• 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

Fudbucker

Philosopher
F
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
8,537
We've had a bit of a heated discussion in the R&P section about whether fine-tuning is a problem in cosmology. So I thought I would take a poll.

This is the best summary of the fine-tuning problem that I could find:

"Embedded within the laws of physics are roughly 30 numbers—including the masses of the elementary particles and the strengths of the fundamental forces—that must be specified to describe the universe as we know it. Why do these numbers take the values that they do? We have not been able to derive them from any other laws of physics. Yet, it’s plausible that changing just a few of these parameters would have resulted in a starkly different universe: one without stars or galaxies and even without a diversity of stable atoms to combine into the fantastically complex molecules that compose our bodies and our world. Put another way, if these fundamental parameters had been different from the time of the Big Bang onward, our universe would be a far less complex universe. This is called the “fine tuning observation.” The fine-tuning problem is to find out why this is."
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics/2012/12/scientific-approaches-to-the-fine-tuning-problem/

Is Lee Smolin right? Is the observation of "fine tuning" a problem that needs to be solved?

I think it is, there are plenty of experts who agree, and I think it's a big driver in the popularity of inflation theory (a multiverse solves the fine-tuning problem quite elegantly), but I submit the question to you guys:

Fine-tuning, a problem or not?
 
Fudbucker said:
We've had a bit of a heated discussion in the R&P section about whether fine-tuning is a problem in cosmology. So I thought I would take a poll.

This is the best summary of the fine-tuning problem that I could find:

"Embedded within the laws of physics are roughly 30 numbers—including the masses of the elementary particles and the strengths of the fundamental forces—that must be specified to describe the universe as we know it. Why do these numbers take the values that they do? We have not been able to derive them from any other laws of physics. Yet, it’s plausible that changing just a few of these parameters would have resulted in a starkly different universe: one without stars or galaxies and even without a diversity of stable atoms to combine into the fantastically complex molecules that compose our bodies and our world. Put another way, if these fundamental parameters had been different from the time of the Big Bang onward, our universe would be a far less complex universe. This is called the “fine tuning observation.” The fine-tuning problem is to find out why this is."
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics/2012/12/scientific-approaches-to-the-fine-tuning-problem/

Is Lee Smolin right? Is the observation of "fine tuning" a problem that needs to be solved?

I think it is, there are plenty of experts who agree, and I think it's a big driver in the popularity of inflation theory (a multiverse solves the fine-tuning problem quite elegantly), but I submit the question to you guys:

Fine-tuning, a problem or not?
Click to expand...

The fine tuning fallacy is to assume there must be a reason and that that reason is some sort of fine tuner.
 
The Fine-Tuning Problem is like taking the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy, forgetting that you fired the arrow, then proclaiming that some special force drew the bulls eye there.

We are where we are because we are here. If we were somewhere else, we'd be talking about how we are there and why were not in yet another place. If we weren't anywhere, we wouldn't be talking.
 
Fudbucker said:
"if these fundamental parameters had been different from the time of the Big Bang onward, our universe would be a far less complex universe."
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics/2012/12/scientific-approaches-to-the-fine-tuning-problem/
Click to expand...
Where is the proof that different values would necessarily result in far less complexity?

Our current universe is 99.9999999999999999999999999% empty space. You call that complex? Our bodies may be composed of 'fantastically' complex molecules, but we are an insignificant part of the Universe - a tiny speck of crud that wouldn't be missed if we didn't exist. How can we insist that a different universe wouldn't be complex enough to support life, when our own universe is so devoid of it?

And what makes us think that these 'fundamental' parameters have independent values that could be freely chosen? I bet they are actually the result of even more fundamental parameters having relationships that we just haven't discovered yet.
 
ehcks said:
The Fine-Tuning Problem is like taking the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy, forgetting that you fired the arrow, then proclaiming that some special force drew the bulls eye there.

We are where we are because we are here. If we were somewhere else, we'd be talking about how we are there and why were not in yet another place. [hilte]If we weren't anywhere, we wouldn't be talking[/hilite].
Click to expand...

But that doesn't mean that the highlighted bit isn't the expected outcome.
 
I don't know that anyone has shown that the parameters can be different...

However, if there turns out to be anything to the idea of multiple universes, as in the "cosmic foam" idea, then it seems conceivable that every possible permutation of the constants might exist....
Lucky for us that this universe has constants compatible with the formation of stars and complex molecules and such.
 
ehcks said:
The Fine-Tuning Problem is like taking the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy, forgetting that you fired the arrow, then proclaiming that some special force drew the bulls eye there.

