What does the Catholic Church have to say about this?

[ribozyme]

I was just wondering where you got the number 10^14 GeV from. You seem to be suggesting that if we could generate such large energies, that the strong force would be unified with the electroweak force. Is that right? I have not come across this before.

I got it from wikipedia, go to “GUT”.

 

[mosher]

We already know there are more than three dimensions; there are at least four. Time is a dimension in the same way that position (in the x-direction) is a dimension.

I am well aware of the mathematical proofs for at least time being a dimension. However, I contend that this will in time be found to be an error. As I said the reason for this is not on strictly mathematical grounds but the other deductive way of relating to reality - philosophy. While in philosophy we have not come to a conclusion on the nature time there are two ideas. The first idea is that time is merely a measure of motion while the second idea is that it is a thing in itself and functions as a measure of motion. This second idea is what relates to time being the so called 4th dimension. I am unconvinced of the discussion on this second idea and as such unconvinced about the presumption of the empirical sciences treating it as such. I also understand the ramifications for this statement in current work but I am also aware that functionally it remains the same but theoretical hypothesis would suffer greatly if time were only a measure of motion (also quantum physics would suffer). However, in discussion with some scientists it would seem that there are some advantages to throwing out the idea of there being more dimensions than three. The addition of dimensions seems to complicate things to a point that the empirical sciences cannot reconcile with the theoretical.

You are correct about the cyclic model being problematic because it invokes ideas from string theory. The cyclic model, however, does not explain the initial singularity. The cyclic model requires a singularity (or boundary condition) because the branes experience net expansion for each cycle. The expansion is required because of the second law of thermodynamics. If you read the discover article, the expansion is required to dilute entropy. This is also noted in Turok and Steinhardt’s original paper in Science. In other words, the cyclic model loses its primary appeal because it requires a beginning in time.

I am actually more attuned to physics and especially quantum physics than any bio field. I think it is just a disposition thing.

Anyway, as I was reading this and other works it got me thinking about a both/and model as opposed to an either/or model. In a sense there is very little question about if there was a beginning of time or not as evidenced by the Nobel winners I mentioned. All verifiable evidence points to a definite beginning. With this in mind this hypothesis contained within a Big Bang type theory seems to satisfy a lot of the questions. For instance if a Big Bang resulted in this “multi-universe” [read: visible universe] scenario and then it is from this scenario that things progressed as they did as the hypothesis suggests it seems that many questions would be answered. However, it does pose others such as would require a revamping in the idea of the Big Bang.

What I can see is a jar inside a jar inside another jar scenario. In Quantum Physics they speak about the Universe and that it is infinite in quantity and that the visible universe is expanding into that infinite Universe. However, would it be so hard to pose this same model with the Universe then a Big Bang type event that spawned the multi-universe “sphere” which in turn produced the effects that we find in our observations. Such a layered view would help explain why we see some things that fit with Big Theory and some things that seem to fit with this “new” hypothesis.

 

[JimG]

I am well aware of the mathematical proofs for at least time being a dimension. However, I contend that this will in time be found to be an error.

Well, from a human perspective, time certainly seems to be a different kind of dimension.

Yet, from a physics perspective, all events have to have at least these 4 coordinates, don’t they?–one of which is time. And when comparing events in accelerating systems (or gravitational fields), what’s ‘simultaneous’ for one observer is not simultaneous for another observer.

And while string theory (or M-theory) is unproven, I don’t see any inherent problem with the idea of there being more than 3 spatial dimensions.

But I’m just a laymen; I’ll let the physicists argue that.

As for the idea that GUT might be a way of looking into the mind of God, I’m sure it would be. But then, all of physical reality is a way of looking into the mind of God.

As a Catholic, however, I believe that there is more to the cosmos than just physical reality. There is also spirit, mind, will. And spiritual reality is another way of looking into the mind of God.

Since I believe that God is spirit, I also believe that there is no amount of physical energy sufficient to ferret out his inner workings, as we might do for, say, subatomic particles.

Finally, I still think it is a mistake for theists to lay all their eggs in the basket of the cosmos having a temporal beginning. A temporal beginning is no more a theological necessity than a spatial beginning. I leave it to science to determine whether it is a physical necessity.

I still recall a philosophy professor discussing the argument about the impossibility of an infinite series of causes. His point, reiterated often, was that a temporal set of infinite causes is not impossible, but an infinite set of efficient causes in the here and now—at this moment—is an impossibility. And since we are contingent, not necessary, beings, we need an ultimate, non-contingent cause to explain our existence at this very moment. But that’s philosophy, not physics.

 

[mosher]

Well, from a human perspective, time certainly seems to be a different kind of dimension.

Yet, from a physics perspective, all events have to have at least these 4 coordinates, don’t they?–one of which is time. And when comparing events in accelerating systems (or gravitational fields), what’s ‘simultaneous’ for one observer is not simultaneous for another observer.

You are correct but it depends on what you mean by dimension. My problem is with it being an actual physical thing as the first three are. However, if it is only a relational reference then there is no problem.

Finally, I still think it is a mistake for theists to lay all their eggs in the basket of the cosmos having a temporal beginning. A temporal beginning is no more a theological necessity than a spatial beginning. I leave it to science to determine whether it is a physical necessity.

Not necessarily so. In fact it is absolutely necessary that there is a temporal beginning as it is a function of spatial beginning which is itself a function of material beginning. A material beginning is not only necessary but rather known to be true because God created out of nothing. Thus the singular act of creation is all those things by necessity according to Theology. In philosophy, however, there is no direct necessity since there is nothing that necessitates that God did not created the cosmos from all eternity.

I still recall a philosophy professor discussing the argument about the impossibility of an infinite series of causes. His point, reiterated often, was that a temporal set of infinite causes is not impossible, but an infinite set of efficient causes in the here and now—at this moment—is an impossibility. And since we are contingent, not necessary, beings, we need an ultimate, non-contingent cause to explain our existence at this very moment. But that’s philosophy, not physics.

Correct. This is an application of the law of non-contradiction. However, again in philosophy this is correct but according to theology we need an actual beginning. As we know, if a lower science contradicts a higher science then the lower science is in error.

 

[ribozyme]

Want to hear what Neil Turok thinks about his model?

meta-library.net/transcript/nt-frame.html

Also, Andrei Linde calls it a problematic version of inflationary theory because it uses inflation when the universe undergoes acclerated expansion.

 

[mosher]

Want to hear what Neil Turok thinks about his model?

meta-library.net/transcript/nt-frame.html

Also, Andrei Linde calls it a problematic version of inflationary theory because it uses inflation when the universe undergoes acclerated expansion.

It was nice to hear him explain those minor points with a certain humility that is at times lost among empiricists. His desire for understanding and knowledge is that very thing that demonstrates the creation of man as a reflection of the divine image.

 

[JimG]

Not necessarily so. In fact it is absolutely necessary that there is a temporal beginning as it is a function of spatial beginning which is itself a function of material beginning. A material beginning is not only necessary but rather known to be true because God created out of nothing.

I pretty much agree with all that you say, but I am not convinced of this part. I don’t think that creation ex nihilo says anything at all about what type of creation occurs. Cosmologists can easily envision a spatially infinite universe; likewise, it seems to me that a temporally infinite universe is not out of the question. Since God does not exist in time, what He creates does not occur, from his perspective, at a point in time. It is not as though God is just sitting there from all eternity—meaning in this instance, a sort of endless series, and at some point in time, He creates.

No, He exists entirely outside of time, and when he creates, it seems to me that he has the option to create a universe with a temporal beginning point, or one with an endless circular loop of time–rather like a spatially closed spherical cosmos. His choice. In either case, it was created from nothing.

 

[estesbob]

Della, please read…

As historian Giorgio de Santillana, who is not overly fond of the Catholic Church, noted, “We must, if anything, admire the cautiousness and legal scruples of the Roman authorities.” Galileo was offered every convenience possible to make his imprisonment in his home bearable.

Even so, the Catholic Church today acknowledges that Galileo’s condemnation was wrong. The Vatican has even issued two stamps of Galileo as an expression of regret for his mistreatment.
Catholic Answers

Galileo was put under house arrest. Everything I have read about him points that out. I don’t know where you got your information but you might want to take another look at it.

Cheers.

He was not put under house arrest for positing that the earth revolved around the sun. That theory had been promoted by Copernicus, a catholic Priest who did so with the full knowledge and support of the Catholic Church. In fact Gallelio himslef received supprt from the Church to persuse this theory-20 years prior to his difficulties. He even had even recieved a major award in Rome for a paper supporting the Copernican theory-he also recieved congratulations on this paper from THE POPE.

What got Gallelio in trouble was his book “Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems” written in 1632

The irony is that he had approached the Pope for permission to write this book and recieved the Popes blessing to do so-with one caveat-that he equally present the arguments for the Sun revolving around earth also-a view the pope held.

Gallelio’S book took the form of a debate between three people-Salviait, Sagrfdo, and Siimplicio . Of the three Siimplicio was the adherent of the Earth being the epicenter positon(again the popes view) and was presented in the book as somewhat of a simple minded buffoon. Gallelios enemies convinced the Pope that Gallelio had intended Siimplicio to represent the pope.

In short gallelio was punished for insutling the Pope and disobeying his instructions to present all sides of the issue equally in his book. As Paul Harvey would say “Thats the rest of the story”