Thread: Stephen Hawking: The Grand Design

Full article:

http://hicexsistoeverto.wordpress.co...-with-gravity/

Stephen Hawking has made headlines today, apparently after claiming, along with Leonard Mlodinow in their new book: “The Grand Design“ that spontaneous creation is possible within the existing laws of physics, and hence there is no need for God to explain the existence of the Universe.

I wonder what your opinions are.

Enjoy!

My opinion is that he's simply stating the obvious, but will will ultimately get roasted and attacked by the religiots who unfortunately share in this existence with me.

Originally Posted by Michael_Roberts

Full article:

http://hicexsistoeverto.wordpress.co...-with-gravity/

Stephen Hawking has made headlines today, apparently after claiming, along with Leonard Mlodinow in their new book: “The Grand Design“ that spontaneous creation is possible within the existing laws of physics, and hence there is no need for God to explain the existence of the Universe.

I wonder what your opinions are.

Enjoy!

I don't think there can be much argument that spontaneos creation does not contradict any known basic laws of physics.

So what ?

None of this explains why the laws of physics are what they are and has absolutely nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of God. That question is quite outside the purview of science.

Science does not in fact even attempt to explain the existence of the universe. It merely attempts to explain how the universe operates, given the rather obvious fact that it does indeed exist. Science only attempts to explain "how" nature operates. The question of "why" nature operates the way that it does is a subject for philosophers, theologists or other people who like to argue endlessly and never reach a conclusion.

Dr Rocket I'm gald someone shares my belief that physics can answer the how, and model the mechanisms, but it can never answer the why.

Sure it can... "Why do objects fall toward more massive objects?" Physics tells us it's gravity, and can even model it. "Why do computers work?" Physics tells us it is because of the movement of particles. "Why do colliding stars emit light?" Physics tells us that, too...

Of course physics answers why questions. What I wonder is why so many people fail to realize the painfully obvious.

Soon enough everybody will realize this...

inow:

I think you misunderstood what I was saying. Gravity works by attracting objects together...thats the mechanism of gravity. (Outlined very simply for the sake of my point)...what it doesnt explain is: Why is gravity the strength it is? Why isn't it a repulsive force? Why do we even have gravity at all, why not nothing. Thats what I mean by why questions.

I hope you understand the fundamental difference.

I knew exactly what you were saying. I still think you're wrong, and asserting a false impossibility. You simply move the goal posts to maintain your existing worldview. Of fucking course physics answers why questions. Your statement was crap. You are simply trying to posit a strength to your belief system which has no basis in reality.

I'm not religious. Why do we have four fundamental forces...why is there 3 dimensions...why do we have 1 dimension of time??

If physics answers them...they why didnt you answer them instead of shouting me down?

When someone looses an argument, they often resort to shouting someone down. :wink:

Let me try and reduce it to its most fundamental level. I'm not interested in the whys of certain observations. We know why the tides go in and out, we know why the Earth is round.

What I am saying is physics doesn't answer the most fundamental of questions:

Why do we have matter? Why does light travel at the speed it does? Why not faster? What sets these laws? Can these laws break down? Is it more perfect for nothing to exist?

Originally Posted by Michael_Roberts

What I am saying is physics doesn't answer the most fundamental of questions:

Itself a completely subjective an arbitrary label almost wholly without merit. Your most fundamental my most fundamental.

I dont think inow understands the point I am making. We are now going to have to argue about what is more fundamental, the charge of an electron or electricity. Its quite obvious to me. I dunno what anyone else thinks.

I dont mind my argument being taken down piece by piece like Ophiolite has done many times on here, but bully boy tactics I think have no place in a debate. Who ever can shout the loudest wins??

Call to order by the moderator. Please calm down and watch your language.
Dishmaster (Moderator).

And now my personal view on this. I think that it is quite subjective what is considered a fundamental question. Topics that seemed very fundamental centuries ago, are trivial nowadays. Who is to say that these things won't also happen to other topics? As far as I know, certain physical constants like the famous finestructure constant can be predicted to a high accuracy by quantumchromodynamics. So, at least the theory shows that this value is governed by a few fundamental laws. I am convinced that eventually similar discoveries will be made for gravity and other fundamental forces. Science is under constant development. Therefore, it is unjustified to say that science (or physics) is fundamentally incapable of discovering or explaining certain natural phenomena, just because research hasn't done it yet.

I agree that physics is mostly about HOW things work, not WHY in a teleological sense. This is purely because there is nothing happening for teleological reasons. There is no purpose of the universe, it just is.

Physical laws are about regular relations between actual realities. I can't see how they explain the bare fact there is any reality at all.

All of your fundamental 'WHY' questions can be answered by physics. Things like the value of c, the electron's charge, the absolute and comparative strength of gravity and so on. The why is because if they were any different we would not be here discussing this as the universe would be radically different or non-exhistant.
The same argument can be made for evolutionary traits of species, such as why some animals fly, some have opposable thumbs, some re-grow limbs, etc. Because if they didn't they would be extinct and we wouldn't be having this discusion.
Everything in the universe can be explaned, even the why, by the laws and rules of the universe, and I'm not saying we have them all already. These laws break down when dealing with times before the origin or outside of the universe. They aren't even defined. So physics cannot explain why the universe began, as it would require laws from before time began and applying to outside the universe.

Originally Posted by MigL

All of your fundamental 'WHY' questions can be answered by physics. Things like the value of c, the electron's charge, the absolute and comparative strength of gravity and so on. The why is because if they were any different we would not be here discussing this as the universe would be radically different or non-exhistant.
The same argument can be made for evolutionary traits of species, such as why some animals fly, some have opposable thumbs, some re-grow limbs, etc. Because if they didn't they would be extinct and we wouldn't be having this discusion.
Everything in the universe can be explaned, even the why, by the laws and rules of the universe, and I'm not saying we have them all already. These laws break down when dealing with times before the origin or outside of the universe. They aren't even defined. So physics cannot explain why the universe began, as it would require laws from before time began and applying to outside the universe.

I don't think that this is a sufficient answer. Yes, the anthropic principle is a good argument for the question, why the universe is as it is, and not different, but it does not explain what the actual causes for this are. Science can explain, why you don't fall through the empty space between atoms 100 stories down the skyscraper and still live. But it is a different thing to explain, why/how the electrons produce a force that repels matter at subatomic scales, and what is the nature for this.

The Weak Anthropic Principle and the Strong Anthropic Principle are both weak arguments to me.

I'm not religious, of anything of that nature. I consider myself to be a physicist. But what I can't deal with is when people say its not important to know why light travels at the speed it does, or why we have four fundamental forces...I'm not interested in the mechanisms of these phenomena...I am interesting in someone saying something like:

"The speed of light is 3x10^8ms^-1 because..."

But we cant, there are no reasons for something being given an arbitary value...

Hi,

I just have seen a report about the issue on TV. Yesterday, I would say.

If Mr. Hawkins was serious about saying everything, even all that we were observing, was created or could be created out of nothing, this then was pure rubbish and not a scientific approach, I would mean.

Should we better abandon all science and crafts to surrender to nature?

No.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-YMRbh0OqM

Steve

Originally Posted by Michael_Roberts

what I can't deal with is when people say its not important to know why light travels at the speed it does, or why we have four fundamental forces...I'm not interested in the mechanisms of these phenomena...I am interesting in someone saying something like:

"The speed of light is 3x10^8ms^-1 because..."

But we cant, there are no reasons for something being given an arbitary value...

See, but we can. You continue to assert that I'm missing your point. Trust me, I'm not. It is you who seems to be missing mine.

We can ABSOLUTELY describe the reasons you suggest we cannot. We can use supporting logic and empiricism to show that "Due to the X, the Y, and the Z, we are left with no alternative but the value of c being 300km/s"... We can ABSOLUTELY say that... due to these various pieces of the puzzle, we are left with an understanding of why this other mechanism or phenomenon behaves a certain why.

These are all why questions. These all show that "due to" this other empirically supported claim, we know what causes the value of whatever you're describing.

What I take issue with is that this is somehow not enough for people. It's like the 5 year old who asks, "But why, daddy?" after every answer provided. No matter how far down you drill... No matter how accurate the responses to previous questions... No matter how many times you eloquently describe nature and the universe in response to these questions... The five year old always disregards the depth and intricacies of the responses and asks yet again... "But why?"

Religious people ARE that 5 year old child. They are never satisfied with any answer... except for one. The only answer which satisfies them at all is "goddidit." Frankly, in my view, that's a load of horseshit and is not an answer at all. You may as well be saying that the farts of magic purple unicorns did it.

Somehow I'm guessing, though, that this would not satisfy the indoctrinated mind... Since their mind was made up long before they asked the question, and they never actually cared about the answer... Unless it happened to reinforce their preconception.


We answer why questions all the time. They are disregarded by 5 years olds... erm... I mean... religious people. It's not that we can't answer why questions... It's that they don't accept those answers and arbitrarily posit some deeper "why" where none may exist. It's merely a never ending Do Loop... some sort of infinite recursion. The stop command is either "goddidit" for some people, or "we don't yet know" for others.

Ok inow, lets step away from the religious arguments and the philosophical stuff, lets get physical as they say.

The speed of light is set by the wave equation solution to Maxwell's Equations in a vacuum. I.e. the reciprocol of the product of the electric and magnetic constants square rooted. So the speed of light in a vacuum is set by both two constants called vacuum permeability and vacuum permittivity:



Why is it set by two constants, why not three...does it not travel in three dimensions? * 3+Time

I understand what your saying, it is what it is. But Im asking hypothetically why do we get such mathematical descriptions of the world around us...these laws are set...set by what?? And for what reason. "Oh there is none"....not a good enough answer.

I feel if we cant answer these sorts of fundamental questions we will never understand the true nature of the Universe.

We can ABSOLUTELY describe the reasons you suggest we cannot. We can use supporting logic and empiricism to show that "Due to the X, the Y, and the Z, we are left with no alternative but the value of c being 300km/s"... We can ABSOLUTELY say that... due to these various pieces of the puzzle, we are left with an understanding of why this other mechanism or phenomenon behaves a certain why.

Also you keep saying we understand why things happen...yeh, thats the wrong why. I'm asking why they happen at all.

Originally Posted by Michael_Roberts

Also you keep saying we understand why things happen...yeh, thats the wrong why. I'm asking why they happen at all.

Why isn't THAT the "wrong" why?

Come on inow...I don't have time to mess around with semantics. Again you over look my whole point and use some slight error. You should be worried about answering the question I set.

I am interested in the most fundamental questions of the Universe. Not how things happen but why they happen. I cant see why you have such fundamental belief that physics is perfect! cough* sounds like your evangelical cough*

Why do we have any reality or existence at all?

Originally Posted by inow

Originally Posted by Michael_Roberts

What I am saying is physics doesn't answer the most fundamental of questions:

Itself a completely subjective an arbitrary label almost wholly without merit. Your most fundamental my most fundamental.

Surely there are questions that are fundamental!
I would love to have a much deeper understanding of science, especially maths and physics, than I have, but I do get the impression there are questions which are often dismissed as meaningless, by scientists, because they cannot be answered by science and are therefore seen as pointless and fit only to be discussed, endlessly, by philosophers and other less intelligent idiots.
The question "why is there something rather than nothing" must be fundamental even if the question cannot be answered by science and also given the fact it may not have an answer.
If physics can ever explain how the universe came into being I suspect the answer may go some way towards finding out whether the "why" question does have any kind of answer.

Originally Posted by Michael_Roberts

I am interested in the most fundamental questions of the Universe.

And my point these last several posts has been that "most fundamental" is entirely arbitrary and subjective. Perhaps my "most fundamental" question of the universe is how to get into the panties of hot chicks.

I ask again... Why do you presume your "most fundamental" is somehow more important than the "most fundamental" of others?

Originally Posted by Michael_Roberts

I cant see why you have such fundamental belief that physics is perfect! cough* sounds like your evangelical cough*

Whoa there, speed racer... slow down. How about you focus on what I say, and not some random shit which you think I said? You're doing little more than putting words into my mouth to reinforce your hollow point.

Originally Posted by Halliday

Surely there are questions that are fundamental!

Of course, there are. But, to reiterate my earlier point, the concept of fundamental will vary depending upon the observer.

Originally Posted by Halliday

I do get the impression there are questions which are often dismissed as meaningless, by scientists, because they cannot be answered by science and are therefore seen as pointless and fit only to be discussed, endlessly, by philosophers and other less intelligent idiots.

And?

Originally Posted by Halliday

The question "why is there something rather than nothing" must be fundamental even if the question cannot be answered by science and also given the fact it may not have an answer.

I accept that this is how you feel, but it's hardly some objective truth. That's been one of my primary points in this discussion. I really don't care why there is something rather than nothing, and my apathy informs my response that the question is hardly fundamental.

Originally Posted by Halliday

If physics can ever explain how the universe came into being I suspect the answer may go some way towards finding out whether the "why" question does have any kind of answer.

Physics offers many answers to this question. Unfortunately, they are better described as pending hypotheses.

Originally Posted by inow

Originally Posted by Halliday

The question "why is there something rather than nothing" must be fundamental even if the question cannot be answered by science and also given the fact it may not have an answer.

I accept that this is how you feel, but it's hardly some objective truth. That's been one of my primary points in this discussion. I really don't care why there is something rather than nothing, and my apathy informs my response that the question is hardly fundamental.

I accept this is how you feel, bit it's hardly some objective truth. Your "apathy" about any subject says absolutely nothing about its importance!

Thanks for reinforcing my point about this being entirely arbitrary and subjective, not "fundamental." Appreciate it. 8)

Originally Posted by inow

Thanks for reinforcing my point about this being entirely arbitrary and subjective, not "fundamental." Appreciate it. 8)

I wasn't reinforcing your point. I was mocking it!
You talk about "objective truth" but as far as I understand your posts, on this thread, you have not offered any method, such as some kind of mathematical formula or scientific experiment, for establishing what you call "objective truth".
If I ask my neighbour what he had for his dinner last evening I don't think the question, or answer, is of any real importance. I admit this judgement is purely "arbitrary and subjective".
In this thread you have made judgements, based on your own thoughts and feelings, which you clearly believe to be correct, but, seemingly, your "points scoring" approach, to this debate, allows you to condemn others for doing the same thing.
Sometimes the question about "why something rather than nothing" flashes into my mind. This does not mean I see myself as any kind of deep thinker-I'm not!
But I do find the question mind-blowing! Apparently, for you, considering such a question leads to a state of boredom and apathy. I find that very difficult to believe.

The fact of the matter is, inow doesnt believe that the fundamental qustions of the Universe, and our existence, are important. Its his opinion, fair enough. But I definately feel he is wrong on so many aspects of his argument, just instinctively. But its always difficult to make a compelling argument when someone is so strong is their opinion, but I'm equally strong in mine.

I will maintain that physics is an excellent model for the mechanisms of events that we observe, but it fails to explain why fundamental aspects of the Universe are just so (at this moment in time, hopefully the GUT or T.O.E will shed some light on this sorry saga).

I'm plumping for multiple Universes, and ours was coincidentally anthropically kind.

Many philosophers have argued that nothing as opposed to something is more perfect.

The most fundamental question that physics certainly can not answer is: "Why do we observe time, when did it start, and when will it end, if it does, or even did"

Originally Posted by Halliday

You talk about "objective truth" but as far as I understand your posts, on this thread, you have not offered any method, such as some kind of mathematical formula or scientific experiment, for establishing what you call "objective truth".

You've clearly missed my intended point, which is basically that there is no such thing as objective truth when it comes to classifying some topic as fundamental. In the context of discussion surrounding "fundamental questions," I've been attempting to illuminate for you and others how "fundamental" is ENTIRELY arbitrary and subjective... entirely dependent upon the observer.

The reason I have not offered any method or formula or experiment to establish objective truth is because my line of argument all along has been there is no such thing... At least, that is, in context of "fundamental questions." Asking someone what they had for dinner last evening is obviously a bit more tangible and less vacuous than "what caused something from nothing." Even then, though, the answer is... Quantum mechanics demands it. I have entire thread on this around here somewhere.

I entered this thread to respond to the bullshit claim that science cannot answer why questions. Now that I've addressed that, the original claimant has shifted the goal posts, and now I am addressing the new claim about the fundamentalism of an arbitrary question.

Originally Posted by Halliday

In this thread you have made judgements, based on your own thoughts and feelings, which you clearly believe to be correct, but, seemingly, your "points scoring" approach, to this debate, allows you to condemn others for doing the same thing.

This is hardly about point scoring, nor about condemnation of others. I am simply seeking to demolish bullshit claims and show them for what they are. It's not about win lose, but about accuracy and clarity.

Originally Posted by Halliday

But I do find the question mind-blowing!

I get that, but this doesn't mean the question is somehow fundamental, unanswerable, or beyond the reach of empiricism.

Originally Posted by Michael_Roberts

The fact of the matter is, inow doesnt believe that the fundamental qustions of the Universe, and our existence, are important.

Rubbish. You should try taking a class in reading comprehension if that is what you perceive from my posts. What I am stating is that the concept of fundamental itself is arbitrary and subjective. I'm not sure how much plainer I can say this before it penetrates.

Originally Posted by Michael_Roberts

But I definately feel he is wrong on so many aspects of his argument, just instinctively.

Argument from incredulity is a poor one... as is the strawman fallacy.

Originally Posted by Michael_Roberts

I will maintain that physics is an excellent model for the mechanisms of events that we observe, but it fails to explain why fundamental aspects of the Universe are just so (at this moment in time, hopefully the GUT or T.O.E will shed some light on this sorry saga).

But it does explain. You just don't seem to like the explanation because it goddidit. The explanations, or... more accurately... the hypotheses are there... You just dismiss them because they don't align with your preconception.

Again... I've made this point earlier in the thread. You should consider some practice in reading comprehension.

inow: This is so frustrating because your trying to make this a debate about something which is indisputable!! The concept of whats is fundamental is well documented in science.

And I'm not saying Godidit...no one is. I just feel your nit picking faults with semantics, without taking what I say, and proving me absolutely wrong by using physics. I'm not interested in whether you feel its fundamental or not, I'm trying to debate something more sophisticated than that, i.e. that science will, no matter how much we try, kill god or religioin or whatever.

Please don't interpret what I'm saying as something else. :wink:

Anyway, lets stop the side tracking.

Can we all agree that the most fundamental level of the Universe is understanding the whys of certain physical laws and concepts??

<error>

No. You're merely attempting to ignore my argument so you can maintain your preferred point, which is roughly that something is fundamental because you say it is. That's all.

Is the question important? Sure, to some people. However, if you're starving and struggling not to die of hunger? I'd suggest a more "fundamental" question is where to find sustenance or shelter.

How is this not obvious to you? The concept of a fundamental question is not objective, despite your repeated assertions to the contrary.

I didnt think anyone would have the time to argue with me what physicists and cosmologists would regard as fundamental.

You keep saying its subjective to different people, and I agree, but please were are talking strictly in the cosmological and astronomical sense...if this were a forum for what we will have for lunch today then yeh, fair point.......but the forum is called "Astronomy & Cosmology"....not Subjective Reality.

So again, to make it clear, lets talk about the most fundamental concepts relating to COSMOLOGY and debate whether physics can give us any clues as to the nature of reality.

Thankyou

Originally Posted by Michael_Roberts

I didnt think anyone would have the time to argue with me what physicists and cosmologists would regard as fundamental.

You keep saying its subjective to different people, and I agree, but please were are talking strictly in the cosmological and astronomical sense...if this were a forum for what we will have for lunch today then yeh, fair point.......but the forum is called "Astronomy & Cosmology"....not Subjective Reality.

I think you missed the point. It was just an example reflecting the nature of subjective topics. I don't think that inow wanted to extend the discussion beyond astrophysics. The question remains, how you classify anything as being fundamental on a general scale (of science)? It depends often on what you want to investigate. And as I stated before, such a classification can even change in time along with progress in science.

Originally Posted by Dishmaster

The question remains, how you classify anything as being fundamental on a general scale (of science)? It depends often on what you want to investigate. And as I stated before, such a classification can even change in time along with progress in science.

There is a thread in the Philosophy sub forum with the title "A breakdown of how choice occurs" and I feel this thread is in danger of meandering into the same kind of cul-de-sac or "dead-end".
Maybe I am missing the whole point but I do not have any feelings of angst when I say that the Theory of Relativity or Quantum Theory, for example, are of fundamental importance compared to the work of an industrial chemist, studying some properties of concentrated sulphuric acid and being able to make minor, but still important, improvements to some industrial process.
My judgement may be right or wrong and it could be called "arbitrary and subjective" but that does not mean that a correct answer to the question, as to which piece of work is of fundamental importance, does not exist.

What I was saying was tho, the most fundamental question to ALL of us (thereby taking away all subjectivity) is:

Why does something exist as opposed to nothing?

Its fundamental to cosmology, this is a cosmology forum, not philosophy or anything else. I just think inow was playing Devil's Advocate.

What was Einstein working for towards the end of his life? The most fundemantal answers to the Universe.

And thanks Halliday for support on this. :-D

Oh, come on, give it a rest !!!
Everything IN the universe follows a set of self-consistant rules. We most certainly do NOT know all of the rules and the ones we do have, we may not understand or may have an incorrect formulation. For example, two of the fundamental forces (excluding subsets like the electro-weak) are described by fields while the third is best described by space-time curvature. As we gain understanding and unify all the forces, at hi temps, we may find that the 'unified field theory' gives us a better understanding of how these forces diverge so significantly at lower temps. We may even be able to, in time, accomodate the non-deterministic nature of Quantum Theory, or find a new formulation which does away with probability (but I doubt it).
But as to the beginning of the universe, that involves a time (if you can call it that) before time began, and in a place (if you can call it that) which is outside our universe. So how can rules which apply to inside our universe describe this elsewhere and elsewhen ???

As to my previous explanation being weak. Suppose the multi-verse is composed of universes where every possible value of c, or G, or h, or any other fundamental constant exhists, and we happen to be in the one where all have come together to generate this universe with life that can measure these values as opposed to a multitude of still-born, or inhospitable-to-life, or radically-different-life universes. Would you then still need an answer as to WHY ????

Suppose the multi-verse is composed of universes where every possible value of c, or G, or h, or any other fundamental constant exhists, and we happen to be in the one where all have come together to generate this universe with life that can measure these values as opposed to a multitude of still-born, or inhospitable-to-life, or radically-different-life universes.

I totally agree with that.

Also, an interesting branch of physics would be to simulate Universes with different mathematical models for extra dimensions and lateral time dimensions...and then switch around the different constants...would just be an interesting excercise.

Originally Posted by Michael_Roberts

What I was saying was tho, the most fundamental question to ALL of us (thereby taking away all subjectivity) is:
Why does something exist as opposed to nothing?
Its fundamental to cosmology, this is a cosmology forum, not philosophy or anything else. I just think inow was playing Devil's Advocate.
What was Einstein working for towards the end of his life? The most fundemantal answers to the Universe.
And thanks Halliday for support on this.

Michael would find interesting my earlier post concerning similar fundamental questions and the views I expressed at http://rsridharan.blogspot.com/2008/...cosmology.html - may be human brain as such is limited in understanding certain truths.

sridharanr

Originally Posted by Michael_Roberts

inow:

I think you misunderstood what I was saying. Gravity works by attracting objects together...thats the mechanism of gravity. (Outlined very simply for the sake of my point)...what it doesnt explain is: Why is gravity the strength it is? Why isn't it a repulsive force? Why do we even have gravity at all, why not nothing. Thats what I mean by why questions.

I hope you understand the fundamental difference.

The thing of it is, there might not be a "why".

Religion assures you that there is a why, though it won't explain why the why is.... ie.... why did God choose those values for gravity? Because he loves us? Why does he love us? Couldn't he have hated us just as easily instead? Why does he exist? How did he come into being? Theists can't answer those question any better than scientists can answer the more basic why questions.

What if it turns out that the universe/multiverse simply always existed, and has no beginning? What if the reason for everything is just that that is the way the dice fell? That wouldn't be very reassuring, but since when does reality have the obligation of making us feel reassured?

