How did the universe get the math
that is woven into its fabric?
“Luck in the precise form and nature of fundamental physical law is a different kind of luck from the luck we find in environmental factors. It cannot be so easily explained, and has far deeper physical and philosophical implications. Our universe and its laws appear to have a design that both is tailor-made to support us and, if we are to exist, leaves little room for alteration.” Stephen Hawking
What are these laws and what are the odds?
good intro into fine tuning
Here’s what some of these formulas look like:
The universe is too perfect and precise to be anything other then an incredible design. If the universe is a machine its precision is on the order that would go far beyond what the most egotistical genius could imagine. The precision of the universe could only come from a mind with infinitely more precision.
As we showed in our section on “How to get something from nothing” there is a strong inclination to explain something from nothing. That would be because the greatest resistance to Atheism is how we got everything. So lets do that quote again:
And so getting a universe in the first place without a powerful cause is not just unlikely its impossible but lets look at how unlikely is a universe that can give us the things we need for the lives we live? For everything we see on a daily basis to exist. What are the odds? How truly rare is it?
So if we did start the universe with nothing, we could actually expect something to come out of it because the probability of nothing remaining nothing is rather low and because there is nothing governing what will happen.Victor J. Stenge Physicist.
So what is he saying? He is saying that the closer we get to nothing the more unstable things get until anything is possible. And so you would at that point expect something to happen. Ok thats pretty interesting if we were to talk about absolutely nothing. But I wouldn’t expect perfection. When things explode you don’t get high order. You don’t have an explosion and then a nuclear physics lab pops out or a campbell soup factory.
Is here a few of the values of these:
Speed of Light
c=299,792,458 m sˉ¹
G=6.673 x10ˉ¹¹ m³ kgˉ¹ sˉ²
1.05457148 x10ˉ³⁴ m² kg sˉ²
1.2209 x10²² MeV
Mass of Electron, Proton, Neutron
0.511; 938.3; 939.6 MeV
Mass of Up, Down, Strange Quark
2.4; 4.8; 104 MeV (Approx.)
Ratio of Electron to Proton Mass
Gravitational Coupling Constant
(2.3 x 10ˉ³ eV)ˉ⁴
71 km/s/Mpc (today)
Higgs Vacuum Expectation Value
What’s it like to have every bit of luck someone could possibly want? To always be at the right place at the right time for everything? Well you don’t have to wonder about what it would be like because that is in fact the case. You and me and everything inbetween are the so lucky that it defies description! We are in fact so lucky that it is frankly impossible … and yet here you are reading the thoughts I have conveyed to you. So how lucky are we?
How precise are these parameters lets look at a few
Ratio of Electrons to Protons = 10^37
Gravity = 10^60
Cosmological constant 10^120
Energy to Mass 10^10^123
One part in 10^37 is such an incredibly sensitive balance that it is hard to visualize. The following analogy might help: Cover the entire North American continent in dimes all the way up to the moon, a height of about 239,000 miles (In comparison, the money to pay for the U.S. federal government debt would cover one square mile less than two feet deep with dimes.). Next, pile dimes from here to the moon on a billion other continents the same size as North America. Paint one dime red and mix it into the billions of piles of dimes. Blindfold a friend and ask him to pick out one dime. The odds that he will pick the red dime are one in 1037. (p. 115)
Hugh Ross. 1995. The Creator and the Cosmos, p. 115.
The cosomological constant is so precise for example that if the universe had as much additional mass as a grain of sand or that much less then it wouldn’t be able to exist!!!
Think about that for a second.
