Is this what Stephen Hawking believes?

[Chris†opher Paul]

And if so, do you believe it?  Why?

"Now Stephen Hawking's theory dissolves any worries about how the universe could begin to exist uncaused. He supposes that there is a timeless space, a four-dimensional hypersphere, near the beginning of the universe. It is smaller than the nucleus of an atom. It is smaller than 10-33 centimeters in radius. Since it was timeless, it no more needs a cause than the timeless god of theism. This timeless hypersphere is connected to our expanding universe. Our universe begins smaller than an atom and explodes in a Big Bang, and here we are today in a universe that is still expanding."


Most of you know more about Hawking than myself, so maybe you can explain this hypothesis?  I know that it is pointless to go through complicated math and imaginary numbers, but is there any basis to this idea, besides the imagination of a brilliant scientist?

/s0uljah is feeling less impulsive and wants to make nice with the atheists

 

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Is that what he believes as in a religious sense? I don't know.

Do I belive it in a religious sense? No.

Is it mathmaticaly possible? Given how most of his work has panned out good so far I would guess so.

If it is mathmaticaly possible is it true? Maybe, maybe not. It is mathmaticaly possible that if I went out and bought a lottery ticket tommorow that I would win. Would I quit my job on that possibility? No.

And not all of us that were offended by your last thread are atheists you know...

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Agnostics, then, as well.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Souljah....

I am a Christian...

 

[Yinlowang]

I do not think at our current tech level that it is possible to know how the universe started. There are about 4 major hypothysis that I am aware of but they are just ideas now. The problem is that our understanding of physics breaks down as you get very close to the creation event. And even worse than that, is that time is part of space, so the question of what happened before the bang is meaningless to our current level of science knowledge.

Maybe in the future we can know for sure what is going on and how everything started, but for now we can only guess.

 

[Morat]

  Unless you can point me to what Stephen Hawking's says, as opposed to a summary written by someone else, I can't attest to anything about what he thinks.

   This could simply be an interesting idea, or a hypothesis he's working on.

  *shrug*

 

 

[Kevin_Gould]

The lastest I read of him [Theory of Everything] he basically talked about how the big bang event wasn't a singularity but was actually more like a pole on a globe. The north pole isn't a singularity, and neither in the begining of the universe. You should go pick up the book, its a real good read. He's a genius, and touches on and off about a creator. His thinkings do not exclude a creator but do put restrictions on him.

To some that would seem heretical, but still its a great read.

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Originally posted by Kevin_Gould
The lastest I read of him [Theory of Everything] he basically talked about how the big bang event wasn't a singularity but was actually more like a pole on a globe. The north pole isn't a singularity, and neither in the begining of the universe. You should go pick up the book, its a real good read. He's a genius, and touches on and off about a creator. His thinkings do not exclude a creator but do put restrictions on him.

To some that would seem heretical, but still its a great read.

Yeah, I get that impression from the bit I have read about him, and excerpts, etc.

I will pick it up some time, but right now, I have a billion other books in the queue before that one.

 

[jimigold]

I heard that a new theory in the creation of the universe was all about membrane universes. It goes something like this:

• There is an 11 dimension which is where billions/pentillions (infinite i suppose) membrane universes exist all floating around, like bubbles.
• We are in one of those membrane universes.
• When 2 collide there is an explosion and another universe is created.
• And the cycle goes on.

This apparently explains why gravity is such a weak force, because it is leaking in/out of our dimension.

But that's only what i heard.

If you really want to know, when i saw the documentary on BBC2 about it. I just laughed. I was in hysterics. I just thought it sounded so ludicrous.

Apparently the big bang theory has been thrown out the window because there have been many discoveries that contradict it or something.

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Originally posted by jimigold
I heard that a new theory in the creation of the universe was all about membrane universes. It goes something like this:

• There is an 11 dimension which is where billions/pentillions (infinite i suppose) membrane universes exist all floating around, like bubbles.
• We are in one of those membrane universes.
• When 2 collide there is an explosion and another universe is created.
• And the cycle goes on.

This apparently explains why gravity is such a weak force, because it is leaking in/out of our dimension.

But that's only what i heard.

If you really want to know, when i saw the documentary on BBC2 about it. I just laughed. I was in hysterics. I just thought it sounded so ludicrous.

Apparently the big bang theory has been thrown out the window because there have been many discoveries that contradict it or something.

I've read about this idea as well, but there is absolutely no evidence for it.  Just imagination.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

And there is evidence for a literal six day creation of everything 6ooo years ago?

There is far better mathmatical evidence for membrane universes than a 6000 year old one.

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

No, I don't take Genesis literally.

What do you believe exactly?  You are a Christian, but seem to have differing views than most.  Just curious.

 

[Kevin_Gould]

Ummm.... there is no evidence against the big bang happening. Here are two indisputable things which support it:

(1) Red shift in galaxies
(2) Background radiation/noise

As for the bubble idea, its nothing more than that. An idea. Supported by nil evidence. You see the added dimensions and string hypothesis stuff... it's all feeble attempts to unite the weak and strong forces. We currently don't know enough to do that, hence the bizzare ideas.

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Originally posted by Kevin_Gould
Ummm.... there is no evidence against the big bang happening. Here are two indisputable things which support it:

(1) Red shift in galaxies
(2) Background radiation/noise

As for the bubble idea, its nothing more than that. An idea. Supported by nil evidence. You see the added dimensions and string hypothesis stuff... it's all feeble attempts to unite the weak and strong forces. We currently don't know enough to do that, hence the bizzare ideas.

 

Exactly.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Souljah...

Hawkings work you were siting is a hypothesis, or I guess you could use the workd idea...

Everyone here has told you that repeatedly...

But you only accept it when told by Kevin_G? What is up with that?

Is it that he used the word "bizzare"?

There are many things in the world today that were "bizzare ideas" only twenty years ago, like the computer you use, the internet, Code Red MountainDew, colour LCD monitors...

The bizzarness of an idea does not mean a thing except in the mind of the beholder.

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

No, I liked the "An idea. Supported by nil evidence" way of describing it.

Are you going to answer me about your beliefs?

 

[Kevin_Gould]

*Drools at the mention of Code Red*

 

[LewisWildermuth]

No, I liked the "An idea. Supported by nil evidence" way of describing it.

Iwas going to let him and you get away with the "nil evedence" statement as you two just blowing smoke out of your tailpipes. But since you insist I guess you both have read the scientific papers and can site them to prove that there is no evidence. Remember mathmatics can be evidence.

Are you going to answer me about your beliefs?

Sure.

I believe Code red mountain dew is good.

I believe that seaweed taistes awful.

I believe that mallow cups are evil and highly explosive. {sorry, joke that only a few that grew up in a specific area of the midwest in a specific time and watched a specific show would get}

Or did you mean my Beliefs? That would be off topic in the science forum.

 

[Kevin_Gould]

Well, I haven't even read the bubble universe hypothesis... so yes my nil evidence postulate was premature. I have no high degree of skills in mathematics, so I couldn't say the bubble universe is mathematically possible or not.

But if it is possible mathematically that doesn't mean its evidence, only observation of effects can be used as empyrical evidence.

Unless someone can supply evidence for the bubble universe (which I'd love to read about btw) I guess I'll hold on to my assumption that there is no evidence supporting it.

Not really seeing what was wrong with what I did... oh well.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

So again, how can you say there is "nil evidence"?

And as far as mathmatics and emperical evidence, prove to me how many letters are in the alphabet without using mathmatics.

Math is the cornerstone behind many sciences.