Let’s recap what I have asserted thus far:
Truth is absolute
Reason is our greatest tool for understanding truth.
Our universe (that which is composed of matter, energy, space, and time) had a beginning.
THE LAND BEFORE TIME
The beginning of our universe has been corroborated again and again by physical law (entropy), theory (Big Bang, General Relativity), and observation (universal expansion, cosmic background radiation, etc). Outside of an intense want for an eternal universe, there is little reason to doubt such a beginning. So, we’re left with the seemingly unanswerable question: “what was before the universe”? My question to you is: Does such a question have any meaning?
The physical state of the universe is, at best, counterintuitive. I would imagine that when I assert that the universe is expanding, the vast majority would interpret it as “the universe is expanding into space”. Physics tells us, however, that this is not the case. The universe does not exist in space; rather, space exists within the universe. This notion is further confirmed when we observe the far reaches of the universe. The expansion is accelerating because space itself is expanding. Moreover, time exists within the universe. Time itself is interrelated with space. It fits into relativity. Its very definition is dependent upon it being an aspect of our universe. We have no scientific reason to believe that time exists outside of our universe and if some sequential time-like thing did exist outside of our universe, we would be forced to give it a different name altogether since we have defined “time” as a quantity tied to the universe.
(Big breath)
What would it mean for something to exist “before” the universe if time is of the universe? Why would we presume that something existed “before” time? If something is within time, that something should also be within the universe. Does it not require significantly more faith to eschew science and to believe that there was time “before” the universe than it does to believe what observation and substantiated theory have shown? Unless we dismiss Einstein’s equations and corroborative evidence completely, are we not compelled to believe that time did not exist until the universe existed?
CAUSE AND EFFECT
All of science is built upon the search for a cause. Despite the truly marvelous analogy (and I mean this with all sincerity) given in the comments section of my last post where Skyhook used beta decay as a model for positing the existence of an uncaused physical phenomenon, in actuality the observation of this decay led directly to a quest to find the cause. Why? Because scientists know that all effects are caused. As was correctly pointed out, radioactive decay does have a cause at the subatomic level.
Back to the universe… all effects are caused so what caused the cause? The universe and indeed any conception of a time-inclusive cosmos must be susceptible to causality. Conversely, an entity that is not susceptible to causality must not carry with it the concept of time. I can say this with certainty because time is defined. (This is like saying that any continuous, two-dimensional shape whose points are equidistant from a single point is a circle. You can conceptualize a square, but since the points on a square are not equidistant from a single point, you cannot correctly call a square a circle… no big revelations here.) Scientists have theorized concepts such as anti-time or imaginary time, but such ideas do not free us from the effects of time (namely cause and effect) in the same way that squares do not preclude the existence of circles. As such, anything that is not susceptible to cause and effect must be eternal and anything eternal cannot be susceptible to cause and effect (after all, without time, cause and effect are meaningless).
I would assert that something existing outside of time is, by definition, eternal and uncaused.
Where has science and logic led us?
- Physical effects have a cause.
- The components of the universe came into being.
- Time is a component of the universe.
- Therefore time had a cause.
- The cause of time cannot exist in time.
- Therefore the cause of time must be eternal.
NOTE: This was once a much longer post with a whole section on mathematics and the concept of “infinity”, but I imagine this first piece (above) will be discussed rather heatedly; so, I will pick up the rest of the universe argument next week to allow the appropriate time for discussion. Plus, I don’t want to drive away all of my readers with math.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
33 comments:
Once again, I need to re-read tomorrow, but I can never resist jumping in. Discussing all this stuff is so fun. Thanks, Randy!
I agree that imagining a world without time is almost impossible. It stretches the mind completely. In fact, if there is a creator, it makes just as much sense to say that he hasn't created the universe yet as it does to say that he created it. After all ,the concept of "before" is time related, so "before" the Big Bang is completely beyond us.
But I'm not sure that what you're asserting is necessarily true. If this universe was created as an offshoot from another universe or something, then perhaps time was still present. A different kind of time. Who knows? But let's stick with the idea that time did not exist. That's a cool idea, although completely beyond our ability to conceptualize.
Also, by your definition of "eternal" (as not subject to time) then surely this "eternal cause" would not be able to exist within time, right? Any interaction with time would precipitate change of some sort, right? change is a time related concept. Or would an eternal force perceived from within time look like a completely still, frozen, unmoving, unchanging....something? a big black monolith perhaps? Thus spake Zarathrustra!
Once again we are creatures of change and time, so any knowledge of "before" or "after" or "around" or "underneath?" the Big Bang is beyond our abilities. But it's fun to try!
If time is synonymous with cause and effect, and if there was no cause and effect before time (because they are the same), then why does the beginning of time need a cause?
I understand that time is a component of the physical universe, but still, does cause and effect itself require a cause? Before it came into being there was no cause and effect, right?
Cause and Effect
It seems that the universe would have to be subject to its own laws, meaning it would have to have a cause. Whatever CAUSED the universe though, would surely not be subject to the laws of this universe and therefore would not itself need a cause.
Time
It makes sense that the cause of the universe the the effect could both happen simultaneously, in the exact moment that time was created.
Perhaps it was unwise to leave out the latter half of this week’s blog, since I’m about to address the very thing that I omitted in the first place (and address it to the first comment no less). In week 2, I said basically that humans are incredibly gifted and creative… we can conceptualize just about anything. My assertion, however, is that in conceptualizing, we must be careful not to ignore the data before us – that it is unreasonable to do so. Let’s look, for instance, at the idea of a “different time” (perhaps in another universe altogether).
First, as previously stated, we have no reason to believe that time exists outside of the universe since we define time as interrelated to the things of the universe. But let’s forego that thought for the moment and press on. I believe it impossible to conceptualize time without causality. Go ahead and give it a try…
…now, let’s take whatever concept you came up with and dissect it a bit. If there is no cause associated with this time, the first claim we are obligated to make is that time extends infinitely in both directions or that time runs in some sort of loop… basically, that it cannot have a beginning. I can address the idea that infinity is physically impossible later, but for now let’s assume that it is possible. Why do we have to assume that time is infinite? If we are to forego causality, time cannot have had a beginning; else, it would be an effect of whatever caused it to begin. So, now we have a being existing in infinite time not subject to cause and effect. What is it we are describing? An eternal being! If you can freely exist in infinite time without being subject to this time, time ceases to have meaning.
We’re back at square one. Time still must be caused. So, let’s take a look at your “offshoot universe”:
Are we not simply prolonging the conclusion? Mustn’t the conclusion of an eternal catalyst still be reached? If each universe is one of time, we’re still looking for the cause of the one before ours… and the one before that one… etc. The cause of the first universe must still be eternal.
You posed the two-fold question, “…surely this “eternal cause” would not be able to exist within time, right? Any interaction with time would precipitate change of some sort, right?” I think that it is important to note that the eternal being would not be subject to the rules of time, but there is no guideline as to how it would interact with events in time. Let’s use your analogy (from a different blog altogether) of a computer programmer and a computer program. The programmer creates the program and guides the manner in which events take place within the program, but the programmer is in no way subject to the program. Every virtual thing within the program must adhere to the program’s logic and rules, but the programmer is free to interact with any piece of the program no matter where it is in its logical progression.
Regarding the cause of time itself, can you even conceive of time not being caused? If there is indeed no eternity and no eternal catalyst, how can we reasonably conclude that time began to exist from this nothingness?
I want to reiterate that we can conceive of an inordinate number of possibilities; however, when we stray from the evidence at hand, we embark on speculation alone (Objection, your honor! Purely speculative!). The entirety of scientific exploration (mental or physical) is built upon cause and effect. Why are we so quick to abandon it here?
- Scientific theory corroborated through observation says that time had a beginning.
- Reason tells us that if time were not caused, it would not be.
- Logic tells us that if the causer were within time, it could not have caused time.
Sure, we can speculate any number of unreasoned, unfounded possibilities, but why would we use such speculation as arguments against reasoned and logical conclusions?
Wow, talk about making me think! Ouch!
Randy -“Regarding the cause of time itself, can you even conceive of time not being caused? If there is indeed no eternity and no eternal catalyst, how can we reasonably conclude that time began to exist from this nothingness?”
AND
“Reason tells us that if time were not caused, it would not be.”
