Carbon dating to 50,000 years

Posted 21 October 2012 by Matt Young

An article in Friday's Science magazine details how a team of scientists provided a calibration for carbon dating accurately to 50,000 years, or about 10 times the age of the earth according to many creationists. Until now, carbon dating was accurate only to about 13,000 years, or the ages of the oldest trees. The Science article is fairly dense, but Science has provided a helpful Perspective, and Popular Science has a nice article as well. It turns out that the concentration of ¹⁴C in the atmosphere varies from year to year, so calculations of the age of a specimen need to be corrected for this yearly variation; uncorrected calculations are not wrong, but they may be in error by hundreds of years. Until now, we have had no detailed record of the ¹⁴C concentration beyond the age of the oldest trees. Now, however, a team led by Christopher Bronk Ramsey of the University of Oxford has examined sediments in a Japanese lake and extended carbon dating to approximately 50,000 years. The lake was chosen because the bed of the lake is anoxic and its sediments are thought to have been stable and untouched by ice-age glaciers. The new calibration will be significant to archeology and studies of climate change. Read the 2 articles I have cited for more detail. Not an earthshaking discovery, to be sure, but it shows how science progresses, step-by-step, while creationism merely stagnates. Acknowledgment. Thanks to Rolf Manne of the University of Bergen, Norway, for alerting me to the importance of Bronk Ramsey's article.

62 Comments

DS · 21 October 2012

Well its all atomic and unproven. cant be real so it isnt evidences, just bad interpretations of evidences. all of the experts not knowing what they are talking about cause everyone else is knowing better than they. i say the earth is being only a few thousands so the experts are all wrong in interpretations on origins. Bibbity bobbity boop.

Just Bob · 21 October 2012

Ain't it amazin' what a Flood and Fall can do? (Isn't it amazing what creationists can MAKE them do?)

Henry J · 21 October 2012

So prior to this discovery, could carbon dating be used to figure out the order of events back that far, even if it couldn't establish absolute dates?

Paul Burnett · 21 October 2012

Matt notes the annual deposition of sediments pre-dates the Biblical creation myth by over 40,000 years. It should be noted that the sediments in this freshwater lake also show no massive disruption in annual deposition around 4,000+ years ago - i.e., Noah's Flood didn't happen either.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 21 October 2012

Science changes, so it's wrong.

Unlike ID, which is curiously as unchanging (and as "flexible") as religion is.

Standard IDiot/creationist response, although not expanded to try to pretend that it's a thoughtful response.

Glen Davidson

KlausH · 22 October 2012

I thought C14 dating had been calibrated to 30,000, not 13,000, years using ice cores and sediments.

Jonathan Lubin · 22 October 2012

You seem to be using “the oldest trees” as shorthand for something else, since of course there were trees for a few million years before that. What’s it shorthand for?

TomS · 22 October 2012

The relevant Wikipedia article says "The 2004 version of the calibration curve extends back quite accurately to 26,000 years BP." Radiocarbon dating#Calibration methods

OgreMk5 · 22 October 2012

Even an error of a hundred years at 50,000 years is only .2%. That's not bad. More accurate it better, but still.

As far as the Da Grate Flud, there's just way too much evidence against it, especially that even one piece of evidence kills the flood myth. This is just another nail in the coffin.

Carl Drews · 22 October 2012

This latest research appears to follow up on earlier research by Hiroyuki Kitagawa reported in 1998:

A 40,000-YEAR VARVE CHRONOLOGY FROM LAKE SUIGETSU, JAPAN:
EXTENSION OF THE 14C CALIBRATION CURVE
HIROYUKI KITAGAWA and JOHANNES VAN DER PLICHT
ABSTRACT. A sequence of annually laminated sediments is a potential tool for calibrating the radiocarbon time scale
beyond the range of the absolute tree-ring calibration (11 ka). We performed accelerator mass spectrometric (AMS) 14C measurements on [greater than] 250 terrestrial macrofossil samples from a 40,000-yr varve sequence from Lake Suigetsu, Japan. The results yield the first calibration curve for the total range of the 14C dating method.

Proceedings of the 16th International 14C Conference, edited by W. G. Mook and J. van der Plicht
RADIOCARBON, Vol. 40, No. 1, 1998, P. 505-515

Try these links:

https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/radiocarbon/article/view/2037

https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/radiocarbon/article/download/2037/2040

They conclude:
The long sequence of annually laminated sediments from Lake Suigetsu provides a very exciting
record of atmospheric 14C changes during the past 45 ka. In order to produce a more complete 14C
calibration curve, we intend to completely reconstruct the continuous varve chronology for this
period together with other paleoenvironmental signals recorded in these sediments.

Karen S. · 22 October 2012

The creationists will somehow spin this story. I'm sure we'll get "Scientists admit they were wrong about dating!" or some such drivel.

Carl Drews · 22 October 2012

One does not simply push an orange juice can into the bottom of Lake Suigetsu and pull up 52,800 years worth of sediment core. Does anyone know how the researchers managed to extract an intact stratified column of waterlogged sediment without ending up with a tube full of mixed-up muddy glop instead?

ksplawn · 22 October 2012

Carl Drews said: One does not simply push an orange juice can into the bottom of Lake Suigetsu and pull up 52,800 years worth of sediment core. Does anyone know how the researchers managed to extract an intact stratified column of waterlogged sediment without ending up with a tube full of mixed-up muddy glop instead?

One uses a sediment corer.

Robert Byers · 22 October 2012

This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.

W. H. Heydt · 22 October 2012

Robert Byers said: If it's 50000 years now HOW is this verified enquiring minds want to know?

The references are in the posted article. Go read read them. People here have spent a lot of time explaining things to you and you never get it from the explanations (since you keep coming back and making the same false claims). This time, how about you go *read* the material pointed to and *then* come back and give a cogent description of the data and how the results were derived *befoe* you start denying it. If the report contains things you don't understand, then go learn about those points. The knowledge is out there. How about you pick some of it up. In short... Until you can demonstrate that you actually *understand* the report, don't try blathering about what you think is wrong with it.

ksplawn · 22 October 2012

You still haven't answered my question, Robert. Don't you think you should address things directed towards you before wandering off to find some new tangent to remark upon?

A creationist can always say modern rates of anything can’t presume to have been past rates for any number of reasons imagined or not yet imagined.

And this hypothetical happenstance just happened to change all the lake sediment layers too, in the exactly the way needed to have them agree with radiocarbon dating, and tree ring chronologies, and written histories, and amino acid racemizations, and ice cores, and... Sounds like a "just so" story! Has your hypothetical problem with carbon dating been tested for verification? Has it been demonstrated to be true? Was it predicted? How does it work? Perhaps it was the invisible dragons in our garages. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJRy3Kl_z5E&hd=1

stevaroni · 23 October 2012

Robert Byers said: A creationist can always say modern rates of anything can't presume to have been past rates for any number of reasons imagined or not yet imagined.

Ahhh... true enough. The difference is that creationists wave their hands, say "the speed of light changed" and go wander off to thump bibles. Scientists say "I wonder how these C14 levels varied", then they go out and dig up hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of samples over the course of many decades and make phenomenally accurate measurements and build detailed databases which they constantly cross-correlate in an open, public, process, then they go off and thump spreadsheets. But yeah, other than the investigation, the measurement, the data, the cross-checking, and the constant quest for asymptotic improvement, it's exactly the same.

I watch carefully for biological evidence and satisfy myself it doesn't show up. Tree rings and fossils ain't biology.

Fortunately for the canon of human knowlege, biology doesn't give a rats ass about what you can or cannot bring yourself to understand. Nonetheless, the tree rings move.

terenzioiltroll · 23 October 2012

stevaroni said: Nonetheless, the tree rings move.

Yes, indeed. I find them very moving myself. Sometimes, I sit all by myself in my troll's lair mourning: "Tree rings for the Elven kings..."

TomS · 23 October 2012

Robert Byers said: If it's 50000 years now HOW is this verified enquiring minds want to know? Is the "test" for the verification been demomstrated to be true? How did they do that? If it "turned out" that yearly concentration levels of carbon vary then why not this varying concept have been more so for reasons in the past? It's an option! Was this varying predicted? Yo'all still grasping for un proven dating methodology to make your case for the unlikely case of bubbles to buffaloes . A creationist can always say modern rates of anything can't presume to have been past rates for any number of reasons imagined or not yet imagined. Evolution must make its case on biological evidence and not geological or chimical claims of backing evidence. If evolution has been a false hypothesis then I predict it can't make a biological case based on biological evidence. I have never seen on pandas Thumb EVidence as needed. Just flirtations on minor points of biology or other fields of research. I watch carefully for biological evidence and satisfy myself it doesn't show up. Tree rings and fossils ain't biology.

