Was the Universe Fine-tuned for Life?

(With due apologies to Technophobes!)

In his book “The God Delusion,” Richard Dawkins, British evolutionary biologist, ethologist, and author, discusses the concept of fine-tuning in the universe. This is the argument that physical functions, forces, and processes in the universe are precisely fine-tuned to enable life to exist and to function adequately (see a list of some of these in the Sample of Fine-tuned Parameters table below).

Dawkins challenges this concept in his book, using a rather dismissive analogy of a deity manipulating a machine with only six 'knobs' (physical parameters), arguing that in fact each of these 6 parameters is only coincidentally fine-tuned to permit the existence and maintenance of life in the universe!

However, the fine-tuning of our universe for life relies on far more than just six parameters; in fact, very considerably more!

The table given below, 'A Sample of Fine-tuned Parameters' (quite technical in nature), summarises around 40 of these items. And this is by no means a complete list.

All of these must be tuned with precision — with no exceptions — and sometimes extreme precision, to enable life to begin and to be sustained. The parameter values must also be maintained throughout time, without unexpected deviation, for life to begin and to continue. (Compare the multi-tiered project discussion in the 'Planning' section.)

This is reminiscent of the magician who keeps multiple plates spinning on upright poles — but with many more "plates" involved. All plates must continue spinning, otherwise a cascade effect will destroy the entire impressive arrangement. A major difference with the fine-tuned parameters under discussion, is that there are at least thousands of items, too many for any magician to possibly handle, and they are held in place, not by the assistance of spinning, but by consistent, extreme precision.

The analogy illustrated above is a good example of the ultra accuracy and complexity required for these items to function cooperatively as they do, without any cascade effect causing either a complete disaster, or preventing the quality of life that we experience (human error notwithstanding).

Apologies to those not familiar with the subject of physics; however, an examination of these items will prove to be rewarding.

Richard Dawkins describes a 6-buttoned Creation Machine

Richard Dawkins described an ultra-simplistic 6-buttoned creation machine

Imagine, for instance, someone baking a large cake. All the ingredients must be sourced, mixed correctly, and at the right time, in the precise quantities, with the required amount and method of heat applied. Missing an ingredient, failing to observe an instruction, or misjudging an item could result in a very poor cake or even a complete disaster!

In a similar way, but on a far grander scale, the emergence of life on earth requires an astonishing number of ingredients, efficient coordination between them, and at times an unimaginable level of fine-tuning.

The precision needed to achieve the necessary conditions for life, indeed for sufficiently comfortable life, is truly mind-boggling!

Each item is listed below, along with a description of the physical consequences of this item being either greater or smaller than it actually is in the universe. If any one of these items was not so finely tuned, then life would either not exist at all or would be unbearably uncomfortable at best.

These comparisons are made even more remarkable when you consider for example the size of an electron in comparison to the overall dimensions of the tiny atom to which it belongs:
Imagine that a single atom is the size of a football stadium. In the most simple configuration, the nucleus would be the size of a marble in the centre of the field, and the electron would be a spec of sand in an orbital arrangement that stretches as far as the outermost seats of the stadium.
The vast space between the electron in the outer portion and the proton within the nucleus is mostly empty, highlighting how incredibly small (and seemingly fragile) these particles are, and how any change (however tiny or miniscule) to the properties of size, or distance, spin, weight, electric charge, or any of its other properties, would have catastrophic consequences! (See just one example with the item 'Ratio of electron to proton mass' in the Sample of Fine-tuned Parameters below.)
The vast quantity of the combined number of potential consequences (including "cascade" or knock-on effects — see below), and the sheer magnitude of the quantity of the overlapping of these fine-tuned parameters, is highlighted by means of a study of the section Multi-tiered Coordinated Planning.

In the table below, the legend is explained as follows:
A minus sign (–) represents smaller, slower, less dense, or younger properties.
A plus sign (+) represents larger, faster, more dense, or older properties.

Observe how the parameters or items in the table 'Sample of Fine-tuned Parameters' below are presented. For example, consider the first item, the 'Strong nuclear force.' If it was very slightly greater, it would result in the effects described against the plus (+) sign; and if it was very slightly smaller, it would lead to the effects described against the minus (-) sign; and the pattern continues for each of the remaining items.

