Cosmology Intelligent Design Logic and First Principles of right reason Multiverse

Cosmic coincidences?: New Scientist says multiverse is best explanation!

Spread the love
File:Soapbubbles1b.jpg
soap bubbles/Timothy Pilgrim

From New Scientist on our universe’s five most startling coincidences:

1. Dark matter and energy balance

2. Universe lines up along “axis of evil”

3. Universe flat as a pancake

4. Space is all the same temperature

5. Higgs boson keeps the universe stable

Having decided that these cirumstances are not coincidences, the New Scientist staff happily burble,

One idea explains all the weird coincidences in the universe

Don’t believe in coincidences but stuck for an explanation? Time to call up the anthropic principle and the multiverse

Why believe in the multiverse? Because a process such as inflation (see “The universe is flat as a pancake. Coincidence?“), if left unchecked, could produce a multitude of causally disconnected universes. String theory, still most physicists’ favoured route to an overarching theory of everything, conjures up an entire landscape of maybe 10100 or more universes, all with slightly varying properties.

Actually, even the pace of inflation is currently disputed. It is hardly the law of gravity.

But some still see the multiverse as an abdication of scientific responsibility: a fancier way of simply saying “coincidences happen”. And, if true, it means some astronomers out there are forced to justify a universe even more replete with coincidences than ours, while others could be bored stiff in a completely random cosmos. More.

Reality check: We see fine-tuning; we do not see a multiverse, and could never do so.

So yes, the multiverse explains everything if one is ready to part company with reason, evidence, and common sense. How strange that people who claim to love science so much should be its murderers.

See also: Forbes regrets to inform us that there is no evidence for a multiverse yet. But everyone is working on it. Otherwise, fine tuning is the only explanation.

Rob Sheldon: The universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. Or IS it? One gets the sense that Prof Sarkar is trying not to step on toes as he explains why the Nobel should never have been awarded for dark energy.

and

Multiverse cosmology at your fingertips

Follow UD News at Twitter!

7 Replies to “Cosmic coincidences?: New Scientist says multiverse is best explanation!

  1. 1
    Dean_from_Ohio says:

    Such a declaration of coincidence is the Type II error of the century.

    For those unfamiliar with statistics, a Type II error occurs when one declares a highly unusual result to be a random coincidence when in fact it is an unexpected but true picture of reality. Conversely, a Type I error occurs when one declares that a highly unusual result does indicate unexpected but true reality when in fact it is just coincidence. So being too quick on the trigger to reject one’s initial hypothesis is a Type I error, while being too slow on the trigger is a Type II error.

    Of course, by doubling down on their materialistic ideology of Scientism despite anything the data indicates to the contrary, the new atheists have effectively given themselves a probability of making a Type II error so close to 100% that they are effectively blind to any intrusion of reality.

  2. 2

    Dean,
    Not really sure it’s a TypeII error, but I am really sure it’s a Type III. Type three occur when circular conclusions are used to bolster bad assumptions. e.g., wear this special amulet to keep away man-eating tigers. No payment for two weeks, but if it works I’ll come by to collect.

    Use this multiverse theory to keep away religious conclusions that might cost you your life. No price but I’ll drop by in two weeks to collect.

  3. 3
    Dean_from_Ohio says:

    Rob, thanks!

    After some quick reading on Type III and IV error definitions that have been advanced over the last 60 years (thank you Wikipedia), I can safely say that the closing of the atheist and Progressive minds (or more broadly, the closing of the human mind in rebellion against moral reality and its Author) defies a single simple description. Other than the one in the Good Book.

