For further reading on this and related material, see the Philos-Sophia Initiative website.
In this post, we shall conclude our review of Chapter 5. Some of the argument is very technical and we shall limit ourselves to giving readers a flavour of Dr Smith's reasoning.
Firstly, he lays to rest a widely held belief that E = mc² is essential to Einstein's relativity principle. It derives in point of fact from Maxwell's equations for electromagnetic fields (1865) and has no bearing on relativistic physics (as Einstein admitted in 1950). Smith then addresses the question of whether Einstein's theory is supported or controverted by empirical evidence. The discussion is admittedly quite technical. Readers sufficiently interested may study the empirical arguments against Einsteinian relativity that he derives from the Sagnac experiment (1913) and the way it is supported by the actual, rather than reported, practice of how the Global Positioning System (GPS) works.
Next, he describes how:
the effort to “marry” quantum theory with Einsteinian physics—which has been ongoing for a very long time, has enlisted a galaxy of brilliant physicists, and engendered some of the most dazzling examples of mathematical wizardry the world has ever seen—has failed abysmally to achieve its objective. And I vividly recall Michio Kaku, in a documentary film, The Principle,[1] stretching his arms wide and raising his voice as he informs us that relativity and quantum theory differ ultimately ''by one hundred twenty orders of magnitude!'' .... I regard it as yet another triumph of quantum physics that it has spurned the proffered union.The discussion then shifts to astrophysics, but here again, Einsteinian physics has ''not fared too well.''
The grand expectations, fueled by the mystique of a ''four-dimensional space-time'' in which moving rods contract, clocks slow down, and the continuum itself curves in unimaginable ways, have not materialized...The almost limitless ingenuity of mathematicians has been invoked to prop up the shaky structure. When, to give just one example, it turns out that there is not enough matter in the universe to produce gravitational fields strong enough for the formation of stars and galaxies, there are mathematical geniuses with a flair for particle physics who can make up the difference with something termed “dark matter.” This illustrates a strategy for keeping a scientific theory alive by means of ad hoc postulates, assumptions ''picked out of thin air'' for that very purpose. This technique has long served as a mainstay of Darwinist biology, even after the fatal blows suffered by the discovery of DNA and Dembski's work on Complex Specified Information.
Smith concludes his chapter with two ''hammer blows'' to the received, scientific weltanschaung :
- recent discoveries in connection with the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB); and
- the fine tuning necessary for human life on earth.
CMB
The CMB is regarded by theorists as a picture of the universe some 300,000 years after the so-called Big Bang. NASA's COBE (1989), WMAP (2001) and PLANCK (2009) satellites were initially sent out to find proof of evidence of the Big Bang by measuring the cosmic microwave background (CMB) as a uniform energy fallout across space.
Data from the COBE satellite had suggested the existence of a pattern or ''axis'' in the CMB, spreading alarm among astrophysicists who came to describe it as ''the axis of evil'', because it undermined the very notion of the Big Bang. Such a cosmology hinges upon the so-called Copernican Principle, which stipulates that the cosmos is perfectly homogeneous when viewed on a sufficiently large scale. Besides exemplifying the Einsteinian denial of “design” to perfection, this Principle also proves indispensable to relativistic cosmology on technical grounds: for unless one postulates global symmetries which epitomize the very ''design'' Einsteinians are pledged to deny, it constitutes the one and only condition under which the pertinent field equations can actually be solved for the cosmos at large.
In the hope of putting these fears to rest, another satellite, named PLANCK, specially equipped with the latest instruments—and lavishly protected against all conceivable ''extraneous'' radiation which might cause a non-existent axis to emerge—was put into orbit in 2009. When the Planck results came in, the dreaded axis was still there, plain as day—as if drawn by the Finger of God. As Smith wryly notes,
Yet there is more to the story: for it happens that the plane defined by that circular axis coincides with the ecliptic of our solar system; and for Einsteinians this constitutes indeed a worst-case scenario: for what was supposed to be an accidental “speck” within a galaxy—which itself is supposedly but an accidental speck in a universe bereft of order, bereft of design—this ''accidental speck within an accidental speck'' turns out to define the global structure of the universe! At the risk of sounding anthropomorphic, I surmise “the Old One” may have smiled when he traced that axis.
Fine tuning and the ''multiverse''
In the last section of this chapter, Smith reminds the reader of the so-called argument deriving from 'fine tuning' in the universe. By the middle of the last century, atomic physics and molecular biology had arrived at the conclusion that the existence of man on Earth appeared ''so vastly improbable as to be, in effect, miraculous.''
Smith explains that the central mystery resides in the fact that an exceedingly fine balance of the four fundamental fundamental forces known to physics is needed to render organic molecules stable enough to exist, which means that the basic constants of physics need be almost “infinitesimally” close to their given values. The default, almost dogmatic modern assumption is in favour of some form of evolution to explain life on earth. But how, Smith asks, could such a thing as the fine-structure constant, for example—a numerical constant of physics which happens to be 7.2973531 x 10-3, failing which “we” would not exist—how could that constant have conceivably “evolved”? Following the lead of Stephen Hawking, a considerable portion of the scientific elite have opted for an infinite ensemble of possible universes, termed the “multi-verse,” as the ultimate solution to the riddle posed by the existence of our world.
Smith's last paragraph comes full circle back to the title of the chapter: The War on Design:
Now, all this is of course perfectly insane, and brings home the lengths to which scientists of repute are willing to go in this ongoing ''war against design.'' One cannot but ask oneself: whence comes this deep-rooted aversion—this profound animosity, one is tempted to say—to the very conception of God?
To be continued.
[1] "The Principle" is the title of a film, released in 2014. It brings to light new scientific observations challenging the Copernican Principle. The film brings before the public eye astonishing results from recent large-scale surveys of our Universe which disclose surprising evidence of a preferred direction in the cosmos, aligned with our supposedly insignificant Earth. The film explores from all sides the question of Earth’s station in the universe and whether it could, in fact, have a unique importance.”
“The Principle” features narration by Kate Mulgrew (“Star Trek Voyager”, “Orange Is The New Black”, and “Ryan’s Hope”), stunning animations by BUF Compagnie Paris (“Life of Pi”, “Thor”), and commentary from the most prominent scientists of our time, including George Ellis, Michio Kaku, Julian Barbour, Lawrence Krauss, and Max Tegmark.
Director: Katheryne Thomas; Writer: Rick DeLano
No comments:
Post a Comment