God Proven by Known Laws of Physics and Theory of Everything

[Jamie Michelle]

Why the Acceptance of the Known Laws of Physics Requires Acceptance of the Omega Point Theory

based on articles by Prof. Frank J. Tipler; see:

F. J. Tipler, "The structure of the world from pure numbers," Reports on Progress in Physics, Vol. 68, No. 4 (April 2005), pp. 897-964. http://math.tulane.edu/~tipler/theoryofeverything.pdf Also released as "Feynman-Weinberg Quantum Gravity and the Extended Standard Model as a Theory of Everything," arXiv:0704.3276, April 24, 2007. http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.3276

Frank J. Tipler, "Intelligent life in cosmology," International Journal of Astrobiology, Vol. 2, Issue 2 (April 2003), pp. 141-148. http://geocities.com/theophysics/tipler-intelligent-life-in-cosmology.pdf Also at arXiv:0704.0058, March 31, 2007. http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.0058

Frank Tipler, "The Omega Point and Christianity," Gamma, Vol. 10, No. 2 (April 2003), pp. 14-23. http://geocities.com/theophysics/tipler-omega-point-and-christianity.html

----------

Astrophysical black holes (i.e., trapped surfaces) almost certainly exist, but Hawking [1] and Wald [2] have shown that if black holes are allowed to exist for unlimited proper time, then they will completely evaporate, and a fundamental quantum law called "unitarity" will be violated. Unitarity, which roughly says that probability must be conserved, thus requires that the universe must cease to exist after finite proper time, which implies that the universe is closed and has the spatial topology of a 3-sphere [3]. The Second Law of Thermodynamics says the amount of entropy--the amount of disorder--in the universe cannot decrease, but Ellis and Coule [4] and Tipler [5] have shown that the amount of entropy already in the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) will eventually contradict the Bekenstein Bound near the final singularity unless there are no event horizons, since in the presence of horizons the Bekenstein Bound implies the universal entropy S is less than or equal that constant (i.e., the Bekenstein Bound) times the radius of the universe squared, and general relativity requires the radius of the universe to go to zero at the final singularity. If there are no horizons then the gravitational shear energy due to the collapse of the universe itself will increase to infinity much faster than the radius of the universe going to zero at the final singularity [5,6]. The absence of event horizons by definition means that the universe's future c-boundary (causal boundary) is a single point [7], call it the Omega Point. MacCallum [8] has shown that a 3-sphere closed universe with a single point future c-boundary is of measure zero in initial data space (i.e., infinitely improbable acting only under blind and dead forces). Barrow [9,10], Cornish and Levin [11] and Motter [12] have shown that the evolution of a 3-sphere closed universe into its final singularity is chaotic. Yorke et al. [13,14] have shown that a chaotic physical system is likely to evolve into a measure zero state if and only if its control parameters are intelligently manipulated. Thus life (which near the final state, is really collectively intelligent computers) almost certainly must be present arbitrarily close to the final singularity in order for the known laws of physics to be mutually consistent at all times. Misner [15,16,17] has shown in effect that event horizon elimination requires an infinite number of distinct manipulations, so an infinite amount of information must be processed between now and the final singularity. The amount of information stored at any time diverges to infinity as the Omega Point is approached, since the total entropy of the universe (i.e., S) diverges to infinity there, implying divergence of the complexity of the system that must be understood to be controlled.

During life's expansion throughout the universe, baryon annihilation (via the inverse of electroweak baryogenesis using electroweak quantum tunneling) is used for life's energy requirements and for interstellar travel. In the process, the annililation of baryons forces the Higgs field toward its absolute vacuum, thereby cancelling the positive cosmological constant and forcing the universe to collapse [6,18].

References:

[1] S. W. Hawking, "Breakdown of predictability in gravitational collapse," Physical Review D, Vol. 14, Issue 10 (November 1976), pp. 2460-2473.
[2] Robert M. Wald, Quantum Field Theory in Curved Spacetime and Black Hole Thermodynamics (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994), ISBN 0226870251, Section 7.3, pp. 182-185.
[3] John D. Barrow, Gregory J. Galloway and Frank J. Tipler, "The closed-universe recollapse conjecture," Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol. 223 (December 1986), pp. 835-844. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986MNRAS.223..835B
[4] 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.
[5] Frank J. Tipler, The Physics of Immortality: Modern Cosmology, God and the Resurrection of the Dead (New York: Doubleday, 1994), ISBN 0198519494, Appendix C: "The Bekenstein Bound," pg. 410. Said Appendix is reproduced in Frank J. Tipler, "Genesis: How the Universe Began According to Standard Model Particle Physics," arXiv:astro-ph/0111520, November 28, 2001, Section 2: "Apparent Inconsistences in the Physical Laws in the Early Universe," Subsection a: "Bekenstein Bound Inconsistent with Second Law of Thermodynamics." http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0111520
[6] Frank J. Tipler, "Intelligent life in cosmology," International Journal of Astrobiology, Vol. 2, Issue 2 (April 2003), pp. 141-148. http://geocities.com/theophysics/tipler-intelligent-life-in-cosmology.pdf Also at arXiv:0704.0058, March 31, 2007. http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.0058
[7] S. W. Hawking and G. F. R. Ellis, The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time (London: Cambridge University Press, 1973), ISBN 0521200164, pp. 217-221.
[8] Malcolm A. H. MacCallum, "On the mixmaster universe problem," Nature--Physical Science, Vol. 230 (March 1971), pp. 112-3.
[9] John D. Barrow, "Chaotic behaviour in general relativity," Physics Reports, Vol. 85, Issue 1 (May 1982), pp. 1-49.
[10] John D. Barrow and Janna Levin, "Chaos in the Einstein-Yang-Mills Equations," Physical Review Letters, Vol. 80, Issue 4 (January 1998), pp. 656-659. Also at arXiv:gr-qc/9706065, June 20, 1997. http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9706065
[11] Neil J. Cornish and Janna J. Levin, "Mixmaster universe: A chaotic Farey tale," Physical Review D, Vol. 55, Issue 12 (June 1997), pp. 7489-7510. Also at arXiv:gr-qc/9612066, December 30, 1996. http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9612066
[12] Adilson E. Motter, "Relativistic Chaos is Coordinate Invariant," Physical Review Letters, Vol. 91, Issue 23, Art. No. 231101 (December 2003), four pages. Also at arXiv:gr-qc/0305020, December 7, 2003. http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0305020
[13] Troy Shinbrot, Edward Ott, Celso Grebogi and James A. Yorke, "Using chaos to direct trajectories to targets," Physical Review Letters, Vol. 65, Issue 26 (December 1990), pp. 3215-3218.
[14] Troy Shinbrot, William Ditto, Celso Grebogi, Edward Ott, Mark Spano and James A. Yorke, "Using the sensitive dependence of chaos (the 'butterfly effect') to direct trajectories in an experimental chaotic system," Physical Review Letters, Vol. 68, Issue 19 (May 1992), pp. 2863-2866.
[15] Charles W. Misner, "The Isotropy of the Universe," Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 151 (February 1968), pp. 431-457. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1968ApJ...151..431M
[16] Charles W. Misner, "Quantum Cosmology. I," Physical Review, Vol. 186, Issue 5 (October 1969), pp. 1319-1327.
[17] Charles W. Misner, "Mixmaster Universe," Physical Review Letters, Vol. 22, Issue 20 (May 1969), pp. 1071-1074.
[18] F. J. Tipler, "The structure of the world from pure numbers," Reports on Progress in Physics, Vol. 68, No. 4 (April 2005), pp. 897-964, Section 11. "Solution to the cosmological constant problem: the universe and life in the far future." http://math.tulane.edu/~tipler/theoryofeverything.pdf Also released as "Feynman-Weinberg Quantum Gravity and the Extended Standard Model as a Theory of Everything," arXiv:0704.3276, April 24, 2007. http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.3276

########################################

To find out what physicists have found out about God, read about mathematical physicist Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point Theory (of which first appeared in book-form in The Anthropic Cosmological Principle [1986] co-written by leading astrophysicist Prof. John D. Barrow along with Tipler, and of which said book received almost universal praise by the science media) in the below short Wired article:

Frank J. Tipler, "From 2100 to the End of Time," Wired. http://geocities.com/theophysics/tipler-from-2100-to-the-end-of-time.html

The above article is the best short, popular-level introduction to the Omega Point Theory.

For more on the technical reasons why the known laws of physics require that the universe end in the Omega Point, see:

F. J. Tipler, "The structure of the world from pure numbers," Reports on Progress in Physics, Vol. 68, No. 4 (April 2005), pp. 897-964. http://math.tulane.edu/~tipler/theoryofeverything.pdf Also released as "Feynman-Weinberg Quantum Gravity and the Extended Standard Model as a Theory of Everything," arXiv:0704.3276, April 24, 2007. http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.3276

The above paper also demonstrates that the correct quantum gravity theory has existed since 1962, first discovered by Richard Feynman in that year, and independently discovered by Steven Weinberg and Bryce DeWitt, among others. But because these physicists were looking for equations with a finite number of terms (i.e., derivatives no higher than second order), they abandoned this qualitatively unique quantum gravity theory since in order for it to be consistent it requires an arbitrarily higher number of terms. Further, they didn't realize that this proper theory of quantum gravity is consistent only with a certain set of boundary conditions imposed (which includes the initial Big Bang, and the final Omega Point, cosmological singularities). The equations for this theory of quantum gravity are term-by-term finite, but the same mechanism that forces each term in the series to be finite also forces the entire series to be infinite (i.e., infinities that would otherwise occur in spacetime, consequently destabilizing it, are transferred to the cosmological singularities, thereby preventing the universe from immediately collapsing into nonexistence). As Tipler noted, "It is a fundamental mathematical fact that this [infinite series] is the best that we can do. ... This is somewhat analogous to Liouville's theorem in complex analysis, which says that all analytic functions other than constants have singularities either a finite distance from the origin of coordinates or at infinity."

When combined with the Standard Model, the result is a Theory of Everything (TOE) correctly describing and unifying all the forces in physics.

The leading quantum physicist in the world, Prof. David Deutsch (inventor of the quantum computer [being the first person to mathematically describe such a device and the first to formulate a specifically quantum computational algorithm], for which work he won the Institute of Physics' 1998 Paul Dirac Medal and Prize), defends Frank Tipler's Omega Point Theory in Chapter 14: "The Ends of the Universe" in his excellent book The Fabric of Reality, of which extracts from the chapter are available below with Frank Tipler's replies to it:

David Deutsch, extracts from Chapter 14: "The Ends of the Universe" of The Fabric of Reality: The Science of Parallel Universes--and Its Implications (London: Allen Lane The Penguin Press, 1997), ISBN 0713990619; with additional comments by Frank J. Tipler. http://geocities.com/theophysics/deutsch-ends-of-the-universe.html
http://www.math.tulane.edu/~tipler/physicist.html

########################################

Physics Books Featuring the Omega Point Theory

In Order from Newest to Oldest

Frank J. Tipler, The Physics of Christianity (New York: Doubleday, 2007), ISBN 0385514247. Chapter I and excerpt from Chapter II: http://www.randomhouse.com/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9780385514248&view=excerpt Chapter I also available here: http://www.math.tulane.edu/~tipler/Chapter_1._Introduction.doc

David Deutsch, The Fabric of Reality: The Science of Parallel Universes--and Its Implications (London: Allen Lane The Penguin Press, 1997), ISBN 0713990619. Extracts from Chapter 14: "The Ends of the Universe," with additional comments by Frank J. Tipler: http://geocities.com/theophysics/deutsch-ends-of-the-universe.html

Frank J. Tipler, The Physics of Immortality: Modern Cosmology, God and the Resurrection of the Dead (New York: Doubleday, 1994), ISBN 0198519494. 56-page excerpt: http://www.randomhouse.com/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9780385467995

John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler, Foreword by John A. Wheeler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986), ISBN 0198519494. Excerpt from Chapter 1: http://www.dhushara.com/book/quantcos/anth/anth.htm

########################################

Various Articles by Prof. Frank J. Tipler

A Non-Exhaustive List, in Order from Newest to Oldest

Below are search resources for finding physics articles by Prof. Frank J. Tipler:

Smithsonian/NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS) search for articles by Tipler: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-abs_connect?sim_query=YES&ned_query=YES&author=Tipler%2C+Frank&nr_to_return=800 University of Nottingham mirror search: http://ukads.nottingham.ac.uk/cgi-bin/nph-abs_connect?sim_query=YES&ned_query=YES&author=Tipler%2C+Frank&nr_to_return=800

arXiv.org search for articles by Tipler: http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/au:+Tipler/0/1/0/all/0/1?per_page=100 xxx.lanl.gov mirror search: http://xxx.lanl.gov/find/all/1/au:+Tipler/0/1/0/all/0/1?per_page=100

Google Scholar search: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?num=100&q=author:f-tipler

Below are links to various articles by Prof. Frank J. Tipler:

Frank Tipler, "Postmodern Physics: Colleges Fail to Teach Basics--Even in Physics!," Clarion Call (John William Pope Center for Higher Education Policy), May 16, 2007. http://www.popecenter.org/clarion_call/article.html?id=1843

Frank J. Tipler, "The Value/Fact Distinction: Coase's Theorem Unifies Normative and Positive Economics," Social Science Research Network (SSRN), January 15, 2007. http://ssrn.com/abstract=959855

Maurice J. Dupré and Frank J. Tipler, "The Cox Theorem: Unknowns And Plausible Value," arXiv:math/0611795, November 26, 2006. http://arxiv.org/abs/math/0611795
http://www.math.tulane.edu/~dupre/COX17.pdf

Frank J. Tipler, "What About Quantum Theory? Bayes and the Born Interpretation," arXiv:quant-ph/0611245, November 23, 2006. http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0611245

F. J. Tipler, "The Star of Bethlehem: a Type Ia/Ic Supernova in the Andromeda Galaxy," Observatory, Vol. 125 (June 2005), pp. 168-174. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005Obs...125..168T Also available here: http://math.tulane.edu/~tipler/starofbethlehem.pdf

F. J. Tipler, "The structure of the world from pure numbers," Reports on Progress in Physics, Vol. 68, No. 4 (April 2005), pp. 897-964. http://math.tulane.edu/~tipler/theoryofeverything.pdf See also here: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005RPPh...68..897T Also released as "Feynman-Weinberg Quantum Gravity and the Extended Standard Model as a Theory of Everything," arXiv:0704.3276, April 24, 2007. http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.3276

Frank Tipler, "The Omega Point and Christianity," Gamma, Vol. 10, No. 2 (April 2003), pp. 14-23. http://geocities.com/theophysics/tipler-omega-point-and-christianity.html Note that the foregoing version corrects character formatting errors of the versions available here: http://web.archive.org/web/20031113125255/http://home.worldonline.nl/~sttdc/tipler.htm
http://home.worldonline.nl/~sttdc/tipler.htm
http://home.tiscali.nl/~sttdc/tipler.htm For the version in Dutch, see "Het Punt Omega en het christendom," Gamma, Jrg. 10, Nr. 2 (April 2003), pp. 14-23. http://web.archive.org/web/20040205030349/http://home.worldonline.nl/~sttdc/jrg10_nr2_p1423.htm
http://home.tiscali.nl/~sttdc/jrg10_nr2_p1423.htm

Frank J. Tipler, "Intelligent life in cosmology," International Journal of Astrobiology, Vol. 2, Issue 2 (April 2003), pp. 141-148. http://geocities.com/theophysics/tipler-intelligent-life-in-cosmology.pdf Also available here: http://math.tulane.edu/~tipler/intelligentlife.pdf See also here: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003IJAsB...2..141T Also at arXiv:0704.0058, March 31, 2007. http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.0058

Frank J. Tipler, "Refereed Journals: Do They Insure Quality or Enforce Orthodoxy?," Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design (PCID), Vols. 2.1 and 2.2 (January-June 2003). http://www.iscid.org/papers/Tipler_PeerReview_070103.pdf
http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-10-t-000059.html
http://www.iscid.org/pcid/2003/2/1-2/tipler_refereed_journals.php
http://www.iscid.org/frank-tipler.php Also published as Chapter 7 in Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing, edited by William A. Dembski, Foreword by John Wilson (Wilmington, Delaware: ISI Books, 2004), ISBN 1932236309.

Giulio Prisco, "Interview with Frank J. Tipler," Transhumanity, November 2, 2002. http://www.transhumanism.org/index.php/th/more/312/
http://web.archive.org/web/20021124063944/http://transhumanism.com/2002/tipler0201.shtml

Frank J. Tipler, "Genesis: How the Universe Began According to Standard Model Particle Physics," arXiv:astro-ph/0111520, November 28, 2001. http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0111520 See also "Frank J. Tipler, Diagrams," Theophysics: http://geocities.com/theophysics/tipler-diagrams.html

Frank J. Tipler, "The Ultimate Future of the Universe, Black Hole Event Horizon Topologies, Holography, and the Value of the Cosmological Constant," arXiv:astro-ph/0104011, April 1, 2001. http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0104011 Published in Relativistic Astrophysics: 20th Texas Symposium, Austin, TX, 10-15 December 2000, edited by J. Craig Wheeler and Hugo Martel (Melville, N.Y.: American Institute of Physics, 2001), ISBN 0735400261 http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001AIPC..586.....W ; and in AIP Conference Proceedings, Vol. 586 (October 15, 2001), pp. 769-772. http://link.aip.org/link/?APCPCS/586/769/1

Frank J. Tipler, Jessica Graber, Matthew McGinley, Joshua Nichols-Barrer and Christopher Staecker, "Closed Universes With Black Holes But No Event Horizons As a Solution to the Black Hole Information Problem," arXiv:gr-qc/0003082, March 20, 2000. http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0003082 Published in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol. 379, Issue 2 (August 2007), pp. 629-640. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007MNRAS.379..629T

Frank J. Tipler, "Deus Ex Silico--A physicist explains why God is in the chips," Wired, Issue 8.01, January 2000. http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.01/god_pr.html
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.01/god.html

Frank J. Tipler, "From 2100 to the End of Time," Wired. http://geocities.com/theophysics/tipler-from-2100-to-the-end-of-time.html
http://www.math.tulane.edu/~tipler/wired.html

Rochelle M. Pereira, Craig C. Westerlandy and Frank J. Tipler, "Black Holes in Spherically Symmetric Dust-Filled Closed Universes," May 11, 1999. http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/308864.html
http://www.math.tulane.edu/~tipler/tipler/blackholes.pdf
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ApJ...511..546T

Frank J. Tipler, "How Far Out Must We Go to Get into the Hubble Flow?," Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 511, No. 2, Part 1 (February 1, 1999), pp. 546-549. http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/ApJ/journal/issues/ApJ/v511n2/38990/38990.web.pdf
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/ApJ/journal/contents/ApJ/v511n2.html
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ApJ...511..546T

Frank J. Tipler, "There Are No Limits To The Open Society," Critical Rationalist, Vol. 3, No. 2 (September 23, 1998). http://www.eeng.dcu.ie/~tkpw/tcr/volume-03/number-02/v03n02.html
http://www.eeng.dcu.ie/~tkpw/tcr/volume-03/index.html
http://geocities.com/theophysics/tipler-there-are-no-limits-to-the-open-society.html

Frank J. Tipler, "Does Quantum Nonlocality Exist? Bell's Theorem and the Many-Worlds Interpretation," arXiv:quant-ph/0003146, March 30, 2000. http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0003146 Previously released as "Quantum Nonlocality Does Not Exist: Bell's Theorem and the Many-Worlds Interpretation," February 13, 1998. http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/160930.html

Frank J. Tipler, "Newtonian cosmology revisited," Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol. 282, Issue 1 (September 1996), pp. 206-210. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996MNRAS.282..206T

Anthony Liversidge, "Frank Tipler--physicist--Interview," Omni, Vol. 17, Issue 1 (October 1994), pp. 89 ff. http://geocities.com/theophysics/tipler-omni-interview.html
http://web.archive.org/web/20050114180111/http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1430/is_n1_v17/ai_15831830/print
http://myweb.lmu.edu/tshanahan/HN-TiplerTXT.html

Frank J. Tipler, "Sophistry and illusion" (originally entitled "God in the Equations"), Nature, Vol. 369, No. 6477 (May 1994), pg. 198; a review of Kitty Ferguson, The Fire in the Equations: Science, Religion and the Search for God (London: Bantam Press, 1994). http://geocities.com/theophysics/tipler-sophistry-and-illusion.html
http://www.math.tulane.edu/~tipler/nature.god.gif
See also here: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994Natur.369..198T

Frank J. Tipler, "The ultimate fate of life in universes which undergo inflation," Physics Letters B, Vol. 286, Issues 1-2 (July 23, 1992), pp. 36-43. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992PhLB..286...36T

Frank Tipler, "Is it all in the mind?," Physics World, Vol. 2, No. 11 (November 1989), pp. 45-47; a review of Roger Penrose, The Emperor's New Mind: Concerning Computers, Minds, and the Laws of Physics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989). http://physicsworldarchive.iop.org/index.cfm?action=summary&doc=2%2F11%2Fphwv2i11a28%40pwa-xml

Frank J. Tipler, "The Omega Point as Eschaton: Answers to Pannenberg's Questions for Scientists," Zygon, Vol. 24, Issue 2 (June 1989), pp. 217-253. http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-9744.1989.tb01112.x

Frank J. Tipler, "More on Olbers's Paradox," Journal for the History of Astronomy, Vol. 19, Pt. 4 (November 1988), pp. 284-286; a review of Edward Harrison, Darkness at Night: A Riddle of the Universe (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1987). http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1988JHA....19..284H See also here, although note that this page links to a PDF file which is missing a page from the article: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1988JHA....19..284H

F. J. Tipler, "The Omega Point Theory: A Model for an Evolving God," in Physics, Philosophy and Theology: A Common Quest for Understanding, edited by Robert J. Russell, William R. Stoeger and George V. Coyne (State of the Vatican City: Vatican Observatory, 1988), ISBN 0268015767, pp. 313-331. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1988pptc.book.....R
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997pptc.book.....R

F. J. Tipler, "Johann Mädler's Resolution of Olbers' Paradox," Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol. 29, No. 3 (September 1988), pp. 313-325. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1988QJRAS..29..313T

Frank J. Tipler, "The Anthropic Principle: A Primer for Philosophers," PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Vol. 1988, Vol. Two: Symposia and Invited Papers (1988), pp. 27-48. http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0270-8647(1988)1988%3C27%3ATAPAPF%3E2.0.CO%3B2-L
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=11820660

Frank J. Tipler, "Olbers's Paradox, the Beginning of Creation, and Johann Mädler," Journal for the History of Astronomy, Vol. 19, Pt. 1 (February 1988), pp. 45-48. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1988JHA....19...45T

Frank J. Tipler, "Achieved spacetime infinity," Nature, Vol. 325, No. 6101 (January 15, 1987), pp. 201-202. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1987Natur.325..201T

John D. Barrow, Gregory J. Galloway and Frank J. Tipler, "The closed-universe recollapse conjecture," Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol. 223 (December 15, 1986), pp. 835-844. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986MNRAS.223..835B

Frank J. Tipler, reply by Martin Gardner, "THE FAP FLOP," New York Review of Books, Vol. 33, No. 19 (December 4, 1986). http://www.nybooks.com/articles/4946 In reply to Martin Gardner, "WAP, SAP, PAP, & FAP," New York Review of Books, Vol. 33, No. 8 (May 8, 1986). http://www.nybooks.com/articles/5121

Frank J. Tipler, "The Structure of the Classical Cosmological Singularity," Origin and Early History of the Universe; Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth Liege International Astrophysical Colloquium, Liege, Belgium, July 1-4, 1986 (A88-14376 03-90). Cointe-Ougree, Belgium, Universite de Liege, 1986, pp. 339-359; Discussion, pp. 360-361. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986LIACo..26..339T

Frank J. Tipler, "Cosmological Limits on Computation," International Journal of Theoretical Physics, Vol. 25, No. 6 (June 1986), pp. 617-661. (First paper on the Omega Point Theory.) http://www.springerlink.com/content/vlj3180664373268/

Frank J. Tipler, "Penrose diagrams for the Einstein, Eddington-Lemaitre, Eddington-Lemaitre-Bondi, and anti-de Sitter universes," Journal of Mathematical Physics, Vol. 27, Issue 2 (February 1986), pp. 559-561. http://link.aip.org/link/?JMAPAQ/27/559/1

John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler, "Closed universes: their future evolution and final state," Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol. 216 (September 15, 1985), pp. 395-402. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1985MNRAS.216..395B

Frank J. Tipler, "How to Construct a Falsifiable Theory in Which the Universe Came into Being Several Thousand Years Ago," PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Vol. 1984, Vol. Two: Symposia and Invited Papers (1984), pp. 873-902. http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0270-8647(1984)1984%3C873%3AHTCAFT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-3

Frank J. Tipler, Observatory, Vol. 103, No. 1055 (August 1983), pp. 221-222; a review of P. C. W. Davies, The Accidental Universe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982). http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983Obs...103..221D

Frank J. Tipler, "Anthropic-Principle Arguments Against Steady-State Cosmological Theories," Observatory, Vol. 102 (April 1982), pp. 36-39. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982Obs...102...36T

Frank J. Tipler, "Additional Remarks on Extraterrestrial Intelligence," Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol. 22 (September 1981), pp. 279-292. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1981QJRAS..22..279T

Frank J. Tipler, "A Brief History of the Extraterrestrial Intelligence Concept," Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol. 22 (June 1981), pp. 133-145. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1981QJRAS..22..133T

Frank J. Tipler, "Extraterrestrial Intelligent Beings do not Exist," Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol. 21 (September 1980), pp. 267-281. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1980QJRAS..21..267T

Frank J. Tipler, "Singularities in Universes with Negative Cosmological Constant," Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 209, Pt. 1 (October 1, 1976), pp. 12-15. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1976ApJ...209...12T

Frank Jennings Tipler, Causality Violation in General Relativity, Ph.D. thesis at the University of Maryland, College Park (1976). Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Vol. 37-06, Section B, pg. 2923. Also available as Dissertation 76-29,018 from Xerox University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, MI. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1976PhDT........61T

Frank J. Tipler, "Electromagnetic Radiation from Colliding Black Holes," Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 197, Pt. 1 (April 1, 1975), pp. 199-202. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1975ApJ...197..199T

Frank J. Tipler, "Rotating cylinders and the possibility of global causality violation," Physical Review D, Vol. 9, Issue 8 (April 1974), pp. 2203-2206. Available in GIF format here: http://www.vialattea.net/curvatura/articoli/t1.gif
http://www.vialattea.net/curvatura/articoli/t2.gif
http://www.vialattea.net/curvatura/articoli/t3.gif
http://www.vialattea.net/curvatura/articoli/t4.gif

[trish]

Seems to me we had this discussion before

http://www.hungangels.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=9503&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0


So here’s the current form of the argument. Black-hole evaporation is in conflict with the principle of unitarity. Therefore when the black-hole completely evaporates the universe will end. Therefore the universe is closed. Etc.
In point of fact general relativity and quantum field theory are mutually inconsistent. From an inconsistency one can prove anything. Therefore GR and QFT together prove the universe is open! If Tipler’s decade old argument were scientifically sound, it would be at the top priority research in every physics department across the world. Don’t get me wrong. Tipler has a fantastic mind and has done a lot of interesting work in GR. But his proof of god isn’t up to standards.

[ezed]

Any executive summaries of this thread?

[Jericho]

Any executive summaries of this thread?

God exists.
No he doesn't.

[hippifried]

I've entered a few black holes & came out unscathed. Once under the stars. Does that count as astrophysical? None of them evaporated by the way, butt my astro-gurl was definitely a god & I almost did.

[ezed]

Any executive summaries of this thread?

God exists.
No he doesn't.

Thanks, I'd have to agree then.

[Jamie Michelle]

Seems to me we had this discussion before

http://www.hungangels.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=9503&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0


So here’s the current form of the argument. Black-hole evaporation is in conflict with the principle of unitarity. Therefore when the black-hole completely evaporates the universe will end. Therefore the universe is closed. Etc.
In point of fact general relativity and quantum field theory are mutually inconsistent. From an inconsistency one can prove anything. Therefore GR and QFT together prove the universe is open! If Tipler’s decade old argument were scientifically sound, it would be at the top priority research in every physics department across the world. Don’t get me wrong. Tipler has a fantastic mind and has done a lot of interesting work in GR. But his proof of god isn’t up to standards.

The below paper demonstrates that there has existed a correct quantum gravity Theory of Everything (TOE) discovered by Richard Feynman in 1962, and independently discovered by Steven Weinberg and Bryce DeWitt, among others. But because these physicists were looking for equations with a finite number of terms, they abandoned this consistent and qualitatively unique quantum gravity theory. They also did not realize that the correct quantum gravity theory is consistent only if a certain set of boundary conditions are imposed (which includes the initial Big Bang, and the final Omega Point, cosmological singularities). This correct theory of quantum gravity is term-by-term finite, but the same mechanism that forces each term in the series to be finite also forces the entire series to be infinite (i.e., infinities that would otherwise occur in the laboratory are transfered to the cosmological singularities, hence making the universe and life within it possible). It is a fundamental mathematical fact that this infinite series is the best that can be done (somewhat analogous to Liouville's theorem in complex analysis, which says that all analytic functions other than constants have singularities either a finite distance from the origin of coordinates or at infinity).

F. J. Tipler, "The structure of the world from pure numbers," Reports on Progress in Physics, Vol. 68, No. 4 (April 2005), pp. 897-964. http://math.tulane.edu/~tipler/theoryofeverything.pdf Also released as "Feynman-Weinberg Quantum Gravity and the Extended Standard Model as a Theory of Everything," arXiv:0704.3276, April 24, 2007. http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.3276

[trish]

They also did not realize that the correct quantum gravity theory is consistent only if a certain set of boundary conditions are imposed (which includes the initial Big Bang, and the final Omega Point, cosmological singularities).

Now think about this. Quantum gravity (without the assumptions about the boundary conditions) is inconsistent. This means there is a valid derivation of 0=1 from the axioms of the theory. Now add some extra axioms (any boundary conditions you like). Since these new axioms never figured into the derivation of 0=1, that proof remains valid and the expanded theory is as inconsistent as the original. If a set of assumptions is mutually inconsistent adding more assumptions won’t help.

I don’t doubt there is a consistent formulation of quantum field theory and gravity that preserves (on the larger than Planck scales) the features most of would regard as characteristic of both. But identifying the future boundary into abstract mathematical point and calling it God has little to do with the gods most Earthling’s tend to worship.

[Jamie Michelle]

They also did not realize that the correct quantum gravity theory is consistent only if a certain set of boundary conditions are imposed (which includes the initial Big Bang, and the final Omega Point, cosmological singularities).

Now think about this. Quantum gravity (without the assumptions about the boundary conditions) is inconsistent. This means there is a valid derivation of 0=1 from the axioms of the theory. Now add some extra axioms (any boundary conditions you like). Since these new axioms never figured into the derivation of 0=1, that proof remains valid and the expanded theory is as inconsistent as the original. If a set of assumptions is mutually inconsistent adding more assumptions won’t help.

I don’t doubt there is a consistent formulation of quantum field theory and gravity that preserves (on the larger than Planck scales) the features most of would regard as characteristic of both. But identifying the future boundary into abstract mathematical point and calling it God has little to do with the gods most Earthling’s tend to worship.

The notion that general relativity and quantum field theory are inconsistent is something that appears in popular descriptions of the problem of quantizing gravity (it seems to be a popular--yet inexact--way to describe the problem), but in actuality they are not known to be inconsistent. The obstacle in quantizing general relativity was the gauge problem of general covariance, a hard mathematical problem that no one had been able to solve, but this merely meant that no one could do the maths, not that the maths are inconsistent.

What the correct quantum gravity theory tells us is that they cannot be "solved," since the series of equations that is required to do that is infinite. But that does not mean that they are inconsistent, it simply means that they are consistent in every term, but that the series of consistent terms is infinite.

The boundary conditions of the correct quantum gravity theory derive naturally from the fact that the series of equations defining it is infinite, yet with each term being finite. In other words, the initial and final singularities are predicted by quantum gravity theory.

If one is looking for a set of equations which can be completely written down on paper (which is the overwhelming case for those searching for the quantum gravity Theory of Everything), then it's understandable that the correct quantum gravity theory would be abandoned, since it doesn't conform to what was set out to be found. But we have to accept reality as it actually is, not how we may want it to be.

[trish]

All classical field theories are inconsistent with quantum field theory (QFT); this includes Maxwell’s theory of electromagnetism (EM) and Einstein’s general theory of relativity (GR). Classical field theories make predictions that disagree with those of quantum field theories. This is why we need quantum field theories in the first place, the classical ones are wrong. In modern QFT, Maxwell’s equations are replaced by a version of Schrodinger’s equation (modified to incorporate the electromagnetic vector potential). The modified Schrodinger equation is invariant under phase shifting (these are the appropriate gauge transformations in this context). From this invariance the predictions of EM on classical scales can be recovered, but the field’s behavior on quantum scales is entirely different than what is predicted by classical EM. It remains the case that QFT+GR cannot be made consistent by merely adding assumptions, since the old list of assumptions already lead to an inconsistency. Rather some assumptions must be modified.

It’s still a mystery why humans would want to worship an set of boundary points which have been identified by an obscure mathematical equivalence relation.

[Jamie Michelle]

All classical field theories are inconsistent with quantum field theory (QFT); this includes Maxwell’s theory of electromagnetism (EM) and Einstein’s general theory of relativity (GR). Classical field theories make predictions that disagree with those of quantum field theories. This is why we need quantum field theories in the first place, the classical ones are wrong. In modern QFT, Maxwell’s equations are replaced by a version of Schrodinger’s equation (modified to incorporate the electromagnetic vector potential). The modified Schrodinger equation is invariant under phase shifting (these are the appropriate gauge transformations in this context). From this invariance the predictions of EM on classical scales can be recovered, but the field’s behavior on quantum scales is entirely different than what is predicted by classical EM. It remains the case that QFT+GR cannot be made consistent by merely adding assumptions, since the old list of assumptions already lead to an inconsistency. Rather some assumptions must be modified.

It’s still a mystery why humans would want to worship an set of boundary points which have been identified by an obscure mathematical equivalence relation.

Again, we should be exact here. General relativity is not known to be inconsistent with quantum mechanics. Standard quantum gravity (i.e., the Feynman-Weinberg Lagrangian) is known to be consistent with every experiment conducted to date and is (so far) internally consistent. But many physicists don't like it because it cannot be (completely) written down on paper, i.e., the series of individually-finite terms diverge to infinity. They're looking for something they can completely write down in a book, but they're looking in vain.

Lumping general relativity in with other classical physics does a disservice to general relativity and its place in modern physics. General relativity is known to be consistent with every experiment conducted to date, and no other gravity theory has arisen to replace it.

We should accept what standard quantum field theory is forcing upon us (regarding gravity) unless it's experimentally refuted or shown to be internally inconsistent. It's the natural view to hold, the one that proposes no changes to the known laws of physics. Therefore it ought to be the prevailing theory of quantum gravity unless one (or both) of the said provisos can be demonstrated.

For more on this matter, see Prof. Frank J. Tipler's below paper:

F. J. Tipler, "The structure of the world from pure numbers," Reports on Progress in Physics, Vol. 68, No. 4 (April 2005), pp. 897-964. http://math.tulane.edu/~tipler/theoryofeverything.pdf Also released as "Feynman-Weinberg Quantum Gravity and the Extended Standard Model as a Theory of Everything," arXiv:0704.3276, April 24, 2007. http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.3276

And see also the below Wikipedia article:

"Omega Point (Tipler)," Wikipedia, January 6, 2008 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Omega_Point_%28Tipler%29&oldid=182549075

From the above Wikipedia article, in particluar see the below section:

The Omega Point and the quantum gravity Theory of Everything http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Omega_Point_%28Tipler%29&oldid=182549075#
The_Omega_Point_and_the_quantum_gravity_Theory_of_ Everything (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Omega_Point_%28Tipler%29&oldid=182549075#The_Omega_Point_and_the_quantum_gr avity_Theory_of_Everything)

Regarding the last paragraph in your above comment, recall that in physics it's just as accurate to say that causation goes from future to past events: viz, the principle of least action; and especially unitarity. Thus, the final singularity can be an actual person (per the Turing test) because it can speak to us now (since our present brain-states are ultimately defined by the cosmological end state).

[thx1138]

God: So when do we get to meet Him or Her? I have a few questions I'd like answered.

[Jamie Michelle]

God: So when do we get to meet Him or Her? I have a few questions I'd like answered.

All that exists, has ever existed, or will ever exist is God. God is the totality of existence, forever and all times.

My below article may help to answer your questions:

"Existential Truth," TetrahedronOmega, March 14, 2007 http://www.armleg.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=118&mforum=libertyandtruth

See also:

F. J. Tipler, "The structure of the world from pure numbers," Reports on Progress in Physics, Vol. 68, No. 4 (April 2005), pp. 897-964. http://math.tulane.edu/~tipler/theoryofeverything.pdf Also released as "Feynman-Weinberg Quantum Gravity and the Extended Standard Model as a Theory of Everything," arXiv:0704.3276, April 24, 2007. http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.3276

"Omega Point (Tipler)," Wikipedia, January 6, 2008 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Omega_Point_%28Tipler%29&oldid=182549075

"Frank J. Tipler," Wikipedia, January 5, 2008 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frank_J._Tipler&oldid=182407923

Theophysics http://geocities.com/theophysics/

[trish]

Hi Jamie.
I still have to differ with you on


General relativity is not known to be inconsistent with quantum mechanics.

Einstein’s classical theory of gravitation predicts a binary star system will lose energy at a continuous rate in the form of gravitational radiation. The prediction is at odds with quantum theory which holds that all mechanical systems gain or lose energy discretely. The two conceptions of nature are mutually incompatible. One of the theories must be dropped or modified. The procedures for modifying and adapting a classical field theory to quantum theory are somewhat standard, but far from universal; i.e. the fittings have to be handcrafted. For example, the correct Hamiltonian operator for the quantized field theory is usually inspired by but not determined uniquely by the form of the Hamiltonian for the classical field theory. So there are many different reasonable ways to attempt a quantization of the general relativity. The problem is none of the quantized theories of GR that have been constructed so far is consistent with nature. For example, the Feynman-Weinberg quantum gravity is not normalizable. You have characterized the predicament this way:


Standard quantum gravity (i.e., the Feynman-Weinberg Lagrangian) is known to be consistent with every experiment conducted to date and is (so far) internally consistent. But many physicists don't like it because it cannot be (completely) written down on paper, i.e., the series of individually-finite terms diverge to infinity. They're looking for something they can completely write down in a book, but they're looking in vain.

It’s not really the case that mathematicians can’t write down a sum with infinitely many terms in a finite book. It’s easy enough to compactify notation with a summation sign or an integral sign. The problem is the sum diverges. Imagine for example you want to predict the probability that a measurement of the position of a satellite will fall within a given range. You write down the wave function for the satellite and integrate its modulus squared over the given range. The result should be the answer you seek: a number between zero and one that represents the probability that your measurement will yield a position in the selected range. The problem is, the value of the integral is not a number between zero and one. It’s infinite. The theory has failed to yield a result. Suppose now you integrate over the entire range of possible positions. What answer should you get? Well the number 1 of course. The probability that the result of the measurement will be within the range of all possible positions is 1. What the integral give? Infinity instead of one. That’s a contradiction.

[thx1138]

I've read "The whole shebang" by Timothy Ferris. Ferris explains the cosmology and God connection in layman's terms. His approach seems much more straight forward than Frank Tippler's.

[ezed]

Fuck, the cut and paste research machine is back!!!!! OH GOD, Yee Banners of little faith, SEE WHAT YEE HAS WROUGHT! Another era of cut and paste gabobble with no emotion.....WHAT HAVE WE DONE!!!! WHAT HAVE WE DONE.

Welcome back Jamie Michelle, are you fully loaded with reference links after the hiatus?

[thx1138]

http://www.rense.com/general80/roge.htm & http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080111/ap_on_sc/odd_universe highlight recent developments in astronomy and cosmology

[BrendaQG]

I havent read all of this thread but here is what little I know about the subject.

There is much reason to belive that a "theory of everything can never exist". There is a theorem from mathematics due to Goodle which says that any theory will be either inconsistent or incomplete. Meaning that the theory will either contain one or more true statements that cannot be proven from the axioms of the theory. Or it will have a very limited range of applicability. Since theories of everything claim to be valid every where Goode's theorem tells us that such a theory would have to be incomplete.

That said.

I can affirm that General Relativity is inconsistent with Quantum theory. Classical general and special relativity view space-time as being smooth and classically differentiable. In quantum mechanics nothing is so smooth.

This is why formulating a theory of quantum gravity is such a hard thing to do and have the theory reflect reality at all. Any theory must in the quantum limit reflect the graininess and then in the classical limit reflect the results of General Relativity. This is not easy. Teams and individual scientist have been working on this for the better part of 100 years.

@ trish

Your explaination is good but it seems specific to Quantum Electro-Dynamics. Here is a more general way to look at it...

In classical field theory the only path in phase space from A to B is the path that will minimize the action. In Quantum field theory any and all paths in fock space (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fock_space) are possible and do happen... Then once all paths are integrated over is the actual path found.

A fun quote "How to electrons know to do calculus when they collide". R. Feynman

[thx1138]

another interesting link possibly relevant: http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2008/01/scientist-says.html#more

[trish]

The applicability of Godel’s theorem to TOE is an interesting one Brenda.

Godel’s theorem (the German spelling uses an umlaut over the o) says that that any recursively axiomatizable, consistent extension of Peano arithmetic is incomplete. What does this have to do with a Theory of Everything (TOE)?

Well since any lunacy can be deduced from an inconsistency, an inconsistent TOE would be useless. So if we construct a TOE, it will be consistent.

Also the whole idea of “having” a theory in hand means you can list the axioms. So any TOE we actually build will be recursively axiomizable.

Must a TOE extend Peano Arithmetic (PA)?
This is a tricky one. Most current proposals for TOE’s assume mathematical frameworks at least as sophisticated as PA. If we assume a formally presented TOE must (in addition to its physical assumptions) list the mathematical axioms it uses, then these TOE’s are themselves extensions of PA. Even without the explicit inclusion of it’s own mathematical axioms, a TOE would have to account ultimately for the products of human behavior. And humans have formulated Peano arithmetic. Consequently a TOE would have to contain within it, an embedded version of PA. So for now, let’s temporarily assume that a TOE must extend PA.

By Godel’s theorem such a TOE would have to be incomplete. That would mean there’s a formal sentence S expressed within the language of the theory so that neither S nor its negation not-S is deducible from the theory, even in principle. Since the theory doesn’t decide S it doesn’t decide everything. And since it doesn’t decide everything it isn’t a theory of everything.

Unfortunately, things may not be as simple as that. It may be that all the formally undecidable sentences S are empirically vacuous (i.e. untestable). Or it may be all the formally undecidable sentences are about pure mathematics and that all the questions about physics are decidable. It could be the case that all the undecidable propositions are due to the fact the initial conditions or the boundary conditions of the theory cannot be specified in sufficient detail, but the theory per se is complete. In short, there are circumstances in which a formally incomplete theory might be regarded as empirically complete. Quantum theory is already like this. Einstein regarded quantum theory as incomplete because it failed to pronounce the truth or falsity of propositions like, “the position of the electron is exactly here.” Bohr claimed completeness for the new theory because it decided every proposition of the form “the probability that the electron is here is this.” What I’m saying is, there’s always a way to worm out of rigid strictures of the domain of applicability of Godel’s theorem.

I’m no expert in TOE’s but I understand some proposals assume only a finite substrata (even space and time are manifestations of a finite lattice of interacting nodes). It’s not clear that PA would be embeddable in such theories. Suppose not. Then Godel’s incompleteness theorem wouldn’t really apply. Such a theory could be both consistent and complete.

I think it would be amazing to find a consistent TOE that was complete in the sense that it contained all of the fundamental principles of nature. We may even eventually have a theory like that sometime, though I tend to doubt it.

Even though this would be amazing, a lot a people want more. They want a TOE that is uniquely determined by logic and common sense. They want a TOE that explains itself. It would have no constants that need to be empirically determined. It would specify its own initial conditions and its own boundary conditions by first principles. In principle the only role experiment would play is to verify the theory. This is unlike the theories of physics we have to date where experiment is also necessary to determine the values of the fundamental constants, and to determine the initial conditions and the boundary conditions of the cosmos. Personally I think the dream of the self-proving theory of everything is just that, a dream.

[BrendaQG]

The applicability of Godel’s theorem to TOE is an interesting one Brenda.

Godel’s theorem (the German spelling uses an umlaut over the o) says that that any recursively axiomatizable, consistent extension of Peano arithmetic is incomplete. What does this have to do with a Theory of Everything (TOE)?

Well since any lunacy can be deduced from an inconsistency, an inconsistent TOE would be useless. So if we construct a TOE, it will be consistent.

Also the whole idea of “having” a theory in hand means you can list the axioms. So any TOE we actually build will be recursively axiomizable.


Gödel's theorem applies to this question when it is stated in this form... This is the one a professor told me to use to think about this problem.

If an axiomatic system can be proven to be consistent and complete from within itself, then it is inconsistent.

In your reply you were commenting on "PA" and it's applicability. I agree PA has none however as I stated above the more general form of this theorem does. It applies to any and all mathematical theories.

The idea that Gödel's theorem applies to physics is not my own. See here.... This person seems to think it has a whole lot to do with the question. I think he may know what he is talking about this time. (http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/strings02/dirac/hawking/)

[trish]

thanks for the link, BrendaQG.

Your professor's statement (if read charitably) is essentially the same as the one i gave above.

Most non-mathematicians just assume an axiom system is presented recursively, so even though she/he left that out of the statement we can assume that she/he meant to include it. The sorts of theories of your professor is asking you consider are those which are capable of "talking about themselves." This means there are sentences in the language of the theory which can express things like "the theory is consistent", or "this very sentence is provable within the theory". [PA is a theory like this and so that's the point in having PA embeddable in your theory]. Godel showed that a recursively axiomatizable theory, capable of soundly expressing ideas about itself cannot both be consistent and complete. In fact, in a second theorem, Godel showed that if such a theory is consistent, then it won't be able to prove nor disprove the sentence which claims, "this theory is consistent". In short, a recursively presented, consistent theory of sufficiently expressivity will not admit a proof of its own consistency. Since there's a true proposition which it can't prove (namely its own consistency) such a theory is incomplete.

happy thinking.

[Jamie Michelle]

Hi Jamie.
I still have to differ with you on


General relativity is not known to be inconsistent with quantum mechanics.

Einstein’s classical theory of gravitation predicts a binary star system will lose energy at a continuous rate in the form of gravitational radiation. The prediction is at odds with quantum theory which holds that all mechanical systems gain or lose energy discretely. The two conceptions of nature are mutually incompatible. One of the theories must be dropped or modified. The procedures for modifying and adapting a classical field theory to quantum theory are somewhat standard, but far from universal; i.e. the fittings have to be handcrafted. For example, the correct Hamiltonian operator for the quantized field theory is usually inspired by but not determined uniquely by the form of the Hamiltonian for the classical field theory. So there are many different reasonable ways to attempt a quantization of the general relativity. The problem is none of the quantized theories of GR that have been constructed so far is consistent with nature. For example, the Feynman-Weinberg quantum gravity is not normalizable. ...

Again, it's a popular misconception that general relativity contradicts quantum mechanics, since that's how it's often incorrectly described. But as Prof. John Donoghue and Dr. Tibor Torma have shown, the Feynman-Weinberg Lagrangian has not contradicted experiment, and it will not contradict experiment so long as the renormalized values of the infinite number of new coupling constants are adequately small. Additionally, as Steven Weinberg has stressed, this Lagrangian forms a theory of quantum gravity that is just as renormalizable as quantum electrodynamics and the Standard Model. For that, see:

John F. Donoghue, "General relativity as an effective field theory: The leading quantum corrections," Physical Review D, Vol. 50, Issue 6 (September 1994), pp. 3874-3888. Also at arXiv:gr-qc/9405057, May 25, 1994. http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9405057 (Note: download the PostScript version, since the PDF is corrupt.)

John F. Donoghue and Tibor Torma, "Power counting of loop diagrams in general relativity," Physical Review D, Vol. 54, Issue 8 (October 1996), pp. 4963-4972. Also released as "On the power counting of loop diagrams in general relativity," arXiv:hep-th/9602121, February 22, 1996. http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9602121

Steven Weinberg, The Quantum Theory of Fields, Volume I: Foundations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), ISBN 0521550017, pp. 499 and 518-519.

For much more on this, I cordially invite you to read Prof. Frank J. Tipler's below paper:

F. J. Tipler, "The structure of the world from pure numbers," Reports on Progress in Physics, Vol. 68, No. 4 (April 2005), pp. 897-964. http://math.tulane.edu/~tipler/theoryofeverything.pdf Also released as "Feynman-Weinberg Quantum Gravity and the Extended Standard Model as a Theory of Everything," arXiv:0704.3276, April 24, 2007. http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.3276


... You have characterized the predicament this way:


Standard quantum gravity (i.e., the Feynman-Weinberg Lagrangian) is known to be consistent with every experiment conducted to date and is (so far) internally consistent. But many physicists don't like it because it cannot be (completely) written down on paper, i.e., the series of individually-finite terms diverge to infinity. They're looking for something they can completely write down in a book, but they're looking in vain.

It’s not really the case that mathematicians can’t write down a sum with infinitely many terms in a finite book. It’s easy enough to compactify notation with a summation sign or an integral sign. The problem is the sum diverges. ...

I already know that. Below is the graphic that I made for the PARI/GP article on Wikipedia on December 5, 2006, which shows two different summations for producing two different irrational numbers (pi, and the base of the natural logarithm, e):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:PARI-GP-Windows-XP.png

Of course, the exact number of iterations for producing those exact irrational numbers is infinity, but for the accuracy of the displayed significand the number of iterations chosen is enough to be accurate for every decimal place.

I also like creating (in the sense of formatting them in their respective system's language) algorithms for producing irrational numbers on my computer algebra systems (even though most of these systems have built-in fuctions for these), many of which use summations, definite integrals, product series, etc., with an infinite number of iterations. Below are some that I've created well before our discussion, where the proper number of iterations diverge to infinity (note that PARI/GP has no conception of "infinity," so simply replace that word with some arbitrarily high number):

Integral (Definite Integral)

PARI/GP:

sqrt(Pi) = intnum(x = -infinity, infinity, exp(-x^2))

Euler = -intnum(x = 0, infinity, exp(-x)*(log(x)))

Maxima:

sqrt(%pi) = bfloat(integrate(exp(-x^2), x, -inf, inf));

----------

Summation

PARI/GP:

exp(1) = sum(n=0, infinity, 1/n!)

Pi = sum(k=0, infinity, 2*(-1)^k*3^(1/2-k)/(2*k+1))

log(2) = sum(k=1, infinity, (-1)^(k-1)/k)

Euler = sum(k=1, infinity, (1/k)-log(1+1/k))

Maxima:

simpsum:true;

%e = sum(1/i!, i, 0, inf) = ~ bfloat(sum(1/i!, i, 0, 1024));

%pi^2/6 = bfloat(sum(1/(n^2), n, 1, inf));

%pi = sum(2*(-1)^k*3^(1/2-k)/(2*k+1), k, 0, inf); = ~ bfloat(sum(2*(-1)^k*3^(1/2-k)/(2*k+1), k, 0, 4096));

----------

Product

PARI/GP:

1/sqrt(2) = prod(x = 0, infinity, 1-(1/(4*x+2)^2))+0.

Maxima:

1/sqrt(2) = product(1-(1/(4*i+2)^2), i, 0, inf);

[trish]

Hi Jamie.
I still have to differ with you on


General relativity is not known to be inconsistent with quantum mechanics.

