fragmentsofdreams
Critical loyalist
All science is theories. However, the series of events I described are backed up by observations and the predictions of the theories have been verified.
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
The Big Bang Theory
- Thread starter Late_Cretaceous
- Start date
All science is theories. However, the series of events I described are backed up by observations and the predictions of the theories have been verified.
LOL
.As a Christian that is also knowledgeable in science, I find this thread quite amusing.
There are no Christians Im aware of that claim the Big Bang did not occur because of doctrinal beliefs. In fact, most conclude that the evidence shows it DID occur.
What is in dispute is how it occurred. There is no law of science that portends that something can spring from nothing. Matter of fact, the law of conservation of energy states that matter cannot be created or destroyed but can only be changed. Here is a law that demands just the opposite of the former: something from something.
So, we can see that this law dictates that SOMETHING, SOMEWHERE, added some work into this system called the universe to create matter/energy from which the Bang imploded. What/who do you guys think created this matter/energy?
There are no Christians Im aware of that claim the Big Bang did not occur because of doctrinal beliefs. In fact, most conclude that the evidence shows it DID occur.
What is in dispute is how it occurred. There is no law of science that portends that something can spring from nothing. Matter of fact, the law of conservation of energy states that matter cannot be created or destroyed but can only be changed. Here is a law that demands just the opposite of the former: something from something.
So, we can see that this law dictates that SOMETHING, SOMEWHERE, added some work into this system called the universe to create matter/energy from which the Bang imploded. What/who do you guys think created this matter/energy?
Upvote
0
LOL, and as a physicist I can tell you that your use of the 1st Law here is a gross simplification of modern cosmogeny. Careful note here - the Big Bang Theory actually has nothing to do with exact moment the Universe began - all that it is about is the subsequent expansion of the the Universe post the Planck Time. Your problem then is not with the Big Bang Model, but with the several leading contender hypotheses on what occurred at that first moment.
Now there are of course many cosmogeny hypotheses that easily get around this rather simplistic invocation of the 1st Law. For one, the evidence and theoretical models now suggests that the Universe actually contains exactly zero net energy. The positive energy of radiation and matter seems to be perfectly balanced out by the negative energy bending spacetime around gravity wells. Therefore, even if there was a first moment (which may be an absurd concept), there is no violation of the first law.
Now, of course, this all becomes moot in a Boundraryless Universe. In such a model, there is no first moment - there are no boundraries to spacetime. In such a case, there would also never be a violation of the 1st Law because the Universe has existed for all time. It may have a point well you can go no further "back" in time, but you still have the Universe existing for all time (i.e. all points when t equals a meaningful value). Quite interestingly, this model falls quite plainly out of the equation of General Relativity.
"So, we can see that this law dictates that SOMETHING, SOMEWHERE, added some work into this system called the universe to create matter/energy from which the Bang imploded. What/who do you guys think created this matter/energy?"
Now, one final misconception that many people have is that there was some sort of "explosion." This all comes to the rather comical way that a name sed to deride the theory by one of its biggest scoffers stuck - "Big Bang." The Big Bang Theory concerns an expansion of spacetime - not and explosion of matter/energy.
Now there are of course many cosmogeny hypotheses that easily get around this rather simplistic invocation of the 1st Law. For one, the evidence and theoretical models now suggests that the Universe actually contains exactly zero net energy. The positive energy of radiation and matter seems to be perfectly balanced out by the negative energy bending spacetime around gravity wells. Therefore, even if there was a first moment (which may be an absurd concept), there is no violation of the first law.
Now, of course, this all becomes moot in a Boundraryless Universe. In such a model, there is no first moment - there are no boundraries to spacetime. In such a case, there would also never be a violation of the 1st Law because the Universe has existed for all time. It may have a point well you can go no further "back" in time, but you still have the Universe existing for all time (i.e. all points when t equals a meaningful value). Quite interestingly, this model falls quite plainly out of the equation of General Relativity.
"So, we can see that this law dictates that SOMETHING, SOMEWHERE, added some work into this system called the universe to create matter/energy from which the Bang imploded. What/who do you guys think created this matter/energy?"
Now, one final misconception that many people have is that there was some sort of "explosion." This all comes to the rather comical way that a name sed to deride the theory by one of its biggest scoffers stuck - "Big Bang." The Big Bang Theory concerns an expansion of spacetime - not and explosion of matter/energy.
Upvote
0
One question that I have.
If SpaceTime (well, time) expanded with the bigbang, then is it possible that there is no actual moment when the universe began? Since Time as we know it was created during the big bang, then trying to put a pin point on when it started would be impossible. So if the begining of the universe wasnt part of time, then could there have been an infinite (or lack of) amount of time before the big bang happend since time (as we know it) was not created yet?
The question might be rather confusingly worded, but hopefully it all makes sense.
If SpaceTime (well, time) expanded with the bigbang, then is it possible that there is no actual moment when the universe began? Since Time as we know it was created during the big bang, then trying to put a pin point on when it started would be impossible. So if the begining of the universe wasnt part of time, then could there have been an infinite (or lack of) amount of time before the big bang happend since time (as we know it) was not created yet?
The question might be rather confusingly worded, but hopefully it all makes sense.
Upvote
0
LOL, and as a physicist I can tell you that your use of the 1st Law here is a gross simplification of modern cosmogeny.
JEP: First, with all due respect, let me point you toward Aristotelian logic and remind you that trying to persuade one to accept a logical point simply because you are a physicist is a logical fallacy known as the argument from authority. With that noted, we can move on.
Careful note here - the Big Bang Theory actually has nothing to do with exact moment the Universe began - all that it is about is the subsequent expansion of the the Universe post the Planck Time. Your problem then is not with the Big Bang Model, but with the several leading contender hypotheses on what occurred at that first moment.
JEP: I would agree with this and I hope I pointed out that it is not the existence of evidence for the Big Bang that is in contention between Christians and Secular Humanists (or insert your own nouns here), it is the origin of the Big Bang that foments this particular discourse. If something exists in space-time, then it had a beginning. The question then becomes relevant that if something had a beginning then did it have a beginner?
Now there are of course many cosmogeny hypotheses that easily get around this rather simplistic invocation of the 1st Law. For one, the evidence and theoretical models now suggests that the Universe actually contains exactly zero net energy. The positive energy of radiation and matter seems to be perfectly balanced out by the negative energy bending spacetime around gravity wells. Therefore, even if there was a first moment (which may be an absurd concept), there is no violation of the first law.
JEP: Please put this into the form of a syllogism and I think youll find that your premises do not support your conclusion. The fact that the universe contains zero net energy has not a thing to do with the reality that matter/energy is in existence. Please reach out and tap your computer monitor a couple of times for some evidence. Then we can continue on with our discussion on how your computer monitor just poofed itself into existence from a void. :~)
Now, of course, this all becomes moot in a Boundraryless Universe. In such a model, there is no first moment - there are no boundraries to spacetime.
JEP: But it seems there are boundaries in THIS universe if you accept Euclidian Geometrical descriptions of it. What is outside those boundaries is anybodys guess.
In such a case, there would also never be a violation of the 1st Law because the Universe has existed for all time. It may have a point well you can go no further "back" in time, but you still have the Universe existing for all time (i.e. all points when t equals a meaningful value). Quite interestingly, this model falls quite plainly out of the equation of General Relativity.
JEP: Common sense tells us that our universe did not exist for all time because our universe is in motion. When we have stasis, this might be as valid a conclusion as any other. But when we have motion, then we must look at laws of inertia and realize that all things that move were caused to be moved and these things will continue to move until something causes them to stop. Sorry, but your universe without boundaries is just abstract free-thinking which physicists are prone to do. Not a put down, just an observation--well still keep you around.
Now, one final misconception that many people have is that there was some sort of "explosion." This all comes to the rather comical way that a name sed to deride the theory by one of its biggest scoffers stuck - "Big Bang." The Big Bang Theory concerns an expansion of spacetime - not and explosion of matter/energy.
JEP: Ah The good Dr. Hoyle. I couldn't agree more. Right now, that is.
JEP: First, with all due respect, let me point you toward Aristotelian logic and remind you that trying to persuade one to accept a logical point simply because you are a physicist is a logical fallacy known as the argument from authority. With that noted, we can move on.
Careful note here - the Big Bang Theory actually has nothing to do with exact moment the Universe began - all that it is about is the subsequent expansion of the the Universe post the Planck Time. Your problem then is not with the Big Bang Model, but with the several leading contender hypotheses on what occurred at that first moment.
JEP: I would agree with this and I hope I pointed out that it is not the existence of evidence for the Big Bang that is in contention between Christians and Secular Humanists (or insert your own nouns here), it is the origin of the Big Bang that foments this particular discourse. If something exists in space-time, then it had a beginning. The question then becomes relevant that if something had a beginning then did it have a beginner?
Now there are of course many cosmogeny hypotheses that easily get around this rather simplistic invocation of the 1st Law. For one, the evidence and theoretical models now suggests that the Universe actually contains exactly zero net energy. The positive energy of radiation and matter seems to be perfectly balanced out by the negative energy bending spacetime around gravity wells. Therefore, even if there was a first moment (which may be an absurd concept), there is no violation of the first law.
JEP: Please put this into the form of a syllogism and I think youll find that your premises do not support your conclusion. The fact that the universe contains zero net energy has not a thing to do with the reality that matter/energy is in existence. Please reach out and tap your computer monitor a couple of times for some evidence. Then we can continue on with our discussion on how your computer monitor just poofed itself into existence from a void. :~)
Now, of course, this all becomes moot in a Boundraryless Universe. In such a model, there is no first moment - there are no boundraries to spacetime.
JEP: But it seems there are boundaries in THIS universe if you accept Euclidian Geometrical descriptions of it. What is outside those boundaries is anybodys guess.
In such a case, there would also never be a violation of the 1st Law because the Universe has existed for all time. It may have a point well you can go no further "back" in time, but you still have the Universe existing for all time (i.e. all points when t equals a meaningful value). Quite interestingly, this model falls quite plainly out of the equation of General Relativity.
JEP: Common sense tells us that our universe did not exist for all time because our universe is in motion. When we have stasis, this might be as valid a conclusion as any other. But when we have motion, then we must look at laws of inertia and realize that all things that move were caused to be moved and these things will continue to move until something causes them to stop. Sorry, but your universe without boundaries is just abstract free-thinking which physicists are prone to do. Not a put down, just an observation--well still keep you around.
Now, one final misconception that many people have is that there was some sort of "explosion." This all comes to the rather comical way that a name sed to deride the theory by one of its biggest scoffers stuck - "Big Bang." The Big Bang Theory concerns an expansion of spacetime - not and explosion of matter/energy.
JEP: Ah The good Dr. Hoyle. I couldn't agree more. Right now, that is.
Upvote
0
If SpaceTime (well, time) expanded with the bigbang, then is it possible that there is no actual moment when the universe began? Since Time as we know it was created during the big bang, then trying to put a pin point on when it started would be impossible. So if the begining of the universe wasnt part of time, then could there have been an infinite (or lack of) amount of time before the big bang happend since time (as we know it) was not created yet?
JEP: A well crafted thought. Ill give my view point and hope my new physicist friend will jump in. In fact, I hope there are more scientists in here and theyll get a good go at creationism from their perspective, hopefully.
How do we know that space, matter and time in this universe began at the inception of this universe? Because they are all interdependent and cannot function without all three present. Therefore, time/negative time could not have pre-existed space or matter.
Matter is dependent upon space because if there were no space, then matter would have no place to put it that it could even exist. And time is dependent upon matter because time is defined as the movement of matter. In fact, we can observe this phenomenon of time and matter interacting simply by measuring the relationship of movement between the sun and earth. This requires nothing more than a sun dial.
If then, all of this was created via the Big Bang; it makes no sense to even refer to before the big bang in this universe, because there is no such thing at all if there were no time.
JEP: A well crafted thought. Ill give my view point and hope my new physicist friend will jump in. In fact, I hope there are more scientists in here and theyll get a good go at creationism from their perspective, hopefully.
How do we know that space, matter and time in this universe began at the inception of this universe? Because they are all interdependent and cannot function without all three present. Therefore, time/negative time could not have pre-existed space or matter.
Matter is dependent upon space because if there were no space, then matter would have no place to put it that it could even exist. And time is dependent upon matter because time is defined as the movement of matter. In fact, we can observe this phenomenon of time and matter interacting simply by measuring the relationship of movement between the sun and earth. This requires nothing more than a sun dial.
If then, all of this was created via the Big Bang; it makes no sense to even refer to before the big bang in this universe, because there is no such thing at all if there were no time.
Upvote
0
"Because, if God did not create than the big bang must be true"
JEP: Whether God did, or did not create has nothing at all to do with the Big Bang.
JEP: Whether God did, or did not create has nothing at all to do with the Big Bang.
Upvote
0
"Is this fact or theory?"
The idea that mutated cells multiplying out of control is what is going on in cancer is a theory. The idea that smoking, or benzene cause cancer are theories. The concept that a baby is conceived through sexual intercourse is a theory. These theories are verified time and time again, and have yet to be falsified. Just because something is a theory does not connotate that it is on shakey ground.
The idea that mutated cells multiplying out of control is what is going on in cancer is a theory. The idea that smoking, or benzene cause cancer are theories. The concept that a baby is conceived through sexual intercourse is a theory. These theories are verified time and time again, and have yet to be falsified. Just because something is a theory does not connotate that it is on shakey ground.
Upvote
0
"JEP: First, with all due respect, let me point you toward Aristotelian logic and remind you that trying to persuade one to accept a logical point simply because you are a physicist is a logical fallacy known as the argument from authority. With that noted, we can move on. "
I was merely mimicing your first sentence of your post - i.e. your statement that you were a Christian who knew something about science. I have seen arguments similar to yours and, I hate to say it, I really find them rather simplistic. I would never argue that any scientific theory takes away God from the picture, but, if you are going to argue that God is absoutely necessary, you should at least understand what the physicists are saying about the subject.
BTW - I agree that Argument from Authority is not a very strong debating tactic, but in the case of cosmology and other extremely complex topics, it tends to be necessary. It is simply impractical to explain all the logic and reasoning that went into the Hawking-Hartle equations, for example, because it would require an indepth understanding of GR and QFT just to get close.
"JEP: I would agree with this and I hope I pointed out that it is not the existence of evidence for the Big Bang that is in contention between Christians and Secular Humanists (or insert your own nouns here), it is the origin of the Big Bang that foments this particular discourse. If something exists in space-time, then it had a beginning. The question then becomes relevant that if something had a beginning then did it have a beginner?"
But, unfortunately, we are not talking about the beginning of something that exists in spacetime, we are talking about the beginning of spacetime itself (and whether or not this question has any meaning). Space, time, matter, and energy are intricably linked as shown by GR.
"JEP: Please put this into the form of a syllogism and I think youll find that your premises do not support your conclusion. The fact that the universe contains zero net energy has not a thing to do with the reality that matter/energy is in existence. Please reach out and tap your computer monitor a couple of times for some evidence. Then we can continue on with our discussion on how your computer monitor just poofed itself into existence from a void. :~) "
Yet, the fact that the Universe has exactly zero net energy has everything to do with whether or not the 1st Law of Thermodynamics was ever violated (which by the way can be "violated" in a sense for extrordinarily short periods of time at the quantum scale due to a quirk of quantum uncertainty, more on this if you are interested), which is the point I was refuting. Agreed?
Now, if the Universe has exactly zero net energy, does that mean that any matter/energy actually exists? Well, depends if you look at both sides of the equation of not. Think about a table full of pool balls in an isolated closed system. Distrub this system, without adding any angular momentum, and you can easily get balls spinning in all sorts of directions. Is this a violation of the conservation of angular momentum? No, the moments of all the balls in the system sum to zero yet many of the balls are spinning, some possibly with huge moments. Same thing with the Universe - it is all just a seperation of opposites. Therefore the objection is not that the emergence of the Universe violates the 1st Law, because it doesn't, but a question on how the opposites got seperated. Now that is a tougher question.
"JEP: But it seems there are boundaries in THIS universe if you accept Euclidian Geometrical descriptions of it. What is outside those boundaries is anybodys guess. "
That is a huge "if" because you won't find many purely Euclidian cosmologists out there. Problem is that General Relativity has shown that spacetime "bends" and is therefore not Euclidian. Now, some recent data suggests that the Universe is much "flatter" than many cosmologists expected, but that does not mean that it is Euclidian.
"JEP: Common sense tells us that our universe did not exist for all time because our universe is in motion. When we have stasis, this might be as valid a conclusion as any other. But when we have motion, then we must look at laws of inertia and realize that all things that move were caused to be moved and these things will continue to move until something causes them to stop. Sorry, but your universe without boundaries is just abstract free-thinking which physicists are prone to do. Not a put down, just an observation--well still keep you around."
Common sense is notoriously unreliable. For one, things will stay in motion unless some force acts upon them - therefore, whether or not there is motion in the Universe has little to do with its age - especially because the Universe contains huge number of subsystems that can cause forces upon each other causing and stopping motion all over the place.
A much better thing to say would be that we know the Universe has not existed for an infinite amount of time because entropy hasn't maximized for the Universe (a state where all particles in the Universe are equally distributed from each other). This still has some problems, because there are some difficulties with quantum entropy and how things like Black Holes effect entropy of the Universe (Balck Holes seem to be enormous entropy "sinks").
Now, remember I did not say that the Universe has existed for an infinite amount of time. I merely stated that the Universe has existed for all time. Two very different statements. The second relies upon an understanding of what time is and how it relates to the Universe itself. General Relativity and much of the the subsequent work on it has shown that time is not something that exists apart from the Universe - it is an integral part of the Universe itself. Discussions of the "beginning" of the Universe are really about the "beginning" of spacetime. Therefore, regardless of "when" spacetime began, the Universe itself has existed for all time - i.e. all points of time that are real. So asking what was before to the Big Bang is akin to asking what is North of North Pole (as Hawking is fond of saying).
The definition of time itself comes into play a lot here, and, believe it or not, this is not as simple as issue as many seem to think. Time itself may not be the dimension we seem to perceive it to be - some work has been doen suggesting that time is an illusionary dimension.
Now, the reason you and many others think that physicists are prone to "abstract free-thinking" is because you do not see the enormous amount of work that goes into building a model and only see someone like Kip Thorne or Hawking or some other "personality" in the field attempt to explain not the theory but its implications on some PBS special or what have you. (ok that was a bit of a run-on sentence). These implications are not arrived at lightly - especially non-common sensical conclusions such as the relative nature of time and inherent uncertainty of the Universe at quantum levels. Thousands of man-years of intense research and manipulation of the equations of physics have shown again and again that these non-common sensical conclusions are actually correct. Explaining the rigorous study in a PBS special or a book for laymen, however, is simply prohibitive. Unfortunately, I do not know a solution to this problem other than have everyone spend years of study to get to a PhD level of understanding (something I do not have - never finished my PhD - only got my Master's - ). Even then, it wouldn't work because a particle physicist still wouldn't have the necessary background in Relativity to truly understand cosmology and the astrophysicist wouldn't have enough knowledge to comment on quantum theories.
Please do not be so dismissive in the future of the years and years of work done by many very intelligent people (the Boundraryless Universe Model is Hawking's pet project) by simply calling it "abstract free-thinking" without even attempting to discuss the model. It is simply rude.
"If then, all of this was created via the Big Bang; it makes no sense to even refer to before the big bang in this universe, because there is no such thing at all if there were no time."
Exactly.
Cheers
I was merely mimicing your first sentence of your post - i.e. your statement that you were a Christian who knew something about science. I have seen arguments similar to yours and, I hate to say it, I really find them rather simplistic. I would never argue that any scientific theory takes away God from the picture, but, if you are going to argue that God is absoutely necessary, you should at least understand what the physicists are saying about the subject.
BTW - I agree that Argument from Authority is not a very strong debating tactic, but in the case of cosmology and other extremely complex topics, it tends to be necessary. It is simply impractical to explain all the logic and reasoning that went into the Hawking-Hartle equations, for example, because it would require an indepth understanding of GR and QFT just to get close.
"JEP: I would agree with this and I hope I pointed out that it is not the existence of evidence for the Big Bang that is in contention between Christians and Secular Humanists (or insert your own nouns here), it is the origin of the Big Bang that foments this particular discourse. If something exists in space-time, then it had a beginning. The question then becomes relevant that if something had a beginning then did it have a beginner?"
But, unfortunately, we are not talking about the beginning of something that exists in spacetime, we are talking about the beginning of spacetime itself (and whether or not this question has any meaning). Space, time, matter, and energy are intricably linked as shown by GR.
"JEP: Please put this into the form of a syllogism and I think youll find that your premises do not support your conclusion. The fact that the universe contains zero net energy has not a thing to do with the reality that matter/energy is in existence. Please reach out and tap your computer monitor a couple of times for some evidence. Then we can continue on with our discussion on how your computer monitor just poofed itself into existence from a void. :~) "
Yet, the fact that the Universe has exactly zero net energy has everything to do with whether or not the 1st Law of Thermodynamics was ever violated (which by the way can be "violated" in a sense for extrordinarily short periods of time at the quantum scale due to a quirk of quantum uncertainty, more on this if you are interested), which is the point I was refuting. Agreed?
Now, if the Universe has exactly zero net energy, does that mean that any matter/energy actually exists? Well, depends if you look at both sides of the equation of not. Think about a table full of pool balls in an isolated closed system. Distrub this system, without adding any angular momentum, and you can easily get balls spinning in all sorts of directions. Is this a violation of the conservation of angular momentum? No, the moments of all the balls in the system sum to zero yet many of the balls are spinning, some possibly with huge moments. Same thing with the Universe - it is all just a seperation of opposites. Therefore the objection is not that the emergence of the Universe violates the 1st Law, because it doesn't, but a question on how the opposites got seperated. Now that is a tougher question.
"JEP: But it seems there are boundaries in THIS universe if you accept Euclidian Geometrical descriptions of it. What is outside those boundaries is anybodys guess. "
That is a huge "if" because you won't find many purely Euclidian cosmologists out there. Problem is that General Relativity has shown that spacetime "bends" and is therefore not Euclidian. Now, some recent data suggests that the Universe is much "flatter" than many cosmologists expected, but that does not mean that it is Euclidian.
"JEP: Common sense tells us that our universe did not exist for all time because our universe is in motion. When we have stasis, this might be as valid a conclusion as any other. But when we have motion, then we must look at laws of inertia and realize that all things that move were caused to be moved and these things will continue to move until something causes them to stop. Sorry, but your universe without boundaries is just abstract free-thinking which physicists are prone to do. Not a put down, just an observation--well still keep you around."
Common sense is notoriously unreliable. For one, things will stay in motion unless some force acts upon them - therefore, whether or not there is motion in the Universe has little to do with its age - especially because the Universe contains huge number of subsystems that can cause forces upon each other causing and stopping motion all over the place.
A much better thing to say would be that we know the Universe has not existed for an infinite amount of time because entropy hasn't maximized for the Universe (a state where all particles in the Universe are equally distributed from each other). This still has some problems, because there are some difficulties with quantum entropy and how things like Black Holes effect entropy of the Universe (Balck Holes seem to be enormous entropy "sinks").
Now, remember I did not say that the Universe has existed for an infinite amount of time. I merely stated that the Universe has existed for all time. Two very different statements. The second relies upon an understanding of what time is and how it relates to the Universe itself. General Relativity and much of the the subsequent work on it has shown that time is not something that exists apart from the Universe - it is an integral part of the Universe itself. Discussions of the "beginning" of the Universe are really about the "beginning" of spacetime. Therefore, regardless of "when" spacetime began, the Universe itself has existed for all time - i.e. all points of time that are real. So asking what was before to the Big Bang is akin to asking what is North of North Pole (as Hawking is fond of saying).
The definition of time itself comes into play a lot here, and, believe it or not, this is not as simple as issue as many seem to think. Time itself may not be the dimension we seem to perceive it to be - some work has been doen suggesting that time is an illusionary dimension.
Now, the reason you and many others think that physicists are prone to "abstract free-thinking" is because you do not see the enormous amount of work that goes into building a model and only see someone like Kip Thorne or Hawking or some other "personality" in the field attempt to explain not the theory but its implications on some PBS special or what have you. (ok that was a bit of a run-on sentence). These implications are not arrived at lightly - especially non-common sensical conclusions such as the relative nature of time and inherent uncertainty of the Universe at quantum levels. Thousands of man-years of intense research and manipulation of the equations of physics have shown again and again that these non-common sensical conclusions are actually correct. Explaining the rigorous study in a PBS special or a book for laymen, however, is simply prohibitive. Unfortunately, I do not know a solution to this problem other than have everyone spend years of study to get to a PhD level of understanding (something I do not have - never finished my PhD - only got my Master's -
). Even then, it wouldn't work because a particle physicist still wouldn't have the necessary background in Relativity to truly understand cosmology and the astrophysicist wouldn't have enough knowledge to comment on quantum theories. Please do not be so dismissive in the future of the years and years of work done by many very intelligent people (the Boundraryless Universe Model is Hawking's pet project) by simply calling it "abstract free-thinking" without even attempting to discuss the model. It is simply rude.
"If then, all of this was created via the Big Bang; it makes no sense to even refer to before the big bang in this universe, because there is no such thing at all if there were no time."
Exactly.
Cheers
Upvote
0
"Jeptha, you have illustrated my whole point in begining this thread."
I just noticed your original post and it exactly summarizes my ire when I see someone say something like "the Big Bang couldn't have happened because it violates the 1st Law of Thermodynamics." It just shocks me sometimes that some people think that professional physicists just forgot about that little "problem" or willfully ignored it. It basically is a thinly veiled insult to the intelligence of people working on this every day that they would back a theory that uld be torn apart by a one sentence observation of a laymen.
I just noticed your original post and it exactly summarizes my ire when I see someone say something like "the Big Bang couldn't have happened because it violates the 1st Law of Thermodynamics." It just shocks me sometimes that some people think that professional physicists just forgot about that little "problem" or willfully ignored it. It basically is a thinly veiled insult to the intelligence of people working on this every day that they would back a theory that uld be torn apart by a one sentence observation of a laymen.
Upvote
0
"Creation and the Big Bang are not mutually exclusive."
JEP: No, and I didn't mean to imply that they are. Many creationists believe that God said 'bang' and the universe was conceived.
The point I was making is that if the Big Bang occured it certainly would not have that much to do with creation because if God created the universe, He could have done so through the Bang--or not.
JEP: No, and I didn't mean to imply that they are. Many creationists believe that God said 'bang' and the universe was conceived.
The point I was making is that if the Big Bang occured it certainly would not have that much to do with creation because if God created the universe, He could have done so through the Bang--or not.
Upvote
0
"Jeptha, you have illustrated my whole point in begining this thread."
JEP: Good. This can get deep...and I love deep.
JEP: Good. This can get deep...and I love deep.
Upvote
0
I was merely mimicing your first sentence of your post - i.e. your statement that you were a Christian who knew something about science. I have seen arguments similar to yours and, I hate to say it, I really find them rather simplistic. I would never argue that any scientific theory takes away God from the picture, but, if you are going to argue that God is absoutely necessary, you should at least understand what the physicists are saying about the subject.
JEP: Not a problem. And, I realize of course there is no way to prove or disprove a god theory using physical science. If there is a Holy Spirit indwelling man, then I highly doubt my internist will find it with his stethoscope. Stick around though; I may just decide to beam down some pictures of God via the COBE satellite.
But, unfortunately, we are not talking about the beginning of something that exists in spacetime, we are talking about the beginning of spacetime itself (and whether or not this question has any meaning).
JEP: But we really are talking about things that exist in space-time. We are talking about rivers, mountains, planets and people. Matter--and how it came into existence.
Space, time, matter, and energy are intricably linked as shown by GR.
JEP: Yes. I believe I pointed out this same truism to another poster on this thread.
Yet, the fact that the Universe has exactly zero net energy has everything to do with whether or not the 1st Law of Thermodynamics was ever violated (which by the way can be "violated" in a sense for extrordinarily short periods of time at the quantum scale due to a quirk of quantum uncertainty, more on this if you are interested), which is the point I was refuting. Agreed?
JEP: Kind of agreed, but only from my soap box. I believe our main contention on virtual particles might be their cause and origin. Some particle physicists would have us believe that these particles are springing from nothing. They just seem to poof into and out of, existence. But I dont believe this to be true. Hawking states that these particles spring from energy.
And we would probably disagree with the definition of nothing. The particles that physicists observe springing forth come from a vacuum consisting of three spatial dimensions and a fourth dimension called time with energy present. This is certainly not nothing. True nothingness is a void not comprehendible to human cognizance.
And are they springing at all? No one knows this for sure. They could be coming from another universe. They could be juxtapositioning themselves from other dimensions. Flip-flopping through dimensions, so to speak. Or, they could be juxtapositioning themselves from other parts of our own universe.
Therefore the objection is not that the emergence of the Universe violates the 1st Law, because it doesn't, but a question on how the opposites got seperated. Now that is a tougher question.
JEP: I do understand your logic here on this balance and agree that this is the case, but is it relevant? Not really, and perhaps Ill get you to see where Im going with a summation:
If time and space and matter in this universe were created in the Big Bang then there was nothing in existence at all in this universe prior the bang. NOTHING could have existed in this universe because there was no space in which to put something into to exist and there was no time in which anything could exist. Quantum mechanics cannot explain the inception of our universe either because these virtual particles would have no space or energy to spring out of and even if somehow they magically morphed themselves into existence from a void, they would have no time to exist in.
We can only conclude that whatever was the first cause of our universe came from outside of it. So, how far off is the Christian doctrine that concludes that a personage they call God came from a time-less megaverse called Eternity to cause it? *slapping hand* Couldnt resist that. Baaa d apologist.
"JEP IN A PREVIOUS POST: But it seems there are boundaries in THIS universe if you accept Euclidian Geometrical descriptions of it. What is outside those boundaries is anybodys guess. "
JOE: That is a huge "if" because you won't find many purely Euclidian cosmologists out there. Problem is that General Relativity has shown that spacetime "bends" and is therefore not Euclidian. Now, some recent data suggests that the Universe is much "flatter" than many cosmologists expected, but that does not mean that it is Euclidian.
JEP: Well, I am one that believes Euclidianism (made that one up) is the best explanation out there right now. This answers many questions that are relevant. The foremost might be if we are the only universe out there and our universe is expanding, then what the heck is it expanding into?? Through Euclidian cosmology we can ascertain it is expanding into itself. Of course, I always keep an open mind as new discoveries and theory come into the picture. And Im not a mathematician or a physicist, so I want to be sure and point that out up front.
Common sense is notoriously unreliable. For one, things will stay in motion unless some force acts upon them
JEP: Exactly my point. And things that are at rest will stay at rest unless something acts upon them. The paramount question here is what acted upon our universe to set it in motion--a singularity event in the black hole of another universe, or a deity? But whatever our conclusion, something acted upon it, suggesting to us that it had a beginning.
A much better thing to say would be that we know the Universe has not existed for an infinite amount of time because entropy hasn't maximized for the Universe (a state where all particles in the Universe are equally distributed from each other).
JEP: It is true that the second law of thermodynamics will eventually dictate our universe to maximize its entropy in the form of a heat death where all in the universe will be nothing more than a random sea of floating particles. This also suggests to us that our universe has beginning. Why? Because entropy is minimal at creation ..at beginning when order is at its maximum and grows to maximum entropy as the entity ages, disorders and dies. We can actually watch this happening.
General Relativity and much of the the subsequent work on it has shown that time is not something that exists apart from the Universe - it is an integral part of the Universe itself. Discussions of the "beginning" of the Universe are really about the "beginning" of spacetime. Therefore, regardless of "when" spacetime began, the Universe itself has existed for all time - i.e. all points of time that are real. So asking what was before to the Big Bang is akin to asking what is North of North Pole (as Hawking is fond of saying).
JEP: No disrespect intended, but that is just semantics to me, Joe. The beginning of space-time is also the inception of our universe.
The definition of time itself comes into play a lot here, and, believe it or not, this is not as simple as issue as many seem to think. Time itself may not be the dimension we seem to perceive it to be - some work has been doen suggesting that time is an illusionary dimension.
JEP: Time has been viewed as an illusionary dimension since the days of Plato. But the way I view time renders it a very real and interactive dimension. If I gave you a three dimensional map of the solar system and called you at 8:00 in the morning and asked you to plot our sun on the map so I can see where its at, you could not do so. Because when I come over at 3:00 to see it, it would no longer be where it was when you plotted it at 8:00 that morning. But if I you measure this three dimensional map in inches and use four dimensions to plot the sun, I can find it. For example, 8 width, 10 height, 12 depth, 4:00 PM EST. So time, if viewed thusly, is a very real and interactive dimension.
JEP: Not a problem. And, I realize of course there is no way to prove or disprove a god theory using physical science. If there is a Holy Spirit indwelling man, then I highly doubt my internist will find it with his stethoscope. Stick around though; I may just decide to beam down some pictures of God via the COBE satellite.
But, unfortunately, we are not talking about the beginning of something that exists in spacetime, we are talking about the beginning of spacetime itself (and whether or not this question has any meaning).
JEP: But we really are talking about things that exist in space-time. We are talking about rivers, mountains, planets and people. Matter--and how it came into existence.
Space, time, matter, and energy are intricably linked as shown by GR.
JEP: Yes. I believe I pointed out this same truism to another poster on this thread.
Yet, the fact that the Universe has exactly zero net energy has everything to do with whether or not the 1st Law of Thermodynamics was ever violated (which by the way can be "violated" in a sense for extrordinarily short periods of time at the quantum scale due to a quirk of quantum uncertainty, more on this if you are interested), which is the point I was refuting. Agreed?
JEP: Kind of agreed, but only from my soap box. I believe our main contention on virtual particles might be their cause and origin. Some particle physicists would have us believe that these particles are springing from nothing. They just seem to poof into and out of, existence. But I dont believe this to be true. Hawking states that these particles spring from energy.
And we would probably disagree with the definition of nothing. The particles that physicists observe springing forth come from a vacuum consisting of three spatial dimensions and a fourth dimension called time with energy present. This is certainly not nothing. True nothingness is a void not comprehendible to human cognizance.
And are they springing at all? No one knows this for sure. They could be coming from another universe. They could be juxtapositioning themselves from other dimensions. Flip-flopping through dimensions, so to speak. Or, they could be juxtapositioning themselves from other parts of our own universe.
Therefore the objection is not that the emergence of the Universe violates the 1st Law, because it doesn't, but a question on how the opposites got seperated. Now that is a tougher question.
JEP: I do understand your logic here on this balance and agree that this is the case, but is it relevant? Not really, and perhaps Ill get you to see where Im going with a summation:
If time and space and matter in this universe were created in the Big Bang then there was nothing in existence at all in this universe prior the bang. NOTHING could have existed in this universe because there was no space in which to put something into to exist and there was no time in which anything could exist. Quantum mechanics cannot explain the inception of our universe either because these virtual particles would have no space or energy to spring out of and even if somehow they magically morphed themselves into existence from a void, they would have no time to exist in.
We can only conclude that whatever was the first cause of our universe came from outside of it. So, how far off is the Christian doctrine that concludes that a personage they call God came from a time-less megaverse called Eternity to cause it? *slapping hand* Couldnt resist that. Baaa d apologist.
"JEP IN A PREVIOUS POST: But it seems there are boundaries in THIS universe if you accept Euclidian Geometrical descriptions of it. What is outside those boundaries is anybodys guess. "
JOE: That is a huge "if" because you won't find many purely Euclidian cosmologists out there. Problem is that General Relativity has shown that spacetime "bends" and is therefore not Euclidian. Now, some recent data suggests that the Universe is much "flatter" than many cosmologists expected, but that does not mean that it is Euclidian.
JEP: Well, I am one that believes Euclidianism (made that one up) is the best explanation out there right now. This answers many questions that are relevant. The foremost might be if we are the only universe out there and our universe is expanding, then what the heck is it expanding into?? Through Euclidian cosmology we can ascertain it is expanding into itself. Of course, I always keep an open mind as new discoveries and theory come into the picture. And Im not a mathematician or a physicist, so I want to be sure and point that out up front.
Common sense is notoriously unreliable. For one, things will stay in motion unless some force acts upon them
JEP: Exactly my point. And things that are at rest will stay at rest unless something acts upon them. The paramount question here is what acted upon our universe to set it in motion--a singularity event in the black hole of another universe, or a deity? But whatever our conclusion, something acted upon it, suggesting to us that it had a beginning.
A much better thing to say would be that we know the Universe has not existed for an infinite amount of time because entropy hasn't maximized for the Universe (a state where all particles in the Universe are equally distributed from each other).
JEP: It is true that the second law of thermodynamics will eventually dictate our universe to maximize its entropy in the form of a heat death where all in the universe will be nothing more than a random sea of floating particles. This also suggests to us that our universe has beginning. Why? Because entropy is minimal at creation ..at beginning when order is at its maximum and grows to maximum entropy as the entity ages, disorders and dies. We can actually watch this happening.
General Relativity and much of the the subsequent work on it has shown that time is not something that exists apart from the Universe - it is an integral part of the Universe itself. Discussions of the "beginning" of the Universe are really about the "beginning" of spacetime. Therefore, regardless of "when" spacetime began, the Universe itself has existed for all time - i.e. all points of time that are real. So asking what was before to the Big Bang is akin to asking what is North of North Pole (as Hawking is fond of saying).
JEP: No disrespect intended, but that is just semantics to me, Joe. The beginning of space-time is also the inception of our universe.
The definition of time itself comes into play a lot here, and, believe it or not, this is not as simple as issue as many seem to think. Time itself may not be the dimension we seem to perceive it to be - some work has been doen suggesting that time is an illusionary dimension.
JEP: Time has been viewed as an illusionary dimension since the days of Plato. But the way I view time renders it a very real and interactive dimension. If I gave you a three dimensional map of the solar system and called you at 8:00 in the morning and asked you to plot our sun on the map so I can see where its at, you could not do so. Because when I come over at 3:00 to see it, it would no longer be where it was when you plotted it at 8:00 that morning. But if I you measure this three dimensional map in inches and use four dimensions to plot the sun, I can find it. For example, 8 width, 10 height, 12 depth, 4:00 PM EST. So time, if viewed thusly, is a very real and interactive dimension.
Upvote
0
I just noticed your original post and it exactly summarizes my ire when I see someone say something like "the Big Bang couldn't have happened because it violates the 1st Law of Thermodynamics." It just shocks me sometimes that some people think that professional physicists just forgot about that little "problem" or willfully ignored it.
JEP: Not my post, but Ill answer it anyhow. No one is postulating that "the Big Bang couldn't have happened because it violates the 1st Law of Thermodynamics" that Im aware of. The big bang DID happen. What is in contention is the misguided notion among some physicists that the cause of this Big Bang was a virtual fluctuation. Matter springing from nothingness like a fairy sprinkling pixie dust through the universe. :~)
That WOULD violate the first law of thermodynamics just as complex macroevolution would have violated the second law of thermodynamics.
While Im not suggesting that every physicist conveniently forgets that the explanations of the existence of man via elimination of a creator violates the basel laws of science. I would suggest that some certainly do.
JEP: Not my post, but Ill answer it anyhow. No one is postulating that "the Big Bang couldn't have happened because it violates the 1st Law of Thermodynamics" that Im aware of. The big bang DID happen. What is in contention is the misguided notion among some physicists that the cause of this Big Bang was a virtual fluctuation. Matter springing from nothingness like a fairy sprinkling pixie dust through the universe. :~)
That WOULD violate the first law of thermodynamics just as complex macroevolution would have violated the second law of thermodynamics.
While Im not suggesting that every physicist conveniently forgets that the explanations of the existence of man via elimination of a creator violates the basel laws of science. I would suggest that some certainly do.
Upvote
0
"That WOULD violate the first law of thermodynamics just as complex macroevolution would have violated the second law of thermodynamics. "
NO IT WOULDN'T as I have explained several times. A fluctuation of the vacuum can produce matter and energy for vanishingly short periods of time - in fact it can produce positive net energy of amounts that vary inversely with their "lifespans." This "borrowing" effect is observed through the actions of virtual particles and quantum teleportation. Now, if the net energy "borrowed" is exactly zero, then the it can exist for an infinite amount of time - straight from manipulations of Heisenberg Uncertainty. Of course this is an exceedingly simplistic explanation of current hypotheses, but the physicists out there studying it didn't just forget about the 1t Law of Thermo - your arrogance to think that you can refute their work so easily is astonishing.
Further macroevolution does not violate the 2nd Law - didn't you say you know something about science? What, did you think all those scientists ust decided to ignore that law too?
Why did I engage in a discussion with someone so deluded by creationist propaganda to think that the ToE violated the 2nd Law - that is the dumbest and most easily refuted argument the creationists ever bring up. Ugg!
Many of your other points are worthy of discussion simply to clear up some of the current thinking on the issus, but once I see someone bring up the 2nd Law "problem" I really have no more motivation to discuss physics with them. It really is just that stupid an argument.
NO IT WOULDN'T as I have explained several times. A fluctuation of the vacuum can produce matter and energy for vanishingly short periods of time - in fact it can produce positive net energy of amounts that vary inversely with their "lifespans." This "borrowing" effect is observed through the actions of virtual particles and quantum teleportation. Now, if the net energy "borrowed" is exactly zero, then the it can exist for an infinite amount of time - straight from manipulations of Heisenberg Uncertainty. Of course this is an exceedingly simplistic explanation of current hypotheses, but the physicists out there studying it didn't just forget about the 1t Law of Thermo - your arrogance to think that you can refute their work so easily is astonishing.
Further macroevolution does not violate the 2nd Law - didn't you say you know something about science? What, did you think all those scientists ust decided to ignore that law too?
Why did I engage in a discussion with someone so deluded by creationist propaganda to think that the ToE violated the 2nd Law - that is the dumbest and most easily refuted argument the creationists ever bring up. Ugg!
Many of your other points are worthy of discussion simply to clear up some of the current thinking on the issus, but once I see someone bring up the 2nd Law "problem" I really have no more motivation to discuss physics with them. It really is just that stupid an argument.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
