The universe follows rules. The evidence points to a Designer. Not to an infinite carnival of imaginary universes.
We’ve written before about the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/why-modern-physics-points-to-god?" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.dailywire.com/news/why-modern-physics-points-to-god?&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1758912070748000&amp;usg=AOvVaw2GdNjKu7h0FKQn1iXoiSlI">fine-tuning</a> of the universe’s constants — precise numbers like the strength of gravity or the charge of the electron. Change them even slightly, and the universe collapses.
But beneath those numbers lies an even deeper mystery: the laws of nature themselves.
Gravity pulls. Opposite charges attract. Particles collide in predictable patterns. These aren’t just quantities — they’re the rules that structure reality.
But here’s the riddle: Why these laws, and not others?
Since science explains everything in the world as consequences of the laws of nature, it’s natural to ask if science can explain the laws themselves. Physicist Lee Smolin put it this way: “Facts about the world need to be explained, and a fact most in need of explanation is why particular laws are observed to hold in our universe.”
Scientists once hoped they would find a simple answer that would be consistent with their prior beliefs. Maybe there was a unique “final theory” — a logically inevitable set of laws that could explain everything and rule out all alternatives. If that were true, then the laws of physics wouldn’t be one possibility among many. They would be the only possible laws a universe could have.
But that hope didn’t pan out.
After years of effort, scientists came to a sobering realization. The dream of a unique final theory was just that — a dream. There’s no logical reason why our universe had to follow the laws we observe. In fact, scientists have constructed many alternative sets of laws that are mathematically consistent — they just don’t describe our universe.
In Smolin’s words:
“Looking back, it is clear that the assumption that a unified theory would be unique was no more than that — an assumption. There is no mathematical or philosophical principle which guarantees there to be only one mathematically consistent theory of nature. In fact, we now know that there can be no such theory.”
With the dream of an inevitable set of laws off the table, the fundamental question returns with even more force: Why do these laws govern our universe, and not others?
While the question might seem unanswerable, the solution begins to emerge once we recognize that our laws of nature are not arbitrary or random. They’re extraordinary. They’re tailored to produce order, structure, and complexity. Among all the ways a universe could be governed, our laws are remarkably well-suited for creating atoms, planets, stars, galaxies, and life. In the words of physicist Paul Davies:
“You might be tempted to suppose that any old rag-bag of laws would produce a complex universe of some sort, with attendant inhabitants convinced of their own specialness. Not so. It turns out that randomly selected laws lead almost inevitably either to unrelieved chaos or boring and uneventful simplicity&#8230;in some sense we live in the most interesting possible universe.”
It’s a profound idea. And it carries significant implications.
If almost all combinations of laws lead to lifeless chaos or dull simplicity, but our laws produce order, complexity, and life, then the laws of nature are not random. They’re clearly designed.
When one specific outcome is chosen from a range of possibilities to achieve a result, we instinctively recognize what that means: intelligence at work. That is, after all, the very definition of intelligence. Intelligence selects. It aims for a purpose, which is why the design embedded in the laws of physics points so powerfully to a mind behind them — an <a href="https://www.physicstogod.com/post/intelligent-design-laws-of-nature" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.physicstogod.com/post/intelligent-design-laws-of-nature&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1758912070748000&amp;usg=AOvVaw3NL-agPZclwf1LtzbMiOEj">intelligent designer</a>.
This is not a “God of the gaps” argument. It is not based on ignorance about why we have these laws instead of others. It is based on scientific knowledge: only this specific set of laws produces a universe with structure, complexity, and life. That points directly to design and an intelligent choice of laws. This conclusion arises from what we know, not from what we don’t.
<a class="c-link" href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_campaign=fall40&amp;utm_content=fallsale&amp;utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-stringify-link="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_campaign=fall40&amp;utm_content=fallsale&amp;utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial" data-sk="tooltip_parent">Get 40% off new DailyWire+ annual memberships with code FALL40 at checkout!</a> 
But for many in the scientific community, that conclusion is unacceptable. Not because the evidence rules it out, but because their philosophy forbids it. Scientists committed to atheism cannot allow that an intelligent God created the laws of nature. So they look for another way.
Their solution? The multiverse.
Faced with the challenge of explaining why our universe has the right laws, some physicists propose an infinite number of other universes, each with entirely different laws. MIT physicist Max Tegmark calls this the “Ultimate Ensemble” — a radical claim that every mathematically possible structure exists as its own physical universe. As Tegmark himself writes: “The only postulate in this theory is that all structures that exist mathematically exist also physically.”
Let that sink in. According to Tegmark, for every imaginable set of laws — no matter how bizarre — there is a universe that follows them. Some universes have laws like ours. Others operate under rules where everything moves only in triangles. Some have seventeen dimensions. Others have 242 million. The possibilities are endless.
So why, out of all possibilities, do we find ourselves in this rare universe with its particular laws?
Their answer is simple: because only a universe like this could host observers like us. The lifeless universes can’t be observed, so of course, we’re not there. We exist here only because this is the kind of universe where existence is possible.
At first glance, the multiverse might sound like an answer. But it quickly unravels.
We observe one universe. Scientists have discovered that it’s governed by specific laws that give rise to structure, complexity, and life. Instead of using these discoveries to illuminate reality, the multiverse strips them of their significance.
If every possible law of nature is real somewhere, then the laws we discover in our universe lose their value. They’re not universally true. They’re just one set among an infinite collection of every imaginable possibility. Newton, Einstein, and Feynman didn’t uncover the ultimate truth. They only described a local chapter of reality.
Within that distorted framework, science no longer seeks universal truth. It simply catalogs accidents. The very idea of a “law of nature” collapses. There is no foundation, no explanation, no reason. If everything possible exists, then nothing in our universe is more real than any fantasy world. A theory that explains something by positing everything explains nothing.
Of course, atheist scientists can always shrug and say: Too bad. Reality is meaningless. Everything possible exists, and nothing is more real than anything else. But even that bleak position collapses on its own terms. Although it’s a more extensive discussion, it can be demonstrated that the <a href="https://www.physicstogod.com/is-the-multiverse-real" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.physicstogod.com/is-the-multiverse-real&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1758912070748000&amp;usg=AOvVaw0CgniyX8XEcAT2W_Ir-XDH">multiverse fails</a> by the very standards of science itself.
Ultimately, the choice is stark. Either we believe in an infinite carnival of imaginary universes where anything goes and nothing means anything, or we accept the clear evidence that the designed laws of our universe have an intelligent cause. One path empties science of truth. The other balances both science and reason. The laws of nature are designed, and the only real question is whether we <a href="https://www.physicstogod.com/does-god-exist" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.physicstogod.com/does-god-exist&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1758912070748000&amp;usg=AOvVaw1JFywVeUSR7fT_V0-iLlsG">acknowledge the Designer</a>.
Rabbi Elie Feder, PhD, and Rabbi Aaron Zimmer host the “Physics to God” podcast.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Equations.jpeg

