Cosmology 101

This appears to be untrue. Only if you take particular deviations is it true.This article discusses it from one point of view:
http://www.newscientist.com/...the-flexilaws-of-physics.html

quote:

---

If the universe came with any old rag-bag of laws, life would almost certainly be ruled out. Indeed, changing the existing laws by even a scintilla could have lethal consequences. For example, if protons were 0.1 per cent heavier than neutrons, rather than the other way about, all the protons coughed out of the big bang would soon have decayed into neutrons. Without protons and their crucial electric charge, atoms could not exist and chemistry would be impossible.

---

But Some deviations of some laws produce this result but according to these folks it might not be true for all deviations.My other universe is a Porsche | New Scientist

quote:

---

The weak force is responsible for the radioactive beta decay of atomic nuclei and is considered essential for a complex universe like ours. Take it away, and you might expect the "weakless" universe to be wildly different from our own.

​

Only Harnik, Kribs and Perez have discovered it isn't. They considered what would happen to crucial processes in the history of the universe - the forging of elements in the big bang, the powering of stars and supernovae explosions. By examining the equations that describe these processes, they made an astonishing discovery: the weakless universe is still capable of supporting observers.

​

...
Remarkably, however, Harnik and his colleagues have discovered that there is still a way for weakless stars to shine. It all depends on the relative proportions of ordinary matter and radiation created in the weakless big bang, a measure of the heat of the event. In our universe, the first few minutes were hot and dense enough for protons and neutrons - collectively known as baryons - to fuse to create deuterium, helium and lithium. Because neutrons cannot decay in the weakless universe, there would be many more of them free to fly around and fuse with protons to make deuterium. Harnik and his colleagues have calculated that with a slightly hotter big bang, 10 per cent of matter in the weakless universe would be deuterium, compared with just 0.001 per cent in ours.

​

It is a key difference. "The extra deuterium in the weakless universe enables stars to leapfrog the first step in the reaction chain and derive heat from the second step, turning deuterium into helium-3," says Harnik.

---

So that is one very BIG deviation that can still produce a working universe. They then discuss another one with a big difference.With our own that produces 3 very different sets of laws that "work" according to their calculations.

Another new scientist article shows how this may be true but wrong. It is possible to construct universes with pretty large changes to the laws and still get a life supporting universe.What we don't know is:
How many combinations are possible.
How many of those are life supporting and how many are not.In other words the whole argument is spurious since it pretends to suggest an answer for which we have none of the inputs.

Maybe you should actually be reading this thread. Look a page back. Message 54

Sorry for not being clear. Of course, it appears that any random tinkering doesn't produce a universe that is likely to support life.However, the idea seems to be prevalent that only this precise set of constants and laws can produce such a universe. That appears to be incorrect.