Cosmology

As we noted earlier, in “Why the universe wasn’t fine-tuned for life” (New Scientist, 14 June 2011), Marcus Chown reports on physicist Victor Stenger’s “devastating demolition” of the argument that the laws of physics of our universe were “fine-tuned” to foster life, in The Fallacy of Fine-tuning: Even if some parameters turn out to be fine-tuned, Stenger argues this could be explained if ours is just one universe in a “multiverse” – an infinite number of universes, each with different physical parameters. We would then have ended up in the one where the laws of physics are fine-tuned to life because, well, how could we not have?Religious people say that, by invoking a multiverse, physicists are going to extraordinary lengths Read More ›

You can tell how much the notion of the multiverse pervades popular culture when a media release for the latest woo-woo train advises, Patricia McLaine’s Cosmic Conspiracy explores the common humanity that we all share as members of the Universe or Multiverse, which intricately connects us all. It is a result of the intense emotion generated within the “Mass Mind” that psychics, “regardless of the level of awareness or education” are far more in tune with—picking up negative patterns then positive ones—in predicting future world events.When asked by journalist Hal Jacques to make world predictions for The Star in January of 1977, … Twenty-five years ago, who knew the term “multiverse” so well? File with: What the Bleep Do We Read More ›

In “When the multiverse and many-worlds collide” (New Scientist, 01 June 2011), Justin Mullins explains,

Two of the strangest ideas in modern physics – that the cosmos constantly splits into parallel universes in which every conceivable outcome of every event happens, and the notion that our universe is part of a larger multiverse – have been unified into a single theory. This solves a bizarre but fundamental problem in cosmology and has set physics circles buzzing with excitement, as well as some bewilderment. Read More ›

Here, Caltech physicist Sean Carroll graciously responded here to UD’s Vincent Torley’s questions, explaining why he thinks God is not needed to explain the universe. It’s shaping up to be one of our most popular posts, besides which … Starting at 3, dark knight KD has certainly livened up the discussion, as have regulars like CannuckianYankee, BlakeG, uoflcard, donaldm, and a host of favourites. If you want to comment, with wit and polish, come on in, the water’s fine.

In “Why the universe wasn’t fine-tuned for life” (New Scientist, 08 June 2011), Marcus Chown tells us that Victor Stenger’s new The Fallacy of Fine-tuning “dismantles arguments that the laws of physics in our universe were ‘fine-tuned’ to foster life.”:

If the force of gravity were a few per cent weaker, it would not squeeze and heat the centre of the sun enough to ignite the nuclear reactions that generate the sunlight necessary for life on Earth. But if it were a few per cent stronger, the temperature of the solar core would have been boosted so much the sun would have burned out in less than a billion years – not enough time for the evolution of complex life like us.(You have to pay to read the article.)

Some, including some atheists, consider fine-tuning evidence for God (though not necessarily sufficient evidence). But not Stenger apparently. Determining whether you think he “dismantles” fine tuning, you might like to consider mathematician George Ellis’s “Toy Universe”comments on the question: Read More ›

In Scientific American, Leonard Susskind is profiled as the “Bad Boy of Physics”: “Leonard Susskind rebelled as a teen and never stopped. Today he insists that reality may forever be beyond reach of our understanding (Peter Byrne, June 21, 2011),

Stanford University physicist Leonard Susskind revels in discovering ideas that transform the status quo in physics. Forty years ago he co-founded string theory, which was initially derided but eventually became the leading candidate for a unified theory of nature. For years he disputed Stephen Hawking’s conjecture that black holes do not merely swallow objects but grind them up beyond recovery, in violation of quantum mechanics. Hawking eventually conceded. And he helped to develop the modern conception of parallel universes, based on what he dubbed the “landscape” of string theory. It spoiled physicists’ dream to explain the universe as the unique outcome of basic principles.Physicists seeking to understand the deepest levels of reality now work within a framework largely of Susskind’s making. But a funny thing has happened along the way. Susskind now wonders whether physicists can understand reality.

Is this a pattern or what? Read More ›

In “New Data Still Have Scientists in Dark Over Dark Matter,” (ScienceDaily, June 8, 2011), we learn: The new seasonal variation, recorded by the Coherent Germanium Neutrino Technology (CoGeNT) experiment, is exactly what theoreticians had predicted if dark matter turned out to be what physicists call Weakly Interacting Massive Particles (WIMPs).”We cannot call this a WIMP signal. It’s just what you might expect from it,” said Juan Collar, associate professor in physics at the University of Chicago. Collar and John Orrell of Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, who lead the CoGeNT collaboration, are submitting their results in two papers to Physical Review Letters. The researchers have not ruled out random fluctuation. Dark matter accounts for nearly 90 percent of all matter Read More ›

Recently, Uncommon Descent’s vjtorley posed seven questions to physicist Sean Carroll, Senior Research Associate in Physics at the California Institute of Technology. Carroll had written an article, “Does the Universe need God?” for The Blackwell Companion to Science and Christianity. Now Carroll has answered the questions, and given us permission to post his response here:

1. In your article, you’ve argued that the ultimate explanation of why events happen is that things are simply obeying the laws of nature – in particular, the laws of physics. What do you mean by the term “law of nature”? Specifically, are the laws of nature (a) rules which prescribe the behavior of objects, or (b) mere regularities which describe the behavior of objects?

To this and the other questions, Carroll responds:

I wanted to thank Vincent Torley and Denyse O’Leary for the opportunity to write a guest blog post, and apologize for how long it’s taken me to do so. I’ve written an article for the forthcoming Blackwell Companion to Science and Christianity, entitled Does the Universe Need God?, in which I argued that the answer is “no.” Vincent posed a list of questions in response. After thinking about it, I decided that my answers would be more clear if I simply wrote a coherent argument, rather than addressing the questions individually. Read More ›

… when he said, “We need to use the effective theory of Darwinian natural selection of those Societies most likely to survive. We assign them a higher value.” Even the interviewer, it turns out, didn’t know what he meant, and has been trying to find out.

Read More ›

In Scientific American (April 2011), Paul J. Steinhardt asks “The Inflation Debate: Is the theory at the heart of modern cosmology deeply flawed? (April 6, 2011) : Summary Cosmic inflation is so widely accepted that it is often taken as established fact. The idea is that the geometry and uniformity of the cosmos were established during an intense early growth spurt. But some of the theory’s creators, including the author, are having second thoughts. As the original theory has developed, cracks have appeared in its logical foundations. Highly improbable conditions are required to start inflation. Worse, inflation goes on eternally, producing infinitely many outcomes, so the theory makes no firm observational predictions. Scientists debate among (and within) themselves whether these Read More ›

… and physicist Rob Sheldon will reply on: Could the universe be infinite in space, and how would that affect the design argument? Dr. Sheldon has notified us that he has ordered Dr. Monton’s book, Seeking God in Science: An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design (Broadview Press, 2009), which argues that case. Further details later.

Yup. In other news: “Woman is detained in NASA moon rock sting,”according to MSNBC (5/20/2011):

Tried to sell treasure for $1.7 million in Southern California, authorities say

It is illegal to sell moon rocks, which are considered national treasures. Read More ›

In “Dark energy does speed up universe’s expansion” (Australian Broadcasting Corporation, May 19, 2011), we learn: Dark energy is real and it is causing spacetime and the universe to expand at an increasing speed, a new study says.The paper to be published in the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, provides the first independent confirmation of both the existence of dark energy and its rate of expansion. It has been put together by a team of 26 scientists including Chris Blake from Melbourne’s Swinburne University. It turns out that this is only “further confirmation” of a “mystery”: “Although the exact physics required to explain dark energy still remains a mystery, confirming it exists is a significant step in understanding Read More ›

Do doomsday scenarios bore and frustrate you? Here, in “The draw of doomsday: Why apocalypse aficionados look forward to the end, and how they hope to survive”, Stephanie Pappas (MSNBC News (5/17/20) observes,

Camping [Rev. Doomsday, tomorrow] has made this prediction before, in 1994 — it didn’t pan out — but the thousands of failed doomsday predictions throughout history are no match for what Lorenzo DiTommaso, a professor of religion at Concordia University in Montreal, calls the “apocalyptic worldview.””It’s a very persistent and potent way of understanding the world,” DiTommaso told LiveScience.

While religious doomsdays attract more ridicule, the growth area is secular doomsdays: Read More ›

(This contest was judged here.) … tell New Scientist, … what the first person to set foot on Mars should say. If you win, and it doesn’t impress them, you have the wrong friends. Mars rocks. So, come to think of it, we will offer a free copy of The Nature of Nature (which offers Guillermo Gonzalez’s work on the true status of habitability of exoplanets) to the best entry placed here at Uncommon Descent, in the comments box. Gonzalez’s 2001 prediction has held up so far. Contest will be closed for judging May 28, 2011.