Nathan Aviezer
Anthropic Principle

Jewish Action magazine (Spring 1999)

Scientists call it the "Goldilocks" story. Alone among planets, earth
supports human life, because it is "not too hot and not too cold, not
too hard and not too soft, but just right".
 

In recent years, it has become clear to many scientists that the
universe appears as if it were specifically designed for the
existence and well-being of human beings. This phenomenon, which has
attracted considerable scientific attention, has become known as the
"Anthropic Principle" -- from the Greek word anthropis, meaning "man."

The Anthropic Principle expresses itself in two ways:

1.  even very slight changes in the laws of nature would have
made it impossible for life to exist, and
2.  human life would not have been possible were it not for the
occurrence in the past of a large number of highly improbable events.

Whereas the secular scientist sees such a sequence of occurrences as
mere "lucky accidents," the believing Jew sees in them the guiding
hand of the Creator.

Let us look at some of them.

SOLAR ENERGY

Because of the extreme conditions present in the interior of the sun,
a proton may occasionally transform spontaneously into a neutron,
which like the proton is a fundamental particle of nature. The
resulting neutron can combine with another proton to form a composite
particle known as a deuteron. These deuterons "burn" via a
thermonuclear reaction and this "burning" provides the intense heat
and brilliant light of the sun. Thus, deuterons constitute the solar
fuel that generates the energy of the sun which enables life to exist
on earth. A very important feature of solar "burning" is that it
occurs very gradually.

The possibility of proton-neutron combination and the impossibility
of proton-proton combination both depend on the strength of the
"nuclear force," one of the fundamental forces in nature. (The other
fundamental forces include the familiar force of gravity and the
electromagnetic force.) Detailed calculations of the nuclear force
have demonstrated the following results:

* If the nuclear force were only a few percent weaker, then a proton
could not combine with a neutron to form a deuteron. If this were the
case, no deuterons would be formed in the sun and hence no solar fuel
would exist. As a result, the sun would not shine ("burn"), but would
merely be a cold ball of inert gas -- precluding the possibility of
life on earth.
* If the nuclear force were only a few percent stronger, then each
proton would rapidly combine with another proton with explosive
results. If this were the case, the sun would soon explode and thus
cease to "burn," once again precluding the possibility of life on
earth.

It is an extraordinary fact that the strength of the nuclear force
just happens to lie in the narrow range in which neither of these two
catastrophes occurs.

WATER AND AIR ON OUR PLANET

It is not necessary to elaborate on the necessity of water and air
for the existence of life. The earth has an abundant supply of both,
permitting life to flourish here, while our two neighboring planets,
Venus and Mars, are both devoid of water and air, and hence are
devoid of life. These facts may not seem particularly noteworthy, but
we shall see just how remarkable they really are.

Our neighboring planets, Venus and Mars, are both devoid of water and
air, and hence are devoid of life.

It was recently discovered that, shortly after they were formed, all
three planets -- Earth, Venus and Mars -- had large amounts of
surface water. The deep channels that are observed today on the
surface of Mars were carved out long ago by the copious fast-flowing
Martian primordial surface waters. Similarly, Venus was once covered
by deep oceans which contained the equivalent of a layer of water
three kilometers deep over its entire surface.

However, in the course of time, all surface waters on Mars and Venus
disappeared. How did earth escape this catastrophe?

The answer is that earth escaped this catastrophe by sheer "accident!"

Earth just happens to be sufficiently distant from the sun that our
surface water neither evaporated nor decomposed, as happened on
Venus. Moreover, earth just happens to be sufficiently near the sun
that the temperature remains high enough to prevent all the oceans
from freezing permanently, as happened on Mars.

The same balance rules the earth's atmosphere.

Recent studies of the carbonate-silicate geo-chemical cycle have
shown that the planetary atmosphere involves the subtle interplay of
many factors. This interplay is so delicate that if the earth were
only a little closer to the sun, surface temperatures would be far
higher than the boiling point of water, precluding all possibility of
a life-sustaining atmosphere.

Similarly, if earth were only a little farther from the sun, the
concentration of carbon dioxide would become so high that the
atmosphere would not be breathable by human beings. Fortunately, the
orbit of our planet just happens to lie at the crucial distance from
the sun that permits the formation of a life-sustaining atmosphere.

This remarkably fortunate coincidence is known among scientists as
"the Goldilocks problem of climatology." Recall the children's story
in which Goldilocks found the various items of Baby Bear to be "not
too hot and not too cold, not too hard and not too soft, but just
right." In that vein, scientists refer to the existence of water and
air on earth as another example of the Anthropic Principle.

THE DESTRUCTION OF THE DINOSAURS

After being the undisputed masters of our planet, all the dinosaurs
worldwide suddenly became extinct. This sudden destruction of all the
dinosaurs, together with most other animal species, is the most
famous of a number of such mass extinctions that have occurred
periodically in the history of our planet, each time abruptly wiping
out the majority of animal species.

The sudden disappearance of the dinosaurs has baffled scientists for
many years. What could have caused the abrupt demise of these
extremely successfully animals after they had enjoyed such a long
period of dominance? What occurred to suddenly wipe them out?

After years of debate, the riddle of what caused the sudden and total
destruction of the dinosaurs was finally solved in 1980 by Nobel
laureate Luis Alvarez and his son Walter. The two showed that a giant
meteor from outer space had collided with the earth, causing a
worldwide catastrophe. This explanation for this and other mass
extinctions -- that is, the impact of meteors or comets colliding
with the earth -- has become known as the "impact theory." The
scientific evidence in favor of the impact theory accumulated
rapidly, and by 1987, Professor Alvarez could point to 15 different
pieces of scientific data that supported the theory.

In recent years, it has become clear to many scientists that the
universe appears as if it were specifically designed for the
existence and well-being of human beings.

The point of central importance to our discussion is that the
collision between a meteor and the earth was a matter of sheer luck.
This has been repeatedly stressed by the leading paleontologists. For
example, Professor David Raup, past president of the American
Paleontological Society, has taken precisely this point as the
central theme of his famous article (since expanded into a book with
same title), "Extinctions: Bad Genes or Bad Luck?" Raup emphasizes
the role played by "luck" in mass extinctions:

The extinction of a given species or higher group is more bad luck
than bad genes. Pure chance would favor some biologic groups over
others.

Professor David Jablonski of the University of Chicago, a world
authority on the subject of mass extinctions, echoes this opinion:

When a mass extinction strikes, it is not the "most fit" species that
survive; it is the most fortunate. Species that had been barely
hanging on ... inherit the earth.

These leading paleontologists are emphasizing that if a giant meteor
suddenly falls from the sky and wipes out some species, while
permitting other species to survive and ultimately to flourish, then
the latter species were blessed with good luck -- the occurrence of
an extremely improbable and totally unexpected event.

The Darwinian principle of "the survival of the fittest" is
irrelevant in such a process.

THE DINOSAURS AND MAN

Why is the sudden destruction of all the dinosaurs worldwide a
dramatic example of the Anthropic Principle?

As long as the dinosaurs dominated the earth, there was no
possibility for mammals to exist. Only after the dinosaurs were wiped
out could the mammals flourish and become the dominant fauna.

This intimate connection between human beings and the dinosaurs was
emphasized by Professor Alvarez, who ends his article about the
abrupt destruction of all the world's dinosaurs, with the following
stirring words:

 From our human point of view, that impact [of a meteor] was one of
the most important single events in the history of our planet. Had it
not taken place, the largest mammals alive today might still resemble
the rat-like creatures that were then scurrying around trying to
avoid bring devoured by dinosaurs.

But there is even more to the story. For human beings to exist today,
it was not sufficient merely that such an impact with the meteor
occurred. The impact had to have occurred with the right strength.

As Professor Alvarez explains:

If the impact had been weaker, no species would have become extinct;
the mammals would be subordinate to the dinosaurs, and I wouldn't be
writing this article. If the impact had been stronger, all life on
this planet would have ceased, and again, I wouldn't be writing this
article. That tells me that the impact must have been of just the
right strength [to ensure that] the mammals survived, while the
dinosaurs didn't.

CALCULATING PROBABILITIES

A few years ago, I wrote a book on Biblical creation and science,
titled "In the Beginning," showing that current scientific evidence
is in remarkable agreement with the Biblical account of the origin
and development of the universe. My book has enjoyed a measure of
success, and has been reprinted ten times and translated into Hebrew,
Russian, French, Spanish,Portuguese and Norwegian.

However, the book was not to everyone's taste. Professor Raphael
Falk, a geneticist at the Hebrew University and a militant
secularist, was so outraged by my book that he published a 10-page
article devoted solely to attacking both my book and me personally.

It is important to explain what is wrong with Falk's argument,
because his error is not immediately obvious and, in fact, has been
repeated by many other writers.

A rare, extremely improbable event occurs if one defines the
conditions before knowing what will happen.

For example, he writes: "I pull a $1 note from my wallet and observe
its serial number to be G65538608D ... [probability for occurrence]
was less than 1 in 10 billion. Thus, undeniably, I am faced here with
an extremely rare event ... but I am not surprised. What is essential
is to make the crucial distinction between improbable events that are
genuinely surprising and those that are not..."

What is wrong with this reasoning?

