Sunday, August 1, 2010

Frank Tipler's God of the Multiverse: Part II

This second part of my exposition of the ideas in Profesor Frank Tipler's The Physics of Christianity has been a long time in the incubation, I realize. It is a topic which requires prodigious concentration, a commodity which for me has been in infrequent supply, for various outside reasons. But the book is important, in my view, and its ideas deserve a much wider audience. Herewith, then, is the next installment -- and for continuity's sake, because of the scope of the ideas involved, you probably should review the first installment before proceeding.

At the heart of Professor Tipler's thesis is the conviction that the three fundamental theories of present-day physics -- quantum mechanics, general relativity, and the Standard Model -- are each proven and true, because of the vast quantity of experimental data which backs up each of them. As he states at the outset of his second chapter (p. 6):
Modern physics is based on three fundamental theories: quantum mechanics, general relativity, and the Standard Model of particle physics. In the popular press -- and even in many technical physics journals -- one will find much discussion of other theories, for example, inflation cosmology, superstring theory, and M-theory. Ignore these other theories. They have no experimental support whatsoever. In contrast, quantum mechanics, general relativity, and the Standard Model have enormous support from experiment. All three theories have made predictions again and again over many decades, predictions that are completely counterintuitive to scientists and the average person, and all of these counter-to-common-sense predictions have been confirmed by experiment. A scientist, if he wishes to remain a scientist, must accept the results of experiment, and nothing but the results of experiment.
In Prof. Tipler's view, modern searches for Grand Unification Theories (GUTs), the Theory of Everything -- whatever science calls its Holy Grail for the moment -- are chases after a will-o'-the-wisp. The three theories which science has extensively tested, and which have survived every test thus far to which they have been put, are entitled to an assumption that they are correct, and no further explanations are needed.

What, then, is the problem? Why are scientists unwilling to accept fully the implications of the three tried-and-true great theories which evolved over the last century? Listen to Professor Tipler, once again, in his own words (p. 47):
One of the implications of the laws of physics, an implication that most physicists find philosophically and religiously repugnant, is a necessary consequence of the [well-documented] expansion of the universe: it began a finite time ago . . . in a singularity, where the laws of physics themselves do not apply. The laws of physics do not apply at a singularity because, as the initial singularity is approached from inside space and time, physical quantities such as the density of material go to infinity. The laws of physics, however, can govern only the behavior of finite quantities. In the words of the great cosmologist Sir Fred Hoyle (1915-2001), "The problem with a singularity is that not only do the known laws of physics not apply there, no possible laws of physics can apply there." Hoyle is completely correct; no possible laws of physics can control a singularity. Modern physicists hate the idea that something real could be beyond the power of the laws of physics. . . .
Research among the views of modern physicists bears out the truth of Prof. Tipler's observation. They will go to any length to justify the "origin of the universe" in a "random vacuum fluctuation", which they describe as "simply one of those things that happen from time to time." (E. P. Tryon, "Is the Universe a Vacuum Fluctuation?" Nature 246, at 396 [1973].) According to this account of Sten Odenwald (notice, as you read it, all the weasel-words, such as "perhaps", "and so on", "random", "as yet unknown", etc.):
This proposal by Tryon was regarded with some scepticism and even amusement by astronomers, and was not pursued much further. . . .

In 1978, R. Brout, P. Englert, E. Gunzig and P. Spindel at the University of Brussels, proposed that the fluctuation that led to the creation of our universe started out in an empty, flat, 4-dimensional spacetime. The fluctuation in space began weakly, creating perhaps a single matter- antimatter pair of supermassive particles with masses of 10^19 GeV. The existence of this 'first pair' stimulated the creation from the vacuum of more particle-antiparticle pairs which stimulated the production of still others and so on. Space became highly curved and exploded, disgorging all of the superparticles which later decayed into the familiar leptons, quarks and photons.

Heinz Pagels and David Atkatz at Rockefeller University in 1981 proposed that the triggering agent behind the Creation Event was a tunneling phenomenon of the vacuum from a higher-energy state to a lower energy state. Unlike the Brout-Englert-Gunzig-Spindel model which started from a flat spacetime, Pagels and Atkatz took the complementary approach that the original nothingness from which the universe emerged was a spatially closed, compact empty space, in other words, it had a geometry like the 2-D surface of a sphere, but the dimensionality of its surface was much higher than 2. Again this space contained no matter whatsoever. The characteristics (as yet unknown) of the tunneling process determined, perhaps in a random way, how the dimensionality of spacetime would 'crystallize' into the 6+4 combination that represents the plenum of our universe.

