Stephens Hawking's - 'Did God Create The Universe?'

who_ru

hi.

i had a quick look at this on Discovery HD last night, and while i found a lot of what he said compelling i just find it impossible to get my head round his final analysis - that a creator didn't have anything to do with the beginning of the universe, since as he says, time doesn't exist in a black hole, which is where the whole shebang (universe) originated from. The universe, according to hawkings, simply popped into existance.

a black hole is created by a giant start collapsing in on itself, it's gravitational force is so great not only does it absorb light, yes not even light can escape it's gravitational pull, but also time cannot exist in a black hole. but the star that was there before the black hole would have have to existed?

so, he argues, a creator could not have created the universe since there was no time in which to create anything. apologies for my basic grasp on all this, but are we to believe that everything just 'popped' into existence.

and if one universe popped into existence, could there literally be 1000's of universes popping into existence?

also since the universe did 'begin' won't it also have to end? all energy will eventually diminish to nil, just like the sun will eventually run out of hydrogen to convert into helium.

i know i'm rambling here - but all of us and everything, matter, energy, space - just happened!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:eek:

Kidchameleon

Steve is a legend!

But I don't get his argument that if there was no time then there is no creator. Would a "thing" with such powers of being able to create the universe be bound by the constraints of time? I would think not.

Eathrin

What seems more likely? A creator or coincidence and billions of years of expansion?

mr lee

i dont think no matter how much we learn about the universe we'll never have a definite answer about a creator that everyone will accept,its down to the individual to make up their own mind about what to believe,as judge judy would say if it doesnt make sense then it probably isnt true,to me god just doesnt make sense.

Scrappychimow

who_ru wrote: »

hi.


also since the universe did 'begin' won't it also have to end? all energy will eventually diminish to nil, just like the sun will eventually run out of hydrogen to convert into helium.

i know i'm rambling here

Energy cannot be created or DESTROYED! As Newton stated.

mr lee

Scrappychimow wrote: »

Energy cannot be created or DESTROYED! As Newton stated.

would it not have been created at the moment of the big bang.

Eathrin

Scrappychimow wrote: »

Energy cannot be created or DESTROYED! As Newton stated.

I'll be honest, I know very little about the universe and am not knowledgeable about it either.

I do know that black holes are nasty things nobody knows much about and tend to be explained through the breaking of the laws of physics.

mr lee

Cian A wrote: »

I'll be honest, I know very little about the universe and am not knowledgeable about it either.

I do know that black holes are nasty things nobody knows much about and tend to be explained through the breaking of the laws of physics.

as far as i know everything in the universe operates within the laws of physics.

endacl

who_ru wrote: »

hi.

i had a quick look at this on Discovery HD last night, and while i found a lot of what he said compelling i just find it impossible to get my head round his final analysis - that a creator didn't have anything to do with the beginning of the universe, since as he says, time doesn't exist in a black hole, which is where the whole shebang (universe) originated from. The universe, according to hawkings, simply popped into existance.

a black hole is created by a giant start collapsing in on itself, it's gravitational force is so great not only does it absorb light, yes not even light can escape it's gravitational pull, but also time cannot exist in a black hole. but the star that was there before the black hole would have have to existed?

so, he argues, a creator could not have created the universe since there was no time in which to create anything. apologies for my basic grasp on all this, but are we to believe that everything just 'popped' into existence.

and if one universe popped into existence, could there literally be 1000's of universes popping into existence?

also since the universe did 'begin' won't it also have to end? all energy will eventually diminish to nil, just like the sun will eventually run out of hydrogen to convert into helium.

i know i'm rambling here - but all of us and everything, matter, energy, space - just happened!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:eek:

Nicely put...;)

Eathrin

Just reading over a couple of posts and there's a lot of contradictions.

Everything in the universe operates within the laws of physics, yet time does not exist in a black hole?

Energy cannot be created or destroyed yet the universe was created or "popped" into existence?

Could the notion that space and the universe has always existed in some shape of energy not be considered, that it is everything that does and has ever constituted being? The universe has eternally existed?

mr lee

Cian A wrote: »

Just reading over a couple of posts and there's a lot of contradictions.

Everything in the universe operates within the laws of physics, yet time does not exist in a black hole?

Energy cannot be created or destroyed yet the universe was created or "popped" into existence?

Could the notion that space and the universe has always existed in some shape of energy not be considered, that it is everything that does and has ever constituted being? The universe has eternally existed?

im no expert or scientist so i wont pretend to be but,i would imagine the reason time doesnt exist within a black hole is because of the effects of huge gravitational forces which are acting within the laws of physics,before the big bang there was nothing not even empty space,the universe expanded from a minute singularity,which did just seem to pop into existence,the universe is not eternal,everything that has a beginning has an end,nothing is forever.

Captain Chaos

mr lee wrote: »

as far as i know everything in the universe operates within the laws of physics.

Everything that we know of operates in the laws of physics that we also know of.

To explain some of the things we don't understand yet we are going to need new laws and change old ones if they prove not to hold up at extreme conditions. Dark energy/matter and the inner workings of black holes being examples.

Tea_Bag

Physical laws are independent of time. it doesn't care which direction (forward or backwards in time) you travel. An easy way to explain this is using a simple maths equation with time in it. lets say, calculating distance traveled due to velocity and time.

a formula like S = ut + 1/2at^2 where u is the initial velocity, t is time, a is acceleration and S is distance.

you can easily let t = 0 and you'll note S = 0. so if no time passes its obvious that no distance is undergone. t can just as easily be a negative number, and subbing it in gives a negative S. this simply means that the distance traveled is in the opposite direction its acceleration. sounds odd, but its theoretically possible.

The problem is Entropy. entropy essentially says that time is linear and everything tends to chaos, eventually. you can see it everyday in things like erosion. things breaking down over time. an old house collapsing. have you ever seen a house build itself from dust?! of course not, that's ridiculous. the big question in physics is why. we don't yet fully understand Entropy.

the universe is tending to chaos though. galaxies are "moving apart"* at incredible speeds, such that one day we won't even see the light from other galaxies anymore. everything in the universe will eventually expire, into a dark cold vast emptyness. what happens next is argued over quite a bit. will force that's causing the universe to expand stop, allowing gravity to take over and collapse everything into a singularity again? who knows. we'll be long gone by then.

*not entirely true. the space between the galaxies is expanding.

while I won't argue for a Creator, I will say that the bibles version of how the universe was created is complete bollox. how he spent 6 days designing our little part of the solar system and 1 day throwing a "few" little stars up in the heavens is laughable. the big bang is a fact. it happened. we can actually see the explosion still happening. we can see the radiation on our TVs. we've just witnessed a star being created. the youngest known star in the universe.

what came "before" (no time existed. space and time are much the same thing) the big bang I cannot say, or ever hope to understand. but I do love physics and am fascinated with it. Im sorry for writing my thoughts out here, I thought itwas relevent.

I've an exam in the morning so I must say good night boards.

Eathrin

A lot of you clearly actually know what you are talking about, I...don't.

But instead of thinking of the big bang as the beginning, why not think of it as another stage in the cycle? Like all of the energy contained in the universe once belonged to an astronomically sized star that imploded, the big bang, possibly at some stage in the future the universe will once again retract slowly towards a gigantic black hole which absorbs all of the energy again and disperses it once again in some way.

I'm just rambling but I'm a thinker;)

namloc1980

Cian A wrote: »

A lot of you clearly actually know what you are talking about, I...don't.

But instead of thinking of the big bang as the beginning, why not think of it as another stage in the cycle? Like all of the energy contained in the universe once belonged to an astronomically sized star that imploded, the big bang, possibly at some stage in the future the universe will once again retract slowly towards a gigantic black hole which absorbs all of the energy again and disperses it once again in some way.

I'm just rambling but I'm a thinker;)

There are theories that the universe we live in today, and the big bang, originated from the collapse of a previous universe.

Cú Giobach

who_ru wrote: »

i know i'm rambling here - but all of us and everything, matter, energy, space - just happened!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:eek:

Since we don't really know how the Universe came into existence you can't say "it just popped into being or just happened". Everything in the universe from tulips to galaxy clusters came into being through a sequence of events, why should universes themselves be any different?
Someone looking at the universe and stating "it couldn't have just appeared, therefore a god must have created it" is no different to someone 10,000 years ago looking at a tree and thinking "wow! that couldn't have just sprouted from the ground by itself, therefore a god must have created it".

who_ru

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Since we don't really know how the Universe came into existence you can't say "it just popped into being or just happened".

if we don't really know then i would have thought that we could actually say that. proving it is a different matter of course, and isn't that the rub, neither science or religion can say exactly how it happened, although scientists like Hawkings et al are slightly more convincing than religion.

in the documentary Hawkings said that he went to a conference on astrology in the vatican in the 80's, during which the then Pope John Paul II said that it was okay to study the workings of the universe but not it's origins, since that was God's work.

so as you say we don't really know how it came into existance and perhaps we never will, but saying you can't say it popped into existance, which is Hawkings argument since, as he states, at a sub atomic particle level protons can and do appear out of nothing, then all bets are off as to how it came into being, every explaination is as valid as the other if we cannot know how it happened.

Gurgle

who_ru wrote: »

since as he says, time doesn't exist in a black hole

A biologist, a physicist and a mathematician are 'observing' a house they believe to be empty. They watch two people enter, and a short time later three people leave.

Physicist says: "Initial assumption flawed, experiment meaningless"
Biologist says: "They must have reproduced"
Mathematician says: "If one more person enters the house, it'll be empty"

This "time didn't exist before the big bang" notion is the kind of sillyness that happens when you let a mathematician do science.

