I¡¦m certainly no scientist, but I have done a little research on the subject matter. It¡¦s not something that just one source will tell you. To begin, in 1905 Einstein began to publish important papers in theoretical physics, particularly on the special theory of relativity, which synthesized the law of the conservation of the mass with the law of the conservation of energy into an equivalence in terms of the speed of light squared: E=mc2.
Now, if I understand this correctly, he postulated that the three-dimensional coordinates of space and the one of time were also joined into the four-dimensional continuum of space-time. He also published "The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity" in 1916. Using the space-time continuum concept, he postulated that gravity is not a force as much as a field shaped by bodies of mass. His theory was proved correct when he accurately predicted that even light from stars would bend when passing near the sun; this was measured and verified by Arthur Eddington during a total eclipse in 1919.
Now, relative to the point, as I have actually written to someone before; .
Atomic energy has absoluly nothing to do with the theory of relativity Energy = Mass times (186,000 MPS squared).¡¨
Einstein's famous formula E=mc2 indicates that a very small amount of matter may be converted into a tremendous amount of energy. In July 1939 Leo Szilard had told Einstein about the work under way which showed that through nuclear fission a chain reaction might be started. This was a shock to Einstein. Four and a half years earlier he had discounted the likelihood of releasing energy from a molecule, saying, "It is something like shooting birds in the dark in a country where there are only a few birds." Now, with this new knowledge, he immediately realized the danger if Germany were to get uranium from the Belgian Congo, and so, he agreed to contact the Belgium government through his friend, Queen Elizabeth.
On August 2, 1939 Einstein wrote to President Roosevelt explaining how nuclear chain reactions in a large mass of uranium could generate large amounts of power and radium-like elements. In fact, in the immediate future, a powerful enough bomb could be built to destroy an entire port. He pointed out that the best uranium is found in Canada, the former Czechoslovakia, and especially the Belgian Congo, and he had heard that Germany had stopped the sale of uranium from the Czechoslovakian mines. He added that the son of the German Under-Secretary of State was attached to the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute in Berlin, and they were repeating some of the American work on uranium. The letter, with a memorandum by Szilard, actually was not delivered to the President by Sachs until October 11.
President Roosevelt immediately appointed an Advisory Committee on Uranium. Later Einstein considered the writing of this letter the one great mistake of his life; at the time he felt justified because of the danger that the Germans would make atom bombs. This was the extent of Einstein's role in nuclear energy; he did not know that an atomic bomb had been developed by the United States until he heard of the Hiroshima blast. Thus, this also brings up an interesting point and even more significant scientist named Tesler; whose inventions and discoveries in electromagnetism; well, that¡¦s another story that has it¡¦s implications even as we write, that is mind boggling.
In any case, as I as saying earlier, in 1905 when Einstein began to publish these important papers in theoretical physics, and particularly on the special theory of relativity, which synthesized the law of the conservation of the mass with the law of the conservation of energy into an equivalence in terms of the speed of light squared: E=mc2. The one I said described the three-dimensional coordinates of space and the one of time were also joined into the four-dimensional continuum of space-time. This allowed Einstein to gain some recognition from eminent physicists and so he began teaching at universities in Switzerland and Germany. He moved his family to Berlin in April 1914 to accept a position with the Prussian Academy. His wife and two sons were vacationing in Switzerland when the war broke out, and the enforced separation foreshadowed a later divorce. Einstein hated the war and criticized German militarism, but he devoted himself to his scientific work. He published "The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity" in 1916.
Einstein was by now internationally acclaimed as perhaps the greatest scientist of the twentieth century. In 1921 he was awarded the Nobel Prize for Physics. Einstein spent the rest of his scientific career working on his unified field theory, attempting to find the mathematical relationship between the electromagnetic field and the gravitational field. However, quantum theory and the uncertainty principle thwarted his efforts to find a formula which could predict subatomic events. Einstein clung to his belief that the universe is comprehensible, saying that God does not play dice with the world. The particular comment is interesting in and of itself. Einstein did not believe in God up to the point that he formulated the theories to explain the Big Bang. After the Big Bang theory, he was resigned to conclude that there was ¡§A Greater Power in the Universe¡¨, or a being of ¡§superior reasoning power¡¨. He could never accept the God of the Bible, but he did conclude that there was this ¡§superior reasoning power¡¨.
From Einstein¡¦s work, he had an interesting epiphany. As humans we try to reason with very puny brains. We don't have the capability to understand the vastness of God. We can only explain to a point and then it becomes cloudy, even for scientists. They have no idea how old the universe is...they have no real idea how it was formed but by the Big Bang from the ground work established by Einstein.
In short, two things have surfaced. One, Evolutionist and those in search of ET life/intelligence etc....share a hope and many of the "young-creationist", the fear that if the Universe is billions or years old, could somehow "self-assemble" and develop into intelligent beings by only natural processes. You know the lightening, methane gas......enzymes, hormones or whatever...:)) It this was true, life could and probably does exist elsewhere in the entire Universe.......However! For many reasons, science tells us that the premise cannot be true. The entire 17 billion year age Universe is actually inadequate to explain life by natural processes.........
The second issue of Einstein having an epiphany about life and a devine being. He had a reaction to his own theories and equations. These may possibly acknowledge the threat of an encounter with God. Simply said, before he actually published his inferences about the Universe based on his theory of general relativity, he searched for a way to change the equations or shall we say modify the equations in any way that would permit a static universe with "bodies" that rotated around each other. However, it didn't work out that way, he discovered that the universe was expanding and.......decelerating. Thus supporting and proving the Big Bang. Meaning, the universe had a one point origin or beginning......So, even Atheist and Agnostic have to agree that something just doesn't happen from nothing or on it's own. So, Einstein gave up and according to his journals, accepted the necessity for a beginning and eventually to the presence of a "superior reasoning Power". He never did accept the doctrine of a personal God as I said before. As a matter of fact, it is thought that his reference to the ¡§Greatest Mistake of His Life¡¨ was this case, due to the realization that a God existed. It is thought that from researchers that have read his Diary that he had a deep bitterness toward the clergy of that time, and priests in particular. He also had the frustration associated with an inability to understand the paradox of God's omnipotence and man's responsibility for his choices or "free will" as it is sometimes called.
Well, back to the notion of decelerating universe verses an accelerating universe¡K.let¡¦s go to a very distant galaxy where there is a substantial difference between how far a supernova in it; was back when it burst, as compared with how far it is now that we see it.
I understand this correctly, if the universe were static and not expanding, then the supernova would appear with a certain brightness. But because it is expanding, its brightness is different. You can think of the expanding universe as spreading out everything in it, including the photons emitted by the supernova. With the photons spread out, fewer of them strike any detector¡Xwhich might be our eyes, a telescope, a piece of film, whatever--over a given period of time, and the supernova appears dimmer. So an expanding universe makes really distant supernovae look more dimmer than they should, if the universe were static.
What's more, based on how much dimmer they appear, you can tell how fast the universe has been expanding since the supernova burst, and by looking at supernovae at different distances away from us, you can get a history of the expansion velocity over time. I believe this to be correct. It is the way that the Type Ia supernova dimming varies over distance (and therefore over time) that tells us that the universe's expansion is accelerating. This is the theory as I understand it in my little ole mind. I had to get a bottle of wine to finish this anyway¡K¡K..:)
Now, you have to be careful. There is an assumption that Type Ia supernovae are consistent, but you know about assumptions, so begs the question; are they really? If they weren't, then we can't really draw the conclusion of an accelerating expansion. Or, there might be something else that makes the dimming vary the way it does. Maybe there's intervening dust, and that makes the distant supernovae dimmer than you might expect, that is being based on a steady expansion. If we think it's dust, and the dust is uniform throughout the universe, then the dimming varies another way. If it's really an accelerating expansion, it varies another way. (You could get them to agree by making the dust distribute itself unevenly, but that's called cooking the hypothesis to match the facts, and should be avoided.) So for those that know how to do it¡K¡K..making careful measurements of a supernova¡¦s "light curves" against the red shift of their host galaxies, we can distinguish between the two hypotheses. The problem is that until recently, measurements were too crude to make it clear which one was happening. So, yes, up to date they have in the past couple of years, it seems that the accelerating expansion explanation is what's really happening, and that dust is not the explanation for the dimming variation. The MAP results are an important corroboration of the supernova evidence. This is according to a Brian Tung, written in 2003.
However, moving on, we arrive back at the ¡§The Big Bang Theory¡¨ which is the dominant scientific theory about the origin of the universe. According to the big bang, the universe was created sometime between 10 billion and 20 billion years ago from a cosmic explosion that hurled matter and in all directions. This is a far cry from our Baby Boomer believe of; what was it back then, 4-6 billion year old Universe. So now they say that Fifteen billion years ago, the entirety of our universe was compressed into the confines of an atomic nucleus. This is known as a singularity. A singularity as you already know is the moment before creation when space and time did not exist. Science cannot explain any thing that happens before a Singularity. According to the prevailing cosmological models that explain our universe, an ineffable explosion, trillions of degrees in temperature on any measurement scale, that was infinitely dense, created not only fundamental subatomic particles and thus matter and energy but space and time itself. Cosmology theorists combined with the observations of their astronomy colleagues have been able to reconstruct the primordial chronology of events known as the big bang. Guess, who focused on that little gem? Old Einstein himself closed in on that one. Quantum theory suggests that moments after the explosion at 10 -43 seconds, the four forces of nature; strong nuclear, weak nuclear, electromagnetic and gravity were combined as a single "super force"(Wald). Elementary particles known as quarks (Now we know how they got their name on ¡§Deep Space Nine¡¨¡Kƒº) ; begin to bond in trios, forming photons, positrons and netrinos and were created along with their antiparticles.
