A Multiplicity of Errors
A Multiplicity of Errors
By Wendy Wippel
If you’ve been to a theater over the last ten years you’ve no doubt been introduced to the concept of multiple (parallel) universes, all the rage in science fiction since first proposed by Erwin Schrodinger while I was still in diapers. They’ve been all the rage in cosmologists as well. Particularly one named Brian Greene.
Greene wrote a book called, The Hidden Reality: Parallel Universes and the Deep Laws of the Cosmos. The product description of the book says this:
There was a time when “universe meant all there is. Everything. Yet a number of theories are converging on the possibility that our universe may be but one among many parallel universes populating a multiverse. Here Brian Greene takes us on a breathtaking journey to a multiverse comprising series of big bangs, multiverse with duplicates of every one of us…
There are various versions. Alan Guth proposed that,
“Eternal inflation would just continue to expand our universe, and that when the various fronts of the Big Bang expansion got far enough away from earth, they would basically be viewed as independent universes because they are so far away.”
That theory was relatively safe from rebuttal since we have no way to observe what’s happening in those remote areas of the universe.
Hugh Everett proposed the one Greene likes best:
The many worlds multiverse, based on observation of quantum interactions (interactions at the atomic level) that seemingly always need to leave multiple options open. At the Quantum level, decisions don’t seem to be made until a human looks for the outcome. So the Multiverse theory proposes that every option of every action in fact, is realized. They all occur in different universes.
Where is that universe? We have no way of knowing.
So if you deliberated between Cornflakes and Cheerios this morning, no worries. Whatever you didn’t eat got eaten by your doppelgangers in another universe.
String Theory also supports the multiverse, says Brian.
String theory, when put forth, was embraced by scientists because the scientist involved demonstrated that a comparison of the equations for the motion of particles had a great resemblance to the equations that govern the sounds produced by violin strings. But we can’t observe that motion, and String theory is considered a branch of mathematics, not science.
Meaning there is no actual evidence for string theory at all.
The fourth line of evidence for the multiverse – and this one is the one that really motivates it’s adherent’s devotion is the anthropomorphic principle.
Paul Davies, also a cosmologist, but an honest one, wrote an opinion piece for the New York Times on this subject:
“Imagine you can play God and fiddle with the settings of the great cosmic machine. Turn this knob and make electrons a bit heavier; twiddle that one and make gravitation a trifle weaker. What would be the effect? The universe would look very different — so different, in fact, that there wouldn’t be anyone around to see the result, because the existence of life depends rather critically on the actual settings that Mother Nature selected.”
According to Davies, “Scientists have long puzzled over this rather contrived state of affairs”.
“Why is nature so ingeniously, one might even say suspiciously, friendly to life? … It’s almost as if a Grand Designer had it all figured out.”
The fashionable scientific response to this cosmic conundrum is to invoke the so-called multiverse theory.
In other words, The Universe isn’t. It’s an infinite number of options. An unlimited number of versions of our celestial home.
By this thinking, Davies says:
“It is but a small extra step to conjecture that each randomly produced universe comes with its own knob settings.. Almost all universes are incompatible with life, and so go unseen and unlamented. Only in that handful where, by chance, the settings are just right will life emerge; then beings such as ourselves will marvel at how propitiously fine-tuned their universe is.”
That’s the appeal. According to science writer, Amr Aczel, atheists have latched on the idea of a multiverse. If millions and millions of universes came into existence. It wouldn’t be unusual that one of them would be suitable for life.
And here we are.
Cosmologist Bernard Carr said it best: ”If you don’t want God, you’d better have a multiverse.”
Translation: That’s the only out we’ve got.
And they’re in trouble. Because despite the multiverse’s popularity at the bookstore and the box office, there isn’t a shred of evidence of their existence. Or any reason to think that any of the four supposed spheres of evidence will ever yield any up. The inflationary model doesn’t even try but just posits a really, really big universe if and when inflation stops.
The many worlds model is nothing more than a thought experiment and has no evidence to support it all. And it’s a very big jump from some preliminary observations of the quantum world—which nobody really understands to a bzillion alternate universes.
With or without Cheerios.
String theory is a theory based on nothing but math, with no evidence at all to support it. And the anthropic principal (i.e, if mutiple universes exist, then the one that seems designed for human life probably isn’t that special) is an appeal to statistics that fall short.
“In an infinite universe, there is no such thing as fiction.” Meaning in an infinite universe, anything that can happen will happen. An infinite amount of times.
Ultimately, observed scientist Amir Aczel, there is absolutely no way in which we can validate the existence of these phantom universes in the real world.
And it would seems that multiple universes popping into existence demands a creator much more powerful and omnipotent than the one originally proposed.
Or maybe its just me.
The fool says in his heart there is no God.