Talk:Fine-tuned Universe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Creationism (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Creationism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Creationism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Physics (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

This article has comments here.


Anthropic principle[edit]

Why does this article play down the anthropic principle so much, when in the outside world it's the biggest challenge to notions of a fine-tuned universe? bobrayner (talk) 23:35, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I do not initially concur with the premise of your question. I don't see that the anthropic principle is played down at all. It is mentioned most prominently in the lede of the article and again later down. I dunno what is meant by '"the outside world"', but while it is true that the WAP coupled with the premise of the existence of an extremely large number of other parallel universes (which is an unfalsifiable premise, therefore one that lives more in the realm of metaphysics than of physics) creates a viable argument against the remarkability of fine-tuning, it still does not actually challenge the fact of apparent fine-tuning. Fine-tuned Universe and Anthropic principle are closely related notions (and also related to the notions Teleology, Intelligent design, and Carbon chauvinism), and the latter has been used as an explanation of the former, but they are not the same. 70.109.185.202 (talk) 19:32, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Fred Adams original research[edit]

Hello Jytdog, You recently reverted an edit revison 644659438 on "Fine-tuned Universe" based on the reason, "No original research".

If so, then why is the following text allowed in the page? It also cites the very same original research used by the edit you reverted.

"Fred Adams has investigated the structure of stars in universes with different values of the gravitational constant G, the fine-structure constant α, and a nuclear reaction rate parameter C. His study suggests that roughly 25% of this parameter space allows stars to exist.[17]"

The edit that you reverted was only adding more clarifying information to the above text using the same cited source. Therefore, the edit should be accepted. 205.241.40.253 (talk) 23:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for asking! Your edit was as follows:

Fred Adams has investigated the structure of stars in universes with different values of the gravitational constant G, the fine-structure constant α, and a nuclear reaction rate parameter C. His study suggests that roughly 25% of this parameter space allows stars to exist (although his criteria of star existence only considers achieving sustained nuclear reaction, and does not consider other factors, i.e. the different values of the gravitational constant having an effect on the cosmic expansion that would also determine the existence of stars; in addition, the author notes that the 25% only addresses the question of if stars can exist, not if life can exist, which would reduce the value of 25% by introducing additional constraints.)

The added text in parentheses appears to be your commentary on Adams. Please note that per WP:OR, when you use a primary source (as this one is, you cannot go beyond what the paper itself says. So:
where in Adams, does Adams say that his parameters "only considers achieving sustained nuclear reaction"?
where in Adams, does Adams say that "cosmic expansion ... would also determine the existence of stars"?
where in Adams, does Adams note "that the 25% only addresses the question of if stars can exist, not if life can exist, which would reduce the value of 25% by introducing additional constraints"?
I don't find those things in Adams; they appear to be your original research, commenting on Adams, and if so, that is not allowed in WP. Thanks again for asking. Jytdog (talk) 23:53, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Ahh thank you for your clarification. Here are the answers to your questions.
  • where in Adams, does Adams say that his parameters "only considers achieving sustained nuclear reaction"?
The 25% is from Figure 5 of his paper. On p17, he states: "Figure 5 shows the portion of the plane that allows for stars to successfully achieve sustained nuclear reactions." Thus, the 25% of Figure 5 only considers achieving sustained nuclear reaction as the paper clearly states.
  • where in Adams, does Adams say that "cosmic expansion ... would also determine the existence of stars"?
It doesn't, which is exactly the reason why it supports the edit sentence, "does not consider other factors, i.e. ... cosmic expansion ..."
However, from your clarified reason, I see how this can be my personal comment of the paper. I am willing to omit this part, "i.e. the different values of ... would also determine the existence of stars;"
  • where in Adams, does Adams note "that the 25% only addresses the question of if stars can exist, not if life can exist, which would reduce the value of 25% by introducing additional constraints"?"
In his conclusion section on p29, he states:
"Finally, we note that this paper has focused on the question of whether or not stars can exist in universe with alternate values of the relevant parameters. An important and more global question is whether or not these universes could also support life of some kind. Of course, such questions are made difficult by our current lack of an a priori theory of life. Nonetheless, some basic requirements can be identified (with reasonable certainty): In addition to energy sources (provided by stars), there will be additional constraints to provide the right mix of chemical elements (e.g., carbon in our universe) and a universal solvent (e.g., water). These additional requirements will place additional constraints on the allowed region(s) of parameter space."
As you can see, the edit was simply a concise version of his conclusion. If you prefer, I do not mind adding the above entire conclusion as a direct quote to the article, instead of rewording it short.
205.241.40.253 (talk) 00:20, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for talking.
You do realize that you just demonstrated that everything you added was OR, right? I think you know, but I just want to be sure. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 00:43, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Please explain how everything I added was OR. As stated, I am willing to omit the 2nd bullet. But, the 1st and 3rd bullets are as stated in the paper.
205.241.40.253 (talk) 00:53, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
It appears that #1 and #2 are OR, but #3 is an appropriate edit (it seems to be exactly what Adams stated, correct me if I am wrong). #1 is OR because pointing out what is mentioned in a paper, as a way of highlighting what isn't, is original research. In the Apollo 11 you would not point out that an article on the event only interviews people from NASA (i.e. doesn't mention moon-landing conspiracy theories), as that would be OR. -Jordgette [talk] 01:30, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  1. 1 is OR because you added "only". We don't know what Adams would say about how these three factors might relate to other things like expansion. #3 is OR because I don't see where he says anything about the area under the curves being 25% of the space (I think that is where you are getting the 1st 25%) and he definitely doesn't say anything about " not if life can exist, which would reduce the value of 25% by introducing additional constraints" that I can see. Jytdog (talk) 01:47, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree.
#1 used "only" because Figure 5 only shows stars that successfully achieved sustained nuclear reactions. Figure 5 does NOT show any other info other than "sustained nuclear reactions" as the author stated.
You say, "We don't know what Adams would say about how these three factors might relate to other things like expansion." But, we do. On p28, it states "In future work, another issue to be considered is coupling the effects of alternate values of the fundamental constants to the cosmic expansion, big bang nucleosynthesis, and structure formation." He clearly stated that cosmic expansion was not part of this paper, and it needs to be considered in the future work.
25% is used even in the existing text of the current article. It comes from p27, which states: "Roughly one fourth of this parameter space allows for the existence of “ordinary” stars (see Figure 5)." Again, it directly ties this 25% to Figure 5, which only shows stars achieving sustained nuclear reactions.
#3 is a concise rewording of the aforementioned conclusion. The conclusion does state that the paper does NOT address if life can exist. It also states that asking this question about life would introduce "additional requirements will place additional constraints on the allowed region(s) of parameter space."
How about making the edit as follows?
(His criteria of star existence is based on achieving sustained nuclear reaction and he suggests considering other factors, i.e. cosmic expansion, etc. in the future work. In addition, the author notes that the 25% only addresses the question of if stars can exist, not if life can exist -- asking the question about the life would introduce additional requirements that will place additional constraints on the 25%.)
24.25.206.220 (talk) 03:31, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. That version is OK with me with two modifications. Please don't put it in parentheses, and please say something like "approximately 25%" - we cannot be more precise than he is. Thanks again. Jytdog (talk) 10:45, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
OK, done. Thank you for the discussion and please feel free to make any adjustment if necessary.
24.25.206.220 (talk) 15:56, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Discussion of capitalization of universe[edit]

There is request for comment about capitalization of the word universe at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Capitalization of universe - request for comment. Please participate. SchreiberBike talk 00:34, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Notification of request for comment[edit]

An RfC has been commenced at MOSCAPS Request for comment - Capitalise universe.

Cinderella157 (talk) 03:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC)