"The Multiverse Falsified" and fake physics.

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

Certain models based on QM are yes, they were in much different forms long ago but there was always a quantum field vacuum with quantum fluctuations.

I suppose I'd call an eternal source of energy that created our universe God. Thanks for hanging in there with me lol

 

[unimackpass]

More from dr Sabine Hossenfelder

1. It’s falsifiable!


Our Bubble Universe.
Img: NASA/WMAP.
There are certain cases in which some version of the multiverse leads to observable predictions. The most commonly named example is that our universe could have collided with another one in the past, which could have left an imprint in the cosmic microwave background. There is no evidence for this, but of course this doesn’t rule out the multiverse. It just means we are unlikely to live in this particular version of the multiverse.

But (as I explained here) just because a theory makes falsifiable predictions doesn’t mean it’s scientific. A scientific theory should at least have a plausible chance of being correct. If there are infinitely many ways to fudge a theory so that the alleged prediction is no more, that’s not scientific. This malleability is a problem already with inflation, and extrapolating this to eternal inflation only makes things worse. Lumping the string landscape and/or many worlds on top of doesn’t help parsimony either.

So don’t get fooled by this argument, it’s just wrong.

2. Ok, so it’s not falsifiable, but it’s sound logic!

Step two is the claim that the multiverse is a logical consequence of well-established theories. But science isn’t math. And even if you trust the math, no deduction is better than the assumptions you started from and neither string theory nor inflation are well-established. (If you think they are you’ve been reading the wrong blogs.)

I would agree that inflation is a good effective model, but so is approximating the human body as a bag of water, and see how far that gets you making sense of the evening news.

But the problem with the claim that logic suffices to deduce what’s real runs deeper than personal attachment to pretty ideas. The much bigger problem which looms here is that scientists mistake the purpose of science. This can nicely be demonstrated by a phrase in Sean Carroll’s recent paper. In defense of the multiverse he writes “Science is about what is true.” But, no, it’s not. Science is about describing what we observe. Science is about what is useful. Mathematics is about what is true.

Fact is, the multiverse extrapolates known physics by at least 13 orders of magnitude (in energy) beyond what we have tested and then adds unproved assumptions, like strings and inflatons. That’s not science, that’s math fiction.

So don’t buy it. Just because they can calculate something doesn’t mean they describe nature.

 

[rj144]

Eyes, telescopes, radio telescopes etc...

We saw a supernova with our eyes before we ever mathematically described it. It was a "guest star." Black holes were discovered through math, but they were not a gap filler, they were their own.

I don't understand what you're trying to state.

 

[robotsonic]

This thread is bizarre, theists discounting one specific scientific model of the universe by using evidence from other scientists who have their own scientific model and then somehow claiming this is a victory for religion? Oooof...

There are lots of different, competing models for the creation of the Universe used by modern theoretical physicists, none of them have any real hard evidence, everybody knows and accepts this as it's part of the scientific journey to the truth. NONE of them involve a God.

 

[Amerikuracana]

I don't understand what you're trying to state.

I'm saying things that take up massive amounts of actual space, or are major celestial events that are not incredibly uncommon, are able to be perceived in actual reality.

There was a super nova seen by people hundreds of years ago; maybe a thousand. It was recorded as "A guest star" in European written history.

 

[rj144]

I'm saying things that take up massive amounts of actual space, or are major celestial events that are not incredibly uncommon, are able to be perceived in actual reality.

There was a super nova seen by people hundreds of years ago; maybe a thousand. It was recorded as "A guest star" in European written history.

Yes, I know. How does that disprove dark matter and how does that validate that our eyes are good at interpreting the universe?

 

[Amerikuracana]

Yes, I know. How does that disprove dark matter and how does that validate that our eyes are good at interpreting the universe?

It doesn't disprove it. I'm of the opinion that "dark matter" either doesn't exist, or is some other phenomenon that isn't what they are guessing it is.

 

[MikeMcMann]

You sure about that? People who look solely at the sciences and areas of academic study seem to not have a clue about people and about history. I mean of course they know things but the big questions arent even close to answered and the big picture of life/existence not close to complete. Yet for those that study the sciences and areas of academic study in addition to studying the ancient and historical writings and beliefs(biblical and otherwise) have a much more comprehensive view of people and of history. They have much more complete answers to the big questions and a full picture of live and existence.

Perhaps you should expand you're studies?

Ya I am sure.

the history of relying on the fictional god has been pretty disastrous to many.

 

[rj144]

It doesn't disprove it. I'm of the opinion that "dark matter" either doesn't exist, or is some other phenomenon that isn't what they are guessing it is.

It's pretty evident with galaxy rotational curves. Call it whatever you want to call it, a significant amount of something that has mass is out there and we can't detect it.

 

[Amerikuracana]

It's pretty evident with galaxy rotational curves. Call it whatever you want to call it, a significant amount of something that has mass is out there and we can't detect it.

Could be something to do with gravity, or another force that occurs between galaxies. Obviously I do not know. I do know that none of the billions of stars in our galaxy, or anything nearby in our solor system for that matter, has run into it.. Why? The math suggests it's everywhere, only it isn't.

 

[TheComebackKid]

Ya I am sure.

the history of relying on the fictional god has been pretty disastrous to many.

Agreed. Relying on fictional God's will always lead to disaster. Relying on the one true God however... that always leads to prosperity. But you wouldn't know that because your studies are limited.

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

I suppose I'd call an eternal source of energy that created our universe God. Thanks for hanging in there with me lol

If you like, most don't see the need to call it anything other than a fluctuation. I guess the point of this was to show that it is possible to have eternal space-time as it doesn't break any mathematical laws.

 

[rj144]

Could be something to do with gravity, or another force that occurs between galaxies. Obviously I do not know. I do know that none of the billions of stars in our galaxy, or anything nearby in our solor system for that matter, has run into it.. Why? The math suggests it's everywhere, only it isn't.

The density is so small it's not detectable.

You yourself, without question, gravitational affect everyone around you. It's impossible to detect though, but it is definitely there.

There are trillions of neutrinos passing through you too which are almost undetectable, but they are there too.

 

[MikeMcMann]

Agreed. Relying on fictional God's will always lead to disaster. Relying on the one true God however... that always leads to prosperity. But you wouldn't know that because your studies are limited.

The one true god is a function of where you are born only and who your parents followed.

If you were born in Saudi your one true god would be Allah.

They are all subjective BS.

 

[SSOTO]

The one true god is a function of where you are born only and who your parents followed.

If you were born in Saudi your one true god would be Allah.

They are all subjective BS.

 

[Judge]

People want multiverse to be true because it sounds cool that is it

I think they want it to be true to to combat the idea that the universe was created by God. There are so many things that have to be just right for the universe to be hospitable to life. If you have an infinite number of universes it says "it was bound to happen just like if you had a million monkeys typing for a billion years they would produce Shakespeare (sp?)."
Well, sorry no ape is making Romeo and Juliet.

Also it is funny how many scientists are ok with multiverse WHICH CANNOT EVER BE VERIFIED but get butthurt about God.

The one true god is a function of where you are born only and who your parents followed.

If you were born in Saudi your one true god would be Allah.

They are all subjective BS.

Not really. Meaning you can do research or you can take someone else's word for it. I was not a believer before doing research and becoming a believer.

You are just talking out of your ass as usual.

To disprove your point all I'd have to do is point out one convert. Even if it was wicca to scientology it would totally destroy your stupid as fuck argument.

 

[MikeMcMann]

...

Not really. Meaning you can do research or you can take someone else's word for it. I was not a believer before doing research and becoming a believer.

You are just talking out of your ass as usual.

To disprove your point all I'd have to do is point out one convert. Even if it was wicca to scientology it would totally destroy your stupid as fuck argument.

Yes really.

To disprove my point you would have to show that equal or more catholics are in Saudi or equal or more Muslims in Ireland.

There is no doubt that the main definer of what anyone defines as the one true god is where they are born. That a tiny percent of outliers can become heretics or iinfidels and leave one religion for another does not counter my point.

 

[TheComebackKid]

The one true god is a function of where you are born only and who your parents followed.

If you were born in Saudi your one true god would be Allah.

They are all subjective BS.

But they're not all bs and that is what you will learn through study. There is only one true God and that doesn't depend on what a person believes or they're born. Every other god and religion is a polytheistic one that serves to worship and venerate the sun god(ess), the moon god(ess), and the god son. Every one them lead back to these gods who are actually satan and his fallen angels.

If I were born in Saudi Arabia I'd probably be worshiping Al-Ilah, the moon goddess. If I were born in ancient Egypt I would be worshiping Isis, the moon goddess. And if I was born in the west I have a good chance of worshiping the Virgin Mary aka the moon goddess. It seems that no matter where I'm born I would be worshiping either the one true God or Id' be worshiping the moon(and sun, planets, animals) which is really just satan and his fallen angels.

Everyone, every group, every country, every culture has to make the same choice...worship the one true God or worship the false, pagan gods. Doesn't matter where you're born. Unfortunately tho the majority of the world chooses the false, pagan gods.

 

[MikeMcMann]

But they're not all bs and that is what you will learn through study. There is only one true God and that doesn't depend on what a person believes or they're born. Every other god and religion is a polytheistic one that serves to worship and venerate the sun god(ess), the moon god(ess), and the god son. Every one them lead back to these gods who are actually satan and his fallen angels.

If I were born in Saudi Arabia I'd probably be worshiping Al-Ilah, the moon goddess. If I were born in ancient Egypt I would be worshiping Isis, the moon goddess. And if I was born in the west I have a good chance of worshiping the Virgin Mary aka the moon goddess. It seems that no matter where I'm born I would be worshiping either the one true God or Id' be worshiping the moon(and sun, planets, animals) which is really just satan and his fallen angels.

And what if you were born into Hindu or Mormon or Scientology family?

What BS would you believe then?

 

[rj144]

I think they want it to be true to to combat the idea that the universe was created by God. There are so many things that have to be just right for the universe to be hospitable to life. If you have an infinite number of universes it says "it was bound to happen just like if you had a million monkeys typing for a billion years they would produce Shakespeare (sp?)."
Well, sorry no ape is making Romeo and Juliet.

Also it is funny how many scientists are ok with multiverse WHICH CANNOT EVER BE VERIFIED but get butthurt about God.



Not really. Meaning you can do research or you can take someone else's word for it. I was not a believer before doing research and becoming a believer.

You are just talking out of your ass as usual.

To disprove your point all I'd have to do is point out one convert. Even if it was wicca to scientology it would totally destroy your stupid as fuck argument.

Ok, so where did God come from?