On Evolution & Creation

[JustGeorge]

**Moved to Evolution vs. Creationism**​

 

[shunyadragon]

Science is as only as good as the tools it uses. One can see mold growing on bread, over night. But since the bread looked clean yesterday and now we have this growing mass of mold, it would appear like spontaneous life appeared. This can be reinforced if you could not yet see the mold spores with with your tools, and how these spores are often air borne, and can land on anything, including clean things, and if there is water and food, the spores will grow. The lack of tools to explain and justify some past theory, until the tools catch up.

The main problem with evolution, is it starts the clock=0, at the first theoretical replicators. Science has never found any such replicators, to prove their foundation premise is valid. The whole theory is grounded on a foundation that has never been proven, with direct hard evidence. Hard evidence is important, correct! If I said God created the replicators, I would have the same amount of hard evidence. The foundation premise of modern evolution isa the same proof level, as a religious theory for evolution. Is there a dual evidence standard? I like science but not hypocrite science.

The problem with starting any theory so late, is it detaches from the previous chemical foundation, that brought the precursors of life to that point. It is sort of like, buying a house after it was built, with no knowledge of all the foundation, that got it to that point. You cannot just blow out wall, without having to go back and see how it was framed. Casino science may be needed to gloss over that understanding. Prediction is still in the prophesy stage; something in the future may happen, but where and when is not known; atheist religion.

The tools of science are as excellent and reliable as your religious based world view is bad,

This reflect your 'fallacy arguing from ignorance' with an anti-science religious agenda basing your argument on what you believe science does not know, which is the same religious based argument the the Discovery Institute uses.

Science does not have a problem you do.

 

[icant]

I've already explained this misunderstanding. It in no way at all implied an eternal past, and may well not be strictly true even today.

You have not explained how energy can be created.

Nobody can prove that no God exists. Many, or even most, versions of God are unfalsifiable. What we can do is challenge woolly thinking and superstition.

Can you prove that energy existed 1 billionth of a second after T=0?
I can prove that It had to exist at that point as this universe exist now.

I don't think anybody does.

According to the BBT existence can begin from none-existence. There was non existence at T=0.

That's just blind faith. Something happened about 3.7 billion years ago on Erath to get life going. We have plenty of evidence for that.

Blind faith, that is what I have been told about my belief in God.

Enjoy

 

[icant]

Science does not have a problem you do.

I would think a shortage of a source of the energy that was required to create this universe and everything in it would be a BIG problem.

Enjoy,

 

[ratiocinator]

You have not explained how energy can be created.

1. The total energy of the universe could be zero.
2. Regardless of the total energy, its conservation (and hence non-creation) depends entirely on the laws of physics being time independent.
3. It is unclear if energy conservation (non-creation) works for the expanding universe anyway.
4. The GR view of time means that even if time is finite in the past, nothing was 'created' at the start. The whole of spacetime is one 4-dimensional 'object' that contains time as directions though it. It is not subject to time. It did not start to exist, it cannot stop existing, it is, as a whole, timeless, it just is.

General relativity introduces new phenomena. In an expanding universe, photons spontaneously redshift and tethers spontaneously gain tension; if vacuum energy is positive, the total vacuum energy of the universe appears to spontaneously increase as the volume of space increases. Some scholars claim that energy is no longer meaningfully conserved in any identifiable form.​

...​

Energy-momentum is typically expressed with the aid of a stress–energy–momentum pseudotensor. However, since pseudotensors are not tensors, they do not transform cleanly between reference frames. If the metric under consideration is static (that is, does not change with time) or asymptotically flat (that is, at an infinite distance away spacetime looks empty), then energy conservation holds without major pitfalls. In practice, some metrics, notably the Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker metric that appears to govern the universe, do not satisfy these constraints and energy conservation is not well defined.​

From:

Conservation of energy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

According to the BBT existence can begin from none-existence.

False.

 

[ratiocinator]

I would think a shortage of a source of the energy that was required to create this universe and everything in it would be a BIG problem.

Which appears to be because you know next to nothing about the science.

 

[icant]

Which appears to be because you know next to nothing about the science.

Then where did it come from?

Enjoy,

 

[icant]

False.

If the BBstarted from existence where did that existence come from?

 

[ratiocinator]

Then where did it come from?

See #225. Your mistake is thinking it 'came from' anywhere, or needed to.

If the BBstarted from existence where did that existence come from?

See above.

Very little knowledge of a subject leads to massive overconfidence. You seem to be at the "I know everything" stage.

