Kurt,
As I file this away I should correct one sentence below as indicated...
Paul.
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009, Paul Butterworth wrote:
> Hi Kurt,
>
> I think I did a pretty good job in my earlier message and don't have much to add here.
>
> We only know things about the universe when we have good predictive models
> (i.e. theories) based on repeatable observations. If you rewind the evolution of the
> universe there comes a time - let's call it t=0 - when we have no theory and no
> observations. We can't yet know anything about t=0 (and any earlier times).
> (Similarly, in the case of black holes, we have the same great theory -
> General Relativity - supported by a lot of observations, which can tell us a lot about
> black hole behavior, all the way down to each central 'singularity' where GR no longer
> works and we know nothing.)
>
> We can't use local conservation principles derived from later times. (Note, by the
> way, that mass-energy is not even conserved in GR, because the cosmological constant -
> often equated with the dark energy effects we observe - requires a constant vacuum
> energy density, which increases proportionally as the volume of the universe increases.)
Above, I should say ', which therefore increases the total energy in volume proportion
as the universe stretches.'
>
> We can't say that something must have preceded t=0, because we have no reason yet to
> rule out cosmologies where t=0 is the first instant, akin to the south pole being the
> furthest south you can get on the Earth - see Hawking, Hartle, etc. Our current
> ignorance of t=0 is essentially perfect.
>
> That may not always be the case. If we get a good model of quantum gravity,
> observations (electromagnetic, neutrino, gravitational, etc.) may be able to probe
> beyond the incredibly destructive regime near t=0. Some cosmologists have speculated
> that the big bang expansion was caused by the collision of brane-worlds moving along a
> space dimension that we haven't yet detected in other ways - see Turok, Steinhardt, etc.
> Many others suspect that the structures we see in our universe have grown from quantum
> irregularities in a pre t=0 state. I hope these ideas become testable (i.e.
> falsifiable) hypotheses while I live.
>
> Best,
>
> Paul.
>
>
> -------------------------------------
> Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 10:27:47 -0500
> From: Kurt L. Hanson <k24anson@mac.com>
> To: "Butterworth, Paul S. (GSFC-665.0)[ADNET SYSTEMS INCORPORATE]"
> <paul.s.butterworth@nasa.gov>
> Cc: Dear Mergatroid Blogger <k24anson1.dearmergatroid@blogger.com>,
> netscape <mergatroidal@netscape.net>,
> Hotmail Hanson <mergatroidal@hotmail.com>, yahoo <k24anson@yahoo.com>,
> Google Hanson <k24anson@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: the origin of the force/energy of the Big Bang
>
> Howdy Paul,
>
> True that there is no direct empirical evidence linking a creative entity to any of the events inside the universe.
> The realization for the existence of a creative entity results from the same type of investigative mindset that gives
> us information about black holes. Not through direct observation do we understand the nature of a black hole but by
> the events that occur in proximity to one.
>
> Simply given the premise that our universe exists, and according to the best theory that the best and brightest minds
> of modern science have wrought through the Big Bang (BB) theory, our universe did have a beginning point or state of
> existence. And though we cannot put our hands and eyes to determine whether any type or form of existence may or may
> not have preceded the existence of our universe, a set of logical statements can be proposed which render either
> validity or absurdity as to whether a type or form of existence precede the existence of our own universe's existence.
> The following single premise and the two simple yet logical statements could be put into mathematical language, but
> is this necessary to have one understand and comprehend?
>
> If one were to remain focused on the initial force/energy (f/e) of the BB, this f/e which transformed into the very
> first forms of mass inside the universe, ie. the quarks at 10*-320 picoseconds after the BB, I want an answer to the
> question of where did this initial, raw f/e originate from? Whatever the initial, raw f/e of the BB later transforms
> into and the events that occur after the BB I find to be irrelevant towards answering the question I've proposed. The
> origin of the initial f/e is all I'm concerned with.
>
> I propose two statements to bring an answer to the preceding question. Definitions for what does and does not exist
> is that the universe is deemed to be in a state of existence as I write these words to you.
>
> 1.) Some "thing" which had no existence was the origin of the f/e of the BB.
>
> 2.) Some "thing" which was already in existence was the origin of the f/e of the BB.
>
> One of those two statements is valid and the other statement is absurd. From these statements and conclusion no
> definitions can be determined as to the nature of this "thing" though the recognition for the existence of this
> "thing" is irrefutable. Similar to after having gathered all the data surrounding the immediate proximity of a black
> hole, and conclusions as to the nature of the black hole can be determined, so is the existence of some "thing" to
> be the origin of the f/e.
>
> I could write a set of logical mathematical statements of these thoughts, and surely these would challenge the
> modern scientific mind to bring refutation for the validity of the conclusion. Should I have to? Perhaps so.
>
> Ignore the religious connotations at the present time. The logic is simple to have a child understand. Rather, how
> would anyone refute the conclusion without appearing condescending? Surely a paradigm shift is in progress. :-)
>
> Constructive comments to either bolster or refute the specific train of thoughts I am proposing are welcomed by
> anyone who considers themselves a fan of the sciences.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Kurt L Hanson
>
>
>
> On Monday, June 22, 2009, at 05:01PM, "Paul Butterworth" <pbutterw@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> wrote:
> >Hi Kurt,
> >
> >I find your characterization of the COBE and WMAP results to be extremely
> >peculiar. Far from 'shooting down' a completely naturalistic
> >interpretation of the evolution of the universe, they have extended it all
> >the way back to deep within the first yoctosecond after the BB expansion
> >began! In the entire available dataset there is no sign of your 'creative
> >entity' across 13.7 By of time and 45 Bly of space (allowing for Hubble
> >expansion). Science can't yet say anything about earlier moments, if that
> >concept even makes sense, because we have no relevant data and (absent a
> >quantum theory of gravity) no reliable physical model. The BB event is
> >also so initially extreme that, if there was a preceding state, any
> >surviving evidence of such a state is going to be very hard to find. When
> >we get the necessary data (perhaps from neutrino or gravitational wave
> >observations,or polarimetric measurements of the CMB) and the necessary
> >model of quantum behavior under extreme gravity, we may find that the
> >concept of time becomes meaningless beyond the first instant of BB
> >expansion - or we may find a way to investigate some precursor state
> >through relict effects.
> >
> >If you really want to make a contribution towards any area of science (or
> >just to better understand current developments) I recommend that you read
> >http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/06/19/the-alternative-science-respectability-checklist/
> >
> >Best wishes,
> >
> >Paul.
> >
> >
> >On Thu, 18 Jun 2009, Kurt L. Hanson wrote:
> >
> >> Howdy Paul,
> >>
> >> Thanks for the response.
> >>
> >> Actually my conclusion for some "thing" in existence being an origin for the f/e of the universe doesn't seek to acknowledge a "first cause" and to steer the discussion in this direction. Though were I to speculate and offer conjecture on this infinite regression you mention for the validity of the first cause premise and conclusion, I would answer that the origin of the creator "always was and always will be." This answer was the atheist's seemingly irrefutable answer for centuries, their explanation for the existence of the universe, that is before the Hubble Space telescope, COBE, and WMAP shot this idea down. The creative entity doesn't need a creator because It always was and always will be. NASA and ESA finally gave evidence to bring down the atheist "always was and always will be" argument, though I don't believe science will ever bring convincing evidence to the table to refute the answer I now gave.
> >>
> >> Though to ask my questions again, and to stay with only the premises which are on the table for consideration, the declaration that some "thing" already in existence must by necessity be the origin of the huge, raw force/energy of the Big Bang must be deemed valid by simple logical deduction. Nothing could not have been the origin of the f/e, and so by consequence some "thing" already in existence must be the origin.
> >>
> >> Definitions to better understand this "thing" are another future endeavor. But acknowledging this "thing" is a most profound declaration, a declaration the modern Western world isn't prepared to acknowledge.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > WMAP Public Web Site Email
> >> >
> >> > From: Kurt Hanson <kurt_hanson@me.com>
> >> > Subject: Regarding the origin of the initial force/energy of the Big Bang
> >> >
> >> > Howdy Messrs. Bennett, Griswold, Hinshaw, and Spergel,
> >> >
> >> > I want to use the Big Bang theory as the foot in the door to a series of propositions that conclude with the proclamation for the existence of a Creative entity.
> >> >
> >> > I state a premise that things either exist or they do not. The question is: the force/energy (f/e) of the universe at the moment of the Big Bang came from where? The f/e either came from something that exists or something that does not exist. I know that something that does not exist could not have brought the f/e into existence, and so I must conclude that some "thing" is the origin of the f/e of the universe. A simple deduction that I have yet to find a constructive refutation towards. Defining this "thing" is another subject. Acknowledging that whatever It is exists is profound if no refutation can be found to the contrary.
> >> >
> >> > Whether the universe ultimately contracts, slows, or accelerates is irrelevant towards a determination of the origin of the initial f/e of the Big Bang. Because the absurdity of the statement, "The f/e of the universe originated from something not in existence," cannot be valid, what statement could be given to refute the concluding statement, "The f/e of the universe was caused by some "thing" already in existence."
> >> >
> >> > No one could claim that they don't literally know or have knowledge of what caused the f/e of the universe. Some "thing" had to have caused the f/e because a non-entity or something that does not exist could not have been responsible for the origin of the f/e.
> >> >
> >> > Given the set of logical statements leading to the conclusion of the existence of a Creative entity, I have my foot in the door which allows future others to begin thought and rational statements defining this "thing," and to further advance cosmogony and the Big Bang theory. I would be thrilled to advance the claim of a Creative entity with a set of modern empirical facts and information. To use the Big Bang theory as a foot in the door to do so is my intention.
> >> >
> >> > Any constructive criticism of my premise and conclusion if offered is welcomed.
> >> >
> >> KLH
> >> New York
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> From:
> >> Paul Butterworth <pbutterw@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov>
> >> Subject:
> >> Re: WMAP Public Web Site Email - Regarding the origin of the initial force/energy of the Big Bang
> >> Date:
> >> June 16, 2009 02:02:01 PM EDT
> >> To:
> >> Kurt Hanson
> >>
> >> Hi Kurt,
> >>
> >> I think you are reaching for what is called the 'first cause' argument,
> >> which has been around for a very long time - but has no explanatory power.
> >> If the universe requires a creator, because 'nothing can come of
> >> nothing' then that creator requires a creator too. You are stuck with a
> >> pointless infinite regression. Many scientists have discussed whether
> >> there are any scientific data that support religious tendencies. The
> >> usual conclusion is negative. "Science and Religion" (Prometheus Books,
> >> 2003) is a nice collection of relevant essays. Another fine example
> >> dealing with cosmology and religion is "Why (Almost All) Cosmologists are
> >> Atheists" by Sean Carroll (available at
> >> http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/sean_carroll/cosmologists.html)
> >> Some scientists are religious, but their various religious beliefs are not
> >> supported by scientific data.
> >>
> >> Best wishes,
> >>
> >> Paul Butterworth
> >> for the WMAP website team
> >
> >
>
>
No comments:
Post a Comment