It also appears that reliable electromagnetic signaling (of the kind we use in radios, televisions, computers, and telephone systems, as well as in biological neural systems) is possible only in a three dimensional universe. Barrow and Tipler (1996, p. 268) explained, “In two-dimensional spaces wave signals emitted at different times can be received simultaneously: signal reverberation occurs. It is impossible to transmit sharply defined signals in two dimensions.” Reliable transmission requires not only that waves are without reverberation but also without distortion. Barrow and Tipler went on to say, “Three-dimensional worlds allow spherical waves . . . to propagate in distortionless fashion. . . . Only threedimensional worlds appear to possess the ‘nice’ properties necessary for the transmission of high-fidelity signals because of the simultaneous realization of sharp and distortionless propagation. . . . If living systems require high-fidelity wave propagation for their existence to be possible, then we could not expect to observe the world to possess other than three spatial dimensions.” Also, the gravity waves of Einstein’s general theory of relativity could only propagate in a universe with three spatial dimensions and one time dimension (Barrow and Tipler 1996, p. 273). A modern cosmological theory, string theory, relies on a universe with ten spatial dimensions and one time dimension; however, all but three of the spatial dimensions are compacted on the microscopic level and have no visible effect on wave propagation (Barrow and Tipler 1996, pp. 274–275).
How to explain the Fine tuning
The existence of a universe in which human life as we know it is possible depends on the fine tuning of several constants and ratios of physical forces. How did this fine tuning come about? Today, theorists recognize three main possibilities. First, the fine tuning in the universe of our experience might be determined by an as yet undiscovered physical law. Second, it could be that our universe is only one of an infinite number of universes, each with different values for the constants and ratios, and we just happen to be living in the one with the values that will allow life to arise. Third, the fine tuning could be the result of providential design. Let us now consider each of these possibilities, beginning with physical determination of the fundamental constants and ratios.
In modern cosmology, some theorists propose that the fine tuning of universal constants and ratios of fundamental forces of nature will eventually be predicted by a grand unified theory of everything. At the present moment the biggest obstacle to a theory of everything is the unification of quantum mechanics and Einstein’s general relativity theory. Quantum mechanics does very well in explaining the world of atoms and subatomic particles, where the main forces are electromagnetism, the atomic weak force, and the atomic strong force. Relativity theory does very well in explaining the action of gravity on the larger scale of the universe. At present no theory has successfully integrated both quantum mechanics and relativity theory, and this unification is especially necessary to explain the very early history of the Big Bang universe, when all the forces of nature were unified. One theory that promises to unify gravity with the other three fundamental forces is superstring theory. According to superstring theory, the basic units of matter are very tiny circular “strings” of energy. The various subatomic particles are strings vibrating at different frequencies in ten dimensional space. Superstring theorists claim that many of the fine tunings of fundamental constants and ratios of natural forces could be directly derived from the theory. But at the present moment there is no physical verification of superstring theory. “Strings” are many orders of magnitude smaller than the smallest subatomic particles visible in the biggest particle colliders. Rees (2000, p. 145) calls attention to the “unbridged gap between the intricate complexity of ten-dimensional string theory and any phenomena that we can observe or measure.” Until some kind of verification can be obtained, superstring theory remains in the realm of speculation and cannot be called upon to resolve the fine tuning problem.
In the absence of a physical theory that determines the finely tuned fundamental constants observed in our universe, one can consider the possibility that some intelligent designer adjusted the constants. A good many cosmologists would rather not have it come down to this, so they appeal to the existence of innumerable other universes, in which the constants vary randomly. Among these universes is ours.
There are varieties of ways to get many universes. One proposal is that the Big Bang is cyclical. A Big Bang universe ends in a “Big Crunch,”compacting itself into a singularity, a point of unlimited density, and then bounces back into existence in another Big Bang. And the process repeats itself endlessly, with each universe having a different set of fundamental constants. But Barrow and Tipler (1996, pp. 248–249) stated: “Only in those cycles in which the ‘deal’ is right will observers evolve.
. . . The problem with this idea is that it is far from being testable. . . . Also, if the permutation at each singularity extends to the constants of Nature, why not to the space-time topology and curvature as well? And if this were the case, sooner or later the geometry would be exchanged for a noncompact structure bound to expand for all future time. No future singularity would ensue and the constants of Nature would remain forever invariant. . . . However, why should this final permutation of the constants and topology just happen to be the one which allows the evolution of observers!” For our purposes, the main point is that the cyclic universe idea is an untestable speculation motivated by the desire to avoid the idea that God finely tuned the fundamental constants and ratios we observe in our universe.
One of the main interpretations of quantum mechanics also assumes many universes. Quantum mechanics involves transforming the deterministic equations of ordinary physics to yield a wave function specifying a range of statistical probabilities. The situation we observe in the universe of our experience represents only one of these statistical probabilities. According to the “many worlds” interpretation of quantum mechanics, the other possibilities are simultaneously realized in separate universes.
Yet another way to introduce many universes is to propose that just after the initial Big Bang many regions of the universe had their own Mini Bangs and moved away from each other so quickly that light signals were no longer able to pass between them. Thus isolated from each other, these noncommunicating regions are in effect separate simultaneously existing universes.
No matter how they get many universes, cosmologists concerned with the fine tuning question go on to propose that in each of these universes the fundamental constants are adjusted differently, by chance. And we just happen to find ourselves in the universe where all these constants are adjusted so as to allow the presence of stable stars, planets, atoms, and the development of life forms.
Among modern cosmologists, Rees (2000, p. 4), for example, favors this many universe explanation. But he himself has admitted it is “speculative” (Rees 2000, p. 11). There is no way of demonstrating by the methods of modern materialistic science that these many alternative universes actually exist. And even if it could be shown they existed, one would have to further show that in each of them the fundamental constants varied randomly.According to theVedic cosmology,alternative material universes do exist. An unlimited number of them emanate from Maha Vishnu. But in each one of them there is life, according to the Vedic accounts, indicating that in each universe the fundamental constants of nature would show the appropriate fine tuning. In short, the hypothesis of many universes does not in itself provide an escape from the fine tuning problem or rule out providential design. In the absence of a physical theory that yields the observed values of the fundamental constants, and in the absence of experimental evidence for a multiplicity of universes with randomly varying fundamental constants, the fine tuning of physical constants that we observe in our own universe, the only one that we can observe, points directly to providential design. In essence, all the attempts by modern cosmologists to come up with alternative explanations are motivated by the desire to avoid the default conclusion that God is responsible for the fine tuning.