Discussion in 'Religion and Ethics' started by Taz, Jun 28, 2018.
So they haven’t proven anything yet?
A vacuum is nothing, Taz. No space, no time, no energy, no matter. Just the laws of nature (i.e. potential)
Why is that so hard for you to grasp?
Sure they have. If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning. The problem with a cyclical universe is with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. If it is a periodic universe then the entropy will increase with each cycle. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a fundamental law of nature which tells us that entropy can only increase or stay the same. Entropy can never decrease. Which means that in a finite amount of time, a finite system will reach a maximum state of disorder which is called thermal equilibrium and then it will stay in that state. A cyclical universe cannot avoid this problem. The model by Steinhardt and Turok does not have this problem. They have cycles but the size of the cycle increases with time. So the next cycle is bigger than the first. So in this sense the total entropy of the universe still increases but the entropy you see in your limited region may not grow. This model does no contradict the inflation model because since each cycle is bigger than the previous cycle you still have expansion. And since you still have expansion, it still has to have a beginning because if you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. The best explanation for how the universe began is the inflation model. It is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.
Nice theory, maybe one day will figure it out.
Doesn’t prove what was before. Yawn.
Sure it does. Nothing existed before it. You really are having a hard time accepting that space and time had a beginning, aren't you?
Why do you hate science so much?
Then you've been believing in evolution so long that your brain has turned to mush. Holy guacamole! Google mid-Atlantic ridge and see how far it goes. It also cuts through land. It's not the only seafloor mountain range. Moreover, you cannot explain how the earth is covered by water. We know from creation science that we should look for planets that have water below their surface, such as Titan or Europa moons (one also wants plate tectonics), in order to colonize in case something catastrophic happens to our planet. No, not global warming ha ha.
I already stated that raining for 40 days and 40 nights won't do it. It was extra water that came from the heavens. Thus, the earth was hit from water below and water above. A flood causes the most deaths in terms of catastrophes.
You live in a dreamworld.
I guess I'm having a problem comprehending "nothing". Nothingness almost seems to be an impossibility. In my head, when I try to imagine nothing, my mind thinks of blackness, like the blackness of space, but that cant be it, because space cant exist in nothingness...nothing can.
You see, in my mind, if you follow the theory of evolution, then the big bang was the beginning of everything, the universe, space, matter, atoms, everything. The only thing I think couldn't have been created by the big bang is time...because time, even in nothingness, still ticks, at least that's how my mind thinks of it.
Now, you say there was energy and that energy is what caused the universe to appear, to me, that doesnt make sense, because in nothingness, energy cant exist, nothing can exist in nothingness. So, I go back to, where did that energy come from?
Big bang theorists say that the universe is expanding continually. For that to happen, that would mean it has to be expanding into nothingness. Also, for a universe to expand continually, that would have to mean that new matter is having to be created continually. Does this mean that, at the furthest reaches of the universe, that the big bang is happening continuously?
Wow, it's just boggling to think about all of this.
awesome thought. I don't think its the big bang happening continuously it would have to be the aftermath of big bang, nothing becoming something, that is still happening or else there would be no continuing expansion.
Separate names with a comma.