Physicist Frank J. Tipler at TEDxBrussels: Physics Proves God Exists

[mzungu]

What happens if an asteroid the size of Alaska hits the Earth two months from now and completely destroys all life on Earth? No more internet, no more humans, no more information, no more technology.

This scenario is plausible and valid within the realm of physics and science. Do you believe this is possible?

What is your point

 

[Jig]

What is your point

It appears that those that believe in the Omega Point, also believe that humans MUST leave this planet before our Sun goes supernova. However, if there are no humans to leave...then it fails.

 

[mzungu]

It appears that those that believe in the Omega Point, also believe that humans MUST leave this planet before our Sun goes supernova. However, if there are no humans to leave...then it fails.

Our sun is too small to end up a supernova!

 

[TheReasoner]

Our sun is too small to end up a supernova!

True. It will still die though. I, for one, think we better get colonizing space sooner rather than later. In fact, I argue it should have been started straight after the Apollo Programme's completion. And personally I argue we abandon planets, opting instead for variants of O'Neill cylinders and other space-based artificial and mobile habitats. The purpose? Spread humanity as far as possible as quickly as possible. In a local cluster of stars a sufficiently powerful nova can potentially wipe out colonists in several star systems in one fell swoop. Better to seek the gaps between the galaxy's spiral arms. Going ever further out. Or in, should we want/be able to build habitats with sufficient shielding to withstand such bursts. More interesting minerals further in after all.

Planet based civilizations can somewhat more easily fall to this and other threats however. Better a mobile environment we can control as much as possible than one we can neither control nor move

 

[SAMMISPARROW]

True. It will still die though. I, for one, think we better get colonizing space sooner rather than later. In fact, I argue it should have been started straight after the Apollo Programme's completion. And personally I argue we abandon planets, opting instead for variants of O'Neill cylinders and other space-based artificial and mobile habitats. The purpose? Spread humanity as far as possible as quickly as possible. In a local cluster of stars a sufficiently powerful nova can potentially wipe out colonists in several star systems in one fell swoop. Better to seek the gaps between the galaxy's spiral arms. Going ever further out. Or in, should we want/be able to build habitats with sufficient shielding to withstand such bursts. More interesting minerals further in after all.

Planet based civilizations can somewhat more easily fall to this and other threats however. Better a mobile environment we can control as much as possible than one we can neither control nor move

Ho oh oh....... What an imagination you kids got these days Oh oh oh.........................................................ho ho ho..................

 

[mzungu]

Ho oh oh....... What an imagination you kids got these days Oh oh oh.........................................................ho ho ho..................

There is nothing scientifically not possible with what faith guardian wrote. On the other hand if you want imagination then go no further than Genesis and the flood.

 

[mzungu]

True. It will still die though. I, for one, think we better get colonizing space sooner rather than later.

Excellent BBC documentary:

Universe-2-StayingAlive.avi

 

[jonmichael818]

General Relativity is complete for what it addresses, which is gravity. The other fundamental forces in physics are covered by the Standard Model of particle phyisics.

The simple fact of the matter is that General Relativity is not complete, which is why it breaks down when applied to black holes and the big bang. Which is also why we need a quantum theory of gravity.

Yes the Standard model includes the electromagnetic, strong/weak nuclear forces, but it has yet to be successfully merged with General Relativity. Not only that but the Standard Model does not say anything about Dark Matter, and it depends on the yet to be discovered Higgs particle. Also consider the following quote:

While the strong and electroweak forces peacefully coexist in the Standard Model of particle physics, they remain distinct. So far, the quest for a theory of everything is thus unsuccessful on two points: neither a unification of the strong and electroweak forces – which Laplace would have called `contact forces' – has been achieved, nor a unification of these forces with gravitation has been achieved.-Wikipedia/TOE

General Relativity is valid all the way up to the singularity. No possible form of physics can apply to the singularity itself, since physical values are at infinity at the singularity, and so it is not possible to perform the arithmetical operations of addition or subtraction on those physical values in which to apply a physics equation.

Physical values are at infinity at the singularity because General Relativity breaks down at singularities, this cut off point is called the Planck Scale. Again in order to have an accurate picture of what takes place at the Planck scale we need a quantum theory of gravity.

In the book The Physics of Immortality: Modern Cosmology, God and the Resurrection of the Dead (New York: Doubleday, 1994), Prof. Frank J. Tipler correctly predicted the mass of the top quark using the Omega Point cosmology, which contradicted the mass predicted by the European Center for Nuclear Research (CERN). Indeed, a paper Tipler sent to Physical Review Letters in 1992 correctly predicting the mass of the top quark was turned down with the explanation from one referee that it was "clearly refuted by experiment. The estimate from CERN indicates it is going to be 150 [GeV/c^2]." And so Europe's (and indeed the world's) most influential particle physicists were wrong and Prof. Tipler was right.

Of course the fact that the top quark's mass was already being detected in 1992 is a bit helpful. Even if he did successfully predict it, that does not mean all of Omega Point Cosmology is correct.

Moreover, the only way to avoid the conclusion that the Omega Point exists is to reject the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics), and hence to reject empirical science: as these physical laws have been confirmed by every experiment to date. That is, there exists no rational reason for thinking that the Omega Point Theory is incorrect, and indeed, one must engage in extreme irrationality in order to argue against the Omega Point cosmology.

Once again, our existing theories are not complete, so to jump from this fact to saying Omega Point Cosmology is correct is a non sequitur.

Additionally, we now have the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE) correctly describing and unifying all the forces in physics: of which inherently produces the Omega Point cosmology. So here we have an additional high degree of assurance that the Omega Point cosmology is correct.

There has already been experimental confirmation of the aforementioned Omega Point TOE. In Tipler's April 2005 Report on Progress in Physics paper, he gave a number of simple experiments to test the Omega Point TOE. As Tipler wrote in a recent preprint:

""
If the CBR is an SU(2)L gauge field combined with the Higgs vacuum, and not a complete electromagnetic field, then it cannot couple to right-handed electrons either. Thus we would expect CBR pseudo-photons to show substantially less Sunyaev-Zel-dovich effect that conventional theory would predict, as I pointed out in [11]. This has now been seen [9].

The Feynman-Dewitt-Weinburg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything, is not the TOE!
In his eyes it is, and maybe a few others. As far as I have heard most physicist think it has some interesting aspects to it, but that it is mostly pseudoscience. I am not even a physicist and I can see a lot of holes and assumptions in the theory.

We just do not know yet!

 

[jonmichael818]

So, the problem you're running into despite all of your fancy quoting is thus. Let's allow for the moment that everything you've posted physics wise is accurate.

Which of course it is not.

 

[SAMMISPARROW]

There is nothing scientifically not possible with what faith guardian wrote. On the other hand if you want imagination then go no further than Genesis and the flood.

Imagine theres no heaven

it's easy if you try.........

no hell below us.........

above us only sky.....

you may say that I'm a dreamer....

but I'm not the only one...........

I hope some day you will join up

and the world will be as one.

 

[mzungu]

Imagine theres no heaven

it's easy if you try.........

no hell below us.........

above us only sky.....

you may say that I'm a dreamer....

but I'm not the only one...........

I hope some day you will join up

and the world will be as one.

If only you knew how true those words are!

R.I.P. John Lennon

 

[TheReasoner]

Ho oh oh....... What an imagination you kids got these days Oh oh oh.........................................................ho ho ho..................

Imagination? There's no imagination about it. If we stay, we're dead. It's just a matter of time before something kills this planet off. The most dangerous and least wise thing we have done - ever - is de-prioritizing scientific and technological R&D with the specific goal of spreading our species specifically and life generally from this planet.

Provided we set "survival" as the prime goal that is. Personally I think survival is imperative.

 

[AV1611VET]

Imagine theres no heaven

it's easy if you try.........

no hell below us.........

above us only sky.....

you may say that I'm a dreamer....

but I'm not the only one...........

I hope some day you will join up

and the world will be as one.

Crooned the guy whose 'instant karma' caught up with him and 'looked him right in the eye'.

 

[Bushido216]

That was fail, AV.

 

[AV1611VET]

That was fail, AV.

Which word(s) are wrong?

 

[James Redford]

It appears that those that believe in the Omega Point, also believe that humans MUST leave this planet before our Sun goes supernova. However, if there are no humans to leave...then it fails.

