|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 916,387 Year: 3,644/9,624 Month: 515/974 Week: 128/276 Day: 2/23 Hour: 0/0 |
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 3853 days) Posts: 390 From: Irvine, CA, United States Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Can science say anything about a Creator God? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 188 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
Roger Penrose has mathematically shown any naturalistic cause for the Big Bang to be beyond any realm of chance. As far as I know, no one has even attempted to defeat or contradict his proof. I can't find any trace of such a proof, and I'm pretty good at Googling. Please provide a working link, preferably to a text site rather than a video. He definitely does believe in a cyclic universe, but that rather disproves your claim, doesn't it? Concentric circles in WMAP data may provide evidence of violent pre-Big-Bang activity. I do find Before the Big Bang: an Outrageous New Perspective and its Implications for Particle Physics wherein he raises an issue of how the low entropy of the early universe came to be, but there is a lot of argument in physics circles about whether this is an issue and how, if it is an issue, it might be resolved. Certainly that paper isn't a proof of impossibility of naturalistic origins and there are plenty of people attempting to "defeat or contradict" the issue. Given your propensity to add to what people wrote and claim you are quoting, I strongly suspect that you have colossally misrepresented Penrose's position.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 188 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
But he said this back in 1981. Given that as recently as 2010 he was proposing that the Big Bang may have been preceded by an earlier universe, have you considered the possibility that he doesn't today and never did view has work from 30 years ago as precluding natural causes? The paper I linked to is from 2006. So his view of the low entropy problem remained the same more recently than 30 years ago. I don't know when, if ever, he changed his mind. Of course, if indeed that's what DT is hanging his hat on, it doesn't fly (mixing my metaphors muchly).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7
|
JonF writes: I don't know when, if ever, he changed his mind. I doubt Penrose ever changed his mind. As is his wont, DesignTheorist has claimed something that has no support in fact. He has claimed that Roger Penrose proved that the Big Bang could not have had a naturalistic cause when it is very, very much in doubt that Penrose believed he ever proved any such thing. Penrose probably thought, and still thinks, "What incredibly low entropy! How on earth could that have happened?" He never thought, "My God, what incredibly low entropy! This could not possibly have had a natural cause." No doubt most scientists, Penrose certainly among them, view the cause of the Big Bang as yet another puzzle for which we don't yet have firm answers, only hypotheses. I'm sure very, very few scientists have concluded that the cause was non-natural. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Just being real Member (Idle past 3956 days) Posts: 369 Joined: |
Did I say any such thing? Seriously JBR, you are completely out of your depth here. You didn't even address the two possibilities that designtheorist did include before writing your woof ticket. Hmmm... I'm not sure what post you read but of the two mentioned I did address the most popular one of quantum fluctuations. You seemed to be dismayed by the fact that he hadn't gone into any detail as to why they don't work, and I was merely trying to address this. So I appologize if I in anyway misinterpreted what you meant.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
I did address the most popular one of quantum fluctuations You addressed quantum fluctuations by asking me the inane question of where the metal plates for generating the fluctuations for the Big Bang would come from.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615. If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Just being real Member (Idle past 3956 days) Posts: 369 Joined: |
You addressed quantum fluctuations by asking me the inane question of where the metal plates for generating the fluctuations for the Big Bang would come from. I'm sorry to inform you that you are mistaken. I asked how you would get around the problem of needing the parameters (such as the two metal plates in a vacuum) to be in place in order to have a quantum fluctuation? I would never ask "where the metal plates for generating the fluctuations for the Big Bang would come from." That would be stupid. My question is posed around this thought process. Since the quantum fluctuations observed in the casimir experiments require certain parameters in order to "fluctuate" (such as the metal plates), then this therefore would logically require some sort of universes parameters to exist in order to have a quantum fluctuation. Thus the chicken egg dilemma. You need the parameters to create the universe... but wait you need the universe to set up the parameters.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Since the quantum fluctuations observed in the casimir experiments require certain parameters in order to "fluctuate" (such as the metal plates) ... No they don't.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
It is believed that virtual particles (quantum fluctuations) flit in and out of existence continuously everywhere throughout the universe, including the nearly empty expanse of space between galaxies and at the time of the Big Bang. The Casimir effect is just the most easily detectable example of this phenomenon.
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 188 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
I did address the most popular one of quantum fluctuations The Casimir effect is due to quantum fluctuation, but is not in itself a quantum fluctuation. "Quantum fluctuation" covers a lot more ground than "Casimir effect".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Just being real Member (Idle past 3956 days) Posts: 369 Joined:
|
No they don't. Lol. Oh, oh... I got this... are you ready? ...yes they do. Edited by Just being real, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Just being real Member (Idle past 3956 days) Posts: 369 Joined: |
It is believed that virtual particles (quantum fluctuations) flit in and out of existence continuously everywhere throughout the universe... So what is it exactly that makes this "belief" any more valid than your typical run of the mill creationist? Also this still doesn't answer the question. Some sort of universes parameters are needed to have a fluctuation and yet you need the fluctuation in order to have a universe to have the parameters. Which came first? Then you still have to solve the problem of how anything could have occurred to begin with. Since most physicists tell us the universe is quantized and nothing smaller than a planck can theoretically exist. This is a problem trying to have a zero point of energy fluctuate where there is no "where" to fluctuate. There was no time or space. And finally, if we are really observing new particles form in the casimir experiments then you've got to trash the entire law of conservation of energy which says this is impossible. In a closed system energy can not be created or destroyed... it can only be converted. That means at the very most we are merely seeing some yet unexplained conversion process... not the creation of completely new particles from nothing. Edited by Just being real, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Lol. Oh, oh... I got this... are you read? You received several polite messages correcting you on your error regarding the casimir effect. What do you think a response of 'yes they do' accomplishes at this point? I know you want to get back at Dr. Adequate, but at the cost of looking not unlike a buffoon? If you aren't prepared to discuss how physics works at energy densities and temperatures so high that all physics as we understand the subject are inapplicable, then blathering about in a positive, certain, fashion about what is impossible, plank lengths, and such is, er unjustifiable. The fact that you continue to do so suggests that you are out of your depth. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615. If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Just being real Member (Idle past 3956 days) Posts: 369 Joined: |
The Casimir effect is due to quantum fluctuation, but is not in itself a quantum fluctuation. "Quantum fluctuation" covers a lot more ground than "Casimir effect". So are you trying to say there is some other process we have "observed" that indicates how we might get something from nothing? Because the casimir effect is the only one I've heard of.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Just being real Member (Idle past 3956 days) Posts: 369 Joined: |
What do you think a response of 'yes they do' accomplishes at this point? Ummm... the same thing his response of "no they don't" accomplishes. Absolutely nothing. And that was the only point I was making. Edited by Just being real, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
Because the casimir effect is the only one I've heard of. As has been pointed out several times, the Casimir experiment is a demonstration that zero point energy is real. It is not an experiment in which quantum fluctuations are created, but is instead an experiment in which the fluctuations associated with a small volume of space are made to generate a measurable effect. And your equivocation on the term "believed" is .... below the standard for intellectual honesty for even a blog debate. 'Believed' in Percy's statement means predicted by the theory of quantum electrodynamics, said theory being well verified by experiment, and not "accepted through faith." The Casimir effect itself is further confirmation. I'll read any response you may have, but I'm otherwise done with this buffoonery. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615. If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024