Cú Giobach

who_ru wrote: »

if we don't really know then i would have thought that we could actually say that. proving it is a different matter of course, and isn't that the rub, neither science or religion can say exactly how it happened, although scientists like Hawkings et al are slightly more convincing than religion.

in the documentary Hawkings said that he went to a conference on astrology in the vatican in the 80's, during which the then Pope John Paul II said that it was okay to study the workings of the universe but not it's origins, since that was God's work.

so as you say we don't really know how it came into existance and perhaps we never will, but saying you can't say it popped into existance, which is Hawkings argument since, as he states, at a sub atomic particle level protons can and do appear out of nothing, then all bets are off as to how it came into being, every explaination is as valid as the other if we cannot know how it happened.

Because of uncertainty you can't really say particles appear out of nothing either, their location in time and space is only a probability not an absolute, a particle borrowing energy from the future isn't coming from nothing.
When you say science is slightly more convincing than religion, which religion are you talking about? There are now and have been in the past a great many religions, with just as many creation stories, which creation story is your favorite? Do you treat them all equally? Or has the time and place of your birth and rearing made you biased towards one particular story rather than another?

Sin City

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Because of uncertainty you can't really say particles appear out of nothing either, their location in time and space is only a probability not an absolute, a particle borrowing energy from the future isn't coming from nothing.
When you say science is slightly more convincing than religion, which religion are you talking about? There are now and have been in the past a great many religions, with just as many creation stories, which creation story is your favorite? Do you treat them all equally? Or has the time and place of your birth and rearing made you biased towards one particular story rather than another?

I would say that science basis its assumptions of religion on the big three, Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

Anyway one thing I can say about the Hawkins documentary (Which I enjoyed) is the end when he says that time only exited with the big bang therefore God cannot have created the universe because there was no time for him to do so. But most religions (especially Christianity) claim that God exists out of time so surely he would not need the limitation of time create the universe. (No I am not a religious nut just a point I thought of when watching the documentary)

Ellis Dee

who_ru wrote: »

hi.

i had a quick look at this on Discovery HD last night, and while i found a lot of what he said compelling i just find it impossible to get my head round his final analysis - that a creator didn't have anything to do with the beginning of the universe, since as he says, time doesn't exist in a black hole, which is where the whole shebang (universe) originated from. The universe, according to hawkings, simply popped into existance.

a black hole is created by a giant start collapsing in on itself, it's gravitational force is so great not only does it absorb light, yes not even light can escape it's gravitational pull, but also time cannot exist in a black hole. but the star that was there before the black hole would have have to existed?

so, he argues, a creator could not have created the universe since there was no time in which to create anything. apologies for my basic grasp on all this, but are we to believe that everything just 'popped' into existence.

and if one universe popped into existence, could there literally be 1000's of universes popping into existence?

also since the universe did 'begin' won't it also have to end? all energy will eventually diminish to nil, just like the sun will eventually run out of hydrogen to convert into helium.

i know i'm rambling here - but all of us and everything, matter, energy, space - just happened!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:eek:

Either that or something created it. Which brings us back to square one - something created the creator or else the creator just happened. Or perhaps there was no beginning and there will be no end, but we are too limited to be able to get our minds around that. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Enkidu

Gurgle wrote: »

This "time didn't exist before the big bang" notion is the kind of sillyness that happens when you let a mathematician do science.

You mean Albert Einstein and Alexander Friedmann?

endacl

'Its turtles all the way down' - Terry Pratchett.

Cú Giobach

Sin City wrote: »

I would say that science basis its assumptions of religion on the big three, Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

Those three all worship the same god.
How about Indian, Chinese, Japanese..........etc, scientists?
A Buddhist scientist for example would be quite comfortable with the idea of Big Bangs and Big Crunches, everything going around and around in circles, similar (naturally) to the Hindu idea of Brahma constantly creating universes and Shiva constantly destroying them over billions and billions of years (which is older than Yahweh's 6 day week).
The Japanese Shinto religion has gods being created at the same time as the universe, which I guess is no help.
There is more than just Jewish mythology out there.

tuxy

who_ru wrote: »

in the documentary Hawkings said that he went to a conference on astrology in the vatican in the 80's, during which the then Pope John Paul II said that it was okay to study the workings of the universe but not it's origins, since that was God's work.

The pope and Hawkings at an astrolegy conference?

Gurgle

Enkidu wrote: »

You mean Albert Einstein and Alexander Friedmann?

On what basis are you throwing those names into this?

- edit - Even Hawking only said "Time didn't exist before the big bang" line to simplify the concept for laymen.
His more specific version was:
"Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them."

maguffin

Something I came across....

"we must briefly consider the god-concept. The god-concept, as it is usually defined, is an orderly entity (or system). If the god-concept is not orderly, then it is chaotic. But if god is chaotic, then he can not directly cause things to happen at his will. To even have a will means that god is ordered, and to willfully cause the Big Bang would mean that he has a lower entropy than the universe after the Big Bang. (Remember, dS > 0!) For more on a chaotic god-concept, read the Argument From Non-Cognitivism. If you’ve made it this far, and you are a believer, then you agree that your god-concept is orderly. Now we can get to the root of the problem:
Statistically speaking, as said before, pockets of low entropy within a high-entropy system are inevitable. They may be either offset by an increase in entropy elsewhere, or a statistical fluke that while improbable is certainly not impossible. As long as dS > 0 and entropy tends to be higher, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics has not been broken. But, again, statistically speaking, these pockets of low entropy are most likely the result of simple probability. Consider that these low entropy systems were directly (or willfully) caused by another system with even lower entropy. Surely, we get into an impossible infinite regress (not to mention that a system with 0 entropy cannot exist!).
Thus, the Big Bang is, statistically, the result of an inevitable improbability that exists solely due to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, and is relevant throughout the block universe. We may picture it mathematically as such:

1. The Big Bang has entropy S.
2. A hypothetical god is either orderly or chaotic.
   1. Hypothetical gods have a personhood.
   2. Personhood implies orderliness.
   3. A hypothetical god is orderly, and thus has low entropy. (See note1 for more detail.)
3. In order for god to directly cause the Big Bang, he must have a lower entropy (S-a, where a is positive, real number).
4. The probability of the Big Bang coming from a higher state of entropy (S+b, where b is a positive, real number) approaches P=1, normalizing over the condition of many opportunities for the Big Bang to happen.
5. The probability of the Big Bang coming from an even lower state of entropy (god) approaches Q=0 (since Q=1-P).
6. The difference in probability is thus the limit of 1 divided by the limit of 0, which of course approaches infinity.
7. There is an infinitely greater chance that the Big Bang is the result of randomness than the result of even more order.
8. Thus, god does not exist.

Possible Objections:
Q: But God is not within the block universe, so how can you account for his entropy?
A: Whether or not god exists within the block universe does not affect the necessity of his entropy. If god is in an ordered state, then he has low entropy. If god is not in an ordered state, and thus in a disordered state—he has high entropy. If he is neither ordered nor disordered, Non-Cognitivism takes hold. If you claim that god does not have an entropy, we here at strongatheism.net would certainly agree—for god has no properties—he does not exist!"

Full text here:
http://www.strongatheism.net/library/atheology/argument_from_2nd_law/


Just entering it into the discussion...not necessarily going to comment (yet)

AugustusMinimus

Another issue I have with a "designed" universe is the fact that several of the key constants of the universe are irrational numbers.

No matter what number system (in terms of base) is used, none of these constants can be fully described (outside of infinite series for Pi for instance).

If this is the case, this effectively rules out a "designed" universe as it would be impossible to designed perfectly, a universe with irrational constants ?

Anonymo

Cian A wrote: »

Just reading over a couple of posts and there's a lot of contradictions.

Everything in the universe operates within the laws of physics, yet time does not exist in a black hole?

Energy cannot be created or destroyed yet the universe was created or "popped" into existence?

Could the notion that space and the universe has always existed in some shape of energy not be considered, that it is everything that does and has ever constituted being? The universe has eternally existed?

I'm going to put up a few posts on this since I've a bit of background in the area and there are a fair few misunderstandings here.

Cian A, a singularity which exists inside a black hole and at the big bang refers to where the laws of physics (as we know them) breaks down. To understand what occurs there requires us to understand what happens to general relativity at the huge densities - and at scales where quantum mechanics is important. What exactly this quantum gravity is not known. The concept of time that we use breaks down when you cross the black hole horizon. Specifically to an observer outside a black hole it takes an infinite amount of time for body that is falling into the black hole to cross its boundary.

You are incorrect in saying that energy cannot be created or destroyed. This is a good approximation at our energy levels. However the Heisenberg uncertainty relationship which says you cannot measure both momentum and position simultaneously (i.e. one or the other, or both can vary a little) to better than Planck's constant (around 10^-34). This also says that you cannot nail down both time and energy to that level. So if you can measure the time very accurately you have a good scope for energy to vary. While this is tiny by the energy scale's we operate at, it's all that's needed to start up the universe! What happens then is that this quantum fluctuation is expanded massively by a period of rapid expansion known as inflation. Then things settle down and things turn into radiation and matter, and hey presto you have the universe as we see it! So yes the universe can 'pop' into existence. Now this doesn't explain why the universe must obey the physical laws that it does but that's a whole other can of worms (to do with the anthropic principle).

Just so you know things are always popping in and out of existence. Right now positrons and electrons are popping out of the vacuum all around you. However very quickly they are annihilating off each other and dropping back to the vacuum again. That is what quantum mechanics tells us and this incarnation of it has been tested extremely accurately.

Lastly, of course people have considered that space always existed. The reason for believing in a big bang and subsequent inflation is due to our observations of the cosmic microwave background and our observations that the universe is expanding. Extrapolating back tells us the universe must have occupied a tiny volume in the very early universe. Ok you might tell me that you don't believe that. You don't have to take my word for it, this extrapolation has been tested because it predicts that if the universe was very dense early on and then expanded then that means that light, in the early universe, would have been bouncing off the other hot,energetic matter. This would occur until the universe cooled down/ expanded enough for the light to travel freely. This would have occured 300000 years after the big bang and the point where it gets cool enough should be reflected in the pattern of radiation that's present in the universe. This was seen in the CMB. This does not fit in with the universe being always of a vast expanse. Ok but you can buy that but cannot accept that the universe has a finite age. Well it is possible for the universe to be infinite and that it exists in an accordian like manner of constantly expanding and contracting. The problem with such a theory is that this requires the universe to have enough matter and energy to contract in on itself and it looks like it doesn't. There are other ways around it but these resort to some fairly exotic physics so I don't think I should ramble any more.

Enkidu

Gurgle wrote: »

On what basis are you throwing those names into this?

Since the idea that time did not exist before the Big Bang follows from the theory of General Relativity, the work Einstein, specifically the homogeneous cosmological solution of General Relativity found by Freidmann.

Maudi

mr lee wrote: »

Cian A wrote: »

Just reading over a couple of posts and there's a lot of contradictions.

Everything in the universe operates within the laws of physics, yet time does not exist in a black hole?

Energy cannot be created or destroyed yet the universe was created or "popped" into existence?

Could the notion that space and the universe has always existed in some shape of energy not be considered, that it is everything that does and has ever constituted being? The universe has eternally existed?

im no expert or scientist so i wont pretend to be but,i would imagine the reason time doesnt exist within a black hole is because of the effects of huge gravitational forces which are acting within the laws of physics,before the big bang there was nothing not even empty space,the universe expanded from a minute singularity,which did just seem to pop into existence,the universe is not eternal,everything that has a beginning has an end,nothing is forever.

how can you state that *before the big bang there was nothing*and then say *the universe (which didnt exist) expanded.if something didnt exist..how can it expand? you mon ami..are what we call...waffleing

Sin City

Maudi wrote: »

how can you state that *before the big bang there was nothing*and then say *the universe (which didnt exist) expanded.if something didnt exist..how can it expand? you mon ami..are what we call...waffleing

Again Im no scientist but , Hawkings claimed that in quantem mechanicns things can pop in and out of existence so its theoretically possible for something to come into existence and expand from nothing

Sin City

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Those three all worship the same god.
How about Indian, Chinese, Japanese..........etc, scientists?
A Buddhist scientist for example would be quite comfortable with the idea of Big Bangs and Big Crunches, everything going around and around in circles, similar (naturally) to the Hindu idea of Brahma constantly creating universes and Shiva constantly destroying them over billions and billions of years (which is older than Yahweh's 6 day week).
The Japanese Shinto religion has gods being created at the same time as the universe, which I guess is no help.
There is more than just Jewish mythology out there.

What about them? As I said I think science concentrates on the big three , not every religeon or cult out there

tuxy

Sin City wrote: »

What about them? As I said I think science concentrates on the big three , not every religeon or cult out there

But the big 3 are Christianity, Muslim and Hindus by population.

Maudi

Sin City wrote: »

Maudi wrote: »

how can you state that *before the big bang there was nothing*and then say *the universe (which didnt exist) expanded.if something didnt exist..how can it expand? you mon ami..are what we call...waffleing

Again Im no scientist but , Hawkings claimed that in quantem mechanicns things can pop in and out of existence so its theoretically possible for something to come into existence and expand from nothing

ah dont mind hawkins..theoretically is the key word here...he dazzles with smoke and big words..theoretically...all it means is i s hawkins can cook the books...to suit watever nonsense i come up with to explain the existince of the universe and you all will buy it cos im s hawkins..think for yourself..your ideas are just as valid..rant over...things just "pop" in and out ...does he think hes writing for startrek?

Cú Giobach

Sin City wrote: »

What about them? As I said I think science concentrates on the big three , not every religeon or cult out there

Science doesn't concentrate on any religions because there is nothing scientific about religion.
As for individuals, why would a Japanese scientist surrounded by adherents to Buddhist and/or Shinto beliefs take more notice of Christianity (1% of the population) or Islam (.1%) than what he/she grew up with and is surrounded by every day?
Same for Chinese or Indian scientists.

Since you mention Judaism that has about 14 million adherents, yet dismiss Hinduism with up to 1 billion or Buddhism with about 500 million*, I feel there is defiantly a bit of bias with your comments.

*There could actually be over 1.5 billion Buddhists in the world.

Anonymo

Maudi wrote: »

ah dont mind hawkins..theoretically is the key word here...he dazzles with smoke and big words..theoretically...all it means is i s hawkins can cook the books...to suit watever nonsense i come up with to explain the existince of the universe and you all will buy it cos im s hawkins..think for yourself..your ideas are just as valid..rant over...things just "pop" in and out ...does he think hes writing for startrek?

what complete and utter foolishness.

in a previous post i spoke about the evidence for much of the theory that hawking talks about. there is speculation as to whether multiple universes exist but what hawking is doing is showing what the theories can allow for - but the speculation parts are pretty well sign-posted. his job as a cosmologist is to try and aid our understanding of the universe. most other peoples ideas are not as valid, since most ideas violate some of the evidence that we have at our disposal already.
lastly, things do 'pop' in and out... Just because you don't believe it, doesn't change anything.

Maudi

Anonymo wrote: »

Maudi wrote: »

ah dont mind hawkins..theoretically is the key word here...he dazzles with smoke and big words..theoretically...all it means is i s hawkins can cook the books...to suit watever nonsense i come up with to explain the existince of the universe and you all will buy it cos im s hawkins..think for yourself..your ideas are just as valid..rant over...things just "pop" in and out ...does he think hes writing for startrek?

what complete and utter foolishness.

in a previous post i spoke about the evidence for much of the theory that hawking talks about. there is speculation as to whether multiple universes exist but what hawking is doing is showing what the theories can allow for - but the speculation parts are pretty well sign-posted. his job as a cosmologist is to try and aid our understanding of the universe. most other peoples ideas are not as valid, since most ideas violate some of the evidence that we have at our disposal already.
lastly, things do 'pop' in and out... Just because you don't believe it, doesn't change anything.

yea things pop in and out of existance like the tooth fairy!!have you done any thinking for yourself son or do you just sop up everything you"r told?

Anonymo

Maudi wrote: »

yea things pop in and out of existance like the tooth fairy!!have you done any thinking for yourself son or do you just sop up everything you"r told?

great. you just discount quantum mechanics. and decades of evidence supporting the notion of quantum fluctuations. as opposed to yourself, who clearly has the idea that if someone who is trained to understand these things regards it as true then it cannot be so, I try and weigh up the evidence for and against the proposition. In the case of quantum fluctuations the evidence is so great that only someone who is completely biased in their perception could deny it.
I've stated my position on this already. There is a certain amount of speculation, this speculation should be flagged. But most of it is well motivated theoretically. That does not make it true but it does make it more valid than the majority of ideas out there. What you are doing is disregarding the sound basis upon which some of the speculation is based. That is just stupid.

western

there is a really interesting video on youtube of prof. Brian Cox interviewing steven hawking , well worth a look

headmaster

So, you're all telling us what "may be" from your own level of thinking, but this is based on nothing of fact. Therefore, i'd have to ask, "how do you know you can think"? I'd imagine the answer to this will produce nothing, so we're back again at the start, with absolutely nothing to go on, except what HAS already happened, not WHAT WILL HAPPEN. My belief is that we human beings arrive at a point in intelligence, whereby we cannot go any further in explaining anything. It's possible that the extent of our brain process has reached that point. It's now more a possibility, than an improbability, that we'll have to recalculate whats already been fully calculated, in order to open up the already answered questions. In other words, quite simply, we are going nowhere, we have completed our function, whatever that might have been. From now on, everything we do, or achieve, will be repetitive, in one form or another. Time gives and time takes, everything in between is a vacuum, filled only by human ego's, in thought, deed and everything else you might care to think of or imagine. Jaysus, we're a quare lot of "nothing".

Anonymo

headmaster wrote: »

So, you're all telling us what "may be" from your own level of thinking, but this is based on nothing of fact. Therefore, i'd have to ask, "how do you know you can think"? I'd imagine the answer to this will produce nothing, so we're back again at the start, with absolutely nothing to go on, except what HAS already happened, not WHAT WILL HAPPEN. My belief is that we human beings arrive at a point in intelligence, whereby we cannot go any further in explaining anything. It's possible that the extent of our brain process has reached that point. It's now more a possibility, than an improbability, that we'll have to recalculate whats already been fully calculated, in order to open up the already answered questions. In other words, quite simply, we are going nowhere, we have completed our function, whatever that might have been. From now on, everything we do, or achieve, will be repetitive, in one form or another. Time gives and time takes, everything in between is a vacuum, filled only by human ego's, in thought, deed and everything else you might care to think of or imagine. Jaysus, we're a quare lot of "nothing".

deary me. this post was a little abstruse. your argument is one that has been used down the ages. i'm not sure we are reaching a stage where our brain process cannot go further. However what is sure is that in order to understand the origin of the cosmos to a better degree requires us to understand physics at scales where it doesn't correspond to our everyday experiences. Quantum mechanics is certainly an uncomfortable proposition but one that has been tested quite well. I would refute your point that 'you're all telling us what "may be" from your own level of thinking, but this is based on nothing of fact'. I do know, of course, that this is general statement and not directed at anyone in particular - however, one thing I've tried to do on this forum is to delineate what is fact and what is speculation and which speculation is built on a 'factual basis'. Very different, I think you'll agree, to plucking random ideas out of the air.

Most of your post - though, to be honest I got lost in the stream of consciousness a few times - sets an unnecessarily depressing tone. Certainly physics is getting much more technical and major advances are less forthcoming. However your point that 'we have completed our function' is very wide of the mark. It reminds me of various quotes attributed to scientist at the start of the 20th century stating that our understanding of physics was almost complete.

Myrddin

I just finished watching it there.

Two things that I cant get my head around:

1) Space itself is the negative energy that exists to balance out the 'positive' energy we see around us. Surely this must be some kind of layman explanation though, because as space is expanding, surely that means there is more & more negative energy due to the expanded space. Seeing as energy cannot be created or destroyed, wouldn't this 'unbalance the books' per se? Is he referring to Dark Energy, which exists between galaxies & prevents them from coming apart?

2) Back to this no time before the big bang thing. Is he saying at the quantum level, because there doesn't seem to be a cause & effect law, & particles can spontaneously appear & disappear at random, that this is how the Universe was created? But don't those particles go somewhere? I thought I read before that a particle that appears, is actually part of a pair of particles & that is has an exact duplicate that exists somewhere else, at the quantum level? I could be completely mistaken, I wasn't in school for quantum mechanics day Surely those particles go somewhere, when they're seen to disappear?

And what about the possibility of multiverses? Multiple universes floating around like bubbles? I think this program only really scratched the surface of the big question.

Personally I'm of the ilk that believe the universe is a mechanical object, not created by a God. After all, the two possibilities strike similar condundrums, who created the Universe? Who created God? I think its far more likely some day we will discover the mechanics behind the universe & its creation, rather than the realisation that there is an omnipotent & immortal entity behind it all. Of course thats my own personal opinion, & those of faith have as much a valid take on things as I do. 'Thank God' we live in a more enlightened time than Galileo that we have the liberty to have such a discussion

headmaster

Anonymo wrote: »

deary me. this post was a little abstruse. your argument is one that has been used down the ages. i'm not sure we are reaching a stage where our brain process cannot go further. However what is sure is that in order to understand the origin of the cosmos to a better degree requires us to understand physics at scales where it doesn't correspond to our everyday experiences. Quantum mechanics is certainly an uncomfortable proposition but one that has been tested quite well. I would refute your point that 'you're all telling us what "may be" from your own level of thinking, but this is based on nothing of fact'. I do know, of course, that this is general statement and not directed at anyone in particular - however, one thing I've tried to do on this forum is to delineate what is fact and what is speculation and which speculation is built on a 'factual basis'. Very different, I think you'll agree, to plucking random ideas out of the air.

Anonymo,
that's fine, I've no problem with what you're saying, or not saying, as the case may be. However, I do stand over my own analysis of where we are, or aren't. I guess there's a school of thought out there that believes, whatever someone says is true, unless you can disprove it. I see you saying some of my notions are without validity or truth, well go ahead and prove me wrong. In other words, "Find God". I happen to believe it's impossible, for one thing, how can you find something, when you don't even know what it is you're looking for? We're going no further, just changing where we are , similar with thought processes. I guess we just had this line of supposed thinking that we knew what we were doing. To a point we did, the point has long been reached, further is not possible. Change is possible, but it's change only , not advancement. Oh, i'm sorry if i'm boring you, I guess it goes with the subject matter and the utter belief that i'm correct. You could be right of course, but you've no way of proving it, therefore i'm correct and it proves itself.

mickydcork

headmaster wrote: »

Anonymo wrote: »

deary me. this post was a little abstruse. your argument is one that has been used down the ages. i'm not sure we are reaching a stage where our brain process cannot go further. However what is sure is that in order to understand the origin of the cosmos to a better degree requires us to understand physics at scales where it doesn't correspond to our everyday experiences. Quantum mechanics is certainly an uncomfortable proposition but one that has been tested quite well. I would refute your point that 'you're all telling us what "may be" from your own level of thinking, but this is based on nothing of fact'. I do know, of course, that this is general statement and not directed at anyone in particular - however, one thing I've tried to do on this forum is to delineate what is fact and what is speculation and which speculation is built on a 'factual basis'. Very different, I think you'll agree, to plucking random ideas out of the air.

Anonymo,
that's fine, I've no problem with what you're saying, or not saying, as the case may be. However, I do stand over my own analysis of where we are, or aren't. I guess there's a school of thought out there that believes, whatever someone says is true, unless you can disprove it. I see you saying some of my notions are without validity or truth, well go ahead and prove me wrong. In other words, "Find God". I happen to believe it's impossible, for one thing, how can you find something, when you don't even know what it is you're looking for? We're going no further, just changing where we are , similar with thought processes. I guess we just had this line of supposed thinking that we knew what we were doing. To a point we did, the point has long been reached, further is not possible. Change is possible, but it's change only , not advancement. Oh, i'm sorry if i'm boring you, I guess it goes with the subject matter and the utter belief that i'm correct. You could be right of course, but you've no way of proving it, therefore i'm correct and it proves itself.

Let me try to summarise what you are trying to say here - you're saying that anything you say or believe could be true because no one will be able to dispove you? Is that correct?

So you are saying if you believe in the flying spagetti monster - he exists and is real because no one can disprove your belief.

I'm not sure that type of thinking is compatible with the scientific method.

headmaster

mikydcork,
no, i'm not in the business of talking, or writing, about flying spaghetti saucers. I'd have thought that was plain enough. My thought process is a little deeper than you portray and is serious. It may take more than one reading of it to understand, i'm sorry if you picked it up the wrong way. I'm saying that our thinking and thought process is at a crossroads, just changing how we think, will achieve no more than we already know, it will just come to the same conclusions in a different way. Not everything will be the same, but the end conclusions will be more or less the same as is. We sleep, we eat, we drink, we talk/communicate, the rest is man made. Let that be one equation, what's the other one, or any other one? It/they, can be anything, doesn't matter what it is, it will = the same as we already feel we know. I'm using words, not symbols or algebra. There's a missing link, some fellow scientists feel they're getting somewhere on the road to finding it, they can't, it's not a possibility to find it/that. It only exists in our cloudy empty head space. It's a bit like me asking you to go out and bring me in a bucket of 150mph wind. I've no doubt there's a human method to say that can be done, but the fact is. It cannot be done in reality. That's all that matters. I know i'm mad, potty, dotty, but so what. We're all going the one route......eventually. Safe journey, enjoy it, it's important...for you.

westcoast1

Cian A wrote: »

What seems more likely? A creator or coincidence and billions of years of expansion?

Yes we only think of a creator ourselves because we are arrogant humans and after thousands of years of religious brainwashing worldwide we are stupid enough to not just accept what is and we have to have a "creator" because otherwise people would freak out worldwide as they cannot even grasp the truth never mind handle it

I'm so glad i know and can handle the truth but it's a lonely life being surrounded by people that all believe there's "something" controlling all of this and more people need to know the truth to progress mankind as a whole

Sin City

westcoast1 wrote: »

Yes we only think of a creator ourselves because we are arrogant humans and after thousands of years of religious brainwashing worldwide we are stupid enough to not just accept what is and we have to have a "creator" because otherwise people would freak out worldwide as they cannot even grasp the truth never mind handle it

I'm so glad i know and can handle the truth but it's a lonely life being surrounded by people that all believe there's "something" controlling all of this and more people need to know the truth to progress mankind as a whole

Atta boy Westie , you tell em

maninasia

who_ru wrote: »

hi.

i had a quick look at this on Discovery HD last night, and while i found a lot of what he said compelling i just find it impossible to get my head round his final analysis - that a creator didn't have anything to do with the beginning of the universe, since as he says, time doesn't exist in a black hole, which is where the whole shebang (universe) originated from. The universe, according to hawkings, simply popped into existance.

a black hole is created by a giant start collapsing in on itself, it's gravitational force is so great not only does it absorb light, yes not even light can escape it's gravitational pull, but also time cannot exist in a black hole. but the star that was there before the black hole would have have to existed?

so, he argues, a creator could not have created the universe since there was no time in which to create anything. apologies for my basic grasp on all this, but are we to believe that everything just 'popped' into existence.

and if one universe popped into existence, could there literally be 1000's of universes popping into existence?

also since the universe did 'begin' won't it also have to end? all energy will eventually diminish to nil, just like the sun will eventually run out of hydrogen to convert into helium.

i know i'm rambling here - but all of us and everything, matter, energy, space - just happened!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:eek:

Yes that's essentially it, it takes a while to get the religion out of your bones in Ireland.

Just do a thought experiment, it makes mores sense to believe that the universe(s) always existed and always will. There was no beginning and no end, that is a human thought construct related to the way we live and die.

Myrddin

maninasia wrote: »

Yes that's essentially it, it takes a while to get the religion out of your bones in Ireland.

Just do a thought experiment, it makes mores sense to believe that the universe(s) always existed and always will. There was no beginning and no end, that is a human thought construct related to the way we live and die.

Well given it's expanding, its safe to assume it's expanding from somewhere, & that somewhere by deduction would be a central point. It's a bit blind to say there was no beginning

Tomk1

The OP's title is false and misleading

Cian A wrote: »

Just reading over a couple of posts and there's a lot of contradictions.

Everything in the universe operates within the laws of physics, yet time does not exist in a black hole?

do you know the laws of physics? Time is an observation, not a messure of momentum or energy or it's not related to basic laws of physics, though the manmade messurement (yardstick) of rate of change is termed time. It's just a tool.
Just to indulge, if you enter the gravitational pull of a black-hole -(a dead star that has collapsed under it's own gravitational mass) For you time will appear normal, for a remote observer you will appear timeless/stuck in an instant, it's all to do with relativistic velocities. I'm not sure where you got 'time doesn't exist in a BB' from. For an external observer a black hole will age and under Hawking's Radiation lose energy/mass to eventually disperse, but the timeframe for this is beyound the life-time of the universe.

Cian A wrote: »

Energy cannot be created or destroyed yet the universe was created or "popped" into existence?

Look up 'virtual particles'

Cian A wrote: »

Could the notion that space and the universe has always existed in some shape of energy not be considered, that it is everything that does and has ever constituted being? The universe has eternally existed?

not sure what you mean, one theory is our universe -(using that discription losely) has gone through many big-bangs and big-crunches, or theres infinate BB therefore multi-universes maybe best to read up on Michio Kaku 'hyperspace' do a Youtube search as he has a great way of explaining science to cough: common-folk. He allso did a great tv-doc on the topic of 'Time'

As in making some relationship between physics & a god :rolleyes: there's allready enough unknowns/halfknowns in the 'verse that we can work to find answers too, without the need to make stuff up.