> Greetings Randy:
>
> "To me the 'specialness' of the universe is based on the seemingly fine-tuned physical constants that make my life possible here(although
the fact of this fine-tuning may not be as evident as I previously thought). This specialness is independent of my belief in it."
>
> Not really. The only reason why you believe fine-tuning is special is because you define it as such. For an anthropicist, this
"fine-tuning" is simply one of many characteristics of our universe, no more or less special than any other.
I probably should state that last point differently. To me the
"specialness" of the universe is based on the fact that it was created by
God to be my temporary home. This specialness exists whether I appreciate
it or not. I realize that this is not a scientific statement but it is the
thinking behind my statement and the meaning I had in mind for the word
"special".
>
> "Would it be more accurate to say that there 'may' be a difference?"
>
> No. Conceptually speaking, there is a definite difference between saying "no explanation will ever be found" and "no explanation has yet
been found".
I was reacting to the statement "the fine-tuned nature of the constants
is not unexplainable". It doesn't seem to me that we can make that
definite assertion at this point in time. Only future research will
determine whether or not science can provide an explanation for this
phenomenon.
>
> "Until this explanation is found there's no guarantee that it ever will be found is there?"
>
> This statement is based on the logical fallacy which says that because something has not been proven true, it must be false. Yes, I know
you do not say that such an explanation will never be found, but that is an underlying assumption of the ID theory, otherwise there would be
no need to suggest ID as an alternative to naturalistic mechanisms.
I'm sure the theistic beliefs of the IDers lead them to infer design
more quickly than other scientists(even other theistic scientists) might.
But it seems to me that since science has not yet explained the fine-tuned
nature of the universe's physical constants the field is open for
non-naturalistic explanations. If at some point in the future this
explanation is found then the ID argument should be withdrawn. But until
that happens it seems to me that excluding the ID explanation as at least
a possibility is arbitrary.
Kevin:Besides being a logical fallacy, the history of science also
demonstrates that science has not failed to find explanations for any natural phenomenon. So why should fine-tuning be any different?
I know that science can explain the orbits of the planets because of
gravity but can science explain why gravity attracts objects to each other
instead of repelling them? Is gravity an inherent property of matter or
does it arise from the interaction of other forces?(I'm asking because I
don't know, not to make a point) And is the human mind numbered among
these natural phenomena that science has explained?
>
> "This statement also seems to give the universe the power to change it's own physical constants, which would make them not very constant.
This doesn't quite resonate with me. Am I misunderstanding you here?"
>
> Yes, but it's natural. Much of cosmology is counter-intuitive. Once the universe formed its combination of constant values was set, but
during the Planck Era just instants after the Big Bang the laws of physics that would determine the values for these constants were still in
flux. It is during this time that the universe could have "changed it's own physical constants" without contradicting the fact these will
be constants by the time the universe is about two minutes old.
And this theory is of the "mathematical what-if" type you described
earlier?
>
> "Wow, that last statement certainly is counter-intuitive."
>
> Not really. If there is enough matter to cause the universe to collapse in on itself to become an object less than 10^-33 cm in diameter,
the four fundamental forces - including gravity - will merge into a single force. Also at that scale the universe will become an energetic,
writhing "foam" just like that described for the baby universe theory. Finally, the temperature of the universe will exceed 10^32 degrees
Kelvin. Under those conditions the new "cosmological nucleus" would only last an instant before it rebound under the pressure created by
the compressed energy and matter.
And this would also be a "mathematical what-if" type of theory?
>
> "This is even more counter-intuitive. Let me make sure I understand this. You are saying that science has observed the creation of matter."
>
> Yes and no. The creation of virtual particles does seem to violate the law of conservation of mass, but virtual particle creation is
governed by quantum mechanics, including the uncertainty principle. In a tiny system, over very short periods, energy and mass are so
uncertain that they may be many times greater or smaller than there values a moment before.
And I assume that there's some good reason to believe that the energy
and mass in the system are actually changing and the experimenter isn't
simply observing the inability of his equipment to function with the
needed precision.(These are probably very elementary questions I'm asking.
Can you recommend a good introductory text to quantum theory?)
It is these fluctuations that can cause virtual
particles to appear. Nearly always these particles disappear again before they can be detected, which is why they are called "virtual"
particles. However, the presence of these particles can influence the behavior of other more permanent particles, so we can indirectly
detect their presence.
>
> "That where before there was only nothingness a new particle has appeared out of nowhere (literally)."
>
> Very, very, very, very rarely, however, a virtual particle persists. At that point we can detect it, so yes. However, be very careful
how you define "nothingness". On a sub-quantum level, "nothingness" is far from nothing.
Maybe a "quantum glossary" would be good to go with that introductory
text. What would be the difference?
>
> "That this is not a case of the particle simply entering the experimenter's perception but of it actually arising from nothing. Is this
correct?"
>
> Yes. All of the virtual particles so far detected have been by instruments that monitor high-energy particle experiments. Since no
experiment can totally eliminate all foreign particles, the instruments detect them at the beginning of the experiment and mathematically
cancel them out as background noise. As such, if the "virtual" particle had in fact been there all along the instruments would have
detected it and eliminated it (mathematically) so it would never show up at the end of the experiment as a new particle. If, however, the
particle had not been their at the start of the experiment, but is there at the end of the experiment, the instruments will detect it and
register it as a new particle.
I guess this answers my question above. So how small are these
particles? And how much noise do they create?
>
> "Then you say that the 'nothingness before the Big Bang MIGHT have been energetic enough...'. Does the 'might' mean that present research
is inconclusive or that no research is possible on this question at the present time?"
>
> Both. The current models that predict baby universes are not detailed enough yet to say if the nothingness before the Big Bang was
energetic enough to create universes and currently we cannot make the models more detailed.
I don't understand how you would measure the energy of "nothingness" but
that probably goes back to the difference between "nothingness" and
"nothing".
>
> "And what is meant by the term 'virtual' universe. It seems to me that a universe either has to exist or not exist with no partial state
in between."
>
> A universe that appears and disappears so fast that a hypothetical (non-divine) observer cannot directly detect it is be definition a
virtual universe. Once again it's all tied into quantum mechanical principles, where one can have intermediate states where something is
neither one thing entirely or another (or to state it more correctly, it is all possibilities all at once).
Okay. I'll file that in my quantum glossary.
>
> "To extrapolate this idea, is it believed possible for a full-fledged universe to simply come into being from nothingness?"
>
> That's not an extrapolation; that is exactly what the baby universe theory claims. Again, however, be very careful how you define
"nothingness".
So then, a new universe could appear in our universe?(destroying ours as
it expanded I suppose)
Randy Bronson