Slashdot Mirror
Cosmological Constant Not Fine Tuned For Life
eldavojohn writes "A common argument one might encounter in intelligent design or the arduous process of resolving science with religion is that the physical constants of our world are fine tuned for life by some creator or designer. A University of Alberta theoretical physicist claims quite the opposite when it comes to the cosmological constant. His paper says that our ever expanding universe has a positive cosmological constant and he explains that the optimum cosmological constant for maximizing the chances of life in the universe would be slightly negative: 'any positive value of the constant would tend to decrease the fraction of matter that forms into galaxies, reducing the amount available for life. Therefore the measured value of the cosmological constant, which is positive, is evidence against the idea that the constants have been fine-tuned for life.'"
Doesn't the Anthropic Principle adequately deal with this issue in any case?
The people who want to believe that a creator is pulling the strings in our favor aren't willing to listen to science.
We don't need to resolve science with religion ... we need to reconcile religion with science. Once your god is outside the big bang where scientists just shrug, or addressing things like an afterlife ... run wild.
If your religion can't incorporate what science tells us, you're choosing to live in ignorance and take your holy book as literal, factual information.
I know astrophysicists who are devoutly religious ... first and foremost, they turn to the science to explain the universe as it exists. For them, god answers a completely different set of questions -- and I have no problem with that. If any entity DID create the universe, it's largely going to be beyond our ability to fully comprehend.
If a god exists, he's such a massively abstract and complex being, that trying to fit him/it/whatever into OUR understanding of the universe is laughable.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
The author of the linked study appears not to have considered that a universe more dense with galaxies would be a universe with many more planet-sterilizing gamma ray bursts, which would not be terribly conducive to life.
Here at /. News, our top story is "An uncaring universe does not care about humanity". News at 11.
Following this we will have more videos of cats being catlike.
...you can't argue with success.
Known attempts at permutations of physical constants: 1
Success at creating intelligent life: 1
Of course, one could never argue against the line of reasoning suggested by the summary--whatever degree of life exists, arbitrarily declare there should be "more", and conjecture (yes, it's sheer conjecture--the actual results from modifying the cosmological constant would require far more calculation of than is provided) something else would have made it "better".
Personally, though I'm used to having my code second-guessed, they'd have to come up with a much better criticism than this...
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
As one of our fellow apartment-dwellers likes to point out, our scientific view of the universe is directly influenced by:
1. Our own biological bias (meaning the way we, as humans, perceive things)
2. The fundamental elements that make up life in this galaxy
3. The math we use
Were any of these three things different, our scientific view of reality could be completely changed.
Living With a Nerd
Doesn't the Anthropic Principle adequately deal with this issue in any case?
From the paper I linked in the summary:
Perhaps a more common view among physicists today is the idea that there is a multiverse with a wide range of values for the constants of physics, and by the selection principle of observership (the weak anthropic principle), we find ourselves in the part of the multiverse where life is possible and/or relatively common (at least compared to other parts of the multiverse) [7]. However, there is still considerable controversy over whether such a multiverse that would be necessary for this explanation really exists.
And then later the author says (calling this the 'third view'):
The third view, of observer selection within a multiverse, is hard to prove or disprove directly, since it appears very difficult to obtain direct information about other possible parts of a multiverse. However, if a simple theory were developed that gives good statistical explanations for what we do observe and that also predicts a multiverse that we cannot directly observe, such a theory could become highly convincing (analogous to the prediction by general relativity of very high curvature in black-hole interior regions that cannot be directly observed).
I believe the intent of this paper was to directly address the claims instead of using the weak anthropic principle. More importantly, his argument is falsifiable (that coveted trait in the scientific process) whereby the other three views are not at this time. As other posters have pointed out we can now attempt to reason out this theory further.
My work here is dung.
Another objection is also the empirical evidence we're able to collect. For example, in 100,000,000,000 years time, the expansion of the Universe will mean that any future civilisation will look out into the sky and only see the Milky Way (stars will still exist then). There will be no evidence of a "big bang", inflation (the cosmic microwave background will have gone) and no evidence that other galaxies exist or have ever existed. Such a civilisation would not even think of dark matter, dark energy, dark flow, or anything else we need to cobble theory to observation.
I wonder what is missing from the picture now that would otherwise cause us to question and change our understanding of reality? Probably quite a lot!
Why do you associate faith with lunacy?
Because if one person believes he has an invisible friend that dictates what he can and what he can't do and will punish him if he doesn't follow that invisible guy's arbitrary rules, he will be sent to a psychiatrist.
If a group of people does it, it suddenly turns into a religion.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.