On squeaky voices...

The fact that the early universe gives rise to an 'interesting' abundance of Helium-4, that is, neither zero nor 100%, is a consequence of a delicate coincidence between the gravitational and weak interactions.

There was a tiny window of opportunity for the formation of the light elements at the beginning of the Big Bang. In the first 0.04 seconds it was far too hot for little nuclei not to disintegrate. On the other hand after around 8 minutes the temperature was too low to force the wee nucleons to come in range of the strong nuclear force. So in 14 billion years of history there was only one period of time, just long enough to boil a pan of pasta, during which Hydrogen and Helium could have been formed.

The proportion of neutrons and protons that combined to form either hydrogen or helium is dictated by the various actions of different forces (as alluded to in the quote from Barrow and Tipler above). The maths works out at about 1 He for every 10 H nuclei.

Were the forces not so delicately balanced then we would have 100% Helium or 100% Hydrogen. In the former case life wouldn't be possible (no water, stars that burnt up faster). In the later life would probably have been possible.

Quote Unquote

As we look out into the universe and identify the many accidents of physics and astronomy that have worked together to our benefit, it seems almost as if the Universe must in some sense have known that we were coming.

F Dyson

Cosmic coincidences part 2

Four and a half billion years ago, when the earth was just a wee bairn, it was struck by an object the size of Mars. From what physicists can make out collisions of this magnitude are extremely rare in the universe. When the dust of that collision had settled there were two key outcomes. Firstly the earth had grown a bit bigger, and secondly the debris that was kicked into space coagulated to form the unusually large moon.

Typically moons are very small compared to the planet they orbit, but for earth's satellite body things are very different. This is crucial to maintaining our climate. The size of the moon means that it acts as a gravitational steadying force, stabilising the earth's tilt, and in doing so preventing wild fluctuations in the heat coming from the sun.

Conditions might be bad for complex land-based life if there were no moon and obliquity varied significantly.

Cosmic coincidences part 1

New Scientist magazine this week has an article that discusses some of the unlikely happenings that occurred in the universe en route to the arrival of us.

In the first moments of the Big Bang matter and antimatter were present in equal amounts. The thing is that when these two come into contact with one another they wipe each other out in a spray of photons, so in theory that's all that should be left of the universe.

However the reality is another matter, so to speak. Matter won the day over antimatter and in doing so creating a universe that really does matter.

Something tipped the balance in favour of matter and in doing so allowed a universe to develop in which life could exist.

Something seems to have favoured the creation of matter at a crucial moment within the first instants after the big bang.

My causes

I just watched an interesting programme in which Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sachs decided to put his faith to the test and invite four leading atheists to challenge him.

One of the four was a scientist who felt that because science could explain, or has the potential to explain, everything that he is, then there is no room and no need for God. The way he framed his position brought home to me some key issues in sharp clarity:

- The atheist has to have faith that God cannot be one of those causal forces and...
- The atheist has to believe that God cannot work through the medium of any of the other causal forces... to get to the point where they don't believe that there is a God
- Many believers fail to grasp the reality of some of the myriad causal forces that contribute to the making of each one of us

These forces are indeed wide ranging. They involve nature and nurture, culture and genetics, history and biology - a spicy cocktail if ever there was one, but included in that list, and indeed running through it, I include God.

Another gap closed?

I just bought a copy of The Times for the first time in months - so it worked!

The current commotion is all about pre-release comments from Prof Stephen Hawking, author of an upcoming book The Grand Design. What has he said?

Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.

We'll have to wait until the book is published to find out the full story, but essentially we're talking about origins, origins of the universe and the Big Bang. The religious problem exists for people whose belief in God is fuelled by things that science can't explain - the gaps. However, before the atheists get too excited, for many believers this just isn't the way they understand God.

God is not squeezed inbetween like intellectual Polyfiller, rather he is the potter who shapes the Universe he created. In a way that means that there shouldn't be any gaps. As Dr David Wilkinson, astrophysicist and theologian, said today

The God Christians believe in is a God who is intimately involved with every moment of the universe's history, not just its beginnings

Hawking concluded his previous book by saying that if we could unify the physics of the Big Bang we should 'know the mind of God', and perhaps this next work will be his answer, but one thing is for sure: God's mind is not deciphered entirely by equations. However revealing they may be, there is a limit to the efficacy of science in this domain. Dr Lee Rayfield, Bishop of Swindon, put it like this

His conclusion does not change the remarkable coherence between the nature of our universe and the understanding Christians have about the nature and character of God.

Still, the storm in a teacup will continue for at least as long as The Times' serialisation goes on. Dawkins will continue to buzz like a high energy particle at straw men and soft targets, but the real loser will be truth. Some people will be turned off science by the comments, others religion. What a shame. As theoretical physicist Prof Chris Isham lamented...

I groaned when I read this. Stephen's always saying this sort of thing - he loves the publicity.

And I'll be buying the book on the back of it. Sucked in!

Ancient Near East beliefs

It seems clear that the creation accounts of early Genesis were designed to undermine the prevalent myths of the time. The following example comes from Egypt, dating to around 2000 years ago. The full text can be found here.

Serve God, that he may do the like for you, with offerings for replenishing the altars and with carving; it is that which will show forth your name, and God is aware of whoever serves Him. Provide for men, the cattle of God, for He made heaven and earth at their desire. He suppressed the greed of the waters, He gave the breath of life to their noses, for they are likenesses of Him which issued from His flesh. He shines in the sky for the benefit of their hearts; He has made herbs, cattle, and fish to nourish them. He has killed His enemies and destroyed His own children, because they had planned to make rebellion; He makes daylight for the benefit of their hearts, and he sails around in order to see them

The Instruction of Merikare