How do you verify that the Earth is a planet in a heliocentric Solar System? How do you reconcile the heliocentric model with what the Bible has to say? Why did people change their opinion of the Bible on geocentrism to fit modern science? And I'm waiting for responses from any heliocentric evolution-denier. This is not a matter of the personality of any individual. There are lots of people who accept the findings of modern science over the plain reading of the Bible when it comes to heliocentrism, but claim that the Bible determines their stand on issues like evolution.

OgreMk5 · 23 October 2012

Bobby, how do you verify that all the people on the internet are actually people? How do you know that the internet and everyone posting things to PT, AtBC, etc aren't just your fevered imagination as energy is sucked from your imprisoned body to power a global super-computer?

You are just repeating the last Thursdayism thing... which, as has been pointed out, isn't true in science. We have this thing, you might have heard of it, called "evidence".

Much like the Road Runner, you never studied it, so it has no meaning for you.

Karen S. · 23 October 2012

“Tree rings for the Elven kings…”

This I love!

Karen S. · 23 October 2012

Bobby,

How do you know you are awake and PT isn't something in your dreams? How do you know you haven't been drugged by evil demons and are just imagining all this?

DS · 23 October 2012

I called it yesterday folks. The cretin don't believe it so it can't be true. It won't bother to read the article. It won't bother to learn anything. All it can do is impotently claim that it, in all its ignorance, knows better than all of the experts and that they must somehow be completely mistaken. It won't believe it until they prove it to him, which is if course impossible since it refuses to look at any evidence or learn anything.

I fail to understand how it is productive to allow an imbecile to use this forum to proudly display his indomitable ignorance. It don't know nothin and don;t wanna know nothin. We gets it. At the very most it should only be allowed on the bathroom wall. And even that's too good for it.

TomS · 23 October 2012

DS said: I called it yesterday folks. The cretin don't believe it so it can't be true. It won't bother to read the article. It won't bother to learn anything. All it can do is impotently claim that it, in all its ignorance, knows better than all of the experts and that they must somehow be completely mistaken. It won't believe it until they prove it to him, which is if course impossible since it refuses to look at any evidence or learn anything. I fail to understand how it is productive to allow an imbecile to use this forum to proudly display his indomitable ignorance. It don't know nothin and don;t wanna know nothin. We gets it. At the very most it should only be allowed on the bathroom wall. And even that's too good for it.

What about all those others who agree with him? Why isn't there a creationist who tries to step in to rescue creationism from the inept presentation?

eric · 23 October 2012

Robert Byers said: A creationist can always say modern rates of anything can't presume to have been past rates for any number of reasons imagined or not yet imagined.

They can and they do. What you fail to grasp is that most of the world considers this to be a major flaw of creationism, not a feature. It is not a positive to say that your hypothesis could be right, if only all emprical induction is wrong.

Tree rings and fossils ain't biology.

Wait, tree rings ain't biology?

OgreMk5 · 23 October 2012

TomS said:
DS said: I called it yesterday folks. The cretin don't believe it so it can't be true. It won't bother to read the article. It won't bother to learn anything. All it can do is impotently claim that it, in all its ignorance, knows better than all of the experts and that they must somehow be completely mistaken. It won't believe it until they prove it to him, which is if course impossible since it refuses to look at any evidence or learn anything. I fail to understand how it is productive to allow an imbecile to use this forum to proudly display his indomitable ignorance. It don't know nothin and don;t wanna know nothin. We gets it. At the very most it should only be allowed on the bathroom wall. And even that's too good for it.
What about all those others who agree with him? Why isn't there a creationist who tries to step in to rescue creationism from the inept presentation?

Because the creationists think he's making sense. But DS is totally correct. Creationists (including Bobby) demand an unreasonable level of evidence from science, but they refuse to even consider the evidence... except to look for quotes to extract and data to cherry-pick. Further, the hypocritical little wankers absolutely refuse to require the same level of evidence for their own pet notions.

SLC · 23 October 2012

Booby Byers has no interest in reading the paper in question, even if he had the ability to comprehend what it says, a most doubtful proposition to say the least. His mind is mad up, the facts are irrelevant.

W. H. Heydt said:
Robert Byers said: If it's 50000 years now HOW is this verified enquiring minds want to know?
The references are in the posted article. Go read read them. People here have spent a lot of time explaining things to you and you never get it from the explanations (since you keep coming back and making the same false claims). This time, how about you go *read* the material pointed to and *then* come back and give a cogent description of the data and how the results were derived *befoe* you start denying it. If the report contains things you don't understand, then go learn about those points. The knowledge is out there. How about you pick some of it up. In short... Until you can demonstrate that you actually *understand* the report, don't try blathering about what you think is wrong with it.

Tenncrain · 23 October 2012

You also never answered this previous question (click here) about this particular Christian link concerning radiometric dating, Byers.

In addition, you run away with your tail between your legs from the fact that a few Christians were pioneers in radiometric dating - including radiocarbon dating. For instance, Dr Laurence Kulp opened one of the very first radiocarbon dating labs over half a century ago.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 23 October 2012

If it’s 50000 years now HOW is this verified enquiring minds want to know?

Which is why your "mind" has never ever bothered to learn anything (including coherent writing, let alone proper spelling and composition). It is by no means an inquiring "mind," just a dull little authoritarian organ that resists any and all independent learning and thought. Just one of many composing ID/creationism's appalling record of unthinking denial. Glen Davidson

https://me.yahoo.com/a/KirCgV93wJhLm65myiH0mSwTlWCQuwnMxlI4xKqx#26847 · 23 October 2012

DS said: I called it yesterday folks. The cretin don't believe it so it can't be true. It won't bother to read the article. It won't bother to learn anything. All it can do is impotently claim that it, in all its ignorance, knows better than all of the experts and that they must somehow be completely mistaken. It won't believe it until they prove it to him, which is if course impossible since it refuses to look at any evidence or learn anything. I fail to understand how it is productive to allow an imbecile to use this forum to proudly display his indomitable ignorance. It don't know nothin and don;t wanna know nothin. We gets it. At the very most it should only be allowed on the bathroom wall. And even that's too good for it.

Agreed. Booby should be relegated to the Wall with his fellow travellers FL and IBIG. I love to have creationists post on topics if they are going to make a good faith effort to stay on topic and to understand why they are wrong, but this moron is incapable of such complex tasks.

Frank J · 23 October 2012

Matt notes the annual deposition of sediments pre-dates the Biblical creation myth by over 40,000 years.
— Paul Burnett

He only says that it's "about 10 times the age of the earth according to many creationists" (emphasis mine). In fact when asked specifically about the age of the earth, less than half of rank and file Biblical literalists are YECs. The % is undoubtedly even lower for anti-evolution activists, though it's harder to get a straight answer from them because most OECs have found shelter in ID's "don't ask, don't tell" big tent. That said, it makes no sense whatsoever to keep feeding the "YEC" troll unless one asks him to show evidence that he has challenged OECs and IDers.

stevaroni · 23 October 2012

eric said:
Robert Byers said: Tree rings and fossils ain't biology.
Wait, tree rings ain't biology?

Correct. To Beyers as soon as the trees die they become a "historical science', which, by definition, can never be proven. Of course, the Bible itself was written on dead trees... By long-dead people... And, unlike tree rings, that historical story can't be verified by digging up actual measurable evidence... But I digress

RM · 23 October 2012

Matt asked me to try to answer some of the questions raised here about radiocarbon dating. I am myself a layman in this field, but I will try.

Harold J asks whether the new data may change the order of events as obtained by the previous calibration. I don’t know for sure but I think not.

Jonathan Lubin asked about the meaning of “oldest trees”. They are the oldest trees included in the tree-ring calibration.

Klaus H and TomS commented upon the end point of the present radiocarbon calibration which is well beyond the end point of the tree-ring studies. The sediments and ice cores used there give a less accurate estimate of the C-14 concentration in the atmosphere than do the new Japanese lake sediments. Therefore, the new study gives improved results for atmospheric C-14 for dates before about 11,000 years ago.

