Late_Cretaceous

Karzak

hezekiahjones brings up a good point about nothingness. No one ever claimed that the universe came from nothing (if they do they are misusing the word nothing). THe universe may have arisin (not "evolved")from a quantum fluctuation in a void (vacuum). A void or vacuum is not the same as nothing. A void has dimentions, symmetry and is permeated by fields so that a particle can traverse it or appear in it (virtual particles). True nothingness is not possible. Time is a part of the fabric of space, so it makes no sense to ask "what came before the universe", it is like aksing "what is further north then the north pole", or "what comes after infinity". One school of thought is that if you added all the energy/matter and vacuum energy (dark energy) of the universe it would equal zero.

What i mean by "nothingness is impossible" is that a dimentionless, symmeryless, void could not exist, because if it did exist it would be something (even if just an abstract thought) which is a hell of a lot more then nothing.

If nothingness can't exist, then something must exist and that something must be complex and balanced enough to persist - which is why the universe seems to "fine tuned". My wife says I think of nothing too much <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

CodeMason

We dunno. Do you?

Asha'man

Just a little tiny clarification: The Big Bang theory does not describe the origin of the universe. It really describes the state of the universe immediately after the starting point, and how that early state changed to become more like the universe we see now.

As for Karzak's original question, I think you really need to clarify exactly what you are asking about, since it seems to cover about a dozen topics, all of which require a book or two at a minimum.

1. How did the universe begin?
2. How did the universe change from an initial state to one with galaxies and stars?
3. How did elements heavier than hydrogen form?
4. How did planets form?
5. How did planets come to have organic molecules on them?
6. How did those organic molecules get assembled into life?
7. How did that initial life form evolve into something with a replication code? (DNA)
8. How did simple replicating life evolve into the complex forms we see today?
9. How did human society evolve from our earliest tribal behavior?
10. How did our current scientific understanding evolve from primitive superstitions?
11. How did the Big Bang theory evolve from earlier theories of cosmology?

Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, as commonly discussed in this forum, is limited strictly to question 8.
The theory of abiogenesis covers questions 5 through 7.
The Big Bang theory is really only about question 2.
Stellar evolution and astrophysics covers questions 2 through 4.

Question #1 is not currently answered by science. As was mentioned earlier, it may be a bogus question, according to some lines of thinking.

Clearly, there are lots of places where the word evolution can be used, but the one normally talked about is #8. If you want to ask about another topic, you had better be pretty darn clear. If you really want to talk about all those topics, you really should say so clearly, and then we will ask you to divide your question into parts like the list above, since your question is really too big for a simple answer.

If you are just here to be a troublemaker, Karzak, please continue to be blindingly simpleminded and obscure and insulting, and we will know to ignore you in the future.

[ January 27, 2002: Message edited by: Asha'man ]</p>

Seth K

It is, however, a theory that can be put to empirical confirmation, and is directly connected to the open-flat-or-closed universe question. According to GR the intrinsic curvature of a volume of space is proportional to the amount of energy within the sphere. (+ curvature = + energy; - curvature = - energy) Negitive energy is not only allowed, but expected in GR, so I fail to see where a "foundational category mistake" takes place.

A closed universe has a positive curvature; there is more than enough mass (+ energy) to counter the expansion. An open universe has a negitive curtature (ie. not enough mass).

A flat universe is one with zero intrinsic curvature, hence by GR, has a sum total of zero energy. Recent measurements of the CBR to answer the curvature question have determined that our universe is indeed flat to about 6 decimal places (which could still be a few thousand (or million?) galaxies worth of mass). So there is at least some experimental corroboration of a "zero-energy" universe or something close to it on the cosomological scale.

However I totally agree that zero-energy isn't the same as nothing. A quantum field vaccumm is still something.

Oolon Colluphid

Mr the Holy: the title of this thread is "Just how does life evolve from nothing?".
That was an evolution-related question, and I amongst others have answered it. I'd appreciate some sort of response, rather than your scattershot pseudophilosophical diversions.

Please get back to that topic, or I'll have to move this thread to the Science and Skepticism Forum, where it presently belongs.

TTFN, Oolon

Bill

It was my understanding that the recent measurements of the rate of expansion of the universe, showing that the rate is actually still accellerating at this juncture, tended to knock all of the "flat universe" theories off the table, leaving the "open" models as the only viable alternatives. As you note, the "open" option isn't in balance on a "total energy" basis.

And while <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/vic_stenger/index.shtml" target="_blank">Vic Stenger</a> and others did advocate this "net sum of zero" argument, so as to possibly allow the Big Bang to form out of a quantum vacuum, it is my understanding from <a href="http://www.secweb.org/bookstore/bookdetail.asp?BookID=186" target="_blank">The Elegant Universe</a> that these "net sum of zero" models are all contradicted by actual observations which show a HUGE base energy level according to our currently popular theories.

=====

But back to the point, I personally think that the "Holy One" was trolling, and simply pulling our collective chains. I hope he got what he wanted out of this.

== Bill

Seth K

You are incorrect that an accellerating expansion contradicts flat universe theories. I ignored the effects of a cosmological constant above. It tends to complicate matters because it makes its own contribution to curvature/energy in addition to the open/closed status. An accelerational cosmological constant (Lambda) ends up being a positive contribution to total energy, and can flatten an open universe.

If you look at the parameter Omega, which with a cosmo conststant = Omega_{Mass} + Omega_{Lambda}, if the sum of the two components equals 1, the universe is flat, whether it's open or closed.

The measurement cited above purports to measure the total curvature, not the individual contributions.

I don't recall off-hand were The Elegant Universe says that, got a cite?

Agreed. The "how can nothing create something?" is a common Christian troll.

The Messiah

I think everyone here seems to be missing the point. We, as a race, are currently floating around in the debris of what appears to be a gigantic explosion. From our observations we are able to make predictions of the time and nature of the explosion. Further we have advanced our knowledge to an extraordinary degree, where we can understand the debris, its interaction, development and its substance. One thing we cannot do yet is explain what happened before it or guess what lies outside it.

This, I have no doubt will come, but we cannot do this yet. Karzak knows this and what us to admit it. He also wants to get further mileage from this admission i.e. get you all to admit that because you do not know this it must be something you do not understand and this something must be God. To fully satisfy Karzak I’m sure he would like us to kneel before God and beg forgiveness for ever doubting him and for pursuing this heretical concept of evolution etc etc. I don’t think detailed explanations of expansion of the universe are likely to sway him.

Theophage

Actually, the Big Bang wasn't an explosion at all; that is simply a misunderstanding due to bad layman's explanations of it. The Big Bang event was an unfolding of spacetime from a state of infinte curvature (the singularity) to the basically flat (zero curvature) universe we see today.

I hate to be picky, but...

Dr Rick

This thread is a good lesson on how not to introduce oneself onto a forum. If one wishes to engage in a serious discussion/debate (though it appears this poster probably did not) rather than a smouldering flame war, don't come out with both guns-a-blazin', if for no other reason than many Sec Web regulars pack some pretty serious intellectual firepower themselves.