Use the 'peek mode' to learn how to do the quotes. Its essentially 'qs' in square brackets.
Alot of scientists do actually believe that the universe came from nothing, I have been witness to this on many occasions, They actually think someone who believes otherwise is dim-witted, or of a lower class working mind,
Can you name a scientist that says the universe came from nothing?
Should'nt the theory of the big bang actually discuss how it got there, because that is the very foundation on which that particular theory lies upon. I mean the big bang theory has lots of other theories built upon it, who in turn have lots of theories built upon them.(thermodynamics, Eh!)
No it shouldn't. The big bang is just a description of the early universe. Its actually just a subset of Einstein's relativity, which attempts to explain the geometry of space time. Big bang is just that portion of space-time where time is quite small.
Thermodynamics isn't built from big bang - thermodynamics is a Victorian discipline which stemmed from engineering (heat engines and the like).
Physicist Steven Weinberg, (who won a nobel-prize for physics)said within the tiniest split second, the tempreture hit a hundred thousand million degrees Centigrade, and that the matter rushing apart consisted of such elementary particles as negativley charged electrones, positivley charged positrons and neutrinos,which lack both electrical charge and mass, and interestingly there were also photons: the universe he said was filled with light.
Then God said "...Let there be light..."
Indeed.
I thought there was a cause to radioactive decay, an unstable nuclei, but thanks to the law of entropy the decay produces another nucleus and so on and so forth until a stable one is formed.
But there is no cause for one to decay rather than another. If we had four atoms and 50% of them decay in 10 minutes. Would you be able to tell which atoms will have decayed? Would you be able to tell me why the two that did decay decayed and why the two that didn't didn't?
In my opinion the law of causiality is a fact, and there is no real evidence to suggest otherwise.
You should read into quantum physcics. Common sense rules like this get rewritten.
quote:
"Many people believe that everything in nature has to have a causal explanation. Although this may be true at the macroscopic level, it is not necessarily the case at the microscopic level, as quantum physics has demonstrated. Transitions, decays, and nuclear reactions do sometimes occur spontaneously without apparent cause. Similarly, the universe itself does not require a cause" (Crowe, 1995, Is quantum cosmology science? Skeptical Inquirer 19:53-54.)
My analogy of the elephant making itself out of nothing was just to illustrate the chances of something totally functional, and complex in design coming forth from "absolute nothingness" without cause, we know it wouldnt happen.
The same way we know ever oxygen molecule wouldnt gather in the corner of a room without there first being a cause for them to do that.
Yet in spite of of our common sense, both have a statistical probability of happening. Still, its easier to say that they probably won't happen, and we can agree there.
Which just brings it right back to the Fundamental foundational question, how and why did the universe come into being out of absolute nothingness. Because without first understanding that the foundations of a building need to be in order, we cannot build it on with any safety
Indeed, we cannot even know IF the universe came from nothing or not. All we can do is describe the early universe and speculate and hypothesise the rest.
Which is exactly what the modern scientific world has done.
And that is also a fact.
Not at all, the modern scientific world says that the early universe was very hot and dense. If it tries to do the maths to find out what was going on at t=0 we find the maths doing odd things (singularities and infinite densities and all that), the physics breaking down (relativity and quantum mechanics seem to be at odds etc).
So what does the science world do? It says "Sorry, we can describe the universe as early as Planck time (5.391 10
’44 seconds), but not before. Before that time, if that makes sense, is currently undescribable...however here are some ideas, none of which we can be more sure of than another".
No, in my opinion man loves to look for new things, new ideas, new possibilities, theories built upon theories, whilst most are never proven either way, and the things we do know are of no real benefit to the universe, since most inventions, products and whatever else man has discovered is mostly doing nothing but exhausting the earth.
Theories, by their very nature, never get proved...only corroborated or falsified.
™ Version 4.2