i'm always amazed at how much science has accomplished in understanding our universe.
the one thing that i never could get an answer to, however, is WHY - why does does this universe exist? (or universes, depending on what you fancy).
i'm looking at the big picture here. one might ask, why are we here? well, billions of years of moving particles, evolution, ideal conditions, and the constants that make life possible tell us how we got here, and by that alone, the question of why can be considered irrelevant.
i'm not interested in the how, however, and it doesn't even have to concern life (because as science would like to tell us, we're pretty insignificant). i'm not asking how the universe functions. i don't care that it's possible for non-carbon based lifeforms to exist provided our universe was fine-tuned differently.
i'm asking WHY. why we have physical laws. why there exists matter. why the big bang(s) had to occur. why all that is, is?
is science just not there yet? if so, what can we guess based on our current knowledge? what does science and philosophy have to say about this? i don't want to insert God if God is not necessary to answer this question.
so the question is "why"
Moderator: Moderators
-
ollagram88
- Apprentice
- Posts: 109
- Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 2:33 am
- Location: nj
Post #31
Im not sure if i can, but i know a few people who can better than I hope to, and understand such things to a much deeper degree than I do:
Hawking:
There are something like ten million million million million million million million million million million million million million million (1 with eighty five zeroes after it) particles in the region of the universe that we can observe. Where did they all come from? The answer is that, in quantum theory, particles can be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle pairs. But that just raises the question of where the energy came from. The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero. The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together. Thus, in a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero.
Davies
here is a still more remarkable possibility, which is the creation of matter from a state of zero energy. This possibility arises because energy can be both positive and negative. The energy of motion or the energy of mass is always positive, but the energy of attraction, such as that due to certain types of gravitational or electromagnetic field, is negative. Circumstances can arise in which the positive energy that goes to make up the mass of newly-created particles of matter is exactly offset by the negative energy of gravity of electromagnetism. For example, in the vicinity of an atomic nucleus the electric field is intense. If a nucleus containing 200 protons could be made (possible but difficult), then the system becomes unstable against the spontaneous production of electron-positron pairs, without any energy input at all. The reason is that the negative electric energy can exactly offset the energy of their masses.
In the gravitational case the situation is still more bizarre, for the gravitational field is only a spacewarp - curved space. The energy locked up in a spacewarp can be converted into particles of matter and antimatter. This occurs, for example, near a black hole, and was probably also the most important source of particles in the big bang. Thus, matter appears spontaneously out of empty space. The question then arises, did the primeval bang possess energy, or is the entire universe a state of zero energy, with the energy of all the material offset by negative energy of gravitational attraction?
It is possible to settle the issue by a simple calculation. Astronomers can measure the masses of galaxies, their average separation, and their speeds of recession. Putting these numbers into a formula yields a quantity which some physicists have interpreted as the total energy of the universe. The answer does indeed come out to be zero wihin the observational accuracy. The reason for this distinctive result has long been a source of puzzlement to cosmologists. Some have suggested that there is a deep cosmic principle at work which requires the universe to have exactly zero energy. If that is so the cosmos can follow the path of least resistance, coming into existence without requiring any input of matter or energy at all.
And from Stenger:
http://www.csicop.org/sb/2006-06/reality-check.html
(I highly reccomend his book)
Is this ok?
Hawking:
There are something like ten million million million million million million million million million million million million million million (1 with eighty five zeroes after it) particles in the region of the universe that we can observe. Where did they all come from? The answer is that, in quantum theory, particles can be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle pairs. But that just raises the question of where the energy came from. The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero. The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together. Thus, in a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero.
Davies
here is a still more remarkable possibility, which is the creation of matter from a state of zero energy. This possibility arises because energy can be both positive and negative. The energy of motion or the energy of mass is always positive, but the energy of attraction, such as that due to certain types of gravitational or electromagnetic field, is negative. Circumstances can arise in which the positive energy that goes to make up the mass of newly-created particles of matter is exactly offset by the negative energy of gravity of electromagnetism. For example, in the vicinity of an atomic nucleus the electric field is intense. If a nucleus containing 200 protons could be made (possible but difficult), then the system becomes unstable against the spontaneous production of electron-positron pairs, without any energy input at all. The reason is that the negative electric energy can exactly offset the energy of their masses.
In the gravitational case the situation is still more bizarre, for the gravitational field is only a spacewarp - curved space. The energy locked up in a spacewarp can be converted into particles of matter and antimatter. This occurs, for example, near a black hole, and was probably also the most important source of particles in the big bang. Thus, matter appears spontaneously out of empty space. The question then arises, did the primeval bang possess energy, or is the entire universe a state of zero energy, with the energy of all the material offset by negative energy of gravitational attraction?
It is possible to settle the issue by a simple calculation. Astronomers can measure the masses of galaxies, their average separation, and their speeds of recession. Putting these numbers into a formula yields a quantity which some physicists have interpreted as the total energy of the universe. The answer does indeed come out to be zero wihin the observational accuracy. The reason for this distinctive result has long been a source of puzzlement to cosmologists. Some have suggested that there is a deep cosmic principle at work which requires the universe to have exactly zero energy. If that is so the cosmos can follow the path of least resistance, coming into existence without requiring any input of matter or energy at all.
And from Stenger:
http://www.csicop.org/sb/2006-06/reality-check.html
(I highly reccomend his book)
Is this ok?
-
ollagram88
- Apprentice
- Posts: 109
- Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 2:33 am
- Location: nj
Post #32
the fact that i've never heard of these while browsing for answers and the fact that no one brought these ideas up leads me to believe that these are merely only ideas, and obviously not commonly use arguments against the cosmological argument. a bit more googling and i found some atheists' critiques of the skeptical inquirer link.
still they are very interesting things to note. unfortunately my feeble brain can only understand so much.
still they are very interesting things to note. unfortunately my feeble brain can only understand so much.
-
Goat
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 24999
- Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
- Has thanked: 25 times
- Been thanked: 207 times
Post #34
Why not? The Positive and the Negative balance out. It is in harmony.Assent wrote:Why?Quixotic wrote:...So the total energy of the universe is zero...
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�
Steven Novella
Steven Novella
Post #36
Well, no. This is what you've established. As for me, I leave the answering of "how?" to the experts, because finding such answers these days is too hard for a layman (or laywoman). The question of "why?" however, as it cannot be truly answered, is free for all to speculate upon. Why? Because I want to. Because the idea of the question fascinates me. This is not about being "lazy" or too curious or even desiring a concrete answer. I hold my own pet theories, you and others may hold your own, or even avoid the question altogether, and that is fine. Maybe one of us is right, maybe none of us is right, maybe we don't need to be right. Maybe it is amazing enough that we can consider the question as a species.byofrcs wrote:I think that is why we've established that the method of asking "Why?" is lazy. You need to ask "How ?" and work it out for yourself or ask the question, "How do I work this out ?".
So all I am saying is that if others wish to pursue the answer to why, even if they don't know enough about subatomics to rub two quarks together, is it really that wasteful to let them?
My arguments are only as true as you will them to be.
Because of the limits of language, we are all wrong.
This signature is as much for my benefit as for yours.
Because of the limits of language, we are all wrong.
This signature is as much for my benefit as for yours.
-
daedalus 2.0
- Banned
- Posts: 1000
- Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 10:52 pm
- Location: NYC
Re: so the question is "why"
Post #38Why do birds suddenly appear, every time you are near?ollagram88 wrote:i'm always amazed at how much science has accomplished in understanding our universe.
the one thing that i never could get an answer to, however, is WHY - why does does this universe exist?
Why? Because of the Big Bang.
Imagine the people who believe ... and not ashamed to ignore, totally, all the patient findings of thinking minds through all the centuries since the Bible.... It is these ignorant people�who would force their feeble and childish beliefs on us...I.Asimov
Post #39
In asking why, one assumes there is a why. Questions based on assumptions are likely to be met with unsatisfying answers. Why assume there is a why? Would it be any less amazing if nothing existed? Those really seem to be the only two choices; nothing and other than nothing. One will be the case. Why marvel that it is one and not the other?
-
ollagram88
- Apprentice
- Posts: 109
- Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 2:33 am
- Location: nj
Post #40
haha my my, this is an old topic of mine.Beastt wrote:In asking why, one assumes there is a why. Questions based on assumptions are likely to be met with unsatisfying answers. Why assume there is a why? Would it be any less amazing if nothing existed? Those really seem to be the only two choices; nothing and other than nothing. One will be the case. Why marvel that it is one and not the other?
of course i assumed there is a why, and unfortunately, i framed this universe from man's perspective.
if we trace back to my "universe as a computer program" analogy, then yes, i assume it would be less amazing if nothing existed. isn't what is more complex, more amazing? amazing is a loose word, but surely if we define amazing as more artistically beautiful or intellectually complex, then something should be better than nothing? i suppose that is a debatable issue...
however, whether by chance or by some divine guidance, my being here is amazing. if consciousness arises from the brain, then what were the chances that all the particles that comprise my body came to create the person that i am now and the consciousness that i experience now? think of all the particles in this universe, and a speck of those particles that comprise me and granted me the experience of consciousness are "mine." to me, that's one of the most amazing things one can possible contemplate. and i can contemplate it because i am conscious, i am conscious because this universe IS... rather than is not.
