Hadn’t hear that one till now. Further to “The Big Bang: How did one of the best attested theories in science become so unpopular?”, a friend reminds me of another classic instance of Bang-o-phobia, found in Jonathan Wells’s Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent
Design, pp. 137–38:
In 1938, German physicist Carl F. von Weizsächer gave a talk in which he referred to the relatively new idea of the Big Bang. Renowned physical chemist Walther Nernst, who was in the audience, became very angry. Weizsächer later wrote:
“He said, the view that there might be an age of the universe was not science. At first I did not understand him. He explained that the infinite duration of time was a basic element of all scientific thought, and to deny this would mean to betray the very foundations of science. I was quite surprised by this idea and I ventured the objection that it was scientific to form hypotheses according to the hints given by experience, and that the idea of an age of the universe was such a hypothesis. He retorted that we could not form a scientific hypothesis which contradicted the very foundations of science.”
Weizsächer concluded that Nernst’s reaction revealed “a deeply irrational” conviction that “the world had taken the place of God, and it was blasphemy to deny it God’s attributes.” (Carl F. von Weizsächer, The Relevance of Science (1964), pp. 151-153.)
Of one thing we can be sure. The Big Bang theory was entering the world of big, high science as one really unloved puppy.
In Newton’s theory of gravity both time and space are held to be be distinct entities which are/were considered infinite in his equations(s),,
But in Einstein’s theory of gravity space and time are held to be two sides of the same coin, i.e. 4-D space time, in which the presence of mass is said to ‘warp space-time’ (or perhaps it is more correct to say that the warping of 4-D space-time signifies the presence of mass?):
But anyways, since time and space are two sides of the same coin in Einstein’s equation, mathematicians were able to work out some implications and found that, from Einstein’s equation, that the universe would draw together. I find it very interesting that the materialistic belief of the universe being stable, and infinite in duration, was so deeply rooted in scientific thought, despite the second law, that Albert Einstein (1879-1955), when he was shown that his general relativity equation indicated a universe that was unstable and would ‘draw together’ under its own gravity,,,
,, added a cosmological constant to his equation to reflect a stable universe rather than entertain the thought that the universe had a beginning. Einstein ended up calling the cosmological constant, he had added to his equation, the ‘biggest blunder’ of his life.
In 1968 and 1970 Steven Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose, further refined General relativity to show that both space and time (or 4-D space) must also have had a beginning.
Of note:
To reiterate, when astronomer Edwin Hubble published empirical evidence indicating a beginning for the universe, Einstein ended up calling the cosmological constant, that he had added to his equation, the biggest blunder of his life. But then again mathematically speaking, Einstein’s ‘fudge factor’ was not so much of a blunder after all. A number of observations including the discovery of cosmic acceleration in 1998 have revived the cosmological constant. In the late 1990?s a highly modified cosmological constant, a constant which is termed ‘Dark Energy’, was reintroduced into general relativity equations to account for the accelerated expansion of the universe, and (I believe) to help explain the discrepancy between the ages of the oldest stars in the Milky Way galaxy and the age of the universe. Far from providing a materialistic solution, which would have enabled the universe to be stable and infinite as Einstein had originally envisioned, the finely-tuned cosmological constant, finely-tuned to 1 part in 10^120, has, upon refinement, turned into one of the most powerful evidences of the design of the universe for life. It is the most finely tuned constant, from many finely-tuned universal constants of the universe, which are necessary to be almost precisely as they are in order for biological life to be possible anywhere in the universe.
And this quote-unquote “‘worst problem’ of fine tuning in physics” shows no signs of ever letting materialists have any room to try to ‘explain it away’:
Thus, far from time and space being infinite duration and size, we find space-time to have had a definite beginning in the past, moreover we find space-time to currently be expanding as the universe grows older (which is something that should rightly have also been ‘predicted’ from Einstein’s concept of space and time being two sides of the same coin). Moreover, we find that the expansion of the universe was predicted in the Bible:
Here are the verses in the Bible Dr. Ross listed, which were written well over 2000 years before the discovery of the finely tuned expansion of the universe by ‘Dark Energy’, that speak of God ‘Stretching out the Heavens’; Job 9:8; Isaiah 40:22; Isaiah 44:24; Isaiah 48:13; Zechariah 12:1; Psalm 104:2; Isaiah 42:5; Isaiah 45:12; Isaiah 51:13; Jeremiah 51:15; Jeremiah 10:12. The following verse is my favorite out of the group of verses:
Einstein, as brilliant as he was, also flubbed quantum mechanics, but that is for another thread.
It is easy to show that neither space nor time exists. Essentially, space does not exist because it would lead to an infinite regress. In other words, distance is a perceptual illusion. Time does not exist because a time dimension makes motion impossible. Surprise!
In “Conjectures and Refutations”, Sir Karl Popper compared Einstein to Parmenides who, with his pupil Zeno, argued against change and motion. Popper wrote that spacetime was “Einstein’s block universe in which nothing happens.” Spacetime physics is no better, in the physical sense, than Ptolemaic epicycles. They explain nothing.
“You may dazzle the mind with a thousand brilliant discoveries of natural science; you may open new worlds of knowledge which were never dreamed of before; yet, if you have not developed in the soul of the pupil strong habits of virtue which will sustain her in the struggle of life, you have not educated her, but only put in her hand a powerful instrument of self-destruction.”
– St. Rose Philippine Duchesne
Reminds me of Einstein’s droll ‘bon mot’:
‘I do not know with what weapons WWIII will be fought, but I do know that WWIV will be fought with sticks and stones…’
as to:
Well, while it is tempting to write off space and time as merely illusions,,
,,,it is a bit too simplistic to just write off space and time as illusions so quickly, especially given the fact that General Relativity is confirmed to (almost?) the same level of accuracy as Quantum Mechanics (QED):
But you right, the ‘4-D space-time’ of general relativity, although being confirmed to a stunning level of precision as to making accurate predictions in science, does suffer the embarrassment of being called an ‘illusion’ from findings in Quantum Mechanics (which is our most powerful theory in science).
There are some other nuances, to be sure, that also go to undermining space and time as the absolute frame of reference for describing reality, but just writing off space and time as illusions is far too simplistic in its approach in my opinion. Moreover, I feel the word “illusion” was a bit too strong from Dr. Henry to describe material reality and would myself have opted for his saying something a little more subtle like; “material reality is a “secondary reality” that is dependent on the primary reality of God’s “Mind” to exist.” The following comment from a blogger on UD reflects fairly closely how I, as a Christian, view reality;
Also of note:
Thus all in all, space and time of relativity are very useful tools for describing the temporal reality we currently live in (and even highlighting the ‘eternal dimension above this one) but we must not ever forget that they are merely tools and are secondary to God as the primary source of all reality.
Verse and Music:
In the physical realm, only particles and their absolute properties exist. Everything else is either abstract or nonsense.
Space is an illusion because there is no space to put it. A time dimension is nonsense because it requires motion in time and thus a velocity in time. And velocity in time would have to be given at v = dt/dt which is nonsensical.
Is it that simple to smash down the two main pillars of modern physics? Yep. Strange, isn’t it?
Mapou, whatever!
At Hawking’s 60th birthday symposium the Borde-Guth-Vinenkin theorum showed the universe had a definite beginning stated as: there is no ‘before’, before the big bang. Vilenkin at the 70th b’day reconfirmed it with another paper.
Must be a creation of some sort. There has to be a first cause. We don’t get something from nothing, even though Krauss, Stenger, et. al. claim we can.
bornagain77, like I said, you’re on a mission.
Mapou, it is ironic that you would accuse me of ‘being on a mission’ when if one were to take your position literally, instead of taking the more sober and nuanced position I roughly outlined, one would have to throw general relativity, which undergirds much of modern science, completely out of the picture altogether. I’m pretty sure you don’t mean to advance your position, of considering time and space to be merely illusions with no caveats for their allowance in science, to that extreme level do you? (and if you did who but the naive would take you seriously?) But if you do (and I would not put it past you), would not that make your position, at least how it appears to me in how you have expressed yourself thus far, to be the one that is ‘being on a mission’?
OT podcast – Ave Maria Radio is a Catholic radio network out of Michigan that promotes dialogue about important issues. Dr. Meyer discusses the key differences between evolution and intelligent design with host Al Kresta:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....38;index=1
The big bang theory isn’t science! It’s creationism in a cheap tuxedo formulated to usher in the theocracy apocalypse!
bornagain77 @9:
Eventually, yes. Right now I’m just asking for a reinterpretation of both classical and quantum physics which is long overdue. Nontemporality, for example, explains why quantum interactions are probabilistic. Nonspatiality explains weird stuff like entanglement and double slit experiments. And it gets much deeper than that.
I don’t really care all that much. In my opinion, this stuff will be mainstream sooner or later. However, it would be nice if I could get a few rebellious spirits like me to see the light so that I can at least have a conversation and iron out some of the kinks. It’s lonely in the gutter. 😀
I don’t deny it. We are all on a mission. This is why we discuss things.
Rebellious spirits are two a penny, especially in the US. The churches there seem to be full of them.
Rebellious spirits who can back up what they claim with knowledge and evidence – now, they’re the guys who end up with Nobel prizes.
“On the other hand, I disagree that Darwin’s theory is as `solid as any explanation in science.; Disagree? I regard the claim as preposterous. Quantum electrodynamics is accurate to thirteen or so decimal places; so, too, general relativity. A leaf trembling in the wrong way would suffice to shatter either theory. What can Darwinian theory offer in comparison?”
Some fossils?
The beginning of universe is only one problem that supposedly betrays “the very foundations of science”? Another problem that scientists have to contend with is the source of dark energy.