LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksDear friends,
Please help me with understanding how the universe was created according to science.List all the scientific theories which are widely accepted and explain them in simple words because I am very very weak in science.Thanks.
June 9th, 2014, 04:30 AM
Dear friends,
Please help me with understanding how the universe was created according to science.List all the scientific theories which are widely accepted and explain them in simple words because I am very very weak in science.Thanks.
"If we do discover a theory of everything...it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason—for then we would truly know the mind of God."
There is no theory of "how the universe was created", since "was created" implies a creator and natural science does not deal in the supernatural.Originally Posted by Lawman
As I'm sure you are aware, there is a theory of the early evolution of the universe, popularly known as the "Big Bang". This theory relies on extrapolating back in time from current observations of the cosmos. You can read about it almost anywhere, but here is a good enough place to start: Big Bang - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
BUT I confess I am rather suspicious of your question: it sounds like just the sort of thing a creationist looking for a fight would ask, especially the "dear friends" - one can almost hear the preacher in the pulpit. Also, the (unreasonable) demand that people on a discussion forum should list and recite, from scratch, standard theories of science that can be found almost anywhere in the public domain, is a commonly used tactic by creationists looking for a fight. (The aim, typically, is to pick holes in individual statements that a responder may have made without realising he is dealing with an adversary, rather than a genuine seeker of knowledge.)
It would be very pleasant if you could prove my suspicion unfounded. If you can do this I'm sure there are lots of us who will be delighted to help with any points in the Wiki article that you have trouble with.
Sorry to sound a bit paranoid and unfriendly but I've had enough dealings with these pricks to have become fairly fed up with them.
Our modern scientific understanding of the universe provides a kind of road map through time. Based in Hubble and Einstein and corroborated by such discoveries as the abundance of light elements and the cosmic microwave background radiation, this map points back 13.7 billion years to an event we know as the big bang.
At this point in the ancient past, there was no such thing as time or space. There was just a single hot, condensed point -- a singularity -- containing all matter in the universe. In addition, all four fundamental forces (the gravitational, electromagnetic, strong and weak forces) were unified as a single force. This unified period, called the Planck epoch, lasted 10-43 seconds. Then the universe expanded at a rate faster than the speed of light, growing from subatomic to golf-ball size almost instantaneously. Scientists call this the inflationary period.
The universe then expanded outward in a flood of superheated subatomic particles. Three seconds after the big bang, space cooled enough for these particles to form elements. Some 300 million years later, stars and galaxies formed as well. (For more detailed information on these beginning steps, read How the Big Bang Theory Works.
The big bang theory still provides the best model for how the universe arose, but it's not the only theory we have. For example, the steady-state theory modeled a universe with a consistent density that appears to expand due to the constant generation of new matter. Support for it, however, largely died out, thanks to the discovery of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) in 1965. The CMB was, in essence, the radiation signature of the early, expanding universe.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...01uHkMLq2KHCbQ
We don't KNOW how it was "created" but our best guess which is based on what we've learned for ourselves by examining the observable evidence is that the Universe is expanding.
This means that the Universe was smaller in the past.
This means there seems to have been a point where the Universe was all concentrated in a single point, and then started to expand from.
We call this the Big Bang.
The Big Bang, however, doesn't explain the creation of the Universe.
Needless to say (or maybe needful to say) the Universe wasn't "created" by the God of the Christian Bible.
You misunderstood my question.I understood that I must have not written created but how it came into existence.I am not a preacher.I want to understand thE SCIENTIFIC THEORY OF HOW UNIVERSE CAME INTO EXISTENCE.There is no theory of "how the universe was created", since "was created" implies a creator and natural science does not deal in the supernatural.
As I'm sure you are aware, there is a theory of the early evolution of the universe, popularly known as the "Big Bang". This theory relies on extrapolating back in time from current observations of the cosmos. You can read about it almost anywhere, but here is a good enough place to start: Big Bang - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
BUT I confess I am rather suspicious of your question: it sounds like just the sort of thing a creationist looking for a fight would ask, especially the "dear friends" - one can almost hear the preacher in the pulpit. Also, the (unreasonable) demand that people on a discussion forum should list and recite, from scratch, standard theories of science that can be found almost anywhere in the public domain, is a commonly used tactic by creationists looking for a fight. (The aim, typically, is to pick holes in individual statements that a responder may have made without realising he is dealing with an adversary, rather than a genuine seeker of knowledge.)
It would be very pleasant if you could prove my suspicion unfounded. If you can do this I'm sure there are lots of us who will be delighted to help with any points in the Wiki article that you have trouble with.
