• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Fine-Tuning Problem in Cosmology

Is the Fine-Tuning Problem Real?

  • Yes, cosmology needs to explain why the values of the physical constants appear to be finely balance

    Votes: 12 10.3%

  • No, it's nothing more than a puddle marveling at how well it fits into the hole it's in.

    Votes: 105 89.7%
  • Total voters
    117
It's actually funny to see that you can quote scientists who say that the fine-tuning is a real problem and at the same time you can quote scientists who say that it is not a problem.
A laymen with common sense can conclude: they don't know what they are talking about.
 
Last edited:
Fudbucker said:
The vast majority of people who answered the poll are wrong: fine-tuning is not the equivalent of a puddle wondering about the hole it's in.
Click to expand...
You were the one who wanted to bring this discussion to the science forum because of all the active scientists posting in it who you were sure would back you up. Well 88% of those posting here say you're the one that's wrong. Now what?
 
Maartenn100 said:
It's actually funny to see that you can quote scientists who say that the fine-tuning is a real problem and at the same time you can quote scientists who say that it is not a problem.
A laymen with common sense can conclude: they don't know what they are talking about.
Click to expand...

Yes, you could.

You would be wrong.

But you could.
 
Dr. Keith said:
The turtles.
Click to expand...

These guys?

picture.php
 
Son of Inigo said:
Please forgive a layperson for asking this, but in what way is the universe not natural? I take unnatural to mean somebody or something constructed it. Is that what you are implying?

And even if (very big if) it was unnatural in the sense I ask above, then wouldn't it still be natural for us? As we cannot conceive of any other way for the universe to be and still support human life, isn't it still our 'natural' home?

I guess my point is this, regardless of how it came to be, this universe is the natural place for us to be because we are here. Unless it is discovered that human life arose somewhere outside of this universe, and we were just planted in this one, like ants in an ant farm, then this is our natural universe.

Please correct me if my logic is wrong.
Click to expand...

I posted links on this earlier, but I'll repost from the same two links:

"“Naturalness” is a term coined by Albert Einstein, and it is used to describe the elegantly intricate laws of nature. In a natural universe, absolutely everything can be explained with the aid of mathematics. All of the constants of nature are refined by the physical laws of nature and the entire puzzle makes perfect sense. In a unnatural universe, the horrible idea that some of the fundamental laws of nature are an arbitrary byproducts of the random fluctuations in the fabric of spacetime becomes a reality."
http://www.fromquarkstoquasars.com/is-the-universe-unnatural/

"Physicists reason that if the universe is unnatural, with extremely unlikely fundamental constants that make life possible, then an enormous number of universes must exist for our improbable case to have been realized. Otherwise, why should we be so lucky? Unnaturalness would give a huge lift to the multiverse hypothesis, which holds that our universe is one bubble in an infinite and inaccessible foam. According to a popular but polarizing framework called string theory, the number of possible types of universes that can bubble up in a multiverse is around 10e500. In a few of them, chance cancellations would produce the strange constants we observe."
http://www.quantamagazine.org/20130524-is-nature-unnatural/
 
Maartenn100 said:
It's actually funny to see that you can quote scientists who say that the fine-tuning is a real problem and at the same time you can quote scientists who say that it is not a problem.
A laymen with common sense can conclude: they don't know what they are talking about.
Click to expand...

Actually, there haven't been many links citing experts from opponents of the fine-tuning problem.
 
Pixel42 said:
You were the one who wanted to bring this discussion to the science forum because of all the active scientists posting in it who you were sure would back you up. Well 88% of those posting here say you're the one that's wrong. Now what?
Click to expand...

I certainly overestimated how savvy the science forum is. But if people are asking me what "an unnatural universe" is, after I've given links specifically on the topic, I can't say I'm too surprised.

99% could say I'm wrong. It doesn't make me wrong, it just means the people who are voting are ignorant.

It's strange. In climate debates, there's always reference to the consensus position on global warming. Yet on this topic, when expert after expert is cited (I think I've cited close to 20 now*), people dismiss it. It's certainly not how these kinds of discussions usually go.

ETA: Including the thread in the R&P section (multiple universes).
 
Last edited:
Fudbucker said:
Actually, there haven't been many links citing experts from opponents of the fine-tuning problem.
Click to expand...
Ok, you did effort to quote some experts and they couldn't provide some reliable sources? Ok, you are winning this discussion then. Period.
 
Last edited:
Now you have explicitly defined the somewhat unusual usage of unnatural, which seems to have no connotations of design or simulation, it seems pretty reasonable.
 
Fudbucker said:
It's strange. In climate debates, there's always reference to the consensus position on global warming. Yet on this topic, when expert after expert is cited (I think I've cited close to 20 now*), people dismiss it.
Click to expand...
I could easily cite 20 people (including some scientists) who deny global warming, yet the consensus remains that it exists.

There is a proposition that the universe is fine tuned for life, there are many people (including some scientists) who accept that proposition, and a subset of those people consider it a significant fact which requires explanation (the rest consider it a tautology). You are a long way from establishing if there is a consensus position on this issue, let alone what it is. My impression from my own reading is that it is a controversial issue on which there is no clear scientific consensus.
 
Last edited:
Fudbucker said:
I certainly overestimated how savvy the science forum is. But if people are asking me what "an unnatural universe" is, after I've given links specifically on the topic, I can't say I'm too surprised.

99% could say I'm wrong. It doesn't make me wrong, it just means the people who are voting are ignorant.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily; besides the obvious alternative that you may be wrong regarding your evaluation of our ignorance levels, it might mean people were uncertain about the exact implications of the word "unnatural" within the context of your posts. Some examples:

1. Just absurdely unlikely; no other interpretations or extrapolations involved.
2. Absurdely unlikely at one single run but almost bound to happen when one considers models involving multiple universes.
3. Absurdely unlikely; so unlikely that it must be the product of a creator of some sort (aliens, god, whatever).
4. Absurdely unlikely at one single run but almost bound to happen when one considers models involving multiple universes or the universe being the product of a creator of some sort (aliens, god, whatever).

Fudbucker said:
It's strange. In climate debates, there's always reference to the consensus position on global warming. Yet on this topic, when expert after expert is cited (I think I've cited close to 20 now*), people dismiss it. It's certainly not how these kinds of discussions usually go.

ETA: Including the thread in the R&P section (multiple universes).
Click to expand...

Maybe its because the most common consensus position is something like "Yes the values are very odd. We have no clue about the reasons for this; actually we don't even know if there's a reason. Or more than one reason. We don't even know if we'll ever be able to know if there is a reason or not... Actually all we can do is to speculate about."
 
Fudbucker said:
Actually, there haven't been many links citing experts from opponents of the fine-tuning problem.
Click to expand...

Stenger is one.

Also did you answer teh question:

How many possible values exit between the fine tuned value of .0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 and .0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000002 ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom