Is it possible to reconcile religious belief with scientific work? Can scientists live with a god that interferes and influences nature? Prof. Elam Gross is looking for a connection between the big bang and the functions of God
Elam Gross, Odyssey
God is a subject that scientists (at least the younger ones among them) do not often deal with. The question of God's existence is a theological and philosophical question, and I am neither this nor that. Despite this, and perhaps due to my advanced age (I have already crossed forty), I was asked and I dare to formulate here, even if with great hesitation, some comments on the relationship between science and faith. I want to emphasize: a scientist will live by his faith and I am only expressing my personal opinion.
The basic question has always bothered me. How is it possible that among the greatest physicists I know and appreciate, there are so many Jews who wear kippahs? Apparently, it is
in an internal contradiction. After all, if it is written that God created the world, as it is today, in six working days, about five thousand years ago, what is left for the religious person to continue investigating?
If we assume that the entire Bible is true, our research is doomed in advance to get stuck and not reach completion. As a scientist, I always thought that the purpose of scientific research is to solve a problem to its end. If I had known in advance that due to the existence of God there is no such chance, the interest in the scientific pursuit and solving the problem would have faded.
In 2008 I was invited to lecture in Jerusalem, at a conference of psychoanalysts. The theme of the conference was "God", and in the panel in which I was invited to participate, they wanted to talk about the never-ending human need to believe. After some deliberation, I decided to accept the invitation and try to talk about my scientific work in the context of faith.
Today I devote most of my time to the search for the source of the mass in the particle accelerator in Geneva, and to the search for dark matter in the Gran Sasso underground laboratory in Italy. In 2008, when the accelerator in Geneva started working, the world media celebrated. So, in one of the interviews I gave, I found myself saying, that "this accelerator brings us closer to creation to such an extent that maybe God starts to fear."
The foam of many came out on me. Of course, I did not intend to tease the believers or "anger" God. I wanted to express, in a way that seemed humorous to me, how exciting it is to me that human beings manage to reach with the power of their intellect and their scientific work to the extent of one-tenth of a billionth of a second of what is known as the "moment of creation".
The understanding that we are so close to this moment does not come from faith, but from proven scientific experience. Today we know with almost complete certainty that indeed, this is the moment when it all began. How do we know this? Simple, because nothing is lost.
God and the Big Bang
When at the beginning of the XNUMXth century the astronomer Edwin Hubble noticed that all the galaxies were moving away from each other, it was not difficult to conclude that everything once started at a singular point. It was also very easy to reverse the direction of time and calculate when it all started.
The measurements will last 13.7 billion years since the big bang happened. Hubble's discovery pleased at least the eyes of the Christian Church, which immediately mobilized it to justify the existence of God. The Pope used the Big Bang as proof that there was a starting point, in Genesis, "and therefore - there is God".
Obviously, a scientist is not trying to solve the puzzle of the creation of the universe in order to prove the validity of the Holy Scriptures. Some scientists were concerned about the place that gives the big bang idea to the existence of God. Arthur Eddington said then, that a plausible theory should be one in which the beginning is not so unaesthetically abrupt.
A theory in which the universe is stable is an example of an aesthetic theory. Albert Einstein also tried to claim that the solution to his equations should be static, and even changed them to allow this. However, Einstein retreated from his claim following Hubble's observations that indicated a dynamic and expanding universe.
Hubble's observations may have convinced Einstein and Eddington, but not Fred Hoyle and his colleagues, who were desperately trying to argue for a stable universe from time immemorial. But the deeper they investigated and tried to come up with theories that support their claims, the tighter the nails in the stable universe theory's coffin became. The last nail and the indisputable evidence for the Big Bang model was provided by the theoretical prediction, followed by the actual discovery, of the cosmic background radiation.
The universe remembers what happened and left signs of the beginning of its creation. If a big bang happened and the hot universe (with us in it) cooled down, then something from the "Genesis radiation" must still remain. George Gamow and his research colleagues predicted in 1948 that "primordial radiation" should be with us, and its temperature should be a few degrees above absolute zero today.
In the sixties of the last century, two researchers, a Holocaust survivor scientist named Arno Panzias and his colleague Bob Wilson from Bell Laboratories, discovered the cosmic background radiation at a temperature of about three degrees above absolute zero (minus two hundred and seventy degrees Celsius).
