Fine Tuning of the UniverseFine Tuned UniverseRelationship between hierarchy problem and higgs fine tuning?Definition of Fine-TuningEarliest example of naturalness/fine-tuning argumentsMultiverse explanation of fine tuning of cosmic constantsCan dimensional regularization solve the fine-tuning problem?Are the fundamental constants of nature independent?Does the Peccei-Quinn (PQ) mechanism require fine-tuning?Why does the flatness problem (of the universe) present a fine tuning problem?Bare Cosmological Constant and Fine-Tuning Problem

How to Reset Passwords on Multiple Websites Easily?

Hostile work environment after whistle-blowing on coworker and our boss. What do I do?

Opposite of a diet

What is paid subscription needed for in Mortal Kombat 11?

How did Arya survive the stabbing?

You cannot touch me, but I can touch you, who am I?

Integer addition + constant, is it a group?

Applicability of Single Responsibility Principle

Is there a problem with hiding "forgot password" until it's needed?

Why not increase contact surface when reentering the atmosphere?

Do all network devices need to make routing decisions, regardless of communication across networks or within a network?

Balance Issues for a Custom Sorcerer Variant

How to pronounce the slash sign

Large drywall patch supports

What happens if you roll doubles 3 times then land on "Go to jail?"

How does it work when somebody invests in my business?

How easy is it to start Magic from scratch?

Is there a good way to store credentials outside of a password manager?

What does "I’d sit this one out, Cap," imply or mean in the context?

How do I extract a value from a time formatted value in excel?

How to safely derail a train during transit?

Was Spock the First Vulcan in Starfleet?

How does the UK government determine the size of a mandate?

A particular customize with green line and letters for subfloat



Fine Tuning of the Universe


Fine Tuned UniverseRelationship between hierarchy problem and higgs fine tuning?Definition of Fine-TuningEarliest example of naturalness/fine-tuning argumentsMultiverse explanation of fine tuning of cosmic constantsCan dimensional regularization solve the fine-tuning problem?Are the fundamental constants of nature independent?Does the Peccei-Quinn (PQ) mechanism require fine-tuning?Why does the flatness problem (of the universe) present a fine tuning problem?Bare Cosmological Constant and Fine-Tuning Problem













4












$begingroup$


I'm an A level student looking into the fine tuning of various constants.
Physicists explain the extensive effects that would happen if these constants were to be changed/different and hence, how this affects the probability of life existing. What I fail to understand is why, if these constants were to be different, life wouldn't adapt to these changes. If gravity was stronger, then wouldn't the general muscle mass/stability of life be greater through evolution in order to withstand a greater force? Or am I looking at it from the wrong perspective? Some clarification on this would be appreciated.










share|cite|improve this question







New contributor




Samuel Hunter is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    It's more fundamental than that: if certain constants were different, it could prevent stars and planets from forming, much less allow liquid water to exist, and then allow for organic chemistry as we know it.
    $endgroup$
    – Dmitry Brant
    3 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Some related references are cited in the introduction of "Preliminary Inconclusive Hint of Evidence Against Optimal Fine Tuning of the Cosmological Constant for Maximizing the Fraction of Baryons Becoming Life" (arxiv.org/abs/1101.2444)
    $endgroup$
    – Chiral Anomaly
    31 mins ago















4












$begingroup$


I'm an A level student looking into the fine tuning of various constants.
Physicists explain the extensive effects that would happen if these constants were to be changed/different and hence, how this affects the probability of life existing. What I fail to understand is why, if these constants were to be different, life wouldn't adapt to these changes. If gravity was stronger, then wouldn't the general muscle mass/stability of life be greater through evolution in order to withstand a greater force? Or am I looking at it from the wrong perspective? Some clarification on this would be appreciated.










share|cite|improve this question







New contributor




Samuel Hunter is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    It's more fundamental than that: if certain constants were different, it could prevent stars and planets from forming, much less allow liquid water to exist, and then allow for organic chemistry as we know it.
    $endgroup$
    – Dmitry Brant
    3 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Some related references are cited in the introduction of "Preliminary Inconclusive Hint of Evidence Against Optimal Fine Tuning of the Cosmological Constant for Maximizing the Fraction of Baryons Becoming Life" (arxiv.org/abs/1101.2444)
    $endgroup$
    – Chiral Anomaly
    31 mins ago













