Stephen Hawking's statement

[4Horsemen]

Three opponents not including Stephen Hawking.

Father Spitzer’s reference to going from the particular to the universal is key in analyzing science.

I also liked Fr. Spitzer’s answer to Larry King’s question positing why we should be so ernest in seeking anything outside the universe (my words–trying to paraphrase) and just be satisfied that we have lived well and died well. Father replied that our human nature is designed to desire what is the very best including finding the truth about our existence. (Again, I remember the gist of what was said but not as well as I would like).

I noted that Fr. Spitzer seemed liked he was enjoying the conversation and was relaxed. His body language demonstrated confidence, whereas the prof from Cal Tech seemed strained. I thought that if it wasn’t for a boost here and there from Deepak Chopra, he might have fallen on his face.

 

[humble_catholic]

With my limited knowledge of quantum mechanics -

At the quantum level matter can appear spontaneously while the total energy of the system is still conserved. In principle this could apply to all the matter in the universe in the Big Bang.

This speculation has been around for decades but the flaw is that it doesn’t explain where physics came from in the first place - essentially it just says “and here a miracle happens” without explaining how or why. Various other speculations (multi-verses, etc.) can be used to support the idea, but all they do is move the problem around.

Unless Hawking has discovered something earth shattering, I think he’s just using this old idea as a sound bite to sell his new book. It wouldn’t be the first time that he’s muddied the waters between speculation and proven theories – other scientists were less than impressed with some of the stuff in his other popular books. Let’s face it, a definitive scientific proof for or against the existence of God would be front page news for months on end.

I think this might help: winteryknight.wordpress.com/2009/04/08/how-to-defend-the-kalam-cosmological-argument-just-like-william-lane-craig/

“First, quantum mechanics is not going to save the atheist here. In QM, virtual particles come into being in a vacuum. The vacuum is sparked by a scientist. The particles exist for a period of time inversely proportional to their mass. But in the case of the big bang, there is no vacuum – there’s nothing. There is no scientist – there’s nothing. And the universe is far too massive to last 14 billion years as a virtual particle.”

 

[JDaniel]

I think this might help: winteryknight.wordpress.com/2009/04/08/how-to-defend-the-kalam-cosmological-argument-just-like-william-lane-craig/

“First, quantum mechanics is not going to save the atheist here. In QM, virtual particles come into being in a vacuum. The vacuum is sparked by a scientist. The particles exist for a period of time inversely proportional to their mass. But in the case of the big bang, there is no vacuum – there’s nothing. There is no scientist – there’s nothing. And the universe is far too massive to last 14 billion years as a virtual particle.”

Humble:

Very good points!

God bless,
jd

 

[humble_catholic]

Humble:

Very good points!

God bless,
jd

Thanks JDaniel, Maybe God is producing something good through my dark night
God bless you also

PS: I just lost all respect for Hawkins, He had a chance to change his stubborness around and become a rational scientist, but I guess my nickname for him is HTM= Hawkins the magician. The next thing you know he will be appearing in oprah to pull a rabbit out of his hat and say it came from no where

 

[Windfish]

I think this might help: winteryknight.wordpress.com/2009/04/08/how-to-defend-the-kalam-cosmological-argument-just-like-william-lane-craig/

“First, quantum mechanics is not going to save the atheist here. In QM, virtual particles come into being in a vacuum. The vacuum is sparked by a scientist. The particles exist for a period of time inversely proportional to their mass. But in the case of the big bang, there is no vacuum – there’s nothing. There is no scientist – there’s nothing. And the universe is far too massive to last 14 billion years as a virtual particle.”

Huh, I guess I will check this out later.

 

[Anselm33]

I have no idea but I’m hoping someone could explain it to us

I’ll do my best (I’m a physicist and have published papers on quantum mechanics, but quantum field theory isn’t really my bag). The idea is you have “virtual” particles (particle and anti-particle) that can appear as fluctuations… Two points that say this isn’t from nothing; first, the virtual particles arise from a vacuum and a vacuum has extension, i.e. finite space; there wasn’t finite space at “the beginning” (I know, quantum effects are supposed to round out the discontinuity at the beginning but the space is still smaller than a Planck length): second, a perturbation, i.e. some external applied energy, is required to change the pair from virtual to real particles. I believe what the physicist was saying (and I haven’t watched the program yet–wife had to watch “Eureka”)is that pair production from vacuum fluctuations has been observed experimentally. That’s quite a different thing from saying the Universe arose by a similar mechanism.

 

[inocente]

Shouldn’t common sense come into play?

Unfortunately not with quantum physics - the theory works or your computer wouldn’t, but the scale is so different from ours that it’s a baffling different world.

For my personal purpose, I am more interested in the methods used.

If you have an hour to spare, watch this entertaining (and non-technical) lecture by Laurence Krauss on the current state of the art in cosmology. I imagine Hawking’s book paints a similar picture. You’ll need to forgive Krauss for being an atheist, making jokes about everyone, and also as a theorist he sometimes gets ahead of the evidence (he also swears once, which is unusual for him).

Note two points in passing - the Belgian priest Georges Lemaître (starting at 11:10) in connection with the meaning of science, and toward the end Krauss’s own honest reflections on the limitations of cosmology. The whole lecture is also the story of how we little creatures manage to discover so much.

But obviously also bear in mind the reservations expressed in this thread about Hawking’s & Krauss’s speculation.

 

[grannymh]

Unfortunately not with quantum physics - the theory works or your computer wouldn’t, but the scale is so different from ours that it’s a baffling different world.

If you have an hour to spare, watch this entertaining (and non-technical) lecture by Laurence Krauss on the current state of the art in cosmology. I imagine Hawking’s book paints a similar picture. You’ll need to forgive Krauss for being an atheist, making jokes about everyone, and also as a theorist he sometimes gets ahead of the evidence (he also swears once, which is unusual for him).

Note two points in passing - the Belgian priest Georges Lemaître (starting at 11:10) in connection with the meaning of science, and toward the end Krauss’s own honest reflections on the limitations of cosmology. The whole lecture is also the story of how we little creatures manage to discover so much.

But obviously also bear in mind the reservations expressed in this thread about Hawking’s & Krauss’s speculation.

Thanks, but I don’t have sound hooked up. It is not important to me if a scientist is an atheist or a theist of some sort. I look at methods and theories independently. However, it does bother me if anyone draws the wrong conclusions from natural science research.

 

[coolduude]

I think this might help: winteryknight.wordpress.com/2009/04/08/how-to-defend-the-kalam-cosmological-argument-just-like-william-lane-craig/

“First, quantum mechanics is not going to save the atheist here. In QM, virtual particles come into being in a vacuum. The vacuum is sparked by a scientist. The particles exist for a period of time inversely proportional to their mass. But in the case of the big bang, there is no vacuum – there’s nothing. There is no scientist – there’s nothing. And the universe is far too massive to last 14 billion years as a virtual particle.”

Good article!

Just a question:

Could something have existed ‘before the big bang’, like Hawking alludes to? Why is it impossible for something not to have existed before it all? (I’m not talking about God )

 

[JDaniel]

Good article!

Just a question:

Could something have existed ‘before the big bang’, like Hawking alludes to? Why is it impossible for something not to have existed before it all? (I’m not talking about God )

Cool:

The speck of super-compressed, super-heated energy that the Big Bang was supposed to have initially consisted of would have precluded anything else physical from existing. Now, could something non-physical have existed? Yes. (And, He did.)

No matter what, we have little choice but to regard that which pre-existed the BB as that which is infinite in magnitude. Which means that said Being consumes all space and place. That’s every single mm of everything, from its very center to its furthest reaches, which is still its center! Try to imagine infinity.

NASA, and others, have renderings of what the universe probably looks like from someplace outside of it. (From someplace inside of God.) So, what else could exist outside of the universe? Yet something does. It is physical nothingness, but, non-physical something-ness. Looks like God to the non-blind.

God bless,
jd

 

[4Horsemen]

Good article!

Just a question:

Could something have existed ‘before the big bang’, like Hawking alludes to? Why is it impossible for something not to have existed before it all? (I’m not talking about God )

I have Fr. Spitzer’s book and will try to summarize or quote what he wrote. I haven’t much of a science background, so all I can do is reiterate what someone else said. The following is under a section titled, “Space-Time Geometry Arguments for a Beginning of Time.”

Father mentions that the Hawking-Penrose Singularity theorems were considered the best evidence for a limit to past time in the universe according to the Standard Big Bang Model. (I read there are several more models of the Big Bang evidence). He quotes Stephen Hawking’s writings in 1980 that “a curature singularity that will intersect every world line. . . [makes] general relativity predict a beginning of time.” A "singularity is a place where something becomes infinite.

I’ll quote the following:
“In the Standard Big Bang Model, if one uses a ‘classical’ (i.e. non-quantum) description of gravity, one finds that at some finite time in the past one reaches a singularity where energy density, temperature, and the curvature of space-time become infinitte. That singularity is the big bang. ‘World llines’ (i.e. paths through space-time) when traced back through time will eventually have to hit this singularity and come to an end. That singularity is the ‘edge’ or beginning of time.”

He ends this paragraph with this revealing sentence: “Some people wondered whetther one could find solutions of Einstein’s equations of gravity where this Big Bang singularity could be avoided, and world lines could be traced back infinitelly into the past. Hawking and Penrose proved otherwise.”

Then he quotes Quentin Smith who adds that “it is impossible to extend the space-time manifold beyond the sinularity.” He mentions it as a "mathematical paradox. Anyhow, Hawking and Penrose set out five conditions. But, it seems that this is just one possibility. Of course, there is so much more. It seems odd that Hawking seems to have changed his mind as noted in his new book basing his theory on gravity and quantum mechanics. I’m sure other posters can explain this much better. Also, there are one or two more threads on Hawking which I haven’t had a chance to read. So the question may have been dealth with already.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I noticed when I read what Stephen Hawking said is that his idea of nothing is not nothing, it is something, as Fr Spitzer clearly points out.

Mr Hawking’s definition of nothing includes the law of gravity which is a something.

This is the most important thing, especially in debates, that we define the terms we are using especially when we have different defintions/understandings of them.

 

[JDaniel]

I have Fr. Spitzer’s book and will try to summarize or quote what he wrote. I haven’t much of a science background, so all I can do is reiterate what someone else said. The following is under a section titled, “Space-Time Geometry Arguments for a Beginning of Time.”

Father mentions that the Hawking-Penrose Singularity theorems were considered the best evidence for a limit to past time in the universe according to the Standard Big Bang Model. (I read there are several more models of the Big Bang evidence). He quotes Stephen Hawking’s writings in 1980 that “a curature singularity that will intersect every world line. . . [makes] general relativity predict a beginning of time.” A "singularity is a place where something becomes infinite.

I’ll quote the following:
“In the Standard Big Bang Model, if one uses a ‘classical’ (i.e. non-quantum) description of gravity, one finds that at some finite time in the past one reaches a singularity where energy density, temperature, and the curvature of space-time become infinitte. That singularity is the big bang. ‘World llines’ (i.e. paths through space-time) when traced back through time will eventually have to hit this singularity and come to an end. That singularity is the ‘edge’ or beginning of time.”

He ends this paragraph with this revealing sentence: “Some people wondered whetther one could find solutions of Einstein’s equations of gravity where this Big Bang singularity could be avoided, and world lines could be traced back infinitelly into the past. Hawking and Penrose proved otherwise.”

Then he quotes Quentin Smith who adds that “it is impossible to extend the space-time manifold beyond the sinularity.” He mentions it as a "mathematical paradox. Anyhow, Hawking and Penrose set out five conditions. But, it seems that this is just one possibility. Of course, there is so much more. It seems odd that Hawking seems to have changed his mind as noted in his new book basing his theory on gravity and quantum mechanics. I’m sure other posters can explain this much better. Also, there are one or two more threads on Hawking which I haven’t had a chance to read. So the question may have been dealth with already.

Horsemen:

There’s the problem: even decent scientists cannot define “Time!” Time is not a thing, as much as some need, or, would like it to be. It is a measure - nothing more, and nothing less. A yard is a yard, nothing more, nothing less. It is the measure of that which is linear or planar.

Time is the measure of motion. Motion exists - providing there is some subject that we can ascribe the motion to. If we can’t, then we are merely imagining. We are imagining “what if there was something there that was moving.” We can make imaginary predictions. That’s all.

And this guy is supposed to be brilliant.

God bless,
jd

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

Three opponents not including Stephen Hawking.

Father Spitzer’s reference to going from the particular to the universal is key in analyzing science.

I remember that one—I think he made rightly “smacked” Hawking’s co-author on his definite logical fallacy in that one.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

Could going from the particular (quantum mechanics) to the universal (creation out of nothing) be the major flaw in Hawking’s scientific reasoning?

I got the same sense also.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

I think Hawkins needs to brush up on his Parmenides he is 2500 years out of date…

:clapping::clapping::clapping:

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

This is neither here not there but I thought THE big “Oops!!!” of the evening besides Leonard’s “logical fallacy” that Fr. Spitzer pointed out was Chopra invoking “Godel’s Theorem” to bolster his case against Hawking and Leonard. Leonard rightly pointed out that Godel’s Theorem applies to axiomatic systems only, whereas Astrophysics do not really employ axiomatic systems.
It was surpirising also to me because Chopra always likes to reference scientific theories in his talks and debates.

 

[Anselm33]

I

have Fr. Spitzer’s book and will try to summarize or quote what he wrote. I haven’t much of a science background, so all I can do is reiterate what someone else said. The following is under a section titled, “Space-Time Geometry Arguments for a Beginning of Time.”

 

[coolduude]

Thanks for the help, guys (especially 4horsemen for typing all that!)

Anyway, let me refine my question.

Is it possible that something other than God existed before the BB? Couldn’t gravity have existed? Who said that everything was created at the BB? Maybe gravity existed before?

I have a feeling the answer lies in someone’s post that I didn’t read

 

[utah_rose]

He’s an incredibly intelligent man, but his statement is so profoundly dumb. Notice how he doesn’t detail the beginning of gravity. He of all people should know that from nothing comes nothing

This reminds me of the story of the scientist bragging that he was like God because he created and made so many things. Then God tells him to pick up a clod of dirt, and make man out of it! Enough said! Let’s pray for Stephen, a very intelligent man but he’s a victim of the secular world, and refuses to admit that there could be anything out there that is higher than man or scientific explanations.