Scientists' help wanted!

[Liberian]

Mark (and respondents),

Presumably we have learned a thing or two about general relativity since 1917. I would not take a 1917 letter from Einstein as the last word on the subject.

Mark, I am looking into the website you linked to. I went to school with Ed Witten … and now he’s famous and I’m posting on Catholic Answers Forums.

• Liberian

 

[Sixtus]

Concerning the Big Bang: from where did the energy and matter of the Big Bang come?

As of now, have we been able to observe the perimeters of the universe? If there are scientific ideas concerning these questions, please give your evaluation of them.
.

Matter was compressed to infinite density. That means the mass of the original matter [or energy] was highly compressed into an infinitisimally small amount of space occupied only by the matter.

With compression comes gravity, with compression also comes heat. The universe did not exist only matter or energy of infinite density,

The gravitational pull of compressed matter caused an enormous temperature to be reached so that there was a massive inflation which literally inflated the universe. This allowed the highly compressed primitive matter as energy to fly outwards in an explosion of cosmic proportions.

All there was initially was the light of photons. The primitive universe would have been too hot for the existence of matter as we understand it. The universe was also opaque with light.

As the universe cooled, photons became less primiitive matter etc.

Prof John Polkingthorne suggests that the universe goes through many stages of big bangs and big collapses, with each collapse as matter retreats back in reverse of expansion, so space behind it collapses in on itself until eventually there is matter of infinite density again, which becomes so dense that the temperature rises to give way to another big bang.

He proposes that God originally lit the blue touch paper and it has been expanding and collapsing since all eternity so that there may have been trillions of big bangs [expansions and collapses] each one lasting several billion years,

It is my postulation that this theory is correct and the time between each big bang and big collapse expands with each cycle so that the first one may have lasted only a few seconds, the next half a minute and so on until eventually we reach the present level of billions of years. With each collapse, heavier matter or energy potentiality is made in each compression.

 

[Sixtus]

Bibilically there is not much evidence for this except that which predicts ‘in the end times’ ‘the stars will fall from the sky, the power of the heavens will be shaken’.

This could be the start of the next collapse. Perhaps what we are to be in the future is determined by what the next universe will look like after the next big bang.

That is mere conjecture. We simply really do not know

 

[Liberian]

At the (slight) risk of hijacking the thread, here is an interesting quote from the page Mark pointed me to.

Indeed, a current trend, initiated by John A. Wheeler of Princeton University, is to regard the physical world as made of information, with energy and matter as incidentals.

Substance and accidents, anybody? Possibly the scientists are finding out what the theologians have known for centuries, just as they did with the Big Bang.

• Liberian

 

[Liberian]

Here, I found this website for you. I have not investigated it other than reading part of the linked page.%between%

Mark,

While the page was interesting, it’s not what I was looking for. I want to see equations, metrics, and formulae.

Incidentally, another page on the same site advertises psychic readings.

• Liberian

 

[Sixtus]

I want to see equations, metrics, and formulae.
.

Presumably you are familiar with the equations that science uses in particular Astronomy.

The formulae you are looking for probably hasnt been formulated yet seeings the unkown quantities have not yet been formulated, so we do not know how many there are, less how they interact

 

[trth_skr]

Yes - but none of this contradicts what I said. It is an approximation of the physical universe under some conditions, but it is unphysical because it is matter-free.

Unfortunately if you read just a few lines on you will see this: “the allegedly preferred center… turns out to be an artifact of the stereographic coordinates.” So actually, it’s perfectly consistent with my statement that a centre cannot be defined to de Sitter space. Mark, you can’t learn or debate physics by quote mining.

Alec

No, Alec, you missed the point. The original point I made (which you reacted to) was that Einstein rejected de Sitter space because it had a preferred center. Einstein did not know that the preferred center was an “artifact of the stereographic coordinates” at the time he rejected it because of the preferred center.

The point is that Einstein refused to consider any system which had a preferred center, not that we should all consider de Sitter or anti de Sitter space as a true description of the universe.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

Exactly my point. For thousands of years, the Genesis creation story was viewed as a fairy tale and now it appears that we were right all along.

Yes. The Bible begins with a telling of the Big Bang.

Genesis 1:1-3

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, (no Universe) and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters. And God said, “Let there be light”; (BIG BANG!) and there was light.

