Evidence for God from Science

Wrote this for Silver on the brick wall thread and something to consider here...

+++


Where did the first atom come from for Inflation to have happened?

How do they know, if this event was not observable or able to be replicated in a lab?

In a lab or even on a computer program - who made the computer - who designed the calculations - who speculated the theory to prove there is no God - no creator needed was there then how did the computer come to being?

The point is silver, in the most rudimentary fashion, points to the need for a creator to even create a computer to calculate the math to produce the theory of Inflation and willing adherents needed to believe in the need to discount God's existence (which allows humanities limited abilities to create) and replace God with their own selves as the center of the own multi-universes of academia.

These kinds of theories come and go... Silver - amazing thing is falling prey to a theory that needed a creator to create the computer and mathematics, etc, involved to prove a theory that there can be no such thing as a Creator God is well - disingenuous. A creator needed to even design the tools to derive the theory that states there is no creator - get the point?

Look over the hall of records of discredited science claims of the past 200 years and then you might get my point...

Fact is,like the recent missing jet - endless speculation from people with ratings agendas to win public opinion is not the best way to prove error right.

Where did the first multi-universe come from and how? You are back to square one...

Most often, peoples experiences in life drive his or her need to expunge God from his or her's world view. Due to trauma, or neglect, abandonment, perfectionism, rejection, divorce,false guilt - never attaining the proper nurturing and closeness drives people to be angry at God as the cause of all his or her woes or seek to control their worlds from experiencing such loss again in diverse ways. Look at the eyes of people and you can see this...

The Multi universe theories all have a creator - human beings. Therefore the need of a creator is proven and who made humanity and all things in the universe or universes - needed a Creator as well whom is known as YHWH.

The need for a creator has been proven however the human creator must deny himself to prove creation is somehow spontaneous. Then again, where did the first spontaneous stuff come from to spontaneously ignite it all? Back to square one...

Have a good day...


-
-
-

So just to get my head around this all. Assuming the Multiverse exists as an inflationary model.

If the Multiverse has to have a beginning as the BVG theorem suggest, then how many universes have there actually been? Surely then there must have only been a finite number and therefore does not in fact weaken the fine tuning argument?

What would be the purpose of the other universes if they did not in fact support life of some description? If they did not support life then that would add credence to the randomness of our existence as again we are just lucky to be in a universe that does support life.

What is the point of more universes after the creation of ours if this quantum field keeps inflating and producing more universes?

Sorry for all the questions.

Silvertusk wrote:What I can't figure out is how does having a swirl on the microwave background signifying inflation appear on our universe when essentially it is closed to the quantum field.

You're conflating two completely different things. The cosmic microwave background radiation did not (could not have) come about until about 400,000 years after the big bang simply because the universe was so hot and dense that photons could not escape and travel outward. It wasn't until the universe had cooled enough (400,000 years later) that photons could escape and travel in a straight line. Those photons are what we see today as the CMB.

Inflation is WAY before the CMB (at a a tiny fraction of a second) when inflation took over.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'our universe is closed to the quantum field'. FYI, our universe, at its core, is in fact quantum mechanical.

Silvertusk wrote:So just to get my head around this all. Assuming the Multiverse exists as an inflationary model.

If the Multiverse has to have a beginning as the BVG theorem suggest, then how many universes have there actually been? Surely then there must have only been a finite number and therefore does not in fact weaken the fine tuning argument?

Again, one thing has nothing to do with the other. As to the number of universes, it is finite in the past and infinite in the future (theoretically). But what does that have to do with fine-tuning? The inflationary model answers the fine-tuning question with the first big bang due to repulsive gravity (which makes it a strong possibility that ours is the first universe). As repulsive gravity gets weaker and weaker (slower), the fine-tuning becomes less and less (which also suggests that any other universes produced would not be as fine-tuned, once again suggesting ours might just be the only one).

Silvertusk wrote:What would be the purpose of the other universes if they did not in fact support life of some description? If they did not support life then that would add credence to the randomness of our existence as again we are just lucky to be in a universe that does support life.
What is the point of more universes after the creation of ours if this quantum field keeps inflating and producing more universes?

As to purpose now you've jumped into metaphysical questions. A possible answer is that the process was necessary to produce the first universe capable of supporting life (ours), and the rest will remain undiscoverable.

Silvertusk wrote:Sorry for all the questions.

Never be sorry for questions. Believe it or not many of us struggle with the same questions, including me. That's why I spend so much time trying to understand the subject (no easy task for astrophysicists, let alone an ordinary Joe Schmo like me). But like I said, put it in perspective, learn what you can, but in the end trust that God is unchanging. Think back at the many, many, theories that seemingly contradicted God only to crash and fall in support of Him. Theories will always come and go. The only constant that matters is the real Cosmological Constant, God.

Thanks Byblos

You're conflating two completely different things. The cosmic microwave background radiation did not (could not have) come about until about 400,000 years after the big bang simply because the universe was so hot and dense that photons could not escape and travel outward. It wasn't until the universe had cooled enough (400,000 years later) that photons could escape and travel in a straight line. Those photons are what we see today as the CMB.

Inflation is WAY before the CMB (at a a tiny fraction of a second) when inflation took over.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'our universe is closed to the quantum field'. FYI, our universe, at its core, is in fact quantum mechanical

Sorry I was not being very clear here. What I mean is we are picking up sign of the Inflation period on the CMB - how can that be when like you said the CMB did not come until 400,000 after. But also when our universe is produced from the inflating quantum field, how can there be traces of this affect on the CMB when after creation wouldn't our universe be now closed off from the continuing expanding multiverse?

Again, one thing has nothing to do with the other. As to the number of universes, it is finite in the past and infinite in the future (theoretically). But what does that have to do with fine-tuning? The inflationary model answers the fine-tuning question with the first big bang due to repulsive gravity (which makes it a strong possibility that ours is the first universe). As repulsive gravity gets weaker and weaker (slower), the fine-tuning becomes less and less (which also suggests that any other universes produced would not be as fine-tuned, once again suggesting ours might just be the only one).

What I meant was if there are only a finite amount of universes since the beginning of the multiverse then the probability factor of there being one as fine tuned as ours is not effected (so in sense still a good argument for a creator). But what you seemed to be saying that our universe seems to be the first one which is why it is so fine tuned - so doesn't that also imply creator?

That last point you mentioned about ours probably being the first seems very important - where did you hear about his?

Thank you once again for your responses.

Silvertusk wrote:Thanks Byblos

You're conflating two completely different things. The cosmic microwave background radiation did not (could not have) come about until about 400,000 years after the big bang simply because the universe was so hot and dense that photons could not escape and travel outward. It wasn't until the universe had cooled enough (400,000 years later) that photons could escape and travel in a straight line. Those photons are what we see today as the CMB.

Inflation is WAY before the CMB (at a a tiny fraction of a second) when inflation took over.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'our universe is closed to the quantum field'. FYI, our universe, at its core, is in fact quantum mechanical

Sorry I was not being very clear here. What I mean is we are picking up sign of the Inflation period on the CMB - how can that be when like you said the CMB did not come until 400,000 after. But also when our universe is produced from the inflating quantum field, how can there be traces of this affect on the CMB when after creation wouldn't our universe be now closed off from the continuing expanding multiverse?

I see what you're asking. I'm not entirely certain the BICEP2 data was concluded by looking at the CMB. Did you read that somewhere? I believe the observation was direct evidence of quantum waves, i.e. direct evidence a split second after the big bang.

Silvertusk wrote:

Again, one thing has nothing to do with the other. As to the number of universes, it is finite in the past and infinite in the future (theoretically). But what does that have to do with fine-tuning? The inflationary model answers the fine-tuning question with the first big bang due to repulsive gravity (which makes it a strong possibility that ours is the first universe). As repulsive gravity gets weaker and weaker (slower), the fine-tuning becomes less and less (which also suggests that any other universes produced would not be as fine-tuned, once again suggesting ours might just be the only one).

What I meant was if there are only a finite amount of universes since the beginning of the multiverse then the probability factor of there being one as fine tuned as ours is not effected (so in sense still a good argument for a creator).
But what you seemed to be saying that our universe seems to be the first one which is why it is so fine tuned - so doesn't that also imply creator?

Well, I wouldn't use fine-tuning as an argument for a creator since the process itself can be explained by the inflationary model (rather than being assumed as in the standard big bang model). However, an explanation of the fine-tuning (though even at this stage it is still theoretical), does not negate the need for a first cause.

Silvertusk wrote:That last point you mentioned about ours probably being the first seems very important - where did you hear about his?

It is my own conclusion but not a totally disconnected one. Our universe is highly ordered and uniform (symmetric and isotropic) and that uniformity was built in from the get-go (now we know, thanks to the inflationary model).

Follow me for a second here, I will try to explain this as I try to understand it myself. Uniformity is measured by taking the actual mass density (in a given area of any size) divided by the critical mass density (which is dependent on the expansion rate, so it is variable). This is what they call Capital Omega. Now what the heck does this all mean? Well, an example would be a bouncing pencil.

If the actual mass density / critical mass density is = 1 (they are equal), the pencil will keep bouncing forever. Note this idea of once something gets started, it keeps going forever but anyway ...

If the pencil tilts to whatever side, it will fall in whatever direction it tilts. This means either the fraction is approaching zero (critical is much larger than actual) or it goes to infinity (actual much larger than critical). In cosmological terms, if it approaches zero, basically nothing happens. And if it goes to infinity the universe will expand very rapidly and just as quickly collapse onto itself.

It just so happens that Omega's value in our universe is slightly above 1 (1.006 to be exact). Obviously, this means our universe is highly, highly ordered. But remember, with every half-life, inflation is slowing down, meaning the critical mass density that depends on the rate of expansion will get smaller and smaller, driving the value of Omega away from 1, and away from uniformity.

Conclusion, considering our universe is highly ordered, it had to be one of the earliest, if not the first universes. Any other future ones will not be as uniform.

I hope this makes sense to you because I'm still trying to make sense of it myself.

That actually makes a lot of sense. It would be wonderful if that was corroborated elsewhere as well.

On the fine tuning front you say inflation might be the cause of it but it doesn't diminish from the fact that it is fine tuned, even if there was one process that did it all. It is still miraculous that it was fine tuned for life in mind.

Silvertusk wrote:That actually makes a lot of sense. It would be wonderful if that was corroborated elsewhere as well.

We shall see.

Silvertusk wrote:On the fine tuning front you say inflation might be the cause of it but it doesn't diminish from the fact that it is fine tuned, even if there was one process that did it all. It is still miraculous that it was fine tuned for life in mind.

Certainly. The fact that we may have an explanation as to the 'How' says absolutely nothing about 'by Whom' (primary cause) and for what purpose.

I see what you're asking. I'm not entirely certain the BICEP2 data was concluded by looking at the CMB. Did you read that somewhere? I believe the observation was direct evidence of quantum waves, i.e. direct evidence a split second after the big bang.

e.g. here http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blo ... ackground/

They look at the CMB.

Edit: or here http://www.nature.com/news/how-astronom ... ng-1.14885

Well, imagine that photons created those 400 000 years after, were hit by gravitational wave from somewhere going in the direction towards the photons. It would left imprints on their polarization. Now because it is 400 000 years after the Big Bang, universe is transparent for them and they can freely travel and one day they hit our Earth.

So we see a snapshot of our universe 400 000 years after the Big Bang. This snapshot is influenced by gravitational waves leaving imprints on the photons that create this snapshot.

Edit: note: gravitational waves were everywhere. As space expanded so the gravitational waves (and electromagnetic).

You're right Hana, they in fact did look at the CMB to detect the gravitational waves called B modes. Your 2nd link explained how they were able to do that even though the CMB did not come about until 400,000 years later. Here's a quote:

What are we seeing in BICEP2's snapshots of the CMB polarization?
The most important result we’re focused on is the implications of the signal we detected for models of inflation. We are seeing a direct image of a [primordial] gravitational wave, causing light to be polarized in a particular way. The CMB is a snapshot of the Universe 380,000 years after the Big Bang, when the radiation first streamed freely into space, but the gravitational-wave signal was imprinted on the CMB a tiny fraction of a second after the birth of the Universe.

Note the bolded and underlined part. The CMB photons were released 400,000 years later when the universe cooled down enough but they were ever present from the beginning in the hot dense state prior to release. The imprint of the gravitational wave signals occurred almost immediately. The image was simply released along with its carriers (the CMB photons) 400,000 years later.

A quote from the article:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-26605974

British scientist Dr Jo Dunkley, who has been searching through data from the European Planck space telescope for a B-mode signal, commented: "I can't tell you how exciting this is. Inflation sounds like a crazy idea, but everything that is important, everything we see today - the galaxies, the stars, the planets - was imprinted at that moment, in less than a trillionth of a second. If this is confirmed, it's huge."

I must admit this idea is incredible strong evidence of design and a creator.

Silvertusk wrote:A quote from the article:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-26605974

British scientist Dr Jo Dunkley, who has been searching through data from the European Planck space telescope for a B-mode signal, commented: "I can't tell you how exciting this is. Inflation sounds like a crazy idea, but everything that is important, everything we see today - the galaxies, the stars, the planets - was imprinted at that moment, in less than a trillionth of a second. If this is confirmed, it's huge."

I must admit this idea is incredible strong evidence of design and a creator.

If a British scientist can see it, anybody can!

Byblos wrote:You're right Hana, they in fact did look at the CMB to detect the gravitational waves called B modes. Your 2nd link explained how they were able to do that even though the CMB did not come about until 400,000 years later. Here's a quote:

What are we seeing in BICEP2's snapshots of the CMB polarization?
The most important result we’re focused on is the implications of the signal we detected for models of inflation. We are seeing a direct image of a [primordial] gravitational wave, causing light to be polarized in a particular way. The CMB is a snapshot of the Universe 380,000 years after the Big Bang, when the radiation first streamed freely into space, but the gravitational-wave signal was imprinted on the CMB a tiny fraction of a second after the birth of the Universe.

Note the bolded and underlined part. The CMB photons were released 400,000 years later when the universe cooled down enough but they were ever present from the beginning in the hot dense state prior to release. The imprint of the gravitational wave signals occurred almost immediately. The image was simply released along with its carriers (the CMB photons) 400,000 years later.

Hmm It doesn't seem to me. I need to think about this.

Here it is from the horse's mouth so-to-speak. In a brief video (< 10 mins) Alan Guth describes the inflationary model and very emphatically states, even though the model may very well be eternal into the future, current mathematics do not support in any way that it is eternal into the past (the basis under which he and Vilenkin/Borde formulated the BVG throem).

In other words, as Rick said, kick the can ...

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVFX5aJSxKg[/youtube]

Byblos wrote:Here it is from the horse's mouth so-to-speak. In a brief video (< 10 mins) Alan Guth describes the inflationary model and very emphatically states, even though the model may very well be eternal into the future, current mathematics do not support in any way that it is eternal into the past (the basis under which he and Vilenkin/Borde formulated the BVG throem).

In other words, as Rick said, kick the can ...

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVFX5aJSxKg[/youtube]

Listening to that though Byblos - it does seem that your idea that we are living in the first universe is more feasible as the decay get more an more disordered as the space continues to expand.