Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Robert Fleming on February 1, 2010 at 12:59pm

Again - why is 'god' exempt from 'requiring' a cause?

But "god" was caused by the 'meta god', and the 'meta god' was caused by the 'meta meta god', the 'meta meta god' was caused by 'the meta meta meta god'...

LOL

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Robert Fleming on February 1, 2010 at 1:15pm

Quantum mechanics try to avoid this problem by saying that causality applies in some parts of the world, but not everywhere. Like at “the very deepest level”.
So where do they perform their experiments? In the causal part or the non-causal part?

Actually QM is a mathematical theory which works very very well. Whether or not causality is violated, the distinction between the measured and the measurer, the role of the observer, etc are only decided with the philosophical interpretation of QM. In the standard Copenhagen interpretation causality is violated at the lowest levels. With David Bohm's interpretation there is no violation. Other interpretations are possible too like the many worlds view.

There is no sound reason to prefer any one of these views over the other. Most physicists don't think about these foundational issues, and most simply adopt the Copenhagen view as it was so strongly prompted by Bohr who was such a dominant force.

QM makes fantastically accurate predictions, but what it "really means" we do not know. As Feynman said, "If you think you understand QM, you do not understand QM."

There is a bit about the DeBroglie-Bohm intrepretation here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie%E2%80%93Bohm_theory

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Robert Fleming on February 1, 2010 at 2:26pm

If any followers of this thread are interested in a good book that examines the history of the development of QM and the thoughts of the originators I'd heartily recommended:

The Age of Entanglement: When Quantum Physics Was Reborn by Louisa Gilder

It is inexpensive and a wonderful read. There is extensive coverage of the historical Einstein-Bhor debates, plus it covers Bell's theorem, and the experiments of Allan Aspect.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Robert Fleming on February 1, 2010 at 3:31pm

Re: Hannes Alfven who was quoted early in this discussion:
Alfven was an outstanding plasma physicist.

His cosmological model was not so outstanding. It relied on giant astrophysical explosions resulting from a hypothetical mixing of cosmic matter and anti-matter. There was no explanation of how or why this matter and anti-matter came into being or how it would mix.

In 1993 Jim Peebles put the cosmology of Alfven and Klien out of its misery by showing that there is no way this model could account for the high isotropy of cosmic background microwave and x-ray radiation which the big bang accounts for so well.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by klypp on February 9, 2010 at 6:13am

"His cosmological model was not so outstanding. It relied on giant astrophysical explosions resulting from a hypothetical mixing of cosmic matter and anti-matter. There was no explanation of how or why this matter and anti-matter came into being or how it would mix."

Seems like just another example of how Big Bangers "debunk" alternative theories. Somehow they forget that the "hypothetical mixing of cosmic matter and anti-matter" was, and still is, their own theory!

"About 15 billion years ago, matter and antimatter were created in a gigantic Big Bang in equal amounts, at least according to today's best theory." (Davide Vite)

"In the first few moments of the Universe, enormous amounts of both matter and antimatter were created, and then moments later combined and annihilated generating the energy that drove the expansion of the Universe. But for some reason, there was an infinitesimal amount more matter than antimatter. Everything that we see today was that tiny fraction of matter that remained." (Fraser Cain)

And how did the Big Bang matter/antimatter "come into being"?
Hmmm...
Did someone just say "created"?

Permalink Reply by klypp on February 5, 2010 at 3:37am

So the Copenhagen interpretation is declared dead, and causality restored at all levels? That's good! Two ghosts vaporized!

But “the role of the observer”?
Maybe if you no longer believe that cats die when looked at...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Roy The Infidel on February 1, 2010 at 7:29pm

"That the article cited calls Gentry’s model an attractive alternative betrays the sentiments of its writer."

"That too reveals the bias. Try rewriting it as:"


Hence why I wrote "Here is a material which I suspect is from an ID supporter."

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Robert Fleming on February 1, 2010 at 8:09pm

It is interesting that so many of the counter big bang arguments (fallacies) come from creationists. Even Fred Hoyle who did great work on stellar nucleosynthesis and promoted the steady state theory was a “creationist”.

The so called triple-alpha process that produced carbon required a very precise energy level in the carbon nucleus. He predicted the energy level and experiment proved him correct. As a result he changed his stance from being an atheist to being a believer in design.

“Would you not say to yourself, "Some super-calculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the chance of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be utterly minuscule." Of course you would . . . A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question." Fred Hoyle, "The Universe: Past and Present Reflections.

Advocates of intelligent design often quote Hoyle on this and his tornado in junk yard metaphor, they love him. The more astute refer to his various misunderstandings as Hoyle’s fallacy. See for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoyle%27s_fallacy

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Robert Fleming on February 1, 2010 at 8:49pm

At this time the big bang is a very viable model, and by far the most accepted.

That is not to say that there are no alternatives. Paul Steinhardt and Neil Turok proposed a theory where an oscillating field replaces dark energy and inflation. The field causes the universe to cycle.

“The theory proposes that, in each cycle, the universe refills with hot, dense matter and radiation, which begins a period of expansion and cooling like the one of the standard big bang picture. After 14 billion years, the expansion of the universe accelerates, as astronomers have recently observed. After trillions of years, the matter and radiation are almost completely dissipated and the expansion stalls. An energy field that pervades the universe then creates new matter and radiation, which restarts the cycle.” Science News

It’s advocates claim it addresses the question of what might have triggered or come "before" the beginning of time. To me the idea that the universe always existed and cycled this way is just as vexing as what came "before". Also the big bang arises naturally out of Einstein's field equations while the oscillating field and it's behaviour in the other theory seems very ad hoc to me. I'm sticking with the big bang as are most physicists.

There is much we still do not know.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page