Sample of Fine-tuned Parameters

Strong nuclear force
+ no hydrogen would form; atomic nuclei for life-essential elements would be unstable; life would not be possible
– no elements heavier than hydrogen would exist: life would not be possible

Weak nuclear force constant
+ too much hydrogen would convert to helium; stars would convert too much matter into heavier elements; life would not be possible
– too little helium would be produced; stars would convert too little matter into heavier elements; life would not be possible

Strength of force of gravity at all time stages of the universe
+ stars would be too hot and would burn too rapidly and too unevenly
– stars would be too cool for nuclear fusion; elements needed for life would never exist

Strength of force of gravity at all size stages of the universe
+ gravity would overwhelm the expansion of the universe and fatal contraction would occur
– gaseous nebulae would never succeed in forming stars; preventing life

Energy value of the Higgs field (set at 246 GeV)
+ particles would never be able to acquire mass, preventing required Quantum particle interactions, therefore no significant material would ever develop due to the instability of matter
– particles would never be able to acquire mass, preventing required Quantum particle interactions, therefore no significant material would ever develop due to the instability of matter

Electromagnetic force
+ chemical bonding would not occur; essential elements would be unstable
– chemical bonding would be unstable and life would not be possible

Ratio of electromagnetic force to gravitational force
+ all stars would be at least 1.4 times the mass of our stable sun; life-cycle of stars would be too brief to support life
– all stars would be at least one fifth the mass of the sun, making them incapable of producing heavy elements required for life

Mass of the neutrino
+ If neutrinos have even a small amount of mass, their high density throughout the universe would increase the Omega value (the mass in the universe) causing its eventual collapse; galaxy clusters and galaxies would be too dense, making conditions impossible for sustained, comfortable life
– If Omega (the mass in the universe) is infinitesimally less than 1.0, it would be unable to prevent the universe from expanding forever; galaxy clusters, galaxies, and even stars would never form

The lambda particle
+ If lambda ("vacuum energy" or "quintessence") is non-zero, universal expansion may be accelerating
– If lambda is zero, the universe may easily collapse

Ratio of electron to proton mass
+ chemical bonds would be too few, life chemistry would not be possible
– chemical bonds would be unstable, life chemistry would not be possible

Ratio of number of protons to number of electrons
+ electromagnetic force would be too great for gravity, preventing formation of galaxies, stars, planets
– electromagnetic force would be inadequate … stars would never form

Ratio of neutron mass to proton mass
+ neutron decay would yield too few neutrons for the formation of many life-essential elements
– neutron decay would produce so many neutrons that stars would collapse into neutron stars or black holes

Ratio of exotic matter mass to ordinary matter mass
+ universe would collapse before solar-type stars could form
– no galaxies would form

Expansion rate of the universe
+ no galaxies would exist
– universe would quickly collapse

Entropy level of the universe
+ stars would not exist within proto-galaxies
– proto-galaxies would not exist

Mass density of the universe
+ excess of deuterium (in contrast to helium) = stars would burn out too rapidly for life to exist
– insufficient helium = shortage of heavier elements essential for life

Velocity of light
+ stars would be too bright
– stars would be too dark

Age of the universe
+ no stars sufficiently stable would exist in required locations of the galaxy
– stable stars would not have formed

Initial uniformity of radiation
+ if more uniform: stars, star clusters, galaxies and galactic clusters could never form
– if less uniform: universe would quickly have become “over-run” with black holes and be mainly devoid of stars essential for life

Distance of the moon from the earth
+ If much closer, tidal waves would be hundreds of times greater than they are today
– If much further away, earth's day would be only a few hours long; hurricanes and tidal waves would be considerably greater; oceans would not be chemical-rich and therefore inadequate for life

Distance of the earth from the sun
+ Freezing temperatures would not permit life to survive, or even to develop
– Heat would scorch the atmosphere, as well as land; oceans would be evaporated, and no chemicals required for life-synthesis would exist

Size of the moon
+ Sun's gravitational effect on the moon (currently about twice that of the earth) would be greater, causing severe irregularities in moon's orbit with consequences like those explained for 'Distance of the moon from the earth'
– The moon would have less mass and would therefore draw rapidly closer to the earth; earth’s day would be only about two thirds its current length; less scattered sunlight; greater seasonal fluctuations; life would be uncomfortable

Strength of earth's magnetic field
+ could affect the protective heliosphere surrounding the solar system; geologic activity of earth would make life uncomfortable; moon orbit would be affected, considerably increasing tidal effects on earth
– increased solar radiation would be too unstable for life

