Earliest evidence for the inflationary model ("big bang") discovered

[Salvatore Rappoccio]

Here's a post : 

http://www.themindisaterriblething.com/2014/03/earliest-signal-so-far-from-big-bang.html

Today, the Harvard Center for Astrophysics had a press release (you can try to click the link, but this discovery broke the internet) from the BICEP2 collaboration, announcing the discovery of echoes from the earliest period in our entire history of the universe, effectively 10^-35 seconds after the cosmic inflationary event we colloquially call "the big bang".

Graphic explaining the evidence of gravitational waves 

from the moments following inflation.

To put this in context, this is one of the biggest discoveries in cosmology ever made. It provides the first direct evidence of the cosmic inflationary model ever observed.


This direct evidence takes the form of gravity waves in a spectrum of photons that existed 380,000 years after the big bang. Gravity waves are little ripples in space-time that cause the force of gravity to shift slightly, as if it were water with a pebble dropped in it. However, unlike water, space-time can take on different distortions called "polarizations". Light exhibits this phenomenon that you are familiar with if you have ever used polarized sunglasses or lenses.

The gravitational waves that were emitted at the instant following the cosmic inflationary event propagated through space-time, distorting it in multiple directions. The discovery by BICEP2 has observed these primordial gravitational waves, giving us the earliest known physical remnant of the moment of inflation ever observed. 

To understand how this observation was made, we must first explain the medium it was detected in. For the first 380,000 years following this event, the universe was completely opaque because light (photons) was being absorbed and reemitted instantly by the matter in the universe.

As the universe cooled, the matter lost kinetic energy (exactly as your air conditioner functions). After 380,000 years, the universe had sufficiently expanded and cooled to allow light to propagate through the universe again. The interesting bit is that these same photons that existed 13.8 billion years ago are still around today. It is called the cosmic microwave background (or CMB). If you ever watched an old antenna television, a fraction of the noise that you observed was caused by these ancient photons in the CMB.

The CMB is the medium via which the gravity waves propagated. By observing subtle twists and turns of the photons in the CMB, the astrophysicists at BICEP2 were able to discern a pattern that is compatible with the hypothesis of gravity waves being detected, but incompatible with the background. This signals a discovery of the gravity waves directly observable by us, here, 13.8 billion years later. In the analogy of the pebble dropped in the pond, we're literally jiggling around on the waves in space-time from the earliest period in the known universe.


For a more technical discussion see Sean Carroll's blog post about it which is better than anything I have the expertise to explain.

[Kurt Godel]

In other words, the Let There Be Light of Genesis has some ripples from when the Breath of God hovered over the Void.

 in_beginnings he-created strengths with the_heavens and_with the_earth

and_the_earth she-becomes chaos and_vacancy and_darkness over faces_me abyss and_spirit strengths vibrating over faces_me the_waters

and_he-is-saying strengths he-is-becoming light and_he-is-becoming light

and_he-is-seeing strengths with the_light that good and_he-is-separating strengths between the_light and_between the_darkness

and_he-is-calling strengths to_light day and_to_darkness call night and_he-is-becoming evening and_he-is-becoming morning day[and waters] one.

Or the rather pretty King James version...

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

² And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

³ And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

⁴ And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

⁵ And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

[Rupert]

This is indeed very exciting news, and it's amazing to think that our understanding of the early history of the universe is improving all the time. I can only wish that I had the time to understand cosmological models better.

[Kurt Godel]

They tend to get full of themselves. For instance, the predicted temperature/frequency of the Microwave Background Radiation was off by more than a factor of two. It's black body radiation, anything has a radiation curve like that, including you and me, the only difference is the temperature/frequency shift.

So they seem to have found some patterns of polarized light, if they didn't predict it more clearly than the MBR, I'm not impressed.

On Monday, March 17, 2014 1:27:21 PM UTC-4, Rupert wrote:

[e_space]

its funny listening to you say you are not a christian ... rap introduces a new scientific observable discovery, and you relate it to fundamental christian rhetoric that has NO basis in fact ... doh!

[lawrey]

               Rap',

                             Thanks for that, coincidentally  this had a mention last night on the news, and I am looking forward to the
                              particle physicist, Brian Fox, discussing it in one of his very interesting programs soon. If anyone can
                              help an ignoramus like me to get the gist of it he can. Trust you and yours are well, take care.

[Kurt Godel]

Genesis is Hebrew. It's about 1,200 years older than Christians. That's just your bigotry against Christians talking. You know better than to spew your bigotry against Jews.

[Smoley]

10^-35 seconds away from finding the Creator.

So close.

[Salvatore Rappoccio]

Hi, Lawrey,

Glad to be of service! This is a really momentous discovery, it's the earliest phenomenon ever observed, so it's a really big deal. It can get us observational evidence up to around 10^-35 seconds after the cosmic inflationary event. Really cool stuff!

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/atheism-vs-christianity/43656a2d-163d-4a6a-b95a-8423b4269494%40googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[e_space]

wow ... talk about misguided! ... i'm not against christians in general by any stretch of your, or my, imagination, although i have nothing nice to say about the hierarchy ... rhetoric puppets don't get much accolades from me either, such as smoley ... also, people like yourself, who profess to live by the golden rule and preach the virtues of jesus, while spewing insults at virtually everyone, also get my attention ... 

unlike you, i am not going to say anything negative about a whole classification of people simply because of what they believe, or don't believe  (you know, like your habit of referring to ALL atheists filthy liars?) i happen to like some christians, despite not agreeing with their beliefs ... of course, you would know NOTHING about this, despite your propensity to make factual sounding claims based on nothing other than your misguided opinions ... 

how do you possibly relate my comment to bigotry against jews? Q: do you have ANY idea what you are talking about? A: seemingly not, as they have no reflection on my intent or feelings ... keep whiffing though kurtsy my boy ... right up your alley ... 

[Steve in Virginia]

Thanks Rap -

This is a great post.  I'm going to have to brush up on my cosmology.  I want  to better appreciate what this discovery represents.  However, these findings reinforce the position that the Universe, despite its complexity, strangeness and immensity, is ultimately knowable, and it is the result of natural processes. 

Steve

On Monday, March 17, 2014 12:31:09 PM UTC-4, rappoccio wrote:

[lawrey]

                Rap',

                                    Your excitement is palpable and I am at one with you in these stupendous discoveries that will lead us eventually to a better and
                                     more tangible understanding of our beginnings. Trust all goes well with your own line of study.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christianity+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity.

[Salvatore Rappoccio]

Hi, Steve,

Indeed, at this moment people are already thinking about how to use this information to look "beyond" the horizon of the cosmic inflation event, so to speak. 

So, we could be looking at multiverses, extra dimensions, gods, or "turtles all the way down" in our own lifetimes!

