Physical laws--the Best Case for ID: The Summary

[Ed]

The original thread is veering off as per usual. I was hoping here to epitomize the arguments for and against.

If acceleration due to gravity is 32ft/sec/sec does that demonstrate some sort of design? Knowing what we know could it be 33ft/sec/sec?

[Tez]

Hmm, I dont know where the original thread is, but not sure I want to read it if you don't.

There is one interesting case I know of of a scientist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle, who had a few strange ideas) predicting something (an intermediate state in a reaction) based on anthropic reasoning. Or at least thats what I believe he claimed, and certainly what others claim about what he claimed. The wikipedia entry doesnt mention that aspect of it though, just that he noticed there must be this intermediate step...

[eri]

I had to give up on my thread around page nine. *sniff* They grow up so fast!



If acceleration due to gravity is 32ft/sec/sec does that demonstrate some sort of design? Knowing what we know could it be 33ft/sec/sec?

Eh. I don't think 33 ft/sec^2 would make much of a difference to our lives - do you? That's not one of those things that will take humanity down.

[Hellbound]

Eh. I don't think 33 ft/sec^2 would make much of a difference to our lives - do you? That's not one of those things that will take humanity down.

Well, if it's because of a change in the gravitational constant, it'll effect a lot, such as star size and evolution, orbital mechanics, black holes, etc.

Of course, I don't pretend to understand the effects of these changes, but there could be more to it :)

[Belz...]

Well, if it's because of a change in the gravitational constant, it'll effect a lot, such as star size and evolution, orbital mechanics, black holes, etc.

Of course, I don't pretend to understand the effects of these changes, but there could be more to it :)

I'm not sure that the IDers can claim, beyond reasonable doubt, that life of any kind would be impossible in such a universe.

[HeyLeroy]

Remember, that's only the constant here on Earth.

I don't understand what that has to do with anything.

[Hellbound]

Um...

HeyLeroy, that's the constant everywhere we've been able to measure.

I'm talking about G, the gravitational force constant, not g, the acceleration due to Earth's gravity. G is the constant that goes into the equation for gravitational force, the equation that gives us that 32ft/s2 acceleration. Similar to the one for electromagnetic force (I think its C?) or the nuclear forces.

Belz: I quite agree with you. With different constants, it is hard to say that life of any sort would be impossible. Some I think we can say with reasonable certainty (such as changes to constants that make the formation of any element other than hydrogen imposible), but most are still open IMO.

I was just contesting that depending on what change caused Earth's gravity to be different, it might have a much large,r much broader effect.

I do wonder what increased gravity would do to stellar lifespans. My guess would be that stars would be hotter and smaller, with shorter lifespans over all. And the sizes required for stars to form neutron stars and black holes would be less.

[hammegk]

tez: His certainty of the existence of this state was based on what we now call the 'Anthropic Principle' - since he, Fred Hoyle, a life form based upon carbon molecules, existed, then the resonance must also exist to create the carbon. A team at Cal. Tech. led by Willy Fowler ( later a Nobel Prize winner) began the search for the mysterious resonant state in carbon-12, and discovered it - just a few percent above Hoyle's prediction. To this day, the 7.6MeV state in carbon-12 is known as the 'Hoyle resonance', and Hoyle's prediction of its existence is possibly the only proven example of a scientific prediction using the 'Anthropic Principle'.

If you think that the two-step process that forms the excited state at 7.6MeV is an amazing coincidence, then the decay of this state is even more remarkable! Because the mass-energy of this state is larger than than the combined masses of a beryllium-8 and an alpha particle, the state tends to decay by simple breaking up into a beryllium-8 and an alpha particle! However for every ten thousand decays, four result in the emission of two gamma rays which takes the excited carbon-12 nucleus to its stable ground state! So it is that rare two=step process and those 4 in 10,000 decays which enable me to write this piece and for you to read it!



from http://www.np.ph.bham.ac.uk/research/anthropic.htm


Re gravity per se ... http://scienceweek.com/2005/sw051028-6.htm is a nice overview.