Fine Tuning of the Universe












4












$begingroup$


I'm an A level student looking into the fine tuning of various constants.
Physicists explain the extensive effects that would happen if these constants were to be changed/different and hence, how this affects the probability of life existing. What I fail to understand is why, if these constants were to be different, life wouldn't adapt to these changes. If gravity was stronger, then wouldn't the general muscle mass/stability of life be greater through evolution in order to withstand a greater force? Or am I looking at it from the wrong perspective? Some clarification on this would be appreciated.






physical-constants time-evolution cosmological-constant fine-tuning







share|cite|improve this question







New contributor




Samuel Hunter is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    It's more fundamental than that: if certain constants were different, it could prevent stars and planets from forming, much less allow liquid water to exist, and then allow for organic chemistry as we know it.
    $endgroup$
    – Dmitry Brant
    8 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Some related references are cited in the introduction of "Preliminary Inconclusive Hint of Evidence Against Optimal Fine Tuning of the Cosmological Constant for Maximizing the Fraction of Baryons Becoming Life" (arxiv.org/abs/1101.2444)
    $endgroup$
    – Chiral Anomaly
    4 hours ago
















4












$begingroup$


I'm an A level student looking into the fine tuning of various constants.
Physicists explain the extensive effects that would happen if these constants were to be changed/different and hence, how this affects the probability of life existing. What I fail to understand is why, if these constants were to be different, life wouldn't adapt to these changes. If gravity was stronger, then wouldn't the general muscle mass/stability of life be greater through evolution in order to withstand a greater force? Or am I looking at it from the wrong perspective? Some clarification on this would be appreciated.






physical-constants time-evolution cosmological-constant fine-tuning







share|cite|improve this question







New contributor




Samuel Hunter is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    It's more fundamental than that: if certain constants were different, it could prevent stars and planets from forming, much less allow liquid water to exist, and then allow for organic chemistry as we know it.
    $endgroup$
    – Dmitry Brant
    8 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Some related references are cited in the introduction of "Preliminary Inconclusive Hint of Evidence Against Optimal Fine Tuning of the Cosmological Constant for Maximizing the Fraction of Baryons Becoming Life" (arxiv.org/abs/1101.2444)
    $endgroup$
    – Chiral Anomaly
    4 hours ago














4












4








4





$begingroup$


I'm an A level student looking into the fine tuning of various constants.
Physicists explain the extensive effects that would happen if these constants were to be changed/different and hence, how this affects the probability of life existing. What I fail to understand is why, if these constants were to be different, life wouldn't adapt to these changes. If gravity was stronger, then wouldn't the general muscle mass/stability of life be greater through evolution in order to withstand a greater force? Or am I looking at it from the wrong perspective? Some clarification on this would be appreciated.






physical-constants time-evolution cosmological-constant fine-tuning







share|cite|improve this question







New contributor




Samuel Hunter is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$




I'm an A level student looking into the fine tuning of various constants.
Physicists explain the extensive effects that would happen if these constants were to be changed/different and hence, how this affects the probability of life existing. What I fail to understand is why, if these constants were to be different, life wouldn't adapt to these changes. If gravity was stronger, then wouldn't the general muscle mass/stability of life be greater through evolution in order to withstand a greater force? Or am I looking at it from the wrong perspective? Some clarification on this would be appreciated.






physical-constants time-evolution cosmological-constant fine-tuning




physical-constants time-evolution cosmological-constant fine-tuning






share|cite|improve this question







New contributor




Samuel Hunter is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|cite|improve this question







New contributor




Samuel Hunter is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question






New contributor




Samuel Hunter is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked 9 hours ago









Samuel HunterSamuel Hunter

212




212




New contributor




Samuel Hunter is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





Samuel Hunter is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






Samuel Hunter is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    It's more fundamental than that: if certain constants were different, it could prevent stars and planets from forming, much less allow liquid water to exist, and then allow for organic chemistry as we know it.
    $endgroup$
    – Dmitry Brant
    8 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Some related references are cited in the introduction of "Preliminary Inconclusive Hint of Evidence Against Optimal Fine Tuning of the Cosmological Constant for Maximizing the Fraction of Baryons Becoming Life" (arxiv.org/abs/1101.2444)
    $endgroup$
    – Chiral Anomaly
    4 hours ago














  • 1




    $begingroup$
    It's more fundamental than that: if certain constants were different, it could prevent stars and planets from forming, much less allow liquid water to exist, and then allow for organic chemistry as we know it.
    $endgroup$
    – Dmitry Brant
    8 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Some related references are cited in the introduction of "Preliminary Inconclusive Hint of Evidence Against Optimal Fine Tuning of the Cosmological Constant for Maximizing the Fraction of Baryons Becoming Life" (arxiv.org/abs/1101.2444)
    $endgroup$
    – Chiral Anomaly
    4 hours ago








1




1




$begingroup$
It's more fundamental than that: if certain constants were different, it could prevent stars and planets from forming, much less allow liquid water to exist, and then allow for organic chemistry as we know it.
$endgroup$
– Dmitry Brant
8 hours ago




