Today, I came a across this video.
The creator of this video talks of certain "constants," (such as gravitational pull) and how they seem to be "fine-tuned" (E.g. if constant X were just a hair off, life in our universe would not be possible). For one, I think (mind you, I have studied physics but am in no way a physicist) that if there was such a universe in which one of these constants were "a hair" off, that universe would be vastly different from ours...something we couldn't even imagine because we are so used to, well, this one. The video provides evidence for these constants but does not (and probably could not) provide evidence for the complete non-sustainability of life given a situation in which a constant was not the way it is in this universe.
Additionally, the video makes a point that if the gravitational pull constant were just a hair off, our universe would either a. expand too quickly or b. collapse back on itself--and this type of universe could not support any type of life. But how is "too quickly" defined? Compared to the age of our universe, we are but a tiny blip on the timeline.
You are right; there is not enough information in this video(or the website to which it refers) to make any kind of reasoned judgement as to the veracity of its claims. This is another example of someone making "handy" info-graphics without bothering to actually cite sources.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, the basic argument exists and is one that has been debated in the scientific community for decades.
In terms of exactly how fine-tuned gravity is:
"Calculations by Brandon Carter show that if gravity had been stronger or weaker by 1 part in 10 to the 40th power, then life-sustaining stars like the sun could not exist. This would most likely make life impossible. (Davies, 1984, p. 242.)"
For a synopsis of the fine-tuning argument please reference: http://www.discovery.org/a/91
Thank you!
DeleteThank you!
Delete