Science Explains Why the Universe Exists

first_imgThey’ve done it again – those clever scientists have figured out why the universe exists.  What would we ever do without them?  Michael Bolen at Yahoo News had to share the good news, “Scientists discover explanation for why the Universe exists.” explained it as a victory in an ancient contest: “Why We Exist: Matter Wins Battle Over Antimatter.”  We should be tickled at the news, like one scientist Bolen quoted: “‘Many of us felt goose bumps when we saw the result,’ said Stefan Soldner-Rembold, a physicist at the University of Manchester in the United Kingdom.”  Never say scientists are a dull lot.    Theory predicts that equal amounts of matter and antimatter should have been produced in the big bang.  Trouble is, they annihilate each other.  Mix them up, and poof – nothing remains but energy racing out in all directions, with no hope for planets and people.  Cosmologists have long hoped to find some mechanism for asymmetry – a little leftover of one or the other to make up a universe of matter (or antimatter; whichever you decide to call it, it doesn’t matter).  The latest attempts looked for asymmetry in collisions at the Tevatron and Large Hadron Colliders in Illinois and CERN, respectively.  They think they found it.  Thus the goose bumps.  But to explain it, they had to deviate from the Standard Model a little.  That might make the Standard Model a bit non-standard, if that matters.     Adrian Cho in Science was not prepared to diagnose goose bumps.1  They might just be zits, he suggested: “the marginal result could be a fluke, and theorists say it’s difficult to explain why the effect is so big in this study and so small in earlier work on related particles.”  A look into the Cho’s article reveals a good deal of interpretation of statistical data that is so theory-laden it is hard to know where observation ends and theory begins.  Not only that, the results will need further testing.  Only if one accepts the theory that “a B meson can decay into an easily spotted particle called a muon, whereas an anti�B meson decays into an antimuon,” can one call this a success.  In the experiment, two-muon events outnumbered two-antimuon events by only 1%.  The experimenters claimed that this bias is 40 times larger than what the Standard Model predicts.  That seems an extremely flimsy occasion for goose bumps, or for headlines that scientists have discovered an explanation for why the universe exists.    Like David Berlinski wrote in his 2009 essay, “The State of the Matter” (The Deniable Darwin and Other Essays, Discovery Institute, 2009, p. 525), “Although a very great achievement, the Standard Model proved in some respects unsatisfying.  No physicist has ever suggested otherwise…. If there were questions that the Standard Model did not answer, physicists assumed, this indicated only that the Standard Model was a work in process and so a work in progress.”  A moving standard is not really a standard, is it?1.  Adrian Cho, “Hints of Greater Matter-Antimatter Asymmetry Challenge Theorists,” Science, 28 May 2010: Vol. 328. no. 5982, p. 1087, DOI: 10.1126/science.328.5982.1087-a.What the physicists should be saying is that the asymmetry of matter over antimatter is another of many finely-tuned parameters of our universe that makes life possible.  It is one of dozens of cosmological factors that shouts intelligent design.  Instead of getting goose bumps over that, they deny it, and prefer to get goose bumps over their own pride at every suggestion, no matter how trivial and feeble, that they might be making some progress in their own bottom-up explanation programme.  The Standard Model, this godless mind game with a bit of expensive atom-smashing thrown in, needs 24 elementary particles, 4 forces (some of which they have managed to combine since the 1970s), an unknown number of quantum fields, various symmetries, some of them broken, and various numbers of unobservable dimensions, depending on whose Kaluza-Klein theory one prefers.  But none of them know what to do with gravity.  It shouldn’t be called the Standard Model; it should be called the Standard Ignorance.  It has spawned various non-standard ignorances since, such as String Theory and the Landscape (multiverse theory), which are all united under the over-arching materialist Paradigm of Ignorance (Pig) known as the Stuff Happens Law.  In a perverse sort of way, therefore, materialists can claim their world view is law-governed (09/15/2008 commentary), and therefore scientific – even Baconian.    David Berlinski’s essay The State of the Matter is a suitable climax to his devilishly delightful set of essays mentioned above.  He is no creationist, Christian, or intelligent design proponent, for that matter; we do not endorse him for those reasons.  But all the more, those reasons demonstrate that criticism of Darwinism and secular materialism is not exclusively the domain of Christians and creationists.  Furthermore, Berlinski is both a well-read, worldly scholar (particularly in mathematical physics) and a wordsmith of the first order, making it a delight to read his tactful demolitions of the secular empire.  He is particularly adept at exposing the scientific pretensions of fools.  To whet your appetite, we end with his conclusion to The State of the Matter, an excellent survey of the rise and fall of 20th century material physics:What implications in all this for the grand narrative of our times?  Where do the arrows of explanation in the end point?    The plain truth—no trivial thing, of course—is that no one knows. It is odd and remarkable that in the face of theories that have proven inconclusive such as string theory, physicists that they must at once change the standards by which their theories are judged.  When it is not possible to argue the facts, lawyers quite understand, then it is necessary to argue the law.  In this the physicists have unwittingly drawn close to doctrines that previously they had rejected as frivolous.  But neither physicists disposed radically to change the law, nor physicists disposed radically to reject the change, have made arguments that have persuaded the other side.  And if they cannot persuade one another, surely it is unreasonable for either side to expect that they have persuaded us.The full force of those lines, to be appreciated, needs to have the momentum of all that preceded it—the bizarre ruminations that led up to the Standard Model, string theory, and the multiverse hypothesis.  The godless have been forced into absurdity by the realities of the universe as it is.  “If we are not disposed to escape the Landscape, Leonard Susskind has warned, we shall be ‘hard pressed’ to answer critics prepared to welcome theories of intelligent design.”(Visited 38 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0last_img

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *