A Conjecture That Counters Intelligent Design
(The following was posted on the SciAm community site on 16 May 2008.)
One of the basic refrains of the Intelligent Design (ID) people is that the characteristics of the Universe were deliberately set, by some sort of intelligent “force,” so that life could originate. The ID argument is that relatively small changes in the specifications would make life impossible. This viewpoint is echoed in a book by Paul Davies, “Cosmic Jackpot: Why Our Universe is Just Right for Life.” The explanation for the subtitle is that the biological ingredients have the optimum values needed to construct DNA molecules, and so forth.
For example: The four most important organic elements are carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen (CHON). They come together in a semi-infinite number of ways to form the ensemble of living creatures. But look more closely at any of these CHON atoms: at the center is a positively-charged nucleus, surrounded by negatively-charged electrons. We know how much the nucleus and electrons weigh; we know how strong the pull between positive and negative charges happens to be. But we don’t know why they have this weight, or why the charges yield a certain force value.
Because Davies thinks of himself as a scientist, he doesn’t really believe the ID stuff. On pp 195-198 we have a section titled “Intelligent Design in Biology Is Magic, Not Science.” But on p 268 he writes “Yet I do believe that life and mind are etched deeply into the fabric of the cosmos, perhaps through a shadowy, half-glimpsed life principle, and if I am to be honest I have to concede that this starting point is something I feel more in my heart than in my head. So maybe that is a religious conviction of sorts.”
The purpose of my essay is to put Davies out of his misery, so to speak, via a conjecture that explains the “just right for life” mantra without invoking an intelligent deity. It is, simply, that the natural “constants” are not constant, that they change with time.
The most representative natural “constant” is the speed of light, which is now 300 million meters/second (or 186,000 miles/second). I cite two important physicists whose thesis is that the velocity of light is not constant:
1) Allen Rothwarf, in “An Aether Model of the Universe,” Physics Essays, September 1998. (The “aether” is the medium that carries electromagnetic waves.)
2) Joao Magueijo, “Faster Than the Speed of Light: The Story of a Scientific Speculation,” Penguin Books, 2003.
The speed of light is determined by the “permeability” and “permittivity” of the aether. We have precise measurements of their present-day values, but we have not the slightest notion as to why they have these values. My conjecture is that these values, along with the characteristics of CHON atoms, keep changing slowly with time. There is no empirical data that support a change in the speed of light with time but, if it is true that the Universe is expanding, there is every reason to believe that the aether density decreases, and this changes the speed of light.
It is almost obvious, therefore, that the Universe has gone through various phases:
Phase 1: Extending from the Big Bang to time (t) = 6 billion years, life as we know it could not exist. Cosmologists in general agree that the Universe is 13.7 billion years old. My figure of 6 billion years, for the termination of Phase 1, is a wild guess. In this early phase of the Universe, the structures of CHON atoms were such that it was impossible for these atoms to stick together, in proper sequence, to form anything like a DNA (or RNA) molecule. Other complex molecules could form, but none of them were viable.
At t = 6 billion years, the velocity of light was 453 million m/s (based on equations derived in Rothwarf’s paper.)
Phase 2: Extending from t = 6 to 11.2 billion years, during which the Earth formed at 9.15 billion years, it was easy and natural for CHON atoms to stick to each other. Eventually, given the millions of places where a proper “soup” formed, and millions of years for molecules to grow as their atoms stuck together, the simplest of DNA (or RNA) molecules formed. Without any predators, the first living cell multiplied until all of the available chemical “food” or energy was consumed. Then the slow process of mutation, and survival of the fittest, began.
At t = 11.2 billion years, the velocity of light was 332 million m/s.
Phase 3: Extending from t = 11.2 to 20 billion years (the latter figure is another wild guess). This is the phase in which we now find ourselves. Mutations and survival of the fittest have, after some 4 billion years, given birth to homo sapiens. There creatures are very intelligent, and they know a great deal about DNA molecules, but they cannot synthesize the most primitive of viable cells. The reason is that the CHON atoms are different from what they were in Phase 2; they don’t stick together in a manner to form the simplest of living cells. There’s not much that can be done about it, because one cannot take a bottle filled with Phase 3 aether particles, and compress them to duplicate Phase 2 conditions. We cannot originate life, but we can propagate existing life.
At t = 20 billion years, the velocity of light will be 248 million m/s.
Phase 4: Extending from t = 20 billion years to infinity, the natural “constants” will change to the point where life becomes impossible. A living cell, in Phase 4, will not be able to function. Gradually, as the Earth goes from Phase 3 to Phase 4, the population of complex biological forms will decrease. Finally, even the simplest of cells will fail to reproduce. Life will end because CHON atoms will not be capable of forming viable combinations. Again, complex molecules can form, but none of them will be viable. Since the Sun is expected to explode at around t = 20 billion years, no “people” will be around to “enjoy” the spectacle.
Actually, if the natural “constants” change with time, it messes up all of the time values so that the Universe is not 13.7 billions old. The 4 phases remain, but with different intervals of time. Hopefully, the Intelligent Design notion, that some kind of intelligent force molded the Universe, is a nonsensical proposal that, also, will no longer be viable.
August 29th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
Sid,
I am on your personal email list, which is why I am aware of your Wordpress site.
There is an interesting article that suggests atomic decay rates vary with distance from the Sun.
http://arxivblog.com/?p=596
“Today, the story gets even more puzzling. Jere Jenkins and pals at Purdue University in Indiana have re-analysed the raw data from these experiments and say that the modulations are synchronised with each other and with Earth’s distance from the sun. (Both groups, in acts of selfless dedication, measured the decay rates of siliocn-32 and radium-226 over a period of many years.)”
An NPA contributor has a paper that suggests the “density of something” varies with distance from the Sun. He used the the data from the weird doppler shift of the Pioneer spacecraft, and he concluded that the doppler shift is caused by a change in the density of the medium in which the electromagnetic doppler emissions traveled.
I plotted the same data point he used and it fits an inverse square law curve precisely, the density of something varies with the inverse distance from the Sun. Your article provided the following:
“The speed of light is determined by the “permeability” and “permittivity” of the aether. We have precise measurements of their present-day values, but we have not the slightest notion as to why they have these values.”
We have a precise measurement of these values but only those measured on the surface of the earth. We have the capability to measure pemittivity/permeability off planet but there seems to be a reluctance to do so. They need to measure permittivity/permeability with the same dedication as they do the atomic decay rates. It would not surprise me that it will vary with distance from the Sun.
August 29th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
I found this essay to be very enlightening and an excellent challenge to Davies. And, who knows what forms of life would have been “just right” for a different soup recipe….
November 28th, 2008 at 10:14 pm
Hi everyone
I much liked your site.
Good bay!
December 1st, 2008 at 1:31 am
Nice post u have here
Added to my RSS reader
February 10th, 2009 at 12:43 am
Hi, cool site, good writing
May 1st, 2009 at 4:39 pm
I rarely comment on blogs but yours I had to stop and say Great Blog!!
May 29th, 2009 at 3:26 am
Scot UFO - UFO sightings, news & events from around Scotland
But your mind is not open. You are ignoring several aspects of the situation. First, the fallability of humans at identifying unfamiliar objects (the planet Venus is commonly reported as a UFO, and it’ s the third brightest natural object in our skie…
June 13th, 2009 at 2:35 pm
The article is usefull for me. I’ll be coming back to your blog.
July 20th, 2009 at 12:27 am
Thank you for a great blog, I will be sure to bookmark your site and check later… Usually I don’t leave a comment but I wanted to let you know that I really like your site
July 21st, 2009 at 2:33 pm
The best information i have found exactly here. Keep going Thank you
July 30th, 2009 at 5:22 am
Thanks for sharing this post with me - It was an interesting read
July 30th, 2009 at 5:27 am
I don’t really know much about this sort of thing, but thanks anyway
July 30th, 2009 at 6:54 am
Thanks for sharing this post with me - It was an interesting read
August 17th, 2009 at 11:50 pm
I really like the look of your site.
August 19th, 2009 at 5:24 am
I usually never do a reply post but I enjoyed your blog a lot,Thanks for the great info
August 29th, 2009 at 10:36 pm
Nice write up…usually I never reply to these thing but this time I will,Thanks for the great info
August 30th, 2009 at 1:52 pm
I loved reading this and I dont really like to read
September 7th, 2009 at 3:31 am
I don’t usually post but I enjoyed your blog a lot,Thanks alot for the great read
September 7th, 2009 at 4:55 am
I don’t usually post but I enjoyed your blog a lot,Thanks alot for the great read
September 8th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
Thank you for a great blog.
September 9th, 2009 at 6:06 am
Hi! I was surfing and found your blog post… nice! I love your blog.
Cheers! Sandra. R.
September 9th, 2009 at 5:57 pm
Nice blog!
September 11th, 2009 at 9:20 am
Hi Dr. Deutch, or may I call you Sid
I enjoyed finding you on-line, enjoyed reading your posts, impressed with your oeuvre, and this after our first mtg 59 years ago at PRD.
Best regards, Harry Nash
September 12th, 2009 at 3:24 pm
You made some good points on this subject.
September 14th, 2009 at 5:54 pm
You made some good points here.
September 21st, 2009 at 11:41 pm
Thank you for a great blog, I will be sure to bookmark your site and check back later
September 25th, 2009 at 7:25 pm
Thank you for a great blog, I will be sure to bookmark your site and check back later
September 26th, 2009 at 9:15 pm
Really great blog here. Thanks!
November 23rd, 2009 at 3:09 pm
I agree that we must reduce the birth rate to avoid catastrophy. But I am writing to comment on your book, “Einstein’s Greatest mistake”.
How can an intelligent person play with two separated permanent magnets and still believe there is void between the magnets?
I have written a too long, too dull play, in which I discuss such matters (in dreams) with many deceased scientists.
If you make the mistake of requesting it, I will email you the portion of the play, in which, I converse with Albert Einstein on such matters.
December 20th, 2009 at 9:15 pm
I know this is really boring and you are skipping to the next comment, but I just wanted to throw you a big thanks - you cleared up some things for me!
December 22nd, 2009 at 1:20 am
We just couldnt leave your website before saying that we really enjoyed the quality information you offer to your visitors… Will be back often to check up on new stuff you post!
December 24th, 2009 at 8:51 am
This is such a great resource that you are providing and you give it away for free. I enjoy seeing websites that understand the value of providing a prime resource for free. I truly loved reading your post. Thanks!
December 29th, 2009 at 7:44 am
I just love your weblog! Very nice post! Still you can do many things to improve it.
rH3uYcBX
January 21st, 2010 at 7:31 am
Was very enjoy to find this blog.I wanted to thank you for this nice read!! I definitely happy every little bit of it and I have bookmarked to check out new stuff you post.
February 5th, 2010 at 12:33 pm
Genial brief and this fill someone in on helped me alot in my college assignement. Gratefulness you for your information.
February 28th, 2010 at 12:23 pm
Wouldn’t it be so cool to find out there is life outside this planet?? I mean, it would throw out our whole ideas about religion…. but from a science stand point it would be amazing.
March 30th, 2010 at 1:32 pm
My name is Piter Jankovich. oOnly want to tell, that your blog is really cool
And want to ask you: is this blog your hobby?
P.S. Sorry for my bad english
May 12th, 2010 at 10:48 am
Thanks for the great post, it helps to know that there are other people out there that care aboutthe Earth. Please add your site to our directory to get your good words out to our readers. Thanks again, it really helps me keep going to read blogs like yours. You can find our directory at http://www.everygreenthing.net