Happy Atheist Forum

I am not certain where I am in regards to Atheism though I am open to the idea but I have some questions about some things I was hoping folks here could help me with.

Now I have read before that energy in some limited almost unquantifiable form existed before the big bang and that our present universe in relation to what it was before the big bang was like the change between water to ice. The old pre big bang universe was chaotic and supersymetric (like water) and therefore unstable and changed into the structured form (ice crystals etc) that we are now which allows for space and time since space and time was not quantifiable in the older state.

I have also believe other Atheist scientists that energy did not exist before the big bang and that it was the source of all ability to quantify anything. Can someone explain this stuff to me and if you could dumb it down for me I would appreciate it.

Pay no attention to these theories, as they are without evidence. There is no record predating the big bang, and there isn't a definitive cause of the big bang. It's all speculative. It could have been anything or nothing.

Hey Moses - I agree with Will's comments.  No pre-big-bang stuff has been substantiated.

There is a scientific theory of a cyclic model based on string theory (technically, I think M-theory - whichever one deals with "branes"), where big bangs keep recurring (different from the traditional big-crunch, which seems clearly wrong given the expansion of the universe), but this theory has not been accepted yet.  Currently, its predictions are indistinguishable (given the evidence at hand) from the big-bang hot-expansion model.

If you're interested in a scientifically valid search for answers "before" the big-bang, I recommend this book (you don't have to be scientifically educated to read it): "Endless Universe: Beyond the Big Bang" by Paul J. Steinhardt and Neil Turok (ISBN: 0385509642).  

Here's a link to the book on Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Endless-Universe-Beyond-Big-Bang/dp/0385509642

Regarding "origins" of the universe, I find this idea appealing, because it would seem to help solve a philosophical dilemma.  The philosophical dilemma, it seems to me (an admitted amateur so take me with a grain of salt), is that we either have to accept that:

1) Matter/Energy are eternal (which could be the case given the above cyclic model)
 -or-
2) Causality is a flawed concept, and there can be "uncaused" events (which could make sense given quantum behavior)
 -or-
3) Both.    

I call this a dilemma because not many people like these ideas.  People don't like 1) because of:

a) Religion (only the "gods", or "God", is eternal).

b) Big-Bang theory (although, this theory can't actually describe what happened at the Big Bang itself, as the authors of the above book point out, so there is possibly a mistaken inference being made here).

Pleople don't like 2) because of:

a) Our regular old worldly experience - causality seems to work and makes good human intuitive sense.

b) Classical physics and the idea of determinism.

Cheers, and welcome to the board!

Thanks, Steve and Will, glad to be here.

I read a few more things since I was last here and it seems Quantum Mechanics makes perfect room for a "void" universe.

It basically states that even in complete vacums, particles pop out of the nothingness and then pop out of existence. they say that this does not violate the law of conservation of energy since it happens at the subatomic level very briefly. This have been validated by actual experiments recently and in the past.

So complete nothingness is an abstract notion that does not apply to reality and that some form of energy must always exist for reality to be here. In a matterless universe something called zero point energy would exist. So even before the big bang energy must have existed in a motionless and non structured form. The Big Bang many scientists say was the formation of that energy into complex structure. But we still do not know what caused the bang so future science will have to figure that out.

I purchased that book you mentioned and so far it is really good. I guess I am just a little more inclined to the void universe since it has some empircal proof but I am still reading your book so I might have to eat my words.

After reading all this stuff in the above paragraphs and in the book, Steve mentioned I pretty much can say that I have gone complete Atheist.

Quote from: "Moses"I pretty much can say that I have gone complete Atheist.

Sweet - welcome to the club!  Sorry we're not more popular in the world at large....

The "void universe" is an interesting theory.  I certainly wouldn't count that one out.  Do you remember where/what you read about this (book, url, etc.)?  I'd be curious to check it out.

Cheers!

Haha thanks.

Your can read about the void universe from Victor Stenger's "The Comprehensible Cosmos" and a little bit of it is in his "God: The Failed Hypothesis". Also just google Vacuum State, Vacuum energy and especially something called the Casimir Effect. Stenger is not the only one to talk about it however. He also does not rule out the brane theory either and has accomplished much scientific research over his career. Stephen Hawkins also seems to agree that if we did not come from another universe then the Big Bang was some sort of cosmic transition (as Stenger says "like from water to ice") from an "empty" universe (empty of matter) to a more structured one. Also if this is the case we are inside the big bang and the rest of the universe we are expanding into is this zero point energy that we came from. I guess alot of physists have used vacum energy to point out how there always has to be something so there must have been something before the big bang. Here are some links to check out:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... acuum.html (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/vacuum.html)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_state (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_state)

Sweet, thanks, I'll check it out!

Well considering those theories here's something think about, if you are not completely sure about atheism, Zacharia Stichin, an author, has a book talking about the Sumerians. The book talked about Genesis's reference to the Nefilim. Those were the Giants that fought and caused Chaos. As a result God flooded the earth, but anyway the Sumers had all these calculations about planets and math, and they even had descriptions of planets(they didn't have telescopes) they have texts written about a planet whose inhabitants came to earth and shared knowledge with the Sumers.  

So basically the two theories are:

1. There was nothing; which exploded.
2. There has always been something and it has always been exploding.

Is that right?

Well, I'd say that science will eventually show both of those to be gross generalizations.  Nothing comes from nothing, and besides, choice A is identical to choice B, considering that choice A is without time.   :P

Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't these all simply complex mathematical ideas?

Quote from: "Titan"Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't these all simply complex mathematical ideas?

That agree with the universe as it is observed at this time, yeah.  They're "simply" mathematical ideas that can account for the present day universe and that tie in with present theory and evidence.  They'll also only be "simply" updated when more evidence comes along if that evidence supports them.  They'll "simply" have to pass the scrutiny and test of anyone willing to provide it.  They'll "simply" have to be capable of answering some of the greatest, toughest questions man has ever asked.

But hey, it's all "just" complex math that agrees with the rest of science as it stands.  So feel free to hold them in contempt.

That wasn't contempt, honestly. I had just heard about a theory proposed by Stephen Hawking and what it actually came down to was this purely speculative mathematical idea. I can't remember what it was though. I said simply because I thought I remembered it being based on some assumptions about the universe but again, I'm not sure.

We accept that the three dimensions of space we live in are curved, that space-time describes a hypersphere, just as the two dimensions of length and width on the surface of a totally smooth planet curve in a third dimension to produce a three-dimensional sphere. The idea is that - when you imagine the hypersphere which is our expanding universe - rather than thinking of a growing hollow sphere (like a inflating beach-ball, for example), think of an onion.

An expanding onion, certainly, but an onion, nevertheless. Within our universe, our hypersphere, there are whole layers of younger, smaller hyperspheres. And we are not the very outer-most skin of that expanding onion, either; there are older, larger universes beyond ours, too. Between each universe there is something called the Energy Grid. And of course, if you could get through the Energy Grid, to a younger universe, and then repeat the process... You'd really be talking about immortality.

Now comes the difficult bit; switch to seven dimensions and even our four dimensional universe can be described as a circle. So forget about the onion; think of a doughnut. A doughnut with only a very tiny hole in the middle. That hole is the Cosmic Centre, the singularity, the great initiating fireball, the place the universes come from; and it didn't exist just in the instant our universe came into being; it exists all the time, and it's exploding all the time, like some Cosmic car engine, producing universes like exhaust smoke.

As each universe comes into being, detonating and spreading and expanding, it - or rather the single circle we are using to describe it - goes gradually up the inner slope of our doughnut, like a widening ripple from a stone flung in a pond. It goes over the top of the doughnut, reaches its furthest extent on the outside edge of the doughnut, and then starts the long, contracting, collapsing journey back in towards the Cosmic Centre again, to be reborn...

Or at least it does if it's on that doughnut; the doughnut is itself hollow, filled with smaller ones where the universes don't live so long. And there are larger ones outside it, where the universes live longer, and maybe there are universes that aren't on doughnuts at all, and never fall back in, and just dissipate out into... some form of meta-space? Where fragments of them are captured eventually by the attraction of another doughnut, and fall in towards its Cosmic Centre with the debris of lots of other dissipated universes, to be reborn as something quite different again? Who knows. (I know it's all nonsense, but you've got to admit it's impressive nonsense.

(my favourite theory as to where we come from, created by Scottish author - Iain M Banks)

This is making my brain hurt -7 dimensions?  I think I'll go back to being a christian.  It's a lot easier to say, "god works in mysterious ways" and "don't question god" and "Why?  Because it god's will, that's why you little shit!".  Ahhh, the simpler times...

Quote from: "DennisK"This is making my brain hurt -7 dimensions?  I think I'll go back to being a christian.  It's a lot easier to say, "god works in mysterious ways" and "don't question god" and "Why?  Because it god's will, that's why you little shit!".  Ahhh, the simpler times...

Actually, Hawking and some of his British colleagues determined there are probably no less than a dozen.

 

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"

Quote from: "DennisK"This is making my brain hurt -7 dimensions?  I think I'll go back to being a christian.  It's a lot easier to say, "god works in mysterious ways" and "don't question god" and "Why?  Because it god's will, that's why you little shit!".  Ahhh, the simpler times...

Actually, Hawking and some of his British colleagues determined there are probably no less than a dozen.

 

I don't even want to contemplate the mathematical equations involved.  The last course in math I took was Vector Calc, maybe 18 years ago.  I'm lucky if I can still do long division.

Never mind, I looked it up.  Once I read the first part (below), it was obvious.

QuoteFinally, a spacetime(M n+1 , g)satisfying the Einstein equationsR ab âˆ'12Rg ab = T ab (2.2)is said to obey the dominant energy condition provided the energy-momentum tensor Tsatisfies T (X, Y) = T ab X a Y b ≥ 0 for all future pointing causal vectors X, Y.We are now ready to state the main theorem.Theorem 2.1. Let(M n+1 , g), n ≥ 3, be a spacetime satisfying the dominant energycondition. If nâˆ'1 is an outer apparent horizon in V n then nâˆ'1 is of positive Yamabetype, unless nâˆ'1 is Ricci flat (flat if n = 3, 4) in the induced metric, and both χ andT (U, K) = T ab U a K b vanish on .Thus, except under special circumstances, nâˆ'1 is of positive Yamabe type. Asnoted in the introduction, this implies various restrictions on the topology of . Letus focus on the case dim M = 5, and hence dim= 3, and assume, by taking adouble cover if necessary, thatis orientable. Then by well-known results of Schoen-Yau [18] and Gromov-Lawson [10], topologically,must be a finite connected sumof spherical spaces (homotopy 3-spheres, perhaps with identifications) and S 2 × S 1 ’s.Indeed, by the prime decomposition theorem,can be expressed as a connected sum ofspherical spaces, S 2 × S 1 ’s, and K(Ï€, 1) manifolds (manifolds whose universal coversare contractible). But as admits a metric of positive scalar curvature, it cannot have anyK(Ï€, 1)’s in its prime decomposition. Thus, the basic horizon topologies in dim M = 5are S 3 and S 2 × S 1 , both of which are realized by nontrivial black hole spacetimes.Under stringent geometric assumptions on the horizon, a related conclusion is arrivedat in [14].Proof of the theorem. We consider normal variations ofin V, i.e., variations t â†' t of= 0 , âˆ'ϵ < t < ϵ, with variation vector field V = âˆ,âˆ,t ∣∣ t=0 = φN, φ ∈ C ∞ ().Let θ(t) denote the null expansion of t with respect to K t = U + N t , where N t is theouter unit normal field to t in V. A computation shows [6, 3],âˆ,θâˆ,t∣∣∣∣ t=0 = âˆ'△φ + 2〈X, ∇φ〉 +(Q + div X âˆ' |X| 2 )φ ,(2.3)where,Q =12S âˆ' T (U, K) âˆ'12|χ| 2 ,(2.4)S is the scalar curvature of , X is the vector field ondefined by X = tan (∇ N U),and 〈 , 〉 now denotes the induced metric h on .Introducing as in [3] the operator L = âˆ'â–³+〈X, ∇()〉+(Q + div X âˆ' |X| 2 ),Eq. (2.3)may be expressed as,âˆ,θâˆ,t∣∣∣∣ t=0 = L(φ) .(2.5)L is the stability operator associated with variations in the null expansion θ. In thetime symmetric case the vector field X vanishes, and L reduces to the classical stabilityoperator of minimal surface theory, as expected [6]

Quote from: "DennisK"I don't even want to contemplate the mathematical equations involved.  The last course in math I took was Vector Calc, maybe 18 years ago.  I'm lucky if I can still do long division.

Never mind, I looked it up.  Once I read the first part (below), it was obvious.

Kids stuff.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages39.fotki.com%2Fv1224%2Fphotos%2F8%2F892548%2F6116196%2F18510179-vi.gif&hash=f99e191a78c691a920fd638800d2157bebeb12f0)

Quote from: "DennisK"This is making my brain hurt -7 dimensions?  I think I'll go back to being a christian.  It's a lot easier to say, "god works in mysterious ways" and "don't question god" and "Why?  Because it god's will, that's why you little shit!".  Ahhh, the simpler times...

:brick:  :brick:

Quote from: "Titan"

Quote from: "DennisK"This is making my brain hurt -7 dimensions?  I think I'll go back to being a christian.  It's a lot easier to say, "god works in mysterious ways" and "don't question god" and "Why?  Because it god's will, that's why you little shit!".  Ahhh, the simpler times...

:brick:  :brick:

- "Why are you slamming your head against the wall? You're hurting yourself!"
- "God made me do it!"
- "OK. Go on then, nothing in there to damage".

(Sorry had to quote this old joke. It was just too obvious. No pun intended)

Your position has nothing to do with Christianity but with the ignorant Christians who evangelicals disagree with. Look at a debate between G.K. Chesterton and Clarence Darrow for instance. You will soon see that Christians hold up quite well in all aspects of understanding. If you don't want to look into that debate I'll give you this:

It was a Sunday afternoon and the Temple was packed. At the conclusion of the debate everybody was asked to express his opinion as to the victor and slips of paper were passed around for that purpose. The award went directly to Chesterton. Darrow in comparison, seemed heavy, uninspired, slow of mind, while G.K.C. was joyous, sparkling and witty .... quite the Chesterton one had come to expect from his books. The affair was like a race between a lumbering sailing vessel and a modern steamer. Mrs. Frances Taylor Patterson also heard the Chesterton-Darrow debate, but went to the meeting with some misgivings because she was a trifle afraid that Chesterton's "gifts might seem somewhat literary in comparison with the trained scientific mind and rapier tongue of the famous trial lawyer. Instead, the trained scientific mind, the clear thinking, the lightning quickness in getting a point and hurling back an answer, turned out to belong to Chesterton. I have never heard Mr. Darrow alone, but taken relatively, when that relativity is to Chesterton, he appears positively muddle-headed."

Quote from: "Titan"Your position has nothing to do with Christianity but with the ignorant Christians who evangelicals disagree with. Look at a debate between G.K. Chesterton and Clarence Darrow for instance. You will soon see that Christians hold up quite well in all aspects of understanding. If you don't want to look into that debate I'll give you this:

It was a Sunday afternoon and the Temple was packed. At the conclusion of the debate everybody was asked to express his opinion as to the victor and slips of paper were passed around for that purpose. The award went directly to Chesterton. Darrow in comparison, seemed heavy, uninspired, slow of mind, while G.K.C. was joyous, sparkling and witty .... quite the Chesterton one had come to expect from his books. The affair was like a race between a lumbering sailing vessel and a modern steamer. Mrs. Frances Taylor Patterson also heard the Chesterton-Darrow debate, but went to the meeting with some misgivings because she was a trifle afraid that Chesterton's "gifts might seem somewhat literary in comparison with the trained scientific mind and rapier tongue of the famous trial lawyer. Instead, the trained scientific mind, the clear thinking, the lightning quickness in getting a point and hurling back an answer, turned out to belong to Chesterton. I have never heard Mr. Darrow alone, but taken relatively, when that relativity is to Chesterton, he appears positively muddle-headed."

This is off-topic, of course, but I must express my disappointment in my being unfamiliar with this debate and the parties debating.  But I will say, from personal experience, that not all lawyers are great public speakers.  Indeed, some are horrible.  It turns out, in the courtroom, that things are a lot more structured, and lawyers have a lot more time to contemplate their responses, while being involved in matters they are far more familiar with.  Indeed, the law is the law, and no amount of typical reasoning will trump precedent nor rules put into place and supported by the majority.  In a debate involving theology, a set of science facts isn't going to win you any debates, you have to be able to use them, and be flexible and able to think things out.  Apologists, then, ought to be considerably more adept than one who only accepts and deals in concrete evidence, where knowing facts doesn't require reasoning of any kind.

This may well be why these debates often end in favor of the religious.  You, Titan, have both the qualities of knowing many facts, and being able to reason your way out of many of theology's pitfalls.  Though, you aren't perfect at either, and neither are the rest of us.  But hopefully we can cause you to refine your beliefs by exposing problems you didn't know were there, and you can do the same to us in return.  

Iron sharpens iron, or so I've heard.  

Quote from: "Titan"Your position has nothing to do with Christianity but with the ignorant Christians who evangelicals disagree with. Look at a debate between G.K. Chesterton and Clarence Darrow for instance. You will soon see that Christians hold up quite well in all aspects of understanding. If you don't want to look into that debate I'll give you this:

I do! I looked into it. Clarence Darrow was a lawyer. He knows very little about the theory of knowledge. Try any debate between a real scientist or philosopher of science opposing a theist of any kind. You'll see how christianity holds up.
This debate is almost 100 years old, and NOT a philosophical one. A pseudo-philosophical one at best.
But I guess its the same as always. You speak of that which you have no knowledge...

Oh, and by the way: Clarence Darrow was not an atheist. He was self proclaimed agnostic.

Titan,

Really, what is your goal in coming onto this forum?  Do you really believe you can convince atheists with your religious 'logic' to see the universe through your glasses?  I've given you credit for being one of the smarter more civil theists I've come across on the web.  While this may be a double edged compliment, it's the best I can do.  You obviously have ulterior motives for hijacking this forum.  Do you enjoy being the center of attention or is this part of your church's or a personal mission?

No, I don't wish to PM you as you have asked before (although I considered it) or Skype or anything else.  My goal is not to engage you in personal debate. Whether or not I could hold my own and 'win' a debate with you is not the issue.  I have no intention of converting you to atheism and I certainly don't want to be preached to.  I know you may feel you are doing the lord's work in spreading his/her/its word and muddying atheist forums, but why not try to convert those who already have a belief in some other fantasy?  Better yet, why not go to religious fanatic forums and try to temper their extreme views?  At least there, you will be doing some good in the world.

Quote from: "DennisK"Titan,

Really, what is your goal in coming onto this forum?  Do you really believe you can convince atheists with your religious 'logic' to see the universe through your glasses?

Oh come on. What fun would it be without at least one theist on the forum?

Quote from: "Sophus"

Quote from: "DennisK"Titan,

Really, what is your goal in coming onto this forum?  Do you really believe you can convince atheists with your religious 'logic' to see the universe through your glasses?

Oh come on. What fun would it be without at least one theist on the forum?

I hope I haven't scared him off.  :nerd:

Quote from: "Sophus"

Quote from: "DennisK"Titan,

Really, what is your goal in coming onto this forum?  Do you really believe you can convince atheists with your religious 'logic' to see the universe through your glasses?

Oh come on. What fun would it be without at least one theist on the forum?

I have no problem with theists who want to post and debate.  I do have a problem with the holy who have a hidden agenda to convert and/or hijack this forum.  I see Titan as doing both, but that's just my opinion.

Okay, going back to the original topic:

This is going a bit beyond my usual realm of knowledge but cosmology is fun just the same! So I give you a disclaimer: I'm not well versed here and what follows are my personal opinions and best rememberances of previously read information.

The cosmic background radiation, which is our primary method of probing the early moments of the universe, can only enlighten us as far as actual matter once existed. Once the warm soup of prematter formed into hydrogen that hydrogen had the effect of absorbing the radiation given off by the earlier moments of the universe, which is why we are basically blind to the actual origin. The second major piece of info we have that I know of is the actual structure of the universe, plotting the position of galaxies lets us extrapolate large scale structures in space, and this is something of keen interest to all those theories that have since been derived from string theory (m-brane theory being the latest I read about).

An interesting theory I read about once was the idea of an expanding multi-verse. If the original big bang was a massive hyperdimensional thing involving expanding space, then pockets might be produced where some of the higher dimensions collapse in, creating areas like our own universe. Our big bang ensues from the sudden collapse, and we live within a realm of our perceivable dimensions. Our bubble of 3-space expands as the larger hyperdimensional space expands, and life goes on. I know nothing more about this theory, so can't provide much else on it.

As per vacuum energy, casimir effect, and virtual particles as earlier posted, I have a question: I've heard the casimir effect referred to as the momentary creation of two particles, a normal and an anti particle that generate from nothing, orbit each other for a moment, then collapse back into each other to return to a state of 0 energy. Hawking Radiation relies on this effect by creation a slightly more powerful attraction towards the anti-particle at the event horizon of a black hole, thereby letting the normal particle spiral off as radiation while the anti-particle acts to reduce the mass of the black hole. This released particle is a photon, ergo a boson. What I don't remember is whether bosons have further particles they are comprised of? I believe string theory predicted that they did, but I don't remember if standard theory had found constituent particles to make bosons.

I have some view of cosmology that I would like to share in this thread, however, I just recently spent a lot of time detailing it in another forum, so I think I'll wait a while.

nevertheless, I will say that I believe that interaction on a quantum scale to be the driving force behind time. As there was no interaction before the big bang, there could not have been any marching of time, according a theory that I've worked out. However, on a quantum scale, one must be very careful what one means by "marching of time", you'll find that it hardly means what you would think.

It's a simple model I have in mind, but it would take quite some time to dileanate it all. In short, the universe can be described, in my opinion, as a point and a meta-dimension, depending upon through which pov you are looking at it through.

A point and a meta-dimension... a lot of the theories depend upon a correct conception of time on a quantum scale: a conception which has yet to be found in science. All of the ones I have read so far use time on a macro scale, but that is hardly appropriate. A precise definition of time in the quantum must be found... The scientififc world has just begun to get interesting.