You seen this?
YHVH, not YHWH.
Let no man deceive you.
Jim Staley - Hebrew Alphabet (Part 4) - Vav
The nail that binds Heaven and Earth.
Be safe, FRiend.
Posted on 07/26/2023 9:02:24 PM PDT by lasereye
The job of physicists is to worry about numbers, but one number has perplexed physicists for more than a century. That number is 0.00729735256—approximately 1/137. This is the fine-structure constant. It appears everywhere in the equations of quantum physics.
The fine-structure constant, designated by the Greek letter alpha (α), is one of the many constants of nature that power our laws of physics, like the speed of light, the gravitational constant, or Planck’s constant. These constants can have different values depending upon which system of units are used to express them. For instance, the speed of light in vacuum is 186,000 miles per second, but it is also 300,000 kilometers per second. However, α is a pure number, without any units.
Something bizarre and compelling about this number has led many of the founders of quantum mechanics to be obsessed with it. Paul Dirac, a theoretical physicist who is considered one of the founders of quantum mechanics and quantum electrodynamics, called it “the most fundamental unsolved problem in physics.”1 Even Richard Feynman, a 1965 Nobel Prize winner in physics for his contributions to the development of quantum electronics, pondered its mysteries his entire life. He remarked that “all good theoretical physicists put this number up on their wall and worry about it.”2 What is it about this one number that makes it the worthy subject of the close attention of savants?
Additionally, the fine-structure constant sets the “strength” of the electromagnetic force.3 The greater the chance of interaction between the electron and electromagnetic fields, the more of an electromagnetic disturbance each electron will make. This is why the fine-structure constant appears in formulas that depend on electromagnetic force. The major question, however, remains: Why does α take on the value that it does, and why does this specific combination of other fundamental constants come out to be exactly α?
The fine-structure constant sets the size of atoms. A larger value means that electrons would be closer to nuclei, making them more tightly bound and less able to participate in chemical bonds. A smaller value would mean that electrons were less tightly bound, making atoms and molecules less stable. Its precise value could not be more important.
Physicists do not know why our universe ended up with this particular value for the fine-structure constant, or many of the other fundamental constants, for that matter. Many conventional physicists believe that these constants were set more or less randomly at the beginning of the universe. However, it would be surprising if they landed on just the right values to allow for the formation of life. Though a professing atheist, Richard Feynman poetically mused that “you might say the ‘hand of God’ wrote that number, and ‘we don’t know how He pushed His pencil.’”4
Because there is still so much unknown about this constant, physicists have merely hit the wavetops in the analysis of the fine-structure constant. However, given the uniqueness and complexity of this constant, it’s logical to conclude that our physical existence resulted from extraordinary design rather than chance or evolutionary causes. As science advances and untangles the mysteries of our universe, scientists continue to discover how incredibly complex yet tailored our universe is.
As Psalm 147:5 declares, “Great is our Lord, and mighty in power; His understanding is infinite.”
I thought the number was 42!
GOD is a simple answer.
When one physicist can tell me with scientific proof what existed in the one instant before the “big bang” creation of our universe I will quit believing in GOD.
If so, then I'm going out to buy my first lottery ticket!
I thought the number was 42!>>> all the mice thot so as well.
That was Jackie Robinson’s number.
Regards,
The "strong" Anthropic Principle is not clearly true and has no scientific basis.
The anthropic principle is often criticized for lacking falsifiability and therefore its critics may point out that the anthropic principle is a non-scientific concept, even though the weak anthropic principle, "conditions that are observed in the universe must allow the observer to exist",[10] is "easy" to support in mathematics and philosophy (i.e., it is a tautology or truism).
📖✍️
The Anthropic Principle knocks the legs out from under the notion that the conditions (incl. the Fine-Structure Constant) being "just right" for life / us humans is indicative of the existence of a benevolent Creator - since, if they WEREN'T "just right," we OF COURSE wouldn't be here to make the COUNTER-observation.
Regards,
Be safe, FRiend.
According to Czech Physicist Raji Heyrovska the fine structure constant is related to the golden ratio.
You are committing the "necessary but not sufficient" causal fallacy.
A causal fallacy you commit this fallacy when you assume that a necessary condition of an event is sufficient for the event to occur. A necessary condition is a condition that must be present for an event to occur. A sufficient condition is a condition or set of conditions that will produce the event. A necessary condition must be there, but it alone does not provide sufficient cause for the occurrence of the event. Only the sufficient grounds can do this. In other words, all of the necessary elements must be there.A universe that supports life is a necessary condition in order for us to be observing it. There is no causal explanation in that statement. That is the additional necessary element: In other words, all of the necessary elements must be there.
Exodus 3:14 And God said unto Moses, I Am That I Am: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I Am hath sent me unto you.
I did not contest that statement of yours!
I never claimed that the Anthropic Principle explained how the Universe came into being, or how or why Life appeared.
Rather, I merely pointed out that the Anthropic Principle shows how any pro-Creationist argument based upon the observation that certain fundamental constants (such as the Fine-Structure Constant) have to be "finely tuned" for Life to exist - and how "unlikely" that is - is fallacious.
The pro-Creationist argument is, basically, "See how incredibly unlikely it is for the Universe to be as it is, i.e., to be so conducive to Life? That means that an intelligent and benevolent Creator must have interceded and deliberately 'tuned' those constants!"
The recognition of the Anthropic Principle "knocks the legs out from under" that fallacious reasoning.
Regards,
Yes the creationist argument addresses the likelihood of the finely tuned universe. The “weak” anthropic principle doesn’t address the likelihood. Therefore the anthropic principle is not knocking the legs out from anything.
If you think the weak anthropic principle “knocks the legs out from under” the creationist argument, then you must think it addresses the likelihood of such a universe. If you think it does that then you don’t understand the anthropic principle.
Unless you’re referring to one of the “strong” anthropic principles. You may not even understand what you’re referring to.
You, yourself, have been inconsistent in always making clear whether you were referring to "weak" vs. "strong."
For the record, I was always referring to the "Weak Anthropic Principle" (WAP).
Yes the creationist argument addresses the likelihood of the finely tuned universe. The “weak” anthropic principle doesn’t address the likelihood. Therefore the anthropic principle is not knocking the legs out from anything.
WAP does indeed "knock the legs out from under" that particular fallacious argument advanced by some Creationists. But perhaps it would make more sense to you if I phrased it thusly: WAP renders moot the question of the "likelihood" of the universal constants being so perfectly "tuned" as to allow the appearance of Life. (And it does this without itself proffering a counter-explanation. We have, after all, agreed that WAP doesn't "explain" how Life arose, etc. - but that does not mean that WAP is without value.)
For: However "likely" or "unlikely" the "fine-tuning" of the universal constants might be (and yes: WAP most certainly does not address this issue) - if those constants hadn't been fine-tuned, there would perforce be no observers to remark upon that fact. Only in those universes* in which the constants are (by chance) "right" are there any observers to comment upon this fact (or, in your case, to express their dismay at the alleged "unlikelihood" of their being so fine-tuned).
For any other FReepers who might still be following this conversation, let me offer another (albeit: rough) analogy:
At a university lecture, the lecturer asks everyone who has come to the lecture to "Please raise your hands." They then do so. Immediately afterwards, some wiseguy remarks, "Hah! That proves nothing! He should have asked everyone who didn't come to raise their hands! That would have been more enlightening!"
The truth is that in neither case does a show of hands indicate how popular (or unpopular) the lecture was. By the same token, the existence of this Universe does not indicate how likely or unlikely the Universe is. Rather, WAP makes it clear that we should not be astounded at the fact that the universal constants are so fine-tuned, since if they weren't, we wouldn't be here to express our lack of astonishment.
Regards,
*I am not claiming that actual "multiverses" necessarily exist. WAP certainly doesn't address the existence of any other universes or demand that they must exist. One could instead speak of "hypothetical" universes, if you wish.
Based on the theoretical possibility that other universes could exist, that is a valid point. If it could be proven that this is the only universe, then the creationist argument is not only credible but virtually irrefutable.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.