[_ Old Earth _] Fabric of the Cosmos

[ThinkerMan]

I just read this book by Brian Greene.....

"The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time, and the Texture of Reality"

Just curious of others (Quath, Syntax, Barbarian, BL etc) thoughts about it. He seemed a bit apologetic about superstring, but otherwise I thought it was incredibly educational, and much better than Hawking's books.

Since my degree's aren't in science, I'm just curious about other's thoughts....thanks.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/de ... s&n=507846

 

[ThinkerMan]

Let me clarify one point I found interesting...

Greene says that the inflationary theory allows us to basically understand the "bang" itself, where the universe expanded something like 10(30th) times in about 10(-35th) seconds, at the same time creating something like 10(90th) times the mass that previously existed. (I'm citing those numbers from memory, but I think they are close)

I was under the impression that science still hadn't gotten around the bang, but this implies that the bang itself is now understood, and science is now trying to figure out the primordial low-entropy mix that preexisted the big bang. (whereas conventially quantum and general rel. still cannot fully explain).

Is this generally accepted at this time? Seemed extremely interesting, and I always seem to read here that it is true we don't know what caused the bang.

This implies we DO know what caused the bang, and now we are looking at what preceded the bang....again, is this a fair assessment?

Thanks all..

 

[Featherbop]

Even if they think they know what caused the bang, they will continue to have "what was before that" to understand. Not that I think it is important.

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

Fun fact, Brian Greene is the one who hosted "The Elegant Universe" on Nova: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/

I haven't read the book but the show was basically a quick runthrough of ideas concerning String theory, M-theory, and so on.

I think that what he might be talking about is the predictions made with string theory for the big bang, as most of our data on big bang conditions goes back only to 10^-25 seconds give or take a few orders of magnitude, and that the only way we'd have real evidence about this sort of thing is when the LHC comes online and can simulate much higher energy densities.

Furthermore the various inflation theories offer good explanations of the universe. But much more is yet to be seen. It seems that you may have a misconception, our understanding of physics breaks down around inflation, because it requires c+ expansion on the part of the universe, that's what all the hooplah about VSL theory a while ago was about. At least it is if I am recalling correctly. It's even before inflation the universe started expanding, at least according to the current theory, and before that is bubkis as far as we know. Science is still bent around the BBT.

On Nova, Greene was careful to mention that there really is no evidence for string theory or supersymmetry, and that everything they have is just a bunch of fun math problems.

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

Even if they think they know what caused the bang, they will continue to have "what was before that" to understand. Not that I think it is important.

Wow, you just called the search for full objective knowledge of the universe's origins unimportant. Are you sure you're in the right forum?

 

[ThinkerMan]

Fun fact, Brian Greene is the one who hosted "The Elegant Universe" on Nova: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/

Thanks...I didn't know about that...I'll try and TiVo it.

I saw he wrote that book and I'll read it next (although I have to finish Stephen King's "The Dark Tower VII" first).

On Nova, Greene was careful to mention that there really is no evidence for string theory or supersymmetry, and that everything they have is just a bunch of fun math problems.

Yeah, that was kinda made clear in his book as well. They seem to be the current working model, but far from having all the holes plugged.

I'm hopeful bright young people like yourself can help crack it soon!

By the way, "fun math problems" stopped for me when I hit differential equations, hence the last math class I ever took. Calculus doesn't do me much good in public relations. :D

Furthermore the various inflation theories offer good explanations of the universe. But much more is yet to be seen. It seems that you may have a misconception, our understanding of physics breaks down around inflation, because it requires c+ expansion on the part of the universe, that's what all the hooplah about VSL theory a while ago was about. At least it is if I am recalling correctly. It's even before inflation the universe started expanding, at least according to the current theory, and before that is bubkis as far as we know. Science is still bent around the BBT.

While certainly not answering all the questions, the book seemed to imply the following:

Inflationary theory (while still having quite a few issues to resolve), can explain how the "bang" banged.

That it can take a preexisting primordial mix, and by having the Higgs field reach a very short-lived high-energy level can cause extreme gravitional repulsion causing the bang (Please note I write this having only a cursory knowledge of what I just wrote and did it from memory!!!).

So the inflationary model can explain the "bang" (meaning the very rapid expansion), but mathematics and theoretical models still cannot penetrate the prexisting environment that preceded the rapid expansion itself.

Is that a fair assessment? Is there at least one theory that MAY explain the bang, while perhaps not what preceding the bang? (seems like M-theory and colliding three-dimensional membranes is another, but it's too late and my brain hurts)

Thanks Syntax, for your replies and your patience with one who has little professional education in this field.

I like learning about this because, within my lifetime I hope, when the "Theory of Everything" is found someone (maybe you?) I want to be able to understand it, and not just take TIME Magazine's word for it.

(I also notice I use parentheses a lot...sorry)

 

[Featherbop]

Even if they think they know what caused the bang, they will continue to have "what was before that" to understand. Not that I think it is important.

Wow, you just called the search for full objective knowledge of the universe's origins unimportant. Are you sure you're in the right forum?

I didn't say that it is unimportant. I just meant that it doesn't strike me as the most important thing. So, let's say that total knowledge of the universe is atainable, what's the point? I find reason to beleive that a Creator exists, that caused the universe. If I am wrong, there is no ultimate point, and even ultimate knowledge of all the universe doesn't seem possible to gain. Furthermore, I don't care about it now. I don't find things unatainable particulary interesting. But, if I can eventually attain it, then I'll care.

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

[quote="Darck Marck":6264b]Even if they think they know what caused the bang, they will continue to have "what was before that" to understand. Not that I think it is important.

Wow, you just called the search for full objective knowledge of the universe's origins unimportant. Are you sure you're in the right forum?

I didn't say that it is unimportant. I just meant that it doesn't strike me as the most important thing. So, let's say that total knowledge of the universe is atainable, what's the point? I find reason to beleive that a Creator exists, that caused the universe. If I am wrong, there is no ultimate point, and even ultimate knowledge of all the universe doesn't seem possible to gain. Furthermore, I don't care about it now. I don't find things unatainable particulary interesting. But, if I can eventually attain it, then I'll care.[/quote:6264b]
Oh here goes the old "secularism is tantamount to nihilism" argument. The point is that it's a major human endeavour. And it's extremely exciting. To quote Richard Feynman:
"Physics is like sex, every once in a while something useful pops out, but that's not why we do it."

 

[Featherbop]

[quote="Darck Marck":1fc78]Even if they think they know what caused the bang, they will continue to have "what was before that" to understand. Not that I think it is important.

Wow, you just called the search for full objective knowledge of the universe's origins unimportant. Are you sure you're in the right forum?

I didn't say that it is unimportant. I just meant that it doesn't strike me as the most important thing. So, let's say that total knowledge of the universe is atainable, what's the point? I find reason to beleive that a Creator exists, that caused the universe. If I am wrong, there is no ultimate point, and even ultimate knowledge of all the universe doesn't seem possible to gain. Furthermore, I don't care about it now. I don't find things unatainable particulary interesting. But, if I can eventually attain it, then I'll care.

Oh here goes the old "secularism is tantamount to nihilism" argument. The point is that it's a major human endeavour. And it's extremely exciting. To quote Richard Feynman:
"Physics is like sex, every once in a while something useful pops out, but that's not why we do it."[/quote:1fc78]

It may not be exciting to everyone. Just deal with the fact that people exist that hold opinions that are not yours. I'll be impressed when they....travel outside of the universe? : No, I just don't think this impressive, they can debate what was the first cause of the universe, and go in circles and loops for however long they please.

 

[bibleberean]

absolutely asinine...

"In the beginning was non intelligent matter. This matter exploded and order, physical laws and intelligent life emerged."

: : : : : :

Some people cannot admit to the fact that everything we see points to super intelligent design.

But they can believe that all we see arrived by blind, stupid, luck...

These words are so true! ;-)

Psalms 53:1 ... A Psalm of David. The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good.

Amen!

 

[ThinkerMan]

BB,

I do not think it asinine to investigate the origins of the universe. I am trying to answer the same questions you are, that all humans are. Your guide is the bible, mine is the world around us.

We continue to peer further and futher into the birth of the universe and the laws that govern it.

At this stage it says very little, if anything at all, about God as it pertains to cosmology.

Perhaps someday it can be shown that the universe can be completely understood, including the reason and method of its orgin. More likely it never will be.

Personally, I am somewhat agnostic as to what and how the very primarily spark of matter, the universe and our physical laws came into existance. Again, I think it is likely we, as a species, can never know completely.

I am atheistic, however, as to the belief of a personal and concious deity which did so.

 

[bibleberean]

It isn't asinine to wonder how all this came about.

The big bang theory is asinine.

Life didn't just come about by chance. It is self evident that life and all we see is the result of intelligent design.

absolutely asinine...

"In the beginning was non intelligent matter. This matter exploded and order, physical laws and intelligent life emerged."

: : : : : :

Some people cannot admit to the fact that everything we see points to super intelligent design.

But they can believe that all we see arrived by blind, stupid, luck...

These words are so true! ;-)

Psalms 53:1 ... A Psalm of David. The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good.

Amen!

 

[Asimov]

It isn't asinine to wonder how all this came about.

The big bang theory is asinine.

Life didn't just come about by chance. It is self evident that life and all we see is the result of intelligent design.

Berean, your statement is asinine, as it assume all people who accept he big bang are atheists.

 

[ThinkerMan]

It is self evident that life and all we see is the result of intelligent design.

That statement is a far cry from the divinity of Jesus.

Like I said, I am somewhat agnostic about the concept of intellegent design. I see no huge reason to either discount it nor embrace it.

However, to equate the intellegent design of a universe that is infinately large of which are are essentially irrelevant to the divinity of a man who lived long ago is certainly a stretch in logic.

bibleberean answers:

What has that got to do with the price of beans? :D

Even a fool can see that creation demands a creator....

Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

Romans 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Romans 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

 

[bibleberean]

It isn't asinine to wonder how all this came about.

The big bang theory is asinine.

Life didn't just come about by chance. It is self evident that life and all we see is the result of intelligent design.

Berean, your statement is asinine, as it assume all people who accept he big bang are atheists.

: : : : :

I never said that all people who accept the "big bang" theory are atheists.

 

[Asimov]

: : : : :

I never said that all people who accept the "big bang" theory are atheists.

You implied it, berean.

You stated something about the big bang being random chance....If God were involved, it wouldn't be random chance, now would it?

duuuuuuuh :P

 

[bibleberean]

: : : : :

I never said that all people who accept the "big bang" theory are atheists.

You implied it, berean.

You stated something about the big bang being random chance....If God were involved, it wouldn't be random chance, now would it?

duuuuuuuh :P

God wasn't involved because the big bang never took place.

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Genesis 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Genesis 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

Genesis 1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

Genesis 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day...

Genesis 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

Genesis 1:15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

Genesis 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

Genesis 1:17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

Genesis 1:18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

Genesis 1:19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

There was no explosion but God created all things in 6 days and in order.

That is how everything we see was originally created.

I believe the other bang theory.

God spoke and "bang!" it happened. :D

And I never implied that all who accept the big bang theory are atheists.

 

[Asimov]

: : : : :

I never said that all people who accept the "big bang" theory are atheists.

You implied it, berean.

You stated something about the big bang being random chance....If God were involved, it wouldn't be random chance, now would it?

duuuuuuuh :P

God wasn't involved because the big bang never took place.

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Genesis 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Genesis 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

Genesis 1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

Genesis 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day...

Genesis 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

Genesis 1:15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

Genesis 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

Genesis 1:17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

Genesis 1:18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

Genesis 1:19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

There was no explosion but God created all things in 6 days and in order.

That is how everything we see was originally created.

I believe the other bang theory.

God spoke and "bang!" it happened. :D

And I never implied that all who accept the big bang theory are atheists.

There you go, once again interpreting scripture the way you want it.