Remarkable unity

From: Jim Armstrong <>
Date: Sun Apr 17 2005 - 01:30:21 EDT

Vern, in a recent lecture by Dr. Rogier Windhorst, one of the
astronomers who is involved in the acquisition and analysis of the
Hubble Space Telescope images, he spoke briefly about a result I thought
might be of interest to you. This result actually comes out of the
Cosmic Background Radiation data analysis that ultimately yielded the
universe age of 13.7 billion years. Three important density parameters
were derived from the CBR data:
    1. the total baryon energy density (the energy and material
equivalents of the stuff we know about) .
    2. the so-called dark energy that corresponds to stuff whose
presence is clearly indicated, but about which we know virtually nothing
as yet.
    3. the energy associated with the exponential portion of the
universe's expansion, the one that has to do with Einstein's "blunder"
that proved to be more right than wrong.

These three things encompass all we know to exist of have effect in the
universe. Even though we do not know the nature of two of these, there
is clear evidence of their reality.

The surprising result is that when these three entities are summed, they
add up to 1 0.02.

This is a remarkable result for there is no analytical reason why this
should be. The individual numbers could have turned out to be anything,
but in reality they somehow are similar in magnitude, and somehow do add
up to unity. They don't sum to decimal fraction, not 2, nor 10^6, but
simple beautiful unity, the smallest positive integer, and the smallest
prime, a number which uniquely divides itself and multiplies itself to
produce itself as the result. Moreover, Dr. Windhorst said, if the
value deviated from 1 even slightly, or even if the value varied
slightly from 1 near the beginning, or today, or any time between, the
universe would not be as we know it now.

Given that, I would think this sort of astonishing "coincidence" would
speak strongly to one with your perspectives.
The "problem" is that it flows directly out of the data and computations
that yield the 13.7 billion year age of the universe.

Should this surprising result be viewed as an internal authentication of
the validity of the earth age?
Why not?
Should I view this is possible legerdemain?

Received on Sun Apr 17 01:33:40 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Apr 17 2005 - 01:33:43 EDT