A Spiritual Theory-Part 3: Philosophical Thoughts On The Beginning [181c]

THE BIG BANG - IS GOD AT THE POINT?

Source

FUNDAMENTAL TO MY WORLDVIEW IS THE FACT, well nearly so, that the origin of everything we know today originates from what scientists refer to as the "Big Bang"; ALL that ever was, is today, or ever will be existed in some form in an unmeasurably small space at one moment - no, that is too long a time span - instant in time. Whatever organization this "stuff" has assumed is, as far as I am concerned, the template of creation; God's plan, as it where. All that followed, including randomness, Free Will, the soul (both human and non-human), the spirit, the mountains, the planets, the ideas creatures have, and all else are bound up in that tiny space. Obviously, none existed in their full form, but their genesis is. So this is my Genesis 1, "In the beginning, God Created the heavens and the earth." ... maybe a bit premature on the earth part, but you get the idea.

Whoever wrote those first passages in the Biblical Genesis had great vision, powers of observation, and a vivid imagination. The author(s) must have gazed into the depths of the heavens, wondering, as many of us do now, how it all started and, amazingly, came up with about the right answer. He (and he must have been a he because women were barely above the status of slaves in 600 - 500 BCE) possibly observed that humans and their history, seemed to come fully formed, with intelligence intact; As a consequence, it isn't a great leap to come up with this idea of Adam.(I wonder if other primates were kept as pets at the time of Genesis was being written?) Lastly, I would think another great question that needed an answer would be why women, who were identical to males in most respects and had the additional capability of producing life, would be kept in such a lowly status; that too needed an explanation, so Eve was invented.

But, as much of a genius the author(s) of Genesis might have been, the story isn't quite right. While most of the events in Genesis 1 - 3 did happen, the order is wrong; but no fault should be given because science hadn't made that clear in 600 BCE. OK, so what really happened?

  1. We know that today, there are at least four fundamental forces: the electromagnetic, the strong force (that binds nuclei together), the weak force (responsible for radioactive decay), and gravity.
  2. In 2014, a new Field, and possibly a fifth fundamental force, has proved to exist with the observation of the Higgs Boson; it is called the Higgs Field.
  3. Associated with these forces are particles; the photon, the gluon, the W and Z boson, the graviton, and the Higgs boson, respectively.
  4. From these fundamental forces and particles are born all that we know exists in the Universe; these are matter, energy, dark matter, and dark energy.
  5. The latter two are "dark" because they cannot be seen although dark matter has been detected by inference; dark energy is still a mystery.
  6. Regular matter and energy account for only a small part of our total universe; dark matter adds a significant additional portion.
  7. But, to make up the total mass of the universe, something else must be present, and that has been labeled dark energy is the subject of intense study today
  8. Finally, in March 2014, evidence of gravitational waves helping to prove that gravity exists in the way it was theorized to.

Now, you are probably wondering what in the world is a lecture on astrophysics doing in a hub about spiritual philosophy. The reason is that astrophysics is very much intertwined with my philosophical perception of God.. All of this "stuff" I just described is real, it is known to exist, except for dark energy; but it must exist, otherwise a 100 years of science will be tossed into the trash and the universe couldn't look the way it is observed to look ... flat.

If this "stuff" exists today, where did it come from? This the the eternal, self-perpetuating question, isn't it. Theory has it, and there is a lot of scientific evidence to suggest this is true, that all of these forces and particles at Time equals Zero were One; there was no differentiation between gravity and electromagnetism or anything else, for that matter. As a consequence, this must be my starting point to start considering the "meaning of life".

Obviously, Life, including the soul, the spirit that so many philosophers over the millennium have tried to account for, is part of the package.

WHEN THE UNIVERSE WAS YOUNG

COSMIC MICROWAVE BACKGROUND RADIATION - AGE 380,000 YEARS
COSMIC MICROWAVE BACKGROUND RADIATION - AGE 380,000 YEARS | Source

AT TIME EQUALS ZERO

I OFTEN IMAGE THE BEGINNING as this infinitesimally tiny aggregation of energy just waiting to explode and become the Universe. That works fine until I try to place this speck of life into some sort spatial context. Picturing myself "inside" the Beginning is easy, although rather cramped. But, unfortunately, when there is an "inside", there is also an "outside" and that is the rub; what is on the outside of the speck of life at Time equals zero? One answer is, "it is whatever is on the outside of our universe today" for it must be the same thing since our universe appears to be expanding into it.