Sorry to sound a bit paranoid and unfriendly but I've had enough dealings with these pricks to have become fairly fed up with them.
A quantum glitch or a otherwise unknown incident was the foundation event of the great expansion known unwisely as the Big Bang..
I am brave or foolish to offer for you that; We do not know the answer of your question; A fluctuation of the time mater and mass of a singularity that may have existed prior to that Big Bang.. " I do not know and would want to.. " join the Que..
You misunderstood my question.I understood that I must have not written created but how it came into existence.I am not a preacher.I want to understand thE SCIENTIFIC THEORY OF HOW UNIVERSE CAME INTO EXISTENCE.[/QUOTE]
Ah, good, thanks. I see from a reference to lakhs in another thread that you are probably Indian. That reassures me a bit that you are not some pugnacious hick from the US Bible Belt.
I'm not a cosmologist but from what I've read it seems to me we don't really know how it came into existence, as there is no observational evidence of that. There are some speculative theories, that's all. It seems to be a bit like the origin of life: we have a good theory of evolution, just as we have a good theory for the evolution of the universe, but, as to the origin of either, all we have are speculations, due to lack of data.
There isn't one. There isn't even any evidence that it "came into existence". There are various speculations, such as:
- a false vacuum being pushed into a lower energy state by a quantum fluctuation (False vacuum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
- a universe is created by the collapse of a black hole (Every Black Hole Contains a New Universe | Inside Science)
- there are "bubbles" of inflation happening continuously creating new universes - or regions of the universe (Eternal inflation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
- the universe has always existed (Penrose claims to have glimpsed universe before Big Bang - physicsworld.com)
- we are just one of multiple universes (Hard Evidence for the Multiverse Found, but String Theory Limits the Space Brain Threat | Not Even Wrong)
And probably others. And variations on all these.
This is one of the reasons why I've made it a point to browse the Physics forum on a regular basis. I do not really know much about cosmology, but there is something in the article that caught my eye (highlighted in blue), and perhaps someone here would be willing to water-it-down for a layperson like me.
Smooth - Jagged form?
I'm not sure. I assume it is referring to the current "lumpy" nature of the universe where there are areas with a higher density of matter - galaxies, stars, planets - and areas with almost nothing. In the future it will all be more homogeneously distributed.
But wouldn't the mass of this higher density areas attract near'ish-by surrounding matter making it more lumpy and other parts of space emptier (less evenly distributed)? That is the nature of gravity isn't it, or have I gotten that wrong?
That is the initial process that caused hydrogen gas to collapse and form stars and galaxies. I assume the idea is that eventually the universe will be so spread out that these small inhomogeneities either disappear or become irrelevant. But I am guessing.
Redistributed when the individual stars die and perhaps go supernova (spewing matter out and away), or when SMBH(s) holding galaxies together disperse?That is the initial process that caused hydrogen gas to collapse and form stars and galaxies. I assume the idea is that eventually the universe will be so spread out that these small inhomogeneities either disappear or become irrelevant. But I am guessing.
Science isn't progressing fast enough to please my hungry mind.
As good a theory as any. The Universe was created in Northamptonshire.
I'm not clear on why on this necessarily implies a supernatural creator.
Given we do not possess any evidence, at present, of a "before" could one not argue that the Universe was created by an event we call the Big Bang.
Fair enough I suppose one could. I'd have thought one would rather say that the universe "began" (active) than "was created" (passive), but I admit my redneck-detection equipment was tuned to maximum sensitivity when I wrote that.I'm not clear on why on this necessarily implies a supernatural creator.
Given we do not possess any evidence, at present, of a "before" could one not argue that the Universe was created by an event we call the Big Bang.
I think the key distinction is transitive vs intransitive, rather than active v passive. </grammargeek>
It does seem that the word "creation" has been hijacked by wing-nuts (cretinists, IDiots etc.) and so sets off alarm bells when you are talking about science, maybe science should reclaim it
Are you sure? The verb "to create" is a transitive verb, is it not? And as such can be used in either the active or passive voice, surely?
Well, my thinking was that "create" being transitive implies that someone does the creating (either the subject in active voice, or the agent in passive). Whereas "began" is intransitive; the thing itself began, no other agent needs to be involved.
Complicated slightly by the fact that began can be used as a transitive verb ... So if the original statement had been that "the universe was begun [by zombies]", then you would have had the same concern.
Putting either "was created" or "was begun" into the active voice doesn't solve the problem (it makes it worse): "X created the universe", "X began the universe".
