The factual creation story of physics is more inspiring than religious fantasy

The world's major religions claim that God created our universe. Naturally details are lacking, because religions are all about faith, not facts. 

Modern science also has its creation story, the Big Bang. It takes more effort to understand than the simplistic religious stories. But I find science's story to be much more appealing, largely because I prefer reality over fantasy when it comes to the big questions of life.

(When it comes to thriller novels and television shows, I adore fantasy.)

This isn't to say that the scientific explanation of creation is complete and coherent. It has a lot of holes, including how the Big Bang came to be. However, that's to be expected when the Big Bang wasn't a really big explosion into existing space, but the creation of space and time itself.

In his book, Waves in an Impossible Sea: How Everyday Life Emerges from the Cosmic Ocean, theoretical physicist Matt Strassler talks about the Big Bang phib (physics fib), which is one of the instances where physicists communicate a difficult-to-understand idea by simplifying it for popular consumption.

The Big Bang phib suggests that the universe's birth resembled a bomb detonating in an empty room, creating a fireball that subsequently cooled as it expanded into emptiness. But the universe had no surrounding emptiness. 

Instead, at the earliest times we know anything about, the hot, violent, roiling soup (and in this case, it really was like a soup -- an ordinary medium) of elementary wavicles [particles with a wave nature] was already everywhere throughout the cosmos. 

Even possessing the energy of a gazillion bombs, such a thing couldn't explode outward because there was more hot soup blocking the way, also wishing it could explode. It was a universal firestorm, with nowhere to go.

Normally an everywhere-hot soup, unable to cool or spread out, would remain hot and fixed for eternity. So why didn't the universe just stay that way? Because space can stretch. Some unknown event, even earlier in time, gave the universe a kick that caused space itself to expand rapidly. 

(This kick, or whatever caused it, is what most scientists refer to as "the Big Bang," though not everyone defines the term the same way.)

As the space expanded, it gave the wavicles in the hot soup more room to roam, and so the soup expanded too, allowing it to cool. It's still growing and cooling today, though much more slowly.

Thus, the Big Bang led to an expansion of space full of wavicles; it was not an explosion that shot wavicles into a preexisting void. This is much more interesting than a bomb. Its detailed origins remain unclear.

Strassler is right. An expansion of space itself is indeed much more interesting than a cosmic bomb exploding in preexisting space. It's easy to picture God sitting up in heaven, using his divine power to bring our universe into being.

Easy, because we're used to stuff happening here on Earth in a similar fashion. One day there's an empty lot. The next day excavators are moving dirt around. Soon after that the foundation of a house is constructed. Eventually a house is present on what used to be vacant space.

But it's really difficult to visualize space itself being created. When I try to do this, I end up picturing myself, a bit like God, sitting in a position where I'm watching space expand into some preexisting space. 

That can't be right, though, since I'm within the space that is expanding, and there's no preexisting space for space to expand into. If that were the case, there'd be no point to the expansion, given that space already exists in the area of the expansion. Space doesn't expand into space.

The human mind simply isn't equipped to easily comprehend the deepest mysteries of science. This is one reason why more people embrace religions than science. Religions make God into a being a lot like us, just grander and more powerful. God resides in a place, heaven, while we reside in a different place, this world. 

Science, on the other hand, speaks of time and space as we know it coming into being with the Big Bang. There's nothing in our world of time and space that is akin to the Big Bang. Which is why physics uses the Big Bang phib -- to give people an approximation of what the Big Bang truly was without the mind- boggling aspect of it.

Strassler goes on to explain how protons and neutrons were created. If this had never happened, obviously we wouldn't be here pondering the Big Bang, since protons and neutrons are the stable building blocks of matter.

He describes how the strong nuclear force keeps quarks, the building blocks of protons and neutrons, confined within an atom's nucleus. As we know from nuclear bombs, a tremendous amount of energy is present within small amounts of matter. This energy wasn't introduced from the outside, but is the energy of being, so to speak.

This is a beautiful short paragraph about the Big Bang that I found deeply moving. It reminded me that I'm not a human looking out at the universe. Instead, the universe is looking at itself through me, an integral aspect of the universe.

Now trapped forever inside these droplets, quarks, gluons, and anti-quarks still dash around at speeds at or near c [speed of light], colliding again and again. The bedlam of the Big Bang is caught within, never to escape or fade away. The energy in our bodies, and in all ordinary things, is a tiny remnant of the past, a memory of the universe's violent birth.

Comments

[sant64]

Most physicists, including Einstein, initially rejected the Big Bang theory. They believed in the static universe theory, which held that the universe had always existed and was unchanging.

It turns out that the religionists' ex nihilo theory triumphed over the eternalists' ideas. This is just one instance of many where scripture was correct and the best minds of science were wrong.

Anyway, what does it matter? There are only two kinds of people in America, the good people and the fascists.

According to Hillary Clinton, everyone who even likes the Republican candidate is a neo-Nazi.

According to the Wall Street Journal, Israel's termination of over 40K of Gaza's civilians is lamentable only because Israel should have been allowed to kill far more brown people.

Moral of the story? Despite our cognoscenti pretenses, left or right, many of us are still bloodthirsty animals.

[Appreciative Reader]

Enjoyed reading this article.

Yep, wondrous is reality. And wondrous is puny homo sapien's efforts, despite how puny he is, to understand reality --- with such an astonishing degree of success. And wondrous is the tool he's fashioned to help him uncover reality: science.

----------

While agreeing with every bit of this article, both the spirit of it as well as the factual content of it --- obviously! --- I'd just like to add one thought here. A thought that you, Brian, would be fully onboard with, I'm sure, and might well have added yourself: but still, maybe it might not hurt to have this nuance clearly spelled out.

In an earlier comment, a few days ago, I'd remarked how it is fallacious to choose such beliefs that necessarily appeal to our common sense. Likewise, I'd say, it is again fallacious to favor such beliefs that are wondrous, or that inspire us. Not when it comes to our beliefs.

It is true that reality, as science reveals to us, in completely entire wondrous. As you say. But wondrous is what it happens to be. Why we choose the scientific worldview over a "demon-haunted one" --- hat tip to Carl Sagan! --- is because it is the one that best comports with reality, the one that is the closest approach to what reality is. Because it is what is true. That it happens to be so utterly mind-bending and wondrous, and so inspiring, that's a bonus.

----------

Again, I'm sure this nuance you yourself agree perfectly with, Brian, and might well have expressed yourself; nevertheless, where I'm coming from in clearly spelling this out in so many words is:

I personally find the Biblical creation story, the Genesis thing, utterly oafish. It is no more than a child presenting his idea of how the world was created, painted over in thick crayon lines; and by a child that isn't even particularly intelligent. While the matter of "creation" itself can be moving, but the particular account of it is exactly the opposite of moving or inspiring, given how utterly oafish it is.

However, there are other creation stories that are more moving. The Upanishads do contain accounts of creation and dissolution that can make one's hair stand on end. (When one has stopped laughing at the weird --- and oafish --- creation myths that also pepper ancient Indian texts, like the whole weird navel thing for instance.) Indeed, the accounts of overlapping universes and realities that are found in the Upanishads, have found their way into RSSB theology as well, I believe --- as well they might, given that later movement came up within that same broader culture.

My point is, some of these creation myths from other cultures --- even if not the oafish Biblical one --- can indeed move one, and fill one with wonder, and inspire one. But for all that they're no more than fiction.

What draws one to a scientific worldview is the simple fact that it comports with reality. Anything else is a bonus --- including how wondrous and inspiring it is.

----------

And, as you say, none of this takes away from the wonder of fictitious renditions, including from myth and religion as well; or from one's appreciation of such: as long as one clearly recognizes them as fiction. I'm a huge fan of sci fi myself.