We are where we are because we are here. If we were somewhere else, we'd be talking about how we are there and why were not in yet another place. If we weren't anywhere, we wouldn't be talking.
Click to expand...

Nominated!

The last part is the most elegant refutation of the so-salled fine-tuning problem I have seen: Short, simple, no hard words. If somebody can use a computer but not understand this, it's because they don't want to.

Hans
 
I voted yes. There are a number of possible explanations for why our universe seems “fine-tuned”. The parameters in question might not actually be independent, many universes with a variety of parameters might exist, or there might be no specific reason at all (i.e. coincidence). Trying to find out which of these (or other) explanations is correct seems like a very productive line of inquiry to me.

For the people who voted no, do you think that we no longer should look into this “problem”? Change some of our priorities for research? What would the practical consequences be for science if we would consider “fine-tuning” less of a problem?
 
Bikewer said:
I don't know that anyone has shown that the parameters can be different...
Click to expand...

A bit like asking why Pi isn't exactly 3? Or even a clean 22/7?

Pianoro said:
I voted yes. There are a number of possible explanations for why our universe seems “fine-tuned”. The parameters in question might not actually be independent, many universes with a variety of parameters might exist, or there might be no specific reason at all (i.e. coincidence). Trying to find out which of these (or other) explanations is correct seems like a very productive line of inquiry to me.
For the people who voted no, do you think that we no longer should look into this “problem”? Change some of our priorities for research? What would the practical consequences be for science if we would consider “fine-tuning” less of a problem?
Click to expand...

I don't see it as a problem so much as an interesting line of inquiry. So, I agree with the highlighted portion of your post, but mainly because I think we will always be better of understanding more about our universe, not because I think we are at an existential stalemate until we can answer this problem to the satisfaction of those looking for a tinkerer.
 
Fudbucker said:
We've had a bit of a heated discussion in the R&P section about whether fine-tuning is a problem in cosmology. So I thought I would take a poll.

This is the best summary of the fine-tuning problem that I could find:

"Embedded within the laws of physics are roughly 30 numbers—including the masses of the elementary particles and the strengths of the fundamental forces—that must be specified to describe the universe as we know it. Why do these numbers take the values that they do? We have not been able to derive them from any other laws of physics. Yet, it’s plausible that changing just a few of these parameters would have resulted in a starkly different universe: one without stars or galaxies and even without a diversity of stable atoms to combine into the fantastically complex molecules that compose our bodies and our world. Put another way, if these fundamental parameters had been different from the time of the Big Bang onward, our universe would be a far less complex universe. This is called the “fine tuning observation.” The fine-tuning problem is to find out why this is."
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics/2012/12/scientific-approaches-to-the-fine-tuning-problem/

Is Lee Smolin right? Is the observation of "fine tuning" a problem that needs to be solved?

I think it is, there are plenty of experts who agree, and I think it's a big driver in the popularity of inflation theory (a multiverse solves the fine-tuning problem quite elegantly), but I submit the question to you guys:

Fine-tuning, a problem or not?
Click to expand...


this is silly for a number of reasons:

-say that a value needs to be fine tuned between .01 and .02 , how many possible values can exist between those two numbers?

This is old but a very good read and discusses the actual foolishness of the FTA:

Victor J. Stenger

http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Cosmo/FineTune.pdf
 
MRC_Hans said:
Obviously. Otherwise, it's not a 'problem'. Without using it as an argument for creation, it is just 'interesting'.

Hans
Click to expand...

Ok. I just don't see anything wrong with the word "problem" since that's what physicists and mathematicians are usually calling it.
 
pianoro said:
For the people who voted no, do you think that we no longer should look into this “problem”? Change some of our priorities for research? What would the practical consequences be for science if we would consider “fine-tuning” less of a problem?
Click to expand...

We should do all kinds of relevant research to understand the universe better, but fine-tuning is not a problem. Even if we should find out that there is a one to a gazillion chance of the universe being as it is, ... well, this is how it happens to be.

Hans
 
Dancing David said:
snip

This is old but a very good read and discusses the actual foolishness of the FTA:

Victor J. Stenger

colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Cosmo/FineTune.pdf
Click to expand...

(had to remove most of the URL due to not having enough posts for linking)

I just read it. Thank you for that. It was particularly interesting to me as it sites Hugh Ross, a source that I used to look up to, and until recently, would have used to counter materialistic science.

I am about halfway through reading "The God Delusion" by Dawkins. In fact, just got done with the chapter relating to FTA. So this thread is very apropos to me.

I voted 'no', just FYI.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom