As David Klinghoffer notes at Evolution News & Views, Paul Steinhardt , a Princeton theoretical physicist who worked on eternal inflation theory, sees the multiverse as a “fatal flaw” in the reasoning he helped advance, and is “stridently anti-multiverse today”:
“The multiverse idea is baroque, unnatural, untestable and, in the end, dangerous to science and society.”
Steinhardt and other critics believe the multiverse hypothesis leads science away from uniquely explaining the properties of nature. When deep questions about matter, space and time have been elegantly answered over the past century through ever more powerful theories, deeming the universe’s remaining unexplained properties “random” feels, to them, like giving up. On the other hand, randomness has sometimes been the answer to scientific questions, as when early astronomers searched in vain for order in the solar system’s haphazard planetary orbits. As inflationary cosmology gains acceptance, more physicists are conceding that a multiverse of random universes might exist, just as there is a cosmos full of star systems arranged by chance and chaos.
The big problem is that the multiverse is fashionable without serious evidence.
It’s something that’s just gotta gotta gotta be true. That’s the danger to science and society.
Note, for example:
“The multiverse is regarded either as an open question or off the wall,” Guth said. “But ultimately, if the multiverse does become a standard part of science, it will be on the basis that it’s the most plausible explanation of the fine-tunings that we see in nature.”
Right. See Copernicus, you are not going to believe who is using your name. Or how.
Follow UD News at Twitter!