For Christians - why is the Universe so big?

g day

I make a sharp distinction between the universe and the UNIVERSE.

Scientists refer to the Big Bang and the "coming into being" of the universe.

But we truly do not know if the universe is the UNIVERSE.

It is possible that the universe is all there is -- but it is also possible that there is a megaverse -- a UNIVERSE -- of which the universe is just a small part.

It is not idle conjecture to posit this possibility.

As I mentioned earlier, noted scientists (Stephen Hawkins among them) readily acknowledge that they do not know if the Big Bang (and the nothingness that could become something) was the BEGINNING. It is quite possible, they acknowledge, that the Big Bang is just the most recent expansion of...whatever...in a long series of Big Bangs that happen; have always happened; and continue to happen.

It is also possible, they acknowledge, that the Big Bang that accounts for what we term
"the universe" is but one in a series of concurrently occurring Big Bangs -- each of which may also be just the latest expansion in a long series of concurrently occurring Big Bangs.

WE DO NOT KNOW.

On a relative scale, we have only just begun our investigation -- and we are working with observations of "apparent" happening -- which, as early human scientists found out, can be very, very deceiving. (Early scientists SAW the sun and moon circling the Earth!!!!)

Religion gives us guesses about REALITY and EXISTENCE.

Science gives us guesses about REALITY and EXISTENCE.

Both should be treated with a healthy dose of salt.

Some of the conjecture you are bringing forth based on the science you know is unwarranted -- and differs from the "explanations" of REALITY put forth by theists only in minor ways.

No insults intended here -- just giving an observation.

You wanna play scientist -- do so. You wanna play theologian -- do so.

Me! I'm an agnostic. I have no problem acknowledging that I do not know -- and that the material available for me to make considered guesses is sparse and questionable.


I also have no problem encouraging scientists to continue their quest for the truth.

You missed my point, G__day, I was saying asking you to remove God from your equations is like asking you to remove gravity. In other words, absurd.

Frank, the points you bring up in your last post have already been discussed thoroughly. And G__day has admitted not KNOWING. That is evidenced in every use of the word "theory."

We don't content ourselves with assuming nothing can be proven and therefor it is useless to discuss it. And thank heaven we aren't alone, or mankind would would be stuck in quite a rut.

Frank,

I understand better where you are comming from now. So you see the Universe as I do, but your see the UNIVERSE as the multiverse - okay fine, I am on your page now.

One clarification of what you said from my readings of Hawkings and other theoretical physicists - Big Bangs I understand are defining events that create universes (what I call a membrane of existence or reality). You don't get two Big Bangs or any higher multiple occuring in one membrane.

So across endless membranes (what I call the multiverse and you call the UNIVERSE), membranes/membrane interactions (BIG BANGS) can happen (infrequently). Such an interaction of membranes create new, altered realities (membranes) with fundamentally new dimensions and or new values of physical constants depending on how their originating membranes combined.

We don't know if the set of all membranes in the multiverse is very large or infinite, we don't know which can combine and which can't, we don't know much about their possible dimensional characteristics (yet), we don't know what process starts and or guides their combining into new membranes.

This is all very complex and we are really only starting at the edges of M-Theory to study this and merge 5 possible theories (string, p-brane, superstrings and super gravity together). Alot of this study is going into dimensional topology rather than dimensional characteristics.

We can barely talk about other realities / membranes / universes - but I agree they would be initiated by a big bang which equates to a membrane / membrane interaction.

* * *

So of course our Universe may one day instanteously end if it is caught up in a membrane / membrane interaction to create a new Universe.

We disagree about the completeness of our scientific models. Yes they are experimental and theoretical, but I see them as evolving and not about to be trotally ditched - merely refined when superceded. I feel you see them as disposable tangents that may be wildily oscillating about the truth?

I am playing at nothing - I am learning, growing and questioning.

SCoates,

Yes I did miss that point. To re-state I see my equations are unchanged by a presence of God or the total absence of God, because in my view God utilises the rule of reality within his own reality meaning there aren't tell tale signs.

To find more "proof" of God you might have to be able to exist and search upon the multilpe membranes of all possible existences. Even then you may or may not find proof positive.

* * *

So what it all boils down to for me is: if there is a God - following a long term plan, was the entire Universe created just to fine tune the physical constants to a range that can support intelligent life (several big assumptions in that model), or is God gfting us with a new Garden of Eden to explore and tame - a whole Universe to explore.