  4. 4
    bornagain77 says:

    As to

    “1. Dark matter and energy balance”

    From the article they note:

    Cosmic dark matter and energy balance – for now. Coincidence? Oct. 26, 2016
    Dark matter dominated the early universe and dark energy will reign billions of years from now. We seem to be living in a strangely special era
    Excerpt: INVISIBLE dark matter and dark energy make up around 95 per cent of the universe between them. What’s more, their densities are roughly equal – a state of affairs so unlikely that cosmologists have taken to calling it the cosmic coincidence problem.,,,
    ,,,dark matter’s density has been dropping as the universe expands, while the density of dark energy is widely assumed to remain constant over time, making it steadily more dominant.,,,
    Still, it seems we live in a special time where neither entity is able to dominate the other.,,, this golden age started around 3 billion years ago,,,
    https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23230970-600-cosmic-coincidences-matter-and-energy-are-in-balance/

    At the 38:10 minute mark of the following video, Dr. Huterer speaks of the ‘why right now? coincidence problem’ for dark matter and visible matter:

    Dragan Huterer – ‘coincidence problem’ – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qTJc1Y7duM#t=2290

    In the following video, Dr. Hugh Ross states that we live at the right time in the universe’s history to see the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR):

    We Live At The Right Time In Cosmic History To see the Cosmic Background Radiation – Hugh Ross – video (7:12 minute mark)
    https://youtu.be/MxOGeqVOsvc?t=431

    In the following article, Dr. Robin Collins finds that the CMBR is fined tuned for intelligent life like human life to discover it:

    The Fine-Tuning for Discoverability – Robin Collins – March 22, 2014
    Excerpt: Predictive and Explanatory Power of Discoverability – Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation
    Prediction: DLO: Within the range of values of a given parameter p that yield near – optimal livability, p will fall into that subrange of values that maximize discoverability (given constraints of elegance are not violated).
    In every case that I was able to make calculations regarding whether the fundamental parameters of physics are optimized in this way, they appear to pass the test.[iv] This alone is significant since this hypothesis is falsifiable in the sense that one could find data that potentially disconfirms it – namely, cases in which as best as we can determining, such as a case in which changing the value of a fundamental parameter – such as the fine – structure constant – increases discoverability while not negatively affecting livability.[v] Below, I will look at a case from cosmology where this thesis could have been disconfirmed but was not.,,,
    The most dramatic confirmation of the discoverability/livability optimality thesis (DLO) is the dependence of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMB) on the baryon to photon ratio.,,,
    …the intensity of CMB depends on the photon to baryon ratio, (??b), which is the ratio of the average number of photons per unit volume of space to the average number of baryons (protons plus neutrons) per unit volume. At present this ratio is approximately a billion to one (10^9) , but it could be anywhere from one to infinity; it traces back to the degree of asymmetry in matter and anti – matter right after the beginning of the universe – for approximately every billion particles of antimatter, there was a billion and one particles of matter.,,,
    The only livability effect this ratio has is on whether or not galaxies can form that have near – optimally livability zones. As long as this condition is met, the value of this ratio has no further effects on livability. Hence, the DLO predicts that within this range, the value of this ratio will be such as to maximize the intensity of the CMB as observed by typical observers.
    According to my calculations – which have been verified by three other physicists — to within the margin of error of the experimentally determined parameters (~20%), the value of the photon to baryon ratio is such that it maximizes the CMB. This is shown in Figure 1 below. (pg. 13)
    It is easy to see that this prediction could have been disconfirmed. In fact, when I first made the calculations in the fall of 2011, I made a mistake and thought I had refuted this thesis since those calculations showed the intensity of the CMB maximizes at a value different than the photon – baryon ratio in our universe. So, not only does the DLO lead us to expect this ratio, but it provides an ultimate explanation for why it has this value,,, This is a case of a teleological thesis serving both a predictive and an ultimate explanatory role.,,,
    http://home.messiah.edu/~rcoll.....osting.pdf

    Then there is also the strange ‘coincidence’ of the anthropic inequality:

    Lucky Us: Turning the Copernican Principle on Its Head – Daniel Bakken – January 26, 2015
    Excerpt: What if intelligence and technology hadn’t arisen in Earth’s habitability time window? Waltham in Lucky Planet asks “So, how do we explain the remarkable coincidence that the timescale for the emergence of intelligence is almost the same as the timescale for habitability?” Researchers Carter and Watson have dubbed this idea the anthropic inequality and it seems surprising, if it is not for some purpose.,,,
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....93011.html

