Dave wrote:
>Seems to me that there are additional nuances here. Denyse's first question involves a fallacy. Yes, there is evidence
>for God's work in nature, but it is not compelling. Its appreciation depends on a mindset which some sophisticates set
>aside. The evidence is not anti-science, but outside of science. As an example, the universe has a set of remarkable
>constants that, were they slightly different, would preclude our existence. A number of folks attribute this to
>Providence. The determination of the constants and their effects is a scientific matter. The attribution is not. There is
>another theory that qualifies as scientific that explains matters differently, the multiverse. Its claim is that there are so
>many different, noncommunicating "universes" that one of them had to have the set of constants that allows our
>existence.
The multiverse is NOT science, it is extrascientific. It postulates an infinitude of unobserved entities. There is no way we can actually take a peek at one of these other universes to know if it really exists. This is why the ASA is so impotent. They can't even see metaphysics when it strikes them in the face.
If I am wrong, please tell me one test which can be run to tell if there are other universes? ONe observational experimentum crucis? The situation is this. The most widely accepted theory of particle physics predicts that there is a multiverse. But, that theory has yet to see the Higgs boson, it has yet to confirm the existence of the Higgs field, which is essential if the present theories of the multiverse is to have any chance of working because inflation requires the Higgs field.
Why is it, when we Christians postulate one unobserved entity, God, it is called religion, but when others postulate an infinitude of unobserved entities, it is called science? In order to avoid making waves with naturalism, you would allow them the freedom to postulate as many unobserved and in principle unobservable entities as they want, but you then turn around and say that postulating one God is outside of science. What inconsistency.
The present theory of the multiverse requires that there be extradimensions to the universe. This is a necessary but not a sufficient cause for the multiverse to actually exist. ARe you aware that every experiment aimed at confirming the NECESSARY condition has failed? There is zero, nada, leeng (chinese), zippo, and no evidence of extradimensionality coming out of any experiments so far.
>It's just a matter of chance. Someone may want to challenge the multiverse using Occam's razor. But that is
>not a scientific principle. Additionally, recognizing his /praeter necessitatem/, can she prove that the multitude is
>absolutely unnecessary?
I don't challenge it based upon Ockham's razor, I challenge based upon its 1. lack of experimental confirmation of any extradimensionality; 2. the fact that by definition other universes can't be observed in any way shape or form, and 3. that it is entirely a metaphysical theory--kind of like saying that unobserved leprechauns move all the particles from place to place--but you can't ever observe them, just trust me. Here is the experimental data.
dec. 10, 2004
G. Landsberg∗†
Brown University, Department of Physics, 182 Hope St., Providence, RI 02912, USA
Searches for extra spatial dimensions remain among the most popular new directions in our quest for physics beyond the Standard Model. High-energy collider experiments of the current decade should be able to find an ultimate answer to the question of their existence in a variety of models. Until the start of the LHC in a few years, the Tevatron will remain the key player in this quest. In this paper, we review the most recent results from the Tevatron on searches for large, TeV−1-size, and Randall-Sundrum extra spatial dimensions, which have reached a new level of sensitivity and currently probe the parameter space beyond the existing constraints. While no evidence for the existence of extra dimensions has been found so far, an exciting discovery might be just steps away.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-ex/pdf/0412/0412028.pdf
accessed 4-30-05
New Supernova Limit on Large Extra Dimensions
Authors: Steen Hannestad, Georg Raffelt
Comments: 4 pages, 3 figures, slightly expanded discussion, matches version to appear in PRL
Journal-ref: Phys.Rev.Lett. 87 (2001) 051301
If large extra dimensions exist in nature, supernova (SN) cores will emit large fluxes of Kaluza-Klein gravitons, producing a cosmic background of these particles with energies and masses up to about 100 MeV. Radiative decays then give rise to a diffuse cosmic gamma-ray background with E_gamma < 100 MeV which is well in excess of the observations if more than 0.5-1% of the SN energy is emitted into the new channel. This argument complements and tightens the well-known cooling limit from the observed duration of the SN1987A neutrino burst. For two extra dimensions we derive a conservative bound on their radius of R < 0.9 x 10^-4 mm, for three extra dimensions it is R < 1.9 x 10^-7 mm.
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0103201
accessed 4-30-05
“If there were other dimensions that gravity could flow into, leaving our four-dimensional space-time behind, the energy released by a supernova would leak out into these other hidden dimensions by gravity waves. The energy balance for the supernova in our space-time would not work out. There would be missing energy to account for in the aftermath of the explosion. When Supernova 1987A exploded in March 1987, physicists detected neutrinos from the detonation and were unable to find any "missing energy" that could have escaped into other dimensions. Everything they saw could be accounted for very neatly by the energy of the event estimated from our own space-time. If Nature was indeed taking advantage of M-theory, it was being subtle in the traces it would permit astronomers or physicists to see of it. ” Sten F. Odenwald, Patterns in the Void, (New York: Westview Press, 2002), p.186
"This is one of the most striking realizations of the last decade. Using the three nongravitational forces, we can probe down to about a billionths of a billionth (10-18 of a meter, and no one has found any evidence of extra dimensions.” Brian Greene, The Fabric of the Cosmos, (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2004), p. 400
But of course, such a theory which has no evidence and postulates the unobservable is SCIENCE. HALLELUYAH! COME TO JESUS, err, I mean the M-brane.
>There are other ways one may move out of the province of science, e.g. asking why there is anything rather than
>nothing, whether universe or multiverse.
In the same post you say the multiverse is scientific then you say it isn't. This is quite a well thought out position!
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed May 25 2005 - 09:04:37 EDT