Finding God in physics...?

Question

http://mlf1070.wordpress.com/2007/08/27/finding-god-in-physics/

Any scientists of any field want to help clarify any misconceptions in this essay?

Answer 1

Among other things, it uses the classic argument from ignorance on the Big Bang, by arguing that since we can't describe how the Big Bang started, it must've been God. It also makes some odd unfounded assumptions based on metaphysics. For example, it states that the universe must have a point of absolute stillness, and even claims that Einstein requires it. Special Relativity in fact leads to the opposite conclusion, that there is no universal reference point.

The use of Plato and Pythagoras as authorities underscores the argument's dependence on traditional metaphysics rather than science.

Answer 2

I'm having fun answering this kind of essays, but i'm not sure i will be able to cover everything up... ok let's start:
The started not with the big bang, but with a period of exponential expansion called "Inflation" from about 10^37 seconds after the time zero. The time and the space didn't exist before time zero and the energy from our universe is also zero, because the gravitational field has negative energy that cancels the energy of the matter, so we are nothing. This singularity where everything came from could have been a "vacuum fluctuation" that occurred on a negative pressure vacuum energy density and magnified this microscopical fluctuation to cosmic size. This theory has been proven, specially with the Cosmic background explorer and is the actual paradigm of the origin of the universe.
Now, we are sure of an expanding universe due to observations of distant galaxies and quasars that show a redshift on these objects -the light emitted from them has been shifted to longer wavelengths- and that is because the galaxies are going away from us. We know that the universe is not infinite -that it had a beginning some time ago- because otherwise we would be under infinite sources of light from all the points of the space and the sky on the night would be as bright as with sunlight. And we know that the expansion is happening right now because we can compare the redshift of the galaxies not on a specific time in the past, but on a range of time that tells us that everything we see right now is in accordance with the cosmological principle, that says:
On large spatial scales, the Universe is homogeneous and isotropic. Or simply put, on a large scale the universe is pretty much the same everywhere.
Of course there are limits to the science, but the equations can tell the state of the things being observed on certain ranges, and this happens not only with the time (in fact, we cannot say that two events are simultaneous, because there is no simultaneity on a relative universe) but also with the velocity and position, and with the energy and time (on the uncertainty principle), and the most important thing with the observations of the universe is that they are described by the same nature laws that we use here on the earth. So the laws of nature are not changed in time nor in the position of the universe we make the observations.
About the beginning and the laws of science, the universe came from the laws of science, and the laws of science are ahead time and position, and we don't really know where the laws come from. That is exactly the very limit of scientific knowledge, the only thing that we know is that the universe is comprehensible and it is explained by logic and mathematics expressed on the laws of science. And so the laws of nature exist before the time zero and they permit the existence of the vacuum fluctuations, inflation, big bang and the origin of the universe. And we know that because we are here to tell about it.
The order in the chaos come from the very laws of nature and specifically from the gravity attraction of the matter that permitted the formation of stars and later, the beginning of life at least on our planet. About the asseveration "And before hydrogen? A similar process of unfolding, creating the tiniest particles, the building blocks of the elements themselves, and all following a pattern formed out of an initial, orderly, creative principle, rather than a destructive, chaotic event. " yes, that happened in the opposite direction because of the laws of nature, the action of the gravity and energy equalization.
About " First, for a Big Bang creation event to happen, time would have to precede the event" it is exactly the opposite, time didn't exist before big bang, there is nothing before the beginning, no time-space. It originated with the big bang and there is no time nor space out of the actual universe (otherwise the universe should be expanding into something, and how do you expand an infinite universe, you would need a transfinite base-universe, and that is something just useless) About the "two directions of the time", you are thinking about the time as a vector quantity, and time is not a vector because it has no direction, that would be like a negative resistance or a negative absolute temperature, that is not the way to mathematically handle the time.
Also, if you think about the initial singularity of the big bang as a black hole (that it wasn't that way, but you are not so far from the idea), just think that we are inside the black hole and there is no way out of our universe, because the light (energy) that is with us cannot escape and also the time cannot exist out of our universe. About the center or central idea, i think you are just confounding the geometrical center that happens in the space with the spiritual center, that happens in our minds, and just there.
The main problem with the essay is that it denies the very base of the science trying to use logic and scientific ideas out of context. I'm going to cite something about another origin: "intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own. The National Science Teachers Association and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have termed it pseudoscience. Others have concurred, and some have called it junk science.
PD. i personally believe in God, and also i know that science is not the answer to all the questions of the human beings, but i separate religion from science and know the difference between them.

Answer 3

Why do you want to find any misconceptions in this brilliant essay?
Do you feel uncomfortable with the possibility that it may be closer to the truth than the theory of Big Bang.
Scientists in physics may tell you that there are limits to exact science where you can be honestly sure that you interpret the evidence in the correct way. At those limits your belief takes over. There you have the choice to accept or reject the idea that there is an omnipotent God and creator. So you either accept the things told in the Bible as a fact (this is a belief) - or you think that the theory of Big Bang is true. This is also a belief - outside of exact science.

Answer 4

The author seems to have fundamental misunderstandings or possibly just cant understand the fundamentals. I'm not going to criticize every line, either you want to believe in god or you dont. Physics cant prove it or even lead you there. He's just trying to string along people back into religion using science since most people now are scientifically minded, meaning they wont just believe something because you tell them its so.
It is of course always possible that the singularity referred to in the big bang was really just all the mass/energy condensed by incredible gravitational forces similar to a all encompassing black hole. Before that there may well have been another universe, all the matter spread out as it is now, but then collapsed due to gravity. And before that another. He seems unable to comprehend the point that matter may simply have always existed. It never had to come from anything if it was always here.
The big bang simply represents the idea of how the matter initiated into what we call our universe. Before the bang, the matter may have been distrubuted in any way conceiveable. Theres no way to have any evidence of it though as all matter was pulled into it and then exploded removing any shred of history left from the previous arrangement of matter. There really are a bunch of ideas about it and none of them rely on "Oh well it just happened because it wanted to" except from the people that simply cant understand the concepts.

Its sort of like trying to explain something to a 4 year old.
"well where did it come from before that?"
"it was expanded all over space"
"and before that?"
"it was all contracted into a dense ball"
"and before that"
"all over space"
"and before that?"
"A giant easter bunny laid an egg and it cracked open and thats where it all came from"
"Really?"
"No, it was always friggin there, kid"

Answer 5

There are several lapses in rationality. The most important of which is that he asks what came before the BB. But the inability to answer that question doesn't discount the existence of the BB. It simply means we have more scientific work to do.

What if I were to ask, "What came before god"? The inability to answer that one (other than the catechism that god is infinite and had no beginning) does not deny the existence of a god of some sort. The only difference between asking this question and the one above about the BB, is that this question is answered based on faith, while the earlier one is based on science.

Another lapse in rationality is to claim order cannot come from disorder without some sort of devine guidance. The laws of physics in our universe are such that energy is converted, but neither lost or gained. As the BB cooled its overall energy level remained fixed but changed form. Thus, quarks and then photons sort of congealed out of the chaotic, primordial energy soup.

From there, the natural (not supernatural) laws created proto galaxies that then formed our current set of galaxies with all their stars, planets, etc. we know today. Surface tension and other natural forces tend to collect like elements into larger, more complex substances. So there are natural laws at work to bring bits and pieces together; again, making order out of chaos. Electro-chemical processes invoke physical laws to form open systems that can replicate. That is the first step to what we call life.

And the laws of physics can clearly explain how, when, and why all this happened without devine guidance. In fact, most of what I just described, if not all of it, can be demonstrated in today's laboratories...using the physical-chemical laws of nature.

Invoking devine guidance is a cop out. It says, hey, mankind can't explain it now; so let's just say all this happened because of some sort of god head. It's like back in ancient China and Europe, they couldn't explain why occasionally the sun disappeared during daylight hours. They invented supernatural dragons that ate the sun to explain it. But later, as science grew in stature, we discoverd solar eclipses.

And, to a point, there are theories on what existed before the BB occured. One of the most popular of these is string/M theory, which provides the basis for parallel universes existing in other dimensions...something like slices of bread in a mega universe loaf. Then, due to natural dynamics, two of these universes collide, resulting in the enormous energy releases we call the big bang. [See source.]

This answer will invoke thumbs down from god believers. They are always right because they have god on their side. Thus, any one who questions a supernatural god is clearly wrong. It was that kind of irrationality that brought about the so-called Dark Ages, inquisitions, and holy wars.

Answer 6

A cat can have kittens in the oven, but that don't make 'em biscuits