5 ms·

To me the fine tuning problem is a bit like saying "circles wouldn't exist without π being exactly the value it is" and wondering why π has that value specifica

To me the fine tuning problem is a bit like saying "circles wouldn't exist without π being exactly the value it is" and wondering why π has that value specifically and not any other value. I don't think A and B are mutually exclusive. The values seem perfectly tuned for our universe because we exist in our universe, and they are probably emergent from a more fundamental parameter, possibly something like the particular Calabi-Yau manifold topology that happens to correspond to our universe (in the case of superstring theory). If we lived in a different CY topology that was capable of supporting intelligent life then we'd wonder why that one's constants are so precisely tuned for us. But then, I'm and idiot who just watches PBS Space Time and nods his head, not a physicist.

dogma1138 5y ago
That’s not that great analogy for fine tuning. The quantized representative value of Pi is arbitrary based our numerical system, the relationship that derives it is fixed if the relationship would change circles indeed would not exist. Let’s move the analogy to triangles a triangle has 180 degrees but that only holds true when it’s on a flat surface if you have a curvature it can have more or less than 180 degrees. So this isn’t a fine tuning problem on its own, if you would lived in a universe where triangles have less or more than 180 degrees it would represent a universe with negative or positive curvature. The issue with fine tuning is that the curvature of the universe is directly tied to the mass/energy density and any deviation from an extremely narrow range which our universe seems to sit in out of all possible values would not just produce a universe with triangles with fewer or more degrees than 180 but would either produce a universe that would collapse on itself within a blink of an eye or expand so fast that gravity would never be strong enough to cause even the most basic structures to form. So the issue really is that to produce a universe which will form galaxies and stars and survive long enough to produce life you need a lot of parameters at a certain very specific value even the smallest of deviations would not produce a universe that would ever support life, yet alone an intelligent life. What’s even stranger iirc is that the values have to be really what they are now you can’t simply 2X all of them to maintain the proportions and get the same result. And this is really what people are looking to solve, yes the androcentric is a solution if they were anything than what they are now we wouldn’t be here to discuss why, but the issue is that out of all other possible combinations you don’t seem to find another stable state and that is the true mystery.
- hutrdvnj 5y ago
  > other possible combinations you don’t seem to find another stable state and that is the true mystery. Is that really the case, I thought in theory there could be a massive amount of other stable universes with different values. The number of unstable universes is of course much larger.
  - dogma1138 5y ago
    That would be SUSY which solves issues like the hierarchy problems and other fine tuning constraints.
- JackFr 5y ago
  > yes the androcentric is a solution Anthropocentric I think you mean. Andro- would refer to the male sex rather than humankind -- which is I claim I doubt many physicists would make.
  - dogma1138 5y ago
    Typing Antrocentric auto corrects to androcentric, you are correct of course, good thing this isn’t Twitter or I would be forced to apologize by now.
- occamrazor 5y ago
  > androcentric I suppose you mean _anthropocentric_ (or the anthropic principle). The prefix andro- refers to men, in the sense of male (adult) humans; anthropo- instead to men in the sense of all humans.
- simiones 5y ago
  > The issue with fine tuning is that the curvature of the universe is directly tied to the mass/energy density and any deviation from an extremely narrow range which our universe seems to sit in out of all possible values would not just produce a universe with triangles with fewer or more degrees than 180 but would either produce a universe that would collapse on itself within a blink of an eye or expand so fast that gravity would never be strong enough to cause even the most basic structures to form. Well, the notion of "extremely narrow range" is arbitrary. There is no mathematical notion of "large numbers" vs "small numbers". If the constants you speak about were 10^-g64 (Graham's number) times larger or smaller than they are, nothing would really change. If they were 2 times smaller, the universe would be extremely different. But 2 and 10^-g64 are just numbers. Neither of them is inherently large or small. We just happen to understand 1, 2, 3, ... much better than g64. You could say that there is a surprising amount of leg-room in the values of some constants of nature, while others can only vary in a reasonable range. While the fine-structure constant can vary within a reasonable +-1/1000 range without massive changes, other values can vary by massive numbers such as +-2!
josefx 5y ago
> and wondering why π has that value specifically and not any other value. Maybe the question should be "why circles" then. Early models of the solar system suffered under the assumption that everything should be modeled using circles when ellipses modeled everything better.
nicoffeine 5y ago
According to Leonard Susskind[1], fine tuning is a compelling argument by itself[2], and the strongest case is the cosmological constant.[3] In a nutshell it is a sort of repelling force first proposed by Einstein to create a workable model for a static universe who later regretted it as one of the biggest mistakes in his career. However, the theory is now back with Nobel prize winning research showing that expansion is accelerating, which would require a positive number. It could explain a large portion of "dark matter." When expressed in one way, it is 10^-122 "units of the square Planck length". I'm not smart enough to completely understand it, but it is (according to physicists) an incredibly precise ingredient in the various properties of physics that make our Universe possible. Any larger or smaller and the model falls apart. If it is an accident, that is one hell of a lottery ticket. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Susskind https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Susskind [2] https://www.closertotruth.com/interviews/3081 https://www.closertotruth.com/interviews/3081 [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant

dogma1138 5y ago

That’s not that great analogy for fine tuning. The quantized representative value of Pi is arbitrary based our numerical system, the relationship that derives it is fixed if the relationship would change circles indeed would not exist. Let’s move the analogy to triangles a triangle has 180 degrees but that only holds true when it’s on a flat surface if you have a curvature it can have more or less than 180 degrees. So this isn’t a fine tuning problem on its own, if you would lived in a universe where triangles have less or more than 180 degrees it would represent a universe with negative or positive curvature. The issue with fine tuning is that the curvature of the universe is directly tied to the mass/energy density and any deviation from an extremely narrow range which our universe seems to sit in out of all possible values would not just produce a universe with triangles with fewer or more degrees than 180 but would either produce a universe that would collapse on itself within a blink of an eye or expand so fast that gravity would never be strong enough to cause even the most basic structures to form. So the issue really is that to produce a universe which will form galaxies and stars and survive long enough to produce life you need a lot of parameters at a certain very specific value even the smallest of deviations would not produce a universe that would ever support life, yet alone an intelligent life. What’s even stranger iirc is that the values have to be really what they are now you can’t simply 2X all of them to maintain the proportions and get the same result. And this is really what people are looking to solve, yes the androcentric is a solution if they were anything than what they are now we wouldn’t be here to discuss why, but the issue is that out of all other possible combinations you don’t seem to find another stable state and that is the true mystery.

hutrdvnj 5y ago
> other possible combinations you don’t seem to find another stable state and that is the true mystery. Is that really the case, I thought in theory there could be a massive amount of other stable universes with different values. The number of unstable universes is of course much larger.
- dogma1138 5y ago
  That would be SUSY which solves issues like the hierarchy problems and other fine tuning constraints.
JackFr 5y ago
> yes the androcentric is a solution Anthropocentric I think you mean. Andro- would refer to the male sex rather than humankind -- which is I claim I doubt many physicists would make.
- dogma1138 5y ago
  Typing Antrocentric auto corrects to androcentric, you are correct of course, good thing this isn’t Twitter or I would be forced to apologize by now.
occamrazor 5y ago
> androcentric I suppose you mean _anthropocentric_ (or the anthropic principle). The prefix andro- refers to men, in the sense of male (adult) humans; anthropo- instead to men in the sense of all humans.
simiones 5y ago
> The issue with fine tuning is that the curvature of the universe is directly tied to the mass/energy density and any deviation from an extremely narrow range which our universe seems to sit in out of all possible values would not just produce a universe with triangles with fewer or more degrees than 180 but would either produce a universe that would collapse on itself within a blink of an eye or expand so fast that gravity would never be strong enough to cause even the most basic structures to form. Well, the notion of "extremely narrow range" is arbitrary. There is no mathematical notion of "large numbers" vs "small numbers". If the constants you speak about were 10^-g64 (Graham's number) times larger or smaller than they are, nothing would really change. If they were 2 times smaller, the universe would be extremely different. But 2 and 10^-g64 are just numbers. Neither of them is inherently large or small. We just happen to understand 1, 2, 3, ... much better than g64. You could say that there is a surprising amount of leg-room in the values of some constants of nature, while others can only vary in a reasonable range. While the fine-structure constant can vary within a reasonable +-1/1000 range without massive changes, other values can vary by massive numbers such as +-2!

josefx 5y ago

> and wondering why π has that value specifically and not any other value. Maybe the question should be "why circles" then. Early models of the solar system suffered under the assumption that everything should be modeled using circles when ellipses modeled everything better.

nicoffeine 5y ago

According to Leonard Susskind[1], fine tuning is a compelling argument by itself[2], and the strongest case is the cosmological constant.[3] In a nutshell it is a sort of repelling force first proposed by Einstein to create a workable model for a static universe who later regretted it as one of the biggest mistakes in his career. However, the theory is now back with Nobel prize winning research showing that expansion is accelerating, which would require a positive number. It could explain a large portion of "dark matter." When expressed in one way, it is 10^-122 "units of the square Planck length". I'm not smart enough to completely understand it, but it is (according to physicists) an incredibly precise ingredient in the various properties of physics that make our Universe possible. Any larger or smaller and the model falls apart. If it is an accident, that is one hell of a lottery ticket. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Susskind https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Susskind [2] https://www.closertotruth.com/interviews/3081 https://www.closertotruth.com/interviews/3081 [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant