The Beryllium Isotope and the Fine Tuning of the Universe

Mihajlovic

Its Baltic!
Joined
Oct 20, 2006
Messages
12,419
Location
DNVR
How amazing is this!!

Nobel laureate, high energy physicist (a field of science that deals with the very early universe), Professor Steven Weinberg, in the journal Scientific American, reflects on "how surprising it is that the laws of nature and the initial conditions of the universe should allow for the existence of beings who could observe it. Life as we know it would be impossible if any one of several physical quantities had slightly different values."

Although Weinberg is a self described agnostic, he cannot but be astounded by the extent of the fine-tuning. He goes on to describe how a beryllium isotope having the minuscule half life of 0.0000000000000001 seconds must find and absorb a helium nucleus in that split of time before decaying. This occurs only because of a totally unexpected, exquisitely precise, energy match between the two nuclei. If this did not occur there would be none of the heavier elements. No carbon, no nitrogen, no life. Our universe would be composed of hydrogen and helium.

But this is not the end of Professor Weinberg's wonder at our well tuned universe. He continues: "One constant does seem to require an incredible fine-tuning... The existence of life of any kind seems to require a cancellation between different contributions to the vacuum energy, accurate to about 120 decimal places."

This means that if the energies of the big bang were, in arbitrary units, not:

1000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000,

but instead:

1000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000001,

there would be no life of any sort in the entire universe because as Weinberg states: "the universe either would go through a complete cycle of expansion and contraction before life could arise or would expand so rapidly that no galaxies or stars could form."


Steven Weinberg, Nobel Prize in Physics 1979
philosophy-steven-weinberg.jpg
 
This strikes me as the same mistake that creationists make when talking about evolution. They look at the problem as if where we were was an intended end result. Which is silly.

We are in the Universe we are in and life, the universe and everything are defined by it. Why is that suprising? If it were otherwise there might well be nobody to wonder at the improbability or otherwise.

It sure isn't a sign of divine design.
 
Atheists like you go through life devaluing and degrading every single thing that could possibly point out to intelligent design. I am sure that nothing in the world would ever convince you that there might be even a possibility of the existence of a `supernatural power`. The fine tuning of the universe though is an undeniable fact; you don’t need to be religious to understand that, a little bit of math and common sense is sufficient to understand it. The difference is that in my opinion it could have not happened by chance while you think otherwise, and that’s fine. I do not have an agenda here, I only wanted to share something people could simply find awesome, that’s all.
 
Wibble said:
This strikes me as the same mistake that creationists make when talking about evolution. They look at the problem as if where we were was an intended end result. Which is silly.

We are in the Universe we are in and life, the universe and everything are defined by it. Why is that suprising? If it were otherwise there might well be nobody to wonder at the improbability or otherwise.

It sure isn't a sign of divine design.
Click to expand...

Sure? Like 100% sure?
 
Mihajlovic said:
Atheists like you go through life devaluing and degrading every single thing that could possibly point out to intelligent design. I am sure that nothing in the world would ever convince you that there might be even a possibility of the existence of a `supernatural power`. The fine tuning of the universe though is an undeniable fact; you don’t need to be religious to understand that, a little bit of math and common sense is sufficient to understand it. The difference is that in my opinion it could have not happened by chance while you think otherwise, and that’s fine. I do not have an agenda here, I only wanted to share something people could simply find awesome, that’s all.
Click to expand...

Great post there Mihajlovic, you are right on the nail. The perfections of this universe are mind boggling, and the berylium isotope example is one of many. Atheist belief is that we are here because we are here, yet that smacks me of ignorance. If people would simply step back for a second, and look around this perfectly created universe, and stop trying to bring everything down to the human mind, people might realise that we are all part of a plan, created by a superior God.
 
Yep, the fine balance of the physical constants does indeed demand explanation. (As indeed, did the balance of life on earth before Darwin). I think there is a non-supernatural explanation, though.

If it is evidence for god, well His existence demands explanation too. Want to take a swing at that, Kiwi_fan, since you are so sure?
 
Here's some natural hypotheses for it (there's no evidence at the moment but some are likely disprovable over the next 10-20 or so years).