Why Do We Have Laws Of Nature — And Why Aren’t They Different?

Nature

Physics

Religion

Science

In a recent Daily Wire piece, we argued that discoveries in <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/why-modern-physics-points-to-god" target="_blank" rel="noopener">modern physics point directly to God</a>. In a follow-up, we exposed how some scientists are trying to <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/the-multiverse-scandal-how-academia-is-redefining-science-to-avoid-god" target="_blank" rel="noopener">redefine science</a> — not to advance knowledge, but to sidestep the inconvenient possibility of a Creator.
Believe it or not, there’s another tactic in the academic playbook that’s even more brazen. When there is crystal clear evidence for God or some other thing scientists don’t want to acknowledge, they don’t confront the facts, but spin them. Instead of admitting that design implies intelligence, they claim that the incredible design in our universe is evidence for an infinite chaotic multiverse.
We’ve seen this kind of reasoning before. When facts contradict the narrative, the narrative doesn’t change. Instead, the clear implication of the facts gets twisted.
Defund the police, and then crime explodes? Just say that the real problem is a lack of community programs. Teen mental health collapses after a wave of gender surgeries? The experts insist we need to start even younger.
The pattern is the same: take evidence that clearly undermines your position and spin it as if it supports your position.
Surprisingly, this tactic isn’t limited to politics or culture. It’s happening in the heart of elite physics departments.
You’d think that physicists would stick to hard evidence and cold logic. But when modern science starts pointing toward a designer, objectivity disappears. What follows is a breathtaking exercise in mental gymnastics, and a revealing glimpse at how far some atheist scientists are willing to go to protect their belief that God doesn’t exist.
Let’s take a closer look.
Modern academic culture begins with a core assumption: God does not exist. The universe is purely material, blind, and meaningless. Nature has no goals, no plans, no mind. Against this backdrop, it becomes inconvenient when modern physics uncovers something that looks suspiciously like evidence for a Creator.
In the 1970s, physicists made a startling discovery: the basic structure of our universe depends on a set of precise numbers, known as the constants of nature, built into the laws of physics. These include values like the strength of gravity and the charge of the electron. If some of these were even slightly different, the universe wouldn’t work. No atoms. No stars. No galaxies. No life. Just chaos.
This phenomenon is known as “fine-tuning,” and it’s not about minor coincidences. The numbers are astonishingly precise. In some cases, the odds of getting the right value by chance are worse than one in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion.
So, what’s the simplest, most reasonable explanation? These numbers were set deliberately. That an intelligent cause fine-tuned the universe to produce complexity, order, and structure. In other words, fine-tuning is exactly what you’d expect to see if the universe were intelligently designed.
This was a problem for atheist scientists committed to a godless universe. They couldn’t deny the fact of fine-tuning — the evidence was too overwhelming. So instead, they did what academics often do when facts threaten cherished dogma: they twisted the interpretation.
Their explanation for fine-tuning? The multiverse.
Here’s the basic idea. Some theories in physics, like eternal inflation, suggest the possibility of an infinite number of universes. Now imagine, they say, that each of those universes has different laws and constants. If that’s true, then it’s no surprise that we find ourselves in one that works. After all, we couldn’t exist in any of the countless dud universes without atoms, stars, or life.
Sounds clever. But even if you accept the assumption that an infinite number of unobservable universes exist, there’s still a bigger problem: what’s the actual scientific evidence that the universal laws of nature vary from one universe to another? After all, they’re called “constants” for a reason. Every measurement and observation we have tells us that these numbers don’t change.
Here’s where it gets wild.
One of their main arguments for why the constants must vary is the fact that our universe is fine-tuned. That’s right. The very evidence that screams design is now used to argue for infinite cosmic randomness.
MIT physicist Max Tegmark, writing in <a href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0302131" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Scientific American</a>, makes this move explicitly. He uses fine-tuning itself as evidence for a multiverse with varying constants:
“Cosmologists infer the presence of Level II parallel universes by scrutinizing the properties of our universe. These properties…have exactly the values that sustain life. That suggests the existence of other universes with other values.”
Let that sink in. The very fact that our universe is perfectly calibrated for life is now used as evidence that other, totally different universes must exist. First, the multiverse was a way to explain away fine-tuning. Now, fine-tuning is offered as proof of the multiverse.
What’s the logic? Since they’ve already ruled out an intelligent cause, the constants must vary — because there’s simply no other way to explain why these numbers are so perfectly set. That’s what passes for logic in elite academia.
How did this inversion become acceptable in a field that prides itself on rationality? Because the foundational assumption is never questioned: God cannot exist. And sometimes, physicists say this outright.
In response to the <a href="https://www.physicstogod.com/fine-tuning-argument-for-god" target="_blank" rel="noopener">fine-tuning argument</a> for God, Perimeter Institute physicist Lee Smolin writes the following:
“This argument is valid only if there is no way to explain how the laws of nature might have been chosen except by invoking the action of some entity outside our universe. You may recall the principle with which I started this book: there is nothing outside the universe. As long as there is a way of answering all our questions without violating this principle, we are doing science and we have no need of any other mode of explanation.”
Smolin isn’t making a scientific argument. He’s laying out a philosophical bias. And he’s clear about it. On the very first page of the book, he boldly writes: “It cannot have been made by anything that exists outside of it, for by definition the universe is all there is, and there cannot be anything outside it.”
In other words, the existence of God isn’t ruled out by evidence. It’s ruled out by definition.
If you start your investigation by excluding the possibility of God, then yes, an infinite number of other universes with different constants becomes necessary. Not because the evidence points there, but because no other option is allowed. But ask yourself: is there any more absurd conclusion to draw from one perfectly ordered universe than the claim it suggests an infinite number of chaotic ones?
Science is supposed to follow the evidence, not twist it to fit a predetermined worldview. And if your worldview forces you to reinterpret what the evidence plainly shows, maybe it’s time to question the worldview.
Start with an open and honest question: Does the universe show signs of an intelligent cause? Once you do, the answer becomes clear. Fine-tuning is not evidence for a multiverse. It is powerful <a href="https://www.physicstogod.com/does-god-exist" target="_blank" rel="noopener">evidence for God</a>.
Rabbi Elie Feder, PhD, and Rabbi Aaron Zimmer, host the “Physics to God” podcast.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Artificial intelligence science fiction

How Scientists Are Working Overtime To Deny God

Crime

Transgender

The intelligentsia is always telling us to “follow the science.” But what happens when “the science” starts undermining academia’s deeply-held beliefs? Suddenly, the definition of science changes — or we’re told we misunderstood it all along.
If you’ve followed the debates over climate change or gender ideology, this story might sound familiar. But what may surprise you is that the same tactics are now at work in elite physics departments around the world. Even the most brilliant minds aren’t immune to bias — or to pushing a philosophical agenda under the guise of objectivity.
So, how is this playing out in the world of advanced physics?
Atheist scientists hold one belief above all: God is fiction. Why? Because God isn’t science. And only scientific claims can be true. Science, they say, explains the universe through natural, blind forces. This picture of reality is supposed to be testable and falsifiable.
But are they still living up to that standard?
In recent decades, physicists uncovered something remarkable. Nature’s laws contain fundamental constants, specific numbers that determine how particles like electrons behave. For years, no one knew where these mysterious numbers came from. Then came the scientific discovery that many of them are finely tuned. Change them even slightly, and the universe as we know it wouldn’t exist. No atoms. No stars. No life.
<a class="c-link c-link--focus-visible" href="https://get.dailywire.com/freedom/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial&amp;utm_campaign=freedom&amp;utm_content=freedomeditorial&amp;_gl=1*r8odly*_gcl_au*MTQ5MDUzNjQ0NC4xNzQ1ODQ0MzMyLjEwNDAyMzM0NDQuMTc0NzY1MzIxNy4xNzQ3NjUzMjE3*_ga*MTM1OTk4Njg2NS4xNzA2NzE2NTAy*_ga_CZKR9ZYKJP*czE3NTEyOTIzMDQkbzMyJGcxJHQxNzUxMjkyOTI5JGo1NyRsMCRoMA.." target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-stringify-link="https://get.dailywire.com/freedom/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial&amp;utm_campaign=freedom&amp;utm_content=freedomeditorial" data-sk="tooltip_parent" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-75638">JULY 4 SALE: Get Six Months Of DW+ Free</a>
The implication was hard to miss. An intelligent cause had <a href="https://www.physicstogod.com/fine-tuning-argument-for-god" target="_blank" rel="noopener">fine-tuned</a> the constants to produce a complex, structured universe. That conclusion sounded uncomfortably like God. And many atheist physicists wanted nothing to do with that.
Stanford physicist Leonard Susskind, himself an atheist, explained the fear:
Physicists dislike mixing religion into physics. I think they were somewhat afraid that if it was admitted that the reason the world is the way it is has to do with our own existence, that that could be hijacked by the creationists, by the intelligent designers. And of course, what they would say is, “Yes, we always told you so. There is a benevolent somebody way up high in the universe who created the universe exactly so that we could live.” I think physicists shrank at the idea of getting involved in such things.
But if the evidence pointed to God, scientists had a choice: follow it, or explain it away.
Enter the multiverse: an infinite set of unobservable universes, each with different laws. If the multiverse exists, then finding ourselves in a fine-tuned universe isn’t all that surprising. With infinite tries, some universes are bound to support life. And naturally, we’d only ever find ourselves in one of those.
Sounds clever, but here’s the problem: science requires observation and testability. One of the most renowned physicists of the prior generation, Richard Feynman, stated clearly: “All scientists will agree that a question — any question, philosophical or other — which cannot be put into the form that can be tested by experiment…is not a scientific question.”
By definition, an infinite number of unobservable universes can’t be tested by experiment. By Feynman’s standard, and that of virtually all scientists for the past 300 years, the multiverse is not science.
So, what does academia do when faced with this problem? It tries to change the rules.
Physicist Bernard Carr openly argues for redefining science: “It is surely dangerous to impose a philosophical prescription that prevents scientists from changing the border of their field. As Susskind cautions, it would be a pity to miss out on some fundamental truth because of an over-restrictive definition of science.”
In other words: if the multiverse doesn’t fit the definition of science that’s guided discovery since the Enlightenment, no problem — just redefine science.
As if redefining science weren’t bad enough, some scientists go further. Johns Hopkins physicist Sean Carroll boldly claims that falsifiability was never a requirement of science:
The ways in which we evaluate the multiverse as a scientific hypothesis are precisely the ways in which hypotheses have always been judged. The point is not that we are changing the nature of science by allowing unfalsifiable hypotheses into our purview. The point is that “falsifiability” was never the primary criterion by which scientific theories were judged (although scientists have often presented it as such).
So, Feynman got it wrong. Einstein too. Generations of scientists? All mistaken. Or so we’re now told.
How long before textbooks are rewritten to teach students that science doesn’t require testing, observation, or falsifiability? We’ve seen this play before, and it doesn’t end well.
This isn’t just semantics. Redefining science erodes public trust in real, tested science. If untestable multiverse theory now falls under the esteemed banner of science, how is anyone supposed to tell the difference between the real thing and its impostor version?
Fortunately, some scientists have sounded the alarm about these shifts. George Ellis, a leading physicist, has warned bluntly:
The foundations must be respected if one is to preserve the core features of science that have led to its phenomenal success: that is, the feedback from reality to theory provided by experiment and observational testing. One abandons that at one’s peril&#8230;it is dangerous to weaken the grounds of scientific proof in order to include multiverses under the mantle of “tested science”.
Ellis is right. If science is to remain credible, scientists need to stop playing word games. Fine-tuning in our one, ordered universe is a real scientific discovery. But it most certainly doesn’t point to an infinite, chaotic multiverse.
The bottom line? The <a href="https://www.physicstogod.com/is-the-multiverse-real" target="_blank" rel="noopener">multiverse isn’t science</a>. It’s a speculative philosophical idea — and not even a good one. Passing it off as science is dishonest. These scientists are hijacking the credibility of science to promote a weak philosophical theory that can’t stand on its own.
We’re not saying God is a scientific theory. That would be dishonest. What we are saying is that science<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/why-modern-physics-points-to-god" target="_blank" rel="noopener"> points to God</a>. Because when you follow the evidence, the most straightforward explanation for fine-tuning is an intelligent designer.
And if academics really believe in “following the science,” then maybe it’s time they followed it themselves — all the way to God.
Rabbi Elie Feder, PhD, and Rabbi Aaron Zimmer, host the “Physics to God” podcast.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Space warp travel trough universe

