Tag Archives: Time

Biggest Blunder Committed by Science

I think the biggest blunder science has committed is this: it has shown how it is possible to be spaceless and timeless. Why? This is because when theists bring their God in the picture at all, they bring him in as the creator of the universe, not as a mere observer. As universe primarily means its space, time, matter and energy, so God as the supposed creator of the universe is the creator of space, time, matter and energy. That means before creation by God there cannot be any space, time, matter and energy. That will further mean the creator God can never be in any space and time and neither can the creator God contain any matter or energy. That is why creator of the universe will always necessarily have to be spaceless, timeless and immaterial; it can never be otherwise. So once scientists have shown how it is possible to be spaceless and timeless, they will no longer be able to convince us that this spaceless and timeless God cannot exist. All their efforts will be futile and all their arguments against this creator God will fall on deaf ears only.

Is the Universe Immaterial?

We already know that the total energy of the universe is zero. We also know that matter and energy are equivalent. From these can we conclude that the total matter of the universe is also zero? Scientist Vector J Stenger thought so. Here is a quote:

‘E=mc2 says matter and energy are the same entity. Since E=0, the total matter of the universe is zero. Zero does not have to come from anything.

‘Now, if by matter you just mean the equivalent of rest energy, then that came from gravitational energy during the expansion in the early universe.’

– Vic Stenger, having been asked for a simple explanation to the question, “where did all the matter come from?” to a letter to Cliff Walker (September 11, 2001).1

But not everyone thinks so; there are other voices also. As per them it cannot be said that the total matter of the universe is zero simply because its total energy is zero. Actually matter in the universe counts for positive energy and gravity counts for negative energy. So when we add this positive energy of matter with the negative energy of gravity, we arrive at a total energy of zero for the universe. But matter in itself has a non-zero value in the universe.

So I think the whole issue needs re-examination.

I think I have already made the point clear that the beginning of the universe will always mean that it will begin from zero space, zero time, zero matter and zero energy.2 Therefore the total space, total time, total matter and total energy of the universe should also always have to be zero, because nothing in the universe can come from outside. So, if the universe has a beginning, then its total matter will obviously be zero. This is as per logic.

Now we can also give scientific reason as to why the total matter of the universe will have to be zero.

How is the zero total energy of the universe arrived at? Here matter is treated as positive energy and gravity is treated as negative energy. When we add this positive energy of matter with the negative energy of gravity, we get zero total energy for the universe.

But energy cannot be directly deducted from matter. Neither can matter be directly deducted from energy. We will have to bring both of them into the same category before making any such addition or subtraction. We will have to convert either matter into energy or energy into matter. In the above case matter has been converted into energy and this energy is treated as positive energy. From this positive energy negative energy of gravity is subtracted.

Now instead of converting matter into energy, if we convert negative gravitational energy into matter, then we will get negative matter. If we now subtract this negative matter from the positive matter, then we will arrive at the total zero matter of the universe.

So both from the logical point of view as well as from the scientific point of view we can say that the total matter of the universe is zero.

Actually if we say that the total energy of the universe is zero and if matter and energy are also equivalent, then why can we not say that the total matter of the universe is also zero?

As the total matter of the universe is zero, so can we not say that the universe as a whole is immaterial?

Reference:

  1. Positive atheism quotes of Victor J. Stenger, http://www.positiveatheism.org
  2. https://sekharpal.wordpress.com/2017/02/23/what-does-the-beginning-of-the-universe-actually-mean/

What does the Beginning of the Universe actually mean?

The reason as to why theists call their God spaceless, timeless and immaterial is the recognition of the fact that if the universe has a beginning, then that beginning can never be from a source that already contained space, time, matter and energy.

Universe primarily means its space, time, matter and energy. Therefore when we say that the universe has a beginning, we mean to say that its space, time, matter and energy have a beginning. Now the question is: can the universe have a beginning from a source that already contained space, time, matter and energy? If the source already contained space, time, matter and energy, then that would mean that space, time, matter and energy were already there. If space, time, matter and energy were already there, then that would further mean that the universe was already there. If the universe was already there, then why do we again say that the universe has a beginning?

The above reasoning shows that if the universe has a beginning at all, then that beginning can never be from a source that already contained space, time, matter and energy because in that case it will imply that the universe was already there. Therefore the beginning of the universe will always mean that it can begin from zero space, zero time, zero matter and zero energy only. As the universe can begin from zero space, zero time, zero matter and zero energy only, so the total space, total time, total matter and total energy of the universe should always remain zero, as otherwise one will have to explain as to whence appear the extra space, extra time, extra matter and extra energy that were not already there at the beginning.

So for a universe having a beginning this question must have an answer: how does the total space-time of an ever-expanding universe always remain zero?

Only a beginningless, eternal universe will not give us any such trouble.

 

 

 

 

 

Is not SR a Valid Scientific Theory? PART I

Atheists do have some deep-seated basic convictions. When science does in no way contradict these basic convictions of them, they are whole-heartedly with science. However if any scientific theory contradicts in any way any single basic conviction of them, they do not hesitate to go against science.

The two most basic convictions of the atheists are:

  • There is nothing supernatural; and
  • Whatever exists, exists within space-time only. So nothing can exist outside space-time.

However SR has shown that light exists neither in space nor in time, because travel time and travel distance become zero for light. So for light there is neither any space to exist nor any time to exist. This directly contradicts one of the two basic convictions of the atheists that nothing can exist outside space-time. So the attitude of the atheists towards SR is really very peculiar and ambiguous as will be evident from the interactions that I had with some atheists.

In one YouTube comment section one atheist wrote that if space-time began, there is no room for a deity. From here started the exchange of arguments and counterarguments between the two of us.

Me

‘If space-time began, there’s no room for a deity.’

This is not true. If this deity is spaceless and timeless, then it can exist spacelessly and timelessly without needing any space-time for it to exit.

Atheist1

“If this deity is spaceless and timeless” Then definitionally it doesn’t exist. Do you understand? Existence means within space-time. There is nothing “outside”. That’s a comparative concept that doesn’t apply.

Me

Please read the article “The Fundamental Nature of Light” by Dr. Sascha Vongehr in Science 2.0 (February 3rd, 2011) here:

http://www.science20.com/alpha_meme/fundamental_nature_light-75861

There it has been shown that light exists for zero time in zero space, because as per the special theory of relativity both the travel time and the travel distance becomes zero for light. Therefore as per SR light is in no space for no time. So will you say that light does not exist? Here is an example: A photon coming from a star lying at a distance of one billion light-years from the earth will take one billion years of earth’s time to reach the surface of the earth. But from the reference frame of light the distance from the star to the earth is zero. This is as per one of the equations of SR. So as per SR there is no space in between the star and the earth for light to exist. Similarly for light there is no time to exist, because from its own reference frame the travel time has also become zero for it.

Atheist1

“There it has been shown that light exists for zero time in zero space” Well.. that’s fundamentally wrong.. and we have been able to slow down photons and examine them, you know.

“So will you say that light does not exist?” We have a specific definition for the em spectrum, and we measure it.

“But from the reference frame of light” Heh.. light doesn’t have a reference frame. That’s another place you went wrong.

“Similarly for light there is no time to exist, because from its own reference frame the travel time has also become zero for it.” You understand that traveling at lightspeed isn’t going to matter when you are playing these imaginary games, right? Everything moves at the speed of light if you use light as a reference point. Can you see how that just doesn’t work? Also, you assume the speed of light in a vacuum is special, the entire em spectrum moves without regard for the higgs field.

Not sure how this in any way relates to your assertion that a nothing deity can exist. Your page is more philosophy than science.

Me

From your reply it appears that in order to not address the main issue here you have to discuss so many things about light that is not in any way warranted by my reply. I have given one example in my reply: light coming from a star situated at a distance of one billion light-years from the earth. I have also written that the travel distance (TD) and the travel time (TT) from the star to the earth become zero for light. Either I am wrong in my assertion here, or I am not. If I am not wrong, then the two legitimate scientific questions that can be asked here are these: in which space does light exist during its transition from the star to the earth (TD is zero)? And for how long does it exist (TT is also zero)? So the main issue here is simply this: do TD and TT really become zero for light, as the two equations of SR show? Or, do they not? So it was most essential for me to know whether I was wrong in my assertion here or not. But from your reply it is in no way possible for me to know this, because there is no clear-cut answer. So, without trying to sidetracking the real issue here, if you can answer this question just in one word only, then that will be enough and sufficient for me: am I wrong, or am I not? No one has requested you to take a science class here.

Atheist1

“I have given one example in my reply: light coming from a star situated at a distance of one billion light-years from the earth.” That still has nothing to do with your assertion of a deity, try to stay focused.

“I have also written that the travel distance (TD) and the travel time (TT) from the star to the earth become zero for light. Either I am wrong in my assertion here, or I am not.”

In simple terms:

  1. Space is not a perfect vacuum.
  2. The EM spectrum is not sentient, it cannot have a “perspective” as EM is just information packets, not mass.
  3. Mass cannot travel the speed of light, so your modality is flawed.

“If I am not wrong, then the two legitimate scientific questions that can be asked here are these: in which space does light exist during its transition from the star to the earth (TD is zero)? And for how long does it exist (TT is also zero)?” These questions sound like you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of space-time. Space-time is not static, it’s an infinitely variable matrix. Distance is variable as space-time expands (and it will eventually expand faster than light). Of course none of this is relevant to the assertion that a deity exists.

“But from your reply it is in no way possible for me to know this, because there is no clear-cut answer.” Because your questions are not cogent. You need to take a basic cosmology course, understand that there’s a lot more going on than simple trigonometry.

Me

Equations of SR show that travel time and travel distance become zero for light. On the basis of this I have asked these two questions: “in which space does light exist during its transition from the star to the earth (TD is zero)? And for how long does it exist (TT is also zero)?”

But you have written that I “have a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of space-time. Space-time is not static, it’s an infinitely variable matrix. Distance is variable as space-time expands (and it will eventually expand faster than light)”.

So do you mean to say here that if the two facts that space-time is not static and that distance is also variable are properly taken into consideration, then we will find that travel time and travel distance do not actually become zero for light? As whatever I have written is based on the two equations of SR only, so do you mean to say that SR has not taken into consideration these two facts and that that is the reason why it has arrived at some equations that are wrongly showing that travel time and travel distance become zero for light? Do you mean to say that if an actual experiment is conducted with light coming from a distant galaxy, then we will be able to arrive at some other equations completely different from those of SR and that will be able to show that travel time and travel distance do not become zero for light?

Has any such experiment been conducted by any scientist? Can you give any citation? Otherwise how do we come to know that these are not just your personal opinions having no valid scientific basis?

On the basis of which scientific evidence are you saying that travel time and travel distance do not become zero for light when the equations of SR are showing that they do become zero?

Here there are only two possibilities:

1) Either SR has not taken into consideration the facts that space-time is not static and that distance is also variable and that is why it is wrongly showing that travel time and travel distance become zero for light;

2) Or SR has properly taken into consideration the above two facts and despite that it is showing that travel time and travel distance become zero for light.

If 1), then SR is not a valid scientific theory and therefore it should be immediately replaced by some other better theory.

If 2), then my two questions are fully legitimate questions.

Up till now he has not replied although more than two weeks have already elapsed.

Here Atheist1 is not directly saying that SR is not a valid scientific theory. That much courage he does not possess. He knows very well that if he says so, then he will have to substantiate it by some actual experimental evidence as otherwise no one will believe his words. But neither is it possible for him to digest that one well-established scientific theory is showing that light exists neither in space nor in time and so he brings in all sorts of arguments to point out that this cannot be the case:

1) Space is not a perfect vacuum:

2) Space-time is not static, it’s an infinitely variable matrix: and

3) Distance is also variable.

Below is the case of another atheist who is bold enough to say that mathematics of SR is wrong.

Atheist2

So how can a god that exists outside time interact with stuff inside time? At best you have a deist god, but doesn’t this result in another version of the interaction problem? 

Me

Please read the article “The Fundamental Nature of Light” by Dr. Sascha Vongehr in Science 2.0 (February 3rd, 2011) here:

http://www.science20.com/alpha_meme/fundamental_nature_light-75861

There it has been shown that light exists for zero time in zero space, because as per the special theory of relativity both the travel time and the travel distance becomes zero for light. Therefore as per SR light is in no space for no time. Still being neither in space nor in time light can have effects on things within space and time. 

Atheist2

‘Therefore as per SR light is in no space for no time.’

That’s not at all what SR says. Just that light doesn’t ‘experience’ time. It still has location in spacetime(duh, photons is how we see stuff), which means it exists in spacetime.

So you’ve not solved this interaction problem, you’ve just demonstrated you’ve no idea what it’s about, and why SR debunks A-theory of time. 

Me

A photon coming from a star lying at a distance of one billion light-years from the earth will take one billion years of earth’s time to reach the surface of the earth. But from the reference frame of light the distance from the star to the earth is zero. This is as per one of the equations of SR. So as per SR there is no space in between the star and the earth for light to exist. So please specify in which particular space-point does light exist during its transition from the star to the earth. Just saying that light exists in space-time will not do. 

Atheist2

‘But from the reference frame of light the distance from the star to the earth is zero.’

Yes, dr^2 and such, but the particle still exists in space-time now does it.

Again, no frame of reference doesn’t mean no space-time-allocation.

‘So as per SR there is no space in between the star and the earth for light to exist.’

No, just that photons don’t experience time.

‘Just saying that light exists in space-time will not do.’

If observation defeats math, math is wrong, not observation. 

Me

‘If observation defeats math, math is wrong, not observation.’

So you are saying that math of SR is wrong, because observation cannot be wrong. Can you offer a better theory that will be able to replace SR? If you do have such a theory, then please present it to the peers and get it accepted. 

Atheist2

‘So you are saying that math of SR is wrong, because observation cannot be wrong.’

No. Both theory and observation are subject to fallabilism. That doesn’t mean observation isn’t key to physics. I’d refer you to Kuhn’s 5 ways for theory choice.

‘Can you offer a better theory that will be able to replace SR?’

No, nor do I see why I should, that’s not my job. SR is still less wrong than what came before, and very useful. It’s just not complete. 

Me

There are two theories of science that are also considered as facts by the scientific community. These two theories are:

1) Darwin’s theory of evolution: and

2) Einstein’s special theory of relativity.

A theory can be falsified at any time, but a fact is a fact is a fact is a fact is a fact is a fact is a fact. So perhaps you are daydreaming if you think that one day SR will be replaced by some other better theory.

Not only the Believers, but the Atheists as well, can be Close-minded

It is not that only believers are close-minded; there are lots of atheists and non-believers who are close-minded as well. I will give just one example here.

In one YouTube video comment section someone has raised some doubt about the ability of god to interact with stuff inside time while god himself being outside time.  For him in order to exist someone or something must have to be in space and time. In reply I wrote to him that there is an instance in nature that something can still exist even if it is neither in space nor in time. In SR it has been shown that both the travel distance and the travel time become zero for light. So long SR is not replaced by some other better theory, we will have to accept that its mathematical equations are correct and that therefore whatever conclusions can be drawn from these equations are also correct.

So as per SR a photon originating in a distant star and coming towards earth will be neither in space nor in time during its total transition period, which may be anything, even billions of years, depending on the distance of the star from the earth. But due to this reason that light is neither in space nor in time during the transition we cannot say that light does not exist, because we can see the star. Twice my comment was deleted. So I posted it for the third time and then only it was answered. The reply was that the mathematics of SR is wrong, because it contradicts our observation. As we can see the light, so it must be in some space-time. So I had to write to him that If he had any new theory that could replace SR, then he should present it to the peers and get it accepted. This comment was also deleted.

So I cannot accept that only believers are close-minded; non-believers can also be close-minded.

God cannot be defined, God’s Attributes can only be described

Atheists sometimes object that there is no clear definition of a god/God. Here I want to say very clearly that God cannot be defined, God’s attributes can only be described. If God is the creator of the universe, then from this it follows that before creation God was alone and that there was no one else, nothing else other than God. As universe means space, time, matter and energy, so from this it follows that before creation there was no space, no time, no matter and no energy. That means God was neither in any space nor in any time and that God could contain neither any matter nor any energy, because before creation there was no space, no time, no matter and no energy. Being neither in space nor in time God will be thus spaceless and timeless. Containing neither any matter nor any energy God will be thus immaterial and his total energy will be zero. All these directly follow from the statement that God is the creator of the universe. By simple logic it can also be shown that this God being spaceless and timeless will also have the following attributes: God will be changeless, immortal, all-pervading, one, unborn, uncreated, without any beginning, without an end, everlasting and non-composite.1

Some believers also say that God is omnipotent and omniscient; God is all-powerful and all-knowing. But I do not think so. God being the creator of the universe must have necessary power and knowledge for creating it. Otherwise how has God created the universe? But I do not think that solely due to this reason God can be called omnipotent and omniscient.

Thus the complete description of the creator of the universe will be this: God is spaceless, timeless, changeless, immortal, all-pervading, one, unborn, uncreated, without any beginning, without an end, everlasting, non-composite and immaterial.

Whatever else has been said about this God is just wishful thinking.

Reference:

  1. https://sekharpal.wordpress.com/2015/10/23/who-created-god/

 

Something or Someone must exist Beyond Space-time

There is good reason to believe that something or someone exists beyond space-time. Whatever exists within space-time is contingent upon space-time for its existence. If space-time is gone, then everything within space-time will also be gone. So it cannot acquire any property or characteristic either from space-time itself or from anything within space-time that will make space-time itself non-existent, because by that process it will cause its own demise. This is simple common sense. Our existence is contingent upon the existence of earth; so if we destroy the earth, we will also be destroyed.
Now light originates within space-time; that means the existence of light is contingent upon the existence of space-time. So in case of light also the above will be true; light cannot acquire any property or properties either from space-time itself or from anything within space-time that will make space-time non-existent for it. But from SR we see that time totally stops for light and that even infinite distance becomes zero for it. That means space and time become non-existent for light. Therefore due to the reason given above we can say that light must have received these two properties from someone or something whose existence is not contingent upon the existence of space-time and whose existence will not be affected in any way even when space-time is gone.

Problem with an Eternal Universe

Some scientists are now saying that the universe is eternal, that it has always existed even before the big bang. Universe in its present form is only 13.8 billion years old, but before that it has existed in some other form. But before the big bang there was no space and no time, because space and time came into existence along with the big bang only. So if the universe was always there even before the big bang, then it was neither in space nor in time, because before the big bang there was no space and no time. Being neither in space nor in time it will thus be spaceless and timeless. It can be shown by simple logic that being spaceless and timeless it will also be changeless, immortal, all-pervading, one, unborn, uncreated, without any beginning, without an end, everlasting, non-composite and immaterial. It will be immaterial because GR has shown that space, time and matter are so interlinked that either all the three of them will be there together, or none of then will be there. But this is the traditional description of God. So are these scientists subscribing to God?

One can see the link here: https://sekharpal.wordpress.com/2015/10/23/who-created-god/

The only way to come out of this mess is to say that if the universe has always existed even before the big bang, then space and time were already there even before the big bang and that the big bang occurred within the pre-existing space-time. The present universe is also expanding within this pre-existing space-time only.

Is It the Job of the Scientists to Manufacture Truth, Or to Discover It?

Although many scientists have verbally denied God, yet through their scientific work they have always remained faithful to their creator God. I will give a few examples here.

1) I have already shown that a creator God cannot be anything other than spaceless, timeless and immaterial. What does it mean that the universe has been created by God? As universe primarily means its space, time, matter and energy, so universe created by God will mean its space, time, matter and energy have been created by God. That will further mean that before creation by God there was no space, no time, no matter and no energy. That will again mean that God was in no space and time and that God did not contain any matter and energy. That is the reason as to why creator God will always be spaceless, timeless and immaterial. God is immaterial means God contains no matter. As matter and energy are equivalent, so we can say that God contains no energy. So total energy of God is zero. God is the source from which everything has originated. If the source does not contain any energy, then the outcome – here, the universe – cannot contain any energy. That means the total energy of the universe cannot be other than zero. Remaining faithful to their creator God scientists have also shown that the total energy of the universe is indeed zero.

2) God is also said to be spaceless and timeless. If God is really there, then there will be the presence of an everlasting state of spacelessness and timelessness in addition to the universe, because this God is everlastingly present with all his attributes. Due to the presence of this everlasting state of spacelessness and timelessness in addition to our universe space and time in our universe cannot be absolute. For space and time to be absolute, they will have to have the same values in each and every case without any single exception. But due to the presence of this everlasting state space and time will have null values in at least one case, that is, in case of God, whereas in every other case they can have non-zero values. Thus it can be seen that due to the presence of this everlasting state of spacelessness and timelessness in addition to our universe space and time in our universe will fail to have the same values in each and every case, which they must have if they are to be absolute. So in this situation it is impossible for space and time to be absolute. Here also remaining faithful to their creator God scientists have shown that space and time are not at all absolute.

3) God is said to be timeless. Remaining again faithful to the creator God Einstein has shown how a timeless state can obtain. Special theory of relativity (SR) has shown that at the speed of light time totally stops.

4) God is said to be spaceless. In this case also Einstein remained faithful to the creator God and has shown how a spaceless state can obtain. SR has shown that travel distance becomes zero for light. If certain amount of space (say, a room) is filled up with light only, then the volume of that room will be zero due to this property of light. As zero volume means no space, so in this way a spaceless state will obtain.

5) We say God is omnipresent; God is everywhere. God is everywhere means God is wholly present, fully present, entirely present at each and every point of the universe. As God is equally present at each and every point of the universe, so the distance from any point of space to each and every other point of space in the universe must be zero, because one cannot be distant from one’s own self. This truth of God’s omnipresence has been revealed to us by the scientists through the phenomenon of quantum entanglement.

In all the five cases above scientists could have shown just the opposite than what they have actually shown, thus falsifying God. Just show that the universe as a whole has non-zero energy value, God will be falsified. Or show that it is in no way possible to be spaceless and timeless, again God will be falsified. Or show that space and time are not relative, but absolute and God will be falsified. Any one of these shown by them could have falsified God for all time to come. And the scientists were always free to falsify him. But despite that they have failed to do so. This is solely because as scientists it is not their job to manufacture truth, but to discover it. So it was not at all possible for them to do anything other than what they had actually done, even if they had wanted to.

 

Can the Universe Have non-zero energy?

In a debate with Dr. William Lane Craig in March, 2014 theoretical physicist Sean Carroll has said the following in his opening speech:

If you have a universe that obeys the conventional rules of quantum mechanics, has a non-zero energy, and the individual laws of physics are themselves not changing with time, that universe is necessarily eternal. The time parameter in Schrödinger’s equation, telling you how the universe evolves, goes from minus infinity to infinity.1  

But is it possible that the universe can have non-zero energy value? Let us suppose that the universe has non-zero energy value. In that case the universe will behave like a giant matter, because we now know that matter and energy are equivalent. This giant matter will create its own gravitational field that will try to extend beyond the universe, because here the entire universe itself is the matter that has created that field. But there is actually no space outside the universe where this field can extend. For this we can give two reasons. Scientists say that there was no space and time before the big bang. Space and time came into existence along with the big bang only. So there was no preexisting space-time within which this big bang occurred. Another reason is that this universe is also expanding at an accelerating rate. But when it is asked what it is expanding into, the answer we usually get from the scientists is that it is not expanding into anything, because the universe is not embedded into any higher space-time. So these two points suggest that there is no space-time outside the universe. Therefore universe as a whole cannot have any gravitational field that will extend beyond the universe. So, if it is the case that there is no space outside the universe, then in that case it cannot have any non-zero energy value.

Dr. Sten Odenwald has provided the following information on behalf of NASA Astronomy Cafe, part of the NASA Education and Public Outreach program:

‘General relativity tells us that what we call space is just another feature of the gravitational field of the universe, so space and space-time can and do not exist apart from the matter and energy that creates the gravitational field. This is not speculation, but sound observation.’2

So, if at any time of its evolution the universe has non-zero energy value, then it will create the gravitational field that will extend beyond the universe. As space is just another feature of the gravitational field, so in that case there will be space outside the universe. But cosmologists repeatedly say that there is no space outside the universe, because the universe is not expanding into anything. So universe having non-zero energy directly contradicts the statement that there is no space outside the universe.

 

Ref:

  1. http://www.reasonablefaith.org/god-and-cosmology-the-existence-of-god-in-light-of-contemporary-cosmology
  2. https://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/a11332.html