No Possibility of God

[Super Universe]

No. The BB solution is a dynamic solution: it changes over time. The black hole solution is a static solution: it stays the same over time. They are two different types of solutions to the same basic equations.



The BB theory is part of General Relativity. it is a consequence of our understanding of gravity.



We don't. The basic equations of gravity are the Einstein field equations for General Relativity.

You get the BB solution by assuming (to a first approximation) a uniform energy distribution at every time, but allowing for things to be dynamic.

You get the black hole solutions (Schwartzchild solution) by assuming spherical symmetry and a static (no change over time).

Both types of solutions have singularities, but they are very different *types* of singularities. In the BB solution, the singularity prevents time from being defined infinitely into the past. In the black hole solution, the singularity is in space and represents a mass.

I would strongly suggest that you pick up a book, like Wald's book on General Relativity, before you say more things which are simply wrong scientifically. If you want, you can then pick a book like Weinberg's book on Cosmology, which gives a LOT of detail about all the stuff you have been saying doesn't make sense.

The bb changes over time? So time is what allows the bb to violate gravity? Hehe...

The bb is part of General Relativity? No, it's not. Einstein did not come up with the bb idea. I know you want to believe it is but anyone can play with math and force any conclusion. That doesn't make it ethical.

The basic equations of gravity are Einstein's General Relativity? No, the basic equations for gravity are Newton's equations. Einstein's are more complex.

You get the bb solution by assuming uniform energy? Right, no matter. Just energy because that keeps the gravity very low.

You get the black hole solutions by assuming matter. The bb is pure energy, black holes are matter.

I should pick up a book? To learn primitive forced cosmology? Maybe I should do a rain dance too?

You should pick up a book. It's called Liminal Cosmogony. Good luck getting your hands on one.

 

[Super Universe]

That isn't what the BB theory says. Matter and energy are always present in all of space throughout all of time. But space itself is expanding.


Wrong. That isn't how the theory or the math from GR actually work.
The universe is expanding into the future, not into space.



The singularity is NOT a point in space. That is a common misunderstanding, but it is NOT what the BB theory actually says.

In fact, the singularity is in the past of *every* point of space.

That isn't what the bb theory says? Right, the bb was just energy so no mass. Then somehow the energy changed into hydrogen but there's no way that can happen.

The bb doesn't say that space and matter are not moving out from a single point? I know it doesn't because you've invented a child's book explanation for something that never happened.

The universe is expanding into the future, not into space? That's another thing that is wrong. There is no 4th dimension of time. In fact, quantum particles are not spherical or three dimensional at all. They are 1 dimensional loops that flip as they move. When these loops hit another loop at high speed they can shatter and the ends reform to make smaller loops. You guys think the loops are spherical when they're not. And, these 1 dimensional loops can build up to form 3 dimensional objects. Now, the 1 dimensional loops can move in 3 dimensions but in reality there is no such thing as a 2 or 3 dimensional object because everything is made up of 1 dimensional loops. Kind of like a house of cards.

The singularity is not a point in space? It's really amazing that anyone accepted this but I shouldn't be surprised. It's the exact same thing the religions have done for thousands of years. What happens if a physicist or astronomer doesn't accept the bb idea? They never work in the field again.

 

[Super Universe]

Actually, inflation isn't the same as universal expansion. it is a description of the *exponential* expansion in the very early universe prior to nucleosynthesis.



So, the BB model is a good model once you get into the realm of application of General Relativity. This is fully active by about a second into the expansion.



Well, maybe you need to learn some math and physics before you make your claims. The laws of physics are written in math. The laws of GR are the ones that directly apply to the BB.

Philosophers are notoriously bad at modern physics.



I probably knew more about gravity when I was 15 than you will ever know. I can recommend a number of books on the subject, but you will need to know a bit of math to even get started. But that is true of any physics since Newton.

Inflation isn't universal expansion? You have to play with the theory once again because the bb doesn't explain the increasing speed of expansion. If you just stuck with inflation from the beginning you wouldn't be in all this trouble.

The bb model is a good model once you get into GR? If there is no matter it works, but, there is matter. That's fudging the results and it's entirely unethical.

The laws of physics are written in math? Some are.

The laws of GR directly apply to the bb? If matter does not exist even though it does.

Philosophers are bad at physics. It's already understood. You've just been left behind. People are allowed to think what they want to think because that's really, really, really important to them. That they can design the universe their way, even when they really can't.

You knew more about gravity when you were 15 than I ever knew? Right, gravity bends time. Well, it's wrong. Sorry to inform you. Space is not time. The multiverse is time. Einstein almost had it. Almost.

Oh, do you remember our bet made years ago? The James Webb telescope is about a year away from launch.

 

[Polymath257]

The bb changes over time? So time is what allows the bb to violate gravity? Hehe...

The universe is expanding. It is General Relativity (the description of gravity) that predicts that expansion *and* has a singularity at the beginning of that expansion. The *change* is the expansion. No violation of gravity is present. In fact, it is the theory of gravity that predicts it.

The bb is part of General Relativity? No, it's not. Einstein did not come up with the bb idea. I know you want to believe it is but anyone can play with math and force any conclusion. That doesn't make it ethical.

it isn't 'playing with the math'. It is taking Einstein's equations and applying them to the universe as a whole. And no, you cannot force every conclusion: it has to be mathematically derivable from the basic equations.

The basic equations of gravity are Einstein's General Relativity? No, the basic equations for gravity are Newton's equations. Einstein's are more complex.

Einstein's equations are the more *fundamental* equations (that is what I meant by basic). Newton's equations are an approximation to Einstein's.

You get the bb solution by assuming uniform energy? Right, no matter. Just energy because that keeps the gravity very low.

Matter and energy are equivalent in relativity. BOTH produce gravity.

You get the black hole solutions by assuming matter. The bb is pure energy, black holes are matter.

Nope. Actually, the Schatzchild solution is a *vacuum* solution except for the singularity at the center.

I should pick up a book? To learn primitive forced cosmology? Maybe I should do a rain dance too?

You should pick up a book. It's called Liminal Cosmogony. Good luck getting your hands on one.

Wow. All I can say to that is a crank non-theory.

 

[Polymath257]

Inflation isn't universal expansion? You have to play with the theory once again because the bb doesn't explain the increasing speed of expansion. If you just stuck with inflation from the beginning you wouldn't be in all this trouble.

The accelerating expansion is handled quite well with a cosmological constant.

The bb model is a good model once you get into GR? If there is no matter it works, but, there is matter. That's fudging the results and it's entirely unethical.

What makes you think that no matter is assumed? In fact, quite the opposite. The typical treatment of BB cosmology considers the effect of matter and energy (they are equivalent in this context--with matter being the dominant term currently), radiation (light) and the vacuum energy (cosmological constant).

The laws of physics are written in math? Some are.

The laws of GR directly apply to the bb? If matter does not exist even though it does.

Again with the mistaken idea that matter isn't included in the GR description.

Philosophers are bad at physics. It's already understood. You've just been left behind. People are allowed to think what they want to think because that's really, really, really important to them. That they can design the universe their way, even when they really can't.

You knew more about gravity when you were 15 than I ever knew? Right, gravity bends time. Well, it's wrong. Sorry to inform you. Space is not time. The multiverse is time. Einstein almost had it. Almost.

Oh, do you remember our bet made years ago? The James Webb telescope is about a year away from launch.

I don't recall the details, but I am not concerned.

 

[Super Universe]

The universe is expanding. It is General Relativity (the description of gravity) that predicts that expansion *and* has a singularity at the beginning of that expansion. The *change* is the expansion. No violation of gravity is present. In fact, it is the theory of gravity that predicts it.



it isn't 'playing with the math'. It is taking Einstein's equations and applying them to the universe as a whole. And no, you cannot force every conclusion: it has to be mathematically derivable from the basic equations.



Einstein's equations are the more *fundamental* equations (that is what I meant by basic). Newton's equations are an approximation to Einstein's.



Matter and energy are equivalent in relativity. BOTH produce gravity.



Nope. Actually, the Schatzchild solution is a *vacuum* solution except for the singularity at the center.



Wow. All I can say to that is a crank non-theory.

GR predicts the expansion and has a singularity at the beginning of that expansion? It doesn't. Once again, this is getting old, Einstein did not come up with the bb. You think if you just keep repeating the same thing over and over again that it will eventually be accepted, like your peers and students. It won't be accepted because it's wrong.

Disregarding matter (which is gravity) to come up with the bb is not playing with the math?

Einstein's equations are more correct than Newton? I agree. The math is correct, the theory is all over the place, like ricochet rabbit. Universal constant yes, then no, then yes. Space is time, when it's really not. But at least he was good at math.

Matter and energy are equivalent in relativity, both produce gravity? But matter has a lot more gravity and relativity is not the bb. Relativity is relativity. The bb is the bb.

Schatzchild says that a black hole is a vacuum? Then space emits the gravity? How does space know to do this without matter? Does the matter first form the black hole and then disappear and space continues to produce the gravity?

 

[Super Universe]

The accelerating expansion is handled quite well with a cosmological constant.



What makes you think that no matter is assumed? In fact, quite the opposite. The typical treatment of BB cosmology considers the effect of matter and energy (they are equivalent in this context--with matter being the dominant term currently), radiation (light) and the vacuum energy (cosmological constant).



Again with the mistaken idea that matter isn't included in the GR description.



I don't recall the details, but I am not concerned.

The accelerating expansion is explained by the cosmological constant? The math is right. The theory is wrong. Einstein was good at math.

What makes me think no matter is assumed? Because matter has gravity and gravity stops the bb dead. How does the energy change to hydrogen? Where's the theory that explains that?

GR applies to the bb? But only to the very low mass matter. That's fudging the experiment to force the result.

The details of the bet were that when the James Webb telescope finds galaxies farther out than 13.8 billion years you would admit that you were wrong.

 

[Windwalker]

I think it comes down to any concept of God,

I don't see any contradiction with the concept of God as I hold it. It seems to only apply to the traditional theistic God of Western Christianity. It makes no sense beyond that. It doesn't pose a problem for the concept of Brahman, for instance.

as far as a God's involvement with the creation of the universe, being unnecessary. Similar to Nietzsche saying "God is dead".

But that involvement is one of an external creator. That concept of God, doesn't reflect all concepts of God.

So there may be a God of some type but as far as the physical universe goes, such a God has no value.

No value to what or whom? Science? Sure. No one is saying God is anything science can look at. I think Hawkins didn't get the memo on that.

 

[halbhh]

Based on what we know about black holes Hawking concluded "time begun at the moment of singularity".

No time - - > no cause.
No cause - - > no creation.

"We have finally found something that doesn’t have a cause, because there was no time for a cause to exist in."

"For me this means that there is no possibility of a creator..." (Hawking)

At first glance it seems science doesn't support creation. But the "cause" Hawking wrote about is not the same as "cause" in philosophy and theology... Hawkins doesn't refute the possibility that God created the laws and singularity. He just thinks "science has a more compelling explanation."

Does Creator have anything with our universe? In Hahwking's view even if God started BB, it has no (further) role in our universe - deism. Seriously? Laws of physics describe the whole of cosmos? I think he pushed this too far.

Particles seem to appear "out of nowhere". I don't see how this leads to BB appeared from nothing. I mean we are now in temporal universe. No time existing before BB doesn't automatically mean nothing at all existed/exists. It can be something atemporal.

Hawking usefully worded a basic reality we learn in physics that all the Universe we see all around is simply physics in action.

Universe = physics in action.

We can like that this refutes the incompetent-designer versions where God is imagined to have to make things (stars, planets, species, etc.) 1 at a time.

Here's an easy thing to point out on the other side of arguing about God though:

The common (and wrong) assumption of assuming God would be subject to nature, inside of nature, a natural being -- less than Nature -- which leads in easy logic to a "God" that makes little sense as "creator".

Notice here the circular reasoning of then concluding God doesn't exist...

Starting with "God" that is bizarrely both Creator yet constrained by Nature (by physics) leads to concluding God does not exist.

One only argued to the conclusion which is just the assumption in a new form.

Hawking wrote. "For me this means that there is no possibility of a creator, because there is no time for a creator to have existed in."
Stephen Hawking's Final Book Says There's 'No Possibility' of God in Our Universe | Live Science

So time didn't exist before the Big Bang?
There seems a lot of certainty that prior to the BB time did not exist at least by people certainly smarter than me.

Has science finally provided an answer to the age-old question of God's existence?
Is Hawking wrong about time?
Or, is there some workaround which allows God to exist/create in a timeless state?

In fact, according to Hawking, nothing existed prior to the Big Bang and it is perfectly ok to accept that.

 

[halbhh]

Did many in the thread see the circular reasoning involved in concluding this version of God-constrained-by-Nature doesn't exist? (that this not-God is a being that is not existing)

(see post just above for more on that)

 

[Nakosis]

I don't see any contradiction with the concept of God as I hold it. It seems to only apply to the traditional theistic God of Western Christianity. It makes no sense beyond that. It doesn't pose a problem for the concept of Brahman, for instance.


But that involvement is one of an external creator. That concept of God, doesn't reflect all concepts of God.


No value to what or whom? Science? Sure. No one is saying God is anything science can look at. I think Hawkins didn't get the memo on that.

Does this mean you believe in a God who is non-immanent?

If so, a non-immanent God wouldn't be a factor in this physical universe. So God's existence has no value or a null effect on the universe. So perhaps a God that created/started the universe then detached themselves from it. Belief/non-belief has no physical effect on the universe.

 

[Windwalker]

Does this mean you believe in a God who is non-immanent?

If so, a non-immanent God wouldn't be a factor in this physical universe. So God's existence has no value or a null effect on the universe. So perhaps a God that created/started the universe then detached themselves from it. Belief/non-belief has no physical effect on the universe.

I believe God can be seen as both transcendent and immanent. But being immanent does not mean that God is other to the material reality, or a separate object within the material universe like a man sitting holding a leaf in his hand. Being immanent simply means that the divine reality is everything you see, as an expression of God. The Buddhists have a great way to put this. "Form is emptiness; emptiness is form. Form is not different than emptiness; emptiness is not different than form."

You're not going to find God apart from that leaf. The leaf is the leaf, and the leaf is created by God through nature. The leaf is God. And, the leaf is the leaf. All that you see, is God. But you can't examine God under a microscope, or through a telescope, if you are hoping to see something other than what you already see. But what you see, is limited by how you perceive. If you change how you perceive, then it becomes apparent. It's always been "Just this", as the Buddhists say.

 

[Bird123]

Physically, mathematically, the truth is God is not necessary. That doesn't mean you can't still believe in one.[/QUOT


WE are Spiritual beings in our true natures. I have direct experience to this. Defining a Spiritual Being solely by the physical laws of this universe leaves one lacking. On the other hand, I have found God is involved with Math in greater ways than you imagine. Unlike those religious beliefs and holy books, everything about God will add up.

WE all already know God, whether we know we know or not. People choose to discover God through the beliefs of others settling at that. Others choose not to value beliefs at all settling at that. The last group chooses to Discover the real truth regardless of what that truth might be.

God will no longer be a Belief when you bump into God yourself. On the other hand, where will your proof be? It will be in your actions, just like the proof of God is in God's actions. All the secrets of the universe stare us all in the face. Can you see?

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[blü 2]

Well, first of all, conservation of energy is problematic in General Relativity. The problem is that 'energy' is one component of the energy-momentum 4-vector and, in curved space time, vectors are localized to points. So, to 'add up' the energy in a region attempts to add components of vectors at different points, and that isn't well defined. There is a concept of 'parallel transport' that allows for moving a vector along a path to another point, but the result depends on the path taken.

Except for the 'comes from somewhere' (which assumes a conservation law that doesn't apply in this context), you have it basically correct: there is a minimum energy level for a vacuum, everywhere.

Now, those familiar with QM immediately see this as being some sort of ground state for the energy. And, for typical quantum systems, the ground state is non-zero. So this could well be the origin of this 'energy density of a vacuum'.

The problem is that every particle type would contribute to this energy and it is possible to do a basic calculation for what the known quantum fields would give for this energy density. The result is one of the absolute worst predictions ever made in physics: the calculated value is off by *120 orders of magnitude* from the observed value. In some ways, it would be easier to understand a *zero* value than a small non-zero value (which is what we see).

Anyway, this points to the fact that we don't understand something and that has to do with the interaction of GR and QM.

Many thanks for your summary. It greatly clarifies my understanding of the problem, and further sharpens my interest in possible solutions.

 

[Nakosis]

I've bumped into God a few times. In fact I can see and hear God right now.

So I wouldn't question the fact of your experience.

However, how do you know the source of your experience is not a demon? Or perhaps a mental disorder?

People do hear/see things that we accept don't actually exist. Sure people are certain they could tell the difference. I'm not.

Do you think people could have an experience of God that is not actually God?

 

[Polymath257]

The details of the bet were that when the James Webb telescope finds galaxies farther out than 13.8 billion years you would admit that you were wrong.

If it finds such, I will admit I was wrong. And if it does not, you should admit that you are wrong.

Of course, I am talking about the light-time-of-flight distance, not the current proper distance.

Current record holder: GN-z11 - Wikipedia

 

[Super Universe]

If it finds such, I will admit I was wrong. And if it does not, you should admit that you are wrong.

Of course, I am talking about the light-time-of-flight distance, not the current proper distance.

Current record holder: GN-z11 - Wikipedia

So, the fix is on already. I figured as much.

So, is the 32.2 billion light years now considered to be the maximum possible distance any galaxy can be?

I don't remember what the James Webb resolution is supposed to be so I'm not sure if it can see something farther than 32.2 billion light years. They may have to put a series of James Webb telescopes to make a space interferometer to see out a lot farther.

Why stick to the 13.8 billion year number when it's obvious that there are things farther than 13.8 billion years?

 

[Polymath257]

So, the fix is on already. I figured as much.

So, is the 32.2 billion light years now considered to be the maximum possible distance any galaxy can be?

I don't remember what the James Webb resolution is supposed to be so I'm not sure if it can see something farther than 32.2 billion light years. They may have to put a series of James Webb telescopes to make a space interferometer to see out a lot farther.

Why stick to the 13.8 billion year number when it's obvious that there are things farther than 13.8 billion years?

The 13.8 billion figure is the maximum time of flight for the light from that receding object. The light was emitted 13.4 billion years ago. That galaxy, however, has moved away in the time since. We cannot see it *now*, but if we could it would now be 32 billion light years away.

The 13.8 billion year figure is the maximum time that light can have traveled and be able to reach us. That corresponds to about a 47 billion light year *current* radius.

When dealing with General Relativity, such distinction matter.

The Webb telescope will not be able to see anything where the light has taken more than 13.8 billion years to reach us. Most popular accounts will use that figure for the distance, although they are technically wrong about *current* distance.

 

[Super Universe]

The 13.8 billion figure is the maximum time of flight for the light from that receding object. The light was emitted 13.4 billion years ago. That galaxy, however, has moved away in the time since. We cannot see it *now*, but if we could it would now be 32 billion light years away.

The 13.8 billion year figure is the maximum time that light can have traveled and be able to reach us. That corresponds to about a 47 billion light year *current* radius.

When dealing with General Relativity, such distinction matter.

The Webb telescope will not be able to see anything where the light has taken more than 13.8 billion years to reach us. Most popular accounts will use that figure for the distance, although they are technically wrong about *current* distance.

You're still tring to convince me of the 13.8 billion year age of the universe. You can't. I know it's not right. The universe is closer to 250 billion years old but there is no way to determine that with a telescope from the earth.

Seeing an object that is 13.8 billion light years away just means it is 13.8 billion light years away from us. That gives you no real indication of the age of the universe.

The James Webb Telescope will not be able to see anything more than 13.8 billion light years? It will but if you're just going to throw in the rate of expansion of the universe, as if everything is moving away from us since the bb (which is all totally incorrect) then you're never going to get it right. I don't know how far the JWT can resolve but I doubt it's over 47 billion light years.

 

[Sp0ckrates]

Hawking wrote. "For me this means that there is no possibility of a creator, because there is no time for a creator to have existed in."
Stephen Hawking's Final Book Says There's 'No Possibility' of God in Our Universe | Live Science

So time didn't exist before the Big Bang?
There seems a lot of certainty that prior to the BB time did not exist at least by people certainly smarter than me.

Has science finally provided an answer to the age-old question of God's existence?
Is Hawking wrong about time?
Or, is there some workaround which allows God to exist/create in a timeless state?

In fact, according to Hawking, nothing existed prior to the Big Bang and it is perfectly ok to accept that.

Hi, and great topic! One Christian concept described by teachers such as C. S. Lewis in his book Mere Christianity is that God exists outside of time, in a dimension described by biblical authors as eternity, which is not an infinite amount of time but is instead other than time.

All of time to God, he said is like an open book where God can turn to any page and enter time as he chooses, which explains how he can hear and answer so many prayers at the same time. Since he exists outside time, he knows both the beginning and end of it, which explains his omniscience.