In their new book, physicists Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow seem to take a swipe at the existence of God, something which has certainly earned a lot of press. In truth, they really don't say anything particularly new ... scientists have been refining their understanding of the physical nature of cosmic evolution for years. (My recent book covers much of the same science, it seems, but without addressing the God issue directly.) What, if anything, does physics really have to say about the existence (or lack thereof) of a creator?
First: An Apology to Conservatives (But Not Conservapedia)
Since we're on the subject of God and creation, this is a good time for me to make amends to my conservative readers. A few weeks back, I blogged about how the "conservative encyclopedia" Conservapedia was misrepresenting information about relativity presented in its website, with the ideological goal of getting people to reject the theory of relativity because people who studied relativity tend to reject God.
Since then, responses have fallen generally into two camps:
- Conservatives who believe in relativity, the big bang theory, and are generally offended to be lumped in with the Conservapedia science deniers
- People (likely liberal) who have believed that it's a waste of time to address these issues at all, because the people who believe in them cannot be reasoned reasoned with
I disagree with both objections, as I expressed (with some editing) in a recent e-mail to a conservative who expressed issue with my characterization:
My point with the article was that some people who lean toward the
conservative end of things might be swayed by Conservapedia's curious
slant on relativity, so I thought that a counter-argument should be
presented. This was written on the assumption that, regardless of
political affiliation, most people are swayed by compelling arguments
if they are exposed to them and I thought that my argument
in favor of relativity would be more compelling than that presented by
Conservapedia against it. If anything, my intention with the article was
actually to show respect to the wide diversity of conservative thought ...
not to diminish it.
So, hopefully that makes it clear that my post about the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" (a title chosen in jest, though obviously it wasn't as funny as I thought it was) was not an attack on conservatism as a whole - it was an attack on Conservapedia. Specifically, it was an attack on this one article by Conservapedia (since I haven't ever bothered to read the rest of their site).
I stand by all of my arguments from that article. The basic evidence of relativity - the way physics behaves in different frames of reference, time dilation, mass-energy equivalence, and so on - have been proven time and again. Even if it is shown that somehow the detailed equations of Einstein's full theory of general relativity are somehow incomplete or even in error, it won't undo any of the earlier findings. The "relativity" part of relativity will always be there ... and relativity also provides an "absolute" standard in the form of spacetime.
Of course, after having soundly dealt with the fact that relativity did not inexorably lead to godless liberalism, there comes along a godless, wheelchair-bound mega-genius (I don't know his politics) to muddy up the waters again.
What Hawking Said
I should start by saying that I have not yet read Hawking's latest tome, The Grand Design, which has sparked all of this recent controversy ... though I did read this excerpt from the Wall Street Journal and this excerpt from Time magazine.
From what I have gathered, The Grand Design focuses on a number of findings in recent theoretical physics, both in cosmology (Hawking's primary area of expertise) and particle physics. In it, he suggests that these recent findings have made God redundant - meaning that we can explain the creation of the universe without any reference to God at all.
At first these two areas (cosmology and particle physics) would seem to be very different, but it actually turns out that when you're trying to understand the specific properties of the early universe, when matter was packed into a tiny space (under the big bang model), the implications of particle physics become incredibly significant.
The place where these two theories overlap is string theory (also called M-Theory) which is a subject upon which I do have some familiarity.
So why is Hawking saying that God is redundant?
Basically, it has to do with the idea that even in a universe that is a complete vacuum, but exists under the rules of general relativity, then when quantum effects begin having matter spring into existence, then you'd begin having a universe that evolves in time. Also, because of the findings of particle physics and predictions from string theory, there are a wide number of possible physical states. So any "nothingness" that exists would begin giving rise to universes all over the place, and some of those universes would have the properties that allow for life. (Check out my recent exploration of this concept, "Why Are There Multiple Universes?")
Each element of this conjecture is fairly controversial. Given our knowledge of theoretical physics, a pure vacuum would likely, given enough time, give rise to a universe of some kind. That universe would take on a presumably-random location on the energy spectra allowed by M-Theory (or whatever theory is ultimately shown to be at work), which has a lot of possibilities. Many such universes would destroy themselves fairly quickly, or would just stretch on uninterestingly forever. A few would begin to organize themselves into clusters of gas, eventually stars, eventually planets, and perhaps even eventually life.
Does Science Allow God?
Of course, this statement by Hawking and Mlodinow doesn't really settle anything in the ongoing science versus religion debate, because the people who are committed to that debate on the religion side aren't really satisfied by a scientific explanation. They would counter Hawking's argument by saying, "Well, who created the rules of general relativity?" (or, for the Conservapedia approach, question the validity of general relativity itself). Either way, you end up with a room to insert a "God of the Gaps" style argument.
From my standpoint, the rules of physics are sufficient to explain the physical properties of the universe, its development, and our current existence. Could these physical properties come about because of laws laid down by a creator? Sure, I suppose ... but if such a being exists, He's clever enough to have created laws that will do the work for him. (People interested in a discussion of this concept, I suggest Robert J. Sawyer's science fiction novel Calculating God.)
Hawking's Other Revelation
Perhaps more significant in the scientific community than Hawking's claim that science doesn't "need" God to explain creation (which is relatively accepted as an axiom by the vast majority of scientists who are working in this area) is the claim that there exists no single model of reality, no unique and complete "theory of everything," which will explain every aspect of physical reality. Specifically, The Grand Design argues (in this Time magazine excerpt):
Regarding the laws that govern the universe, what we can say is this: There seems to be no single mathematical model or theory that can describe every aspect of the universe. Instead, there seems to be the network of theories, [sic] With each theory or model, our concepts of reality and of the fundamental constituents of the universe have changed.
Many scientists over the last two or three decades have argued that string theory would provide exactly such a theory that could describe every aspect of the universe, a "theory of everything," so Hawking's claim against its existence is certain to create a controversy in the "string wars" that are currently bouncing around the physics community, and the physics blogosphere.
At the moment, this particular controversy doesn't appear to have really caught on, eclipsed by the creation issue (except with Alan Boyle at Cosmic Log). But when the dust settles, the emphasis will shift to the idea that a fundamental theory describing all of reality cannot be found.
At that time, we'll see the real scientific debate pick up, as some scientists attempt to prove him wrong.
Science, Creation, and God's Role:
- Why Multiple Universes?
- About.com Atheism
- Wall Street Journal - Why God Did Not Create the Universe by Stephen Hawking & Leonard Mlodinow (book excerpt)
- Time magazine - Stephen Hawking Asks, What is Reality? by Stephen Hawking & Leonard Mlodinow (book excerpt)
- Huffington Post - Absence of Evidence Is Evidence of Absence, by Victor Stenger
- NPR's 13.7 blog - Can Science Explain Creation? by Marcelo Gleisser
- The Guardian - Stephen hawking says universe not created by God
- Cosmic Log - Is the Grand Design Within Our Grasp?
- Cosmic Log - Hawking says God's not needed. So?
- Huffington Post - Did Science Find God?
- Philadelphia Inquirer - Hawking and Mlodinow return with a unifying 'Grand Design'
- USA Today - Hawking book explains creation of universe minus God
- New York Times - Many Kinds of Universes, and None Require God
- Wall Street Journal - Our Spontaneous Universe by Lawrence M. Krauss
- Los Angeles Times - Book Review: "The Grand Design"
- Vancouver Sun - God and philosophy in Hawking's universe
- London Free Press - Without an eternal God, all is nothingness
- Scientific American - Cosmic Clowning: Stephen Hawking's "new" theory of everything is the same old CRAP
- PhysicsWorld.com - Talking Hawking and God (blog & video)
- New Scientist - M-theory: Doubts linger over godless universe
- Huffington Post - Is Stephen Hawking Right About God?
And of related interest:
Comments
In “The Grand Design” Stephen Hawking postulates that the M-theory may be the Holy Grail of physics…the Grand Unified Theory which Einstein had tried to formulate and later abandoned. It expands on quantum mechanics and string theories.
In my e-book on comparative mysticism is a quote by Albert Einstein: “…most beautiful and profound emotion we can experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and most radiant beauty – which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive form – this knowledge, this feeling, is at the center of all religion.”
Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity is probably the best known scientific equation. I revised it to help better understand the relationship between divine Essence (Spirit), matter (mass/energy: visible/dark) and consciousness (fx raised to its greatest power). Unlike the speed of light, which is a constant, there are no exact measurements for consciousness. In this hypothetical formula, basic consciousness may be of insects, to the second power of animals and to the third power the rational mind of humans. The fourth power is suprarational consciousness of mystics, when they intuit the divine essence in perceived matter. This was a convenient analogy, but there cannot be a divine formula.
please check out http://www.islamicsolutions.com/what-does-god-want-from-us/
Hawking has been selling his dry science books for years by incorporating God into the equations, becoming a weak theologian while saying theology and philosophy is dead.
Now he’s selling a book killing God.
I guess he figures the market for new priest of material atheism is open with Chris Hitchens declining and Dawkins embarrassed in the ID film.
The problem is that science has yet to address the why questions. Why laws of science at all? Why something, not nothing? Why did things organize themselves?
The god of the gaps was never a christian understanding of God anyway.
More to the point, Hawking defines nothing as something, in terms of the preexistence of gravity and a perfect vacuum, which is quite something.
Lots of double talk.
Steven Hawking saying that science nullifies the existence of a deity, the existence of this god, has ruffled a lot of feathers in the conservative and scientific communities. We want to believe that all that exists, all that we know of at this time, for the last 13 billion years has to been “created” by a life force that resides above the realm that we mortals exist in. We separate time lines according to before the birth of Christ and after his death (BC and AD). We want to believe that we are the center of the universe and the only universe that exists is the one that we live in, life as we know it. We want to believe that all that is began with the creation of this universe and nothing else existed prior to this one. Time, space, matter are finite and that when the universe ends on this universe, so does all existence. Gods and Goddess have come and gone in the annals of human psycho-social evolution, maybe one day we will let this deity pass into the ethereal realm of Mount Olympus.
May Zeus have mercy on our souls, and may Hades and Gunn protect you from the eternal fires of the underworld.
Steven Hawking did not say there is no God. He only said God is not necessarily required for the creation of our Universe.
Science and Religion are completely independent on each other. If science can explain a religion, that religion is no longer a religion but a science.
We should not try to explain Religion in terms of Science.
Geez. Looks like I might get some notice for my ideas about reality if I were to suggest that they somehow conflicted with an idea of a Deity, instead of being totally neutral to the idea as to whether there is/are a Deity or Deities…
My little theory, which sort of grew itself from the realization that the Speed of Light would be an average rather than a maximum, can be read up on– or picked on– at
http://groups.google.com/group/oscillatorsubstance-theory
Course, it would also help if I were a recognized super-genius who had managed to make the idea that the random path of a particle would be there before the particle followed it into a whole theory of reality….
Dean L. Sinclair
I have reservations about Stephen Hawking’s unfounded conclusion of his latest book, ‘the Grand Design’ that categorically hints at absence of God’s role in cration of the universe. My disagreement with the learned scientist’s claim is substantiated by the fact that given any number of combinations of the basic building blocks of life viz., amino acids, nucleotides, sugar,and phosphate,etc., life has never been created in any of the laboratories the worldover. Life has never emerged from non-life. This is suggestive of the evolution of life having bearing on the existence of some supernatural force, whom we rever as ‘Almighty’ or as ‘God’. Readers may like to refer to the review article “Origin of Life” published in the peer-reviewed European journal, ‘Astrophysics & Space Science’ (2008, Volume 317, Issue 3-4, pp. 267-278), e-print of which is archived at arXiv as http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0907/0907.3552.pdf for the current status of scientific research in the inter-disciplinary field of ‘origin of life’.
Moreover, Hawking appears to have wrongly referred to the ‘Big Bang Model’ as the viable explanation for origin of the universe in his latest book. The said model is highly controversial with number of inconsistencies (the redshift controversy being the most hotly debated controversy) brought to the notice of the scientific community by the leading researchers in the field from time to time.It is ironic that the mainstream cosmologists have remained indifferent to admit the cosmological realities despite several loopholes with the said model.The article titled “Big Bang Model? A Critical Review” published in the US journal, ‘Journal of Cosmology’and posted on internet for the international viewership at the website:http://vixra.org/pdf/1005.0051v8.pdf details the prominent shortcomings with the Big Bang model.
Ashwini Kumar Lal, New Delhi
QM and cosmology research have reached the stage of blurring the boundary between physics and metaphysics. (Actually, much early science research grew out of metaphysical thought in the first place.) Unfortunately, many or most of these scientists make metaphysical claims in complete ignorance of the highly developed field of metaphysics, all blissfully unaware of the embarrassment they bring upon themselves among professional philosophers, be they theists or atheists. Besides the metaphysical literature, many of the issues spill over into philosophy of science and epistemology literature as well. Hawking also shows contempt for philosophers in his new book, even though it’s not certain that M-theory ever will be refutable in the Popperian sense. There’s a new book out by Robert Spitzer titled “New Proofs for the Existence of God.” It contains a detailed, but only semi-technical analysis of string theory and the weak anthropic principle, before providing several metaphysical proofs, together with an explanation of how the the methods of science and metaphysics differ. It would be a good place to start for scientists such as Hawking before spouting their unsupported claims.
Dónt worry, be happy…
God is the illuminator of both, Nothing and Something. Basic form of God is “Existence i.e. is-ness” which is, very easily, found in both, Non-existing and Existing things. Combination of Nothing and Something is called, Everything. God is beyond Everything (Hence, God cannot be comprehended by “The Theory of Everything”) and is pervaded in Everything in the form of “is-ness”.
Equations can be formed for the Existing things only. On the basis of those tiny equations, no one can deride the Presence of Almighty God.
If our intellect is considered in the category of Cosmos then we should certainly believe that intellect is “created” and “created” cannot grab the “creator”. If intellect is accepted to be made up of “dust of cosmos” (like, amino acids, DNA etc.) then how can this “dead dust” justify the presence of God? How can we say that our intellect, our interpretation about universe, is the ultimate authority? This proves that we are very limited and ignorant to understand the Real Grand Design of Supreme God.
If a car moves around some building by making an orbit around that building; then how long can that orbital motion sustain? Simple, as long as there is a fuel in the car. But the electrons are moving around nuclei for billions of years. From where the “Fuel” for that electron comes to sustain its orbital motion? That “Fuel” is the Original Source of “Energy”. That “Energy” comes from the Supremely Energetic Being, called God.
Life is not a chance of the combination of dead matter. It has not created by chance. If it had been created by chance, there would not be any “Regularity” in the universe. Regularity cannot be chance because regular arrangement of mechanism need the “Mechanic”. Isn’t this fact very easily understandable for a Physicist?
Life comes from Consciousness. Consciousness is the symptom of ever living Soul, not of dead matter of universe. All the Souls are children of their Loving Father called Supereme Soul, God.
The attempts to investigate this ever expanding universe have accepted the theories of ‘Big Bang’ and ‘Black Holes’. Such theories are put forward by scientists. But investigation of the existence of Black Holes also demands the answer to the question that: the matter which caused the existence of the black holes was not the predecessor of the black holes? The scientists should contemplate on this question for logical scientific scrutiny. These investigations are still at the level of hypothesis but the human mind, while looking into the formation and existence of black holes and thinking of possible big bang would definitely go to the idea of a situation before the black holes. And when it happens, logic points towards a situation which is referred in Guru Granth Sahib as Sunn i.e nothingness or celestial void. Means complete non existence of anything like matter. Neither matter, time nor space.Here space means the distances among the things. In this context, during his philosophical discourses with Sidhas (Learned Ones) Guru Nanak explained some important things while answering to their questions during philosophical discourses (Sidh Ghost)
Question of Sidhas regarding the creation of the universe:-
“What can you tell us about the beginning? In what home did the absolute void dwell then?” ( Page 940, Adi Guru Granth Sahib)
Reply of the Guru Nanak:-
“We can only express a sense of wonder about the beginning. The absolute void abided endlessly deep within Himself then.” ( Page 940, Adi Guru Granth Sahib)
And
From His state of absolute existence, He assumed the immaculate form; from formless, He assumed the supreme form. ( Page 940, Adi Guru Granth Sahib)
The current controversy regarding Hawking’s latest book, ‘The Grand Design’ results from the celebrated scientist’s limited vision about ‘origins’ (of life and universe). Hawking is perhaps under false impression that the current knowledge of quantum physics and general theory of relativity alone is sufficient to unearth mystery surrounding ‘origin of life’, whereas fact of the matter is that study of ‘origin of life’ is a muli-disciplinary pursuit involving sound understanding of diverse subjects such as genetics, astrobiology, and molecular biology besides astrophysics. Ironically, despite considerable advancement in the above cited fields in recent years,science just remains clueless about origin of life.
Ashwini Kumar Lal
The current controversy regarding Hawking’s latest book, ‘The Grand Design’ results from the celebrated scientist’s limited vision about ‘origins’ (of life and universe). Hawking is perhaps under false impression that the current knowledge of quantum physics and general theory of relativity alone is sufficient to unearth mystery surrounding ‘origin of life’, whereas fact of the matter is that study of ‘origin of life’ is a muli-disciplinary pursuit involving sound understanding of diverse subjects such as genetics, astrobiology, and molecular biology besides astrophysics. Ironically, despite considerable advancement in the above cited fields in recent years,science just remains clueless about origin of life.
Ashwini Kumar Lal
Redshift Controversy
As per Hubble’s law, galaxies in the cosmos are observed to recede on account of expansion of universe. However, there remains nagging uncertainty whether the redshift calculated on the basis of Hubble’s law gives true value of the receding galaxies. Some astronomers (Narlikar 1989; Parker 1993; Harrison 1993; Longair 1995) have serious reservations about the authenticity of the galactic velocities catalogued by astronomers using the Hubble’s velocity- distance law, v = Hd. Expansion redshift does not arise from the Doppler effect, nor is the redshift related to velocity by the special relativistic relation, 1+z =[(1+v/c)/(1-v/c)]1/2 (Narlikar 1993). Einstein’s relativistic Doppler formula merely applies to the motion of galaxies through space, it does not apply to the recession of galaxies (Seeds 2007). Moreover, Doppler redshift is bound by the laws of Einstein’s special relativity, which dictates that an object cannot travel faster than the speed of light whereas in the case of cosmological redshift, v > c is possible since the space which separates the objects (e.g. a quasar from the Earth) through a vacuum can expand faster than the speed of light.
Bondi (1947) defined cosmological redshift as the summation of the Doppler shift due to an object’s motion through space, and the global gravitational shift (Einstein effect) due to the difference between the potential energy per unit mass at the source and the observer. Mathematically, cosmological redshift is expressed as z(cos) = z(dop)+ z(grav),
where 1+ z(cos) =[(1+v/c)/(1-v/c)]1/2 (1+∆Ф/c2), and ∆Ф is the difference in gravitational potential between the points of emission and reception of a photon, which hints at the Doppler shift not being the correct measure of distance between the source and the observer.
Ashwini Kumar Lal, New Delhi
Redshift Controversy (contd.):
The strongest argument (Field et al. 1973) in favour of cosmological expansion is that there is no known hypothesis consistent with laws of physics (other than Doppler shift hypothesis) that can explain the observed redshifts. Crawford (1979) provides alternate explanation to the problem – the interaction of photon with curved space-time causes it to lose energy in the form of very low energy secondary photons, giving rise to the phenomenon of redshift. Marmet (1990) too was of the opinion that the cosmic redshifts could be explained without invoking the Doppler interpretation. According to him, photon, in its passage from a distant galaxy to the observer on the earth, loses some of its energy to the intergalactic medium. As such, the greater the depth of the intergalactic medium between a galaxy and the observer, the more its light gets shifted toward the low-energy (red) end of the spectrum (Marmet and Reber 1989). Interactions of photons with atoms in the intergalactic medium always result in the production of secondary photon (bremsstrahlung photon) at longer wavelength (Jauch and Rohrlich 1980). Julia (2009)too has attributed cosmological redshift of distant galaxies to the loss of energy of the photon with time through transfer of its energy (heat) to the intergalactic space whereby redshift is shown to increase exponentially with the distance,
z = e(H/c)d . These ideas suggest that the distant quasars might be much closer to the Earth than their redshift would indicate if they have an ‘intrinsic redshift’ due to their being surrounded by a ‘fuzzy’ atmosphere containing free electrons and other material. This concentration of electrons produces the unusual redshift as the light travels through it, and loses energy to these electrons by the Compton effect (Grey and Davies 2008).
Redshift controversy (contd.):
The strongest argument (Field et al. 1973) in favour of cosmological expansion is that there is no known hypothesis consistent with laws of physics (other than Doppler shift hypothesis) that can explain the observed redshifts. Crawford (1979) provides alternate explanation to the problem – the interaction of photon with curved space-time causes it to lose energy in the form of very low energy secondary photons, giving rise to the phenomenon of redshift. Marmet (1990) too was of the opinion that the cosmic redshifts could be explained without invoking the Doppler interpretation. According to him, photon, in its passage from a distant galaxy to the observer on the earth, loses some of its energy to the intergalactic medium. As such, the greater the depth of the intergalactic medium between a galaxy and the observer, the more its light gets shifted toward the low-energy (red) end of the spectrum (Marmet and Reber 1989). Interactions of photons with atoms in the intergalactic medium always result in the production of secondary photon (bremsstrahlung photon) at longer wavelength (Jauch and Rohrlich 1980). Julia (2009)too has attributed cosmological redshift of distant galaxies to the loss of energy of the photon with time through transfer of its energy (heat) to the intergalactic space whereby redshift is shown to increase exponentially with the distance, z = e(H/c)d . These ideas suggest that the distant quasars might be much closer to the Earth than their redshift would indicate if they have an ‘intrinsic redshift’ due to their being surrounded by a ‘fuzzy’ atmosphere containing free electrons and other material. This concentration of electrons produces the unusual redshift as the light travels through it, and loses energy to these electrons by the Compton effect (Grey and Davies 2008).
In my opinion, awarding the ‘2006 Physics Nobel’ to the advocates of the ‘Big Bang Theory’ has been one of the biggest blunders committed by the Nobel Committee in the light of the prevailing inconsistencies(e.g. the unrersolved redshift controversy that has direct bearing on the expanse and the age of the universe, presence of fully developed mature galaxies with higher metallicity in the very early epoch of the universe, and the presence of superclusters of galaxies interspersed with supervoids in the cosmos) that remain inexplicable by the ‘Big Bang Model’.
The ‘Big Bang Model’ has been under controversy for quite some time. Eminent cosmologists like Fred Hoyle, Halton Arp, and Jayant Narlikar have been pinpointing the persisting loopholes with the said model from time to time. Instead of addressing those outstanding isses, advocates of the ‘Big Bang’ have taken it to be a prestige issue. Keeping in view some recent developments in the field of space science, when I submitted my manuscript titled “Big Bang Model: A Critical Review” incorporating critical analysis of the available scientific facts and results of the various space probes, for publication in a reputed international journal, I received a terrible shock when my paper was arbitrarily rejected despite very strong recommendation by one of the referees appointed by the the editor for review of my paper. The said paper did get enentually published in the April 2010 issue of the peer-reviewed US journal, Journal of Cosmology.Then, subsequent to publcation of the said paper, when I tried to get e-print of the published paper posted at arXiv( the prestigious scientific website maintained by the Cornell University, New York)),I was blacklisted by the arXiv administration on very flimsy ground of having pestered the arXiv adminstration for posting of the article opposing the ‘Big Bang Model’at their site. The ‘Big Bang’ lobbyists just want perpetuation of the status quo in respect of the controversial ‘Big Bang Model’
The ‘Big Bang Model’ has been under controversy for quite some time. Eminent cosmologists like Fred Hoyle, Halton Arp, and Jayant Narlikar have been pinpointing the persisting loopholes with the said model from time to time. Instead of addressing those outstanding isses, advocates of the ‘Big Bang’ have taken it to be a prestige issue. Keeping in view some recent developments in the field of space science, when I submitted my manuscript titled “Big Bang Model: A Critical Review” incorporating critical analysis of the available scientific facts and the rersuls of various space probes, for publication in a reputed international journal, I received a terrible shock when my paper was arbitrarily rejected despite very strong recommendation by one of the referees appointed by the the editor for review of my paper. The said paper did get eventually published in the April 2010 issue of the peer-reviewed US journal, Journal of Cosmology.Then, subsequent to publcation of the said paper, when I tried to get e-print of the published paper posted at arXiv( the prestigious scientific website maintained by the Cornell University, New York)), I was blacklisted by the arXiv administration on very flimsy ground of having pestered the arXiv adminstration for posting of the article opposing the ‘Big Bang Model’.The ‘Big Bang’ lobbyists just want to perpetuate the status quo in respect of the controversial ‘Big Bang Model’!
Readers may like browse posting No. 435 on page 44 of the thread :’Stephen Hawking: God was not needed to create the Universe’ at the website :
http://www.politics.ie/education-science/137173-stephen-hawking-god-not-needed-create-universe-44.html .
Readers may like to watch the video feature titled
‘Big Bang Theory – The ‘biggest’ lie of all? ‘Science’, with NO [Zero, none] ’scientific evidence’?’ on
‘You Tube’ at the website:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2K-YVmuOCY .
Notwithstanding the fact that diferent theories under the proposed M-theory in Hawking’s latest book represent different facets of the same underlying theory i.e., ‘Theory of Everything’, its viability as ‘The Grand Design’ providing mathematical formulism for unification of fundamental forces in nature is highly speculative, with very remote possibility of its being verified expermentally. It may not be out of place to mention that the ‘Big Bang Model’ has alredy failed one of the crucial acid test for its survival that relates to detection of remnant of gravity waves from the earliest epoch of the universe. Existence of gravitational – wave background, predicted by Einstein in 1916 in his general theory of relativity, is expected from the violent early moments of the Big Bang much like the cosmic microwave background that fills the sky with radio waves from the early universe. While the microwave background originated 380,000 years after the Big Bang, gravitational – wave background purportedly come directly from events in the first minute after the Big Bang. As per Einstein’s prediction, the cataclysmic Big Bang is believed to have created a flood of gravitational waves – ripples in the fabric of space-time that still fill the universe, albeit at a very feeble strength to be discernible by the conventional astronomical tools, and carry information about the universe as it was in the immediate aftermath of the Big Bang. Ironically, the much publicized LIGO experiments, undertaken at whopping sum of over $365 million, for probe of remnant of the gravity waves from the earliest epoch of the universe have so far yielded nothing.
The concept of ‘conformal cyclic cosmology’ (CCC) floated by the Oxford physicist, Sir Roger Penrose refutes the widely accepted inflationary Big Bang model for the origin of the universe. Recent observation of the circular patterns seen in the WMAP mission data on the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) that hints at the space and time not originating at the Big Bang supports Penrose’s concept of CCC. Our universe continually cycles through a series of ‘aeons’, with each ‘big bang’ marking the start of a new ‘aeon’ in the history of the universe . In the light of revelation made in Penrose’s recent paper titled ‘Concentric circles in WMAP data may provide evidence of violent pre-Big-Bang activity’ (http://arxiv.org/abs/1011.3706), the age of the universe calibrated as 13.75 billion years according to NASA’s latest interpretation of the WMAP data hardly holds any relevance.THe CCP concept also debunks the view that the ‘big bang’ created space-time.
Brain appears to be the most difficult and mysterious thing to specify on Earth. That means, we have our own interpersonal views about everything and you can’t force others to follow your principles if at the end of the day we’re all hitting one common goal in different ways. Ideally, you can’t persuade a consistent being to change his favorite color from childhood; you can’t alter the beliefs of a magnanimous and pious being; etc. One can’t disprove Stephen Hawking’s ideas about the unverse; one can’t argue with the religious persons about the existence of God; one can’t discard my idea that life is a drama because everything was well-planned by something or somebody; etc. unless one can scientifically prove that this is the ultimate truth!
Realization of the supernatural force commanding this universe is very much evident from the knowledge of quantum physics itself. The incidence of electron not collapsing into the nucleus despite the electron gradually losing its energy during its orbit around the nucleus on account of emission of radiation resulting from its motion in the magnetic field, is a glaring example of presence of the supernatural force at micro level. There is always a minimum energy level for the electron in its orbit around the nucleus beyond which trespassing is not permissible. And then, quantum tunnelling and quantum fluctuations are the other bizarre natural phenomena that appear to be regulated at Almighty’s behest alone.
In the context of the ongoing debate on Stephen Hawking’s observations in his latest book, ‘The Grand Design’, I must mention Einstein’s famous words :
” Science without religion is lame, and religion without science is blind “.
I have gone through three books titled, ‘ A Brief History of Time’, ‘The Theory of Everything’, and
‘The Grand Design’ – all authored by the celebrated scientist, Stephen Hawking. I find content of all his books to be more or less the same with minor variation here and there. I fail to comprehend why Hawking has been repeating the same thing again and again. Repeated mention of the Big Bang Model as viable explanation for the origin of the universe does not convince intelligent readers about its validity in the light of several unattended inconsistencies with the said model.
Why did Professor Hawking wait for over 20 years before acknowledging Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem as ruling out a complete Theory of Everything (TOE)?
An all-encompassing TOE would not only include a logical derivation of the fundamental laws from a set of root mathematical axioms but would extend this logical derivation to every possible phenomenon in the universe as a mathematical statement.
This is the definition of the TOE used by Professor Hawking, as evidenced, for instance, by his including the Goldbach conjecture formulated as a physical problem – in terms of wooden blocks – as part of “the theory of the universe”, as he puts it in his website.
Applying Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem to the root mathematical axioms shows that the mathematical system is either inconsistent, which we can rule out, or that it is incomplete, ie, there are some true statements of the mathematics – manifest as phenomena in our universe – which cannot be deduced from the root axioms and, therefore, which cannot be predicted from the TOE either, since it is, itself, derived from the root axioms.
The fact that a TOE derived from the root axioms of the type envisaged by Professor Hawking is incapable of predicting all the phenomena in the universe surely deserved a comment!
In The Grand Design, again, no mention is made of Gödel, although this is less surprising if M-theory is regarded as a “conventional” TOE, which does not attempt to explain all phenomena.
However, there is a final twist to the tale. While Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem shows that an all-encompassing TOE, which predicts all phenomena, cannot be derived from the root axioms, it is nevertheless true that a TOE which does predict all phenomena could, in principle, be written down without deriving it. It would simply not be possible to prove, in this universe, that what had been written down was, indeed, the genuine TOE. This, and other aspects of the TOE, are discussed in my website, http://www.godel-universe.com.
I watched yesterday a TV documentary about Physics and the beginning of the universe during which you were speaking. I still have three basic questions:
1 – A black hole is, by definition a space “inadequacy” where matter is extremely dense, but not an absolute vacuum, other wise a black hole could not exist. The black can only be defined if at least one other color exists. My question is then : Where is that matter coming from ?
2 – In a black hole time stops. There is no time as we know it. So be it but if a black hole could prove the non existence of time before the big bang, it does not seems to prove that matter did not exists before the big bang . For the reason described in (1).
3 – God is, to my understanding, the creator of time. See (Genesis 1:5). Hence he is not subject of the rules of physics the way we understand them. According to me He is in-. temporal. Trying to describe him as an entity subject to the rules of physics as we understand them today is perhaps not reasonable? Or at least we need to substantiate this concept
I will be honored to know what are your thoughts on my questions.
Humbly and very sincerely
François Moya
TORTOISE (Hinduism) and DRAGON (Taoism) are symbols for ENERGY or WAVE, both are analog with MAGEN DAVID (Judaism). “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs” is the metaphor, also Thawaf seven times circling around the Ka’ba and Sa’i oscillating along “the sinus” Marwah-Shafa during rituals of the Hajj (Abraham).
“A BRIEF HISTORY OF TIME – From the Big Bang to Black Hole” by Stephen W. Hawking is the best scientific interpretation of AL QUR’AN by a non believer. It is also a “genuine bridge stone” for comprehensive study of Theology. Surprise, this paradox is a miracle and blessing in disguise as well. So, it should be very wise and challenging for Moslem scholars to verify my discovery.
NeoSUFI visionary strategic thinking.
Dr. Hawking, do you believe that the ancient Egyptians changed their chromosomes to become Gods? Or lost their chromosomes to become Gods? I would like to show Dr. Hawkings a portal, and experience portal travel. Holla!
I would like to show Dr. Hawking a portal and experience portal travel. Holla!
For more on the topic of science and religion, see my following article on physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler’s Omega Point cosmology, which is a proof of God’s existence according to the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics), and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE):
James Redford, “The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything”, Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Apr. 9, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), 185 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708 .