Here: The End of Physics? Jessica Orwig, January 14, 2014 -Business Insider Dangerous No. 1: The strength of the Higgs field Dangerous No. 2: The strength of dark energy That's 10 to the 120th power times stronger Getting answers could be impossible He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end. Ecc 3:11
Interesting image, but I fail to see how a multiverse can be translated as such - based upon our own, familiar, seemingly three dimensions.
Multiverse is speculation and nothing to do with science proper. (But I will be the one!) It's a terrible hypothesis that seeks to reinsert metaphysics into science when science has been trying to purge itself of metaphysics. Whoever said that we're 'reaching the absolute limit of what we can understand about the world around us through science' is an educated idiot, betraying once again the idea that we in our present condition are masters of the universe... When we only just decided that Pluto wasn't a planet after all.
WE CAN'T LEARN ANYTHING NEW ...http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/01/feature-astronomers-say-neptune-sized-planet-lurks-unseen-solar-system
Yeah, the title was a little weird, although they clarified is as pertaining to physics rather than all fields of science. There are bushels more areas of investigatioin all over the place. Certainly some of the esoteric cosmological studies are going to hit a limit, or simply be untestable, but even then, never say never.
I think the claim is worth a bit of mockery. Reminds of a Voyager episode, one of the one's where Kes starts turning into an energy being. In this particular episode she begins deconstructing reality or something like that, and beings to reveal components of the universe that hadn't yet been discovered. To think that we're in the infancy of physics and about to reach the 'absolute limit' is pathetic.
Harry Cliff, the scientist in question, a particle physicist from CERN, briefly sums up the quest in the ultimate question: "Why do we have something instead of nothing?" and warns that physics might be reaching an "era" in which it cannot answer this fundamental question. His presentation is on a video at the bottom page of the site I linked. Or Here (TED.com) If the universe was Divinely created from nothing, physics will be at a perpetual loss - ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth - to explain the "why" of existence, though science is a wonderful process for learning the mechanics of what is here. Unless physics can somehow stumble into the presence of God, which I doubt, though HIggs Bozon has been nicknamed the "God" particle.
The answer to 'why is there something rather than nothing' isn't the domain of physics, so talk about applying the wrong tool to the question (as if a description of the most fundamental things-that-are could ever tell us the why of those things). Physics would be at a 'perpetual loss' even if this universe were of entirely natural origins -- brute facts are brute facts. The suggestion of a multiverse creates this exact problem (our universe is randomly lucky out of countless others that don't have the right numbers for 'stuff' to exist), but even if this weren't the case and the multiverse were accessible, we'd still find ourselves looking for the next step back. Question: Have we reached the end of physics? Harry Cliff: 'We don't know what dark energy is' Answer: Not even close.
Well, if Physics has taken it upon itself to try and answer that question, then the people involved in that nonsense will get what they will get. Why can't they just be actual scientists who stick to facts and physical observations instead of trying to mix science with philosophy all the time by constantly feeling it necessary to have to answer the "why" behind the "what"? Also, if by "era" they mean "always and forever" ... that's probably spot on.
The question: "why do we get something instead of nothing?" involves the two numbers presented, and the "fine tuning" of both the Higgs field and dark matter, each of which, if changed even minutely would make physical existence impossible. The question does not involve or raise questions of philosophy or metaphysics at all. Cliff suggests that, minus the creation of increasingly more powerful accelerators and the discovery of ever more minute and evasive particles - all theoretical - science might be reaching an end to its ability to discover and understand the fundamental nature of the physical universe. He points out that recent theories, including string theory and multiverse/dimension theories, though potentially elegant in satisfying mathematical conundrums would in all likelihood remain untestable.
Sure, there are two questions here: 1) There's the question you're raising: why / how does the fine tuning of the Higgs field and dark matter lead to 'something'. -> This is a purely scientific question 2) There's the philosophical / metaphysical question: how did the fine tuned values of the Higgs field and dark matter come to be. -> This is the 'tone' of Cliffs message (understandably - it intrigues interest, hopefully helps with fundraising, etc.) Which makes for an interesting Ted presentation, and gives you a bit of screentime, but which isn't going to happen any time soon. When science starts producing metaphysical answers, it needs to take another look at what it's doing.
A scientist things we've reached the absolute limit of what can be learned in a given subject? Sounds more like a historian is asleep on the job.