Why Some Scientists Embrace the 'Multiverse

Discussion in 'Politics' started by jem, Jul 8, 2013.

  1. 1. Most top scientists do not say anything like "The universe is fine tuned". Most top scientists are atheists. The numbers are perfect, because anything else would/did not work. It's that simple.

    2. Jem is insane, or at least intellectually dishonest. Maybe both.
     
    #211     Jul 28, 2013
  2. stu

    stu

    No one is saying at cern or elsewhere, or needs to say, or is required to say in any science, or in finding evidence of Higgs...that ANYTHING is fine tuned.

    There is NO science that says or needs to say the universe IS fine tuned.

    What is it exactly that you don't want to understand about that?
     
    #212     Jul 28, 2013
  3. stu

    stu

    Voila

    It doesn't get much more elegant and natural than that.
    No need for fine tuning Fairy Farts or Pixie Poo or silly Tuners/creators/god.

    When you can understand that much Jem you might start to get a clue. I won't bank on it.
     
    #213     Jul 28, 2013
  4. jem

    jem

    You are a lying ass troll sock puppet friend again.

    How can you understand the tuning is perfect and then deny what almost all the top scientists admit.


    How many times do I have to explain this to you.
    watch this video and stop being so stupid.

    Susskind disabuses you and Stu of your stupidity from the first question.

    <iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/2cT4zZIHR3s?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
     
    #214     Jul 28, 2013
  5. jem

    jem

    http://www.2001principle.net/2005.htm


    ACCORDING TO GROWING NUMBERS OF SCIENTISTS, the laws and constants of nature are so "finely-tuned," and so many "coincidences" have occurred to allow for the possibility of life, the universe must have come into existence through intentional planning and intelligence. In fact, this "fine-tuning" is so pronounced, and the "coincidences" are so numerous, many scientists have come to espouse "The Anthropic Principle," which contends that the universe was brought into existence intentionally for the sake of producing mankind. Even those who do not accept The Anthropic Principle admit to the "fine-tuning" and conclude that the universe is "too contrived" to be a chance event.



    In a BBC science documentary, "The Anthropic Principle," some of the greatest scientific minds of our day describe the recent findings which compel this conclusion.

    Dr. Dennis Scania, the distinguished head of Cambridge University Observatories: "If you change a little bit the laws of nature, or you change a little bit the constants of nature -- like the charge on the electron -- then the way the universe develops is so changed, it is very likely that intelligent life would not have been able to develop."

    Dr. David D. Deutsch, Institute of Mathematics, Oxford University: "If we nudge one of these constants just a few percent in one direction, stars burn out within a million years of their formation, and there is no time for evolution. If we nudge it a few percent in the other direction, then no elements heavier than helium form. No carbon, no life. Not even any chemistry. No complexity at all."


    Dr. Paul Davies, noted author and professor of theoretical physics at Adelaide University: "The really amazing thing is not that life on Earth is balanced on a knife-edge, but that the entire universe is balanced on a knife-edge, and would be total chaos if any of the natural 'constants' were off even slightly. You see," Davies adds, "even if you dismiss man as a chance happening, the fact remains that the universe seems unreasonably suited to the existence of life -- almost contrived -- you might say a 'put-up job.'"

    According to the latest scientific thinking, the matter of the universe originated in a huge explosion of energy called "The Big Bang." At first, the universe was only hydrogen and helium, which congealed into stars. Subsequently, all the other elements were manufactured inside the stars. The four most abundant elements in the universe are, in order, hydrogen, helium, oxygen and carbon. When Sir Fred Hoyle was researching how carbon came to be, in the "blast-furnaces" of the stars, his calculations indicated that it is very difficult to explain how the stars generated the necessary quantity of carbon upon which life on earth depends. Hoyle found that there were numerous "fortunate" one-time occurrences which seemed to indicate that puposeful "adjustments" had been made in the laws of physics and chemistry in order to produce the necessary carbon.

    Hoyle sums up his findings as follows:

    "A COMMON SENSE INTERPRETATION OF THE FACTS SUGGESTS THAT A SUPERINTENDENT HAS MONKEYED WITH THE PHYSICS, AS WELL AS CHEMISTRY AND BIOLOGY, AND THAT THERE ARE NO BLIND FORCES WORTH SPEAKING ABOUT IN NATURE. I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT ANY PHYSICIST WHO EXAMINED THE EVIDENCE COULD FAIL TO DRAW THE INFERENCE THAT THE LAWS OF NUCLEAR PHYSICS HAVE BEEN DELIBERATELY DESIGNED WITH REGARD TO THE CONSEQUENCES THEY PRODUCE WITHIN STARS."

    Adds Dr. David D. Deutch: "If anyone claims not to be surprised by the special features that the universe has, he is hiding his head in the sand. These special features ARE surprising and unlikely."


    Besides the BBC video, the scientific establishment's most prestigious journals, and its most famous physicists and cosmologists, have all gone on record as recognizing the objective truth of the fine-tuning.

    The August '97 issue of "Science" (the most prestigious peer-reviewed scientific journal in the United States) featured an article entitled "Science and God: A Warming Trend?" Here is an excerpt: "The fact that the universe exhibits many features that foster organic life -- such as precisely those physical constants that result in planets and long-lived stars -- also has led some scientists to speculate that some divine influence may be present."

    In his best-selling book, A Brief History of Time, Stephen Hawking (perhaps the world's most famous cosmologist) refers to the phenomenon as "remarkable." "The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers (i.e. the constants of physics) seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life" (p. 125).

    We are thus not the first to reformulate the argument from design on the basis of the uniqueness of the values that we find in the constants.

    It seems clear that
    there are relatively few
    ranges of values for
    the [constants] that
    would allow for
    development of any
    form of intelligent life.

    Most sets of values
    would give rise to
    universes that,
    although they might
    be very beautiful,
    would contain no one
    able to wonder
    at that beauty.

    "For example," Hawking writes, "if the electric charge of the electron had been only slightly different, stars would have been unable to burn hydrogen and helium, or else they would not have exploded... It seems clear that there are relatively few ranges of values for the numbers (for the constants) that would allow for development of any form of intelligent life. Most sets of values would give rise to universes that, although they might be very beautiful, would contain no one able to wonder at that beauty." Hawking then goes on to say that he can appreciate taking this as possible evidence of "a divine purpose in Creation and the choice of the laws of science (by God)" (ibid. p. 125).

    Upon viewing our site, Dr. Gerald Schroeder, former professor of physics at M.I.T., wrote to us and had this to say. "As is, the site is excellent. Any additions I suggest here, are, as it were, merely fine-tuning. But let me give two or three more major examples":

    1. Nobel laureate, high energy physicist (a field of science that deals with the very early universe), Professor Steven Weinberg, in the journal Scientific American, reflects on "how surprising it is that the laws of nature and the initial conditions of the universe should allow for the existence of beings who could observe it. Life as we know it would be impossible if any one of several physical quantities had slightly different values." Although Weinberg is a self described agnostic, he cannot but be astounded by the extent of the fine-tuning. He goes on to describe how a beryllium isotope having the minuscule half life of 0.0000000000000001 seconds must find and absorb a helium nucleus in that split of time before decaying. This occurs only because of a totally unexpected, exquisitely precise, energy match between the two nuclei. If this did not occur there would be none of the heavier elements. No carbon, no nitrogen, no life. Our universe would be composed of hydrogen and helium. But this is not the end of Professor Weinberg's wonder at our well tuned universe. He continues: "One constant does seem to require an incredible fine-tuning... The existence of life of any kind seems to require a cancellation between different contributions to the vacuum energy, accurate to about 120 decimal places."

    The existence of life of any kind seems to require a cancellation between different contributions to the vacuum energy, accurate to about 120 decimal places.
    This means that if the energies of the big bang were, in arbitrary units, not:

    1000000000000000000000000
    0000000000000000000000000
    0000000000000000000000000
    0000000000000000000000000
    00000000000000000000,

    but instead:

    1000000000000000000000000
    0000000000000000000000000
    0000000000000000000000000
    0000000000000000000000000
    00000000000000000001,

    there would be no life of any sort in the entire universe because as Weinberg states: "the universe either would go through a complete cycle of expansion and contraction before life could arise or would expand so rapidly that no galaxies or stars could form."

    ....
     
    #215     Jul 28, 2013
  6. stu

    stu

    When the only response you have is to keep repeating the same failed argument, were you a reasonable person Jem, it should be clear to you, you don't have an argument.

    Scientists do not say what you or the phony religiously biased cut & paste articles you keep posting say they do, however many times you keep repeating them. Black is not white.
     
    #216     Jul 29, 2013
  7. jem

    jem

    This is what I say... this is the science right now.

    Susskind disabuses you of your stupidity from the first question.




    <iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/2cT4zZIHR3s?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> [/B][/QUOTE]
     
    #217     Jul 29, 2013
  8. stu

    stu

    Reality check time again.
    Susskind is not saying what you want him to.
     
    #218     Jul 29, 2013
  9. jem

    jem

    [/B][/QUOTE]
     
    #219     Jul 29, 2013
  10. If only jem would post that video of Susskind again, I'd appreciate it.
     
    #220     Jul 29, 2013