The Vacuum Catastrophe and the CLEAR Design of the Universe

The universe isn't random and the question is are most things really random? Many theories try to stay true to what's called "naturalness." For instance, one of the reasons many Scientist will accept a multiverse or some form of the many worlds interpretation is because the fine tuning of the universe doesn't show naturalness.

If there was one universe it wouldn't look natural but it would look designed. It's like if you covered the earth in pennies that stacked all the way up to the moon and you marked one penny with a red marker and said you only have one chance to pick a penny from the stack to find the penny with the red marker on it. In Science, this is a conundrum. But say you have 5 billion people pulling a penny out of the stack, you then have more chances to pull out the penny with the red marker on it. This is a similar idea behind the multiverse. You get more chances for a universe like ours and then our universe would just be a natural occurrence among many universes that would have different physics than our universe.

Sadly for some, this naturalness isn't found in nature and everytime they look up, they're running into Design.

I personally don't see things as random. I see a set of rules put in place which allows for a range of random probabilities within those rules. For instance, when you roll a pair of dice. The event of rolling the dice is random but what outcomes can occur isn't random. The outcomes that can occur are 2-12. These are the rules put in place by the Designer of the dice. So you can roll the dice until the cows come home and your outcomes of 2-12 determine the random range of probabilities that can occur.

I do this brain game memory app from time to time and the app shows you random patterns in a 25 square grid but at the end of the day it isn't truly random. There's a limit as to how many patterns can occur within this grid. This is how I see the universe. There's a design set of laws put in place that determine what outcomes can occur and this is why at every turning Scientist run up against things that don't have "naturalness" and the standard response is, well this is just the way it is but we know it wasn't designed. That's a statement of belief not Science.

This brings us to things like the Vacuum Catastrophe. Here's a little background on the Catastrophe.

In cosmology the vacuum catastrophe refers to the disagreement of 107 orders of magnitude between the upper bound upon the vacuum energy density as inferred from data obtained from the Voyager spacecraft of less than 10/14 GeV/m3 and the zero-point energy of 10/121 GeV/m3 suggested by an application of quantum field theory.[1] This discrepancy has been termed "the worst theoretical prediction in the history of physics."[2]

en.wikipedia.org...

A key word to remember here is cancellation. Physicist look for ways that these things cancel each other out. This will allow for the value we observe. Quantum Field Theory has been very successful in it's predictions. It seems to show naturalness in the events that occur. This is akin to the rolling of a 7 or 10 when rolling a pair of dice. When they looked at what determined these outcomes they didn't find naturalness. They were of by 107 orders of magnitude in there predictions vs. observed evidence.

In other words, there's an enormous amount of zero point energy and a small vacuum energy density. This small density allows the universe to exist and it allows for us to be here. Naturalness predicted a smaller value for zero point energy in order to naturally match the small vacuum energy density. With this enormous number for zero point energy, they have ran into Design yet again. They need something else enormous to cancel out zero point energy in order to reach the small vacuum energy density. They can't change Quantum Field Theory because it's predictions have been so successful in explaining things. It's like someone fined tuned the universe by giving the instructions that you will find the universe on station 107.999987755555244555522222111188899999111225556688009999666645678999955444 I can go on and on. Some even say it should be called the Vacuum Miracle.

How far off is this calculation? It varies on how you do the calculations. According to one type of calculation, the predictions of quantum field theory is wrong by a factor of 10/60, which is a factor of a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion times. According to a different way of estimating it, the predictions of quantum field theory is wrong by a factor of 10/120, which is a factor of a million billion quadrillion quintillion sextillion septillion octillion times.

This prediction has been repeatedly referred to as the worst prediction in the history of physics. It could just as well be called the most wrong prediction in the history of human thought. No zealous apocalyptic doomer ever made a prediction more wrong, not even the preacher who predicted the end of the world would occur in 1843.

Again, the problem is, Quantum Field Theory is one of the most successful theories in Science but when it came to showing what determined theses outcomes they have ran into a catastrophe that again refutes naturalness and supports design.

Now it might be easy for us to just dismiss quantum mechanics, because of this ridiculously wrong prediction – we could just say, “This just shows that quantum mechanics is all wrong.” But the problem is that quantum mechanics makes many other specific predictions that turn out to be exactly right. So scientists have to try struggle towards some guess as to how quantum mechanics could be right despite its very wrong prediction about the energy density of the vacuum.

