On Discovery Channel recently, in a show called Grand Design, physicist/cosmologist Stephen Hawking attempted to answer the deepest questions of the universe, including the deepest of all: How did we get here? Hawking describes a journey through the laws of nature, of how the universe was made and how it really works. Hawking says, “We mere mortals can understand how the universe works, although it takes courage to find the answers.”
People once believed in supernatural beings in order to make sense of natural phenomena, like a solar eclipse. Vikings believed that “skoll,” a wolf god that lived in the sky, ate the sun. The Vikings tried to scare it away, and believed their actions caused the sun to return. In Greece, long before the Vikings (about 350 B.C.), Aristotle realized a lunar eclipse was actually the shadow of the earth on the moon, proving the earth was spherical, not flat.
We learned that the stars are not holes in the floor of Heaven, but suns like ours, only a very long ways away. It seems the universe is a machine, run by the laws of nature, and can be understood by the human mind. So, the Catholic Church claimed the laws of nature are the laws of God, and we are still the center of the universe—that the sun and stars rotate around the earth.
In 1609, Galileo Galilei, father of modern day science, made a telescope to study Jupiter and discovered four “moons” orbiting that planet. He deduced that the earth revolved around the sun, and not vise-versa. The Pope cried “heresy” and placed Galileo under house arrest for the next nine years.
Over the next 300 years, scientists discovered other things that explained how the universe works—what makes stars shine, etc.—and ultimately asked the question, did God create the universe in the first place?
In 1985, the Pope said it was okay to study the workings of the universe, you just can’t ask questions about its origin, for that is the work of God. Stephen Hawking suggests it is the cosmologist’s duty to find out where the universe comes from.
It turns out you need only three ingredients to make the universe: 1. Matter (stuff that has mass – like dust, rock, ice, and gas); 2. Energy (you can feel it on your face – energy from a sun that is 93 million miles away); 3. Space (lots of space in all directions).
Where does it all come from? In the 20th Century, that question was answered by Albert Einstein. E=mc2 (Energy = Mass times the Speed of Light (C) squared). Mass and energy are kind of the same thing. Energy and space were created spontaneously in an event called the Big Bang. Space was created like blowing up a balloon. But, how did it appear out of nothing? The Catholic Church said God created the Big Bang. Science tells a different story.
To build a hill, you must dig a hole—the negative version of the hill. The laws of physics demand negative energy. The Big Bang created a vast amount of positive energy, and the same amount of negative energy. The positive energy we see is like the hill. The negative side of things is spread throughout space. This means that all of the universe, positive and negative, adds up to zero. And you don't need a god to create it.
Then what triggered the spontaneous appearance of a whole universe in the first place?
In the sub-atomic level, you can, at least for a short while, create something out of nothing—where particles obey the laws of quantum mechanics—and appear, stick around for a while, then disappear. Likewise, our universe was once quite small, infinitely dense, and smaller than a proton, which means it could have popped into existence without violating the laws of nature!
Did God create the “quantum” laws that allowed the Big Bang to occur? It is natural for people to believe that something causes everything, but that is not necessarily so. Nothing caused the Big Bang! Einstein again: Time itself began at the instant of the Big Bang. The universe created itself.
Nothing can escape the incredible gravity of a black hole. Even time slows down as it descends into a black hole—and eventually stops, because inside a black hole, time does not exist. As you go back in time, the universe gets infinitesimally small, condensing into a black hole. You can’t get to a time before the Big Bang, because there was no time before the Big Bang. We have found something that doesn't have a cause. There was no time for a cause to exist, or a creator to have existed. It has taken us 3,000 years of human endeavor to find the process that created "us."
Stephen Hawking says, “No one created the Universe. No one directs our fate – no Heaven, no 'after life,' either. We have this one life to appreciate the grand design of the universe. For that, I am grateful.”
Amen to that!
Now, scientists have discovered the long-sought Higgs boson, a class of sub-atomic particle that some are calling, the “God particle,” believed to be associated with the property of all matter known as mass, without which our universe could not exist. This may lead to the discovery of other sub-atomic particles with mass, affecting studies of mass, dark matter, and dark energy. How the “God particle” may affect our understanding of the universe – or contribute to a new gizmo – only time will tell. And we still have time.
Jac Flanders is the author of “What I Learned On The Way Down,” eBook and paperback versions from Amazon.com
Now, from what I understand the bosuns are particles that travels at the speed of light, but have no mass and attendant inertia. They occupy space from here to infinity and beyond. They sometimes whiz through an area that has a Higgs field which has no characteristics we are familiar with, like electro- magnetic fields. When a bosun whips through the Higgs field it somehow become massive. The way I understand it physicist in Switzerland, using particle accelerators were able to detect a particle that has mass that was created by the collision. How in the world did they do that? Does that mean that mass can, in fact, be created? And my most important question,do all those Physic 1 books have to be re-printed?
they were looking for (the Higgs Boson) and to verify it was correct with a certainty of 99.9%. Vast in this case means about 500 trillion collisions. But, I wouldn't advise burning any books, just yet. For now, there is no shame in not understanding. There is only shame in not trying to understand. I'm still trying.
