Darkforbid
Well-Known Member
Simply false.
First of all, we don't know if the fundamental constants *can* change or be different. Out current *theories* seem to work with any values of those constants, but we know our current theories are incomplete.
In particular, the Standard Model does not include a quantum theory of gravity, which we *know* is going to be relevant for the very early stages of the universe. it is also quite relevant for the 'cancellation' required for the cosmological constant. In fact, the claim that cancellation is required at all is based on a calculation involving quantum fluctuations and their contribution to the overall energy balance of the universe. It may well be that a *good* quantum theory of gravity simply gives the correct value for the cosmological constant without any required cancellations at all.
Next, the whole basis of the fine tuning arguments is based on the idea that the fundamental constants in the Standard Model are, indeed, fundamental (and not based on some more fundamental process), that they *can* be different, that there is only one universe (a multiverse cleanly circumvents the fine tuning argument), and that the possible values of the constants are random in some sense.
If, however, there is a dynamic the drives those constants to the values they have, the whole fine tuning argument fails. And this is the position taken by a number of theorists in the subject.
Finally, while the fine tuning is often presented as a fine tuning for life, that is very far from being the case. At *best* it is a fine tuning for complexity in the universe. So, nuclei larger than beryllium are actually produced. it is only ego that suggests this is 'for' the production of life. There is no hint of an intention in any of this.
Well that's a ****load of maybe's