The Multiverse Scandal: How Academia Is Redefining Science To Avoid God

Academia

universe

For years, we’ve been told that science made God unnecessary.
Atheism had won. God was for the weak-minded. Rational people read Richard Dawkins and watched Neil deGrasse Tyson and Alex O’Connor. Religion, they said, was just a fairy tale.
But as science progresses, that story is beginning to unravel.
Far from removing the need for a Creator, modern physics increasingly points toward one.
Why? Because the deeper scientists dig into the universe’s fundamental laws, the more they encounter a startling truth: the universe appears to be fine-tuned. Not vaguely-tuned, but astonishingly, exquisitely, fine-tuned.
But we’re getting ahead of ourselves. To understand what fine-tuning actually means, let’s first look at how this discovery came about.
At the foundations of our universe, physicists discovered about 25 physical constants — unchanging numbers that define the structure of reality. You might not have heard of numbers like the fine-structure constant or the cosmological constant, but they are crucial. They determine how atoms hold together, how stars form, and how fast the universe expands.
The big question was, how can physicists explain these strange numbers? Before the discovery of fine-tuning, physicists had two unsatisfying possibilities: either the constants are just brute facts with no explanation, or some deeper law might eventually explain all their seemingly random values.
Since these solutions were neither satisfying nor plausible, Richard Feynman — one of the most celebrated physicists of his time — called explaining the constants “one of the greatest damn mysteries of physics.”
Then came fine-tuning.
Scientists slowly realized that if some of these constants were even slightly different, the universe would be completely chaotic, lacking all complexity and structure. No galaxies, no chemistry, no life. It’s almost like the values of the constants have a purpose in producing our complex universe.
Take the cosmological constant. Its value is about 10 to the power of negative 122. That’s a decimal point followed by 121 zeros and then a 1. If it were even a bit lower or higher, the universe would either collapse back on itself or expand so rapidly that no structures would ever form.
Does that seem like a cosmic accident? No one — not even atheist physicists — thinks that. It’s a bit like finding a safe with a trillion-digit combination already set perfectly. That’s not something anyone can reasonably attribute to blind chance.
Once fine-tuning was discovered, the two earlier explanations — that the constants are brute, necessary facts or the result of an unknown deeper law — became nearly impossible to defend. These ideas were only somewhat plausible back when the constants seemed arbitrary, and the challenge was simply to explain their mysterious values. But neither pure necessity nor blind mathematical inevitability accounts for why the constants fall exactly where they do. To continue placing faith in those explanations, despite what fine-tuning reveals, is to ignore the weight of the new evidence.
So, what’s the alternative?
One explanation is <a href="https://www.physicstogod.com/fine-tuning-argument-for-god" target="_blank" rel="noopener">straightforward</a>: the universe is fine-tuned because it has a fine-tuner. An intelligent Creator set the parameters needed for generating a complex and ordered universe that’s full of atoms, molecules, planets, stars, galaxies, and life.
At this point, critics often respond: “You’re just using God to fill in the gaps! That’s the old ‘God of the gaps’ fallacy.”
But that misses the point. This isn’t about ignorance. It isn’t a case of “We don’t know, so it must be God.” This is all about what we do know. We know the values of the constants. We know they are fine-tuned. And we know that when a system is exquisitely calibrated, it suggests an intelligent calibrator. That’s not filling a gap in our knowledge — it’s drawing a clear inference from established scientific evidence.
Yet, for many in the scientific community, the idea of God isn’t seen as a legitimate option — not because science rules it out, but because of prior philosophical prejudices. So, instead, they turn to an alternative: the multiverse.
The multiverse hypothesis posits an infinite number of unobservable universes, each with different physical laws and constants. In such a scenario, anything that can happen does happen — somewhere. Of course, in an infinite multiverse, there would be at least one universe with just the right conditions for life — and that’s the one we happen to observe. After all, we couldn’t exist in any of the countless, lifeless universes where complexity never forms.
This is sometimes presented as a clever way to explain fine-tuning without God. But that impression fades once you consider what an infinite multiverse actually implies.
Physicist Alan Guth said it best: “Anything that can happen will happen; in fact, it will happen an infinite number of times.” So, in an infinite multiverse, there are universes where George Washington is still alive. Where you’re president. Where unicorns are real. Where Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs exist.
We’re not joking. That’s what the theory implies.
After all, in an infinite collection of universes, every possible arrangement of atoms must exist somewhere. With infinite universes, science begins to blur into science fiction.
The trouble is, no one has ever observed another universe. By definition, an infinite multiverse is untestable, unfalsifiable, and unobservable. It’s not a scientific theory in the usual sense — it’s philosophical speculation dressed up as science, aimed at avoiding the clear implications of fine-tuning. And that’s just the beginning. From here, the <a href="https://www.physicstogod.com/is-the-multiverse-real" target="_blank" rel="noopener">problems with the multiverse</a> only get worse.
So, let’s consider where this leaves us.
On one side, theists point to the measurable, precise fine-tuning of nature’s constants. We observe one universe — ours — and it appears finely set up for atoms, planets, stars, and life. On the other side, atheists propose an infinite number of unobservable universes to avoid the possibility that ours was fine-tuned.
Now, ask yourself: which seems more rational?
Science has brought us to a turning point. The fine-tuning argument is no relic of ancient theology. It’s a modern, scientifically-grounded case for an intelligent cause of the universe. The resistance it provokes stems not from a lack of evidence, but from discomfort with what the evidence implies.
In the end, modern physics offers us a glimpse into the deep structure of reality. And what we find is not chaos, but extraordinary order and purpose. The universe is fine-tuned. Fine-tuning points to a Fine-Tuner. If we’re serious about science, we must be equally serious about following the evidence wherever it leads — even if it <a href="https://www.physicstogod.com/3-proofs-of-god-from-science" target="_blank" rel="noopener">leads us directly to God</a>.
Rabbi Elie Feder, PhD, and Rabbi Aaron Zimmer, host the “Physics to God” podcast.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Low Angle View Of Silhouette Man Against Star Field

Why Modern Physics Points To God

Outer Space

A <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/canada" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Canadian</a> university is embarking on a project to fundamentally alter <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/physics" target="_blank" rel="noopener">physics</a> as a science by &#8220;decolonizing light.&#8221;
A group of researchers across disciplines from Concordia University in Montreal, Quebec, is working on the project, which seeks to change the way the science of physics is perceived as an academic discipline, according to a report from <a href="https://www.thecollegefix.com/scholars-work-at-decolonizing-light-to-combat-colonialism-in-contemporary-physics/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The College Fix</a>. The project took aim at light specifically because it is ubiquitous across cultures and used in a number of scientific fields.
&#8220;The Decolonizing Light project explores ways and approaches to decolonize science, such as revitalizing and restoring Indigenous knowledges, and capacity building,&#8221; the <a href="https://decolonizinglight.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">website</a> for the project states. &#8220;The project aims to developing a culture of critical reflection and investigation of the relation of science and colonialism.&#8221;
Established in 2021, the project is led by <a href="https://www.concordia.ca/faculty/tanja-tajmel.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Tanja Tajmel</a>, a special equity, diversity, and inclusion advisor to the dean of Concordia University and an Associate Professor at the university&#8217;s Centre for Engineering in Society. Also leading the project are Associate Professor of &#8220;First Peoples Studies,&#8221; <a href="https://www.concordia.ca/faculty/louellyn-white.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Louellyn White</a>, and Associate Professor of Physics and Chemistry and Biochemistry, <a href="https://www.concordia.ca/artsci/physics/faculty.html?fpid=ingo-salzmann" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Ingo Salzmann</a>.
The project boasts a roster of 15 collaborators, including: Concordia &#8220;Indigenous pedagogy adviser&#8221; <a href="https://explore.concordia.ca/index.php/donna-kaherakwas-goodleaf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Donna Kahérakwas Goodleaf</a>; environmental researcher and chemistry researcher Gregor Kos; three representatives from the Kahnawà:ke Environment Protection Office (KEPO), an indigenous environmental advocacy group; University of Toronto astronomer and indigenous activist Hilding Neilson; and 9 graduate and undergraduate workers. The project also features collaboration from five researchers at major universities around the world.
The project also has the financial backing of the <a href="https://www.sshrc-crsh.gc.ca/funding-financement/nfrf-fnfr/about-au_sujet-eng.aspx" target="_blank" rel="noopener">New Frontiers in Research Fund</a>. The NFRE is a research fund established by the Canadian government in 2018 to support &#8220;interdisciplinary, high-risk/high-reward, transformative research led by Canadian researchers working with Canadian and international partners.&#8221;
&#8220;This fund seeks to inspire innovative research projects that push boundaries into exciting new areas and that have the potential to deliver game-changing impacts,&#8221; the NFRE website states.
In a <a href="https://pic-pac.cap.ca/index.php/Issues/showpdf/article/v77n1.0-a4130.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">2021 paper</a> outlining the project, Salzmann, White, Goodleaf, and Tajmel said that the &#8220;unique scientific authority&#8221; of physics was the reason they targeted it. &#8220;Physics is commonly regarded as the &#8216;most objective&#8217; and the &#8216;hardest’ science, it fundamentally defines scientific key concepts such as energy, matter, force, light, space and time, for all the other sciences,&#8221; the professors wrote. &#8220;For our purpose, it is important to understand physics as a social field rather than as &#8216;pure knowledge&#8217; independent from social values and decisions.&#8221;
The professors chose light specifically &#8220;because light is ubiquitous in every society, language and culture. In everyday life, light is a key element that defines familiar aspects like color and warmth. In physics, light is exploited as the primary carrier of information about nature (e.g., in astronomy), used as the primary probe for the fundamental properties of matter (e.g., in spectroscopy),&#8221; and researched at major facilities like the Canadian Light Source in Saskatchewan, the professors added.
&#8220;The purpose of our project is not to find new or better explanations of light; we are not seeking to improve scientific 
‘truth,’” they continued. &#8220;Rather, our project initiatives are motivated by the marginalization of women, Black people, and Indigenous peoples, particularly in physics. We regard marginalization as a key problem for social equity as well as for scientific quality. Furthermore, we regard scientific knowledge that reproduces bias and colonial power relations as non-acceptable.&#8221;
The project is still active. According to their website, the last event was &#8220;An Evening of Indigenous Star Stories with Cree Astronomer Wilfred Buck,&#8221; on October 26.

‘Decolonizing Light’: Canadian University Project Aims To Redefine ‘Physics As A Social Field’

'Decolonizing Light': Canadian University Project Aims To Redefine 'Physics As A Social Field'

Canada

indigenous

Race

Social Issues

Universities

World

A prominent theoretical physicist faced severe backlash after sharing a widely-debunked representation of biological sex as a &#8220;spectrum.&#8221;
Sean M. Carroll, who specializes in quantum mechanics and teaches philosophy at John Hopkins University, <a href="https://twitter.com/seanmcarroll/status/1592168158865281025?s=20&amp;t=ubAc_KGXKURwxxTe_fkrgQ" target="_blank" rel="noopener">tweeted</a> on Sunday his dissension with an <a href="https://www.realityslaststand.com/p/sex-is-not-a-spectrum" target="_blank" rel="noopener">evolutionary biologist&#8217;s</a> statement of biological sex being &#8220;real, immutable, and binary.&#8221; Caroll, invoking &#8220;actual science,&#8221; as he called it, shared an infographic from the 2017 Scientific American <a href="https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/sa-visual/visualizing-sex-as-a-spectrum/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">article</a>, &#8220;Visualizing Sex as a Spectrum.&#8221; The deluge of critical responses to his ill-fated tweet caused Carroll to turn off comments.
“‘Actual science&#8217; done by biologists shows 2 sexes, one with small mobile gametes and the other with large, immobile ones,&#8221; said renowned evolutionary biologist <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/renowned-biologist-rebukes-inclusive-biology-instruction" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Jerry Coyne</a> in <a href="https://twitter.com/Evolutionistrue/status/1592224185832837121?s=20&amp;t=MKyOvpJBZupSmf56VRyrQw" target="_blank" rel="noopener">response</a>. &#8220;There is no third sex. Disorders of sex development are not new sexes, and biological sex is binary. Let&#8217;s not conflate sex, gender &amp; developmental anomalies.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
&quot;Actual science&quot; done by biologists shows 2 sexes, one with small mobile gametes and the other with large, immobile ones. There is no third sex. Disorders of sex development are not new sexes, and biological sex is binary. Let&#39;s not conflate sex, gender &amp; developmental anomalies. <a href="https://t.co/tANXZM5S0r">https://t.co/tANXZM5S0r</a>
&mdash; Jerry Coyne (@Evolutionistrue) <a href="https://twitter.com/Evolutionistrue/status/1592224185832837121?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 14, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
The infographic, commonly touted by trans activists as a refutation to the longstanding binary model of sex, relies on the existence of intersex conditions to argue that biological sex is best visualized as a &#8220;spectrum.&#8221; This infographic depicts a small number of discrete disorders of sexual development (DSD), or &#8220;intersex conditions,&#8221; arbitrarily placed between female and male.
&#8220;This chart is a futile attempt to pretend sex is a spectrum by taking a handful of DSDs and lining them up in a nonsensical order that in no way reveals a spectrum,&#8221; <a href="https://twitter.com/FondOfBeetles/status/1371893788784914434?s=20&amp;t=MKyOvpJBZupSmf56VRyrQw" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> developmental biologist Emma Hilton.
Intersex conditions are genetic abnormalities resulting in sexually ambiguous genitalia that affect about <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12476264/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">0.018%</a> of the population. The existence of these developmental sex differences does not negate that sex is a binary system comprised of males and females.
Some of the intersex conditions were &#8220;irrationally&#8221; placed further apart with arrows extending across the graphic and crossing each other to &#8220;generate the illusion of complexity,&#8221; <a href="https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1592213002530525186.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> Hilton.
Intersex conditions have absolutely no bearing on gender self-identification, and people with DSD have even <a href="https://differently-normal.com/2021/10/25/the-invention-of-intersex/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">asked</a> that their condition not be &#8220;appropriated&#8221; for the purpose of transgender activism. Despite this, intersex conditions are often touted by activists to claim that sex is a spectrum, and their numbers are frequently incorrectly <a href="https://www.realityslaststand.com/p/intersex-is-not-as-common-as-red" target="_blank" rel="noopener">inflated</a> to 1.7%, or &#8220;as common as red hair.&#8221;
&#8220;Humans are a species with precisely two sexes, no more and no less,&#8221; <a href="https://www.realityslaststand.com/p/the-origins-of-two-sexes">said</a> Zach Elliott, a science educator who specialized in sex differences. &#8220;This means that there are exactly two distinct reproductive roles—referred to as male and female—centered around the production of two gametes of differing size (a form of sexual reproduction known as anisogamy).&#8221;
Evolutionary biologist Heather Heying <a href="https://twitter.com/HeatherEHeying/status/1592561640377323520?s=20&amp;t=auFJAI5RXu7Aak0aPiF3YA" target="_blank" rel="noopener">chimed in</a> on Tuesday to reiterate that sex, indeed, is a binary system.
Scientific American, the publication that produced the sex spectrum graphic, was a once respected popular science magazine that veered off into a leftist tabloid in recent years. Michael Shermer, who had a &#8220;Skeptic&#8221; column at Scientific American for 18 years, <a href="https://michaelshermer.substack.com/p/scientific-american-goes-woke" target="_blank" rel="noopener">details</a> the magazine&#8217;s long-running departure from science and reason, beginning in about 2019.
&#8220;The interchange between Michael and his editors gives us some insight into the termites chewing into the edifice of Scientific American,&#8221; Coyne wrote on his <a href="https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2021/11/18/michael-shermer-documents-the-decline-and-fall-of-scientific-american/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">website</a>, Why Evolution is True. &#8220;My prediction is that unless the editors go back to its original format and lay off the propagandizing, the magazine will fold. After all, you can read about social justice and wokeness nearly everywhere, including Teen Vogue, but Scientific American was once unique.&#8221;
Steven Novella, a popular science blogger, <a href="https://thepostmillennial.com/debunks-popular-science-blogs-bimodal-portrayal-of-sex" target="_blank" rel="noopener">proposed</a> an equally unscientific model of &#8220;bimodal&#8221; sex in July, despite the fact that no peer-reviewed biology papers have ever claimed that sex is best described as bimodal, nor has any biologist ever been able to articulate the traits and measurements used to create the bimodal sex spectrum. In Novella&#8217;s <a href="https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-science-of-biological-sex/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">article</a>, he surreptitiously cites studies of crustaceans and mice to explain sexual differences, without properly informing the reader that he isn’t speaking about human biology or development.

color image of sperm inseminated egg, life concept

Physicist Gets Slammed For Promoting Sex Spectrum Pseudoscience

U.S.

<a class="editor-rtfLink" href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/europe" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Europe</a> is about to fire up the giant atom smasher that helped scientists discover the so-called “God particle,” prompting wacky internet fears it could create a <a class="editor-rtfLink" href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/space" target="_blank" rel="noopener">black hole</a> that swallows the world or open a portal to Hell.
The Large Hadron Collider, in a giant physics lab near <a class="editor-rtfLink" href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/switzerland" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Geneva</a>, has been dormant for the last three years. The European Organization for Nuclear Research, also known as CERN, intends to restart the particle accelerator this week in a search for anti-matter and answers to more of the universe’s most vexing mysteries.
“CERN will restart their large Hadron Collider next week, July 5th,” <a class="editor-rtfLink" href="https://twitter.com/patriotmimzy/status/1542601826733887489?s=20&amp;t=2V0YkiMTz-tMv8p30MwzeA" target="_blank" rel="noopener">tweeted Patriot Mimzy</a>. “They are messing with things that don’t need to be messed with.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
CERN will restart their large Hadron Collider next week, July 5th. They are messing with things that don&#39;t need to be messed with.
&mdash; 🌎 plɹoʍ uʍop-ǝpᴉsd∩ 🌎 (@patriotmimzy) <a href="https://twitter.com/patriotmimzy/status/1542601826733887489?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 30, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
“They’re trying to recreate the Big Bang &amp; open a portal to another dimension at CERN with the Large Hadron Collider,” <a class="editor-rtfLink" href="https://twitter.com/AndreasYilma/status/1541999751381790720?s=20&amp;t=2V0YkiMTz-tMv8p30MwzeA" target="_blank" rel="noopener">wrote Twitter user Andreas</a>.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
They&#39;re trying to recreate the Big Bang &amp; open a portal to another dimension at CERN with the Large Hadron Collider, largest &amp; most powerful particle accelerator. There&#39;s a statue of Shiva, a Hindu God, also known as the destroyer outside. It&#39;s being turned back on July 5 😧
&mdash; Andreas (@AndreasYilma) <a href="https://twitter.com/AndreasYilma/status/1541999751381790720?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 29, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
https://twitter.com/Jay_Apocalyptic/status/1540817189154033666?s=20&#038;t=2V0YkiMTz-tMv8p30MwzeA
The enormous, 17-mile-long tube-like underground machine is built to conduct quantum experiments that could help explain how the Big Bang occurred. It works by colliding subatomic particles at near light speed, then recording what happens in the aftermath. In 2012, CERN scientists finally observed the long-theorized Higgs boson, or so-called “God particle.”
In the simplest terms, the Higgs boson is the particle associated with the Higgs field, an energy field that gives mass to elements that pass through it. When the collider smashes beams of protons at each other, the collisions create subatomic particles. The discovery of the “God particle” was the last piece of the modern physics puzzle and helped scientists understand how about a dozen subatomic particles smashing together during the Big Bang generated the mass we now see in the universe.
But many more questions remain unanswered for the CERN physicists, including why matter so vastly outnumbers anti-matter, why gravity exists, and what comprises vast parts of the universe that cannot be seen. If the Large Hadron Collider can help solve those mysteries, scientists believe, it may help us determine if other dimensions exist.
“One way of seeing evidence for other dimensions involves gravity &#8211; specifically, the theoretical particle associated with the gravity called the graviton,” reported <a class="editor-rtfLink" href="https://www.energy.gov/articles/searching-upside-down" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Energy</a>. “And if we can create gravitons at the Large Hadron Collider at CERN, we might be able to see evidence of them leaving our dimensions for other ones.”
To mark the 10-year anniversary of the discovery of the Higgs boson, CERN will conduct collisions at unprecedented energy levels inside the collider. Events will be streamed live on CERN’s social media channels.
CERN made its way into American pop culture in 2016 when it was part of a plot in the hit Netflix show “Stranger Things.” In the show’s first season, a super collider helped reveal another dimension known as the “upside down world.” And according to the Department of Energy, some of the science behind the plot was not as far-fetched as one might think.
“Actually, there is real, hard science behind the idea of extra dimensions, and the Department of Energy’s Office of Science is involved in studying this very thing, in both theory and experiment,” <a class="editor-rtfLink" href="https://www.energy.gov/articles/searching-upside-down" target="_blank" rel="noopener">the DOE stated in 2017</a>. “It turns out the ideas presented in the ‘Stranger Things’ episode ‘The Flea and the Acrobat’ are pretty much spot on.”