Anyone that thinks that it is just that way is ignoring what the pros are thinking. Its either a neccesity, chance or design. But there is nothing that makes it necessary. The odds are too great to be chance. It starts with the math. The math that is the foundation of the universe. People think that scientists create the fantastic mathmetical formulas that govern how the universe operates. This is not true they only discover what already existed. There are at least 26 laws or constants that are finely tuned to allow a universe in the first place for example:
So what happens if things are off? It looks something like this:
strong nuclear force constant
weak nuclear force constant
if larger: too much hydrogen would convert to helium in big bang; hence, stars would convert too much matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible
if smaller: too little helium would be produced from big bang; hence, stars would convert too little matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible
gravitational force constant
if larger: stars would be too hot and would burn too rapidly and too unevenly for life chemistry
if smaller: stars would be too cool to ignite nuclear fusion; thus, many of the elements needed for life chemistry would never form
electromagnetic force constant
if greater: chemical bonding would be disrupted; elements more massive than boron would be unstable to fission
if lesser: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry
ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant
if larger: all stars would be at least 40% more massive than the sun; hence, stellar burning would be too brief and too uneven for life support
if smaller: all stars would be at least 20% less massive than the sun, thus incapable of producing heavy elements
ratio of electron to proton mass
if larger: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry
if smaller: same as above
ratio of number of protons to number of electrons
if larger: electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation
if smaller: same as above
expansion rate of the universe
if larger: no galaxies would form
if smaller: universe would collapse, even before stars formed
entropy level of the universe
if larger: stars would not form within proto-galaxies
if smaller: no proto-galaxies would form
mass density of the universe
if larger: overabundance of deuterium from big bang would cause stars to burn rapidly, too rapidly for life to form
if smaller: insufficient helium from big bang would result in a shortage of heavy elements
velocity of light
if faster: stars would be too luminous for life support if slower: stars would be insufficiently luminous for life support
age of the universe
if older: no solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would exist in the right (for life) part of the galaxy
if younger: solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would not yet have formed
initial uniformity of radiation
if more uniform: stars, star clusters, and galaxies would not have formed
if less uniform: universe by now would be mostly black holes and empty space
average distance between galaxies
if larger: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material
if smaller: gravitational tug-of-wars would destabilize the sun's orbit
density of galaxy cluster
if denser: galaxy collisions and mergers would disrupt the sun's orbit
if less dense: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material
average distance between stars
if larger: heavy element density would be too sparse for rocky planets to form
if smaller: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life
fine structure constant (describing the fine-structure splitting of spectral lines) if larger: all stars would be at least 30% less massive than the sun
if larger than 0.06: matter would be unstable in large magnetic fields
if smaller: all stars would be at least 80% more massive than the sun
decay rate of protons
if greater: life would be exterminated by the release of radiation
if smaller: universe would contain insufficient matter for life
12C to 16O nuclear energy level ratio
if larger: universe would contain insufficient oxygen for life
if smaller: universe would contain insufficient carbon for life
ground state energy level for 4He
if larger: universe would contain insufficient carbon and oxygen for life
if smaller: same as above
decay rate of 8Be
if slower: heavy element fusion would generate catastrophic explosions in all the stars
if faster: no element heavier than beryllium would form; thus, no life chemistry
ratio of neutron mass to proton mass
if higher: neutron decay would yield too few neutrons for the formation of many life-essential elements
if lower: neutron decay would produce so many neutrons as to collapse all stars into neutron stars or black holes
initial excess of nucleons over anti-nucleons
if greater: radiation would prohibit planet formation
if lesser: matter would be insufficient for galaxy or star formation
polarity of the water molecule
if greater: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too high for life
if smaller: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too low for life; liquid water would not work as a solvent for life chemistry; ice would not float, and a runaway freeze-up would result
if too close, too frequent, or too late: radiation would exterminate life on the planet
if too distant, too infrequent, or too soon: heavy elements would be too sparse for rocky planets to form
white dwarf binaries
if too few: insufficient fluorine would exist for life chemistry
if too many: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life
if formed too soon: insufficient fluorine production
if formed too late: fluorine would arrive too late for life chemistry
ratio of exotic matter mass to ordinary matter mass
if larger: universe would collapse before solar-type stars could form
if smaller: no galaxies would form
number of effective dimensions in the early universe
if larger: quantum mechanics, gravity, and relativity could not coexist; thus, life would be impossible
if smaller: same result
number of effective dimensions in the present universe
if smaller: electron, planet, and star orbits would become unstable
if larger: same result
mass of the neutrino
if smaller: galaxy clusters, galaxies, and stars would not form
if larger: galaxy clusters and galaxies would be too dense
big bang ripples
if smaller: galaxies would not form; universe would expand too rapidly
if larger: galaxies/galaxy clusters would be too dense for life; black holes would dominate; universe would collapse before life-site could form
size of the relativistic dilation factor
if smaller: certain life-essential chemical reactions will not function properly
if larger: same result
uncertainty magnitude in the Heisenberg uncertainty principle
if smaller: oxygen transport to body cells would be too small and certain life-essential elements would be unstable
if larger: oxygen transport to body cells would be too great and certain life-essential elements would be unstable
if larger: universe would expand too quickly to form solar-type stars
Hugh Ross. 1995. The Creator and the Cosmos
There are actually more then these now but I think thats enough to get the picture
[T]he Universe is a machine governed by principles or laws—laws that can be understood by the human mind. I believe that the discovery of these laws has been humankind’s greatest achievement…. But what’s really important is that these physical laws, as well as being unchangeable, are universal. They apply not just to the flight of the ball, but to the motion of a planet and everything else in the Universe. Unlike laws made by humans, the laws of nature cannot ever be broken. That’s why they are so powerful (“Curiosity…,” 2011, emp. added).
The laws that govern the universe make it possible to study the universe. Because there is order rather then chaos we can study, conduct experiments and expect that wild things like a marble statue waving or a cake appearing out of nowhere are things that will not happen. Because we have laws that govern the universe … is the reason we have a universe in the first place. Without the laws and forces that literally hold our universe and bodies together we wouldn’t even exist. But these laws that a re necessary for us and everything else to exist did not have to do so. Without gravity being as precise as it is you wouldn’t have stars or planets. Without the strong nuclear force there would be nothing to hold protons and neutrons together to form atoms. And without atoms you would have nothing. Without the precise properties of the electromagnetic force you wouldn’t have electricity, atmospheres, or light. These and many other parameters have to be very precise in order to work with the other parameters. Without this impossible balance of laws there is no universe at least nothing on the order we see today. Simply put you would not exist. Either these parameters must be tuned before the universe is created or they must be fixed at the outset of the universe. Add these parameters are balanced so precisely that the odds of it happening at all is on the order of this:
10^10^123 and beyond. In order to get that number you would need enough zeros that not even the solar system could hold the number even if the type cast was 10!!!
“As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency – or, rather, Agency – must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?5” Astronomer George Greenstein
Its an impossible number because it is not chance. At some point chance has to be discarded because its too ridiculous. Without the perfect balance: each parameter having very little amount to bend = if they were a little more or less or stronger or weaker you don’t get stars, planets, life, complex life … hell you don’t even get atoms in most cases. There is much talk about irriduibly complex systems like the eye, or the flagella motor but the universe itself is an irriducibly complex system. The laws that must be balanced with one another to make the universe possible in the first place. To some scientists think that the laws were designed so that consciousness would be possible. So that a universe as you see it would be possible. This of course would require an intelligent designer of serious intellect.
It can not be doubted that laws of the universe are extremly tuned. So we have two possabilities:
The Atheist account (no outside interference) where the laws were set without regard to their consequences or outcomes. In this model there is no purpose to this precise order.
"[Fred] Hoyle wrote, 'I do not believe that any scientist who examined the evidence would fail to draw the inference that the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately designed with regard to the consequences they produce…'"
There is no meaning to anything.
The outside intelligent agent account that there was an intelligence that had a design with an outcome in mind. In this account there is a purpose like a Universe that could support conscious beings that would then be able to understand the purpose in the first place. The atheist never tires of saying there is no proof ...what they mean is there is no evidence. And yet the evidence is written in the fabric of the universe. The properties that allow for a Universe in the first place could only come about by design.
Which is more likely?
“If there is an inexplicable coincidence in the fundamental constants of nature whose values have to be precisely-tuned within a wide range of otherwise available possibilities that would make a complex universe possible then this constitutes a phenomenon that very naturally invites explanation in terms of a cosmic scale designer.” Oxford Philosopher Peter Millican in his debate with William Lane Craig. Millican rejects the conclusion of design but seems to agree with my argument thus far that if the universe is fine-tuned it should serve as evidence for God. https://crossexamined.org/fine-tuning-evidence-for-god/
"There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming."
Paul Davies Astrophysicist
Physicist Eugene Wigner confesses that the mathematical underpinning of nature "is something bordering on the mysterious and there is no rational explanation for it."Richard Feynman, a Nobel Prize winner for quantum electrodynamics, said, "Why nature is mathematical is a mystery...The fact that there are rules at all is a kind of miracle."