A universe without God.

Iacchus said:
So where will it ever end, except by establishing a primal-cause?
How do you establish a primal cause?
You can't just point to something, and say "That's our primal cause". You can't just have a "primal cause" where it ends because it would allow you to sleep peacefully.

Like Zero says, why can't it go on to infinity? I mean, you can contemplate God always existing. Why can't you apply that to the universe?
 
Iacchus said:
And why is it that you insist on speaking about that which "you" know nothing about? ... i.e., the purpose behind religion.
Due to your knowledge of the Big Bang, I believe this is fitting.
 
Zero said:
Maybe it doesn't end at all? That's an option that some people, for all their calls for open-mindedness, never seem willing to contemplate.
But then it's okay to suggest everything began with the Big Bang, right? ... which in effect says everything stems from nothing. Sorry, but I really do have a hard time with this.
 
Iacchus said:
So would you say that Planck's length is ever-stretching then?
I dont understand where this is going, but the answer is "no".

Wait a second! How can you get from Stephen Hawking says so, to it happens gazillion times a second? How can you be so sure?
The information is predicted by Quantum Mechanics, and verified at CERN and other such research facilities.

Do you still have any objections?


But what I want to know is "who" printed the money?
You are begging the question.

The particles which come about arise spontaneously, there was no "who" that printed the "money". This is known, this is a fact, the information is very well documented and observed.

Okay, why is it so important then for us (man) to see beyond our "physical senses?"
We desire knowledge.

For according to Planck's length, it isn't a requirement in order for us to exist or, be fully functional.
I dont understand what you are saying.


All based upon the assumption that something comes from nothing of course.
Its not an assumption.

So what I want to know is, "who" laid the cosmic egg?
No one.
 
Hilarious pictures, Dark Magician :p

(I see you are fan of WinAce's homepage :D )
 
Yahweh said:
Hilarious pictures, Dark Magician :p

(I see you are fan of WinAce's homepage :D )
Yeah, I'm thinking of linking to the webpage in my sig.

Edit: Just did.
 
Iacchus said:
But then it's okay to suggest everything began with the Big Bang, right? ... which in effect says everything stems from nothing. Sorry, but I really do have a hard time with this.
No, there is nothing wrong with positing the Big Bang, because if you knew anything about it, you would know that scientists aslo claim ignorance about any time before the Big Bang.
 
Iacchus said:
It was just a rhetorical statement by the way.
Well, it certainly wasn't worded as one. It sounded as if you were insisting there must be a "who". I apologize if I have tried to respond seriously to a question you did not pose seriously.

Iacchus said:
And why is it that you insist on speaking about that which "you" know nothing about? ... i.e., the purpose behind religion.
I said I know nothing (or at least very little) about the origin of the universe. I did not say I knew nothing of religion. From my experience with religion, its primary function is to give life meaning (a position that Lifegazer has asserted numerous times). What would you say is its primary function?

Iacchus said:
Except that it won't touch "the cause," of all the effects.
Or maybe you just give up too easily?:p No, science probably never will find the cause of everything, especially if there is no "cause". But it will find many truly fascinating things while looking. It will never stop and say, "because that's how God made it." That is the reason I find science more wonderful than religion. The joy is in the journey, not the destination.
 
Tricky said:

There's a funny phrase that I learned on these boards that describes this line of reasoning. It's called, "Turtles all the way up and turtles all the way down." What it refers to is one of the ancient beliefs that the world rested on the back of a giant turtle. When it became obvious that the giant turtle must itself rest on something, then it was hypothesized that the turtle stood on the back of an even greater turtle. And that one on another, ad infinitum. At some point you must decide that there is a turtle that need not stand on anything (the "primal turtle", if you will) but the point at which you choose to do this is absolutely arbitrary.
Not unless the primal-cause was the beginning -- "and the ending" -- of everything.

"I am alpha and omega, the first and the last."
 
Zero said:
No, there is nothing wrong with positing the Big Bang, because if you knew anything about it, you would know that scientists aslo claim ignorance about any time before the Big Bang.
I dont think its ignorance when you dont know the nature of something which cannot logically exist...
 
Yahweh said:

I dont think its ignorance when you dont know the nature of something which cannot logically exist...
Right...a semantic argument, I guess. There are certain things that we most likely CANNOT know, no matter what. Anything before the Big Bang would fall into that category.
 
Iacchus said:
Okay, But what caused the Big Bang!

Are you saying there was "nothing" before this, not even time?

Just specifically on the topic of time, the famous saying by physicists is that the universe was not created in time, but with it. Time and space are interlinked, and are concepts that make up the characteristics of the natural universe. The real question is, what can exist apart from the universe.
 
Iacchus said:
Tricky:
Quantum fluctuations seem to indicate that something does come from nothing. All the time. Although this does not reveal the mechanism of the Big Bang, it does at least remove the false premise of primal cause.


Iaachus:
Your argument seems to be rather circular here.
What makes you say that?

The argument is not circular at all.
 
The problem I see with theistic arguments is that they necessarily have to start with the position that there is "God", and then from this tries to come up with arguments to justify (rationalize?) this position.
This "first cause" argument is a prime example. It argues that there must be an "uncaused cause" because they already are biased with the position that God exists.
 
Tricky said:

This link might help

You'd have to get Upchurch to give you a better explanation, but my simple understanding is that the "fluctuations" are random perturbations of the geometry of the universe, so you could possibly say that they fluctuate from being predictable to unpredictable. Their randomness indicates that there is no primal cause for them. That is why I say if you can actually determine a cause, then you are in line for the Nobel Prize. (But they probably won't accept "God's Plan" as the cause.)
Thanks, Tricky. Saved me the trouble.
 
Iacchus said:
Not unless the primal-cause was the beginning -- "and the ending" -- of everything.

"I am alpha and omega, the first and the last."
Nope. Not even then. This is a nice poetic phrase, but is nothing more than empty words. The beginning is the ending? Talk about your circular arguments. :rolleyes:
 
Upchurch said:
Thanks, Tricky. Saved me the trouble.
You're welcome, but I'd still like to hear your take on this. I admit that I am a duffer at quantum theory. When you start doing math, my eyes glaze over.

It is said, though, that if you can't explain something to a child, then you don't really understand it. Personally, I'd love to have a short course in Quantum Mechanics for Dummies.

I thought Yawah's brief explanation was very good, but not in enough depth. Perhaps I'll go to the science forum to start a new thread.
 
EternalUniverse said:
The problem I see with theistic arguments is that they necessarily have to start with the position that there is "God", and then from this tries to come up with arguments to justify (rationalize?) this position.
This "first cause" argument is a prime example. It argues that there must be an "uncaused cause" because they already are biased with the position that God exists.
Yes, and when we start saying, "Well, you'll just have to take our word for it that God exists," then who starts crying foul? Hmm ... Now why does this sound all too familiar to your references to the Big Bang theory, which in effect says everything stems from nothing?

Don't you think it would be fair to ask you to provide the same sort of evidence -- which, so far you haven't -- to back up your claims?
 
Iacchus said:
Yes, and when we start saying, "Well, you'll just have to take our word for it that God exists," then who starts crying foul? Hmm ... Now why does this sound all too familiar to your references to the Big Bang theory, which in effect says everything stems from nothing?
Does anybody hear an echo?
 
Iacchus said:
Yes, and when we start saying, "Well, you'll just have to take our word for it that God exists," then who starts crying foul? Hmm ... Now why does this sound all too familiar to your references to the Big Bang theory, which in effect says everything stems from nothing?

Don't you think it would be fair to ask you to provide the same sort of evidence -- which, so far you haven't -- to back up your claims?
Well, I ask that you do the same: Please back up your claims.


And now, here is some helpful information on Virtual Particles from Particles, Special Relativity and Quantum Mechanics:

Do they go faster than light? Do virtual particles contradict relativity or causality?

In section 2, the virtual photon's plane wave is seemingly created everywhere in space at once, and destroyed all at once. Therefore, the interaction can happen no matter how far the interacting particles are from each other. Quantum field theory is supposed to properly apply special relativity to quantum mechanics. Yet here we have something that, at least at first glance, isn't supposed to be possible in special relativity: the virtual photon can go from one interacting particle to the other faster than light! It turns out, if we sum up all possible momenta, that the amplitude for transmission drops as the virtual particle's final position gets further and further outside the light cone, but that's small consolation. This "superluminal" propagation had better not transmit any information if we are to retain the principle of causality.

I'll give a plausibility argument that it doesn't in the context of a thought experiment. Let's try to send information faster than light with a virtual particle.

Suppose that you and I make repeated measurements of a quantum field at distant locations. The electromagnetic field is sort of a complicated thing, so I'll use the example of a field with just one component, and call it F. To make things even simpler, we'll assume that there are no "charged" sources of the F field or real F particles initially. This means that our F measurements should fluctuate quantum- mechanically around an average value of zero. You measure F (really, an average value of F over some small region) at one place, and I measure it a little while later at a place far away. We do this over and over, and wait a long time between the repetitions, just to be safe.
Code:
                                .
                                .
                                .
                                   ------X
                             ------
                      X------



                                                     ^ time
                                   ------X me        |
                             ------                  |
                  you X------                         ---> space

After a large number of repeated field measurements we compare notes. We discover that our results are not independent; the F values are correlated with each other-- even though each individual set of measurements just fluctuates around zero, the fluctuations are not completely independent. This is because of the propagation of virtual quanta of the F field, represented by the diagonal lines. It happens even if the virtual particle has to go faster than light.

However, this correlation transmits no information. Neither of us has any control over the results we get, and each set of results looks completely random until we compare notes (this is just like the resolution of the famous EPR "paradox").

You can do things to fields other than measure them. Might you still be able to send a signal? Suppose that you attempt, by some series of actions, to send information to me by means of the virtual particle. If we look at this from the perspective of someone moving to the right at a high enough speed, special relativity says that in that reference frame, the effect is going the other way:
Code:
           .
            .
             .

          X------
                 ------
                       ------X



            you X------                        ^ time
                       ------                  |
                             ------X me        |
                                                ---> space

Now it seems as if I'm affecting what happens to you rather than the other way around. (If the quanta of the F field are not the same as their antiparticles, then the transmission of a virtual F particle >from you to me now looks like the transmission of its antiparticle >from me to you.) If all this is to fit properly into special relativity, then it shouldn't matter which of these processes "really" happened; the two descriptions should be equally valid.

We know that all of this was derived from quantum mechanics, using perturbation theory. In quantum mechanics, the future quantum state of a system can be derived by applying the rules for time evolution to its present quantum state. No measurement I make when I "receive" the particle can tell me whether you've "sent" it or not, because in one frame that hasn't happened yet! Since my present state must be derivable from past events, if I have your message, I must have gotten it by other means. The virtual particle didn't "transmit" any information that I didn't have already; it is useless as a means of faster-than-light communication.

The order of events does *not* vary in different frames if the transmission is at the speed of light or slower. Then, the use of virtual particles as a communication channel is completely consistent with quantum mechanics and relativity. That's fortunate: since all particle interactions occur over a finite time interval, in a sense *all* particles are virtual to some extent.

And more information from Virtual Particle Contents:
Do they violate energy conservation?

We are really using the quantum-mechanical approximation method known as perturbation theory. In perturbation theory, systems can go through intermediate "virtual states" that normally have energies different >from that of the initial and final states. This is because of another uncertainty principle, which relates time and energy.

In the pictured example, we consider an intermediate state with a virtual photon in it. It isn't classically possible for a charged particle to just emit a photon and remain unchanged (except for recoil) itself. The state with the photon in it has too much energy, assuming conservation of momentum. However, since the intermediate state lasts only a short time, the state's energy becomes uncertain, and it can actually have the same energy as the initial and final states. This allows the system to pass through this state with some probability without violating energy conservation.

Some descriptions of this phenomenon instead say that the energy of the *system* becomes uncertain for a short period of time, that energy is somehow "borrowed" for a brief interval. This is just another way of talking about the same mathematics. However, it obscures the fact that all this talk of virtual states is just an approximation to quantum mechanics, in which energy is conserved at all times. The way I've described it also corresponds to the usual way of talking about Feynman diagrams, in which energy is conserved, but virtual particles can carry amounts of energy not normally allowed by the laws of motion.

(General relativity creates a different set of problems for energy conservation; that's described elsewhere in the sci.physics FAQ.)

There is lots more helpful information on that page, I suggest giving it a good read.
 

Back
Top Bottom