I don’t believe that either solution (time caused or not caused) is reasonable. Perhaps time did just begin. This feels bizarre, but I think that’s because it’s impossible for us to conceptualize anything without time involved. I don’t believe our reason, if we separate it from our emotion, leads us to the unavoidable conclusion that time must have been caused. It’s like saying that cause and effect had to be caused because cause and effect itself is an effect. It’s like saying that the law was written because the law required it. And the eternal being you’re suggesting (something that is, by its timelessness, completely beyond our ability to begin to comprehend) is not acting as an eternal being (whatever that is), but is rather engaged in time and causes, etc. Now if there were another universe or dimension, or we are living in a hologram created by a super-computer in another existence - then there is still time which lies outside of our universe. Then a superior being could create this universe.
BUT
Randy - “Mustn’t the conclusion of an eternal catalyst still be reached? If each universe is one of time, we’re still looking for the cause of the one before ours… and the one before that one… etc. The cause of the first universe must still be eternal.”
If there are different universes, then perhaps our universe is not eternal, but the succession is. or it’s a big loop. Even our time could be a loop. I often wonder if before the Big Bang, everything spatially, substantively and chronologically had already taken place. Then it blew apart the matter, the space and the time, creating past and future.
I think the idea of an eternal being or catalyst being necessary to start time is just as unreasonable as time merely beginning. Either situation is wholly bizarre. I would suggest that if an eternal, timeless being does not seem bizarre to you, then you are still thinking in terms of time, some sort of sequence of events. That said, I don’t think your point is unreasonable. I think an eternal creator is possible. I just don’t think that the evidence from the physical world leads to this one conclusion. I think other views are reasonable as well. And although cosmic computer programs and offshoot universes are total speculations, I think that an eternal creator belongs in that category as well. From a cosmological viewpoint.
Randy - “If there is no cause associated with this time, the first claim we are obligated to make is that time extends infinitely in both directions or that time runs in some sort of loop… basically, that it cannot have a beginning”
I am still not certain there is adequate enough proof of this. I have been sitting around trying to think of time beginning at all. It’s beyond me. If time did have a beginning, then:
1. It just started -which is consistent with coming out of a “land before time” scenario. Why would time itself require a cause? Time is the process which makes something need a cause. Once again it’s like saying that someone created the law because the law required it. It's a paradox.
2. Something started it - in which case there is another time somewhere like in an offshoot universe or the cosmic computer programmer’s residence, or some sort of cosmic primordial ooze which creates universes.
3. An eternal creator that exists in some reality void of time started it. Once again, a reality void of time is quite as exceptional a claim as any of the other scenarios. I think it’s possible though, just beyond beyond our imagination.
But here are the only “non-time” scenarios I can imagine right now:
1. Complete stasis. There is something that never moves or changes. Frozen forever.
2. A funhouse world where something happens and then it didn’t happen, but it’s going to happen, but then it happened a long time ago. And this situation still requires sequential activity. It just changes constantly. I suppose “screwed up time” is still a sort of time, so this one doesn’t really count. Back to 1.
Even our thoughts are completely dependent on time. Logic depends on a succession of thoughts - a string of them in chronology. Can we conceive or timelessness with a tool that requires time?
So my conclusion (right now at least!) is that your ideas are very good. You have put it in a way that I have not heard before. But other ideas are equally plausible to me. And actually none of them seems very likely at all!
"I don’t believe that either solution (time caused or not caused) is reasonable."
These are the only solutions. They are opposites.
"I don’t believe our reason, if we separate it from our emotion, leads us to the unavoidable conclusion that time must have been caused."
It's science and observation on one hand and speculation on the other. Again, this doesn't stem from my want for a God... this comes from the equations of a physicist whose name is synonymous with "genius" and the "law" that governs science itself. Einstein tells us that time had a beginning. Science tells us that there is no effect without cause. What other evidence do we have?
I don't understand the assertion that time arose from nothingness... that it had no beginning or no cause. Can you elaborate on this?
Regarding your scenarios, the problem here is that you are looking at the possibilities without factoring in the equations of Einstein. If you "factor out" the science, you can come up with all sorts of things. Relativity, however, tells us that TIME had a beginning.
I certainly trust that your knowledge has led you to the conclusion that time began. I trust that this is a reasonable scenario. But then you are speculating on what caused time.
If time had a beginning, why didn't it just start? Why is the start of time subject to time?
I think it emotionally makes sense to believe in a creator that started time (because we're human and we think the universe must have been started by something like us), but I don't see how logic can produce this conclusion since it is about something that happened presumably before logic existed. (the cause of time would have to exist before time right? "before" is still time related so it's very difficult to imagine)
Without time, I think the human mind is beyond its abilities. or mine is at least!
Isn't time itself what requires something to have a cause? Time = sequential activity and change
Can "cause and effect" itself need a cause?
I agree that it is not understandable. But isn't an eternal Creator also not understandable? Can you conceive of something that is not bound by sequence and change? It's harder than imagining something existing without space. It's difficult.
An image of God in a "land before time" is just like a land before space, a land before the physical universe. Nothingness doesn't seem to describe it.
By the way, some mystics who believe in God say that God is nothing. Because to say that he is something is to limit him. I've always thought that interesting.
To say that cause must be "before" effect is slightly incorrect. We know that effect cannot precede cause and we know that effect does not happen without cause. Never should we state explicity that it is "cause then effect".
Without an eternal cause, time must indeed have come from nothingness. What I am saying to you is that we have zero reason to believe that something can come from nothing. We can conceive of the notion verbally, but we cannot even conceive of it as a physical reality. The evidence points to an eternal cause... it is not that we cannot conceive of another scenario. It is simply that reason and observation lead to the notion of an eternal cause. If indeed cause must precede effect, you would be correct; however, there is nothing to prevent a cause from being simultaneous with its effect.
Very interesting. I'm having a hard time with the idea of cause and effect happening at the same time.
1. Is there any evidence of this in the physical world? If not, then aren't you making statements about the beginning that are contingent on physical law but then violating it with your notion of simultaneous cause and effect?
2. Are you implying that God came into existence Himself at the same moment he created the universe?
3. You're saying that something cannot come from nothing, therefore you think it's more logical that there is something that didn't come from anything. How does that make more sense?
4. Is saying that something came from nothing really even the right way to say it? Even if we can measure time in finite terms, we cannot measure before it because "before time" is a paradox. Nothing is not an entity, it's an absence of anything we can know. It's not a void, it's.....nothing? So before time cannot really exist, even if we can measure it in finite terms. I think we may live in a loop. After all, the progression of time is only an illusion of our consciousness right? It's all equal, just like space, according to physical laws, right?
Thought of one more question:
5. You are saying that “something out of nothing” is impossible, but aren’t you also suggesting that the “eternal cause” created something out of nothing? You would say that the eternal cause is supernatural. Quite so. But then why is the eternal cause scenario entitled to the supernatural, but not the “spontaneous something out of nothing” scenario?
1. Regarding simultaneous cause and effect: “Is there any evidence of this in the physical world? If not…”
Sure! I’ll even stick to the creation theme. A fun one is the creation and annihilation of matter and antimatter, but let’s examine one that we have been discussing elsewhere because I know we’re in agreement: the creation of life.
“I agree Randy. I definitely think that a fertilized egg is a life and that an abortion is ending that life.”
Fertilization occurs when sperm and egg meet. Life occurs when fertilization occurs. Before sperm and egg meet: no life.
Upon sperm and egg meeting: life.
Sperm and egg then fertilization? No. Sperm and egg equals fertilization.
2. “Are you implying that God came into existence Himself at the same moment he created the universe?”
I hope not! So, the answer to your question is “Not intentionally anyway.”
3. “You’re saying that something cannot come from nothing, therefore you think it’s more logical that there is something that didn’t come from anything. How does that make sense?”
I feel very disconcerted at the moment because my intent was to assert the exact opposite of what you have stated above. What I said was:
a. We have zero reason to believe that time or space existed prior to the universe
b. Time and space cannot have been created by something existing in time and space because this would be a paradox.
c. So, if space and time were created, they were created by something existing neither in space nor time.
d. We have no evidence to suggest that something can come from nothing. In fact, all of our evidence suggests that everything that ever happened was caused (even those things that appear to be spontaneous).
e. So, following in the footsteps of every scientist before us, we search for a cause.
f. We define something existing neither in space nor time as “eternal”.
g. So, scientific methodology leads us to an eternal cause.