$begingroup$
It's more fundamental than that: if certain constants were different, it could prevent stars and planets from forming, much less allow liquid water to exist, and then allow for organic chemistry as we know it.
$endgroup$
– Dmitry Brant
8 hours ago












$begingroup$
Some related references are cited in the introduction of "Preliminary Inconclusive Hint of Evidence Against Optimal Fine Tuning of the Cosmological Constant for Maximizing the Fraction of Baryons Becoming Life" (arxiv.org/abs/1101.2444)
$endgroup$
– Chiral Anomaly
4 hours ago




$begingroup$
Some related references are cited in the introduction of "Preliminary Inconclusive Hint of Evidence Against Optimal Fine Tuning of the Cosmological Constant for Maximizing the Fraction of Baryons Becoming Life" (arxiv.org/abs/1101.2444)
$endgroup$
– Chiral Anomaly
4 hours ago










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















6












$begingroup$

The variation you are talking about here would still be considered relatively 'fine-tuned', in the following sense:



If the strength of gravity was stronger by such an amount such that the processes that govern the formation of stars, planets, complex molecules, and life were relatively unchanged (in that they still take place in a recognizable fashion), then the strength of gravity must be quite similar to what we observe. If this were the case, yes, there is no reason that life might not develop to be a bit tougher.



However, such a difference would have to be very small indeed. Arguments about fine-tuning are based on the observation that even relatively small changes to certain constants would be enough to drastically change the make-up of the universe.



For example, Paul Davies notes that if the strong force were 2% stronger than it is, hydrogen would fuse to form diprotons as opposed to helium as it would be energetically favorable. This would drastically alter structure formation in the early universe, leading to a today where planets do not even exist, let alone weak or strong animals on them. I should note here that the 2% figure quoted by Davies may not be accurate, but this is the idea at play here.



In short, the problems from fine-tuning start to occur far before life would ever develop in the first place.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    also look at the triple $alpha$ process (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple-alpha_process) which appears terribly fine tuned, and is the only way to make lots of carbon and oxygen, which are life's favorite elements.
    $endgroup$
    – JEB
    6 hours ago











Your Answer





StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "151"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});






Samuel Hunter is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f469025%2ffine-tuning-of-the-universe%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









6












$begingroup$

The variation you are talking about here would still be considered relatively 'fine-tuned', in the following sense:



If the strength of gravity was stronger by such an amount such that the processes that govern the formation of stars, planets, complex molecules, and life were relatively unchanged (in that they still take place in a recognizable fashion), then the strength of gravity must be quite similar to what we observe. If this were the case, yes, there is no reason that life might not develop to be a bit tougher.



However, such a difference would have to be very small indeed. Arguments about fine-tuning are based on the observation that even relatively small changes to certain constants would be enough to drastically change the make-up of the universe.



For example, Paul Davies notes that if the strong force were 2% stronger than it is, hydrogen would fuse to form diprotons as opposed to helium as it would be energetically favorable. This would drastically alter structure formation in the early universe, leading to a today where planets do not even exist, let alone weak or strong animals on them. I should note here that the 2% figure quoted by Davies may not be accurate, but this is the idea at play here.



In short, the problems from fine-tuning start to occur far before life would ever develop in the first place.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    also look at the triple $alpha$ process (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple-alpha_process) which appears terribly fine tuned, and is the only way to make lots of carbon and oxygen, which are life's favorite elements.
    $endgroup$
    – JEB
    6 hours ago
















6












$begingroup$

The variation you are talking about here would still be considered relatively 'fine-tuned', in the following sense:



If the strength of gravity was stronger by such an amount such that the processes that govern the formation of stars, planets, complex molecules, and life were relatively unchanged (in that they still take place in a recognizable fashion), then the strength of gravity must be quite similar to what we observe. If this were the case, yes, there is no reason that life might not develop to be a bit tougher.



However, such a difference would have to be very small indeed. Arguments about fine-tuning are based on the observation that even relatively small changes to certain constants would be enough to drastically change the make-up of the universe.



For example, Paul Davies notes that if the strong force were 2% stronger than it is, hydrogen would fuse to form diprotons as opposed to helium as it would be energetically favorable. This would drastically alter structure formation in the early universe, leading to a today where planets do not even exist, let alone weak or strong animals on them. I should note here that the 2% figure quoted by Davies may not be accurate, but this is the idea at play here.



In short, the problems from fine-tuning start to occur far before life would ever develop in the first place.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    also look at the triple $alpha$ process (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple-alpha_process) which appears terribly fine tuned, and is the only way to make lots of carbon and oxygen, which are life's favorite elements.
    $endgroup$
    – JEB
    6 hours ago














6












6








6





$begingroup$

The variation you are talking about here would still be considered relatively 'fine-tuned', in the following sense:



If the strength of gravity was stronger by such an amount such that the processes that govern the formation of stars, planets, complex molecules, and life were relatively unchanged (in that they still take place in a recognizable fashion), then the strength of gravity must be quite similar to what we observe. If this were the case, yes, there is no reason that life might not develop to be a bit tougher.



