• ARRSE have partnered with Armadillo Merino to bring you an ARRSE exclusive, generous discount offer on their full price range.
    To keep you warm with the best of Merino gear, visit www.armadillomerino.co.uk and use the code: NEWARRSE40 at the checkout to get 40% off!
    This superb deal has been generously offered to us by Armadillo Merino and is valid until midnight on the the 28th of February.

Science finally explains creation - creators more men than gods

Is this convincing?

  • I'm convinced

    Votes: 5 15.2%
  • Undecided

    Votes: 5 15.2%
  • This is as loopy as any other explanation

    Votes: 23 69.7%

  • Total voters
    33
#2
So somebody turns the wick up a bit on the LHC, creates a minature black hole and that , on the other side and somewhere else in the multiverse, spawns a Big Bang that turns into a brand new universe whose Creator, and hence God, is a spotty geek working for CERN.

Works for me: good as any other Religious theory
 
#4
So Benford has read "The Science of Discworld" - wow.

Seriously, the "daughter universes by bubble inflation" thing is at least a decade old. The important unanswered question in Guth's early work was "why did it stop". Lots of possible explanations - including phase changes in the quantum vacuum energy - but one is "are you sure it has?"

But the article is basically the "fine tuning" argument for intelligent design. Fine for a novel, crap for science. Fine tuning is the only scientific question adequately explained by the anthropic principle.
 
#6
So where did the first one come from?
The quantum foam - seriously. If you wait long enough, the unlikeliest events will happen. It has been fairly comprehensively proven with moderately unlikely events (1 per million years per cubic metre) - and that particular one only needs to happen once. Assuming the daughter inflatons theory is true - unless it is deduceable from a proven string / quantum gravity theory, it is unlikely ever to be as it isn't practically testable.

Or you can posit a creator. In which case I give you Epicurus of Samos's Riddle versus Blaise Pascal's Wager. Seconds out ...
 
#7
So where did the first one come from?
Please remember that conjoining the bubble universe hypothesis and the fine tuning problem is Gribbin's idea - they aren't actually linked.

There isn't anything in the basic inflation bubble theory that requires the laws of physics to be different between mother or daughter or, if they are, tuneable.

The "weak anthropic hypothesis" merely states that if universes are being randomly created with varying laws of physics or, for the unimaginative, different values of basic physical constants, then only a universe which has laws and constants such that life could evolve has any chance of evolving creatures capable of wondering "why are the constants quite so well adjusted?"

Or, to use a crude analogy - the nag may have been 400-1 'under orders' - once it has won, it is a 'dead cert'.
 

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
#8
I freely admit that I understood one word in five and immediately struggled with the 'where did the initial matter come from?' piece, which I don't think was addressed.
 
#9
'where did the initial matter come from?' piece, which I don't think was addressed.
Matter is continually created and destroyed through quantum effects - Hawking radiation is one outcome of this (a particle and an anti-particle appear and move apart: normally they come back together and annihilate each other - however, if one crosses the event horizon of a black hole, no annihilation therefore a weak stream of particles being emitted by a black hole). If you wait long enough, the particle appearing will have sufficient energy that you get inflation and similar effects and a universe starts.

An alternative theory says that the energy (don't worry about matter - that comes later - read "The First Three Minutes") comes from collisions between "branes" - the ekpyrotic model. The branes can only interact when the universe is cold and flat - so it is a cyclic model, avoiding the initial singularity of the classical 'hot Big Bang' model.

Edited to add: don't worry about not understanding this stuff. No-one does (well, not since Feynman died, any way). Some people get the maths to work, some people get the philosophy to work. We know most of the generally accepted stuff is true - all sorts of things work because of it. True and understandable are orthogonal concepts - expecting the truth to be 'pure and simple' is either naivety or malicious application of Occam.
 

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
#11
Matter is continually created and destroyed through quantum effects - Hawking radiation is one outcome of this (a particle and an anti-particle appear and move apart: normally they come back together and annihilate each other - however, if one crosses the event horizon of a black hole, no annihilation therefore a weak stream of particles being emitted by a black hole). If you wait long enough, the particle appearing will have sufficient energy that you get inflation and similar effects and a universe starts.

An alternative theory says that the energy (don't worry about matter - that comes later - read "The First Three Minutes") comes from collisions between "branes" - the ekpyrotic model. The branes can only interact when the universe is cold and flat - so it is a cyclic model, avoiding the initial singularity of the classical 'hot Big Bang' model.

Edited to add: don't worry about not understanding this stuff. No-one does (well, not since Feynman died, any way). Some people get the maths to work, some people get the philosophy to work. We know most of the generally accepted stuff is true - all sorts of things work because of it. True and understandable are orthogonal concepts - expecting the truth to be 'pure and simple' is either naivety or malicious application of Occam.
I'm truly impressed, you're Welsh too, but how do you create something out of nothing? Where do branes come from?
 

Biped

LE
Book Reviewer
#12
What concerns me is that 'atoms' are considered to have a finite amount of energy. Let's say for argument's sake that you manage to create a brand new universe out of a 'particle' wrapped through a calabi yau shape, by forming a black hole with it . . . . were in the new universe does this infinite energy come from that creates a whole universe? I'm not talking about matter, just energy that matter is constituted from?

In summary, one crushed atom doth not a meatball and spaghetti dinner make.

Edited to add: Even Feynman didn't understand it. Wasn't it him who said that anyone who claimed to understand quantum physics and string theory, didn't understand the question?

