Stephen Hawking: Big Bang an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics

[quadz]

Professor Hawking certainly isn't the first physicist to make the claim that the Big Bang was an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics; however with his name and the imminent publication of his new co-authored book on the subject, his claim seems to be making a splash in the news.


The response in the 'blogosphere' so far seems about as predictable as one might expect; but the following in particular caught my attention:

http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/religion_theseeker/2010/09/the-rev-robert-barron-priest-and-theology-professor-university-of-st-mary-of-the-lake-in-mundelein-and-author-of-w.html

The Rev. Robert Barron, priest and theology professor, University of St. Mary of the Lake in Mundelein writes:

I confess that something in me tightens whenever I hear a scientist pontificating on issues that belong to the arena of philosophy or metaphysics. I will gladly listen to Stephen Hawking when he holds forth on matters of theoretical physics, but he’s as qualified to talk about philosophical and religious issues as any college freshman.

My response, which I'm hoping he'll approve for posting (the comments are moderated.)

You've said, "I confess that something in me tightens whenever I hear a scientist pontificating on issues that belong to the arena of philosophy or metaphysics."

However, this is not the situation.

When Isaac Newton, after having invented integral calculus, wasn't still quite able to solve the multi-body problem to explain the stability of the orbits of the planets in our solar system, he invoked Intelligent Design at the limits of his knowledge!

He couldn't solve the problem, and so he wrote in the General Scholium, a supplemental text to the Principia: "But it is not to be conceived that mere mechanical causes could give birth to so many regular motions. This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the council and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being."

But, in 1799, P.S. Laplace figured it out.  Since then, we no longer believe a supernatural agency is required to regulate the motion of the planets.

Specifically, the question of the motion of the planets was at that moment removed from the arena of philosophy or metaphysics, and reassigned to the domain of science.

This is in fact what science does!  And has been doing steadily for centuries.  Should it be surprising that as we increase our understanding of cosmology, that we would find that within the framework of natural laws being discovered, that it turns out to be possible--without violating physical laws within the framework--for an event like the Big Bang to occur spontaneously?

In such a  context, the Big Bang does not "belong" to the arena of philosophy or metaphysics, any more than the motion of the planets now does (or, in truth, really ever did.)


For more information on these specific topics, I highly recommend the following talks by physicists Neil deGrasse Tyson and Lawrence Krauss:


Neil deGrasse Tyson, Beyond Belief 2006

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vrpPPV_yPY
The Perimeter of Ignorance: A boundary where scientists face a choice: invoke a deity or continue the quest for knowledge.


'A Universe From Nothing' by Lawrence Krauss, AAI 2009

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo
"The laws of physics allow the Universe to begin from nothing." Lawrence Krauss gives a talk on our current picture of the universe, how it may end, and how it could have come from nothing.


Regards.

One thing I opted to forego mention of in my response was the following astounding irony in the Rev.'s article:

There is a line from one of the articles describing Hawking’s book that I found, actually, quite helpful and illuminating. The author said, “in his new book, The Grand Design…Hawking sets out a comprehensive thesis that the scientific framework leaves no room for a deity.”

Quite right. Since the true God is not a being alongside other beings, not one thing in the universe among many, he is not circumscribable within a scientific frame of understanding. He should not, therefore, even in principle, be either affirmed or denied from a purely scientific perspective.

There is, of course, rampant today a “scientism” which would reduce all legitimate knowing to the scientific mode of knowing. You can find this form of dogmatism in the writings of all of the prominent “new” atheists: Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, etc.

Seriously?  Asserting personal knowledge as to the nature and existence of "the true God" in one paragraph, and accusing others of dogmatism in the very next paragraph?

Sheeez.

[|iR|Focalor]

Not all that surprising with a lofty title like Reverend. People who attain the rank of Doctor must study and understand facts and their applications... whereas a Reverend typically studies and understands bullshit and it's application. Some people just aren't cut out to be Reverends.

The true God/dogmatism part... yeah. Also claiming that Stephen Hawking is not qualified to talk about religion and philosophy is quite preposterous. Being that he's a scientist by trade, I'd assume that he would be able to retain and regurgitate pertinent facts about philosophy and religion moreso than most people. Seeing as how religion and philosophy themselves are largely dependent upon the views and opinions of the individual, I don't see what makes HIS keen observations any more valid than a college freshman's.

Some kids will still insist on believing in Santa Claus for a little while even after you break the news to them.

[ReCycled]

Since when is the origin of the universe a "philosophical" issue? Is the Reverend so arrogant and flumoxed that he has decided he will define the criteria of how we think about the universe? People like this have been in their theological environment for so long they feel safe remaining there, where they will not be questioned on why they think what they think - and to prove their arguments. But it doesn't matter anyway. Science - or what I call the study of Reality - will continue to explore and test theories/evidence as it has for the last 500 years or so. We're certainly farther ahead now than in he time of DaVinci. But all people connected to Religions still cling to the same tired premise of a Deity without any attempt to be objective.

