Today’s New Reason To Believe

by Jeff Zweerink

My recent venture into home construction convinced me of the importance of using the proper tools. While an electric breaker works great for busting up existing concrete, a tico nailer is the tool of choice for putting plywood on the roof and walls. Using the right tools helps make my new addition livable in the quickest possible time.

In a similar fashion, four essential tools govern the development of this universe, namely four forces called the electromagnetic force, the gravitational force, the strong nuclear force, and the weak nuclear force. Each tool functions most noticeably in different settings. As more familiar examples, gravity determines how objects in the heavens move, whereas the electromagnetic force governs how chemical reactions take place. Of the two remaining less familiar forces, the strong nuclear forceplays the dominant role in determining what elements exist in the universe. The big bang and the interior of stars provide locations for making these elements, but the strong nuclear force “decides” which elements are formed.

Researchers have discovered a great deal of fine-tuning regarding this last force. However, scientists have struggled to provide reliable calculations that demonstrate how the strong nuclear force arises from its basic constituents—quarks and gluons—the fundamental particles of matter. Recent work has begun to bolster this shortcoming.

People are made from atoms. Atoms are made of protons and neutrons, collectively known as nucleons. Nucleons are composed of quarks and gluons. The strong nuclear force arises from how quarks and gluons interact. However, determining the properties of nucleons from their constituent quarks and gluons presents unique challenges. For example, it takes only three quarks to specify many of a proton’s characteristics, but the mass of the proton exceeds the mass of these three quarks by at least a factor of sixty! Where does the remaining mass arise? It comes from fluctuations where quark-antiquark and gluon-antigluon pairs pop into and out of existence in the location of the proton.

While the quantum mechanical rules governing this process are well understood, scientists have not had the ability to calculate the masses of the proton and neutron based on the fluctuations. Using state-of-the-art hardware and software, a team of particle physicists have now performed such calculations. Their results match the experimentally measured values within 2 percent.

More important than calculating the mass, these results demonstrate the ability to model other properties of subatomic particles that present far more difficult challenges to measure experimentally. Thus, this advance provides scientists another tool to probe the highly fine-tuned strong nuclear interaction. RTB expects future advances to reveal even greater fine-tuning of the tools God used to prepare this universe for life.

Previously Posted on May 7th, 2008 by Jeff Zweerink

As scientists gain understanding of the universe of the details of the universe’s features, their knowledge bodes well for the biblically consistent class of big bang models. In early March, the WMAP science team released their latest results derived from five years of data. A few weeks ago, I discussed how WMAP continues to produce new scientific results and highlighted the discovery of an important neutrino component of the early universe.

Here are the best results from WMAP:

1. The age of the universe: t_o = 13.73 ± 0.12 billion years.
2. Dark energy density: Ω_Λ = 72.1 ± 1.5%
3. Dark matter density: Ω_dm = 23.3 ± 1.3%
4. Baryonic (or normal) matter density: Ω_b = 4.62 ± 0.15%
5. Curvature of the universe: -0.0175 < Ω_k < 0.0085
6. Hubble constant: H_o = 70.1 ± 1.3 km/s/Mpc
7. Spectral index of CMB fluctuations: n_s = 0.960 (+ 0.014, - 0.013)

This last feature (number 7) impacts cosmological models in two important ways. First, any model without an inflationary period in the early universe, would have required a value of n_s equal to one in order to produce the galaxies and clusters of galaxies seen by astronomers today. Thus, a measured value of n_s different from one confirms a generic prediction of all inflationary models. Second and more importantly, a value less than one begins to rule out large classes of inflationary models including Andre Linde’s chaotic inflation model.

An interesting analogy arises when looking at the history of cosmologies based on general relativity. When Einstein first proposed the theory of general relativity (GR), it generically predicted an expanding or contracting cosmos. Although Einstein developed a static cosmology based on GR, Edwin Hubble’s measurement of the expansion falsified this model and led to the development of big bang, steady-state, and oscillating cosmologies. Eventually, astronomical observations ruled out all but big bang models. Consequently, cosmologists developed many variations of big bang models.

I wanted to point out how scientific testing has verified those models consistent with the biblical description of the universe (the big bang models) and falsified those which were inconsistent (steady-state and oscillating models). Therefore, RTB’s creation model rests on firm scientific ground in regards to the formation and development of the universe.

Now, all viable big bang models included an inflationary epoch. Past and future observations will continue to test various inflationary descriptions of the universe. RTB expects these tests to falsify those versions of inflation which contradict the biblical description and confirm some of the versions which support the biblical description.

by Jeff Zweerink

Reasons To Believe has cataloged a large number of fine-tuned aspects of the universe, all of which make it fit for life. A recent article in New Scientist highlights one particular parameter, namely the ratio of dark matter to normal matter (electrons, protons, neutrons, etc.). Changes to this ratio affect the habitability of the universe by changing the amount of large-scale structures like clusters of galaxies.

A habitable galaxy must reside in a small cluster with an abundance of smaller dwarf galaxies. These small galaxies provide the fuel for star formation that leads to stars with a large enough metal concentration to support life. However, galaxies in large clusters experience collisions with other such structures. They also exhaust their star-forming fuel too rapidly. A greater fraction of dark matter compared to normal matter would inhibit the formation of any large-scale structures. A smaller fraction would tend to produce only large galaxy clusters. The Milky Way Galaxy lives in a just-right cluster.

Although the exact nature of dark matter remains elusive, scientists are confident that the processes that produced dark matter differ from those that produce normal matter. Consequently, there is no reason to expect that these different processes would generate a ratio of dark matter to normal matter conducive to life. Yet they did.

As research reveals the extent of fine-tuning that makes this universe habitable, the options for explaining that fine-tuning decrease. Traditionally, many philosophers and scientists have argued that any real cosmic fine-tuning derives from a Designer. However, some scientists argue that the design we see is only apparent. Such a claim requires an adequate explanation for the data.

The most popular rationalization relies on the existence of a vast multitude of universes known as the multiverse. In fact, Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg maintains,

If you discovered a really impressive fine-tuning…I think you’d really be left with only two explanations: a benevolent designer or a multiverse.

Another well-known cosmologist, Bernard Carr echoes that sentiment:

If there is only one universe you might have to have a fine-tuner. If you don’t want God, you’d better have a multiverse.

I would argue that the “God or multiverse” choice is a false dichotomy. First, in past TNRTBs I have shown that the multiverse does not help the naturalist eliminate God. In fact, in a strictly naturalist worldview, the multiverse adversely affects the scientific enterprise. Second, I see no inherent problems with God using a multiverse to create a place where Earth life, especially humanity, could grow and thrive.

It is uncertain whether the multiverse will ultimately prove true. However, the fact that so many prominent scientists see it as a potential explanation for the fine-tuning observed in this universe highlights the strength of evidence backing the inference that a Designer fashioned this universe.

If you would like to see a question about the multiverse addressed in this forum, send it to multiverse@reasons.org.