News: Hawking on God (Again)

[renormalised (Carl)]

Just think of where science will be by the end of this century, or 100 years from now. What we know now will most likely seem quaint.

[mjc (Mark)]

Originally Posted by sjastro

We already know that many of the laws of physics such as the conservation laws are a consequence of mathematical symmetry.
Instead of the mathematics simply describing the conservation laws, the laws can only exist due to the underlying symmetry.

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Noether...ryTheorem.html

Did mathematics exist prior to the Big Bang? Quantum field theory says yes.
In fact the Big Bang may have been the result of symmetry breaking.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symmetry_breaking
Steven

It's taken me a while to digest this - thanks very much - I think I'm learning something that I didn't even have a handle on before.

Would I be correct in saying that if many of the laws of physics are a consequence of mathematical symmetry - and the bifurcation process breaking some of that symmetry that:

a) the birfurcation process in non-temporal (its a mathematical sequence that exists independent of time)? (I ask this because I'm uncomfortable about things happening "before" the BB.)

b) that no bifurcation branch is special - they're all just different - and that all exist?

If the answer to question b) is true then it must be the case that one cannot preclude that multiple universes arose at the same time as the one that we experience - but it could be that the one that we experience is the only viable one (however one wants to interpret that). Have I missed the dart board all together here?

Thanks all
Mark C.

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by mjc

It's taken me a while to digest this - thanks very much - I think I'm learning something that I didn't even have a handle on before.

Would I be correct in saying that if many of the laws of physics are a consequence of mathematical symmetry - and the bifurcation process breaking some of that symmetry that:

a) the birfurcation process in non-temporal (its a mathematical sequence that exists independent of time)? (I ask this because I'm uncomfortable about things happening "before" the BB.)

b) that no bifurcation branch is special - they're all just different - and that all exist?

If the answer to question b) is true then it must be the case that one cannot preclude that multiple universes arose at the same time as the one that we experience - but it could be that the one that we experience is the only viable one (however one wants to interpret that). Have I missed the dart board all together here?

Thanks all
Mark C.

My 2 cents worth & as an aside, (until Steven responds):

Sounds logical to me, Mark;

It seems to me that most descriptions about 'origins' in Mainstream Science are about what happened during infinitesimally tiny intervals immediately after the Big Bang, (except for the maths you are probing here).

This would seem to be because all we can do as present-day-humans is to garner information we know about the present and at best, extrapolate it in reverse (ie: into the past).

We had an interesting discussion in the 'Higgs' thread, (following the mysterious locking of this thread yesterday), about 'nothing' and perhaps there was 'nothing' before the Big Bang, perhaps not.

But your questions are probing the interdependence of symmetry-breaking and time, huh ? In Quantum Physics/Field Theory, does 'nothing' before the Big Bang include the symmetry-breaking process ? (In quantum physics I think there cannot be a "nothing", because of the uncertainty principle ...?)

Very cool question ... but at the end of this discussion there can be only ...










Cheers & Rgds.
Over to Steven ...

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by mjc

It's taken me a while to digest this - thanks very much - I think I'm learning something that I didn't even have a handle on before.

Would I be correct in saying that if many of the laws of physics are a consequence of mathematical symmetry - and the bifurcation process breaking some of that symmetry that:

a) the birfurcation process in non-temporal (its a mathematical sequence that exists independent of time)? (I ask this because I'm uncomfortable about things happening "before" the BB.)

Symmetry breaking is independent of time.

The process of symmetry breaking involves a Lagrangian which is a measurement of a dynamical system in terms of it's kinetic and potential energies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian
If the system is symmetrical, the Lagrangian doesn't change when subjected to certain mathematical operations such as rotations, spatial and time displacement etc. The Lagrangian is said to be invariant.
The symmetry is broken when the Lagrangian is no longer invariant.

Depending on the initial symmetry and the type of Lagrangian, symmetry breaking can manifest itself in various physical ways such as the creation of W and Z bosons to inflation in the early Universe.

b) that no bifurcation branch is special - they're all just different - and that all exist?

If the answer to question b) is true then it must be the case that one cannot preclude that multiple universes arose at the same time as the one that we experience - but it could be that the one that we experience is the only viable one (however one wants to interpret that). Have I missed the dart board all together here?

It's not the case that symmetry breaking leads to an infinite number of physical outcomes of which our Universe represents a particular outcome. (The anthropic principle). Rather as mentioned previously a physical outcome is based on the type of symmetry and Lagrangian defined.

