Alex Filippenko and colleagues have caused a stir by observing that the law of physics can now explain the Big Bang without one common element: God. The University of California (Berkeley) professor observed that . “With the laws of physics, you can get universes.” Before we replace the statement on our money to read “In the Law of Physics, We Trust” there is a fallback. If the law of physics can explain the Big Bang, God may have still invented the law of physics.
Filippenko was speaking at the SETICon 2 Conference at a panel called “Did the Big Bang Require a Divine Spark?” The answer, he insisted is no: “The Big Bang could’ve occurred as a result of just the laws of physics being there. With the laws of physics, you can get universes.”
Under quantum mechanics, random fluctuations can produce matter and energy out of nothingness. Panelist Seth Shostak, a senior astronomer at the non-profit Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) Institute also agreed that “Quantum mechanical fluctuations can produce the cosmos.” Shostak seemed to offer an ray of hope for a super being substitute in the form of a giant kid from another universe:
“If you would just, in this room, just twist time and space the right way, you might create an entirely new universe. It’s not clear you could get into that universe, but you would create it . . . So it could be that this universe is merely the science fair project of a kid in another universe. . . I don’t know how that affects your theological leanings, but it is something to consider.”
I am not sure religious scholars will be quick to embrace Bobby The Giant Kid With The Science Kit as a substitute for God. It totally messed up the Sistine Chapel ceiling.
Filippenko and Shostak could be looking at the same reaction as the Science Guy — only greater. Bill Nye, the Science Guy, was virtually stoned when he suggested in Texas that the Moon does not generate its own light despite what the Bible says. Filippenko makes Ney look like a heretical piker. First he affirms a theory that our universe came into existence 13.7 billion years ago when we all know that the Earth can be no more than a few thousand years old. Then he posits a theory that seems markedly different from the following:
First God made heaven & earth 2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters. 3 And God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. 4 And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.
Correct me if I am wrong but I could not find a single reference to Quantum Mechanical Fluctuations.
Legend has it that Galileo was convicted by the Vatican for merely stating Eppur si muove (“and yet it moves”). He was found “vehemently suspect of heresy.”
It is unclear when Filipenko and Shostak will be called upon to “abjure, curse, and detest” those opinions.
Regardless of the outcome, I for one am not about to buy all of those Bobby, The Giant Kid With the Science Kit, decorations and gifts. I find that Quantumas has already become totally commercial.
Source: MSNBC
Barney,
“It’s amusing to watch leading “scientists” that come out with some earth shattering “discovery” only to see such proven incorrect or at the very least inaccurate only in a matter of years or so. ”
That’s the point. Scientific theories aren’t The Answer but are the best model we can come up with based on what we know right now.
Furthermore, the idea that the Bible and our understanding of it is some sort of unchanging, final authority completely ignores its history. First you have to get into who gets to decide what’s scripture and what isn’t. The canon that you’re probably most familiar with (assuming you’re not a member of an Orthodox faith) dates from roughly 393, almost four centuries after Christ was supposed to have lived. For that matter, different sects of Christianity STILL don’t even agree on what writing is actually part of the Bible, and if that means they are the literal truth or not.
To further complicate things, the Old Testament completely ignores the divisions of the Tanakh that it stole its text from. Books like Ruth are believed to be of a lesser sort of inspiration then those that deal with the Law and Prophecy. The text itself is a weird amalgamation of three different narratives, dating from different periods, and with one of them being “found” by a bunch of priests (oddly enough, it’s the one that seems to be most favorable towards priests).
Oh and unless you can read archaic forms of about 3 languages, you’ve got to figure out which translation to use.in some cases you’re basically reading a translation of a translation of a translation. Errors can creep in. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_the_beast.
Everyone else,
“His famous quote “God does not play dice with the universe” I think is an example of this predilection. ”
To which Bohr’s responded “Albert, quit telling God what to do.”
Oro Lee 1, June 27, 2012 at 8:53 am
Dredd –
The plasma statement is taken from Krauss’ book; it’s also at minutes 35-38 on the video in the first post
Tony C. 1, June 27, 2012 at 9:15 am
@Oro Lee: A plasma IS matter; it is just hot enough to make all the atoms in it get stripped of electrons and bonds so they act much like they do in a gaseous or boiling fluid state. It contains a LOT of energy.
============================================
Putting this together, then, we have a sequence of the fluctuations big banging plasma out of nothingness, which said plasma eventually became atoms, then simple molecules, then complex molecules that could replicate, then microbes, then the rest.
That’s a lot of bang for the buck.
What we need to know, then, is what are fluctuations composed of and where did that come from?
Is there only one fluctuant, or are there multiple fluctuants?
I ask because the word fluctuations is plural, hinting at multiples.
If there are multiples do they have different energies and characteristics?
@Oro Lee: A plasma IS matter; it is just hot enough to make all the atoms in it get stripped of electrons and bonds so they act much like they do in a gaseous or boiling fluid state. It contains a LOT of energy.
Dredd —
The plasma statement is taken from Krauss’ book; it’s also at minutes 35-38 on the video in the first post
@LK: Question: Why were there rules first? Why did the property of the particles not determine the physics of the universe? If there are (potentially) a multitude of universes in an infinite space why wouldn’t the particular sprinklings of particles in each dictate the physics of each universe?
I personally suspect particles and rules were simultaneous. That is because rules are not “real” in any sense, IMO they are themselves descriptions of things that must happen due to the physical shape or composition of the particles. I say IMO because that hasn’t been proved.
But metaphorically, think of a driving gear with a hundred teeth and a motive gear with ten. Every turn of the driving gear turns the motive gear ten times. That is a “rule,” but it isn’t magic or voluntary on the part of the motive gear, the rule is derived from the shapes of the two parts. If the parts (or the components, like quarks) are essentially indestructible in normal use, then we humans can derive laws of physics that apply, even if we do not understand they underlying shapes.
I do not really believe laws of physics exist without interacting parts because I see them as a description of behavior. They are not something the parts must “obey,” just like the motive gear is not “obeying” the law to turn ten times as fast as the driving gear. The laws of physics are our observations of how things large and small DO interact, they describe what always does happen.
I’d be careful with the word “properties,” too. The shape is a property, but you do not want to fall into the trap of using “property” as synonymous with “rule” or “law,” which is a danger. In my view a property is limited to something like mass, size, or charge, something contained in an object regardless of its environment, and to say it is a “property” of A to repel B is not correct, interactions should not be considered properties, they are the result of laws.
However, I think the question is about genesis (non-biblical). The fact that our projection at the moment suggests our entire universe started 13.73 billion years ago forces us to ask why then, and not 15 billion? Why not fifty quadrillion trillion?
If something triggered the formation of the universe 13.73 billion years ago, what existed before the universe that could do that, and where did THAT thing come from, and why THEN?
Even theology doesn’t answer the question, we are forced into an infinite regression; either the past is infinitely deep, or it isn’t, and I think both conditions are beyond human comprehension.
For Gene, I do not subscribe to M-Theory, which is not a theory but a description of constraints a real theory would have to meet.
Brane theory would not fix the regression problem: Where did the branes come from? Where did the multiverse come from? I have no problem with 11 dimensional math, or thousand dimensional math for that matter. It isn’t a matter of me failing to understand their arguments, it is noting they all just propose our beginning is a result of something ELSE existing first.
For theologians, where did God come from? If you believe He always existed, WTF was he doing for a trillion quadrillion ages of the universe before he decided to create it?
I do not think I can comprehend an infinite past, or a finite past, and I read a lot about physics, and I have never read anything that can help me with that, and many things (like the Big Bang theory, inflation, religion, brane theory, etc) that are ultimately just predicated upon something else existing “forever” first, or on some kind of magic.
I am okay with “I don’t know” and sticking to what can be tested by experiment and observation. I do not begrudge others having their fun with theories, it may even lead to testable hypothesis and credible predictions, but until then I do not believe in what cannot be tested, and I am always leery of “middle man” theories that attempt to answer one mystery by proposing an equally large or larger mystery. For example, by answering the mystery of where the dumb-matter universe came from (which we can see exists) with a God we cannot see whose eternal intelligent existence and powers are even MORE difficult to explain. I feel like string theory and M-Theory is a middle-man explanation in a similar vein; an explanation that creates more questions than it answers.
Barney, I don’t think you are using the word “theory” in it’s strict scientific meaning:
“A scientific theory is “a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.”[1][2] Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and do not make apodictic propositions; instead, they aim for predictive and explanatory force.[3][4]
The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain, which is measured by its ability to make falsifiable predictions with respect to those phenomena. Theories are improved as more evidence is gathered, so that accuracy in prediction improves over time. Scientists use theories as a foundation to gain further scientific knowledge, as well as to accomplish goals such as inventing technology or curing disease.
Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.[3] This is significantly different from the word “theory” in common usage, which implies that something is unproven or speculative.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
Let’s remember that the hypothesis set forth begins with “fluctuations.”
Plural.
That means there was more than one fluctuant (look it up).
One has to wonder if one was a fluctuantee, the other the fluctuantor, or if there were no “-ee / -or” laws back then.
Not much is known about the Fluctuation Family except that the story in the post tells us that they could make matter and energy.
Oro Lee wrote upthread:
There was no authority cited, but let’s presume Oro Lee be knowin’.
The base story does not say that the fluctuants knew how to make “plasma” from nothingness, it says they knew how to make “matter and energy” from nothingness, but Oro Lee postulates that “Plasma isn’t energy or matter.”
So which came first, the fluctuants, the big bang, the plasma, or the matter and energy?
Gene —
Lisa Randall?
Bill W.wrote:
“As a life-long student of science (and a Christian!) I am always amazed that scientists ask us to accept the laws of science as undisputable fact in spite of the fact that almost all science is based on theories “proved” by mathmatics. The fact is that ANYTHING (given enough time and patience) can be “proven” by mathmatic formulation. As far as Quantum Physics, an absolutely fascinating discipline, it stands as a scientific world where anything can be made to conform to the theories of science. I hasten to remind readers that scientific theories (also referred to as “fact”) are constantly being corrected or disproven and replaced with new theories. Perhaps someday scientists might come to realize that, just as Spiritual Religions are based on spiritual faith, thier “religion” is based on nothing more than numerical faith!”
Nevermind why we have laws in the first place. (Where did the laws come from?) It’s amusing to watch leading “scientists” that come out with some earth shattering “discovery” only to see such proven incorrect or at the very least inaccurate only in a matter of years or so. It’s been said, the Bible is an anvil that has broken many a hammer. It’s truths change not, but our modern scientific “discoveries” all too often are proven wrong in the future.
You hit the nail on the head about scientists using faith. There’s a bit of a double standard, though. We have our belief that God created, and that’s based on faith and observation of living things, but a scientist makes a claim based solely on faith that everything came from nothing due to a big explosion. One faith statement is acceptable while another isn’t. Quite peculiar.
Woosty, I enjoyed your comment and the MIB movie. The Men In Black were not shy about reprising a good scene.
From MIB2:
Thanks Gene!
Ever see a dog build a particle accelerator? No. It’s physicists and engineers. However, trusting in dog and utilizing science to understand the world are not mutually exclusive.
Ever see a blind man hire a physicist to guide him around? No. Its seeing eye dog.
For Christ’s sake. In Dog We Trust.
Oro,
Yes, Hawking did also mention that type of multiverse model where fundamental forces are a commonality and every possible combination is possible in some recent work on quantum gravity done with Thomas Hertog that describes the early universe in the terms of a wave function. However, the lady I’m thinking of is I believe a specialist in M-theory. I saw her on a documentary about parallel universes, jotted down her name to look up more information because I thought what she said was interesting and promptly lost the piece of paper I wrote her name on. 😀
Tony,
I went back and read your answer to Oro. Great answer. I do, however, think that part of Einstein’s skepticism was based in a predilection toward a mechanistic universe. His famous quote “God does not play dice with the universe” I think is an example of this predilection. And I say predilection rather than bias with purpose. I think if Einstein had survived to see some of the experiments revolving around Bohr’s and Heisenberg’s work that happened after his death in 1955, he might have eventually changed his mind.
Gene wrote, “For example, I’ve heard one model (and I’d certainly give the lovely lady responsible for it credit if her name hadn’t slipped my mind) where the weakness of gravity in our universe is attributed to a kind of “bleed over” effect from a neighboring membrane where gravity is a strong force (if not the dominate force).”
I thought it was Hawking.
Tony C wrote, There is a huge difference between being skeptical of something and not understanding something. He understood just fine, it was Bohr proposing something he could not justify by reason or experiment, it was Bohr speculating and Einstein saying, correctly, “you haven’t shown that yet.”
Thank you for correcting my slighting Einstein’s attitude toward QM.
LK,
In the interpretations of quantum mechanics that allow for parallel universes (such as M-theory or Everett’s Many Worlds interpretation), all possible combination of initial conditions are possible, thus some parallel universes will be almost exactly like ours while some will have radically different rules of physics including some where life as we know it or otherwise simply isn’t possible. Some theories within M-theory postulate that some fundamental forces operate in a trans-dimensional manner relative to neighboring membranes. For example, I’ve heard one model (and I’d certainly give the lovely lady responsible for it credit if her name hadn’t slipped my mind) where the weakness of gravity in our universe is attributed to a kind of “bleed over” effect from a neighboring membrane where gravity is a strong force (if not the dominate force). I know from past discussions with Tony that he doesn’t by in to Everett’s interpretation and is generally against string theory, so I doubt that he’s interested in M-theory either. However, those interpretations of quantum mechanics will provide you an answer of “All the myriad ways are.”
LK,
I must disagree. There are no naughty bits on women, they’re all fine with me.