If there was no Big Bang s the universe timeless?? Interesting reading

[keefe]

http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html

[brandx]

So they're gonna piss off the scientists and the christians at the same time

[keefe]

It is really quite metaphysical...the notion that the universe is timeless in both directions

[brandx]

It is really quite metaphysical...the notion that the universe is timeless in both directions

Definitely something that will be contemplated following a session with the bong.

[ChicosBailBonds]

http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html

Wait, why is anyone expoloring this notion....isn't the big bang theory another example of settled science?  

[mu03eng]

It is really quite metaphysical...the notion that the universe is timeless in both directions

It's very interesting, because even in the known universe we observe creative destruction that implies endless creation.

I do wonder how they would align this theory with the law of entropy....they would seem to be in conflict.

Lastly, quantum theories will change our understanding of the world.  I remember having my mind blown when as a kid someone explained to me that size matters in a quantum view.  If you were a spider gravity almost doesn't matter to you, because the other 3 fundamental forces have a greater impact on you.  In fact you were the size of an atom, you likely wouldn't have even discovered gravity yet because it's impact to your world is so irrelevant.  However for us gravity is the biggest thing we have to overcome.  Amazing stuff.

[GGGG]

How does this theory coincide with the idea that the universe is ever-expanding?

[Coleman]

Wait, why is anyone expoloring this notion....isn't the big bang theory another example of settled science?  

The Big Bang theory has never been settled with the type of certainty that other theories, such as global warming, has. It is in the realm of theoretical physics, which is different than science that focused on empirical data, which is the study of things happening before our very eyes, such as the warming of our planet.

Surely you can see the difference. Science is an umbrella term. There are different realms of scientific inquiry, some with greater certainty than others.

[mu03eng]

How does this theory coincide with the idea that the universe is ever-expanding?

If I understand it correctly, it dove tails nicely in with that theory and would actually explain some of the localized collapsing that goes on.  Since it also accounts for dark matter/energy it reinforces the generally held believe that dark matter is what drives universe expansion.

Lastly, the big bang, in most "conventional" theories calls for a collapse back to the singularity at some point in time.  This doesn't jive with observations that not only is the universe expanding, it is accelerating.  If it's accelerating, what could possibly slow it down to force a collapse?  This new theory does not require a collapse, therefore works with eternal expansion if so observed.

[WellsstreetWanderer]

Anybody catch this in the WSJ?






http://www.wsj.com/articles/eric-metaxas-science-increasingly-makes-the-case-for-god-1419544568?mod=trendin

[GGGG]

Anybody catch this in the WSJ?






http://www.wsj.com/articles/eric-metaxas-science-increasingly-makes-the-case-for-god-1419544568?mod=trendin

Yes.  Earth seems so unique that it MUST be intelligent design?

Give me a break.

[mu03eng]

Yes.  Earth seems so unique that it MUST be intelligent design?

Give me a break.

Agreed, it's crap.  Science and God can co-exist while neither proving or disproving each other.

It's all a statistical problem.....what are all the odds that the correct parameters come together to form an earth and then what are all the opportunities for such a thing to happen in the universe.  I would bet all of the money I ever earn in my existence that there is life in the universe that is not of this planet.  Hell, they've already proven microbes came to earth from Mars.

[GooooMarquette]

Lastly, the big bang, in most "conventional" theories calls for a collapse back to the singularity at some point in time.  This doesn't jive with observations that not only is the universe expanding, it is accelerating.  If it's accelerating, what could possibly slow it down to force a collapse?  This new theory does not require a collapse, therefore works with eternal expansion if so observed.

Unless the big bang is generally true, but someone figures out an "except" to show why it will collapse at some point.  It would probably take some brilliant vision even to get someone on the right path, kind of like Einstein came up with a pretty mind-blowing twist on the theories of conservation of mass and energy with a simple equation.

[keefe]

Unless the big bang is generally true, but someone figures out an "except" to show why it will collapse at some point.  It would probably take some brilliant vision even to get someone on the right path, kind of like Einstein came up with a pretty mind-blowing twist on the theories of conservation of mass and energy with a simple equation.

I find such discussions fascinating for contained therein are many truths about life, existence, and God. I will readily admit that theoretical physics is a very deep pool for a simple fighter pilot but the subject is compelling nonetheless.

[GooooMarquette]

I find such discussions fascinating for contained therein are many truths about life, existence, and God. I will readily admit that theoretical physics is a very deep pool for a simple fighter pilot but the subject is compelling nonetheless.

Agreed.  I love reading this stuff, usually understand only a small part of what I've read, but always find myself in awe of the implications.

I once got too ambitious and tried to read some of Einstein's original works on special relativity, but really struggled to understand.  Then I picked up a great (and very readable) book: E = mc² by David Bodanis.  I still don't totally get it, but have a much better sense of what the equation really means.

[WellsstreetWanderer]

Yes.  Earth seems so unique that it MUST be intelligent design?

Give me a break.

   So far Earth is unique and the article spells out the statistical improbability of life as it exists on earth evolving  here or elsewhere. We all know the infinitesimal numbers of planets and stars that exist and no one is denying that life,in some from, could exist. The skeptical EXPERTS quoted here are open to the idea of intelligent design.

[GGGG]

Unless the big bang is generally true, but someone figures out an "except" to show why it will collapse at some point.  It would probably take some brilliant vision even to get someone on the right path, kind of like Einstein came up with a pretty mind-blowing twist on the theories of conservation of mass and energy with a simple equation.

Or it might just be beyond the capabilities of the human mind to figure out.

[GooooMarquette]

Or it might just be beyond the capabilities of the human mind to figure out.

Very plausible.

[GGGG]

  So far Earth is unique and the article spells out the statistical improbability of life as it exists on earth evolving  here or elsewhere. We all know the infinitesimal numbers of planets and stars that exist and no one is denying that life,in some from, could exist. The skeptical EXPERTS quoted here are open to the idea of intelligent design.

Except the author's understanding of probability is lacking.  This article spells it out pretty thoroughly.

http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/astrobiology-made-case-god

The whole "_____ is SO complex or SO unique that it must be designed by God" hypothesis has been used by many generations to describe many things.  But science often discovers a rational explanation for these things.  IMO science will do the same with this as well.  Just because we (as a human race) lack understanding of something, that doesn't mean God exists.  It just means there isn't a rational and scientific explanation.

God is a matter of faith.  Not scientific proof.

[Coleman]

Except the author's understanding of probability is lacking.  This article spells it out pretty thoroughly.

http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/astrobiology-made-case-god

The whole "_____ is SO complex or SO unique that it must be designed by God" hypothesis has been used by many generations to describe many things.  But science often discovers a rational explanation for these things.  IMO science will do the same with this as well.  Just because we (as a human race) lack understanding of something, that doesn't mean God exists.  It just means there isn't a rational and scientific explanation.

God is a matter of faith.  Not scientific proof.

+1

I am a believer and pseudoscience like intelligent design cheapen not only science, but faith as well.

[GGGG]

+1

I am a believer and pseudoscience like intelligent design cheapen not only science, but faith as well.

Exactly.  The idea that an omnipotent and omnipresent God can be "captured" by the human mind and scientific theory is born of the same hubris that landed Galileo in house arrest.

[ChicosBailBonds]

The Big Bang theory has never been settled with the type of certainty that other theories, such as global warming, has. It is in the realm of theoretical physics, which is different than science that focused on empirical data, which is the study of things happening before our very eyes, such as the warming of our planet.

Surely you can see the difference. Science is an umbrella term. There are different realms of scientific inquiry, some with greater certainty than others.

My dad was a scientist...I get it just fine.  As he would say, most of science isn't "settled", but that doesn't change people from saying it is for many reasons....economic, political, ideological, etc

[ChicosBailBonds]

Agreed, it's crap.  Science and God can co-exist while neither proving or disproving each other.

It's all a statistical problem.....what are all the odds that the correct parameters come together to form an earth and then what are all the opportunities for such a thing to happen in the universe.  I would bet all of the money I ever earn in my existence that there is life in the universe that is not of this planet.  Hell, they've already proven microbes came to earth from Mars.

I have no doubt life exists elsewhere, to what level is another story.  By the way, I believe the microbes to Mars is a theory....not "settled science" or "proven".

[ChicosBailBonds]

Exactly.  The idea that an omnipotent and omnipresent God can be "captured" by the human mind and scientific theory is born of the same hubris that landed Galileo in house arrest.

I guess we have a different definition of intelligent design than the one you and Bleuteaux are describing.

[Coleman]

My dad was a scientist...I get it just fine.  As he would say, most of science isn't "settled", but that doesn't change people from saying it is for many reasons....economic, political, ideological, etc

I suppose settled isn't the right world. Overwhelming consensus probably is better. The Big Bang, and theoretical physics in general, have never enjoyed the same measure of overwhelming consensus among scientists that climate change currently has.

[GGGG]

I guess we have a different definition of intelligent design than the one you and Bleuteaux are describing.

"Intelligent design," as the phrase is used, means that God (or whomever is the Creator) is responsible for aspects of the universe, such as evolution, versus sound scientific theory, such as natural selection.

Now if you want to say that God created the universe and physical laws and set it all in motion, that's a matter of faith...not science.  It is impossible to prove.

[ChicosBailBonds]

"Intelligent design," as the phrase is used, means that God (or whomever is the Creator) is responsible for aspects of the universe, such as evolution, versus sound scientific theory, such as natural selection.

Now if you want to say that God created the universe and physical laws and set it all in motion, that's a matter of faith...not science.  It is impossible to prove.

I supposed that is a legitimate definition.  Not one that I ascribe to.  I believe in free will.  I don't believe God sits there and makes things happen and is an architect, waving a magic wand.  Or wanted "us to win", etc, etc. 

It is hard for me to even define what God is, but I believe in an almighty being that goes beyond anything the human mind can process or comprehend.  An entity that sets things in motion, is a source for good, but allows it's creation to go untethered or hindered.  That is unless there is a need to jolt things up.   I actually believe in the power of prayer, even if it is a placebo effect or just random occurrences.  No idea.  Impossible to prove, but I do believe in an intelligent "being" that surpasses anything we can comprehend.  For me, that is the "intelligent design" aspect.

I've always said when I die it's either going to be all black and that's the end....what a disappointment but how will I know?  Or, something exists and the next round is even more interesting.  I'm hoping for the latter and will hang on to that notion.

[forgetful]

Agreed.  I love reading this stuff, usually understand only a small part of what I've read, but always find myself in awe of the implications.

I once got too ambitious and tried to read some of Einstein's original works on special relativity, but really struggled to understand.  Then I picked up a great (and very readable) book: E = mc² by David Bodanis.  I still don't totally get it, but have a much better sense of what the equation really means.

If you are interested in another very approachable inroads to theoretical physics I recommend reading Brian Greene's work, like the Elegant Universe.

[MUsoxfan]

I supposed that is a legitimate definition.  Not one that I ascribe to.  I believe in free will.  I don't believe God sits there and makes things happen and is an architect, waving a magic wand.  Or wanted "us to win", etc, etc. 

It is hard for me to even define what God is, but I believe in an almighty being that goes beyond anything the human mind can process or comprehend.  An entity that sets things in motion, is a source for good, but allows it's creation to go untethered or hindered.  That is unless there is a need to jolt things up.   I actually believe in the power of prayer, even if it is a placebo effect or just random occurrences.  No idea.  Impossible to prove, but I do believe in an intelligent "being" that surpasses anything we can comprehend.  For me, that is the "intelligent design" aspect.

I've always said when I die it's either going to be all black and that's the end....what a disappointment but how will I know?  Or, something exists and the next round is even more interesting.  I'm hoping for the latter and will hang on to that notion.

Very well said

[forgetful]

I supposed that is a legitimate definition.  Not one that I ascribe to.  I believe in free will.  I don't believe God sits there and makes things happen and is an architect, waving a magic wand.  Or wanted "us to win", etc, etc. 

It is hard for me to even define what God is, but I believe in an almighty being that goes beyond anything the human mind can process or comprehend.  An entity that sets things in motion, is a source for good, but allows it's creation to go untethered or hindered.  That is unless there is a need to jolt things up.   I actually believe in the power of prayer, even if it is a placebo effect or just random occurrences.  No idea.  Impossible to prove, but I do believe in an intelligent "being" that surpasses anything we can comprehend.  For me, that is the "intelligent design" aspect.

I've always said when I die it's either going to be all black and that's the end....what a disappointment but how will I know?  Or, something exists and the next round is even more interesting.  I'm hoping for the latter and will hang on to that notion.

I agree, very well said.  The latter statement is a lot like Pascal's wager.