There was a probability was not 1 in 10 billion but 100 percent that
the dollar note pulled from the wallet had G65538608D for its serial
number! Why? Because this number was chosen by looking at the serial
number on the $1 note. In other words, one was simply asking, "What
is the probability that the serial number on the note is the serial
number on the note?" And the answer to this question, clearly, is 100
percent. Since the event was not improbable at all -- but certain --
there is no reason whatever to be surprised by its occurrence...

A rare, extremely improbable event occurs if one defines the
conditions before knowing what will happen.

For example, if one chooses a serial number before pulling the $1
note from the wallet, and then find that the number chosen is exactly
the same as the number on the note, we would all be absolutely
astonished -- and with good reason!

PLAYING THE LOTTO

Among the popular national lotteries in Israel is "Lotto." Say, for
example, that one million people buy a Lotto ticket each week. If I
am informed that this week's winner is Chaim Cohen from Afula, I will
certainly not get very excited about it. But why not? The chances
that Chaim Cohen would be the winner were only 1 in 1 million -- and
it happened!

The reason for my lack of excitement is the following. I could not
care less if the Lotto winner is Chaim Cohen from Afula, Sarah Levi
from Beer Sheva, or Shmerel Berel from Ramat Gan. In other words,
each of the 1 million Lotto players is completely equivalent in my
eyes to Chaim Cohen from Afula. (The technical term for this in
statistics is "equivalent microstates.")Although the chances were
only 1 in 1 million that the winner would be Chaim Cohen from Afula,
there exist 1 million "equivalent" Chaim Cohens. Therefore, the
substance of what I heard is that someone won the Lotto this week.
And the chances for that event happening -- someone winning -- are
100 percent. Hence, I have no reason to be surprised.

Now consider a slightly different scenario. If I were informed the
following week that Chaim Cohen from Afula again won the Lotto, I
would most certainly be amazed, and so would anyone else. But why?
The chances of Chaim Cohen winning Lotto the second week were exactly
the same as his chances of winning the first week. The answer is that
the context is entirely different.

In the first week, Chaim Cohen was just 1 out of 1 million equivalent
Lotto players. But in the second week, he has become a unique
individual -- the fellow who won last week. In other words, in the
second week, there exists only one Chaim Cohen -- only one previous
week's winner. When such a rare event occurs, we are all genuinely
surprised.

Finally, if we were to learn that Chaim Cohen from Afula had again
won the Lotto for the third consecutive week, it is clear that
suspicion, not surprise, would be the natural reaction. Indeed, there
is little doubt that the fraud division of the police department
would soon be paying Chaim Cohen a visit to discuss with him just how
it happen that Chaim won the Lotto for three consecutive weeks.

But why? The chances of Chaim Cohen winning Lotto in the third week
were exactly the same as his chances of winning first week. The
answer again lies in the context of the event. In the third week,
Chaim Cohen is an extremely unusual individual -- the fellow who has
already won the Lotto for two weeks running. The chances that same
person will win the Lotto again are easily shown to be one in a
million-millions. Such events so rare that they simply do not occur.
Therefore, the police department directly suspects that a guiding
hand behind Chaim Cohen's triple win.

A guiding hand in the creation of the universe means the intercession
of Almighty, but a guiding hand in "determination of the Lotto
winner" means five years in prison!

PLAYING CARDS

We shall next consider card games, beginning our discussion with the
game poker -- in particular, five-card poke without a draw. In this
game, each player is dealt five cards from the deck and these cards
form a combination (such as a pair, three-of-a- kind, a flush, etc.).
Each combination has an agreed ranking, and the game is won by player
whose cards form the highest-ranking combination.

The highest-ranking combination cards in poker is the straight flush.
A straight flush is so rare that one can play poker all day, every
day of his life, and never see one. And if a poker player should ever
get a straight flush, he will never forget it. It's the dream of
every poker player!

We now turn to a different card game: bridge. In this game, each
player is dealt 13 cards, but we will consider only the first five
cards to enable us to make a comparison with poker. If a bridge
player's first five cards were to be the combination that constitutes
a straight flush in poker, he would probably not even be aware of it
because, in bridge, a "straight flush" has no value or meaning
whatever.

A "straight flush" -- prized in poker -- is meaningless in bridge.

This combination of cards is not even defined in bridge, hence I put
quotation marks around the words "straight flush." Thus, we see that
the exact same combination of cards is considered a wondrous
combination in poker because of its rarity and value,but is
considered a meaningless combination in bridge, despite its rarity,
because it has no value.

The preceding examples and discussion pave the way for the answer to
our central question: What conclusions may one draw from the
Anthropic Principle?

The answer depends on one's views regarding the significance of human
beings. In our example about poker and bridge, we explained why the
extremely rare straight flush is a wondrous event in a poker game,
but a meaningless event in a bridge game. In other words, the same
rare event can be either wondrous or meaningless: it all depends on
the importance that one attributes to the event itself.

Returning to the subject of our article -- human beings -- we saw
that many extremely unlikely events ("a staggeringly improbable
series of events ... quite unrepeatable" in the words of Stephen Jay
Gould) had to "occur" to make possible the appearance of human beings
on earth.

Thus, the extreme rarity of the events leading to human existence is
well established. Indeed, that is the scientific content of the
Anthropic Principle. But before we can decide on the meaning of these
events, we must first decide on the meaning of the end product --
human beings.

If humans are assumed to be just another species in the animal
kingdom (as the secularists believe), not more important than any
other of the approximately two million species discovered so far,
then the Anthropic Principle has no meaning. We have seen that rarity
by itself is not significant. It is a "straight flush" in bridge,
rare and interesting, but without any meaning.

If, however, one believes that human beings are the most important
species in the world and that humanity is the entire reason for the
creation of the universe -- as the Torah and the Sages of the Talmud
repeatedly emphasize -- then the Anthropic Principle is of the utmost
significance. It is a straight flush in poker, the most meaningful of
occurrences.

In summary, the scientists have discovered that, in the existence of
human beings, the universe has dealt out the extremely rare straight
flush. Everyone agrees with that -- the Anthropic Principle has
become a scientifically established fact.

If a non-believer is "playing bridge," the Anthropic Principle means
nothing to him.

By contrast, the believing Jew is "playing poker" and therefore the
Anthropic Principle is yet another example of the harmony that exists
between modern science and words of the Torah.

Professor Nathan Aviezer teaches physics at Bar Ilan University in
Israel. He is the author of "In the Beginning: Biblical Creation and
Science," and "Physics, Fossils, and Faith." This article is
excerpted with permission of Jewish Action magazine (Spring 1999),
published by the Orthodox Union

------------------------------------------------------------------

[Letter]
Your post on the Jewish Anthropic Principle has a significant error in its
treatment of solar energy, so if you are planning to write on this subject
you may want to look into it.

Prof  Aviezer writes:

l> SOLAR ENERGY
> Because of the extreme conditions present in the interior of the sun,
> a proton may occasionally transform spontaneously into a neutron,
> which like the proton is a fundamental particle of nature.

Two problems.  1,  the neutron is heavier than the proton, so the proton
cannot spontaneously transform into a neutron.   Isolated neutrons do
spontaneously transform into protons.

2,   The proton is not now regarded as a "fundamental" particle of
nature.  It appears that a proton is composed of three quarks,   and the
quarks themselves may not be "fundamental".    It would be ok to say that a proton is a basic
constituent of atoms.
 

The
> resulting neutron can combine with another proton to form a composite
> particle known as a deuteron. These deuterons "burn" via a
> thermonuclear reaction and this "burning" provides the intense heat
> and brilliant light of the sun. Thus, deuterons constitute the solar
> fuel that generates the energy of the sun

In  the early sun, when there was some deuterium naturally present,
deuterium was a prime fuel in the sun,  but it was soon consumed.
Hydrogen fusion is now regarded as the main fuel.

My best source for the  following information at home is  *Nuclear
Physics* by Irving Kaplan (1962) and I don't think the wisdom has changed much since 1962.
Kaplan  says there are several reaction sequences that may burn hydrogen (Pages 668
thru 670)  but that the most prolific of these in the present epoch of our sun is the
following sequence:

[1]      H^1  +  H^1  =>  H^2  + positron + neutrino
 
[2]      H^2  +  H^1  =>  He^3  +  gamma ray

[3]      He^3  +  He^3  =>  He^4  +  2 H^1

Note that [1] and [2] must happen twice,  to provide the two helium-3
atomsfor [3] to happen.

The net effect is that four hydrogen atoms are changed into one helium
atom,  with the production of  thermal energy.

(to be more exact,  a positron, a neutrino, and a gamma ray are also
produced.   The positron annihilates with an ambient electron, adding a little energy;
the gamma ray is absorbed in the solar gases, adding a bit more energy.
The neutrino escapes the sun, and it carries off a teeny amount of energy
into intergalactic space.)

> The possibility of proton-neutron combination and the
>_impossibility _
> of proton-proton combination both depend on the strength of the . . . . .

Here he is saying that [1] cannot happen.   It happens easily when the two
protons approach each other  rapidly, as they do in the hot sun.

Equations [2] and [3] together constitute the burning of deuterium, so he
is ok there..  But his generating deuterium by spontaneous transformation of the proton is
non-functional nuclear  physics.

I hope this helps.   You may pass this on to Phylogeny or others, if you
think it would be of general interest.

Best regards,                   Larry  Johnston