Einstein’s classical theory of gravitation predicts a binary star system will lose energy at a continuous rate in the form of gravitational radiation. The prediction is at odds with quantum theory which holds that all mechanical systems gain or lose energy discretely. The two conceptions of nature are mutually incompatible. One of the theories must be dropped or modified. The procedures for modifying and adapting a classical field theory to quantum theory are somewhat standard, but far from universal; i.e. the fittings have to be handcrafted. For example, the correct Hamiltonian operator for the quantized field theory is usually inspired by but not determined uniquely by the form of the Hamiltonian for the classical field theory. So there are many different reasonable ways to attempt a quantization of the general relativity. The problem is none of the quantized theories of GR that have been constructed so far is consistent with nature. For example, the Feynman-Weinberg quantum gravity is not normalizable. ...

Again, it's a popular misconception that general relativity contradicts quantum mechanics, since that's how it's often incorrectly described. But as Prof. John Donoghue and Dr. Tibor Torma have shown, the Feynman-Weinberg Lagrangian has not contradicted experiment, and it will not contradict experiment so long as the renormalized values of the infinite number of new coupling constants are adequately small. ...

And how does this address the issue of continuous orbital decay as opposed to discrete orbital decay? It doesn't. We don't need experimental evidence that two theories are mutually incompatible when they make conflicting predictions. When (or if) we have experimental evidence of the existence of gravitons, then we'll have experimental evidence of the conflict between GR and QFT, if you so require it.

That is not to say some modification of GR won't be found that's compatible with QFT...that is everybody's hope afterall. It hasn't been found yet. You said yourself that in Tipler's theory the relevant series diverge. Let's use the example of a satellite again. If the series expansion for the wave function of a satellite diverges, then the theory can make no predictions about the position of the satellite. You can add up the first 100 terms and base a prediction on that, but that would your prediction, not the prediction of the theory (which requires all the terms to be summed). If you add up the first thousand terms instead, you'll get a different prediction because the series is not stabilizing, it is...afterall...diverging.

[Jamie Michelle]

Hi Jamie.
I still have to differ with you on


General relativity is not known to be inconsistent with quantum mechanics.

Einstein’s classical theory of gravitation predicts a binary star system will lose energy at a continuous rate in the form of gravitational radiation. The prediction is at odds with quantum theory which holds that all mechanical systems gain or lose energy discretely. The two conceptions of nature are mutually incompatible. One of the theories must be dropped or modified. The procedures for modifying and adapting a classical field theory to quantum theory are somewhat standard, but far from universal; i.e. the fittings have to be handcrafted. For example, the correct Hamiltonian operator for the quantized field theory is usually inspired by but not determined uniquely by the form of the Hamiltonian for the classical field theory. So there are many different reasonable ways to attempt a quantization of the general relativity. The problem is none of the quantized theories of GR that have been constructed so far is consistent with nature. For example, the Feynman-Weinberg quantum gravity is not normalizable. ...

Again, it's a popular misconception that general relativity contradicts quantum mechanics, since that's how it's often incorrectly described. But as Prof. John Donoghue and Dr. Tibor Torma have shown, the Feynman-Weinberg Lagrangian has not contradicted experiment, and it will not contradict experiment so long as the renormalized values of the infinite number of new coupling constants are adequately small. ...

And how does this address the issue of continuous orbital decay as opposed to discrete orbital decay? It doesn't. We don't need experimental evidence that two theories are mutually incompatible when they make conflicting predictions. When (or if) we have experimental evidence of the existence of gravitons, then we'll have experimental evidence of the conflict between GR and QFT, if you so require it.

That is not to say some modification of GR won't be found that's compatible with QFT...that is everybody's hope afterall. It hasn't been found yet. You said yourself that in Tipler's theory the relevant series diverge. Let's use the example of a satellite again. If the series expansion for the wave function of a satellite diverges, then the theory can make no predictions about the position of the satellite. You can add up the first 100 terms and base a prediction on that, but that would your prediction, not the prediction of the theory (which requires all the terms to be summed). If you add up the first thousand terms instead, you'll get a different prediction because the series is not stabilizing, it is...afterall...diverging.

It addresses it because that's incorrect. That's an incorrect way that these GR/QM issues are often put, i.e., saying that they contradict each other when really it's that the maths diverge to arbitrarily high orders of derivatives in order to be consistent. As Prof. John Donoghue and Dr. Tibor Torma have shown, the Feynman-Weinberg Lagrangian has not contradicted experiment, and it will not contradict experiment so long as the renormalized values of the infinite number of new coupling constants are adequately small. Additionally, as Steven Weinberg has stressed, this Lagrangian forms a theory of quantum gravity that is just as renormalizable as quantum electrodynamics and the Standard Model. For that, see:

John F. Donoghue, "General relativity as an effective field theory: The leading quantum corrections," Physical Review D, Vol. 50, Issue 6 (September 1994), pp. 3874-3888. Also at arXiv:gr-qc/9405057, May 25, 1994. http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9405057 (Note: download the PostScript version, since the PDF is corrupt.)

John F. Donoghue and Tibor Torma, "Power counting of loop diagrams in general relativity," Physical Review D, Vol. 54, Issue 8 (October 1996), pp. 4963-4972. Also released as "On the power counting of loop diagrams in general relativity," arXiv:hep-th/9602121, February 22, 1996. http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9602121

Steven Weinberg, The Quantum Theory of Fields, Volume I: Foundations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), ISBN 0521550017, pp. 499 and 518-519.

For much more on this, I cordially invite you to read Prof. Frank J. Tipler's below paper:

F. J. Tipler, "The structure of the world from pure numbers," Reports on Progress in Physics, Vol. 68, No. 4 (April 2005), pp. 897-964. http://math.tulane.edu/~tipler/theoryofeverything.pdf Also released as "Feynman-Weinberg Quantum Gravity and the Extended Standard Model as a Theory of Everything," arXiv:0704.3276, April 24, 2007. http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.3276

[trish]

Jamie, it's not incorrect that GR predicts a continuous orbital decay. it's not incorrect that QFT requires a discrete orbital decay.

what could it possibly mean to say


...saying that they contradict each other when really it's that the maths diverge to arbitrarily high orders of derivatives in order to be consistent.?

do you mean that if one insists on too much accuracy the two theories will make different predictions?

or do you mean that if one insists on a quantum theory of gravity (QTOG) that is actually renormalizable, then it won't be consistent.

in the former case all i can say is: well yeah, that's because the two theories are inconsistent.

in the latter case, you've got a theory that useless because it won't make predictions. you also, by the way don't have GR anymore. you have a different theory. a modified GR. a QTOG, if you will. you keep insisting GR+QTF is consistent, but you keep showing us QTOG which is itself inconsistent with GR.

[hippifried]

I think I need some crackers to go along with this mathematical alphabet soup.

[thx1138]

something wicked this way comes. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7184521.stm

[thx1138]

Yes, hippi....I'm lost too. Looks like I'll have to sign up for an advanced physics course to keep up with Jamie and Trish. Renormalization is a kind of mathematical trickery to prove something that can't be proven any other way.

[trish]

HERE'S A SHORT SYNOPSIS OF MY SLANTED VIEW OF THE LAST COUPLE OF PAGES FOR THE REST OF YOU WHO "CLAIM" NOT TO FOLLOW:

Renormalization in a Nutshell:
Quantum theory never makes predictions like "the proton will have location X at time T; instead it allows one to compute the probability P that the proton will be at X when the clock says T. A probability by definition is a number between zero and one. Unfortunately, sometimes in an attempt to construct a quantum theory to model a particular situation a theoretician will get an embarrassing answer like P(E) = 8974.553. When this happens we say his model needs to be normalized. There has to be a uniform way to fix all these erroneous calculations at once to get answers in the correct range from zero to one. Sometimes it's just as simple as dividing everything by just the right number. If everything can be fixed we say the theory is renormalizable. Sometimes it can can be shown there's no way to fix the model. This is the case whenever you're getting results like P = infinity. In these cases we say the model is not renormalizable. When that happens the theoretician has to go back to the drawing board and try to reformulate, revise and redesign her approach.

The Situation with Quantum Gravity:
Nobody has yet found a renormalizable theory of quantum gravity. It's not clear to me, after all this discussion, whether Jamie claims otherwise, or is claiming renormalization doesn't matter.

The Need for a Quantum Theory of Gravity:
Everyone thinks we need one because the best theory of gravity we have to date (which is in my opinion every bit as beautiful as Allanah dressed as cleopatra)
makes predictions about the nature of gravitational radiation which are at odds with quantum theory. In particular quantum theory claims that the energy carried gravitational wave of a fixed frequency can only take on discrete values. General relativity says all values are possible. One consequence of this is general relativity predicts nothing can escape a black hole. Quantum theory predict black holes eventually evaporate and everything escapes. The general feeling is: these two theories need to be reconciled.

[ezed]

So what's the score...what period is it...is anybody out of chalk yet!

[trish]

oh there it is!! stop smokin' my chalk ezed.

[hippifried]

Quantum theory never makes predictions like "the proton will have location X at time T; instead it allows one to compute the probability P that the proton will be at X when the clock says T. A probability by definition is a number between zero and one. Unfortunately, sometimes in an attempt to construct a quantum theory to model a particular situation a theoretician will get an embarrassing answer like P(E) = 8974.553. When this happens we say his model needs to be normalized. There has to be a uniform way to fix all these erroneous calculations at once to get answers in the correct range from zero to one. Sometimes it's just as simple as dividing everything by just the right number. If everything can be fixed we say the theory is renormalizable. Sometimes it can can be shown there's no way to fix the model. This is the case whenever you're getting results like P = infinity. In these cases we say the model is not renormalizable. When that happens the theoretician has to go back to the drawing board and try to reformulate, revise and redesign her approach.
:shock: :jawdrop

Uh... Ok... 2+2 is still 4, right? Could you repeat all that in "string"?

[thx1138]

One thing's for sure: Allanah needs a bit more eye shadow.

[trish]

yes, hippiefried, 2 quarts plus 2 quarts still equals 4 quarts, unless they're quarts of miscible fluids, in which case you could get 3 quarts. also on the USS Cane, 2 quarts of strawberries plus another two quarts of strawberries may turn out to be a half pint short of four quarts.

[thx1138]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20080111/sc_space/sourceofmysteriousantimatterfound

[ezed]

oh there it is!! stop smokin' my chalk ezed.

I can't :wink:

[Jamie Michelle]

Jamie, it's not incorrect that GR predicts a continuous orbital decay. it's not incorrect that QFT requires a discrete orbital decay.

what could it possibly mean to say


...saying that they contradict each other when really it's that the maths diverge to arbitrarily high orders of derivatives in order to be consistent.?

do you mean that if one insists on too much accuracy the two theories will make different predictions?

or do you mean that if one insists on a quantum theory of gravity (QTOG) that is actually renormalizable, then it won't be consistent.

in the former case all i can say is: well yeah, that's because the two theories are inconsistent.

in the latter case, you've got a theory that useless because it won't make predictions. you also, by the way don't have GR anymore. you have a different theory. a modified GR. a QTOG, if you will. you keep insisting GR+QTF is consistent, but you keep showing us QTOG which is itself inconsistent with GR.

General relativity and quantum mechanics don't make incompatible predictions. They only become incompatible if one attempts to artificially eliminate the arbitrarily higher number of terms within the quantum gravitational Lagrangian. For the full details on that, see the below paper by Prof. Frank J. Tipler:

F. J. Tipler, "The structure of the world from pure numbers," Reports on Progress in Physics, Vol. 68, No. 4 (April 2005), pp. 897-964. http://math.tulane.edu/~tipler/theoryofeverything.pdf Also released as "Feynman-Weinberg Quantum Gravity and the Extended Standard Model as a Theory of Everything," arXiv:0704.3276, April 24, 2007. http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.3276

Prof. Tipler's above 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper demonstrates that the correct quantum gravity theory has existed since 1962, first discovered by Richard Feynman in that year, and independently discovered by Steven Weinberg and Bryce DeWitt, among others. But because these physicists were looking for equations with a finite number of terms (i.e., derivatives no higher than second order), they abandoned this qualitatively unique quantum gravity theory since in order for it to be consistent it requires an arbitrarily higher number of terms. Further, they didn't realize that this proper theory of quantum gravity is consistent only with a certain set of boundary conditions imposed (which includes the initial Big Bang, and the final Omega Point, cosmological singularities). The equations for this theory of quantum gravity are term-by-term finite, but the same mechanism that forces each term in the series to be finite also forces the entire series to be infinite (i.e., infinities that would otherwise occur in spacetime, consequently destabilizing it, are transferred to the cosmological singularities, thereby preventing the universe from immediately collapsing into nonexistence). As Tipler notes in his 2007 book The Physics of Christianity (pp. 49 and 279), "It is a fundamental mathematical fact that this [infinite series] is the best that we can do. ... This is somewhat analogous to Liouville's theorem in complex analysis, which says that all analytic functions other than constants have singularities either a finite distance from the origin of coordinates or at infinity."

When combined with the Standard Model, the result is the Theory of Everything (TOE) correctly describing and unifying all the forces in physics.

Out of 50 articles, Prof. Tipler's above paper was selected as one of 12 for the "Highlights of 2005" accolade as "the very best articles published in Reports on Progress in Physics in 2005 [Vol. 68]. Articles were selected by the Editorial Board for their outstanding reviews of the field. They all received the highest praise from our international referees and a high number of downloads from the journal Website." (See Richard Palmer, Publisher, "Highlights of 2005," Reports on Progress in Physics. http://www.iop.org/EJ/journal/-page=extra.highlights/0034-4885 )

Reports on Progress in Physics is the leading journal of the Institute of Physics, Britain's main professional body for physicists. Further, Reports on Progress in Physics has a higher impact factor (according to Journal Citation Reports) than Physical Review Letters, which is the most prestigious American physics journal (one, incidently, which Prof. Tipler has been published in more than once). A journal's impact factor reflects the importance the science community places in that journal in the sense of actually citing its papers in their own papers. (And just to point out, Tipler's 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper could not have been published in Physical Review Letters since said paper is nearly book-length, and hence not a "letter" as defined by the latter journal.)

[trish]

Jamie, I see you still insist that

General relativity and quantum mechanics don't make incompatible predictions.

Yet, after an entire year, you have not yet addressed the point of disagreement between the two theories which to which I focused your attention a year ago, namely: GR predicts a continuous orbital decay of test particles and QFT predicts a discrete orbital decay. One or both of the two theories will have to be modified; just as Maxwell's theory of electromagnetic radiation gave way to QED. Alain Connes has a very interesting approach involving non-commutative geometries that would, if correct, modify the foundations of both GR and QFT. Leonard Susskind's holographic universe would save QFT at the expense of GR. Penrose is placing his bets and on GR. I think it's safe to say, almost everyone agrees something's got to give; and no one knows yet how it will all shake down.

[Jamie Michelle]

Jamie, I see you still insist that

General relativity and quantum mechanics don't make incompatible predictions.

Yet, after an entire year, you have not yet addressed the point of disagreement between the two theories which to which I focused your attention a year ago, namely: GR predicts a continuous orbital decay of test particles and QFT predicts a discrete orbital decay. One or both of the two theories will have to be modified; just as Maxwell's theory of electromagnetic radiation gave way to QED. Alain Connes has a very interesting approach involving non-commutative geometries that would, if correct, modify the foundations of both GR and QFT. Leonard Susskind's holographic universe would save QFT at the expense of GR. Penrose is placing his bets and on GR. I think it's safe to say, almost everyone agrees something's got to give; and no one knows yet how it will all shake down.

Cite your sources.

General relativity and quantum mechanics don't make incompatible predictions. They only become incompatible if one attempts to artificially eliminate the arbitrarily higher number of terms within the quantum gravitational Lagrangian. For the full details on that, see the below paper by Prof. Frank J. Tipler:

F. J. Tipler, "The structure of the world from pure numbers," Reports on Progress in Physics, Vol. 68, No. 4 (April 2005), pp. 897-964. http://math.tulane.edu/~tipler/theoryofeverything.pdf Also released as "Feynman-Weinberg Quantum Gravity and the Extended Standard Model as a Theory of Everything," arXiv:0704.3276, April 24, 2007. http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.3276

Prof. Tipler's above 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper demonstrates that the correct quantum gravity theory has existed since 1962, first discovered by Richard Feynman in that year, and independently discovered by Steven Weinberg and Bryce DeWitt, among others. But because these physicists were looking for equations with a finite number of terms (i.e., derivatives no higher than second order), they abandoned this qualitatively unique quantum gravity theory since in order for it to be consistent it requires an arbitrarily higher number of terms. Further, they didn't realize that this proper theory of quantum gravity is consistent only with a certain set of boundary conditions imposed (which includes the initial Big Bang, and the final Omega Point, cosmological singularities). The equations for this theory of quantum gravity are term-by-term finite, but the same mechanism that forces each term in the series to be finite also forces the entire series to be infinite (i.e., infinities that would otherwise occur in spacetime, consequently destabilizing it, are transferred to the cosmological singularities, thereby preventing the universe from immediately collapsing into nonexistence). As Tipler notes in his 2007 book The Physics of Christianity (pp. 49 and 279), "It is a fundamental mathematical fact that this [infinite series] is the best that we can do. ... This is somewhat analogous to Liouville's theorem in complex analysis, which says that all analytic functions other than constants have singularities either a finite distance from the origin of coordinates or at infinity."

When combined with the Standard Model, the result is the Theory of Everything (TOE) correctly describing and unifying all the forces in physics.

Out of 50 articles, Prof. Tipler's above paper was selected as one of 12 for the "Highlights of 2005" accolade as "the very best articles published in Reports on Progress in Physics in 2005 [Vol. 68]. Articles were selected by the Editorial Board for their outstanding reviews of the field. They all received the highest praise from our international referees and a high number of downloads from the journal Website." (See Richard Palmer, Publisher, "Highlights of 2005," Reports on Progress in Physics. http://www.iop.org/EJ/journal/-page=extra.highlights/0034-4885 )

Reports on Progress in Physics is the leading journal of the Institute of Physics, Britain's main professional body for physicists. Further, Reports on Progress in Physics has a higher impact factor (according to Journal Citation Reports) than Physical Review Letters, which is the most prestigious American physics journal (one, incidently, which Prof. Tipler has been published in more than once). A journal's impact factor reflects the importance the science community places in that journal in the sense of actually citing its papers in their own papers. (And just to point out, Tipler's 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper could not have been published in Physical Review Letters since said paper is nearly book-length, and hence not a "letter" as defined by the latter journal.)

[InHouston]

Fuck, the cut and paste research machine is back!!!!! Welcome back Jamie Michelle, are you fully loaded with reference links after the hiatus?

No shit. This makes me want to puke. If you claim to prove that the known laws of physics prove the existence of God, then those laws are dead wrong. It's no more complicated than that.

And ... I find the authenticity of the technical writing by Trish and Jamie to be highly suspect, or quite frankly a load of bullshit.

Example of an authentic post:
yes, hippiefried, 2 quarts plus 2 quarts still equals 4 quarts, unless they're quarts of miscible fluids, in which case you could get 3 quarts. also on the USS Cane, 2 quarts of strawberries plus another two quarts of strawberries may turn out to be a half pint short of four quarts.

See what I mean? Bad grammar and nonsense. She used "they're" when "their" should have been used. And she threw in the archaic word "miscible" to impress everyone, when "mixable" would have sufficed.

As a software engineer, I see this kind of crap all the time straight out of the Department Of Over Engineering, which is usually wrong in the end. I would bet you my left arm that if you got Trish and Jamie around some established physicists, you'd be surprised to find that they really don't know what they're talking about.

[Jamie Michelle]

Fuck, the cut and paste research machine is back!!!!! Welcome back Jamie Michelle, are you fully loaded with reference links after the hiatus?

No shit. This makes me want to puke. If you claim to prove that the known laws of physics prove the existence of God, then those laws are dead wrong. It's no more complicated than that.

And ... I find the authenticity of the technical writing by Trish and Jamie to be highly suspect, or quite frankly a load of bullshit.

Example of an authentic post:
yes, hippiefried, 2 quarts plus 2 quarts still equals 4 quarts, unless they're quarts of miscible fluids, in which case you could get 3 quarts. also on the USS Cane, 2 quarts of strawberries plus another two quarts of strawberries may turn out to be a half pint short of four quarts.

See what I mean? Bad grammar and nonsense. She used "they're" when "their" should have been used. And she threw in the archaic word "miscible" to impress everyone, when "mixable" would have sufficed.

As a software engineer, I see this kind of crap all the time straight out of the Department Of Over Engineering, which is usually wrong in the end. I would bet you my left arm that if you got Trish and Jamie around some established physicists, you'd be surprised to find that they really don't know what they're talking about.

