Zone1 Our Fine-Tuned Universe: Accident or Intelligent Design?

[ding]

Do you agree with post #160 forkup ?

 

[ding]

And if we are going to assume other universe are different, rather than changing the atomic structure of matter which would result in no stellar structures being formed, the most likely change would be to assume other universes were created with equal amounts of matter and anti matter and the other universe would be filled with only radiation (i.e. no space or time) instead of radiation and matter like our universe which has space and time.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

What are probability waves made of?

The light of the Creator

 

[ding]

What are probability waves made of?

Potential

 

[forkup]

We have physical evidence from our universe (i.e. CMB and red shift), quantum mechanics, laws of thermodynamics, special relativity and general relativity that tells us that our universe had a beginning and how it began (quantum tunneling event which set off a cascade of paired particle production of nearly equal amounts of matter and anti-matter).

Yes, to the first. No to the second. As far as I can see there are only assumptions about how it began since the beginning of time started after the big bang.

Logically we can assume that if there are other universes, they would have begun the same way as our universe began

Given that we have empirical knowledge of only one universe, speculating on the nature of others remains purely theoretical. While some models predict a multiverse, others support a singular universe. Until concrete evidence emerges, asserting either premise is unwarranted.

From the matter/energy in our universe we have an example of how energy/matter is structured.

We have a clear example of how matter and energy are structured within our universe, based on established physical laws. However, that alone doesn't justify extending conclusions beyond our observable universe. While we can use our understanding as a reference, any extrapolation beyond direct evidence remains speculative.

Without empirical data on other universes—if they exist—assuming they follow the same structure as ours is unwarranted. Models proposing multiple universes exist, but equally valid models suggest a single universe. Until supporting evidence arises, neither premise can be treated as fact, making any assumptions premature at best.

We know that the atomic structure of matter is fine tuned for life. That if there were a slight change in the atomic structure of matter, that the universe could be created in exactly the same way but would have no stellar structure and be devoid of life.

We have strong physical evidence that the universe had a beginning—cosmic microwave background radiation, redshift, quantum mechanics, thermodynamic laws, and relativity all point to a singular origin.

However, the mechanism behind this beginning remains theoretical. Quantum tunneling and paired particle production are compelling hypotheses, but they are just that—hypotheses. The beginning of time itself starts after the Big Bang, meaning any discussion of before is inherently speculative.

Similarly, assuming that other universes exist and would have begun the same way is premature. While some models support the multiverse, others suggest a singular universe. With equal weight on both possibilities and no supporting empirical evidence, drawing conclusions either way is unjustified.

So the logical thing to do would be to use what we know exists and how we believe it was created which as near as I can tell is what multiverse theory does. In other words, it's logical to assume other universes would be like ours. Why? Because there is no data to assume otherwise.

There is no data period. So why would you assume you know anything about how other universes would be. Again, you don't have a sample size to draw any conclusions.


The problem and pattern you keep on establishing is your tendency to simply assert things you need to prove.

 

[ding]

Yes, to the first. No to the second. As far as I can see there are only assumptions about how it began since the beginning of time started after the big bang.

Only if you completely ignore every single thing about the CMB. And pretend like you don't have to explain the radiation from 2 billion times the matter in the universe. As for your timing argument... What's the time difference? And why do you believe that is relevant to how the universe began?

 

[forkup]

Only if you completely ignore every single thing about the CMB. And pretend like you don't have to explain the radiation from 2 billion times the matter in the universe. As for your timing argument... What's the time difference? And why do you believe that is relevant to how the universe began?

I don't have to explain shit. Again. you are making the claims. Again here's the list.

1. You assume the Cosmic Microwave Background alone is sufficient to explain the radiation from 2 billion times the matter in the universe. Justify it.
   
   • The CMB provides crucial evidence about early universe conditions, but where is the direct proof that it explains that level of radiation specifically?
2. You assume that timing differences in cosmological models are relevant to proving how the universe began. Justify it.
   
   • How does a supposed time discrepancy confirm the exact mechanism behind the universe’s formation? Is this inference based on measurable data or just theoretical interpretation?
3. You assume that presenting counterarguments means ignoring fundamental physics. Justify it.
   
   • Why would questioning certain interpretations of the CMB equate to dismissing it entirely? Critically analyzing claims does not mean rejecting established scientific principles.
4. You assume that simply stating a mechanism like quantum tunneling or paired particle production is enough to prove it occurred. Justify it.
   
