Universe expansion speed just right for life?

_{Denyse O'Leary

March 3, 2016

Fine tuning, News}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

As it turns out, our universe seems to get it just about right. The existing cosmological constant means the rate of expansion is large enough that it minimizes planets’ exposure to gamma ray bursts, but small enough to form lots of hydrogen-burning stars around which life can exist. (A faster expansion rate would make it hard for gas clouds to collapse into stars.)

Jimenez says the expansion of the universe played a bigger role in creating habitable worlds than he expected. “It was surprising to me that you do need the cosmological constant to clear out the region and make it more suburbanlike,” he says.

Beyond what they reveal about the potential for life in our galaxy and beyond, the findings offer a new nugget of insight into one of the biggest puzzles in cosmology: why the cosmological constant is what it is, says cosmologist Alan Heavens, director of the Imperial Centre for Inference and Cosmology at Imperial College London.

In theory, Heavens explains, either the constant should be hundreds of orders of magnitude higher than it appears to be, or it should be zero, in which case the universe wouldn’t accelerate. But this would disagree with what astronomers have observed. “The small—but nonzero—size of the cosmological constant is a real puzzle in cosmology,” he says, adding that the research shows the number is consistent with the conditions required for the existence of intelligent life that is capable of observing it.More.

Fancy that.

See also: Copernicus, you are not going to believe who is using your name. Or how.

and

What we know and don’t, know about the origin of life

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

#31 Mapou
I am wasting my time here. I said all I needed to say. See you around.
Hey, it's your call. But it seems to me that the closer we look at 'discrete' objects in the real world the fuzzier, less discrete they become. Is that not the basic idea behind string theory: that there no 'particles' but just small packets of probability distribution? Which when combined together you'd get larger, also 'fuzzy' objects I was really hoping for your explanation of the recent discovery. On your blog you state why you think gravitational waves don't exist but you don't proffer another explanation of the LIGO data. And I would like to have your definition of 'motion'. Oh well.ellazimm_{March 5, 2016
March
03
Mar
5
05
2016
11:12 PM
11
11
12
PM
PDT}

ellazimm @39, I am wasting my time here. I said all I needed to say. See you around.Mapou_{March 5, 2016
March
03
Mar
5
05
2016
10:05 PM
10
10
05
PM
PDT}

#29 Mapou
In fact, they believe and teach others to believe that abstract constructs (e.g. spacetime) exist physically. When this sort of things happens, it unleashes all sorts of monstrosities such as time travel, wormholes, black holes, accelerating expansion of the universe, dark matter, gravitational waves, etc. And it does not help that the abstract model is completely incompatible with reality right from the start.
Isn't space/time just a way of modelling the universe picking four particular axis, other choices being available? Just a way of relating some physical characteristics together? Time travel and wormholes are just 'fantasies' at this point. The rest seem to be fairly good explanations for observed phenomena and extensions of models that work pretty well. Just to pick a recent case: how would you explain the data recorded by LIGO if it wasn't gravitational waves?
Einstein’s spacetime is a case in point. It assumes that the universe is fully deterministic and continuous. And yet we know that the universe is both probabilistic and discrete. That the universe is discrete is obvious since continuity leads to an infinite regress by definition. Worse, the requirement for the existence of a time dimension makes motion impossible in spacetime. This is the reason that Karl Popper called spacetime “Einstein’s block universe in which nothing happens.” And it is not as if I’m making any of this stuff up. These unsolvable problems have been known for quite some time.
How can it be probabilistic and discrete? The probabilistic models are continuous are they not? And again, isn't the time dimension just part of model that chooses to treat one quantity as an axis? And relativity works very well as a model so far. I've never understood why you think the model makes motion impossible. Objects certainly change their space/time coordinates all the time. If that's not motion then perhaps you'd better define it.
Why we are still worshipping Einstein as the greatest physicist that ever lived is a mystery that is left to future historians and psychologists to unravel. Humanity seems to have a need to believe in lies handed down to them by authoritarian a-holes.
I'll not speculate on Einstein's 'greatness' but since relativity seems extremely well supported by data perhaps you'd like to give some evidence of where it falls down.ellazimm_{March 5, 2016
March
03
Mar
5
05
2016
08:50 PM
8
08
50
PM
PDT}

ellazimm:
Why do you think that a (mathematical) manifold might not be a good model of some aspects of space? Even if it is ‘fictitious’ like all models in some sense. Newton’s laws of motion work very well at a certain level but no one pretends (anymore) that they tell the whole story. Isn’t physics (and science in general) a search for more and more accurate models of reality?
There is nothing wrong with models. The problem is that physicists have a hard time distinguishing abstract concepts from concrete entities. In fact, they believe and teach others to believe that abstract constructs (e.g. spacetime) exist physically. When this sort of things happens, it unleashes all sorts of monstrosities such as time travel, wormholes, black holes, accelerating expansion of the universe, dark matter, gravitational waves, etc. And it does not help that the abstract model is completely incompatible with reality right from the start. Einstein's spacetime is a case in point. It assumes that the universe is fully deterministic and continuous. And yet we know that the universe is both probabilistic and discrete. That the universe is discrete is obvious since continuity leads to an infinite regress by definition. Worse, the requirement for the existence of a time dimension makes motion impossible in spacetime. This is the reason that Karl Popper called spacetime "Einstein's block universe in which nothing happens." And it is not as if I'm making any of this stuff up. These unsolvable problems have been known for quite some time. Why we are still worshipping Einstein as the greatest physicist that ever lived is a mystery that is left to future historians and psychologists to unravel. Humanity seems to have a need to believe in lies handed down to them by authoritarian a-holes. Modern physics rests on a mountain of crap. The latest addition to the stinking pile is called "gravitational waves".Mapou_{March 5, 2016
March
03
Mar
5
05
2016
06:00 PM
6
06
00
PM
PDT}

Cosmological Fine Tuning is an established and accepted Scientific Fact. Fine Tuning deniers are out there though. Expected really. Predictable. Just wait until Biological Fune Tuning becomes more apparent. Oh boy, deniers will be aplenty.ppolish_{March 5, 2016
March
03
Mar
5
05
2016
03:17 PM
3
03
17
PM
PDT}

#26 Mapou Why do you think that a (mathematical) manifold might not be a good model of some aspects of space? Even if it is 'fictitious' like all models in some sense. Newton's laws of motion work very well at a certain level but no one pretends (anymore) that they tell the whole story. Isn't physics (and science in general) a search for more and more accurate models of reality? For those not familiar with the concept: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifoldellazimm_{March 5, 2016
March
03
Mar
5
05
2016
02:47 PM
2
02
47
PM
PDT}

Look, man. A manifold, discrete or otherwise, is a figment of your imagination. It does not exist. In the physical universe, only particles, their properties and their interactions exists. Everything else is either abstract (fictitious) or just BS. You're a BS artist and, apparently, a moron. But then again, all physicists are BS artists.Mapou_{March 5, 2016
March
03
Mar
5
05
2016
09:16 AM
9
09
16
AM
PDT}

Further dumbed down for Mapou: A big ball rolling on small ground protrusions will not slow down, but a small ball which is smaller than the protrusions on ground will be hindered by those protrusions and will slow down. Gamma rays- because of small wavelength- are like the small ball. What is so difficult about it ?Me_Think_{March 5, 2016
March
03
Mar
5
05
2016
03:21 AM
3
03
21
AM
PDT}

You realize this is just gobbledygook, don’t you? How does anything interact with discreteness? Meaningless strings of words are not physics. Massless particles travel at c, period. Their wavelengths have nothing to do with their speed. You’re sounding like a crackpot. But then again, physics is full of those.
It is a simple concept. A discrete manifold will slow down the photon. Only Gamma rays can interact because it has a tiny wavelength. What is so difficult about it ? I am not even sure you understand a discrete manifold. I should have guessed it would be waste of time when you couldn't grasp even the simple relation between wavelength and energy.Me_Think_{March 5, 2016
March
03
Mar
5
05
2016
03:00 AM
3
03
00
AM
PDT}

Me_Think:
Only they can interact with posited discreteness of universe at scales near Planck scales.
You realize this is just gobbledygook, don't you? How does anything interact with discreteness? Meaningless strings of words are not physics. Massless particles travel at c, period. Their wavelengths have nothing to do with their speed. You're sounding like a crackpot. But then again, physics is full of those. See you around, dude. You're wasting my time.Mapou_{March 5, 2016
March
03
Mar
5
05
2016
02:03 AM
2
02
03
AM
PDT}

Mapou @ 21
You’re joking or what? Gamma rays are EM radiation that, like every other EM radiation, travel at c. The time of arrival of gamma ray bursts has absolutely nothing to do with their energy levels.
Sigh. Higher the energy, lower the wavelength E= hc/Lambda (h= Planck constant) Gamma rays have the highest energy of any EM and hence the lowest wavelength. Only they can interact with posited discreteness of universe at scales near Planck scales. If you take the GRB090510 Gamma ray burst, the energy was 31 GeV, which translates to 1.62x10^-7 nm. If the photons interact, they slow down, and the photons of different energies should arrive at different time. The difference between photons of higher and lower energy would be (in LaTeX) t=frac{x left(xi e_{text{obs}}right) int_0^Z (Z+1) , dZ}{H_0 M_{c^2 text{QG}}} This didn't happen - all energy photons arrived within milliseconds of each other, hence universe is not discrete.Me_Think_{March 5, 2016
March
03
Mar
5
05
2016
01:17 AM
1
01
17
AM
PDT}

Me_Think @19:
Fermi Gamma ray space telescope has detected many Gamma rays bursts. The gamma rays arrived within microseconds of each other, despite variable energy levels. As you probably know, if universe is discrete, the time of arrival of Gamma rays would be energy dependent (Lorentz Invariance Violation will occur) and there will be time difference ranging from minutes to hours depending on z value. Since there is no LIV, you can conclude that universe is not discrete even at Planck scale.
You're joking or what? Gamma rays are EM radiation that, like every other EM radiation, travel at c. The time of arrival of gamma ray bursts has absolutely nothing to do with their energy levels. In fact, if GR was correct, the recent alleged detection of gravitational waves by the LIGO fraudsters should have been accompanied by concurrent EM radiation, including gamma rays. None were detected.Mapou_{March 4, 2016
March
03
Mar
4
04
2016
10:03 PM
10
10
03
PM
PDT}

GaryGaulin: If you want to mock people, go somewhere else and mock them. “Fine tuning” is something even scientists take seriously. You should follow their example.
PaV please forgive my satire based wording in comment 11 for how I saw the "just right" hoopla. I very carefully look for what might possibly be like being awestruck by the way a puddle always exactly fits the shape of what it fills. You can say it's my way of testing the logic of these types of arguments. What I wrote makes sense in the given context, but in the real world is no surprise. I admit that it was fun to write that one. But it was not intended as an insult. It was more like something useful for "brainstorming" the given problem. In this case the "just right for life" was in the logic structure with "expansion speed" equating to a radius, such as that of our planet. I was primarily addressing what I read in the headlines. What I came up with has a way of agreeing that a zone type relationship is possible. It's just that once we understand all the rest going on it's no longer a surprise that things are the way they are.GaryGaulin_{March 4, 2016
March
03
Mar
4
04
2016
07:25 PM
7
07
25
PM
PDT}

Mapou @ 16
Who told you this lie? And why do you believe it?
Fermi Gamma ray space telescope has detected many Gamma rays bursts. The gamma rays arrived within microseconds of each other, despite variable energy levels. As you probably know, if universe is discrete, the time of arrival of Gamma rays would be energy dependent (Lorentz Invariance Violation will occur) and there will be time difference ranging from minutes to hours depending on z value. Since there is no LIV, you can conclude that universe is not discrete even at Planck scale.Me_Think_{March 4, 2016
March
03
Mar
4
04
2016
07:00 PM
7
07
00
PM
PDT}

GaryGaulin: If you want to mock people, go somewhere else and mock them. "Fine tuning" is something even scientists take seriously. You should follow their example.PaV_{March 4, 2016
March
03
Mar
4
04
2016
05:39 PM
5
05
39
PM
PDT}

Me_Think:
although the universe itself isn’t discrete
Who told you this lie? And why do you believe it?Mapou_{March 4, 2016
March
03
Mar
4
04
2016
08:53 AM
8
08
53
AM
PDT}

I have a question that I hope someone more knowledgable than myself can answer. The discussion here is about fine-tuning of the universe and that if any of a number of variables/constants (12 or >100 doesn't matter) were even slightly different then life (and the universe) as we know it would not be possible. I don't deny this, but how many of these variables/constants can be anything other than what they are? If they are invariable, then fine-tuning is a circular argument I know what people are going to say. "Variables, by definition, can vary." Which is normally true, but if we use the rate of expansion as an example. Given the total mass and energies involved, do we know that the expansion rate could be any different than what it is? And if the mass and energies are contingent on other physical constants that are not variable, then even the variables that are being talked about (e.g., rate of expansion) mat not be variables in the normal sense.Algorithm Eh_{March 4, 2016
March
03
Mar
4
04
2016
07:23 AM
7
07
23
AM
PDT}

MT:
It is a pity that powerful God had to wait 3.8 billion years to create life
StrawmanVirgil Cain_{March 4, 2016
March
03
Mar
4
04
2016
06:41 AM
6
06
41
AM
PDT}

MT:
The question is if fine tuning was the goal of creator, why not just create Earth?
How would that be possible? What could we explore?Virgil Cain_{March 4, 2016
March
03
Mar
4
04
2016
06:40 AM
6
06
40
AM
PDT}

ppolish @ 10
It’s a dozen or so Me_Think – that are considered “fine tuned” by most physicists… https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2cT4zZIHR3s It’s God and/or Multiverse. Chance is ruled out sorry
IIRC, Frank Tipler puts the fine tuned variables/constants at around 300! It is a pity that powerful God had to wait 3.8 billion years to create life even though all forces, deuterium, helium-3, helium-4, and lithium-7 were created within 20 minutes of universe's birth. The theological reason why someone who created our universe can't be the First cause is because
unconditional reality should be simple (without intrinsic and extrinsic boundaries) - Robert Spitzer in 'New Proofs for the Existence of God'
Since the 'conditional reality' of universe is discrete (Planck length - 1.62 x10^-35, Planck time: 5.39 x10^-44)- although the universe itself isn't discrete, the Unconditional reality has to necessarily restrict the power to produce such an universe- this creates an intrinsic boundry, so the 'cause' that created our universe can't be unconditional reality. IOW, our universe wasn't created by First cause.Me_Think_{March 4, 2016
March
03
Mar
4
04
2016
02:39 AM
2
02
39
AM
PDT}

Did anyone ever notice that the inhabitable zone for humans has been "fine tuned" to exactly match the shape of the planet's expanding and contracting continental land/air interface? We would otherwise not be able to survive here. Think about it, seriously. What are the chances of that on its own happening? Wow!GaryGaulin_{March 3, 2016
March
03
Mar
3
03
2016
11:34 PM
11
11
34
PM
PDT}

It's a dozen or so Me_Think - that are considered "fine tuned" by most physicists... https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2cT4zZIHR3s It's God and/or Multiverse. Chance is ruled out sorryppolish_{March 3, 2016
March
03
Mar
3
03
2016
08:33 PM
8
08
33
PM
PDT}

We should not put too much faith in claims of universal expansion coming from the physics community. The claims are based on a model of universe (spacetime) that forbids motion. Surprise! Why? Because, as Karl Popper and many others have observed, spacetime is a block universe in which nothing happens. Why? Because a time dimension forbids motion. As simple as that. This is the dirty little secret Einsteinian physics: it predicts nonsense like time travel while at the same time forbidding motion. Go figure. But it gets even worse, the same physics assumes that the universe is 100% deterministic (God does not play dice) and continuous, both of which are wrong on the face of it. And this is the theory from which they derived gravitational waves, one of the biggest scientific frauds in history. I predict it will come back to bite them in the asteroid. Sooner than they think. You've heard it here first. :-DMapou_{March 3, 2016
March
03
Mar
3
03
2016
08:07 PM
8
08
07
PM
PDT}

Me think Creator didn't create Earth alone because He knew I would be bored looking into black empty sky.Eugen_{March 3, 2016
March
03
Mar
3
03
2016
07:44 PM
7
07
44
PM
PDT}

ppolish @ 5
there ARE about a dozen or so fine tuned variables – but the cosmological constant is THE biggie. Or the smallie if you prefer:)
Various authors have shown that there are hundreds (not just a dozen) of 'fine tuned' variables. We can turn every variable in universe to be fine tuned for life. The question is if fine tuning was the goal of creator, why not just create Earth? What's the point of wasting time and effort to create the universe? Even if universe creation was just for fun, why create everything (space time, all 4 forces,deuterium, helium-3, helium-4, and lithium-7) in first 20 minutes and wait for millions of years to create life - if you believe universe is 13.82 billion years old ?Me_Think_{March 3, 2016
March
03
Mar
3
03
2016
07:31 PM
7
07
31
PM
PDT}

I have never found the fine tuning argument very convincing. It is certainly interesting in the study of physics but it is irrelevant in the evolution/ID debate.Algorithm Eh_{March 3, 2016
March
03
Mar
3
03
2016
07:29 PM
7
07
29
PM
PDT}

Me_Think, there ARE about a dozen or so fine tuned variables - but the cosmological constant is THE biggie. Or the smallie if you prefer:)ppolish_{March 3, 2016
March
03
Mar
3
03
2016
07:09 PM
7
07
09
PM
PDT}

Why not pick any of the millions of variables in universe and claim they are fine tuned for life ? Every variable can be shown to be unique in some way. It is like saying if my parents had not met at the right time, the whorls on my thumb would not have the precise curvature that they have - my identity would not be the same if they had met even a second later because the curvatures of whorls would have been different.Me_Think_{March 3, 2016
March
03
Mar
3
03
2016
07:03 PM
7
07
03
PM
PDT}

This is off topic, but should be a blockbuster topic. Please read the following posts: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2016/03/mob_with_pitchf102658.html http://www.evolutionnews.org/2016/03/censorship_in_r102659.html Search for “Creator” in the report referenced. I have made a Word copy should it disappear an untimely fashion.ayearningforpublius_{March 3, 2016
March
03
Mar
3
03
2016
05:47 PM
5
05
47
PM
PDT}

I'm just in awe when I TRY to comprehend the power and intelligence behind such fine tuning of the universe. I remember many years ago my colleague speculating that the acceleration of the expansion of the universe "...MUST BE FOR A REASON, because almost nothing in the universe doesn't happen for no reason." He sure was right about that one and I was wrong... again ;-)J-Mac_{March 3, 2016
March
03
Mar
3
03
2016
02:28 PM
2
02
28
PM
PDT}

1 2 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply