A new fine-tuning case and the “great design”

Almost every case of fine-tuning discussed so far concerns nuclear reactions and their consequences, in the realm of the very small. This is what could happen if the universal constants and parameters were not fine-tuned:

• Either there would be no hydrogen in the universe, and the stars would last too short a time for life to appear.
• Or the fusion of hydrogen to give helium would not be possible, so there would be no stars.
• Or oxygen or carbon, essential elements for life, would not be generated in stars.

In all these cases, concepts and ideas are drawn from particle physics, astronomy, and cosmology.

In an article published in the journal ScienceAdvances, Kostya Trachenko proposes a new type of fine-tuning, which instead of particle physics relies on the physics of liquids. Applying the theory of viscosity, he points out three new and independent cases of fine tuning:

• Kinematic viscosity varies with temperature, reaching a minimum for a temperature that corresponds to the equilibrium between the liquid and gaseous states. If this minimum were to exceed a certain value (violating the condition ν_min<ν₀), the viscosity of the liquids making up living cells would be so great that there would be no flow inside the cells and life would not be possible.
• Dynamic viscosity also varies with temperature, independently of kinematic viscosity. In this case, the condition for life to be possible in the universe is like the previous one (η_min< η₀), but independent.
• Diffusion in a liquid medium is subject to a restriction opposite to the two previous cases. To be compatible with life, the maximum diffusion must be greater than a certain value: D_max>D₀. This condition is independent of the previous two.

We therefore have three new fine-tuning cases that, moreover, seem independent from the traditional ones. Indeed, Trachenko analyzes the dependence of his three conditions on two universal constants whose values are considered critical with respect to life: the fine structure constant (α) and the ratio between the mass of the proton and that of the electron (β), and comes to the conclusion that his three constants (ν₀, η₀ and D₀) could vary within wide limits, without the need to retouch the values of the two classical constants, so that they would be independent.

What conclusion does Trachenko draw from this? That the fine tuning of our universe, which makes life possible, does not depend on a single set of variables, but on several; that we must resort to multiple independent adjustments; and he suggests that the mechanism of "evolution" could be the explanation and the answer. He says this: An analogy with physics would imply that the observed fundamental constants are the result of nature arriving at sustainable physical structures, but the values of these constants may not need to be derived in a more fundamental theory as considered previously. He therefore opposes the M-theory multiverse, which is based on one of those more fundamental theories, namely string theory.

Trachenko is silent about how his conclusions affect the idea that fine-tuning gives an inkling that the universe was designed by God (which is sometimes called the grand design). But others have drawn those consequences. In an article in PhysicsWorld reporting about Trachenko’s paper, this paragraph can be read:

He suggests that there is no need for a “grand design” for the cosmos, but that each of the universe’s physical “traits” could independently emerge, and become entrenched, through a gradual process of evolution – somewhat like the proliferation of certain survival-enhancing features in animals.

Charles Darwin

In fact, Trachenko doesn’t say this (he doesn’t mention design anywhere), although it could be considered that he does it subtly by mentioning the word evolution, which for many atheist scientists is antagonistic to design. Of course, he does not propose any mechanism by which this evolution of the universal constants could have taken place, nor what type of natural selection would have to be applied so that the values of the constants compatible with life were favored. He merely offers the idea and hopes that sooner or later some explanation will emerge.

As new cases of fine-tuning emerge, some atheist scientists try to use them as an indication that there is no design: the world upside down. And they don’t realize that they are engaging in contradictory or baseless reasoning.

Of course, evolution and design are not antagonistic. To prove this, it’s enough to consider research in artificial life, which is fully designed and uses evolution as a tool. And there are more examples, some of which even Darwin mentioned. But I have said this in other posts.

The same post in Spanish

Thematic Thread on Multiverse and Fine Tuning: Previous Next

Manuel Alfonseca