 

[Pogo]

Hi ratiocinator,

Existence has been around since before the first man existed on earth. There was all kinds of things and events taking place with no way to figure out anything but to sleep, wake up work, darkness comes go back to sleep, because he had been so busy during the day trying to feed himself and his familie so, mankind devised a way to sort of divide up the light period which would be from the time the sun came up until it set. All you had to do was put a stick, or pole in the ground and then divide up the different parts of the light period in relation of the shadow that was cast by the pole, in relation to the sun. Later they came up with the base 60 in counting to base what the numbers would be.
So all they did was to divide up the light period into periods of duration and place a number on it. But the only thing that was measured was the length of the duration. That was done using the concept they came up with to measure the duration in existence between events.

I know you don't like that because it don't fit your world view. But that is the fact and that is what time is. It is the duration events in existence.

Beautiful chart but it only shows that an instrument on earth has more gradational force exerted on it than one further away from the center of gravity does.

A man on the moon could not walk around without a spacesuit on. The strongest gravity would be pulling him away from the moon not toward it.

Enjoy,

The lunar lander didn't have a space suit, why didn't it float away?

 

[shunyadragon]

I would think a shortage of a source of the energy that was required to create this universe and everything in it would be a BIG problem.

Enjoy,

No, Quantum Energy and Quantum Gravity are no in short supply.

 

[shunyadragon]

Then where did it come from?

Enjoy,

Our physical existence has always existed. There is no known physical beginning or origin.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The theories of Evolution and Creation stem from two world views; two different philosophies. Evolution is modeled after a more random philosophy of the universe. Creation is more based on a more rational and deterministic philosophy of the universe. Each are custom fitted to each philosophy and not other way around. We then see what we expect to see, based on which philosophical bias we share.

Evolution does not create. Rather its creations are more of a random byproduct. The Old man in the Mountain was not the goal of million years of erosion. Rather the semblance of an old man's head was a coincidence. That fits the black box mentality. Creation is something that humans do in a deliberate way. If I needed a place to live, I can build a house and thereby create a shelter; deliberate action with a goal in mind. I do not have to wait for nature, via a coincidence, to tunnel out a cave for me to find. The random philosophy does more conjuring; odds makers, while the rational philosophy does more creating. A deterministic God, or belief thereof, is a platform for reason and logic; deliberate action to a goal. It is not about waiting for random event to align with my needs, so I can eat. I need to create a deliberate plan with logic.

The main problem with the random approach is, it is grounded on human creations and not naturally random things. For example, dice are man made and are designed in a way that is not like nature. A six sided dice is designed to be equally weighed on all sides, so when thrown the same odds appear for each side. Dice were created that way as part for a gambling game from ancient times. Atoms, on the other hand, have all their sides different; layered as different energy levels. Those natural dice are not homogenized, so molecules can form just as easy with inner or outer orbital electrons. They are loaded so the outcomes of chemical reaction are more predictable and rational. Dice are part of an invented/created human game of chance, and became the foundation for a form of science, used to model a random philosophy of the universe.

Playing cards, another human creation, allows for a large number of combinations, the odds of which can be calculated. This is because they are all created with the same physical size and weight, but are only different in terms of their subjective markings, which is totally arbitrary. Subjectivity is closer to random, which is why it was created that way. People create their own reality.

We have two main political parties, each with a different world view, with both looking at the same data, but each forming different conclusions. How is that possible? It depends whether you try to be objective to the data, or whether the subjectivity of face cards matters more; racism and DEI. In my experience, the Left tends to be more subjective; emotional thinkers, and therefore tend to gravitate to a random model of evolution. Gender is now a new deck of cards. Does anyone know how many cards in that new deck? Pick a card!

For example, Socialism has been tried before, with some limited success but also some epic failures. From the random mind, the next time can be the charm. Evolution creates things the same way; new species or replicators appear. The Creationist who has to create something; build a bridge, knows random takes too long and cannot be aimed very well. It is better for games. Hoping this time will be different is not good enough. You need more of a logical plan; cause and effect, so it ends up as was needed in reasonable time. Creationism, ironically, actually helped the human brain be more like God, and learn to have plan with a casual philosophy; image of God. The speed of creation; 6 days, suggest find the fastest path for your human creation, and that will be the most logical; simplicity is perfection.

tl;dr

I stopped reading after the first 2 sentences. Reason being that it was already clear that only BS was going to follow, building on those initial falsehoods.

Evolution is a scientific theory, just like any other.
It is the result of research, following the evidence and independent testing of the proposed explanations.

Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[ratiocinator]

No, Quantum Energy and Quantum Gravity are no in short supply.

Please stop. There is no special "quantum energy", energy in quantum mechanics is an observable and therefore has an associated operator, which appears in the Schrödinger equation:

5.3: Operators and Observables

We have a special set of mathematical tools called operators that allow us to extract information from quantum states. Sometimes these operators give us a single, exact number, and other times they …

phys.libretexts.org

There is no theory of quantum gravity yet.

Our physical existence has always existed. There is no known physical beginning or origin.

It has only 'always existed' in the sense that there was never a time at which it didn't exist. Whether time is infinite in the past is unknown, but GR predicts a singularity and hence a termination of all timelike paths in the past. As I said, nobody really takes the singularity seriously, but nevertheless, time may still be finite in the past, as in the Hawking no boundary proposal.

 

[shunyadragon]

Please stop. There is no special "quantum energy", energy in quantum mechanics is an observable and therefore has an associated operator, which appears in the Schrödinger equation:

View attachment 97261

5.3: Operators and Observables

We have a special set of mathematical tools called operators that allow us to extract information from quantum states. Sometimes these operators give us a single, exact number, and other times they …

phys.libretexts.org

There is no theory of quantum gravity yet.


It has only 'always existed' in the sense that there was never a time at which it didn't exist. Whether time is infinite in the past is unknown, but GR predicts a singularity and hence a termination of all timelike paths in the past. As I said, nobody really takes the singularity seriously, but nevertheless, time may still be finite in the past, as in the Hawking no boundary proposal.

PLEASE STOP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Your selective use of reference is a problematic agenda.

quantum gravity theory - Google Search

"Quantum gravity theory" refers to a theoretical field in physics that aims to describe gravity using the principles of quantum mechanics, essentially attempting to unify the large-scale theory of gravity (general relativity) with the microscopic world governed by quantum mechanics, where the nature of spacetime itself is considered quantized, meaning it exists in discrete units rather than continuously; this is considered one of the biggest unsolved problems in physics today, with prominent approaches including string theory and loop quantum gravity.


Key points about quantum gravity:

• Goal:
  To reconcile the theory of general relativity (describing gravity) with quantum mechanics, which describes the behavior of particles at very small scales.
  
  
  
• Challenges:
  Integrating gravity with quantum mechanics presents significant mathematical difficulties, as current understanding of gravity views it as the curvature of spacetime, which needs to be quantized in a quantum gravity theory.
  
  
  
• Relevant scenarios:
  Quantum gravity effects are expected to be most significant in extreme environments like black holes or the very early universe.
  
  
  
• Leading theories:
  
  
  • String theory: Proposes that fundamental particles are tiny vibrating strings, which could potentially unify all forces including gravity.
    
    
    
  • Loop quantum gravity: Attempts to quantize spacetime itself by dividing it into tiny "loops".

 

[ratiocinator]

PLEASE STOP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Your selective use of reference is a problematic agenda.

quantum gravity theory - Google Search

"Quantum gravity theory" refers to a theoretical field in physics that aims to describe gravity using the principles of quantum mechanics, essentially attempting to unify the large-scale theory of gravity (general relativity) with the microscopic world governed by quantum mechanics, where the nature of spacetime itself is considered quantized, meaning it exists in discrete units rather than continuously; this is considered one of the biggest unsolved problems in physics today, with prominent approaches including string theory and loop quantum gravity.


Key points about quantum gravity:

• Goal:
  To reconcile the theory of general relativity (describing gravity) with quantum mechanics, which describes the behavior of particles at very small scales.
  
  
  
• Challenges:
  Integrating gravity with quantum mechanics presents significant mathematical difficulties, as current understanding of gravity views it as the curvature of spacetime, which needs to be quantized in a quantum gravity theory.
  
  
  
• Relevant scenarios:
  Quantum gravity effects are expected to be most significant in extreme environments like black holes or the very early universe.
  
  
  
• Leading theories:
  • String theory: Proposes that fundamental particles are tiny vibrating strings, which could potentially unify all forces including gravity.
    
    
    
  • Loop quantum gravity: Attempts to quantize spacetime itself by dividing it into tiny "loops".

I know what it is, but as the article you quoted make quite clear, there is no tested and accepted theory yet, just multiple candidates. Apart from the main two (Loop Quantum Gravity and String Theory) it lists no less than 22 others in the Other Theories section:

• Asymptotic safety in quantum gravity
• Euclidean quantum gravity
• Integral method[55][56]
• Causal dynamical triangulation[57]
• Causal fermion systems
• Causal Set Theory
• Covariant Feynman path integral approach
• Dilatonic quantum gravity
• Double copy theory
• Group field theory
• Wheeler–DeWitt equation
• Geometrodynamics
• Hořava–Lif****z gravity
• MacDowell–Mansouri action
• Noncommutative geometry
• Path-integral based models of quantum cosmology[58]
• Regge calculus
• Shape Dynamics
• String-nets and quantum graphity
• Supergravity
• Twistor theory[59]
• Canonical quantum gravity

So, making statements about what Quantum Gravity theory can tell us is totally misleading.

 

[shunyadragon]

Please stop. There is no special "quantum energy", energy in quantum mechanics is an observable and therefore has an associated operator, which appears in the Schrödinger equation:

View attachment 97261

5.3: Operators and Observables

We have a special set of mathematical tools called operators that allow us to extract information from quantum states. Sometimes these operators give us a single, exact number, and other times they …

phys.libretexts.org

There is no theory of quantum gravity yet.


It has only 'always existed' in the sense that there was never a time at which it didn't exist. Whether time is infinite in the past is unknown, but GR predicts a singularity and hence a termination of all timelike paths in the past. As I said, nobody really takes the singularity seriously, but nevertheless, time may still be finite in the past, as in the Hawking no boundary proposal.

Quantum Gravity and Field Theory​

Quantum physics and Einstein’s theory of general relativity are the two solid pillars that underlie much of modern physics. Understanding how these two well-established theories are related remains a central open question in theoretical physics. Over the last several decades, efforts in this direction have led to a broad range of new physical ideas and mathematical tools. In recent years, string theory and quantum field theory have converged in the context of holography, which connects quantum gravity in certain space-times with corresponding (conformal) field theories on a lower-dimensional space-time. These developments and connections have deepened our understanding not only of quantum gravity, cosmology, and particle physics, but also of intermediate scale physics, such as condensed matter systems, the quark-gluon plasma, and disordered systems. String theory has also led to new insights to problems in many areas of mathematics.

Holographic entanglement wedge.
Credit: N. Engelhardt/D. Harlow
The interface of quantum physics and gravity is currently leading to exciting new areas of progress, and is expected to remain vibrant in the coming decade. Researchers in the Center for Theoretical Physics (CTP) have been at the forefront of many of the developments in these directions. CTP faculty members work on string theory foundations, the range of solutions of the theory, general relativity and quantum cosmology, problems relating quantum physics to black holes, and the application of holographic methods to strongly coupled field theories. The group in the CTP has close connections to condensed matter physicists, astrophysicists, and mathematicians both at MIT and elsewhere.

Strange metals and AdS_2.
Credit: N.Iqbal
In recent years a set of new developments has begun to draw unexpected connections between a number of problems relating aspects of gravity, black holes, quantum information, and condensed matter systems. It is becoming clear that quantum entanglement, quantum error correction, and computational complexity play a fundamental role in the emergence of spacetime geometry through holographic duality. Moreover these tools have led to substantial progress on the famous black hole information problem, giving new avenues for searching for a resolution of the tension between the physics of black holes and quantum mechanics. CTP faculty members Netta Engelhardt and Daniel Harlow have been at the vanguard of these developments, which also tie into the research activity of several other CTP faculty members, including Aram Harrow, whose primary research focus is on quantum information, and Hong Liu, whose research connects black holes and quantum many-body dynamics.

Minimal area metric on punctured torus.
Credit: B. Zwiebach
Holographic dualities give both a new perspective into quantum gravitational phenomena as encoded in quantum field theory, and a way to explore aspects of strongly coupled field theories using the gravitational dual. CTP faculty have played a pioneering role in several applications of holographic duality. Hong Liu and Krishna Rajagopal are at the forefront of efforts that use holography to find new insights into the physics of the quark-gluon plasma. Liu was among the first to point out possible connections between black hole physics and the strange metal phase of high temperature superconductors, and in recent years has been combining insights from effective field theories, holography, and condensed matter physics to address various issues concerning far-from-equilibrium systems including superfluid turbulence, entanglement growth, quantum chaos, thermalization, and a complete formulation of fluctuating hydrodynamics. Gravitational effective field theories play a key role in the interpretation of gravitational wave observations. Mikhail Ivanov works at the intersection of these fields with the aim of testing strong field gravity at a new precision frontier.

False vacuum bubble.
Credit: A.Guth
Even though we understand string theory better than we did in decades past, there is still no clear fundamental description of the theory that works in all situations, and the set of four-dimensional solutions, or string vacua, is still poorly understood. The work of Washington Taylor and Barton Zwiebach combines physical understanding with modern mathematical methods to address these questions, and has led to new insights into how observed physics fits into the framework of string theory as well as the development of new mathematical results and ideas. Alan Guth‘s foundational work on inflationary cosmology has led him to focus on basic questions about the physics of the multiverse that arises naturally in the context of the many string theory vacua, and which provides the only current natural explanation for the observed small but positive cosmological constant.

Tensor network for the non-invertible duality symmetry in lattice gauge theory. Credit: P. Gorantla.
Symmetry has long been a guiding principle in the study of quantum field theory and gravity. Shu-Heng Shao’s research focuses on generalizations of global symmetries in field theory and lattice systems. These new symmetries and their anomalies lead to various new dynamical constraints on (de)confinement, scattering amplitudes, renormalization group flows, and more. They also unify different conjectures in quantum gravity and holography. The microscopic lattice realizations of these new symmetries are naturally expressed through tensor networks, indicating an intriguing link to quantum information theory.

 

[ratiocinator]

Quantum Gravity and Field Theory​

Quantum physics and Einstein’s theory of general relativity are the two solid pillars that underlie much of modern physics. Understanding how these two well-established theories are related remains a central open question in theoretical physics....

Try reading your own source.

 

[Pogo]

PLEASE STOP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Your selective use of reference is a problematic agenda.

quantum gravity theory - Google Search

"Quantum gravity theory" refers to a theoretical field in physics that aims to describe gravity using the principles of quantum mechanics, essentially attempting to unify the large-scale theory of gravity (general relativity) with the microscopic world governed by quantum mechanics, where the nature of spacetime itself is considered quantized, meaning it exists in discrete units rather than continuously; this is considered one of the biggest unsolved problems in physics today, with prominent approaches including string theory and loop quantum gravity.


Key points about quantum gravity:

• Goal:
  To reconcile the theory of general relativity (describing gravity) with quantum mechanics, which describes the behavior of particles at very small scales.
  
  
  
• Challenges:
  Integrating gravity with quantum mechanics presents significant mathematical difficulties, as current understanding of gravity views it as the curvature of spacetime, which needs to be quantized in a quantum gravity theory.
  
  
  
• Relevant scenarios:
  Quantum gravity effects are expected to be most significant in extreme environments like black holes or the very early universe.
  
  
  
• Leading theories:
  
  • String theory: Proposes that fundamental particles are tiny vibrating strings, which could potentially unify all forces including gravity.
    
    
    
  • Loop quantum gravity: Attempts to quantize spacetime itself by dividing it into tiny "loops".

Shuny, Please Stop arguing with @ratiocinator. He appears to be the one person here who actually deals with this stuff, knows and understands the math and is patient enough to attempt explanations of the popular treatment of the subject.
His answer and it is the answer of the field is We don't know" There are a lot of what are unfortunately called theories, should be hypotheses, that may lead to greater understanding, but no evidence to choose between them yet. This is all brought about because while relativity has made incredible strides in helping us to understand the observable universe, the equations when carried to a certain point in the past devolve into a mathematical conundrum called a singularity which is basically a point that doesn't make sense and it has been realized that a theory of quantum gravity will be needed at this scale. There isn't one yet, they are working on it but until one is found that works all we have is what is colloquially called speculation.
Bloviating over your interpretations is not useful.

 

[shunyadragon]

Try reading your own source.

You perpetually selectively citing references 'arguing from ignorance,' demanding thar science must 'know' which is Newtonian ridiculous in terms of theoretical physics.

'Quantum gravity' could help unite quantum mechanics with general relativity at last​

News
By Robert Lea
published February 23, 2024
"By understanding quantum gravity, we could solve some of the mysteries of our universe — like how it began, what happens inside black holes, or uniting all forces into one big theory."

Scientists have determined a way to measure gravity on microscopic levels, perhaps bringing them closer to forming a theory of "quantum gravity" and to solving some major cosmic mysteries.

Quantum physics offers scientists the best description of the universe on tiny scales smaller than atoms. Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity, on the other hand, brings about the best description of physics on huge, cosmic scales. Yet, something is frustratingly missing even after 100 years of both theories passing a wealth of experimental verification.

As robust and accurate as the two theories developed at the turn of the 20th century have become, they have refuse to unite.

One of the primary reasons for this dilemma is that, while three of the universe's four fundamental forces — electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force — have quantum descriptions, there is no quantum theory of the fourth: Gravity.
Now, however, an international team has made headway in addressing this imbalance by successfully detecting a weak gravitational pull on a tiny particle using a new technique. The researchers believe this could be the first tentative step on a path that leads to a theory of "quantum gravity."