There are minuscule amounts of protons and neutrons at this stage; approximately 1 for every one billion photons, neutrinos or electrons (Maffei). The density of the Universe in its first moment of life is thought to have been 1094g/cm3 with the majority of this being radiation. For each billion pairs of these heavy particles (hadrons) that were created, one was spared annihilation due to particle-antiparticle collisions. The remaining particles constitute the majority of our universe today (Novikov). Now that took a bottle of wine to find¡Kand boy was it fun.
During this creation and annihilation of particles the universe was undergoing a rate of expansion many times the speed of light. This I believe is known as the ¡§inflationary epoch¡¨, the universe in less than one thousandth of a second doubled in size at least one hundred times, from an atomic nucleus to 1035 meters in width. An isotropic inflation of our Universe ends at 10-35 second that was almost perfectly smooth. If it were not for a slight fluctuation in the density distribution of matter, theorists have contended, galaxies would have been unable to form (Parker). This brings us to the universe according to Einstein. So, it is said by some, that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate.
You seem to have a firm grasp of science, physics, religion, etc...so, then explain this concept to me. We both seem to agree that the universe is expanding. By universe I assume we mean ALL the planetary bodies, etc... Now, if it¡¦s expanding then we can eliminate the notion that the universe is static as scientist used to think. So, if it¡¦s expanding at a certain velocity in the vacuum of space; the planetary bodies are moving outward in different directions. This is proven by the introduction of the red and blue shifts that describe this principle and allows us to measure the direction and velocity. If you draw a line backward retracing their forward motion you come to a common point of origin. Thus, the big Bang, kaboom. This point of origin is called a Singularity. Okay, so, my lack of knowledge shows when I ask, how is it that bodies set in motion by whatever original force in the vacuum of space all of a sudden start accelerating at the same time and without any cause. What force of nature has caused the planets to accelerate from their present velocity? I do understand if they all remained at a constant velocity since they are traveling from a cause and are moving at the same velocity since space is a vacuum. I also can understand if they decelerate as they move away from their point of origin as would be characteristic of an explosion at their point of origin because they would of started at the same time. But, pray tell, how are they now accelerating and when did this acceleration start? What is the force that started them at the same time. It would seem that this force could be discovered and named.
It is because of the Big Bang, that Einstein also is reported to have said that THIS was the biggest mistake of his life to have discovered this.
"Even Einstein came to the conclusion that there was a ¡§higher reasoning power¡¨ within the universe. He had trouble on a personal basis accepting this, but had to concede due to his theories working out (long story short).
This revelation has everything to do with the work that he produced. He even changed the K-constant in one of his formulas to make the universe static again. This change he made, was discovered as a mistake, brought to his attention, and thus he changed back the K-constant which brought him back to the Big Bang and an expanding universe. This revelation has everything to do with his work as it effected the accuracy of his formulas. This is a fact of history by the way.
At present, the big bang and its countless variations are the dominant theories in cosmology. For this reason, when examining entropy and the universe, the big bang theory is clearly the point to start. The 'standard model' is the simplest version.
According to the standard model, the universe was born in a massive explosion about 15 thousand million years ago. Time, space and matter were all created in an infinitely hot and dense fireball. Cosmologists still do not know what happened at the actual moment of the big bang. The closer to the big bang they investigate, the hotter and denser the matter is and the more tentative our knowledge of the particle physics involved at that stage becomes. What happens after the big bang is easier to work out. As the universe expanded, the matter within it became cooler and less dense. The temperature dropped from 1011 ¢XK at the time of one hundredth of a second after the big bang to 1010 ¢XK one second later and then to 109 ¢XK three minutes after the big bang. About 700,000 years later, temperatures had dropped enough to let stable atoms form. Fluctuations from place to place in the density or expansion rate of the smooth and featureless universe created slight matter imbalances, which gave rise to the first stars. These after effects seem to indicate that the expansion is decelerating not accelerating. I wouldn¡¦t swear to it, it just seems so.
Although the universe has been expanding ever since the big bang, it will not necessarily always continue expanding, because gravity is pulling everything back together. The fate of the universe depends on how strong this retarding force is. There are three possibilities.
The universe may expand forever, because the gravitational force is not strong enough to halt the expansion. This is called an open universe and is judged the most likely possibility by observational evidence. Or, the universe may be balanced exactly between the two forces - the universe may just stop expanding in (infinite) time, but never contract. This is a flat universe. Last but not least, gravity may be strong enough to reverse the expansion and the universe will collapse back to a singularity. This is called a closed universe.
First, I will consider the nature of a big bang universe, then think about entropy and its effect in open, flat or closed universes.
According to J. Whistler, the nature of a big bang universe is a description of how its space-time is warped overall. It depends on what 'shape' the universe is (open, flat or closed) and tells us whether the universe is finite of infinite. If the universe is closed, everything must collapse back into a singularity. As this includes light, no light can escape the universe's gravitational pull. As space is defined as somewhere which has the potential for matter or energy to be within it, this means the universe must have a limited volume - it must be spatially finite. As space-time has no boundaries, this means the universe is curved in on itself, like the surface of a sphere. If the universe is flat, then space-time is also said to be flat, and the universe is infinite in size. To my mind this raises a contradiction. The larger an object is, the less dense it needs to be to have the same gravitational attraction as a smaller object. An infinitely large object would need an infinitesimally low density to have enough gravitational attraction to stop light escaping. As the observable universe has a density larger than zero and the universe as a whole is homogenous (a key assumption in the big bang theory), an infinite universe would immediately become a black hole. As a black hole is technically the same as a finite universe, even if an infinite universe existed in the past, it now would be finite.
Interesting stuff wouldn¡¦t you say. Let¡¦s complicate matters, by saying if the universe is open, even greater questions arise, as space-time is said to be warped 'like a saddle'. Apart from suffering from the same contradiction as the flat universe, there is no explanation why it should be shaped in this way, or what shapes it. In any case, as I see it, there is no reason why an open universe should not be spatially finite, but still expand forever.
According to my layman¡¦s investigation (Very Layman), the most likely overall theory seems to be the big bang theory - all the other theories contain several entropy contradictions and need extra effects (like the creation of matter or a false vacuum) which have not been observed. In particular, the open universe model contains least entropy contradictions, and agrees with observational evidence - the only problem it needs to solve is how the gravitational attraction of the big bang singularity could have been overcome. The other interesting thing is we all agree on one thing, it seems. The bodies are expanding outwardly. Meaning Big Bang, meaning created from an unknown force even Einstein proved that there was a ¡§higher reasoning power¡¨, which caused Einstein a lot of personal turmoil at this discovery, and he had to accept it according to his own formulas¡K..going from a static universe to an expanding¡K..find this out, changing the K constant, to make the Universe Static again¡K¡K..only to be corrected by another Physicist, causing Einstein to place the K-Constant back in the formula making the Universe Expanding from a singularity. I could be wrong in all this, but this is what my research lead me to believe. Please correct me if you find an inaccurate principle or something taken out of context¡K¡K¡Kmuch appreciated.
What is the meaning of all this, the real meaning, subconsciously and in other ways, the conscious purpose of this study¡K..maybe this article might explain a decent amount¡K¡K
Russian scientists certain of the existence of God
06 October 2006, 11:06
Moscow, October 6, Interfax ¡V The existence of God has been proved by scientific methods, Academician Anatoly Akimov, director of the Institute of Theoretical and Applied Physics, has stated.
¡¥There is God, and we can see the manifestations of His will. This is the opinion of many scientists; they not only believe in the Creator but rely on certain knowledge¡¦, he said in an interview published by the Moskovsky komsomolets daily on Friday.
The scientist noted that in the past centuries very many physicists believed in God. Moreover, until Isaac Newton, there was no separation between science and religion; science was practiced by clergy as they were the most educated people. Newton himself studied theology and used to repeat: ¡¥I deduce laws of mechanics from laws of God¡¦.
When scientists invented the microscope 300 years ago and began studying what happens within the cell, the duplication and segmentation of chromosomes overwhelmed them: ¡¥How this can be without Providence?!¡¦
¡¥Indeed¡¦, Akimov added¡¦ ¡¥if man had appeared on the Earth as a result of evolution, then, considering the frequency of mutations and the speed of biochemical processes, more time would have been required to develop man from elementary cells then the age of the Universe itself¡¦.
Besides, he continued, calculations have been made to show that the number of quantum elements in the observed Universe cannot be fewer than 10155 and it cannot but possess a superintellect.
¡If it is all a single system, then, viewing it as a computer, let us ask: is there anything beyond the power of a computing system with such a great number of elements? It means it has unlimited powers, times and times greater than the most sophisticated modern computer has!¡¦ the scientist stressed.
He maintains that what various philosophers describe as Universal Intellect or Absolute is exactly this superpowerful system which we identify with the potential of the Almighty.
¡This does not contradict the basic tenets of the Bible. It says in particular that God is omnipresent; He is present at every time and in every place. We can see this is the case: the Lord has a boundless power to affect all that happens¡¦.
Academician Akimov was baptized at the age of 55. ¡¥Have you come to believe in God?¡¦ a priest asked him when he came to church. ¡¥No, I have simply realized that He cannot but exist!¡¦ the scientist answered.