How ‘Singularity’ Has Lead To Science Fiction

The mass of the earth and other planets create gravity, we have enough energy such as rocket technology to escape it’s pull. In 1783, British scientist John Michell came up with an idea of a “dark star” which had enough gravity that even light couldn’t escape. Einstein came up theory about gravity not being a force at all, but rather a “bending” of space and time.

This inference being drawn here are about black holes, which are a real phenomena. It’s here where secular scientists are letting their imaginations run wild. No, not about black holes, but what has become known as the multiverse theory.

Within a black hole there is a point where it is believed that physical laws cease to exist. This is known as “singularity.”  The limitations of modern science says it’s unable to predict what will happen next because the theory of relativity cannot determine what effect singularity will have on an object, forming an uncertainty in our universe. This uncertainty has been used for a lot of imagination such as describing it as some kind of portal.

The focus surrounding the imagination is Multiverse theory. The term “theory” is being used loosely here, it’s really an hypothesis. This theory states an existence of other Universes which have their own set of physical laws. Phys.org states it this way…

“A definitive answer is impossible, since we have no way of directly studying other universes. But cosmologists speculate that a multitude of other universes exist, each with its own laws of physics. Recently physicists at MIT have shown that in theory, alternate universes could be quite congenial to life, even if their physical laws are very different from our own.”

“In work recently featured in a cover story in Scientific American, MIT physics professor Robert Jaffe, former MIT postdoc, Alejandro Jenkins, and recent MIT graduate Itamar Kimchi showed that universes quite different from ours still have elements similar to carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen, and could therefore evolve life forms quite similar to us. Even when the masses of the elementary particles are dramatically altered, life may find a way.”

While black holes provide an observable confirmation of Einstein’s theory of general relativity, Multi-universe theory is not testable nor is it able to be confirmed. The big bang theory can be more easily explained by another Universe supplying the goods for it to happen but wouldn’t explain how the first Universe began. Because as we know, something cannot be created out of nothing within the physical laws which is not how the big bang theory or Multi-Universe theory currently works.

So how does Multi-Universe theory explanations any different than flying sheep or a giant snake that is able to create  fire from it’s breath. Science fiction characters no doubt. Don’t tell me guys like physicist Alan Guth are acting scientifically because they are employing mathematics and laws of known physical quantities. One could also do that too with aerodynamics of flying sheep or energy snakes create through fire.

This may be fashionable but it’s not practicing real science. This is not to say one cannot be curious of the unknown such as the low entropy state of our universe or considering the state of the Universe if things were not finely tuned! We must also consider how privileged and blessed we are to enjoy life in such a world and universe!

Advertisements

15 thoughts on “How ‘Singularity’ Has Lead To Science Fiction

  1. I though science fiction already is an existing and florishing branch of literature, and did not need the multiverse hypothesis to spawn it ??

    More importantly, you assume the universe (or multiverse) needs to have a beginning. There is no actual need for a beginning. It could well be, but does not need to be !

  2. Interesting.

    The practice of distancing scientific theory from observable empircial data has a distinguished history in Naturalistic circles. The name of Darwin comes to mind. Then there’s the Big Bang, of ocurse. And Dark Matter. Multiverses is another on the list.

    If the data does not fit the theory, expand the theory with another theory, then another when that doesn’t add up either, etc etc. Et voila! Those of Naturalistic mind have another imaginative notion that must be called a fact!

  3. Dom: “If the data does not fit the theory, expand the theory with another theory, then another when that doesn’t add up either, etc etc. ”

    Almost right !! But normally you do not expand the theory with another theory, but adapt the theory if it does not match the data. That is how science works. A completely new theory is very rare indeed.

  4. Michael: “This is not to say one cannot be curious of the unknown such as the low entropy state of our universe….”

    In the previous post, Michael was warbling about evidence for creationism from new scientific results showing a higher entropy for the universe than had been previously estimated—

    “When we used the new data on the number and size of super-massive black holes, we found that the entropy of the observable universe is about 30 times larger than previous calculations,” said Mr Egan.” (Michael quotes Science Daily approvingly two days ago.)

    .

    This is another characteristic of creationism—the “nose of wax” effect. Its characteristics, attributes, and predictions can be bent in any direction, like Holmes’ nose of wax.

    And, when that doesn’t work, contrary facts are merely ignored, like Dom’s false claim as to Karl Popper’s opinion of Darwinian selection—he merely walked away from it when confronted with the truth. Silence.

    Is this because creationists, having no integrity to begin with, feel that they can’t lose any more? Or do they follow Luther’s dictum that “A small lie in the service of the Lord is no sin”? It has to be more than short memory, since they are able to remember and repeat past claims for decades, long after they have been refuted.

  5. Dom: “The practice of distancing scientific theory from observable empircial data has a distinguished history in Naturalistic circles.”