Robert Byers raises well-known YEC objections to scientific dating. According to Answers in Genesis Noah’s flood started in 2348 BC. All that is conventionally interpreted as older than that date, both of tree-rings and of lake sediments, were therefore deposited a few months later as the flood water withdrew. This gave rise a tremendous growth of the wood used in the tree-ring studies as well as to a very high and rapidly changing radioactive decay of C-14. The strange thing is that this C-14 decay and all the false tree-rings appear synchronously - as if God had created the lie that the earth is older than 6000 years.

All this is easier to believe if one first turns off one’s intellect. Having done that I read that Magog, a grandson of Noah, was the first king of Sweden, my native country. This was told by Johannes Magnus (1488-1544), the last Catholic archbishop of Sweden before the reformation, writing as a refugee in Italy. He is as great a witness of the truth as Ken Ham.

Rolf Manne

eric · 23 October 2012

RM said: This gave rise a tremendous growth of the wood used in the tree-ring studies as well as to a very high and rapidly changing radioactive decay of C-14. The strange thing is that this C-14 decay and all the false tree-rings appear synchronously - as if God had created the lie that the earth is older than 6000 years.

You forgot that the decay rate of U, Th, K, and all other primordial radionuclides also changed synchronously. Which renders the whole C-14 thing completely moot, because if U-nat's half life was the million times faster it would have to be to make a billion years look like a thousand years, then Noah's family would've been dodging a lot of these.

Karen S. · 23 October 2012

Wait, tree rings ain’t biology?

Nope, trees don't wear rings! (my preciousss)

Kevin B · 23 October 2012

Karen S. said:
Wait, tree rings ain’t biology?
Nope, trees don't wear rings! (my preciousss)

But what about the Singing Ringing Tree? ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singing_Ringing_Tree ) I'm convinced that the YECs just have problems with dating in general. (What about Bob Jones University and multiracial dating?) Perhaps they'd rather everyone stuck to arranged marriages.

Henry J · 23 October 2012

I’m convinced that the YECs just have problems with dating in general.

Let's see, what was that line in Police Academy - "maybe one of these days you'll meet the right girl and all that will change"?

Matt Young · 23 October 2012

Thanks again to Rolf Manne for his help.

Rolf · 24 October 2012

I’m convinced that the YECs just have problems with dating in general.

Like so many groups of fanatics or fundamentalists, the problem they have is what I call mental catalepsy.

TomS · 24 October 2012

eric said:
RM said: This gave rise a tremendous growth of the wood used in the tree-ring studies as well as to a very high and rapidly changing radioactive decay of C-14. The strange thing is that this C-14 decay and all the false tree-rings appear synchronously - as if God had created the lie that the earth is older than 6000 years.
You forgot that the decay rate of U, Th, K, and all other primordial radionuclides also changed synchronously. Which renders the whole C-14 thing completely moot, because if U-nat's half life was the million times faster it would have to be to make a billion years look like a thousand years, then Noah's family would've been dodging a lot of these.

There is the question of the natural world being "fine tuned" to the existence of life. We are told that if various physical constants were different by even a few percent that life would be impossible (and therefore those constants must be designed). But to make radioisotope dating compatible with a "young Earth", those constants have to be changing by many millions of percent. About the need for the various ways of measurement all coinciding to a remarkable degree. The agreement is something which is highly unlikely to have occurred by "chance". One might argue that the agreement is "complex and specified" and therefore must have been purposefully designed that way, and if so, wouldn't that be deliberately deceptive?

eric · 24 October 2012

TomS said: There is the question of the natural world being "fine tuned" to the existence of life. We are told that if various physical constants were different by even a few percent that life would be impossible (and therefore those constants must be designed).

My understanding is that most fine-tuning "tests" vary one fundamental constant at a time, because simulating alternate universes where two or more vary simultaneously is extremely difficult. So the conclusion that our universe is fine tuned for life is based not on checking all possible universes for viability, but on checking a very small subset of them. I could be wrong about that; this is not an area I regularly research. I agree with all your other comments.

OgreMk5 · 24 October 2012

eric said:
TomS said: There is the question of the natural world being "fine tuned" to the existence of life. We are told that if various physical constants were different by even a few percent that life would be impossible (and therefore those constants must be designed).
My understanding is that most fine-tuning "tests" vary one fundamental constant at a time, because simulating alternate universes where two or more vary simultaneously is extremely difficult. So the conclusion that our universe is fine tuned for life is based not on checking all possible universes for viability, but on checking a very small subset of them. I could be wrong about that; this is not an area I regularly research. I agree with all your other comments.

I recall (but my google-fu is weak today) that there was a group of simulations done on a supercomputer that changed various constants and determined if stars could form in that universe. Perhaps surprisingly, they found that there could be large changes to several fundamental constants that would still provide for stars, as we know them, to form and persist long enough to life to form. I'll keep digging and see if I can find it.

OgreMk5 · 24 October 2012

Heh... found it...

http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080728/full/news.2008.985.html

Link to the paper: http://iopscience.iop.org/1475-7516/2008/08/010/

Now to see if I can get a copy.

Matt Young · 24 October 2012

I recall (but my google-fu is weak today) that there was a group of simulations done on a supercomputer that changed various constants and determined if stars could form in that universe. Perhaps surprisingly, they found that there could be large changes to several fundamental constants that would still provide for stars, as we know them, to form and persist long enough to life to form.

Not familiar with that paper, but I will try to get it too. Meanwhile, Victor Stenger has performed what appears to be a similar analysis, but with 4 variables, and come to the same conclusion. Paul Strode and I wrote a synopsis of Stenger's work here. TomS has made the interesting observation that, on the one hand, the universe is fine-tuned for us, whereas, on the other hand, the radioactive decay rate has changed by a factor of a zillion (or more!). I had never thought of that. Finally, for the record, Rolf is not Rolf Manne, who uses the name RM.

OgreMk5 · 24 October 2012

The paper is still behind a paywall. I e-mailed the author and he sent me a copy. I did up a blog post here: http://skepticink.com/smilodonsretreat/2012/10/24/stars-and-a-fine-tuned-universe/

There is a link to the paper there.

eric · 24 October 2012

Matt Young said: Victor Stenger has performed what appears to be a similar analysis, but with 4 variables, and come to the same conclusion.

So, basically, the whole 'fine tune' meme is just plain wrong. There are plenty of other viable universes once we look at varying several of the fundamental constants at once.

TomS has made the interesting observation that, on the one hand, the universe is fine-tuned for us, whereas, on the other hand, the radioactive decay rate has changed by a factor of a zillion (or more!). I had never thought of that.

Heh. I haven't heard a creationist use both sides of this particular argument, but I've heard them use both sides of a very similar one. To whit: the rarity of life in the universe is evidence of design, while the beautiful fit of life to the universe is also evidence of design. They don't put one and one together and realize rarity is functionally equivalent to a bad fit.

harold · 24 October 2012

So, basically, the whole ‘fine tune’ meme is just plain wrong.

Somewhat ironically given its popularity with occasional brilliant scientists who clearly should know better, the "fine tune" meme is wrong at the level of freshman/advanced high school senior statistics and probability. It's an extremely obvious case of conditional/Bayesian probability. It is equivalent to the lottery fallacy. Given that humans exist, the conditional probability that a correctly measured universe will be compatible with human existence is 1. If they sell ten million lottery tickets, and Joe Smith wins, it doesn't make it a miracle. Somebody had to win, every ticket had the same odds, and Joe Smith happened to win. Given that Joe Smith one, the conditional probability that Joe Smith was the winner is 1. That is a trivially meaningless statement. Incidentally, we have no evidence that the universe ever was a "lottery" that humans happened to "win". All we know is that humans exist, so the universe must be compatible with human life.

Matt Young · 24 October 2012

No, it is not the same as the lottery fallacy. If there are no other universes, and if no other combination of fundamental constants is compatible with life, then we may have some explaining to do.

Just Bob · 24 October 2012

Matt Young said: No, it is not the same as the lottery fallacy. If there are no other universes, and if no other combination of fundamental constants is compatible with life, then we may have some explaining to do.

OK, assume this is the only possible universe. What percent of the total volume of the universe is amenable to human life? What percent of all planetary surfaces are suitable for our form of life? Even within our own solar system? How fine-tuned is the WHOLE UNIVERSE for human life? or How small is the fraction of it which we perceive as being 'just right' for us?

Just Bob · 24 October 2012

correction: What percent of all planetary surface AREA is suitable for our form of life?

Mike Elzinga · 24 October 2012

OgreMk5 said: I recall (but my google-fu is weak today) that there was a group of simulations done on a supercomputer that changed various constants and determined if stars could form in that universe. Perhaps surprisingly, they found that there could be large changes to several fundamental constants that would still provide for stars, as we know them, to form and persist long enough to life to form. I'll keep digging and see if I can find it.

Fred Adams has had a long interest in the parameter space of “fixed” constants. I remember discussions going on at U. of Michigan many years ago in which these issues were being explored, but the computers of the time were not up to the task. There is a big difference – and a much smaller parameter space – between star formation that would produce the periodic table as we know it and the more general situation in which some kind of condensing universe and a different “periodic table” would also occur. In the more general situation, it may not matter how fast or how slow, relative to our universe, that things happen. Even with a different “periodic table,” “matter” in other universes might condense into complex forms that would be the analogy to life in our universe. Such life would just have to do it in a time that is short relative to the lifetime of the universe; and they would have to have complex structure that is stable and “soft” enough to hang together long enough to “live.” Their sense of time would make their universe seem old to them no matter how rapidly or slowly in might evolve relative to our universe. In order for matter to condense in any universe, there would still have to be a second law of thermodynamics in order for energy to be released and spread around.

Henry J · 24 October 2012

I have to wonder if the 2nd law of thermodynamics is somehow tied to the expansion of space over time?

Henry

Mike Elzinga · 24 October 2012

Henry J said: I have to wonder if the 2nd law of thermodynamics is somehow tied to the expansion of space over time? Henry

That is a very perceptive question. If energy, along with any matter that is capable of condensing, is confined to a “volume” such that it cannot “disburse;” it will be "reflected" right back into the mix. Any matter that binds together will be immediately ripped apart.

ksplawn · 24 October 2012

I recall reading something in Scientific American (turns out to be the January 2010 issue, cover story) about the possible habitablity of universes with different physics. Here's a press release on the same research from MIT.

For lighter reading on the same topic, there's always Isaac Asimov's The Gods Themselves, published in 1972. :)

harold · 25 October 2012

Matt Young said: No, it is not the same as the lottery fallacy. If there are no other universes, and if no other combination of fundamental constants is compatible with life, then we may have some explaining to do.

This comment intended as a friendly expansion on the topic. Note that I am only arguing against the "fine tuning" argument here, not against anyone's religion or the existence of deities per se, just against the logic of the "fine tuning" argument. The "fine tuning" argument is the lottery fallacy, and is not related to what you are saying here. It argues that at some point in the past, other physical constants were possible, and indeed, that the ones we see were unlikely, so therefore, a deity loaded the dice and made sure to set the precise constants we see. You can't fine tune an instrument if the dials are glued in one position. "Fine tuning" is by definition the argument that other constants were so much more likely, that a deity must have intervened to choose the ones we now measure. If the deity couldn't have chosen a different tuning, it isn't the "fine tuning" argument. What you describe is essentially a "first cause" argument. "Nothing else was possible, but it all must have had a cause". The problems with that are that one, we don't know whether everything must have a cause, two, we don't know that this universe didn't have a straightforward cause, and three, even if some deity is the "ultimate cause" of all physical reality, that would not support individual human mythology systems. Even if the universe requires a deity as a "cause" at some level (and I am not saying it does, but "even if"), why is Aztec mythology wrong and a post-modern interpretation of Ancient Middle Eastern mythology correct? Again, I am NOT arguing against religion here, just against a particular logical construction.

Dave Lovell · 25 October 2012

Matt Young said: No, it is not the same as the lottery fallacy. If there are no other universes, and if no other combination of fundamental constants is compatible with life, then we may have some explaining to do.

I'm with Harold on this one. Only as a lottery winner are you in a position to speculate whether things were fine tuned or not. If you also knew there were no other universes, and knew there no other fundamental constants that have (virtually) no measurable effect on our universe but may dominate in others, then you might "have some explaining to do". But you can never know that you know everything, so you are simply extrapolating the behaviour of all possible universes from a single data set, which tells you absolutely nothing. In an endless series of an infinite number of all possible universes, intelligent life is inevitable, however improbable.

Just Bob · 25 October 2012

And positing a "creator" to answer why there's a universe, and why (a vanishingly small part of) it is suitable for us, merely pushes the "ultimate cause" question back a level. If the existence of a "fine tuned" universe requires a creative deity, then so does the deity. Along with a place to live. And something to do before anything existed.

