An answer to the "universe from nothing" question

I recently became aware of a theory that may answer that question. It was on a special about Stephen Hawking . Basically, he said at the moment of the Big Bang the universe was a super dense particle, or singularity, smaller than a proton. It randomly exploded to become the known universe. He goes on to say that the universe has only two things, energy and space. Based on Einstein's work matter is also a form of energy. There are positive energies (stars, planets, comets) and negative energy (gravity). When all these energies are added together the resulting sum of the entire universe will be....................zero! So there you are. There is still nothing.

Of course any bible-thumper will declare that the stupidest thing they ever heard.

Views: 503

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

...desire of discovery should be our constant goal.

I agree, Michael, but we who are not doing the discovery need not concern ourselves with persuading politicians to appropriate the necessary money.

Tom,

I'll look into plasma cosmology when I get a chance because, well, why not; I have nothing invested in any given origin theory, and science leads where it will.

But to get to the point where I was willing to look at it I first had to get past your 'being a dick' style of presentation.  I find that sort of style correlates highly with cranks and kooks peddling nonsense, and I'm sure you'll agree that life's too short to wade through their crap.

Point being, and this is only my opinion: if your goal is to get people persuading politicians, you might want to review your approach.

B, science led me to work I loved that paid me well enough to retire at 45. Faith would have left me a pauper.

I've done years of presenting, spoken and written, and prefer minimalism. It served me well in the political arena.

I've never heard of a 'being a dick' style; I hope you will describe it for folks here. Yeah, this line is satire. You earned it.

Sorry, been busy with work myself.

Being a dick, in this context, refers to things like accusing scientists of God of the Gaps arguments.  It should be obvious to anyone here that in science, "I don't know" is a perfectly viable answer to any question, and a starting point for more science.  Saying Big Bang cosmology is full of goddidits is seriously disrespectful.

Your first response to this forum post was also a rather picturesque example of being a dick, as is your ongoing insistence that a scientific theory is invalid because it was first suggested by a Catholic.

And none of this is satire, it's just simple truths about some rather antisocial behaviour on your part.

Welcome back, B.

So often in the history of science, early attempts to explain what people saw referred to the supernatural. Observation proved those early explanations wrong.

For instance, the early devil possession explanations for what we know as mental illness survived until recent times.

Cosmologists don't admit their lack of knowledge. To say they are scientists is a stretch; they have not earned the respect accorded to scientists.

Saying Alan Guth's inflation is a goddidit is more picturesque than saying it's an unsupported hypothesis.

The assertions by cosmologists that space and time originated with the BB are recent innovations. Saying they are goddidits is more picturesque than saying they are unsupportable hypotheses.

Perhaps you write for scientific publications. If so, I suggest that you define "being a dick" less creatively.

The assertions by cosmologists that space and time originated with the BB are recent innovations.

What cosmologists assert that?  There are cosmological theories about what happened "before" the Big Bang. 

I did read of an idea that Stephen Hawking had, where there wasn't any "before" the Big Bang.  The idea was that there is no singularity at the Big Bang.  By analogy with the surface of the earth, the idea is that even though longitude lines converge at the North Pole, there's no singularity in the surface.  So SH came up with a coordinate transformation where spacetime has no singularity at the Big Bang,

I don't know what cosmologists currently think about this idea of SH.

And, it is important to have a physical theory where there isn't really a singularity at the Big Bang.  Loop quantum gravity avoids a Big Bang singularity.  When something goes infinite in a physics theory, physicists generally think the theory is wrong or incomplete. 

A Science Newsletter subscription in the 1960s piqued my interest in astronomy. I often went outside at night and knew by name what I was seeing.

I had quit religion in 1957 and considered the Genesis-like story suspect at best and a fraud at worst. The universe's entire mass occupying an infinitely tiny space? Preposterous!

I mostly ignored the BB, even during the years I worked on the Apollo program, until in the 1990s I was on the Internet and found NASA's Astronomy Picture of the Day (APOD).

Its many pix of galaxy collisions started me to asking how they could change directions -- from their radial paths away from the singularity to collision courses.

I quizzed several Internet astronomy "professors" and received replies suitable for school children. I concluded that they don't know.

Upon seeing Tyson on tv, I liked his showmanship but disliked his religious-like certainty. It contradicted both Heisenberg and Godel. I read of Guth's inflation and disbelieved his conclusion that for a moment matter moved faster than light.

I found Berne's The Big Bang Didn't Happen, read it and asked another science enthusiast his opinion.

He immediately, and angrily, told me he has a bridge he will sell me. Scientific objectivity? He had none.

Dark energy and dark matter? Also fanciful.

AND NOW, LUARA, YOUR QUESTION. LESS THAN A YEAR AGO I FIRST HEARD OF THE CLAIM THAT SPACE AND TIME ORIGINATING WITH THE BB.

NO ONE HAS CLAIMED IT AS HIS. NO SURPRISE; IT IS UNSUPPORTABLE!

The creationists' god of the gaps and the evolutionists goddidit satire on it were too useful to leave unused,.

If you know the history of science, you know too of people who dislike the drudgery of laboratory work.

BTW, Tyson weeks ago admitted on tv that space might be unbounded. He seemed uncertain.

 I read of Guth's inflation and disbelieved his conclusion that for a moment matter moved faster than light.

Cosmological inflation does not mean that matter moves faster than light.  It means that spacetime expands, very rapidly.

Some parts of spacetime are currently expanding away from each other, faster than light.  There may be galaxies that are impossible for us to see because they're in a part of spacetime that is expanding away from us, faster than light.  Light emitted from those galaxies would never reach us. 

LESS THAN A YEAR AGO I FIRST HEARD OF THE CLAIM THAT SPACE AND TIME ORIGINATING WITH THE BB.

Citation? 

A citation?

Luara, do you document every unfounded claim you hear or read?

In the years since I first heard of the BB, its enthusiasts have made so many unsupported claims that I long ago stopped giving them the attention required to document them.

I give more attention to the evidence offered by plasma cosmologists. It is worth my time.

do you document every unfounded claim you hear or read?

I do usually find references for science statements. 

Without references, it's hard to know the reality behind what you say. 

Was it a cosmologist in academia who said the Big Bang was the beginning of space and time?  Was it from a peer-reviewed article in a scientific journal?  What was the context of the assertion?

Even if there isn't a "before the Big Bang", that doesn't mean that "goddidit".   The universe might be like the surface of the Earth, with the Big Bang the North Pole.  We can perhaps find out more about "why all this is here", but "God" would be a strange answer.

 

Luara, in two June posts you referred to videos about the claims of BB folk.

In neither one did you refer to their having evidence.

Creationists, each time their claims are refuted, adjust them slightly and assert them again. They've done that so often that evolutionists say creationists' claims evolve.

The claims of creationists do differ from those of BB folk: creationists evolve their claims; BB folk create new species.

BB folk seem to not care that their claims are no better founded than the god of the gap claims by creationists.

You also seem to not care.

But as you know, Michael and Tom, one of the most galling things about theists is their complacency. With zilch for evidence, they pretend as though ALL questions are answered by Gawd. On my hard drive, "Pictures," I have an encyclopedia of the bizarre, and under "Religulous" I have photos of the destruction caused by natural disasters, mainly tornadoes. I only keep photos that make one point: Gawd destroys churches. Freethinkers see the irony of it, but gullibles never do. It never occurred to the victims to wonder why Gawd destroyed their church. They always defer with the "mysterious ways" nonsense. The scientist has some answers because she has investigated. She knows the evidence, and her conclusions are subjected to peer review. (What, the opinions of Pat Robertson are subject to review by Joel Osteen, John Hagee, and Franklin Graham?)

We used to have a church here with a front designed, one would think, to resemble the screen of a drive-in movie theater. It had a sign: "CHRIST IS THE ANSWER." Even as a back burner believer (has doubts but goes along with the crowd), I expressed my reaction: "What is the question?" The point here is, the scientists has most of the answers because the proof is there. The believer has no answers at all other than God. God is not an answer because there is no proof. Thank you, choir, for reading.

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

AJY

 

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service