Alex Vilenkin at Tufts University proposed in 1983 that our spacetime was created out of a 'nothingness' so complete that even its dimensionality was undefined. In 1984, Stephen Hawking at Cambridge and James Hartle at UCSB came to a similar conclusion through a series of quantum mechanical calculations. They described the geometric state of the universe in terms of a wave function which specified the probability for spacetime to have one of an infinite number of possible geometries. A major problem with the ordinary Big Bang theory was that the universe emerged from a state where space and time vanished and the density of the universe became infinite; a state called the Singularity. Hawking and Hartle were able to show that this Big Bang singularity represented a specific kind of geometry which would become smeared-out in spacetime due to quantum indeterminacy. The universe seemed to emerge from a non-singular state of 'nothingness' similar to the undefined state proposed by Vilenkin. The physicist Frank Wilczyk expresses this remarkable situation the best by saying that, "The reason that there is Something rather than Nothing is that Nothing is unstable."
And despite all the refinements since 1984 -- inflation theory, dark matter, dark energy, the (revived) cosmological constant -- physics today is no further along in being able to explain how something came out of nothing to make the universe that we inhabit. Its best explanation remains that "Nothing is unstable -- therefore Something had to happen."

Even such an indirect explanation of origins, however, cannot hide the mathematical fact of what Stephen Hawking and James Hartle proved in 1984: the universe as we know it originated in a singularity -- an instant for which there is no known explanation according to the laws of physics, because the laws of physics -- of any conceivable kind whatsoever -- simply have no application to a singularity.

Frank Tipler's answer to this conundrum is: "Get over it -- accept the singularity which all of our mathematics and physics are showing us actually happened. The theories are correct, and are verified by mountains of data. Instead of rejecting the theory and scrambling around to find one or more hypothetical alternatives, for which there is zero experimental support, be a real scientist and work with the data which the world has given you." For him, the singularity at the creation of the universe symbolizes something much bigger than the numerical infinities it invokes. As he lays out the physics, and summarizes the laws that cannot be violated, that singularity at the very beginning, plus a concomitant singularity at the end of the universe as he projects it, and a third singularity which connects those two singularities throughout all space and time, over multiple universes, constitute the Trinity of the Christian religion.

Now do you see why his theories are so controversial, and why he has been shunned by his colleagues? Let me continue with the exposition of his claims.

Apart from the initial singularity at the beginning of the universe, Prof. Tipler's next most controversial point is the conclusion that to be consistent with itself and the Standard Model, quantum mechanics requires that there be not just one, but many, many universes -- in point of fact, one for every quantum state in which a universe of our given size (and number of elementary particles) could be. The collection of all such universes is what he calls a multiverse. Its existence was first postulated by graduate student Hugh Everett in 1957, as a means of explaining the strange paradoxes of quantum mechanics.

Perhaps you are already familiar with some of those paradoxes, involving the passage of electrons or photons through barriers which result in a scattering, or interference pattern, that according to common sense would be impossible. (For a tongue-in-cheek overview of quantum paradoxes, see this article.) In his second chapter, Prof. Tipler revives a very descriptive explanation, originally given by Werner Heisenberg in 1930, of how phenomena such as light can behave as both waves and particles at the same time. As transformed by Tipler, the explanation posits a straight plane wave of water, running in infinite length from north to south, traveling from east to west, and encountering an equally infinite array of pillars or columns, each ten meters apart. On the top of each column is a form of "detector", initially colored red, which changes to blue if a wave sweeps over it. Looking down on the array from above, one would initially see a regular grid of red dots in the ocean.

Heisenberg in 1930 proved mathematically that there would have to be at least one row of pillars in the array which would be topped by the wave. The result would be a straight line of blue dots, moving from east to west, amid the red grid. In other words, the motion of the wave through the array would appear to the observer above exactly like the track of a particle!

