Fine Tuning of the UniverseFine Tuned UniverseRelationship between hierarchy problem and higgs fine tuning?Definition of Fine-TuningEarliest example of naturalness/fine-tuning argumentsMultiverse explanation of fine tuning of cosmic constantsCan dimensional regularization solve the fine-tuning problem?Are the fundamental constants of nature independent?Does the Peccei-Quinn (PQ) mechanism require fine-tuning?Why does the flatness problem (of the universe) present a fine tuning problem?Bare Cosmological Constant and Fine-Tuning Problem
What Brexit proposals are on the table in the indicative votes on the 27th of March 2019?
Sort a list by elements of another list
Failed to fetch jessie backports repository
How can we prove that any integral in the set of non-elementary integrals cannot be expressed in the form of elementary functions?
Did Dumbledore lie to Harry about how long he had James Potter's invisibility cloak when he was examining it? If so, why?
Is HostGator storing my password in plaintext?
How did Doctor Strange see the winning outcome in Avengers: Infinity War?
Why not increase contact surface when reentering the atmosphere?
Term for the "extreme-extension" version of a straw man fallacy?
I'm in charge of equipment buying but no one's ever happy with what I choose. How to fix this?
Unreliable Magic - Is it worth it?
How to be diplomatic in refusing to write code that breaches the privacy of our users
Risk of infection at the gym?
How can a function with a hole (removable discontinuity) equal a function with no hole?
Why escape if the_content isnt?
CREATE opcode: what does it really do?
Applicability of Single Responsibility Principle
What can we do to stop prior company from asking us questions?
Anatomically Correct Strange Women In Ponds Distributing Swords
Is the destination of a commercial flight important for the pilot?
How easy is it to start Magic from scratch?
Lay out the Carpet
Is there a good way to store credentials outside of a password manager?
Is `x >> pure y` equivalent to `liftM (const y) x`
Fine Tuning of the Universe
Fine Tuned UniverseRelationship between hierarchy problem and higgs fine tuning?Definition of Fine-TuningEarliest example of naturalness/fine-tuning argumentsMultiverse explanation of fine tuning of cosmic constantsCan dimensional regularization solve the fine-tuning problem?Are the fundamental constants of nature independent?Does the Peccei-Quinn (PQ) mechanism require fine-tuning?Why does the flatness problem (of the universe) present a fine tuning problem?Bare Cosmological Constant and Fine-Tuning Problem
$begingroup$
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
asked 5 hours ago
Samuel HunterSamuel Hunter
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.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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
asked 5 hours ago
Samuel HunterSamuel Hunter
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.
$endgroup$
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
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
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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
asked 5 hours ago
Samuel HunterSamuel Hunter
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.
$endgroup$
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
asked 5 hours ago
Samuel HunterSamuel Hunter
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.
asked 5 hours ago
Samuel HunterSamuel Hunter
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.
asked 5 hours ago
Samuel HunterSamuel Hunter
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.
asked 5 hours ago
Samuel HunterSamuel Hunter
212
asked 5 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
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
1 hour ago
add a comment |
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
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
1 hour 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
4 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
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
1 hour 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
1 hour ago
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
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.
answered 4 hours ago
gabegabe
13711
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
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
2 hours ago
add a comment |
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.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
$begingroup$
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.
answered 4 hours ago
gabegabe
13711
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
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
2 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
answered 4 hours ago
gabegabe
13711
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
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
2 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
answered 4 hours ago
gabegabe
13711
$endgroup$
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.
answered 4 hours ago
gabegabe
13711
edited 4 hours ago
answered 4 hours ago
gabegabe
13711
answered 4 hours ago
gabegabe
13711
answered 4 hours ago
gabegabe
13711
13711
$begingroup$
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
2 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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
2 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
2 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
2 hours ago
add a comment |
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.
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.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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
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
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
1 hour ago