Slashdot Mirror
Before the Big Bang: A Twin Universe?
esocid writes "Until very recently, asking what happened at or before the Big Bang was considered by physicists to be a religious question. General relativity theory just doesn't go there — at T=0, it spews out zeros, infinities, and errors — and so the question didn't make sense from a scientific view. But in the past few years, a new theory called Loop Quantum Gravity (LQG) has emerged. The theory suggests the possibility of a "quantum bounce," where our universe stems from the collapse of a previous universe. This may be similar with beliefs of Physicist Neil Turok of Cambridge University who has theorized about a cyclic universe, constantly expanding and compressing."
Adams said it best: "The Universe, as has been observed before, is an unsettlingly big place, a fact which for the sake of a quiet life most people tend to ignore."
To use your analogy, draw a grid on the balloon. When you inflate the balloon, the grid squares grow. But one unit is still one unit. If you had to measure around the balloon, it would be x squares, regardless the size. This is because we are IN the balloon so that is our frame of reference. You are measuring it outside of the universe, and it just doesn't work like that.
"When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
Science and religion don't have to be mutually exclusive. It is entirely possible for God to obey the laws of physics (or create them, for that matter). Arguments about whether this theory or that law proves or disproves the existence of God are stupid - for example, it is possible that God decided to create man through evolution.
I, too, know many scientists who are actively religious. Most of them say things along the lines of "my studies in field X have opened up to my mind the glory of God" or "the universe and its workings bear witness that we are God's creation".
I'm not trying to say that science can prove or disprove religion (or vice versa)... that's impossible. All I'm saying is that if you believe in God, science isn't going to contradict that belief.
And before I get flamed by people saying "you're just trying to explain away problems so you can still believe in God", it is my firm opinion that any valid belief in God will be consistent with science - any valid religion should be able to withstand that sort of scrutiny. As of yet, I personally have not come across anything scientific that cannot be reconciled with my religious beliefs. There is a world of difference between blindly explaining away problems and reconciling apparent issues.
By "religious question", they mean, "according to our current understanding of the laws of physics, it is impossible, even in theory, to generate a falsifiable hypothosis about what happened before the big bang. Therefore, any discussion of what happened 'before' cannot be scientific, and hence is religions/philisophical discussion, not science".
TFA is about some folks claiming "actually, we DO have a hypothosis that is, at least in theory, falifiable".
"Science" is about studying things that are measurable, empirical, and/or falsifiable, whether one beleives that's ALL there is in the universe or not. "Religion" includes things that are not always empirical and falsifiable, and that cannot, even in theory, be scientifically tested. "Philosophy" includes all of the above and then some.
Whether something is or is not science, and whether something is or is not real, are two seperate questions-- whether or not one feels both questions have the same answer.