    Well. Dom is correct once more! A theory that extends only to observed data is not a theory at all. What would be the point of a theory that explains only those facts which we already observe, and nothing more? Even creationism can do that.

    A theory is like a jigsaw puzzle, but without a picture on the box. We assemble a few pieces (the observed data) into configuration that might look like part of a coherent pattern (hypothesis). Then we predict what some of the neighboring pieces might look like, given our tentative mental image. If more pieces fit (the predictions test out), we sketch in more of the pattern from knowledge of these additional pieces.

    More likely, the additional pieces will show an image somewhat different from our initial guess at the pattern. So we modify the theory, and either re-examine the pieces that didn’t fit before, or look for other pieces that will extend the theory in another direction.

    This process then iterates. Except that scientific theories are never finished. Fitting new pieces into a picture puzzle always extends the picture. (One difference from a picture puzzle: Think of a theory as also being able to increase the resolution of the pieces already in place, to show details that were not previously visible.)

    .

    I’ve said often enough that creationists seem unable to think like scientists. Here is yet another example. When confronted with terra incognita ahead of them, scientists speculate to what the picture on the box might look like. Some of the speculations seem outlandish.[1] Other scientists critique the speculations, try to determine their consequences, investigate how they would affect other theories, and winkle out possible predictions and tests for them.

    Creationists deride this speculation phase as weakness of science. As Michael claims, “This may be fashionable but it’s not practicing real science.”

    No, Michael. This is exactly what real science is all about. Perhaps this is why creationism has never produced anything of scientific value.

    ============

    [1] Like Dom’s paintings. Dom’s purpose is not to imitate a photograph. Think about what his real purpose is in creating surrealistic art. His, or Salvador Dali’s, or Vladimir Kush’s. To depict familiar objects in new ways, so as to reveal deeper meanings in them, and new connections among them. (For me, the most interesting form is where the surrealism is not immediately apparent, such as Dali’s “Portrait of Gala.”)

  6. Consistency ranks low on the priorities of creationism.

    Michael (Feb. 23): “While black holes provide an observable confirmation of Einstein’s theory of general relativity,….”

    Michael (Jan. 23): “This unobserved reality of ‘cold dark matter’ ….”

    Black holes cannot be “seen” (Michael’s definition of “observed”) or detected directly. We infer their presence solely from their gravitational attraction on the matter surrounding them, and gravitational lensing.

    Cold dark matter cannot be “seen” (Michael’s definition of “observed”) or detected directly. We infer its presence solely from its gravitational attraction on the matter surrounding it, and gravitational lensing.

    Yet Michael insists that black holes are observable, and cold dark matter is not.

    Michael hopes his readers will not be astute enough to notice these lapses of consistency, just because he himself cannot. Or that their need to believe will overwhelm their logical faculties.

  7. From time to time, I’ve presented Michael with easy questions to gauge his credibility to discuss the nature, content, and practice of science. Thus far, his cumulative score is ZERO. Here’s another one, direct from a TV commercial that was unfortunately not quite out of earshot.

    “People who switched their car insurance to Gxxxx from Axxxx saved an average of $xxx per year.”

    Michael, what can we conclude from this about the relative cost of car insurance from Gxxxx and Axxxx? You even get a hint this time: “selection bias.”

    Questions like this are important only in scientific endeavors. They have direct consequences for Michael’s pocketbook, and he ignores them at his peril.

  8. Last graf of previous comment should read:

    “Questions like this are important not only in scientific endeavors. They have direct consequences for Michael’s pocketbook, and he ignores them at his peril.

  9. @Upson Downes:

    I had not spotted that particular inconsistency (‘observed’ black holes and ‘unobserved’ dark matter) !

    Oh dear, Michael.

  10. Breaking news. We have a tsunami advisory. IF it arrives, it will be about 11:20 tomorrow morning (26 Feb), local time (UCT-1000). This is from the 8.8. earthquake off the west coast of Chile. Wait and see. At least we have a few hours warning.

  11. Well, we did have to evacuate, because we’re right on the shore. Ten-foot wave was predicted.

    But the tsunami had almost entirely dissipated by the time it arrived. Less than a foot of ebb & flow. So we had an enjoyable morning at a mountain golf course with friends and neighbors. The problem with prediction is that there is only a single telemetry buoy between us and Chile–everyone expects the bad ones to arrive from the other direction.

    Traffic was horrible, however; and gas stations were selling out by 5:00 in the morning.

  12. Sounds like a little bit of hysteria, over on Hawaii.

    Meanwhile, I hope that my friend and colleague astronomer who lives and works in Conception, Chile, is actually OK …

  13. Glad your friend was a safe distance away—like on a different continent. That is my preferred place for observing natural disasters.

    Was there any damage to the observatory?

  14. @Olorin:
    The observatories are fine: all three sites are north of Santiago, so very little damage.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s