11th December 2014: A Quick Note

I know I haven’t posted much for a while as I have the joy that is coursework at the moment! So I had a meeting with my supervisor last week to discuss what I should do next. I feel confident in the research I have conducted so far but will post more about the debate/planning when I get a chance. I also have a meeting today to discuss my presentation and I will probably start drafting soon…

2nd November 2014: Seeing Red and Organising research

https://keychests.com/item.php?v=arrooiijjmo

Notes on ‘Seeing Red’:

  • ‘The Big Bang has, in reality, been toppled’ page ii of the preface
  • if the cause of the redshifts is not understood properly, distances can be wrong by factors of 10 to 100
  • it has been assumed that redshifts only mean ‘recession velocity’ (moving away from each other, expanding universe)
  • His conclusion is that the universe is not expanding…
    • distance between galaxies is great and light takes a considerable amount of time to get to us
    • so we see the galaxy as it was when the light left it (younger)
    • universe can be indefinitely large and will unfold itself from many points within itself
  • Friedmann solution, 1922 — page 249
    • assumption that particle masses are constant forever
    • led to expanding, curved space-time in which all redshifts are due to increased recession velocity with increasing distance
    • which then led to an observational contradiction which required extragalactic redshifts to be mostly age related, not velocity
  • Machian physics
    • simple solution that redshifts are proportional to particle masses and hence to their age since their creation.
    • leads to a predicted Hubble constant which depends on only one parameter, the inverse of the age of our galaxy – this agrees with the observations much better than the Big Bang theory does.

 

I have now started to organise my research to fit my argument…

How this has disproved the Creationist view…

  • Various versions of the multiverse
    • Parallel universes colliding
    • Infinite universes using all possible laws of physics to find a combination that works
  • Fluctuations in a quantum vacuum – I know this is a reason for the BB but am unsure as to why it is the most accepted
  • Dawkins daughter universes
    • Remove the idea of the chance of fine tuning
    • Universes ‘evolve’ so it’s not chance
    • The Anthropic principle

How it hasn’t disproved anything…

  • The idea of a beginning
    • Hubble Telescope and Red Shift – expanding universe, inflation = beginning
      • also add the other side of the red shift
    • In the 1960s, there was uproar at the idea that the universe may have a beginning.
    • Every relevant scripture in the Bible states that the universe began
    • Creationism has been postulating this for centuries and it is only now that scientific evidence has emerged that science has caught up with the idea of a beginning
    • BICEP2 and the Smoking Gun – inflation still proves beginning
  • Mechanism not agency (Einstein’s theory based on mechanism)
    • Aunt Matilda
    • Henry Ford
  • Multiverse – still doesn’t explain the First Cause (various versions only push back the point of creation)
  • Cosmological Argument
    • addresses the idea of a logical way to explain the universe’s existence with a Creator
  • The Anthropic principle (works for both sides)- very difficult to believe that the incredible fine-tuning is not because it was created by an all-powerful designer

2nd November 2014: Filling the gaps/organising research

I realised I haven’t posted anything for a while – I thought I had already posted this but apparently not! I’ve compiled a list of the discoveries I’ve been looking into to help me organise my research but also to find any gaps that I may need to research further (text in green is discoveries I have added).

1915: Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity

1929: Hubble Telescope, universe is expanding

1929: Red Shift, universe is expanding

1940s: estimated that background radiation should be a few degrees above absolute zero

1965: Background radiation measured at about 3.7°

1960s: suggested that universe had a beginning, BB proposed

Discovering how light elements are formed – need furnace like the BB

*1970s: Standard Model developed

  • 12 different matter particles and 4 forces
  • 6 quarks (make up protons and neutrons) and 6 leptons (make up electrons and neutral charged counterparts)
  • Gravity, electromagnetic, strong and weak (forces)
  • Can’t fit gravity in yet
  • Predicted existence of Higgs boson
  • http://science.howstuffworks.com/higgs-boson1.htm

 *2012: Large Hadron Collider and the Higgs Boson

  • Each force has a carrier particle, called a boson, that acts on matter
  • Higgs boson may have a similar function that transmits mass itself
  • What is matter doesn’t inherently have mass but gains mass by passing through a field (Higgs field)
  • Acts on particles differently
    • Photons pass through
    • Some bosons get mass
  • Everything that has mass gets it by passing through the Higgs field
  • Higgs carrier particle can affect other particles hence this can happen
  • Found a particle that behaves like the Higgs boson should

2014: BICEP2, discovery of gravitational ripples that could only be there if inflation happened

So, I tried contacting the experts from Reboot but neither of them got back to me which was a shame. Instead, I went to AllExperts and asked the question to Professor James Gort ‘where did the energy needed for quantum fluctuations come from?’ He replied very quickly and here is his response…

I’m afraid science doesn’t have an answer to the origin of the energy contained (and then released) in the quantum fluctuations. Nor does science have a good explanation of what “energy” actually is. Most of the equations (even in quantum field theory) start off with the Lagrangian (or Hamiltonian), which are just ways of writing potential and kinetic energy. But the concept of “energy” is unexplained.
  
From your question, I assume you are adopting the “classic” view of Big Bang cosmology – which is still argumentative. It is ‘generally’ assumed that the Big Bang occurred some 13.7 billion years ago. Although this idea is believed to be valid by the majority of cosmologists, it is by no means universally accepted. The “Big Bang”, based on Hubble’s velocity-distance relation and the microwave background radiation, is very much still a theory, and there are alternative theories. Some observations do not support an expanding universe or the Big Bang. There are several references concerning this, but perhaps the most authoritative person is Halton Arp, a leading astronomer and researcher on galaxies, who wrote “Seeing Red“. That book is highly recommended to get an alternative view.  Or read “A Different Approach to Cosmology” by Hoyle, Burbidge, and Narlikar.  That’s another great book which gives a scientific view on how the universe has always been in a steady state. I’ve attached a few references from Amazon.co.uk. If you’re interested, pick up one or more of these books. And please have an open mind. That’s the way science progresses. 

This was extremely useful to me and has prompted me to look into ‘Seeing Red’ as suggested (the underlined sections show the parts I found particularly useful).

18th October 2014: A little bit of the multiverse

The Internet at home has been a bit dodgy so haven’t been able to post for a while…

So I asked my cousin for the Focus magazine (which was in fact from March) and he did not have it anymore so I went to the website but was unable to read the article unless I subscribed (something I will probably not do for one article). I then decided to do an advanced search on Google to try do some more background work into the multiverse. This is the most accepted alternative to a Creator so I though I should understand the theory a bit better…

http://www.space.com/18811-multiple-universes-5-theories.html

  • Infinite Universes
    • Space-time is most likely to be flat, extending infinitely
    • If this is the case, it must start repeating – there is a finite number of ways particles can be arranged
    • This means there is an infinite number of people who may be doing the same or completely different things.
    • The observable universe extends only as far as light has been able to get in (so 13.7 billion years since BB, 13.7 billion light years)
    • Anything beyond that considered its own separate universe
    • Patchwork quilt of universes
  • Bubble Universes
    • Theory called eternal inflation
    • Inflation = universe expanding rapidly after BB
    • Possible that some pockets of space stopped inflating while other continue
    • All have different physical laws/fundamental constants, some support life
    • So, lots of bubbles
  • Parallel Universes
    • Hover just out of reach of our own
    • More dimensions than our 3 of space and 1 of time
    • Higher dimensional space
    • ‘Like a slice of bread in a grander cosmic loaf’
    • Aren’t always parallel/out of reach
      • Slam into each other causing BBs and so it all starts over again
    • Daughter Universes
      • Works on probability in quantum mechanics
      • All possible outcomes do occur in separate universes
        • e.g. in this universe (the present universe), you could either go left or right
        • This means there will be 2 further daughter universes for going left and right
      • Mathematical Universes
        • Is maths a tool for describing or the fundamental reality?
        • Maybe the particular mathematical structure that makes up our universe isn’t the only possibility and variations do exist.

Despite reading this, which has been very helpful, there is still a question that remains unanswered…

If people can postulate a multiverse to avoid the idea of a Creator, who created the multiverse? Surely the multiverse hypothesis just pushes back the point of creation?

Having pondered these questions in detail over the last few months, it makes me wonder if modern science actually has has an answer yet.

12th October 2014: Various meetings

So earlier this week I had an EPQ meeting which was really just focused on how we can consolidate my research and evaluating what I have done. I had gotten some dates mixed up and thought the mid-project review was meant to be done for the 24th September so I had a head start on this! From this meeting I know that I need to develop my evaluation of each individual resource and analyse them on their usefulness. I also need to organise my research but this will be done when I’ve filled in any gaps there may be and so it’s on my research plan.

I also had a meeting with my supervisor where we looked at the review and new plan that I had already done. He suggested that I make some alterations with my plan (namely, putting in solutions to the problems I may encounter in the new plan and directly basing my changes on my failures in the review).

So here are my revised tables after meeting with my supervisor (both on same document)…

Evaluation of my research so far

6th October 2014: New Research

‘Black Holes can’t mathematically exist’

  • Professor Laura Mersini-Houghton
  • suggests a resolution for ‘black hole information loss paradox’
    • quantum theory – no information in the universe can ever disappear
    • Einstein’s theory of relativity – predicts the formation of black holes
  • most scientists think the universe came into existence through a singularity
  • This theory sates that it is impossible for singularities to exist so puts the Big Bang theory into question

This article prompted me to investigate further the problems with the Big Bang and possible alternatives

  • violates law of quantum theory – can’t create or destroy matter or energy
    • BUT…
    • BB doesn’t explain the creation of the universe, only the evolution (if true, why am I even looking at this?!)
    • laws of science break down as you get closer to creation so no need to believe quantum theory should support
      • what? I thought the idea of a LAW was that it remained constant over every situation and that’s how we can trust it – it seems to me that scientists are manipulating their laws so it works in their favour
      • so scientific laws don’t always have to work to still be called laws and yet if I try to say that God, an all-powerful, supernatural being doesn’t need a cause, suddenly it’s not allowed
  • formation of stars and galaxies violate law of entropy
  • early inflationary period violates rule that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light
    • theory of relativity didn’t apply in BB
    • space itself can expand faster as space falls outside the realm of the theory of gravity
  • SO, alternatives…
    • steady-state – universe always had been and always will be the same density, universe generates matter at the same rate as expansion
    • big bounce – our universe is one of a series that expands and contacts

So what would someone say in response to Laura Mersini-Houghton?

  • Dr Max Tegmark said
    • “We don’t know enough about…the singularity to say whether [Messini-Houghton’s] picture is correct. Even if it is correct, it is very misleading to describe it as showing that ‘black holes don’t exist.’ There is a lot of astronomical evidence for objects that behave just like the black holes predicted by Einstein’s theory of relativity.”
  • we KNOW that black holes exist because we can observe them
  • it therefore raises questions about the formation of black holes