Fr. Robert Barron on Stephen Hawking

[Brendan]

These cosmological models are only hypotheses but are worked out in great detail, as physicists are very happy to tear anyone to pieces who makes even obscure errors, let alone straightforward mistakes.

As an example, here’s some material from Princeton:

Cyclic model FAQ (see first item for your point) - wwwphy.princeton.edu/~steinh/cyclicFAQS/

Short intro for students (pdf) - physics.princeton.edu/~steinh/dm2004.pdf

Long intro for students (pdf) - physics.princeton.edu/~steinh/vaasrev.pdf

Science journal article (pdf) - physics.princeton.edu/~steinh/sciencecyc.pdf

Yep, familiar with those.

There is the recognition of the entropy problem that I mentioned, but no real solution.

This set of FAQ deals mostly with the Baum-Frampton model. What that proposes, is the entroy increases are pushed outside of normal space into the hyperspace Bran ( a series of dimensions outside our normal ones)

So every contraction\expansion has the requisite increase in entropy, but that it is not visible to us as it is ‘diluted’ into the other dimensions.

The problem, once again, is that there is no proposed means to empirically verify this, nor can it be mathematically shown to be true. So that brings us back to the question, is it ‘science’ if it is not subject to the scientific method?

It is substantially no different from me coming up with a theory that states that cyclic cosmology is true because St. Michael sweeps up all the excess entropy and puts it in a garbage can just outside of the Pearly Gates.

That theory would have the same level of proof as the Baum-Frampton model has in regards to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

He’s world number one at quote mining.

Apparently your favorite phrase, you use it so often.

 

[Al_Moritz]

It is substantially no different from me coming up with a theory that states that cyclic cosmology is true because St. Michael sweeps up all the excess entropy and puts it in a garbage can just outside of the Pearly Gates.

That theory would have the same level of proof as the Baum-Frampton model has in regards to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

Hehe, well said

 

[Brendan]

Hehe, well said

Sort of, I realized after I posted it that I should have said:

“the same level of veracity”, in that neither are subject to empirical verification.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Fr. Barron has made a lot of videos, although none on physics except this one. His only interest in physics seems to be where a scientist challenges a cherished belief.

Granted he is not a scientist, that doesn’t mean he has no interest in science. And why shouldn’t he be concerned when science makes claims about the beliefs, not only of Catholicism but all of Christianity ( except of course in certain Baptist enclaves ) which cannot be scientifically substantiated?

He’s world number one at quote mining. He takes one sentence, which he says he got from a review as he hadn’t actually read the book himself, and uses that one sentence to extrapolate a critique based on the notion that philosophy and religion are one domain (conveniently forgetting all the atheist philosophers) and the even stranger notion that scientists must not speak on religion (conveniently forgetting all the religious scientists).

My goodness, you’re under another dark cloud today. That he is " quote mining " can be applied to us all, yourself included. He was after all relying on reliable people, and if you have watched Hawking videos you know he is correct.

Please note that Fr. Barron was quoting from reviewers who were quoting from excerpts of the Grand Design. That may be second hand but it is still Hawking’s own words. And please note, that Hawking did say that “…because of gravity the universe can and did create itself out of nothing…” And on the cover of the book Hawking did say " … the universe does not need God…" So Hawking is equating gravity with " nothing." So he is redefining the meaning of " nothing. " I think you should watch the video again. Now I wonder why you failed to note these little items?

And he didn’t extrapolate anything. If you would ever get to the point of actually reading Aristotle or Thomas or any real philosopher of metaphysics you would know that science, philosophy, and theology all have different objects of study. So science cannot make any leigtimate observations about the data of other fields of study. For example, it cannot make any legtimate observations about law or politics or history.

Not even religious scientists are able to make observations about philosophy, law, politics, etc. based on science because science does not study these fields. So you are barking up the wrong tree, you are not only beating a dead horse, but one that isn’t even there - it is a red herring.

Although Fr. Barron does have one thing going for him - he too seems to share Lemaître’s belief in Isaiah’s hidden God, so that makes at least two Catholics and this Baptist).

If Lemaitre’ had the same thing in mind as Fr. Barron, then that would be true. But since both Isiah and Lemaitre’ are making criptic remarks I really can’t say. Fr. Barron, on the other hand elaborated his meaning - God is not a component of this universe because he is unlimited in any way whereas all the components of this world are contingent precisely because they each are limited in their existence ( being ). No one of them and not the sum total of them back through the eons of time comprise the total perfection of existence ( being ), each contains only a limited expression of existence ( being).

But this is not to say that the universe cannot tell us that a personal God does exist. And that is what philosophy does, it observes the universe and by discovering it ultimate princiles of existence can conclude that a personal God dose exist and it can even tell us about some of the characteristics of this God. God may be hidden, but he still reveals himself in his creation, not totally but enough to let us know he exists.

Linus2nd.

 

[Tomdstone]

There is no dark matter and dark energy…
A shocking discovery is right around the corner to the world of physics.

Check these quotes by professor Turok:
“Theoretical physics is at a crossroads right now,” … “In a sense we’ve entered a very deep crisis.”

“But given that everything turned out to be very simple, yet extremely puzzling — puzzling in its simplicity …"

Why does he say “…everything** turned out **to be very simple…” in the past tense?

From here: macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/perimeter-institute-and-the-crisis-in-modern-physics/

… and I know what he knows.

There is no proof in this article that dark matter does not exist. In any case, how do you explain the anomalous motion at the center of galaxies which cannot be explained by current gravitational theories?

 

[Aloysium]

. . . how do you explain the anomalous motion at the center of galaxies which cannot be explained by current gravitational theories?

Ah, maybe the theories and explanations are wrong? Possibly? Maybe the constants aren’t actually constant? Lots of things actually come to mind. Since we can’t test any of it and since we are not in the businness of creating galaxies, it doesn’t matter so much other than it is fun to speculate.

 

[Al_Moritz]

There is no proof in this article that dark matter does not exist. In any case, how do you explain the anomalous motion at the center of galaxies which cannot be explained by current gravitational theories?

Yes, dark matter does exist. Gravitational lensing is another phenomenon that shows that it does. We just don’t know yet what dark matter consists of, but that it’s there is hardly disputable.

 

[Tomdstone]

Yes, dark matter does exist. Gravitational lensing is another phenomenon that shows that it does. We just don’t know yet what dark matter consists of, but that it’s there is hardly disputable.

You both cannot be right. One says dark matter exists, the other says it does not.

 

[Al_Moritz]

You both cannot be right.

Of course not. So?

 

[Tomdstone]

Of course not. So?

So I am stymied.

 

[Aloysium]

You both cannot be right. . .

I’m not sure if any of this is a matter of right and wrong, but if I happen to be one of the two, I’m the one who’s right.

 

[Al_Moritz]

I’m not sure if any of this is a matter of right and wrong, but if I happen to be one of the two, I’m the one who’s right.

LOL! Ok, Sir, I won’t argue with you, hehe.

 

[runningdude]

Then Dr. Hawking hasn’t been keeping up on physics.

There cannot have been an infinite series of Big Bangs. It would be a violation of increasing entropy.

As all are aware, the universe tends towards entropy. If you drop a glass, it breaks. If you shake a jar of white sand, and black sand, they intermix.

The increase in entropy is considered a “law” of thermodynamics. These laws, however, are theoretical constructs that are based hypotheses used to explain observations in nature. These constructs are always subject to revision if observations conflict with what is predicted by the theory.

So either this is a function of the universe expanding, in which case, during the universe contraction, glass shards will suddenly jump up and form into glassware, and jars of gray sand will shake themselves and sort into separate white and black layers

Or else singularities in which the world collapses are a source of entropy decrease.
Hawkings own papers dispute that

I would imagine Dr. Hawking addressed this point, and revised any positions that contradicted his current theories. There is nothing hypocritical about being “wrong” in science.

So each resulting universe would be more entropic than the one before. So there could not have already been an infinite series of such collapse and expand universes, as we still have a decrease in entropy, stars still shine, glasses still exist and can break.

So if that is what Hawking is proclaiming, he is so wrong that any 3rd year physics student can defeat him.

Again, the third law could be incorrect.

What I HAVE heard is Hawking being a proponent of the infinite universes theory. That there are an infinite number of universes. This is an answer to the question of why the universe can support life. It is incredibly against all odds that the universe could support life at all.

There are too many natural constants that, if altered slightly, would render the universe totally unable to support life.

This is a hindsight bias. All it proves is that life as we know it emerged under the exact conditions of our universe. There is fundamentally no reason that life in a completely different form could have emerged under different conditions.

So why are we here. Hawkings answer is that the Big Bang produced an infinite number of universes, we happen to be in the one that could support life.

Again, this is hindsight bias. We are in the universe that could support life, because we exist, therefore must be in a universe that could support life.

That, of course, is no longer science, as such universes can not be empirically verified and tested, by definition. The theory of multi-universes, by definition, is not scientific.

So then Hawking is really no different than theists, proposing a totally unverifiable, non scientific, infinite reality

That conclusion is not supported. There is no fundamental reason that “multiple universes” could not be empirically verified or disproved. (As an aside, the “multiverse” is a totally different theory than the one of successive big bangs and busts; I wish to be clear as to which theory I am addressing).

Merely currently lacking methods to test multiple “universes” is not unscientific. Dr. Hawking’s theory could be proven wrong given sufficient evidence. It makes specific prediction about the nature of the universe that could be contradicted by future observations; it thus passes muster under the scientific method.

Again, Dr. Hawking’s conclusion that God does not exist is an inappropriate conclusion.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

There is no fundamental reason that “multiple universes” could not be empirically verified or disproved.

Merely currently lacking methods to test multiple “universes” is not unscientific. Dr. Hawking’s theory could be proven wrong given sufficient evidence.

The question should not so much be whether there is no fundamental reason, but whether finding such a reason is so improbable that we may be justifiably skeptical that such a reason would ever be found.

Hawkings’ theory could also be right, given sufficient evidence; but again, the obtaining of such evidence is so improbable that the theory should not be given much credence.

It seems increasingly that there are no bounds to the number of hypotheses that can be offered in order to avoid that hypothesis anyone really wants to avoid, the existence of God.

 

[Brendan]

The increase in entropy is considered a “law” of thermodynamics. These laws, however, are theoretical constructs that are based hypotheses used to explain observations in nature. These constructs are always subject to revision if observations conflict with what is predicted by the theory.

The point to a scientific theory is to address observations or evidence. What observations is Dr. Hawking addressing?

I would imagine Dr. Hawking addressed this point, and revised any positions that contradicted his current theories. There is nothing hypocritical about being “wrong” in science.

But he himself is not proposing that the 2nd Law is wrong, or even alterable. If you are proposing a theory where the 2nd Law can be violated, I would be interested in hearing the details.

This is a hindsight bias. All it proves is that life as we know it emerged under the exact conditions of our universe. There is fundamentally no reason that life in a completely different form could have emerged under different conditions.

I understand that, see post #16

Again, this is hindsight bias. We are in the universe that could support life, because we exist, therefore must be in a universe that could support life.

Again, see post #16

That conclusion is not supported. There is no fundamental reason that “multiple universes” could not be empirically verified or disproved. (As an aside, the “multiverse” is a totally different theory than the one of successive big bangs and busts; I wish to be clear as to which theory I am addressing).

Yes, I am aware, and I have addressed both in my various posts, most especially my first one.

Merely currently lacking methods to test multiple “universes” is not unscientific. Dr. Hawking’s theory could be proven wrong given sufficient evidence. It makes specific prediction about the nature of the universe that could be contradicted by future observations; it thus passes muster under the scientific method.

What specific predictions? In every theory, there are certain predictions, such as the existence of the Higgs Boson and the certain properties that it would have. Accompanying that, are means to test for such. Those means might not exist at the particular time ( such as a particle collider of sufficient eV to produce the particle, or in the case of Einstein’s General Relativity, the means to test the apparent slowing down of time, but there are specific predictions to test and a proposed means.

How does Dr. Hawking (or any of the other cosmologists) propose to test for alternate universes?

Again, Dr. Hawking’s conclusion that God does not exist is an inappropriate conclusion.

His conclusion is not a scientific one, if it was the non-existence of God would be subject to empirical evidence. At best, science can make no statement about the actual existence of God ( who is, by definition, outside the natural realm) and can only state that they have no conclusive proof of any interactions between a divine being and the natural universe.

In that respect, it is no different from either proposing alternate universes, or a cyclic universe. By the definition of ‘universe’ they are beyond our own.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

How does Dr. Hawking (or any of the other cosmologists) propose to test for alternate universes?

The very idea is so improbable that it’s a bit convenient for Hawking the testing can’t be done.

Yet the many worlds idea serves to keep him at the center of controversy, where I suspect he likes to be given his recent announcement that he is an a theist.

 

[Tomdstone]

Then Dr. Hawking hasn’t been keeping up on physics.

There cannot have been an infinite series of Big Bangs. It would be a violation of increasing entropy.

Not true because:
"… the entropy created during one cycle is diluted during the period of accelerated expansion, but is not draw together (i.e., remains dilute) during the contraction period. The total entropy of the universe as a whole increases steadily from bounce to bounce, as demanded by the second law of thermodynamics. However, the entropy from the previous cycle is spread to regions beyond the horizon during the period of dark energy domination. So, as far as a local observer is concerned, the entropy density and the total entropy within the horizon is driven to zero each cycle and the universe appears to begin afresh…

The brane picture is the best way to explain how this occurs. The entropy consists of particles and radiation that lie on the brane. During the period of matter-, radiation- and dark energy-domination, the branes stretch and the entropy density is steadily reduced. After a trillion years of dark energy domination, so much expansion has occurred that the entropy density is nearly zero. During the contraction phase, the branes cease stretching, but they do not contract significantly, either. Instead, the extra dimension contracts to zero. Hence, the entropy density on the branes remains dilute all the way up to the bounce. At the bounce, new matter-radiation is created by the collision whose entropy density exponentially overwhelms any tiny remnant of older entropy density, making the latter irrelevant in the next period of cosmic evolution."
wwwphy.princeton.edu/~steinh/cyclicFAQS/#Tolman

 

[Jaaanosik]

There is no proof in this article that dark matter does not exist. In any case, how do you explain the anomalous motion at the center of galaxies which cannot be explained by current gravitational theories?

Here is the explanation: theelectromagneticnatureofthings.com/the-special-relativity/rotating-and-translating-steel-ball-on-a-string/

 

[Brendan]

Not true because:
"… the entropy created during one cycle is diluted during the period of accelerated expansion, but is not draw together (i.e., remains dilute) during the contraction period. The total entropy of the universe as a whole increases steadily from bounce to bounce, as demanded by the second law of thermodynamics. However, the entropy from the previous cycle is spread to regions beyond the horizon during the period of dark energy domination. So, as far as a local observer is concerned, the entropy density and the total entropy within the horizon is driven to zero each cycle and the universe appears to begin afresh…

The brane picture is the best way to explain how this occurs. The entropy consists of particles and radiation that lie on the brane. During the period of matter-, radiation- and dark energy-domination, the branes stretch and the entropy density is steadily reduced. After a trillion years of dark energy domination, so much expansion has occurred that the entropy density is nearly zero. During the contraction phase, the branes cease stretching, but they do not contract significantly, either. Instead, the extra dimension contracts to zero. Hence, the entropy density on the branes remains dilute all the way up to the bounce. At the bounce, new matter-radiation is created by the collision whose entropy density exponentially overwhelms any tiny remnant of older entropy density, making the latter irrelevant in the next period of cosmic evolution."
wwwphy.princeton.edu/~steinh/cyclicFAQS/#Tolman

Already addressed that in post 21