Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

The Primeval Atom

Posted Apr 18, '09 at 2:52pm

thisisnotanalt

thisisnotanalt

10,092 posts

@BigP: Possible. What I'm saying is that it is not necessary for something to have started or created the Big Bang, because there was no Universe, no space, no time. It was extremely different.

 

Posted Apr 18, '09 at 2:55pm

BigP08

BigP08

1,469 posts

Yeah, I see what you mean. I just wanted to run a little theory (or hypothesis, I guess, theories have evidence) by everyone and see if that made some sense. Actually, a different sense of logic must exist outside our universe, because in ours matter can't create or destroy itself. It could be a god, or it may just be nothing at all. Unfortunately, this only opens the debate up even more. Now I'll be wasting even more time on debate forums.
Oh well, it's interesting, at least.

 

Posted Apr 18, '09 at 3:29pm

Moegreche

Moegreche

3,094 posts

Moderator

might it be possible to say that a god does exist, but not within our universe?

I like this move, as it at least deals with the problematic consequence of having something that always existed. Perhaps god's existence can only be defined within our own universe's existence. We still have a problem explaining the causal link between this god and the universe, since causation cannot definitionally exist apart from our universe.
But then again, it seems that god is postulated as this causal link to handle the creation ex nihilo problem. By having god exist outside our universe, it becomes unclear how god could interact with this universe. This could open up possible objections that are based around the "swamping problem". It's still a nice move, though
 

Posted Apr 18, '09 at 3:34pm

Yakooza99K

Yakooza99K

612 posts

"I'm not an atheist. I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws."

-Albert Einstein

And now, the problem unsolved by billions of humans, using logic and reason, and taking centuries to solve, will be solved by 13 year olds on a forum for flash games on the Internet.

 

Posted Apr 18, '09 at 4:01pm

thisisnotanalt

thisisnotanalt

10,092 posts

And now, the problem unsolved by billions of humans, using logic and reason, and taking centuries to solve, will be solved by 13 year olds on a forum for flash games on the Internet.

lol.
---------
I doubt we'll solve the problem, but debates like this are fun and a good intellectual exercise.
 

Posted Apr 18, '09 at 4:40pm

FireflyIV

FireflyIV

3,302 posts

I don't think this view is held by any physicists today. In fact, the notion of a singularity has pretty much been put to rest. Also, the fanciful notions of black holes being somehow connected to other dimensions is not widely held by experts in this field (if at all). Many of the theories that we, the public, end up getting are watered-down and sometimes flat out wrong derivations of postulates held by the physics community


I heard about the theory on a documentary focused on Stephen Hawking. The way the theory was presented definitely did not give the impression that it had been disregarded by the scientific community.

If the Theory of Relativity is true, then time was all flubbed up. It was nothing like the Universe is now.


However as Moegreche said here:

But also keep in mind that Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity has been abandoned for the more accurate model of quantum physics.


The theory of relativity has been disregarded, so where does that leave us with the state of time at the beginning of the universe?

The point I was trying to make was, that the primeval atom always having existed is not compatible with the big bang theory. The big bang supposedly happened around 14 billion years ago, correct me if I'm wrong. The atom reached critical mass and expanded. However if it had always existed, then why didn't it expand way before this? Why is the universe so young?

But also keep in mind that Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity has been abandoned for the more accurate model of quantum physics. Most of Einstein's equations still work out just fine, just not on a quantum level.


To go back to this statement, I remember from the Hawking documentary, that he said most physicists see the Theory of Relativity as the theory of the very large and Quantum theory, as the theory of the very small. He went on to say that the key to understanding the universe is to combine the two theories.
 

Posted Apr 19, '09 at 2:36am

thisisnotanalt

thisisnotanalt

10,092 posts

@firefly: Then if the theories are combined, then the link betwee time and space would still be presetn. Therefore, time would still be all flubbed up, for lack of a better term.

 

Posted Apr 19, '09 at 2:48am

orion732

orion732

690 posts

If you think about it, there is a mountain of evidence for the primeval atom/hot big bang model. First, there is the CMB-Cosmic Microwave Background. This is the background microwave radiation that is visible throughout the universe. This shows that the universe was once the same density throughout, with very very miniscule variations in temperature, which allowed the galaxies and nebulae to form. Another piece of evidence is the fact that the universe is expanding at the same rate from no single point. Everything is getting further away from everything else at an ever increasing rate. Currently our rate of expansion is just enough to avoid recollapsing. This, again, is made possible from the Hot Big Bang model. If God had made the universe as it states in the bible, the universe would either be completely static, unchanging in dimensions, neither expanding nor collapsing, or it would be collapsing due to the gravity of all the planets and stars in it. We have seperated all of the known forces of the universe into 4 distinct (or seemingly distinct) forces-the electromagnetic force, gravity, the strong nuclear force, and the weak nuclear force. At some point in time, when matter density and energy density was much greater, all the forces were a single force. This can be understood through an analogy-all the forces are simply facets of a single force, each showing up at its own size and energy density. It's really amazing what reading Stephen Hawking can do for you. Anyways, being both a Catholic and a physicist (or at least one in the making), these beliefs are hard to reconcile, but I've found a union that fits me. I believe that God wrote the laws of physics, defining what the universe would look like when it expanded. Then he merely set everything up and watched it all happen. If we ever find a ToE (Theory of Everything), we will be able to predict how everything will look in the future. It will govern everything from movement of atoms, to what you will be wearing tomorrow. Of course, we would only be able to predict what would happen if we knew the position and velocities of every particle in the universe at any given point in time. Alas, this is impossible due to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.

 

Posted Apr 20, '09 at 2:25pm

Moegreche

Moegreche

3,094 posts

Moderator

To go back to this statement, I remember from the Hawking documentary, that he said most physicists see the Theory of Relativity as the theory of the very large and Quantum theory, as the theory of the very small. He went on to say that the key to understanding the universe is to combine the two theories.


You quote Hawking a lot, and I like his books. But he is far more popular in the public stream than the actual physics community. If you look at who's considered to be at the top in the experimental physics community, Hawking often isn't included, or is lower down on the top 10 list. This isn't to say he's not brilliant, and I really like how he explains things. But I remember when A Brief History of Time came out, he was an advocate for the universal singularity. A few years later, he retracted his theory.
Hawking has become infamous for saying some ridiculous things - like a ToE will be found in the next decade - which does not endear him with his colleagues.

I heard about the theory on a documentary focused on Stephen Hawking. The way the theory was presented definitely did not give the impression that it had been disregarded by the scientific community.

Often by the time these documentaries on the fringe of physics actually come out, the theories can be in a completely different light in the astrophysics community. Those making the documentaries also usually only focus on the interesting theories that can be explained to the public. The result of this is that these theories are portrayed in the documentary as the law of the land, when if fact only a handful of physicists might really believe the theory to be true.

The theory of relativity has been disregarded, so where does that leave us with the state of time at the beginning of the universe?

That's a great question. The physics community still consider time and space to be linked - in fact, this apparently helps explain why we have the force of gravity. So we can refer to the first few nanoseconds of the universe's existence and still make sense. So, time is there as long as space as there, as space is there as long as there's a universe in which to define it. Quantum mechanics apparently helps explain causation a bit better within the first few nanoseconds, but I can't even pretend I know how... :P
 

Posted Apr 20, '09 at 3:20pm

FireflyIV

FireflyIV

3,302 posts

I won't even try to pretend I'm particularly knowledgable in the field, in fact far from it. I'll admit the sum of my knowledge of the subject comes from that Hawking documentary mini-series. Oh the shame! But you're right, he certainly explains immensely complex concepts well to us mere mortals.

That's a great question. The physics community still consider time and space to be linked - in fact, this apparently helps explain why we have the force of gravity. So we can refer to the first few nanoseconds of the universe's existence and still make sense. So, time is there as long as space as there, as space is there as long as there's a universe in which to define it. Quantum mechanics apparently helps explain causation a bit better within the first few nanoseconds, but I can't even pretend I know how... :P


I see. Like I said before, Hawking defined Quantum theory as the theory of the very small, so I guess in the very beginnings of the universe, quantum theory would be applicable. But yea, unfortunately, unless a user comes along with a PHD in astro physics, this particular discussion has kind of hit a dead end, not that more discussion cannot be had.

I see
 
Reply to The Primeval Atom

You must be logged in to post a reply!