If God doesn't exists mankind will still be poised with the question when do we "harvest" or colonise the rest of the galaxy and all of the galactic clusters if we wish and are able.

Finally will one day we be able to manipulate these things called membranes and each of us (maybe even individually) create whole new Universes to develop? Could we develop the science to stop a membrane / membrane interaction to prevent this reality slipping away before we are ready to move on to a new membrane of existence (without being crushed in the process of course)?

/end_spectulation

I'm sorry, I can't remember if you addressed this question, but you have a much greater understanding of physics than I do, and I was curious, does science support the ulimate end of a universe as utterly diffuse, or utterly dense, or is it yet inconclusive?

In is not conclusive, but utterly diffuse is gaining precedence (e.g. Hawkings).



The Inflation period expansion of space was hyper fast - 50,000 times faster then the speed of light - at the very start of creation (Inflation - for a fraction of a second), then it kept going near light speed for 14.8 billion years. Gravity at first slowed this expansion - now it appears the rate of expansion is actually increasing - possibly indicating the vacuum energy of quantum space is speeding up the dispersal of the Universe.

We don't know well enough yet to make final conclusions - not by a long shot. Hawkings does allow for a steady state equilibrium point to be reached if the Universal constants are just balanced just finely enough.


This of course precludes a membrane / membrane interaction toasting us instanteously at some random point in the future!

That sounds like a very difficult equilibrium to reach, but a lot of systems tend to balance themselves in some way.

Is the speed of light no longer held as an absolute constant?

I still haven't quite grasped the concept of membranes.

The are theroies that allow for apparent ways of breaking the speed of light.

1. Non Einstein physics - e.g. what happens within the confines of the event horizon of a black hole is not defined by our laws of relativity - quantum physics would take over.

2. Near super dense strings - think of a cosmic string as a black hole like a string rather than point source - near such a black hole C would appear to someone far away as 250 times faster due to the heavy curvature of spacetime.

3. At the start of Big Bangs - when Higgs Boson particle exist at ultra high energies before spacetime has fully come into existence and where quantum gravity may have great influence for the merest fraction of a scond - like 10 ^-34 of a second or less.

4. In any membrane outside of our own.

* * *

Membranes are viewed as a self contained Universes in their own right - with their own dimensions (say 10 or 11 dimensional - but maybe appearing 4 dimensions on our macro scale), with their own distinct physical constants C speed of light, h Planck's constant, h bar, Boltzman's constant, the mass of a proton and electron, the uncertainity principle, G the Gravitational constant etc.

Different membranes could be far apart (many time further away than the diameter of our universe or microscopic distance away - almost overlapping us - but if there dimensions are different from our own they may only weakly interact by say a very weak gravity leakage across membranes).

The set of all possible membranes is (size unknown) is called the Multiverse. Membranes can interact (in ways unknown - perhaps their 11 dimensional forms go into resonance with each other someway) to form new Universes.

That's the way I thought I understood the term membrane, but them, how could one destroy our universe as you stated above? Also, what is the difference between the term membrane, and universe?

A universe is a membrane, or exists within a membrane of existance - they are equivalent terms.

If membranes can interact they form new ones with new properties. Such an interaction would be a castrophic event, terminating the existence of the two membranes that spark the creation of the new membrane. The new membrane is not birthed peacefully - its starts with a Big Bang.

So assuming our Membrane is not 'Special' it could be merged randomly with another membrane forming a new membrane, with rather disasterous consequences for us!

Thanks for the elaboration.

g_day

Does your initial argument imply an "objective universe" with "us" as objective observers" ? The alternatve view (discussed heaily elsewhere) is that "reality" is in essence interaction between observer and observed. Concepts of "structure" "membrane" and "size" become (merely) semantic nodes in an interactive discourse which is itself a higher level "interactive mode". T

The latter implies a fundamental shift in epistemology from anthropocentrism (as argued by Capra in "Web of Life" 1996).

(Perhaps you could comment later as I am away for the weekend).

truth
God is Dead - Nietzsche
God's was never born - Polkinghorne

truth
Georgeob1, you challenged Frank to explain the origin of the universe and man's intelligence. Do you think that the invocation of "God" serves as such an explanation? I think it just begs the question.

fresco

I went wide eyed at your question, I am not a theologist or philisopher by trade so there are some big words there for me to digest! I had to use the dictionary!

From what I understand of your questions to be:

1. Do we and the Universe really, really independently absolutely exist - as could be confirmed by some 3rd party?

Yes - at least we believe we do and this is consistent within our reality. We have awareness - I think therefore I am, so within this state of awareness / reality / perception we exist. In another frame of reference - Outside of our Universe looking in - who can say what our meaning is.

2. I believe that reality is seperate from conciousness. Something can exist without something else ever being able to percieve it. We may not be able to comment deeply on its existence with high precision, but this does not change its reality in its frame of reference.

3. I believe in nature (as a mechanism) but I see we have a special, elevated importance in a few ways: We have intelligence, abstract thought, advanced reasoning, perception, detailed memory making us excellent catalysts and observers / influencers (over time) within our universe.

I don't hold that a membrane or Universe only exists because we can see it, but I do hold that us seeing it greatly elevates its meaning and give it a far increased purpose.

G-day-Weve dispensed with molecular biology in your attempt to make a compelling argument for a god created universe. Id like to extend the question(or at least get back to your original point), How does the string theory and cosmological constants have anything valuable to a search for a similar compelling argument.
Your original post was sort of stated
"I have an argument from a Christian point of view , about Creation' ..im dubious about your objectivity with a point made sort of in that fashion.
dont you agree? or am I missing something here.

Frank, dont be a total agnostic to everything. first, sciences are either theoretical or practical/applied. Theories, in the applied are usually facts , while in theoretical science, many 'theories" arent even well developed hypotheses (this is where M theory, or string theory , or whatever the latest name is, live) It is only when we can apply tests, evidence, and develop rational models, can we begin to understand 'How Everything works"
as it stands, N dimensional analyses is not profound, nor does it provide any calories for anything. Its only a way to extend mathematics to accomplish solutions of sets of equations that can only be described thus. What M theoy does, is try to connectt and join all the cosmic forces. for me, weve had, in practical sciences, ways to do just that for many years, the equations for fluid flow, gravity, magnetism, and elctrical fields, all derive from the same forms wherein only their major constants are different.. i can work with that in the field , and we can derive and apply field strengths with instruments which work. if there is a god, weve gotten damn close to understanding where he lives . so I hope your not too impressed with all this "cosmotheology' and more comfortable with magnetic or gravitational field strengths.
i too get awfully impatient when the above discussion has not gotten to any points. Im still hoping however, since I like these kinds of digressions wherein science is used as a tool to bolster an argument that has no "bolsterability"

farmerman

Correction - my original post stated I believe in God, but I think most Christians would shudder at my view of creation. I didn't espouse any form of a traditional Christian point of view! I said here is a Big problem for scientists - and here is a Big problem for Christians.

I want a neutral, level playing field. I don't want my faith or science to interact - even at the edges. Each must show it can stand on its own two feet.

To my mind that means Christians must relinquish several things in the bible as man's mistakes - there are at least 50 absurdities in it, e.g.:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/absurd.shtml

But equally scientists should admit that science neither proves or disproves an external (to this universe) God - it simply shows how creation began and what processes were used. It can rule in/out the likely/unlikely processes. It can't said that God did or didn't do it - it was definitely random chance - all it can say is we can't tell or its amazingly unlikely unless there are infinite realities.

Its like the old Month Python quip - "Sex is better than logic, but you can't prove it!" I want Science and Faith to go to their own corners!

I am trying to be objective - because I have nothing to gain if I bias an argument to get to the conclusion I am searching, the resultant conclusion is flawed if I jig it around.

So in my view, God simply selected two membranes that were ideal and made them interact in exactly the right way to cause our Big Bang. As Frank asked - could this have happened purely with random chance - answer no one knows enough about membranes to speak with authority so we can't rule it out.

Science does not prove nor dis-prove my view of God - but it does seriously challenge the Bible's Old Testament recordings of such events. I see more logic in science than the Old Testament.

I agree with the statements you directed toward Frank too by the way. I want strict neutrality. Frank can very validly say to me your God is an unnecessary added extra in the science you propose. From the Big Bang onwards I'd agree, before the Big Bang I'd say its down to anyones point of view at the moment. If there aren't infinite membranes to choose from Frank's argument falls away as totally unlikely - but then my creation process goes back to the drawing board too!

* * *

So "Why so many stars Christians" - I ponder maybe that many stars are required (i.e. number of stars = function (starting energy of Big Bang), maybe starting energy of the Big Bang (partially or totally) sets our Universal constants (h, c, G, K etc) to their precise values that can support life forms in some way that we haven't yet fathomed?

This is my theory - not one of any theoretical scientist that I know - I will post a few questions to folk and try and see if there is any correlation to starting energy of the Big Bang and our many Universal constants

http://newton.ex.ac.uk/research/semiconductors/theory/collabs/constants.html

I think this is a stretch - but it might point us in the right direction or else rule this out as simple noise and tell me to look elsewhere.

g-day. Oh my, please accept my sincere apology, you are quite correct. In my absence from this thread ive incorrectly accused you of statements made by others. Mea culpa.

Not to put too fine a point on this, G, but...

...science can't even do that.

At least, not to the degree your sentence supposes.

At best, scientists, working in a science still in its infancy, can make some guesses (hypotheses) about how existence began...

...and some guesses (hypotheses) about what processes it used.

(Your word "creation" is inappropriate, if for no other reason than that it gratuitously implies a "Creator")



With all the respect in the world, G, you are falling into the trap humans seemingly always fall into, namely that the "science" being conducted in their day and age not only represents the best ever available up to that point (and beneficiaries of what went before)...

...but that it (their day's science) REALLY HAS THE ANSWERS.

Modern science may be as far away from the truth about EXISTENCE and the UNIVERSE...

...and the processes involved in their being…

...as were the scientists working during the time of the Ptolemy Pharaohs of Egypt.

Just in a different direction.

It appears that is a difficult concept to acknowledge - but it simply is so. They MAY in fact be barking up a completely wrong tree.

We don't know.

They gotta keep working on the problem.

It is a very tough nut to crack.

Frank

True, but equally science may be absolutely on the correct approach, moving with speed. Until we get there we won't know.

Creation by my view (of science) doesn't necessarily imply a Creator - for I believe in quantum physics.

I could also say any view that all our models are hopeless speculative is just as dangerous and polarised a view saying we know everything perfectly.

At least scientific principles are built upon statistics, its not simple to fool an f test or p or chi sqaure test for too long. Scientific observations can lead to a uncertainity measure - for instant in my link to Universal constants - note we can calculate both the accuracy and precision of our measures.

I am not arguing our science is perfect - I clearly label it Theoretical Physics. But I do express that what can be measured and aligned to a scientific model can have both a measure of precision and accuracy.

A model of physics can replace another one - making it more accurate - like Einstein did to Newton. It doesn't mean Newton was simply wrong - it means our precision has greatly raised - especially for outliers on the distribution curve.

* * *

We can't observe the Big Bang - at most we can see back to 300,000 years after it to when we believe the Universe turned transparent. We can create models and test them. For instance quarks where generally disblieved by the Physics department (bar one proffessor) when I first went to Uni (over 20 years ago). Now we have hundreds of them catalogue and detected within high energy colliders.

High Energy colliders like CERN or Ferme might help us get closer and closer actual experiments verfiying big bang physics. Watch as we discover more about the Higgs Boson particle (and why it gives every other particle mass in a Higgs field). By current reports the data is 91% likely that the mass of the Higgs Boson is 115 gigaelectron volts (9% chance the signal is random noise):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3546973.stm



W and Z have been confirmed exactingly in experiments as CERN since 1983 - the data on Higgs only went into print yesterday!

* * *

One day we might be able to model branes and discover ways of interacting with them - this could lead to discoveries greater than any of the last 300 years.

* * *

Frank I guess technically I'd like more more precision in your assessments of what we do or don't know - rather than a blanket we don't know how much we do or don't know. I think in many (non-theroetical) areas of physics both the precision and accuracy of our models is exceedingly well know. I see refinements happening to general physics - not complete overhauls of general physics.

Theoretical Physics - that's up for grabs - the model, its experiments the accuracy and precision or readings! For instance a 1/2 page summary on the Higgs bosun and why it creates an effect we call mass when it moves through a Higgs field:

http://www.phy.uct.ac.za/courses/phy400w/particle/higgs1.htm

Or Brian Green saying rough predictions in String Theory should be able to be tested around 2007 - 2008 by the Large Hadron Collider

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/greene.html