RE: [asa] Stars May Not Be So Fine Tuned After All

From: George Cooper <georgecooper@sbcglobal.net>
Date: Thu Jul 31 2008 - 10:41:42 EDT

Rich

 

As you have pointed out in their conclusion, they do not address the
possibility that these stars, which they take to be in an equilibrium state,
might not ever form. Even if stars could form they would have to survive
their instability phase, too. Supernova would be also required in order to
form the necessary metals for terrestrial planets capable of hosting life,
whatever metals that might be. It would have been interesting if they
could have shown that nucleosynthesis of carbon was possible within the
range they found to suitable for fusion. [Carbon was not deemed possible
until Hoyle determined otherwise, which helped BBT, ironically.]

 

Keep in mind that there is no hint of a test procedure to determine the
existence of another universe. Multi universes and parallel universes are
not “science” but metaphysics. To take quantum events and conclude other
universes can exist is a stretch of unimaginable proportions and beyond
anything that mankind has ever done, right? [Admittedly, other universes
might exist as I have no science to suggest they don’t, but the proponents
and authors of other universes should at least not use the “theory” tag,
especially when they know what a theory is not.]

 

Coope

 

From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Rich Blinne
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 3:56 PM
To: ASA
Subject: [asa] Stars May Not Be So Fine Tuned After All

 

During our debates concerning intelligent design I have mentioned that I
found the fine tuning argument portion of ID attractive. Yet, I gave a
caveat given the history of such arguments it's best to hold on to such
things lightly. An upcoming paper by Fred Adams in the J. Cosmol. Astropart.
Phys. (Preprint here:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0807/0807.3697v1.pdf) makes the argument
that at least for stars our Universe may not be so rare after all,
underscoring my hesitancy with the argument. Fred Adams limits himself to
looking at three parameters, G, the gravitational constant, alpha, the fine
structure constant, and C, a composite parameter that determines nuclear
reaction rates. It turns out that roughly one fourth of the parameter space
could support stellar formation. Adams also looks at unconventional stars
that might extend possibilities beyond normal bounds:

"In situations where C = 0, or where the values of the other parameters
conspire to disallow stars (see Fig. 5), other types of stellar objects
could,
in principle, fill the role played by stars in our universe. This section
briefly explores this possibility with three examples: black holes that
generate energy through Hawking evaporation (4.1), degenerate dark matter
stars that generate energy via annihilation (4.2), and degenerate baryonic
matter stars that generate energy by capturing dark matter particles which
then annihilate (4.3)."

This is certainly is not the last word but shows there may well be an
equivalent of the whole God of the gaps problem in cosmological ID that is
found in biological ID. On the other hand, this paper is limited to the
issue of stellar formation and does not deal with the whole issue of
producing life. Again Adams:

"Finally, we note that this paper has focused on the question of whether or
not stars can exist in universe with alternate values of the relevant
parameters. An important and more global question is whether or not these
universes could also support life of some kind. Of course, such questions
are made difficult by our current lack of an a priori theory of life.
Nonetheless, some basic requirements can be identified (with reasonable
certainty): In addition to energy sources (provided by stars), there will be
additional constraints to provide the right mix of chemical elements (e.g.,
carbon in our universe) and a universal solvent (e.g., water). These
additional requirements will place additional constraints on the allowed
region(s) of parameter space."

Note specifically the comment concerning the lack of an a priori theory of
life. Regardless of whether the Universe really is fine tuned or not
determining how much so is fraught with post hoc reasoning and any "odds"
put forth should be taken with a grain -- no, a shaker -- of salt.

Rich Blinne
Member ASA

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Jul 31 10:42:03 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Jul 31 2008 - 10:42:03 EDT