Forbes regrets to inform us that there is no evidence for a multiverse yet.

_{Denyse O'Leary

October 28, 2016

Cosmology, Fine tuning, Intelligent Design, Multiverse, News}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

File:Soapbubbles1b.jpg — soap bubbles/Timothy Pilgrim

From Sabine Hossenfelder at Forbes:

… the LHC found the Higgs but no evidence for anything new besides that. No supersymmetry, no extra-dimensions, no black holes, no fourth generation, nothing. This means that the Higgs-mass just sits there, boldly unnatural.

Enter the multiverse.

The multiverse idea states that there are infinite numbers of Universes like our own, and infinite ones with differences.

Not only would anything that could happen actually happen in some universe within the multiverse, but anything that can happen would happen infinitely many times. Therefore, the multiverse also contains infinitely many universes that are almost exactly like our own, including our planet, and me, and you. But in some of these other universes, a dark matter particle gave you cancer ten years ago. Don’t worry that you might accidentally get condolences for your other self, though. The universes aren’t causally connected and information exchange not possible.

Now to the point:

Since theoretical physicists haven’t found an explanation for the smallness of the Higgs-mass, they now try to accept that there simply may be no explanation. And if there is no explanation, so the argument goes, then no single value is special, and this must mean that all possible mass values have the same right to existence. In this case there should be a universe for any possible value of the Higgs mass. And for any possible value of every other particle’s mass. In other words, there should be a multiverse which contains universes for all possible combinations of parameters.

In the multiverse, the value of the Higgs would be selected only to the extent that it needs to enable the development of life like ours – the so-called “anthropic principle.” But since the development of life isn’t well understood itself – and in any case certainly not the domain of physicists – this is presently a fairly vague requirement. More.

Reality check: “Vague” is one way to describe it.

There probably never will be evidence for a multiverse. But as our next story up will show, getting it enforced as a dogma is the goal, which would mean that all issues created by evidence of design in nature are obviated in principle.

But, of course, that’s not all that is obviated. The proposed war on falsifiability, togain acceptance fort he multiverse as a starting point in understanding reality is a war on evidence. As the war drifts down through the system, it will put science into a terminal decline.

See also: Copernicus, you are not going to believe who is using your name. Or how.

and

Multiverse cosmology at your fingertips

Follow UD News at Twitter!

This vid makes perfectly clear that the multiverse idea is concocted as an alternative to design which is “totally, totally wrong” for no apparent reason:

Comments

Jimmontg, I agree, but I’d suggest three things. 1. There’s no counter-argument to the flood of peace and joy that we experience in Jesus! 2. God is hard to understand, which is why he’s always telling us to trust him. If we don’t understand how quantum erasure works (backwards in time), how much less of a chance do we have in understanding how God operates within and without time? Yes, this is a kal v’chomer argument. :-) 3. Regarding claims of what someone didn’t find means only that they haven’t found any, not that they didn’t exist. That aurochs (Bos primigenius) fossils haven’t been found in Egypt doesn’t cast doubt on the legitimacy of the petroglyphs of Qurta. The fact that transitional fossils haven’t “yet” been found doesn’t seem to bother Darwinists in the least. Nothing much does. -QQuerius_{October 31, 2016
October
10
Oct
31
31
2016
06:27 PM
6
06
27
PM
PDT}

jimmontg @20: I like your comment. Thank you. I think this site -known as 'UD'- is probably one of the main online battlefields between worldviews these days: On one end, the radical new atheism, with professor Richard Dawkins and the ilk, for whom the ultimate reality is defined by “WYSIWYG” (i.e. matter and energy), which can't be created nor destroyed, just transformed. Everything else -including the mind- derives from that, i.e. it's a product of matter and energy through complex evolutionary processes that followed a fantastic origin of life (OOL) which nobody understands but many accept at face value. This is the philosophical background I was raised and educated in, hence it was strongly rooted in my mind. On the other end stands the worldview that is basically defined by the first three verses of the Gospel according to the apostle John: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him was not any thing made that was made.” Between those two mutually-exclusive irreconcilable positions there are all kinds of shades of ideas and beliefs covering the whole philosophical spectrum. That's the whole enchilada in a nutshell. The wide variety of backgrounds of the persons writing in this blog makes it comparable to a philosophical "eintopf" on steroids. This is a very interesting experience for me.Dionisio_{October 31, 2016
October
10
Oct
31
31
2016
03:46 PM
3
03
46
PM
PDT}

I have studied much of the Bible and strongly lean toward Augustinian/Calvinism, but I don't make a big deal about it except sometimes in talking to youth who are leaving or losing their faith as they can't get the Bible into a systematic non contradictory way of thinking concerning all of Scripture. I approach apologetics more with the idea that unbelievers cannot and will not accept the things of God. They are dead in sin. I have throughout my life wondered why people will believe the dumbest things and refuse to believe irrefutable proof against their beliefs. I've known people who lied and believed their own lies, didn't understand that. It goes back to Cornelius Van Til's presuppositionalism and what that means in a fallen world. It is scary that fallen unregenerate people have their thumbs on the buttons to launch nuclear weapons. Fortunately they are not as evil as they could be anymore than they can be as good as they might want to be. They also will make up fairy tale stories about unknowable multiverses to hang onto their atheism/passive agnosticism (same thing really). Then they'll say I believe in a fairy tale God. I will tell them what the real Gospel is as opposed to what twisted form of it may be in their minds. Some will know what it is and say it isn't fair. I find I have to explain to them that mankind is fallen and irredeemably lost and that is why the Gospel isn't fair and murderers like King David are in Heaven or King Manasseh who killed who knows how many in his human sacrifices and sawing the prophet Isaiah in half. He repented and cried out to God and was saved in his dungeon. Yes I explain the Gospel is unfair, but it was utterly the most unfair to God Who had to become a Man and take the sins of the world upon Himself. We do not know what Christ Jesus suffered I explain to them as it was more than the pain of a whipping and crucifixion, but in His infinite being He suffered all the penalties of those that will be saved. I call it the sufficiency of the cross to save all, but it is only efficient for all who will actually get saved so that is all the Atonement paid for. I don't start apologetics very much by arguing about ways and means except to say that the Bible has been proven to be remarkably accurate historically and then start to tell them about the Gospel. It is not my job to compel them and to bring them to a probable phony decision, it is to give them a clear and concise presentation of the Gospel and their need of repentance and faith in Christ. I read part of Romans 10 to them, but I do not use 10:9 as a formula to get saved , it is a result of being saved as Paul says how one gets saved right there, but we turned verse 9 into a formula. Paul said it "Whoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved", then the word is in you and you can call Christ Lord and you believe He is risen simply by calling upon Him. Salvation isn't a formula like reciting the Lord's Prayer it is a move of the Holy Spirit upon a woman's or man's heart. Just saying verse 10:9 isn't going to save you until you have called upon the Lord to save you. How many false salvations have been made by making the formula the prayer, but it must be of the heart and mind and must be believed and not just recited to get rid of a pushy evangelist. (I have seen this.) After that then we can talk about the evidence both for and against the Bible like the recent claim there were no camels in the Land of Canaan at the time of Abraham, I just point out to them that Abraham had gone to Egypt and probably got them there. The Multiverse is one that I always use Penrose's review of one of Hawking's books and how Penrose plainly says there isn't any evidence for it or for M or String Theory either except some elegant maths. Math doesn't make something real in the real world elegant or not. Penrose considered M theory as hardly science. Now there has been evidence for other dimensions, but that is to be expected since there is a spiritual realm we can't see. It's at the quantum level mostly except for the rare appearances of Jesus to someone or real miracles of which I have seen only one in my life. Above all I explain the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth and the strange goings on after He died. I always try to put the Gospel first somehow because that is where the real power is and who knows, maybe, just maybe the seed planted comes to fruition one day and you get to share in that One Day.jimmontg_{October 31, 2016
October
10
Oct
31
31
2016
10:50 AM
10
10
50
AM
PDT}

I took a science class once and they taught me that the first step of the scientific method is to observe something. Anything that hasn't been observed is fiction. Of course you can't get a research grant if you admit that, so there is that to consider.SmartAZ_{October 31, 2016
October
10
Oct
31
31
2016
04:10 AM
4
04
10
AM
PDT}

Glad you enjoyed it, bornagain77. :-) It's kinda fun and what you're suggesting is actually a much better idea than my simply annoying MV believers--and likely more effective, too. -QQuerius_{October 29, 2016
October
10
Oct
29
29
2016
06:32 PM
6
06
32
PM
PDT}

Q, I actually put your hilarious sarcasm about the multiverse in my notes:
“The multiverse idea is exactly one of those examples, and is not fundamentally any different from the claim of a trans-dimensional cosmic tortoise laying eggs that become universes.” Intelligent Design blogger It’s turtles all the way down! :) gif – trans-dimensional cosmic turtle http://i.imgur.com/QTEpjry.gif The sarcasm continues: From now on in discussions of the origin of the Big Bang, I will insist that a better explanation is the cosmic turtle hypothesis—that a cosmic turtle, one among many, is the origin of the cosmic egg that started our universe. There are several reasons that the Cosmic Turtle (CT) hypothesis is superior to the multiverse alternative: (1) It disallows two or more Big Bangs from occurring in the same place and time (2) It disallows a Secondary Big Bang, SBB(tm), from occurring *within* our universe (3) It enables the integration of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution to be applied to the Cosmic Turtle (4) It promotes spiritual unity between Chinese, Indian, Native American, and scientific mythologies. And Terry Pratchett, of course. -Q https://uncommondescent.com/multiverse-2/new-scientist-multiverse-vs-god/#comment-614150
bornagain77_{October 28, 2016
October
10
Oct
28
28
2016
06:40 PM
6
06
40
PM
PDT}