    Anthropic Principle: A Precise Plan for Humanity By Hugh Ross
    Excerpt: Brandon Carter, the British mathematician who coined the term “anthropic principle” (1974), noted the strange inequity of a universe that spends about 15 billion years “preparing” for the existence of a creature that has the potential to survive no more than 10 million years (optimistically).,, Carter and (later) astrophysicists John Barrow and Frank Tipler demonstrated that the inequality exists for virtually any conceivable intelligent species under any conceivable life-support conditions. Roughly 15 billion years represents a minimum preparation time for advanced life: 11 billion toward formation of a stable planetary system, one with the right chemical and physical conditions for primitive life, and four billion more years toward preparation of a planet within that system, one richly layered with the biodeposits necessary for civilized intelligent life. Even this long time and convergence of “just right” conditions reflect miraculous efficiency.
    Moreover the physical and biological conditions necessary to support an intelligent civilized species do not last indefinitely. They are subject to continuous change: the Sun continues to brighten, Earth’s rotation period lengthens, Earth’s plate tectonic activity declines, and Earth’s atmospheric composition varies. In just 10 million years or less, Earth will lose its ability to sustain human life. In fact, this estimate of the human habitability time window may be grossly optimistic. In all likelihood, a nearby supernova eruption, a climatic perturbation, a social or environmental upheaval, or the genetic accumulation of negative mutations will doom the species to extinction sometime sooner than twenty thousand years from now.
    http://christiangodblog.blogsp.....chive.html

    Hugh Ross – The Anthropic Principle and The Anthropic Inequality – video (50:24 minute mark)
    https://youtu.be/mzIVrcSyprU?t=3028

  5. 5
    bornagain77 says:

    as to:

    “2. Universe lines up along “axis of evil”

    Although I was not able to access the entire article, one thing I did not see in their introduction was the fact that the “axis of evil” lines up with the earth:

    What Is Evil About The Axis Of Evil? – February 17, 2015
    The Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) Radiation contains small temperature fluctuations.
    When these temperature fluctuations are analyzed using image processing techniques (specifically spherical harmonics), they indicate a special direction in space, or, in a sense, an axis through the universe. This axis is correlated back to us, and causes many difficulties for the current big bang and standard cosmology theories. What has been discovered is shocking.
    Two scientists, Kate Land and João Magueijo, in a paper in 2005 describing the axis, dubbed it the “Axis of Evil” because of the damage it does to current theories, and (tongue in cheek) as a response to George Bush’ Axis of Evil speech regarding Iraq, Iran and, North Korea.
    (Youtube clip on site)
    In the above video, Max Tegmark describes in a simplified way how spherical harmonics analysis decomposes the small temperature fluctuations into more averaged and spatially arranged temperature components, known as multipoles.
    The “Axis of Evil” correlates to the earth’s ecliptic and equinoxes, and this represents a very unusual and unexpected special direction in space, a direct challenge to the Copernican Principle.
    http://www.theprinciplemovie.com/evil-axis-evil/

    At the 13:55 minute mark of this following video, Max Tegmark, an atheist, finally admits, post Planck 2013, that the CMBR anomalies do indeed line up with the earth and solar system

    “Thoughtcrime: The Conspiracy to Stop The Principle” – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=0eVUSDy_rO0#t=832

    Large-scale alignments from WMAP and Planck – 2013
    We revisit the alignments of the largest structures observed in the cosmic microwave background (CMB) using the seven and nine-year WMAP and first-year Planck data releases. The observed alignments — the quadrupole with the octopole and their joint alignment with the direction of our motion with respect to the CMB (the dipole direction) and the geometry of the Solar System (defined by the Ecliptic plane) — are generally in good agreement with results from the previous WMAP data releases.,,, both the WMAP and Planck data confirm the alignments of the largest observable CMB modes in the Universe.
    http://arxiv.org/abs/1311.4562