Another problem is that for you to have an exact balance of positive and negative contributions to the vacuum energy density would require fine-tuning of about 1 part in 1060, which is 1 part in trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion times.

It could conceivably be that there are many additional undiscovered types of subatomic particles. It could also be that when one adds up the positive energy from all of the virtual particles corresponding to these particles, and subtracts from that the negative energy from all of the virtual particles corresponding to these particles, one ends up with a vacuum energy density of zero or almost zero. But that would require an incredibly improbable coincidence, one which randomly would have less than 1 chance in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. It would be like the chance of you adding up all the money earned on planet Earth, comparing it to all the money borrowed, spent or charged on credit cards, and finding that the two sums matched exactly, to the penny – but it would be far more improbable.

As Professor Strassler puts it:

a reply to: neoholographic

To say this another way: even though it is possible that there is a special cancellation between the boson fields of nature and the fermion fields of nature, it appears that such a cancellation could only occur by accident, and in only a very tiny tiny tiny fraction of quantum field theories, or of quantum theories of any type (including string theory). Thus, only a tiny tiny tiny fraction of imaginable universes would even vaguely resemble our own (or at least, the part of our own that we can observe with our eyes and telescopes). In this sense, the cosmological constant is a problem of “naturalness” as particle physicists and their colleagues use the term: because it has so little dark energy in it compared to what we’d expect, the universe we live in appears to be highly non-generic, non-typical one.

If such a coincidence has occurred, then scientists are using the wrong term to discuss this problem. They use the term “the vacuum catastrophe,” but the word catastrophe means something very bad. The fact that the vacuum is not even .000000000000000000000000000001 percent as large as predicted by quantum field theory, is however, something that is very good, because a very low vacuum energy density is necessary for our existence. If the vacuum energy density was even .000000000000000000000000000001 as large as predicted by quantum field theory, empty space everywhere would be far denser than steel, and intelligent life never could have appeared in the universe. There would be many reasons why suns could never have formed, and if they did exist, the super-dense vacuum would block all sunlight from ever reaching planets.

What is the proper term for an incredibly improbable but fortunate occurrence? The term is miracle. One definition of miracle is simply a very fortunate but very unlikely event, as in “the miracle of the jet landing on the Hudson River,” or “the miracle that no one was killed by the bomb.”

Here's a video on the Vacuum Catastrophe:



At the end of the day, the universe tells us it was designed. From the Vacuum to the fact that consciousness can cause random systems to behave in a non random way. Every step of the way Science is bumping into Design.

This was a good read.

a reply to: neoholographic

A key word to remember here is cancellation. Physicist look for ways that these things cancel each other out. This will allow for the value we observe. Quantum Field Theory has been very successful in it's predictions. It seems to show naturalness in the events that occur. This is akin to the rolling of a 7 or 10 when rolling a pair of dice. When they looked at what determined these outcomes they didn't find naturalness. They were of by 107 orders of magnitude in there predictions vs. observed evidence.

In other words, there's an enormous amount of zero point energy and a small vacuum energy density. This small density allows the universe to exist and it allows for us to be here. Naturalness predicted a smaller value for zero point energy in order to naturally match the small vacuum energy density. With this enormous number for zero point energy, they have ran into Design yet again. They need something else enormous to cancel out zero point energy in order to reach the small vacuum energy density. They can't change Quantum Field Theory because it's predictions have been so successful in explaining things. It's like someone fined tuned the universe by giving the instructions that you will find the universe on station 107.999987755555244555522222111188899999111225556688009999666645678999955444 I can go on and on. Some even say it should be called the Vacuum Miracle.

You hit the same idea I mentioned in this thread here: CERN Supersymmetry or Multiverse - 125gv

They are trying to detect particles from energy and instead, they need to be looking at energy as information. Information theory is where you will find the answer in both cases. Great thread. Thank you. S&F

They will spend vast quantities of resources in an effort to dismiss this evidence of intelligent design.
Such a waste of free will.

So what ever happened too the "Unified Field Theory" ?

or is it "Quantum Field Theory" all the rage now ?.

originally posted by: BobAthome
So what ever happened too the "Unified Field Theory" ?

or is it "Quantum Field Theory" all the rage now ?.

It is important to keep renaming things so as to garner attention and money for more research into it all.

I need a few grand to unify my new theory.

>>
... but it would look designed.
>>

It would look designed NO MATTER what happened in the beginning, no matter what forces came together to form THIS universe with it's (possibly) rather unique characteristics.

This is too much needless and pointless thinking about the alleged "impossibility" of circumstances.

In principle, you're like the other, religious motivated guy arguing that the multiverse theory exists or had been created to "justify" the otherwise impossibility of this universe. ("If there are billions of different universes, it would explain this one")

For me, all this is wasted thoughts.

There MAY be "other universes" with forces existing we cannot even fathom, or forces being absent which we have here. It could be universes exist where there is no mass, or no gravity, means no live as we know it obviously.

It could have come about that the universe and planets have been created but things like, say, oxygen were never created. No matter what, from infinite possibilities, we could argue THAT THE OUTCOME IS REALLY UNIQUE and statistically impossible. We could be breathing methane instead of oxygene. Planets could possibly never reached a size larger than an orange. Infinite possible scenarios. So you set an intelligent creature at the end of such a hypothetical scenario in a hypothetical universe/world which is entirely different...and those creatures ALSO would argue that it must've been the work of an "intelligent designer" because everything fits together so nicely.

Only (AND ONLY THEN) if you look at it backwards you might conclude that it's "statistically impossible".....in the same way as a particular winner of the lottery could (sort-of) argue it's statistically almost impossible that exactly HE/SHE won...from all the millions of people. Nevertheless, there is almost always a winner and this is NOT "impossible", only when looked at "backwards", if you understand my analogy here. (Hint: The lottery company did not design or rig the drawing so that Mrs. Smith from Ohio will win and not the millions of others....)

"Vacuum Miracle".


Possible.

Possibly we are one, maybe the first, of 900 billion previous universes who immediately collapsed into a true vacuum.

That too is relatively pointless to ponder over. Because in any of those 900 billion universes we wouldn't have this debate.

Or asked differently...those who say it's almost a miracle that the universe didn't collapse into a true vacuum, how do they know exactly this did not already happen a zillion of times? (MORE plausible than the idea of one single universe born from one, exactly one BB..for sure : ) Things rarely happen ONCE and only once.....think about it...

a reply to: neoholographic

Massive sequential trial and error performed over incomprehensible amounts of time will beat design every time.

People that have backgrounds in design understand that it is an iterative process bounded by time. In the case of humans a very short amount of it.

Even with an infinite amount of time to design, further iterations after testing is a near certainty. "Intelligent design" is a silly term dreamed up by people that know very little of the process.

Great post! The "Vacuum Catastrophe" is new to me, so thanks for sharing this information and presenting it so well.

I do believe in a Creator, however I've always been on the fence as to whether or not "fine tuning" is truly a compelling argument.

Afterall, along the lines of what No Rules Allowed is saying, the odds of finding ourselves in a universe that is compatible with life will always be "1".

a reply to: NoRulesAllowed

The things you're saying have nothing to do with the observed evidence. You said:

(Hint: The lottery company did not design or rig the drawing so that Mrs. Smith from Ohio will win and not the millions of others....)

The lottery had to design the rules of the game in order for Mrs. Smith to hit the lottery. It's no different from the dice. You can play a game rolling the dice and no matter how many times you play the game the outcomes of each roll of the dice are determined by the designer of the dice.

Again, the observed evidence shows that what determines the outcomes isn't a result of naturalness.

For instance, you can have a radio with 20 different stations. What stations you listen to is random but the outcome of getting Alternative Rock on one station and Hip Hop on another station is predetermined.

This is what the evidence shows. The universes can be seen as rolls of the dice. A 7 universe, a 10 universe a 2 universe. When we look at what determines the outcomes that can occur we don't see naturalness but EXTRAORDINARY fine tuning.

a reply to: VegHead

Thanks for the response and the Vacuum Catastrophe is just one example of naturalness not being found in nature. There's many others.

The odds of finding ourselves in this universe would be 1 if we're talking about a 50/50 proposition. This isn't what's seen.

Say I had a fair coin and we played a game where we bet on each flip of the coin. Overtime, we would expect to find a random distribution of heads or tails.

If I had an unfair coin that landed on heads 80% of the time and tails 20% of the time, then you would accuse me of cheating and try to find out how I rigged the coin.

What these things show is the universe seems to have had an unfair advantage to create a universe like ours. So we need to try and find out who or what rigged the universe so to speak and gave it this unfair advantage.

a reply to: neoholographic

I must admit upfront that I am definitely intellectually outclassed in this thread. I think I lack both an adequate background in physics and statistics to verbalize my issue with the fine-tuning argument... but I'll try.

To me, the statistical measurement is going the wrong way... we are looking back and saying "what are the odds" that we would land exactly here. The odds are - of course - almost immeasurably small, extraordinarily unlikely. But if we look at the statistics going forward... what are the odds of landing in this situation versus any other permutation. Well, the odds are equal to that of any other permutation. Equally small and unlikely, but no more so than any other of the trillions of permutations. This particular universe is fine-tuned for our survival, but we couldn't exist and be even asking the question if the universe wasn't compatible with life. Any other permutation and the question wouldn't exist as we would not exist.

OK, I'm not sure if that made sense. Again, I'm willing to admit I'm over my head when trying to wrap my mind around these things.

I do appreciate your posts very much because they have explained the fine-tuning argument, using the example of the vacuum catastrophe, in a way that is far more compelling and makes much more sense to me than anything I've read before. Thank you!

I've always wanted to use fine-tuning as a point in theistic apologetics, but I've never felt certain that the argument was compelling enough. I don't know if I'll ever be in a position to adequately defend an argument for a creator using fine-tuning, but I definitely enjoy hearing those better equipped than me make the case!

Mrs. Smith also had an unfair advantage that she won the Million!

Had she just gone in 3 seconds later, someone else in the line would have gotten the ticket. Would she have driven slower that day, someone else would have gotten the ticket. Would she have planned to go shopping in another store, she would also not have gotten the winning ticket. AD INFINITY....almost an infinite number of small factors were exactly right so that Mrs. Smith on that particular day bough the ticket...and then as a result won a million dollars.

This analogy is probably not perfect, it's only to show the fallacy in thinking here.

That Mrs. Smith won is not an extraordinary, unexplainable event, not in the slightest. But of course it's also understandable if Mrs. Smith says it must be because of a higher intelligence that she ultimately won because (ironically) the odds that she won were indeed very, very slim.

But, ok..back to the multiverses....as I already speculated earlier...what speaks against that this "birth" of the universe is just one of infinite events which are going on since...well..the dawn of time?

NOT because I want to "justify" a perfectly tuned universe...but simply because an infinite series of born and dying universes makes more sense to me than one single one. If that's the case, be it that "many" universes may not be able to bear life ever...or literally vanish again shortly after "creation". But that's not a problem because it only needed one "freak accident" if you will where the universe is stuck and didn't fall into back into the true vacuum....and here we are. I think this is a plausible theory?

If a person who is a Professional Poker player plays about 100 hands per day. It is very possible that within there life times they we see at least 1 Royal Strait Flush (odds 1 in 650,000).

As to how random that is? It depends upon how many poker players there are that play 100 hands per day (22 hands per day would take 80 years).

In other words. This event occurs consistently, not randomly. it is dependent upon the choice of an individuals to play poker that much every day.

Further

Any thoughts?

Perhaps the vibrational frequencies are imperative in the creation of the 'clear' channel required for intelligent design, sort of like the arrangement of subatomic particles, matter etc is subject to the 'creator' energy 'magnet' per se, where all the 'perfect' conditions exist for functional arrangement.

Whether this is of 'miracle' or 'chance' is perhaps neither as both are human rationales.

Such energy is of the highest dimension and truest form and therefore cannot be rationalised in lower dimension parameters.

a reply to: theabsolutetruth

The question being if Consciousness can transcend those parameters?

Somehow transcend in definition perspectives beyond 3D.

Any thoughts?

originally posted by: Kashai
If a person who is a Professional Poker player plays about 100 hands per day. It is very possible that within there life times they we see at least 1 Royal Strait Flush (odds 1 in 650,000).

As to how random that is? It depends upon how many poker players there are that play 100 hands per day (22 hands per day would take 80 years).

In other words. This event occurs consistently, not randomly. it is dependent upon the choice of an individuals to play poker that much every day.

Further

Any thoughts?

I've seen 5 so far hardly ever playing, so does that mean 4 poor bustards never ever will get to see one? All things must even out.......odds will appear just as uneven to them as they have been for me in the opposite way. When do the odds get tossed in the trash?

All I can say is bingo. I also majored in Psychology Statistic and can say 100% the universe is more logical then you'd ever believe.