Theli

Not excacly.

By naming "god" as the first cause would be like pointing your finger at a brick and say - "Look, a house!"
Gods seems to be unecessary complex. From what we know of the first stages of the universe, there was no complexity at all. Just chaotic energy.

For the 0/1 question.
1 being existence.
0 being non-existence.

One could argue that there wasn't 0 before big bang. Since 0 is also a value that would need to be set. One could argue that both 0 and 1 exists, but only 1 keep existing since it is by definition "existence". It's stable. This won't need a mover. It only need a point simultainious to the universe without a certain state.

This might sound strange, but it's just an idea.

[ June 24, 2002: Message edited by: Deggial ]</p>

TenaciousB

A few things first. to Vic:energy and matter are one in the same, neither can be created or destroyed. Conservation of energy is the same for matter. E=Mc^2. (E/c^2=M) So if there was energy it can easily be made to express the properties of what we know as "matter".

As for the necessity of a "cause" i really don't see one. We have observed the quantum fluctuations that Kind Bud pointed out. In vacuums particle/anti-particle pairs just appear. there is no cause because there is nothing there to cause. Unless of course God is taking time out of his very busy day to create an infinite amount of these events in our universe.

I guess i could worship Quantum events for starting everything but i doubt they really know or care that i am.

Vic

TenaciousB,

I stand corrected.

"Empirical observation in the 19th century led to the conclusion that although energy can be transformed, it cannot be created or destroyed. This concept, known as the conservation of energy, constitutes one of the basic principles of classical mechanics. The principle, along with the parallel principle of conservation of matter, holds true only for phenomena involving velocities that are small compared with the velocity of light. At velocities that are a significant fraction of that of light, as in nuclear reactions, energy and matter are interconvertible (see Relativity). In modern physics the two concepts, the conservation of energy and of mass, are thus unified."
"Energy," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 2000. © 1993-1999 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Could it be possible that these laws were created just as an alternative to the concept of a deity by individuals in the 17th and 18th centuries who could not accept the religious notions of the day, which were based on the biblical record?
If one says that in a vacuum particles "just appear" does not get us any closer to "why?" it should be so or "from where?" did they come. Surely they did not come from nothing. They must have been there all the time but until a certain method is applied they remain invisible.

What IF ... and that is a massive "IF", we find out in the future that both matter and energy can be created? Don't ask me how. But just suppose that there had to be one to give existence to the other, irrespective of which one it could be. Let's face it, we know precious little of what is going on out there appart from what we have been able to observe from here. Still, it is plausible to presume that what holds true in our small corner of this galaxy may not be so somewhere else. Or can we allow ourselves to be so dogmatic as to assume that the whole universe obeys the same rules?
What about anti-matter?
Just a few thoughts.

Vic

Can someone enlighten me on the following:

If the universe came to be through a massive explosion of highly condensed matter such explosion would be powerful enough to convert every ounce of matter into energy. For this energy to revert back to matter it would require another similar mechanism. What are the present theories on this?
Thanks.

TenaciousB

Vic:
Though i don't know actual statistics, i'm fairly certain most early physicists (Newton comes to mind) were mostly Christian if not at the very least Deist. I doubt the theories of conservation were just a way to get at the religious notions of that time.

Thats the kicker there chief. They appearently DO come from nothing. if they were just not visible we could measure their other properties(limited by uncertainy of course). But there is absolutely nothing in the vacuums where we observe these events. NOTHING. period. but they occur. As to why? that was the point of my post. There doesn't have to always be a why. There doesn't always have to be a cause. (At least at the sub-atomic level.)

Fair enough. But that is, however, the reason we are pursuing Quantum Mechanics and other such theories. To FIND a set of rules that is consistant throughout the known universe. If everything came from the same original occurance(be it Big Bang, flucuations, deistic creation) it should all follow at least similar rules. So i don't think we assume the rest of the universe follows our rules, but we'd like to find out if it does.

In the Quantum Vacuum Flucuations anti-matter is produced. An electron and anti-electron(positron) are produced for a brief instant, then annihilate each other as matter and anti-matter generally does. Anti-matter is just a turn for a particle with opposite spin but otherwise identical to the known particle. If our universe was composed of more anti-matter than matter, we'd probably just have started calling what we were used to matter and the opposite anti.

just my two cents

-Brad

HRG

Just my nitpick: anti-particles and opposite spin have nothing to do with each other. Anti-particles and particles are related by a mathematical transformation called "charge-conjugation": it inverts, as it were, electric charge and other internal quantum numbers (= properties) like strangeness, charm etc., but is not concerned with spin.

Regards,
HRG.

TenaciousB

Hey, thanks HRG for the correction. I'm alittle more into cosmology and QED than particle physics, thanks again !


-Brad

David M. Payne

Well here is another possibility stew,<a href="http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=105" target="_blank">The Wailing Pool,</a> which is why I am a strong agnostic and not a die hard atheist. (Though on the question of the Abrahamic God, there is no difference between my view and a strong atheists view, no way this monster has or ever will ever exist.)

David

GPLindsey

Even if one accepts that some force--which we will call a Creator--had to have started the Big Bang:
1) It does not prove that the creator still exists, since physics can basically explain how everything followed from the Big Bang. You need another theory or theology to argue why a creator should still be around.
2) It does not prove the creator is singular--why not creators? Why not imagine a creator for each particle of matter in the universe?
3) It does not prove that the creator wants to be worshipped as a God or cares whether we live or die. The creator can be completely indifferent to what happens in the universe--perhaps s/he/it just wants to sit back and watch what happens.
4) It does not prove that the creator is all powerful or all knowing. 95% of the universe is made up of dark matter and dark energy--perhaps the creator was incapable of creating more regular matter, which would have allowed even more life to emerge in the universe. Also, the creator may not know how his creation would turn out, and did it out of curiosity--which makes more sense than an all-knowing God that could never experience a moment of surprise.
5) Finally, it does not prove the creator is intelligent. Maybe the creator is like an autistic savant, capable of great works without any real understanding of what they are creating?
Personally, I favor the theory that some have put forward that the big bang was the outpouring from an immense black hole, and we are in a "bubble" universe from a much more immense universe. Much more sensible than a God who wants us to cut off the ends of our penises in order to show how much we love him.

Ryanfire

David, a very interesting piece.

It is true in a sense, our imaginations do unlock secrets. By observing nature and phenomena we develop absurd notions or "theories" that get us places, not beliefs in a deities.

I too have given thought of jesus being an alien. I got laughed at from a christian here at my work. She called me crazy, but I could have easily turned it right around at her.

It seems to me religion won't progress anywhere, and that agnostic's and atheists are here to try their theories, hopefully without interruption from the theists.

Christians bring up the point of death, we can't solve death yet, but until then, they all want to believe something is going to save them. What if we solve the problem of death? What then are christians or other religions to believe? Will they say it's not right? Because god objects to it? christians would like eternal life, but not as a human? Because we have this misconception of magic and supernatural powers, that exists in the world, but we know illusions and deception take the place the form of magic and supernatural on earth.

I think we should try solving death. It's our biggest limit, and then add our limited senses(which are satisfactory for me). We don't really get a chance to understand all that is out there.

What are you thoughts David?

Ryan.

[ July 04, 2002: Message edited by: Ryanfire ]</p>