What Heisenberg could not show was whether more than just one row of pillars would be topped by a wave that was sufficient to top at least one of them, even though common sense would say that there must be other such rows. And according to Tipler, the explanation lies in the phenomenon of superposition, which is the hallmark of a multiverse: in fact, every row in the array is topped by the wave, but our human bodies are limited to perceiving just the array which is in the particular universe which they inhabit. In the multiverse, each of us has a physical analogue -- a duplicate, down to the smallest quantum detail, of ourselves in each and every other universe -- which perceives the row in that universe to be overlapped by the wave, and so on and so forth, throughout each of the rows in the vast array we have posited. As Prof. Tipler explains (pp. 13-14):
Everett pointed out that we are also subject to Schrödinger's equation, which means that we are also both particles and waves. Our wave function is subject to superposition, just as the wave functions of electrons and water molecules are. So if we really want to determine what we will actually observe, we have to take into account our quantum mechanical nature also. We can't just suppose the electrons and collections of atoms obey Schrödinger's equation and we don't. After all, we are nothing but large collections of atoms and electrons.

The key idea is to apply superposition not only to electrons and atoms but also to us. . . .

Now Everett noticed the crucial point: we can determine what would happen to the entire array by linear superposition of all the rows of columns. If we superpose, we find necessarily that all are overlapped (or triggered). But we don't see them all overlapped or triggered because our sensory apparatuses are designed to see only one! . . . Nevertheless, quantum mechanics says these other lines of triggered columns are present in reality. And they are seen. They are seen by analogues of ourselves in parallel universes.
And now, Professor Tipler delivers the punch line (p. 14):
This conclusion is termed the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. However, interpretation is a misnomer, because it is the only interpretation of quantum mechanics. As Everett emphasized, the many worlds, which is to say, the other universes with analogues of ourselves, must necessarily exist if linear superposition applies not only to electrons and atoms and collections of atoms -- and innumerable experiments show that it does -- but also to those particular collections of atoms called human beings. We are no exception: the physical laws apply to everything.

As the quotations with which I began this chapter [from Stephen Hawking, Murray Gell-Mann, Steven Weinberg, Anthony Leggett, Philip Anderson, Richard Feynman, and Leon Lederman -- all winners of the Nobel Prize in physics] show, even Nobel Prize-winning physicists have trouble accepting the many-universes implication of quantum mechanics, or, more precisely, the linear superposition property of quantum mechanics. But make no mistake: if quantum mechanics is true, the many universes necessarily exist. The mathematics of quantum mechanics gives no alternative. . . .
The multiverse, then, is a fact of reality, required by the only theory of the microcosmos which has been tested and borne out in literally thousands and thousands of experiments. At the same time, there is zero experimental evidence for such notions as inflation, M-theory, or strings -- all of which, in one way or another, are born out of a desperate attempt to evade having to deal with the singularity at the heart of the Big Bang.

There is much more to cover, but I will do so in additional installments. I find it easier to take Frank Tipler in smaller morsels.










8 comments:

  1. I would suggest Morgan Freeman's THROGH THE WORMHOLE series on the Science Channel. It is aimed at the non-technical viewer, and covers many of the issues which Frank Tippler discusses. It provides a good balance for his very eccentric views which are at variance with the true state of research, especially in the last decade or so.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Frank Tipler, a once great physicist, has become a crackpot. But rather than comment on Tipler's physics (something which very few persons are qualified to do) allow me to say something about his theology. Hugh Ross, the Christian physicist who runs Reasons to Believe says the following about Tipler,

    "With [their "final anthropic principle"], the life that exists (past, present, and future) will continue to evolve with the inanimate resources of the universe until it all reaches a state that Barrow and Tipler call the “Omega Point”. This Omega Point, they say, is an Entity that has the properties of omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience, with the capacity to create in the past. In other words, the Creator-God does not exist yet, but we (all life and all inanimate structures in the universe) are gradually evolving into God. When God is thus finally constructed, His power will be such that He can create the entire universe with all of its characteristics of design billions of years ago."

    In other words, we are going to evolve into the creator God that will eventually go back in time and create the universe. Besides being a tautology, this is also heresy.

    I would recommend Hugh Ross' book "The Creator and the Cosmos" for further reading.

    -Michael Berkeley, M.D.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Dear A.S.,

    Thanks for coming back and reviving this series. I don't understand everything, but the portions I do are immensely fascinating.

    Quick takes:

    (1) "the conviction that the three fundamental theories of present-day physics -- quantum mechanics, general relativity, and the Standard Model -- are each proven and true, because of the vast quantity of experimental data which backs up each of them."

    It's certainly a reasonable conviction to me. My potential concern is a misadaptation of this to push a liberal agenda founded on the "pluriform nature of truth" and moral relativism.

    (2) "modern searches for Grand Unification Theories (GUTs), the Theory of Everything -- whatever science calls its Holy Grail for the moment -- are chases after a will-o'-the-wisp."

