God and the Multiverse - stjohnadulted.org · God and the Multiverse November 18, 2012. A Universe Finely Tuned for Life. Introduction Sessions nNov 4: Introduction. A Universe with

God and the Multiverse

November 18, 2012. A Universe Finely Tuned for Life

IntroductionSessions

n Nov 4: Introduction. A Universe with a Beginning

n Nov 11: A Multiverse with a Beginning

n Nov 18: A Universe Finely Tuned for Life

n Nov 25: An Orderly, Rational, Comprehensible, Beautiful Universe. Conclusions.PowerPoints available on-line at:

www.stjohnadulted.org/multiverse-home.htm

http://www.stjohnadulted.org/multiverse-home.htm

Primary References3. A Universe Finely Tuned For Life

n Stephen M Barr, Modern Physics and Ancient Faith. University of Notre Dame Press, 2006. ISBN-13: 978-0268021986.

n Robert J Spitzer, New Proofs for the Existence of God: Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2010. ISBN-13: 978-0802863836

n Paul Davies, The Goldilocks Enigma: Why Is the Universe Just Right for Life? Mariner Books, 2008. ISBN-13: 978-0547053585.

n Louis J Pojman, Philosophy of Religion, McGraw-Hill, 2001. ISBN-13: 978-0767408196.

Almighty and everlasting God, you made the universe with all its marvelous order, its atoms, worlds, and galaxies, and the infinite complexity of living creatures: Grant that, as we probe the mysteries of your creation, we may come to know you more truly, and more surely fulfill our role in your eternal purpose; in the name of Jesus Christ our Lord.

Book of Common Prayer, page 827. For Knowledge of God’s Creation

Introduction

IntroductionGoals

n To show how discoveries in modern astronomy and cosmology are:n compatible with a belief in a creator God,n can be most rationally explained by a creator God

who deliberately created a universe — or multiverse — that would be fruitful of life.

IntroductionWeek 1: A Universe with a Beginning

n Observational cosmology has firmly established, from multiple lines of evidence, that our universe began 13.7 billion year ago in an event called “The Big Bang.”n The past is

finite; there is a past limit to physical reality

IntroductionWeek 1: A Universe with a Beginning

n Cosmology’s discovery that the universe had a beginning empowers the traditional Cosmological Argument for the existence of God (The “second way” of St. Thomas Aquinas, 1224-1274, based on the idea of causation):n 1. Everything we see in this world is caused.n 2. Nothing can be the cause of itself.n 3. There cannot be an infinite regress of causes

– because the universe has a beginning. The past is finite.

Therefore:n 4. There must exist an uncaused first cause not

of this worldn 5. The word God means “uncaused first cause

not of this world”.n 6. Therefore, God exists.St. Thomas Aquinas

IntroductionWeek 2: A Multiverse with a Beginning

n There is not a shred of observational evidence for any physical reality beyond the universe we see, the universe that began with the Big Bang.

n There are however some physical theories that allow for (although do not require) “other” universes or “alternative” universes, not directly observable from our own – other universes:n that could have given rise to our own

universe, n whose existence would mean “the

Big Bang” was not truly the beginning of all of physical reality.


Our observable Universe +

these unobservable “other” or “alternative universes”

= The “Multiverse”


n We considered all the serious Multiverse scenarios:n Level I Multiverse = “Quilted” Multiversen Bouncing Multiversen The Eternal or Chaotic Inflation Multiversen The String / M-Theory Landscape Multiversen Braneworld Cyclic Multiverse = Ekpyrotic Multiverse

n We found all these multiverses require a beginning because of considerations of thermodynamics (the buildup of entropy) and /or the Borde-Vilenkin-Guth Theorem.n There is no such thing as a perpetual motion machine – including the

giant “machine” we call the “universe” or “multiverse.n This requirement for a beginning means a Multiverse also

empowers the Cosmological Argument for the existence of God.

IntroductionThis Week: A Universe Finely Tuned for Lifen Goals this week:n Look at the “Teleological Argument” for the

existence of God, and learn how results from modern cosmology empower this traditional argument for the God’s existence.n In particular we will explore how various parameters in the

laws of physics seemed incredibly “fine tuned” or “adjusted” to give rise to a universe that would be fruitful of life.

n We will then look at the explanations for this apparent “fine-tuning,” and using “Ockham’s razor,” suggest the most rational, most satisfying explanation is the existence of an unimaginably powerful and intelligent designer, consistent with God.

The Teleological Argument

Teleological ArgumentDesigned for a Purpose

n The Teleological Argument for the existence of God starts with the premises that the world exhibits:n (1) design, order, andn (2) intention, purpose.

n That is: the world looks like it was deliberately designed for a purpose.

n “Teleology” dictionary definition: purposeful development towards a final end (from the Greek telos = end, result)

Teleological ArgumentPsalm 19

The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands.

Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they reveal knowledge.

They have no speech, they use no words; no sound is heard from them.

Yet their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world. (Psalm 19: 1-4 NIV)

Teleological ArgumentWilliam Paley, Natural Theology

n William Paley (1743-1805) gave the clearest sustained treatment of the Teleological Argument in his Natural Theology: Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity Collected from the Appearances of Nature (1802):n “In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against

a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there: I might possibly answer … it had lain there for ever …. But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, … I should hardly think of the answer which I had before given … For … when we come to inspect the watch, we perceive (what we could not discover in the stone) that its several parts are framed and put together for a purpose ... This mechanism being observed, the inference is inevitable, that the watch must have had a maker. ...”

n “Every indication of contrivance, every manifestation of design, which existed in the watch, exists in the works of nature …”

William Paley (1743-1805)

Teleological ArgumentWilliam Paley, Natural Theology

n 1. Human artifacts (the watch) are products of intelligent design. (Purpose)

n 2. The universe resembles these human artifacts.n 3. Therefore: the universe is (probably) a product

of intelligent design. (Purpose)n 4. But the universe is vastly more complex and

gigantic than a human artifact.n 5. Therefore: there probably is a powerful and

vastly intelligent designer who designed the universe.

Teleological ArgumentTeleology in Function versus Structure

n Two aspects of purposeful design (= teleology) displayed by the watch:n Orderliness and regularity in

function.n Intricacy and complexity in

structure.


n In physics, we deal with some of the most fundamental, simplest entities in nature.n For example, the “fundamental

particles” = elementary particles in physics have (quite literally) zerosize: they appear to behave as perfect geometric points. They have no “structure.”

n However elementary particles do display a perfect orderliness and regularity and symmetry in function– so perfect that we say they obey fundamental “laws” of physics from which they never deviate (specs + / - 0.000000 ….. 0000%!)

The Elementary Particles


n On the other extreme, biological systems display both:n Orderliness and regularity in

function (within certain finite specs)n Intricacy and complexity in

structure. They are in fact the most complex, intricate structures we know of in the universe.

Teleological ArgumentA Designer’s Modus Operandi

n How might a designer work?n Directly: a designer who:

n personally designs and constructs all the many parts in a watch and,

n Personally fits those parts together to make a working watch.

n Indirectly: a designer who:n personally designs and constructs

elementary parts in a watch and n programs those parts so they can:

n independently fit themselves together to make a watch, or many different watches;

n can self-replicate to make copies or variations of themselves.

Victor Brindatch – Watchmaker

Teleological ArgumentA Designer’s Modus Operandi

n The designer of the cosmos has clearly worked largely indirectly, making it more difficult to find unambiguous “evidence” for purposeful design in large and complex structures, n most especially in the most

complex structures of all, biological systems, with:n Intricate, well-developed methods of

self-repair, of reproduction, andn an ability to change and evolve in

reaction to stressors (“selectors”) in the environment, via a feedback loop called “natural selection.”

The Evolution of Horses. Figure from Campbell Biology9th Ed, Reece et al, Benjamin Cummings, p. 531.

Teleological ArgumentPurposeful Design in Biology Systems

n Because of this independence in biological systems, their ability to reproduce and evolve, efforts to “prove” intelligent design in biological systems is:n problematic,n only suggestive at best,n misguided when it attempts to “prove” the

feedback loop of “natural selection” is an inadequate engine for evolution.

n However, the feedback loop of “natural selection” as an engine for evolution certainly does not rule out a designer who:n desires to work indirectly,n desires to give biological systems a degree of

independence to “make themselves.”n That is: it cannot prove the watchmaker is

“blind;” it cannot prove the universe is “without design.”

Teleological ArgumentPurposeful Design in Biology Systems

n Please see the series “God after Darwin” and its references for further information.

PowerPoints for God After Darwin at:http://www.stjohnadulted.org/god-darwin.htm

http://www.stjohnadulted.org/god-darwin.htm

Teleological ArgumentPurposeful Design in the Cosmos

n Our goal today is much simpler.n We will ask if there is evidence for purposeful

design in the fundamental “laws” of physics, the laws which govern – which precisely prescribe –the behavior of the most fundamental, the most elementary entities in nature.

n We now know the universe began as an unimaginably hot cauldron of nothing but these elementary entities, these elementary particles.

n Yet, this hot brew evolved, grew, matured into a diverse universe fruitful of life and consciousness,

n Somehow the potentiality for this universe of life and consciousness was built into, was latent in that unimaginably hot brew of elementary particles, particles whose behavior is prescribed by the fundamental law of physics.

The Elementary Particles

Anthropic Coincidences

Anthropic CoincidencesA “Goldilocks” Universe

n Anthropic Coincidences = many features of the laws of physics seem to coincide exactly with what is required for the emergence of life.

n As we have learned more about how the laws of physics determines the conditions and structures in the universe, the presence of these “anthropic coincidences,” the degree of apparent “fine-tuning” in the laws of physics to produce conditions and structures necessary for life has become so obvious, so egregious that many cosmologist now consider it a scientific problem in need of a solution.

n We seem to live in a “Goldilocks” universe, in which the law of physics seem to be “just right” for life.

n We will look at 3 examples to get a “favor” of these anthropic coincidences. (for others, see Chapter 15 in Barr, Chapter 7 in Davies references)

Anthropic CoincidencesExample 1: Strength of the Strong Force

n As of 2012, there are five basic “forces” in nature, each force with its own set of “force-carrying” boson elementary particle(s).


n The Strong Nuclear Force is the force that confines three elementary particles called quarks to form the composite particles called protonsand neutrons.

n It is also the force that binds these composite particles, the protons and neutrons, together to form the nucleus of an atom.

Protons, neutrons: composite particles

composed of 3 quarks


n The number of protons in a nucleus defines the identity of the element.

Nitrogen (7)Oxygen (8)Sodium (11)Magnesium (12)Phosphorus (15)Chlorine (17)Potassium (19)Calcium (20)Iodine (53)

Anthropic CoincidencesExample 1: Strength of the Strong Forcen Only the lightest elements were made in the “fires” of the Big Bang:

n Hydrogen (1)n Helium (2)n Lithium (3)

n All the heavier elements are “cooked” in the interior of stars and in the “fires” of supernova explosions, “fusing” lighter elements (= small number of protons) into heavier elements (= larger number of protons).

n Many “heavier” elements are necessary for life:n Carbon (6 protons)n Nitrogen (7 protons)n Oxygen (8 protons)n Sodium (11 protons)n Potassium (19 protons)n Calcium (20 protons)


n The cooking of the heavier elements in the interior of stars, “fusing” lighter elements (= small number of protons) into heavier elements (= larger number of protons), is what allows a star to “burn,” producing light and heat for billions of years – because the fusing of elements lighter than iron into heavier elements releases energy.


n If the Strong Nuclear Force were 10% weaker than it actually is, then the Strong Nuclear Force would not be strong enough to hold protons together. The universe would consist only of hydrogen (one proton).

n If the Strong Nuclear Force were 4% stronger than it actually is, then small stars like the Sun:n instead of burning slowly over billions of

years fusing lighter elements into heaver elements,

n would instead be able to fuse all their lighter elements into heavier elements in a mere few million years.

n There would never be enough time for planets to form or life to evolve.

Anthropic CoincidencesExample 2: The Triple Alpha Process

n During the “fires” of the Big Bang:n lots of hydrogen (1 proton, 0 or 1

neutrons) n gets fused into:n helium (2 protons, 1 or 2 neutrons)n especially helium-4 (2 protons, 2

neutrons)n Helium-4 is a very, very stable

nucleus, and has another name: alpha particle.


n Once you have carbon-12 (6 protons, 6 neutrons), it is “clear sailing” to build up heavier elements by successively fusing helium-4 nuclei (= alpha particles).

n But there is a big problem getting to carbon-12 from helium-4.


n You might think you could just:n (1) fuse two Helium-4

nuclei to form Beryllium-8, then

n (2) fuse another Helium-4 nuclei to the Beryllium-8 nucleus to form Carbon-12.

1.

2.


n But helium-4 is so stable that two of them will not stick together to form beryllium-8.

1.

2.


n There seemed to be no reasonable way to form carbon-12 – the atom that is basis for organic chemistry and the processes of life!


n This was the problem that Fred Hoyle was working on in 1957.

n We met Fred Hoyle in Session 1:n Fred Hoyle was the atheist who derisively

coined the term “Big Bang” because the idea smacked of religion.

n In 1948 he, along with Hermann Bondiand Thomas Gold had proposed the Steady State Theory to avoid a “Big Bang”:n the universe had existed for an infinite time

and had always been expanding just as we now see it.

n a “creation field” pervaded the universe, a field in which matter was being continuously created to make up for the thinning out due to the cosmic expansion.

Fred Hoyle, 1915-2001


n Hoyle was investigating the possibility that maybe you could get three helium-4 nuclei (= alpha particles) to come together simultaneously to make carbon-12(the “Triple Alpha” process)


n Hoyle calculated that if the carbon-12 nucleus just happened to have a particular natural vibrational frequency with energy of 7.7 MeV, that would – through resonance – enhance the likelihood of the triple alpha process enough to make it possible to get the amount of carbon-12 we see in the universe.

n In response to Hoyle’s prediction, experimental nuclear physicists measured the vibrational energy levels of the carbon-12 nucleus and found it indeed had a level that was “just right:” 7.7 MeV.

The research team headed by Fred Hoyle at Cambridge

University working on nucleosynthesis



n Hoyle was so deeply struck by this apparent “fine-tuning” in the vibrational energy level in carbon-12 that he “lost his atheism.” He later wrote:

n ‘Would you not say to yourself, “Some super-calculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the chance of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be utterly minuscule. A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”’

Fred Hoyle, 1915-2001

Anthropic CoincidencesExample 3: The Stability of the Proton

n Not all subatomic particles are stable; many of them “decay” or disintegrate after a while into other types of particles. n The “half-life” tells how long a particle will live before it

decays.n Neutrons have a half-life of about ten minutes.

n they usually disintegrate into a proton, an electron, and an anti-neutrino.

n Protons however are stable particles and do not decay.n This simple fact has profound significance, for the

nucleus of ordinary hydrogen (hydrogen 1) consists of one proton

n If protons did decay, then:n there would be no ordinary hydrogen in the world. n Without hydrogen, there would be no water, no organic

molecules, no hydrogen-burning stars like the Sun — in short no possibility of life as we know it.


n Why is the proton stable and the neutron unstable?

