His theory of General Relativity is the fifth line of scientific evidence that the universe had a beginning, and its discovery was the beginning of the end for the idea that the universe is eternal. The theory itself, which has been verified to five decimal places, demands an absolute beginning for time, space, and matter. It shows that time, space, and matter are co-relative. That is, they are interdependent--you can't have one without the others. From General Relativity, scientists predicted and then found the expanding universe, the radiation afterglow, and the great galaxy seeds that were precisely tweaked to allow the universe to form into its present state. Add these discoveries to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and we have five lines of powerful scientific evidence that the universe had a beginning--a beginning, we might say, that came in a great SURGE. **Jastrow reveals in the opening line of chapter 1 that he has no religious axe to grind. He writes, "When an astronomer writes about God, his colleagues assume he is either over the hill or going bonkers. In my case it should be understood from the start that I am an agnostic in religious matters." In light of Jastrow's personal agnosticism, his theistic quotations are all the more provocative. After explaining some of the Big Bang evidence we've just reviewed, Jastrow writes, "Now we see how the astronomical evidence leads to a biblical view of the origin of the world. The details differ, but the essential elements in the asronomical and biblical accounts in genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy. The overwhelming evidence for the Big Bang and its consistency with the biblical account in Genesis led Jastrow to observe in an interview, "Astronomers now find they have painted themselves into a corner because they have proven, by their own methods, that the world began abruptly in an act of creation to which you can trace the seeds of every star, every planet. every living thing in this cosmos and on the earth. And they have found that all this happened as a product of forces they cannot hope to discover...That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact." By evoking the supernatural, Jastrow echoes the conclusions of Einstein contemporary Arthur Eddington. As we mentioned earlier. although he found it "repugnant," Eddington admitted, "The beginning seems to present insuperable difficulties unless we agree to look on it as franly supernatural." Now why would Jastrow and Eddington admit that there are "supernatural" forces at work? Why couldn't natural forces have produced the universe? Because these scientists know as well as anyone that natural forces--indeed all of nature--were created at the Big Bang. In other words, the Big Bang was the beginning point for the entire physical universe. Time, space, and matter came into existence at that point. There was no natural world or natural law prior to the Big Bang. Since a cause cannot come after its effect, natural forces cannot account for the Big Bang. Therefore, there must be something outside of nature to do the job.
I believe that you have made some valid scientific points, and the physics you describe appears to be decent. Indeed general relativity is great at describing how celestial bodies interact. The problem is that as we go back in time to a tiny fraction of a second after the theoretical big bang, quantum mechanics must be invoked due to the incredibly tiny size of the universe. Quantum mechanics and general relativity are utterly incompatible at the point of the bang. Because of this it is so far impossible to prove the big bang theory by invoking general relativity (or quantum mechanics for that matter). I agree that there is incredible circumstantial evidence for the big bang occurring, but by no means has it been proved. Even a solution of a quantum field theory of gravity such as string theory has not been worked out completely. If and when a solution is found, if it is in string theory, there are as of now no technological ways of proving such a theory. Still, if there is proof that the big bang is the source of the universe, it is hard to say what the source of the big bang itself is. We may need new physics, or we may find that it is impossible to know, as Heisenberg proved there are limits to what we can know.
1) I didn't say it was proven. I said that other scientific evidences support it (such as GR) 2) I agree that it may very well be impossible to say what the source of the Big Bang was--But I, personally can say beyond reasonable doubt that it wouldn't be a natural cause given other evidences. I don't think new physics would help as far as a first cause goes. 3) Heisenberg's uncertainty principle eh. I think he was saying that any measuring process involves an interaction which would alter the values to atleast some extent. Thats not to say that we can't get extremely close though (dare I say close enough? )
General relativity supports the big bang theory part of the time. Once a theory fails, we know that it does not describe the universe in full, it may fail elsewhere even. We use Newton's laws because they are applicable in many cases, but we certainly don't take them seriously as the defining laws of nature. I certainly agree, general relativity is great circumstantial evidence of the big bang. What I do not agree with is how any of this shows that something outside of nature caused the universe to be as it is. How can you say beyond a reasonable doubt that something natural did not cause the bang? I would like to hear your reasoning because I see no evidence that shows some brilliant mind in the future cannot physically describe what happened (or prove that it is impossible to know). I see no proof that there were no strange laws of nature before the big bang just as I see no proof that there were no laws at all before the big bang. At this point in science, this is essentially a philosophical question to consider. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle defines how close we can never be to knowing what is happening. This is beside the point as I use uncertainty more as an example that the laws of physics sometimes tell us that we can never know certain things about the universe. Perhaps there are other limits in knowledge we have yet to discover. I would like to point out that I am a big fan of the big bang theory and I am not trying to say that supernatural powers do not exist. Perhaps the supernatural power created something and that something led to the big bang. Or it created something that led to something...that led to something that led to the big bang. It is most important in science to keep an open mind about what is possible until there is any legitimate proof.
Many physicists say there was nothing before the Big Bang. The OTHER scientific findings support this (may not 100% prove). If, at one point, there was nothing, then there could be no laws of nature. Unless you describe nature as nothingness--it could not have existed before this explosion. This is why I believe there was a supernatural Creator. Logically, it makes sense considering the chain of evidences that seem to point in that direction (once again, they may not prove but they suggest). And I was careful as to how I phrased my belief. I was leaving room for error... Tell this to the Darwinists. They are STILL lacking "legitimate proof."
LMAO!!! Are you seriously saying something like this in a thread about the big bang... you really best check yourself.
You must not pay attention very well... Other scientific evidences strongly support the Big Bang. I haven't claimed that the Big Bang has been Proven. On the other hand...NO scientific proofs support (or prove for that matter) the Darwinist view.
I am treating pre-big bang physics as if the universe is simply a result of a grander scheme. Similar to viewing the formation of a star as part of the grander scheme of the current known universe. I have read of too many great thinkers that have declared all of science is essentially known, only to have the rug pulled from underneath them and the new age of thinking begins. Similar to the big bang theory, there is great circumstantial evidence for the theory of evolution. Right now it is by far the best theory to explain the extreme diversity of life on earth, yet, it is still a theory. I believe it is even worse off than the big bang theory as there is little mathematics to back up its claims. On the other hand, I cannot even think of even a semi-logical 2nd explanation to explain the diversity of life on planet earth. Looking far past the physics and mathematics, I personally view the universe we know as the best evidence of a Creator. Perhaps my mind is too simple to understand the universe, but it seems too beautiful and improbable to have happened by accident. Then again maybe there are millions of universes all with different laws of physics and the one we reside in is the one out a million that can harbor life.
I couldn't agree with you more. Entertaining yourself with a bit o' Hawking? If anything, I give that man tons of respect lasting that long with ALS and STILL continuing his work. Great attitude!
Hawking is probably the most famous physicist today, but I don't think I would consider him one of the greatest of the day. That title would probably go to Edward Witten. However when you consider what Hawking has had to deal with medically during his professional career, he certainly has one of the greatest minds of our time. This man can solve path integrals completely IN HIS HEAD! Geez, give me a full week, a reference book, and a pad of paper and maybe I can do the same. He is certainly someone I would like to meet someday.