    Also of related note:

    The Axis of Evil Just Got a New Brother! – May 2016
    Excerpt: Modern cosmology has no explanation for why these celestial objects (e.g., galaxies, quasars and blackholes) have aligned themselves in this way,,,
    What we have, and which is very easily observable, are cosmic axes (e.g., the quadrupole, octupole and dipole axes that make up the Axis of Evil) around which all the microwave radiation in the universe is aligned, and we are (the earth is) in the center of it (the universal alignment).
    Why would these objects align themselves around these axes? Let’s consult the very person who coined the phrase “Axis of Evil.” His name is Joao Magueijo. In quite an astounding statement for someone who is not a geocentrist and has no partiality to geocentrism whatsoever, Magueijo says that one of the reasons these alignments could be occurring is because the universe is rotating around the Earth. No kidding! He states in the July 2005 issue of New Scientist, these remarkable words:
    “It could be telling us something fundamental about our universe, maybe even that the simplest big bang model is wrong….The big question is: what could have caused it?….Another way to create a preferred direction [the Axis of Evil] would be to have a rotating universe, because this singles out the axis of rotation as different from all other directions.”2
    Picture
    http://www.theprinciplemovie.c....._teg_3.png

    Why is the solar system cosmically aligned? BY Dragan Huterer – 2007
    The solar system seems to line up with the largest cosmic features. Is this mere coincidence or a signpost to deeper insights?
    Caption under figure on page 43:
    ODD ALIGNMENTS hide within the multipoles of the cosmic microwave background. In this combination of the quadrupole and octopole, a plane bisects the sphere between the largest warm and cool lobes. The ecliptic — the plane of Earth’s orbit projected onto the celestial sphere — is aligned parallel to the plane between the lobes.
    http://www-personal.umich.edu/.....uterer.pdf
    Here is the actual graph of the alignment from the Huterer 2007 paper (worth a thousand words):
    http://i44.servimg.com/u/f44/1.....is_o10.jpg

    Moreover besides the earth and solar system lining up with the anomalies in the Cosmic Background Radiation, Radio Astronomy now reveals a surprising rotational coincidence for Earth in relation to the quasar and radio galaxy distributions in the universe:

    Is there a violation of the Copernican principle in radio sky? – Ashok K. Singal – May 17, 2013
    Abstract: Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) observations from the WMAP satellite have shown some unexpected anisotropies (directionally dependent observations), which surprisingly seem to be aligned with the ecliptic\cite {20,16,15}. The latest data from the Planck satellite have confirmed the presence of these anisotropies\cite {17}. Here we report even larger anisotropies in the sky distributions of powerful extended quasars and some other sub-classes of radio galaxies in the 3CRR catalogue, one of the oldest and most intensively studies sample of strong radio sources\cite{21,22,3}. The anisotropies lie about a plane passing through the two equinoxes and the north celestial pole (NCP). We can rule out at a 99.995% confidence level the hypothesis that these asymmetries are merely due to statistical fluctuations. Further, even the distribution of observed radio sizes of quasars and radio galaxies show large systematic differences between these two sky regions. The redshift distribution appear to be very similar in both regions of sky for all sources, which rules out any local effects to be the cause of these anomalies. Two pertinent questions then arise. First, why should there be such large anisotropies present in the sky distribution of some of the most distant discrete sources implying inhomogeneities in the universe at very large scales (covering a fraction of the universe)? What is intriguing even further is why such anisotropies should lie about a great circle decided purely by the orientation of earth’s rotation axis and/or the axis of its revolution around the sun? It looks as if these axes have a preferential placement in the larger scheme of things, implying an apparent breakdown of the Copernican principle or its more generalization, cosmological principle, upon which all modern cosmological theories are based upon.
    http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.4134

    Moreover, in General Relativity there is nothing that prevents the earth from, once again, being considered central in the universe:

    “Can we formulate physical laws so that they are valid for all CS [coordinate systems], not only those moving uniformly, but also those moving quite arbitrarily, relative to each other? […] The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS could be used with equal justification. The two sentences: “the sun is at rest and the earth moves” or “the sun moves and the earth is at rest” would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS.”
    Einstein, A. and Infeld, L. (1938) The Evolution of Physics, p.212 (p.248 in original 1938 ed.);

    “If one rotates the shell *relative to the fixed stars* about an axis going through its center, a Coriolis force arises in the interior of the shell, *that is, the plane of a Foucault pendulum is dragged around*”
    –Albert Einstein, cited in “Gravitation”, Misner Thorne and Wheeler pp. 544-545.

    “One need not view the existence of such centrifugal forces as originating from the motion of K’ [the Earth]; one could just as well account for them as resulting from the average rotational effect of distant, detectable masses as evidenced in the vicinity of K’ [the Earth], whereby K’ [the Earth] is treated as being at rest.”
    –Albert Einstein, quoted in Hans Thirring, “On the Effect of Distant Rotating Masses in Einstein’s Theory of Gravitation”, Physikalische Zeitschrift 22, 29, 1921

    “The relation of the two pictures [geocentrism and geokineticism] is reduced to a mere coordinate transformation and it is the main tenet of the Einstein theory that any two ways of looking at the world which are related to each other by a coordinate transformation are entirely equivalent from a physical point of view…. Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is ‘right’ and the Ptolemaic theory ‘wrong’ in any meaningful physical sense.”
    Hoyle, Fred. Nicolaus Copernicus. London: Heinemann Educational Books Ltd., 1973.

    “We know that the difference between a heliocentric theory and a geocentric theory is one of relative motion only, and that such a difference has no physical significance.”
    Sir Fred Hoyle, Astronomy and Cosmology – A Modern Course, (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman & Co.), p. 416,1975.

    “We can’t feel our motion through space, nor has any physical experiment ever proved that the Earth actually is in motion.,,,
    If all the objects in space were removed save one, then no one could say whether that one remaining object was at rest or hurtling through the void at 100,000 miles per second”
    Historian Lincoln Barnett – “The Universe and Dr. Einstein” – pg 73 (contains a foreword by Albert Einstein)

    “People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations… For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations… You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds… What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.”
    – George Ellis – W. Wayt Gibbs, “Profile: George F. R. Ellis,” Scientific American, October 1995, Vol. 273, No.4, p. 55

    How Einstein Revealed the Universe’s Strange “Nonlocality” – George Musser | Oct 20, 2015
    Excerpt: Under most circumstances, we can ignore this nonlocality. You can designate some available chunk of matter as a reference point and use it to anchor a coordinate grid. You can, to the chagrin of Santa Barbarans, take Los Angeles as the center of the universe and define every other place with respect to it. In this framework, you can go about your business in blissful ignorance of space’s fundamental inability to demarcate locations.,,
    In short, Einstein’s theory is nonlocal in a more subtle and insidious way than Newton’s theory of gravity was. Newtonian gravity acted at a distance, but at least it operated within a framework of absolute space. Einsteinian gravity has no such element of wizardry; its effects ripple through the universe at the speed of light. Yet it demolishes the framework, violating locality in what was, for Einstein, its most basic sense: the stipulation that all things have a location. General relativity confounds our intuitive picture of space as a kind of container in which material objects reside and forces us to search for an entirely new conception of place.
    http://www.scientificamerican......nlocality/

  6. 6
    bornagain77 says:

    In fact, in both Special and General Relativity, the observer is given a privileged frame of reference in which to make measurements:

    Introduction to special relativity
    Excerpt: Einstein’s approach was based on thought experiments, calculations, and the principle of relativity, which is the notion that all physical laws should appear the same (that is, take the same basic form) to all inertial observers.,,,
    Each observer has a distinct “frame of reference” in which velocities are measured,,,,
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I.....relativity

    You can see both of Einstein’s infamous ‘thought experiments’ in which an observer is given a privileged frame of reference in which to make measurements in the following video:

    Special and General Relativity compared to Heavenly and Hellish Near Death Experiences – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbKELVHcvSI&list=PLtAP1KN7ahia8hmDlCYEKifQ8n65oNpQ5

    And whereas in relativity a privileged frame of reference is simply given, by Einstein, to the observer in which to make measurements, in quantum mechanics, it is the measurement itself which is giving the observer a distinct frame of reference in the universe:

    New Mind-blowing Experiment Confirms That Reality Doesn’t Exist If You Are Not Looking at It – June 3, 2015
    Excerpt: The results of the Australian scientists’ experiment, which were published in the journal Nature Physics, show that this choice is determined by the way the object is measured, which is in accordance with what quantum theory predicts.
    “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,” said lead researcher Dr. Andrew Truscott in a press release.,,,
    “The atoms did not travel from A to B. It was only when they were measured at the end of the journey that their wave-like or particle-like behavior was brought into existence,” he said.
    Thus, this experiment adds to the validity of the quantum theory and provides new evidence to the idea that reality doesn’t exist without an observer.
    http://themindunleashed.org/20.....at-it.html

    “Reality is in the observations, not in the electron.”
    – Paul Davies

    Of related note to both General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics giving the observer a privileged position in the universe, although General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics refused to be unified, the resurrection of Christ from death provides an empirically backed reconciliation between the two theories:

    Resurrection of Jesus Christ as the Theory of Everything – Centrality Concerns – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uHST2uFPQY&index=4&list=PLtAP1KN7ahia8hmDlCYEKifQ8n65oNpQ5

    as to:

    “3. Universe flat as a pancake”

    From the article they state:

    The universe is flat as a pancake. Coincidence?
    Dark energy is smoothing the expanding cosmic curves – but only exactly the right amount can make that happen – Oct. 2016
    Excerpt: NEXT time you fancy doing something really frustrating, try balancing a pencil on its sharpened tip. Your efforts will succeed for a second at most. Yet the universe has been succeeding at a similar gravitational trick for the last 13.8 billion years.,,,
    https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23230970-800-cosmic-coincidences-the-universe-is-flat-as-a-pancake/

    That sounds very similar to John Gribbin’s comment on the flatness of the universe

    “The Universe today is actually very close to the most unlikely state of all, absolute flatness. And that means it must have been born in an even flatter state, as Dicke and Peebles, two of the Princeton astronomers involved in the discovery of the 3 K background radiation, pointed out in 1979. Finding the Universe in a state of even approximate flatness today is even less likely than finding a perfectly sharpened pencil balancing on its point for millions of years, for, as Dicke and Peebles pointed out, any deviation of the Universe from flatness in the Big Bang would have grown, and grown markedly, as the Universe expanded and aged. Like the pencil balanced on its point and given the tiniest nudges, the Universe soon shifts away from perfect flatness.”
    ~ John Gribbin, In Search of the Big Bang

    Moreover, the Bible predicted that the universe would be flat thousands of years before it was discovered by modern science:

    Job 38:4-5
    “Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?
    Tell me, if you understand.
    Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know!
    Who stretched a measuring line across it?

    As to:

    4. Space is all the same temperature

    In their article, from the part of the article I could access, they appeal to ‘inflation’ to try ‘explain away’ the homogeneity of the temperature of the CMBR, or to try the explain away the ’roundness’ of the CMBR as I like to say:

    Picture of Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR)
    http://new-universe.org/zenpho.....rams47.jpg

    And yet, thousands of years before the ’round’ CMBR was discovered, the Bible predicted its existence:

    Proverbs 8:26-27
    While as yet He had not made the earth or the fields, or the primeval dust of the world. When He prepared the heavens, I was there, when He drew a circle on the face of the deep,

    Job 26:10
    He has inscribed a circle on the face of the waters at the boundary between light and darkness.

