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:
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.]
Post a Comment