Versing Into Multiverse

Louis XIV was a famous mass butcher of people he insulted as “heretics“, a great destroyer of Europe, let alone France. A direct descendant of Louis XIV, the “king” of Spain, has just abdicated, so that his son can also become plutocrat-in-chief (Rey, Roy, King, Koenig).

People love to follow. The Spanish herd, in a further act of humiliation, is supposed to bleat its approval. When the dying king of Spain named the grandson of Louis XIV king of Spain, the fanatical Guillaume of Orange from the Netherlands, who had just conquered England, according to his plan of attack of Louis XIV, had a pretext to organize a world coalition against France-Spain.

The resulting folly, the “War of the Spanish Succession” killed millions over 13 years.

Minds Are Multiverses. Yet, That's It.

Minds Are Multiverses. Yet, That’s It.

[Versing into multiverses that are too far away, implies versing into folly.]

The mania of crowds is a great thing to watch. In the Middle Ages, those viewed as the wisest and most knowledgeable pondered the number of angels on a pin. Their modern alter egos, are much more advanced; instead of wondering about how many angels, they answer: an infinity of universes. What could go wrong?

Alexi Helligar, a participant on this site kindly provided is with a video of a celebrity physicist from Harvard, talking at Oxford. Thank.

The video disappeared for a while! Here it is:

It looks like physics, just as climate science financed by the Koch brothers looks like science. Alexi told me I was “naive” to believe that there was any conspiracy involved. Yet that was after telling me that the celebrity physicist was a genius of our time. He is, thanks to a conspiracy. For short, we call him “the Celebrity”.

The Celebrity is financed to the tune of several million dollars by one hedge fund plutocrat. That’s while true science is starving in the USA.

But of course the Celebrity, now a fabricated genius, is, by his very existence, a testimony to the glory of the hedge fund “industry”. Expect him to sing its praises. His very behavior breathes the self assurance of a hedge-fund manager. Maybe Wall Street ought to be give him a Nobel, as he did nothing but talk pretty, just as Obama.

You see, physics has several entangled problems.

The Big Bang theory needs “Cosmic Inflation” and inflation of space happening at a speed I call “TAU”, around ten billion times the speed of light.


Because the Universe is just way too big, to be the result of just the Big bang without Inflation.

However, Inflation theory, as it stands, creates universes all over the place.

Why? Because the Inflation scenario, as envisioned, arises from Quantum fluctuations, and creates a universe without energy expenditure. If it can create one universe that way, it can create zillions.

So how come we see just one universe, the Universe? Inflationistas tells us that we have to be somewhere.

Yes, sure. But then it turns out, in this universe full of universes, that a universe with us is exceedingly rare. Universes with “zombie brains” would be more likely.

It’s all, of course, sheer insanity. And it’s easy to spot: just as inflationistas which kind of particles existed during Inflation. Well, they didn’t even think about it.

Recently, some of those space fantasy authors suggested that one needed an “observer” to have particles, ergo, there were now particles during inflation, only Inflatons (the excitation of the Inflation filed, neither of which have been observed).

Presto, no more zombie brains! That “breakthrough” was applauded in Harvard, MIT and Oxford. At least it makes comic reading.

Arkani-Hamed, to name the Celebrity, has been saying  for a decade, that the Large Hadron Collider compels us to believe that the small value of the Higgs mass (in Planck units) indicates “fine-tuning” that can only have an anthropocentric explanation.

In that case, we live in a multiverse, with physics determined by something like the string theory landscape. About this whole conceptual framework, he says the “ideas are so poorly defined, not clear if they make any kind of mathematical sense”, and it’s “not clear progress will happen anytime soon” but, no need to worry or get discouraged, since this is an “attractive problem”. (David Gross, a physics Nobel called that “giving up”).

Philosophically, to expect that man gives rise to the universe is beyond absurd. Instead of believing that there is a god creating the universe, now it’s man who is god, and creates the universe. That the problem originated with Niels Bohr and company is no excuse.

It’s the angel-on-a-pin absurdity again, made worse, once again. Those people don’t even have the excuse of living in the Middle Ages.

This clash between self-assurance and completely fishy ideas, is giving physics a bad name.

As I have explained in “100 billion years old Universe”, the Big Bang is not needed anymore: Dark Energy can do it all. The entire expansion, that is.

Dark Energy is serious physics, based on facts, not wishful fantasy. It was guessed way back, from carefully going through the experimental and logical evidence (I. Segal, etc.). Similarly for Dark Matter. Today’s physics explain neither. Standard high energy theorists were busy denying either were worthy of interest.

However, today’s new, experimental, evidential physics present potential explanations for other aspects that only the Big Bang was supposed to explain.

In particular, Black Holes in the center of galaxies generate huge amount of localized energy: as matter falls into them, it heats up enormously. I suggested this would prevent serious life to arise in the center of galaxies.

Could that be used to generate elements such as Helium? We don’t know.

But that deserves to be studied. That’s serious physics.

When there is so much to do, “extrapolations on top of extrapolations on top of extrapolations”, as the Celebrity physicist himself recognizes, is certainly a way to invent new physics. But, when it is presented as what physics say the world is, it’s no way to impress the fragile minds of some members of the public, who can’t tell an equation from a degeneration. To forcefully present to the public deranged fantasy as if it were physics, is just encouraged the gullibility of crowds, and the madness of the herd (no wonder hedge funds managers fund that to give critique a new foundation!).

Meanwhile, stand reassured, you who attach worth to sanity: there is just one universe out there. It’s much bigger, much older than Celebrity physicists have it. And it is NOT girl watching that creates it. To believe that human gaze creates all, is just a collective Freudian slip of thousands of physicists who cannot really believe that the Universe makes sense, as their PhD theses surely do not.

Patrice Aymé

Tags: , , , , , , ,

29 Responses to “Versing Into Multiverse”

  1. Ian Miller Says:

    One thing I have never understood is about the need for cosmic inflation. We look back to a point where we can see no further. Before this, they say we need cosmic inflation to account for the size then, but surely more time would do the same thing? Why are they so sure the beginning was when they say it was?


  2. Alexi Says:

    You misunderstand me. I don’t think you are naive to question the funding of Mr. Akani-Hamed’s reseach. I think you are being paranoid (being a fraidy-cat). When it comes to the science it is there for all to see. If plutocrats have some sinister agenda, they are wasting their money. The equations tell the story and it is up to us to follow our noses. In his paper on the “Amplituhedron”, Mr. Akani-Hamed has contributed significantly to our understanding of physics. His celebrity is well-earned.

    You happen to turn your nose up at the Multiverse because it does not serve your vision of how History works. The Multiverse makes history less real and you who so powerfully speaks from history’s pulpit do not want theory to undermine the foundation upon which your pulpit stands. Fine. The Universe does not have to make you or I, or the Pope or anyone else happy in how it works.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      1) Equations are nothing. Ideas are everything. For example, how do you explain Gauss’ theorem with an equation? Well, you don’t. You explain the terms involved. Same for the Riemann Hypothesis (Deligne proved it under some conditions).

      2) The Quantum has equations, but the ideas behind are the difficulty. Take Feynman diagrams: after all, they are drawings about a power series. Or maybe more. Feynman did not know. Nor do I, nor does anyone.

      3) My Multiverse critique is extremely multidimensional. One could call it Multiversal. I have been studying this subject decades before he became popular, and talked with a few of the people, at the time, that were interested by it. There were just a handful. Including some of the most famous historical physicist (even RF, one of the rare to be interested at the time).

      4) None of A-H BSM (that’s a double inside joke) physics ever worked, but like with Obama, he got his giant prize.

      Anyway you did not answer any of my precise arguments.


      • Alexi Says:

        So far your critique of the Multiverse (and infinity) are incomprehensible to me, and I am trying to understand. Maybe it’s me but I suspect it might not be.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Plutocrats have been very efficient at sabotaging popular understanding of the science of climate, at least in the USA. In general as Krugman just admitted, they hate all of science. Because they fear reason. If one can reason about evolution, one can reason about taxes, tobacco, gun control, taxes, fracking, the fractional reserve system, dark pools, shadow banking, the politico-financial system, etc.

      The Mutiversists are obviously mad. They make fun of reason. They say: “Man created galaxies by just looking at them!”. They say: “the Multiverse is run over by zombie brains!”. And they are reassured. The plutocrats see this folly, and they are delighted. So they fund the Big bangers and Mutiversists to the max, in the hope those worthies will teach contempt for reason.

      Indeed for each reason, there is an infinity of universes not having it.

      I don’t believe history is fully deterministic, BTW. Never had, never will, even when it’s been made.


  3. Patrice Ayme Says:

    Andrei Linde is an (ex-Soviet) grand priest of the Multiverse at Stanford. He created and believes in, the most aggressive type of Cosmic Inflation.

    In a recent talk (link soon) he complained about the popular and textbook coverage of inflation. He said that when journalists call and ask him what BICEP2 will tell us about Grand Unification, he responds “nothing”. At the end of the talk, Sean Carroll asked him about the Multiverse. Linde’s answer emphasized what a great thing it is to have a theory that can’t be disproved:

    “If you cannot disprove it, then you have this powerful weapon of thinking about and explaining things around you in an anthropic way.”


    • Alexi Says:

      Philosophy always precedes, proof. It took years before Einstein’s theory that gravity should bend light to be proven. This idea is so regular that in physics that it could have its own Law.


      • Patrice Ayme Says:

        Alexi: Somehow your answer did not come up in my administrative system (*!). Weird. Anyway, Einstein (debating everyday with Hilbert!!!) finished his theory of gravitation in 1916 (3 weeks before Hilbert’s variational approach).

        Eddington checked the bending of light in the predicted amount in the south Atlantic the year after, or so. The deviation was twice the one predicted by pure Newtonian theory, because time slows down next to sun (so there is more time for deviating).

        Explaining the universe anthropocentrically, as Linde does, is not acceptable to me.


  4. Patrice Ayme Says:

    I explain Hubble’s Law (he was not the only one, but the one who could confirm best, having the world’s most powerful telescope). With Dark Energy. Something that is observed. Inflation and inflatons are just extrapolation from extrapolations from extrapolations as A-H puts it (correctly).

    Then the Hubble Law becomes just a linear extrapolation of a much older exponential mechanism.

    The present over-complicated theory has a slow-down, now transiting into an acceleration (and we are just at the junction… Another “fine tuning” miracle from the 5 year olds at the playground).


  5. Cory Francis Says:

    PA:”The universe out there is much bigger, much older than Celebrity physicists have it. And it is NOT girl watching that creates it.”

    Cory Francis: I often wonder that with universes colliding and stars being reborn. I think one day they will say its 25 billion years old!


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      I went for at least 100 billion years, so everybody can relax…


      • Dominique Deux Says:

        Well it worked, I really feel better now.


        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          You are welcome. That Big Bang only 13 billion years old made me nervous. For example the rocky planet with the mass of Neptune just discovered (15 times Earth), orbits a star twice older than the Sun. It makes me shiver to think the universe would be barely older…
          BTW I fired a broadside against USA/Wall Street “justice”. Let’s hope they sink in contempt. The WSJ had censored me.


  6. Paul Handover Says:

    I genuinely wish I better understood all of this!


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      “Versing into Multiverse” is an allusion to “Versing into Folly”. Folly is hard to understand, because it is, first, lived.

      The origin of the Multiverse, the “Many World Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics” is nearly impossible to understand, because one needs to be research level in BOTH philosophy and FOUNDATIONS of Physics. Having a good handle on research mathematics also necessary. The problem is extremely technical, and people having a deficiency in one of the three fields have made a hash of things.

      One problem I have is that the folly is so advanced that Chris Snuggs like people are going to get exasperated, and throw the baby out with the bath, as Chris already wants to do with CERN.

      Another is that it has misdirected the research effort in foundations, denying activity in the most promising areas. For example Dark Matter and Dark Energy came from astronomy, not physics. Thus physicists have developed only the 4%.


  7. The Quantum Puzzle | Patrice Ayme's Thoughts Says:

    […] have long suggested that the answer to this question was negative, and smirked at physicists sitting billions of universes on a pinhead, as if they had nothing better to do, the children they are. (Just as their Christian predecessors […]


What do you think? Please join the debate! The simplest questions are often the deepest!

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: