So, instead of “multiverse is real,” how about “scale doesn’t matter”? Yes, that’s the latest idea.
The implications are enormous. Without supersymmetry, the Higgs boson mass seems as if it is reduced not by mirror-image effects but by random and improbable cancellations between unrelated numbers — essentially, the initial mass of the Higgs seems to exactly counterbalance the huge contributions to its mass from gluons, quarks, gravitational states and all the rest. And if the universe is improbable, then many physicists argue that it must be one universe of many: just a rare bubble in an endless, foaming “multiverse.” We observe this particular bubble, the reasoning goes, not because its properties make sense, but because its peculiar Higgs boson is conducive to the formation of atoms and, thus, the rise of life. More typical bubbles, with their Planck-size Higgs bosons, are uninhabitable.
It turns out, however, lots of physicists find this whole thing ridiculous (put more politely in the article of course).
One proposed answer is, scale doesn’t matter:
Though galaxies look larger than atoms and elephants appear to outweigh ants, some physicists have begun to suspect that size differences are illusory. Perhaps the fundamental description of the universe does not include the concepts of “mass” and “length,” implying that at its core, nature lacks a sense of scale.
This little-explored idea, known as scale symmetry, constitutes a radical departure from long-standing assumptions about how elementary particles acquire their properties. But it has recently emerged as a common theme of numerous talks and papers by respected particle physicists. With their field stuck at a nasty impasse, the researchers have returned to the master equations that describe the known particles and their interactions, and are asking: What happens when you erase the terms in the equations having to do with mass and length?
Nature, at the deepest level, may not differentiate between scales. …
“Nasty impasse”? Sounds like they are missing something, can’t think what.
See The Science Fictions series at your fingertips (cosmology) for why they are in this mess.
Follow UD News at Twitter!
3 Replies to “Apparently, the disappointment with the multiverse (“multiverse ennui”) can’t last, so …”
So, we don’t need the Multiverse to explain the fine tuning because we did the math wrong and there IS no fine tuning.
Granted, we would not expect a gorilla to do
the math correctly. But is it bravado to believe man can?
This stuff actually gets published and ID related material is scorned and censored???
Newton and Kepler want their science back!
,,, If we allow that scale does matter and that elephants may just possibly outweigh ants, then we find a very interesting thing:
The preceding interactive graph points out that the smallest scale visible to the human eye (as well as a human egg) is at 10^-4 meters, which ‘just so happens’ to be directly in the exponential center of all possible sizes of our physical reality (not just ‘nearly’ in the exponential center!). i.e. 10^-4 is, exponentially, right in the middle of 10^-35 meters, which is the smallest possible unit of length, which is Planck length, and 10^27 meters, which is the largest possible unit of ‘observable’ length since space-time was created in the Big Bang, which is the diameter of the universe. This is very interesting for, as far as I can tell, the limits to human vision (as well as the size of the human egg) could have, theoretically, been at very different positions than directly in the exponential middle.
Moreover, apparently unbeknownst to these guys, the fine tuning argument was recently extended by Michael Denton and Robin Collins to show that the fine tuning of the universe is not only fined tuned so that carbon based life can exist in the universe, but is also fine tuned specifically for life like human life to exist and discover the universe:
As to the multiverse in general, the multiverse that atheists conjecture to ‘explain away’ the fine-tuning of the universe is an epistemologically self defeating conjecture! Dr. Bruce Gordon conveys this fact much better than anyone else I have seen thus far:
Verse, Sermon, and Music
To Avoid the Implications of Cosmic Fine-Tuning, a Continuing Quest – August 22, 2014
Excerpt: we learn, “the fundamental description of the universe does not include the concepts of ‘mass’ and ‘length,’ implying that at its core, nature lacks a sense of scale.”,,,
So what are they claiming? That if you make their set of “natural” assumptions, the other guy’s ad hoc fine-tuning assumption goes away. In other words, their assumptions are better than his assumptions based on some aesthetic principle.
I didn’t count carefully, but “their assumptions” involved at least three separate coupling constants, quadratic approximations, smallness criteria, and an unobserved “ghost” graviton — all to remove the fine-tuning problem from the Standard Model. They are following the footsteps of the “inflaton” theories — expanding sets of hypotheses to avoid some embarrassing metaphysics.
I do wish all these theorists would apply Bayesian methods to their theories. It might help them think more clearly.