Backwards Parallel Universe?

PSI Blog 20200608 Backwards Parallel Universe?

Here’s another nutty one from regressive physics and cosmogony:

We may have spotted a parallel universe going backwards in time

“Strange particles observed by an experiment in Antarctica could be evidence of an alternative reality where everything is upside down”

A mystery particle spotted by ANITA in 2016 could be evidence of a parallel universe. Ryan Nichol (UCL Physics & Astronomy)

The contraption above was said to have found a “right-handed neutrino” as evidence in support of these crazy ideas. This is what New Scientist wrote about it:

“Yet there is potentially a spanner in the works. If ANITA has indeed caught the right-handed neutrino that the anti-universe idea predicts, common sense dictates that other neutrino observatories ought to have caught it, too. Towards the end of last year, the neighbouring IceCube experiment – which continuously watches for flashes of light generated as the decay-products of neutrinos blast through a cubic kilometre of Antarctic ice – announced that it had found no high-energy neutrinos coming from the direction claimed by ANITA.

This isn’t a killer blow for the anti-universe. Anchordoqui points out that the track of a high-energy tau neutrino can be mistaken for that of a lower-energy muon neutrino, of which IceCube has spotted at least one. It is a controversial view, but it suggests that both ANITA and IceCube may have discovered tantalising evidence for a parallel universe.”

Nothing like finding one of something to make grand pronouncements about the universe. Can’t imagine who would support such stuff with a straight face, but they should realize the interpretation violates at least two important assumptions of science:

Seventh Assumption of Science, irreversibility (All processes are irreversible).

Eighth Assumption of Science, infinity (The universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions).

Of course, the indeterministic opposites are: reversibility and finity.

Regressives who assume “time can flow backwards” invariably must also assume finity, which requires an ignorance of the macrocosm (environment) in which the observed phenomenon is occurring. True reversibility cannot occur in the Infinite Universe. Lab experiments we consider reversible are not really so. That is why we always get a slightly different result each time we run an experiment.

The oxymoronic “parallel universe” trope is only a tiny, misguided step away from finity. It is perhaps the archetype of reformist physics and cosmogony. It erroneously assumes, along with Einstein and Big Bang Theory, that the observed universe is expanding. Evidence is gathering that indicate galaxies are being pushed toward massive cosmological objects outside the observed universe.[1] According to Infinite Universe Theory,[2] that is exactly what is expected. Reformists invented the silly “multiverse” ad hoc to save the Big Bang Theory and its equally silly claim the observed universe is expanding in all directions at once. The Infinite Universe cannot expand, for it exists everywhere and for all time (which is not, and never was reversible).

[1] Kashlinsky, A., Atrio-Barandela, F., Ebeling, H., Edge, A., and Kocevski, D., 2010, A New Measurement of the Bulk Flow of X-Ray Luminous Clusters of Galaxies: The Astrophysical Journal Letters, v. 712, no. 1, p. L81-L85. [http://doi.org/10.1088/2041-8205/712/1/L81].

Kashlinsky, A., Atrio-Barandela, F., Kocevski, D., and Ebeling, H., 2008, A measurement of large-scale peculiar velocities of clusters of galaxies: Results and cosmological implications: The Astrophysical Journal, v. 686, p. L49–L52.

[2] Borchardt, Glenn, 2017, Infinite Universe Theory: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science Institute, 337 p. [http://go.glennborchardt.com/IUTebook].

1 comment:

Glenn Borchardt said...

From Bill Howell:

Thanks for the blog post btw. The title of the paper you described seemed so absurd I couldn't even bring myself to click on the link. From what you wrote tho I gather that they spent considerable find analyzing their solitary signal, discussing it, and writing their 'findings'. Lord help us eh? ;-).

[Bill: Agree.]