Hawking: God Did Not Create Universe

[Saintshroomie]

Yes it can

And yes "they" have


There has been much advancement in Q.P. lately.
Anyone here ever watch "Through the Wormhole" on Discovery ?

I haven't seen that, but if you are interested in quantum physics, "What the bleep do we know!? Down the rabbit hole" was an excellent watch.

 

[Saintshroomie]

Want to point us to a link on the matter... I would like to read up on that. If gravity is the attraction between masses, then it would seem (logically) that gravity could not exist without mass.

This was my exact notion as well. After thinking about it for a while, I remember how Einstein described gravity in the general theory of relativity as not a force between two objects, but the result of mass bending the fabric of space-time. Perhaps thats a better way to look at gravity, but I still don't understand how it could create matter from nothing.

 

[byteware]

It is the nature of "masses" that (partially) wrecks that notion.

Not to mention that "attraction between 'masses'" is not a very good description of gravity.

The real answer (I LOOKED IT UP... YEAH INTERNET ) Is that Gravity is thought (warning: unproven science ahead) to be caused by Graviton particles that have yet to be discovered. We are hoping to learn something from the Higgs Boson particles relevant to gravitons (LHC).

However, until we are able to discover these particles, this is just theory, and we don't actually know what causes gravity.

Also, we believe that the Higgs Boson particles are what gives matter mass. And it is also believed that the Higgs Boson and the Graviton are related in some manner (although it is unclear how).

This theoretical relationship is probably what lead to the belief that if Gravity existed, then it could create Higgs Boson particles.

That being said, until we find gravitons this is all theoretical conjecture. We believe they exist, but we have no proof that they actually do. Therefore, we have no way of knowing whether gravity existed prior to the Big Bang.

 

[Frisco]

I did a little bit of research and I have got to say...this stuff is beyond me. I'm better with logic, and have discovered physics is not my strong point.

All but physicists most often head off into their own logic and theories after growing weary of trying to understand what the scientists are showing to us about the universe's origins.

Thus modern philosophy. Thus modern day religion.

 

[Martimus]

Want to point us to a link on the matter... I would like to read up on that. If gravity is the attraction between masses, then it would seem (logically) that gravity could not exist without mass.

Most gravitational fields, I suspect, are associated with mass... even black holes. They have an incredible gravitational pull but their mass is frighteningly compact...

HubbleSite: Black Holes: Gravity's Relentless Pull interactive: Encyclopedia

 

[Saintshroomie]

All but physicists most often head off into their own logic and theories after growing weary of trying to understand what the scientists are showing to us about the universe's origins.

Thus modern philosophy. Thus modern day religion.

If your trying to say that logic leads to religion, I would say you have no understanding of logic or religion, since religion defies reasoning, whilst logic is nothing but reason.

I cannot argue scientific hypothesis in the field of physics (in fact I find them quite interesting) because I simply lack the educational background in the field to completely understand them. But to say that because one doesn't understand will inevitably lead to religion is nothing more than useless conjecture, unless you have evidence to prove it.

 

[Thefoodman52]

 

[Frisco]

If you're trying to say that logic leads to religion, I would say you have no understanding of logic or religion, since religion is a lack of reasoning, whilst logic is nothing but reason.

I have no idea what you're talking about, how you drew the conclusions you seem to have drawn from my posted words, or what your point is, other than attempting to insult me (which you don't have the ability to do).

You clearly do not understand even the syntax of my post, let alone its central notions.

I dare say, that is the strangest spin of logic in response to a post that I've ever seen in these forums, and we see some very, very twisted things in that text field around here these days.

 

[mpw]

If your trying to say that logic leads to religion, I would say you have no understanding of logic or religion, since religion defies reasoning, whilst logic is nothing but reason...

I have no idea what you're talking about...

I personally think Saintshroomie, has mis-read/understood your earlier post.

I think you were saying the opposite, that modern religion is theorised by those that can't understand the logic and reason of science; how close am I?

...I cannot argue scientific hypothesis in the field of physics... ...because I simply lack the educational background in the field to completely understand them...

I think you'll find that on these forums a lack of understanding never stops some people from putting forward an argument!!

Your honesty and reasonableness might become a problem though.

 

[mpw]

...

Fixed it for you

 

[pman219]

The real answer (I LOOKED IT UP... YEAH INTERNET ) Is that Gravity is thought (warning: unproven science ahead) to be caused by Graviton particles that have yet to be discovered. We are hoping to learn something from the Higgs Boson particles relevant to gravitons (LHC).

However, until we are able to discover these particles, this is just theory, and we don't actually know what causes gravity.

Also, we believe that the Higgs Boson particles are what gives matter mass. And it is also believed that the Higgs Boson and the Graviton are related in some manner (although it is unclear how).

This theoretical relationship is probably what lead to the belief that if Gravity existed, then it could create Higgs Boson particles.

That being said, until we find gravitons this is all theoretical conjecture. We believe they exist, but we have no proof that they actually do. Therefore, we have no way of knowing whether gravity existed prior to the Big Bang.

You hit the nail on the head with this post.
Also as I stated earlier, Hawking did some work with the reverse mathematical equation of a black hole.
To sum up, when the equation was reversed, meaning what should, in theory, be on the other side of a black hole, protons and neutrons were spontaneously produced "out of nothing" they would exist for a brief period of time, then their attraction and polar forces would cause them to essentially "eat" each other.
This is were the Higgs Boson particle theory would come into play, obviously with much greater amounts of energy driving the process.

So basically,
If we look at how our space is a fabric, like saints posted earlier, a "sheet" or layer, then this combination of theories, when you take into account that a black hole is the result of the collapse of a star/sun/universe, all that energy gets sucked into the black hole and shot out the other "side" in to another layer ?? and spontaneously produces mass/planets/universes on the other side in a parallel layer or universe ??

Is that possible ?

 

[Frisco]

I personally think Saintshroomie, has mis-read/understood your earlier post.

I think you were saying the opposite, that modern religion is theorised by those that can't understand the logic and reason of science; how close am I?

Spot on.

 

[Anthony1]

An hour long, so make sure you've a bit of time, but this is well worth watching:

YouTube - 'A Universe From Nothing' by Lawrence Krauss, AAI 2009

 

[Saintshroomie]

I have no idea what you're talking about, how you drew the conclusions you seem to have drawn from my posted words, or what your point is, other than attempting to insult me (which you don't have the ability to do).

You clearly do not understand even the syntax of my post, let alone its central notions.

I dare say, that is the strangest spin of logic in response to a post that I've ever seen in these forums, and we see some very, very twisted things in that text field around here these days.

I admit, I didn't understand your post as I read it, so I apologize. In my defense, my post did include the words "If your trying to say" (which you clearly weren't), kinda weak I know. I also apologize if it came of as insulting, I had no intention to insult. To be honest, I read your post as an attack on my inability to understand the physics behind Hawking's idea. So I'll admit, I showed a bit of ignorance...

 

[byteware]

If your trying to say that logic leads to religion, I would say you have no understanding of logic or religion, since religion defies reasoning, whilst logic is nothing but reason.

I would say that you have no understanding of religion, if you think that it (by definition) defies logic.

I will admit some practice religion in such a manner, but religion itself is not contrary to logic.

 

[byteware]

You hit the nail on the head with this post.
Also as I stated earlier, Hawking did some work with the reverse mathematical equation of a black hole.
To sum up, when the equation was reversed, meaning what should, in theory, be on the other side of a black hole, protons and neutrons were spontaneously produced "out of nothing" they would exist for a brief period of time, then their attraction and polar forces would cause them to essentially "eat" each other.
This is were the Higgs Boson particle theory would come into play, obviously with much greater amounts of energy driving the process.

So basically,
If we look at how our space is a fabric, like saints posted earlier, a "sheet" or layer, then this combination of theories, when you take into account that a black hole is the result of the collapse of a star/sun/universe, all that energy gets sucked into the black hole and shot out the other "side" in to another layer ?? and spontaneously produces mass/planets/universes on the other side in a parallel layer or universe ??

Is that possible ?

I can see how this might be possible, but that leads to the question of, where do the gravitons come from.

 

[mpw]

...I will admit some practice religion in such a manner, but religion itself is not contrary to logic.

Please explain where the logic is in believing in a god, when there is zero evidence of there being a god to believe in.

 

[DruidThaxted]

"For those who believe in God no explanation is necessary, for those who do not believe in God no explanation is possible" Franz Werfel

 

[byteware]

Please explain where the logic is in believing in a god, when there is zero evidence of there being a god to believe in.

Hawkings explained the sudden creation of mass (Higgs Boson particles) as being a byproduct of gravity in the absence of mass. This theory still requires that Gravitons exist.

Where did the gravitons come from.

No theory of the origin of the Universe has been put forth that brings the universe about from nothing. Something must always have existed to create the rest of the Universe.

We will find that the gravitons came from something else, and that came from yet something else. It is not possible for the Universe to spontaneously appear from absolutely nothing.

 

[mpw]

Hawkings explained the sudden creation of mass (Higgs Boson particles) as being a byproduct of gravity in the absence of mass. This theory still requires that Gravitons exist.

Where did the gravitons come from.

No theory of the origin of the Universe has been put forth that brings the universe about from nothing. Something must always have existed to create the rest of the Universe.

We will find that the gravitons came from something else, and that came from yet something else. It is not possible for the Universe to spontaneously appear from absolutely nothing.

So are you saying that the absence of full scientific understanding beyond doubt of the universe's beginning, is reason enough to come to a logical conclusion that it must've been a god, and that that god had a reason and design to the universe, and humans were central to this?

I'm afraid that is no kind of logic that I could ever recognise.

 

[Saintshroomie]

I would say that you have no understanding of religion, if you think that it (by definition) defies logic.

I will admit some practice religion in such a manner, but religion itself is not contrary to logic.

I keep seeing you say that "some practice religion in such a manner." Who practices religion and doesn't think that their deity is beyond logical explanation?

 

[byteware]

So are you saying that the absence of full scientific understanding beyond doubt of the universe's beginning, is reason enough to come to a logical conclusion that it must've been a god, and that that god had a reason and design to the universe, and humans were central to this?

I'm afraid that is no kind of logic that I could ever recognise.

I'm saying that physics cannot explain the creation of a universe from nothing. Period. They aren't even trying to.

Why? Because the creation of the universe from nothing defies logic. It defies the laws of physics. Energy cannot be created or destroyed. Where did the energy come from? Physics cannot answer that question.

 

[byteware]

I keep seeing you say that "some practice religion in such a manner." Who practices religion and doesn't think that their deity is beyond logical explanation?

I do. Plenty of others that I have talked to do. That isn't to mean that there aren't plenty of people who think their Deity is beyond logical explanation.

There are plenty of people who think accepting Evolution means that they don't believe in God. There are plenty of people who see science as the explanation of what God has done, and whose religious beliefs aren't threatened by scientific discoveries.

 

[mpw]

I'm saying that physics cannot explain the creation of a universe from nothing...

I agree, but scientists say they don't know the explanation, which with a lack of proof is the logical stance; to say in the absence any evidence, let alone proof of God that God is the answer, is NOT logical, in any way.

Belief is a choice to to believe, nothing more. And anybody who believes makes themselves look ridiculous if they dare knock anybody else's belief that is based on no evidence or proof or reasoned theory.

 

[Saintshroomie]

I do. Plenty of others that I have talked to do. That isn't to mean that there aren't plenty of people who think their Deity is beyond logical explanation.

There are plenty of people who think accepting Evolution means that they don't believe in God. There are plenty of people who see science as the explanation of what God has done, and whose religious beliefs aren't threatened by scientific discoveries.

I don't follow you. I agree that it is perfectly plausible that science could just be explaining the way god has made things, but that assumes god exists in the first place. What I find illogical is the idea of god. This thread is about the idea of creation from nothing, something many people say is impossible (unless your god of course), so then the question follows "If god is something, and something can't come from nothing, than what did god come from?".

The point is that an omnipotent god can't really be bound by logic, because then he would cease to be omnipotent. So if you could expand a little on how you think your God is logically explainable, I would appreciate it.