Average distance between stars
+ heavy element density would be too sparse for rocky planets to form
– planetary orbits would be too unstable for life

Location of the solar system from the galactic core in early stage of universe
+ if too far away, lack of essential elements for life to form on earth
– if too close, gravitational effects would destabilize the sun's orbit

Location of the solar system from the galactic core in later stage of universe
+ if too far away, heavy element density would be too sparse for life to be maintained
– if too close, planetary orbits would be unstable; gravitational effects would be too great; supernovae would be dangerously close to earth

Average distance between stars
+ heavy element density would be too sparse for rocky planets to form
– planetary orbits would be too unstable for life

Density of galactic cluster
+ galaxy collisions and mergers would destabilize the sun's orbit
– lack of material for star formation

Fine structure constant
+ too many stars would have significantly less mass than the sun; matter would be unstable in large magnetic fields
– all stars would have significantly greater mass than the sun, decreasing the chances of an adequate “goldilocks” distance

Decay rate of protons
+ radiation would prevent the existence of life
– universe would contain insufficient matter for life

Initial excess of nucleons over anti-nucleons
+ radiation would prohibit planet formation
– availability of matter would be insufficient for galaxy or star formation

Supernovae eruptions
+ if too distant, too infrequent, or too soon: heavy elements would be too sparse for rocky planets to form; life would not be possible
– if too close, too frequent, or too late: radiation would prevent life from existing for a time or obtaining any comfortable existence

White dwarf binaries - quantity
+ if too many: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life
– if too few: insufficient fluorine would exist for life chemistry

White dwarf binaries - timing
+ if formed too late: fluorine would arrive too late for life chemistry
– if formed too soon: insufficient fluorine production

Number of dimensions in the early universe
+ quantum mechanics, gravity, and relativity could not coexist; life would be impossible
– same result

Number of dimensions in the present universe
– quantum mechanics, gravity, and relativity could not coexist; life would be impossible
+ electron, planet, and star orbits would be unstable, preventing life

Big bang ripples
+ galaxies/galaxy clusters would be too dense for life; black holes would dominate; universe would collapse even before any life-site could form
– galaxies would not form; universe would expand too rapidly

Cosmological constant
+ universe would expand too quickly to form stars capable of sustaining life
– the expansion rate of the universe would be slower; the universe would quickly collapse or too much time would be allowed for gravitational forces to pull matter together, leading to denser and more numerous structures, and making gravitational forces too great either for life to exist comfortably or even for life to begin at all

Regarding the "laws of nature," the famous physicist Erwin Schrödinger, wrote:

"Incredibly small groups of atoms, much too small to display exact statistical laws, do play a dominating role in the very orderly and lawful events within a living organism. They have control of the observable large-scale features which the organism acquires in the course of its development; they determine important characteristics of its functioning; and in all this, very sharp and very strict biological laws are displayed."

And famous physicist Albert Einstein wrote:

"There are no arbitrary constants . . . nature is so constituted that it is possible logically to lay down such strongly determined laws that within these laws only rationally determined constants occur (not constants, therefore, whose numerical value could be changed without destroying the theory)."

Why does nature only realise "determined" values, not just for the "constants" of nature, but for all the attributes and parameters belonging to all the components discussed here? Does evolution somehow acquire the ability to plan, to determine, and thereby produce intentional order and arrangement? Can evolution plan ahead, with a future "finished product" in mind?

Has fine-tuning been “debunked” ?

Are the counter arguments valid?

Some supporters of evolution have produced arguments that they claim “debunk” the ideas on fine-tuning as expressed above.

Taking these arguments to task, the following discussion explains why their “debunking” is far from sound. The six points are a summary of some of the principal arguments put forward by evolutionary scientists:

1: "We must caution against 'purposing' things too readily."

This is basically an encouragement to 'defer jumping to conclusions' until the facts have been fully assessed. Notice, firstly, that this does not by itself "debunk" the fine-tuning argumentation. It is merely saying that, if all the facts were considered and examined fully, evolutionary scientists would prefer not to use the expression "purpose" when discussing the reason for the existence of the universe.

However, the import of this website is to demonstrate that evolution is lacking in "empirical evidence." It is the natural experience of humans to realise purpose in something that is evidently well arranged, ordered, and fulfils a clearly defined, and highly complex, function.

As discussed on the Home page, empirical evidence is defined as that which is verifiable by observation, experience, or experiment. The human experience is that the items and objects around us — houses, roads, factories, clothes, personal items, household objects, motor vehicles — were designed. Thoughtful planning, design, and intelligence all played their part in the construction of a multitude of man-made items that we observe around us.

On the contrary:

Evolution has not been verified by observation, as the claimed adaptation times are too long.
Evolution has not been verified by experience, because the changes are too subtle to establish realistic support for the evolutionary claims of major changes.
Evolution has not been verified by experiment, because forced changes imposed by scientists are of no verification value.

The above-mentioned "caution" therefore ought to apply to those who believe there is no evidence for intentional order or planning in the universe. To postulate an alternative theory, following up by searching for the evidence to support it, does not negate the fine-tuning argumentation.

2: "We only have experience of this universe, so making sense of probabilistic claims is problematic."
"We have no idea of the range of possibilities."
"There might be multiple universes."

This is an admission of the failure of the scientific theories, not an effective argument that debunks fine-tuning. To suppose that there "might be" multiple universes, does not carry any weight in combating the fine-tuning argumentation.

The failure of these theories is characterised by statements that are made, especially more recently, such as "there is something wrong with cosmology," or "there is a problem with the universe." It is not the universe, or its constituent parts, that have the problem; the problem is with the theories that attempt to explain them.

Incidentally, note that the "multiple universes" theory is very far from gaining wide acceptance among scientists!

There are many "possibilities," but most of these are covered in theories that are frequently questioned and are all too often, themselves, debunked. Only evidence can overturn the fine-tuning argumentation, not theory.

3: "We may one day find explanations for these fine-tuned values."
"There might be a complex of 'bubble universes' with different conditions."

Note carefully these statements: We may "one day" find answers! There "might be" other explanations!

This is not effective debunking! It is an admission that their science is very far from providing the required answers. And even the science that is verified and widely accepted, does not provide any solid arguments that threaten to debunk the fine-tuning hypothesis.

The reference to 'bubble universes' that might exist, each having any number of differing values to ours, is not very helpful in supporting the 'debunking' arguments. We are surely only concerned with what we know. In fact, this is an indirect admission of the effectiveness of the fine-tuning parameters. Their argument seems to say, Our universe might be fine-tuned, but there could be others that are not. How does this help?

4: The physics on which the "fine tuning" argument is based is "radically imperfect." For example, "scientists still cannot reconcile quantum mechanics with relativity."
"String theory, widely regarded with scepticism in the scientific community, is young and has 'a long way to go'."
"We still do not know what dark energy and dark matter really are."

More than 95% of the universe's nature has not so far been successfully examined by scientists. Dark energy and dark matter do not yet have any solid theoretical framework. And even with the remaining 5% (that is, the visible matter in the universe) which has been subjected to prolific scientific study, there are still a large number of conflicting and hotly debated theories, some of which are in the process of being seriously questioned or overturned by mainstream science.

And, apologies to those who study and propound string theory, but there seems to be little value in it over and above the fun of mulling over a theory! 🙇‍♂️

The admission that "we still do not know" undermines their own claim that the fine-tuning argument has been debunked.

5: "With all the modern advances in physics, it is unlikely that the simple solution of a deity creating it, is going to be the final answer."

This is also an admission that the evidence that could potentially debunk the fine-tuning argumentation, is not yet there!

It is like travellers using a map to navigate. Some feel that the map is incomplete, but those who use it are making confirmed and reliable progress. Then someone introduces the idea that there might be an alternative map, but this is not verified, only suggested. The burden of proof rests with those who introduce new untested possibilities.

A clue to their mindset lies in the statement regarding the "simple solution of a deity creating it." It is not in the interests of today's scientists to proffer a simple theory that cannot be examined under a microscope or on a supercomputer in a laboratory. Their alternative is to produce more new theories, then try to find the evidence that supports them. As Occam's Razor explained it: the simple solution, the "final answer," is often found to be the right one!

6: "If the universe really does have a Creator, then he has not done such a good job."

Those who agree with this statement are in effect saying, 'If I created the universe, I would do it in a different way.'

But even if there are "flaws" in a certain design, that does not mean there is no designer.

Note the following: Scientists love to "box things off," to partition their theories into neat parcels. In fact, we all do the same thing in our own way. We like to categorise our studies, to make things easier to grasp. This occurs more especially when we are learning a complex subject.

We also organise our work and information into files and folders; we use labels and tags for people, emails, notes, social media posts; we categorise meals by type; we use calendars to prioritise our time and schedule upcoming events.

Scientists do this with especially highly complicated theories. Why? Because they are eager for answers. If they had wholly verifiable facts and truly understood their subject fully, they would not need theories. Theories are a search for truth and a yearning for validity and confirmation.

They also love formulas. To express an idea, or new theory especially in physics, using the support of mathematical formulas is a "holy grail" of physicists.

But the universe has clearly not been "built" to satisfy this approach to things that we do not understand, or that we understand poorly.

For example, take the presence of microorganisms in the human body. There are almost as many of these foreign "invaders" as there are cells in our bodies! Yet they are vital to our wellbeing. If you were tasked with designing a human, would you choose this complicated, symbiotic relationship?

Another example is found in galaxy performance, in the disparate forces and principles that maintain their structure and rotation. If it were not for these, the chances of finding planets with stable orbits around sufficiently stable stars would be immensely smaller than they are at present.

Still another example is the functionality of the human brain. Despite its many impressive features, some scientists point to the greater processing speed of modern computers. However, do we really want our thoughts to behave like a computer, with near-instant calculations? Where is the enjoyment and satisfaction in that? With a potentially impressive lifespan, the joy of learning includes taking the time to gather information and to process it carefully, to meditate, to really enjoy learning.

And for a final example we turn to the multiple organs that serve to provide our bodies with essential nutrition (on this, see also the section 'Beyond Fine-tuning'). A simplified approach might have been to produce a single organ that does everything required to digest the food that we eat. But there are many organs (the count is 19 according to one reckoning) that provide this one function.

The human approach is to start with something simple and establish a foundation, then build on that with a simplified framework until the objective is finally achieved, or is believed to be achieved. Scientists, especially, do this with complicated subjects. (Unfortunately sometimes this "simplified framework" is vastly inadequate and is ultimately thrown away.) But this simplified approach does not seem to fit with the design of the universe. Everywhere we look there are extremely disparate systems that work together (forward planning) in ways that require careful study, and that seem, from a superficial view, most unlikely. Is that evidence of no designer? Or is it not rather evidence of the limitations of humans and an indication of our lack of understanding of how the universe was created and gradually developed?

And finally, when scientists claim they have "debunked" fine-tuning, they often refer to the so-called "constants of nature" which number only a couple of handfuls. Some of these values have demonstrably changed over the centuries, especially with more recent studies. But the arguments put forward on this website are not limited to these constants, but instead embrace a comprehensive universe-wide macro view as can be seen from the article 'Multi-level Coordinated Planning' — please also see the articles 'Beyond Fine-tuning' and 'Machines Making Machines' for additional examples.

BEYOND FINE-TUNING

An Example of The Cascade Effect of Fine-tuned Items

There are many properties of atomic particles, and a change to any one of these could have a catastrophic effect on items that belong to the macro scale of "classical" physics: in other words, any change to the critical attributes of tiny atoms could very easily result in a failure to form larger objects essential for life, or could easily prevent attributes vital for quality of life from ever developing.

The harmony of these properties or "laws" is the underlying message of physicist Arvin Ash (arvinash.com) in his YouTube presentation "How Do Elements Get Their Physical Properties?"

Take for example protons and electrons. Here's a summary of just one sample discussion:

The identity of a given element depends on the number of protons in the nucleus of the atom. This in turn has a considerable bearing on the influential behaviour of neutrons in the nucleus, as well as the number of electrons that are allowed to belong to that atom. And the electrons in their turn greatly affect the complex chemical reactions that occur between this and other elements. And this also restricts the properties of these elements: their colour, weight, electrical disposition, volatility, etc. Other important functions would also fail: for example the creation of heavy elements essential for life depends on the interactions (the "laws") of protons and neutrons, and the consequential effects of neutrons and supernovae. As you can see, all of this has yet further implications, obviously too many to list in practical terms, for all of the elements and functions that occur in nature.

This is one of numerous examples of the aforementioned overall harmony at every level of the multi-tier project. The numerous events, functions, and items in the universe that depend on the multitude of mutual laws and properties in nature, are aptly illustrated by the multiple finely-balanced plates in the image that serves as the favicon for this web site.

Finely balanced attributes in everything from atoms to galaxies.

Do you not agree that this renders Richard Dawkins' illustration of the 6-buttoned machine, discussed above, rather inadequate by comparison?

