It's official: God didn't create universe

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,794
460
83
Hmm... I think he might be on to this because of the recent developments in our understanding of black holes. After a night of solid brew and looking at the stars up north, someone told me that black holes do allow for matter to be destroyed, simply based on the gravity of that matter plonking down into nothingness.

EDIT: Scratch that.. because I think now that there is no eternal nothingness in a black hole, it is just the weight of such mass, pulling everything in.. and that does not change the conservational law.
 
Last edited:

L Gilbert

Winterized
Nov 30, 2006
23,738
107
63
70
50 acres in Kootenays BC
the-brights.net
The Earth is a "Goldilocks" planet. Not too hot, nor too cold, nor too big or too small...

Here is another planet which appears to be a Goldilocks planet:
Gliese 581 d - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So far astronomers have discovered about 500 extra-solar planets:
Extrasolar planet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That does not imply that the odds of a planet being a Goldilocks planet is 500 to 1. Rocky earth size planets in the habitable zone of another star are difficult to detect. Large extra-solar planets are much easier to detect. Right now there isn't enough data to predict how the number of earth like planets exist in our galaxy. So far, we've found 2, the earth and Gliese_581_d.
:-( How does that answer the fellow's question? He asks where the water came from and you tell him there are Earthlike planets around the universe. But it's ok, I provided a link that directly addressed his question. :)

Hmm... I think he might be on to this because of the recent developments in our understanding of black holes. After a night of solid brew, someone told me that black holes do allow for matter to be destroyed, simply based on the gravity of that matter to plonk down into nothingness.

Maybe this is the same principle but in the opposite fashion? It could technically explain what happened before the big bang.
String "theory" suggests there's no such thing as matter. lol
I just keep wondering how anything can come from nothing.
 

karrie

OogedyBoogedy
Jan 6, 2007
27,780
285
83
bliss
Hmm... I think he might be on to this because of the recent developments in our understanding of black holes. After a night of solid brew and looking at the stars up north, someone told me that black holes do allow for matter to be destroyed, simply based on the gravity of that matter plonking down into nothingness.

Maybe this is the same principle but in the opposite fashion? It could technically explain what happened before the big bang.

into nothingness? What makes us think that matter being sucked through a black hole isn't exactly what caused our big bang? The edge of our universe could be simply the event horizon of the backside of a black hole. I think I need to head out to the garage for a puff if I'm gonna ponder this any deeper... lol.
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,794
460
83
I just keep wondering how anything can come from nothing.

My only experience in that vein deals with consciousness as a form of nothingness. Physically or materially constituting it exists as nothing. Possibly the nothingness of the future and the past. Conscious beings of course have some mental substance which acts as a 'consciousness detector' and therefore talking about yesterday or tomorrow, for instance, is to talk about nothingness. Of course that becomes more granular and turns into every discussion as technically a discussion about nothingness since, by the time the words or actions are exerted, the true present is already lost.

But the present did exist, and while it was present, a decision or an event took place. And that was something at some point. So the theory goes that the nothingness of consciousness fueled the decision to do something. In this sense it could be that we are really over exerting the search to validate consciousness, since it is really a substitution for our temporal sense.

Either way, that idea is also not empirically validated. And there are always scientific prospects to actually show consciousness as a form of energy. Hopefully the science can produce some definitive conclusion there as well.

That said, it still doesn't mean that nothingness actually created more of something, but rather that there can be a causal connection between nothingness and physical objects.
 
Last edited:

Dexter Sinister

Unspecified Specialist
Oct 1, 2004
10,168
539
113
Regina, SK
...elaborate on that while hopefully vulgarizing it a little.
Okay, vulgarization coming up...

Stripped of the mathematical formalism, essentially what it means is that any symmetric property of a physical system will produce a conservation law. For instance, if it's the same regardless of its orientation, it's rotationally symmetric and the conserved quantity will be angular momentum. Similarly, if it's the same regardless of time or place, e.g. if you move it a meter to the right, or look at it tomorrow instead of today, it has translational (translation to a physicist just means movement) symmetry with respect to space and time, which leads to conservation laws for linear momentum and energy. Strictly speaking, the symmetry has to have certain defined characteristics--it must be differentiable, for instance--but I don't think we need to go there.
 

s_lone

Council Member
Feb 16, 2005
2,233
30
48
43
Montreal
Okay, vulgarization coming up...

Stripped of the mathematical formalism, essentially what it means is that any symmetric property of a physical system will produce a conservation law. For instance, if it's the same regardless of its orientation, it's rotationally symmetric and the conserved quantity will be angular momentum. Similarly, if it's the same regardless of time or place, e.g. if you move it a meter to the right, or look at it tomorrow instead of today, it has translational (translation to a physicist just means movement) symmetry with respect to space and time, which leads to conservation laws for linear momentum and energy. Strictly speaking, the symmetry has to have certain defined characteristics--it must be differentiable, for instance--but I don't think we need to go there.

Hmmm... I honestly only half understood what you said but am not blaming you for it! :smile:
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,794
460
83
Okay, vulgarization coming up...

Stripped of the mathematical formalism, essentially what it means is that any symmetric property of a physical system will produce a conservation law. For instance, if it's the same regardless of its orientation, it's rotationally symmetric and the conserved quantity will be angular momentum. Similarly, if it's the same regardless of time or place, e.g. if you move it a meter to the right, or look at it tomorrow instead of today, it has translational (translation to a physicist just means movement) symmetry with respect to space and time, which leads to conservation laws for linear momentum and energy. Strictly speaking, the symmetry has to have certain defined characteristics--it must be differentiable, for instance--but I don't think we need to go there.

So let's say that there is a symmetry between the existence of nothing and the existence of something. I don't have a proof for that, I'm just making the assumption for now -- assuming that you could measure this 'translational symmetry' between the existence of nothing and the existence of something.

Would that validate Hawking's assertion that nothing could create something?
 

Dexter Sinister

Unspecified Specialist
Oct 1, 2004
10,168
539
113
Regina, SK
Re: It's offical: God didn't create universe

...doesn't this create a problem with the law of conservation of mass/energy?
Not really. Here's a pretty good summary of the issues and what we know so far:

http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/The_universe_can't_come_from_nothing

So let's say that there is a symmetry between the existence of nothing and the existence of something...
"Nothing" is not a physical system, the rules don't apply. We don't actually know what "nothing" is, we have no experience of it. But it IS true that something can come from nothing, as is stated at the link above, quantum fluctuations are empirically validated.
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,794
460
83
Re: It's offical: God didn't create universe

Not really. Here's a pretty good summary of the issues and what we know so far:

http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/The_universe_can't_come_from_nothing

"Nothing" is not a physical system, the rules don't apply. We don't actually know what "nothing" is, we have no experience of it. But it IS true that something can come from nothing, as is stated at the link above, quantum fluctuations are empirically validated.

:happy2:
 

Bcool

Dilettante
Aug 5, 2010
383
2
18
Vancouver Island B.C.
Not really. Here's a pretty good summary of the issues and what we know so far:

http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/The_universe_can't_come_from_nothing

"Nothing" is not a physical system, the rules don't apply. We don't actually know what "nothing" is, we have no experience of it. But it IS true that something can come from nothing, as is stated at the link above, quantum fluctuations are empirically validated.
Never having been formally taught physics, please make allowances for naive blunders here.

" In quantum systems energy obeys the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Energy dE can come out of existence for a period of time dt, where dE*dt >=h (the uncertainty principle). This is called a quantum fluctuation of the vacuum."

Disregarding for the now the somewhat sweeping part of the Heisenberg principle re the existence of Energy dE, it would seem to me that it is time dt is the variant that needs to be the central focal point of scrutiny, rather than the concept (or non-concept so far) of nothingness.

Is there not the principle (the name of which escapes me at present, of course ::sigh::) that no science, notably physics, no matter how 'purely' applied is simply incapable of avoiding the bias of human interpretation and the present inability to conduct science out of our sliver of a galaxy that may well transform and/or be incapable of presenting necessary data from other parts of the universe because the elements are simply not present within the confines of our galaxy to 'display' them?

However, it is the concept of time dt and the emerging propositions that I personally find intriguing, YMMV, and the resultant ever growing alternate theories; The Big Bang being relevant to many merely by virtue of disproving established theories and forms only part of the alternate or disputative theorims such as Mandelbrot's fractal cosmology. The theory of infinite hierarchical nesting of matter (or theory infinite self-similar nesting of matter) is one: Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter - Wikiversity

"Basic elements of the theory:

The Discrete Self-Similar Cosmological Paradigm focuses on nature’s fundamental organizational principles and symmetries. It emphasizes nature’s hierarchical organization of systems from the smallest observable subatomic particles to the largest observable superclusters of galaxies. The new paradigm also highlights the fact that nature’s global hierarchy is highly stratified into discrete Scales, of which we can currently observe the Atomic, Stellar and Galactic Scales. A third important principle of the paradigm is that the cosmological Scales are rigorously self-similar, such that for each class of objects or phenomena on a given Scale there is analogous class of objects or phenomenon every other cosmological Scale. The self-similar analogues from different Scales have rigorously analogous morphologies, kinematics and dynamics. From the physical point of view the similarity relations lead to similarity of matter levels and SPΦ-symmetry, which asserts the invariance of physical laws operating on different levels of matter.

* In the given theory there are no elementary particles of matter (see preon, parton, electron, quark), the substance is infinite divisible, as opposed to the theory of atomism, which is finding the minimal units of the matter.
* The Universe consists of infinite number enclosed levels of the matter with characteristics similar each other. This leads to the similarity of cosmic systems, including the similarity of shapes, sizes, masses, rates of processes and equations of motion.
* Each level of the matter includes carriers with the certain spectrum of the sizes and masses. The matter is organized itself in stable conditions under the influence of fundamental forces and interactions of objects of different systems.
* Allocation of cosmic objects on the levels of matter that are the stepping stones of the infinite hierarchy of cosmic systems, is based on geometric progression.
* The course of time in terms of rate of occurrence of similar events is much faster at a microlevel and more slowly at a macrolevel.***
* Each sort of "elementary" particles (electrons, nucleons, etc.) does not consist from strictly identical on mass and the size of particles.
* The Universe is eternal, thus carriers of the matter constantly are born and then are transformed to carriers of the same and-or other levels. That the theory falls outside the limits not only atomism, but also the Big Bang which limiting history of the Universe by the moment of its creation.***
* Space is 3-dimensional, its dimension is defined by the structure of the matter. Time in the given theory – independent coordinate from space, also is derivative of speed of movement and development of the matter.
* Action of forces of gravitation and electromagnetism can be explained by modified Le Sage's theory of gravitation. Objects of different levels of matter generate radiation in the form of streams of particles and field quanta, resulting in aggregate to the formation of the fundamental forces acting on objects from other levels of matter. It is also possible that the gravitational field is ordered in a special way the electromagnetic field of a underlying level of matter.
* There is a difference between the concepts of "quantity of matter" and gravitational mass, implying that under certain conditions, different amount of substance may have the same gravitational properties.
* Distribution of systems with living beings among cosmic systems has the same laws, which are inherent to systems with non-living matter."
***[Bold highlighting mine: Bcool]

"The ratio of radius of a neutron star to radius of a proton gives factor of similarity on sizes P = 2.26 •1019. Full energy of a neutron star without taking into account energy of rest is defined by expression Es = MsC2, where C= 5.4•107 m/s – characteristic speed of particles of the neutron star, Ms – mass of the star. Similarly for a nucleon full energy En = Mnc2, where c = 3•108m/s – speed of light and characteristic speed of particles in the substance of nucleon, Mn – mass of a nucleon. The ratio of speed C to speed of light c gives factor of similarity on speeds S = 0.18. The factor of similarity on time is Π = P /S = 1.25•1020. From here follows, that processes at the level of nucleon substances proceed in Π time more quickly, than at the level of neutron stars."

This provokes even more curiosity on my part: "Max Tegmark classifies different types of simultaneously existing universes, depending on their possible properties. Under this universes he understands objects with dimensions close to the size of our Metagalaxy. It is assumed that such neighboring universes are autonomous and independent from each other, and they may have even other physical laws, or other elementary particles and physical constants." IOW, many more than three dimensions being hypothisized. Which led me to:
Many-worlds interpretation
Many-worlds interpretation - Wikiversity

Which leads me to..... It never stops, huh? Yesterday I was enjoying watching a video presentation of James Randi's "The Sleep of Reason" (If Avro happens to notice this, after reading his thread he may well enjoy this) on Richard Dawkins' site: The Sleep of Reason (7 parts) - James Randi - AAI 2010 - Copenhagen - RichardDawkins.net
and, as usual with anything Dawkins makes one think about (YMMV :lol:), was spending a lot of time pondering deep thinks. Now this....

My brain is going to experience a Big Bang someday soon. LOL

Just my 2 cents folks. :glasses1:
-- "Perhaps, these electrons
Are the Worlds, where five continents,
Arts, knowledge, wars, thrones
And memory of forty centuries!

Still, perhaps, each atom –

the Universe, where hundred of planets;

There – everything, that is here, in volume compressed,
But also what here is not present."
Russian poet Valery Bryusov
____________________________________________

 

gerryh

Time Out
Nov 21, 2004
25,756
295
83
This, really, is on the same level as the creationists statements. Definitive statements about things we don't know definitively.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
547
113
Vernon, B.C.
This, really, is on the same level as the creationists statements. Definitive statements about things we don't know definitively.

Hawking has done something 99% of other A.L.S. patients don't do- live for more than 3 or 4 years, so being an ass is a moot point, the fact he can be anything is amazing. :smile:
 

gerryh

Time Out
Nov 21, 2004
25,756
295
83
Hawking has done something 99% of other A.L.S. patients don't do- live for more than 3 or 4 years, so being an ass is a moot point, the fact he can be anything is amazing. :smile:


I said nothing about him being an ass. Did I.
 

Dexter Sinister

Unspecified Specialist
Oct 1, 2004
10,168
539
113
Regina, SK
Just my 2 cents folks
I think that's worth more than 2 cents. A dime, at least... :)

From your post count you probably haven't been here long enough to have seen them, but there have been a few similar discussions here before about the weirdness at the fringes of physics. I like that fractal universe speculation, as long as we bear in mind that a speculation is all it is. In looking at what we DO think we know, in terms of the Standard Model of quantum mechanics (the theory of *almost* everything) and General Relativity (the theory of everything else, sort of) we see that despite their spectacular successes they remain fundamentally inconsistent at heart, so at best our description of nature is incomplete. There's at least one more layer we don't yet see, and I incline to the view, purely because it appeals to me personally, not that I have any evidence for it, that there are in fact many more layers. Nature may turn out to be fractal throughout, in the sense that no matter what scale we inspect it at, we'll see that self-similarity and the same degree of complexity.
 

Bcool

Dilettante
Aug 5, 2010
383
2
18
Vancouver Island B.C.
I think that's worth more than 2 cents. A dime, at least... :)

Really?!! Thank you! Cor! :::holding out tin mug::: :lol:

From your post count you probably haven't been here long enough to have seen them, but there have been a few similar discussions here before about the weirdness at the fringes of physics. I like that fractal universe speculation, as long as we bear in mind that a speculation is all it is. In looking at what we DO think we know, in terms of the Standard Model of quantum mechanics (the theory of *almost* everything) and General Relativity (the theory of everything else, sort of) we see that despite their spectacular successes they remain fundamentally inconsistent at heart, so at best our description of nature is incomplete. There's at least one more layer we don't yet see, and I incline to the view, purely because it appeals to me personally, not that I have any evidence for it, that there are in fact many more layers. Nature may turn out to be fractal throughout, in the sense that no matter what scale we inspect it at, we'll see that self-similarity and the same degree of complexity.
I definitely enjoy the speculation, diverse theorizing, impassioned all-consuming ideas, from minds I can only envy from light years away... wonderful stuff. And, yes, the many more layers concept is one that has great appeal for me also. How can it not? I don't know about you, but exciting as the production of scientific proof of a theory is, when it comes to cosmic speculation vs healing the ills of mankind so to speak, I think I'd pop off from sheer boredom if all the answers were to be suddenly found. :smile:


 

joanna73chen

New Member
Aug 30, 2010
24
0
1
www.flowerdiy.net
It is just my opinion:
There are many many things that we do not know and understand in the world and the universe. Human like a piece of dust in the world . I think that even many scientists have made some consequence about the origin of the universe, but so far no one can confirm that it is truth. Of course, people will continue to explore it, and the debate will not be end. I believe that God is the author and master of the universe. We need to ,must to love the earth where we live. Don't destroy it anymore.