It is the use of "began <intrans.>" that solves the problem.
It's posts like this that make me wish I knew how to English.Are you sure? The verb "to create" is a transitive verb, is it not? And as such can be used in either the active or passive voice, surely?
Ah OK now I see what you mean, I hadn't re-read my post properly. Quite right, and 3 bonus pedantry pointsWell, my thinking was that "create" being transitive implies that someone does the creating (either the subject in active voice, or the agent in passive). Whereas "began" is intransitive; the thing itself began, no other agent needs to be involved. (Complicated slightly by the fact that began can be used as a transitive verb ...).
"….speak….."?It's posts like this that make me wish I knew how to English.Are you sure? The verb "to create" is a transitive verb, is it not? And as such can be used in either the active or passive voice, surely?
Lets English!
First I apparently need to learn how to grammar.
Ask your dads mum.First I apparently need to learn how to grammar.
~ What a outstanding autistic view of the workings of this English language.. That the tool used for communicating our thoughts can be so bastardized, is a sad indictment on 'us'.. That the use of the word 'created' might suggest a creator is the fulcrum issue for most..
~ That my abilities to communicate effectively is no sample of superior.. We all~ it would seem, are humbled by improper use..
That this universe is the only one we can know of is a 'given'. That we can extrapolate from rates of expansions seen and actually observed that a acceleration is evident. I can with some certainty state that there was a 'Big Bang' that all of our indicators would suggest was the formation event of the Universe. That very little else is known as testable is a sad fact.. That we might not ever know of why and how does the head in.. is understood.
We don't know. Some theories speculate that there isn't an origin point at all, but certain things have always been. Time wouldn't really have a definite beginning in such a case. I must admit, such theories don't convince me. But I'm not nearly educated enough to have a strong opinion about it. My opinions on such things are very soft. It might be that there is no answer to your question at all, instead of an answer we are ignorant of, because it might be certain things have never not existed.
~ That I like the way and the wording of your post 'SowZ37' my thoughts expand this a little with.
That as time may have not progressed and could be said to have not begun until motion and time for it to happen in existed..
That at the moment of the singularity becoming a quickly expanding Big Bang.. So to did time begin.
The following suggestion is a outrageous preposition I can only table as a thought of interest. ( to me ).
That the rate of time might be the dark energy we seek. ( Try and remember it was I that said this...)
That the acceleration observed might be time increasing it's rate..
The ONLY constant being c. in a vacuum, and change. Good luck with that. ( what )..
Let us start at some point. First of all how did matter(and space) come into existence? Any theories?
The big bang theory explains how matter came into existence . But there is still a big question about why there is not an equal amount of anti-matter.
Baryogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
But that assumes the universe (and space) already exists with a large amount of energy.
.
It was and always will be there? (hope that is not facetious ).
I know I am not specifically addressing the singularity (the Big Bang) at the beginning of our observable universe seemingly 14 billion years ago (which I am not competent to do)
For appropriate values of "always".
I don't understand what you mean ( not disputing ). Could you explain a little further?For appropriate values of "always".
I'm not sure I really meant anything.
But your answer is correct if "always" is limited to the lifetime of the universe (which is all we can talk about) - matter, or the energy it was formed from, has always existed.
I notice you say "the energy it was formed from" .Do you think there was ever a time when there was only energy and no matter?
Or is it impossible to separate matter from energy?
I was wondering (I think in an earlier post) whether as we approached the time of the BB the overall proportion of energy to matter was different from what it is now or whether that was perhaps a nonsensical question and you could never make that calculation.
I don't know. I'm not sure what "only energy" would mean. Energy is a property of "things" - even if those things are things like photons, which we might think of as energy. But energy is only one of the properties that a photon has. Before baryogenesis it seems there was a quark-gluon plasma (does that count as "matter"?) and before that the strong and electroweak forces were probably unified. I don't think we can say what form the "stuff" (energy - matter - ???) was in at that point. Whatever "it" was, it was very energetic!
^^ Baloney!
As for trying to answer the OP's question: you should do some research on the Big Bang, and in my opinion, that colloquial fact (scientific theory) isn't entirely easy to understand but that may be because my forte is evolution. I would also recommend the book ' A UNIVERSE FROM NOTHING' by Lawrence Krauss.
The conclusion is that we don't know perfectly how it came but just few theories.Is it that we won't be able to know it ever?.I think we cannot imagine how was it when there was nothing.
It is hard to say. New evidence or new theories might tell us more.
We don't even know if there was nothing.I think we cannot imagine how was it when there was nothing.
