Our Goldilocks Universe
Hugh Ross, Ph.D.
The universe is incredibly massive. Nevertheless, its mass must be spectacularly fine-tuned for life to be possible. Exactly how massive the universe is remained unknown until astronomers focused the Hubble Space Telescope on a patch of sky no bigger than a tenth the Moon’s (angular) diameter, and held it there for some 278 hours. This Ultra Deep Field study successfully imaged all the galaxies (at least those bigger than dwarfs) existing in that region.
The field contains roughly 10,000 galaxies. By simple extrapolation, astronomers determined that the entire observable universe contains at least 200 billion galaxies. These galaxies contain an estimated average of 200 billion stars each. The total number of stars in these galaxies, then, is 40 billion trillion. The unobserved dwarf galaxies would contribute an estimated additional 10 billion trillion. Thus, the total number of stars in the observable universe adds up to about 50 billion trillion.
Fifty billion trillion stars—that’s an unimaginably enormous universe. And yet the universe is more massive by far! The stars, both those that are still shining and those that have burned out, account for just one percent of the universe’s total mass. The rest of the mass is a combination of ordinary and exotic dark matter (matter that neither emits nor reflects radiation).
One reason the universe must be so massive is that life requires it. The density of protons and neutrons determines how much of the universe’s hydrogen fuses into heavier elements. With a slightly lower density (producing fewer than about 50 billion trillion observable stars), nuclear fusion would be less productive and at no time in cosmic history would elements heavier than helium be produced. Or, if the density were slightly higher (producing more than about 50 billion trillion observable stars), nuclear fusion would be so productive that only heavier-than-iron elements would exist. Either way, life-essential elements such as carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, and phosphorous would be too scarce or even nonexistent.
Such amazing fine-tuning brings to mind Baby Bear’s “just right” everything in the Goldilocks fairy tale—and to a degree of precision not even the best human customization could approach. In other words, this amazing fine-tuning argues compellingly for the involvement of a supernatural, super-intelligent Creator, the God of the Bible.
Without addressing the astrophysical question of life (as we know it) requiring so massive a universe (for which I am not equipped), I would point out that it is hardly surprising that we live in a universe in which life can develop. If the universe were otherwise, we would not exist. If there are multiple universes with different physical laws (as proposed in a previous entry), then life will of course only exist in those universes that can support it. Since we have only one example of a universe to inspect, it is speculative at best to say what things might be like if any given physical constants were changed, and it is absurd to claim that no life could develop if they were not just as they are. Such life might be very different, but we don’t know enough to say it couldn’t exist.
(I realize that the above post does not address this issue, but it is central to most “fine-tuning” arguments for the existence of a god.)
Furthermore, it is amusing to note that the existence of life as we know it is also dependent upon the universe being very old. There must have been enough time for the first stars to go through the main sequence and go supernova in order to produce the heavier elements which life (AWKI) requires. Dr. Ross does not argue here for a young earth (and universe), but I wonder how many of the readers and contributors to this blog support that idea. Arguing for a massive universe being needed to produce essential elements for life seems to assume that life arose by naturalistic processes… in other words, abiogenesis and evolution.
I know that Christians are not all of one mind on questions of the age of the universe and of evolution, but it is strange to see some believers using the findings of science to support their beliefs while others see those same findings as unacceptably in conflict with theirs.
Many of the fields of science have been brought into check by creation scientists revealing the false claims of deceivers. Unfortunately, astronomy has thus far been exempt from truth-exposing by scientists who believe in the Genesis creation.
The photo which Hugh Ross posted (available for view in higher resolution online) does not reveal the 10,000 galaxies he claims. His claim goes further to claim the there are now 200 billion galaxies, each with an average of 200 billion stars. This is not a scientific claim, but the repeat of some of the lies from other liars.
In 1936, it was estimated that the 200” telescope at Mt. Wilson, which was completed and became operational in 1949, would allow the observer to see 1 billion stars. Yet in the 1936 college text, the number of stars in the Milky Way was taught to be 100 billion. Not observational science. Even today, the photos from Hubble do not reveal 100 billion stars in the Milky Way, yet now Ross is doubling the claim to 200 billion. The database of galaxies maintained by Paturel of Lyons Observatory included less than 74,000 galaxies as of 1989.
But are the stars as far away as these liars claim? Parallax, the trigonometric method of stellar measurement, prior to the launching of the HIPPARCOS, was limited to “5,000,000 times the sun’s distance from the earth (parallax 0”.04) the mean of two or three determinations will be correct within 20 percent”. In other words, 80 light-years with an accuracy of plus or minus 20 percent was the maximum stellar measurement via parallax astronomers could make prior to the HIPPARCOS, High Precision Parallax Collecting Satellite. It is claimed that this satellite can make parallax measurements as small as 0”.002 or 1600 light-years. Thus, the large stellar measurements rests solely on stellar magnitude or a derivative method, yet these methods are also flawed.
Hugh Ross’ claim “one reason the universe must be so massive is that life requires it” amounts to garbage based on a belief in chemical evolution, nuclear fusion producing life-essential elements.
It was in my son’s 8th grade modern science text the following claims: uranium has a half-life of about 4.5 billion years, that uranium decays into lead, the earth is about 4.6 billion years old, and scientists can measure the ratio of uranium to lead in a rock to date the rock. However, if the claim of the half-life of uranium is true, it would prove that the earth is not very old, otherwise half of the original uranium would now be lead. Yet lead is not mined with uranium, nor is it in the chemical expression of the minerals from which uranium is obtained.
The Word of God is true, including the Biblical account of creation. Believers should not be deceived by people who themselves are deceived, such as Hugh Ross.
I failed to include in my last comment one of Ross’s contridictions, his inclusion of unobservable dwarf galaxies in the observable universe. Either they are observable are they are not, but not both.