I'm not too sure what to say, needless to say I am unsure as to whether the why questions are just human constraucts, or whether this is all an accident or coincidence, or that its just simply not that remarkable at all.

But what I can say is that I dont believe that their is a creator or God that loves us, and that spirituality is a powerful construct of the human mind and that the Abrahamic religions are the scurge of this planet, both morally and scientifically.

Originally Posted by MigL

Suppose the multi-verse is composed of universes where every possible value of c, or G, or h, or any other fundamental constant exhists, and we happen to be in the one where all have come together to generate this universe with life that can measure these values as opposed to a multitude of still-born, or inhospitable-to-life, or radically-different-life universes. Would you then still need an answer as to WHY ????

Why not?

I will maintain, that it is more perfect for nothing to exist, than for something to exist.

It seems like the Universe is breaking its own rules to exist, because it is always striving for maximum entropy. The most ordered and hence infinte entropic system is one which does not exist.

(For any one who hasnt yet done Statistical Thermodyanmics, entropy is sort of a macroscopic property of a system that is the measure of the microscopic disorder within the system)

So a solid has more entropy or more order than a gas, hence we know why the CMB temperature decreases over time.

But at the moment before the Big Bang (if we assume nothing existed prior) entropy, , perfect order...but then it must have broken it's own rule that entrop always increases...hence after the Big Bang ...in other words it has decreased. A perfect violation?

That really all depends on the validity of your foundational premises. I would consider checking for validity on those before carrying too much farther on your conclusions.

I read those central axioms you've asserted as:

1) Nothing is more "perfect" than something
2) Nothing existed prior to the big bang

If either of those are invalid, then so too are your conclusions rooted in them.

I believe the first axiom can be proven quite simply from the laws of thermodynamics, but the second I myself find that hard to contemplate not only instinctively but also purely on a thermodynamic basis.

The two options, or extremes, for nothing is that it is either perfect...or imperfect...(in a thermodynamic sense) it can't really be anywhere inbetween. Because nothing is itself an extreme.

Terms are not being defined. Result: pseudo philosophy. COnsequence: boredom

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Terms are not being defined. Result: pseudo philosophy. COnsequence: boredom

Sorry, Ophie. The first two parts are clearly accurate, but with the third your logic is obviously flawed. The consequence I've personally encountered with this is indifference. Boredom requires too much 'giving of a shit' for it to apply in my case.

Hawking appears to have wrongly referred to the ‘Big Bang Model’ as viable explanation for origin of the universe in his latest book, ‘The Grand Design’. The said model suffers from numerous inconsistencies.The review paper titled “Big Bang Model? A Critical Review” published in the peer-reviewed US journal, ‘Journal of Cosmology’, modified version of which is posted at the website: http://vix*ra.org/pdf*/1005.0051*v8.pdf ,has detailed prominent inconsistencies with the said model. The persisting redshift controversy that has direct bearing on the expanse and age of the universe as pinpointed by several cosmologists from time to time, presence of full-bloomed galaxies with higher metallicity in the very early epoch of the universe, and the presence of superclusters of galaxies and supervoids in the cosmos are some of the unsolved mysteries that remain inexplicable by the Big Bang model. It is ironic that instead of addressing the existing anomalies with the said model, the mainstream cosmologists have taken it to be a prestige issue by perpetuating the status quo. Ironically, Hawking’s immense popularity as a popular science writer hinges on success of Hawking's widely popular book, ‘A Brief History of Time’ which is all about the origin of the universe. Authencity of the information contained in his book depends on the validity of the ‘Big Bang Model’.When the said model itself in mired in deep controversy, what Hawking has been preaching to the world so far is a mere gossip without any substance.

Readers may also like to posting no. 435 on page 44 of the thread :
'Stephen Hawking: God was not needed to create the Universe' at the website :
http://www.politics.ie/education-sci...iverse-44.html .

Ashwini Kumar Lal

I beg to differ with Stephen Hawking's unfounded conclusion of his latest book, ‘the Grand Design’ that categorically hints at absence of God’s role in creation of the universe.The learned scientist's pronouncement results from his myopic vision about the origins (of life and the universe). He is under false impression that the current knowledge of quantum physics and general theory of relativity alone was sufficient to unearth the mystery regarding origin of life, whereas fact of the matter is, study of origin of life is a multi-disciplinary pursuit involving good understanding of diverse subjects such as such as molecular biology, genetics, and astrobiology besides cosmology. It is ironic that despite considerable advancements in the above cited fields in recent years, science hitherto remains clueless about origin of life. My disagreement with the learned scientist’s claim is further substantiated by the fact that given any number of combinations of the basic building blocks of life viz., amino acids, nucleotide bases, sugar,and phosphate,etc., life has never been created in any of the laboratories the worldover. Life has never emerged from non-life (inanimate matter). This is very much suggestive of the evolution of life having bearing on the existence of some supernatural force, whom we rever as ‘Almighty’ or as ‘God’. Readers may like to refer to the review article “Origin of Life” published in the peer-reviewed European journal, ‘Astrophysics & Space Science’ (2008, Volume 317, Issue 3-4, pp. 267-278), e-print of which is archived at arXiv as http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0907/0907.3552.pdf ,for the latest update on the current status of scientific research in the inter-disciplinary field of ‘origin of life’.

Ashwini Kumar Lal, New Delhi

My disagreement with the learned scientist’s claim is further substantiated by the fact that given any number of combinations of the basic building blocks of life viz., amino acids, nucleotide bases, sugar,and phosphate,etc., life has never been created in any of the laboratories the worldover. Life has never emerged from non-life (inanimate matter). This is very much suggestive of the evolution of life having bearing on the existence of some supernatural force, whom we rever as ‘Almighty’ or as ‘God’.

BS. We know a lot more than "clueless," and the god of gaps isn't an argument, it simply means we need to know more.

Originally Posted by inow

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Terms are not being defined. Result: pseudo philosophy. COnsequence: boredom

Sorry, Ophie. The first two parts are clearly accurate, but with the third your logic is obviously flawed. The consequence I've personally encountered with this is indifference. Boredom requires too much 'giving of a shit' for it to apply in my case.