Modern quantum mechanics holds that "matter", the stuff the universe is made of which we can see, feel, touch, measure, etc is the result of interactions within this newly proved Higgs field. If you can picture an electromagnetic field, like the one around a magnet, a Higgs field is similar, just different. Scientists believe the Higgs field is, and always has been,present throughout the universe from at least Time equals Zero. As mentioned earlier, four other fields or forces also exist, 1) gravity; 2) electromagnetic, think light and the mechanism used in holding atoms together, 3) one called the Strong force, responsible for holding nucleus together; and 4) and the other is called the "Weak force", responsible for radioactive decay. Once, all four of these forces were one. After the Big Bang, the Universe began to expand, and cool. As it cooled, these forces began to separate.

the first force to separate was gravity and shortly (like 10-36 seconds) thereafter the Strong force made its appearance: this left what is called the electro-weak force. Up to this point, nothing in the universe had mass; nada, zip, zero. Then, as the theory goes, the electroweak force "broke symmetry" in an interaction with the Higgs field and in the process the W and Z bosons were created as well as a theoretical Higgs boson, the so-called God-particle, a term scientist find distasteful because of its inaccuracy, when the electro-weak force splint into the Electromagnetic and Weak forces. What makes these bosons special, however, is they acquired Mass in the process, these particles actually weigh something in the presence of gravity; the time is now around 10-32 seconds some scientists think.

Now hold on to this picture for the moment and reconsider our speck of life sitting out there by its lonesome. We can have now have some sort of understanding of what might be inside our speck at Time equals Zero, but, as I asked before, how about on the outside? As I see it, you have two choices, there is something or there is nothing. ... I have a substantial problem with the latter choice. It is extremely hard for me to picture our speck of life, pat of which will become me, floating out there in ... "nothing", in a void; it just doesn't feel right.

Circling back now, what if I consider the possibility that if the Higgs field is everywhere inside the universe, why can't it be everywhere outside the universe? If the Higgs field is everywhere, including beyond the speck of life, then we have the speck sitting somewhere, in the Higgs field. Following that line of reasoning, if it is true that the electroweak force can break symmetry into the electromagnetic and weak force in the presence of the Higgs field, then why can't the speck, at the time when the electromagnetic, weak, strong, and gravitational fields were a single force, be present in the Higgs field at Time equals Zero.

Are there theoretical reasons the Higgs field, or some analogous force, cannot exist inside and outside the know universe? I don't know, my research hasn't gone that deep. There are, I believe, good reasons why the other forces cannot, mainly in order to be a single force at Time equals Zero, they must be confined to a very small space that exerts unknowable pressures at incalculable temperatures (literary licenses there, scientists probably do have some ideas and calculations). But for the Higgs field, it just needs to be present.

By the way, I am not making the case that the Higgs field is God, only that it, or some other theoretical construct, may exist outside the known boundaries of the universe at any point in time down to and including when Time equals Zero. From there, it is not too hard a leap to presume the possibility of this same construct or force existing at some Time Before Zero.

GOD

Source

BEFORE TIME EQUALS ZERO

AND NOW WE CAN GET INTO THE REALM OF GOD. It can be argued that in the moment after the Big Bang, one of three things can be hypothesized; 1) there was no God before or after the Bang, so get on with it and deal with the consequences without wondering why, 2) there was a God before the Bang who created the speck, separate from Himself, and then directed all of the activities resulting from His creation for time ever after, or 3) God became the speck of life, which is still God, which is now the template for all there is to be; and with the Big Bang, God expanded into the Universe as we know it with the singular attribute that God is greater than the sum of its parts.

While the first option is plausible, it is not satisfying for I cannot help wondering why. For example, why does it seem a new force appears out of nowhere when two people enter the same room which didn't exist when each was alone and has the capability to influence their actions? Personally, I need an answer to that. The second option leads to too many logic dislocations and creates more questions than it answers. To me, however, the third choice would seem to be the most logical and one that flows smoothly from one idea to the next. That is why I like door number three.

But, the question remains, "what was Before"? In one scenario the answer is nothing, we don't know, and who cares. In the latter two cases, the presumptions is there was something, and that something was God.

In the second case, God appears to be a sentient creature, thinking distinct thoughts, composed of primarily human characteristics, subject to the same strengths and weaknesses as humans, and capable of performing what I would call arbitrary magic and others call miracles. This God is said to have some purpose in mind to achieve a desired, unknown end. Day after day from the beginning of eternity to the end of eternity, this God is actively involved in the lives of His creations, handing out punishment if He isn't worshiped, getting jealous if another God appears on the scene, and randomly helping those who pray to Him. Clearly, given my bit of sarcasm, I have problems with this definition of God, it is contradictory at best, but nevertheless an accurate portrayal of the monotheistic God so popular today. I need something better than this, something that is a lot more intuitively coherent.

This brings me to the third construct, that God and the Universe are one, that is God is the Universe and the Universe is God. This helps me answer the question of where did the universe come from ... it came from whatever God was before there was a universe, before Time equals Zero. With this simple shift from After to Before, and understanding that God and the Universe are an identity, one is freed from all of the ubiquitous contradictions permeating monotheistic theology; contradictions which have led to millions of sermons trying to hold the flock in line; thousands of religious sects, each with their own version of the solution to these contradictions; and millions of souls lost in the wars over who is right.

This brings us, of course, to what was before Time equals Zero ... and another Hub to explore this idea.

© 2014 My Esoteric

More by this Author


Comments 34 comments

Cgenaea profile image

Cgenaea 2 years ago from Illinois

You really ARE a "thinker" ... :)

This piece is overflowing with evidence of that.

As a person who has asked the very same questions, with simply feeling attached, I am proud (in God) to say that many of these answers are yet to come.

There is a reason why, we just don't know it. Truthfully, absolutely no one may answer many of these questions. It takes faith... in something.

Belief in biblical passages have forced my brain to accept that which is unknown, and trust that God knows. This brings a peace that works wonders in the realm of the unexplained.

The law of this land is that everything is caused by something. Coupled with our constant "the chicken, or the egg" theories, there is much room for speculation. Much more than much, actually. :)

We must anchor our faith somewhere. Lest we are tossed to and fro by every doctrine.

There is only one way to God, though. He sent a man to tell us all we NEED to know. (Remember mom and dad always kept a little to themselves? Lol)

The bible actually says that God has secrets known to no man. I believe that this is true.

In me, has been combined: intuition, intelligence, and faith in God that has grown through a vast array of what I like to call, spiritual prophecy and confirmation, that came only when I said, "Master teach me."

A display of faith has been my ticket into peace within the world of the unknown.

I can give the the story if you like, but this comment has already sent messages to my ADD HEADquarters. I gotta regroup. :)


Cgenaea profile image

Cgenaea 2 years ago from Illinois

I need an edit button.

Belief "have" forced me in the wrong grammatical direction. It jumped out. :)


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 2 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

I am glad how you have chosen to believe and what you have put your faith in works for you, that is what is most important; much more important than me trying to convince you I am right or the reverse.

While monotheism will disagree with this, I think Aristotle had it right when he asserted and then proved that the purpose of life is, in the final outcome, to be Happy. (Not the normal concept of happy, but the Aristotelian notion of Happy.) What he showed was that ALL other "purposes", including that of believing in this religion or that, can be distilled down to yet another purpose when asked the question "why" do you think "that" is the purpose of such and such. There is always an answer until you get to the purpose of being Happy. At least Aristotle couldn't come up with another purpose even more basic than that.


Cgenaea profile image

Cgenaea 2 years ago from Illinois

The bible puts personal happiness in the hands of God. Many people are "happy" stealing millions from corporate America. And many others are "happy" seeking out little children to keep company with. While still others are "happy" to cause the death of others in imaginitive ways... there must be more to life than happiness...

However, many have placed much faith in the words of Aristotle.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 2 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

That is why I differentiated, as did Aristotle, from the "smile" type happy, to the Happy, with a capital 'H'; an ethereal, self-completing, kind of Happiness which tells you you have reached the pinnacle of fulfillment.

Notice that to achieve this state, some of things you must achieve along the way is virtuous behaviour, especially in those things dealing with the ethical treatment of others and the world around you. Aristotle showed those things you mentioned actually do not lead to true Happiness but to a miserable existance.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 2 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

You see, one of the differences between us is you have chosen to turn your life over to someone else, a more powerful being you define as God.

On the other hand, while I acknowledge that God created the template of all there is and was all there was at one point in time, God chose to expand in order create beings who could wonder, appreciate, experience the magnificence that is God and grow according to their own free will without giving themselves over to another power.


bradmaster 2 years ago

My Esoteric

Very interesting and technical hub on the universe.

I don't see it that way, but unless it is proven beyond a doubt any theory can work, as long as the universe exists today according to that theory.

Matter cannot be created nor destroyed, it can only be transformed, has to be from the singularity containing all that is in the universe.

A body at rest tends to stay at rest, until affected by an outside source. Newton didn't mention the Big Bang. But one has to ask what caused a singularity to explode?

If the singularity was the reason, then we would have a grand unification theory, but we don't have one. So Higgs and Boson don't solve that theory.

My opinion is that instead of a singularity, it could have been a porthole of another universe, and it is something that happened in that universe going through or creating our universe. In addition, instead of the universe moving away from the Big Bang, why can't it be drawn to something, like another porthole to yet another universe.

If the universe was a manufacturing process, it couldn't pass quality and it would be a failure. I know it is not a manufacturing process, but the process produces more failures than it does successes. The FOD, or foreign object damage is significant and it can't be cleaned up.

Keep it simple, Achems Razor, pick the simplest solution might work.

So that is why I don't follow string theory. To me string theory is an equation with a lot of unknowns. They fill these unknowns with strings or unknown dimensions. Then they claim it all strings together.

I don't believe that the scientists know where we are in the universe, as we have such a limited view. We go around the Sun covering over 584,020,178 miles for the orbit, so that is miniscule in terms of the size of the universe.

The Sun also moves because it orbits within the Milky Way galaxy, and the galaxy moves with other galaxies within OUR portion of the universe. Everything is moving in multiple ways such that our solar system ends up between 9 to 11 billion miles away from where it was the year before. This is also a very small distance universe wise, and it is like a ride on a merry go round, where you can't catch up with the other horses.

As for the Big Bang, can we apply Planck's constant for sequencing the events, or is there something that is faster?

As for God being involved, it really doesn't matter because it is not a system to be proud of, and even Earth and are Solar System is always one tick away from total destruction. Who puts and asteroid belt in a solar system? While there might not be much material in the asteroid belt to make planets, there is more than enough to destroy us.

I enjoyed the hub

bradmaster


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 2 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Thanks for reading and enjoying @Bradmaster. You might want to look at some other hubs that speak to the Higgs boson and Higgs field directly. As of late last year, the theory that matter was created by the interaction of the Weak Force with the Higgs Field was proven with the identification of the Higgs boson in the debris left in collisions in the collider at CERN.

Until that point in time (there is a timeline in the other hub) all forces and the things that carry the forces, like photons and gravitons (almost proven to exist a few months ago) have no mass. But when the Weak force interacted with the Higgs field, a symmetry was broken resulting in X and Z boson (I think those are the names) which had mass. After that, as they say, the rest is history.

As to the Big Bang, while there are other competing theories around, no one fits actual observations as well as the Big Bang theory does. There are no observations today that cannot be explained by the theory, and more importantly, predictions by the theory decades ago have since been proven true.

One of the final ones, the Grand Unification, where the gravitational, electromagnetic, weak, and strong forces were just one force an instant after the expansion began. In April 2014, observations strongly suggested the existence of gravity waves, and hence gravitons, which, if true, would be a big step in the final proof. However, others suggested that cosmic dust might lead to the same conclusions, but with less probability of it being true. As a result, more dust measurements are needed.

In any case, the Big Bang theory, while not a certainty, nothing in life ever is including you waking up tomorrow because the sun went nova, the probability is as close to certain as you can get because nothing else comes even close to explaining what is known.

As to your portal, well at the moment of the Big Bang, it is anybody's guess at the moment, including yours. Their are many competing theories out there whose mathematics and theories go way beyond my comprehension, but I am game for anything including my own interpretation which makes life simple for me.


Cgenaea profile image

Cgenaea 2 years ago from Illinois

Well, the bible says (since it is my reference), that you cannot lean unto your own understanding of things. If we all are honest, we will realize it to be true.

Someone such as yourself, goes further than what the bible says, to check another source in an effort to gain clarity. While it is good practice to confirm, many will take the words of the other source over the words in the bible. The bible asks whose report do you believe? It is up to us to decide the report that carries the most weight. For faith is the only way to figure that we have the closest answer.

Faith in Aristotle as the most accurate source to date, is ok. But it is not the way/path/road to God.

Not many people are looking to go there. But I am. I believe every word of the Lord's report. Jesus was right.

All that I take in as truth, is checked against what Jesus said/did. For me, it is the Christian way. It is the way to God.

Many do not agree, but that aint my business. ;)


bradmaster 2 years ago

I can't really argue with your comment, but I still can't buy the BBT. You are right that the BBT fits more than other theories, but only after the BB. The two problems as I mentioned before, are what created the singularity, and then what caused the singularity to bang.

God is the answer, but that doesn't explain the how and the why of the reaction.

I look forward to more of these hubs.

I think that an interesting hub would be on the scientific constants, and how they are such odd numbers. Also, what is the realistic use of none repeating decimals like those found in Pi? It also includes the square root of 2, that was made famous by Pythagoras, and his Asquare plus Bsquare equals Csquare. So when A and B are both one, the C is the square root of 2. That number is another never ending non repeating decimal. Maybe this is only interesting to me.

Thanks

bradmaster

Thanks


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 2 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Ah, I see I don't have to say this isn't spam anymore, good.

You are absolutely right about what caused the singularity (which is only a singularity in the mathematical constructs we currently understand; maybe there is a new Calculus waiting to be discovered) nor what caused the expansion (although they may be a bit further along in figuring that one out). Nevertheless, the "only" thing that explains current observations is that an instant after whatever it was which caused the singularity to expand, all four fundamental forces had to be one unified force and that the expansion had to be inflationary.

I just skimmed a paper a second ago to see if I could enhance my answer a bit; I can't for I need to read it very slowly with pencil in hand 10 more times before I even start to understand it. If you want to have go at it, it is at http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Watson/Watson5_... and is written at the undergraduate level.


bradmaster 2 years ago

You found the cure for insomnia.

The full math is way beyond me, but this article is based on a flat universe, and even though it uses Plancks time, to describe the sequance of inflation from the BB, the author is not committed to the BB.

To me there are too many unknown variables, that are not factored into the article, and there is no real tangible way of proving or not proving the inflation.

Basically we have light, the farthest of which is 13.2 billion years in the coming, but the total nowverse, what we can see is about 42 billion years. Nowverse is what we can see, and we don't know what if anything is beyond it, but the guess is a lot more.

I was thinking about when we thought we had a flat earth, and yet all we had to do was look up at the moon, and the universe to see that objects we see are round, except for space junk.

So, why couldn't we extrapolate that for the shape of the universe. If the universe is curved and we go in one direction we could end up where we started, but who has the gas to go 84 billion light years.

Back to the assumptions, do we even know that we have a vantage point that can even see the point of origin for the BB if one exists, or is there something else we could conclude from the blaring red shift?

We can't take a snapshot of the visible universe and determine whether the light that we see is still there today. Also, is it possible that we are the moving objects, and not the rest of the universe. It doesn't seem likely, but is it a possibility.

If time is not a constant, then we really can't make any valid calculations about the age of the universe, even the visible universe. We have only a few thousand years, and maybe the last hundred years to watch the movements in the universe to make our impressions of what we think happened.

There are too many spiral galaxies, and black holes in the visible universe that indicate billions of years in the making, but can they become BBs?

It is like trying to solve a jigsaw puzzle with billions of pieces, and many of them missing. The picture is ghost in a snowstorm. It would help if one of them wasn't white. lol

Thanks again,

Bradmaster


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 2 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

hehe. @bradmaster, methinks you prevent yourself from coming to reasonable conclusions when you wear the straight-jacket encompassed in the following phrase of yours; " ... and there is no real tangible way of proving or not proving the inflation."

Now, if we were in a conversation about there being "a tomorrow as we know it", based on your construct you would have to take the position of "maybe, I am just not certain and because you (me) cant prove with absolute certainty that there will be I will take the same position about "tomorrow's" existence that I am with the Big Bang theory." The fact is no scientist, or anybody else for that matter, can "prove" tomorrow will happen; there are simply too many variables. The only think anybody can say is there is a very high probability that tomorrow will come for us. Do you see the similarity? Do you see why almost all scientists say there is a very high probability that the BBT is correct and that the "inflationary" construct is also correct?


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 2 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

@Cgenaea, again, I am very happy you can find peace, confort, and understanding in your faith in the "infallibility", to pick a Catholic term, of the Bible, it works for you and that is what counts.

I don't have faith in Aristotle, per se, I have faith in my God-given (tha's MY God, hehe) ability to reason and decide if Aristotle's logic for that particular topic (Happiness) makes sense. To give you an idea of how eclectic my religious views are, they are a combination of Hindu, Buddhist, Aristotle, Spinoza, Jesus, science, other things I can't remember, and some of my own making. What each does for me is provide a piece or pieces of logic which, when put together, make a complete, non-contradictory whole which provide the answers I need to attempt to live a Happy life, should I choose to do so.

In any case, I am reading an article about how hippies of the '60s and '70s turned the small conservative Cavalry Chapel church into the mega-Church it is today. I never realized the liberal hippies became the backbone of a conservative youth religious movement. Its a shame they picked up the sobriquet of "conservative" because if they understood what that philosophy actually means, I think they would drop it in a heartbeat and find another term that reflects their social values.

I say that, however, with the presumption that these remade hippies still believe in the kind of individual liberty (called liberalism) our country was founded on.


Cgenaea profile image

Cgenaea 2 years ago from Illinois

Our country was founded on the individual liberty of certain "real" men (hope you get my drift :) ) some of her men were not manly enough. Lol...

My words come from a Christian perspective. To me, Christianity is only illustrated biblically. Your plethora of religious ideas are the stuff that the biblical, "tossed to and fro by every wave of doctrine" is made of. And I must admit that it is what works best for many Americans. A little bit from here; a little bit from there, add milk and presto! An all-inclusive happy cake. Lol...

For the Christian, there is but one doctrine that works, and that is the doctrine of Jesus alone. My background, front ground and all the way around ground is Christian. It is the only angle from which I speak here. I definitely do not knock your path. It works for you. But it does not lead unto the God of Abraham. Which is possibly not your goal anyway.


bradmaster 2 years ago

My Esoteric

I wrote a lot more about why tangible proof is not available, including our vantage point etc.

Consensus is not fact, there was consensus that the Sun revolved around the Earth, yet that is not true.

Inflation only works if we are correct about the premise of the BBT.

Again, my problem with the BB is that it is used to enable a theory that doesn't address anything before the BB. That is cheating, because without knowing the details of what happened before it, we don't account for the conditions before it.

If you are in the middle of some ocean, and you see a light at the horizon, you have no idea what is beyond the horizon. The same is true from our vantage point on Earth looking out at the universe.

What about my statement of spiraling galaxies and black holes? My point is that we don't know, if they are precursors to BB.

Anyway

Thanks for the feedback

bradmaster


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 2 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

True, @Cgenaea, it is not, and I think I got your drift at the top. I think you might find this interesting: http://americanhistory.si.edu/jeffersonbible/


Cgenaea profile image

Cgenaea 2 years ago from Illinois

Interesting, indeed. :)

Thanks!


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 2 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

I don't think, @bradmaster, it is necessary to know the "before" to understand the "after". Yes, the BBT does even come close to explaining what came before it or even at time zero. But it does do the best job at explaining black holes, spiral galaxies, regular matter, dark matter, and regular energy. The "only" other major thing left unexplained, now that they may have a handle on gravity, is dark energy.