[um]

@ AR ... being a huge fan sci.

Now and then this man appears in talkshows on TV:
https://www.universiteitleiden.nl/en/staffmembers/vincent-icke#tab-2

when there are new dscientific discoveries to be explained to the public ... mostly related to astronomy, cosmology etc

He is also an artist and is involved inmaking visual expressions of these discoveries.

The most of what he says, is after two sentences beyond my understanding ... probaly due to the wrong brand of coffee ... but as I love to observe humans, I keep listening. In the meantime my "gazing" starts to ask me to focus on what i love to call " available billateral" infornation.

It is clear for everybody to witness how much the man loves science, is well versed in it and has that drive to share his knowledge and joy, with others.

The longer he talks, and the more he seems to enter a state of rapture, the uneasiness of the other guest grows and becomes visible ... the man is all alone and has lost all the mental contact with others. ...at that moment he is just a MYSTIC ... hahahaha

[um]

@ AR

Read how this scientific mystic explains why there is nothing but science

Use the online translator as the interview is in Dutch
https://www.freethinker.nl/artikelen/god-bestaat-niet-deel-5-interview-met-astrofysicus-vincent-icke

[Appreciative Reader]

Hey, um. *waves*

Enjoyed reading Icke's interview. I love how clear are his thoughts, and how lucidly he expresses himself. Thanks for the link!

Hadn't heard of the man, as far as I can remember. Or indeed of that Freethinker website either. I've bookmarked the page, with the intent to check out the contents of it a bit more.

...Yep, there are quite a few great sci fi writers who are bona fide scientists as well. There's many sub-genres within sci fi, and each of them can be wonderful in their own way; but the so-called "hard sci fi" does add somewhat both to the verisimilitude of the stories they tell, and to the interest with which one reads the incidental details they put in in their world-building.

...And absolutely, while it is one thing to be a scientist, but it does take a different talent to be given to general clarity of thought about the overall philosophy around it. Marry those two with articulation, and you end up with such greats as Carl Sagan, and Neil deGrasse Tyson, and of course Richard Dawkins. Vincent Icke also, apparently, although like I said I hadn't heard of him so far as far as I can remember. I've bookmarked the Google search page on the man, and intend to look him up a bit more when I have time.

--------------------

Haha, pardon my nitpick, dear um, but I'm not sure, though, why you keep referring to him as a mystic!

I mean, you do explain, in your earlier comment, that in one interview he waxes eloquent about the wonders of science, which leaves that particular audience bemused; and you liken that to a mystic leaving *his* audience bemused; and in that similarity think of him a mystic. But I really don't see the connection there!

That's, like, okay, let me express what I mean with an analogy. Say some mystic you've seen, Charan Singh maybe, or anyone else really, has this habit of scratching his crotch. Or, if you'd rather not make it disrespectful, then say he has this habit of scratching just the tip of his nose. And then you see a scientist, or a musician, or whoever, also scratching his crotch, or, as the case may be, scratching the tip of his nose. And so you suggest that he's like a mystic!

My point is, that is entirely incidental. That he might scratch some part of his anatomy; or that he might hold forth on a subject that, after a point, leaves his audience bemused. I don't see either would make him a mystic!

...Haha, like I said, I realize that's just picking a nit within a incidental throwaway comment of yours! But I do think that unnecessarily fuzzy thinking can sometimes confound things unnecessarily, that just a bit of clear thinking can sometimes clear up. Not always; because some subjects are complex, and need more than just clear thinking to get to the bottom of them. But sometimes, absolutely.

...What would you say is a mystic, then? ...Shorn of historical baggage, I myself would say a mystic is someone that, whether via mediation or else spontaneously, has direct intuitive leaps of insight and vision, that tend to stand out beyond your everyday intuitions of most people. ...When you put it clearly like that, then you can start to think about who is a mystic and who is not; as well as what are the implications of being a mystic; and indeed, whether to be a mystic is even a thing, separate as a category from other things we know of.