    Stop chasing! The Grand Unification Theory is Jesus!

    "Modern physicists hate the idea that something real could be beyond the power of the laws of physics."

    Some/many of them do. But if one were to compare ratios between the biologists and the physicists, I speculate that biologists are more atheistic than physicists because of their allegiance to Darwinian macro-evolution.

    (3) "the mathematical fact of what Stephen Hawking and James Hartle proved in 1984: the universe as we know it originated in a singularity -- an instant for which there is no known explanation according to the laws of physics, because the laws of physics -- of any conceivable kind whatsoever -- simply have no application to a singularity."

    More physicists should read Sherlock Holmes. If I recall correctly, Sherlock was tutoring Watson and informing him that after you eliminate all the wrong explanations, whatever you have left must be the right explanation.

    If Science and Scientism can't explain singularities, then God. Abandon the false idol of Science and the secular religion of Scientism, repent of Scientism, and worship Jesus.

    And this is what Tipler has done!! God bless Frank Tipler!

    (4) "But make no mistake: if quantum mechanics is true, the many universes necessarily exist. The mathematics of quantum mechanics gives no alternative. . . .The multiverse, then, is a fact of reality, required by the only theory of the microcosmos which has been tested and borne out in literally thousands and thousands of experiments."

    I'm waiting to see what's next. For whatever reason, "many universes" explanation is kind of a scary, sci-fi concept to me, filling me with some measure of trepidation.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I just wrote a lengthy comment, and it may have gotten eaten up.

    Oh well. Maybe you'll receive it in another universe. For this universe, you'll just have to see me write:

    "GREAT POST!!! Much thanks for reviving this series!"

    ReplyDelete
  5. Tregonsee, you are correct that Tipler's views are viewed as eccentric and at variance with the current state of research, "especially in the last decade or so." When he published his The Physics of Immortality in 1994, he parted ways philosophically with many of his colleagues. Since then, his insistence that the three gold standards of quantum mechanics, general relativity and the Standard Model are completely sufficient to explain what we know of the universe has earned him no points among the searchers after GUTs, inflation theorists and string theorists. But I gather he regards that as a badge of honor, rather than any form of valid criticism.

    Michael Berkeley, I hope you will continue to read this series as I lay out Tipler's physics as well as his theology. If you do, I think you will come to see that Hugh Ross's portrayal of the latter is not entirely correct. Under Tipler's physics, God does not come into existence at the Omega Point, or is not only then "fully constructed." (It is impossible to increase infinity by adding anything finite to it.) The Omega Point is outside time itself, and does not "evolve" with time.

    TU&D, as you can see, the cyberspace did not "eat" your first terrific comment. All that happened is that I was at church, and could not moderate comments until I was back home.

    ReplyDelete
  6. We should keep in mind the view of the Universe/Multiverse as described by Einstein's equations in general relativity.

    Time is but one of the four axes, or dimensions, of "space/time", which is a fixed, completely deterministic description of the universe/multiverse.

    Time does not move -- rather, the perception of the forward movement of time is an artifact of our self-awareness. Each and every frame, or sub-universe, of the multiverse is, from the initial singularity ("Alpha" point) to the final singularity ("Omega" point) fixed and immutable.

    The Omega point *is*, just as the Alpha point *is*. To speak of "God evolving" is a misstatement rooted in our internal, subjective view of the universe/multiverse with its illusion of time changing from past to future.

    I also recommend "The Fabric of Reality" by David Deutsch as a seminal book for understanding the full implications of the MWI of quantum mechanics.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Ain Soph - the unknowable unknown > Ain Soph Ur - 'Nothing-ness!
    A'In > The abyss > 'vacuum energy' positron/electron anahillation > creation of (the illusion of) 'time' and 'space' from the 'manic -depressive boredness of {god - slightly embarrasing, that} - is 'God' such a vain narcissistic ponce that 'he/she/it' has to 'create' space and time in order to get attention..?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Thanks for the discussion about Dr. Tipler's Omega Point theory! I had the good fortunate to attend a debate between Dr. Tipler and Dr. Lawrence Krauss, one of the leading figures in the work on the inflationary universe and a gifted popular science writer and speaker, at CalTech in 2007. The DVD of the debate is here if you care to purchase it. Participating in the Q&A session was a great thrill, despite my frustration with the uninformed and, in my opinion, unfair (Dr. Tipler is a physicist, not a theologian) nature of most of the questions.

    Thanks again for the great work!

    ReplyDelete