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

From: George Cooper <>
Date: Thu Jul 31 2008 - 18:01:52 EDT



Earlier this year in the an astronomy forum (Bad Astronomy Universe Today
combined forum:, there was an interesting discussion
about the question of whether or not multiple universe ideas qualify as
scientific theories. Here's the thread.


You will find about 10,000 Google hits for the specific phrase "Parallel
Universe Theory" and 22,000 for "Multiverse Theory".


Max Tegmark, a prominent physicist, is a leader in the "Parallel Universe
Theory" and makes some attempt at justifying it as a theory in the following


[I just found this, so I may be jumping to conclusions about his
justification, but I doubt it.]


I liked the paper you referenced so much that I have established a thread in
that forum in hopes some will comment on it, but none have so far. Here's
this thread:




From: [] On
Behalf Of Rich Blinne
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 2:04 PM
To: George Cooper
Subject: Re: [asa] Stars May Not Be So Fine Tuned After All



On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 8:41 AM, George Cooper <>



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.]



I didn't want to overstate the case and like you I would say if the
anthropic principle is considered not "science" then multi-verse cosmologies
also are not "science" for the same reason. Nevertheless, this was a first
stab at trying to deal with the fine tuning objection to the multi-verse
hypothesis. You piqued my curiosity. Where did you hear it called a theory
instead of a hypothesis?

Rich Blinne
Member ASA

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Jul 31 18:02:27 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Jul 31 2008 - 18:02:27 EDT