F. J. Tipler, “The structure of the world from pure numbers,” Reports on Progress in Physics, Vol. 68, No. 4 (April 2005), pp. 897-964; available on Prof. Tipler’s website. Also released as “Feynman-Weinberg Quantum Gravity and the Extended Standard Model as a Theory of Everything,” arXiv:0704.3276, April 24, 2007.

Out of 50 articles, Prof. Tipler’s above paper was selected as one of 12 for the “Highlights of 2005″ accolade as “the very best articles published in Reports on Progress in Physics in 2005 [Vol. 68]. Articles were selected by the Editorial Board for their outstanding reviews of the field. They all received the highest praise from our international referees and a high number of downloads from the journal Website.” (See Richard Palmer, Publisher, “Highlights of 2005,” Reports on Progress in Physics website.)

Reports on Progress in Physics is the leading journal of the Institute of Physics, Britain’s main professional body for physicists. Further, Reports on Progress in Physics has a higher impact factor (according to Journal Citation Reports) than Physical Review Letters, which is the most prestigious American physics journal (one, incidently, which Prof. Tipler has been published in more than once). A journal’s impact factor reflects the importance the science community places in that journal in the sense of actually citing its papers in their own papers. (And just to point out, Tipler’s 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper could not have been published in Physical Review Letters since said paper is nearly book-length, and hence not a “letter” as defined by the latter journal.)

See also the below resource for further information on the Omega Point Theory:

Theophysics (a website on GeoCities)

Tipler is Professor of Mathematics and Physics (joint appointment) at Tulane University. His Ph.D. is in the field of global general relativity (the same rarefied field that Profs. Roger Penrose and Stephen Hawking developed), and he is also an expert in particle physics and computer science. His Omega Point Theory has been published in a number of prestigious peer-reviewed physics and science journals in addition to Reports on Progress in Physics, such as Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (one of the world’s leading astrophysics journals), Physics Letters B, the International Journal of Theoretical Physics, etc.

Prof. John A. Wheeler (the father of most relativity research in the U.S.) wrote that “Frank Tipler is widely known for important concepts and theorems in general relativity and gravitation physics” on pg. viii in the “Foreword” to The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (1986) by cosmologist Prof. John D. Barrow and Tipler, which was the first book wherein Tipler’s Omega Point Theory was described. On pg. ix of said book, Prof. Wheeler wrote that Chapter 10 of the book, which concerns the Omega Point Theory, “rivals in thought-provoking power any of the [other chapters].”

The leading quantum physicist in the world, Prof. David Deutsch (inventor of the quantum computer, being the first person to mathematically describe the workings of such a device, and winner of the Institute of Physics’ 1998 Paul Dirac Medal and Prize for his work), endorses the physics of the Omega Point Theory in his book The Fabric of Reality (1997). For that, see:

David Deutsch, extracts from Chapter 14: “The Ends of the Universe” of The Fabric of Reality: The Science of Parallel Universes–and Its Implications (London: Allen Lane The Penguin Press, 1997), ISBN: 0713990619; with additional comments by Frank J. Tipler. Available on the Theophysics website.

The only way to avoid the Omega Point cosmology is to resort to physical theories which have no experimental support and which violate the known laws of physics, such as with Prof. Stephen Hawking’s paper on the black hole information issue which is dependent on the conjectured string theory-based anti-de Sitter space/conformal field theory correspondence (AdS/CFT correspondence). See S. W. Hawking, “Information loss in black holes,” Physical Review D, Vol. 72, No. 8, 084013 (October 2005); also at arXiv:hep-th/0507171, July 18, 2005.

That is, Prof. Hawking’s paper is based upon empirically unconfirmed physics which violate the known laws of physics. It’s an impressive testament to the Omega Point Theory’s correctness, as Hawking implicitly confirms that the known laws of physics require the universe to collapse in finite time. Hawking realizes that the black hole information issue must be resolved without violating unitarity, yet he’s forced to abandon the known laws of physics in order to avoid unitarity violation without the universe collapsing.

Some have suggested that the universe’s current acceleration of its expansion obviates the universe collapsing (and therefore obviates the Omega Point). But as Profs. Lawrence M. Krauss and Michael S. Turner point out in “Geometry and Destiny” (General Relativity and Gravitation, Vol. 31, No. 10 [October 1999], pp. 1453-1459; also at arXiv:astro-ph/9904020, April 1, 1999), there is no set of cosmological observations which can tell us whether the universe will expand forever or eventually collapse.

There’s a very good reason for that, because that is dependant on the actions of intelligent life. The known laws of physics provide the mechanism for the universe’s collapse. As required by the Standard Model, the net baryon number was created in the early universe by baryogenesis via electroweak quantum tunneling. This necessarily forces the Higgs field to be in a vacuum state that is not its absolute vacuum, which is the cause of the positive cosmological constant. But if the baryons in the universe were to be annihilated by the inverse of baryogenesis, again via electroweak quantum tunneling (which is allowed in the Standard Model, as B – L is conserved), then this would force the Higgs field toward its absolute vacuum, cancelling the positive cosmological constant and thereby forcing the universe to collapse. Moreover, this process would provide the ideal form of energy resource and rocket propulsion during the colonization phase of the universe.

Prof. Tipler’s above 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper also demonstrates that the correct quantum gravity theory has existed since 1962, first discovered by Richard Feynman in that year, and independently discovered by Steven Weinberg and Bryce DeWitt, among others. But because these physicists were looking for equations with a finite number of terms (i.e., derivatives no higher than second order), they abandoned this qualitatively unique quantum gravity theory since in order for it to be consistent it requires an arbitrarily higher number of terms. Further, they didn’t realize that this proper theory of quantum gravity is consistent only with a certain set of boundary conditions imposed (which includes the initial Big Bang, and the final Omega Point, cosmological singularities). The equations for this theory of quantum gravity are term-by-term finite, but the same mechanism that forces each term in the series to be finite also forces the entire series to be infinite (i.e., infinities that would otherwise occur in spacetime, consequently destabilizing it, are transferred to the cosmological singularities, thereby preventing the universe from immediately collapsing into nonexistence). As Tipler notes in his 2007 book The Physics of Christianity (pp. 49 and 279), “It is a fundamental mathematical fact that this [infinite series] is the best that we can do. … This is somewhat analogous to Liouville’s theorem in complex analysis, which says that all analytic functions other than constants have singularities either a finite distance from the origin of coordinates or at infinity.”

When combined with the Standard Model, the result is the Theory of Everything (TOE) correctly describing and unifying all the forces in physics.

Now its really coming close to “ha ha, there is no God, no afterlife, only nonexistence, nothing but despair and human greed in this life, I feel so mentally superior by pointing this out to you foolish believers”…

OK, I’ll bite. Please cite author, work and page number so I can see this for myself.

Did I hear something about a preview / editing capability coming here at some stage?

Crackpots – minds without an editing capability.

[I believe a preview was promised this spring.]

@ Aleksandar:

His attempts at finding a scientific basis for Teilhardian philosophy? What is so bad with it?

Because it isn’t just “philosophy”. Besides Tipler’s anti-GW crackpotism, for example Teilhard’s teleological ideas on evolution are still pushed, despite the fact that the basis for evolution is contingency in its mechanisms – and that has been amply tested. (There is possibly secondary effects such as accumulation of variation, but even that is lowered during contingencies such as mass extinctions.)

And then you promote Teilhard’s ideas as harmless philosophy and argues that it’s sad that an “evolutionary biologist” is considered to be “a philosophical figure” one shakes one’s head at the unintended unthinking irony – as Teilhard was an evolutionary biologist!

Oops I did mean to mention that & put the quote in italics too.

Also make that Edgar Mitchell with a capital ‘M’.

Did I hear something about a preview / editing capability coming here at some stage?

Question – are such crackpots becoming more common or just more visible?

Are Conspiracy Theorists and crackpot theories becoming more common – and is it linked to any broader rise (?) in mental illness ..?

Not sure about the American figures but I think in Australia they reckon its about 1-in-4 people suffer mental illness of some kind.
(Or was that just for Depression?)

Sad for everyone involved in any case. Especially more so though itdoe ssem when the personused tobe so bright eg. Tipler, Mitchell.

Being sombre now ..

Are they now? Sure there’s no secret Fomalhautese or Betelgeusean aliens among them?

Not just later in life. Some of us go off the rails early, some go off them later and others were never *on* those rails to begin with!

Actually, its all pretty sad. It also reminds me a bit of the astronaut & Moon-walker Edgar mitchell & his UFO crackpottery …

To be fair, there probably are some people with attitudes like that, just not any of the “big names” that I know of. Aleksandar seems to think that every skeptic on the internet ought to be a Dawkins or Sagan, which is pretty unreasonable..

@amphiox: How is it even possible to scientifically “prove” the existence of the supernatural?

That’s not what Tipler does. He tries to demonstrate how immortality and resurrection can occur using known physical laws and a brittle chain of assumptions and logic.

Frank Tippler has fallen prey to the assumption that Intelligence/sentience is the whole point of evolution. As has been pointed out on numerous occasions, the only “point” of evolution is reproductive success. Our “intelligence” has allowed us to propagate into many and varied ecological niches, thus it APPEARS that intelligence is of value,,,well, I guess we’ll just have to wait and see about that.

GAry 7

Definitions:
Crack pot:
1)Broken pottery.
2) One who desperately clings to a sinking boat, despite all the people trying to pull him/her to shore.

Genius:(From the Greek)
1)One who creates something new(particularly applicable to art and music).
2)One who proposes a theory so outlandish, no rational being could possibly accept it, but evidence is later(often after the death of the “genius”) found to substantiate it.
3) Me!(accompanied by self deprecating, maniacal laughter).

Proposition:
1)You exist(Ok, so, from this you might surmise I am NOT a Solipsist).
2) We are all connected(If I flip my quantum state, will you do the same?).

Of all the possible manifestations of mass/energy , you and I are the ones that made it into this reality. Be happy. You could have remained in Limbo,,,

One of the possible consequences of General Relativity are temporal worm holes, which implies that past/present/future exist concurrently, ergo, anyone who has ever existed,,,still exists,,,we just can’t talk to them any more.
There’s your immortality.

Now, go hug your significant other/dog/cat,etc. and take joy in their existence.

Gary 7

Any phenomenon that is scientifically “proven” to exist is, by definition, natural, no?

(I mean, sure, some start out wacko and we mock them. But you never really took them seriously, so it seems way less weird I guess.)

Now its really coming close to “ha ha, there is no God, no afterlife, only nonexistence, nothing but despair and human greed in this life, I feel so mentally superior by pointing this out to you foolish believers”… Seriously, rhetoric of some “rational people supporting science and reason” really comes close sometimes to above parody.

Shorter Aleksandar: “Ha ha, I’ve built a straw man, but I’ve protected it with qualifiers like ‘close’ and ‘sometimes’ so you can’t really call it a straw man.”

There’s something on this in one of the Pratchett/Stewart/Cohen books (The Science of Discworld, I think). They refer to it as the “philosopause”: the tendency for good scientists to spend the latter parts of their careers pursuing not-very-good philosophy.

Newton is the canonical example…

If you really want to know about research on this, you should go to the website, look up his name, and then e-mail him for literature references.

Grasping at any straw that might give hope past the final destination becomes more important the closer you get. Embracing notions that postulate the country past that destination is probably normal: not seeing a future for yourself is a hallmark of severe depression. It’s cognitive dissonance, also, for imaginative folks not to wonder about the unknown, especially the final big and scary one. Settling on one potential idea is probably a way to avoid constant anxiety, and telling others and getting agreement sets the idea as more plausible.

Who knows? Maybe Phil P. will find himself oddly unsatisfied as he hits 60 or 70, and start searching for something more.

A physicist may very well be allowed to indulge in highly speculative work from time to time. There is however a big difference between speculation and incoherent babbling. And if Sean’s article is in any way reliable, Tipler falls in the latter category.

Another commenter mentioned Peter Duesberg, who forms an instructive case. For a couple of years he qualified as a gadfly: someone whose work was widely considered to be incorrect, but which still made contact with reality and might just possibly have been correct. Then a number of results came in which clearly demonstrated that Duesberg was in fact incorrect. Had he then acknowledged his mistake, I’m sure that his speculative forays would have been forgiven by most scientists. But he carried on as if nothing had changed – at that point he turned from a gadfly into a crank.

I would speculate (hopefully not incoherently) that people like Duesberg and Hoyle get addicted to publicity. Once they are in the public eye, they enjoy the attention so much that remaining there becomes more important to them than intellectual integrity. Quite likely this applies to Behe, Pons & Fleischmann and many others as well. I don’t know enough about Tipler to say whether it applies to him, though.

But I’m with HP and DP: lots of people do this. (Plenty of people don’t even have any intellectual integrity to begin with.) It just seems worse when it happens to a scientist.

This is just a thought, but what if it has to do with a fear, perhaps subconsciously) of no longer existing? I’ve thought about this quite a bit, usually inadvertently, and it has on a few occasions kept me up half the night. I have not come to any definitive conclusions on the matter (the truth is there’s really no way for me to know for sure), but I can see what kind of conclusions others can reach.

I think, therefore I am.
I just cannot accept no longer being, so I must continue thinking after my body dies.
How would I be thinking if I no longer have a brain to do that? There must be a medium for this thought.
We have not found such a medium, so it must exist beyond what we can observe.
It’s possible to continue this line of thought until you conclude that God is the thought processes of the universe itself.

Now, there is nothing wrong with speculation, as long as you understand that’s all it is. You can play “What if?” scenarios all day, but if you start accepting those scenarios at face value with absolutely nothing else to show for them and act on them as such, that’s when you step into dangerous territory. Even my thoughts above on why these guys believe what they do is mere speculation based on my own thought processes. Take from them what you will; just don’t automatically think I’m right.