- this isn't the only universe. There are others with different ratios, that either can't work, and collapse quickly, or do work but can't support life. We just happen to life in one that does
- or the universe grows and collapses in a cycle of birth/rebirth for eternity, slightly different each time, and we happen to live in a version that's turned out right
- the universe is much bigger than we can see, and different conditions apply in different regions. We just happen to live in the right region
- universes are created according to a darwinian process from aspects of other universes, and succeed or fail according to some environmental test (see Lee Smolin for more).
- there is something about the deep structure of a working universe that requires these precise ratios, with life a happy but coincidental result. ie like molecules, Universes aren't random.
 
It does seem unlikely; however, with the possibility of multiple universes, it doesn't mean it is. If we look at the very beginning of time, the event itself, in cosmology, the Big Bang is a scientific theory, which has sufficient evidence to back up it's existence, more so than any particular "superior being", the universe, space time continuum, everything, emerged from a tremendously dense and hot state, that's not to say that these events have been happening before, or are continuing to do so outside the scope of our own universe, we most likely will never know.

But the fine tuning and pointing to superior forces theories don't cut it with me, take winning a lottery, with odds of a few million to one, just because someone gets lucky, someone wins, it doesn't mean there was some superior being who manipulated the odds, fine tuned them so that this individual would win. The same with the Universe, just because we got lucky doesn't mean that there was some superior being who tampered with the odds.

But to understand the theory set out, we need to understand the various stages of creation, first the big bang.

As already mentioned, the Big Bang is a scientific theory, which has sufficient evidence to back up it's existence, more so than any particular "superior being", the universe, space time continuum, everything, emerged from a tremendously dense and hot state.

Next comes the primordial nucleosynthesis; which is the production of nuclei during the early stages of the universe.

After which comes many processes, such as the triple alpha process; in which 3 helium nuclei are transformed into carbon. Many of which are produced in stars.

We now need to attach the odds of each individual state happening on it's own merit, otherwise it would be like saying the lottery winner's chance of winning when they did was billions and billions to one, as there were millions of sperm at the time they were conceived, the odds of them ending up where they were on that particular day to buy that particular ticket, and you'd be examining everything. The fine tuning theory could then be extended to anything and everything, which still doesn't explain many of the world disasters, and why one particular person should be anymore fortunate than anyother.
 
Kiwi_fan said:
Great post there Mihajlovic, you are right on the nail. The perfections of this universe are mind boggling, and the berylium isotope example is one of many. Atheist belief is that we are here because we are here, yet that smacks me of ignorance. If people would simply step back for a second, and look around this perfectly created universe, and stop trying to bring everything down to the human mind, people might realise that we are all part of a plan, created by a superior God.
Click to expand...

On the contrary, it's arrogantly bringing everything down to the human mind that creates the confusion. Because life and our apprehension of it seems so extraordinary to us, we demand a divine explanation for how the Universe could've come up with us. We see ourselves as the end point, and ask how the conditions arose to allow us to happen. But plenty of other stuff happens in the Universe, it's just that colliding pulsars and bits of comet probably don't consider themselves amazing or speculate on how they got there. The Universe doesn't give a feck about our existence in this little backwater, it just goes on being itself.

It's a backwards argument. If the Universe hadn't contained the right elements in the right balance needed for life, no life-forms would have existed to wonder at the delicate precariousness of the balance.

It's rather similar to the incredible luck of being yourself. Imagine the unfathomable infinity of branching chances that led to you existing, from the Big Bang to the formation of Earth to the development of DNA to your mum meeting your dad. But, however the chances had panned out, whoever was left at the end of it would have been gobsmacked at the improbability of it.

Of course, the other possibility is that there are vast numbers of different Universes, some of which allow life, many more of which don't. Again, it's only natural that on those with intelligent life, the intelligent life will consider their Universe to have been created in that form specifically in order to allow their life.
 
nickm said:
Yep, the fine balance of the physical constants does indeed demand explanation. (As indeed, did the balance of life on earth before Darwin). I think there is a non-supernatural explanation, though.

If it is evidence for god, well His existence demands explanation too. Want to take a swing at that, Kiwi_fan, since you are so sure?
Click to expand...

