong and weak nuclear force are very very very finely tuned to each other.

If I remember correctly the book I'm referring to is Superforce, published in 1985. Davies made a point that the tiniest deviation in any of these figures, operant at the subatomic level at the very earliest stages of the Big Bang () would result in a vastly different universe in terms of structure. It might have even self-destucted instantly due to the imbalance of forces.
Could it be that these figures are as they are because they cannot be anything else?

I realise there have been significant theoretical advances since this book was published. My question is, however, more related to the fact that we are part of this universe, and as far as we know are the only embodiment of self-consciousness in the universe. Maybe we are the consciousness of the universe, looking at itself. I know this is a metaphor Davies has employed, in a much more effective way than in this clumsy attempt...

Is it inevitable that the numbers used to formulate the standard model are so very very very finely tuned? Is it impossible for to arrive at anything other than these numbers, if we are to adequately describe the universe within which we exist?

I ask these questions because Davies has noted the extraordinary level of order suggested by these figures, and the standard model, and has gone on to investigate more questions raised by this.

Could it be that these figures are what they are because of the fact that we are in and of this universe - that they simply could not be anything else? That it is not a question of design (a term Davies has used) but of logic?

[Sunfish (Ray)]

Paul Davies is fun to read but I don’t want to take his speculative stuff that seriously. He did win a religious prize for his writing and if you look at it in that light you may be slightly disappointed with his order out of chaos spiel, as seductive as it is.


There are another physicist doing actual experiments and speculating about factual results.

Originally Posted by morls

This might be more of a philosphical post...

I've been reading a few quotes from Paul Davies - having read a few of his books years ago I wanted to catch up on things. One concept I remember very clearly from his explanations of the search for a grand unified theory of everything is that the numbers involved in calculating parameters such as the strong and weak nuclear force are very very very finely tuned to each other.

If I remember correctly the book I'm referring to is Superforce, published in 1985. Davies made a point that the tiniest deviation in any of these figures, operant at the subatomic level at the very earliest stages of the Big Bang () would result in a vastly different universe in terms of structure. It might have even self-destucted instantly due to the imbalance of forces.
Could it be that these figures are as they are because they cannot be anything else?

I realise there have been significant theoretical advances since this book was published. My question is, however, more related to the fact that we are part of this universe, and as far as we know are the only embodiment of self-consciousness in the universe. Maybe we are the consciousness of the universe, looking at itself. I know this is a metaphor Davies has employed, in a much more effective way than in this clumsy attempt...

Is it inevitable that the numbers used to formulate the standard model are so very very very finely tuned? Is it impossible for to arrive at anything other than these numbers, if we are to adequately describe the universe within which we exist?

I ask these questions because Davies has noted the extraordinary level of order suggested by these figures, and the standard model, and has gone on to investigate more questions raised by this.

Could it be that these figures are what they are because of the fact that we are in and of this universe - that they simply could not be anything else? That it is not a question of design (a term Davies has used) but of logic?

[bojan]

Stephen,

you are talking about "anthrophic principles", strong and weak....
IMO, it is a matter of taste to accept or reject them, because in essence, they are just speculations.

The two separate facts are: we are what we are and universe is what it is..

[morls (Stephen)]

Ah, thanks Bojan. It's good to have a term that cuts through my foggy rambling.

[bojan]

This is interesting article about anthropic principle:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startsw.../#53dcfca77d69

[morls (Stephen)]

That's a good article, thanks. I agree with Barrow and Tipler's definition of anthropic principles:

1. The observed values of all physical and cosmological quantities are not equally probably but they take on values restricted by the requirement that there exists sites where carbon-based life can evolve and by the requirement that the Universe be old enough for it to have already done so.
2. The Universe must have those properties which allow life to develop within it at some stage in history.

I also agree that these can't be extended to include our particular form and consciousness, nor to infer any element of 'design'.

I take from these definitions that the universe must have the properties as described, but that there could well be other forms of matter and life which we are yet to theorise or observe.

[bojan]

Originally Posted by morls

...the universe must have the properties as described, but that there could well be ...

(or not ...)

Originally Posted by morls

...other forms of matter and life which we are yet to theorise or observe

[morls (Stephen)]

Reminds of how a friend of mine, who'd spent a lot of time in Africa, described African music:


"It's this, plus this, a bit of that with that. Except when it isn't."

[xelasnave]

Not mine but...
Would the water in a puddle think..hey this hole was made for me as I perfectly fit.
Alex

[morls (Stephen)]