Science finally explains creation - creators more men than gods

Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by FORMER_FYRDMAN, Aug 31, 2010.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. I'm convinced

    5 vote(s)
  2. Undecided

    5 vote(s)
  3. This is as loopy as any other explanation

    23 vote(s)

    FORMER_FYRDMAN LE Book Reviewer

  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
  3. i think i'll stick to the spaghetti monster 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.
  5. seaweed

    seaweed LE Book Reviewer

    So where did the first one come from?
  6. 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. 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

    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. 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.
  10. Fark me! Everyday's a school day.

    FORMER_FYRDMAN LE Book Reviewer

    I'm truly impressed, you're Welsh too, but how do you create something out of nothing? Where do branes come from?
  12. Biped

    Biped LE Book Reviewer

    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. "You" don't. It just happens. Normally it unhappens again shortly afterwards.

    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. 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
  15. So who designed the designers then?