Some Christian scientific experts believe that the discovery of the "gravity wave," announced earlier this week by scientists working with a South Pole telescope called BICEP 2, provides confirmation for the biblical account of creation by supporting the theory of the "big bang."
That BICEP2 has no connection to any religious concept, be that Genesis, Tripitaka, Bhagavad Gita, Rasa'il al-hikmah ,etc., and that the design of the experiments and the analysis of the data is oblivious to any such religious concept means the results do not lend any credence to any such concepts. The only thing the results of the BICEP2 experiments support is the concept of a major inflationary epoch in the first instant of our universe and that this epoch does not conflict with the simpler hypotheses of cosmic inflation presently under consideration while precluding a number of the more complex inflationary hypotheses.
To say these results "support" such religious creationist accounts is to say that BICEP2 did not grind them into dust. By the same token BICEP2 "supports" marijuana legalization in Arizona as well.
There is a logic problem here. Where is Fallacy Man when you really need him?
IF you interpret the biblical text as predicting Big Bang cosmology (as Hugh Ross does), THEN any discovery that supports Big Bang cosmology automatically supports the biblical text.
The Greek Cosmogonical can be interpreted to "predict" the big bang. So can the Väinämöinen. You could interpret The Nancy Drew Mysteries as predicting the big bang if you stretch it far enough.
Lemaître, Penzias & Wilson and now BICEP2 cannot support, let alone confirm, the Genesis myth since its "predictions" of the big bang were post Lemaître adaptations as seen through fatuous eyes. The only connection is within the desperate minds of those searching for some gossamer threads to hold their faith. There is no connection at all and the insistence of some support, some connection, some confirmation is an illogical conclusion based on emotional wishful thinking and nothing more.
And, again, the same (il)logic can say the BICEP2 results support moves to legalizing marijuana since there is a direct clear connection from big bang to the presence of marijuana in the universe.
If you accept the one then you must likewise accept the other along with any number of fictions that may pop into some tiny little brains. That is the illogic of Ross's pronouncement.
Further, the presence of matter and energy is what creates space-time. I'm not sure whether energy allow can be said to do this, but where there is energy, there can be matter.
I don't mean to muddy the waters (well, yes, I guess I do since I'm here) since you and 1.61803 have a very interesting discussion starting here.
But, my understanding of GR is that the equivalence of matter and energy is total. Mass is energy and energy is mass, just different manifestations of the same thing. Like water v ice. So the presence of energy can create space-time without its alter-ego. Additionally, photons may have a rest mass of zero but I've never met a photon that wasn't on its way somewhere in a pretty big hurry. Even as small as they are they do pack a massive wallop when on the go, which is always.
Not much except having taken one giant leap toward our understanding of the origins of the universe. Got a long way to go yet, but this is one huge step.
Surely there are more important things that have been discovered.
Oh, yes, very much so. Higgs comes mind. Penicillin. My discovery of girls in the sixth grade. Yah, there are bigger ones, no doubt. But you celebrate your victories when you can.
In fact, I could care less, and ...
Well then, if you're at a point where you could care less then you do now, at least you have some interest. You can go ahead and care even less now, or not care at all, if you want to. You're not required to have any curiosity about the formation of the universe. I'll carry your share of the collective curiosity.
Either way, if it began to exist, it also needs a transcendent cause for its existence.
Unless it is eternal just as you propose for your god. The multiverse, all natural, all the time, might be eternal with no beginning and with universe upon universe by the billions bubbling into existence then fading away. Supposition is such an open box.
I have no evidence of this other than the assumption that in the absence of spacetime, matter and energy, from whence could such forces arrive or be derived? WE DONT KNOW.
While your mind is preparing to explode let me throw a little C-4 (with detonator) into your mix.
As we have all heard our equations break down just prior to the singularity. How much before the singularity is a matter of some debate but the point is that we have no clue what was happening for some time right after The StartTM. All of the parameters we know to operate everywhere else in the universe cease functioning just that smidgen split-second of time before we can see back to The StartTM. But that time is there. Something is happening in that time. If none of the operating parameters we know to exist in our universe actually operate in that period then what does?
We don't know. Our best and brightest have no clue. So, what is all this talk about "Time starts here"? We do not know! We cannot see there. We have nothing but the speculation that time and space began with The StartTM. Can we preclude the possibility that the rules operating in that period, since ours obviously do not, display some exotic form of space-time? No. Some multidimensional form of space-time that pierces the singularity and exists "before" the big bang? May there be something north of the north pole? Your questions on causality would be easily solved if there were such.
The cause for our universe may be in there. Speculating this is some kind of supernatural god thingie is preposterous since such concepts we know to be wholly (holy?) human constructs. But, some different sets of operating parameters, some natural rules that include recipes similar to stellar nucleogenesis but for making universes, are worthy speculations.
My kingdom for quantum-gravity and a viable theory of everything.
Carry this with you. Next time someone browbeats another about how ludicrous it is to ask about "before the big bang", ask yourself, how many additional dimensions would be needed to get north of the north pole? In the speculation above, just one.
Is it a science experiment from some super intelligent alien race?
We have seen natural processes change matter to energy and back. We have seen matter compressed to (almost) a singularity. Cosmic inflation and the CMB give tantalizing hints to the maybe existence of a multiverse. We have seen the warping and deep wells of a flexible space-time. Speculations of a singularity piercing space-time, some universe producing multiverse or some random quantum fluctuation as our origin are not that far out in left field but are open minded extensions of the reality we know. We can reasonably entertain such speculations without being senseless and foolish.
Gods, lotus ponds, turtles, brains in jars and alien experiments as our origin are without any justifiable reason to be considered. They have been pulled out of someone's ... creative mind hole ... without any intellectual underpinnings. Someone's mind was sooo open their brains fell out, and in trying to stuff them back in they got the wrong end of their body.
I am open to all possibilities.
Don't do that.
BTW, your picture of god is the ancient archaic one. This is the newer modern one.
I'm having a bit of a problem with this explanation. If I understand what is being said, BICEP2 used the EU/Planck map data to subtract out the galactic foreground signals.
But Dr. Falkowski says that data not only contained the galactic foreground but also contained unpolarized signals from other galaxies. In essence saying that the BICEP2 team stripped out more than just the galactic foreground? If I understand what was needed to get to the base CMB that extra-galactic stuff needed to come out anyway. Is he saying BICEP compensated for one but not the other?
Then this appears: "So using the map to strip out the galactic foreground may actually leave some of that foreground in the data where it could produce a spurious signal," Falkowski explains. Say what?
I am missing something. If the Planck data contained not just galactic foreground but also extra-galactic stuff then stripping out that data would more than strip out the galactic foreground, yes? No? Is he trying to say BICEP had its head up its ass and didn't know what they were looking at or is he the one who's cranium is in sphincter defilade?
Did the universe just take a hard turn and I just didn't get the memo ... again? Could this be one of those "I are a scientifical reporter" thing? Could someone interpret for me, please. My french am none so good.
From Planck intermediate results. XIX. An overview of the polarized thermal emission from Galactic dust, May 6, 2014
quote:The cosmic infrared background (CIB) is due to emission from a large number of distant galaxies with random orientations and is expected to be, on average, unpolarized. However, it can contribute non-negligible emission at 353 GHz in low brightness regions of the sky and hence reduces the apparent degree of dust polarization.
From what I understand the BICEP2 team requested the CIB data for their patch of low brightness sky from the Planck collaboration some time ago but the Planck team had not been forthcoming. In this latest Planck report, with the above caveat added, that BICEP portion of the sky, along with others, has been masked out.
The BICEP2 team worked with what they thought was adequate data from an older Planck map that did not account for the above because the Planck folks did not reveal this caveat or their original data.
Being so familiar with the intricate details of their work the BICEP team feels there is enough to be confident about. If this thing does fall dead BICEP2 will get the blame even though (it could appear that) Planck pulled the trigger.