It devolves into deities all the way down, or "eternal" deities "outside of time and space". Translation: It's magic, so we don't need no stinkin' origin for our creator. But you guys do for your universe, and since you can't show a simple, perfect one (that even Byers can understand), then we're right.

eric · 25 October 2012

harold said:
Matt Young said: No, it is not the same as the lottery fallacy. If there are no other universes, and if no other combination of fundamental constants is compatible with life, then we may have some explaining to do.
The "fine tuning" argument is the lottery fallacy, and is not related to what you are saying here.

I don't see how you can say that. The lottery fallacy is based (in part) on the winner not understanding how many tickets were bought; confusing the chance of his win with the chance of a win. It is very clearly related to the physics concepts of multiple universes. Matt's comment is exactly right, as a conditional: IF there are no other universes, then this is not just the lottery fallacy. The physics situation 'IF there are no other universes' is analogous to a winner having strong, credible evidence that theirs was the only ticket ever purchased. That changes the problem considerably. Matt's conditionals are very closely related to the problem and very relevant.

SLC · 25 October 2012

Originally, one of the constants cited was the gravitational constant where it was argued that if it was just a little smaller, the universe would have expanded much faster, while if it were slightly larger, the universe would have collapsed by this time. Unfortunately, the discovery of dark energy negates this claim. The expansion of the universe is dominated by dark energy, not the gravitational constant. Thus a slightly smaller gravitational constant could be compensated for by a slightly lower density of dark energy. Conversely, a slightly larger gravitation constant could be compensated for by a slightly higher density of dark energy.

eric said:
TomS said: There is the question of the natural world being "fine tuned" to the existence of life. We are told that if various physical constants were different by even a few percent that life would be impossible (and therefore those constants must be designed).
My understanding is that most fine-tuning "tests" vary one fundamental constant at a time, because simulating alternate universes where two or more vary simultaneously is extremely difficult. So the conclusion that our universe is fine tuned for life is based not on checking all possible universes for viability, but on checking a very small subset of them. I could be wrong about that; this is not an area I regularly research. I agree with all your other comments.

AltairIV · 25 October 2012

Does the lottery fallacy depend on the number of "tickets" sold? I always thought it was just the conflation of the a priori odds of getting a certain combination with the fact that you did, in fact, get it.

To wit, isn't it the number of possible universes that determines the probability calculations, and not the number of real ones? Even if this happens to be the only universe to ever come into existence, it seems to me that the "lottery" was played and "won" because it came up with a configuration suitable for life, as opposed to one that doesn't.

harold · 25 October 2012

Eric - To clarify.

IF there are no other universes, then this is not just the lottery fallacy. The physics situation ‘IF there are no other universes’ is analogous to a winner having strong, credible evidence that theirs was the only ticket ever purchased

Right, but that isn't the fine tuning argument. As I noted above, that's roughly a statement of the traditional "first cause" argument. The "fine tuning" argument is very much a restatement of the lottery fallacy. If other conditions were never possible than the deity would obviously not have had occasion to "fine tune". If you can fine tune something, you can change the tuning. If you can't change the tuning, you can't fine tune. It's exactly the same as the lottery fallacy. "I have it today, but yesterday it was 'a priori' unlikely that I would get it, therefore God must have intervened". No. Given that you have it today, the probability that you got it is "1", and that's all you can say. Actually, the whole idea that a deity intervenes in things like lotteries or close football games is contrary to the idea of miracles. A miracle is supposed to be something that was impossible - probability of zero. If something has a probability of greater than zero, it doesn't need a miracle to happen, and that's true for any probability greater than zero. The engineering convention of considering events with probabilities below an arbitrary threshold to be impossible is a perfectly good approximation for some types of work, but it's just a convention based on an arbitrary cut-off.

eric · 25 October 2012

Harold, Altair, maybe 'the lottery fallacy' is a name used to describe multiple different, but closely related fallacies. The version I'm familiar with is this one, which does very much depend on the person not understanding that it is likely for some ticket/universe/event to win if a lot of tickets/universes/events occur.

So, if this is the only universe, then creationists are not making the lottery fallacy...as I understand the fallacy to work. But I could be wrong. If there are multiple lottery fallacies, maybe I made a lottery fallacy fallacy in thinking mine is the only one. :)