Tornado Alley (PROG)

[F6]

A universe without purpose

New revelations in science have shown what a strange and remarkable universe we live in.

By Lawrence M. Krauss
April 1, 2012

The illusion of purpose and design is perhaps the most pervasive illusion about nature that science has to confront on a daily basis. Everywhere we look, it appears that the world was designed so that we could flourish.

The position of the Earth around the sun, the presence of organic materials and water and a warm climate — all make life on our planet possible. Yet, with perhaps 100 billion solar systems in our galaxy alone, with ubiquitous water, carbon and hydrogen, it isn't surprising that these conditions would arise somewhere. And as to the diversity of life on Earth — as Darwin described more than 150 years ago and experiments ever since have validated — natural selection in evolving life forms can establish both diversity and order without any governing plan.

As a cosmologist, a scientist who studies the origin and evolution of the universe, I am painfully aware that our illusions nonetheless reflect a deep human need to assume that the existence of the Earth, of life and of the universe and the laws that govern it require something more profound. For many, to live in a universe that may have no purpose, and no creator, is unthinkable.

But science has taught us to think the unthinkable. Because when nature is the guide — rather than a priori prejudices, hopes, fears or desires — we are forced out of our comfort zone. One by one, pillars of classical logic have fallen by the wayside as science progressed in the 20th century, from Einstein's realization that measurements of space and time were not absolute but observer-dependent, to quantum mechanics, which not only put fundamental limits on what we can empirically know but also demonstrated that elementary particles and the atoms they form are doing a million seemingly impossible things at once.

And so it is that the 21st century has brought new revolutions and new revelations on a cosmic scale. Our picture of the universe has probably changed more in the lifetime of an octogenarian today than in all of human history. Eighty-seven years ago, as far as we knew, the universe consisted of a single galaxy, our Milky Way, surrounded by an eternal, static, empty void. Now we know that there are more than 100 billion galaxies in the observable universe, which began with the Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago. In its earliest moments, everything we now see as our universe — and much more — was contained in a volume smaller than the size of a single atom.

And so we continue to be surprised. We are like the early mapmakers redrawing the picture of the globe even as new continents were discovered. And just as those mapmakers confronted the realization that the Earth was not flat, we must confront facts that change what have seemed to be basic and fundamental concepts. Even our idea of nothingness has been altered.

We now know that most of the energy in the observable universe can be found not within galaxies but outside them, in otherwise empty space, which, for reasons we still cannot fathom, "weighs" something. But the use of the word "weight" is perhaps misleading because the energy of empty space is gravitationally repulsive. It pushes distant galaxies away from us at an ever-faster rate. Eventually they will recede faster than light and will be unobservable.

This has changed our vision of the future, which is now far bleaker. The longer we wait, the less of the universe we will be able to see. In hundreds of billions of years astronomers on some distant planet circling a distant star (Earth and our sun will be long gone) will observe the cosmos and find it much like our flawed vision at the turn of the last century: a single galaxy immersed in a seemingly endless dark, empty, static universe.

Out of this radically new image of the universe at large scale have also come new ideas about physics at a small scale. The Large Hadron Collider [ http://www.latimes.com/topic/science-technology/large-hadron-collider-experiments-EVHST0000224.topic ] has given tantalizing hints that the origin of mass, and therefore of all that we can see, is a kind of cosmic accident. Experiments in the collider bolster evidence of the existence of the "Higgs field," which apparently just happened to form throughout space in our universe; it is only because all elementary particles interact with this field that they have the mass we observe today.

Most surprising of all, combining the ideas of general relativity and quantum mechanics, we can understand how it is possible that the entire universe, matter, radiation and even space itself could arise spontaneously out of nothing, without explicit divine intervention. Quantum mechanics' Heisenberg uncertainty principle expands what can possibly occur undetected in otherwise empty space. If gravity too is governed by quantum mechanics, then even whole new universes can spontaneously appear and disappear, which means our own universe may not be unique but instead part of a "multiverse."

As particle physics revolutionizes the concepts of "something" (elementary particles and the forces that bind them) and "nothing" (the dynamics of empty space or even the absence of space), the famous question, "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is also revolutionized. Even the very laws of physics we depend on may be a cosmic accident, with different laws in different universes, which further alters how we might connect something with nothing. Asking why we live in a universe of something rather than nothing may be no more meaningful than asking why some flowers are red and others blue.

Perhaps most remarkable of all, not only is it now plausible, in a scientific sense, that our universe came from nothing, if we ask what properties a universe created from nothing would have, it appears that these properties resemble precisely the universe we live in.

Does all of this prove that our universe and the laws that govern it arose spontaneously without divine guidance or purpose? No, but it means it is possible.

And that possibility need not imply that our own lives are devoid of meaning. Instead of divine purpose, the meaning in our lives can arise from what we make of ourselves, from our relationships and our institutions, from the achievements of the human mind.

Imagining living in a universe without purpose may prepare us to better face reality head on. I cannot see that this is such a bad thing. Living in a strange and remarkable universe that is the way it is, independent of our desires and hopes, is far more satisfying for me than living in a fairy-tale universe invented to justify our existence.

Lawrence M. Krauss [ http://krauss.faculty.asu.edu/ ] is director of the Origins Project [ http://origins.asu.edu/ ] at Arizona State University. His newest book is "A Universe From Nothing [ http://www.amazon.com/Universe-Nothing-There-Something-Rather/dp/145162445X/ ]."

Copyright © 2012, Los Angeles Times

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-krauss-cosmology-design-universe-20120401,0,4136597.story [with comments]


===


JPL, former employee fight over religion in science

By Brian Charles, SGVN
Posted: 03/31/2012 07:13:03 AM PDT
April 1, 2012 2:48 PM GMT Updated: 04/01/2012 12:03:11 PM PDT

LOS ANGELES - In a court proceeding reminiscent of last century's Scopes Monkey Trial, lawyers for the Jet Propulsion Laboratory find themselves battling a push by intelligent design proponents seeking legitimacy.

On the surface, the civil case between former JPL systems administrator David Coppedge and JPL at the Stanley Mosk Courthouse is a wrongful termination lawsuit.

But much more is at stake for both proponents and opponents of the theory that God created the universe.

Coppedge is "trying to put science on trial," said Joshua Rosenau, program and policy director for the National Center for Science Education.

In fact, Rosenau argues Coppedge is "trying to turn a simple employment law case into a discussion on intelligent design."

Coppedge sued JPL in 2011 on the grounds that the science laboratory used his expressed support of intelligent design to hasten his exit during last year's round of layoffs.

His JPL supervisors reprimanded Coppedge in March 2009 for distributing two intelligent design DVDs: "Unlocking the Mystery of Life" and the "Privileged Planet."

Folks like Coppedge contend intelligent design is real science, while the theory's critics have called it "creationism in a lab coat."

Coppedge, a darling of the creationist/intelligent design community, runs a creationist blog. He has been a member of the Bible Science Association for more than 20 years, according to Coppedge's own testimony.

"Through his links to Bible science groups it's clear to see the linkages to creation science and intelligence design," Rosenau said.

JPL supervisors told Coppedge to cease distributing the DVDs, which the agency viewed as religious in nature. He was also told to avoid engaging co-workers in political and religious dialogue during work hours.

Since the civil trial kicked off March 12, Coppedge has testified that his JPL supervisors reacted with hostility to his open expression of his political and religious beliefs influenced his supervisors in their reviews of his performance at the lab.

"I thought I might be the next `Expelled,"' Coppedge testified, making a reference to the Ben Stein movie which details the perils faced by those in the scientific community who support intelligent design.

JPL denies Coppedge's claims, and the lab's attorneys have presented evidence to bolster their claim that Coppedge was a problem employee. They also argue that Coppedge's layoff was part of a normal reduction in force called for in NASA's budget.

With 21 witnesses to call, the case is expected to last several weeks. But, when Judge Ernest Hiroshige renders his decision, the announcement will resonate far beyond the walls of the Stanley Mosk Courthouse in downtown Los Angeles, according to advocates for both evolutionary theory and intelligent design.

The stakes

The Coppedge case has become cause celebre for proponents of both evolution and intelligent design and in some ways has reignited a debate started more than 86 years ago with the Scopes Monkey Trial.

Evolution proponents say it is an example of creationists attacking Darwin.

Darwin supporters believe if Coppedge wins at trial, creationists will exploit the finding and claim they've triumphed over big science.

"These groups have a history of distorting information; this might be seen as a win by groups like the Discovery Institute," National Center for Science Education spokesman Robert Luhn said.

Such a win could influence legislative battles over the teaching of evolution in schools in Tennessee, Florida, Texas, Missouri, Kentucky, Oklahoma and New Mexico, where over the past 18 months there have been "attempts to wind back the clock," Luhn said.

In Luhn's estimation, creationists and intelligent design proponents like Coppedge want to return to the time before the Scopes Monkey trial when the Bible was used to teach public school children about the origin of life

"There's a nationwide movement of science denial, being pushed by people who do so as a matter of belief or for political reasons," Luhn said.

The conservative Discovery Institute has skin in the game too. Josh Youngkin, a Discovery Institute staff attorney, is assisting attorney William J. Becker, Jr. in Coppedge's lawsuit. And Becker himself is an attorney for the Alliance Defense Fund, a conservative Christian advocacy group.

Conservatives sees Coppedge's advocacy for creationism as having a place in JPL's mission in finding the origin of the universe.

"What happened to David Coppedge, that's not a free society," said John West, senior fellow at the Discovery Institute. "Science is supposed to be open to discussion."

West and the Discovery Institute have spent more than a decade trying to sell intelligent design to the broader scientific community.

The organization even put out the controversial "Wedge Document," where the Discovery Institute spelled out its goals to "overthrow" materialism and replace it with "broadly theistic understanding of nature."

West said the document was used as a fundraising letter to make an argument for man's dominion over the Earth, the importance of God in science and the end of materialism, which West insists is responsible for the rise of eugenics in the early 20th century.

The scientific community hasn't budged on its adherence to evolution, and those in the scientific community say there is good reason to separate science from intelligent design.

"People in philosophy and science want things that are testable and intelligent design doesn't make claims that are testable," Rosenau said. "Intelligent design, when you look at it, it's not science."

Or as Luhn put it: "We are not teaching alchemy side-by-side with chemistry."

Coppedge supporters brush off such comments.

"The fact that the other side won't engage in debate and will engage in ad hominem shows you that how weak the other side's argument must be," West said.

Ultimately intelligent design proponents want to debate.

"The end goal is to get to place where intelligent design and the criticism of Darwinism can rise and fall on its own merits," West said.

And that's exactly what Coppedge attempted to do at JPL, according to deposition testimony of JPL co-workers.

Coppedge challenged his supervisor Greg Chin to an after work debate over the origins of the Universe.

Tale of the tape

At the core of the argument made by intelligent design proponents lays the assertion that the theory has nothing to do with God or religion and that the most complex scientific phenomenon can't be left up to chance.

"The definition of intelligent design is that key features in the Universe and living things are best explained as a product of an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process like natural selection," West said. "There are limits to science. People in the intelligent design community will say you can't answer everything with science."

Intelligent Design scientists themselves battle over the question of the identity of the "intelligent designer" and West says the theory doesn't seek to identify a designer at all.

Perhaps intelligent design proponent's best weapon in their fight for legitimacy is evolution itself. Like all science, evolution is fraught with gaps which science can't explain, Rosenau said.

But those gaps aren't reason enough to discredit the theory at large.

"Yes, of course their gaps in evolutionary theory, but there is this inference that we don't have enough to make a conclusion and we have T-Rex fossils up to our noses," Luhn said.

The premise that lack of evidence in support of evolution provides proof of a God doesn't sit well with USC Professor Emeritus of Religion, who studies the intersection of faith and science.

"I don't like the approach that science has limits therefore God must be there to fill in the gaps, Crossley said. "That God filling in the gaps theory is always troubling."

Crossley said science has not progressed to explain everything, but that should not serve as a condemnation of science but an illustration of the limits of man.

[e-mail]
626-578-6300, ext. 4494

Copyright ©2008 Los Angeles Newspaper group

http://www.presstelegram.com/breakingnews/ci_20302044/jpl-former-employee-fight-over-religion-science


===


Lawrence M. Krauss about the Beginning and End of the Universe / 381 seconds interview

Uploaded by 99FacesTV on Feb 18, 2011

More info: http://99faces.tv/lawrencemkrauss/

Lawrence M. Krauss is an American Theoretical Physicist who is Professor of Physics, Foundation Professor of the School of Earth and Space Exploration and Director of the Origins Project at the Arizona State University. He is the author of several bestselling books, including The Physics of Star Trek.

http://99faces.tv/ met him at the World Economic Forum WEF) in Davos in January 2011. It is a great honor that Eli de los Pinos, herself a great scientist (see http://99faces.tv/elisabetdelospinos/ ) and awarded WEF Tech Innovator, interviewed him about his research focus: the beginning and end of the Universe.

99FACES is a website and video-platform introducing movers, thinkers, innovators, visionaries and changemakers in both short elevator pitch format and short interviews.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQmgpqb1Ydw [with comments]


===


Our Spontaneous Universe

I have never quite understood the conviction that creation requires a creator.

By LAWRENCE M. KRAUSS
September 8, 2010

Physicist Stephen Hawking has done it again. This time he's sent shock waves around the world by arguing [(linked in) http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=54118385 (two posts back)] that God didn't create the universe; it was created spontaneously. Shocking or not, he actually understated the case.

For over 2,000 years the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" has captured theologians and philosophers. While usually framed as a religious or philosophical question, it is equally a question about the natural world. So an appropriate place to try and resolve it is with science.

As a scientist, I have never quite understood the conviction, at the basis of essentially all the world's religions, that creation requires a creator. Every day beautiful and miraculous objects suddenly appear, from snowflakes on a cold winter morning to rainbows after a late afternoon summer shower.