   • Theoretical models predict possible pathways for the universe’s origin, but where is the observational confirmation that quantum tunneling triggered the actual event?

 

[ding]

Given that we have empirical knowledge of only one universe, speculating on the nature of others remains purely theoretical. While some models predict a multiverse, others support a singular universe. Until concrete evidence emerges, asserting either premise is unwarranted.

Because Eman623 started this line of questioning in post #151. He wanted to know why I thought the structure of matter would be the same in other universes. Which necessarily requires the discussion of other possible universes.

 

[ding]

I don't have to explain shit. Again. you are making the claims. Again here's the list.

1. You assume the Cosmic Microwave Background alone is sufficient to explain the radiation from 2 billion times the matter in the universe. Justify it.
   • The CMB provides crucial evidence about early universe conditions, but where is the direct proof that it explains that level of radiation specifically?
2. You assume that timing differences in cosmological models are relevant to proving how the universe began. Justify it.
   • How does a supposed time discrepancy confirm the exact mechanism behind the universe’s formation? Is this inference based on measurable data or just theoretical interpretation?
3. You assume that presenting counterarguments means ignoring fundamental physics. Justify it.
   • Why would questioning certain interpretations of the CMB equate to dismissing it entirely? Critically analyzing claims does not mean rejecting established scientific principles.
4. You assume that simply stating a mechanism like quantum tunneling or paired particle production is enough to prove it occurred. Justify it.
   • Theoretical models predict possible pathways for the universe’s origin, but where is the observational confirmation that quantum tunneling triggered the actual event?

George Wald, Nobel Laureate responds...

"...How is it that we have a universe of matter at all?

Our universe is made of four kinds of so-called elementary particles: neutrons, protons, electrons, and photons, which are particles of radiation. (I disregard neutrinos, since they do not interact with other matter; also the host of other particles that appear transiently in the course of high‑energy nuclear interactions.) The only important qualification one need make to such a simple statement is that the first three particles exist also as antiparticles, the particles constituting matter, the anti-particles anti-matter. When matter comes into contact with anti-matter they mutually annihilate each other, and their masses are instantly turned into radiation according to Einstein’s famous equation, E = mc2, in which E is the energy of the radiation, m is the annihilated mass, and c is the speed of light.

The positive and negative electric charges that divide particles from anti-particles are perfectly symmetrical. So the most reasonable expectation is that exactly equal numbers of both particles and anti-particles entered the Big Bang, the cosmic explosion in which our universe is thought to have begun. In that case, however, in the enormous compression of material at the Big Bang, there must have occurred a tremendous storm of mutual annihilation, ending with the conversion of all the particles and anti-particles into radiation. We should have come out of the Big Bang with a universe containing only radiation.

Fortunately for us, it seems that a tiny mistake was made. In 1965, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson at the Bell Telephone Laboratories in New Jersey discovered a new microwave radiation that fills the universe, coming equally from all directions, wherever one may be. It is by far the dominant radiation in the universe; billions of years of starlight have added to it only negligibly. It is commonly agreed that this is the residue remaining from that gigantic firestorm of mutual annihilation in the Big Bang.

It turns out that there are about one billion photons of that radiation for every proton in the universe. Hence it is thought that what went into the Big Bang were not exactly equal numbers of particles and anti-particles, but that for every billion anti-particles there were one billion and one particles, so that when all the mutual annihilation had happened, there remained over that one particle per billion, and that now constitutes all the matter in the universe -- all the galaxies, the stars and planets, and of course all life..."

George Wald: Life and Mind in the Universe

 

[forkup]

Because Eman623 started this line of questioning in post #151. He wanted to know why I thought the structure of matter would be the same in other universes. Which necessarily requires the discussion of other possible universes.

That doesn't relieve you from the responsibility to support your claims. I don't mind that you speculate. I mind that you present your speculation as fact. And I mind it even more when you built up your entire argument around that speculation. You build your argument on some very loose sand, and do it habitually.

 

[forkup]

George Wald, Nobel Laureate responds...

"...How is it that we have a universe of matter at all?

Our universe is made of four kinds of so-called elementary particles: neutrons, protons, electrons, and photons, which are particles of radiation. (I disregard neutrinos, since they do not interact with other matter; also the host of other particles that appear transiently in the course of high‑energy nuclear interactions.) The only important qualification one need make to such a simple statement is that the first three particles exist also as antiparticles, the particles constituting matter, the anti-particles anti-matter. When matter comes into contact with anti-matter they mutually annihilate each other, and their masses are instantly turned into radiation according to Einstein’s famous equation, E = mc2, in which E is the energy of the radiation, m is the annihilated mass, and c is the speed of light.

The positive and negative electric charges that divide particles from anti-particles are perfectly symmetrical. So the most reasonable expectation is that exactly equal numbers of both particles and anti-particles entered the Big Bang, the cosmic explosion in which our universe is thought to have begun. In that case, however, in the enormous compression of material at the Big Bang, there must have occurred a tremendous storm of mutual annihilation, ending with the conversion of all the particles and anti-particles into radiation. We should have come out of the Big Bang with a universe containing only radiation.

Fortunately for us, it seems that a tiny mistake was made. In 1965, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson at the Bell Telephone Laboratories in New Jersey discovered a new microwave radiation that fills the universe, coming equally from all directions, wherever one may be. It is by far the dominant radiation in the universe; billions of years of starlight have added to it only negligibly. It is commonly agreed that this is the residue remaining from that gigantic firestorm of mutual annihilation in the Big Bang.

It turns out that there are about one billion photons of that radiation for every proton in the universe. Hence it is thought that what went into the Big Bang were not exactly equal numbers of particles and anti-particles, but that for every billion anti-particles there were one billion and one particles, so that when all the mutual annihilation had happened, there remained over that one particle per billion, and that now constitutes all the matter in the universe -- all the galaxies, the stars and planets, and of course all life..."

George Wald: Life and Mind in the Universe

You cite Wald’s commentary on particle asymmetry, but this does not directly justify the assumptions you are making. Where is the observational data that confirms your claim beyond theoretical discussion?

You provide a historical explanation of matter retention, but this does not address my direct challenges. I asked for justification on the sufficiency of the CMB, quantum tunneling as an actual event rather than a theoretical possibility, and timing discrepancies. Where is the evidence that answers those points directly?

Your response does not justify the assumptions you’ve made—it provides historical perspective but does not offer observational proof. If you believe your claims stand, demonstrate with empirical evidence rather than broad narrative. You could quote the pope or a Nobel laureate—it doesn’t matter. I’m asking for justification, not a vague theoretical possibility. If you want to claim something as fact, prove it. Otherwise, acknowledge that you’re building an argument on assumptions rather than evidence.

 

[ding]

I don't have to explain shit. Again. you are making the claims. Again here's the list.

1. You assume the Cosmic Microwave Background alone is sufficient to explain the radiation from 2 billion times the matter in the universe. Justify it.
   • The CMB provides crucial evidence about early universe conditions, but where is the direct proof that it explains that level of radiation specifically?
2. You assume that timing differences in cosmological models are relevant to proving how the universe began. Justify it.
   • How does a supposed time discrepancy confirm the exact mechanism behind the universe’s formation? Is this inference based on measurable data or just theoretical interpretation?
3. You assume that presenting counterarguments means ignoring fundamental physics. Justify it.
   • Why would questioning certain interpretations of the CMB equate to dismissing it entirely? Critically analyzing claims does not mean rejecting established scientific principles.
4. You assume that simply stating a mechanism like quantum tunneling or paired particle production is enough to prove it occurred. Justify it.
   • Theoretical models predict possible pathways for the universe’s origin, but where is the observational confirmation that quantum tunneling triggered the actual event?

Let me share with you the time difference from where the point of creation to the point where the physics is known. Which is only due to the limitation of the solutions for Einstein's field equations due to the equations yielding infinite density aka the singularity. In terms of the evidence for the big bang aka the CMB, it has zero impact on how the radiation was created. It is only calculating the movement of particles in space. It has nothing to do with the origin of the particles which was a quantum tunneling event which created a cascading event of paired particle production. Can you explain to me in simple words why you think the timing is important for how the CMB was produced. It's almost as if you are completely ignoring the most important evidence that exists.

 

[ding]

That doesn't relieve you from the responsibility to support your claims. I don't mind that you speculate. I mind that you present your speculation as fact. And I mind it even more when you built up your entire argument around that speculation. You build your argument on some very loose sand, and do it habitually.

You are just being argumentative. I'm sorry I ever looped you back in. You are a fucking idiot.

 

[forkup]

You are just being argumentative. I'm sorry I ever looped you back in. You are a fucking idiot.

Personal attacks don’t replace justification. You haven’t answered any of my challenges—are you conceding that you can’t?

 

[ding]

You cite Wald’s commentary on particle asymmetry, but this does not directly justify the assumptions you are making. Where is the observational data that confirms your claim beyond theoretical discussion?

You provide a historical explanation of matter retention, but this does not address my direct challenges. I asked for justification on the sufficiency of the CMB, quantum tunneling as an actual event rather than a theoretical possibility, and timing discrepancies. Where is the evidence that answers those points directly?

Your response does not justify the assumptions you’ve made—it provides historical perspective but does not offer observational proof. If you believe your claims stand, demonstrate with empirical evidence rather than broad narrative. You could quote the pope or a Nobel laureate—it doesn’t matter. I’m asking for justification, not a vague theoretical possibility. If you want to claim something as fact, prove it. Otherwise, acknowledge that you’re building an argument on assumptions rather than evidence.

If you can't accept the best explanation of MAINSTREAM SCIENCE'S explanation for how the universe began in terms of the only and most important evidence that exists from a Nobel Laureate no less, then you are an idiot.

 

[ding]

Personal attacks don’t replace justification. You haven’t answered any of my challenges—are you conceding that you can’t?

I'm happy with the record here. Have a nice day.

 

[forkup]

Let me share with you the time difference from where the point of creation to the point where the physics is known. Which is only due to the limitation of the solutions for Einstein's field equations due to the equations yielding infinite density aka the singularity. In terms of the evidence for the big bang aka the CMB, it has zero impact on how the radiation was created. It is only calculating the movement of particles in space. It has nothing to do with the origin of the particles which was a quantum tunneling event which created a cascading event of paired particle production. Can you explain to me in simple words why you think the timing is important for how the CMB was produced. It's almost as if you are completely ignoring the most important evidence that exists.
View attachment 1117520
View attachment 1117523

You claim that the CMB has zero impact on how radiation was created, yet you also assert that a quantum tunneling event triggered a cascading particle production. Where is the observational proof that this process occurred as described?

You also ask why timing is relevant, but the burden is on you to prove why it isn’t relevant. You claim timing discrepancies are a limitation of field equation solutions—fine, but that doesn’t automatically validate quantum tunneling as the universe’s origin mechanism. Show empirical evidence that supports your claim instead of assuming it.

Stop presenting hypotheses as facts. If your argument stands, you should be able to justify it beyond theoretical possibility.

If you claim these images prove your argument, explain specifically how they validate the quantum tunneling event rather than simply depicting a theoretical model.

I can post all kinds of models. It says nothing about their validity.

 

[ding]

You claim that the CMB has zero impact on how radiation was created, yet you also assert that a quantum tunneling event triggered a cascading particle production. Where is the observational proof that this process occurred as described?

You also ask why timing is relevant, but the burden is on you to prove why it isn’t relevant. You claim timing discrepancies are a limitation of field equation solutions—fine, but that doesn’t automatically validate quantum tunneling as the universe’s origin mechanism. Show empirical evidence that supports your claim instead of assuming it.

Stop presenting hypotheses as facts. If your argument stands, you should be able to justify it beyond theoretical possibility.

If you claim these images prove your argument, explain specifically how they validate the quantum tunneling event rather than simply depicting a theoretical model.

I can post all kinds of models. It says nothing about their validity.

Have a nice day.

 

[forkup]

If you can't accept the best explanation of MAINSTREAM SCIENCE'S explanation for how the universe began in terms of the only and most important evidence that exists from a Nobel Laureate no less, then you are an idiot.

• James Peebles – His work on Big Bang cosmology laid the foundation for our modern understanding of the universe’s history. He emphasized the role of dark matter and dark energy, which make up 95% of the universe, challenging traditional models that focus solely on visible matter.
• Arno Penzias & Robert Wilson – Their discovery of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) provided strong evidence for the Big Bang, but their findings also led to refinements in inflationary models, which suggest the universe underwent rapid expansion immediately after its formation.
• Saul Perlmutter, Brian Schmidt & Adam Riess – Their research on supernovae revealed that the universe’s expansion is accelerating, leading to the development of models incorporating dark energy as a dominant force shaping cosmic evolution.
• George Smoot & John Mather – Their work on the COBE satellite confirmed the anisotropies in the CMB, supporting inflationary models and challenging the idea that the universe’s formation was a simple, uniform process

Multiple Nobel laureates have presented alternative models with equally strong empirical foundations. Why do you treat Wald’s model not just as superior, but as fact? What specific evidence elevates it above the others?

 

[forkup]

Have a nice day.

You decided to engage me again now take your medicine and justify what you claim.