Our best models of the Universe have a troubled past
How do physicists solve a problem like entropy?
(Uhhh..
Theism
As it kinda explains a lot that these guys and gals just dont wanna fess up to...
"belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures."
This is going to be Exhibit "B" in presenting my case for theism. Exhibit "A" would have been the dark energy (responsible for universe acceleration) appearing in the universe at 7.7 billion years.)
"The central tenet of any Big Bang cosmological model is that the Universe evolves. Yet that really should not be the case. "
(See the above definition of Theism again)
"It is far likelier the Universe would have been born in a state of high entropy that would have left little room for change."
(But that's not what we got.)
"What would a natural solution to the question of initial cosmic conditions, one without any fine tuning or special pleading, look like?"
(Let me show you what it would look like:
Yeah.
Exactly.
You wouldn't have had one to begin with.
"a natural solution to the question of initial cosmic conditions"
(You simply can not have "a natural solution" to a metaphysical existence. we know the universe had a beginning (redshift, cosmic background radiation, the abundance of light elements in the early universe.)You can not "exist" in something that hasn't been created yet, so what ever created the universe? Had to exist outside of it. So a "natural solution to the question of initial cosmic conditions" simply does not exist.)
As to The Universe fine tuning?
This was an accident?
Interesting.
I reiterate:
"Theism...belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures.")
"Why the Universe evolves is actually a big mystery."
(Maybe to some, but not to everybody I assure you.
"Theism...belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures.")
"The Universe in dead equilibrium
The problem of the Universe’s past has a long pedigree and is linked to one of the most important ideas in all of physics: entropy and the second law of thermodynamics. Entropy is a physicist’s way of saying disorder. According to the second law, any isolated system must evolve from states of low entropy to states of higher entropy. Disorder always increases. If you start with a bunch of atoms all crowded into one corner of a box, they will naturally evolve to a state with atoms spread uniformly around the box. They have thus moved from a highly ordered, low entropy state to a state of maximum disorder and maximum entropy."
(Simple enough right?
I mean If I do wheelies on my bike everyday on Highway 60 going 100 mph?
Everyday as I continue to do my wheelies?
The probability of my crashing steadily increases. Nothing tends to order, everything tends to disorder, this is what we see all around us, hence it's a law of nature, (the second law of thermodynamics), and yes I know the other two these days but they aren't relevant here so I'm not going into them lol. I had a friend ask me once, "Wats the other two then if there is three (laws of thermodynamics)?" I couldn't answer him at the time, now I can, but I digress...)
"The important thing about maximum entropy is that once this state is reached, evolution stops. Individual atoms continue to bounce around, but the macroscopic state of the box ceases to change. In a sense, time and its direction no longer matter. The past looks exactly like the future, so you cannot tell them apart anymore."
(Revelation 1:8
I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.
(Verse 8 :-).
8 signifies a new beginning.)
"The second law of thermodynamics says the entropy of the Universe can only increase until it reaches a maximum. So the Universe must be running down, and it must be heading toward an eventual heat death, where entropy has maximized and no more work can be extracted. In that final equilibrium, there will be no more change and no arrow of time pointing from the past into the future."
(2 Peter 3:10
But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything done in it will be laid bare.
Well isn't man just so smart to have figured that out these days? It's generally accepted that 2nd Peter was written somewhere between AD 60-150. Maybe the author of history and the creator of time (who exist outside of this time space continuum) knew how it would end?
I mean if he created it? Doesn't it make sense that he would know how it ends? And where exactly is the other book that gets the beginning: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" and the end "The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything done in it will be laid bare." correct? I got a chair at my table etc...)
"But that is not the state we are in now. The Universe is clearly still evolving. Stars are burning up their nuclear fuel, releasing energy and generating entropy. That must mean the entropy of the Universe has not reached its maximum. Based on this, we can conclude that the entropy of the Universe must have been much lower in the past. And that is where the problem really lies."
(Maybe for the author and his ilk, not for me and a whole bunch of other people...It's really not a problem at all...)
"The so-called classic Big Bang — the first version of our standard model of cosmology — says the Universe began in a hot, dense state, undergoing expansion. The modern version of the standard model adds a period of extreme expansion to this story, a very brief, very early period referred to as inflation. For both the classic and modern standard models, the critical question about the past is the initial condition of the Big Bang — that state under which your model begins its evolution."
(Notice neither the classical or the modern standard model address where any of it came from, or what set the events in motion as to cause it's inflation or expansion, the critical question that's being asked here is about the universe "evolution" not how it was there to start with or what set the events in motion that led to it's evolution. The "Big Bang" whether classical or standard does not account for how: time, space, energy, matter, and the unified force came into exitance, only how they evolved after they already existed. I reiterate:
(Theism:
"...belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures.")
"It turns out that if you pick an initial condition at random, you are much more likely to find one with high entropy than one with low entropy. After all, there are many more ways to arrange a system’s components in a disordered fashion than in an ordered one."
(That is simply NOT the evidence we have right in front of us.)
"Based on probability alone, then, the Universe should have started in a state that was either already in equilibrium or close to it. That would leave little room for cosmic evolution."
(Exactly, hence:
Theism:
"...belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures."
(Like I said, it might be a problem for some?
"leave little room for cosmic evolution"
But not for some of us.
"intervening in it")
"The Universe would just sit there like our box of atoms in equilibrium. It would experience no change, and no time running from the past into the future."
(It's just not what we have. We have the opposite. If these people are such "scientist" and not "ideologues"? Why then do they continue to ignore the evidence right in front of them?)
"Somehow, our Universe must have avoided all those high entropy states and started in a very unlikely, very low entropy state."
(Theism:
"...belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures.")
"Why did the Universe begin in such an unlikely state that allowed us to emerge?"
(Genesis 1:27
So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.
Matter (We are matter BTW) is primary. If there is no matter? Then there is no need for knowing when something came into existence, how old it is (Time) etc. If there is no matter? There is no need for the "space" to put it in. If there is no matter? There is no need for the energy needed to build the three legged stool of time space and matter which are all interdependent on each other. There is no need for the laws of nature to govern matters existence. God wanted man to share in his creation, this alone explains why matter is primary.)
"We do not want to invoke an intelligent designer to make the choice for us — that would be a flagrant case of special pleading."
(Okay, lets explain special pleading first:
This is the only universe that we have proof of. To say that someone is making a logical fallacy in the form of "special pleading"? We would need other universes to show that our case was special. We are not "exempt from the same critical criteria" WE ARE THE ONLY CRITICAL CRITERIA WE HAVE AVAIABLE TO US!
And this statement:
"We do not want to invoke an intelligent designer to make the choice for us..."
Is the entire reason I'm sitting here today doing this. What if an intelligent designer DID make the choice for us? It sure seems like there's more than enough evidence to suggest so. Does the fact that "We do not want to invoke an intelligent designer" make it not so? Besides, I thought science was based on observation etc...)
"It is noteworthy that some cosmologists thought the brief period of inflation would solve the problem. The hyper-rapid expansion of a small sliver of post-Big Bang space-time into our visible Universe was supposed to dilute entropy and allow evolution to continue. But many critics, including Fulvio Melia, argue that inflation models must be fine-tuned to give the right result. The form of a suitable inflationary model, and the parameters found in it, must be so explicit that the whole thing looks just as cooked up and arbitrary as the past hypothesis itself. Thus, inflation may not solve the problem."
This is where I really got pissed off. I really did. If I had a home computer and a internet connection? I would have jumped right then when I read that and started writing this right then.
Few things to cover here:
"...inflation models must be fine-tuned to give the right result."
(Theism:
"...belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures.")
"The form of a suitable inflationary model, and the parameters found in it, must be so explicit..."
(Theism:
"...belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures.")
"...that the whole thing looks just as cooked up and arbitrary as the past hypothesis itself. Thus, inflation may not solve the problem."
To make the above statement?
And ignore:
"...explains the origin of the large-scale structure of the cosmos. Quantum fluctuations in the microscopic inflationary region, magnified to cosmic size, become the seeds for the growth of structure in the Universe (see galaxy formation and evolution and structure formation).Many physicists also believe that inflation explains why the universe appears to be the same in all directions (isotropic), why the cosmic microwave background radiation is distributed evenly, why the universe is flat, and why no magnetic monopoles have been observed."
"The detailed particle physics mechanism responsible for inflation is unknown."
(See Theism again lol)
"The basic inflationary paradigm is accepted by most physicists, as a number of inflation model predictions have been confirmed by observation;[a] however, a substantial minority of scientists dissent from this position."
(Just because some scientist dont like what they see? Dont mean it's not the truth! Funny thing about the truth, it really dont care what you think lol.
What got me all riled up was:
Including this:
"the whole thing looks just as cooked up and arbitrary"
and omitting:
"a number of inflation model predictions have been confirmed by observation"?
"In fact temperature anisotropies observed by the COBE satellite in 1992 exhibit nearly scale-invariant spectra as predicted by the inflationary paradigm. Recent observations of WMAP also show strong evidence for inflation.[4]"
Tsujikawa, Shinji (28 April 2003). "Introductory review of cosmic inflation". arXiv:hep-ph/0304257."
Which I assure you the author is well aware of.
Shows the bias and intent the author brings to his article that quite frankly? Fly in the face of what we can observe. It's science right?
Not only that?
There is nothing 'arbitrary:" at all about the fine tuning of the universe. If any "constant" is off the slightest? Then the universe simply doesn't exist. How is that arbitrary exactly?
)"Is the standard model of cosmology suspect because of the Universe’s strangely low-entropy past?"
(No! It's not suspect at all.
In fact?
It's absolutely spot on if you can accept:
Theism:
"...belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures.
Like others of us have.
The science...
Colossians 1:15-17
The Supremacy of the Son of God
The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
is proving God right.
Why wouldn't it?
He created it, and the "natural laws" it has discovered.
"There is no doubt that the past hypothesis is a real problem, both physically and philosophically."
(Maybe to some it does
(like this author)
but not to all it doesn't.
That I can assure you.
Strawman alert!
Funny to anybody else this guy has a problem with:
"We do not want to invoke an intelligent designer to make the choice for us..."
But he has no problem making you argument for you?
Who is really doing the "special pleading" in this case?
"What would a natural solution to the question of initial cosmic conditions, one without any fine tuning or special pleading, look like?"
I told you at the beginning, you'll never find a natural solution to a metaphysical problem.
"You can not "exist" in something that hasn't been created yet, so what ever created the universe? Had to exist outside of it. So a "natural solution to the question of initial cosmic conditions" simply does not exist."
and?
"without any fine tuning or special pleading"
There wouldn't be a universe to begin with.
Big mistake Big Think.
Normally I love your work.
But to posit:
"that inflation models must be fine-tuned to give the right result. The form of a suitable inflationary model, and the parameters found in it, must be so explicit that the whole thing looks just as cooked up and arbitrary as the past hypothesis itself. Thus, inflation may not solve the problem."
while ignoring the observational data we have?
"a number of inflation model predictions have been confirmed by observation"?
"In fact temperature anisotropies observed by the COBE satellite in 1992 exhibit nearly scale-invariant spectra as predicted by the inflationary paradigm. Recent observations of WMAP also show strong evidence for inflation.[4]"
Tsujikawa, Shinji (28 April 2003). "Introductory review of cosmic inflation". arXiv:hep-ph/0304257."
I just really got a thing against people knowing things and purposely leaving them out. It's intentional deception and we know who the father of all lies is.
I got two pieces of scientific evidence for Theism:
Dark Energy expanding the universe at 7.7 billion years.
And the low entropy state of the early universe.
Of the other metaphysical choices for the beginning of the universe?
As well as it's fine tuning and evolution?
Deism
Naturalism
Materialism
Panspermia
PantheismWhich one has any science behind it?
Choose carefully.
Eternity is at stake.
The person doing the special pleading?
Is the author of the article.
He obviously doesn't want ANY
scientific observations about inflation
applying to his world view.
"We do not want to invoke an intelligent designer to make the choice for us..."
Why not?
It's where the observable/quantifiable evidence is pointing.
No comments:
Post a Comment