The 1950s idea is retreaded:

In 1955, influential physicist John Wheeler proposed that, at the quantum level, spacetime is not constant but “foamy,” made up of ever-changing tiny bubbles. As for what these bubbles are “made” of, recent work suggests that spacetime bubbles are essentially mini-universes briefly forming inside our own.

The spacetime foam proposal fits nicely with the intrinsic uncertainty and indeterminism of the quantum world. Spacetime foam extends quantum uncertainty in particle position and momentum to the very fabric of the universe, so that its geometry is not stable, consistent, or fixed at a tiny scale…

Carlip is working on a quantitative model of spacetime foam to supplement the theoretical model currently on the table. He’s calling the model “minisuperspace,” and is hopeful that physicists researching other approaches in the quantum-cosmology intersection could find examples of the model in their own work, if they know to look for it. To start with, Carlip says he’ll be looking at some numerical simulations to support the foam model.

Carly Minsky, “The Universe Is Made of Tiny Bubbles Containing Mini-Universes, Scientists Say” atVice

In short, nothing specifically backs this “multiverse of ephemeral bubbles” inside our universe except a need to believe in it. Maybe that’s theoretical physics now.

*See also:* The multiverse is science’s assisted suicide

Follow UD News at Twitter!

The traditional scientific method:

1. Observe something.

2. Formulate a hypothesis.

3. Devise a test.

4. If the test fails, go to #2.

5. If the test passes and is confirmed, the hypothesis might be promoted to a theory and used to prove other hypotheses. And it might not.

The modern scientific method:

1. Formulate a theory.

2. Make a computer simulation.

3. Compare the simulation to observed data.

4. If they don’t agree, find some way to adjust the data. If you can’t adjust the data, ignore it.

5. Be sure your fellow scientists will agree with your findings, then publish.

First off, they have no empirical evidence that their imaginary quantum foam is real:

Secondly, in the article they are not saying that Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity are incorrect, but they are instead saying that they are ‘incomplete’ in that they are not the final ‘theory of everything’. But why should they, given their premise of atheistic materialism, even presuppose that there should just be one overarching ‘theory of everything’? The presupposition that there should just be one overarching ‘theory of everything’ is a thoroughly Theistic presupposition and is certainly not born out of their atheistic presupposition.

I hate to break to dogmatic atheists, but the presupposition that there should be a single overarching mathematical ‘theory of everything’ is a belief that is born solely out of Christian presuppositions.

In fact, the first major unification in physics, (i,e, that the laws of the physics are universal), was born out of Sir Isaac Newton’s Christian presupposition that “the same force that caused an apple to fall at the Earth’s surface—gravity—was also responsible for holding the Moon in orbit about the Earth”,,

In regards to this first unification in physics, Sir Isaac Newton stated: “This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being. And if the fixed stars are the centres of other like systems, these, being formed by the like wise counsel, must be all subject to the dominion of One;,,,”

As mathematician John D. Barrow stated,

And as CS Lewis stated,

Moreover, as Hugh Ross pointed out, the Bible, among the holy books that undergird all the religions of the world, stands alone in proclaiming that the laws governing the universe are fixed, or constant.

At the 28:09 minute mark of the following video, Dr Hugh Ross speaks of the 7 places in the bible that speak of unchanging universal constants.

For instance:

Atheists simply have no clue why the laws and constants of physics should be universal.

Moreover, besides have no clue why the constants should be constant, atheists also have no coherent reason for presupposing that there should just be ‘one mathematical ‘theory of everything’. In fact, the applicability of mathematics to the universe is, by all rights, itself to be considered a miracle.

Both Einstein and Wigner are on record as to regarding the applicability of mathematics to the universe as a miracle:

As Einstein himself stated, “You find it strange that I consider the comprehensibility of the world as a miracle or as an eternal mystery. Well, a priori, one should expect a chaotic world, which cannot be grasped by the mind in any way,,,” and further stated that, “There lies the weakness of positivists and professional atheists,,,”

Ditto for Wigner

Moreover, even if atheists could somehow explain ‘The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics’, the presupposition that there should be just one overarching theory of everything still does not follow from the mathematics itself.

Gödel’s incompleteness theorem itself has now proven that there will never be a purely mathematical theory of everything. Stephen Hawking himself admitted that, “Gödel’s incompleteness theorem (1931), proves that there are limits to what can be ascertained by mathematics. Kurt Gödel halted the achievement of a unifying all-encompassing theory of everything in his theorem,,,”

As Stanley Jaki put it, due to Gödel’s incompleteness theorem “all mathematical models, all theories of elementary particles, including the theory of quarks and gluons…fall inherently short of being that theory which shows in virtue of its a priori truth that the world can only be what it is and nothing else. This is true even if the theory happened to account for perfect accuracy for all phenomena of the physical world known at a particular time.”

Moreover, according to work done by leading Mathematician Gregory Chaitin extending Gödel’s incompleteness theorem, we now know that what “Gödel discovered was just the tip of the iceberg: an infinite number of true mathematical theorems exist that cannot be proved from any finite system of axioms.”

In fact, both General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are built on very different mathematical frameworks.

Thus, the presupposition that there should even be just one mathematical theory of everything simply doesn’t follow from mathematics itself, but is, again, a presupposition that is born out of Christian Theism:

As Professor Steve Fuller puts it,, “ it would be perfectly easy,, to stop the pursuit of science at much lower levels. You know understand a certain range of phenomena in a way that is appropriate to deal with that phenomena and just stop there and not go any deeper or any farther.”,,, You see, there is a sense in which there is design at the ultimate level, the ultimate teleology you might say, which provides the ultimate closure,,”

Moreover, when we rightly allow the Agent causality of God ‘back’ into physics, as the Christian founders of modern science originally envisioned,,,, (Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, James Clerk Maxwell, and Max Planck, to name a few of the Christian founders),,, and as quantum mechanics itself now empirically demands (with the closing of the free will loophole by Anton Zeilinger and company), by rightly allowing the Agent causality of God ‘back’ into physics then that provides us with a very plausible resolution for the much sought after ‘theory of everything’ in that Christ’s resurrection from the dead provides an empirically backed reconciliation, via the Shroud of Turin, between quantum mechanics and general relativity into the much sought after ‘Theory of Everything”. Here are a few posts where I lay out and defend some of the evidence for that claim:

Verse:

Bornagain77@ 2Casimir Effect.

Sev, the Casimir Effect is not definitive proof for quantum foam:

Tiny bubbles

In the universe

Make me feel happy

Ah, they make me feel diverse.

Those tiny bubbles

Make me warm all over

With a feeling that I’m gonna

Love you till the end of time

(Apologies to Connie Francis)