God's Existence Is Proven by Several Mathematical Theorems within Standard Physics

Faith & Science Conversation
, , , ,
5

The wave-function does not collapse. I never stated nor implied such a thing–indeed, quite the opposite.

Concerning the accelerating expansion of the universe: during life’s advancement throughout the universe, baryon annihilation (via the inverse of electroweak baryogenesis using electroweak quantum tunneling, which is allowed in the Standard Model of particle physics, as baryon number minus lepton number [B - L] is conserved) is used for life’s energy requirements and for rocket propulsion for interstellar travel. In the process, the annihilation of baryons forces the Higgs field toward its absolute vacuum, thereby cancelling the positive cosmological constant and forcing the universe to collapse. For details, see:

Regarding the criticisms of physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler’s Omega Point cosmology:

To date the only peer-reviewed paper in a physics journal that has criticized Prof. Tipler’s Omega Point cosmology has been in 1994 by physicists Ellis and Dr. David Coule (see G. F. R. Ellis and D. H. Coule, “Life at the end of the universe?”, General Relativity and Gravitation, Vol. 26, No. 7 [July 1994], pp. 731-739). In the paper, Ellis and Coule unwittingly gave an argument that the Bekenstein Bound violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics if the universe collapses without having event horizons eliminated. Yet in order to bring about the Omega Point, event horizons must be eliminated, and Tipler cites this paper in favor of the fact that the known laws of physics require the Omega Point to exist.

In his review (see Lawrence Krauss, “More dangerous than nonsense”, New Scientist, Vol. 194, No. 2603 [May 12, 2007], p. 53) of Prof. Tipler’s book The Physics of Christianity (New York: Doubleday, 2007), Prof. Lawrence M. Krauss repeatedly commits the logical fallacy of bare assertion. Krauss gives no indication that he followed up on the endnotes in the book The Physics of Christianity and actually read Tipler’s physics journal papers. All that Krauss is going off of in said review is Tipler’s mostly nontechnical popular-audience book The Physics of Christianity without researching Tipler’s technical papers in the physics journals. Krauss’s review offers no actual lines of reasoning for Krauss’s pronouncements. His readership is simply expected to imbibe what Krauss proclaims, even though it’s clear that Krauss is merely critiquing a popular-audience book which does not attempt to present the rigorous technical details.

Ironically, Krauss has actually published a paper that greatly helped to strengthen Tipler’s Omega Point cosmology. Some have suggested that the current acceleration of the universe’s expansion due to the positive cosmological constant would appear to obviate the Omega Point. However, Profs. Krauss and Michael S. Turner point out that “there is no set of cosmological observations we can perform that will unambiguously allow us to determine what the ultimate destiny of the Universe will be.” (See Lawrence M. Krauss and Michael S. Turner, “Geometry and Destiny”, General Relativity and Gravitation, Vol. 31, No. 10 [Oct. 1999], pp. 1453-1459.)

As pointed out with Ellis and Coule’s criticism, this isn’t the first time that this ironic outcome has befallen critics of Tipler’s Omega Point cosmology. So when Tipler’s critics actually do real physics instead of issuing bare assertions and nihil ad rem cavils, they end up making Tipler’s case stronger. Ironic though it is, nevertheless that’s the expected result, since the Omega Point cosmology is required by the known laws of physics.

Concerning Martin Gardner’s review of Profs. John D. Barrow and Tipler’s book The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986), notice that Martin Gardner never states any error on Tipler’s part within said review. However, I do find the below exchange between Tipler and Gardner to be quite telling; it transpired from Gardner’s aforesaid review of Barrow and Tipler’s book. Note Gardner’s two-word reply to Tipler.