Questions about the origin of the universe

[SdogV]

I checked that link, but it looked like particles are being accelerated in order to produce photons, NOT playing with a controlled source of photons. In my old research days, I was impressed by the fact that crossing electrical discharges to make coronas at different frequencies in a low pressure atmosphere of chlorine and oxygen magically produced chlorine heptoxide, impossible to achieve with a a single corona.

 

[granpa]

whats interesting to me is the question of why the universe is so complicated. the universe had to start in a very simple state. one can easily imagine a single particle existing in the beginning and that particle dividing into 2 then 4 then 8 and so on. but it seems like they should all be the same. such a universe woudnt be very interesting. so where did all the chaos come from?

it just occurred to me that if all the particles are the same then it would be meaningless to say that there was more than one. the very idea of dividing into 2 particles requires that they be different in some way.

 

[Pythagorean]

It's not all wrong. There are too many observations that support it. No serious scientists doubt the BBT.

Actually, I know a scientist that does. He makes a good point: we've never discovered infinite in nature. That isn't to say the big bang is completely wrong, but it could be significantly wrong.

Same scientist is skeptical about black holes as well (he doesn't deny the phenomena that we've come to call a black hole, just the mainstream theory for why we observe that phenomena)

 

[butthead]

i agree that there is no study goin on to find if protons can form a mass...but they can definitely give an illusion of touching the mass...and even the thing that we call mass is not actualy mass ,...mind you 90% of space exists in an atom and its protons ...or molecules revolving around it ...

 

[SixNein]

1. Is it true that time was created in the big bang? In that case; what was it created from?
2. Is it possible that the universe is infinite in space, matter/energy or time?
3. Will the universe continue to expand forever?
4. If time was created in the BB, does it need to have a cause? I've heard physicists say that all the laws of physics - and thus the concept of cause and effect - break down in the singularity, so that BB doesn't need a cause; it just happened. To me this sounds no more convincing than a Christin claiming that "God just did it".

1. Time is just a measurement of motion.
2. Sure it's possible.
3. The rubber-band theory is possible.
4. Well scientist are a bit hypocritical when it comes to religion. Science will never be able to disprove the existence of god nor will they be able to prove that a god didn't create the universe. So it's like the pot calling the kettle black.

At the end of the day, belief in God is a matter of faith for both atheist and religious people. Even the most advance aliens in the universe have to accept that fact.

 

[lubuntu]

1. Time is just a measurement of motion.
2. Sure it's possible.
3. The rubber-band theory is possible.
4. Well scientist are a bit hypocritical when it comes to religion. Science will never be able to disprove the existence of god nor will they be able to prove that a god didn't create the universe. So it's like the pot calling the kettle black.

At the end of the day, belief in God is a matter of faith for both atheist and religious people. Even the most advance aliens in the universe have to accept that fact.

SixNein, here is the simple refutation of your point #4

The burden of proving a god is on the believer not the disbeliever
Faith is not a virtuous thing and does nothing to benefit humanity

 

[SixNein]

SixNein, here is the simple refutation of your point #4

The burden of proving a god is on the believer not the disbeliever
Faith is not a virtuous thing and does nothing to benefit humanity

How do you know that I exist? Just about everything that you "know" is based upon faith.

It is mathematically proven (two proofs as a matter of fact) that some things cannot be explain logically. The Continuum hypothesis put forth by Georg Cantor, which deals with infinity, has had strong mathematical evidence that it's impossible to solve.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Cantor#Continuum_hypothesis

If mathematics cannot answer these questions, then it's siblings in science doesn't stand a chance.

 

[lubuntu]

I see, so if we can't figure out an answer to a question. Well...we might as well just make some crap up!

The only thing we can do that is of any use is to use empirical evidence to deduce things about reality.

I don't doubt science may not provide the answers to every question we bother to ask in the fullest of time. Yet perhaps, it is a failure in humanities way of trying to attach meaning to everything instead of a failure of empiricism. Some questions can simply not deserve an answer.

 

[Evo]

How do you know that I exist? Just about everything that you "know" is based upon faith.

It is mathematically proven (two proofs as a matter of fact) that some things cannot be explain logically. The Continuum hypothesis put forth by Georg Cantor, which deals with infinity, has had strong mathematical evidence that it's impossible to solve.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Cantor#Continuum_hypothesis

If mathematics cannot answer these questions, then it's siblings in science doesn't stand a chance.

You're citing someone that died almost a hundred years ago when religion had much more influence on rational thought than it does now.

Not to mention that he was quite possibly insane.

To Cantor, his mathematical views were intrinsically linked to their philosophical and theological implications—he identified the Absolute Infinite with God,[45] and he considered his work on transfinite numbers to have been directly communicated to him by God, who had chosen Cantor to reveal them to the world.[12]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Cantor#Continuum_hypothesis

 

[quantumdude]

Science will never be able to disprove the existence of god nor will they be able to prove that a god didn't create the universe.

That's precisely why the concept of god is scientifically useless: it isn't falsifiable. Any theory that works with a god can also work without one. It is a superfluous entity that needn't be posited in the first place. There's nothing hypocritical about rejecting such an idea.

 

[SixNein]

You're citing someone that died almost a hundred years ago when religion had much more influence on rational thought than it does now.

Not to mention that he was quite possibly insane.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Cantor#Continuum_hypothesis

I'm citing one of the greatest mathematicians that has ever walked this planet. This hypothesis and the work on it is the foundation of computer science.

 

[SixNein]

That's precisely why the concept of god is scientifically useless: it isn't falsifiable. Any theory that works with a god can also work without one. It is a superfluous entity that needn't be posited in the first place. There's nothing hypocritical about rejecting such an idea.

Nor is it hypocritical to accept such an idea. It's hypocritical to say one is more correct with their belief then the other.

 

[lubuntu]

Nor is it hypocritical to accept such an idea. It's hypocritical to say one is more correct with their belief then the other.

Wrong again. If I make an assertion and have clear evidence which you can investigate that shows that to the best of our observation that an assertion is true, it is more correct than assertion made based on "a belief" or "faith."

Science is more correct than religion. There is an object truth we can deduce about the world we live in through experimentation. There is no hypocrisy in dismissing belief in the stead of evidence.

 

[quantumdude]

Nor is it hypocritical to accept such an idea.

I didn't say it was.

It's hypocritical to say one is more correct with their belief then the other.

If you mean that it's hypocritical for the one who says, "I believe god does not exist" to assert that he is more correct than the one who says "I believe god does exist", then I would agree with you. I wouldn't say either one of those things. Instead I say "I do not believe that god exists", which is perfectly in line with scientific evidence.

My point to you was that you say, "god can not be disproven" as though this should give scientists pause to consider it. It shouldn't. The fact that god isn't falsifiable is precisely the reason that "god" is ignorable.

 

[quantumdude]

I'm citing one of the greatest mathematicians that has ever walked this planet.

OK then here's a question for you: Why?

This thread is about the origin of the universe, not mathematics. Mathematical truths are true by definition. The same can not be said about scientific propositions, which are contingent on experimental results. Mathematics is a priori while science is a posteriori.

 

[lubuntu]

SixNein, I suggest you take a look at this to see why your arguments in this and other threads aren't nearly as strong you suppose they are

http://www.theskepticsguide.org/resources/logicalfallacies.aspx

 

[SixNein]

Wrong again. If I make an assertion and have clear evidence which you can investigate that shows that to the best of our observation that an assertion is true, it is more correct than assertion made based on "a belief" or "faith."

Science is more correct than religion. There is an object truth we can deduce about the world we live in through experimentation. There is no hypocrisy in dismissing belief in the stead of evidence.

You cannot make logical conclusions about God, and I have explained and provided links that explain mathematically why that is the case. Logically, a truth cannot be discovered one way or the other. Thus you have to believe one or the other on faith. So you may chose to believe in God, or you may chose not to. Either way, the decision you make will be based upon faith.

Math trumps all other sciences period. Once math is proven, I don't care how many experiments are done, you will never disprove it. While there is no shortage of people that wish this mathematics would disappear, it's not going to. It's mathematically proven that some things mankind will never be able to explain or understand. Philosophers don't like it, mathematicians don't like it, and physicist don't like it, but the proof is there.

 

[lubuntu]

You cannot make logical conclusions about God, and I have explained and provided links that explain mathematically why that is the case. Logically, a truth cannot be discovered one way or the other. Thus you have to believe one or the other on faith. So you may chose to believe in God, or you may chose not to. Either way, the decision you make will be based upon faith.

It takes no faith to believe nothing, that doesn't make any sense. Capital G, GOD, is a human construct which has nothing to do with the structure of this universe. By not believing in such a thing I am not making ANY positive hypothesis.

The fact that God or anything is outside of a logical structure doesn't speak the volumes for your argument like you think, it simply shows that such inquiry is worthless.

The rest of your argument is a complete non-sequitir, again I implore you to read up on logical fallacies before making your arguments.

 

[SixNein]

SixNein, I suggest you take a look at this to see why your arguments in this and other threads aren't nearly as strong you suppose they are

http://www.theskepticsguide.org/resources/logicalfallacies.aspx

I'm arguing a mathematical proof, which you want to ignore, that says science cannot explain everything. If you was so FIRM in your scientific viewpoints as you claim, then you would accept this observation of mathematics and be enlightened. Instead you want to ignore the mathematical proof because you want to believe that science can answer all of your questions. IT CANNOT.

 

[SixNein]

It takes no faith to believe nothing, that doesn't make any sense. Capital G, GOD, is a human construct which has nothing to do with the structure of this universe. By not believing in such a thing I am not making ANY positive hypothesis.

The fact that God or anything is outside of a logical structure doesn't speak the volumes for your argument like you think, it simply shows that such inquiry is worthless.

The rest of your argument is a complete non-sequitir, again I implore you to read up on logical fallacies before making your arguments.

You are making a positive hypothesis. God does not exist, true or false? If you say true then you believe that every single possibility has been ruled out.

Science works on observation, without observation, science DOES NOT say anything at all. That means, the scientific answer would be... don't know.

 

[lubuntu]

The point is that in my opinion that if the question can't be answered through science, it's a useless question.

 

[lubuntu]

You are making a positive hypothesis. God does not exist, true or false? If you say true then you believe that every single possibility has been ruled out.

Science works on observation, without observation, science DOES NOT say anything at all. That means, the scientific answer would be... don't know.

There is no evidence, while we must of course remain strictly agnostic about all things that have not been ruled entirely out or are unproven. In practice, if we have no evidence for something we call that false.

See Russell's Teapot, he was a mathematician about the same time as your good friend. Maybe that will get through to you.

 

[SixNein]

There is no evidence, while we must of course remain strictly agnostic about all things that have not been ruled entirely out or are unproven. In practice, if we have no evidence for something we call that false.

See Russell's Teapot, he was a mathematician about the same time as your good friend. Maybe that will get through to you.

Perhaps you should re-read his analogy. I have simply claimed that neither side can prove that their opinion is correct. If I said there is a God and your wrong to think other wise, I would be incorrect. However, if you say there is no God and I'm wrong, you are incorrect. The burden of proof lays on the person who attempts to falsify the other.

This brings us back to square one... neither side can do that. Thus you are either going to believe this story or not. Science is not going to disprove god, no are the religious groups going to be able to prove him. So at the end of the day, a person will have to make that decision on his own. There is no science or magic button to press to answer that question, and there never will be.

 

[SixNein]

Perhaps you should re-read his analogy. I have simply claimed that neither side can prove that their opinion is correct. If I said there is a God and your wrong to think other wise, I would be incorrect. However, if you say there is no God and I'm wrong, you are incorrect. The burden of proof lays on the person who attempts to falsify the other.

This brings us back to square one... neither side can do that. Thus you are either going to believe this story or not. Science is not going to disprove god, no are the religious groups going to be able to prove him. So at the end of the day, a person will have to make that decision on his own. There is no science or magic button to press to answer that question, and there never will be.

This was the fatal blow to his logic: One of the theorems built on top of cantors work:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_incompleteness_theorems

 

[SixNein]

I didn't say it was.



If you mean that it's hypocritical for the one who says, "I believe god does not exist" to assert that he is more correct than the one who says "I believe god does exist", then I would agree with you. I wouldn't say either one of those things. Instead I say "I do not believe that god exists", which is perfectly in line with scientific evidence.

My point to you was that you say, "god can not be disproven" as though this should give scientists pause to consider it. It shouldn't. The fact that god isn't falsifiable is precisely the reason that "god" is ignorable.

Then you agree with me. Both are statements of faith.

 

[SixNein]

OK then here's a question for you: Why?

This thread is about the origin of the universe, not mathematics. Mathematical truths are true by definition. The same can not be said about scientific propositions, which are contingent on experimental results. Mathematics is a priori while science is a posteriori.

I bring up this area of mathematics because it's central to understand. If you don't understand this area of mathematics then you will fail to understand why question #4 of the topic is the way it is.

The flat out physical translation is: There will never be a theory of everything. Science will always be incomplete.

 

[neopolitan]

It's not standard cosmology, but there are arguments for the universe being inside a black hole which would make the big bang a white hole.

... In other words, we cannot rule out the possibility that the universe is a very large white hole. Only by waiting many billions of years until the edge of the sphere comes into view could we know.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/BlackHoles/universe.html"

You could argue that being on the other side of a black hole is perhaps not the same as being in a black hole but if you look at the figures that you would expect of a ginormous black hole which has the mass of the universe, you will find that it would have about the density of the universe and it would also have a Schwartzschild radius which is about that of the universe.

Abstract from AJP article http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=AJPIAS000062000009000788000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes" :

A Schwarzschild radial coordinate R is presented for the Friedmann dust-filled cosmology models. It is shown that a worldline of constant Schwarzschild radial coordinate in the dust-filled universe is instantaneously null at Rn=2GM/c2, where M is the Schwarzschild mass inside the sphere R=Rn. It is also shown that Mp=3c3/4G, where Mp is the proper mass inside R=Rn and is the age of the universe. The Rn=2GM/c2 result in Friedmann dust-filled cosmology is made physically significant by abandoning the cosmological principle and adjoining segments of Friedmann dust to segments of Schwarzschild vacuum. In the resulting cosmology model, the observable universe may lie inside a black or white hole.

The white hole thing seems to threaten the statement "time was created in the big bang" because the white hole is the other side of a black hole which must have been there before the big bang, but that is not really the case.

If the universe is inside a black hole and the big bang was a white hole, then if we were to look outside (it's not possible, just work with me for a moment), then the ultraverse (new word? is extraverse better?) that formed our black hole/white hole big bang would we long gone. Time in a supermassive black hole's gravity well would be affected such that by the instant that the white hole became the big bang, time would pretty much be over in the ultraverse. No time relevant to our universe existed before the big bang.

In fact, I'd think that all the contents of the previous universe/ultraverse would have ended up in the one black hole. How could that happen if the previous universe/ultraverse runs similarly to ours and therefore expands? Well, it would be the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Crunch" .

The universe certainly expands, but not without exception - it seems that mass somehow resists expansion, which is why galaxies stick together. A mechanism which might explain this is that the universe expands with the Hubble constant which is the inverse of the age of the universe, modified by a gravitational constant.

At the end of the first Planck time, all the energy of the universe would have been compressed to the maximum. At that time, the Hubble constant would be enormous (one on Planck time) such that things that were one Planck length apart would move apart at the speed of light. Against that would be the enormous gravitational effects (there may also have been a lot of heat and consequent kinetic effects, but there wasn't any spare space to move around in).

Now, all the energy of the universe would be substantially more than could fit into a single Planck cube. So between t=0 and t=t_pl, you would get this relatively huge glob of energy appearing - I calculate it to have dimensions of about 10^-15m which is big compared to a Planck length. This is the primordial universe, so there aren't really edges but, in the same way as the edges of the observable universe (at the Hubble distance) today are moving away at light speed, the edges of the primordial universe (at greater than the Hubble distance of the time, which was one Planck length) were moving away at a speed faster than the speed of light - but modified by the enormous gravity.

The overall effect would be "inflation" until something close to balance was acheived and the universe would continue to expand a fashion similar to today (moderate value of Hubble constant, modified by the gravitational effect, which is weaker because of the distances involved).

Now, if decrease of Hubble constant > decrease of gravitational effect, then we will end up with a big crunch. Current observations are interpreted such that cosmological expansion is in fact accelerating, which seems odd if the Hubble constant has anything to do with the age of the universe. But, remember, at the beginning the universe was bigger than the Hubble distance and the expansion of the universe as a whole was therefore faster than you would expect today if the universe was at a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedmann_equations#The_density_parameter" of 1.

So, the universe could still be accelerating today, at a decreasing rate, and on its way to a deceration phase followed by an accelerating contraction phase.

Once everything has contracted, our universe ends up as a black hole and, inside it, a new universe is formed ...

I say again, it isn't standard cosmology. It works for me, but there may be some major issues with it (looking again at the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_crunch" , I would not be alone in thinking that it is possible for the universe to renew itself in some form of cosmological recycling - where I may differ is thinking that there could be a consistent relationship between Hubble constant and gravity which explains inflation, current accelerating expansion and ultimately a big crunch).

cheers,

neopolitan

 

[quantumdude]

Then you agree with me. Both are statements of faith.

Yes, I agree with you on that point.

I bring up this area of mathematics because it's central to understand. If you don't understand this area of mathematics then you will fail to understand why question #4 of the topic is the way it is.

It seems to me like you're drawing your conclusions about science based on the existence of undecidable propositions in mathematics. Is that true? If so then I repeat: Why? Mathematics is not science!

The flat out physical translation is: There will never be a theory of everything. Science will always be incomplete.

When you say "incomplete" are you talking about the same incompleteness mentioned in, say, Goedel's theorems?

 

[SixNein]

Yes, I agree with you on that point.



It seems to me like you're drawing your conclusions about science based on the existence of undecidable propositions in mathematics. Is that true? If so then I repeat: Why? Mathematics is not science!



When you say "incomplete" are you talking about the same incompleteness mentioned in, say, Goedel's theorems?

I believe that mathematics is a science. If you strip away mathematics from science, you have nothing left except a conversation worthy of a do drop in bar.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory...ence_to_G.C3.B6del.27s_incompleteness_theorem

 

[JoeDawg]

Thus you have to believe one or the other on faith. So you may chose to believe in God, or you may chose not to. Either way, the decision you make will be based upon faith.

No it is not. The word 'faith' has a very specific historical meaning that is not the same as the common everyday usage. Faith is not the same as simple belief.

Faith is belief *without evidence* or *in spite of evidence*.
It is based on revealed (completely subjective) truth.

Belief, however, can also be based on evidence.
Scientific evidence shows that human psychology and brain activity could very well be the origin of god-beliefs.
Scientific evidence from history shows that religious texts are not good historical records.
Scientific evidence about how societies function shows how religious belief accumulates.

This is not the same as math, and its not about proof.
Its about belief based on the best available evidence.
Evidence with predictive power.

I don't believe in gods, and I base that on the evidence in front of me.
Not on some preacher words, or some old scripture.

Religions are about revealed truth, which is completely subjective.
Science is about physical evidence and the predictive power of that evidence.
Math is about logical relations between defined abstract objects.

Science doesn't explain everything, but its the best tool we have.

 

[JoeDawg]

I believe that mathematics is a science. If you strip away mathematics from science, you have nothing left except a conversation worthy of a do drop in bar.

And if you strip away science from math, you have no way of knowing if your logical premises are anything but imaginary constructs.

 

[SixNein]

No it is not. The word 'faith' has a very specific historical meaning that is not the same as the common everyday usage. Faith is not the same as simple belief.

Faith is belief *without evidence* or *in spite of evidence*.
It is based on revealed (completely subjective) truth.

Belief, however, can also be based on evidence.
Scientific evidence shows that human psychology and brain activity could very well be the origin of god-beliefs.
Scientific evidence from history shows that religious texts are not good historical records.
Scientific evidence about how societies function shows how religious belief accumulates.

This is not the same as math, and its not about proof.
Its about belief based on the best available evidence.
Evidence with predictive power.

I don't believe in gods, and I base that on the evidence in front of me.
Not on some preacher words, or some old scripture.

Religions are about revealed truth, which is completely subjective.
Science is about physical evidence and the predictive power of that evidence.
Math is about logical relations between defined abstract objects.

Science doesn't explain everything, but its the best tool we have.

"Scientific evidence from history shows that religious texts are not good historical records."

That is not an accurate statement. The bible for example has had very good historical accuracy that has been vetted from other sources.

"I don't believe in gods, and I base that on the evidence in front of me.

That is your choice, but it is made from lack of evidence or should I say the lack to obtain evidence. It is one of those problems that cannot be solved either way.

"Not on some preacher words, or some old scripture."

Have you verified every mathematical proof, done every observation in science for yourself? At a certain point in time, you are accepting things on account.

 

[SixNein]

And if you strip away science from math, you have no way of knowing if your logical premises are anything but imaginary constructs.

You can apply math directly to the physical world. All mathematics can be applied somewhere in the real world.

 

[JoeDawg]

"Scientific evidence from history shows that religious texts are not good historical records."
That is not an accurate statement. The bible for example has had very good historical accuracy that has been vetted from other sources.

The vast majority of what is written in the bible is not supported by other sources. In fact, its even 'questionable' as to whether Jesus even existed. Many of the 'other sources' are no more than second hand accounts, at best. And the old testament is oral tradition, not historical fact. Some of it may be based on historical figures, but the bible is more comparable to something like Homer's Illiad than any modern standard of historical fact.

"I don't believe in gods, and I base that on the evidence in front of me.
That is your choice, but it is made from lack of evidence or should I say the lack to obtain evidence. It is one of those problems that cannot be solved either way.

Its based on more facts and evidence than any god-belief. And yes it can be solved, one doesn't need proof to come to a reasonable conclusion based on evidence. A reasonable person doesn't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

"Not on some preacher words, or some old scripture."
Have you verified every mathematical proof, done every observation in science for yourself? At a certain point in time, you are accepting things on account.

Accepting something based on scientific evidence (which you can test and use for accurate prediction) is much more reasonable than accepting something based on religious fantasy. Science is grounded in observation and probability. Its not perfect, but its the best foundation we have. And it gives us a much more consistent view of the universe than any religion has to date. God didn't give you a computer, science did.
Faith doesn't allow for new understanding, it demands we make the facts fit the belief, regardless of how many logical backflips are required.

 

[JoeDawg]

You can apply math directly to the physical world. All mathematics can be applied somewhere in the real world.

No, you can apply math that reflects the physical world to the physical world.
You have it backward.

1+1=3

Doesn't make sense when you are talking about ping pong balls.
It does make sense when you are talking about humans having sex.

Its the observation of the real world even that gives math its meaning.