What about you, how would you define or describe a mystic? (Heh, assuming you want to explore that incidental bye-way. If you'd rather not, then that's cool too.)

[um]

@ AR

Actually I have none and had none nor was I ever interested... that said I can erasily go with your definition..

Using your definition, you can also understand how difficult it would be for such an human to express himself, or better said, to find the right words to inform, the one's he speaking too and for those to conceptualize what he is speaking about

Against that background if your read again what I wrote about Prof. Icke, you can understand I guess why I used it in that context.

BUT as most of the time my words are just opening a window, for you to look through without telling you what to see there and how ..as you are you.

I cannot stretch enough that I like to observe humans, like an artist loves to paint nature ...they all tell "stories" to me, whoever they are. Their achievements, their understandings their social status etc are just garments ...more interesting is to see how they use them.

Coming from me, the words god, master, guru are empty words, used only if the convention demands it ..but I did see and listen to the man THEY said he was a master, the embodiement of shabd etc i liked and do remember it with great fondness.

[Jimmy]

Sant we are all Gods. Putin is a God. Trump is a God. Gurunder is God. You are a God. P+T are just using their imagination in a evil way. If they only knew how to leave the body and visit the other worlds as Jurgen Ziewe did. Who would use their imagination in such a way they do?
Neville Goddard speaks of this in a audiobook on youtube called ,Out of This world.

[Appreciative Reader]

I hope I'm not beating this incidental thing to death! It's not really important, and if at any point you want to drop it, then just say the word, it's cool!

----------

But, going by what you'd said:

"Using your definition, you can also understand how difficult it would be for such an human to express himself, or better said, to find the right words to inform"

Again, that same thing, um. A mystic might have difficulty in expressing himself to other non-mystics; and Icke has had difficulty expressing himself to his audience in the video you watched (or live talk, if you watched him live): therefore you liken the two. But I don't see the connection!

I see no reason to think Icke is a mystic, not as I have defined it. He may be, for all I know; but we have no reason to simply assume that, just because he sometimes has access to information and insights, via his learning, that he is not able to easily convey to his audience!

You see what I'm saying?

...Also what I said, about whether being a mystic is even a thing, apart from the categories we're already familiar with.

----------

Heh, I won't flog this poor beast beyond this point! As far as Icke, I appreciate your bringing him up, absolutely. Like I said I've bookmarked his Google search page as reminder, and intend to check out a talk or two of his when I have time. If there's any you've seen, that you'd like to recommend, then that'd be cool. (Only if you've already got something in mind. No need to hunt for anything afresh, I can check that out myself.)

[um]

@ Ar

There are mystics, there are scholars,.
Some have reached such an high level of understanding that they are no longer bridge the knowledge gab, the understanding etc

And than there are those that hear the words of the mystics and the scholars and they do with what they hear, whatever they deem fit . ...there "knowledge" is based upon conceptualization of hearsay..they are the users, the consumers and what they do with it in the public domain most of the time has nothing to do with either science or spirituality.

Its is about humans about what they do , what they do with what they achieve, what others do with it ... in the public domain, in relations with their fellow human beings

[Appreciative Reader]

"Some have reached such an high level of understanding that they are no longer bridge the knowledge gab, the understanding etc

And than there are those that hear the words of the mystics and the scholars and they do with what they hear, whatever they deem fit "

Sure, um, that's what they claim. But how do you know it is true?

What you were earlier doing, in likening Icke to a mystic, is committing an error of the category of:
P1: A dog has four limbs.
P2: Socrates has four limbs.
C: Therefore, Socrates is a dog.

Now you've gone on to claim that mystics possess this deep wisdom that others aren't privy to, and can only gather a weak reflection of, at second hand. That's no different, really, than claiming that every time a mystic farts, he levitates a few feet above the ground; and when he farts extra hard, he can sometimes levitate a whole foot. Just random unsubstantiated claims, is all.