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/atheism-vs-christianity/ddb3992a-daed-4563-95ed-43a9c0579cbc%40googlegroups.com.

[Salvatore Rappoccio]

Thanks Lawrey, things are indeed very good here. I've been enormously busy, but hoping to slow down a bit. I cannot contribute here as much as in the past, but I'll be popping by from time to time to say Hello!

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/atheism-vs-christianity/52143aa9-ac44-4ebd-9886-d969da80b4a0%40googlegroups.com.

[Trance Gemini]

It really is quite fascinating although I admit that I'm not understanding the implications well. How would this impact the multiverse (et al) theories?

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/atheism-vs-christianity/CAO066%3DNtLLBwtD8xcpYYoVjn%2B7bV-0%3DGvHC%3D2%2BuO0OD6A_7tiA%40mail.gmail.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Trance Gemini
EAC Disciplinary Committee
Leather Teddy/CatONineTails Disciplinary Squad
Chairperson

Agent 000777136669854321.  Mange Inciter. Special Services.
EAC Department of Linquistic Subversion.
Evil Anagrams Division

[Alan Wostenberg]

Rappo "10^-35 seconds " is pretty early all right. But why is there time? Time didn't have to happen. Did it?

[Rupert]

On Wednesday, March 19, 2014 11:35:32 PM UTC+1, Alan Wostenberg wrote:

Rappo "10^-35 seconds " is pretty early all right.   But why is there time? Time didn't have to happen. Did it?

These are precisely the kinds of questions that physicists and cosmologists are investigating.

[Ian Betts]

Why people have to try to muddy the advance of discovery by arguing theology I can't imagine.

 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/atheism-vs-christianity/4207a304-7049-4669-81d6-e5a8e273cfe9%40googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
Ian

[Alan Wostenberg]

According to Ian "did time have to happen" is a "muddled theology question" while according to you, Rupert, our resident mathematician "these are precisely the questions physicists and cosmologists are investigating".

Rupert are you speaking as a mathematician, physicist, or theologian?

[Rupert]

On Thursday, March 20, 2014 1:10:01 AM UTC+1, Alan Wostenberg wrote:

According to Ian "did time have to happen" is a "muddled theology question" while according to you, Rupert, our resident mathematician "these are precisely the questions physicists and cosmologists are investigating".  

Rupert are you speaking as a mathematician, physicist, or theologian?

I am a mathematician. I am definitely not a theologian. I'm somewhat knowledgeable about mathematical physics, but I'm not a physicist and the comment that I made cannot be considered to be an expert opinion. You should ask rappoccio and Kent what they think.

What I meant to say was, it may be that some versions of quantum gravity give us some insight into why time exists. I didn't intend to make any remark about your question "did time have to happen".

But I, alas, am not an expert on quantum gravity, so you should not trust my remarks and should go and ask an expert.
 

[Kurt Godel]

Membrane Theory, the current passing fad of physics, discusses what happens BEFORE the Big Bang, not just close to it.

What happened was another World of the Many Worlds. That's what they say. 

[Alan Wostenberg]

Sort to crash the party, Ian, by "muddying the discovery with theology" but what is all the excitement about 10^-35 secondth time period if not that it is believed to light on the question of the origin of life, the universe, and everything?

They find it interesting precisely because of its perceived relevance to first cause.

[Alan Wostenberg]

That make two of us, Rupert, who are not experts in quantum gravity. Yet to the question "why does time happen" you recommend the expertise of a physicist. What leads you to conclude the question is in principle within his theoretical competence? The testimony of the physicist himself?

[Kurt Godel]

Ok, where are we at, Genesis starts with the Life Force/Breath of God vibrating over the Void/Nothingness, followed by Let there be Light.

Let there be light is the Microwave Background Radiation, the first light. I can remember when "science" said religion was superstition because light existed from the beginning.

Now, looking back further, before that first blinding flash of light, that visual wall, they see echoes of vibrations from above the Void.

 

 in_beginnings god-created with the_heavens and_with the_earth

and_the_earth she-becomes chaos and_vacancy and_darkness over faces_me abyss and_breathofgod vibrating over faces_me the_waters

and_god-is-saying  he-is-becoming light and_he-is-becoming light

A very clever Hebrew wrote that.

[Rupert]

On Thursday, March 20, 2014 3:52:45 AM UTC+1, Alan Wostenberg wrote:

Sort to crash the party, Ian, by "muddying the discovery with theology" but what is all the excitement about 10^-35 secondth time period if not that it is believed to light on the question of the origin of life, the universe, and everything?  

They find it interesting precisely because of its perceived relevance to first cause.

The reason for the excitement is that the early conditions of the universe were very different to what they are now, and understanding what was happening this early in the history of the universe gives us an insight into the basic laws of nature.

It's not really anything to do with "first cause" as such. I have been told by Trance that Salvatore has told her that it could possibly have a bearing on multiverse theory.

[Rupert]

On Thursday, March 20, 2014 4:03:14 AM UTC+1, Alan Wostenberg wrote:

That make two of us, Rupert, who are not experts in quantum gravity. Yet to the question "why does time happen" you recommend the expertise of a physicist. What leads you to conclude the question is in principle within his theoretical competence?  The testimony of the physicist himself?

No, my understanding of the history of our conception of spacetime and how physics has contributed to it. I take it you don't know general relativity?

[Trance Gemini]

On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 11:03 PM, Alan Wostenberg <awo...@gmail.com> wrote:

That make two of us, Rupert, who are not experts in quantum gravity. Yet to the question "why does time happen" you recommend the expertise of a physicist. What leads you to conclude the question is in principle within his theoretical competence?  The testimony of the physicist himself?

Science doesn't ask why Alan. Science asks How?

Why is unanswerable except in the context of How.

[Trance Gemini]

It was in this response to Steve. It seems I replied to the wrong post in error so you couldn't see what I was referring to:

Salvatore Rappoccio	2:06 PM (14 hours ago)
to Atheism

Hi, Steve,

Indeed, at this moment people are already thinking about how to use this information to look "beyond" the horizon of the cosmic inflation event, so to speak. 

So, we could be looking at multiverses, extra dimensions, gods, or "turtles all the way down" in our own lifetimes!

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/atheism-vs-christianity/3c79a75c-b70a-462c-9950-4f0d13ccda97%40googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

[lawrey]

              Ian,

                       I think I see the point you make, but unfortunately  for some of us religion was was wraught and brought hard upon us in time and again unfortunately for some;
                       mainly through force, evolved with time.

On Wednesday, 19 March 2014 23:13:12 UTC, Ian wrote:

Why people have to try to muddy the advance of discovery by arguing theology I can't imagine.

 

On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 10:37 PM, Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Wednesday, March 19, 2014 11:35:32 PM UTC+1, Alan Wostenberg wrote:

Rappo "10^-35 seconds " is pretty early all right.   But why is there time? Time didn't have to happen. Did it?