Additional Technical Note

The Remarkable Properties of Water

Above it is stated that the displayed list of fine-tuned parameters is "by no means a complete list" (in contrast to Richard Dawkins' not-especially-beneficial machine with just "six knobs"). As an example, you might wish to study the remarkable properties of a substance that many think is simple: water. Take a look at this list of some of its properties (it must be noted that this list is by no means complete), and how some of them qualify as fine-tuned parameters, and many others are dependent on the "laws," the parameters of atoms and their multiple constituent parts and intrinsic forces:

High cohesion
Adhesion
Surface tension
Heat capacity (high heat conductivity)
High latent heat of evaporation
Intra-molecular hydrogen bonding
Finely balanced miscibility (ability to mix)
Very light as a gas
Very dense as a liquid
Hydration (which has many sub-sets)
Ionization factors
Density-driven thermal convection
Expansion on freezing
Hot water freezes faster than cold water under certain conditions
Peculiarities of behaviour under differing pressures
Brine rejection (salt distribution)

And, of course, note that water is the principal element enabling the construction and maintenance of life (after all, our bodies consist of between 60% and 75% water — in reality, our bodies are bags of clay containing large amounts of water — albeit highly sophisticated bags)!

Additional Notes for Information-Hungry "Techies"

Note these additional facts that make water a remarkable substance:

If water was not electrically polar, it would be a gas at room temperature and have an extremely low freezing point, making life impossible. Because of the shape of the water molecule, the distribution of the electrical charge is asymmetric. The oxygen nucleus draws electrons away from the hydrogen nuclei, which leaves the region around the hydrogen nuclei with a net positive charge. The water molecule is thus an electrically polar structure.
The polar nature of water enables it to form a 'skin' over the surface of a body of water, strong enough to support tiny, light objects. This is known as surface tension. Water has the highest surface tension of all common liquids. Water is therefore highly cohesive. Water molecules interact strongly with one another through hydrogen bonds. These interactions are apparent in the structure of ice. Networks of hydrogen bonds hold the structure together; similar interactions link molecules in liquid water and account for the cohesion of liquid water, although, in the liquid state, some of the hydrogen bonds are broken. The highly cohesive nature of water dramatically affects the interactions between molecules in aqueous solution.
Water has a great capacity to hold heat energy, with the highest heat of vaporization of most common substances (thus a high boiling point — enabling it to remain as a liquid on the surface of the warm Earth). When water evaporates, it absorbs considerable amounts of heat.
Water has a high latent heat of fusion; when ice is formed, considerable amounts of heat energy is released. Water therefore acts as a buffer against temperature changes and keeps earth’s climate from rapidly fluctuating.
When water freezes, it becomes less dense — hence ice floats. If this did not happen, the following catastrophic effects would occur: (1) lakes and ponds would freeze from the bottom up, (2) the habitat of aquatic life would not exist, (3) without the insulation of liquid water below ice, temperature fluctuations would be more extreme, disrupting the delicate balance of aquatic ecosystems, (4) the gas exchange that allows for oxygenation of water would be depleted, and aquatic life would not survive, and (5) earth's climate would be affected on a large scale due to unpredictable thermal dynamics.
Possibly most important for the chemical processes of life: water is a universal solvent. It has the ability to dissolve more substances than any other liquid (due, once again, to many "fine-tuned parameters" — e.g. water's polar characteristics and the collective quantum principles that enable hydrogen bonding). When dissolved in water, salts turn into the ions Sodium chloride. Table salt, NaCl becomes Na+ and Cl–. This allows for many free radicals to be available for the chemistry of life.
Water is very dense, some 800 times denser than air. This density allows large and small organisms to float along easily for long periods of time (compared to land, where terrestrial life must counter gravity and greater friction with each step in order to move.)
Water absorbs light rays very quickly (important to photosynthetic life, which is only possible where light penetrates, and light is absorbed as deep as 600 feet beneath the surface of the oceans).
Water absorbs light differentially. The red end of the light spectrum is absorbed in shallow water while the blues and greens penetrate the deepest (important for plants because different plants use different parts of the light spectrum for photosynthesis, and the differential absorption can determine the vertical distribution of marine plants).

Sources include: Science Times, Open University, Encyclopaedia Britannica, NuWater.com, LibreTexts, Science Learning Hub.

Note: This site was created with the MyWebSite system from ionos.co.uk, including its AI capability, and with some images generated by the Copilot AI system.