Hadron Collider

Giant Atom Smasher That Revealed ‘God Particle’ Restarts, Along With Doomsday Conspiracy Theories

Giant Atom Smasher That Revealed 'God Particle' Restarts, Along With Doomsday Theories

Space

Stranger Things

Switzerland

After twenty years, confirmation of research done in 2001 has been found that a tiny subatomic particle may be defying the best theory scientists have of how physics work, titled the Standard Model.
At the Department of Energy’s Fermilab in Batavia, Illinois, scientists sent a beam of muons into a huge 50-foot-wide storage ring controlled by superconducting magnets. Muons are roughly 200 times bigger than electrons and occur when cosmic rays strike Earth’s atmosphere.
Muons seem to have an internal magnet which wobbles, also known as “precesses,” like the axis of a top that spins. The rate of the precessing is determined by how strong the seeming internal magnet is. The muons circulating within the storage ring contact a quantum foam of subatomic particles that appear and disappear, thus slowing down or speeding up. That is called the “magnetic moment,” which is “represented in equations by a factor called g,” as <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/07/science/particle-physics-muon-fermilab-brookhaven.html?smtyp=cur&amp;smid=tw-nytimes">The New York Times</a> explained.
The Standard Model should be able to predict the “magnetic moment” with precision, but if additional forces or particles lie within the quantum foam that the Standard Model cannot explain, the muon’s g-factor would be affected.
“The predecessor experiment at DOE’s Brookhaven National Laboratory, which concluded in 2001, offered hints that the muon’s behavior disagreed with the Standard Model. The new measurement from the Muon g-2 experiment at Fermilab strongly agrees with the value found at Brookhaven and diverges from theory with the most precise measurement to date,” <a href="https://news.fnal.gov/2021/04/first-results-from-fermilabs-muon-g-2-experiment-strengthen-evidence-of-new-physics/">Fermilab</a> stated.
In 2006, the <a href="https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.73.072003">final result</a> of the 2001 research at the Brookhaven National Laboratory was announced, and there was a discrepancy with the Standard Model’s prediction. As Jennifer Ouellette of Ars Technica explained:
<blockquote>The muon&#8217;s measured magnet moment came in at a smaller value. Even more intriguing, that result was deemed a 3.7-sigma effect. (A signal’s strength <a href="https://www.quantamagazine.org/dark-matter-search-converges-on-narrow-energy-range-20130718/">is determined</a> by the number of standard statistical deviations, or sigmas, from the expected background in the data, producing a telltale &#8220;bump.&#8221; This metric is often compared to a coin landing on heads several tosses in a row. A three-sigma result is a strong hint. The gold standard for claiming discovery is a <a href="http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2012/07/17/five-sigmawhats-that/">five-sigma result</a>, comparable to tossing 21 heads in a row, for example.)</blockquote>
She continued: “That said, three-sigma results, while tantalizing, pop up all the time in particle physics, and more often than not, they disappear once more data is added to the mix. So Fermilab revived the Muon g-2 experiment in hopes of either confirming or refuting the discrepancy once and for all.”
The latest results closely matched the results from Brookhaven: “Taken together, they boost the statistical significance to 4.2 sigma—teetering just on the verge of the threshold required for discovery,” Ouelette noted, adding, “That means there is only a 1 in 40,000 chance that this is due to a statistical fluctuation.”
Chris Polly, a physicist at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory who was a graduate student at Brookhaven and has been studying the issue for decades, stated, “This is our Mars rover landing moment. … After the 20 years that have passed since the Brookhaven experiment ended, it is so gratifying to finally be resolving this mystery.” He added, “So far we have analyzed less than 6% of the data that the experiment will eventually collect. Although these first results are telling us that there is an intriguing difference with the Standard Model, we will learn much more in the next couple of years.”
Renee Fatemi, a physicist at the University of Kentucky, echoed, “This is strong evidence that the muon is sensitive to something that is not in our best theory.”
Polly noted a graph showing white space where the latest results differed from the Standard Model, then said, “We can say with fairly high confidence there must be something contributing to this white space. What monsters might be lurking there?”

A graphic showing traces of collision of

‘What Monsters Might Be Lurking There?’: Scientists Say Particle May Overturn Laws Of Physics

Menu