Posted on 07/26/2023 9:02:24 PM PDT by lasereye
The job of physicists is to worry about numbers, but one number has perplexed physicists for more than a century. That number is 0.00729735256—approximately 1/137. This is the fine-structure constant. It appears everywhere in the equations of quantum physics.
The fine-structure constant, designated by the Greek letter alpha (α), is one of the many constants of nature that power our laws of physics, like the speed of light, the gravitational constant, or Planck’s constant. These constants can have different values depending upon which system of units are used to express them. For instance, the speed of light in vacuum is 186,000 miles per second, but it is also 300,000 kilometers per second. However, α is a pure number, without any units.
Something bizarre and compelling about this number has led many of the founders of quantum mechanics to be obsessed with it. Paul Dirac, a theoretical physicist who is considered one of the founders of quantum mechanics and quantum electrodynamics, called it “the most fundamental unsolved problem in physics.”1 Even Richard Feynman, a 1965 Nobel Prize winner in physics for his contributions to the development of quantum electronics, pondered its mysteries his entire life. He remarked that “all good theoretical physicists put this number up on their wall and worry about it.”2 What is it about this one number that makes it the worthy subject of the close attention of savants?
Additionally, the fine-structure constant sets the “strength” of the electromagnetic force.3 The greater the chance of interaction between the electron and electromagnetic fields, the more of an electromagnetic disturbance each electron will make. This is why the fine-structure constant appears in formulas that depend on electromagnetic force. The major question, however, remains: Why does α take on the value that it does, and why does this specific combination of other fundamental constants come out to be exactly α?
The fine-structure constant sets the size of atoms. A larger value means that electrons would be closer to nuclei, making them more tightly bound and less able to participate in chemical bonds. A smaller value would mean that electrons were less tightly bound, making atoms and molecules less stable. Its precise value could not be more important.
Physicists do not know why our universe ended up with this particular value for the fine-structure constant, or many of the other fundamental constants, for that matter. Many conventional physicists believe that these constants were set more or less randomly at the beginning of the universe. However, it would be surprising if they landed on just the right values to allow for the formation of life. Though a professing atheist, Richard Feynman poetically mused that “you might say the ‘hand of God’ wrote that number, and ‘we don’t know how He pushed His pencil.’”4
Because there is still so much unknown about this constant, physicists have merely hit the wavetops in the analysis of the fine-structure constant. However, given the uniqueness and complexity of this constant, it’s logical to conclude that our physical existence resulted from extraordinary design rather than chance or evolutionary causes. As science advances and untangles the mysteries of our universe, scientists continue to discover how incredibly complex yet tailored our universe is.
As Psalm 147:5 declares, “Great is our Lord, and mighty in power; His understanding is infinite.”
First of all: I reject your argument that proof that this is the only universe would make that particular pro-Creationist argument more "credible" - let alone "virtually irrefutable." You have provided absolutely no reasons for jumping to this conclusion (namely: "This is the ONLY universe / no others exist" => Intelligent Creator).
You and I have ALREADY agreed that WAP does NOT address the "likelihood" of "fine-tuning." But in this latest argument of yours, you are now sneaking in the concept of "likelihood" through the "back door." Specifically: You are essentially positing a "likelihood" of 1 (our ONLY universe) divided by ZERO (the now-alleged total no. of all possible universes). As you know, dividing by ZERO is meaningless.
An even only cursory semantic examination of your statement reveals that you are rapidly approaching a point at which nonsensical suppositions and self-contradictory propositions must be entertained, if this particular pro-Creationist argument ("fine-tuned universe" => Intelligent Creator) is to be maintained.
Proving that this is the "only universe" = disproving the existence of "other" universes (even hypothetical ones?!). This might be compared with proving that "1" is "1," and not some other number. The very word "universe" contains within itself the presumption that it includes EVERYTHING. In my previous comment (#19), I even addressed this issue by including the proviso:
*I am not claiming that actual "multiverses" necessarily exist. WAP certainly doesn't address the existence of any other universes or demand that they must exist. One could instead speak of "hypothetical" [emphasis added] universes, if you wish.
Regards,
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.