Re: Remarkable unity

From: Don Winterstein <dfwinterstein@msn.com>
Date: Mon Apr 18 2005 - 07:45:22 EDT

Jim Armstrong wrote:

"...Three important density parameters
were derived from the CBR data:
    1. the total baryon energy density ....
    2. the so-called dark energy.....
    3. the energy associated with the exponential portion of the
universe's expansion....
These three things encompass all we know to exist of have effect in the
universe. "

Don't wanna nitpick, but I always thought electrons were fairly important, and maybe even photons. Guess it's a matter of perspective. : )

Don

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Jim Armstrong<mailto:jarmstro@qwest.net>
  To: ASA<mailto:asa@calvin.edu>
  Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2005 10:30 PM
  Subject: Remarkable unity

  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?

  JimA
Received on Mon Apr 18 07:48:25 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Apr 18 2005 - 07:48:28 EDT