Science Proves Creation

[Kylie]

Special Relativity is flawed.

You have been unable to show that.

All you have done is shown that SR doesn't work in a situation it was never designed to work in. You have not shown that it should be abandoned.

 

[loveofourlord]

You can't be "A" and "-A" at the same time, we must either change the definition of Universe (from all that exists, to something else) or recognize there can't be multiple of them.

actually there are two meanings of universe, our universe, or the greater universe if one exists that would include the muttiverse, or where ever god is or such.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

actually there are two meanings of universe, our universe, or the greater universe if one exists that would include the muttiverse, or where ever god is or such.

There are many meanings of 'universe' - everything that is; a causally isolated spacetime volume; everything of importance to someone; the contents, or every element, of a particular domain (e.g. a knowledge domain); and more, including specialised 'jargon' meanings, such as a 'universe' of financial transaction types, or trades, etc.

 

[Strathos]

There are many meanings of 'universe' - everything that is; a causally isolated spacetime volume; everything of importance to someone; the contents, or every element, of a particular domain (e.g. a knowledge domain); and more, including specialised 'jargon' meanings, such as a 'universe' of financial transaction types, or trades, etc.

And universal healthcare doesn't mean that ET is covered by it too.

 

[loveofourlord]

And universal healthcare doesn't mean that ET is covered by it too.

I suddenly imagine a alien showing up with a laser wound, "What do you mean I don't fall under it, it's in the frigging name!!!."

 

[FredVB]

The universe could mean all that is in the realm of our observable universe, or it could mean the totality of the universe, in our observable realm and all that is in the continuous spatial medium beyond it. But saying there are other universes that are constituents of a multiverse is just a belief, without scientific basis for that.

 

[Speedwell]

The universe could mean all that is in the realm of our observable universe, or it could mean the totality of the universe, in our observable realm and all that is in the continuous spatial medium beyond it. But saying there are other universes that are constituents of a multiverse is just a belief, without scientific basis for that.

Why would you suppose there is a continuous spatial medium beyond it?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Let's start with a couple of axioms.

1.) Matter and energy are finite. If not, we would live inside of an infinitely dense, infinitely hot, soiid mass, of infinite expanse. We don't. No really, I once had a supposedly educated scientist try to make the laughable argument that universe was pure infinite energy. His argument went down in flames.
2.) Space is infinite. Seriously, I've had people try to dispute this axiom. I've asked them to tell me where to find this magic wall that sets the boundary for the edge of empty space, and to describe what is on the other side of that wall.

1.) Matter and energy can be infinite in an infinite universe. The energy and matter density can be as low as you like in an infinite universe.
2.) Space may or may not be infinite - it's often assumed to be infinite for cosmological speculations, but it could equally be finite and unbounded, i.e. without edges - just as the surface of a sphere is finite but unbounded (albeit in fewer dimensions).

So much for the axioms.

Now for the science:

The second law of thermodynamics can be precisely stated in the following two forms, as originally formulated in the 19th century by the Scottish physicist William Thomson (Lord Kelvin) and the German physicist Rudolf Clausius, respectively:

A cyclic transformation whose only final result is to transform heat extracted from a source which is at the same temperature throughout into work is impossible.

A cyclic transformation whose only final result is to transfer heat from a body at a given temperature to a body at a higher temperature is impossible.

Source: thermodynamics | Laws, Definition, & Equations - Isothermal and adiabatic processes

In other words, heat is transferred from an area of greater concentration, to an area of lesser concentration.
With the radiation of a finite amount of heat, over infinite space, over infinite time, the universe would infinitely approach a temperature of absolute zero. There are inefficiencies in converting energy from one form to another. Any energy which isn't converted to work, is dissipated as heat. No work; no motion.

A temperature scale whose zero point is absolute zero, the temperature of 0 entropy at which all molecular motion stops, -273.15° C. The size of a degree Kelvin is the same as the size of a degree Celsius.

Kelvin -- from Eric Weisstein's World of Physics

In other words, no energy; no work. No work, no motion. No motion; no molecules.

The tangible universe as we perceive it could not, nor cannot, have existed, nor continue to exist, eternally.

Some would argue that the Singularity preexisted the current universe eternally, before the Big Bang.

Nonsense! The same laws would apply to the Singularity; and what would cause the Singularity to go "bang" In the relatively recent past? Eternity is a very long time. If the Singularity was going to go "bang:" it would have done so an eternity ago; and the universe would have already infinitely approached absolute zero.

"Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the work of thy hands. They shall perish, but thou shalt endure: yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment; as a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed: But thou art the same, and thy years shall have no end" (Psalm 102:25–27).

Discuss...

An expanding universe like ours will reach a heat-death whether it's infinite or not, and in a finite (but very long) time. Eventually, all the black holes will evaporate, all the non-fundamental particles will decay, and things will go very quiet. But it will never reach absolute zero because of quantum fluctuations of vacuum energy as described by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (sometimes called 'virtual particles').

Having said that, space as we know it may be a 'false vacuum', i.e. it could be a metastable state. The Higgs field is non-zero, so there's a remote possibility of a quantum fluctuation tunnelling to the lower energy state, which would 'unravel' our spacetime into something very different (presumably a void of massless particles moving at the speed of light).

Also, the singularity is not a thing in spacetime, it's the name given to the point in time before which General Relativity and quantum mechanics no longer give meaningful answers. A combined theory of quantum gravity is necessary to probe further back. But under GR and QM, it is quite feasible to have a variety of temporally infinite universe/metaverse/multiverse models, as well as temporally finite but unbounded models.

One interesting one, recently given a boost by a new particle discovery, is the temporally balanced model, where the big bang is the low entropy 'end' of a universe that collapsed from a high entropy state, and 'bounced', becoming our universe of increasing entropy. This temporally mirrored configuration is interesting in that any observers in the collapsing universe would see the big bang as their past just as we do, since their arrow of time would necessarily point in the direction of increasing entropy - what we'd call further into their past, but what they'd call further into their future. In turn, they'd see our expanding universe beyond the big bang as expanding further into their past... The latest suggestion is that theirs would be an antimatter universe, although that's not a requirement.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

If nothing is the absence of something; then how would one define nothing, in the absence of everything? You define space by an abstract relationship of that which is concrete; but there is nothing concrete in empty space, nor outside the confines of the tangible aggregate. That which is without limits is undefined; but you attempt to limit that which is undefined, that which is outside the limits of that what is defined, by that which is defined.

You're right that nothing is defined by an absence of anything, so, by definition, it's not a thing, it can't 'exist', it's just a concept of negation; but space exists, it has extent and vacuum energy, it is pervaded by quantum and gravitational fields even in the absence of particles, and you can move through it.

 

[Kylie]

The universe could mean all that is in the realm of our observable universe, or it could mean the totality of the universe, in our observable realm and all that is in the continuous spatial medium beyond it. But saying there are other universes that are constituents of a multiverse is just a belief, without scientific basis for that.

Not entirely...

This Is Why The Multiverse Must Exist

What Is (And Isn't) Scientific About The Multiverse

 

[Ophiolite]

You're right that nothing is defined by an absence of anything, so, by definition, it's not a thing, it can't 'exist', it's just a concept of negation; but space exists, it has extent and vacuum energy, it is pervaded by quantum and gravitational fields even in the absence of particles, and you can move through it.

Sometimes, though, I just like to sit on the sofa and watch box sets on Prime Video and Netflix.
.
.
.
.
I feel a session coming on.

 

[Skreeper]

Sometimes, though, I just like to sit on the sofa and watch box sets on Prime Video and Netflix.
.
.
.
.
I feel a session coming on.

Nothing beats a good Netflix and Chill session

 

[pitabread]

Nothing beats a good Netflix and Chill session

Don't think that's allowed with current social distancing.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Sometimes, though, I just like to sit on the sofa and watch box sets on Prime Video and Netflix.
.
.
.
.
I feel a session coming on.

Yes, of course, I meant you can move through it in principle

 

[FredVB]

The universe could mean all that is in the realm of our observable universe, or it could mean the totality of the universe, in our observable realm and all that is in the continuous spatial medium beyond it. But saying there are other universes that are constituents of a multiverse is just a belief, without scientific basis for that.

Why would you suppose there is a continuous spatial medium beyond it?

It is not my own supposition. But there is information with other posts here showing it, which you could look at, having that being a very possible conclusion. As a real possibility, I don't have to exclude it.

Not entirely...

This Is Why The Multiverse Must Exist

What Is (And Isn't) Scientific About The Multiverse

I looked with careful consideration. It was not convincing me. Did you expect it would? You would then convert me to your position. What am I finding to object to? There is extrapolation with this. It is what I think is beyond what science deals with, kind of in the way it has been viewed that logic I show is outside the scope of science. There are assumptions made with this. For example this. "Until, that is, you remember that everything that physically exists must be inherently quantum in nature. Even inflation, with all the unknowns surrounding it, must be a quantum field." From that there is the jump to that multiverse consisting of many universes. These assumptions do not pursuade me away from seeing the universe being the physical reality itself, and as designed.

 

[Kylie]

I looked with careful consideration. It was not convincing me. Did you expect it would? You would then convert me to your position. What am I finding to object to? There is extrapolation with this. It is what I think is beyond what science deals with, kind of in the way it has been viewed that logic I show is outside the scope of science. There are assumptions made with this. For example this. "Until, that is, you remember that everything that physically exists must be inherently quantum in nature. Even inflation, with all the unknowns surrounding it, must be a quantum field." From that there is the jump to that multiverse consisting of many universes. These assumptions do not pursuade me away from seeing the universe being the physical reality itself, and as designed.

My links were not intended to convince anyone that the multiverse was definitely true. It was just intended to show that there is some scientific evidence that the multiverse may be real and the claim that it's just a belief is not true.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I looked with careful consideration. It was not convincing me. Did you expect it would? You would then convert me to your position. What am I finding to object to? There is extrapolation with this. It is what I think is beyond what science deals with, kind of in the way it has been viewed that logic I show is outside the scope of science. There are assumptions made with this. For example this. "Until, that is, you remember that everything that physically exists must be inherently quantum in nature. Even inflation, with all the unknowns surrounding it, must be a quantum field." From that there is the jump to that multiverse consisting of many universes.

Various types of multiverse have been proposed; they are predictions of well-established theories, given certain plausible assumptions. Whether you or I find the idea intuitive or unintuitive, reasonable or unreasonable, makes no difference to their likelihood - quantum superpositions and entanglement are completely unintuitive and even unreasonable to a classical thinker, but are nevertheless demonstrably real. The problem with multiverses in that respect is that they are not demonstrable.

These assumptions do not pursuade me away from seeing the universe being the physical reality itself, and as designed.

The question is, what is physical reality? is it the fluctuating probability fields of quantum mechanics or the coarse-grained approximation we experience?

Also, the physical world you perceive is a predictive model constructed in your head from the neural spike trains from your senses. It's a representation - your eyes have neither the resolution or bandwidth to present the seemingly high-resolution world you see in real-time; the signals from your eyes are used to correct and update the predictive model that is your experiential reality. Your brain introduces adjustments and delays to its sensory inputs to make the world seem coherent and consistent, but these are distortions of your senses...

I suggest that whatever reality is, it's not what you perceive.

 

[FredVB]

My links were not intended to convince anyone that the multiverse was definitely true. It was just intended to show that there is some scientific evidence that the multiverse may be real and the claim that it's just a belief is not true.

But it is a belief when there isn't something that settles it, and it is yet used to explain anything.

Various types of multiverse have been proposed; they are predictions of well-established theories, given certain plausible assumptions. Whether you or I find the idea intuitive or unintuitive, reasonable or unreasonable, makes no difference to their likelihood - quantum superpositions and entanglement are completely unintuitive and even unreasonable to a classical thinker, but are nevertheless demonstrably real. The problem with multiverses in that respect is that they are not demonstrable.
The question is, what is physical reality? is it the fluctuating probability fields of quantum mechanics or the coarse-grained approximation we experience?
Also, the physical world you perceive is a predictive model constructed in your head from the neural spike trains from your senses. It's a representation - your eyes have neither the resolution or bandwidth to present the seemingly high-resolution world you see in real-time; the signals from your eyes are used to correct and update the predictive model that is your experiential reality. Your brain introduces adjustments and delays to its sensory inputs to make the world seem coherent and consistent, but these are distortions of your senses.
I suggest that whatever reality is, it's not what you perceive.

This being the case is in a way like a two-edged sword. I have had these same thoughts, which could be applied to you, and all scientists with their conclusions. Ability to perceive as a result of natural processes with survival value having effect on it has it questionable for any perceiving what is really true. How can you or any scientists be trusted then? It would be very limited to what capacity is evolved and not corresponding to actual true reality, which there is not capacity for either sensing or understanding. Any real understanding would have to have another source that makes it reliable.

It really is not at all settled, there isn't the basis for that

Some physicists say the multiverse is not a legitimate topic of scientific inquiry. Concerns have been raised about whether attempts to exempt the multiverse from experimental verification could erode public confidence in science and ultimately damage the study of fundamental physics. Some have argued that the multiverse is a philosophical notion rather than a scientific hypothesis because it cannot be empirically falsified. The ability to disprove a theory by means of scientific experiment has always been part of the accepted scientific method. Paul Steinhardt has famously argued that no experiment can rule out a theory if the theory provides for all possible outcomes.

Modern proponents of one or more of the multiverse hypotheses include Hugh Everett, Don Page, Brian Greene, Max Tegmark, Alan Guth, Andrei Linde, Michio Kaku, David Deutsch, Leonard Susskind, Alexander Vilenkin, Yasunori Nomura, Raj Pathria, Laura Mersini-Houghton, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Sean Carroll and Stephen Hawking.

Scientists who are generally skeptical of the multiverse hypothesis include: David Gross, Paul Steinhardt, Anna Ijjas, Abraham Loeb, David Spergel, Neil Turok, Viatcheslav Mukhanov, Michael S. Turner, Roger Penrose, George Ellis, Joe Silk, Carlo Rovelli, Adam Frank, Marcelo Gleiser, Jim Baggott and Paul Davies.