In Trish's defense, "miscible" is a common word in chemistry and materials science. And "miscible" is not a synonym for "mixable." See:

"Miscibility," Wikipedia, December 8, 2009 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Miscibility&oldid=330355224

Regarding the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, general relativity, quantum mechanics, and the Standard Model of particle physics), to reject them would be to reject empirical science: as these physical laws have been confirmed by every experiment to date. That is, there exists no rational reason for thinking that the Omega Point Theory is incorrect, and indeed, one must engage in extreme irrationality in order to argue against the Omega Point cosmology.

Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point Theory has been published in a number of the world's leading peer-reviewed physics and science journals.[1] Even NASA itself peer-reviewed his Omega Point Theory and found it correct according to the known laws of physics (see below). No refutation of it exists within the peer-reviewed scientific literature, or anywhere else for that matter.

Below are some of the peer-reviewed science and physics journals in which Prof. Tipler's Omega Point Theory has been published:

- Frank J. Tipler, "Cosmological Limits on Computation," International Journal of Theoretical Physics, Vol. 25, No. 6 (June 1986), pp. 617-661; doi:10.1007/BF00670475. (First paper on the Omega Point Theory.)

- Frank J. Tipler, "The Omega Point as Eschaton: Answers to Pannenberg's Questions for Scientists," Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science, Vol. 24, Issue 2 (June 1989), pp. 217-253; doi:10.1111/j.1467-9744.1989.tb01112.x. http://theophysics.110mb.com/pdf/tipler-omega-point-as-eschaton.pdf , http://www.gazup.com/FLQT0-tipler-omega-point-as-eschaton.pdf-download-mirrors Republished as Chapter 7: "The Omega Point as Eschaton: Answers to Pannenberg's Questions to Scientists" in Beginning with the End: God, Science, and Wolfhart Pannenberg, edited by Carol Rausch Albright and Joel Haugen (Chicago, Ill.: Open Court Publishing Company, 1997), ISBN: 0812693256, pp. 156-194.

- Frank J. Tipler, "The ultimate fate of life in universes which undergo inflation," Physics Letters B, Vol. 286, Issues 1-2 (July 23, 1992), pp. 36-43; doi:10.1016/0370-2693(92)90155-W.

- Frank J. Tipler, "Ultrarelativistic Rockets and the Ultimate Future of the Universe," NASA Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Workshop Proceedings, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, January 1999, pp. 111-119; an invited paper in the proceedings of a conference held at and sponsored by NASA Lewis Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio, August 12-14, 1998; doi:2060/19990023204. Document ID: 19990023204. Report Number: E-11429; NAS 1.55:208694; NASA/CP-1999-208694. http://theophysics.110mb.com/pdf/tipler-ultrarelativistic-rockets.pdf See also: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?Ntk=DocumentID&Ntt=19990023204 , http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19990023204_1999021520.pdf

- Frank J. Tipler, "The Ultimate Future of the Universe, Black Hole Event Horizon Topologies, Holography, and the Value of the Cosmological Constant," arXiv:astro-ph/0104011, April 1, 2001. http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0104011 Published in Relativistic Astrophysics: 20th Texas Symposium, Austin, TX, 10-15 December 2000, edited by J. Craig Wheeler and Hugo Martel (Melville, N.Y.: American Institute of Physics, 2001), ISBN: 0735400261; and in AIP Conference Proceedings, Vol. 586 (October 15, 2001), pp. 769-772; doi:10.1063/1.1419654.

- Frank J. Tipler, "Intelligent life in cosmology," International Journal of Astrobiology, Vol. 2, Issue 2 (April 2003), pp. 141-148; doi:10.1017/S1473550403001526. http://theophysics.110mb.com/pdf/tipler-intelligent-life-in-cosmology.pdf Also at arXiv:0704.0058, March 31, 2007. http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.0058

- Frank J. Tipler, Jessica Graber, Matthew McGinley, Joshua Nichols-Barrer and Christopher Staecker, "Closed Universes With Black Holes But No Event Horizons As a Solution to the Black Hole Information Problem," arXiv:gr-qc/0003082, March 20, 2000. http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0003082 Published in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol. 379, Issue 2 (August 2007), pp. 629-640; doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11895.x.

- F. J. Tipler, "The structure of the world from pure numbers," Reports on Progress in Physics, Vol. 68, No. 4 (April 2005), pp. 897-964; doi:10.1088/0034-4885/68/4/R04. http://math.tulane.edu/~tipler/theoryofeverything.pdf Also released as "Feynman-Weinberg Quantum Gravity and the Extended Standard Model as a Theory of Everything," arXiv:0704.3276, April 24, 2007. http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.3276

Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, in which the above August 2007 paper was published, is one of the world's leading peer-reviewed astrophysics journals.

Prof. Tipler's paper "Ultrarelativistic Rockets and the Ultimate Future of the Universe" was an invited paper for a conference held at and sponsored by NASA Lewis Research Center, so NASA itself has peer-reviewed Tipler's Omega Point Theory (peer-review is a standard process for published proceedings papers; and again, Tipler's said paper was an *invited* paper by NASA, as opposed to what are called "poster papers").

Zygon is the world's leading peer-reviewed academic journal on science and religion.

Out of 50 articles, Prof. Tipler's 2005 Reports in Progress in Physics paper--which presents the Omega Point quantum gravity Theory of Everything--was selected as one of 12 for the "Highlights of 2005" accolade as "the very best articles published in Reports on Progress in Physics in 2005 [Vol. 68]. Articles were selected by the Editorial Board for their outstanding reviews of the field. They all received the highest praise from our international referees and a high number of downloads from the journal Website." (See Richard Palmer, Publisher, "Highlights of 2005," Reports on Progress in Physics. http://www.iop.org/EJ/journal/-page=extra.highlights/0034-4885 )

Reports on Progress in Physics is the leading journal of the Institute of Physics, Britain's main professional body for physicists. Further, Reports on Progress in Physics has a higher impact factor (according to Journal Citation Reports) than Physical Review Letters, which is the most prestigious American physics journal (one, incidently, which Prof. Tipler has been published in more than once). A journal's impact factor reflects the importance the science community places in that journal in the sense of actually citing its papers in their own papers. (And just to point out, Tipler's 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper could not have been published in Physical Review Letters since said paper is nearly book-length, and hence not a "letter" as defined by the latter journal.)

For much more on these matters, see my original post in this thread in addition to Prof. Tipler's below 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper and the following resource:

F. J. Tipler, "The structure of the world from pure numbers," Reports on Progress in Physics, Vol. 68, No. 4 (April 2005), pp. 897-964. http://math.tulane.edu/~tipler/theoryofeverything.pdf Also released as "Feynman-Weinberg Quantum Gravity and the Extended Standard Model as a Theory of Everything," arXiv:0704.3276, April 24, 2007. http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.3276

Theophysics: God Is the Ultimate Physicist http://theophysics.chimehost.net , http://theophysics.host56.com , http://theophysics.ifastnet.com , http://theophysics.110mb.com

Additionally, we now have the quantum gravity Theory of Everything (TOE) correctly describing and unifying all the forces in physics: of which inherently produces the Omega Point cosmology. So here we have an additional high degree of assurance that the Omega Point cosmology is correct. (Again, for the details on that, see Prof. Tipler's above 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper.)

-----

Note:

1. While there is a lot that gets published in physics journals that is anti-reality and non-physical (such as string theory, which violates the known laws of physics and has no experimental support whatsoever), the reason such things are allowed to pass the peer-review process is because the paradigm of assumptions which such papers are speaking to has been made known, and within their operating paradigm none of the referees could find anything wrong with said papers. That is, the paradigm itself may have nothing to do with reality, but the peer-reviewers could find nothing wrong with such papers within the operating assumptions of that paradigm. Whereas, e.g., the operating paradigm of Prof. Tipler's 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper is the known laws of physics, i.e., our actual physical reality which has been repeatedly confirmed by every experiment conducted to date. So the professional physicists charged with refereeing this paper could find nothing wrong with it within its operating paradigm, i.e., the known laws of physics.

[trish]

The reference to the USS Cane strawberry fiasco is a hint that my post was made with a certain grain of levity. As Jamie points out, my use of the word “miscible” was deliberate and correct. Also I wish to point out that "are" is the verb of the phrase, “…unless they're quarts of miscible fluids…”; i.e. the use of the word "they're" as opposed to "their" is also deliberate and correct.

Btw, when one mixes two fluids, one expects the mass of the mixture to equal the sum of the masses of the original two components. This is surprisingly not always the case with volume. It can happen that when one stirs together two volumes of miscible fluids, the result will take up less volume then the space occupied by the original two fluids. I agree that this is not high powered science. I learned this bit of "nonsense" in tenth grade chemistry.

Sorry that even with eleven months between posts you (InHoustin) still can’t keep up. But hey, don’t quit. Just keep tryin’.

[Rogers]

Sorry that even with eleven months between posts you (InHoustin) still can’t keep up. But hey, don’t quit. Just keep tryin’.

InHouston failing at trolling again? Now there's a shocker! :wink:

[trish]

In the context of general relativity (GR) the two-body problem doesn’t have a closed form solution. Nevertheless, it is easy to ascertain from the field equations that there are no stable two-body systems (i.e. systems that cannot be approximated over the relevant time scales by a central body and a test particle). The reason is that in GR, two-body systems create gravitational waves that carry energy away from the mutually orbiting bodies. As the system loses energy the orbits tighten. In time the two bodies spiral continuously in toward each other and crash. In the case of two black holes, the singularities would merge to one. Moreover, GR predicts the gravitational radiation from a two-body system would exhibit (over time) a continuous spectrum of frequencies. These are consequences of the GR quadrupole radiation formula. (See Classical Fields: General Relativity and gauge Theory by Moshe Carmel, World Scientific, 2001, pgs 253-254. Or for a more recent and detailed analysis http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0603/0603038v1.pdf . )

Currently we have no universal understanding of Quantum Field Theory (QFT) as it applies to gravitational systems. But all attempts at an understanding require that the quadrupole radiation of such systems exhibit (over time) discrete spectra. The gluons of these quantized gauge theories are known as gravitons. (See for example: The Synchrotron production of gravitons by the binary system by Miroslav Pardy in General Relativity and Gravitation Vol 15 No 11 1983).

So GR predicts the gravitational radiation of a two-body system will exhibit (over time) a continuous spectrum. QFTs predict the spectrum will be discrete.

Jamie, I’m not asking for a proof that some version of QFT is consistent with GR. Frankly, I’m not up to searching for the error in a long technical argument. I just want to know why two contradictory predictions don’t count as proof of mutual inconsistency!?

I take it that your current research is in the area of quantum gravity and that you’re in hot pursuit of the consequences of Tipler’s theory. Quantum gravity is not my field of expertise. I’m curious: has anyone shown whether Tipler’s theory of everything is generally covariant?