It's possible a mathematical gauge field existed prior to the BB. The BB may have originated from the breaking of an (unknown) specific symmetry with an (unknown) specific Lagrangian.

Regards

Steven

[sjastro]

http://physicsworld.com/blog/2010/09...g_and_god.html

Regards

Steven

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by sjastro

http://physicsworld.com/blog/2010/09...g_and_god.html

Regards

Steven

Classical 'Physics' (aether) => Modern Physics (BBT, Higgs Field) => Quantum Physics/QFT (Gauge fields, Symmetry Breaking, W&Z Bosons, Gravitons) => String theories => M-Theory (touching 2D Branes floating in a higher dimension space with unified Quantum Physics & GR).

Lots of leap-frogging. Lots of Maths. So few people understanding it all...

I had to chuckle at the interviewer's questions ... eg: "How many more years until you (physicists) find it all out ?"

Thanks Steven.
Cheers

[netwolf]

Even Einstien once made a Blunder (expanding universe), so shall we not learn to be humble in the search for knowledge. Or are we so self asured that the cup of knowledge is now full?

I recall at a Macuqarie uni Astronomy night they had a lecuture about the Universe. I dont recall the name of the gentelmen who prsented. However I recall soemthing he said. Science is about understanding the function of things, how they work and it is not for the understanding of purpose.

We quarel so much in the world about what is the purpose and intent of others. We can not even know the purpose behind our childrens action nor our parents, unless they tell us.

Science and Religion have there place. One gives Function the other provides purpose. What you chose to setup as your purpose in life is your religion, it determines how you will behave. Yet only via something called Trust can we come to know the purpose of another human being. While we may think we can mesure there actions and determine there fucntion we can not know what is there purpose. That is one human to another. Even with all our knowledge of the mind we still do not comprehend its purpose through Science. How then do we preseume to understand something much much more complicated.


Knowing how it works does not give us answers to why its here.

[Omaroo (Chris Malikoff)]

Fahim - why does anything celestial require a purpose at all? It just "is". To assume that there may be a purpose to it is essentially, and nothing more than, human. Everything we humans have the power to do requires of us a decision to do it. To assume that of everything is, I think, wrong.

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by netwolf

Even Einstien once made a Blunder (expanding universe), so shall we not learn to be humble in the search for knowledge. Or are we so self asured that the cup of knowledge is now full?

I recall at a Macuqarie uni Astronomy night they had a lecuture about the Universe. I dont recall the name of the gentelmen who prsented. However I recall soemthing he said. Science is about understanding the function of things, how they work and it is not for the understanding of purpose.

We quarel so much in the world about what is the purpose and intent of others. We can not even know the purpose behind our childrens action nor our parents, unless they tell us.

Science and Religion have there place. One gives Function the other provides purpose. What you chose to setup as your purpose in life is your religion, it determines how you will behave. Yet only via something called Trust can we come to know the purpose of another human being. While we may think we can mesure there actions and determine there fucntion we can not know what is there purpose. That is one human to another. Even with all our knowledge of the mind we still do not comprehend its purpose through Science. How then do we preseume to understand something much much more complicated.


Knowing how it works does not give us answers to why its here.

Perhaps there is no purpose?

I was once challenged to demonstrate "Purpose", silently, (no language or visuals), with only a bunch of pins and paperclips. I took about an hour or so, to convince judges that I'd succeeded.

I was then challenged to demonstrate "demonstrate" ... That took hours !

One of the many points learned via the experience was that "purpose" is given meaning, only by humans. And humans rarely agree on the meanings we associate with the demonstration of "purpose".
Demonstrations are for an audience .. demonstrations are only done by humans because they are only defined by human observations. And almost never do humans agree on the meanings they associate with demonstrations.

I'd say that separates Nature from our interpretation of it.

Cheers

[netwolf]

Not knowing its purpose does not mean there isnt one. Most of the members her in this group are hear because the like to look at the stars, so have the stars provided in some small way an inspiration for them to learn about Astronomy?

What stops human beings from complete anarchy and chaos? More human beings chose a purpose that does not lead to those for all. Unfortunately we do have people who act from self interest and will create problems.

We can agree to disagree, I chose to belive in a universe that has purpose that inspires me to understand it better. Like finding the form hidden inside a block of stone. Or the unlocking the music of the Universe as Einstein once said Mozart's music "was so pure that it seemed to have been ever-present in the universe, waiting to be discovered by the master"

But we still have this question, can we have laws without a universe? Can we find the laws pre-universe, and how the Translated to the laws post universe? And if there is a pre-universe law, then how did that come to be?

[CraigS]

Cool words .....
Good onya, Fahim ..

Cheers & Rgds

[bojan]

Originally Posted by netwolf

But we still have this question, can we have laws without a universe? Can we find the laws pre-universe, and how the Translated to the laws post universe? And if there is a pre-universe law, then how did that come to be?

Depends on the definition of the universe, I guess
What we call "universe" is obviously not the whole thing ...

[netwolf]

Bojan, so have the laws change from the time the universe started and now?
Do we have any evidence of this?

[bojan]

Why would the laws change?
I am guessing the assumptions is that they didn't change.
Otherwise the calculations on universe evolution since BB would be impossible.

And, if the laws did change, and we know how... then we can again do all the calculations.. by just taking this new law(s) into account.

[avandonk]

Fahim the moral compass a society uses should not burn people at the stake for pointing out the Earth is not the centre of the Universe.

Religiosity is not the only source of moral values. Cooperation and altruism that exists within a species, exists due to evolution. Basically this is to treat others as you would like to be treated yourself. Any social species that feeds on its young for example would not last long.

My major objection to any religion getting involved in competing with science is that in the past this was always a misuse of power by mere men in order to protect that very earthly power that they generally decreed was given to them exclusively by some god. It was never about the higher things it was about earthly power and wealth.

Science and religion are not mutually exclusive. One has to be very careful in drawing any conclusions based on one and then applied to the other.

You are correct that we all have a purpose. This is to take the wondrous journey of life and take in and enjoy all the things our senses tell us. There is no such thing as destiny. It is up to each one of us to take responsibility for our own path.

It might be worth your while to google 'fine structure constant'. This may go some way in answering why the so called 'constants' do not vary with time.

Or here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-structure_constant

Bert

[Brundah1 (David)]

Very interesting discussion.

Glad everyone settled down in this discussion with mutual respect.

I generally agree with Bert and Fahim's comments separating cause and purpose discussions.

Study in comparative religions only confirms the human frailty in defining purpose and the global devastation from the outcomes of superior self righteousness.

The above does not reduce the possibility of a power (such as gravity) being the origin of purpose.

As others have suggested Hawking is one of many brilliant minds on this small planet.

David

[Bassnut (Fred)]

Originally Posted by netwolf

I chose to belive in a universe that has purpose that inspires me to understand it better.

Thats a shame, sounds limiting. Why is purpose so important?, couldnt the need for purpose just be a human construct?.

Originally Posted by avandonk

Science and religion are not mutually exclusive.Bert

Really?, Seems to me they would be if there is/are no God(s) .

[avandonk]

Originally Posted by Bassnut

Thats a shame, sounds limiting. Why is purpose so important?, couldnt the need for purpose just be a human construct?.



Really?, Seems to me they would be if there is/are no God(s) .

You are quite correct from where I sit Fred. I always throw the deluded a rope so I can hang them with it when they get closer!

All jokes aside. When are so called rational humans going to realize that any so called religious thoughts are a construct of your brain. This is a remnant of evolution! I find this an even more exquisite barb to shoot at the fundies.

I honestly am fearful for the future as so many know so little about so few subjects. They are so easily led by the unscrupulous. These people peddle simple answers to very complex problems.

We are not out of the middle ages but heading towards them. It is as if the renaissance never happened!

We only have to look at what is happening in the USA. Over 25% of americans think that Obama is a Moslem. Now where was this fallacy spawned?

It is still the seemingly ignorant leading the the ignorant for their own purposes.


Does the expression 'she is a witch' remind you how stupid mobs can get.

Bert

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by avandonk

I honestly am fearful for the future as so many know so little about so few subjects. They are so easily led by the unscrupulous. These people peddle simple answers to very complex problems.

We are not out of the middle ages but heading towards them. It is as if the renaissance never happened!

We only have to look at what is happening in the USA. Over 25% of americans think that Obama is a Moslem. Now where was this fallacy spawned?

It is still the seemingly ignorant leading the the ignorant for their own purposes.


Does the expression 'she is a witch' remind you how stupid mobs can get.

Bert

Bert, you focus on the cup being half empty !
The US is after all, .... the US!
What of elsewhere ? Like Oz ?

Cheers

[avandonk]

CraigS we are only a bit behind. We did send our brave boys into a useless war or two again did we not? These two wars and the reasons for them were based on lies and fabricated scenarios including religious nonsense!

When our leaders go and fight and send their own sons I will follow! With a stretcher to pick up the wounded and dead.

Bert