Thursday, May 15, 2008

The Anthropic Principle: Evidence from the Electromagnetic Force

Previous posts described the strong and weak nuclear forces that operate on the nucleus of an atom. But, in addition to the nucleus, an atom is comprised of tiny, negatively charged particles called electrons.

Electrons are very peculiar. In one sense, they behave like tiny particles with position and momentum, but at the same time, they have properties similar to an ocean wave. And, because they are so tiny and have virtually no mass, their exact location around the nucleus can not be precisely determined. The best we can do is calculate their probable locations.

So, it's more accurate to say that electrons surround the nucleus of an atom, much like a dense fog bank surrounds, say, a house.

Thus, an electron cloud, coined by one of my favorite physicists, Richard Feynman, represents the locations where electrons are most likely to be.

Now, here's an interesting question: what binds the electrons to the nucleus and prevents them from all flying off into space?

The answer is the electromagnetic force (EF). Not only does the EF bind the electrons to the nucleus to form atoms, but the EF also makes it possible for atoms to bond to other atoms to form molecules. In fact, the EF is responsible for all electrical and magnetic interactions in the Universe including light and color.

Now, here's the thing. If the EF were a little stronger, electrons would adhere to atoms so tightly that atoms would not share their electrons with each other preventing chemical bonding and the formation of live sustaining molecules (like water, hello!).

However, if the EF were a little weaker, electrons would not bind to the nucleus preventing the formation of atoms and life forming compounds like nucleic acids and proteins (yikes!).

Therefore, the EF must be finely and precisely tuned or the Cosmos as we know would not have formed, much less sustain life.

Together, with (1)gravity and the (2)strong and (3)weak forces, the EF make up the four fundamental forces from which all other forces in the Cosmos, ultimately, derive and provide powerful evidence for the existence of a Tuner. Their precise tuning is best explained not by randomness, but by an intentional Designer.

5 Comments:

At July 5, 2007 at 12:01 PM , Blogger Elliot Richmond said...

Roy, all of the anthropic principle arguments for the existence of an intelligent designer fail for the same reason: If the constants were a bit different, we would not be here asking the questions. The fact that we happen to live in a universe where life and intelligent life are possible is not proof that the universe was designed.

Anthropic principle arguments always seem like "begging the question" to me. They also seem like tautologies.

 
At July 5, 2007 at 8:12 PM , Blogger Roy Clemmons said...

They seemed that way to me until I realized the improbability of their precise values. I've only mentioned a few but, depending on how one counts them, if any ONE of as many as 122 physical constants were to vary even slightly, all of them would be mistuned preventing life from existing.

According to Astrophysicist Hugh Ross, the probablity of all these constants existing as they do by chaance is 10^138.

If that's not impressive, consider that the number of atoms in the entire Universe is something like 10^70.

Please keep in mind that I'm arguing for the most reasonable conclusion based on the avaialable data. One can find alternatives to most every argument, but, the real question is, what is the most reasonable one?

for example, and to respond to your assertion that design is not proof of a designer, consider the absurdity of modern day astronauts arguing that their space shuttle, another finely tuned machine, was the result of chance. They certainly could make a case for it, but, the most reasonable explanation for the existence of the space shuttle is that it was designed by a designer.

Thanks for your question.

 
At July 6, 2007 at 5:57 PM , Blogger Elliot Richmond said...

Hugh Ross needs to go back and study statistics. The probability of something happening that has already happened is exactly 1. Suppose I flip a coin 100 times and get heads every time. What is the probability of that happening? One! It just happened. Every saw it. Now, the probability that I will flip another 100 heads is a very small number, but that is not the case with our universe. It does not matter how extraordinarily unlikely it was before it happened, it's the one we got. So this universe is now a certainty and probability arguments are useless.

Yes, I agree, change one of the constants a small amount and we go away. So what. We are here.

A much more interesting question to me is, what are the ranges of possible values for the so-called dimensionless constants of our universe? Must they have the values they have, or are other values possible? That is an area of energetic theoretical research.

 
At July 6, 2007 at 8:07 PM , Blogger Roy Clemmons said...

What you say is certainly true, but what amazes me is that we are here in the first place.

In other the words, the fact that life and the Cosmos exists at all, when it seems so extremely unlikely, begs the question, "Why?"

Thanks for your comments.

 
At July 8, 2007 at 6:28 AM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oi, achei teu blog pelo google tá bem interessante gostei desse post. Quando der dá uma passada pelo meu blog, é sobre camisetas personalizadas, mostra passo a passo como criar uma camiseta personalizada bem maneira. Se você quiser linkar meu blog no seu eu ficaria agradecido, até mais e sucesso. (If you speak English can see the version in English of the Camiseta Personalizada. If he will be possible add my blog in your blogroll I thankful, bye friend).

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home