 |
|
Argument
Re: Can Science Prove God?
A Iqbal
E Mail : [email protected]
Mr Zaman should refrain from discussing things he doesn�t understand.
L et me explain a few things from the point of view of a
professional theoretical physicist at a rather decent university.
- The universe is very fine-tuned. Consider the moduli space
of possible universes. Only a set of measure zero is compatible with life.
Most will collapse immediately after they are born, or expand so fast that
they will be empty and no stars and life will form. From this point of
view, the appearance of life is the great cosmic jackpot.
We are either here because of a miraculous accident with a probability
of something like 10^{-10^a} = 0 where a is very large, or we are here by
design, So take your pick.. I think most normal people not biased against
religion find the design argument more plausible.
- To deal with this people have come up things like the anthropic
principle: our universe is the way it is because if it were not, we
wouldn�t be around to ask the question. For example, in hawking�s open
inflation scenerio (his latest quantum cosmology effort (1999)) he has to
resort to the anthropic principle, because the instanton giving rise to
our universe (highest probability universe) is empty � there is no
structure formation, life, etc. Hence, he has to introduce a bias, and his
probability measure is then artificially weighted to produce an acceptable
universe.
- Causality is very much respected in the universe. The example Mr. Zaman
is thinking of is pair production. Pair production is not an acausal
process. It is true that things can pop out of the vacuum. But one must
either apply a very strong field, or raise the system to very high
energies such that energy = the rest mass of the particle and
anti-particle.
Also, one cannot directly measure things such virtual particles because
of Heisenberg�s uncertainty principle. Such pair produced particles are
internal lines in the Feynman diagrams of the processes and cannot be
measured. Clearly then, the necessity for proper external conditions means
that pair production is not acausal.
- The statement about a million monkeys randomly typing out bethoven or
Shakespeare is clearly false. Just calculate the probability. It is
something like 10^{-10000), which is basically zero.
- The chaotic inflation scenario, whereby universes pop out of the vacuum
does not address the fine-tuning problem, because the number of universes
produced that way is likely to be countable, which is a set of measure
zero. Mr Zaman is improperly trying to apply the ergodic theorem here.
The moduli space of universes is not the phase space of a classical
particle. Furthermore, the chaotic universe scenario is problematic because
it relies on Planck scale physics (inflaton phi > m_{Planck}), and is not
compatible with his effective gravity theory. Everybody knows about these
problems, but Linde (the originator of the theory) still persists.
If I have time I will write a few more things later. But please understand
the nature of people like Mr. Zaman. They are imposters and very unscrupulous.
They will try to fool you by using misunderstood physics and mathematics to
persuade you to believe that there is no God. Shame on dishonest people like
Mr. Zaman.
Assalamu alaykum
A. Iqbal
Rebuttal of this article
|
|
|