 

[trth_skr]

Mark,

While the page was interesting, it’s not what I was looking for. I want to see equations, metrics, and formulae.

Incidentally, another page on the same site advertises psychic readings.

• Liberian

Liberian:

Regardless of what is advertised on another page, the article I linked you to is a Scientific American article (August 2003). I presume this is mainstream enough?

Information in the Holographic Universe Theoretical results about black holes suggest that the universe could be like a gigantic hologram By Jacob D. Bekenstein

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[trth_skr]

I didn’t say it was quaint. I said that the de Sitter universe is unphysical because it is matter free. Which it is.

By the way, this bit of quote mining is irrelevant because it is about anti-de Sitter space - it says nothing to answer Liberian’s question.

Alec

From the SciAm article:

"A class of concrete examples of the holographic principle at work involves so-called anti-de Sitter spacetimes. The original de Sitter spacetime is a model universe first obtained by Dutch astronomer Willem de Sitter in 1917 as a solution of Einstein’s equations, including the repulsive force known as the cosmological constant. De Sitter’s spacetime is empty, expands at an accelerating rate and is very highly symmetrical. In 1997 astronomers studying distant supernova explosions concluded that our universe now expands in an accelerated fashion and will probably become increasingly like a de Sitter spacetime in the future. Now, if the repulsion in Einstein’s equations is changed to attraction, de Sitter’s solution turns into the anti-de Sitter spacetime, which has equally as much symmetry. More important for the holographic concept, it possesses a boundary, which is located “at infinity” and is a lot like our everyday spacetime. "

I.e., multiply de Sitter’s value of the cosmological constant by -1, you now have anti de Sitter space.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[Seamus_Sully]

This is just to be funny, nothing else!

I would think that others have said this, but if not, here goes.

Big Bang. I think not.

If no humans were there to hear it, it did not make a sound!!!

Now back to reality.

rossum

If I have understood, there are at least four models/opinions/theories competing for the correct answers?

Also, within those four models there are different schools of thought.

Is a little correct on my part?

Thanks for all of the help!!!

 

[trth_skr]

Matter was compressed to infinite density. That means the mass of the original matter [or energy] was highly compressed into an infinitisimally small amount of space occupied only by the matter.

With compression comes gravity, with compression also comes heat. The universe did not exist only matter or energy of infinite density,

The gravitational pull of compressed matter caused an enormous temperature to be reached so that there was a massive inflation which literally inflated the universe. This allowed the highly compressed primitive matter as energy to fly outwards in an explosion of cosmic proportions.

All there was initially was the light of photons. The primitive universe would have been too hot for the existence of matter as we understand it. The universe was also opaque with light.

As the universe cooled, photons became less primiitive matter etc.

Prof John Polkingthorne suggests that the universe goes through many stages of big bangs and big collapses, with each collapse as matter retreats back in reverse of expansion, so space behind it collapses in on itself until eventually there is matter of infinite density again, which becomes so dense that the temperature rises to give way to another big bang.

He proposes that God originally lit the blue touch paper and it has been expanding and collapsing since all eternity so that there may have been trillions of big bangs [expansions and collapses] each one lasting several billion years,

It is my postulation that this theory is correct and the time between each big bang and big collapse expands with each cycle so that the first one may have lasted only a few seconds, the next half a minute and so on until eventually we reach the present level of billions of years. With each collapse, heavier matter or energy potentiality is made in each compression.

Sixtus:

Hugh Ross presents Genesis in a similar light. You should read Robert Sungenis article Does Genesis 1:1 Teach the Big Bang Theory?. It illustrates the pitfalls of this type of interpetation.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

This is just to be funny, nothing else!

I would think that others have said this, but if not, here goes.

Big Bang. I think not.

If no humans were there to hear it, it did not make a sound!!!

Now back to reality.

Let’s have some real fun!

If noone was there to hear the Big Bang, would it make a sound or a noise?

A sound is a physical property that is independent of personal perception.

Noise is what occurs when I am annoyed by the sound of pre-historical quantum events.

But, if there is no Universe, and no space or atmosphere for sound waves to traverse, could there be a sound? Would we have to wait until the Universe expanded to encompass us until we would hear something?

You know, I can picture an astronomer sitting in his observatory with a big declassified listening device, straining to hear a sonic boom through his telescope.

 

[trth_skr]

The Big Bang is scientifically probable - very few, if any, scientists reject the concept…

Most scientists reject that the Eucharist is the body of Christ. They reject the possibility of the Ascension and the Assumption. They reject the flood and the creation. Etc., etc.

Ergo, Catholicism is scientifically improbable?

Is Catholicism Truth?

Is Truth improbable?

Where does that leave science (scientism)?

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[noma]

Most scientists reject that the Eucharist is the body of Christ. They reject the possibility of the Ascension and the Assumption. They reject the flood and the creation. Etc., etc.

The issue is not what scientists believe, but what science shows. Scientifically speaking, the Eucharist does not change into the Body and Blood of Christ. This is because science is limited to the physical. The Eucharist does not physically change; if it did, we could clone Jesus from the host. But the Eucharist does change, in a way that cannot be measured or completely understood.

Ergo, Catholicism is scientifically improbable?

Hardly. It is just that the beliefs of Catholicism, or any particular system, are more important than scientific claims. Science cannot overthrow the faith, and between faith and modern science (heliocentrism, local flood, no physical change in Eucharist).

 

[trth_skr]

…the beliefs of Catholicism…are more important than scientific claims…

[SIGN]BINGO![/SIGN]

Keep in mind that was responding to a specific point by Rossum, namely:

"The Big Bang is scientifically probable - very few, if any, scientists reject the concept. "

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[Sixtus]

he beliefs of Catholicism…are more important than scientific claims…

"The Big Bang is scientifically probable - very few, if any, scientists reject the concept. "

Mark Wyatt

Some scientists Do still subscribe to the ‘Steady State’ theory which of course exludes the need for a creator!

A lot of work was done in USA in the last 30 years, building on the work of Hubble.

The back ground radiation from the Big Bang has been discovered. The temperature of intergallatic space is 2.5 degrees above absolute zero. Now if there is no heat source, this cannot be accounted for except that it is the residue heat from the Big Bang

 

[Sixtus]

he beliefs of Catholicism…are more important than scientific claims…

Catholicism as we know, was a major suppressor of science for many years and the ‘advancement of human knowldge’ has suffered as a consequence.

But the Church ‘got her act together’. This is now the age of ‘Reason’. If you want to go back to belief in pure mysticism without any attempts to explain phenomena, you need subscribe to Orthodoxy.

They accept the existance of mystery. For them that is all there needs to know. Catholicism on the other hand ‘seeks to find the reason why’

 

[steveandersen]

Catholicism as we know, was a major suppressor of science for many years and the ‘advancement of human knowldge’ has suffered as a consequence…:

Saywhat?
Ever hear of the renaissance?

The Church has a long history of supporting science.

The scientific method evolved from medieval Christian thought.
Many of the great luminaries of the world of science were Catholic.

 

[Sixtus]

s

Quote:Originally Posted by Sixtus
Catholicism as we know, was a major suppressor of science for many years and the ‘advancement of human knowldge’ has suffered as a consequence…:

The Church has a long history of supporting science.

The scientific method evolved from medieval Christian thought.
Many of the great luminaries of the world of science were Catholic.

I agree with everything you have said. As I said: the Church now sees the importance of ‘knowledge and reason’. Transubstantiation stands as perhaps the most noble attempt to explain the fundamentally unexplainable.

Many simple monks have become great theorists, laying the foundations for the present age. Bacon, Leonardo Da Vinci, Newton being among the more notable ones.

But it has not always done so. There was a time when it feared advancement of knowledge within the secular world.

Galileo is a case-in point! Now I know you will argue that actually the issue the Church had with Galileo was not widely publicised and it was not a simple case of arguing whether the sun went around the earth, which is the popularly held theory of their fall-out.

We have only to look at recent Popes. His late Holiness JP2 was remarkable in his use of language let alone his remarkable mathematical abilities to understand and debate very complex equations, knowledge of science and art.

But it has not always been the case. If we are to appeal to the world we have to be impeccably honest and admit to our weaknesses as well as our strengths. If we are to 'go ye and teach all nations in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit Mt 28:19-20, the Church must be impeccably honest about past mistakes [which were after all only human infractions, ex-cathedra teachings], the Church must also be transparent.

There were times when the Church ‘got it wrong’