Multiverse Theory Debunked Using Scientific Method.

[night912]

Denial is not science. There is no multiverse experiment because there is no multiverse to work with.

OTOH, the Bible tells us that God created only one universe and this experiment backs it up. It's the scientific method and is observable and verifiable.

Good example you have there. So you are in denial that there is no evidence that god created one universe, therefore there's no science at work here.

 

[Milton Platt]

People who like quantum mechanics should get a kick out of this.

We have an experiment now that shows that multiverses cannot exist. The many worlds theory that a majority of scientists believe today is just illusion. It only exists when the quantum particles are measured (observed) and consciousness does not have to be present.

To put it in terms of the Shrodinger's Cat thought experiment, we cannot have the cat existing in two states at the same time or superposition. This is nature. It is either alive or dead when we observe it.

How this was shown was in 2011 when two scientists. Shan Yu and Danko Nikolic of the Max Planck Institute, Johann Wolfgang Goethe University, in their paper Annalen der Physik, showed that consciousness was not necessary and only measurement. It means through scientific measurement that the reality of one state or another exists in the natural world. For example, with Shrodinger's cat, it can either be dead or alive, but can't be both at the same time. That is just an illusion even though we can map the illusion with light particles. As per the double slit experiment, the reality exists when it is measured. What we see is just the potential probablities when things are not measured.

There is nothing here that supports your contention about multiverses. However, there is also nothing here which supports your god assertions. Since you are so enamored of the scientific method, please provide the science that has demonstrated a god exists and we can then proceed from there.

 

[gnostic]

First off, JB:

Multiverse Theory Debunked Using Scientific Method

Multiverse isn’t a “Scientific Theory” because it has not met all 3 essential criteria or requirements of being accepted as “Scientific Theory”:

1. Falsifiability
2. Scientific Method
3. Peer Review

It must pass the 1st requirement - Falsifiability - before it can even can even be tested through Scientific Method. Multiverse hasn’t.

People who don’t know or haven’t studied science, often misunderstood Falsifiability.

To be a hypothesis or scientific theory, the explanation must be “falsifiable”.

Another name for falsifiable is “testable”, “refutable”, meaning the explanation must have the potential of being tested, hence the explanation must include -

• HOW one would propose to find the evidence
• or HOW one would proceed to perform experimentation.

This is essential to both HYPOTHESIS and especially to SCIENTIFIC THEORY, and either one of both, is what qualified explanation to being “hypothesis” or “scientific theory”.

Do not confuse “testable” (falsifiable) with being “tested”.

Being testable only mean you have proposed a way or ways to test the explanation.

On the other hand, “being tested”, is one of the steps of Scientific Method, and is where the real hard work begins, either finding evidence or performing experiments, or ideally both.

Here is where scientist or group of scientists are actively testing the model of explanation. Testing involved some sorts of observations, which would either verify the hypothesis or scientific theory being true, or refute the hypothesis or scientific theory.

The more evidence you have or the experiments you have performed, then it is possible to determine and conclude if the hypothesis is true or false.

If you have evidence that backed up the hypothesis, then it the next step of turning a hypothesis into scientific theory, would be submitting your hypothesis along with your data from the test results. Independent scientists in that field or related field will review and analyze the explanations and the test results, to determine if the data/test results have objectively tested, as well as determining if there are any errors.

If it passed the reviews, the peers will either reach consensus that it met all 3 requirements to qualify as being scientific theory...or some other scientists might have better explanations backed up by more conclusive evidence.

It is possible to have 2 or more scientists working on the problems but having approach the problems in different angles, thereby providing different explanations and reaching different conclusions.

But it is also problem, both scientists have reached the same conclusion, but one is better at explaining the solution or provided better evidence to back up his hypothesis.

For instance, in the mid-19th century, Charles Darwin wasn’t the only one proposing Natural Selection. Another naturalist named Alfred Russel Wallace was also investigating evolution, but it was Darwin who got published first.

In the 1920s, 3 physicists have independently proposed the same hypothesis the expanding universe model, which was later called the Big Bang model in 1949:

1. Alexander Friedmann (1922)
2. Howard Percy Robertson (1924-25)
3. Georges Lemaître (1927)

Most people viewed Lemaître as father of the Big Bang theory, but when actual facts, all 3 were pioneers of BB.

Competing against the BB cosmology was Albert Einstein with Static Universe model and James Jean with the earliest Steady State model.

(Note that the Steady State model wasn’t a popular hypothesis until it was revised jointly by Hermann Bondi, Thomas Gold and Fred Hoyle in 1948-49.

And around the same time in 1948, George Gamow a former student Friedmann, worked with Ralph Alpher and Robert Herman, that expanded the Big Bang model, introducing the Primeval Nucleosynthesis or the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN) and the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR).)

Anyway, the Multiverse model isn’t a scientific theory because it has never been tested and reviewed, and doesn’t even qualified as hypothesis, because it untestable, and therefore it is currently unfalsifiable.

The reason why Multiverse haven’t died, is because the solution it offered is provable - MATHEMATICALLY. The maths in Multiverse showed that it mathematically feasible, but experimentally untestable.

That’s what keeping Multiverse alive. Multiverse is a theoretical model - and it is a proposed explanation to cosmology, but it hasn’t been accepted as science, because it is untestable.

Scientists are free to support or not support Multiverse model, but at this stage, it isn’t scientific theory.

 

[Polymath257]

First off, JB:


Multiverse isn’t a “Scientific Theory” because it has not met all 3 essential criteria or requirements of being accepted as “Scientific Theory”:

1. Falsifiability
2. Scientific Method
3. Peer Review

It must pass the 1st requirement - Falsifiability - before it can even can even be tested through Scientific Method. Multiverse hasn’t.

While correct in many ways, there is a point where multiverse descriptions *can* be testable.

As you pointed out later, muliverse descriptions work mathematically. More importantly, though, they come about naturally when attempts are made to unify quantum mechanics and general relativity.

And, while the multiverse aspect itself may not be testable, the quantum gravity theories may well be. And if the quantum gravity theories that are testable involve a multiverse of some sort, that lends support to the multiverse description as long as the testable aspects pass the tests and there is no simpler theory that does the same.

The point is that mutiverse descriptions seldom stand on their own, even as hypotheses. The multiverse aspect tends to be a natural *result* of the application of the quantum gravity theory. And if that underlying theory is testable, that is good enough to do science.

It is common for scientific theories to have aspects that are not testable. For example, the wave function in Schrodinger's formulation of quantum mechanics isn't directly measurable. We can use the mathematics of that wave function to make testable predictions, but we cannot actually test the wave function itself. We always have some sort of 'observable operator' acting on it for any measurement.

 

[tas8831]

In terms of creation science

Scientific method disproved creation theory. Make that, scientific method disproved creation assertion.

 

[shunyadragon]

Denial is not science. There is no multiverse experiment because there is no multiverse to work with. Stephen Hawking was investigating the past light from the big bang to see if he could find evidence to back up a multiverse, but didn't find anything.

OTOH, the Bible tells us that God created only one universe and this experiment backs it up. It's the scientific method and is observable and verifiable.

The scientist who first came up with the many worlds hypothesis is Hugh Everett III. I lol'd when they put his picture up as I did not know who came up with the crazy hypothesis of how multiple universes could be created based on someone observing whether the photon went through the left slit or right slit. If you do the wave-particle experiment with large objects such as tennis balls then it always goes through one slit or another as particle. This duality of wave or particle only happens when someone watches photons or light partcles whether it went through the left or right slit. Everett was criticized when he came up with his interpretation, but Ervin Shrodinger gave credence to it with his Shrodinger's cat though experiment in 1935. Eventually, modern theoretical physicists thought this is what happens in the real world when they studied and updated quantum mechanics -- that many worlds or multiverses are formed from the double slit experiment or one reality is created when we observe or make decisions.

Except the wave collapses even if some mechanical or electronic device measures which slit the particle went through. It means that no conscious observer has to be present and as long as the particle is measured then the wave collapses. This is the only thing we can observe as existing in our universe. The wave is a probability and illusion that it exists in nature.

This was so troubling to Stephen Hawking that he wrote a paper on it before his death. He even said that he didn't put much stock in multiverses, but this is what he was working on before his death. A smart guy like him and he was wrong.

All of what have cited is unfortunate dishonest selective speculation based on an anti-science ageneda. Nothing you have cited is based on objective verifiable evidence.

You would have to provide a positive falsifiable hypothesis that the Multiverse does not exist, and you have failed to do that.