The WLC/SC "Something From Nothing" Cosmology Thread

[_DrW]

Is there a book list someone could recommend to get up to date on the science of all this? I'd appreciate both high level and math-based references.

WD,

At work right now, so no access to my computer at home - will post references and link addresses later today. Glad you asked.

The good news is that, when it comes to the Standard Model, QFT, relativity, etc. with math, there are a number of very good, no cost, resources on the internet in the form of open university type lecture notes. There is even a textbook that the author has made available as a PDF with significant points pre-highlighted in yellow by the author.

To get much out of these books, one would probably need to have taken physics, calculus, analytical geometry, and introductory quantum mechanics at a minimum - or be a math prodigy (or Lemmie).

As to non-mathematical treatments, there are several good books, including several that can be downloaded as e-books. One I would recommend is by an Italian physicist, Carlo Rovelli, a leading proponent of Loop Quantum Gravity. The book is entitled, "Reality is not what it seems - The journey to quantum gravity". It was originally written in Italian and translated into English by someone who really knew what they were doing. Here is the link to a NYT article introducing the book. There are several others as well, and I will provide titles and authors.

The nice thing about LQG is that someone with pretty much any physics background would fairly quickly recognize most terms in the equation and get a good idea of what is going on at first glance.

When searching the internet for resource materials, I would note that String Theory has fallen on hard times. As mentioned, the supersymmetry particles predicted by some String Theories have not turned up at the LHC - after two years of searching at twice the energy with which the Higgs boson was detected. Rovelli's LQG is receiving more attention now, and the math is not nearly as complex.

More later.

[_Gadianton]

fails because the very concept of a cause is irrelevant prior to the Big Bang

Just to point it out, Craig takes this into account. His first premise is a logically prior assumption and doesn't depend on physics. A cause as a concept in the abstract doesn't have to be physical and he assumes one other category, agent causation. So he's saying once we get to rock bottom physical cause, premise 1 moves to a personal/agent cause.

If the quantum vacuum was unstable and therefore the Big Bang happened, can't we say the Big Bang happened because the quantum vacuum was unstable, and doesn't that make it wrong to say that time constrains physical causation? If so, it shows how persistently intuitive the idea of a "cause" is in the abstract.

Maybe we can say the quantum vacuum "always existed" in metaphysical terms (Craig certainly would argue against that but...) and this is the cause of the Big Bang, and conveniently enough, it's a physical one. If this position is consistent with premise 1, then we win.

But I'm thinking Carroll might not want to take that victory. I think his problem is with premise 1, and that it is a flawed framework. Of course, he doesn't elaborate, unfortunately, as a lot of people would like to see the final knock-down argument to that assumption. I think premise 1 assumes a humongous, rickety building, but I don't have the explanation for that.

I think like a lot of science types, he wants to make a point about the limits of logic and thinking in the abstract vs. what science says, and he makes this point far more gracefully than say, Krauss. But what we can accept and not accept in logically prior thinking is a big job to stake out. Just because science types want to pretend we focus just on science doesn't mean we can just do that, as scientists do their own logically prior thinking all the time. Heck, articulating rebuttals to premise 1 is logically prior thinking. I actually think Carroll makes this point too.

In terms of economy, if I had 100 brilliant minds at my command, I'd put 99 on science problems and 1 on metaphysics, but someday when we've got everything figured out or really really stuck, those numbers might get reversed.

[Guest]

I just want to pop in and say that this thread is very informative. DrW's explanations and links about quantum field theory have been especially helpful to me. I may not get the math, but when you explain the underlying concepts like that it's much more comprehensible. So thanks!

[Guest]

[_Tator]

I just want to pop in and say that this thread is very informative. DrW's explanations and links about quantum field theory have been especially helpful to me. I may not get the math, but when you explain the underlying concepts like that it's much more comprehensible. So thanks!

I'm with you Cylon, DrW does this to me time and time again. I think it is the ultimate compliment, to teach, I am grateful. DrW has written me many "(name the subject) for dummies" threads and posts I couldn't begin to search all of them. grindael doc chap beastie ......... and others too numerous to mention awe me time and time again. This board has some of the best minds on the planet!

And I know I am not one of them, I'm a potatohead, but you guys gals all bless me. I am grateful.

[_DrW]

I just want to pop in and say that this thread is very informative. DrW's explanations and links about quantum field theory have been especially helpful to me. I may not get the math, but when you explain the underlying concepts like that it's much more comprehensible. So thanks!

I'm with you Cylon, DrW does this to me time and time again. I think it is the ultimate compliment, to teach, I am grateful. DrW has written me many "(name the subject) for dummies" threads and posts I couldn't begin to search all of them. grindael doc chap beastie ......... and others too numerous to mention awe me time and time again. This board has some of the best minds on the planet!

And I know I am not one of them, I'm a potatohead, but you guys gals all bless me. I am grateful.

Tater and Cylon,

Thank you for the kind words. They are much appreciated. These discussions are, of course, a two way street. Everyone's contributions are likely to make someone else think, and perhaps help them understand, something new or in a new way. (For example, Lemmie's occasional schooling on Bayesian probability has certainly been of benefit to me.)

Comments and questions from other posters help expand and deepen understanding because many (if not most) of them represent points of view or knowledge that the OP authors do not have or understand yet. Can't tell you how many times a new subject, reference, or even a word on this board has sent me off in search of more information.

For me, the information and insights into my Mormon heritage, factual church history, religion, and now and then even philosophy (you know who you are), that pop up here on a fairly regular basis are what keep this 'early edition' individual coming back.

Hopefully we all benefit.

Thanks again.

[_Lemmie]

I just want to pop in and say that this thread is very informative. DrW's explanations and links about quantum field theory have been especially helpful to me. I may not get the math, but when you explain the underlying concepts like that it's much more comprehensible. So thanks!

I'm with you Cylon, DrW does this to me time and time again. I think it is the ultimate compliment, to teach, I am grateful. DrW has written me many "(name the subject) for dummies" threads and posts I couldn't begin to search all of them. grindael doc chap beastie ......... and others too numerous to mention awe me time and time again. This board has some of the best minds on the planet!

And I know I am not one of them, I'm a potatohead, but you guys gals all bless me. I am grateful.

Tater and Cylon,

Thank you for the kind words. They are much appreciated. These discussions are, of course, a two way street. Everyone's contributions are likely to make someone else think, and perhaps help them understand, something new or in a new way. (For example, Lemmie's occasional schooling on Bayesian probability has certainly been of benefit to me.)

Comments and questions from other posters help expand and deepen understanding because many (if not most) of them represent points of view or knowledge that the OP authors do not have or understand yet. Can't tell you how many times a new subject, reference, or even a word on this board has sent me off in search of more information.

For me, the information and insights into my Mormon heritage, factual church history, religion, and now and then even philosophy (you know who you are), that pop up here on a fairly regular basis are what keep this 'early edition' individual coming back.

Hopefully we all benefit.

Thanks again.

Finally all my holiday visitors are on their way back home, and I can finally settle down to take a nice long look at DrW's threads--always a favorite for me too. I'm glad you have appreciated my math contributions DrW, thank you for your kind words!

And I add my thanks to many others here, your posts are truly a pleasure to read. This Board never fails to provide something new to learn, as you articulated so well, and you are a huge part of that! Many, many thanks.

Now, back to some very enjoyable reading!

[_DoubtingThomas]

Postulating a supernatural God is of no value whatsoever in this endeavor.

I don't think Science has to avoid a supernatural God at all cost, it is just that so far no one has been able to create a God model I guess. So far God has been useless as an explanation, but like Carroll himself said God doesn't have to be out of science if he exists.

[_DrW]

Postulating a supernatural God is of no value whatsoever in this endeavor.

I don't think Science has to avoid a supernatural God at all cost, it is just that so far no one has been able to create a God model I guess. So far God has been useless as an explanation, but like Carroll himself said God doesn't have to be out of science if he exists.

I would bet a great deal that Carroll's statement was just one of common courtesy, given his venue and audience. The probabilities of a supernatural God in the universe are so vanishingly small that he has nothing to worry about. Nor do any of the rest of us.

[_DoubtingThomas]

I would bet a great deal that Carroll's statement was just one of common courtesy, given his venue and audience. The probabilities of a supernatural God in the universe are so vanishingly small that he has nothing to worry about. Nor do any of the rest of us.

I can understand if we are talking about a specific supernatural god such as Thor, Zenosama, Jehovah. But I think we need to be open to the possibility (or idea) that some unknown god caused the Big Bang. We don't have to believe it, we just don't want to be close minded like religious people are.