These are precisely the kinds of questions that physicists and cosmologists are investigating.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christianity+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/atheism-vs-christianity/4207a304-7049-4669-81d6-e5a8e273cfe9%40googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
Ian

[lawrey]

      Alan,
                 You may not like my assertion then that: By implication time has always been, but not realised until recognised. I say that with knowledge of physics,
                  Another proof if it be needed that god/s were invented long after time and long after mans evolution in time.

[lawrey]

     Correction to the above: Should read WITHOUT KNOWLEDGE OF PHYSICS.

[lawrey]

    OK, So before anyone comes screaming at me for the idiot I may be, let me hasten to add that:..... Some years ago I made precisely the same statement on this very site
    and was immediately shot down by none other that our esteemed friend and colleague who posted this thread. (Rappoccio), he did however go out of his way to explain
    how it was that I was in error and I have no doubt but that many readers would have said the same. I followed his argument and in the end reluctantly acquiesced

    Because of my fidgety logic I have never been entirely convinced although I can see as Rappoccio explained that NOTHING could have exited before the big event.
    I still saw no real reason why time should not have done. I accept that our perception of it could not because of course we did not exist. I also accept that no known entity
    could have existed to instigate the event, because it itself would have been destroyed by the event which was a titanic nucleosynthesis event within space.

     1. Space existed.
     
      2. The event happened in time.

      3. Energy had to exist? or was it born of the event?

      4. If Space and energy exited and we can so precisely, (as explained by Rappoccio) give a place in time to within10^-35 seconds after the event. Should we, may we think of time differently?

[Steve in Virginia]

Hi Trance;

I can only imagine what we will eventually learn.  This latest observation gives us a glimpse of the cosmos at around -10E36 seconds into the Big Bang which puts us at the threshold of the Grand Unification Epoch and the Electroweak/Inflationary Epoch.  So we're in the general neighborhood of where the four fundamental forces are decoupling - one step closer to the elusive Grand Unification Theory.  I love this stuff - if I were better in higher mathematics I'd have studied astrophysics as well as geology!

Steve

On Thursday, March 20, 2014 4:31:05 AM UTC-4, Trance Gemini wrote:

It was in this response to Steve. It seems I replied to the wrong post in error so you couldn't see what I was referring to:

Salvatore Rappoccio	2:06 PM (14 hours ago)
to Atheism

Hi, Steve,

Indeed, at this moment people are already thinking about how to use this information to look "beyond" the horizon of the cosmic inflation event, so to speak. 

So, we could be looking at multiverses, extra dimensions, gods, or "turtles all the way down" in our own lifetimes!

On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 2:30 AM, Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Thursday, March 20, 2014 3:52:45 AM UTC+1, Alan Wostenberg wrote:

Sort to crash the party, Ian, by "muddying the discovery with theology" but what is all the excitement about 10^-35 secondth time period if not that it is believed to light on the question of the origin of life, the universe, and everything?  

They find it interesting precisely because of its perceived relevance to first cause.

The reason for the excitement is that the early conditions of the universe were very different to what they are now, and understanding what was happening this early in the history of the universe gives us an insight into the basic laws of nature.

It's not really anything to do with "first cause" as such. I have been told by Trance that Salvatore has told her that it could possibly have a bearing on multiverse theory.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christianity+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/atheism-vs-christianity/3c79a75c-b70a-462c-9950-4f0d13ccda97%40googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Trance Gemini]

On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 9:07 AM, Steve in Virginia <resur...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Hi Trance;

I can only imagine what we will eventually learn.  This latest observation gives us a glimpse of the cosmos at around -10E36 seconds into the Big Bang which puts us at the threshold of the Grand Unification Epoch and the Electroweak/Inflationary Epoch.  So we're in the general neighborhood of where the four fundamental forces are decoupling - one step closer to the elusive Grand Unification Theory.  I love this stuff - if I were better in higher mathematics I'd have studied astrophysics as well as geology!

Cool and fascinating. So the connection here with the Multiverse or String theory is that it has the potential to lead us to the Theory of Everything.

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

Thx. That was exactly the gap in my knowledge that I needed filled to understand this connection.

[John Stockwell]

On Monday, March 17, 2014 3:43:17 PM UTC-6, Kurt Godel wrote:

They tend to get full of themselves.

My Irony Meter, just went off scale.


 

For instance, the predicted temperature/frequency of the Microwave Background Radiation was off by more than a factor of two. It's black body radiation, anything has a radiation curve like that, including you and me, the only difference is the temperature/frequency shift.

Where do you get that?  Everything I have seen is that the blackbody
curve matched Cobe data extremely well.

 

So they seem to have found some patterns of polarized light, if they didn't predict it more clearly than the MBR, I'm not impressed.

Always good for a laugh Kurt.

-John

On Monday, March 17, 2014 1:27:21 PM UTC-4, Rupert wrote:

This is indeed very exciting news, and it's amazing to think that our understanding of the early history of the universe is improving all the time. I can only wish that I had the time to understand cosmological models better.

[John Stockwell]

Except it describes the same sort of parting of sky from sea above
a flat earth cosmology that was popular in the 1st millenium BCE.

You can make it mean anything you want by ignoring stuff, and reading
other things into it.

-John

[Salvatore Rappoccio]

Excellent question, Trance! :). People haven't figured that out yet, but we've just gotten our hands on the data just now. It's going to be an awesome ride to figure this out!

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/atheism-vs-christianity/CALWRwaM0qOF_TkjJ8%2BeHNoOpOiFM0C_yF%3D9LV7nDOB7HUhYjfA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Salvatore Rappoccio]

Hi, Alan,

It is indeed very early! However, not early enough so that quantum gravitational effects would occur, so we've still got a ways to go before we see weird things happening to space-time. 

On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 6:35 PM, Alan Wostenberg <awo...@gmail.com> wrote:

Rappo "10^-35 seconds " is pretty early all right.   But why is there time? Time didn't have to happen. Did it?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/atheism-vs-christianity/c759d76c-97ff-45b0-b7e3-60ae46f8d659%40googlegroups.com.

[Art Grey]

Hi Trance, Rappoccio, John, Lawrey, Kurt et al,

 

I commend you all for not bible bashing and just enjoying this scientific achievement.

 

Now here is the amazing thing about this expansion event.

 

"Inflation posited that this could be solved if the universe grew enormously – at a rate faster than the speed of light – in the trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second after the big bang"

http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2014/0317/Big-bang-waves-direct-evidence-of-universe-s-extraordinary-expansion-video

 

both Hawking and Alan Guth of MIT who originally suggested this inflation event remarked on how even a tiny fraction of a second give or take from this very short acceleration of expansion of

inflationary event would have rendered our present universe completely different, that is without galaxies as we know them and without the ability to support life as we know it.

On Thursday, March 20, 2014 6:12:51 AM UTC-7, Trance Gemini wrote:

On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 9:07 AM, Steve in Virginia <resur...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Hi Trance;

I can only imagine what we will eventually learn.  This latest observation gives us a glimpse of the cosmos at around -10E36 seconds into the Big Bang which puts us at the threshold of the Grand Unification Epoch and the Electroweak/Inflationary Epoch.  So we're in the general neighborhood of where the four fundamental forces are decoupling - one step closer to the elusive Grand Unification Theory.  I love this stuff - if I were better in higher mathematics I'd have studied astrophysics as well as geology!

Cool and fascinating. So the connection here with the Multiverse or String theory is that it has the potential to lead us to the Theory of Everything.

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

Thx. That was exactly the gap in my knowledge that I needed filled to understand this connection.

 

When we figure out such forces as the strong force holding the atoms together let me know. 

 

 

Actually it reinforces the fine-tuning knowledge that was required for our universe to form properly

which scientists call tight limits or constraints, usually of extreme mathematical limit requirements. 

blessings, art grey

--

[Salvatore Rappoccio]

On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 2:30 AM, Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Indeed :). Think of it as looking at the ripples of a pond after a pebble was thrown in it. If two pebbles were thrown in, you could observe different ripple patterns than if one did. In principle it's possible to observe what is outside the currently observable universe like this. Who knows what the data will show us! 

[Salvatore Rappoccio]

Hi, Lawrey,

Great questions! If time "began" (I use this term loosely) at this event then indeed, we will observe nothing outside of it. If there is something outside of the observable universe, then our current (possibly oversimple) model of a single universe with a "beginning" of time is invalid, and we must indeed adjust our expectations as you surmise. To what? We don't have a firm grasp yet. Quantum gravity is not yet a robust field, so we have to think about it collectively as a species. We're making great strides, and this new data is fascinating to see! 

To the question about whether or not energy existed "before" this event, it's a complicated question. In quantum mechanics, energy can be created from vacuum for short periods of time, but if, during that short period, something affects it, it can lead to observable consequences (Hawking radiation from black holes, for instance). So, it could have been equal to zero on average, but can still have fluctuations. Quantum mechanics is weird. :)

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/atheism-vs-christianity/df5b08f5-e5e8-4106-b9a4-b6e503b6137c%40googlegroups.com.

[Kurt Godel]

And now the Talking Snake slithers under the segmented post for safety.

[Kurt Godel]

No it doesn't, you just made that up, or repeated what some other atheist made up.

[lawrey]

               Rap',
                            Many thanks for your time and tolerant understanding.   Indeed very fascinating and I'm sure the questions will flow and flow.
                            I would that my comprehension was more up to the task, but as you have known for some time I am largely self taught.
                            The best I can do is to ask questions that niggle my on sense of reason and logic. It is never enough and binds me ever
                             to rely on the abilities of others to explain; for which I hope you know I am extremely grateful.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christianity+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity.

[e_space]

get a new pop-up will you? this one is getting VERY old ...

[Salvatore Rappoccio]

Absolutely! Happy to be of help!

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/atheism-vs-christianity/6f4e0cd2-682b-4d44-9d96-484ccfa510a2%40googlegroups.com.

[Bill Bowden]

On Tuesday, March 18, 2014 4:38:00 AM UTC-8, rappoccio wrote:

Hi, Lawrey,

Glad to be of service! This is a really momentous discovery, it's the earliest phenomenon ever observed, so it's a really big deal. It can get us observational evidence up to around 10^-35 seconds after the cosmic inflationary event. Really cool stuff!

So, how did they come up with so accurate a measurement of 10^-35 seconds?  I notice the accuracy of a Cesium clock is only about 3 parts in 10^14. Is it just the result of math calculations?

-Bill

On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 8:17 AM, lawrey <lawre...@btinternet.com> wrote:

               Rap',

[lawrey]

 Bill,
         If you require a quick response it may benefit you to go to Sean Carrol's blog post    It is all just a little beyond my comprehension.

[Alan Wostenberg]

Trance, if a child were to ask "why is the sky blue" she would not be told "science doesn't ask why". It is in that sense I ask: why is there time?

[Alan Wostenberg]

So, Rupert, not expert testimony but your "understanding of the history of our conception of spacetime and how physics has contributed to it" leads you to conclude the question "why time?" is within theoretical scope of the mathematical physics. But note that word "space time". In mixing the two we have already elided the ontological (real) distinction between the two.

We can plot the distance of a moving body from the origin with time along the X axis and distance on the Y as freshman physics students are taught. But look at the chart. Do you see change? no! Time is "all there" like space. We have left behind an essential aspect of time for the sake of our models.

[Trance Gemini]

On Saturday, 22 March 2014 13:56:09 UTC-4, Alan Wostenberg wrote:

Trance, if a child were to ask "why is the sky blue" she would not be told "science doesn't ask why". It is in that sense I ask: why is there time?

Allan, her answer would consist of an explanation of how the natural processes work to make the sky appear to be blue.

[e_space]

On Saturday, March 22, 2014 1:56:09 PM UTC-4, Alan Wostenberg wrote:

Trance, if a child were to ask "why is the sky blue" she would not be told "science doesn't ask why". It is in that sense I ask: why is there time? 

i'll get back to you some time with a response ... not that you were talking to me  ;-^) 

[Alan Wostenberg]

Trance You say they would explain " the natural processes work to make the sky appear to be blue". But any process presumes time. But how is it there is time at all? How come time?

[Alan Wostenberg]

Lawrey you say "time has always been" but how is it there is any time at all? The little god/s of which you speak would be as much in time as alien/s. They could not be an explanation of why time bothers to happen. How come time?

[Trance Gemini]

On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 4:40 PM, Alan Wostenberg <awo...@gmail.com> wrote:

Trance You say they would explain " the natural processes work to make the sky appear to be blue". But any process presumes time. But how is it there is time at all? How come time?

That's the question that perhaps this new research might provide? It's a good question for sure.

However, sometimes the answer is just a simple, that's the way it is, that's the way it works. We don't know more than that and have no way of knowing more than that at this time.

[Timbo]

On Saturday, March 22, 2014 4:40:55 PM UTC-4, Alan Wostenberg wrote:

Trance You say they would explain " the natural processes work to make the sky appear to be blue". But any process presumes time. But how is it there is time at all? How come time?

I only know time as conceptual. Like pointing at a moving auto and saying it is moving forward or reverse. The reality is that there isn't a forward or reverse. 

Time is a measurement of distance of change. It is no different than measuring distance between mass. There are no inches, just like there are no spirits floating about.