However, such a difference would have to be very small indeed. Arguments about fine-tuning are based on the observation that even relatively small changes to certain constants would be enough to drastically change the make-up of the universe.



For example, Paul Davies notes that if the strong force were 2% stronger than it is, hydrogen would fuse to form diprotons as opposed to helium as it would be energetically favorable. This would drastically alter structure formation in the early universe, leading to a today where planets do not even exist, let alone weak or strong animals on them. I should note here that the 2% figure quoted by Davies may not be accurate, but this is the idea at play here.



In short, the problems from fine-tuning start to occur far before life would ever develop in the first place.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$



The variation you are talking about here would still be considered relatively 'fine-tuned', in the following sense:



If the strength of gravity was stronger by such an amount such that the processes that govern the formation of stars, planets, complex molecules, and life were relatively unchanged (in that they still take place in a recognizable fashion), then the strength of gravity must be quite similar to what we observe. If this were the case, yes, there is no reason that life might not develop to be a bit tougher.



However, such a difference would have to be very small indeed. Arguments about fine-tuning are based on the observation that even relatively small changes to certain constants would be enough to drastically change the make-up of the universe.



For example, Paul Davies notes that if the strong force were 2% stronger than it is, hydrogen would fuse to form diprotons as opposed to helium as it would be energetically favorable. This would drastically alter structure formation in the early universe, leading to a today where planets do not even exist, let alone weak or strong animals on them. I should note here that the 2% figure quoted by Davies may not be accurate, but this is the idea at play here.



In short, the problems from fine-tuning start to occur far before life would ever develop in the first place.







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited 8 hours ago

























answered 8 hours ago









gabegabe

14711




14711












  • $begingroup$
    also look at the triple $alpha$ process (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple-alpha_process) which appears terribly fine tuned, and is the only way to make lots of carbon and oxygen, which are life's favorite elements.
    $endgroup$
    – JEB
    6 hours ago


















  • $begingroup$
    also look at the triple $alpha$ process (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple-alpha_process) which appears terribly fine tuned, and is the only way to make lots of carbon and oxygen, which are life's favorite elements.
    $endgroup$
    – JEB
    6 hours ago
















$begingroup$
also look at the triple $alpha$ process (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple-alpha_process) which appears terribly fine tuned, and is the only way to make lots of carbon and oxygen, which are life's favorite elements.
$endgroup$
– JEB
6 hours ago




$begingroup$
also look at the triple $alpha$ process (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple-alpha_process) which appears terribly fine tuned, and is the only way to make lots of carbon and oxygen, which are life's favorite elements.
$endgroup$
– JEB
6 hours ago










Samuel Hunter is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










draft saved

draft discarded


















Samuel Hunter is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.













Samuel Hunter is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












Samuel Hunter is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
















Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid …



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f469025%2ffine-tuning-of-the-universe%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







-

Popular posts from this blog

A CLEAN and SIMPLE way to add appendices to Table of Contents and bookmarks

Image
0 I found a lot of questions abount appendices and ToC. Many users want appendices to be grouped in an Appendix part, however some problems arise with ToC, hyperref, PDF viewer bookmarks, and so on. There are different solutions which require extra packages, command patching and other extra code, however none of them satisfies me. I almost found an easy way to accomplish a good result, where appendices are added to bookmarks in the right way and hyperref links point to the right page. However, the number of the "Appendix" part page is wrong (it's the number of appendix A). Is there any EASY way to fix that? This is a MWE: documentclass{book} usepackage[nottoc,notlot,notlof]{tocbibind} usepackage{hyperref} begin{document} frontmatter tableofcontents mainmatter part{First} chapter{...
Read more

Calculate evaluation metrics using cross_val_predict sklearn

Image
1 In the sklearn.model_selection.cross_val_predict page it is stated: Generate cross-validated estimates for each input data point. It is not appropriate to pass these predictions into an evaluation metric. Can someone explain what does it mean? If this gives estimate of Y (y prediction) for every Y (true Y), why can't I calculate metrics such as RMSE or coefficient of determination using these results? python scikit-learn cross-validation share | improve this question edited Nov 28 '18 at 17:52 desertnaut 20.3k 7 43 79 ...
Read more

Insert data from modal to MySQL (multiple modal on website)

Image
0 I have problem with inserting data to MySQL from modal. My modal: <a href="#" class="badge badge-pill badge-success">6 komentarzy</a> <a href="#" class="badge badge-pill badge-danger">brak komentarzy</a> <a data-toggle="modal" href="#add_desk_comm_{$desk_['desk_id']}" data-target="#add_desk_comm_{$desk_['desk_id']}" class="ediiit">(dodaj)</a> <div class="modal fade" id="add_desk_comm_{$desk_['desk_id']}" tabindex="-1" role="dialog" aria-labelledby="edit_printer" aria-hidden="true"> <div class="modal-dialog" role="document"> ...
Read more