The BBT explains all of this with or without inflation if you start counting at the end of the inflationary period; after gravity separated out, I think the other three forces were still combined then. What the paper was suggesting that the theory of inflation makes more sense than a "hot" creation, the original BBT.

To explain my initial assertion regarding regarding not needing to know what came "before" let me use this analogy. Assume a 30 year old man, who managed to wipe out all records of his existence (maybe with the help of the CIA) arrives in your town. He proceeds to establish himself, make friends, get elected to the city council, run a successful business, and so on and so forth. Also, not too long after his arrival, good things started happening in your town. After much investigation, it turned out to be good deeds done unnoticed by the stranger.

Now, one can find out everything about this stranger from the moment just after he arrived and what his impact on your town without ever knowing anything about him prior to his appearing out of nowhere.

At least that is the way I conceive of it.


bradmaster 2 years ago

My Esoteric

Did you factor in my comment on our lack of view of the universe?

I gave an example about the ocean.

I have to disagree with your analogy because you already know that it is a person. And we know about people. But we still don't know about the BB, only assumptions on its effect. Would it be important to know if the stranger was Jesus Christ? As for the biblical Christ we have no knowledge where the story of his immaculate conception took place. We don't even know what he did for his first twelve years.

But I don't base any of my opinions on religion.

Here is the question, can the BBT scientists go backwards until the singularity. Not really, because they don't see the entire picture of the universe. It is more like when an archeologist finds a bone fragment of an unknown type. An even when they find a full skeleton they have to go back to see how it came to be. An egg.

My opinion

Bradmaster

Thanks for the dialogue


bradmaster from orange county ca 23 months ago

My Esoteric

What is your conclusion that in trillions of bodies in the universe, we are the only pseudo success. The Earth is far from being a designed success. It is flawed, and it mostly from evolution not design.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 23 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

BTW, in my last comment, "Yes, the BBT does even come close ..." should be "Yes, the BBT doesn't even come close ..."

Does my clarification change your first comment?

As to going backwards to the BB. Yes they can and have, to within something like 10 to the minus 26th seconds of it, ignoring inflation, of course. The jury is still out on whether they have actual evidence of the graviton yet. If they do, and it simply isn't dust, then that may open the door to the GUT, the final frontier to get to the BB.

It's a BIG universe and we are only new discovering planets that MAY sustain life as we know it, let alone other life forms. So, are we the ONLY pseudo success? I very highly doubt it. I also don't agree with the term "pseudo" for clearly life is here, intelligent life is here, and even human beings are here, as flawed as we are. There are at least three certainties in life as we know it, Death, Taxes, and Nothing is ever Perfect (corollary- All Things are Flawed).


bradmaster from orange county ca 23 months ago

My Esoteric

My point is that the Earth is hardly a design, much less intelligent design.

The history of the Earth, and the rest of the planets in its solar system show that only through trial and error they we even get this far.

What kind of design would have included a destructive and deadly asteroid belt. In aircraft factories it is called FOD.

The planets including the Earth have been hit with these asteroids for billions of years.

To design a universe there would be more order, but our universe is built on the principle of chaos.

As for death, our DNA is programmed to die, and as a living organism replenishing itself daily this is not unavoidable.

As for taxes, that is also avoidable, we call them billionaires.

As for flaws, intelligent design minimizes flaws. There is no evidence of intelligent design for the universe, our solar system, or the Earth.

The Earth is not a true success, so if you don't like pseudo, than pick another word. But a rose by any other name smells the same.

If you believe it, the Earth has been populate by pseudo intelligent life for about then thousand years during its four and a half billion years of existence. Again, hardly a design.

What everyone calls Acts of God are really flaws.

An intelligent design of the Universe would focus on minimizing it to its essential components and still derive the maximum result.

There is no need to have galaxies, or even a solar system to give the Earth the same or better results than it has in existence today.

A place like Earth could have been created to be self sufficient, and still contain everything that we have today, sans the universe. The universe for humans would be an Earth. Much like putting a dome on a sports center.

We have been looking at the universe for hundreds of years, but we haven't even colonized the Moon. If we were to have any chance of warding off a threatening asteroid, wouldn't the Moon be the best place to put our defenses?

Humans, the most intelligent creatures on Earth have not evolved much, if any, since there appearance years ago. Like, Microsoft Windows retaining the moronic DOS, human still retain the primitive animal instincts that counteract their intelligent side.

This is a major design flaw, as it was for MS Windows.

Is it amazing and fascinating what we have on Earth and the Universe, yes. But, it doesn't exist from an intelligent design, unless you compare it with the creature fictionally created by a Doctor Frankenstein.

Today, people are dying more from defects in our immune system than from other causes. When our immune system works, we don't get deathly sick. But when it is not working, we get the multitude of diseases that baffle our medical experts.

The pharmaceutical companies strive to maximize profit by developing long term expensive treatments that in most cases focus on the symptoms of the disease, rather than the cure.

Thanks

bradmasterOC


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 23 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Ahhh, I see; hadn't thought of it quite that way. What I had in mind is the "blueprint", the necessary physics, was created which allowed something like Earth and life to develop. As things sorted themselves out there, obviously, were many false starts as one combination or another didn't pan out.

I would say it is the "principal of ordered chaos". Quantum mechanics looks chaotic, yet it behaves in a mathematical predictable way even though much in QM is a probability.

A self-sufficient Earth would require a monotheistic-type God to do the "creating". The fact that we have a real Universe, flaws and all, tends to say there is a different answer. That is one reason I like my reasoning, it doesn't rely on someone designing and placing, then controlling every atom in the Universe.

Appreciate your comment, it got me to consider something new.

BTW, my prediction for today's vote is Ds keep Senate with 48 seats vs R's 47 and I's 3. Two seats, AK and LA, remain up in the air facing a run-off. Rs hold House but, contrary to pundits, Ds gain between 3 and 20 seats.


bradmaster from orange county ca 23 months ago

My Esoteric

I am glad you found some value in my comment.

My purpose in any of my comments is to try and understand the views that are opposite of mine. While, I am convinced about my opinions, I can be swayed to a different viewpoint, but it really has to be significant.

You wrote

Ahhh, I see; hadn't thought of it quite that way. What I had in mind is the "blueprint", the necessary physics, was created which allowed something like Earth and life to develop. As things sorted themselves out there, obviously, were many false starts as one combination or another didn't pan out.

bm:

That would be like the primordial soup, than a design.

I guess I take the word design too seriously, or too narrow.

------------

You wrote

I would say it is the "principal of ordered chaos". Quantum mechanics looks chaotic, yet it behaves in a mathematical predictable way even though much in QM is a probability.

bm:

QM is the best we have today.

But even Albert Einstein died without presenting a valid grand unification theory. And from that, I conclude that maybe QM, String Theory and others don't fit the general theory that would wrap everything together.

QM could just be forcing the wrong jigsaw piece into the puzzle.

Did you ever wonder how odd are the values of the constants that have been the main stay of applied physics?

Take Pi for example, the ever non repeating decimal is of no real practical value. Neither is the square root of 1, which is derived from the Pythagoras theory when A and B are 1.

These constants seem to me as an indication that are number system is not really aligned to the universe. Asymptotes create infinity, and following those curves is mathematical but not really practical.

The other thing, that I find interesting is that light from the universe that comes from the Sun and countless light years can wind up here undistorted, and unabsorbed on its long journey.

-------

You wrote

A self-sufficient Earth would require a monotheistic-type God to do the "creating". The fact that we have a real Universe, flaws and all, tends to say there is a different answer. That is one reason I like my reasoning, it doesn't rely on someone designing and placing, then controlling every atom in the Universe.

bm:

My opinion is that the universe is not designed by anyone or anything and for us on Earth, it serves no useful purpose. If the universe was a manufacturing process, it would fail every quality test, and consequently would never be sold.

The human body is amazing, but so are other lifeforms that make us look pale in comparison.

The human mind is the most intelligent one on the Earth, yet it is prone to so many malfunctions that make it questionable as to its worth.

As I have said before, the primitive portion of humans contradicts its high intellect. Yes, that is what makes us human, but it is also what makes us fail.

Today for example, religion, the worship of a non human God, is one of the most deadly threats to the human race. It is ironic that God would be the implement of human atrocities. It is even more ironic that atrocities by people that don't believe in God are also on par with those who believe in a God.

-------

Thanks

bradmasterOC

Appreciate your comment, it got me to consider something new.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 23 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

QM is quite real and explains many things at the nano level

General Relativity is quite real and explains many things at the macro level.

Where they collide is Gravity.

Einstein couldn't reconcile the two and end the end sloughed off QM. But QM wan't going away as it, and not General Relativity, has explained the Standard Model of Elementary Particles which as recently led to proof on how matter was originally created from energy.

Once the Universe was formed, General Relativity takes over to explain what we see.

The Grand Unification will occur when both theories can explain gravity using a "common" set of variables, with "common" being a very complex concept.

Without PI, all of mathematics falls apart and we would still be living in caves. Same thing with the square root of negative 1. Since we don't live in caves, I would say they were quite useful concepts.

The primordial soup is what I conceive of being inside the little ball of energy that exploded into our known and unknown Universe. It had to consist of all the necessary tools needed for what followed to actually occur.

How did all of that stuff get there? Who the hell knows, maybe someday they will figure it out. But, for the time being, that tiny ball of energy is my imperfect God for the reasons I discuss in the Hub.


bradmaster from orange county ca 23 months ago

My Esoteric

You wrote

QM is quite real and explains many things at the nano level

General Relativity is quite real and explains many things at the macro level.

Where they collide is Gravity.

bm:

Gravity is more of the big boy attraction. It works best for the large objects, and using the inversely proportional to the distance explanation doesn't really fit sub atomic particles.

--------

You wrote

Einstein couldn't reconcile the two and end the end sloughed off QM. But QM wan't going away as it, and not General Relativity, has explained the Standard Model of Elementary Particles which as recently led to proof on how matter was originally created from energy.

bm:

The BBT also says that in its creation the speed of light is surpassed.

----------

You wrote

Once the Universe was formed, General Relativity takes over to explain what we see.

bm:

Don't you think that it had to apply in order for the universe to form?

--------------------

You wrote

The Grand Unification will occur when both theories can explain gravity using a "common" set of variables, with "common" being a very complex concept.

bm:

That goes against Achems Razor

-----------------------

You wrote

Without PI, all of mathematics falls apart and we would still be living in caves. Same thing with the square root of negative 1. Since we don't live in caves, I would say they were quite useful concepts.

bm:

I didn't say that they weren't useful, I said that the non repeating function is not useful, and that might lead to a fault in our numbering system.

---------

You wrote

The primordial soup is what I conceive of being inside the little ball of energy that exploded into our known and unknown Universe. It had to consist of all the necessary tools needed for what followed to actually occur.

bm:

This is the flaw in the BBT. The scientists describe what happens in detail from time zero through very very small fractions of time. Even though they have no idea what started the process.

You would have to dispense with Newton's laws to put this into action, unless you can explain the stages preceding the Bang.

----------

You wrote

How did all of that stuff get there? Who the hell knows, maybe someday they will figure it out. But, for the time being, that tiny ball of energy is my imperfect God for the reasons I discuss in the Hub.

bm:

It sounds really logical when the scientist explain the BBT, but you have to realize that they cheated by starting with the Bang.

There can be any number of reasons that caused the Bang.

Once again I will use symbolic logic to make my point.

If it rains, the the sidewalks get wet.

This is If P then Q

It is also the when the Bang occurs the universe will form.

But if Q then P is not the mirror image of If P then Q.

If the sidewalks are wet, did it have to rain to get wet?

No

The same is true for the Bang

If the universe is formed, did there have to be a Bang?

No.

There are any number of ways that the universe could have been created.

Are black holes the reverse of a Bang. Probably not, because they take too long. Also, if the Black Hole is from the Big Bang, then where does it go?

My point is that we have had numerous theories over the years about the universe, and many of them have been replaced by new theories. Remember, that they are just very intelligent opinions, and not the truth of the matter.

Here is another thought.

How does QM relate to Chemistry where things are still small but not sub atomic?

I don't know the answers, I just know the questions about not having the answers.

Thanks

bradmasterOC


bradmaster from orange county ca 22 months ago

My Esoteric

While I await your response, I found it interesting that a German built spacecraft sent up in 2004 may have landed on its target. The spacecraft caught up with its target, a 2.5 diameter comet, after a 4 billion mile chase. The scientists are waiting for confirmation of the landing.

This is an example of hard science versus a soft science.

Thanks

bradmasterOC


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 20 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

There is no argument there are different types of science, depending on the nature of what is being studied.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 20 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

BMOC - "Don't you think that it had to apply in order for the universe to form?"

No, because there was nothing the science of the macro to work on. Initially, it was all energy and no matter; you need matter for General Relativity to work. That means the limit which is the speed of light had not been established.

Light is nothing but photons. Photons are the by-product of the breaking of symmetry of the three forces left over after gravity broke away. Shortly after gravity left, the other three fundamental forces (if you don't count the Higgs field) broke symmetry resulting in the electromagnetic force and the strong-weak force; at this point, there were photons, but no matter yet. That had to wait until the weak force interacted with the Higgs field. Once matter was created, then General Relativity had something to work on.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 20 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

As to "truth", when you get down to it, it simply doesn't exist. When the dust settles, "truth" is simply a probability function.


Slarty O'Brian profile image

Slarty O'Brian 8 days ago from Canada

Truth is relative to conditions. If the conditions stay the same the truth about those conditions stays the same. If I turn my tap on and get water I will always get water when I turn on my tap as long as none of the conditions that exist now changes. If there are changes, there may be an entirely new truth.

But every time the conditions are repeated exactly, the same truth about the situation exists. Absolute truth is found through relative truth

I either ate an apple today or I did not. That is absolute truth. One of those two events happened today. Which one is irrelevant.

You can't make a square circle. Absolutely true.

But I agree. What isn't fact, has to be judged by probability. No need to believe anything. It's a fact or its speculation. You have no need to believe fact, and its pretty risky believing speculation.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 7 days ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Thanks for stopping by and reading, Slarty.

Let my offer you this re: your last sentence.

Is it pretty risky to speculate the sun will come up tomorrow even though it is only a probability that it will?


Slarty O'Brian profile image

Slarty O'Brian 7 days ago from Canada

Lol... No. Speculation isn't risky, believing or having faith in speculative ideas certainly can be.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working