[lawrey]

     Alan,

               the little god/s or any god/s, or any god/s for that matter did not emerge till after the humans evolved, they invented them as they invented aliens/s and religions like yours.
               Let me put you straight I do not know if time was and always has been it is just a query of mine that I have not properly resolved for myself but I know the theory.
                We refer to time as an interval or period, we have learned various means to measure the passing of time it controls out lives, we live by and in time, most of our living
                days are geared to time. you know this so why ask me. I simply postulate a proposition that time has always been. that the big bang happened it time, in space. before evolution
               of our planet Earth. But we measure time from the big bang. The seasons of Earth are according to time and space and energy.The Earth's axis is tilted at an angle of 23.5 degrees.
               This means that the Earth is always "pointing" to one side as it goes around the Sun. So, sometimes the Sun is in the direction that the Earth is pointing, but not at other times.
               The varying amounts of sunlight around the Earth during the year, creates the seasons. All in time never too late nor yet too soon. this suggests to me there is more to time than we know about,

[lawrey]

      Tim,
              you are virtually saying are you not, that time began when our perception of it became clear and in order for that we had to live and in order for that if we believe in the BB theory.
              then that is and must be the point from which we measure time. So that implies that if we cannot perceive it it does not exist. If we cannot perceive space then it cannot exist.
              an interval in space distance cannot exist. Yet for all that if we want the big bang we have to say it was an event in time and space. So time and space must have been before
              our perception of it. and although we know the interval of space is never ending  and that we can measure distance in time and space, can we not say that time and space
              are one and the same, since time has the same constancy as space. There is something about the scientific explanation of this that unsettles my way of thinking, it's just me.

[Timbo]

On Sunday, March 23, 2014 6:27:55 AM UTC-4, lawrey wrote:

      Tim,
              you are virtually saying are you not, that time began when our perception of it became clear and in order for that we had to live and in order for that if we believe in the BB theory.
              then that is and must be the point from which we measure time. So that implies that if we cannot perceive it it does not exist. If we cannot perceive space then it cannot exist.
              an interval in space distance cannot exist. Yet for all that if we want the big bang we have to say it was an event in time and space. So time and space must have been before
              our perception of it. and although we know the interval of space is never ending  and that we can measure distance in time and space, can we not say that time and space
              are one and the same, since time has the same constancy as space. There is something about the scientific explanation of this that unsettles my way of thinking, it's just me.

It seems that all that you have revealed here is that yes, a distance was there before we learned to measure it with time, meters....

I can't see time as tangible anything, more than a human describing  energy in motion. If we can only mearsure that there was a big bang and not know what was before, then we cannot claim time and space before. We can't claim what we don't know about. I think we are assuming too much from physics in which we have no evidence. In this particular case, we are comparing known realities with unknown realities to come up with space.

[lawrey]

                          Tim,

                                      Thank you for taking the trouble and excuse my ignorance.

[Timbo]

On Monday, March 24, 2014 8:29:16 PM UTC-4, lawrey wrote:

                          Tim,

                                      Thank you for taking the trouble and excuse my ignorance.

lawrey, 

I lack the education in physics to know for sure what I'm talking about. I lack the knowledge in physics that make things absolute reality or just convenient formulas to make a case.  I stick with the Greater Science Community the same as I stick with the Greater Linguist Community. If the community says we are stopping knowns at the BB, I take that literally. Stop! We will get back to you when we can conclude something.  I don't postulate a space for the BB even if after thee BB physics says it had to have had space. They cannot claim had to have had and absolutely stop at the BB. 

[lawrey]

      Tim,

                  Thanks my friend. This is the problem that for some reason will not leave me alone and because I do not have the knowledge I cannot succinctly put my argument.
                   Something just keeps wrangling in my head time and space must have been, or no BB. Sorry to have troubled you with my eccentricities.

[Art Grey]

Hi Timbo,

 

space, time, matter and energy all came into being with the big bang, according to the theorems of

special relativity worked by Hawking, penrose, ellis

On Monday, March 24, 2014 6:45:58 PM UTC-7, Timbo wrote:

On Monday, March 24, 2014 8:29:16 PM UTC-4, lawrey wrote:

                          Tim,

                                      Thank you for taking the trouble and excuse my ignorance.

lawrey, 

I lack the education in physics to know for sure what I'm talking about. I lack the knowledge in physics that make things absolute reality or just convenient formulas to make a case.  I stick with the Greater Science Community the same as I stick with the Greater Linguist Community. If the community says we are stopping knowns at the BB, I take that literally. Stop! We will get back to you when we can conclude something.  I don't postulate a space for the BB even if after thee BB physics says it had to have had space. They cannot claim had to have had and absolutely stop at the BB. 

 

The main point you need to realize is that the universe originated from a microscopic  beginning, perhaps a singularity

with an incredible mass suddenly coming into being and then exploding to eventually form life-supporting galaxies

and planets with incredible precision according to tight physical and mathematical constraints.

 

 George Ellis (British astrophysicist): "Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word 'miraculous' without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word."

 

Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy): "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing." (6)

John O'Keefe (astronomer at NASA): "We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures.. .. If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in"

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/quotes.html

On Monday, 24 March 2014 23:13:12 UTC, Timbo wrote:

On Sunday, March 23, 2014 6:27:55 AM UTC-4, lawrey wrote:

      Tim,
              you are virtually saying are you not, that time began when our perception of it became clear and in order for that we had to live and in order for that if we believe in the BB theory.
              then that is and must be the point from which we measure time. So that implies that if we cannot perceive it it does not exist. If we cannot perceive space then it cannot exist.
              an interval in space distance cannot exist. Yet for all that if we want the big bang we have to say it was an event in time and space. So time and space must have been before
              our perception of it. and although we know the interval of space is never ending  and that we can measure distance in time and space, can we not say that time and space
              are one and the same, since time has the same constancy as space. There is something about the scientific explanation of this that unsettles my way of thinking, it's just me.

It seems that all that you have revealed here is that yes, a distance was there before we learned to measure it with time, meters....

I can't see time as tangible anything, more than a human describing  energy in motion. If we can only mearsure that there was a big bang and not know what was before, then we cannot claim time and space before. We can't claim what we don't know about. I think we are assuming too much from physics in which we have no evidence. In this particular case, we are comparing known realities with unknown realities to come up with space.

On Saturday, 22 March 2014 22:00:22 UTC, Timbo wrote:

On Saturday, March 22, 2014 4:40:55 PM UTC-4, Alan Wostenberg wrote:

Trance You say they would explain " the natural processes work to make the sky appear to be blue". But any process presumes time. But how is it there is time at all? How come time?

I only know time as conceptual. Like pointing at a moving auto and saying it is moving forward or reverse. The reality is that there isn't a forward or reverse. 

Time is a measurement of distance of change. It is no different than measuring distance between mass. There are no inches, just like there are no spirits floating about.

 

 

Just because you have not seen a spirit, how do you know the rest of us have not? Millions of people have had some kind of mystical experience such as near death or post death clinical situations

or know someone who has. 

[John Stockwell]

>Just because you have not seen a spirit, how do you know the rest of us have not? Millions of >people have had some kind of mystical experience such as near death or post death clinical situations
>or know someone who has.

People seem to report alleged paranormal experiences when they are in a poor state for making observations.

-John

[e_space]

maybe sometimes, but certainly not all of the time ... my OB experiences were a result of many years of putting out the welcome mat for "visitation" after i realized that there was something "available" that was greater than the sum of my body parts ... i realized this after many childhood years of solitude and isolation where the only playground was my mind ... after rejecting several "invitations" to "leave my body" (because of fear), i finally acquiesced to the "pulling" ... the rest is my history that i cannot share ... suffice it to say that is because "it" FAR exceeds anything i have ever experienced "in" my body ... from my experiences i would say that there is something "out" there, just not the christian GOD ... what do i KNOW about it? ... nothing ;-^(

 

-John

[John Stockwell]

>Sometimes, but certainly not all of the time ... my OB experiences were a result of many years of putting out the welcome mat for "visitation" after i realized that there was something >"available" that was greater than the sum of my body parts ... i realized this after many childhood years of solitude and isolation where the only playground was my mind ... after rejecting several "invitations" to "leave my body" (because >of fear), i finally acquiesced to the "pulling" ... the rest is my history that i cannot share ... suffice it to say that is because "it" FAR exceeds anything i have ever experienced "in" my body ... >from my experiences i would say that there is something "out" there, just not the christian GOD >... what do i KNOW about it? ... nothing ;-^(

So basically you have learned to induce a brain malfunction in yourself.

-John

[e_space]

On Tuesday, March 25, 2014 10:23:40 AM UTC-4, John Stockwell wrote:

>Sometimes, but certainly not all of the time ... my OB experiences were a result of many years of putting out the welcome mat for "visitation" after i realized that there was something >"available" that was greater than the sum of my body parts ... i realized this after many childhood years of solitude and isolation where the only playground was my mind ... after rejecting several "invitations" to "leave my body" (because >of fear), i finally acquiesced to the "pulling" ... the rest is my history that i cannot share ... suffice it to say that is because "it" FAR exceeds anything i have ever experienced "in" my body ... >from my experiences i would say that there is something "out" there, just not the christian GOD >... what do i KNOW about it? ... nothing ;-^(

So basically you have learned to induce a brain malfunction in yourself.

if that's what you want to call it, fill your boots ... i would more likely call it a brain superfunction ... but that's just me ... maybe one day, if you dedicate yourself long and hard enough, you can achieve this too ;-^) ... until then, ignorance of the "event" will dominate your comprehension, or more accurately, lack thereof 

 

-John

[John Stockwell]

So, what exactly is the benefit of this "superfunction" ? 

Likely you have an experience
that is "indescribable", "profound", "transcendent"? Nothing like having impaired brain
function to make stuff look more impressive.

Incidentally, the things you say are things that people who have taken LSD say. They
don't seem any improved for the experience, nor do you.

 

 

-John

[John Stockwell]

http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/OTeSources/01-Genesis/Text/Articles-Books/Seely-Firmament-WTJ.pdf

That whole "firmament" thingy in Gen 1:3 that is a dead giveaway. It is the dome above the flat earth
holding the celestial waters.

And, what, were the stars created first or were they an afterthought for "signs" in Gen 1:13 ?

Attempting to make Genesis into a science book is doomed to be a failure, or an exercise in
post hoc identifications.

-John

On Thursday, March 20, 2014 11:04:28 PM UTC-6, Kurt Godel wrote:

No it doesn't, you just made that up, or repeated what some other atheist made up.

On Thursday, March 20, 2014 8:44:12 PM UTC-4, John Stockwell wrote:

On Wednesday, March 19, 2014 9:29:43 PM UTC-6, Kurt Godel wrote:

Ok, where are we at, Genesis starts with the Life Force/Breath of God vibrating over the Void/Nothingness, followed by Let there be Light.

Let there be light is the Microwave Background Radiation, the first light. I can remember when "science" said religion was superstition because light existed from the beginning.

Now, looking back further, before that first blinding flash of light, that visual wall, they see echoes of vibrations from above the Void.

 

 in_beginnings god-created with the_heavens and_with the_earth

and_the_earth she-becomes chaos and_vacancy and_darkness over faces_me abyss and_breathofgod vibrating over faces_me the_waters

and_god-is-saying  he-is-becoming light and_he-is-becoming light

A very clever Hebrew wrote that.

Except it describes the same sort of parting of sky from sea above
a flat earth cosmology that was popular in the 1st millenium BCE.

You can make it mean anything you want by ignoring stuff, and reading
other things into it.

-John

[e_space]

On Tuesday, March 25, 2014 1:50:16 PM UTC-4, John Stockwell wrote:

On Tuesday, March 25, 2014 8:43:47 AM UTC-6, e_space wrote:

On Tuesday, March 25, 2014 10:23:40 AM UTC-4, John Stockwell wrote:

>Sometimes, but certainly not all of the time ... my OB experiences were a result of many years of putting out the welcome mat for "visitation" after i realized that there was something >"available" that was greater than the sum of my body parts ... i realized this after many childhood years of solitude and isolation where the only playground was my mind ... after rejecting several "invitations" to "leave my body" (because >of fear), i finally acquiesced to the "pulling" ... the rest is my history that i cannot share ... suffice it to say that is because "it" FAR exceeds anything i have ever experienced "in" my body ... >from my experiences i would say that there is something "out" there, just not the christian GOD >... what do i KNOW about it? ... nothing ;-^(

So basically you have learned to induce a brain malfunction in yourself.

if that's what you want to call it, fill your boots ... i would more likely call it a brain superfunction ... but that's just me ... maybe one day, if you dedicate yourself long and hard enough, you can achieve this too ;-^) ... until then, ignorance of the "event" will dominate your comprehension, or more accurately, lack thereof 

So, what exactly is the benefit of this "superfunction" ? 

who said there was a benefit exactly ? ... i referred to it as an experience ... as it turns out, there was a superbenefit (if you like, or not) ... but why should i waste my time talking to the wall about it? ... you have already shown that you have no concept of life other than your onekickatthecan stint on this doomed rock ... i'd be barking up a tree with no cat in it, so i'll pass on your thoughtfully poised query ...  

Likely you have an experience
that is "indescribable", "profound", "transcendent"? Nothing like having impaired brain
function to make stuff look more impressive.

i wouldn't know ... ask your psychiatrist ;-^) 

 

Incidentally, the things you say are things that people who have taken LSD say.

incidentally you say? ... is that right, man? and how do you know what my experiences entailed? psychic are ya? i don't suggest hanging a shingle any time soon ... ;-^)

 

They
don't seem any improved for the experience, nor do you.

who is "they" ... since your knowledge of me is negligible at best, i will consider this statement a clumsy and tired "attempt" at an insult ... something of course, that you are extremely not capable of ... sorry man! 