In his 2003 New York Times opinion piece, "A Brief History of the Multiverse", author and cosmologist Paul Davies offered a variety of arguments that multiverse theories are non-scientific:

For a start, how is the existence of the other universes to be tested? To be sure, all cosmologists accept that there are some regions of the universe that lie beyond the reach of our telescopes, but somewhere on the slippery slope between that and the idea that there is an infinite number of universes, credibility reaches a limit. As one slips down that slope, more and more must be accepted on faith, and less and less is open to scientific verification. Extreme multiverse explanations are therefore reminiscent of theological discussions. Indeed, invoking an infinity of unseen universes to explain the unusual features of the one we do see is just as ad hoc as invoking an unseen Creator. The multiverse theory may be dressed up in scientific language, but in essence it requires the same leap of faith.

— Paul Davies, The New York Times, "A Brief History of the Multiverse"

George Ellis, writing in August 2011, provided a criticism of the multiverse, and pointed out that it is not a traditional scientific theory. He accepts that the multiverse is thought to exist far beyond the cosmological horizon. He emphasized that it is theorized to be so far away that it is unlikely any evidence will ever be found. Ellis also explained that some theorists do not believe the lack of empirical testability falsifiability is a major concern, but he is opposed to that line of thinking:

Many physicists who talk about the multiverse, especially advocates of the string landscape, do not care much about parallel universes per se. For them, objections to the multiverse as a concept are unimportant. Their theories live or die based on internal consistency and, one hopes, eventual laboratory testing.

Ellis says that scientists have proposed the idea of the multiverse as a way of explaining the nature of existence. He points out that it ultimately leaves those questions unresolved because it is a metaphysical issue that cannot be resolved by empirical science. He argues that observational testing is at the core of science and should not be abandoned:

As skeptical as I am, I think the contemplation of the multiverse is an excellent opportunity to reflect on the nature of science and on the ultimate nature of existence: why we are here.... In looking at this concept, we need an open mind, though not too open. It is a delicate path to tread. Parallel universes may or may not exist; the case is unproved. We are going to have to live with that uncertainty. Nothing is wrong with scientifically based philosophical speculation, which is what multiverse proposals are. But we should name it for what it is.

— George Ellis, Scientific American, "Does the Multiverse Really Exist?"

 

[Speedwell]

But it is a belief when there isn't something that settles it, and it is yet used to explain anything.

It's not formally being used to explain anything yet. Scientific theories explain; the multiverse is merely an hypothesis.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

This being the case is in a way like a two-edged sword. I have had these same thoughts, which could be applied to you, and all scientists with their conclusions. Ability to perceive as a result of natural processed with survival value having effect on it has it questionable for any perceiving what is really true. How can you or any scientists be trusted then? It would be very limited to what capacity is evolved and not corresponding to actual true reality, which there is not capacity for either sensing or understanding. Any real understanding would have to have another source that makes it reliable.

Evolution is no philosopher of reality, it's just a matter of survival, so from a pragmatic viewpoint, reality is what you're adapted to survive.

Science aims to describe and explain the patterns and regularities in the world we observe with methods & techniques intended to ensure the reliability and objectivity of the observations, their descriptions, & explanations, so it's generally considered to be addressing issues of reality; e.g. what doesn't go away when you stop believing in it.

Some physicists say the multiverse is not a legitimate topic of scientific inquiry. Concerns have been raised about whether attempts to exempt the multiverse from experimental verification could erode public confidence in science and ultimately damage the study of fundamental physics. Some have argued that the multiverse is a philosophical notion rather than a scientific hypothesis because it cannot be empirically falsified. The ability to disprove a theory by means of scientific experiment has always been part of the accepted scientific method. Paul Steinhardt has famously argued that no experiment can rule out a theory if the theory provides for all possible outcomes.

The demarcation problem has been around as long as science, and falsificationism was itself falsified not very long after Popper proposed it. The fact is that a lot of current science, especially physics, is the product of hypotheses that were unfalsifiable when first proposed.

Extending the boundaries of enquiry beyond the testable is the metier of theoretical physics, and the philosophy of science becomes most apparent at the boundaries. Pretty much all theories make untestable predictions, and if you absolutely insist on falsification, it's available - such predictions stand or fall on their assumptions and the theory behind them. Theories don't stand in isolation, they rely on a holistic framework of other theories and assumptions, also subject to falsification.

The completion of the Standard Model with the Higgs boson has been a double-edged sword - it's a remarkably consistent and explanatory model, but we know that it's not the whole story; what better time to strike out in new directions, to pursue new ideas and novel physics?

E.T.A. When you copy and paste wholesale from a source, it is considered bad form not to give proper attribution. The more cynical among us might think you're plagiarising for want of your own argument.

Just sayin'.