n The key is that the neutron is a tiny bit heavier than the proton:n neutron mass: 939.565 MeVn proton mass: 938.272 MeV

n A heavier particle can decay into a lighter particle, but not the other way around.n By E=mc2, a “heavier” particle has more

mass-energy than a lighter particle, and so can “decay” into a lighter particle with a release of energy.


n Why is the neutron slightly heavier than the proton?

n Because:n the proton consists of two up quarks

and one down quarkn The neutron consists of one up quark

and two down quarks.n up quarks are lighter than down

quarks.n No one knows why the up quark is

lighter than the down quark. And you might expect it to be otherwise.


n In the second and third families of quarks, the quark with charge +2/3 weighs more than the quark with charge -1/3.

n But in the first family of quarks (the up and down family), it is the opposite, the up quark (charge +2/3) is lighterthan the down quark (charge -1/3).

Charge +2/3

Charge -1/3


Charge 1st Family 2nd Family 3rd Family+2/3 Up quark

(~.003 GeV)Charm quark(1.3 GeV)

Top (or Truth) quark(171 GeV)

-1/3 Down quark(.006 GeV)

Strange quark(0.1 GeV)

Bottom (or Beauty) quark(4.2 GeV)

The Three Quark Families

Heavier quark in each family in red. Lighter quark in each family in green.

Explaining the Anthropic

Coincidences

ExplanationsA “Goldilocks” Universe

n There are two primary options to explain why we seem to live in a “Goldilocks” universe, a universe in which the laws of physics seem to be “just right” for life:n 1. the laws of physics are “just right” by pure chance.n 2. some “super-calculating intellect” has monkeyed

with the law of physics, fine-tuned them, so they produce a universe fruitful of life.

ExplanationsA “Goldilocks” Universe

n The idea that the laws of the physics are “just right” by pure chance is an astonishingly bold explanation.

n Analogy: you a holding a book entitled Hamlet in your hands. What is the origin of this book? Possible options:n It is book written with a purposeful

design by an author, orn There is an unimaginably enormous

array of books filled with random letters, one of which (the one in our hands) contains by random chance the text of Hamlet.

ExplanationsA “Goldilocks” Universe in a Multiverse

n The explanation that the law of physics are “just right” by pure chance invokes the idea of a multiverse, asserting there must exist a multiverse:n consisting of an unimaginably enormous array of

universes that have “random” laws of physics with random parameters,

n all or nearly all of these universes are dead and sterile, n But we just happen to live in the one universe where all

the parameters, by random chance, are “just right” for life.

ExplanationsA “Goldilocks” Universe in a Multiverse

n The Multiverse explanation does “work” as an explanation, with some caveats:n Some would say it is not a “physics” explanation, but

a “metaphysical” explanation, since none of the other universes in the multiverse can ever be observed or detected.

n Some would argue that the “meta-laws” of the multiverse would still require “fine-tuning” to make sure it had the potential, the possibility, within its array of mostly sterile universes, to produce at least one universe fruitful of life.

ExplanationsA Universe Designed to be Fruitful of Life

n The alternative explanation is that some “super-calculating intellect” has monkeyed with the law of physics, fine-tuned them, so they produce a universe fruitful of life = God.

n The advantage of this explanation is that it is simpler, more in keeping with “Ockham’s Razor:”n Named after William of Ockham (1290—1349)n Sometimes called the “principle of parsimony.”n States: “entities are not to be multiplied beyond

necessity.”n Razor metaphor connotes that useless or

unnecessary material should be cut away from any explanation and the simplest hypothesis accepted.

William of Ockham, ~1290-1349

Next Time:An Orderly, Rational,

Comprehensible, Beautiful Universe

Documents

God and the Multiverse - stjohnadulted.org · God and the Multiverse November 18, 2012. A Universe Finely Tuned for Life. Introduction Sessions nNov 4: Introduction. A Universe with