New Scientist editors admit: Recent research has shot no-big bang cosmology “full of holes”
| January 15, 2012 | Posted by News under Cosmology, Intelligent Design, News |
In “The Genesis problem” (13 January 2012), New Scientist’s editors acknowledge the key problem with modern cosmology:
The big bang is now part of the furniture of modern cosmology, but Hoyle’s unease has not gone away. Many physicists have been fighting a rearguard action against it for decades, largely because of its theological overtones. If you have an instant of creation, don’t you need a creator?
Cosmologists thought they had a workaround. Over the years, they have tried on several different models of the universe that dodge the need for a beginning while still requiring a big bang. But recent research has shot them full of holes (see “Why physicists can’t avoid a creation event”). It now seems certain that the universe did have a beginning.
Now, if logic prevailed, the idea that the universe might also have a creator would be on the table for discussion.
But don’t expect logic to prevail. Brace yourself for many more weird and wonderful tales, once this bout of cold logic wears off.
That’s the funny part: We used to get “amazing miracle” stuff from religion. Now not so much. Who can compete with recent cosmologies for parades of unbelievables?
See also: Vilenkin’s verdict: “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.”
Also: Vilenkin used to be a multiverse proponent, first class.
21 Responses to New Scientist editors admit: Recent research has shot no-big bang cosmology “full of holes”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
The funny thing about atheists demanding ‘randomness’ to be their creator god, instead of God to be their creator God, is that randomness equates with chaos. So, when the final tally of all things is run, atheists are actually desiring that chaos be in full control of their lives. The deeper ‘spiritual’ implications of this are interesting. For instance, this article from a while back gives a hint of some of the deeper ‘spiritual’ implications:
——-
Blackholes – The neo-Darwinian ‘god of entropic randomness’ which can create all things (at least according to them)
Being the helpful guy I am, always trying to help atheists out when I get a chance, I’ve been trying to piece together a experiment that would prove once and for all, for everyone to see, that RANDOM variation plus undirected natural selection can produce functional proteins just as atheists adamantly claim (even though no one has ever seen RANDOM processes do this). Now I just about got the RANDOM part of the experiment down for the atheists! I’ve searched for the maximum source of randomness that I could find in the universe, (since the ‘god of randomness’ is who atheists adamantly claim for their creator), and I think I’ve found their god for them;
First:
Thus, the more entropy a system has the more randomness it will generate for our experiment to find a RANDOM functional protein. And if we ask, ‘what is the maximum source of entropy, i.e. RANDOMNESS, in the universe?’, we find this:
Plus for a added bonus for atheists, being the helpful guy that I am, I found that if we find a massive magnetized blackhole we might just start to overcome the homochirality problem, which is a huge problem against finding functional proteins, as well:
But of course there is the extreme logistics problem with actually transporting the atheists to the massive magnetized blackholes to actually do the experiments, so that they may try to actually RANDOMLY generate a functional protein just as they claim can be done. Not to mention the minor problem of someone trying to survive being stretched into as a piece of spaghetti, by the extreme warping of space-time, near the blackhole.
,,Not to mention trying to survive the extremely high temperatures surrounding the event horizon of the black hole:,,
But what the hey, it is just a little sacrifice for ‘science’ right!?! At least atheists will have the maximum source of randomness in the universe to work with in their experiments!!! But there is another problem I probably need to tell atheists about before they pack up and go off to the massive magnetized blackholes in order to prove to the world that their ‘god of randomness’ can create all things,
But what the hey, atheists haven’t needed any stinking equations to prove their theory so far have they!?!
I even have a inspirational quote for the future experiment of our space traveling atheists;
And I even have a inspirational song for their experiment;
further note:
I think Anthony Aguirre throws considerable light on the situation in this quote:
“For an observer along that worldline to perceive an arrow of time (AOT) it must see local net entropy generation. To the past, it sees entropy destruction. In a finite neighborhood, there is finite entropy, so going far enough ‘to the past’ the entropy must (a) asymptote to a constant, (b) start to increase again, or (c) become ill-defined as a singularity is encountered.” (Aguirre 2007, p. 30)
For convenience, start with Aguirre who is talking within a General Relativity context. The ‘singularity’ applies to the familiar inflationary models and others that feature (on average) expansion over their histories. The asymptote applies to the type of models that Vilenkin is now tackling; ones where the average past expansion is zero. The other option (a reversed arrow of time) applies to Aguirre’s own inflationary model.
Imagine also a cyclic model which is said to have Big Bang like (low entropy) singularities at both ends of the cycle. It is possible to interpret this in terms similar to Aguirre’s. There is no entropy reducing phase. There is only expansion with a reversed arrow of time.
If Vilenkin is right, (a) and (c) of Aguirre’s suggestions result in a universe with a beginning. I suggest the same is true of situations with a reversed arrow of time. Neither half of the biverse represents the past of the other. There is no past eternality.
The above case is oversimplified, of course, but I think one ends up with a conclusion there is a beginning under General Relativity. What happens when you begin to consider Quantum Gravity? I think Victor Stenger’s interpretation of Stephen Hawking’s model in his book “Fallacy of Fine-Tuning” falls in the same category as Aguirre’s model. Neither half of his biverse represents the past of the other. So there is still an origin to contend with.
When you get to a fuller application of QG one has to deal with the problem of time. Some think that there is no time in the purest application. Others will argue that time is recoverable in QG. There is also the critical input of philosophers. Many philosophers will argue that time has a metaphysical basis, and hence it is more fundamental then the physical interpretation of time.
My own view is that this is where you have to go deeper into what models mean and what they are. I’m a physicist and modeler by profession. The internal entities of models are often not be taken as an attempt to correspond with reality. That doesn’t mean such models (‘instrumental’ as opposed to ‘realist’) are bad. For example, Stephen Hawking’s original view (modified somewhat in his book “The Grand Design”) of his cosmogony was that of a logical positivist: the internals of the model are not thought to represent the true fact of the matter regarding reality. But it does do useful things such as predict what we should see when we look at the cosmos.
I think the idea that time has metaphysical basis is plausibly defensible, and hence I believe that physical models that don’t contain it are either untenable or instrumental. If this is so, then QG models that predict ‘quasi-classical’ histories are actually multiverses that describe origin events at the ‘point’ where time (and maybe space) appears to fracture. The underlying, more ‘fundamental’ description should be taken as instrumental.
I think if you try to adopt an atemporal reality as a realist view, you end with bizarre consequences such as a denial of cause and effect. On such a view, for example, Darwinian evolution would merely be an illusion!
Aguirre, Anthony (2007): “Eternal Inflation Past and Future”, in Beyond the Big Bang Ed. R. Vaas, Heidelberg: Springer Verlag, preprint: http://arxiv.org/abs/0712.0571
Hello sinclairjd.
Have you read lawrence krauss’ new book, “A universe from nothing”?
If so, what is your impression of it?
Also, not to be too forward but, are you by any chance the physicist James Sinclair who authored a chapter in the blackwell companion to natural theology along side Dr. Craig?
Just wondering.
Hi sinclairjd,
I think the situation is not quite so dire. Even in an atemporal reality, there are allowed configurations and disallowed configurations. Configurations in one region are limited (or even determined) by configurations in other regions. This is a kind of causality, dictated by physical law, even if it doesn’t unfold over time.
BA77,
The funny thing about atheists demanding randomness to be their creator god is that they don’t. You’d benefit from more time spent listening to atheists and less time telling us what we believe.
If you really want to help us out, how about responding to our arguments instead of burying everybody under reams of mostly irrelevant and repetitive spam?
And why did you bail out of this exchange, instead of answering my challenges? If you have answers, the helpful thing would be to present them. If you don’t, then be helpful and admit it.
I think a proper appreciation for just what science itself has revealed to us about the nature of space-time bears worth repeating since so many loose tangents seem to be in play. First to rehash what our science says.
It is important to note that the following experiment actually encoded information into a photon while it was in its quantum wave state, thus destroying the notion, held by many, that the wave function was not ‘physically real’ but was merely ‘abstract’. i.e. How can information possibly be encoded into something that is not physically real but merely abstract?
The following paper mathematically corroborated the preceding experiment and cleaned up some pretty nasty probabilistic incongruities that arose from a purely statistical interpretation of the wave function, i.e. it seems that stacking a ‘random infinity’, (parallel universes to explain quantum wave collapse), on top of another ‘random infinity’, to explain quantum entanglement, leads to irreconcilable mathematical absurdities within quantum mechanics:
Moreover,,,
It should be carefully noted that the preceding experiments pretty much dots all the i’s and cross all the t’s as far as concretely establishing ‘transcendent information’ as its own unique, independent, entity. Its own unique entity that is completely separate from, and dominate of, space-time, matter-energy.
Reflections on the ‘infinite transcendent information’ framework, as well as on the ‘eternal’ and ‘temporal’ frameworks:
The weight of mass becomes infinite at the speed of light, thus mass will never go the speed of light. Yet, mass would disappear from our sight if it could go the speed of light, because, from our non-speed of light perspective, distance in direction of travel will shrink to zero for the mass going the speed of light. Whereas conversely, if mass could travel at the speed of light, its size will stay the same while all other frames of reference not traveling the speed of light will disappear from its sight.
Moreover time, as we understand it, would come to a complete stop at the speed of light. To grasp the whole ‘time coming to a complete stop at the speed of light’ concept a little more easily, imagine moving away from the face of a clock at the speed of light. Would not the hands on the clock stay stationary as you moved away from the face of the clock at the speed of light? Moving away from the face of a clock at the speed of light happens to be the same ‘thought experiment’ that gave Einstein his breakthrough insight into e=mc2.
,,,Yet, even though light has this ‘eternal’ attribute in regards to our temporal framework of time, for us to hypothetically travel at the speed of light, in this universe, will still only get us to first base as far as quantum entanglement, or teleportation, is concerned.
That is to say, traveling at the speed of light will only get us to the place where time, as we understand it, comes to complete stop for light, i.e. gets us to the eternal, ‘past and future folding into now’, framework of time. This higher dimension, ‘eternal’, inference for the time framework of light is warranted because light is not ‘frozen within time’ yet it is shown that time, as we understand it, does not pass for light.
It is also very interesting to note that we have two very different qualities of ‘eternality of time’ revealed by our time dilation experiments;
i.e. As with any observer accelerating to the speed of light, it is found that for any observer falling into the event horizon of a black hole, that time, as we understand it, will come to a complete stop for them. — But of particular interest to the ‘eternal framework’ found for General Relativity at black holes;… It is interesting to note that entropic decay (Randomness), which is the primary reason why things grow old and eventually die in this universe, is found to be greatest at black holes. Thus the ‘eternality of time’ at black holes can rightly be called ‘eternalities of decay and/or eternalities of destruction’.
i.e. The event horizons of Black Holes are found to be ‘timeless’ singularities of randomness, chaos, and disorder rather than singularities of creation and order such as the extreme (1 in 10^10^123) low entropic order we see at the creation event of the Big Bang. Needless to say, the implications of this ‘eternality of chaos’ should be fairly disturbing for those of us who are of a ‘spiritually minded’ persuasion!
It is also very interesting to note that this strange higher dimensional, eternal, framework for time, found in special relativity, and general relativity, finds multiple ‘eye witness’ corroboration in Near Death Experience testimonies:
It is also very interesting to point out that the ‘light at the end of the tunnel’, reported in many Near Death Experiences(NDEs), is also corroborated by Special Relativity when considering the optical effects for traveling at the speed of light. Please compare the similarity of the optical effect, noted at the 3:22 minute mark of the following video, when the 3-Dimensional world ‘folds and collapses’ into a tunnel shape around the direction of travel as a ‘hypothetical’ observer moves towards the ‘higher dimension’ of the speed of light, with the ‘light at the end of the tunnel’ reported in very many Near Death Experiences: (Of note: This following video was made by two Australian University Physics Professors with a supercomputer.)
Here is the interactive website, with link to the relativistic math at the bottom of the page, related to the preceding video;
Here is corroboration of the tunnel from Near Death testimonies,,,
As well, as with the tunnel being present in heavenly Judeo-Christian NDE’s, we also have mention of tunnels in hellish NDE testimonies;
A man, near the beginning of this video, gives testimony of falling down a ‘tunnel’ in the transition stage from this world to hell:
The man, in this following video, also speaks of ‘tumbling down’ a tunnel in his transition stage to hell:
As well, as with the ‘scientifically/mathematically’ verified tunnel for special relativity, we also have scientific/mathematical confirmation of extreme ‘tunnel curvature’, within space-time, to a ‘eternal event horizon’ at black holes;
Once again, these consistent findings from science/math, that just so happen to corroborate a consistent characteristic of NDE testimonies, ‘should’ be fairly disturbing for those of us of a spiritual leaning,,,,
Moreover, severely contrary to what atheists would prefer for us to believe, there actually is solid empirical evidence for a ‘soul’ to man that provides a coherent mechanism for traversing to these higher space time dimensions revealed by our science:
Moreover, the quantum entanglement/information that is, in fact, ‘holding us together’ at the base molecular scale is, in fact, of a ‘higher quality’ of higher dimensionality than 4-D space-time itself is:
,,,but to continue on with the main topic,,, hypothetically traveling at the speed of light in this universe would be instantaneous travel for the observer going at the speed of light. This is because time, as we understand it, does not pass for them, yet, and this is a very big ‘yet’ to take note of; this ‘timeless’ travel is still not instantaneous and transcendent to our temporal framework of time, i.e. Speed of light travel, to our temporal frame of reference, is still not completely transcendent of our framework since light appears to take time to travel from our perspective. Yet, in quantum teleportation of information, the ‘time not passing’, i.e. ‘eternal’, framework is not only achieved in the speed of light framework/dimension, but is also ‘instantaneously’ achieved in our temporal framework. That is to say, the instantaneous teleportation/travel of information is instantaneous to both the temporal and speed of light frameworks, not just the speed of light framework. Information teleportation/travel is not limited by time, nor space, in any way, shape or form, in any frame of reference, as light is seemingly limited to us. Thus ‘pure transcendent information’ is shown to be timeless (eternal) and completely transcendent of all material frameworks. Moreover, concluding from all lines of evidence we have now examined; transcendent, eternal, infinite information is indeed real and the framework in which ‘It’ resides is the primary reality (highest dimension) that can exist, (in so far as our limited perception of a primary reality, highest dimension, can be discerned).
Logic also dictates ‘a decision’ must have been made, by the ‘transcendent, eternal, infinite information’ from the primary timeless (eternal) reality ‘It’ inhabits, in order to purposely create a temporal reality with highly specified, irreducible complex, parameters from a infinite set of possibilities in the proper sequential order. Thus this infinite transcendent information, which is the primary reality of our reality, is shown to be alive by yet another line of evidence besides the necessity for a ‘first mover’ to explain quantum wave collapse.
As a side light to this, leading quantum physicist Anton Zeilinger has followed in John Archibald Wheeler’s footsteps (1911-2008) by insisting reality, at its most foundational level, is ‘information’.
further note:
related footnote:
That’s why the Intelligent Designer made the page-down key on the keyboard, and the click-wheel on the mouse so you can quickly skip over all of Bornagain77′s posts. Until BA77 learns to communicate with his own words, I refuse on principle to bother to read his spams. But I suspect he won’t learn and I also suspect too I”m not the only one who ignores him.
Yes, that’s me.
Champignon,
You make a sound point that we shouldn’t forget. Thanks for that. Causality requires priority, but not temporality.
My own view is that the best defense of Darwin’s theory is to accept the A-theory of time, as that is best stated as “thing endure and change over time as described by the laws of physics.” On such a view, biological evolution fits naturally into the metaphysics.
I tend to think that at the very least, to recover something that looks like Darwin from an atemporal model(such as Julian Barbour’s ‘time capsules’ or David Deutsch’s ‘collection of snapshots’) one is going to have to take them as real. Otherwise what is really going on is so alien it seems to me it has no connection to what the biologists wish to say really happened. I have some problems with trying to do this on a B-theory of time as well. If it could be done, it strikes me as an embarrassment to be explained away, as opposed to A-theory where there is no such embarrassment.
I think it’s a problem that needs to be worked on, and I thank you for your input and any further thoughts you have on it.
bornagain77,
Thanks especially for your references on quantum mechanics.
No problem sinclairjd, this may interest you as well;
The following articles show that even atoms (Ions) are subject to teleportation (reduction to quantum information):
Of note: An ion is an atom or molecule in which the total number of electrons is not equal to the total number of protons, giving it a net positive or negative electrical charge.
a few more footnotes:
sinclairjd, if you are interested I corrected the old links that didn’t work, in my previous comments, here at this site:
sinclairjd,
Evolutionary theory is a causal theory. As long as causality is preserved in an atemporal reality (and we seem to agree that it is), I don’t see how evolution is in any jeopardy.
And if it were in jeopardy, it wouldn’t be alone. Any theory or narrative that involved causality or the passage of time would be in similar jeopardy, including many religious concepts and narratives. I don’t think you can use atemporality to selectively attack evolutionary theory. If the attack is successful, there will be a lot of collateral damage.
Think of it this way: temporal and atemporal views of reality, if they’re correct, are mathematically equivalent. Realists acknowledge that models and theories are just approximations to the underlying reality, so if there are two mathematically equivalent models to choose from, we pick the one that is easier to work with. Think of the time domain/frequency domain duality in circuit analysis, or the Maldacena Duality in string theory.
If we choose to continue expressing evolutionary theory in temporal terms, it is for reasons of convenience. It doesn’t imply a do-or-die commitment to the metaphysical reality of time.
Thanks again for the vigorous reply! I appreciate you helping me think this through.
First off, I should say I’m not attacking evolutionary theory. I really do think it is best defended from a realist A-theory framework. I have been convinced through the evidence that common descent holds. I think it would be highly entertaining if in some subsequent generation, it is the theists who defend the mantle of evolution!
I think you’re right that many religious concepts and narratives appeal to causation and temporality. I think it would be a very interesting question whether such concepts can be recovered in a genuinely atemporal realm.
That said, although we agree that causality is a concept that need not be temporal, I don’t think that the models that are being put forward are going to be compatible with an account of causality where evolution is something other than illusory. I think the situation is similar to the way temporal beooming is illusory (to the mind) on a B-theory o f time.
I appreciate your appeal to Duality and multiple models of reality that are ‘good’. In my business (and in, I suspect, yours) we rapidly have to build and or change to models of convenience that precisely fill a certain requirement and don’t harm us in places where extrapolating their meaning would be in error. As I’m sure you agree, we have to be careful what conclusions can be drawn from them!
But I think that if we want to avoid ontological pluralism and maintain a correspondence theory of truth, then there is going to be a true fact-of-the-matter regarding the cosmos (which I think you agree with given your above comments regarding realism). Thus we’d like to know which model has internal entities that correspond to that fact-of-the-matter.
So, from the vantage point of the underlying ontology, which of the two models do we think is closer to the underlying truth? One possibility that I can extrapolate from your comment is that maybe both of them are far from the underlying reality! That’s where the issue of Darwin (and, I think your comments regarding collateral damage) gets interesting. Here are positive claims upon which the answer to this question has a lot of impact.
Could I at least get your agreement that this is an interesting question worth exploring, and maybe it is not being looked at enough by philosophers, and cosmologists who openly traffic in philosophy?
Oh, I think it’s a fascinating question. Just keep in mind that the answer affects virtually everything we know (or think we know) about the world — not just evolutionary theory.
For example, what does it really mean to “think things through” in an atemporal reality?
If information can be stored in a photon, it tends to confirm my belief that physical light and spiritual light form a continuum, corresponding with continua of knowledge-faith and space-time; photons being at the interface of matter and spirit.
Little wonder that the great paradigm changers of the last century have all been, at the very least, deists/panentheists(sic), and of course, in earlier centuries, passionate Christians (in modern parlance ‘nuts’).