    Here are a few pertinent quotes:

    ‘The best data we have [concerning the Big Bang] are exactly what I would have predicted, had I nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, the bible as a whole.’
    Dr. Arno Penzias, Nobel Laureate in Physics – co-discoverer of the Cosmic Background Radiation – as stated to the New York Times on March 12, 1978

    “Certainly there was something that set it all off,,, I can’t think of a better theory of the origin of the universe to match Genesis”
    Robert Wilson – Nobel laureate – co-discover Cosmic Background Radiation

    “There is no doubt that a parallel exists between the big bang as an event and the Christian notion of creation from nothing.”
    George Smoot – Nobel laureate in 2006 for his work on COBE

    “Now we see how the astronomical evidence supports the biblical view of the origin of the world. The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy.”
    Robert Jastrow – Founder of NASA’s Goddard Institute – Pg.15 ‘God and the Astronomers’

    as to:

    5. Higgs boson keeps the universe stable

    From the introduction they state:

    The Higgs boson makes the universe stable – just. Coincidence?
    If the mass-giving particle were much lighter, the cosmos would quickly collapse in on itself. It’s hard to explain how we’re all still here – 26 October 2016
    Excerpt: OUR universe has been around for nearly 14 billion years, but it could vanish in the blink of an eye.
    That’s because the fabric of space-time might be in a state of precarious stability – what physicists call a false vacuum – and could collapse at any moment, taking us with it. “If a bubble of true vacuum appeared near us in the universe and expanded to include us, we’d all be very, very dead,” says Sean Carroll, a theoretical physicist at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena.
    The key to understanding how stable the vacuum is rests with the Higgs boson and its associated field, which pervades all of space-time and gives elementary particles their mass.,,,
    https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23230971-000-cosmic-coincidences-the-universe-is-on-the-brink-of-catastrophe/

    This is the one article out of the group of articles that I actually wish I could read in full so that I could get a better idea exactly what they are talking about. Although, what I do know for certain is that the discovery of the Higgs apparently opened up a bigger can of worms for scientists than it closed:

    The 2 most dangerous numbers in the universe are threatening the end of physics – Jan. 14, 2016
    Excerpt: Dangerous No. 1: The strength of the Higgs field,,,
    there’s something mysterious about the Higgs field that continues to perturb physicists like Cliff.
    According to Einstein’s theory of general relativity and the theory of quantum mechanics — the two theories in physics that drive our understanding of the cosmos on incredibly large and extremely small scales — the Higgs field should be performing one of two tasks, says Cliff.
    Either it should be turned off, meaning it would have a strength value of zero and wouldn’t be working to give particles mass, or it should be turned on, and, as the theory goes, this “on value” is “absolutely enormous,” Cliff says. But neither of those two scenarios are what physicists observe.
    “In reality, the Higgs field is just slightly on,” says Cliff. “It’s not zero, but it’s ten-thousand-trillion times weaker than it’s fully on value — a bit like a light switch that got stuck just before the ‘off’ position. And this value is crucial. If it were a tiny bit different, then there would be no physical structure in the universe.”
    Why the strength of the Higgs field is so ridiculously weak defies understanding.
    Dangerous No. 2: The strength of dark energy
    ,,, you should be able to sum up all the energy of empty space to get a value representing the strength of dark energy. And although theoretical physicists have done so, there’s one gigantic problem with their answer:
    “Dark energy should be 10^120 times stronger than the value we observe from astronomy,” Cliff said. “This is a number so mind-boggling huge that it’s impossible to get your head around … this number is bigger than any number in astronomy — it’s a thousand-trillion-trillion-trillion times bigger than the number of atoms in the universe. That’s a pretty bad prediction.”
    On the bright side, we’re lucky that dark energy is smaller than theorists predict. If it followed our theoretical models, then the repulsive force of dark energy would be so huge that it would literally rip our universe apart. The fundamental forces that bind atoms together would be powerless against it and nothing could ever form — galaxies, stars, planets, and life as we know it would not exist.
    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/.....57366.html

  7. 7
    EvilSnack says:

    The multiverse is now the Illuminati of physics. There’s no proof for it, and it explains everything that needs explaining after we’ve rejected every other hypothesis.

Leave a Reply