Why is there something rather than nothing?
Why do we exist?
Why this particular set of (physical) laws and not some other?
However, before the authors answer these points in the last chapter on page 171 of their book, the reader gets a flash course in old, modern, and most recent physics. It is somewhat short for the layman to grasp but a good repetition for persons interested in the topic who have read this before.
Luckily, once in a while, the authors like to be funny. For example, they explain symmetry by saying that a flipped donut looks the same unless it has a chocolate topping, in which case it is better just to eat it. We have observed that the moon is not made of Roquefort cheese, which is bad news for mice. These remarks have the advantage of keeping the reader alive.
Let us see how the authors tackle the answers to the questions posed above: Spontaneous creation of matter, i.e., new worlds, can be explained by combining relativity theory and quantum mechanics within the spatial dimension of a Planck length.
Let us see how the authors tackle the answers to the questions posed above: Spontaneous creation of matter, i.e., new worlds, can be explained by combining relativity theory and quantum mechanics within the spatial dimension of a Planck length.
A Big Bang starting within the size of 10-35 meters can be macroscopically illustrated with microbubbles appearing in a boiling liquid, where some of those will expand to form giant vapor bubbles. Time originates within this image, and the question of what was before time zero becomes meaningless.
Hawking and Mlodinow summarize: Spontaneous creation is why there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, and why we exist. It is unnecessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going. The fact that we human beings - who are ourselves mere collections of fundamental particles of nature – have been able to come this close to an understanding of the laws governing us and our universe is a great triumph. But perhaps the true miracle is that abstract considerations of logic lead to a unique theory that predicts and describes a vast universe full of the amazing variety we see.
Today I read in Murphy's Law Calendar that There are some things that are impossible to know - but it is impossible to know these things. Now, I am ready to read Küng's book about his beliefs!
Due to quantum fluctuations, new universes are spontaneously created out of the energy of empty space. Only to say that Einstein disliked quantum mechanics; for him, God doesn't throw dice.
The picture of microbubbles in a boiling liquid can be further stretched: Only those microbubbles, i.e., Big Bangs, will expand into universes where the combination of physical constants and laws just fit each other. Our world would not exist if constants like the gravitational constant, the speed of light, the electron radius, etc., were not those they are. Varying the values of our known physical parameters by only a few percent will lead to unstable universes, i.e., to worlds that cannot exist.
The salient question remains: Why do we exist? In a first step, the authors also stress a mathematical model called the Game of Life, where structures using energy and following defined laws reproduce themselves. Viruses do that; even the evolution to higher forms of life can be understood as complex systems of limited size that are stable and reproduce. Darwin's selection principle fits nicely into this pattern.
The picture of microbubbles in a boiling liquid can be further stretched: Only those microbubbles, i.e., Big Bangs, will expand into universes where the combination of physical constants and laws just fit each other. Our world would not exist if constants like the gravitational constant, the speed of light, the electron radius, etc., were not those they are. Varying the values of our known physical parameters by only a few percent will lead to unstable universes, i.e., to worlds that cannot exist.
The salient question remains: Why do we exist? In a first step, the authors also stress a mathematical model called the Game of Life, where structures using energy and following defined laws reproduce themselves. Viruses do that; even the evolution to higher forms of life can be understood as complex systems of limited size that are stable and reproduce. Darwin's selection principle fits nicely into this pattern.
However, as they are known to us, life formation in self-producing structures requires necessary conditions such as water, oxygen, and a friendly habitat with temperature variations remaining within certain limits, just like Mother Earth provides. Living systems can and will react when stimulated within limits; otherwise, they will die.
This does not explain why and when beings possess free will. For the authors, a robot's behavior is predictable because it is calculable. When, however, a living being has more than about 1027 atoms, we would therefore have to say that any complex being has free will - not as a fundamental feature, but as an effective theory, an admission of our inability to do the calculations that would enable us to predict its actions.
Nice try, but is the statement that we cannot calculate a structure the convincing evidence for the existence of free will? And will this free will push us to believe or not believe in a somewhat reduced God, a God just throwing dice?
There was another approach precisely 40 years ago when Jacques Monod denied us our free will in his book Le hazard et la nécessité. Monod suspected a genetic defect as the origin of man's quest for God, a fault that we, according to him, must overcome.
Oh Lord, wherein all this is the personal God that Jesus told us we shall call our Father!?
Hawking and Mlodinow summarize: Spontaneous creation is why there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, and why we exist. It is unnecessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going. The fact that we human beings - who are ourselves mere collections of fundamental particles of nature – have been able to come this close to an understanding of the laws governing us and our universe is a great triumph. But perhaps the true miracle is that abstract considerations of logic lead to a unique theory that predicts and describes a vast universe full of the amazing variety we see.
Today I read in Murphy's Law Calendar that There are some things that are impossible to know - but it is impossible to know these things. Now, I am ready to read Küng's book about his beliefs!
**
In "The Grand Design" Hawking says that we are somewhat like goldfish in a curved fishbowl. Our perceptions are limited and warped by the kind of lenses we see through, “the interpretive structure of our human brains.” Albert Einstein rejected this subjective approach, common to much of quantum mechanics, but did admit that our view of reality is distorted.
ReplyDeleteEinstein’s Special Theory of Relativity has the surprising consequences that “the same event, when viewed from inertial systems in motion with respect to each other, will seem to occur at different times, bodies will measure out at different lengths, and clocks will run at different speeds.” Light does travel in a curve, due to the gravity of matter, thereby distorting views from each perspective in this Universe. Similarly, mystics’ experience in divine oneness, which might be considered the same eternal event, viewed from various historical, cultural and personal perspectives, have occurred with different frequencies, degrees of realization and durations. This might help to explain the diversity in the expressions or reports of that spiritual awareness. What is seen is the same; it is the seeing which differs.
In some sciences, all existence is described as matter or energy. In some of mysticism, only consciousness exists. Dark matter is 25%, and dark energy about 70%, of the critical density of this Universe. Divine Essence, also not visible, emanates and sustains universal matter (mass/energy: visible/dark) and cosmic consciousness (f(x) raised to its greatest power). During suprarational consciousness, and beyond, mystics share in that essence to varying extents. [quoted from my e-book on comparative mysticism]