the origin of the universe - a short exercise

[AdB]

As you did not answer both requests for the first time of asking I though one thing at a time would be easier for you.

well i pointed you to the source where you can find the answers to both in my first response, but you don't seem to bother

 

[Larniavc]

That I don't have all the technical insights to respond to these objections while Barry is struggling with health issues so he's not able to address all my questions doesn't mean it's "thoroughly debunked".

It does show that you basing your personal conclusions on information that you admit to not understanding.

 

[AdB]

His work is renowned garbage.

From the haughty position of "QED and a gravity formed universe are the absolute truth" it would indeed seem so...

 

[AdB]

It does show that you basing your personal conclusions on information that you admit to not understanding.

I was getting answers and explanation from Barry, but as said that is currently not possible.

 

[Larniavc]

well i pointed you to the source where you can find the answers to both in my first response, but you don't seem to bother

The source (that you admit to not understanding) has be debunked as was shown to you up thread by that renowned brain box @sjastro.

 

[Larniavc]

I was getting answers and explanation from Barry, but as said that is currently not possible.

Which does not change the fact that you are basing your conclusions on things that you do not understand.

 

[Piers Plowman]

Which does not change the fact that you are basing your conclusions on things that you do not understand.

Would you say that 'understanding' something is binary, or a spectrum?

 

[AdB]

Which does not change the fact that you are basing your conclusions on things that you do not understand.

That I'm not fully educated on QED doesn't mean I do understand enough about SED to make some conclusions about Setterfield's theory.

The notion that it is "thoroughly debunked" is also only by arguing from the haughty position that "QED and gravity formed the universe is the absolute truth"...

 

[Larniavc]

That I'm not fully educated on QED doesn't mean I do understand enough about SED to make some conclusions about Setterfield's theory.

Yes it does.

 

[Larniavc]

Would you say that 'understanding' something is binary, or a spectrum?

Yes. I would.

 

[sjastro]

That I don't have all the technical insights to respond to these objections while Barry is struggling with health issues so he's not able to address all my questions doesn't mean it's "thoroughly debunked".
It is true there are still some issues, specifically some mathimatical, that need further investigation, but the overal theory is pretty solid.
But of course, by arguning from a position that "QED is the absolute truth" (like insisting ZPE is not what SED assumes it to be) you will always find ways to argue his theory is total nonsense...

Without going into the mathematical detail behind Setterfield's model it has a fundamental flaw by assuming YEC is correct and the model is designed to suit, this is not how science is done.
There other YEC models with the same flaw such as Jason Lisle's Anisotropic Synchrony Convention (ASC) which was promoted by another creationist on this site and also shot down in flames.

Here is the comparison of the two.

Setterfield not only has to contend with mainstream science but rival YEC models which are based on faith not evidence making it impossible to determine which is the superior model as they are by nature unfalsifiable.
This is where mainstream science will always be superior as models are supported or rejected by the evidence.

 

[sjastro]

In short, Planck was pretty dissatisfied with his constant being a mathematical fudge factor with no foundation in reality, so he came with a theory about that in 1911, proposing the ZPE as a real energy field, intrinsic to the universe and adjusting his equation accordingly with good results.

View attachment 355998

This equation is the average energy of the quantum harmonic oscillator introduced in this post.

Spacetime or a vacuum can never be totally empty.

Given recent threads involving Krauss about something being created from nothing here is the science perspective. The concept of nothing is very much tied in with the modern or non classical version of a vacuum which is a quantum field in the lowest energy level. You can’t divorce a field from...

www.christianforums.com

The second term is the ZPE but in 1911 Planck did not understand the physical meaning of the equation, it took around another 20 years for quantum mechanical oscillators in space-time to be formulated.
Planck was solely interested to develop an empirical formula around the data from the experiments of the time much like Balmer's formula describing the lines in the hydrogen spectrum until the quantum mechanical theory for the hydrogen atom was able to explain the physical nature of the formula.

 

[AdB]

it has a fundamental flaw by assuming YEC is correct and the model is designed to suit, this is not how science is done.

This is a false strawman... Setterfield was originally OEC, but changed his positions because of his study on astronomical anomalies.

Here is the comparison of the two.

This comparison is moot because these two theories are not very comparable...
You also provide some incorrect assertions on Setterfields theory, in short...
1. Along with changes in the speed of light Setterfields theory predicts parallel (some inversely proportionate) changes to the other fundamental "constants" which cancels out the negative effects in the equations that are brought as argument against his theory. There is absolutely no mention of "mayor changes to physical laws", this, again, is a false strawman...
2. "Setterfied breaks with established physics"... Really? How dare he! None of the great pioneers of science would have dared to do such a blasphemous thing!
3. The proposed faster development of galaxies and celestial objects has nothing to do with faster lightspeed but rather with Plasma physics. This shows you only have a superficial understanding of this theory, or possibly you are only focused on certain areas of this theory (only those which are helpful in your line of attack).
4. It was actually the astronomical anomalies like indications of altering lightspeed and redshift quantization that led Setterfield to his theory.

 

[AdB]

in 1911 Planck did not understand the physical meaning of the equation

He did consider it to be an intrinsic property of the vacuum

 

[sjastro]

This is a false strawman... Setterfield was originally OEC, but changed his positions because of his study on astronomical anomalies.

I would have thought the Bible would have been source of inspiration for conversion to YEC.

If Setterfield’s conversion is due to his studies on astronomical anomalies particularly the speed of light being faster in the past which has progressively declined, where is the evidence which supports this assertion?
The facts are there is zero evidence which therefore supports my assertion his model was designed to satisfy YEC and is not a strawman.

This comparison is moot because these two theories are not very comparable...

Which was the point I was making if you design a ‘theory’ to satisfy YEC where the evidence is irrelevant, then it is not surprising to have 'theories' designed for YEC being incomparable.

You also provide some incorrect assertions on Setterfields theory, in short...
1. Along with changes in the speed of light Setterfields theory predicts parallel (some inversely proportionate) changes to the other fundamental "constants" which cancels out the negative effects in the equations that are brought as argument against his theory. There is absolutely no mention of "mayor changes to physical laws", this, again, is a false strawman...

This is complete nonsense here are some examples to refute this.

(1) The fine structure constant α = e²/4πεₒhc.

α is the strength of the electromagnetic force, if c is much larger in the early universe, then α would be considerably smaller as would the ionization energies for atoms.
As a result in the early universe when temperatures were much hotter electrons and ions in plasma would not be able to combine to form neutral atoms.
It would have taken much longer for atoms to form as the universe would have needed to cool down further to allow formation.
To put this in perspective it took around 300,000 years for the universe to cool for atoms to form for α ≈ 1/137 the current value, which is evidenced by the existence of the CMB when the universe was still opaque since photons were being scattered by plasma.

(2) E = mc².

Increasing c would result in main sequence stars never being in hydrostatic equilibrium and becoming highly unstable as the increase in kinetic energy released by nuclear fusion in the core would exceed the gravitational pull to keep the star together resulting in the life span of stars being greatly reduced.

(3) Permittivity of free space εₒ and permeability of free space μₒ.

These turn up in Maxwell’s equations for electromagnetism where:
c = 1/√(εₒμₒ).
If c was larger, then εₒ would be smaller, μₒ would be smaller, or both would be smaller.
This would have an effect on plasma physics, more on this later.

So rather than having a cancelling effect changing the speed of c has a reinforcing effect...........

2. "Setterfied breaks with established physics"... Really? How dare he! None of the great pioneers of science would have dared to do such a blasphemous thing!

And here we do have a strawman in operation as I never stated or implied such a comment.

3. The proposed faster development of galaxies and celestial objects has nothing to do with faster lightspeed but rather with Plasma physics. This shows you only have a superficial understanding of this theory, or possibly you are only focused on certain areas of this theory (only those which are helpful in your line of attack).

On the contrary a faster lightspeed does have an effect on plasma physics as εₒ μₒ can have smaller values.
An important parameter in plasma physics is the Debye length λₒ which is the maximum distance electrostatic forces are screened by other charges in the plasma.

λₒ = √(εₒkTₑ/nₑe²).

If c is larger, as shown previously εₒ is smaller and therefore λₒ is smaller.
A smaller Debye length reduces the screening distance and does in fact facilitate faster gravitational collapse accelerating development of stars in emission nebulae which are largely plasma but alas galaxies will never have time to form as stars would not be around long enough for galaxies to gravitationally form.

4. It was actually the astronomical anomalies like indications of altering lightspeed and redshift quantization that led Setterfield to his theory.

There is no evidence for redshift quantization which has now been attributed to selection effects where brighter galaxies and quasars are more likely to be measured for redshift resulting in a bias or the quantization is simply the gravitational clustering of galaxies.

 

[sjastro]

He did consider it to be an intrinsic property of the vacuum

Now you are making things up.
In 1911 physicists had a classical view of a vacuum as empty space devoid of matter, photons, energy and the electromagnetic field.
Planck envisaged harmonic oscillators as vibrating charged particles in the blackbody which led to ZPE which is as far removed as one could imagine from quantum harmonic oscillators in space-time resulting in ZPE which eventually became the prevailing view.

 

[Piers Plowman]

Now you are making things up.
In 1911 physicists had a classical view of a vacuum as empty space devoid of matter, photons, energy and the electromagnetic field.
Planck envisaged harmonic oscillators as vibrating charged particles in the blackbody which led to ZPE which is as far removed as one could imagine from quantum harmonic oscillators in space-time resulting in ZPE which eventually became the prevailing view.

...Sounds like a variation of luminiferous ether, ain't it.

 

[AdB]

Now you are making things up.
In 1911 physicists had a classical view of a vacuum as empty space devoid of matter, photons, energy and the electromagnetic field.
Planck envisaged harmonic oscillators as vibrating charged particles in the blackbody which led to ZPE which is as far removed as one could imagine from quantum harmonic oscillators in space-time resulting in ZPE which eventually became the prevailing view.

As I said, Planck and others in response to his second law, considered the ZPE to be some sort of an intrinsic energy of the vacuum...
The point I was making is it led to SED which initially didn't gain much attention because QED had already captured the scientific community, but which has also led to many successful predictions and thorough explanations in accordance with experimental data.

I would have thought the Bible would have been source of inspiration for conversion to YEC.

Well it seems that is your bias...

where is the evidence which supports this assertion

Well buried by the mainstream scientific community...

This is complete nonsense here are some examples to refute this.

Your refutations are always based on the QED framework, but this will not work because SED is a totally different ball park.

Let me just give one very practical example of how the effects of a lower ZPE would cancel out certain negative effects.
Radioactive decay would happen at a much higher rate, but the decay process itself would generate much less energy resulting in the same amount of energy being generated in the same gravitational timespan as with the current strenght of ZPE.

This would have an effect on plasma physics

Indeed, and that is exactly the crux of Setterfields theory.

On the contrary a faster lightspeed does have an effect on plasma physics

You are swopping causes here, it would be more accurate to state that the effect of a lower ZPE would be both a faster effective lightspeed and also faster plasma processes.

3. The proposed faster development of galaxies and celestial objects has nothing to do with faster lightspeed but rather with Plasma physics.

I was blind sighted in my initial response that the faster lightspeed itself was directly causing faster plasma processes because plasma processes in themselves alone are able to create the celestial objects in much faster times than gravitational processes are capable of. As stated above, faster lightspeed only indirectly has to do with faster plasma processes.

---
But all this is actually off-topic of this thread which should be about the universe not being eternal and what we can say about the cause of the universe... So I would like to point back to the question at hand as brought up by partinobodycular to which my latest response is below...

And at least as far as I can see, no consciousness was required.

This is just empty symantics juggling...
A quick look at the Oxfort definitions shows both words essentially have the same meaning, one more leaning to duration and the other more to extend.
Eternal: Lasting or existing forever, without beginning or end, permanently.
Infinite: Limitless or endless in space, extent, or size, impossible to measure or calculate.

So the point is that because the universe cannot be eternal, it will have had to be created at a specific moment by something which ultimately is uncaused itself, and subsequently the universe has had to be sustained by this uncaused cause.

If the uncaused cause would not be conscious, so merely being a force or something like a "quantum field", then it would not be able to alter its behavior by itself at any given moment, however that would even work within "timeless" conditions. And because it is uncaused there can be nothing else that could have caused it to change its behaviour. This means it could only just do what it would do by default andnit would do just that for all eternity, which would mean it would have created the universe already an eternity ago, which we know is not possible.

Therefore the uncaused cause of the universe hás to be consious because that is the only way, after having nót created the universe for an eternity while itself being eternally self-existend and unchanging, to then at that specific moment deciding to dó create the universe.

Looking forward to some responses on this topic at hand

 

[Hans Blaster]

Let me just give one very practical example of how the effects of a lower ZPE would cancel out certain negative effects.
Radioactive decay would happen at a much higher rate, but the decay process itself would generate much less energy resulting in the same amount of energy being generated in the same gravitational timespan as with the current strenght of ZPE.

Let's look at this claim. It is well known in creation/anti-creation circles that radioactive decays and their byproducts are a serious problem for young Earth claims. In this segment you make two claims:

1. Radioactive decays happen at a much higher rate (a common YEC claim to diffuse the problem); and
2. Decay processes produces less energy under the "ZPE" regime you propose. (I have no idea what a "gravitational timespan" is as I've never seen those. It sounds like the Kelvin-Helmholtz timescale, but I doubt that is what you are talking about.)

Since claim 1 (faster decay) is a key part of your theory and I have no interest in trying to dig into it, I will examine claim 2. "Less energy from decay".

The energy released by radioactive decays comes from the difference between the masses of the nucleus and the daughter products. So lets take a look at one of the key decays that regulate the issues that "accelerated decay models" have -- the decay of Uranium-235.

U235 is one of the two primary isotopes of uranium found in Earth rocks. It has a half-life of 703 million years. The more common isotope of uranium (U238) has a much longer half-life of 4.5 billion years. As such about half of the U238 from the formation of the Earth has already decayed and as has about 1% left (1/2^(4.5/0.7) ). Each one of those decays sets off a chain of further decays until it reaches lead.

U235 has a mass of 235.0439281 u (atomic mass units, scaled to the mass of carbon 12 as exactly 12 u).

U235 decays to thorium-231 (mass 231.0363028 u) and an alpha particle (mass 4.001506179129 u ).

The difference is 0.0061191 u. That represents 0.0061191 u c^2 of energy *per decay*. This is set by the mass of the particles. How can this be changed by your "ZPE" model?

 

[AdB]

Let's look at this claim. It is well known in creation/anti-creation circles that radioactive decays and their byproducts are a serious problem for young Earth claims. In this segment you make two claims:

1. Radioactive decays happen at a much higher rate (a common YEC claim to diffuse the problem); and
2. Decay processes produces less energy under the "ZPE" regime you propose. (I have no idea what a "gravitational timespan" is as I've never seen those. It sounds like the Kelvin-Helmholtz timescale, but I doubt that is what you are talking about.)

Since claim 1 (faster decay) is a key part of your theory and I have no interest in trying to dig into it, I will examine claim 2. "Less energy from decay".

The energy released by radioactive decays comes from the difference between the masses of the nucleus and the daughter products. So lets take a look at one of the key decays that regulate the issues that "accelerated decay models" have -- the decay of Uranium-235.

U235 is one of the two primary isotopes of uranium found in Earth rocks. It has a half-life of 703 million years. The more common isotope of uranium (U238) has a much longer half-life of 4.5 billion years. As such about half of the U238 from the formation of the Earth has already decayed and as has about 1% left (1/2^(4.5/0.7) ). Each one of those decays sets off a chain of further decays until it reaches lead.

U235 has a mass of 235.0439281 u (atomic mass units, scaled to the mass of carbon 12 as exactly 12 u).

U235 decays to thorium-231 (mass 231.0363028 u) and an alpha particle (mass 4.001506179129 u ).

The difference is 0.0061191 u. That represents 0.0061191 u c^2 of energy *per decay*. This is set by the mass of the particles. How can this be changed by your "ZPE" model?

But all this is actually off-topic of this thread which should be about the universe not being eternal and what we can say about the cause of the universe...

Completely ignoring my request, hence I refer you to Setterfields pages where you can find the answer to this question...