Cosmology - Revision history

David Persyn: branding

2011-07-26T20:59:01Z

branding

David Persyn: /* The high improbability of five other anthropic conditions (based on cosmological constants) */

2011-07-25T20:56:18Z

‎The high improbability of five other anthropic conditions (based on cosmological constants)

David Persyn: /* The high improbability of a pure chance occurrence of our low-entropy universe */ another exponent

2011-07-25T20:55:26Z

‎The high improbability of a pure chance occurrence of our low-entropy universe: another exponent

David Persyn: /* The high improbability of a pure chance occurrence of our low-entropy universe */ fix exponent

2011-07-25T20:54:09Z

‎The high improbability of a pure chance occurrence of our low-entropy universe: fix exponent

David Persyn at 01:38, 16 July 2011

2011-07-16T01:38:42Z

David Persyn: typos

2011-07-16T01:32:02Z

typos

David Persyn: copyright info changed

2011-07-12T20:57:42Z

David Persyn: formats and links

2011-07-12T18:19:14Z

formats and links

David Persyn: /* Footnotes */ paste omission

2011-07-12T18:15:08Z

‎Footnotes: paste omission

David Persyn: /* Footnotes */ Insert Category List

2011-07-12T18:14:08Z

‎Footnotes: Insert Category List

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:59, 26 July 2011
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	Magis ~~Online Encyclopedia of Reason and Faith - MOERF~~	+	The Magis God Wiki: Cosmology

	Is there Evidence of the Existence of God from Contemporary Physics?		Is there Evidence of the Existence of God from Contemporary Physics?

@@ Line 134: / Line 134: @@
 A cosmological constant is a number which controls the equations of physics, and the equations of physics, in turn, describe the laws of nature.  Therefore, these numbers control the laws of nature (and whether these laws of nature will be hospitable or hostile to any life form).  Some examples of constants are: the speed of light constant (c= 300,000 km per second),  Planck’s constant (ℏ = 6.6 x 10-34 joule seconds), the gravitational attraction constant (G = 6.67 x 10-11 ), the strong nuclear force constant (gs = 15), the weak force constant (gw = 1.43 x 10-62), the mass of the proton (mp = 1.67 x 10-27 kg), rest mass of an electron (me = 9.11 x 10-31 kg), and charge of an electron proton (e = 1.6 x 10-19 coulombs).  There are several other constants, but these pertain to the following anthropic coincidences (highly improbable conditions required for life).
-(i)	If the gravitational constant (G) or weak force constant (gw) varied from their values by an exceedingly small fraction (higher or lower) -- one part in 1050 (.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001) then either the universe would have suffered a catastrophic collapse or would have exploded throughout its expansion, both of which options would have prevented the emergence and development of any life form. This cannot be reasonably explained by pure chance.
+(i)	If the gravitational constant (G) or weak force constant (gw) varied from their values by an exceedingly small fraction (higher or lower) -- one part in 10^50 (.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001) then either the universe would have suffered a catastrophic collapse or would have exploded throughout its expansion, both of which options would have prevented the emergence and development of any life form. This cannot be reasonably explained by pure chance.
 (ii)	If the strong nuclear force constant were higher than its value (15) by only 2%, there would be no hydrogen in the universe (and therefore no nuclear fuel or water -- this would have prohibited life).  If, on the other hand, the strong nuclear force constant had been 2% lower than its value then no element heavier than hydrogen could have emerged in the universe (helium, carbon, etc).  This would have been equally detrimental to the development of life.  This “anthropic coincidence” also seems to lie beyond the boundaries of pure chance.

@@ Line 126: / Line 126: @@
 This number is so large, that if every zero were 10 point type, our solar system would not be able to hold it!  Currently, there is no natural explanation for the occurrence of this number, and if none is found, then we are left with the words of Roger Penrose himself:
-<blockquote>“In order to produce a universe resembling the one in which we live, the Creator would have to aim for an absurdly tiny volume of the phase space of possible universes—about 1/1010123of the entire volume, for the situation under consideration.” </blockquote>
+<blockquote>“In order to produce a universe resembling the one in which we live, the Creator would have to aim for an absurdly tiny volume of the phase space of possible universes—about 1/10^10^123 of the entire volume, for the situation under consideration.” </blockquote>
-−
 What Penrose is saying here is that this occurrence cannot be explained by a random (pure chance) occurrence.  Therefore, one will have to make recourse either to a multiverse (composed of bubble universes, each having different values of constants) or as Penrose implies, a Creator (with a super-intellect).

@@ Line 120: / Line 120: @@
 === The high improbability of a pure chance occurrence of our low-entropy universe ===
-A low-entropy universe is necessary for the emergence, development, and complexification of life forms (because a high entropy universe would be too run down to allow for such development).   Roger Penrose has calculated the exceedingly small probability of a pure chance occurrence of our low–entropy universe as 1010123to one.  How can we understand this number?  It is like a ten raised to an exponent of:
+A low-entropy universe is necessary for the emergence, development, and complexification of life forms (because a high entropy universe would be too run down to allow for such development).   Roger Penrose has calculated the exceedingly small probability of a pure chance occurrence of our low–entropy universe as 10^10^123 to one.  How can we understand this number?  It is like a ten raised to an exponent of:
 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000.
-This number is so large, that if every zero were 10 point type, our galaxy would not be able to hold it!  Currently, there is no natural explanation for the occurrence of this number, and if none is found, then we are left with the words of Roger Penrose himself:
+This number is so large, that if every zero were 10 point type, our solar system would not be able to hold it!  Currently, there is no natural explanation for the occurrence of this number, and if none is found, then we are left with the words of Roger Penrose himself:
 <blockquote>“In order to produce a universe resembling the one in which we live, the Creator would have to aim for an absurdly tiny volume of the phase space of possible universes—about 1/1010123of the entire volume, for the situation under consideration.” </blockquote>
 What Penrose is saying here is that this occurrence cannot be explained by a random (pure chance) occurrence.  Therefore, one will have to make recourse either to a multiverse (composed of bubble universes, each having different values of constants) or as Penrose implies, a Creator (with a super-intellect).
 === The high improbability of five other anthropic conditions (based on cosmological constants) ===

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 Is there Evidence of the Existence of God from Contemporary Physics?
-© Robert J. Spitzer, S.J./Magis Institute July 2011
+© Robert J. Spitzer, S.J. Ph.D./Magis Institute July 2011
 This will be an overview of a more complex treatment which may be found in my recent book New Proofs for the Existence of God:  Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy  (hereafter “NPEG”).  I have given a series of lectures on these matters in an on-line series called Physics and Metaphysics in Dialogue which can be accessed at our [http://www.physicsindialogue.org (hereafter “PID”) website] – see lectures #1-6.   It will be rather quick paced, and if some of you want a more thorough treatment you may want to refer to the book.  I will divide the topic into three parts:

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-MOERF – God Unit D
+Magis Online Encyclopedia of Reason and Faith - MOERF
 Is there Evidence of the Existence of God from Contemporary Physics?
 © Robert J. Spitzer, S.J./Magis Institute July 2011 – All rights reserved

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 © Robert J. Spitzer, S.J./Magis Institute July 2011 – All rights reserved
-This will be an overview of a more complex treatment which may be found in my recent book New Proofs for the Existence of God:  Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy  (hereafter “NPEG”).  I have given a series of lectures on these matters in an on-line series called Physics and Metaphysics in Dialogue which can be accessed through www.physicsindialogue.org (hereafter “PID”) – see lectures #1-6.   It will be rather quick paced, and if some of you want a more thorough treatment you may want to refer to the book.  I will divide the topic into three parts:
+This will be an overview of a more complex treatment which may be found in my recent book New Proofs for the Existence of God:  Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy  (hereafter “NPEG”).  I have given a series of lectures on these matters in an on-line series called Physics and Metaphysics in Dialogue which can be accessed at our [http://www.physicsindialogue.org (hereafter “PID”) website] – see lectures #1-6.   It will be rather quick paced, and if some of you want a more thorough treatment you may want to refer to the book.  I will divide the topic into three parts:
-I.	 Can Science Give Evidence of Creation and Supernatural Design?
+.  Can Science Give Evidence of Creation and Supernatural Design?
-II.	 What is the Evidence for a Beginning and what are the Implications for Creation?
+.  What is the Evidence for a Beginning and what are the Implications for Creation?
-III.	 What is the evidence of Supernatural Intelligence from Anthropic Fine-tuning?
+.  What is the evidence of Supernatural Intelligence from Anthropic Fine-tuning?
 == Can Science Give Evidence of a Creation and Supernatural Design? ==

@@ Line 168: / Line 168: @@
 <references/>
-!-- - Categories - -->
+<!-- - Categories - -->
 {{DEFAULTSORT:Cosmology}}

@@ Line 168: / Line 168: @@
 <references/>
-See Borde and Vilenkin 1994.
+!-- - Categories - -->
-Guth 1999 pg. 1.
+{{DEFAULTSORT:Cosmology}}
+[[Category:Cosmology]]
-Guth 1999 pg. 1.
+[[Category:Physics]]
+[[Category:Time]]