4












4








4





$begingroup$


I'm an A level student looking into the fine tuning of various constants.
Physicists explain the extensive effects that would happen if these constants were to be changed/different and hence, how this affects the probability of life existing. What I fail to understand is why, if these constants were to be different, life wouldn't adapt to these changes. If gravity was stronger, then wouldn't the general muscle mass/stability of life be greater through evolution in order to withstand a greater force? Or am I looking at it from the wrong perspective? Some clarification on this would be appreciated.










share|cite|improve this question







New contributor




Samuel Hunter is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$




I'm an A level student looking into the fine tuning of various constants.
Physicists explain the extensive effects that would happen if these constants were to be changed/different and hence, how this affects the probability of life existing. What I fail to understand is why, if these constants were to be different, life wouldn't adapt to these changes. If gravity was stronger, then wouldn't the general muscle mass/stability of life be greater through evolution in order to withstand a greater force? Or am I looking at it from the wrong perspective? Some clarification on this would be appreciated.







physical-constants time-evolution cosmological-constant fine-tuning






share|cite|improve this question







New contributor




Samuel Hunter is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|cite|improve this question







New contributor




Samuel Hunter is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question






New contributor




Samuel Hunter is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked 4 hours ago









Samuel HunterSamuel Hunter

212




212




New contributor




Samuel Hunter is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





Samuel Hunter is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






Samuel Hunter is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    It's more fundamental than that: if certain constants were different, it could prevent stars and planets from forming, much less allow liquid water to exist, and then allow for organic chemistry as we know it.
    $endgroup$
    – Dmitry Brant
    3 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Some related references are cited in the introduction of "Preliminary Inconclusive Hint of Evidence Against Optimal Fine Tuning of the Cosmological Constant for Maximizing the Fraction of Baryons Becoming Life" (arxiv.org/abs/1101.2444)
    $endgroup$
    – Chiral Anomaly
    31 mins ago












  • 1




    $begingroup$
    It's more fundamental than that: if certain constants were different, it could prevent stars and planets from forming, much less allow liquid water to exist, and then allow for organic chemistry as we know it.
    $endgroup$
    – Dmitry Brant
    3 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Some related references are cited in the introduction of "Preliminary Inconclusive Hint of Evidence Against Optimal Fine Tuning of the Cosmological Constant for Maximizing the Fraction of Baryons Becoming Life" (arxiv.org/abs/1101.2444)
    $endgroup$
    – Chiral Anomaly
    31 mins ago







1




1




$begingroup$
It's more fundamental than that: if certain constants were different, it could prevent stars and planets from forming, much less allow liquid water to exist, and then allow for organic chemistry as we know it.
$endgroup$
– Dmitry Brant
3 hours ago




$begingroup$
It's more fundamental than that: if certain constants were different, it could prevent stars and planets from forming, much less allow liquid water to exist, and then allow for organic chemistry as we know it.
$endgroup$
– Dmitry Brant
3 hours ago












$begingroup$
Some related references are cited in the introduction of "Preliminary Inconclusive Hint of Evidence Against Optimal Fine Tuning of the Cosmological Constant for Maximizing the Fraction of Baryons Becoming Life" (arxiv.org/abs/1101.2444)
$endgroup$
– Chiral Anomaly
31 mins ago




$begingroup$
Some related references are cited in the introduction of "Preliminary Inconclusive Hint of Evidence Against Optimal Fine Tuning of the Cosmological Constant for Maximizing the Fraction of Baryons Becoming Life" (arxiv.org/abs/1101.2444)
$endgroup$
– Chiral Anomaly
31 mins ago










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















4












$begingroup$

The variation you are talking about here would still be considered relatively 'fine-tuned', in the following sense:



If the strength of gravity was stronger by such an amount such that the processes that govern the formation of stars, planets, complex molecules, and life were relatively unchanged (in that they still take place in a recognizable fashion), then the strength of gravity must be quite similar to what we observe. If this were the case, yes, there is no reason that life might not develop to be a bit tougher.



However, such a difference would have to be very small indeed. Arguments about fine-tuning are based on the observation that even relatively small changes to certain constants would be enough to drastically change the make-up of the universe.



For example, Paul Davies notes that if the strong force were 2% stronger than it is, hydrogen would fuse to form diprotons as opposed to helium as it would be energetically favorable. This would drastically alter structure formation in the early universe, leading to a today where planets do not even exist, let alone weak or strong animals on them. I should note here that the 2% figure quoted by Davies may not be accurate, but this is the idea at play here.



In short, the problems from fine-tuning start to occur far before life would ever develop in the first place.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    also look at the triple $alpha$ process (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple-alpha_process) which appears terribly fine tuned, and is the only way to make lots of carbon and oxygen, which are life's favorite elements.
    $endgroup$
    – JEB
    2 hours ago










Your Answer





StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
);
);
, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "151"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);






Samuel Hunter is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f469025%2ffine-tuning-of-the-universe%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









4












$begingroup$

The variation you are talking about here would still be considered relatively 'fine-tuned', in the following sense:



If the strength of gravity was stronger by such an amount such that the processes that govern the formation of stars, planets, complex molecules, and life were relatively unchanged (in that they still take place in a recognizable fashion), then the strength of gravity must be quite similar to what we observe. If this were the case, yes, there is no reason that life might not develop to be a bit tougher.



However, such a difference would have to be very small indeed. Arguments about fine-tuning are based on the observation that even relatively small changes to certain constants would be enough to drastically change the make-up of the universe.



For example, Paul Davies notes that if the strong force were 2% stronger than it is, hydrogen would fuse to form diprotons as opposed to helium as it would be energetically favorable. This would drastically alter structure formation in the early universe, leading to a today where planets do not even exist, let alone weak or strong animals on them. I should note here that the 2% figure quoted by Davies may not be accurate, but this is the idea at play here.



In short, the problems from fine-tuning start to occur far before life would ever develop in the first place.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    also look at the triple $alpha$ process (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple-alpha_process) which appears terribly fine tuned, and is the only way to make lots of carbon and oxygen, which are life's favorite elements.
    $endgroup$
    – JEB
    2 hours ago















4












$begingroup$

The variation you are talking about here would still be considered relatively 'fine-tuned', in the following sense:



If the strength of gravity was stronger by such an amount such that the processes that govern the formation of stars, planets, complex molecules, and life were relatively unchanged (in that they still take place in a recognizable fashion), then the strength of gravity must be quite similar to what we observe. If this were the case, yes, there is no reason that life might not develop to be a bit tougher.



However, such a difference would have to be very small indeed. Arguments about fine-tuning are based on the observation that even relatively small changes to certain constants would be enough to drastically change the make-up of the universe.



For example, Paul Davies notes that if the strong force were 2% stronger than it is, hydrogen would fuse to form diprotons as opposed to helium as it would be energetically favorable. This would drastically alter structure formation in the early universe, leading to a today where planets do not even exist, let alone weak or strong animals on them. I should note here that the 2% figure quoted by Davies may not be accurate, but this is the idea at play here.



In short, the problems from fine-tuning start to occur far before life would ever develop in the first place.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    also look at the triple $alpha$ process (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple-alpha_process) which appears terribly fine tuned, and is the only way to make lots of carbon and oxygen, which are life's favorite elements.
    $endgroup$
    – JEB
    2 hours ago













4












4








4





$begingroup$

The variation you are talking about here would still be considered relatively 'fine-tuned', in the following sense:



If the strength of gravity was stronger by such an amount such that the processes that govern the formation of stars, planets, complex molecules, and life were relatively unchanged (in that they still take place in a recognizable fashion), then the strength of gravity must be quite similar to what we observe. If this were the case, yes, there is no reason that life might not develop to be a bit tougher.



However, such a difference would have to be very small indeed. Arguments about fine-tuning are based on the observation that even relatively small changes to certain constants would be enough to drastically change the make-up of the universe.



For example, Paul Davies notes that if the strong force were 2% stronger than it is, hydrogen would fuse to form diprotons as opposed to helium as it would be energetically favorable. This would drastically alter structure formation in the early universe, leading to a today where planets do not even exist, let alone weak or strong animals on them. I should note here that the 2% figure quoted by Davies may not be accurate, but this is the idea at play here.



In short, the problems from fine-tuning start to occur far before life would ever develop in the first place.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$



The variation you are talking about here would still be considered relatively 'fine-tuned', in the following sense:



If the strength of gravity was stronger by such an amount such that the processes that govern the formation of stars, planets, complex molecules, and life were relatively unchanged (in that they still take place in a recognizable fashion), then the strength of gravity must be quite similar to what we observe. If this were the case, yes, there is no reason that life might not develop to be a bit tougher.



However, such a difference would have to be very small indeed. Arguments about fine-tuning are based on the observation that even relatively small changes to certain constants would be enough to drastically change the make-up of the universe.



For example, Paul Davies notes that if the strong force were 2% stronger than it is, hydrogen would fuse to form diprotons as opposed to helium as it would be energetically favorable. This would drastically alter structure formation in the early universe, leading to a today where planets do not even exist, let alone weak or strong animals on them. I should note here that the 2% figure quoted by Davies may not be accurate, but this is the idea at play here.



In short, the problems from fine-tuning start to occur far before life would ever develop in the first place.







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited 3 hours ago

























answered 3 hours ago









gabegabe

12711




12711











  • $begingroup$
    also look at the triple $alpha$ process (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple-alpha_process) which appears terribly fine tuned, and is the only way to make lots of carbon and oxygen, which are life's favorite elements.
    $endgroup$
    – JEB
    2 hours ago
















  • $begingroup$
    also look at the triple $alpha$ process (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple-alpha_process) which appears terribly fine tuned, and is the only way to make lots of carbon and oxygen, which are life's favorite elements.
    $endgroup$
    – JEB
    2 hours ago















$begingroup$
also look at the triple $alpha$ process (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple-alpha_process) which appears terribly fine tuned, and is the only way to make lots of carbon and oxygen, which are life's favorite elements.
$endgroup$
– JEB
2 hours ago




$begingroup$
also look at the triple $alpha$ process (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple-alpha_process) which appears terribly fine tuned, and is the only way to make lots of carbon and oxygen, which are life's favorite elements.
$endgroup$
– JEB
2 hours ago










Samuel Hunter is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









draft saved

draft discarded


















Samuel Hunter is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












Samuel Hunter is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.











Samuel Hunter is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.














Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid


  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f469025%2ffine-tuning-of-the-universe%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

ValueError: Error when checking input: expected conv2d_13_input to have shape (3, 150, 150) but got array with shape (150, 150, 3)2019 Community Moderator ElectionError when checking : expected dense_1_input to have shape (None, 5) but got array with shape (200, 1)Error 'Expected 2D array, got 1D array instead:'ValueError: Error when checking input: expected lstm_41_input to have 3 dimensions, but got array with shape (40000,100)ValueError: Error when checking target: expected dense_1 to have shape (7,) but got array with shape (1,)ValueError: Error when checking target: expected dense_2 to have shape (1,) but got array with shape (0,)Keras exception: ValueError: Error when checking input: expected conv2d_1_input to have shape (150, 150, 3) but got array with shape (256, 256, 3)Steps taking too long to completewhen checking input: expected dense_1_input to have shape (13328,) but got array with shape (317,)ValueError: Error when checking target: expected dense_3 to have shape (None, 1) but got array with shape (7715, 40000)Keras exception: Error when checking input: expected dense_input to have shape (2,) but got array with shape (1,)

Ружовы пелікан Змест Знешні выгляд | Пашырэнне | Асаблівасці біялогіі | Літаратура | НавігацыяДагледжаная версіяправерана1 зменаДагледжаная версіяправерана1 змена/ 22697590 Сістэматыкана ВіківідахВыявына Вікісховішчы174693363011049382

Illegal assignment from SObject to ContactFetching String, Id from Map - Illegal Assignment Id to Field / ObjectError: Compile Error: Illegal assignment from String to BooleanError: List has no rows for assignment to SObjectError on Test Class - System.QueryException: List has no rows for assignment to SObjectRemote action problemDML requires SObject or SObject list type error“Illegal assignment from List to List”Test Class Fail: Batch Class: System.QueryException: List has no rows for assignment to SObjectMapping to a user'List has no rows for assignment to SObject' Mystery