Next week, we’ll discuss what I believe the eternal cause is. I’ll give you a hint: God.
4. This question is built upon premises I responded to in (1) and (3), so I’ll leave it unanswered.
5. “…why is the eternal cause scenario entitled to the supernatural, but not the ‘spontaneous something out of nothing’ scenario?”
Nothing is nothing. From the Latin (perhaps Greek?) “No thing” meaning nothing!
An eternal causer is something. Something can cause something. Nothing can cause nothing. I have not yet asserted that God is the eternal causer… looking forward to interesting theories on that one. Why does the eternal causer get supernatural abilities? It is by definition outside of nature. Everything it did would be supernatural. Any theory that acknowledges the Big Bang (i.e. universal beginning) must assert the supernatural.
I am with Steven on this. Without having any good observational techniques to gather information about whether 'that which is beyond the universe' necessarily has to behave one way or another, I feel it is most reasonable to say "we don't know." Since all of our methods of knowing have been discovered, developed, and tested entirely within our universe, there are just too many unknowns to even say whether or not we can make inferences about conditions that may lie outside of our universe. Given that we are discussing a topic that escapes observation and is not falsifiable, we have stepped beyond the bounds of science.
Have you done a survey of what the peer reviewed science journals have to say on this matter? What do big thinkers such as Stephen Hawking, Richard Feynman, Martin Bojowald, Parampreet Singh, as well as others have to say on the subject? Of course it is not advisable to take anybody's word on authority alone, but work that has passed peer review has a tendency to be worth looking into.
Einstein was brilliant, but progress has been made since his time. Keep in mind that he did fall short of a Theory of Everything (and I am afraid his theories are being treated as if they were a TOE here). He was not willing to accept some of the advances made in quantum physics (that have since been strongly supported by experimental evidence). That is an area that seems to be absent from these blog posts and comments. When I look through the current literature regarding the initial moments of the universe, most of the language is framed in “quantum” terms rather than “relative” terms.
If you find that the peer reviewed work in science does not come to the conclusion you have set out to reach, perhaps you might consider that the logic is not as straightforward as you present.
Randy,
Your concept of the "eternal cause" or God creating the universe from outside the universe is exactly the same as theories involving a cosmic computer programmer. Speculative, but I think it is a definite possibility. I think Skyhook's comment about the problem of any dogma on the matter is reasonable though.
"Before time" is a paradox. I think we all agree.
"Outside of time" implies another existence and time, like a another universe, that the programmer or cause lives in.
I'm still unconvinced that the beginning of our universe HAD to have a cause (according to a logical progression of thought), but if it did (which is quite possible), then speculating on the nature of the eternal cause and the alternate universe in which it resides would certainly be in the realm of science fiction.
I'm not sure about your fertilization/life description. Those are just two different words for the same event - the egg and sperm bonded together. And there was an event prior to it happening that caused it. Oh yeah, you know what I'm talking about. Cue Barry White.
a quick summation of where I think we stand. In the following, the word “sense” means our logic and reason based on and located within physical laws. “Everything” means our universe.
Steven (and possibly Skyhook but I don’t want to assume) - the beginning of everything did not necessarily make sense, since “sense” is based on the laws of what already exists. In fact, by its very nature, perhaps it cannot have made sense. Basically, who can know?
Randy - the beginning of everything has to make sense because everything within it makes sense. Therefore it must have been created by something in another existence (universe, realm, heaven, etc.) where things don’t necessarily have to make sense.
Is this pretty right?
Two last thoughts:
What does “something” mean? Surely it must entail space and time. If the eternal cause doesn’t exist in space or time, then isn’t it “nothing”? Can there be something without space or time? Thought doesn’t require space (well, our physical brains, I guess), but it requires time. Hmmmm.
OK, I can count (to two at least).
Here's the other thought, but it's right on the border of my current capabilities so I hope it makes sense:
Randy - “f. We define something existing neither in space nor time as “eternal”.
In all this, I’m still assuming a sequential perspective of time, since that’s what the basis is for Randy’s argument ( which is “this non-eternal universe means an eternal cause outside must have created it”). However, time is like space. It just is. Beginnings, middles and ends all exist simultaneously. The present is our arbitrary location as defined by our consciousness. The past still exists. The future already exists. In this light, I like Randy’s definition of eternity as just being outside our universe, instead of the more prevalent idea of an “endless stretch” of our current time. However this could render the argument in parenthesis above in to - “This universe is not outside this universe, therefore it must have been created by a cause outside of this universe”.
This doesn’t make too much sense. So perhaps eternal still must mean “endless stretch” of THIS universe’s time. Isn’t “infinite time” still a sort of time like what we experience? At least for this argument let’s just keep thinking sequentially.
Skyhook,
Do you have any sources you could point me to? Honestly, I do not understand how Quantum Mechanics could describe the physics of the early universe. Specifically, do you have any sources that pit QM against Relativity?
Steven,
I'm anxious to hear back from Skyhook so I can take a look at some theories that I have not considered. Then, I'll take a moment to look over your comments.
Skyhook,
One more thing... I'm purposely using well-established scientific theory here. Hawking has some truly magnificent theories (and uses the "G" word over and over again in his most famous work), but his theories are always contested and never been considered to be truth. General Relativity, on the other hand, is one upon which other theory is built. It is taught at the Masters/PhD level as truth. The reputation of QM is on par with General Relativity, so I'm anxious to hear your feedback.
Fun quotes from Michio Kaku's excellent book Parallel Worlds
"The universe is not only queerer than we suppose, it is queerer than we can suppose" - J.B.S. Haldane
"I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics" - Richard Feynman
"Inside every black hole that collapses may lie the seeds of a new expanding universe." - Sir Martin Rees
"Nothing cannot come from nothing." -Lucretius
"I suppose this is because nothing doesn't exist." - Steven
"There was a young fellow from Trinity
Who took the square root of infinity
But the number of digits
Gave his the fidgits;
He dropped Math and took up Divinity."
- George Gamow
The QM treatment of the early universe makes sense because the universe was the size of the tiniest of tiny subatomic particles - The Planck length
(by the way, I'm not a trained physicist, so I just do my best to somewhat understand where you guys, and the physicist authors I read, are coming from!)
Michio Kaku's description of the "Planck era"
"Almost nothing is certain about the Planck era. At the Planck energy (10 to 19th power billion electron volts), the gravitational force was as strong as the other quantum forces. As a consequence,the four forces of the universe were probably unified into a single "superforce." Perhaps the universe existed in a perfect phase of "nothingness," or empty higher-dimensional space. The mysterious symmetry that mixes all four forces, leaving the equations the same, is most likely "supersymmetry". For reasons unknown, this mysterious symmetry that unified all four forces was broken, and a tiny bubble formed, our embryonic universe, perhaps as the result of a random, quantum fluctuation. This bubble was the size of the "Planck length," which is 10 to the negative 33rd power centimeters."
Steven,
When you first think about the tiny little universe that was, this sounds correct; however, remember that space, too, was contained within. I have always looked upon QM as more of a description... a mathematical thing. It is more a science of "coming up with the right answer" than one of explanation. That is why I'm so intrigued by the idea of using it to philosophize about the early universe.
I hear ya, and I think it's a good point. But I suppose it's still reasonable to speculate that the universe behaved in a quantum manner early on since quantum behavior lies within the physical universe just like the "larger" components do.
Most theories I have read state that rapid inflation right after the Big Bang is the only good way (right now) to explain our flat universe, which doesn't spin too much and where temperatures, matter, etc are spread out evenly throughout. This assumes an early behavior of the universe closer to particle physics than astrophysics. And the universe was much smaller than an electron is now in the beginning. I understand your point about size and distance being relative, but we do know that both particle physics and astrophysics work in the universe now.
I would also put forth that I never consider science an ultimate explanation of anything. Each new step is just refining the description of what happened. Explanations are for religion and philosophy.
BTW, as you can probably guess, I do not know enough about how particle physics works to know why hyper-inflation is closer to that than to conventional astrophysics. I am just taking it on faith from Michio Kaku and Alan Guth.
