Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Fine-tuning of the constants AND equations of Nature?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

The Schrodinger partial differential equation of quantum mechanics is the heart of atomic physics. This elegant PDE governs the behavior of all particles under the fundamental forces, but, unlike other PDEs, it cannot be derived from simpler principles. Like time, space, matter and energy, it “just is”. To quote from one of my PDE books, “Schrodinger’s equation is most easily regarded as simply an axiom that leads to the correct physical conclusions, rather than as an equation that can be derived from simpler principles…In principle, elaborations of it explain the structure of all atoms and molecules and so all of chemistry.”

The Schrodinger equation contains a parameter, h, called Planck’s constant, which is one of the many constants of Nature that is very “fine-tuned”: change it a little bit and you get a universe that cannot support any imaginable forms of life. Now I know enough mathematics and physics to be sure that most changes to this equation itself would result in a universe that could not have supported life; the properties of the elements in the periodic table certainly depend sensitively on the properties of this magnificent PDE. There may be some ways to modify it without disasterous results (I doubt it); but there is no doubt that the Schrodinger equation itself is very fine-tuned for life.

So I think to explain our existence without design, we not only have to imagine some cosmic random-number generator which churns out values for Planck’s constant and the other constants, but also a cosmic random-equation generator. Are we to assume that in all these other universes imagined by man to explain our existence, the behavior of particles is still governed by the Schrodinger equation, but the forces, masses and charges, and Planck’s constant have random values? Or perhaps the behavior of particles is governed by random types of PDEs in different universes, but there are still many universes in which Schrodinger’s equation holds, with random values for Planck’s constant? No doubt there were some universes which couldn’t produce life because the governing equation looked just like the Schrodinger equation, but with first derivatives in space where there should be second derivatives, or a second derivative in time where there should be a first derivative, or the complex number i was missing, or the mass was in the numerator, or the probability of finding a system in a given state was proportional to |u| rather than |u|^2??

Comments
Given that we are talking about fine-tuning, does the term “anthropic principle” mean different things to Darwinists and IDers? Should IDers avoid the term?jasondulle
November 17, 2008
November
11
Nov
17
17
2008
04:18 PM
4
04
18
PM
PDT
Granville, What I can't understand is why the multiverse 'theory' is given any credance at all. It is impossible to test since these other universes lie outside of our own. They are therefore unobservable and outside of materialistic science. Opponents of ID complain that ID is not science since they claim we are saying 'God done it.' Now here they theorize something that is untestable and they get away with calling it science and we entertain their arguments instead of summarily dismissing them. Whatz up with this?Peter
November 17, 2008
November
11
Nov
17
17
2008
07:29 AM
7
07
29
AM
PDT
This observation is an example of ID potentially fostering philosophy as well as something much better: wisdom. First, the equation just “is.” That is, it cannot be constructed. Now this has certain interesting implications for those who are familiar with the long story of philosophy; suffice it to say that the explanatory power of the equation is a mystery to man. It reflects the quality of resistance that is highly prized in philosophy and cannot be accounted for through positivism. Second, what keeps the constant constant? One could imagine such a constant coming into being—such tall tales are prevalent in modern science—but it is difficult to imagine how its being became constant. At what time did it stop becoming and why? And having obtained the status of a constant, why does it no longer change? Such a constant can be represented as a mean, a coming-together of opposing forces. New Thomases step forward to give the mean meaning—to invest it with method and meaningful terminology. If a mean exists and can be identified through Planck’s Constant, then the materialist notion that the universe is meaningless begins to lose its spell over the imagination. Some signs are not merely social constructs but may indeed have transcendent significance. New ways of understanding being present themselves. A new philosophy becomes possible based the principle of the constant as a mean—a new synthesis. The nothingness described in nihilism cannot function as a limit of this mean. The mean exists; it overturns nothingness with something. But what is this something? Philosophy has an opportunity to seek to describe this something vis-à-vis the mean. And since the mean is “good”—necessary to life—it also restores the good of happiness to philosophy. The dreary, tedious era of the will to power and postmodern play come to an end. More importantly, however, the explanatory power of the constant makes it possible to seek wisdom about the way. A story was told in the modern era in which being was a vagabond and man a clown who does not know his own clownishness. The observation of fine tuning in nature invests being with noble new robes. The scoffers are relegated to their rightful place, having been exposed through their own arrogance. The mean illuminates the value of life, the “light of men.” On this basis wisdom literature becomes possible again—as well as poetry and all art forms that reflect the longing for transcendence. The teacher comes full circle and finds wisdom in the simplest things. The vanity of the superman is exposed.allanius
November 17, 2008
November
11
Nov
17
17
2008
05:55 AM
5
05
55
AM
PDT
I would argue that both a Creator and a Multiverse require inexplicable levels of complexity to pre-exist our Cosmos. Why one is preferable to another would seem to be a religious choice and not scientific one bit.qraal
November 16, 2008
November
11
Nov
16
16
2008
09:56 PM
9
09
56
PM
PDT
I know I may be beating a dead horse here, but once again this topic comes up. We don't know why our universe is as it is, or even why it exists at all. The conclusion that it must have been designed by a divine being - conscious, willful, intelligent, etc., with the power to make a universe - is what I argue against. Discussion of this is going on, slowly, on the multiverse thread (https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/sciences-alternative-to-an-intelligent-creator-the-multiverse-theory/) and on the thread about Beckwith (https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/frank-beckwith-finally-disowns-id/). If anyone wants to read the discussion there and chime in I'd be interested, but I won't clutter up this site by starting the discussion all over here.hazel
November 16, 2008
November
11
Nov
16
16
2008
02:13 PM
2
02
13
PM
PDT
I think the real question is why should there be any universes with balanced laws instead of a chaotic mass of teeming energy that never collates into anything interesting?Patrick
November 16, 2008
November
11
Nov
16
16
2008
01:56 PM
1
01
56
PM
PDT
There is something I've always wondered about concerning the multiverse thesis. Why would the random universe generator produce the same laws as ours but with different values and relationships, unless it was designed to do so? Why would it produce a version of gravity that follows something other than an inverse square law, rather than no gravity at all, or some other force we can't even imagine? If the random universe generator was not designed to produce variations on our laws, but just about anything that can be imagined or not even imagined, then we're talking about an even stronger infinity of universes that would be required to get things right. The prima facie evidence suggests that the universe was rigged. That should be the default conclusion until there is reasonable evidence to suggest otherwise.GilDodgen
November 16, 2008
November
11
Nov
16
16
2008
11:13 AM
11
11
13
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply