"The Multiverse Falsified" and fake physics.

[TheComebackKid]

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

What BS would you believe then?

If you were born into a Hindu family you would be worshiping Chandra the mood god(as well the sun god and others). Scientology is a occultic, esoteric group who worships satan and his fallen angels directly(not completely sure on that tho). Mormon's worship the mother goddess.

It's either a) the one true, singular, monotheistic God or b) pagan gods and religions that represent the fallen angels. The pagan gods just keep getting repackaged and sold to us under different names and different details. This is the history of the world. This is what the Bible explains. And this is what science(real science), archaeology, biology, sociology, and everything else shows us. Thats if you know what you're looking at of course.

 

[esotamoc]

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.

That should be the end of this thread.

 

[ShinkanPo]

This is a ridiculous argument. You can't skewer a scientific hypothesis for lacking in evidence (the whole point of science is to keep testing a hypothesis to find possible holes/improvements in the logic) when you believe in a religion that also has zero evidence for it's claims. Also it should be noted that the many worlds/multiverse theory is absolutely still considered to be theoretical at this point. Constantly testing the claims of the model is how you determine it's accuracy.

I'm not some militant atheist, people can believe what they want, but the stupidity of theist logic is often infuriating.

Yup its weird the comment "replacing god" does not even have anything to do with the topic. Multiverse theory or any scientific concept was not meant to replace god nor claimed by the scientist to replace god it is a strawman.


There have been numerous Religious Scientists who have contributed to science even today speculating on the creation,big bang etc. Some are actually comisioned by the Catholic church and are high ranking Priests themselves I doubt they are replacing Gawd!

 

[Jack Reacheround]

Also, how can you falsify a theory which cannot be empirically tested yet? It hasn't been confirmed yet, but that is all.

This. And those with a bone to pick against the multiverse theory obviously have some kind of dog in this fight. Most physicists agree that it is a theory that could very well be true, or it very well could not be true. Multiverse theory predicted a certain mass for the Higgs Boson, Stringg Theory predicted another. It turns out neither was right. But that doesn’t mean a whole lot. It could be that one of those is correct, but that they failed to fully comprehend how the Higgs Boson fit into the theory, or they could both be incorrect. Anyone claiming to know either at this point is just full of shit.

 

[The Merchant]

This. And those with a bone to pick against the multiverse theory obviously have some kind of dog in this fight. Most physicists agree that it is a theory that could very well be true, or it very well could not be true. Multiverse theory predicted a certain mass for the Higgs Boson, Stringg Theory predicted another. It turns out neither was right. But that doesn’t mean a whole lot. It could be that one of those is correct, but that they failed to fully comprehend how the Higgs Boson fit into the theory, or they could both be incorrect. Anyone claiming to know either at this point is just full of shit.

I thought the standard model predicted the mass of the Higgs Boson and was correct.

 

[Jack Reacheround]

I thought the standard model predicted the mass of the Higgs Boson and was correct.

Is the standard model string theory? If so, then no. They predicted it at 125 gev or something and multiverse theory at 140 something. When they observed the Higgs Boson, it was 130 something. I watched a documentary on it called Particle Fever. It was awesome.

 

[The Merchant]

Is the standard model string theory? If so, then no. They predicted it at 125 gev or something and multiverse theory at 140 something. When they observed the Higgs Boson, it was 130 something. I watched a documentary on it called Particle Fever. It was awesome.

No the standard model is theory that explain the interactions of the Strong,weak and EM forces. Correctly predicting the Higgs Boson is just the latest of it;s experimental successes

EDIT: Particle accelerators are the experiments to test the theories of the standard model.

 

[MacDuffle]

Found this interesting.

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=10392

← Lost in Math
Knockin’ On Heaven’s Door →
The Multiverse Falsified
Posted on June 19, 2018 by woit
The July 1 issue of the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomy Society includes an article evaluating the standard multiverse prediction of the cosmological constant, with result:

The predicted (median) value is 50–60 times larger than the observed value. The probability of observing a value as small as our cosmological constant Λ0 is ∼2 per cent.

If your theory only makes one prediction, and that prediction is off by a factor of 50, that’s the end of it for your theory. I’m very glad that this has now been sorted out, the multiverse hypothesis has been falsified, and theorists who have been working on this can move on to more fruitful topics.

Update: As David Appell realized, the last sentence here was sarcasm (or maybe black humor). Those promoting the multiverse are doing Fake Physics™, not Physics. This is ideology, not science, and there is no chance that they will stop referring to the “successful multiverse prediction of the CC”, no matter what analysis shows a seriously incorrect prediction.

As Blake Stacey points out, this paper was on the arXiv back in January (see here), and has just been ignored by multiverse proponents. Part of doing Fake Physics™ is ignoring any information that contradicts what you want to believe. Another commenter points to this 2014 argument from Sesh Nadathur, which similarly as far as I know has just been ignored.

After appearing on the arXiv in January, this latest work was promoted by press release from Durham University back in May, which led to lots of media stories (e.g. here). For some reason, the press release didn’t really explain that this work falsifies the usual claim that the value of the CC is evidence of a multiverse. Instead, the work was promoted as showing that the multiverse is “more hospitable to life” than thought, which sounds good I guess, but seems like a bizarre way to explain the significance of this work.

For various sensible explanations of what is really going on here, see Jim Baggott, Philip Ball, and Sabine Hossenfelder. I’ve often repeated my own version of how to see there’s a problem with trying to explain the CC this way. There is no actual multiverse theory, so proponents assume a “flat measure over the anthropically allowed region” and then calculate. This is exactly the same input as my theory of the CC, which is that I have no idea what is going on, so any value is equally likely. The bottom line from the latest work on this is that, even if for some reason you believe you can get a sensible “prediction” this way, the prediction comes out wrong.

This entry was posted in Multiverse Mania. Bookmark the permalink.
← Lost in Math
Knockin’ On Heaven’s Door →

Like with abiogenesis they attempt to replace God and fail every time

well it's worth noting that several modern-day religious scholars have argued in Christian Ontological models that the existence of God does not limit itself to a singular planetary setting, because that doesn't approximate theological power and scope in the slightest

several different arguments pose the idea that to restrict God's influence on sentient life to just one planetary living creation would be counter to the omnipotent and universal creationist descriptions of God in popular theology; to expand "God's Love" to a universal model would be a much more appropriate extension because theological texts don't necessarily isolate the application of Man's origin under God, they only offer a detailed account where a Creation takes place in a universe owing its existence to God

if God can create Being out of Nothing that same test of Faith can occur in more contexts than a handful of side-by-side territories in our limited System -- they'd argue God does not create Earth for Earth's merits, he creates all life across all matter, time and space --

if God creates all matter/time/space in theological/christian ontological models, that same test of Man can happens wherever there is life, and would presumably take place outside our limited understanding of God's universe, so to say there aren't more living, sentient populations tested by God across the spectrum of Creation would be stepping outside the powerful connotations of our own Faith models

now granted I'm hardly a god-fearing scotsman, but it's neat to see theological scholars widening the context of "tests of the Faithful" to the rest of all possible settings in the universe, and if Christian theological interpretation were to expand their reading of God's invention of "Time" I don't see why multiverse theories wouldn't hold up as varying degrees of "tests" for the living under their God, who already proves to be limiting the field of vision his followers retain (His followers don't get to see proof of alternate planes of existence within His own model, after all. Heaven is another way of saying existence on another plane, etc)

 

[rj144]

I thought the standard model predicted the mass of the Higgs Boson and was correct.

The standard model does not make predictions on the Higgs mass.

 

[Jack Reacheround]

No the standard model is theory that explain the interactions of the Strong,weak and EM forces. Correctly predicting the Higgs Boson is just the latest of it;s experimental successes

EDIT: Particle accelerators are the experiments to test the theories of the standard model.

Particle accelerators can test anything that involves smashing particles together. It doesn’t really matter what model. And now that I think of it, it was the standard model they were testing, you are correct. But I think string theory is built on that model - having an anti particle for every particle.

 

[rj144]

Particle accelerators can test anything that involves smashing particles together. It doesn’t really matter what model. And now that I think of it, it was the standard model they were testing, you are correct. But I think string theory is built on that model - having an anti particle for every particle.

String theory is an extension of the standard model. I think you're thinking of Supersymmetry with the extra particles. Anti-particles basically are predicted by relativity a long time ago.

