Where did the Universe come from?
Part 1: Einstein’s Big Blunder
100 years ago, Albert Einstein published three papers that rocked the world. These papers proved the existence of the atom, introduced the theory of relativity, and described quantum mechanics.
Pretty good debut for a 26 year old scientist, huh?
His equations for relativity indicated that the universe was expanding. This bothered him, because if it was expanding, it must have had a beginning and a beginner.
Since neither of these appealed to him, Einstein introduced a ‘fudge factor’ that ensured a ‘steady state’ universe, one that had no beginning or end.
But in 1929, Edwin Hubble showed that the furthest galaxies were fleeing away from each other, just as the Big Bang model predicted. So in 1931, Einstein embraced what would later be known as the Big Bang theory, saying, “This is the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of creation to which I have ever listened.” He referred to the ‘fudge factor’ to achieve a steady-state universe as the biggest blunder of his career.
As I’ll explain during the next couple of days, Einstein’s theories have been thoroughly proved and verified by experiments and measurements. But there’s an even more important implication of Einstein’s discovery. Not only does the universe have a beginning, but time itself, our own dimension of cause and effect, began with the Big Bang.
That’s right — time itself does not exist before then. The very line of time begins with that creation event. Matter, energy, time and space were created in an instant by an intelligence outside of space and time.
About this intelligence, Albert Einstein wrote in his book “The World As I See It” that the harmony of natural law “Reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.”*
He went on to write, “Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe–a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble.”*
Pretty significant statement, wouldn’t you say?
Stay tuned for tomorrow’s installment: “Bird Droppings on my Telescope.”
Respectfully Submitted,
Perry Marshall
*Einstein quotes are from “Einstein and Religion: Physics and Theology” by Max Jammer
Download The First 3 Chapters of Evolution 2.0 For Free, Here – https://evo2.org/evolution/Where Did Life And The Genetic Code Come From? Can The Answer Build Superior AI? The #1 Mystery In Science Now Has A $10 Million Prize. Learn More About It, Here – https://www.herox.com/evolution2.0
Cant time be a form of energy?
which will be left when the universe will end and then convert itself in another form to create the universe again……
Time is not energy. The universe will not recreate itself, it can’t because of entropy. You can’t burn the same candle twice.
God is the owner of everything and he is closed to us more than our seeing and everything happening has been fanalised by him only our special concern to him can make changes.For your interest miracles also base on system and materials.Your are half right there are definitely codes in DNA but they are made through energy ,procedure same as audio&video but in alive body through energy all things makes their audio vedio vision same as God made them when these thing come through energy in DNA disc they manifest them in unaccountable agles .With passage of time makes a trillion times complicated spectrum,i,e a ball come in closed chamber with pressure and give a lot of colliding agles.The question should what is the cpacity of space and with how much speed a single reflection can be draw out from this spectrum is a artificial Intelegence.By this research a alive body can be a more faster and more Intelegent.Yes our needs of physics derive this spectrum(I shall wait for your supporting respone for futher discussion because I assure tornado ,rain and clouds etc. also abide by some Gode given laws that function same as.
“That’s right — time itself does not exist before then. The very line of time begins with that creation event. Matter, energy, time and space were created in an instant by an intelligence outside of space and time.”
I guess I’m going to need some definitions…this paragraph presently reads, it is pretty non-sensical. Here’s why:
BEGINS: You say time begins with the Big Bang. I don’t see how that could be possible. The word ‘begin’ typically means that a thing was previously didn’t exist, came into being. But, if that’s true, then you can’t say “time began.” That implies that there was a time before time, so to speak.
CREATION: Pretty much the same problem as above. When a thing is created, that means it wasn’t there BEFORE (i.e. at a temporally prior location). But, given the lack of temporal priority with respect to the Big Bang, it simply doesn’t make sense to talk about the Big Bang being a “creation.” Certainly the Big Bang could have, and obviously did, create things…but according to our agreed upon framework, we simply cannot consistently talk about the Big Bang itself being “created.” The claim just doesn’t make any sense.
INTELLIGENCE: In other places you’ve made extensive use of argument by analogy. In your communication/information sections (of which I have independent critiques, should you be interested), you make it very clear that “All communication systems that we know of are designed. There are no known exceptions to this.” The conclusion you want us to draw is that it is HIGHLY UNLIKELY, if not impossible, that there be an un-designed communication system. So let’s use an argument by analogy. All known intelligence exists within space and time (well, certainly within time, perhaps the space thing is debatable depending on prior metaphysical commitments…at the very least, all the things to which I attribute intelligence certainly exist within space and time). So, it is HIGHLY UNLIKELY, if not impossible, that an intelligence is outside space and/or time. (Note: I say “attribute to” because to my knowledge intelligence is still a pretty hazy concept. We certainly CALL things intelligent, but when we try to pin down the “essence” of intelligence, it it always eludes us. At best, what we do is observe behavior and and then just assert the thing HAS intelligence, as if it were an object to be possessed. However, no one has ever observed intelligence per se. So, since it not clear to me that there is anything over and above the behavior that prompts us to say of a thing it is intelligent, I use the neutral terminology of “attribute to.” Daniel Dennett is probably the foremost defender of this view. He calls it the ‘intentional stance.’ But Dennet actually does assert there is nothing over and above the behavior…I’m undecided on the issue.)
So perhaps you use these words differently than most other English speakers. Which is fine, but in order for me to accurately assess your claims, I’m going to need to know how they are being used. If not, then you run the risk of turning this into a ‘Humpty-Dumpty’ conversation.
Overall comments: Maybe you address these issues in later installments, but if not, they do need to be addressed.
First, I’m not even sure what it means to be “outside space and time.” Granted, the English language allows that combination of words…it is a syntactically well-formed formula (a ‘wff’ as the lingo calls it), but being a wff, and being meaningful aren’t obviously the same thing. I’m reminded of the cliched Chomsky example: “Green ideas sleep furiously.” Certainly it’s a grammatically pristine sentence…but if it has meaning I couldn’t tell you what it is. “Outside space and time” certainly appears to be the same way…It’s a correctly formed prepositional phrase, but being well formed doesn’t instantly make it meaningful.
Second, there is the problem of interaction. Pretending that “outside space and time” has a meaning, it’s pretty unclear how this interaction is supposed to work. The most plausible meaning of this phrase would imply a complete isolation of the Intelligence from space and time. You at least owe us a mechanism by which the interaction occurs.
Also, it’s not clear that your claim of the Big Bang disobeying matter/energy conservation is applicable. Matter/Energy conservation is a rule of physics. Physics deals exclusively with spatio-temporally bound things. As noted before, the Big Bang didn’t take place in time…so why should conservation laws apply to it? Or you can think of it this way…the energy of a system is a function of both time and space (e.g. how fast air molecules are moving (time) within a balloon (space) gives you the energy of the system…The same amount of air in a smaller balloon would yield more energy as would the same amount of motion in a shorter time interval). So, the limit of both approach zero, the energy grows. Of course, the thing with limits is that you never actually get there, hence, you never actually get to apply any laws AT t=0.
Don’t get me wrong, I respect what you’re trying to do. It’s a lot more effective, and interesting, than the proto-typical approaches to your goal. Furthermore, I think you can appeal to a demographic than most “missionaries”…namely the world of academia. You have an interdisciplinary approach and you are attempting to use some of the hottest topics in discussion today. However, I haven’t seen anywhere where you actually engage in a real debate with anyone other than lay-people. If you want to be taken seriously by academics, you’re going to have engage actual academics at some point…not just “pop-science” readers.
P.S. If you have a transcript from where you have engaged in debate with someone who is established and respected in their respective field, I’d love to have a copy of it.
vYzion
Time has a beginning because there is no “before.” There is nothing, not even time. Not in this dimension anyway. There may have been other things in other dimensions but they are undetectable.
Creation: Ditto as with time, just 3 different dimensions.
Yes, it is highly unlikely that there is an un-designed comm. system.
Outside space and time: In Matrix Theory (Linear Algebra) dimensions are just as easily posited as adding more x’s y’s and z’s. You can deal with 26 dimensions if you want, no problem. The only problem is your ability to conceptualize them. But mathematically all of these things are perfectly logical. Saying something is outside of space and time is no different than saying “outside of this red box.” They are just boundaries.
You could describe God as transcending ALL possible dimensions. An extension of the idea of infinity.
You are right, one can argue that without a universe there is no law of physics to apply to anything. But you’re still left with the question “why did something come into being instead of remaining nothing?”
Not only did the universe come into being, but also its laws. Adding to the mystery. Philosophically you cannot take either for granted.
Debate: Listen to “Origin of Life The English Way.”
Academics: I take all comers. You will see more of what you ask for in the near future.
I concour that the universe is expanding, my question is if it´s so where is the new espace comes from?, it´s been created along with the universe as is expanding?
One possibility is that it is expanding into the Multiverse.
A string theory for the Multiverses and its universes may be found in:
http://knol.google.com/k/implications-of-a-conjectured-multiverse-string-theory-in-26-dimensions#
Richard Ruquist
Forrest:
Is there a problem when sometimes in the future , Europe will be a totally Muslim continent?
If your speculation is correct and fulfilled , the one that become Muslims are the European themselves and if for argumental sake one of that Muslims might be you , will you still be a good man? You rule your own life my dear friend , every religion propose sets of good conducts , their understanding of these conducts are the things that may mislead them or make them a better man.
I am a retired science professor, and thought earth sciences for 30 years. I have a different theory for the origin of the universe. To me, the universe isn’t expanding. Instead, it is rotating around the first black hole formed after the big-bang, and the big-bang is the word of God. When God said, let the light be, the first virtual particles were formed. The Higgs particle or God’s particles that scientists are looking for at CERN, with the LHC, is, to me the big-bang. Singularity is also, to me the point of no return or the border between the physical universe and God’s kingdom. That’s why the four forces, become into one at singularity, matter does not exist or just disappear. So, God is the creator of the universe, and the universe is rotating as a whirlpool around the first black hole just formed after God’s word or big-bang. The expansion is an optical illusion, ’cause the universe is so huge, that expansion appear to be real, but if the universe was created by God, it can’t be expanding for ever and ever, because the only eternal is God, and anything created will have an end. That’s why the bible says that the universe will be transformed into a new one. To me, black holes are the dynamo that energizes the universe as a whole, and eats all the matter and bigger black holes also eats smaller ones, ’til all matter disappear and all the universe will be new. I already modified Einstein equation from E=M times C2 to Vp= DE times DM divided into C infinity. The 4th force is the one that holds the earth suspended in orbit. And finally, to me the terms space and time, are wrongly used in science. Space and time doesn’t exist in the universe. To be real, space should be some kind of matter, and time is the earth rotational movement. Will continue……….
Hi Perry,
I have enjoyed the video and it is all understandable, acceptable, and not refutable. I sincerely appreciate your effort and intelligence in boiling it all down. I do indeed believe in God’s existence. Always have. By faith of course, not science. Though the science angle certainly confirms the faith and for some it may move them toward a faith in God. For that alone your work is good and noble. 🙂
It’s religion that seems to be the more pressing issue for mankind however. Jesus was the only man I think who claimed to be the only way to God and at the same time IS God. And He by all accounts defeated death to prove it. It seems THAT is a more difficult thing to believe than whether God exists. And of course there are seemingly endless other religions to boot, all acknowledging a single God via a prophet, or guru, or enlightened being. Sadly some of them still feel the need to kill those with opposing views even today. I chose to believe in Jesus for obvious reasons. All religions require faith in their story, but Jesus gave us a win or lose proposition. It seems risky NOT to believe Jesus’s claim, and there is certainly no harm in believing it. But many choose to believe in God alone instead, and abandon religion altogether.
So the question that mankind seems to be asking is not whether God exists but rather: “God exists. So what?” And thus we have religions.
I’d like to hear some rational and calm thoughts from you and others on this if you would allow it.
Respectfully,
Don West