It's really hard to conceptualize since what seems intuitive doesn't work at all. You hit logical walls whichever direction you go. "What caused the Big Bang? What caused the thing that caused that? Where did all that initial energy and matter come from? Where did the thing that caused that energy to be come from?" Its endless. Hence you can't successfully map the universe linearly and causality breaks down in certain conditions.
People think laws of the universe, or at least the ones that apply to our universe, don't work in the pre-big bang universe or in any singularity. The actual proposals go way over my head, but it seems most people agree that what seems to be the simplest understanding of the universe: "time moves forward with event A causing event B causing event C, and the laws of physics are immutable," doesn't really work. It bothers me, too, since I can't wrap my head around a universe that isn't entirely deterministic, and as far as I am aware there was a point in history when a large majority of scientists believed things were totally deterministic, but there you go. The universe isn't obligated to make sense to me or anyone.
Who knows, maybe eventually we'll get models that successfully represent a pre big bang universe and are somehow internally consistent with a set of physical laws. It's probably pretty unlikely we'd ever be able to test those models, though, but maybe not. I wouldn't be the person to ask.
Anyone more learned than me who could explain any of the more respected models of a pre big bang universe? I've heard that there are some pretty decent ones, but they still have serious issues. I don't really know any actual models other than a rudimentary knowledge of what a singularity is and a very vague concept of brane collision. I'd be interested to hear some of the models explored, even if it is just a short overview.
The world was just one point in the starting and there was nothing else.Was that point a big thing or just a dot?.Then there was a blast which created the sun, moon, earth, stars, all the forces, asteroids.It was such that all the planets started moving around sun,is it?.And all the laws and the distance between planets, moons etc was created by co incidence.If I am wrong Please correct me and answer my questions.Thanks
You wouldn't say that the big bang created all the forces, asteroids etc. You would say, that the arrangement of matter and natural processes were such, that stars, planets, moons and asteroids arose, and in this universe, we observed a number of different kinds of forces. The laws and distance between orbital bodies, is simply what we observe, given our universe. It could be the case, that there are many universes, each operating to different 'laws'. But when we say laws, we simply mean equations that we've come up with, that describe what we see and allow us to make predictions. (I'm not a cosmologist, so if I've made any errors, please don't hesitate to correct me)
We don't know that. It seem physically implausible. It is a meaningless extrapolation of theory beyond the point it is applicable.
Not really. It was a long and complicated process. The universe expanded and cooled. Eventually it was cool enough for clouds of gas to collapse and form stars. Eventually these created the elements that could form planets, etc.Then there was a blast which created the sun, moon, earth, stars, all the forces, asteroids.
But it is a hugely complicated subject. More than can be summed up in a few words. (We are talking about billions of years of history!)
I'm not sure what coincidence means. The evolution of the universe and the solar system are ruled by the laws of physics.And all the laws and the distance between planets, moons etc was created by co incidence.
For a few of the contributors here who do not seem to understand the concept of the 'Big Bang'. So for them I offer this;
~ Once upon a time a very long time ago.. There was something.. but that it had no form or place to be so it began to expand very, very quickly. We do not know what it was, or from where it did come or even why any of that happened. That it did happen is still able to be confirmed by observation of the cosmic micro wave remnants of that which we call 'The Big Bang.'
I noticed a argument being tabled of 'It's just a theory'... Let me make this very clear. To adhere to the scientific principal Everything is and remains a theory.. Gravity force is understood to be the displacement of space by matter that has a distortion effect we know as gravity.. That to the science minded inquiry everything is a theory. If you can not accept the theory as we know it.. question and test.. Much research has been entered into and available for you to study.. Search Wikipedia and read of science and cosmology..
Think about loaves of bread expanding and raisins getting further apart.. and what any of that has to do with your failure to see what science has offered you. This is a science forum.. study some science.. and they lived happily ever after.
And 'it's just a theory' isn't even an insult. Saying something is just a theory is saying 'it's only just a model that fits with thousands of observable phenomena that has held up to years of scrutiny and new observations, as well as having reasonable math and/or other evidences to back it up.' It's a theory is really quite a compliment.
People get all bent out of shape about the big bang when they really don't need to. Shoot, I'm pretty sure even the Catholic Church has admitted that the Big Bang happened, or at least that it is okay for Catholics to believe. It seems to me that people attacking the big bang theory is usually an emotional reaction to people trying to describe how creation came to be. You could substitute creation for another word if you are so inclined. I'd implore even religious people to stop fighting the Big Bang. Sure, it isn't one hundred percent more than anything is 100%, but we can still say with confidence that it happened.
I am getting confused.Can anyone name me a book which would explain me Big Bang completely from starting to end.Keep in mind that I have very very little information about it and even that may be wrong.
Maybe someone else can recommend a book. But, in summary, all we know is that the universe was once very hot and very dense. Our current theories don't work under those conditions so we can't say much more. Any talk of "creation" or "from nothing" is just speculation. It expanded and cooled. It is still expanding and cooling.
That's perfectly fine. There's no shame in not knowing something. Let me apologize and clarify that the comment above wasn't really pointed at you. It probably looked that way, so sorry about that.
There's plenty of books on the subject, but you could probably get a pretty decent summary of what the idea is from Wikipedia if you wanted to read something online. A lot of people think Wikipedia is leprous or something but it'll have an okay overview.
The basic idea is that the universe is expanding. Among other evidence, this suggests that if we played time backwards the universe would be contracting and would start at a single point. This would be an incredibly hot, incredibly dense, incredibly energetic state. When it expanded, it did so rapidly. The more it expanded, the more it cooled. Like if you open an oven, the inside will become cooler. Spread out over a larger area, the heat evens out and the average temperature goes down. When the universe was small and hot, limited molecules could form. As it cooled, more types of molecules were able to exist. Helium and Hydrogen, for example, are some of the earliest molecules. This stuff eventually coalesced into stars and such. Metals and such came later on. Wikipedia would be a lot more comprehensive. Or if you have an encyclopedia, any such set should summarize the theory.
Note: It doesn't try and explain the origin of matter or energy. Just like evolution doesn't explain the origin of life, the Big Bang theory doesn't explain the origin of the universe. Just the universe as we know it. As for what came before the Big Bang, how it got there, what caused the initial expansion, etc. etc. I don't even really understand the proposals that are out there. I am positive some of the posters here do know, but I don't. Regardless, I do know that such proposals are just that. Ideas. As such, the Big Bang theory can be consistent with an atheistic or theistic worldview. Some scientists think the Big Bang theory indicates an actual beginning to time itself but some disagree.
Hopefully someone can explain it better and more correctly than I can, and maybe propose an actual book.
Yes!!!!!!!!.This was the most clearest reply.Now I understand what it is all about.We don't know how did the starting point looked like.then there was A blast ( we don't know what caused it).Then all the particles were going away from each other and they were cooling as they were going apart from each other.As they were cooling new particles started forming.I really hope that it is correct,otherwise I am really sorry to irritate you so much ,but please help.What I want to ask is does this blast created the sun, moon and everything else what causes our existence.Bro Sowz37 thanks for you r help and help me once again.
That's perfectly fine. There's no shame in not knowing something. Let me apologize and clarify that the comment above wasn't really pointed at you. It probably looked that way, so sorry about that.
There's plenty of books on the subject, but you could probably get a pretty decent summary of what the idea is from Wikipedia if you wanted to read something online. A lot of people think Wikipedia is leprous or something but it'll have an okay overview.
The basic idea is that the universe is expanding. Among other evidence, this suggests that if we played time backwards the universe would be contracting and would start at a single point. This would be an incredibly hot, incredibly dense, incredibly energetic state. When it expanded, it did so rapidly. The more it expanded, the more it cooled. Like if you open an oven, the inside will become cooler. Spread out over a larger area, the heat evens out and the average temperature goes down. When the universe was small and hot, limited molecules could form. As it cooled, more types of molecules were able to exist. Helium and Hydrogen, for example, are some of the earliest molecules. This stuff eventually coalesced into stars and such. Metals and such came later on. Wikipedia would be a lot more comprehensive. Or if you have an encyclopedia, any such set should summarize the theory.
Note: It doesn't try and explain the origin of matter or energy. Just like evolution doesn't explain the origin of life, the Big Bang theory doesn't explain the origin of the universe. Just the universe as we know it. As for what came before the Big Bang, how it got there, what caused the initial expansion, etc. etc. I don't even really understand the proposals that are out there. I am positive some of the posters here do know, but I don't. Regardless, I do know that such proposals are just that. Ideas. As such, the Big Bang theory can be consistent with an atheistic or theistic worldview. Some scientists think the Big Bang theory indicates an actual beginning to time itself but some disagree.
Hopefully someone can explain it better and more correctly than I can, and maybe propose an actual book.
Once I understand this I will go to other theories mentioned above.
It was a good summary. Note that this "blast" was not like an explosion. An explosion would mean that everything was compressed into one part of the universe and then exploded to fill the rest of the universe. But actually the entire universe was full of this hot, dense stuff and then the entire universe expanded, allowing the particles to move awat from each other and cool down.
It didn't directly create these things. But it created the environment where they could form.What I want to ask is does this blast created the sun, moon and everything else what causes our existence.
What the initial expansion formed was a universe full of hydrogen. Where it was slightly denser, this collapsed (under its own gravity) to form stars and galaxies. (This took about 100 million years.)
The stars shine because they combine hydrogen atoms to make larger atoms (fusion) which releases energy.
Eventually some of those first stars exploded (supernova) and spread lots of these other elements into their galaxies. After some time there was enough of these other elements to create planets and moons. These also formed under the influence of gravity (mainly).
But somehow it created them all,isn't it?.I want to ask another question that the sun being hot, the earth having normal temperature and being at perfect distance from sun etc was a coincidence?
Sort of? It isn't exactly a coincidence. Sure, the Earth happened to get in a stable orbit around the sun and the sun happened to form right where it is out of all the other places it could have formed. But this isn't really unlikely since no one predicted it beforehand. Look at it like this. If I predicted to you that the lotto numbers would be 457634 this week, and it was right, that would be unlikely. One in a million, right? But if no one predicted the lotto numbers and they came up 878343? That specific string of numbers is also unlikely. That specific string is also one in a million. But it isn't going to surprise you that they came up. There had to be some winning number, it might as well have been 878343. In the same way, sure, you could say it is unlikely that the Earth and the sun and everything is exactly where it is. But it isn't really coincidental. There are going to be stars and planets in some spots. May as well be one here.
Also, the Big Bang didn't create our sun directly. First generation stars came out of the Big Bang, but as those stars died pieces of them were thrown about the universe. (That's an oversimplification, but basically true.) These pieces collided with other clouds of stuff and sometimes made new stars. These are second generation stars. Some of these died and the cycle continued to make third generation stars. (Our sun is likely second or third generation.) Eventually, as the generations degrade, new stars forming will get more and more unlikely until stars stop forming entirely. This won't be for a very, very long time. Maybe a hundred trillion years. Generations of stars can get confusing, too, since stars collect various stuffs that muddle up exactly what generation we should consider it. The distinction between a first and second generation star is, therefore, more significant than the distinction between a second and third or third and fourth.
Last edited by SowZ37; June 25th, 2014 at 02:41 AM.
Shuffle a deck of cards. What are the odds that all 52 cards come up in the EXACT order in which you shuffled them?
I don't know what you mean by "coincidence". That means two (unrelated) things happening at the same time. There is nothing unrelated here. The Earth and the Sun (and all the other planets, moons, comets etc.) formed from the same cloud of gas and dust. The Sun is hot because of nuclear fusion. The planets are cooler because they are further away.
There are billions of other stars out there. They are all hot and most of them appear to have planets around them.
No coincidences at all.
I think he just means unlikely. Which I suppose it happening the particular way it did seems unlikely if you look at it after the fact, but there is no reason it shouldn't have happened the way it did.I don't know what you mean by "coincidence". That means two (unrelated) things happening at the same time. There is nothing unrelated here. The Earth and the Sun (and all the other planets, moons, comets etc.) formed from the same cloud of gas and dust. The Sun is hot because of nuclear fusion. The planets are cooler because they are further away.
There are billions of other stars out there. They are all hot and most of them appear to have planets around them.
No coincidences at all.
I did wonder that. Given the enormous number of stars and planets out there, and the fact that our sun is pretty average, it doesn't seem especially unlikely that there would be planets like ours...
Well, if you picked out our spot in the galaxy beforehand and said, "What are the odds that a planet ends up right here orbiting an average size star right over there?" They would have been astronomical. But we aren't looking at it beforehand. We are looking at it after the fact. Even though we aren't really talking about people, is the anthropic principle at all applicable here?I did wonder that. Given the enormous number of stars and planets out there, and the fact that our sun is pretty average, it doesn't seem especially unlikely that there would be planets like ours...
I'm not sure it is the anthropic principle, but closely related. It is a bit more like Douglas Adam's puddle which was amazed at finding itself in a hole that was such a perfect fit. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc, maybe?
EXACTLY!
The low probability of a particular outcome does not mean it cannot occur. This strikes me as the logical fallacy behind the strong form of the Anthropic Principle.
I don't know if I have a mental block or deficiency but I have never understood the anthropic principle. To me it has always seemed so obviously flawed that the only use I could find for it is as a straw man.
And yet although it is very seriously adduced as a theory by people who are far more qualified and intelligent than me I really don't give it a moment's consideration.
All I can think is if the conditions were different then we wouldn't be here -I won't go on it just seems like a vicious circle of unnecessary pattern finding but why is the idea entertained at all? Have I missed some salient feature to the argument?
That is pretty much it, as far as I can tell: the only reason we can ask "why is the universe able to sustain life" is because the universe is able to sustain life...
Don't think so and I rather agree. I see Wiki has this to say about the weak form: "Critics of the S[trong] AP argue in favor of a weak anthropic principle (WAP) similar to the one defined by Brandon Carter, which states that the universe's ostensible fine tuning is the result of selection bias: i.e., only in a universe capable of eventually supporting life will there be living beings capable of observing any such fine tuning, while a universe less compatible with life will go unbeheld. Such arguments are closely related to some multiverse ideas and can link to the Fermi paradox."
Which seems to be a long way of saying what you are saying, really.
I will post something after sometime.I am searching for it Then you will understand the reason I am asking about coincidence.
I've heard an argument against fine tuning in a debate between Sean Carroll, and William Lane Craig. It was argued that the fine tuning we observe in our universe, allows us as a life form to exist, however, the information we have on what life is, is very limited. It could be the case that there are many possible configurations that allow for life, just a form of life that is vastly different from what we expect it to be.
I have a view that if explained ( and I will try ) that might show a error of thinking of this subject mater regarding the
'Creation' of this environment..
I often see the string of comments pointing to it being just right for life here..
and that it must have been planed or engineered.. to be like this.. No.. and here's why.
The forces of nature and random occurrence presented the mater and the environment that tolerated the life forms that it supports.. NOT the other way round.. That the plant and animals and insects and the rest of it is here because it can be..
~ It will not be like this any place else.. be sure of that as am I.. The word creation was chosen deliberately not to incite riot but to show the religiously held doctrines do not own that word create.. The solar disk provided by the forces of gravity and components that which we have evolved from to be.. The 'Star stuff' created a environment. That if given the opportunity of environment tolerable of it life would seem to flourish.
~ Just to balance this little script and rant be equally aware that the Universe is transpiring to end life here.. exploding Stars, Nova events, Gama outbursts, X ray emissions. or just the transforming environment will and can turn this place into a HELL for humanity to die in..
Oops.. that's a bit over done a..
Any argument will be met by a referral directly to the writings of the late Douglas Adams ;
Who in explaining the rare but taken as granted here the humble cup of tea, and all of the complexities involved in it's making are almost so rare as to be impossible.. but yet..'Earle Grey black' is real and understood.
Haha completely understand the frustration mark. You hear endlessly 'Oh we're on a perfect planet, in a perfect solar system, in a perfect galaxy, in a perfect universe, FOR US.' To say there's fine tuning, it to say you misunderstand the dangers that are out there, and to underestimate the ability of the universe to seriously ruin our day.
Last edited by Curiosity; June 27th, 2014 at 10:43 PM.
~ Great to see the scientific view endorsed.. I move the thinking forward by suggesting that As the conditions become tolerant of evolutionary life to prevail it seems to. However we do only have a case study of ONE. The quest for more knowledge is vital in unfolding our understandings. I am learning to avoid that word 'believe' as I see it as without science. I return to the use of creation because it can be used without religious commutation.. The amount of free oxygen in the atmosphere of Planet Earth rose because of life form evolution..
Once a understanding of the sciences is established no room is left for a God in my universe of understanding.
My understanding so far, from what know, is there's no requirement for a God. Furthermore, for apriori reasons, it requires the belief in both a natural and a supernatural dimension, as opposed to only a natural dimension, which is less likely. If there is no evidence pointing to a supernatural dimension (which so far there is none), there's no reason to believe it exists, nor that there is an entity that inhabits that dimension, that created our natural world.
Haha stumbled across this:
Is it just me, or should basic science books be handed out for free like bibles? :P
Big Bang Theory.
Big Bang Theory - YouTube
----------------------------------------------------------------
What a load of crap.
I didn't watch more than about 20 seconds, but was that John Rhys-Davies narrating? Did he mention using the Einstein Rosen bridge to slide between dimensions?
What a load of crap.
I only whizzed through a bit of it (I have zero patience with video at the best of times). It appears to be some sort of god-botherer's work about what a perfect universe we live in.
Around 1:26 A "philosopher of science" from "Messiah College" starts speaking.
Yes. I watched as far as Beer w Straw's man from Messiah College (which acc Wiki is a fundamentalist Protestant foundation).I only whizzed through a bit of it (I have zero patience with video at the best of times). It appears to be some sort of god-botherer's work about what a perfect universe we live in.
What I noted in the opening was actually NOT so much the "fine tuning" argument, but another one I've heard from Christian apologists (including our local Catholic parish priest) that I find equally baffling. This is that it is so remarkable that we inhabit a universe that we can understand. At one level this seems no more than a recognition of the success of Mankind's discipline for understanding the universe, which we call "natural science". Which is sort of fair enough, if a bit self-congratulatory. But they seem to want to infer this is somehow objective evidence of God.
What I suspect may be going on here is what I think was in the mind of our parish priest, namely a sense of awe at the intricate order of the universe (some of which we codify as "laws" or "principles", and so on), which subjectively to many people suggests a creator. This too I think is fair enough. Sometimes such thoughts even occur to me.
The problem I see is when people with this (understandable) subjective feeling try to elevate it to an objective , i.e potentially scientific, observation about the nature of the world. There is also a slippery slope here, in that attaching significance to Mankind being able to understand it can lead some people, sloppily, to conclude there is an implication that Mankind is somehow at the centre of creation, which I find statistically preposterous and dangerously arrogant.
In summary, I suspect this video* will be making the error that both Dawkins and creationists make, in seeing religion as attempting to provide an objective account of the physical world. Whereas, after over 50 years of trying to understand both science and Christianity, my view is that Christianity, and probably most religions, are guides for living your life and for dealing with the triumphs and disasters of human experience. They deal with subjective experience and belong with related humanities such as literature, art and music. Trying to get scientific pronouncements out of religion is a fool's errand. To risk an over-used term, it is a category error.
*like you perhaps, I absolutely refuse to watch extended videos on the say-so of a forum poster, unless accompanied by a compelling argument for why I should spend the time to do it.
Last edited by exchemist; July 3rd, 2014 at 12:10 PM. Reason: phrase added for clarification
I haven't watched the video. But either way, The Big Bang Theory doesn't actually explain the creation of the universe. It explains the state of the universe, though.Big Bang Theory.
Big Bang Theory - YouTube
----------------------------------------------------------------
At one level, it is extraordinary that a group of apes who evolved on a typical planet should be able to work out theories that appear to make sense of the universe at scales where intuition no longer applies. This is due to abilities like abstraction and mathematics - it isn't obvious that those are skills that have a survival value and would have evolved. But I assume, like language, they are partly a side effect of other more useful mental functions.
Also, it is entirely possible that we will reach the limit of what we are able to understand. Maybe a theory of quantum gravity is beyond any human ability, for example. If so, I'm not sure what happens to this argument: we can understand some of God's creation but not all of it?
Well put.In summary, I suspect this video* will be making the error that both Dawkins and creationists make, in seeing religion as attempting to provide an objective account of the physical world. Whereas, after over 50 years of trying to understand both science and Christianity, my view is that Christianity, and probably most religions, are guides for living your life and for dealing with the triumphs and disasters of human experience. They deal with subjective experience and belong with related humanities such as literature, art and music. Trying to get scientific pronouncements out of religion is a fool's errand. To risk an over-used term, it is a category error.
Nothing to add; just thought it was worth repeating.
This could not be the considered opinion of a scientist. This is utter rubbish.. Contrived by fools and promoted by idiots...Big Bang Theory.
Big Bang Theory - YouTube
----------------------------------------------------------------
~ and that ~
The Big Bang Theory doesn't actually explain the creation of the universe. It explains the state of the universe, though.
~ Just as it went... BANG.
I wanted some help with Big Bang.I read about it on the website How stuff works.I understood a little about it.This what I understood.Please correct me - The world started with a a single point of infinite density and volume.It was extremely hot.It had all the matter ,all the 4 forces without which world could not exist.Then it started to expand(the reason of expanding is not known) and cool down.The world after sometime cooled enough that nuclei began to form.After sometime electrons, protons etc began to form.
Questions-
1>How was the point like ?
2>What does infinite density and volume means?
3>What was outside of the point?
4>When it started to expand was it like large particles began to go away from each other?
5>Then what happened after those materials started moving away from each other?
Can you give me some links etc how did all planets, sun,moon formed.How did all the matters started revolving around sun in their own orbits?.
I got more hundreds of question but after sometime.Please Please help me out.Thanks a lot.
~ It is not possible in the time available to expand all of your knowledge here.. You can do it your self.
| « Vacuum Evaporation | what is a newton meter? » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