 

[The Merchant]

The standard model does not make predictions on the Higgs mass.

Cheers, had to go and check just in case, but you're spot on.

"The Higgs boson is a spin-zero excitation of the Higgs field and the “footprint” of the mechanism that hides the electroweak gauge symmetry in the standard model. The Higgs boson’s interactions are fully specified in terms of known couplings and masses of its decay products, but the theory does not predict its mass. Instead, experimentalists must measure the energies and momenta of the Higgs boson’s decay products and determine its mass using kinematical equations. Once that mass is known, the rates at which the Higgs boson decays into different particles can be predicted with high precision, and compared with experiment. For a mass in the neighborhood of 125" role="presentation">125 giga-electron-volts ( GeV" role="presentation">GeV), the electroweak theory foresees a happy circumstance in which several decay paths occur at large enough rates to be detected."

 

[Ranzou**]

I like to read about Astrophysics a lot even though I'm no kind of expert. Some burning questions I have.

1. If no Multi-verse than what was before the bang?

2. Isn't the bbt based on a bunch of calculations based on what they saw in the Hubble Deep Field? If so what if JWST shows us further than previously thought possible?

3. Could it be possible we are a universe inside a larger universe? That's not multi verse that's like infinite universe right? Is that even a theory?

4. Wtf. Is beyond the singularity of a black hole!


For real though we only discovered exoplanets what, 26 years ago? I mean there is probably shit out there that would blow some peoples minds right up when they go mad from the revelation. I mean there is shit out there that defys the laws of physics already. Tachyons come to mind.

So who are these dudes to debunk multi verse by spending 3 hours at their local library's computer.

 

[Lord Coke]

I don't understand why people talk about the fine tuning argument
We have no universe to compare ours to. I'd understand if there were 100000 universes and ours was the only one that had life.
But ours is the only universe we can see so maybe this is just how universes are supposed to be

 

[rj144]

I like to read about Astrophysics a lot even though I'm no kind of expert. Some burning questions I have.

1. If no Multi-verse than what was before the bang?

2. Isn't the bbt based on a bunch of calculations based on what they saw in the Hubble Deep Field? If so what if JWST shows us further than previously thought possible?

3. Could it be possible we are a universe inside a larger universe? That's not multi verse that's like infinite universe right? Is that even a theory?

4. Wtf. Is beyond the singularity of a black hole!


For real though we only discovered exoplanets what, 26 years ago? I mean there is probably shit out there that would blow some peoples minds right up when they go mad from the revelation. I mean there is shit out there that defys the laws of physics already. Tachyons come to mind.

So who are these dudes to debunk multi verse by spending 3 hours at their local library's computer.

Tachyons don't exist as far as we know.

 

[Jack Reacheround]

String theory is an extension of the standard model. I think you're thinking of Supersymmetry with the extra particles. Anti-particles basically are predicted by relativity a long time ago.

No, I realize that. But what I’m saying is you were correct. The predictions were the standard model vs multiverse model. I have no idea if any of them were string theory guys.

 

[Khabibs Tiramisu]

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

I want to be part of a universe where i'm fucking Gal Gadot on a regular basis..

 

[moreorless87]

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.

Gary Vaynerchuk?

 

[That209]

You're free to make an argument.

How can you test a theory you can't even observe? It's a God theory at this point

Technically we observe gravity everyday but we still have no idea wtf it really is. There’s basically no way to test it, but we know it’s there, don’t we? Unfortunately there’s things we don’t and possibly never will understand. Nothing in this particular topic was proven or disproven. It sounds like another ‘scientist’ is playing the dick measuring game again. So what I’m saying is, observable or not, either way it doesn’t mean we understand it. How long has gravity been confirmed to exist by humans? How long have we failed to understand it? Just because a test of a theory doesn’t work, doesn’t mean that theory is nonsense. That’s why it’s called ‘testing’. It’s not like we wake up one day with all the answers.

 

[blaseblah]

I haven't studied any specific culture at least on a scholarly level. I'm referring to the different world views and velief systems you see through out history...almost all of which modern intellectuals dismiss outright.

What do you mean by dismiss? We study the beliefs and views of ancient civilizations, it's even included in basic schooling, K through 12. There would be no knowledge of prior civilizations if humans weren't interested in retaining it.