A Little Tiny Point - Stephen Hawking's Universe

[Profpat]

..." Although the singularity theorems of Penrose and myself, predicted that the universe had a beginning, they didn't say how it had begun. The equations of General Relativity would break down at the singularity. Thus Einstein's theory can not predict how the universe will begin, but only how it will evolve once it has begun. There are two attitudes one can take to the results of Penrose and myself. One is to that God chose how the universe began for reasons we could not understand. " ...( Stephen Hawkings lecture at U C Berkeley March 2007 )

[neutralino]

Again I'll ask Neutralino " What if God did do it"

And, again, I'll answer that that is irrelevant to science.

What if there is a God who did it. Isn't God the best explanation for the evidence of something from nothing?

Define "best." Above, I defined a "best" theory in a very unambiguous way: namely, that a better theory is one whose predictions agree with observations to a larger extent. If you cannot define "best" in an observer independent way, then such a statement has no meaning.

How do you explain the dynamics of life and of our consciousness.

I don't, but then the 'dynamics of life' and 'consciousness' seem to be a biological issue, rather than one related to physics.

[Graybeard]

I'll ask Neutralino " What if Superman did it"

What if there is a Superman who did it. Isn't Superman the best explanation for the evidence of something from nothing? How do you explain the dynamics of life and of our consciousness.

My only contention is that you can't eliminate Superman as a possibility, when very likely that is the answer.

cool bananas ... greg

P.S. I'm not talking about specific religious beliefs only the CONCEPT of a CREATOR for our CREATED universe.

[neutralino]

..." Although the singularity theorems of Penrose and myself, predicted that the universe had a beginning, they didn't say how it had begun. The equations of General Relativity would break down at the singularity. Thus Einstein's theory can not predict how the universe will begin, but only how it will evolve once it has begun. There are two attitudes one can take to the results of Penrose and myself. One is to that God chose how the universe began for reasons we could not understand. " ...( Stephen Hawkings lecture at U C Berkeley March 2007 )

... and the other attitude is to simply take this as evidence that the current model, namely general relativity, breaks down on small scales and is thus not the correct model to be describing the universe at very early times.

I would say that this second attitude is far more sound, since we already know that quantum theory is the better theory of the small. Thus clearly (in my opinion) if one extrapolates the universe back until it is very small, quantum effects will come to be dominant at some time, and you find that you are describing the universe with a theory that is not valid on those length scales. Hence, you run into difficulties.

(By the way, I don't know the exact quote from that talk, but I would guess that the 'second attitude' is what I mention...)

[neutralino]

My only contention is that you can't eliminate Superman as a possibility, when very likely that is the answer.

Precisely: you can make this statement for anything that makes no scientific predictions.

[Profpat]

Hi Neutralino and Graybeard;

Well at least Hawkings is open minded enough to entertain the thought that one of the possibilities may be God.

You are right Neutralino, Hawkings pick was his and Penrose's theory. Possibity # 2. And it MAY be.

Best,

Pat

[Profpat]

Hawkings approach:

"
The other interpretation of our results, which is favored by most scientists, is that it indicates that the General Theory of Relativity, breaks down in the very strong gravitational fields in the early universe. It has to be replaced by a more complete theory.. One would expect this anyway, because General Relativity does not take account of the small scale structure of matter, which is governed by quantum theory. This does not matter normally, because the scale of the universe, is enormous compared to the microscopic scales of quantum theory. But when the universe is the Planck size, a billion trillion trillionth of a centimeter, the two scales are the same, and quantum theory has to be taken into account. "

[Profpat]

... and the other attitude is to simply take this as evidence that the current model, namely general relativity, breaks down on small scales and is thus not the correct model to be describing the universe at very early times.

I would say that this second attitude is far more sound, since we already know that quantum theory is the better theory of the small. Thus clearly (in my opinion) if one extrapolates the universe back until it is very small, quantum effects will come to be dominant at some time, and you find that you are describing the universe with a theory that is not valid on those length scales. Hence, you run into difficulties.

(By the way, I don't know the exact quote from that talk, but I would guess that the 'second attitude' is what I mention...)

" But when the universe is the Planck size, a billion trillion trillionth of a centimeter, the two scales are the same, and quantum theory has to be taken into account. "

So Greg and Neutralino;


What again is your theory as to how the universe expanded from Planck length ( Near nothing ) to the universe we have today ( Near infinite )?

[neutralino]

[SIZE=3]
Well at least Hawkings is open minded enough to entertain the thought that one of the possibilities may be God.

I imagine he said that because that's what other people want to hear. Like I said above, the notion of god isn't scientific, but it can be incorporated into a scientific theory: for example, one could simply state that the initial conditions of the model were "set by god" (whatever that means). There's no way to test it, and it really doesn't matter, but it keeps some people happy.

What again is your theory as to how the universe expanded from Planck length ( Near nothing ) to the universe we have today ( Near infinite )?

If you're asking me for a model of the overlapping regime, i.e. a theory of quantum gravity, then of course I can't answer it. However, if you're asking me what the current best theory describing the evolution of the universe is, then it is the standard Lambda-CDM 'concordance' cosmology, namely a period of early universe inflation, followed by uniform expansion, followed by a period of accelerated expansion at current times. This model fits the data best, at present.

[austintorn@aol.com]

Stopping Too Soon

Because we need both the whole and the details (for that is how the universe is), our species has evolved a brain with a left hemisphere for details and a right one for the overall view. The hemispheres are connected by the corpus callosum so the the views can be reconciled. Sometimes we stop at the holistic view and are left hanging, actually really leaving the left brain hanging, and so we might stop too soon in a kind of midair, thinking that we are finished and done, and, of course, this can still serve us well when we don’t need the details, such as that we know what a car is as a whole; but, when we have to examine or work on a car or a TOE then, as always, the Devil is found in the details.

So, saying “God did it” is not really an answer, but a larger question that requires a look into its details. If we just halt, thinking “that’s it; case closed” then we have only gone halfway. There is a tendency to do this because “God” is often seen from afar.

Coming down the mountain, we see the overall view of the savannah below and will have to remember this big picture later when we navigate the grassland. When we get down to ground, the smaller details of the terrain become apparent and known as we walk along and encounter them. We can even note the individual blades of grass and the bugs.

Yes, all in the universe is indeed connected, but there are many outcroppings of forms therein. In dealing with God, there is nothing visual, but the whole is in the mind as are the implicated details if we allow them to have a place, although it is easy to neglect them. Some people remain at the level of “all is one” and such, forever placing themselves far away.

Furthermore, the mind, in the case of imagination, contains no real and actual details to guide us for some armchair TOE analysis such as “God”. To be complete in examining a concept, the brain must be able to both think scientifically and holistically, although these views do not present themselves at the exact same time. We need to juggle them in memory. But just remember that we are already one step lost in imagining invisible things.

The problem with all Designer arguments is their failure to account for the nature and prior existence of the Designer. Under what set of physical laws did God operate before He made the universe—and where did those laws come from? We are left in he same Ark as before and cannot just have the right brain exempt God from these concerns. If He was Intelligent to enough to engage in large-scale cosmic engineering, by what means did He evolve that intelligence? How did He know that the system of natural laws He chose before the Big Bang would inevitably lead to thinking creatures like ourselves? And why did it take so long if the answer is that He is all powerful? And if He existed before time, then how did he act an plan and make ready for his genesis that was really an experiment (as if He doesn’t really know All), It would even take time to invent “time”. One cannot just have a great system of mind being responsible without allowing that systems have components beneath its operations.

The Big Bang could have really been like radiation all over the place and we will soon know more about this kind of thing from the successors of the WMAP satellite, inching closer to an answer, as to other discoveries, but we are, in Profpat’s quest, wishing to know about the original state of Everything. So, this deserves some thinking… There are problems with “nothing” and “forever” that should direct us to a third possibility.

Nothing can become of “nothing”. It is not like “nothing” is just sitting around waiting to divide into plus and minus, like matter and an anti-matter, or into some waves and crests that cancel out. “Nothing” has no existence whatsoever and so cannot be sitting around. A better definition of “nothing”, therefore, is that it is not even there. So, “nothing” is not a “free lunch”.

There are also many problems with actual things or energy, including God, having been around forever, as what then determined the amount, the scope of what it could do, its nature, and so forth without even having been determined, although I suppose that if the given energy was flexible enough then that could somehow suffice, but, still, why a certain amount and so forth, Plus, how is a “forever”, as having no beginning, already complete, when infinities never can do so?

So, yes, there is something funny going on that calls for some new theories that may be counterintuitive, such as we still seeing in the quantum realm where actuality is produced from somewhere somehow out of “something” like potential and possibility.

Another theory, but kind of related to the above, is that the “universe” somehow feeds back upon itself to make the actual something that would work to lead to species evolving and having consciousness, almost like that some species’ consciousness real-ized a fortuitous past and made it so.

The rain falls on the savannah from the clouds above the mountain but the water rose up there from the evaporation from the streams below, which came from the rain… (one of David Darling's favorite concepts)