Basically, the inflation theories are there to describe how the universe has galaxies. Physicists theorize that if the initial expansion were uniform, there would be nothing but cosmic background radiation. Instead, we see enormous gatherings of galaxies surrounded by vast expanses of empty space, so it is assumed that the universe hiccuped a bit as it initially expanded leading to pockets of the unmeasurable energy that were significantly more dense than other parts. These pockets (often referred to as "galaxy seeds") allowed matter formation where the other areas remained as energy. Neat theory, really. I'll discuss it some next week.
Skyhook,
Are the inflation theories that Steven spoke of the QM theories you're referring to? If so, the theories I have researched assume the Big Bang to be true. They assume what I have assumed - that space and time began.
I think the origins of galaxies is one reason for the inflation hypothesis, but there seem to be several. It also seems to be consistent with a lot of observations, but problems to be solved still abound. of course!
Man, just look up Cosmic Inflation on wikipedia and go down to the "Initial conditions" Crazy stuff.
"However, Albrecht and Lorenzo Sorbo have argued that the probability of an inflationary cosmos, consistent with today's observations, emerging by a random fluctuation from some pre-existent state, compared with a non-inflationary cosmos overwhelmingly favours the inflationary scenario, simply because the "seed" amount of non-gravitational energy required for the inflationary cosmos is so much less than any required for a non-inflationary alternative, which outweighs any entropic considerations"
Whew, this section has become quite complicated and theory laden. Let me just throw out my input. And like Steven, I am not in any way a trained physicist; I rely on what I have read (although we've obviously read different things…)
I’m surprised to see that people are arguing against time having a beginning. According to my research, it is nearly unanimously agreed upon by scientists that all matter, time, and space had a beginning with the big bang. And I believe that this is Randy’s basic point; that scientific evidence leads us to this conclusion. Of course there are an infinite number of other unsupported metaphysical theories that have been thought up. But this discussion (as I understood it) was meant illustrate the most likely conclusion, to which the actual evidence points.
And yes, there have been many discoveries since Einstein’s theory of relativity. But these discoveries have only confirmed what Einstein suspected, that the universe had a beginning.
SURGE
• Second Law of Thermodynamics/ Law of Entropy- The universe is running out of energy. Because the universe has a finite amount of energy, we know that it had a beginning at some point in the finite past. It can’t be eternal. Because the universe it trending toward disorder, if it were eternal, we would have reached complete disorder by now.
• Universe is Expanding- Observed by astronomer Edwin Hubble in 1927. If we rewound the universe, we would see it collapse down into literally nothing (i.e., no space, no time, no matter).
o Any atheist theory must assume that the universe came to being out of NOTHING.
• Radiation from the Big Bang- 1965- Penzias and Wilson discovered the afterglow from the Big Bang fireball explosion, which is the light and heat from the initial explosion. (This had been predicted by scientists as early as 1948). Agnostic Robert Jastrow responded: “No explanation other than the Big Bang has been found for the fireball radiation. The clincher, which has convinced almost the last Doubting Thomas, is that the radiation discovered by Penzias and Wilson has exactly the pattern of wavelengths expected for the light and heat produced in a great explosion. Supporters of the steady state theory have tried desperately to find an alternative explanation but they have failed. At the present time, the Big Bang theory has no competitors.”
• Great Galaxy Seeds- 1992- George Smoot announced COBE’s findings- the ripples in the temperature of the cosmic background radiation. The ripples show that the explosion and expansion of the universe was precisely tweaked to cause just enough matter to congregate to allow galaxy formation, but not enough to cause the universe to collapse back on itself. Smoot said, “If you’re religious, it’s like looking at God.” Stephen Hawking called the findings “the most important discovery of the century, if not of all time.”
• Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity- Verified to five decimal places. Demands an absolute beginning for time, space, and matter. Shows that time, space, and matter are co-relative. From this theory, scientists predicted and then found the expanding universe, the radiation afterglow, and the great galaxy seeds that were precisely tweaked to allow the universe to form into its present state.
Random quotes from scientists
Robert Jastrow, founder of NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies- “Now we can see how the astronomical evidence leads to a biblical view of the origin of the world. The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy.”
Arno Penzias- “The Steady State theory turned out to be so ugly that people dismissed it. The easiest way to fit the observations with the least number of parameters was one in which the universe was created out of nothing, in an instant, and continues to expand.”
Robert Wilson- “I philosophically liked Steady State. And clearly I’ve had to give that up.”… “Certainly there was something that set it all off. Certainly, if you are religious, I can’t think of a better theory of the origin of the universe to match with Genesis.”
George Smoot- “There is no doubt that a parallel exists between the big bang as an event and the Christian notion of creation from nothing.”
Albert Einstein- In 1929 after looking through Hubble’s telescope himself, said he wanted “to know how God created the world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thought, the rest are details.”
After all that, it seems hard for me to believe that time did not have a beginning. It is most reasonable to believe that the universe (space, matter, and time) had a beginning at the Big Bang.
Also, I agree with Randy's conclusion at the end of the OP. Based on the cosmological argument:
1. Everything which begins to exist must have a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe had a cause.
Since time is a component of the universe, I think it is safe to say that time had a cause and that the cause of time must be outside the universe, and therefore eternal.
"1. Everything which begins to exist must have a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe had a cause."
This is circular (1 is reliant on 2), but I still think it's a reasonable line of thought given our limitations. I don't think certainty is warranted regarding anything that happened before or at the beginning of our universe and our physical laws. But what do I know?
You guys are exploring like scientists but with religious language. Secular scientists think, hmmmm, something (our universe) seems to have come from nothing. Let's figure out how. Then they speculate about quantum fluctuations in some pre-existent state, our universe in its infancy acting as randomly as an electron does now. Religious folks (and surely plenty of religious scientists) speculate about a God (who acts like a human) that resides outside the universe in some purely speculative existence called heaven or another realm/universe.
It's all speculative. But that's what makes it fun! I just see religious/secular words as different sets of vocabulary for the exploration. I think the danger is a dogmatic attitude. That closes us off to new discoveries.
Steven-
The cosmological argument is not circular. Number 1 has been a scientific fact for as long as we have recorded history. The assertion of the universe having a beginning is a 20th century phenomenon. So 1 could not possibly be reliant on 2.
Also, none of the scientists that I quoted were religious, most claimed to be agnostic. In fact, my husband was agnostic for a time until he got into deeper studies of physics, which led him to God. So it's hard for me to draw a distinction between religious/secular scientists. The evidence points where the evidence points. If you ignore evidence as an agnostic/atheist or as a Christian, you're not being a good scientist. So the two types of scientists would be more correctly deemed "good scientists" and "bad scientists."
Also, I have a question. Where in my "surge" explanation did I use "religious language?" I quoted some scientists who felt the evidence led to God, but the "surge" evidence itself is in no way religious, it's... science.
"Number 1 has been a scientific fact for as long as we have recorded history"
But we're talking about what started history. If anything. If something did, then there's just something else with no start. Number 2 is quite literally reliant on number 1.
"Any atheist theory must assume that the universe came to being out of NOTHING."
That is not entirely true, because I've read theories trying to "fix" some problems with inflation which propose an eternal inflation scenario (I don't understand them of course), BUT I think most scientific theories I've read do think the universe came out of a "sort of nothing" (I say this because, try to contemplate "nothing"!) which is exactly what many believers in God think he did. Creatio ex nihilo. If you say that God is something, then "something" does not necessarily involve space, matter or time, so it may be "nothing" to us.
I think the scientific evidence points to possible solutions. God is a very good one I think. I like Randy's view, but a God existing in another dimension is a speculative idea about how we got here. And it doesn't explain how God got there.
Please don't think that I'm trying to discount religious terminology. I think it's very relevant. I'm not trying to promote a false dichotomy between religion and science, rather I love theoretical physics because all those differences break down. Believe me, if you were a hardcore atheist trying to tear down a mythical/religious view of the origins of the universe, I would counter that as well!
OK, I have used this blog to explore my thoughts a lot. I appreciate the chance and look forward to more. Have a good night, everyone.
Hmmm... I still don't see how the law of causality is reliant on the universe having a beginning. We used the law of causality as the basis for science long before we knew the universe had a beginning. But I'll let it go since I think Randy is going to get into this more in tonights blog.
Post a Comment