Or it's quite possible that boredom asserts that you are boring, that you have failed to stimulate, which grinds against your ego. On the other hand, indifference implies that you were not living below your own standards, that you were in another realm of entertainment.

For instance, I am indifferent to the study of soil. Your case, on the other hand, is boring, because you quibble. Another word to describe it, annoying.

Can we stick to discussing how the media have portrayed Hawking's comment, and can we discuss the value of needing a God, and also the evidence against God.

Thankyou :-D

Originally Posted by TheDr.Spo

Originally Posted by inow

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Terms are not being defined. Result: pseudo philosophy. COnsequence: boredom

Sorry, Ophie. The first two parts are clearly accurate, but with the third your logic is obviously flawed. The consequence I've personally encountered with this is indifference. Boredom requires too much 'giving of a shit' for it to apply in my case.

Or it's quite possible that boredom asserts that you are boring, that you have failed to stimulate, which grinds against your ego. On the other hand, indifference implies that you were not living below your own standards, that you were in another realm of entertainment.

For instance, I am indifferent to the study of soil. Your case, on the other hand, is boring, because you quibble. Another word to describe it, annoying.

Yet, interestingly, I am also indifferent to your trite sophomoric criticism. Go figure. <shrug>

Anyway, Michael_Robers is quite right. Let's stay on topic, shall we?

Originally Posted by Michael_Roberts

can we discuss the value of needing a God, and also the evidence against God.

I'm not sure what you mean about the "value of needing god(s)." There are good evolutionary and psychological explanations for why we believe, and why our beliefs are so strongly tied to those of our parents and community. Also, there isn't really evidence "against" god, just a total lack of compelling evidence in favor of the concept. There is often evidence against the specific religious claims put forth in religious books, but evidence against god is hard to come by (since the god concept so consistently lacks consistent and clear definition).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Readers may like to the browse following write-up relating to the 'redshift controversy' that has direct bearing on the expanse and age of the universe, and forms one of the major inconsistencies with the 'Big Bang Model'.

The Redshift Controversy:

As per Hubble’s law, galaxies in the cosmos are observed to recede on account of expansion of universe. However, there remains nagging uncertainty whether the redshift calculated on the basis of Hubble’s law gives true value of the receding galaxies. Some astronomers (Narlikar 1989; Parker 1993; Harrison 1993; Longair 1995) have serious reservations about the authenticity of the galactic velocities catalogued by astronomers using the Hubble’s velocity- distance law, v = Hd. Expansion redshift does not arise from the Doppler effect, nor is the redshift related to velocity by the special relativistic relation, 1+z =[(1+v/c)/(1-v/c)]1/2 (Narlikar 1993). Einstein’s relativistic Doppler formula merely applies to the motion of galaxies through space, it does not apply to the recession of galaxies (Seeds 2007). Moreover, Doppler redshift is bound by the laws of Einstein’s special relativity, which dictates that an object cannot travel faster than the speed of light whereas in the case of cosmological redshift, v > c is possible since the space which separates the objects (e.g. a quasar from the Earth) through a vacuum can expand faster than the speed of light.


Under the cosmological redshift interpretation, galaxies are not receding simply by a physical velocity in the direction away from the observer; instead, the intervening space is expanding, which accounts for large-scale isotropy of the effect demanded by the cosmological principle (Harrison 1981). In the current cosmological model (Gray and Davies 2008), cosmological redshift z(cos) is described as the observable time-dependent cosmic scale factor (a), governed by the expression,
1+z(cos)= a(now)/a(then). Bondi (1947) defined cosmological redshift as the summation of the Doppler shift due to an object’s motion through space, and the global gravitational shift (Einstein effect) due to the difference between the potential energy per unit mass at the source and the observer. Mathematically, cosmological redshift is expressed as z(cos) = z(dop)+ z(grav), where 1+ z(cos) =[(1+v/c)/(1-v/c)]1/2 (1+∆Ф/c2), and ∆Ф is the difference in gravitational potential between the points of emission and reception of a photon, which hints at the Doppler shift not being the correct measure of distance between the source and the observer.

Some astrophysical observations (Burbidge 1973; Field 1974) have also raised doubts whether the large redshifts (Hubble redshift) related to the distant galaxies are due entirely to cosmological expansion. The strongest argument (Field et al. 1973) in favour of cosmological expansion is that there is no known hypothesis consistent with laws of physics (other than Doppler shift hypothesis) that can explain the observed redshifts. Crawford (1979) provides alternate explanation to the problem - the interaction of photon with curved space-time causes it to lose energy in the form of very low energy secondary photons, giving rise to the phenomenon of redshift. Marmet (1990) too was of the opinion that the cosmic redshifts could be explained without invoking the Doppler interpretation. According to him, photon, in its passage from a distant galaxy to the observer on the earth, loses some of its energy to the intergalactic medium. As such, the greater the depth of the intergalactic medium between a galaxy and the observer, the more its light gets shifted toward the low-energy (red) end of the spectrum (Marmet and Reber 1989). Interactions of photons with atoms in the intergalactic medium always result in the production of secondary photon (bremsstrahlung photon) at longer wavelength (Jauch and Rohrlich 1980). Julia (2009)too has attributed cosmological redshift of distant galaxies to the loss of energy of the photon with time through transfer of its energy (heat) to the intergalactic space whereby redshift is shown to increase exponentially with the distance, z = e(H/c)d . These ideas suggest that the distant quasars might be much closer to the Earth than their redshift would indicate if they have an ‘intrinsic redshift’ due to their being surrounded by a ‘fuzzy’ atmosphere containing free electrons and other material. This concentration of electrons produces the unusual redshift as the light travels through it, and loses energy to these electrons by the Compton effect (Grey and Davies 2008).


Ashwini Kumar Lal, New Delhi

Readers may like to watch the video feature titled
'Big Bang Theory-The 'biggest' lie of all? 'Science', with NO [Zero, none] 'scientific evidence'?' on
'You Tube' at the website:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2K-YVmuOCY .


Ashwini Kumar Lal

There is no evidence against god presented in this book.

The inflationary concept (in the Inflationary Big Bang Model), supporting a vacuum-dominated universe (arising out of quantum fluctuations) during phase transition in the early history of the universe was evolved by some cosmologists (Guth 1981; Linde 1982) to circumvent problems of ‘flatness’, ‘horizon’ and the ‘primordial magnetic monopole’ associated with the Big Bang model. The hypothetical inflation field giving rise to inflation, however, is very speculative lacking sound scientific explanation.There is no general consensus among cosmologists regarding the timing of the beginning and end of the inflationary epoch. In Linde’s ‘chaotic inflation’, inflation starts at the Planck time ,10 -43 sec when the temperature was 10 32 K, whereas in other models, inflation starts when the temperature falls to the point (10 -35 sec after Big Bang when the temperature was ~10 28 K) at which the symmetry of the Grand Unified Theory (GUT) is spontaneously broken.

Element of arbitrariness is also quite prominent in regard to interpretation of the cosmological costant in Einstein's equations of general relativity. Some cosmologists have related the cosmological cosnstant to the dark energy following observations in 1998 of very distant galaxies that were suggestive of accelerating expannsion of the universe. Ironically, the true nature of the 73% dark energy and 23% dark matter ( as per the latest WMAP intertretations) pervading the universe hitherto remains elusive.

Notwithstanding the fact that diferent theories under the proposed M-theory in Hawking's latest book represent different facets of the same underlying theory, 'The Theory of Everything', its viability as 'The Grand Design' providing mathematical formulism for unification of fundamental forces in nature too is highly speculative. It may not be out of place to mention that the 'Big Bang Model' has alredy failed one of the crucial acid test for its survival that relates to detection of remnant of gravity waves from the earliest epoch of the universe. Existence of gravitational - wave background, predicted by Einstein in 1916 in his general theory of relativity, is expected from the violent early moments of the Big Bang much like the cosmic microwave background that fills the sky with radio waves from the early universe. While the microwave background originated 380,000 years after the Big Bang, gravitational – wave background purportedly come directly from events in the first minute after the Big Bang. As per Einstein’s prediction, the cataclysmic Big Bang is believed to have created a flood of gravitational waves – ripples in the fabric of space-time that still fill the universe, albeit at a very feeble strength to be discernible by the conventional astronomical tools, and carry information about the universe as it was in the immediate aftermath of the Big Bang. The much publicized LIGO experiments, undertaken at whopping sum of over $365 million, for probe of remnant of the gravity waves from the earliest epoch of the universe have so far yielded nothing.

Ashwini Kumar Lal

Quoted:

"The much publicized LIGO experiments, undertaken at whopping sum of over $365 million, for probe of remnant of the gravity waves from the earliest epoch of the universe have so far yielded nothing".

I agree.


jsaldea12
11.15.10

Originally Posted by akl1951

ripples in the fabric of space-time

Can someone clarify this point. What actually is the "fabric" of space-time? (Genuine question for genuine answer)

.o:0|O|0:o.

That is just hypothetical, to put substance, reality to spacetime. Spacetime has fabric.

jsaldea12

Originally Posted by jsaldea12

That is just hypothetical, to put substance, reality to spacetime. Spacetime has fabric.

jsaldea12

Natural or synthetic?

Wool? Cotton? Polyester?

What is that supposed to mean ?

The concept of 'conformal cyclic cosmology' (CCC) floated by the Oxford physicist, Sir Roger Penrose refutes the widely accepted inflationary Big Bang model for the origin of the universe. Recent observation of the circular patterns seen in the WMAP mission data on the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) that hints at the space and time not originating at the Big Bang supports Penrose’s concept of CCC. Our universe continually cycles through a series of 'aeons', with each 'big bang' marking the start of a new 'aeon' in the history of the universe . In the light of revelation made in Penrose’s recent paper titled 'Concentric circles in WMAP data may provide evidence of violent pre-Big-Bang activity' (http://arxiv.org/abs/1011.3706), the age of the universe calibrated as 13.75 billion years according to NASA's latest interpretation of the WMAP data hardly holds any relevance.THe CCP concept also debunks the view that the 'big bang' created space-time.

Originally Posted by akl1951

The concept of 'conformal cyclic cosmology' (CCC) floated by the Oxford physicist, Sir Roger Penrose refutes the widely accepted inflationary Big Bang model for the origin of the universe. Recent observation of the circular patterns seen in the WMAP mission data on the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) that hints at the space and time not originating at the Big Bang supports Penrose’s concept of CCC. Our universe continually cycles through a series of 'aeons', with each 'big bang' marking the start of a new 'aeon' in the history of the universe . In the light of revelation made in Penrose’s recent paper titled 'Concentric circles in WMAP data may provide evidence of violent pre-Big-Bang activity' (http://arxiv.org/abs/1011.3706), the age of the universe calibrated as 13.75 billion years according to NASA's latest interpretation of the WMAP data hardly holds any relevance.THe CCP concept also debunks the view that the 'big bang' created space-time.

This is interesting and I look forward to Penrose's book, which will be published next May. But I think you are overstating things and making unwarranted conclusions. Nothing has been confirmed or debunked.

Every variant of the cosmological model, be it inflationary or cyclic, predicts detection of the primordial gravitational waves created in the immediate aftermath of the cataclysmic Big Bang (the latest in the present universe as per the cyclic model). Futile experiments, with negative result so far, undertaken by the LIGO (Laser Interferometry Gravitational Wave Observatory) project since 2002, and by the Virgo interferometer since 2007 are suggestive of the fact that we are still far from finding tangible clues regarding the origin of the universe.

Originally Posted by akl1951

Every variant of the cosmological model, be it inflationary or cyclic, predicts detection of the primordial gravitational waves created in the immediate aftermath of the cataclysmic Big Bang (the latest in the present universe as per the cyclic model). Futile experiments, with negative result so far, undertaken by the LIGO (Laser Interferometry Gravitational Wave Observatory) project since 2002, and by the Virgo interferometer since 2007 are suggestive of the fact that we are still far from finding tangible clues regarding the origin of the universe.

Not true.

The models predict the exisyence of gravitational waves. Detection is s different problem.

There have been experiments to detect gravitational waves since Weber first claimed to have seen them in 1972. None have resulted in confirmed detection. There is apparently some unresolved issue with a 1987 clain of Weber. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Weber).

We may well be a long way from detecting primordial gravity waves, but the cosmic microwave background radiation is certainly a tangible clue regarding the origin of the universe. http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/

Originally Posted by Michael_Roberts

Full article:

http://hicexsistoeverto.wordpress.co...-with-gravity/

Stephen Hawking has made headlines today, apparently after claiming, along with Leonard Mlodinow in their new book: “The Grand Design“ that spontaneous creation is possible within the existing laws of physics, and hence there is no need for God to explain the existence of the Universe.

I wonder what your opinions are.

Enjoy!

Mr Hawking makes [ in my opinion ] a grand omission.

He could have re-inforced his point about the spontaneous materialisation of the universe by citing the fact that this spontaneous appearance is spookily similar to the spontaneous separation of particle / antiparticle pairs which he himself uses as the driving process in Hawking radiation.

Invoking the fractal concept of self similarity on varying scales the same thing happens to the universe on the very smallest and largest frame of reference.

Realization of the supernatural force commanding this universe is very much evident from the knowledge of quantum physics itself. The incidence of electron not collapsing into the nucleus despite the electron gradually losing its energy during its orbit around the nucleus on account of emission of radiation resulting from its motion in the magnetic field, is a glaring example of presence of the supernatural force at micro level. There is always a minimum energy level for the electron in its orbit around the nucleus beyond which trespassing is not permissible. And then, quantum tunnelling and quantum fluctuations are the other bizarre natural phenomena that appear to be regulated at Almighty’s behest alone.

Ashwini Kumar Lal

I have been vehemently opposing validity of the inflationary Big Bang Model as viable explanation for the origin of the universe due to numerous unattended inconsistencies with the said model. The persisting redshift controversy which has direct bearing on the expanse and the age of the universe, presence of superclusters of galaxies in the cosmos interpersed with supervoids,as also the presence of mature galaxies with higher metallicity in the very early epoch of the universe are some of the unresolved puzzles that remain inexplicable by the Big Bang Model. The review paper titled “Big Bang Model? A Critical Review” published in the peer-reviewed US journal, ‘Journal of Cosmology’, modified version of which is posted at the website:
http://vix*ra.org/pdf*/1005.0051*v8.pdf has detailed prominent inconsistencies with the said model.

As far as the current status of the theories of origin of universe is concerned, there prevails utter confusion about validity of the different theories propounded by diffferent cosmologists. A joint paper by Roger Penrose and Stephen Hawking published in 1970 advocated a 'big bang singularity' based on the interpretation of Einstein's general relativity, which eventually became the basis for acceptance of the Big Bang Model by the mainstream cosmologists. But then, Penrose of late has been promoting the concept of 'cyclic universe' in a bid to explain what was there before the Big Bang. Acccording to the cyclic universe model, universe undergoes an endless sequence of cycles in which it contracts in a big crunch and re-emerges in an expanding big bang, with trillions of years of evolution in-between. The concept of 'initial singulaity' and the so called official age of universe as 13.75 billion years as per the WMAP-based latest estimate hardly have any relevance in the context of the cyclic model. In the new model, no inflation has taken place since the big bang; the current homogeneity and flatness were created by events that occurred before most recent big bang. Space and time exist forever in the cyclic model.The universe is eternal in this model. Steinhardt and Turok are the other prominent advocates of the cyclic model.

Originally Posted by akl1951

Realization of the supernatural force commanding this universe is very much evident from the knowledge of quantum physics itself. The incidence of electron not collapsing into the nucleus despite the electron gradually losing its energy during its orbit around the nucleus on account of emission of radiation resulting from its motion in the magnetic field, is a glaring example of presence of the supernatural force at micro level. There is always a minimum energy level for the electron in its orbit around the nucleus beyond which trespassing is not permissible. And then, quantum tunnelling and quantum fluctuations are the other bizarre natural phenomena that appear to be regulated at Almighty’s behest alone.

Ashwini Kumar Lal

Supernatural explanations have no place in science. What you are describing is the essence of quantum mechanics that can be described very well with the proper math. No divine equations involved here.

But then, the current body of scientific information neither provides plausible explanation for the origin of life nor of the universe. Everything is so fluid. We have been so far toying with diifferent hypotheses about the origins (of life as well as the universe) without any verifiable models in foreseeable future. Science definitely has its limitations in explaining the intricacies of the nature.

Originally Posted by akl1951

But then, the current body of scientific information neither provides plausible explanation for the origin of life nor of the universe. Everything is so fluid. We have been so far toying with diifferent hypotheses about the origins (of life as well as the universe) without any verifiable models in foreseeable future. Science definitely has its limitations in explaining the intricacies of the nature.

No, this is the essence of science. It just takes time. About two thousand years ago, nobody really understood, how the heavenly bodies moved. And they also believed in supernatural causes. Today we know that these bodies are not that different from earthly matter and they just react to gravity.

Originally Posted by Dishmaster

Originally Posted by akl1951

But then, the current body of scientific information neither provides plausible explanation for the origin of life nor of the universe. Everything is so fluid. We have been so far toying with diifferent hypotheses about the origins (of life as well as the universe) without any verifiable models in foreseeable future. Science definitely has its limitations in explaining the intricacies of the nature.

No, this is the essence of science. It just takes time. About two thousand years ago, nobody really understood, how the heavenly bodies moved. And they also believed in supernatural causes. Today we know that these bodies are not that different from earthly matter and they just react to gravity.

Agreed. But I must quote here Einstein's famous words in connection with the ongoing debate : " Science without religion is lame, and religion without science is blind".

I have gone through three books titled, ‘ A Brief History of Time’, ‘The Theory of Everything’, and ‘The Grand Design’ – all authored by the celebrated scientist, Stephen Hawking. I find content of all his books to be more or less the same with minor variation here and there. I fail to comprehend why Hawking has been repeating the same thing again and again. Repeated mention of the Big Bang Model as viable explanation for the origin of the universe does not convince intelligent readers about its validity in the light of several unattended inconsistencies with the said model.