This is coming from a declared agnostic who has a lot of respect for the values of the religious community.
My problem is the imposition of fundamentalist beliefs on scientific progress. Jac has given a number of examples thru history in his excellent blog. And, even in the 21st century, its still happening. Remember when all the candidates in the primary announced they did not believe in evolution. How did you feel about that, Tom. Was this an example of open mindness. Did the candidates come to their belief based on scientific knowledge?. If elected, is there no chance that this obviously fundamentalist belief will not be imposed on future generations? Am I not being open minded because it worries me?
Even though I have no commitment to a God I believe religion brings some order to a world that could easily implode. I believe I live a better life because many people around me are God fearing Christians. The fact is, mass can be created. Why not keep an open mind on other possibilities?
You stated "I have long understood that facts must be followed where they lead us, even if they are uncomfortable and don’t conform to the mental model." The "scientific" fact was that energy cannot neither be created nor destroyed. Where did that lead you?
I was an agnostic for a number of years until I realized it was only an attempt to be open minded and I was being dishonest with myself. I know many good religious people and the world is better because of them, I also believe that religion served a useful, perhaps necessary purpose in the social evolution of humans, but has served its purpose and we are moving on. I also learned that scientific facts were only so until they were refuted by new knowledge. This is very different from the faith of religious fundamentalism, which is ok until it imposes itself upon science.
Darwin confessed, "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." Here, again, a few specifics could help me understand your stance. Also, please explain your basis for the statement "This is very different from the faith of religious fundamentalism, which is ok until it imposes itself upon science." Where, when and by whom has religion done that? Please give me some examples of where "this is very different from the faith of religious fundamentalism, which is "ok until it imposes itself upon science". When and by whom, please? I have no problem with responsible atheist, but do with the "in your face" atheists like you and the ACLU. Why are you so compelled to keep God out of every crevice of a nation founded on Christian values? Are you like a pedophile who does not know why they do it, but must do it? You mentioned you have a somewhat scientific education. A little knowledge can be dangerous. :-))
Ron - I agree, it is a stretch to think the absence of belief is based on hatred and bigotry. However, you have a much more benign view of believers than I. Historically, believers have been told what to believe; they have not been encouraged to question their beliefs. They have been encouraged, largely by their religious leaders, to convert non-believers. Those "ignorant islanders" were persuaded to believe, not by argument, but by the sword. How many have died for their disbelief? Or, more to the point today, how many are dying because of their superstitious certainties? Far from being comforted by the believers around me, "People of the Book" scare the hell out of me. Tom - Complexity is no proof of an omniscient creator. Given the few million years it has taken so far, I would not be surprised if someday we lost our useless appendix, found a way to kill off some life-threatening cancers, and even elected an atheist to help run the country. Meanwhile, please be aware that name-calling is the beginning of a hate crime. I do agree with you that a little knowledge can be dangerous. But, I think we are all a little ignorant and could use a bit of tolerance in our search for the facts. As far as keeping religion out of politics, have we discarded the Federalist Papers and forgotten the Founders already had this argument?
How many have died for their disbelief? How may are dying because of their superstitious certainties? I know not and don't want to speculate, but am sure it is many. Why not refer to the experts in Egypt where Christians are being slaughtered for lunch and conflict in other countries is only based on religion. How much slaughter has occurred in the U.S.? Not significant. I agree, complexity is no proof of an omniscient creator. I referred to Darwin because that is what many non-believers reference as scientific fact. You said "But, I think we are all a little ignorant and could use a bit of tolerance in our search for the facts" I think that is absolutely correct and am waiting for you extreme atheist to start the ball rolling. Are you and Ron tolerant of those who are believers? I believe the Founders would be aghast at how their true intent has been interpreted as time has gone by. Even though I take no stand on a Supreme being, I do believe religion has had a positive impact on the evolution of the democratic principles of our great country. Most of your freedoms came from "People of the Book". My last word.
You asked Ron (and therefore other atheist readers of the blog) if we came to our view based on scientific knowledge, or is it just based on hate and bigotry – and would the world would be more to our liking without religion? May I? Yes to the first, no to the second, and absolutely yes to the third! You say you are not aware of any objective scientific knowledge “that has led to less support for the belief in an almighty God.” Sounds like a logical fallacy – please don’t ask us to prove a negative. Regardless, please re-read the blog above. The ACLU is an atheistic organization? Really? Civil Liberties? And you are against them? And, you ask, “Why are you so compelled to keep God out of every crevice of a nation founded on Christian values?” Sorry, Tom, the United States was not founded on Christian values. We owe our Democracy to the Greeks, not the Bible. Our morality comes from a much earlier time: “Do unto others,” etc. Christians take too much credit for our morality and moral values. You then ask, “Are you like a pedophile who does not know why . . . but must do it?” And later, “A little knowledge can be dangerous.” Perhaps you think name-calling and insults are effective ways to change minds. To me, they seem less than Christian – or, maybe not.
Sorry to extend my final comment. The devil made me do it.