The Anthropic Principle, Revisited

  • Thread starter Thread starter Arizona_Mike
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Arizona_Mike

Guest
It’s even worse than atheists think:

cosmiclog.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/18/17006552-will-our-universe-end-in-a-big-slurp-higgs-like-particle-suggests-it-might?lite
He said the parameters for our universe, including the Higgs mass value as well as the mass of another subatomic particle known as the top quark, suggest that we’re just at the edge of stability, in a “metastable” state. Physicists have been contemplating such a possibility for more than 30 years. Back in 1982, physicists Michael Turner and Frank Wilczek wrote in Nature that “without warning, a bubble of true vacuum could nucleate somewhere in the universe and move outwards at the speed of light, and before we realized what swept by us our protons would decay away.”
Click to expand...
Lykken put it slightly differently: “The universe wants to be in a different state, so eventually to realize that, a little bubble of what you might think of as an alternate universe will appear somewhere, and it will spread out and destroy us.”
Click to expand...
That alternate universe would be “much more boring,” Lykken said. Which led him to ask a philosophical question: “Why do we live in a universe that’s just on the edge of stability?” He wondered whether a universe has to be near the danger zone to produce galaxies, stars, planets … and life.
Click to expand...
Thank God, our Creator and Sustainer, for keeping all the plates spinning for us.
 
MarcoPolo said:
While I think there are many problems with many atheist arguments, how would this story hurt the atheist cause?
Click to expand...
Because if true, the universe is even more finely-tuned than previously suggested.
 
Arizona_Mike said:
Because if true, the universe is even more finely-tuned than previously suggested.
Click to expand...
Apparently some don’t understand the weakness of the fine tuning argument, and feel that a more finely tuned argument will somehow be better.
Doubling down on the nonsense doesn’t make the nonsense more sensible.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top