The fact that we recognize these to be unsubstantiated claims does not mean that we cannot investigate them, either formally, else informally and personally. Like I've said in the past, I myself am engaged in the latter, albeit in recent times I find myself spending less and less time in the Tantric side of it, and more and more in the straightforward Theravadin side of it, in my practice. ...My point is, sure we can actually practice these, in honest sincere enquiry. But there's no call to make, or to believe, these unsubstantiated claims that mystics can do this that and the other. In fact, absent evidence, there is no reason to believe mystics as a category exist at all, as separate from such categories as mountebanks, and/or suggestibles, and/or schizophrenics and psychotics. (Which, again, is not to say that one might not be interested in the subject, or that one might not oneself investigate such, or engage in practice of such.)

[um]

@ AR

There is noting of the like in my words as far as I intended them to be understood.
I did not write nor suggest that mystics or high level scholars is the same.
I wrote something about humans what they do with their achievements or the achievements of others in the public domain ..that is all I am capable of to observe.

I pointed you at the book of Dr. H. de witt. In that book he speaks at length in Chapter four about language concepts and how to arrive at useful knowledge. I do not say or suggest he is right my point is in putting it before you that he addresses many of the things you point at often..

He addresses at length what you wrote about your own practice ..he labeled it as the language and the concepts of the path ... path language. Psychological tools to inform and guide etc those that walk a path. and separate what language to be use for the fulfillment of the path.

[Appreciative Reader]

"I pointed you at the book of Dr. H. de witt. In that book he speaks at length in Chapter four about language concepts and how to arrive at useful knowledge. I do not say or suggest he is right my point is in putting it before you that he addresses many of the things you point at often"

Fine, let's go with that, then, and leave aside the incidental part about mystics.

De Witt does seem like an interesting man to know, as far as his ideas. There is great need in today's world for bona fide scientists who might present developments in science to us laymen in easily digestible bits, without sacrificing accuracy. Like Feynman had said, if you can't explain your domain knowledge clearly to an intelligent schoolboy, then you don't really know it thoroughly yourself! (Or words to that effect.). Someone like Dawkins, and Carl Sagan, they're a pleasure to read, and to listen to, both for the clarity of their thought, and how simply they discuss the intricacies of their expertise.

I'm looking forward to exploring Icke's work as well, given that you speak so highly of him, in hopes that he might turn out to be similarly interesting and informative.

[Appreciative Reader]

Oh wait, sorry, I ended up conflating those two references. Icke from now, and de Witt from earlier.

I was talking about Icke just now. Although de Witt's ideas too seem interesting and wise. Particularly if, as you say, what he says is similar to what I did. (Joke! Or at least, an attempt at one, that last.)

[um]

@ AR

De wit writes not only about what Mr. Feynman stated but also about building an connection between the two fields of gathering knowledge, the third-person objective knowledge and the first person subjective knowledge. He, in his own field of Psychology tries to do what Prof. Metzinger tries to do in his,

It is simple the fact that science cannot handle what you privately are doing in walking a path, does walking that path not less important, not only for you but for the world at large

[Appreciative Reader]

"It is simple the fact that science cannot handle what you privately are doing in walking a path,"

That's yet another lemon fruit from the venerable tree! Both in terms of being a non sequitur, as well as in terms of being standalone wrong, if we bring in not just formal science but a general scientific worldview ...But I suppose there's not much use pointing that out, and much less discussing it at length. (Haha, I find this tree thing fascinating in its own right!)

(I'd seen your comment the other day, um, but left it be. Was revisiting the thread now, and thought to briefly alert you that this view of yours, like much else you've said, isn't actually true. ...Just in case the tree might, for a change, elect to look down at its droppings of fruit! ...Cool if you don't, as far as I am concerned! Just pointing it out, is all.)