Atheist Universe: Not Impossible

[Penumbra]

Wiccan Child, I thought of two more questions today! While I was at the gym today I was pondering spacetime (yeah I know how that sounds...) and came upon two questions I want to ask!

1. I remembered my lessons from physics class that stated that all objects are all traveling at light speed all the time, except it is through spacetime instead of just space. If we move through time at full speed, we don't move through space. If we move through space at full speed, we don't move through time (like light). Usually, we move through space and time, so it's kind of like two sides of a right triangle, with the hypotenuse being always equal to light speed. I remember being taught that this is why people on a rocket ship would age more slowly than on earth, because they are moving through space quicker and therefore have less of this speed to devote towards time, and hence they move slower through time. My question to you is, how does this relate to what you told me about how only acceleration is absolute, and constant speed is all relative? Does that claim invalidate the concept that all objectives move through spacetime at an absolute constant?

2. Simultaneity was bugging me today. When I learned it, we were given an example of a pistol duel on a train, and each person stood equal distance from a light, and they could fire when they saw the light turn on. We were taught that, because of the motion of the train, a third observer on the train and a fourth observer standing off of the train would disagree as to whether the light reached them simultaneously, and this is easy for me to grasp. But we never finished the example, and that's what was bugging me! If the train is moving so quickly that the inconsistency actually has a significant effect, what will the outcome be? If the observer on the train sees the light reach them simultaneously, and they both fire, she'll see them both die. If the observer standing off of the train sees the light reach one of them first, she'll see that person fire first, and so that person will live because the other person will die before firing. So one observer sees two deaths and one observer sees only one death. If the train slows down to a stop and both observers go collect the bodies, how many will there be?

I considered that maybe the answer is that parallel universes need to be considered. I also considered that based on the way the experiment is set up, both will die anyway, because the second person will still be able to fire before he gets hit by the bullet even if to one observer the light hits him second. But then I thought of a similar experiment where this is not an issue, and so the question still holds. What do you think would happen?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

1. I remembered my lessons from physics class that stated that all objects are all traveling at light speed all the time, except it is through spacetime instead of just space. If we move through time at full speed, we don't move through space. If we move through space at full speed, we don't move through time (like light). Usually, we move through space and time, so it's kind of like two sides of a right triangle, with the hypotenuse being always equal to light speed. I remember being taught that this is why people on a rocket ship would age more slowly than on earth, because they are moving through space quicker and therefore have less of this speed to devote towards time, and hence they move slower through time.

That's a very interesting way of thinking about it.

My question to you is, how does this relate to what you told me about how only acceleration is absolute, and constant speed is all relative? Does that claim invalidate the concept that all objectives move through spacetime at an absolute constant?

No. If the model is true, then it means that something moves through spacetime at an absolute velocity c. However, the speed at which it moves through space is still relative. So, by extension, the speed at which it moves through space is also relative (and, in fact, given by v[sub]t[/sub] = c / &#947.

2. Simultaneity was bugging me today. When I learned it, we were given an example of a pistol duel on a train, and each person stood equal distance from a light, and they could fire when they saw the light turn on. We were taught that, because of the motion of the train, a third observer on the train and a fourth observer standing off of the train would disagree as to whether the light reached them simultaneously, and this is easy for me to grasp. But we never finished the example, and that's what was bugging me! If the train is moving so quickly that the inconsistency actually has a significant effect, what will the outcome be? If the observer on the train sees the light reach them simultaneously, and they both fire, she'll see them both die. If the observer standing off of the train sees the light reach one of them first, she'll see that person fire first, and so that person will live because the other person will die before firing. So one observer sees two deaths and one observer sees only one death. If the train slows down to a stop and both observers go collect the bodies, how many will there be?

Two. You must consider it from the dueller's points of view (which are identical), because it's what they see that determines what events occur. What the third parties see is irrelevant.
The light source, dueller A, and dueller B, are all stationary with respect to each other. Assuming they're equidistant from the source, they'll see the light at the same time, fire at the same time, so there'll be two bodies.

Now, the person who's standing on the train station watching them speed by (person C) will not see the events occur simultaneously. She'll see the same events, that doesn't change, but she won't see them occur at the same time (unlike A, B, and the other person on the train, who do see them happening at the same time).

If we take the train to be moving from left to right, then she will see the light reach the left-hand dueller first. So the left-hand dueller fires first, followed shortly thereafter by the right-hand dueller. But, because the bullets* have to actually travel to the other dueller in order to kill them, there is enough time for the right-hand dueller to fire before he is killed by the left-hand dueller's bullet.

*or perhaps they have fancy lasers, just to make things complicated for me!

So, to summarise what the third parties see:

• Light leaves the source.
• Light reaches A and B simultaneously.
• A and B fire simultaneously.
• A and B's bullets hit B and A simultaneously.
• A and B are now dead.

From the other point of view:

• Light leaves the source.
• Light reaches A.
• A fires.
• Light reaches B.
• B fires.
• A's bullet hits B.
• B's bullet hits A.
• A and B are now dead.

Notice how, although the events are in different orders, the same events are played out.

Anyway, to summarise: the bullets have to travel between the duellers, which allows for the same events to be played out (albeit not in the same order). This picture might be useful:

I considered that maybe the answer is that parallel universes need to be considered. I also considered that based on the way the experiment is set up, both will die anyway, because the second person will still be able to fire before he gets hit by the bullet even if to one observer the light hits him second. But then I thought of a similar experiment where this is not an issue, and so the question still holds. What do you think would happen?

No parallel universes are involved !
You got it right the second time: the light from the source must reach the other dueller before the bullet (or even laser) reaches him. After all, it's got a head-start and a shorter distance to travel in order to reach him. And since nothing moves faster than light (not even a laser beam, and definitely not a bullet), the 'signal' will always reach him before he is killed.

So what is this other experiment you thought of?

I find these sorts of questions absolutely fascinating, because it's the best way to get your head around relativity. Keep 'em coming .

 

[Polycarp_fan]

An atheist universe is reality only as an opinion of an atheist.

That the universe exists, as far as we can measure it, stands to reason against nothing causing it to happen in the first place.

 

[Psudopod]

Who says that nothing caused it to happen? No physicist I know. We might not know what caused it, but that doesn't mean "poof and it happened".

 

[Wiccan_Child]

An atheist universe is reality only as an opinion of an atheist.

That the universe exists, as far as we can measure it, stands to reason against nothing causing it to happen in the first place.

Why? Just because something exists doesn't mean it had a cause.

Who says that nothing caused it to happen? No physicist I know. We might not know what caused it, but that doesn't mean "poof and it happened".

Nor does it mean it had a cause. Uncaused events are all around us, woven into the very fabric of spacetime. Why, then, can't the universe have come into being by the same process (or lack thereof)?

 

[Polycarp_fan]

Why? Just because something exists doesn't mean it had a cause.

Where? When? How? Science says just the opposite to your opinion.

Nor does it mean it had a cause. Uncaused events are all around us, woven into the very fabric of spacetime.

You're not joking?

Why, then, can't the universe have come into being by the same process (or lack thereof)?

Everything started by nothing causing it to happen?

And you are NOT joking?

 

[Psudopod]

Originally Posted by Psudopod

Who says that nothing caused it to happen? No physicist I know. We might not know what caused it, but that doesn't mean "poof and it happened".
​

Nor does it mean it had a cause. Uncaused events are all around us, woven into the very fabric of spacetime. Why, then, can't the universe have come into being by the same process (or lack thereof)?

True.

I'm well out of the loop of current thinking on this topic.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

True.

I'm well out of the loop of current thinking on this topic.

Science has an annoying habit of turning out intuitive notions about the universe on their head

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Where? When?

Since we're talking about spacetime, it doesn't make sense to ask where and when it first became existent. That's like asking the classic 'What's North of North?', or, 'What happened before the dawn of time?'.

How?

That's anyone's guess.

Science says just the opposite to your opinion.

Do enlighten me. Because, unless I'm really out of the loop, quantum mechanics and relativity haven't been disproven yet.

You're not joking?

No.

Everything started by nothing causing it to happen?

No. I contend that events do not necessarily require a prior cause. Radioactivity, the Casimir effect, virtual particles, scanning tunnelling microscopy, Hawking radiation, etc, all confirm the predictions made by quantum mechanics: events occur which do not have any prior cause.

And since we know nothing about how the universe formed, how can we rule out the possibility that it spontaneously came into being?

And you are NOT joking?

No.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I think most theories derive from intuition my friend. XD

Quantum mechanics and relativity are hardly intuitive .

 

[Polycarp_fan]

YouTube - The biggest star known to man

I think some of the christians need to view this link, it will give them a great perspective of just how large the Universe is and how small we really are =3

We've been saying that for some time now.

 

[mpok1519]

Saying it, and realizing it are two different things.

 

[Penumbra]

So what is this other experiment you thought of?

Now that you affirmed one of my suspicions regarding the first experiment, I think my other experiment will fall short for the same reasons you specified about the previous experiment, but I'm not sure.

The idea in this experiment is to make the process one step instead of two. Instead of using a signal to reach the dueler (step one), and having her fire a laser gun (step two), the experiment can be simplified by making the signal itself be a lethal laser beam. This removes the action of the dueler to kill the other one. I'm going to use balloons instead of duelers, so the discrepancy will be about whether there is one popped balloon or two, instead of whether there is one dead body or two. So here's my idea, which I suspect won't work, but here goes:

There's an absurdly long train that moves at an absurdly fast speed with an observer on board and an observer watching the train move. In the center of the train, there is a laser aiming both ways. Equal distance from the laser, on each side, is a helium balloon and a hanging funnel of sand. Under each hanging funnel of sand is a weight sensor. This sensor is attached to a device that is holding the string of the balloon, and is set to release it if certain conditions are met. There is also a funnel of sand and a weight sensor next to the laser, and that third weight sensor is set to trigger the laser fire if certain conditions are met.

For a visual, O's are balloons, with a laser pointed each way. \/ represents a sand funnel.

\/O --laser\/-- O\/


Now, let's say that the distance between the balloons and the laser is such that laser light will take exactly 2 seconds to reach each balloon when the laser is fired. Let's also say that the balloon sensor is set up so that if the mechanism releases the string of the balloon, it takes exactly 2.1 seconds for the balloon to float far enough up that it is out of the target of the laser sight.

Now the complicated part. In the beginning of the experiment when the train is stopped, both observers ensure that an equal amount of sand is put in all three funnels. The sand falls at a rate of 1 ounce of sand per second. (Imagine an hour glass, it's like that.) The sensors on each balloon and the laser are set to release the balloon or fire the laser (depending on what its connected to) if it weighs 100 ounces of sand. This means that the laser should fire at the same time the balloons are released.

After the experiment is set up, one observer gets off the train and runs up ahead, and then the train begins moving and passes that observer.

The observer on the train sees all three events happen at the same time, and since it takes 2 seconds for the laser to reach each balloon, but 2.1 seconds for each balloon to float up far enough to avoid the laser, she sees both balloons get popped by the laser because neither of them got high enough in time.

The observer watching the train sees a different tale, but I'm trying to figure out what this tale is. I think she still sees all three release mechanisms release at the same time, because they were all set up at the same time and are not moving relative to each other. But, because the train is moving with this experiment on it, she notices the laser take different amounts of time to reach each balloon. For the balloon in the back of the train, the she sees it get popped because light reached it in under 2.1 seconds. But for the balloon in the front of the train, she she sees the laser take longer to reach it, and so the balloon can fly up high enough to avoid the laser before it reaches the balloon.

So when they stop the train and check out the results, how many popped balloons will there be? I'm sure I'm missing something here...something with timing, but I don't know what it is.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

CF doesn't inform me when there's new posts in this thread. Curses.

Now that you affirmed one of my suspicions regarding the first experiment, I think my other experiment will fall short for the same reasons you specified about the previous experiment, but I'm not sure.

The idea in this experiment is to make the process one step instead of two. Instead of using a signal to reach the dueler (step one), and having her fire a laser gun (step two), the experiment can be simplified by making the signal itself be a lethal laser beam. This removes the action of the dueler to kill the other one. I'm going to use balloons instead of duelers, so the discrepancy will be about whether there is one popped balloon or two, instead of whether there is one dead body or two. So here's my idea, which I suspect won't work, but here goes:

There's an absurdly long train that moves at an absurdly fast speed with an observer on board and an observer watching the train move. In the center of the train, there is a laser aiming both ways. Equal distance from the laser, on each side, is a helium balloon and a hanging funnel of sand. Under each hanging funnel of sand is a weight sensor. This sensor is attached to a device that is holding the string of the balloon, and is set to release it if certain conditions are met. There is also a funnel of sand and a weight sensor next to the laser, and that third weight sensor is set to trigger the laser fire if certain conditions are met.

For a visual, O's are balloons, with a laser pointed each way. \/ represents a sand funnel.

\/O --laser\/-- O\/


Now, let's say that the distance between the balloons and the laser is such that laser light will take exactly 2 seconds to reach each balloon when the laser is fired. Let's also say that the balloon sensor is set up so that if the mechanism releases the string of the balloon, it takes exactly 2.1 seconds for the balloon to float far enough up that it is out of the target of the laser sight.

Now the complicated part. In the beginning of the experiment when the train is stopped, both observers ensure that an equal amount of sand is put in all three funnels. The sand falls at a rate of 1 ounce of sand per second. (Imagine an hour glass, it's like that.) The sensors on each balloon and the laser are set to release the balloon or fire the laser (depending on what its connected to) if it weighs 100 ounces of sand. This means that the laser should fire at the same time the balloons are released.

After the experiment is set up, one observer gets off the train and runs up ahead, and then the train begins moving and passes that observer.

The observer on the train sees all three events happen at the same time, and since it takes 2 seconds for the laser to reach each balloon, but 2.1 seconds for each balloon to float up far enough to avoid the laser, she sees both balloons get popped by the laser because neither of them got high enough in time.

The observer watching the train sees a different tale, but I'm trying to figure out what this tale is. I think she still sees all three release mechanisms release at the same time, because they were all set up at the same time and are not moving relative to each other. But, because the train is moving with this experiment on it, she notices the laser take different amounts of time to reach each balloon. For the balloon in the back of the train, the she sees it get popped because light reached it in under 2.1 seconds. But for the balloon in the front of the train, she she sees the laser take longer to reach it, and so the balloon can fly up high enough to avoid the laser before it reaches the balloon.

So when they stop the train and check out the results, how many popped balloons will there be? I'm sure I'm missing something here...something with timing, but I don't know what it is.

She sees both balloons get popped, but again the order of events is slightly different.
To the man on the train, the light leaves at the same moment the balloons start to rise. They both get to the same height, when the laser hits them both at the same time. Thus, they both pop.
To the woman on the platform, the 'first' balloon starts to rise, then the laser fires, then the second balloon starts to rise. Thus, the first balloon gets to the same height as before: the head start it receives is exactly negated by the fact that the laser has a shorter distance to travel. Likewise, the second balloon has a delayed start, but gets a longer time to float up (again, exactly cancelling each other out).

So although the events occur in a different order, the same events play out. Both balloons are popped at the same height; whether they're popped together or not is entirely relative.

This pic should help (I may have posted it before...):

Think of A as the first balloon, B as the laser, and C as the second balloon. The order of events as seen by an observer is the white line.

 

[mpok1519]

why cannot the universe be God?

 

[MoonLancer]

I think its possible the universe can be a god, but God cant be the universe because in the bible he is written as if he was an all powerful human yet is fallible and claims to be perfect.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

why cannot the universe be God?

Wouldn't that mean God is an inanimate group, rather than an individual intelligence?

 

[Polycarp_fan]

... And to me, it seems, very probable.

BEFORE YOU READ:

I realize that this theory / hypothesis / concept / whatever is not going to be the end-all creationism vs. atheism debate. This is just an idea I found interesting and wanted to see what everybody here thought about it.

ON TO THE SUBJECT:

I just had this sort of thought bouncing around in my head, and I think I had an epiphany. That or my brain exploded. Okay, consider this:

Before the universe existed, there were no laws. Of anything. No physics, no logic, no nothing.

If such a blank nothingness existed without laws, literally anything could happen.

In the infinite amount of time that the nothingness existed, it is infinitely probable for anything and everything to be created. Since there is an infinite amount of time and no binding guidelines, literally every possibility must be fulfilled.

This includes the spontaneous creation of our universe.

----------------------


Put that in your pipe and smoke it, creationists.

How did "time" get put into action? Nothing, as we can observe, stays nothing.

And in nothingness time, it stays that way.



.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

How did "time" get put into action? Nothing, as we can observe, stays nothing.

It is impossible to observe nothingness.

And in nothingness time, it stays that way.

Time is a thing; nothingness, then, includes the absence of time.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

It is impossible to observe nothingness.
Time is a thing; nothingness, then, includes the absence of time.

Are not questions themselves supernatural phenomena?

The difference between the theist and atheist positions on this topic is that by assuming that everything — including the universe — has to have a cause, then the atheist is left with a dilemma of what or who that first cause might have been. For the theist, the answer is God, but a satisfactory reason must be found why God should be exempt for the need for a cause. Such a response is available through the Augustinian concept that God is not limited in space and time, and therefore the argument of needing a first cause loses its power.

On the other hand, if not everything needs to have a cause, the theist and atheist have no grounds for arguing this part of their case.
But the argument can be reframed in a way that is more sensitive to postmodern intuitions about causation and the importance of starting points. Suppose as a religious believer you ask the question, “What kind of a universe is most compatible with my belief in an eternal God?” In this case the response affirms but does not prove the reality of God. The universe that we experience appears to have had a beginning; it appears to be finely tuned for life; it appears to have a place for love and purpose. These appearances affirm as plausible your prior belief in God.



Now suppose you start from the atheist assumption. In this case the universe must not really be as it appears. It cannot have a real beginning, be tuned for life and love, and purpose can’t be anything other than illusory epiphenomena — the curious byproducts of chemistry and physics. The whole picture has a claustrophobic bleakness.


Bertrand Russell, one of the most brilliant and ruthlessly honest atheists of the 20th century, captured this sense of despair in A Free Man’s Worship:

- “That man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labors of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of man's achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins – all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand. Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul's salvation henceforth be safely built.“ 6 -
​

In contrast to this view, the theist can affirm that the wonders encountered in the world are real, that they belong, and are a reflection of the glory of the creator whose mysterious power upholds everything.


Conclusion

The world disclosed by modern science is far subtler and nuanced than the world in which philosophers and theologians have lived for the past few centuries while formulating their arguments about the mysterious relationship between God, the physical world, time and causality. Nevertheless, no development in contemporary science poses a particular challenge to the view that God is creator. And some developments, like the discovery of fine-tuning in the physical laws, are supportive of traditional affirmations. The common-sense assumptions that have historically undergirded this entire discussion, however, need reconsideration in the face of recent scientific developments.

We must be intellectually humble in making claims about God as creator. But we can also state confidently that denials that God is creator are fraught with even more unresolvable difficulties and ultimately provide a far less satisfactory grounding for a worldview in which meaning and purpose play important roles.

The Questions | The BioLogos Foundation

6. Bertrand Russell, Mysticism and Logic (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1917), 47-48.