Thanks for the links, bornagain77. "Multiverse" is the name of an infinitely old cosmic turtle whose eggs are the universes, one of which we inhabit. ;-) -QQuerius_{October 28, 2016
October
10
Oct
28
28
2016
05:57 PM
5
05
57
PM
PDT}

And although Naturalism results in catastrophic epistemological failure in its attempt to explain the universe and ourselves, if we rightly let the Agent causality of God ‘back’ into the picture of modern physics, as the Christian founders of modern science originally envisioned, (Newton, Maxwell, and Faraday, among others), then an empirically backed reconciliation between Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity readily pops out for us in Christ’s resurrection from the dead. Specifically, we have evidence that both Gravity and Quantum Mechanics were dealt with in Christ’s resurrection from the dead:
THE EVENT HORIZON (Space-Time Singularity) OF THE SHROUD OF TURIN. – Isabel Piczek – Particle Physicist Excerpt: We have stated before that the images on the Shroud firmly indicate the total absence of Gravity. Yet they also firmly indicate the presence of the Event Horizon. These two seemingly contradict each other and they necessitate the past presence of something more powerful than Gravity that had the capacity to solve the above paradox. http://shroud3d.com/findings/isabel-piczek-image-formation Turin shroud – (Particle Physicist explains event horizon) – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHVUGK6UFK8 (Entropic Concerns) The Resurrection of Jesus Christ from the Dead is the correct solution for the “Theory of Everything” – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqv4wVP_Fkc&index=2&list=PLtAP1KN7ahia8hmDlCYEKifQ8n65oNpQ5 The absorbed energy in the Shroud body image formation appears as contributed by discrete (quantum) values – Giovanni Fazio, Giuseppe Mandaglio – 2008 Excerpt: This result means that the optical density distribution,, can not be attributed at the absorbed energy described in the framework of the classical physics model. It is, in fact, necessary to hypothesize a absorption by discrete values of the energy where the ‘quantum’ is equal to the one necessary to yellow one fibril. http://cab.unime.it/journals/index.php/AAPP/article/view/C1A0802004/271 Scientists say Turin Shroud is supernatural – December 2011 Excerpt: After years of work trying to replicate the colouring on the shroud, a similar image has been created by the scientists. However, they only managed the effect by scorching equivalent linen material with high-intensity ultra violet lasers, undermining the arguments of other research, they say, which claims the Turin Shroud is a medieval hoax. Such technology, say researchers from the National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development (Enea), was far beyond the capability of medieval forgers, whom most experts have credited with making the famous relic. “The results show that a short and intense burst of UV directional radiation can colour a linen cloth so as to reproduce many of the peculiar characteristics of the body image on the Shroud of Turin,” they said. And in case there was any doubt about the preternatural degree of energy needed to make such distinct marks, the Enea report spells it out: “This degree of power cannot be reproduced by any normal UV source built to date.” http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/scientists-say-turin-shroud-is-supernatural-6279512.html Shroud of Turin: From discovery of Photographic Negative, to 3D Information, to Quantum Hologram https://youtu.be/F-TL4QOCiis (Centrality Concerns) The Resurrection of Jesus Christ from Death as the “Theory of Everything” – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uHST2uFPQY&list=PLtAP1KN7ahia8hmDlCYEKifQ8n65oNpQ5&index=4
Verse:
Colossians 1:15-20 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.
Of supplemental note as to the superiority of assuming that the Agent causality of God is true for Gravity:
A Professor’s Journey out of Nihilism: Why I am not an Atheist – University of Wyoming – J. Budziszewski Excerpt page12: “There were two great holes in the argument about the irrelevance of God. The first is that in order to attack free will, I supposed that I understood cause and effect; I supposed causation to be less mysterious than volition. If anything, it is the other way around. I can perceive a logical connection between premises and valid conclusions. I can perceive at least a rational connection between my willing to do something and my doing it. But between the apple and the earth, I can perceive no connection at all. Why does the apple fall? We don’t know. “But there is gravity,” you say. No, “gravity” is merely the name of the phenomenon, not its explanation. “But there are laws of gravity,” you say. No, the “laws” are not its explanation either; they are merely a more precise description of the thing to be explained, which remains as mysterious as before. For just this reason, philosophers of science are shy of the term “laws”; they prefer “lawlike regularities.” To call the equations of gravity “laws” and speak of the apple as “obeying” them is to speak as though, like the traffic laws, the “laws” of gravity are addressed to rational agents capable of conforming their wills to the command. This is cheating, because it makes mechanical causality (the more opaque of the two phenomena) seem like volition (the less). In my own way of thinking the cheating was even graver, because I attacked the less opaque in the name of the more. The other hole in my reasoning was cruder. If my imprisonment in a blind causality made my reasoning so unreliable that I couldn’t trust my beliefs, then by the same token I shouldn’t have trusted my beliefs about imprisonment in a blind causality. But in that case I had no business denying free will in the first place.” http://www.undergroundthomist.org/sites/default/files/WhyIAmNotAnAtheist.pdf
bornagain77_{October 28, 2016
October
10
Oct
28
28
2016
04:49 PM
4
04
49
PM
PDT}

Yet, despite the fact that many brilliant people apparently deeply believe that it follows naturally that there should be a mathematical theory of everything, that simply is not the case. The belief that their should be a mathematical theory of everything simply does not follow from the math, but is a belief that is born solely out of Theistic presuppositions. The next few quotes should suffice to get this point across:
The Limits Of Reason – Gregory Chaitin – 2006 Excerpt: “what Gödel discovered (in his incompleteness theorem) 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.” http://www.umcs.maine.edu/~chaitin/sciamer3.pdf BRUCE GORDON: Hawking’s irrational arguments – October 2010 Excerpt: ,,,The physical universe is causally incomplete and therefore neither self-originating nor self-sustaining. The world of space, time, matter and energy is dependent on a reality that transcends space, time, matter and energy. This transcendent reality cannot merely be a Platonic realm of mathematical descriptions, for such things are causally inert abstract entities that do not affect the material world,,, Rather, the transcendent reality on which our universe depends must be something that can exhibit agency – a mind that can choose among the infinite variety of mathematical descriptions and bring into existence a reality that corresponds to a consistent subset of them. This is what “breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe.” Anything else invokes random miracles as an explanatory principle and spells the end of scientific rationality. Nowhere is this destructive consequence more evident than in the machinations of multiverse cosmology to “explain” cosmological fine-tuning. Cosmic inflation is invoked to “explain” why our universe is so flat and its background radiation so uniform. All possible solutions of string theory are invoked to “explain” the incredible fine-tuning of the cosmological constant. But the evidence for cosmic inflation is both thin and equivocal; the evidence for string theory and its extension, M-theory, is nonexistent; and the idea that conjoining them demonstrates that we live in a multiverse of bubble universes with different laws and constants is a mathematical fantasy. What is worse, multiplying without limit the opportunities for any event to happen in the context of a multiverse – where it is alleged that anything can spontaneously jump into existence without cause – produces a situation in which no absurdity is beyond the pale. For instance, we find multiverse cosmologists debating the “Boltzmann Brain” problem: In the most “reasonable” models for a multiverse, it is immeasurably more likely that our consciousness is associated with a brain that has spontaneously fluctuated into existence in the quantum vacuum than it is that we have parents and exist in an orderly universe with a 13.7 billion-year history. This is absurd. The multiverse hypothesis is therefore falsified because it renders false what we know to be true about ourselves. Clearly, embracing the multiverse idea entails a nihilistic irrationality that destroys the very possibility of science. Universes do not “spontaneously create” on the basis of abstract mathematical descriptions, nor does the fantasy of a limitless multiverse trump the explanatory power of transcendent intelligent design. What Mr. Hawking’s contrary assertions show is that mathematical savants can sometimes be metaphysical simpletons. Caveat emptor. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/oct/1/hawking-irrational-arguments/ “Our monotheistic traditions reinforce the assumption that the universe is at root a unity, that is not governed by different legislation in different places.” John D. Barrow Stephen Hawking’s “God-Haunted” Quest – December 24, 2014 Excerpt: Why in the world would a scientist blithely assume that there is or is even likely to be one unifying rational form to all things, unless he assumed that there is a singular, overarching intelligence that has placed it there? Why shouldn’t the world be chaotic, utterly random, meaningless? Why should one presume that something as orderly and rational as an equation would describe the universe’s structure? I would argue that the only finally reasonable ground for that assumption is the belief in an intelligent Creator, who has already thought into the world the very mathematics that the patient scientist discovers. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/12/stephen_hawking092351.html “So you think of physics in search of a “Grand Unified Theory of Everything”, Why should we even think there is such a thing? Why should we think there is some ultimate level of resolution? Right? It is part, it is a consequence of believing in some kind of design. Right? And there is some sense in which that however multifarious and diverse the phenomena of nature are, they are ultimately unified by the minimal set of laws and principles possible. In so far as science continues to operate with that assumption, there is a presupposition of design that is motivating the scientific process. Because 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,,” Professor of philosophy Steve Fuller discusses intelligent design in Cambridge – Video – quoted at the 17:34 minute mark https://uncommondescent.com/news/in-cambridge-professor-steve-fuller-discusses-why-the-hypothesis-of-intelligent-design-is-not-more-popular-among-scientists-and-others/
Moreover, besides the epistemological failure that results from the assumption of the multiverse, (an assumption that Naturalists are forced to make in order to ‘explain away’ the fine-tuning of the universe), a more catastrophic epistemological failure within Naturalism results from the Naturalist’s denial of his own agent causality:
Darwinian evolution, and atheism/naturalism in general, are built entirely upon a foundation of illusions and fantasy Excerpt: basically, without God, everything within the atheistic/naturalistic worldview, (i.e. observations of reality, beliefs about reality, sense of self, free will, even reality itself), collapses into self refuting, unrestrained, flights of fantasy and imagination. It would be hard to fathom a more unscientific worldview than Darwinian evolution and Atheistic materialism/naturalism have turned out to be. Scientists should definitely stick with the worldview that brought them to the dance! i.e Christianity! https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Q94y-QgZZGF0Q7HdcE-qdFcVGErhWxsVKP7GOmpKD6o/edit
For prime example of the catastrophic epistemological failure inherent in the Naturalist’s denial of his own agent causality, if naturalism is assumed as true then the person of Einstein did not discover General Relativity, but physics itself discovered General Relativity and then informed the ‘illusion of Einstein’ of the event after the fact:
Physicist George Ellis on the importance of philosophy and free will – July 27, 2014 Excerpt: And free will?: Horgan: Einstein, in the following quote, seemed to doubt free will: “If the moon, in the act of completing its eternal way around the Earth, were gifted with self-consciousness, it would feel thoroughly convinced that it was traveling its way of its own accord…. So would a Being, endowed with higher insight and more perfect intelligence, watching man and his doings, smile about man’s illusion that he was acting according to his own free will.” Do you believe in free will? Ellis: Yes. Einstein is perpetuating the belief that all causation is bottom up. This simply is not the case, as I can demonstrate with many examples from sociology, neuroscience, physiology, epigenetics, engineering, and physics. Furthermore if Einstein did not have free will in some meaningful sense, then he could not have been responsible for the theory of relativity – it would have been a product of lower level processes but not of an intelligent mind choosing between possible options. I find it very hard to believe this to be the case – indeed it does not seem to make any sense. Physicists should pay attention to Aristotle’s four forms of causation – if they have the free will to decide what they are doing. If they don’t, then why waste time talking to them? They are then not responsible for what they say. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/physicist-george-ellis-on-the-importance-of-philosophy-and-free-will/ Human consciousness is much more than mere brain activity, – Mark Vernon – 18 June 2011 However, “If you think the brain is a machine then you are committed to saying that composing a sublime poem is as involuntary an activity as having an epileptic fit. …the nature of consciousness being a tremendous mystery.” http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/jun/17/human-consciousness-brain-activity
bornagain77_{October 28, 2016
October
10
Oct
28
28
2016
04:48 PM
4
04
48
PM
PDT}

as to the headline:
"there is no evidence for a multiverse"
And whereas Naturalists have no empirical evidence whatsoever that the epistemologically self defeating multiverse is real, Theists have very strong evidence for their belief in a higher heavenly dimension and in a hellish dimension. This evidence comes from two of our strongest, most verified, theories in science. i.e. From Special and General Relativity respectively:
Special and General Relativity compared to Heavenly and Hellish Near Death Experiences – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbKELVHcvSI&index=1&list=PLtAP1KN7ahia8hmDlCYEKifQ8n65oNpQ5
Here are a few notes as to just how strongly verified Special and General Relativity are:
"Recent experiments have confirmed, to within one part in one hundred million billion (10^17), that the speed of light does not change when an observer is in motion." Douglas Ell - "Counting To God" - pg. 41 - 2014 Experiment with speeding ions verifies relativistic time dilation to new level of precision - Sept. 19, 2014 Excerpt: A team of researchers,, have conducted an experiment using ions pushed to 40 percent of the speed of light to verify time dilation to a new level of precision.,, the team describes how their experiment was conducted and how it allowed them to validate the time dilation prediction to just a few parts per billion.,,, The experiment allowed for measuring the shift in laser frequencies relative to what the transition frequencies would be for ions that had not been accelerated. By combining the two frequency shifts, uncertainties could be eliminated making it possible to validate time dilation predictions to an order of precision much higher than previous limits,, http://phys.org/news/2014-09-ions-relativistic-dilation-precision.html The Most Precisely Tested Theory in the History of Science - May 5, 2011 Excerpt: When you get down to it, there are really only two theories in the running for the title of “The Most Precisely Tested Theory in the History of Science”: relativity and quantum mechanics, specifically quantum electro-dynamics (QED).,,, So, which of the two is The Most Precisely Tested Theory in the History of Science? It’s a little tough to quantify a title like that, but I think relativity can claim to have tested the smallest effects. Things like the aluminum ion clock experiments showing shifts in the rate of a clock set moving at a few m/s, or raised by a foot, measure relativistic shifts of a few parts in 1016. That is, if one clock ticks 10,000,000,000,000,000 times, the other ticks 9,999,999,999,999,999 times. That’s an impressively tiny effect, but the measured value is in good agreement with the predictions of relativity. In the end, though, I have to give the nod to QED, because while the absolute effects in relativity may be smaller, the precision of the measurements in QED is more impressive. Experimental tests of relativity measure tiny shifts, but to only a few decimal places. Experimental tests of QED measure small shifts, but to an absurd number of decimal places.,,, ,,, that’s either 11 or 14 digits of precision,,, http://scienceblogs.com/principles/2011/05/05/the-most-precisely-tested-theo/
And whereas, special relativity, by ‘brushing infinity under the rug’, has been successfully unified with quantum theory to produce Quantum Electrodynamics,,,
Theories of the Universe: Quantum Mechanics vs. General Relativity Excerpt: The first attempt at unifying relativity and quantum mechanics took place when special relativity was merged with electromagnetism. This created the theory of quantum electrodynamics, or QED. It is an example of what has come to be known as relativistic quantum field theory, or just quantum field theory. QED is considered by most physicists to be the most precise theory of natural phenomena ever developed. In the 1960s and ’70s, the success of QED prompted other physicists to try an analogous approach to unifying the weak, the strong, and the gravitational forces. Out of these discoveries came another set of theories that merged the strong and weak forces called quantum chromodynamics, or QCD, and quantum electroweak theory, or simply the electroweak theory, which you’ve already been introduced to. If you examine the forces and particles that have been combined in the theories we just covered, you’ll notice that the obvious force missing is that of gravity (i.e. General Relativity). http://www.infoplease.com/cig/theories-universe/quantum-mechanics-vs-general-relativity.html THE INFINITY PUZZLE: Quantum Field Theory and the Hunt for an Orderly Universe Excerpt: In quantum electrodynamics, which applies quantum mechanics to the electromagnetic field and its interactions with matter, the equations led to infinite results for the self-energy or mass of the electron. After nearly two decades of effort, this problem was solved after World War II by a procedure called renormalization, in which the infinities are rolled up into the electron’s observed mass and charge, and are thereafter conveniently ignored. Richard Feynman, who shared the 1965 Nobel Prize with Julian Schwinger and Sin-Itiro Tomonaga for this breakthrough, referred to this sleight of hand as “brushing infinity under the rug.” http://www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/tackling-infinity Double Slit, Quantum-Electrodynamics, and Christian Theism – video https://www.facebook.com/philip.cunningham.73/videos/vb.100000088262100/1127450170601248/?type=2&theater
,,, And whereas, special relativity, by ‘brushing infinity under the rug’, has been successfully unified with quantum theory to produce Quantum Electrodynamics, no such mathematical ‘sleight of hand’ exists for general relativity. General relativity simply refuses to be mathematically unified with quantum mechanics. String theory is one, of several, attempts to, by hook or by crook, mathematically unify the two theories,
Unified field theory Excerpt: Gravity has yet to be successfully included in a theory of everything. Simply trying to combine the graviton with the strong and electroweak interactions runs into fundamental difficulties since the resulting theory is not renormalizable. Theoretical physicists have not yet formulated a widely accepted, consistent theory that combines general relativity and quantum mechanics. The incompatibility of the two theories remains an outstanding problem in the field of physics. Some theoretical physicists currently believe that a quantum theory of general relativity may require frameworks other than field theory itself, such as string theory or loop quantum gravity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_field_theory#Current_status
Some theoretical physicists have remarked that this failure to unify Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity is ‘the collapse of physics as we know it’
Quantum Mechanics & Relativity – Michio Kaku – The Collapse Of Physics As We Know It ? – video https://www.facebook.com/philip.cunningham.73/videos/vb.100000088262100/1190432337636364/?type=2&theater
bornagain77_{October 28, 2016
October
10
Oct
28
28
2016
04:47 PM
4
04
47
PM
PDT}

"Which god do YOU believe in?" asks the Atheist snarkily. Well, in a Multiverse you can take your pick. Snark bounces off me and sticks on you. I take Jesus. Jesus take me:)ppolish_{October 28, 2016
October
10
Oct
28
28
2016
02:30 PM
2
02
30
PM
PDT}

Look people, it HAS to be Multiverse. And/Or God. Chance has been gently eliminated. OK, violently eliminated. So for an Atheist - it has to be multiverse. Or a Simulation. Yep, a simulation:) Apparent Design is apparent. Can't get any more obvious.ppolish_{October 28, 2016
October
10
Oct
28
28
2016
02:25 PM
2
02
25
PM
PDT}

Question that I always wanted to ask of a believer in the multiverse. If there really is an infinite number of universes, then there must be some number of universes out there where I ask you - "do you believe in the multiverse?", and you answer, "NO". Why isn't this one of those?JDH_{October 28, 2016
October
10
Oct
28
28
2016
12:49 PM
12
12
49
PM
PDT}

where physicists now find themselves
PaV, In the MultiVerse, that would be Everywhere and Nowhere. Andrewasauber_{October 28, 2016
October
10
Oct
28
28
2016
10:15 AM
10
10
15
AM
PDT}

Sabine gives a very good explanation of where physicists now find themselves. I didn't understand what they meant when they said the Higgs mass was "unnatural"; now I do. And I see how that plays into the multiverse idea. But there is another part to the multiverse idea, and it comes from the idea of 'eternal inflation,' which was what the original form of inflationary theory morphed into for various reasons. With 'eternal inflation,' the 'beginning point' of the Big Bang becomes smeared, and since 'eternal inflation' is 'eternal,' one can go back in time, then conjecturing that we live in a 'pocket' universe, which is an 'inflated' part of another universe. This thinking can go back, ad infinitum, giving us an 'infinite number of infinite universes,' which, of course, erases concern about the "anthropic prinicple." Lubos Motl's blog has a video on this notion that centers on Alan Guth, the progenitor of the inflationary theory. It's worth looking at the video.PaV_{October 28, 2016
October
10
Oct
28
28
2016
09:41 AM
9
09
41
AM
PDT}

News @6, Yes, that's what seems to be going on.Dionisio_{October 28, 2016
October
10
Oct
28
28
2016
09:15 AM
9
09
15
AM
PDT}

Reality check: “Vague” is one way to describe it.
"Vague" is a very mild way to describe it. Perhaps professor Uri Alon (Weizmann Institute in Rehovot) made a very smart decision when switched from Physics to Systems Biology?Dionisio_{October 28, 2016
October
10
Oct
28
28
2016
09:09 AM
9
09
09
AM
PDT}

dionisio at 4, it is not new. But multiverse proponents move constantly toward enforcement of the multiverse as a dogma that does not need evidence from this universe. Their position is reinforced by claims that evolution bred a sense of reality out of us. That takes care of dissenters. https://uncommondescent.com/neuroscience/astrophysicist-warms-to-evolution-breeding-perception-of-reality-out-of-us/ Please, no one write back to say, what about the status of THEIR views? That doesn't matter, once they are the Big Bugs. They would be quite happy to run science off a cliff in order to be Big Bugs and enforce their dogma. That is becoming clearer all the time.News_{October 28, 2016
October
10
Oct
28
28
2016
08:11 AM
8
08
11
AM
PDT}

as to "the so-called “anthropic principle.”" Here is devastating critique of that materialistic escape route. If the multiverse were real, then the universe we actually observe would be one of the least likely types of universes that could be observable.
Does a Multiverse Explain the Fine Tuning of the Universe? - Dr. Craig (observer selection effect vs. Boltzmann Brains) - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pb9aXduPfuA Multiverse and the Design Argument - William Lane Craig Excerpt: Roger Penrose of Oxford University has calculated that the odds of our universe’s low entropy condition obtaining by chance alone are on the order of 1 in 10^10(123), an inconceivable number. If our universe were but one member of a multiverse of randomly ordered worlds, then it is vastly more probable that we should be observing a much smaller universe. For example, the odds of our solar system’s being formed instantly by the random collision of particles is about 1 in 10^10(60), a vast number, but inconceivably smaller than 1 in 10^10(123). (Penrose calls it “utter chicken feed” by comparison [The Road to Reality (Knopf, 2005), pp. 762-5]). Or again, if our universe is but one member of a multiverse, then we ought to be observing highly extraordinary events, like horses’ popping into and out of existence by random collisions, or perpetual motion machines, since these are vastly more probable than all of nature’s constants and quantities’ falling by chance into the virtually infinitesimal life-permitting range. Observable universes like those strange worlds are simply much more plenteous in the ensemble of universes than worlds like ours and, therefore, ought to be observed by us if the universe were but a random member of a multiverse of worlds. Since we do not have such observations, that fact strongly disconfirms the multiverse hypothesis. On naturalism, at least, it is therefore highly probable that there is no multiverse. — Penrose puts it bluntly “these world ensemble hypothesis are worse than useless in explaining the anthropic fine-tuning of the universe”. http://www.reasonablefaith.org/multiverse-and-the-design-argument
The following video also touches on the initial 1 in 10^10^123 entropy of the universe and how that initial condition renders moot and void the 'anthropic principle argument', i.e. the fallacious argument of 'well if the constants were not what they were then we would not be here to know it':
The Multiverse confirms the Ontological Argument for God - video https://youtu.be/MgDn_k11ups
a few more notes as to the problem that these 'arbitrary' numbers present to atheistic physicists:
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/two-most-dangerous-numbers-universe-194557366.html
At the 8:15 minute mark of the following video, Richard Dawkins is set straight by Steven Weinberg, who is an atheist himself, on just how big the 'problem' of the 1 in 10^120 Cosmological Constant is:
Quote: “I don’t think one should underestimate the fix we are in. That in the end we will not be able to explain the world. That we will have some set of laws of nature (that) we will not be able to derive them on the grounds simply of mathematical consistency. Because we can already think of mathematically consistent laws that don’t describe the world as we know it. And we will always be left with a question ‘why are the laws nature what they are rather than some other laws?’. And I don’t see any way out of that. The fact that the constants of nature are suitable for life, which is clearly true, we observe,,,” (Weinberg then comments on the multiverse conjecture of atheists) “No one has constructed a theory in which that is true. I mean,, the (multiverse) theory would be speculative, but we don’t even have a theory in which that speculation is mathematically realized. But it is a possibility.” Steven Weinberg – as stated to Richard Dawkins at the 8:15 minute mark of the following video Leonard Susskind - Richard Dawkins and Steven Weinberg - 1 in 10^120 - Cosmological Constant points to intelligent design - video https://youtu.be/z4E_bT4ecgk?t=495
Luke Barnes notes that the 'problem' with these seemingly arbitrary numbers goes far beyond just the Higgs and Cosmological Constant, He makes reference to 26 constants in the following article:
The Fine-Tuning of Nature’s Laws - Luke A. Barnes - Fall 2015 Excerpt: Today, our deepest understanding of the laws of nature is summarized in a set of equations. Using these equations, we can make very precise calculations of the most elementary physical phenomena, calculations that are confirmed by experimental evidence. But to make these predictions, we have to plug in some numbers that cannot themselves be calculated but are derived from measurements of some of the most basic features of the physical universe. These numbers specify such crucial quantities as the masses of fundamental particles and the strengths of their mutual interactions. After extensive experiments under all manner of conditions, physicists have found that these numbers appear not to change in different times and places, so they are called the fundamental constants of nature. These constants represent the edge of our knowledge. Richard Feynman called one of them — the fine-structure constant, which characterizes the amount of electromagnetic force between charged elementary particles like electrons — “one of the greatest damn mysteries of physics: a magic number that comes to us with no understanding by man.” An innovative, elegant physical theory that actually predicts the values of these constants would be among the greatest achievements of twenty-first-century physics. Many have tried and failed. ,,, Tweaking the Constants Let’s consider a few examples of the many and varied consequences of messing with the fundamental constants of nature, the initial conditions of the universe, and the mathematical form of the laws themselves. You are made of cells; cells are made of molecules; molecules of atoms; and atoms of protons, neutrons, and electrons. Protons and neutrons, in turn, are made of quarks. We have not seen any evidence that electrons and quarks are made of anything more fundamental (though other fundamental particles, like the Higgs boson of recent fame, have also been discovered in addition to quarks and electrons). The results of all our investigations into the fundamental building blocks of matter and energy are summarized in the Standard Model of particle physics, which is essentially one long, imposing equation. Within this equation, there are twenty-six constants, describing the masses of the fifteen fundamental particles, along with values needed for calculating the forces between them, and a few others. We have measured the mass of an electron to be about 9.1 x 10^-28 grams, which is really very small — if each electron in an apple weighed as much as a grain of sand, the apple would weigh more than Mount Everest. The other two fundamental constituents of atoms, the up and down quarks, are a bit bigger, coming in at 4.1 x 10^-27 and 8.6 x 10^-27 grams, respectively. These numbers, relative to each other and to the other constants of the Standard Model, are a mystery to physics. Like the fine-structure constant, we don’t know why they are what they are. However, we can calculate all the ways the universe could be disastrously ill-suited for life if the masses of these particles were different. For example, if the down quark’s mass were 2.6 x 10^-26 grams or more, then adios, periodic table! There would be just one chemical element and no chemical compounds, in stark contrast to the approximately 60 million known chemical compounds in our universe. With even smaller adjustments to these masses, we can make universes in which the only stable element is hydrogen-like. Once again, kiss your chemistry textbook goodbye, as we would be left with one type of atom and one chemical reaction. If the up quark weighed 2.4 x 10^-26 grams, things would be even worse — a universe of only neutrons, with no elements, no atoms, and no chemistry whatsoever. ,,, Compared to the range of possible masses that the particles described by the Standard Model could have, the range that avoids these kinds of complexity-obliterating disasters is extremely small. Imagine a huge chalkboard, with each point on the board representing a possible value for the up and down quark masses. If we wanted to color the parts of the board that support the chemistry that underpins life, and have our handiwork visible to the human eye, the chalkboard would have to be about ten light years (a hundred trillion kilometers) high.,,, http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-fine-tuning-of-natures-laws
bornagain77_{October 28, 2016
October
10
Oct
28
28
2016
07:52 AM
7
07
52
AM
PDT}

Well, what else is new? professor John Lennox described the rule that applies to the referenced article: Nonsense remains nonsense regardless of who says it.Dionisio_{October 28, 2016
October
10
Oct
28
28
2016
07:47 AM
7
07
47
AM
PDT}

In one universe, I had all the BBQ I could eat for lunch today. ...for free. Andrewasauber_{October 28, 2016
October
10
Oct
28
28
2016
07:33 AM
7
07
33
AM
PDT}

EvilSnack at 1: No, because the authority of science says that the one is so but the other isn't. Evidence is obviated by authority.News_{October 28, 2016
October
10
Oct
28
28
2016
06:27 AM
6
06
27
AM
PDT}

The universes aren’t causally connected and information exchange not possible.
And there is also an invisible, silent, intangible six-foot-tall rabbit looking over your shoulder right now.EvilSnack_{October 28, 2016
October
10
Oct
28
28
2016
06:18 AM
6
06
18
AM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply