"We" haven't found any "fine tuning" in the universe. Science certainly hasn't.
Well... except that, YES, it has.
Well no, it hasn't. Why not support your specious claims? Why insist on making such bellicose and fraudulent pronouncements when they are unsupportable?
Kindly refer us to an article published in a peer reviewed literature such as the journal
Nature, for example where the relevant science community acknowledges a universe "finely tuned" by your gawds?
I didn't say who it was finely tuned by.
Here are what some prominent scientists say:
"The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life." --Stephen Hawking 1988.
A Brief History of Time,Bantam Books,
ISBN 0-553-05340-X, p. 125.
If, for example, the strong nuclear force were 2% stronger than it is (i.e., if the
coupling constant representing its strength were 2% larger), while the other constants were left unchanged,
diprotons would be stable and hydrogen would
fuse into them instead of
deuterium and
helium.
--Paul Davies, 1993.
The Accidental Universe, Cambridge University Press, p70-71
Martin Rees formulates the fine-tuning of the Universe in terms of the following six
dimensionless physical constants.
[12]
N, the ratio of the
strength of electromagnetism to the
strength of gravity for a pair of protons, is approximately 1036. According to Rees, if it were significantly smaller, only a small and short-lived universe could exist.
[12]
Epsilon (
ε), the strength of the force binding
nucleons into
nuclei, is 0.007. If it were 0.006, only hydrogen could exist, and complex chemistry would be impossible. If it were 0.008, no hydrogen would exist, as all the hydrogen would have been fused shortly after the
big bang.
[12]
Omega (
Ω), also known as the
Density parameter, is the relative importance of gravity and expansion energy in the Universe. It is the ratio of the mass density of the Universe to the "critical density" and is approximately 1. If gravity were too strong compared with dark energy and the initial metric expansion, the Universe would have collapsed before life could have evolved. On the other side, if gravity were too weak, no stars would have formed.
[12]
Lambda (
λ) is the
cosmological constant. It describes the ratio of the density of
dark energy to the critical energy density of the Universe, given certain reasonable assumptions such as positing that dark energy density is a constant. In terms of
Planck units, and as a natural dimensionless value, the cosmological constant, λ, is on the order of 10−122.
[13] This is so small that it has no significant effect on cosmic structures that are smaller than a billion light-years across. If the cosmological constant was not extremely small, stars and other astronomical structures would not be able to form.
[12]
Q, the ratio of the gravitational energy required to pull a large galaxy apart to the energy equivalent of its mass, is around 10−5. If it is too small, no stars can form. If it is too large, no stars can survive because the Universe is too violent, according to Rees.
[12]
D, the number of spatial
dimensions in
spacetime, is 3. Rees claims that life could not exist if there were 2 or 4.