 

 

 

-John

[Timbo]

On Monday, March 24, 2014 11:36:44 PM UTC-4, Art Grey wrote:

Hi Timbo,

 

space, time, matter and energy all came into being with the big bang, according to the theorems of

special relativity worked by Hawking, penrose, ellis

Thanks Art,  If that is the solution that science mostly agrees on, then I have no desire to imagine space or anything previous to BB.

[yarrido@aol.com]

On Thursday, March 20, 2014 2:30:54 AM UTC-4, Rupert wrote:

On Thursday, March 20, 2014 3:52:45 AM UTC+1, Alan Wostenberg wrote:

Sort to crash the party, Ian, by "muddying the discovery with theology" but what is all the excitement about 10^-35 secondth time period if not that it is believed to light on the question of the origin of life, the universe, and everything?  

They find it interesting precisely because of its perceived relevance to first cause.

The reason for the excitement is that the early conditions of the universe were very different to what they are now, and understanding what was happening this early in the history of the universe gives us an insight into the basic laws of nature.

It's not really anything to do with "first cause" as such.

  Right you are. Peaking beyond the curtain is outside of the realm of science. The only thing that science can discover is what is part of nature. It cannot even consider the ramification of those discoveries if they extend beyond that curtain behind which is the creator. This it cannot do. This is the myopia of science. It can only see so far and no further. It is an imperfect tool for discovering the truth.

 

I have been told by Trance that Salvatore has told her that it could possibly have a bearing on multiverse theory.

[e_space]

so instead you adhere to the non-scientific BS of the bible and call it your "truth"? ... how wise you are! 

[lawrey]

               Art,
                          What one finds difficult to believe and incomprehensible to logic and reasoning religion requires that you have faith and believe it anyway.
                          That it happened is enough for me to say OK. But to say there is a god-thing who designed the universe 40 odd billion years ago and the Earth 4.54 billion years ago
                           Is beyond logic,reasoning, belief, or faith. It happened the way it happened so why don't you just say I don't know because you don't, nor do the best scientists, yet
                          they just speculate. If the BB was such a cataclysmic explosion, it had to have had space to explode into. I have blown up some pretty big structures in my time, when
                          I had an explosives license. I can tell you, any explosion even a striking of a match needs space you cant contain an explosion that is why it goes bang and creates so much
                          energy. That energy wave has to travel and it travels in space, through space until it has fully expended its energy which it does in time, eventually becoming weaker.
                           To say that space was created by the BB is to say that space is finite and has an end, but space is infinite. That is what I believe but do not know. Rather like god/s except
                         that they are unbelievable, and as far as I know they haven't gong bang! yet to announce their existence.

[yarrido@aol.com]

Wise enough to know that if something is true, it is not just true for me...it is simply true. It is not my truth, it is simply truth. Just like the steady state universe is an example of how science can and often gets it wrong and thus cannot be relied on 100% of the time to expose the truth. Don't bother to change the subject to how science is self correcting. That does not change the fact that science can get the truth wrong. There was a time when scientists also thought that the earth was flat and they got that wrong too. Wearing a lab coat does not make you a prophet.
 

[e_space]

there was also a time when people thought GOD was the truth ... how archaic eh? 

[Art Grey]

Hi Lawrey,

 

In his book ,"A Brief History of Time", Steven hawking paints an easy to understand

layman's view of the beginning of the universe in  accord with his ground-breaking Special Relativity

Theorems (along with Roger Penrose and Ellis) using Einsteins theory of General Relativity as a

basis.

 

When Hawking says that Relativity implies a beginning to space-time, matter and energy

it implies that a whole new type of existence came into being where before, in terms of our physical

universe, there was nothing. We mean nothing of space-time and therefore what was before

was from a totally different category of existence.

 

We Christians call this the spirit realm and perhaps there were symbolic shadows or types

of what we now have in our material universe but "space" had a totally different meaning

because matter as we know it did not yet exist.

 

Of course, hawking did not like the metaphysical implication of a beginning, so ever since he has

been trying to depict a universe that was eternal, but with little scientific success, only speculation.

Also, he has had to account for how apparent design, fine-tuning of mathematical "constraints"

and other amazing formations inherent in the big bang could allow for life as we know it to

exist and that gets into the weak and strong anthropic principles.

 

They mainly try to show that Relativity breaks down at the critical tiny fraction of a second

at the beginning of the big bang when everything is in the quantum stage yet to me the miracle

is that all the quantum particles produced a flat universe when quantum particles, by Hawking's

admission should have formed a spherical universe, but enough of that.

art- no science shows that there was an entirely new type of existence created with the big bang. 

[Salvatore Rappoccio]

Sorry for the delay, folks! My herniated disc really limits my computer time and I've been very busy. ;). 

Bill : that's a good question, actually. That's the time at which the energy of the actual universe would have been sufficient to cause the gravity waves. It's the time at which these were predicted to occur, similar to the prediction of the method of identifying them (the polarizations twist in a particular way). 

About the ongoing discussions : Space-time is the real physical quantity in the relativistic "distance" metric. Space and time are able to transform into one another. The same mathematics that explain this help to make your GPS work in your phone. Separating time out from space is literally meaningless and dependent upon how fast you're moving. Space-time also happens to be in a hyperbolic geometry. 

The really interesting part of this measurement is that it gives us a direct window into earlier times than ever before. We may, in fact, be able to figure out a way to probe something OUTSIDE our currently "observable" (or rather, causally-connected) universe. There are a plethora of additional possibilities aside from our current "universe" horizon, and these echoes can in principle give us clues as to which are right. :)

On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 11:13 PM, Bill Bowden <bpe...@bowdenshobbycircuits.info> wrote:

On Tuesday, March 18, 2014 4:38:00 AM UTC-8, rappoccio wrote:

Hi, Lawrey,

Glad to be of service! This is a really momentous discovery, it's the earliest phenomenon ever observed, so it's a really big deal. It can get us observational evidence up to around 10^-35 seconds after the cosmic inflationary event. Really cool stuff!

So, how did they come up with so accurate a measurement of 10^-35 seconds?  I notice the accuracy of a Cesium clock is only about 3 parts in 10^14. Is it just the result of math calculations?

-Bill

On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 8:17 AM, lawrey <lawre...@btinternet.com> wrote:

               Rap',

                             Thanks for that, coincidentally  this had a mention last night on the news, and I am looking forward to the
                              particle physicist, Brian Fox, discussing it in one of his very interesting programs soon. If anyone can
                              help an ignoramus like me to get the gist of it he can. Trust you and yours are well, take care.

On Monday, 17 March 2014 16:31:09 UTC, rappoccio wrote:

Here's a post : 

http://www.themindisaterriblething.com/2014/03/earliest-signal-so-far-from-big-bang.html

Today, the Harvard Center for Astrophysics had a press release (you can try to click the link, but this discovery broke the internet) from the BICEP2 collaboration, announcing the discovery of echoes from the earliest period in our entire history of the universe, effectively 10^-35 seconds after the cosmic inflationary event we colloquially call "the big bang".

Graphic explaining the evidence of gravitational waves 

from the moments following inflation.

To put this in context, this is one of the biggest discoveries in cosmology ever made. It provides the first direct evidence of the cosmic inflationary model ever observed.


This direct evidence takes the form of gravity waves in a spectrum of photons that existed 380,000 years after the big bang. Gravity waves are little ripples in space-time that cause the force of gravity to shift slightly, as if it were water with a pebble dropped in it. However, unlike water, space-time can take on different distortions called "polarizations". Light exhibits this phenomenon that you are familiar with if you have ever used polarized sunglasses or lenses.

The gravitational waves that were emitted at the instant following the cosmic inflationary event propagated through space-time, distorting it in multiple directions. The discovery by BICEP2 has observed these primordial gravitational waves, giving us the earliest known physical remnant of the moment of inflation ever observed. 

To understand how this observation was made, we must first explain the medium it was detected in. For the first 380,000 years following this event, the universe was completely opaque because light (photons) was being absorbed and reemitted instantly by the matter in the universe.

As the universe cooled, the matter lost kinetic energy (exactly as your air conditioner functions). After 380,000 years, the universe had sufficiently expanded and cooled to allow light to propagate through the universe again. The interesting bit is that these same photons that existed 13.8 billion years ago are still around today. It is called the cosmic microwave background (or CMB). If you ever watched an old antenna television, a fraction of the noise that you observed was caused by these ancient photons in the CMB.

The CMB is the medium via which the gravity waves propagated. By observing subtle twists and turns of the photons in the CMB, the astrophysicists at BICEP2 were able to discern a pattern that is compatible with the hypothesis of gravity waves being detected, but incompatible with the background. This signals a discovery of the gravity waves directly observable by us, here, 13.8 billion years later. In the analogy of the pebble dropped in the pond, we're literally jiggling around on the waves in space-time from the earliest period in the known universe.


For a more technical discussion see Sean Carroll's blog post about it which is better than anything I have the expertise to explain.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/atheism-vs-christianity/bf794c03-b01f-4d7f-9955-21fd2ddad9f5%40googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Rupert]

On Thursday, April 3, 2014 2:53:27 AM UTC+2, rappoccio wrote:

Sorry for the delay, folks! My herniated disc really limits my computer time and I've been very busy. ;). 

Bill : that's a good question, actually. That's the time at which the energy of the actual universe would have been sufficient to cause the gravity waves. It's the time at which these were predicted to occur, similar to the prediction of the method of identifying them (the polarizations twist in a particular way). 

About the ongoing discussions : Space-time is the real physical quantity in the relativistic "distance" metric. Space and time are able to transform into one another. The same mathematics that explain this help to make your GPS work in your phone. Separating time out from space is literally meaningless and dependent upon how fast you're moving. Space-time also happens to be in a hyperbolic geometry. 

Could you clarify this, Rappoccio? Do you mean that if we consider the restriction of the metric to a spacelike three-dimensional submanifold it has negative sectional curvature everywhere?

[Salvatore Rappoccio]

Yes (I think, but my algebraic topology is a little rusty hehe). 

Specifically this is a Minkowski space (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minkowski_space). It's symmetry is a Poincare group (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poincaré_group). 

[Rupert]

I think I see what you're getting at, you're saying that the tangent space at each point is a Minkowski space, and hyperbolic space can be modelled in Minkowski space, is that the idea?

[Salvatore Rappoccio]

More or less, but you're better at this than I am hehehe. 

[lawrey]

                  Art,

                             Thank you for your contribution, but I find it difficult to comprehend your requirement to insert this paragraph, which any sound, intelligent mind might find incomprehensible.

                              "We Christians call this the spirit realm and perhaps there were symbolic shadows or types of what we now have in our material universe but "space" had a totally different meaning

                                because matter as we know it did not yet exist."

                               For what intelligible purpose and or need would and or could there be, to wish or want to fill a space-time continuum with unknown, imagined, metaphysical nonentities designed
                               solely for the purpose of maintaining the status quo of ancient religious superstitions and specious somewhat vacuous vacillations of pagan beliefs?

                                Is there any need of a 'spirit realm' and why? What useful purpose would it serve?

[Art Grey]

Hi lawrey,

 

the spiritual realm is the realm of at least higher reality/truth.

the physical universe is more akin to the matrix of the film

of the same name. With the visible molecules/atoms having

more space than matter and the energy holding them together

coming from a source beyond our comprehension.

 

If you think the present universe is a self-based reality you are in for a great shock

some time in the future. But let's dwell on the present reality of current events for

a moment. Who really runs this country? Your assignment is to look up the entity

or corporation supposedly from which both treasure secretaries of Bush and

the present pres. originated. Let's see if you can handle even this reality.

 

On Friday, April 4, 2014 11:01:42 PM UTC-7, lawrey wrote:

                  Art,

                             Thank you for your contribution, but I find it difficult to comprehend your requirement to insert this paragraph, which any sound, intelligent mind might find incomprehensible.

                              "We Christians call this the spirit realm and perhaps there were symbolic shadows or types of what we now have in our material universe but "space" had a totally different meaning

                                because matter as we know it did not yet exist."

                               For what intelligible purpose and or need would and or could there be, to wish or want to fill a space-time continuum with unknown, imagined, metaphysical nonentities designed
                               solely for the purpose of maintaining the status quo of ancient religious superstitions and specious somewhat vacuous vacillations of pagan beliefs?

                                Is there any need of a 'spirit realm' and why? What useful purpose would it serve?

 

All of life is a test whether you realize it or not. 

[Observer]

On Thursday, March 20, 2014 5:44:12 PM UTC-7, John Stockwell wrote:

On Wednesday, March 19, 2014 9:29:43 PM UTC-6, Kurt Godel wrote:

Ok, where are we at, Genesis starts with the Life Force/Breath of God vibrating over the Void/Nothingness, followed by Let there be Light.

Let there be light is the Microwave Background Radiation, the first light. I can remember when "science" said religion was superstition because light existed from the beginning.

Now, looking back further, before that first blinding flash of light, that visual wall, they see echoes of vibrations from above the Void.

Observer

You might enjoy this, it is very interesting and informative.

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=The+first+light+in+the+universe&FORM=VIRE1#view=detail&mid=5806A4886EFACF4E3B595806A4886EFACF4E3B59

Psychonomist