Scientists Discover that Water Is Wet
Even wetness, under examination,
occupies a surprisingly narrow place
in the space of all possible worlds
Scientists Discover That Water Is … Wet
by John D. Wise, PhD
A recent headline from Queen Mary University of London announces, with appropriate excitement, that …
Scientists make stunning discovery that could change our understanding of the Universe (ScienceDaily, 8 May 2026). The claim, in essence, is this: life depends on liquids behaving in certain ways, and those behaviors depend on the values of fundamental physical constants.
I was tempted on first reading to respond to the article’s claim of a “stunning discovery that could change our understanding of the universe,” by asking in return, in what universe do you live?
- Water is wet.
- Liquids flow.
- Cells require both.
One might imagine the press conference: A scientist steps forward: “After years of careful study, we can now say with certainty that if fluids did not diffuse, transport molecules, or sustain stable flow, cellular life would be impossible.”
In other news, gravity continues to pull downward, air is breathable and mountains remain inconveniently tall.
Science discovers the obvious: water is wet!
From Obviousness to Measurement
Before we dismiss the entire exercise, however, as a triumph of the obvious, it is worth noticing how the result is framed in the popular report:
“the Universe’s fundamental constants — the deep physical rules that govern everything from atoms to stars — appear to sit within an incredibly narrow “sweet spot” that allows liquids to flow properly inside living cells.”
That sentence does something subtle. It takes the familiar idea of fine-tuning and extends it into a domain that feels, at first glance, self-evident.
But the researchers are not claiming to have discovered fine-tuning. That terrain is already well known. It is stated in the formal paper:
Constraints on fundamental physical constants from bio-friendly viscosity and diffusion (Kostya Trachenko, Science Advances, 23 August 2023):
“The values of some fundamental physical constants are considered to be finely tuned and balanced to give our observable world… These and other example (sic) suggest a narrow ‘habitable zone’ in parameter space … where essential biochemical elements can form.”
That familiar story, however, tends to stop at a certain level. The paper continues:
“Discussions of constraints on fundamental constants … often end with production of heavy nuclei in stars. This involves a tacit assumption that once heavy nuclei are produced, observers emerge.”
That “tacit assumption” is doing more work than science often acknowledges. Between nuclei and observers lies a vast and complicated middle, on the order of fifteen orders of magnitude in scale,[1] filled with chemistry, structure, and, crucially, motion.
The Narrowness of Wetness
What this research draws is not a new conclusion, but the careful tracing of an old one. Its central claim is straightforward:
“Fundamental constants have a biofriendly window constrained by biofriendly viscosity and diffusion setting the motion in essential life processes in and across cells.”
Translation: it is not enough that matter exists, or even that liquid phases exist. The liquids must fall within a fairly narrow range of behaviors – not too thick, not too thin, not too sluggish, not too chaotic – if they are to support the constant traffic of life.
And here the argument becomes more tangible:
“Higher viscosity means that water flows slower, notably affecting vital flow processes in and between cells and so on. Large viscosity increase (think of viscosity of tar and higher) means that life might not exist in its current form or not exist at all.”
The point is not merely that life needs liquid, but that it needs the right kind of liquid, one whose flow, diffusion, and resistance sit within a constrained range. Too far in one direction, and motion arrests. Too far in the other, and structure dissolves.
Not a Discovery, but a Deepening
At this stage, my initial reaction, “water is wet,” begins to shift slightly. What seemed obvious at the level of common sense is not, in fact, trivial when one asks how wide the margin really is. The paper does not so much discover that the world is habitable as attempt to measure how tightly that habitability is bounded.
And in doing so, it arrives at an interesting, if understated, consequence:
“…we need to tune the same fundamental constants… that, importantly, involves tuning, which is additional and different to tuning involved in fixing [those required for stellar processes].”
In other words, the fine-tuning does not become simpler as one looks closer. It stratifies, operating at profoundly different scales simultaneously. Not only must the constants of physics permit atoms and stars, they must also permit liquids to flow within biologically viable ranges, and those ranges themselves impose further constraints.
A Modest Gain
None of this ‘overturns our understanding of the universe.’ Nor does it solve the question of why the constants take the values they do.
But it does accomplish something modest. It takes what often appears as a broad and somewhat abstract claim, that the universe is “fine-tuned for life,” and begins, however tentatively, to render that claim in the language of measurable physical processes – not a revelation, but a refinement.
Not a discovery that water is wet.
But a growing realization that even “wetness,” under examination, occupies a surprisingly narrow place in the space of “all possible worlds.” This research actually does some heavy lifting for the Design argument, even if it doesn’t mean to.
We look forward to the next “stunning discovery” in 2027, when physicists confirm that if light didn’t travel, we wouldn’t be able to see.
[1] This “orders of magnitude” estimate is a rough, descriptive summary of the large gap between molecular-scale processes in liquids and cell- or organism-scale biological function discussed in the text. The paper says, “there are about 15 orders of magnitude size difference between nuclei and observers.”
John Wise received his PhD in philosophy from the University of CA, Irvine in 2004. His dissertation was titled Sartre’s Phenomenological Ontology and the German Idealist Tradition. His area of specialization is 19th to early 20th century continental philosophy.
He tells the story of his 25-year odyssey from atheism to Christianity in the book, Through the Looking Glass: The Imploding of an Atheist Professor’s Worldview (available on Amazon). Since his return to Christ, his research interests include developing a Christian (YEC) philosophy of science and the integration of all human knowledge with God’s word.
He has taught philosophy for the University of CA, Irvine, East Stroudsburg University of PA, Grand Canyon University, American Intercontinental University, and Ashford University. He currently teaches online for the University of Arizona, Global Campus, and is a member of the Heterodox Academy. He and his wife Jenny are known online as The Christian Atheist with a podcast of that name, in addition to a YouTube channel: John and Jenny Wise.