Only because one can not explain where a supernatural being would come from, that does not mean that there is none. Or have you lived since eternal times simultaneously in every single speck of space so that you know there is no such being? The question is, is it “probable” that there is one (based on the fine-tuned-universe argument), so in my (and kiwis) opinion it is probable that there is a being who created everything because any other explanation is not very convincing. At the same time you believe it could have happened `by chance`, which means I believe it was God and you believe it just happened. There is no way for you to know if it happened that way, you believe it. Your way of reasoning is in this case different from mine.

If that is how you think than that is fair enough. What is totally weak is when people claim to know 100% it was not a supernatural being/force/whatever.
 
If we were in a Universe based on Helium there would be super intelligent forms of methane who were convinced that the improbability of their existence was proof of there being a God. Other parallel universes, momentarily connected to this gaseous alternative by ripples in the space/time continuum, merely wondered what the smell was.
 
Mihajlovic said:
Only because one can not explain where a supernatural being would come from, that does not mean that there is none. Or have you lived since eternal times simultaneously in every single speck of space so that you know there is no such being? The question is, is it “probable” that there is one (based on the fine-tuned-universe argument), so in my (and kiwis) opinion it is probable that there is a being who created everything because any other explanation is not convincing. At the same time you believe it could have happened `by chance`, which means I believe it was God and you believe it just happened. There is no way for you to know if it happened that way, you believe it. Your way of reasoning is in this case different from mine.

If that is how you think than that is fair enough. What is totally weak is when people claim to know 100% it was not a supernatural being/force/whatever.
Click to expand...

I don't know 100%, for absolute sure, that the Universe isn't the plaything of a giant pink bunny rabbit called Roger who keeps us in a cosmic snow dome for his amusement.

However, given the total and utter lack of evidence to suggest this possibility I think that I am fairly safe to assume 99.99%.

A traditional all powerful unseen God I find somewhat less likely.
 
I hate it when creationist types misuse the term chance.

Worse than confusing borrow and lend.
 
Wibble said:
If we were in a Universe based on Helium there would be super intelligent forms of methane who were convinced that the improbability of their existence was proof of there being a God. Other parallel universes, momentarily connected to this gaseous alternative by ripples in the space/time continuum, merely wondered what the smell was.
Click to expand...


Good point, but the problem is it is hard to take this scenario (intelligent forms of Helium) into consideration because they don’t have a consciousness, at least not such a type of consciousness and self-awareness specific for humans, which eliminates the possibilities of communication between our intelligent life form and theirs.
The other thing is that in the current discussion it is not about what possible Helium life form might think of their existence, but what we think of it.

And plech, why should it be arrogant to note that we humans think of ourselves as something special? Based on my logic I am more special then some `colliding particles` in the space of which I know nothing. Not special because of material complexity but because I am even able to imagine such a concept in which a human being is more special then something else which I regard as lifeless.

And at the moment it looks like we are the only life form in the universe as far as we know (of course it is possible that there exist other intelligent life forms apart from us). But only because I don’t know that for sure it does not deprive me from wondering and asking `am I created by chance or by the will of a supernatural power`?
 
Wibble said:
I don't know 100%, for absolute sure, that the Universe isn't the plaything of a giant pink bunny rabbit called Roger who keeps us in a cosmic snow dome for his amusement.

However, given the total and utter lack of evidence to suggest this possibility I think that I am fairly safe to assume 99.99%.

A traditional all powerful unseen God I find somewhat less likely.
Click to expand...

I dont know of any such theory where a giant pink bunny rabbit called Roger claims to have created the universe. What a ridiculous analogy.
 
Wibble said:
I hate it when creationist types misuse the term chance.

Worse than confusing borrow and lend.
Click to expand...

What is chance? What can chance do? Is that a power, a force or an intellect? Jacques Monod said that "chance alone is the source of every innovation, of all creation in the biosphere. Pure chance, absolutely free but blind is at the very root of the stupendous edifice of evolution". How irrational is that?!
 
Mihajlovic said:
If that is how you think than that is fair enough. What is totally weak is when people claim to know 100% it was not a supernatural being/force/whatever.
Click to expand...

Nobody knows, obviously, that's a given. Which is why I've never really understood the concept of agnosticism. I always want to say to agnostics, "Yes, obviously you don't know - but what do you reckon, given the evidence?"

I also think there is serious duplicity in the kind of religious mindset which utilises this kind of scientific argument when it suits its ideology, but is happy to ignore or demean it when it seems to conflict, which is often.

And plech, why should it be arrogant to note that we humans think of ourselves as something special? Based on my logic I am more special then some `colliding particles` in the space of which I know nothing. Not special because of material complexity but because I am even able to imagine such a concept in which a human being is more special then something else which I regard as lifeless.
Click to expand...

It's perfectly understandable to regard our intelligence as special. To expect the Universe to regard it as such, seems to me either arrogant or naive, or both.

And at the moment it looks like we are the only life form in the universe as far as we know (of course it is possible that there exist other intelligent life forms apart from us). But only because I don’t know that for sure it does not deprive me from wondering and asking `am I created by chance or by the will of a supernatural power`?
Click to expand...

We don't know how unlikely the formation of DNA from simple replicators is. And we don't know whether there are multiple Universes. If we did, it would be fairly simple to work out the chances of us being alone in the Universe. My own guess is that there are very probably many others.

But either way, yes it's possible of course that life was invented deliberately. If so, it seems to me that whatever entity did it is likely to be very very different from anything we would regard as a mind, capable of things like anger and love. Certainly nothing like the fairy tales invented by ignorant men (far more ignorant than us, and we're pretty damn ignorant) in ancient Palestine.

And of course, it would leave the similar problem of how that entity was created.
 
Mihajlovic said:
Only because one can not explain where a supernatural being would come from, that does not mean that there is none. Or have you lived since eternal times simultaneously in every single speck of space so that you know there is no such being? The question is, is it “probable” that there is one (based on the fine-tuned-universe argument)
Click to expand...

The question is not, "is it probable," but "how probable is it?". And let's look at that. Your argument is that it's the fine-tuning is evidence of a supernatural act, and is not explainable naturally. My argument it's a gap in scientific knowledge open to scientific resolution.

On balance of probabilities, taking into account the history of science and the resolution of similar types of 'god in the gaps' argument in the past, who is probably right?

Mihajlovic said:
If that is how you think than that is fair enough. What is totally weak is when people claim to know 100% it was not a supernatural being/force/whatever.
Click to expand...

You've got the philosophical basis all wrong. Read up on Occam's razor. We don't claim we KNOW god is absent, instead we DISREGARD anything for which there is no direct evidence. And the ratios aren't evidence for god, they are a gap in theory - that is all.

Looking for god in the gaps is a fool's errand.
 
Mihajlovic said:
Good point, but the problem is it is hard to take this scenario (intelligent forms of Helium) into consideration because they don’t have a consciousness, at least not such a type of consciousness and self-awareness specific for humans, which eliminates the possibilities of communication between our intelligent life form and theirs.
Click to expand...

How do you know??
Mihajlovic said:
And plech, why should it be arrogant to note that we humans think of ourselves as something special? Based on my logic I am more special then some `colliding particles` in the space of which I know nothing. Not special because of material complexity but because I am even able to imagine such a concept in which a human being is more special then something else which I regard as lifeless.
Click to expand...

Why do you need to think of yourself as special?
Mihajlovic said:
And at the moment it looks like we are the only life form in the universe as far as we know (of course it is possible that there exist other intelligent life forms apart from us). But only because I don’t know that for sure it does not deprive me from wondering and asking `am I created by chance or by the will of a supernatural power`?
Click to expand...
You can wonder, but if you actually thought about it, evidence points to the former.
 
spinoza said:
Why do you need to think of yourself as special?
Click to expand...


You can blame the education system of the last 25 years or so. Every child is "special," which explains the dearth of talent that is the modern world.
 
spinoza said:
How do you know??


Why do you need to think of yourself as special?


You can wonder, but if you actually thought about it, evidence points to the former.
Click to expand...


I dont need to think of myself as special, of course not, but if I compare a human being to Helium I do think that the human is more special or extraordinary then a gas mix or something.

And considering the evidence, it might make more sense to you but it does not make more sense to me. It should not be regarded as a backward fanatic way of thinking, considering that a raising number of atheist and agnostic scientists find that the fine tuning of the universe points beyond a simple naturalistic explanation of the origin of everything. More and more people do not exclude the possibility of a supernatural agency, and I am not talking about religious zealots but professors from Oxford and Cambridge and many other prestigious universities. So in that context I think it would be cool if people would be more engaged with the idea of ID and not just dismiss it as back-door-fundamentalism.
 
Dr. Dwayne said:
You can blame the education system of the last 25 years or so. Every child is "special," which explains the dearth of talent that is the modern world.
Click to expand...


Every person thinks of itself as special! Why would you otherwise take care of your health, plan a nice holiday, enjoy and buy nice things for you, want to be loved and respected, dream of a better future..! When I say special I don’t mean it in a fascist arrogant way considering myself superior to other humans, but yes, I am more special then a piece of rock or a cloud. Human beings are special, they have consciousness, an awareness of themselves and their environment, they have personalities, talents, etc.
 
Mihajlovic said:
Every person thinks of itself as special! Why would you otherwise take care of your health, plan a nice holiday, enjoy and buy nice things for you, want to be loved and respected, dream of a better future..! When I say special I don’t mean it in a fascist arrogant way considering myself superior to other humans, but yes, I am more special then a piece of rock or a cloud. Human beings are special, they have consciousness, an awareness of themselves and their environment, they have personalities, talents, etc.
Click to expand...

I see your point. Mijhailovic, but I disagree. The meaning of special is that something special is better than everything else, i.e. a special diamond is better than your average diamond. I'm a special person to my parents, sister, wife, friends, and dogs but to anyone else, and including myself, I'm just another dude offering nothing extraordinary to the world at large.

I think humans are just another part of the ever-changing earth, none of which is more special than any of the other parts. Although to be fair, I can find more points of interest in a rock than I can in many humans. Score one for the rocks.
 
Mihajlovic said:
considering that a raising number of atheist and agnostic scientists find that the fine tuning of the universe points beyond a simple naturalistic explanation of the origin of everything.
Click to expand...

Er, that is not how I interpret the likes of Weinberg at all. And I don't think he does either. It is an extremely interesting question but not one that necessarily points beyond a naturalistic explanation.

Mihajlovic said:
More and more people do not exclude the possibility of a supernatural agency, and I am not talking about religious zealots but professors from Oxford and Cambridge and many other prestigious universities. So in that context I think it would be cool if people would be more engaged with the idea of ID and not just dismiss it as back-door-fundamentalism.
Click to expand...

Forget it being back door anything, it's just fantastically bad science. Can't figure something out? God did it. Argument over. It's pathetic. And it's dangerous.
 
Mihajlovic said:
I dont need to think of myself as special, of course not, but if I compare a human being to Helium I do think that the human is more special or extraordinary then a gas mix or something.
Click to expand...

Why? Gas mixes are interesting things. For example, although they are random at the microscopic level, they can be described macroscopically using statistical laws. It's more interesting than Rubberman yelling in the Football Forum that Richardson is as talented as Giggs.
Mihajlovic said:
And considering the evidence, it might make more sense to you but it does not make more sense to me. It should not be regarded as a backward fanatic way of thinking, considering that a raising number of atheist and agnostic scientists find that the fine tuning of the universe points beyond a simple naturalistic explanation of the origin of everything. More and more people do not exclude the possibility of a supernatural agency, and I am not talking about religious zealots but professors from Oxford and Cambridge and many other prestigious universities. So in that context I think it would be cool if people would be more engaged with the idea of ID and not just dismiss it as back-door-fundamentalism.
Click to expand...

...except that there's not much evidence that supports ID. Or more like no evidence.
 
Mihajlovic said:
What is chance? What can chance do? Is that a power, a force or an intellect? Jacques Monod said that "chance alone is the source of every innovation, of all creation in the biosphere. Pure chance, absolutely free but blind is at the very root of the stupendous edifice of evolution". How irrational is that?!
Click to expand...

It's not irrational at all. The quote is only half the story - it comes from Chance and Necessity, Monod's rather opaque musings about life, the universe, and everything he was interested in. You forgot the second half of the title.

You should read the book. It's often cited by dishonest creationists who haven't even seen the book, much less read and understood it.
 
spinoza said:
It's not irrational at all. The quote is only half the story - it comes from Chance and Necessity, Monod's rather opaque musings about life, the universe, and everything he was interested in. You forgot the second half of the title.

You should read the book. It's often cited by dishonest creationists who haven't even seen the book, much less read and understood it.
Click to expand...

It is still totally irrational, even if you write it in capitol letters. Chance and necessity! What is that? Can you explain the function of these two magical elements in your own words?!
 
Mihajlovic said:
Good point, but the problem is it is hard to take this scenario (intelligent forms of Helium) into consideration because they don’t have a consciousness, at least not such a type of consciousness and self-awareness specific for humans, which eliminates the possibilities of communication between our intelligent life form and theirs.
The other thing is that in the current discussion it is not about what possible Helium life form might think of their existence, but what we think of it.

You miss my point. To be able to wonder about the "perfection" of the Universe you must have an intelligent concious being of whatever form to do the wondering. If this "perfect" world didn't exist then there would be nobody to do the wondering. Therefore in any "perfect" Universe there is a 100% chance of this "perfection" because it is a prequisite for the wondering to occur.

And plech, why should it be arrogant to note that we humans think of ourselves as something special? Based on my logic I am more special then some `colliding particles` in the space of which I know nothing. Not special because of material complexity but because I am even able to imagine such a concept in which a human being is more special then something else which I regard as lifeless.

Many of us do arrogantly think of ourselves as something special. I suppose I do in the same way I think that a Dolphin or a coral reef is special but not in the sense you are talking about.

Perhaps you are confusing this with being important to yourself as an individual which is something entirely different.

And at the moment it looks like we are the only life form in the universe as far as we know (of course it is possible that there exist other intelligent life forms apart from us).

I'd say that the majority of scientists would theorise that it is incredibly unlikley that we are the only planet with life in the Universe. Distance is likely to mean that we don't know for sure during our lifetime.

But only because I don’t know that for sure it does not deprive me from wondering and asking `am I created by chance or by the will of a supernatural power`?
Click to expand...

In which case why is your supernatural any bettre than Roger the pink bunny?
 
Mihajlovic said:
I dont know of any such theory where a giant pink bunny rabbit called Roger claims to have created the universe. What a ridiculous analogy.
Click to expand...

No more ridiculous than any religion and less ludicrous than many.
 
spinoza said:
Why? Gas mixes are interesting things. For example, although they are random at the microscopic level, they can be described macroscopically using statistical laws. It's more interesting than Rubberman yelling in the Football Forum that Richardson is as talented as Giggs.


...except that there's not much evidence that supports ID. Or more like no evidence.
Click to expand...

No evidence whatsoever would be more accurate. Unless you include purposefully misunderstood evidence perverted for a fanatical religious cause that is.
 
Wibble said:
No evidence whatsoever would be more accurate. Unless you include purposefully misunderstood evidence perverted for a fanatical religious cause that is.
Click to expand...

:lol:

how do you live with all this anger and depression in you?
 
Mihajlovic said:
What is chance? What can chance do? Is that a power, a force or an intellect? Jacques Monod said that "chance alone is the source of every innovation, of all creation in the biosphere. Pure chance, absolutely free but blind is at the very root of the stupendous edifice of evolution". How irrational is that?!
Click to expand...

Very. Fed by ignorance.
 
Wibble said:
No more ridiculous than any religion and less ludicrous than many.
Click to expand...

well if you dont understand the difference between "pink rabbit created xyz" and "God created xyz" then i seriously dont know what else to say to you :lol:
 
Wibble said:
Stunning analysis yet again.

The :lol: sold me.
Click to expand...

no need for a deep analysis in your case, you are a bitter religion hating atheist, simple as that.


("purposefully misunderstood evidence perverted for a fanatical religious cause...") oh man!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.