The idea of the big bang is today a theory that is proven in experiments and is perhaps one of the most impressive achievements of scientific research ever. From today it cannot be said that we "believe" in the beginning of the universe. The beginning of the universe at one point in time is an experimentally proven fact. Our scientific theory goes even further and predicts how the elementary particles were formed, and what are the particles and elements that exist in nature from which we were also formed.
God and the Higgs particle
In the giant proton accelerator in Geneva (LHC), protons, moving at a speed close to the speed of light, collide with each other at enormous energies, like those that prevailed in the universe about a tenth of a billionth of a second after the big bang.
Such energy should be enough to produce a particle whose existence is still theoretical, the "Higgs" particle, which also received the literary nickname "the God particle". Even if this was not the intention of the poet (Leon Lederman) when he coined the term, there is some poetic justice in this name.
The Higgs particle attaches to the particles of matter in nature and gives them their valve. The mass of the electron, for example, dictates the size of the atom. If the electron were lighter or heavier, chemistry, as we know it, would not exist and we would not be here. The Higgs particle allows, at least to a certain extent, our existence, hence its importance.
Although most scientists are convinced of the existence of the Higgs particle, they will not rest until they prove its existence in experiments. Even admitting the failure to discover it will cause a revolution in physics.
The question that the experiment in Geneva tries to answer is not, is there a Higgs particle. The question that scientists can answer is: given the collision data we find in the accelerator, what is the probability of the existence of the Higgs particle? If the probability is high, we will provide additional proof for the description of the bang and our understanding of the beginning of matter. Do we still need God for such an explanation?
The hypothesis of God's existence should be tested by the scientist by giving an answer to the question: given the data we have (Earth, Sun, Moon, stars, galaxy, cosmic background radiation, etc.), what is the probability of God's existence?
We need to formulate our questions in a way that they can be answered, and in both cases, physics and theology, the questions are: Assuming there is a Higgs boson, how consistent are the collision data with its existence? Or: assuming there is a God, to what extent does the amazing universe that surrounds us correspond to the fact of his existence?
In mathematical language it is also possible to ask like this: What is the probability of the existence of the universe assuming that God exists? This is, of course, a trivial question, the answer to which is 100%. This is not a question that interests us. The question that interests us is the opposite: what is the probability of God's existence given the universe as we understand it?
The classic argument of the penitent says: Look how beautiful the butterfly is, look how complex man is, could these have been created by chance? of course not! And you have proof of the existence of God. In other words, given such a wonderful universe, it is necessary to assume the existence of a God who created it.
This argument relies, of course, on a common fallacy in statistics, according to which the probability that, given the amazing butterfly there is a God, is equal to the probability that, given God, the product is an amazing butterfly. The latter probability is equal to 100%, but the former is of course not.
Bayes theorem gives us the relationship between the two probabilities. The probability that the butterfly is beautiful given God must be multiplied by the probability that God exists at all, because if there is no God there is no point in the whole probabilistic discussion. The probability that the existence of the universe points to the existence of God is equal to the probability that given God the universe exists, but only under the condition that God does exist.
God above nature or within nature
In 2007 we, five physicists, sat down to lunch as part of a conference on the statistics of hypotheses in connection with the search for the Higgs particle. We talked about a book called "The Probability of God", which came out at the same time and claimed to calculate the probability of God's existence using Bayes' formula.
Although we all treated the book as complete nonsense, the conversation developed and we found ourselves sliding into a heated discussion. After hours we reached a kind of agreement on the topic "what is the scientist's God".
Knowledge gaps are the food for thought of every scientist. Where a question is presented, or a theoretical problem is revealed in the explanation, that is where the scientist steps into action with the aim of offering a solution. Thus, for example, Marie Curie studied becquerel rays, which turned out to be radioactive rays. The scientists strive to close these knowledge gaps and offer an explanation for the phenomena, which were previously explained only through the power of God.
The "God of the Gaps" is therefore threatened by science. Even if St. Augustine said this in jest, he didn't just say that before God created heaven and earth he created hell, for those who are too deep to investigate. The scientists necessarily reduce the space left for the "God of the Gaps".
If so, can a religious scientist believe in the God of gaps? To me, the answer must be negative. The God of Gaps is transcendent by his very nature and definition. He is cut off from the physical person and he is almost different. It is God who does not want the accelerator to work, because the accelerator's work would close a huge knowledge gap, which would inevitably reduce his presence.
On the other hand, there is the possibility of another God - the immanent God. This god is personal, only fills gaps in the soul and has mystical roots, so it is difficult to argue with him or support him scientifically. If the scientist has God, he must, therefore, be immanent.
One of Einstein's famous sentences was said in the context of the debate he had with Niels Bohr about the nature of quantum theory. Quantum theory teaches us that in the subatomic world the laws of nature are probabilistic and not deterministic. It was hard for Einstein to accept this, and he said that "God does not play dice with the universe". Bohr replied, who is Einstein to tell God what to do.
What did Einstein mean? Who is a God who does not play dice with the universe? Of course this is a non-interfering God. A God who may have had only one role, to push the button that started it all, and since then has been completely pointless in nature and everyday life.
Einstein leaves us no doubts as to which god he believes in: "I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of everything that exists, not in a God who interferes in the destinies and actions of human beings." The God that Einstein believes in is impersonal, not even just immanent. He is nature itself.
One can discuss at length the meaning of this statement, that God is nature. In the Big Bang, energy was converted into matter in processes of nuclear fusion (E=mc2), similar to the processes that occur in the sun and give us light and heat. The stability of the laws of nature and their immutability over time guarantee the conservation of energy.
Since energy is conserved, nothing is lost, and everything in nature, including life and death, can be attributed to the initial energy of the Big Bang. From the moment of the bang we have no need for an intervening God. We are able to understand everything.
This still does not solve the question of the questions concerning the Big Bang itself. Today there are theories in physics that try to reduce the importance of the uniqueness of the big bang. They explain that at any given moment great compensations occur and new universes are created, and that is how it has been since time immemorial. These theories also actually avoid the question of the beginning, arguing that there is no need for a beginning.
Newton's God
Stephen Hawking attributes to Einstein the question, how much freedom of choice did God have when he created the universe? "If my theory is correct," Hawking replies, "God had no freedom in determining the initial conditions of the universe."
This topic is discussed a lot in physics. Is it possible to get the initial conditions from the equations that describe the evolution of the universe? This is, in fact, a mathematical formulation of the question about God's free will.
Hawking continues and claims that since the universe was created, God himself has no choice but to obey the laws he himself created. This was, in fact, Isaac Newton's great frustration. Newton, a religious man with every inch of his limbs, meticulously studied the Holy Scriptures, while looking for ciphers in them that would help him concoct the Philosopher's Stone, the same alchemical substance that supposedly enables the transformation of metals into gold and grants its owner eternal life. He also wrote his own commentary on the book of Daniel.
Newton's mechanics, as he formulated it in his magnificent work "The Principia" (Principles), is completely deterministic. Newton's universe does not need any divine intervention once the initial conditions are established.
God has no defined role in Newton's universe, except, perhaps, to create the initial conditions. Nevertheless, Newton sought a role for it, almost by force: "Gravity explains the movement of the planets, but it cannot explain who put them and started their movement. God controls all things and knows everything that exists or can be done."
Newton further asserts: "Such miraculous uniformity in planetary motion must come from (divine) choice." And also: "God will, in the end, have to intervene due to the slow instability that develops in nature".
To this his sworn rival Gottfried Leibniz replied with a degree of cynicism: "(True,) Almighty God must stretch the clock from time to time, otherwise the clock will stop ticking. He (God) did not have enough foresight to design a clock with a perpetual motion…”.
One thing remains clear: Newton's universe is a mechanical universe, ticking like a clock and did not need any divine intervention. And in such a world, where God must obey his laws, there is no room for miracles and wonders.
Starting point
The transcendent God still has one special "gap" to fill for us. He is, for now, the only one who gives us the answer to the boot question. It has one well-defined role, to push the button that started the big bang.
From the moment of the bang, galaxies were formed and supernova explosions occurred. From which the dust of the stars was formed, and from which a planet called the Earth was formed and a long evolutionary process began at the end of which we, humans, came into the world and were endowed with inquisitive minds that allowed us to close gaps, ask questions and raise doubts, such as the one expressed in this article. I'm not asking who started it all, because if I try to give it an answer, I'll have to ask who created it...
Religious scientists are, in my understanding, connected to a different God - an immanent and personal God, who does not want or is able to intervene in creation. It's hard for me to contain even such a God. It is, in a sense, a mystical God, difficult or impossible to argue with and its effects. It is not the transcendental "God of Gaps". It is completely subjective.
The discovery of the "divine particle" or the Higgs particle will bring us within a tenth of a billionth of a second from the Big Bang. The statement that God, who has so far laughed at us, can begin to fear, is nothing more than a poetic way of admiring the achievements of man, who manages to bridge one of the great remaining gaps and solve the mass puzzle.
If I may "steal" from Newton, there is nothing new in this article. I am nothing but standing on the shoulders of giants, one of whom is Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg, who wrote: "If we succeed in formulating a final theory in which all forces and particles are explained, and this theory sheds light on the Big Bang and paints a consistent picture of cosmology, there will be a little less room for religion ".
On the other hand, I would like to end the article by also standing on the shoulders of Roger Penrose and quote his words: "I would say that the universe that is there has some purpose. It is not there by chance, yes, yes... some people say that the universe is just there and works by itself... and we - that's how we happened to find ourselves inside this thing. But I don't think that's a constructive way to look at the universe. I think there is something much deeper in it." There is no doubt that there is something much deeper in this universe.
The full article was published in issue 11 of the journal "Odysseus - A Journey Between Ideas".
46 תגובות
All physical research must end in an unsolved mystery, and this is where faith grows.
The Genesis chapter penetrated into the hearts of people,
And it shows the right way to explore the universe.
Parashat Beresheit of physics and geometry
In the beginning, God created
the infinite geometric emptiness.
Geometric emptiness had an infinite amount of length.
Geometric emptiness had an infinite amount of space.
Geometric emptiness had an infinite amount of volume.
The imagination filled the geometric emptiness with geometric shapes such as a circle, triangle, square, etc.
The shape of the circle is created from a certain amount of closed length, containing a certain amount of area.
The shape of the triangle was created from a certain amount of closed length, containing a certain amount of area.
The square shape is created from a certain amount of closed length, containing a certain amount of area.
And God saw that the geometric emptiness contained only geometric shapes, and he filled this emptiness with a passive time that stands in its place, and is completely at rest.
And God will turn passive time into absolute cold, and this is how the limit of cold in the world is determined.
This is how the wonderful physical creation began, and God saw that it was very good.
And God saw the lonely state of the passive time that is on the edge of the cold, and added to it the cheerful energy with many faces.
And God will drown in the cheerful energy the law that says:
The cheerful energy may change faces, but the changing quantity will never be preserved.
And so it happened, that the infinite space was filled with passive time and cheerful energy with a conserved amount that changes faces, and changes its appearances.
And God knows that this is very good.
And God commanded the passive time and energy to create the material that appears in many physical forms, such as gold, iron, carbon, hydrogen, and more,
And the creation of the material began.
The quantitative passive time, connected with the quantitative energy, and by combining certain quantities, a physical form of gold was created.
And once again the quantitative passive time was connected with the quantitative joyful energy, and from this new combination of quantities, a physical form of iron was created.
And once again the quantitative passive time was connected with the quantitative cheerful energy, and a new combination of quantities created a physical form of carbon.
And so the passive time and the cheerful energy created many and varied physical forms, and many and surprising types of matter appeared in the geometric space,
And so the geometric space became a physical space, which provides material for the creation of stars, with the help of combinations of amounts of passive time and energy.
And passive time and energy filled the infinite space with matter, from which the stars were formed
And God commanded the stars to move, only in a spiral-shaped orbit, and it has 3 data,
The diameter of the screw track, advance angle, and speed.
This orbital shape made all the stars into one dynamic unit with a disc structure.
This discus moves forever in a straight line in infinite space full of passive time and energy.
Within the structure of this disk the stars move.
Each star moves in an orbit with a unique helical shape and it is this orbit shape that creates a dynamic disk-shaped structure from all the stars.
The very structure of a discus moves in a straight line.
The speed of the structure is absolute and cannot be measured
This dynamic disc-shaped structure in which all the stars in the world are located, was named... Universe.
Hypothesis - the speed of the universe C12
The number of stars in the universe is finite but not fixed.
The universe moves in infinite space full of passive time and energy. During the movement of the universe, new stars are formed from the passive time and energy present in space.
During the movement of the universe, stars also disintegrate, and they give space their energy, and their passive time.
And man has not yet been created.
The active time has not yet been created either,
Only the passive time exists in reality, and it together with the energy - create the material of the stars..
The passive time and energy of the sun, spread light.
This light is waves of passive time, dispersing in the infinite space full of passive time, which is absolute rest and absolute cold.
There is no void in the world, and it is full of passive time and energy.
And man had not yet been created, and had not yet spoken,
When man was created, he received natural knowledge from the Creator.
With this natural knowledge, man invented language, and did not know that this language is based on actions that lead to knowledge.
The words brought the tower of Babel.
The words also brought the active time that exists only in man's imagination, the active time always presents the trap of words that confuses man, and reminds him of the Tower of Babel.
The man who was created on a planet invented the active time himself. This invention of man created the words past, present, future, which are only in his imagination.
Man loves the trap of words because it contains love and hope, anger and jealousy, and does not like the dry and quantitative language of numbers.
With the trap of words man entered heaven, and the trap of words expelled him from heaven.
The trap of words always works, and since then man has been looking for a new good language, and he has not yet found it.
A. Asbar
Raphael
Are you claiming that what I wrote is wrong?
Raphael
I think you don't understand me. So I'll give you a chance.
What is it inside our universe? What it means?
Well, I see that it is impossible to move forward here. be healthy. Bye.
Raphael,
come on.
Many of the lectures say exactly what I wrote to you. I can direct you to a talk by Sean Carroll that talks about exactly that. I can direct you to a lecture by Roger Penrose in which he talks about exactly this (remember the BBC program you brought to our attention which dealt with what preceded the bang? Penrose was one of the five scientists interviewed for this article)
So sorry that science does not freeze in its tracks but advances. really sorry
WD
You didn't understand what I said. I said *that within our universe* there is no such thing as nothing.
Besides, I did not say that the universe was created from nothing, but that is the prevailing assumption.
I don't think the universe was created from nothing and if you read what I wrote below you would understand that.
This is what happens when you're only busy hitting.
WD
You didn't understand what I said. I said *that within our universe* there is no such thing as nothing.
Besides, I did not say that the universe was created from nothing, but that is the prevailing assumption.
I don't think the universe was created from nothing and if you read what I wrote below you would understand that.
This is what happens when you're only busy hitting.
Raphael
a) No they don't.
b) You are not consistent (no one is surprised) on the one hand you say here on the assumption that according to science there was a zero point and on the other hand you say in the second place and on another occasion that the nothingness of science is actually nothing at all according to your definition when you say nothing. If the universe according to the big bang theory was created from nothing which according to you is nothing then there is no initial zero point like you are looking for here.
Ahhh…
So the universe wasn't created 13.7 billion years ago from nothing?
Shame on all the scientists who have written and lectured so much on this subject.
If only there were surfers on the science website, none of this would have happened.
Raphael
Indeed, the evidence does not point to a zero point! Quantum theory forbids such a point, because of the uncertainty principle.
WD
The evidence we have does not indicate that there was a ground zero?
This is really a novelty for me.
To say that we don't know for sure is something else, but all the evidence we have does indicate that there was a zero point.
Raphael
Sorry for lashing out - it happens to me when I respond to liars.
Raphael
"But assuming there was..."
Why should we assume this when the evidence we have does not indicate that we should make this assumption?
Raphael
"So I'm just trying to present you with a new idea and want to hear whether what we know now contradicts it or not. Want to comment - please. Don't want - don't need."
a) The "idea" you are trying to present is not new, it is an old "idea".
b) The "idea" you are trying to present is meaningless. Since it is meaningless it cannot be contradicted just as much as it cannot be corroborated in any way or even bring a single piece of evidence to support it.
c) There are countless "ideas" of this type that can be invented or found throughout the conceptual space of people in the world. It doesn't take much effort to string a few words together into something that sounds like it has content but is practically meaningless.
d) The trick is to see beyond the fake and supposedly deep content sometimes in these kinds of "ideas" and see them in a critical light where it becomes clear that they are meaningless and that they don't mean anything, instead of wasting time admiring their fake depth.
Well, it's not clear according to science that there was a zero point at all, and if there was then no one knew what was in it and even more so what was before it. But assuming there was…
Often brings - I'm a one-trick pony...
"No one knows what happened at ground zero and never will - that's a fact too."
Absolutely not a fact and it is not clear that there was a zero point. This is exactly what I am trying to write.
Miracles
It seems to me that the one suffering from short-sightedness here is you. And I think it's because you're fallen...
Shmulik
What is "playing into his hands"? It is no longer possible to have a normal conversation here without suspicions and attempts to present those who do not exactly agree with you in everything as eccentric or crazy?
And to the point. The universe is expanding - this is a fact. No one knows what happened at the zero point and will never know - this is also a fact.
But you yourself often bring here Kraus's lecture about the possibility that the universe was created from nothing
(By the way, there is no proof in his lecture because it is based on the phenomenon of particles appearing in our universe randomly from "nothing" but he forgets that there is no such thing as "nothing" in our universe and what was before the creation of the world as stated no one knows and did not know scientifically)
So I'm just trying to introduce you to a new idea and want to hear whether what we know now contradicts it or not. Want to comment - please. Don't want - don't need.
Miracles,
I'm not sure but why stick to terminology that is clearly irrelevant just because it's convenient for him?
You play into his hands when you ignore what is already known, namely: an expanding universe - a fact. The moment of the bang: at most only a hypothesis (arrived at by relying on a Torah that predicts its collapse at exactly this point)
Shmulik
It seems to me that the pair of words "Captain Ahab" caused him to short-circuit my brain... Maybe that's why he didn't understand my answer?
No problem
Miracles,
Don't you feel that you are being dragged into talking about terms that are not well defined?
To help you I brought links from Twitter and from an article (in magazines, not scientific) that Sean Carroll published.
In summary:
Relativity predicts a singular point
But the theory of relativity is not the theory to deal with the issue because it collapses precisely because of this prediction
Since this is a situation where the universe was in a very compressed state, quantum mechanics is probably very relevant to the correct description of what exactly happened there
There is no singularity in quantum mechanics
Therefore, the whole discussion about infinity and singularity is incorrect
Raphael
Hebrew lesson for you:
"Raphael
"Is it possible or not possible to contradict the idea that the universe was not created from expansion within nothing but from contraction within infinity?"
No - it cannot be contradicted."
The "Is X" question. I answered "No, not X". In modern Hebrew, this is a direct answer.
You really didn't know that? It wouldn't surprise me...
...just as nothing can be understood from her
Raphael
I will explain to you the answer of miracles simply.
It is not possible to refute a meaningless claim.
Miracles
You are doing everything to avoid answering my question matter-of-factly and you probably have a good reason for that.
Raphael
"Is it possible or not possible to contradict the idea that the universe was not created from expansion within nothing but from contraction within infinity?"
No - it cannot be contradicted. Nor can it be denied that Moby Dick ate Captain Ahab's leg, or a crocodile ate Captain Hook's hand.
Very strange article.
The writer says he knows religious scientists and yet rambles on for an entire article about the faith of scientists and all without talking to any of them at all. Hoetz makes assumptions about religion, many of which are not true at all for many believers and certainly not scientists (this is without generalizing).
If he preaches a scientific way of thinking so much, why doesn't he act like that himself? Why doesn't he try to talk, ask, be interested. Maybe do a survey? I think he is simply not capable of it. Have a conversation that is not an argument these really try to understand. But without that all he is able to produce is word hashes without any insight worth anything. He does not believe at all, but "come to the conclusion" that a religious scientist believes in a non-intervening God. based on what? is nothing!
His way of thinking may be scientific but that of science from ancient times at best. One who thinks he can reach insights about reality with the help of thinking alone.
The theory that predicts a singular point at time 0 is general relativity and it is precisely at this time that it collapses. Because of this, it must not be used at time 0 and its predictions for time 0 must not be trusted. One must differentiate between the moment of the big bang (this is a hypothesis that there was something like that) and the big bang theory - the expansion of the universe (relies on facts)
Please note that cosmologists do not think about the Big Bang in the way it is conveyed to laymen in YouTube lectures, but in the spirit of what was mentioned above, and therefore in my opinion the discussion you are having is not based on facts.
By the way, about a year or more ago Raphael (!) brought a reference to a BBC program that talks about models dealing with the question of what was before the bang.
Here are two links:
https://twitter.com/seanmcarroll/status/734865105792303104
https://www.ft.com/content/f47b8310-0383-11e7-ace0-1ce02ef0def9
Miracles,
Leave everything. No acceptance, no aborigines, no who said before who. I have only one focused question -
Is it possible or not possible to contradict the idea that the universe was not created from expansion within nothing but from contraction within infinity?
And this without changing anything from the findings and the laws of nature and the theories known to us so far?
Raphael
Are you changing your story again? There's no point in having a conversation like that, really. Try to be consistent 🙂
Nevertheless - you bring an old explanation, which does not describe what we see and does not predict anything.
Raphael, how does your explanation differ from the Greeks' explanation of the creation of the world? Or the explanation of the aborigines in Australia? What does it explain that the big bang doesn't explain? Maybe start by explaining how your explanation explains the CMB?
miracles,
The facts are known, but what do you actually want to say?
Do you know since when we know that the world was created by reduction from one point?
Raphael
The Big Bang idea was given in 1927. The observation of the discovery of signs of the Big Bang was in 1964.
To clarify - Hubble's article, let's describe for the first time observations that describe the expansion of the universe, is from 1929. And furthermore, this article is interpreted in several ways, and is not considered to confirm the idea of the big bang.
But Raphael, don't let the facts confuse you 🙂
Miracles
The essential difference between this explanation and the other explanations is that the other explanations were given retrospectively after it was discovered that the universe began at a singularity point and expanded since then, while the description of the creation of the world from an action of reduction gave a long time before that.
I am not here to give a theory that will replace the existing theory. Nothing changes except the point of view.
Raphael
You can make up as many explanations as you want. But, after that, it is worth examining whether the explanation describes the observations, provides predictions that can be tested, and allows a way to test its correctness by a refutation test.
I would love to know how your "reduction" fits in with the requirements of a good scientific explanation.
I didn't think you would react differently. What do you care if it's a receipt? Is it not possible to explain everything we see as contraction from the outside instead of expansion from the inside?
Raphael
To an ordinary person, Kabbalah is idolatry……
I forgot what I was talking to 🙂
Search on Google: creation of the world reduction
Raphael
Could you please expand? It is difficult for laymen like us to understand how it is possible to reduce from a point...
Another thing - the universe is the result of a reduction from a singular point and not an expansion from a singular point.
there are none but Him
Belief is a mental and emotional subject, not a scientific subject nor for scientific discussion.
As Professor Leibovitz said - "God did not come down on Mount Sinai to teach us about physics".
So their science is great, they are religious Jews and religious Christians or Buddhists... each one of them believes in what he believes and loves his faith and his God.
As mentioned - emotional.
Just like you don't come to an art expert to explain why he is in love with his ugly wife.
One should not come to a religious scientist with demands that they explain their religion in a scientific way.
Here is Lawrence Krauss' wonderful lecture called: a Universe from Nothing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ly6xDuwjLD8
After that, a fascinating discussion took place, which of course discussed the definition of Nothing
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PL84Yg2dNsg
Interesting article, there is a fundamental gap in trying to address the problem as an unbeliever.
Regarding the previous comment, the investigation is not of G-d but of creation and once it is understood the second is unnecessary as it were.
Regarding Newton's problem, it can be explained according to the problem of choice and knowledge for structures, that is, the same G-d who also created time and knows what will happen, knows a priori what is chosen and according to this, that deterministic world is also determined and is not influenced by foreign forces.
Another simpler option is that whoever created the rules can bend them as he wishes.
Even if we reduce all the "gaps" we will not get that close to God at all. Knowledge is only about creation. To understand what God is, one must truly create. Until we don't have the ability to admire...
On the sidelines of this topic, for the sake of the question floating over the article:
'Energy is preserved and nothing is lost' - but it becomes something else. There is no body and soul left in the special combination of this wonderful world in which we take part and know it more and more until our last limit as humans, being humans who cannot invent a protein / molecule One animal but to develop a thing out of a thing...and is there anything that can return to its very previous state - then there is a situation in which it is possible and possible to return to the very previous state and there is a situation where it is impossible to return to the previous state exactly as it was but become something else, different from what it was.
Great article, I enjoyed it, thanks and good luck finding the Higgs