Rather, a sapient intelligence roughly every Hubble volume must be evolved in order to take over all mater in the universe. Humanity is highly unlikely to destroy itself at this point. But if it did, then another sapient species must come into existence within roughly our Hubble volume in order to spread life throughout our sector of the entire universe.

For more on this, see:

Frank J. Tipler, "Intelligent life in cosmology," International Journal of Astrobiology, Vol. 2, Issue 2 (April 2003), pp. 141-148. http://theophysics.chimehost.net/pdf/tipler-intelligent-life-in-cosmology.pdf Also at arXiv, March 31, 2007. http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.0058

 

[James Redford]

The simple fact of the matter is that General Relativity is not complete, which is why it breaks down when applied to black holes and the big bang. Which is also why we need a quantum theory of gravity.

It's complete for what it addresses, which is gravity.

Yes the Standard model includes the electromagnetic, strong/weak nuclear forces, but it has yet to be successfully merged with General Relativity. Not only that but the Standard Model does not say anything about Dark Matter, and it depends on the yet to be discovered Higgs particle. Also consider the following quote:


Physical values are at infinity at the singularity because General Relativity breaks down at singularities, this cut off point is called the Planck Scale. Again in order to have an accurate picture of what takes place at the Planck scale we need a quantum theory of gravity.

General Relativity doesn't break down at the Planck scale. It is perfectly good all the way up to the singularity, which is infinitely smaller than the Planck scale.

No possible form of physics applies to the singularity, as physical values are at infinity at the singularity, and hence it's not possible for perform the arithmetical operations of addition and subtraction.

Of course the fact that the top quark's mass was already being detected in 1992 is a bit helpful. Even if he did successfully predict it, that does not mean all of Omega Point Cosmology is correct.

It was detected at a value inconsistent with what Prof. Frank J. Tipler predicted. The world's leading particle physicists were wrong and Tipler was right. Prof. Frank J. Tipler's correct prediction of the mass of the top quark in the face of the *contradictory detection* by CERN adds enormous veracity to the correctness of the Omega Point cosmology, as Tipler stood by the prediction of the Omega Point cosmology even when the world's leading particle physicists were saying it was incorrect--and Tipler turned out to be right.

Once again, our existing theories are not complete, so to jump from this fact to saying Omega Point Cosmology is correct is a non sequitur.

We have the quantum gravity Theory of Everything (TOE) if the known laws of physics are correct. They have been confirmed by every experiment to date. Hence, there exists no rational reason for thinking that the quantum gravity TOE required by physical law is incorrect.

The Feynman-Dewitt-Weinburg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything, is not the TOE!
In his eyes it is, and maybe a few others. As far as I have heard most physicist think it has some interesting aspects to it, but that it is mostly pseudoscience. I am not even a physicist and I can see a lot of holes and assumptions in the theory.

We just do not know yet!

I see you're just making up things as you go along. You here show that you have no clue as to what in the world you're talking about (although that was already made clear by you in your previous posts in this thread). "[M]ost physicist" (sic) haven't commented on it one way or the other. The only physicists who have commented on it have approved it.

Out of 50 articles, Prof. Tipler's below 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper--which presents the Omega Point/Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE)--was selected as one of 12 for the "Highlights of 2005" accolade as "the very best articles published in Reports on Progress in Physics in 2005 [Vol. 68]. Articles were selected by the Editorial Board for their outstanding reviews of the field. They all received the highest praise from our international referees and a high number of downloads from the journal Website." (See Richard Palmer, Publisher, "Highlights of 2005", Reports on Progress in Physics. http://www.webcitation.org/5o9VkK3eE )

Reports on Progress in Physics is the leading journal of the Institute of Physics, Britain's main professional body for physicists. Further, Reports on Progress in Physics has a higher impact factor (according to Journal Citation Reports) than Physical Review Letters, which is the most prestigious American physics journal (one, incidently, which Prof. Tipler has been published in more than once). A journal's impact factor reflects the importance the science community places in that journal in the sense of actually citing its papers in their own papers.

F. J. Tipler, "The structure of the world from pure numbers", Reports on Progress in Physics, Vol. 68, No. 4 (April 2005), pp. 897-964. http://math.tulane.edu/~tipler/theoryofeverything.pdf Also released as "Feynman-Weinberg Quantum Gravity and the Extended Standard Model as a Theory of Everything", arXiv:0704.3276, April 24, 2007. http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.3276

 

[Jig]

Rather, a sapient intelligence roughly every Hubble volume must be evolved in order to take over all mater in the universe. Humanity is highly unlikely to destroy itself at this point. But if it did, then another sapient species must come into existence within roughly our Hubble volume in order to spread life throughout our sector of the entire universe.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.0058

So you must believe in the assumption of abiogenesis for this to work?

 

[Nostromo]

"[M]ost physicist" (sic) haven't commented on it one way or the other. The only physicists who have commented on it have approved it.

Strange, isn't it, that the unification theory people have been hunting for decades has been found and the science community seems disinterested. You'd think they'd have more to say about it...

 

[jonmichael818]

It's complete for what it addresses, which is gravity.

It is complete for addressing gravity up to the Planck scale. Not to mention it has yet to be successfully integrated with the other three fundamental forces.
Therefore it is incomplete until it can address phenomena below the Planck scale and can be combined with the other fundamental forces.

General Relativity doesn't break down at the Planck scale. It is perfectly good all the way up to the singularity, which is infinitely smaller than the Planck scale.

Wrong, consider this:

For energies approaching the Planck scale, an exact theory of quantum gravity is required, and the current leading candidate is string theory, or its modernized form M-theory. Other approaches to this problem include Loop quantum gravity and Noncommutative geometry. At the Planck scale, the strength of gravity is expected to become comparable to the other forces, and it is theorized that all the fundamental forces are unified at that scale, but the exact mechanism of this unification remains unknown.-Wikipedia/Planck Scale

Also regarding General Relativity,

However, this approach fails at short distances of the order of the Plank lenght where a more complete theory of quantum gravity (or a new approach to quantum mechanics) is required.-Wikipedia/Gravitation

We have the quantum gravity Theory of Everything (TOE) if the known laws of physics are correct. They have been confirmed by every experiment to date. Hence, there exists no rational reason for thinking that the quantum gravity TOE required by physical law is incorrect.

The Feynman-Dewitt-Weinburg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything is not considered THE theory of everything. It is simply one of many existing theories. It has not been verified just like String Theory, M-theory and Loop quantum gravity.

I see you're just making up things as you go along. You here show that you have no clue as to what in the world you're talking about (although that was already made clear by you in your previous posts in this thread). "[M]ost physicist" (sic) haven't commented on it one way or the other. The only physicists who have commented on it have approved it.

Actually I do know what I am talking about. Now if you are reffering to Tipler's 2005 paper, then yes it is seen as a highly respected paper. However, he did not include all that religious stuff in that paper. Once he adds his theology and many other assumptions that he did not include in the paper (which is also part of his Omega Point theory) his credibility goes out the door. And here is my proof:

Physicist Lawrence Krauss says the following in an issue of "NewScientist" magazine:

Tipler, for example, claims that the standard model of particle physics is complete andexact. It isn’t.
He claims that we have a clear and consistent theory
of quantum gravity. We don’t.
He claims that the universe must recollapse. It doesn’t have to, and
all evidence thus far suggests that it won’t.
He argues that we understand the nature of dark energy. We don’t.
He argues that we know why there is more matter than antimatter in the
universe. We don’t. ​

I could go on, but you get the point.-Webcitation.org

Physicists George Ellis and David Coule in the journal "General Relativity and Gravitation" state their objections here: -Life at the end of the universe
Physicist/Mathematician George Ellis says:

It is a masterpiece of pseudoscience.-Webcitation.org

Physicist David Deutsch addresses his concerns here: -[URL="http://books.google.com/?id=Im4Yl8qVuQEC&pg=PA107&dq=deutsch+tipler&q=according%20deutsch%20tipler"]How we believe: science, skepticism, and the search for God by Michael Shermer[/URL]​

Not to mention that the very fact that there are numerous other theories out there that disagree with his theory is evidence that other physicists do not agree with Tipler. They do not necessarily have to specifically comment about Tipler directly.​

I can go on but I think I made may point.​