String theory works if you happen to have 11 dimensions including time, all wrapped up in a Calabi Yau shape, but even then, the equations are at very best approximate. We are getting close to figuring out which of the almost infinite shapes work the approximate equations best, but it's a long way from the end of the tale.
 
#13
I'm truly impressed, you're Welsh too, but how do you create something out of nothing?
"You" don't. It just happens. Normally it unhappens again shortly afterwards.

Where do branes come from?
They might (because it is a theory and not a generally accepted one) just simply be. Or they appear as particle and antiparticle in an enormous quantum pair particle event. All brane-theory is is a multi-dimensional extension of string theory. Universe-sized branes that collide are merely a hypothesis put forward because there are holes (unexplained or untestable areas) in inflation theory.

Or, back to my 16:55 post - you could posit that God created them as celestial cymbals. But once you've done that, let's see some reasoned argument for the creator. And deal with Epicurus.

Oh, and seriously, read this. Best cosmology primer - with added Rincewind. Creator (in there, happens early so not giving the game away), is the Dean - sticking his fingers in and wiggling them. We have as much evidence for the Dean of Unseen University as we do for any of the other first cause creators, mythical or scientific. However, we now know pretty much what happened from after about 1*10^-43secs after creation, which doesn't agree with any of the myths.
 
#14
I'm truly impressed, you're Welsh too, but how do you create something out of nothing? Where do branes come from?
They appear out of nothingness as a result of quantum fluctuations and form part of five dimensional space. Easy.

But until somebody properly sorts out quantum gravity and then manages to get string theory and everything that flows from it to link up with "real" particle physics all just concepts.

Which is sort of why the LHC exists really
 
#16
I freely admit that I understood one word in five and immediately struggled with the 'where did the initial matter come from?' piece, which I don't think was addressed.
Matter, energy - same thing . . . . always been there? (Eternity - hugely difficult concept for Homo sapiens to accept, let alone 'understand')

Just because we don't understand sumfink, doesn't render it unreal. I worry about the hubris of our species - not in its insistence on pusuing knowledge (positively Protean, after all) - but in refusing to accept the possibility of infinity, insisting on a variety of immortal/invisible/only wise Creators, each version of which reflects our own assumption that we are the most amazing and important fings in creation . . . .

Alternatively (and most likely), I have misconstrued your question :wink:
 
#17
Matter, energy - same thing . . . . always been there?
Nah, early on, energy was so concentrated that matter couldn't exist. We don't understand what the primordial (and fundamental) building blocks are - the Standard Model is so symmetric and extensive that common sense / Occam implies there must be an underlying simpler system. Which, of course, doesn't mean that there is. Take AGAI as an example ...

The "Cosmic Microwave Background" for example, comes from the epoch where the average photon energy became less than the lowest ionisation energy of Hydrogen. Therefore you had UV transparent atomic gas rather than UV opaque plasma. And it began to shine through. And still is. Albeit somewhat reduced in grandeur.
 
#18
So somebody turns the wick up a bit on the LHC, creates a minature black hole and that , on the other side and somewhere else in the multiverse, spawns a Big Bang that turns into a brand new universe whose Creator, and hence God, is a spotty geek working for CERN.

Works for me: good as any other Religious theory
Why do that when there's far more powerful reactions happening just above our heads with high energy collisions in the upper atmosphere? Not to mention the energy densities even remotely close to Sol (did initially put the Sun, but realised the opportunity for piss-poor humour!), these are all way beyond our feeble efforts with the LHC!
 
#19
Matter, energy - same thing
Nah, early on, energy was so concentrated that matter couldn't exist.
but when the energy became less concentrated, then there was matter . . . one begets t'other - kind of what I had in mind. really, in my Janet'n'John way.

Especially given the difficulties posed by quantum theory and observations of the behaviour of sub-atomic particles (as I "understand" it) - the closer you look, the more 'matter' seems to be energy . . .
 
#20
the closer you look, the more 'matter' seems to be energy . . .
The difference (or lack of) between matter and energy being one of the things that all of the current TOEs are trying to drop out. Matter might not be energy but they are readily convertable too and from. I was going to say like pay and beer but that generally only works one way so is a crap analogy (unless you get paid for unit bar staff?)

In the beginning there was nothing. Then it was bloody hot - we don't know why, or exactly how, but hot and very, very crowded it certainly was. Then, being hot and crowded, it went outside for some air. Except there wasn't any so it just expanded and started to cool down a bit. Took off its tie and undid its top button, as it were.

Various bits began to precipitate out of the general hot - actually they had always been doing that (always for a very, very short span of always) but they were getting kicked apart by the very chavish photons that were around in those days. Burberry photons, possibly, or even White Lightning ones. Not enough class to be Buckfast photons.

First out came somethings, possibly - we don't know what or even if - then quarks and electrons (after about 10^-32s), then baryons (after about 1 millionth of a second.) Then some nuclei. Dark matter probably happened around here. It depends on how heavy its elemental particles are. But we know that any possible baryonic component is irrelevant. Anyway, that all happened in about 10s.

After about 380,000 years, by which time people (not that there were any - nor were there pinheads for any putative angels to dance upon) were getting really bored, 'it' had expanded enough that it was now, ish, cooled down enough for electrons to bind to protons to form hydrogen atoms and, pretty much in a flash, the universe stopped being opaque.
 

Latest Threads