[reaper]

Seriously?  Asserting personal knowledge as to the nature and existence of "the true God" in one paragraph, and accusing others of dogmatism in the very next paragraph?

Sheeez.

It's such a self-evident prophecy that science has shown us nothing that the statements make sense.

[quadz]

science has shown us nothing

Please consider donating your brain to science.

[fdrjk]

science has shown us nothing

[QwazyWabbit]

Galilleo pushed the boundary of science into the realm of the origin of the cosmos and it nearly cost him his life. The power of the church is dedicated to the cause of maintaining or expanding the power of the church, a holdover from the orgins of the church and the struggle for power over kings.

Galilleo, Newton, Einstein were captives of the modality of the times they lived in. Hawking is probably closer to knowing the "true God", than the dear "Reverend" and he has no interest in being captive to convention.

"science has shown us nothing" ??? OK, give up your internet, your computer, your cell phone, your TV, your refrigerator, your dishwasher, your clean clothes, your clean bed, your warm house, heated in winter and cooled in summer. Give up every component of your easy, modern life. Give up your job, your money, your car. Live in a mud hit with a straw roof and cook your meat over an open flame with a stick. Make your own clothes, grow your own food, slaughter your own animals with stone tools, till and harvest your food without steel implements. Then come tell us what science has shown us.

[reaper]

Science has revealed nothing in comparison  to what is self-evident.

[fdrjk]

Science has revealed nothing

[yahoo]

If I understood it correctly, Hawkings mission is to unify the theory of the "very big" with the theory of the "very small" through the formulation of a theory of "everything". Though he has come ever closer to it, unfortunately time is running out for him. His condition is slowly eating up his ability to communicate coz sooner his disease would completely paralyze him "even his eye movements".

One of the greatest baffling statements that most -even I can comprehend, is Quantum Physics explaination of the origin of the universe.  As they had suggested the present vast universe started from something so small (smaller than the size of an atom). More literaly , The big Bang , the universe started from nothing.

Maybe mans present understanding and comprehention havent gone to that level yet where that we can be able to completely accept the meaning of existince and how can someting so immensely big started from vrtually nothing. Maybe the next stage of human evolution-if we ever reach there-humans would be more able to digest such.

[ReCycled]

Actually the Jamaicans are way ahead of us on Quantum Physics. During their periods of enlightenment they pretty much understand how the universe is all connected to Haile Selassie. It's called the Big Bong Theory.
'erb mon......

[yahoo]

It's called the Big Bong Theory.

 

Guess Hawking havent thought of that.. 

[QwazyWabbit]

Science has revealed nothing in comparison  to what is self-evident.

One cannot argue with those who believe their own dogma. You can only pity the fool.

[quadz]

One of the greatest baffling statements that most -even I can comprehend, is Quantum Physics explaination of the origin of the universe.  As they had suggested the present vast universe started from something so small (smaller than the size of an atom). More literaly , The big Bang , the universe started from nothing.

If you don't have time for the whole video, check out a few minutes starting from about 19:40 and particularly the animation at 20:50 --

  'A Universe From Nothing' by Lawrence Krauss, AAI 2009
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

Also a few minutes startging about 32:15...


So, what I take away from that is:

  1. Empty space isn't empty. Quantum mechanics doesn't allow "nothing" to exist.

  2. We appear to be in a "flat" universe, which is a universe having zero total energy.  (Gravity can have negative energy and balances out the positive energy of matter.)

  3. The laws of physics allow a universe having zero total energy, to begin from "nothing" as a quantum fluctuation.


So, if I've understood, quantum fluctuations are happening all the time, and these fluctuations neither add nor subtract from the total energy of "space".  Usually they're very small, but large quantum fluctuations are also allowed, but they're statistically rare.  But if you have this giant amount of empty "space" (which isn't really empty), eventually the probability that a universe-scale fluctuation will occur approaches 1.  But a large universe-scale fluctuation, just like the smaller fluctuations that are happening all the time, still neither adds nor subtracts from the total energy of "space".

So it's not really 'something' coming from 'nothing', because "nothing" is already by definition a seething, roiling mass of vaccuum energy / virtual particles (like the animation at 20:50).

So universe-scale fluctuations are rare, but they're allowed, because they're not breaking any laws of thermodynamics as far as changing the total energy of the system.


That's my uber-n00b take on it, anyway...

[yahoo]

Thanks for the link.

Yes I do agree about it. There are still a whole lot of things that still remains to discover.
There are some theories regarding gravity and its underlying role in the universe .  If Im not mistaken,  there was one that implies that the universe we percieved presently is just one of the many multiverses in existence. Comparable to a bubble like existence. So if these would be the case, the laws of physics that applies in our present universe could have been affected by these other universes. Amazing.