I watched Hawkings 'did god create universe'

[davef]

I watched Hawkings 'Did God Create The Universe' on TV the other day. I wanted to rewatch before asking someone but it is no longer avaliable. He said that since very small sub-atomic particles popped in and out of existence, then the universe could pop into existence. It seemed like a stretch.

[pantheory]

I watched Hawkings 'Did God Create The Universe' on TV the other day. I wanted to rewatch before asking someone but it is no longer available. He said that since very small sub-atomic particles popped in and out of existence, then the universe could pop into existence. It seemed like a stretch.

 

Hawking is right; a lot of theorists believe the universe could have come into existence by such a sub-atomic popping-into-existence kind of beginning. I agree with you that such a proposal seems highly unlikely, but Hawking's ideas are highly respected by many. As to the question 'Did God Create The Universe', it is simply a matter of whether the religious explanation of creation is valid or not. Few in science believe that it is.

 

Pope Pius XII, however, did indicate that Big Bang cosmology seemed to be consistent with the bible. The founder of the Big Bang model was a scientist but also a Raman Catholic Priest.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_teachings_of_Pope_Pius_XII

Edited September 11, 2011 by pantheory

[ajb]

He said that since very small sub-atomic particles popped in and out of existence, then the universe could pop into existence.

 

The vacuum is not really the empty quiet thing you expect classically. Quantum mechanically it is more like a pot of boiling water bubbling away spitting water droplets everywhere.

 

Particles can appear and disappear on the smallest of scales. These particles do not really have a well defined number per volume of space and are thus appearing and disappearing all the time. These are known as virtual particles and are analogous to our boiling water spitting out droplets that fall back into the pot.

 

Although virtual this "boiling vacuum" has observable effects like the Casimir force. Here we have a small attractive force between metallic plates places micrometers apart in vacuum and without the presence of any external electromagnetic field. The virtual particles create this small force.

[Pincho Paxton]

The vacuum is not really the empty quiet thing you expect classically. Quantum mechanically it is more like a pot of boiling water bubbling away spitting water droplets everywhere.

 

Particles can appear and disappear on the smallest of scales. These particles do not really have a well defined number per volume of space and are thus appearing and disappearing all the time. These are known as virtual particles and are analogous to our boiling water spitting out droplets that fall back into the pot.

 

Although virtual this "boiling vacuum" has observable effects like the Casimir force. Here we have a small attractive force between metallic plates places micrometers apart in vacuum and without the presence of any external electromagnetic field. The virtual particles create this small force.

 

Quantum particles popping into existence isn't all that surprising really is it? They would hardly amount to anything, just beyond nothing at all.

[davef]

Hawking is right; a lot of theorists believe the universe could have come into existence by such a sub-atomic popping-into-existence kind of beginning. I agree with you that such a proposal seems highly unlikely, but Hawking's ideas are highly respected by many. As to the question 'Did God Create The Universe', it is simply a matter of whether the religious explanation of creation is valid or not. Few in science believe that it is.

 

Pope Pius XII, however, did indicate that Big Bang cosmology seemed to be consistent with the bible. The founder of the Big Bang model was a scientist but also a Raman Catholic Priest.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_teachings_of_Pope_Pius_XII

 

It was a good little show. I just watched it specifically to see what he thought about there being nothing and then a universe. That seems like a tough one to me. I think he implied that to say god created the universe is the same as early peoples saying that an eclipse was a coyote eating the sun (or something like that.) That seems prety solid. But, it seems like the big bang is extremely different from sub-atomic particles popping in and out of existence in terms of what happens after they pop into existence and in terms of number of occurences.

 

I guess he is emphasizing that there is a passable "membrane" between existence and nonexistence. And I guess there are rules as to what can pass between this "membrane." Universes via a big bang can and sub-atomic particles can but not much else?

 

Also, if there is only one big bang at at time, that's a lucky break.

Edited September 18, 2011 by davef

[pantheory]

It was a good little show. I just watched it specifically to see what he thought about there being nothing and then a universe. That seems like a tough one to me. I think he implied that to say god created the universe is the same as early peoples saying that an eclipse was a coyote eating the sun (or something like that). That seems pretty solid. But, it seems like the big bang is extremely different from sub-atomic particles popping in and out of existence in terms of what happens after they pop into existence and in terms of number of occurrences.

 

I guess he is emphasizing that there is a passable "membrane" between existence and nonexistence. And I guess there are rules as to what can pass between this "membrane." Universes via a big bang can and sub-atomic particles can but not much else?

 

Also, if there is only one big bang at at time, that's a lucky break.

By your explanation one can follow why some have considered the possibility that the universe popped into existence from the Zero Point Field. To me the idea is even more illogical than god(s) creating the universe, for instance, or any other explanations that I have heard excepting for mythology. Hawking being a theoretical physicist, can throw together some math to try to show justification for this proposal.

Hawking seems to be bogged down mentally with the prime-mover question. Why? I don't know since I think the original BB model logically answers questions concerning the beginning, in my opinion, far better than Hawking's ideas.

Edited September 20, 2011 by pantheory

[Pincho Paxton]

You only have to think what nothing is in terms of maths..

 

+1 + -1 = 0.

 

Combine this with a few explanations.. A blind person given the gift of sight says that they do not see black, because black is something, and they do not know what black is. If you just simply make the blackness of space into something then it would be two units that cancel each other out. +1 and -1.. mass, and negative mass, a convex wave line, and a concave wave line. What is a particle? It is a convex curve containing a concave hole, it could theoretically fold inside out, and become nothing, and the reverse.