Yet no one but the most ardent fundamentalists would suggest that every such object is painstakingly and purposefully created by divine intelligence. In fact, we revel in our ability to explain how snowflakes and rainbows can spontaneously appear based on the simple, elegant laws of physics.

So if we can explain a raindrop, why can't we explain a universe? Mr. Hawking based his argument on the possible existence of extra dimensions—and perhaps an infinite number of universes, which would indeed make the spontaneous appearance of a universe like ours seem almost trivial.

Yet there are remarkable, testable arguments that provide firmer empirical evidence of the possibility that our universe arose from nothing.

One of the greatest sagas in physics over the past century has been the effort to "weigh the universe." Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity explained that space is curved and therefore our universe can exist in one of three different geometries: open, closed or flat. A closed universe is like a three-dimensional sphere, which may be impossible to imagine, but is easy to describe. If you looked far enough in one direction in such a universe you would see the back of your head.

While these exotic geometries are fun to talk about, operationally there is a much more important consequence of their existence. A closed universe whose energy density is dominated by matter will one day recollapse. An open universe will continue to expand forever at a finite rate, and a flat universe is just at the boundary—slowing down, but never quite stopping.

Some of us have spent our careers trying to figure out what kind of universe we live in so we could be the first ones to know how the universe would end. After 80 years of trying we have actually determined the answer. Observations of the cosmic microwave background from the Big Bang have unambiguously confirmed that we live in a precisely flat universe.

It appears that the dominant energy in our universe doesn't reside in normal matter, or even mysterious dark matter. Rather, it is located in a much more mysterious form of energy in empty space. Figuring out why empty space has energy is perhaps the biggest mystery in physics and cosmology today.

The existence of this energy, called dark energy, has another consequence: It changes the picture so that knowing the geometry of the universe is no longer enough to determine its future. While this may be a disappointment, the existence of dark energy and a flat universe has profound implications for those of us who suspected the universe might arise from nothing.

Why? Because if you add up the total energy of a flat universe, the result is precisely zero. How can this be? When you include the effects of gravity, energy comes in two forms. Mass corresponds to positive energy, but the gravitational attraction between massive objects can correspond to negative energy. If the positive energy and the negative gravitational energy of the universe cancel out, we end up in a flat universe.

Think about it: If our universe arose spontaneously from nothing at all, one might predict that its total energy should be zero. And when we measure the total energy of the universe, which could have been anything, the answer turns out to be the only one consistent with this possibility.

Coincidence? Maybe. But data like this coming in from our revolutionary new tools promise to turn much of what is now metaphysics into physics. Whether God survives is anyone's guess.

Mr. Krauss, a cosmologist, is director of the Origins Project at Arizona State University. His newest book, "A Universe From Nothing" will be published by Free Press in 2011.

Copyright ©2010 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703946504575469653720549936.html [with comments]


===


Lawrence Krauss: Life, the Universe and Nothing

Uploaded by tvochannel on Jul 15, 2010

Lawrence Krauss is a professor in the Department of Physics at Arizona State University. His lecture entitled Life, the Universe and Nothing was recorded at the Isabel Bader Theatre in Toronto on March 27th, 2009.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdvWrI_oQjY [with comments]


===


'A Universe From Nothing' by Lawrence Krauss, AAI 2009

Uploaded by richarddawkinsdotnet on Oct 21, 2009

Lawrence Krauss gives a talk on our current picture of the universe, how it will end, and how it could have come from nothing. Krauss is the author of many bestselling books on Physics and Cosmology, including "The Physics of Star Trek."

Books by Lawrence Krauss:
http://www.amazon.com/Lawrence-M.-Krauss/e/B000AP7AZS

Download Quicktime version
Small: http://c0116791.cdn.cloudfiles.rackspacecloud.com/Krauss-AAI09-web-sm-new.mov
720p HD: http://c0116791.cdn.cloudfiles.rackspacecloud.com/Krauss-AAI09-web-new.mov

The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science
http://richarddawkinsfoundation.org

Atheist Alliance International
http://atheistalliance.org

Produced by the Richard Dawkins Foundation and R. Elisabeth Cornwell
Filmed & edited by Josh Timonen

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo [with comments]


===


Good Reasons for "Believing" in God - Dan Dennett, AAI 2007

Uploaded by richarddawkinsdotnet on Nov 11, 2009

Dan Dennett's talk at the AAI 2007 Conference in Washington, D.C. He is presented with the 2007 Richard Dawkins award at the introduction.

Read Dan Dennett's 'THANK GOODNESS!' artilcle here: http://richarddawkins.net/article,280,n,n

Buy the DVD with all the AAI 2007 videos here: http://store.richarddawkins.net/products/aai-2007-conference-video-by-rdfs

http://richarddawkins.net
http://richarddawkinsfoundation.org
http://atheistalliance.org

Produced by the Richard Dawkins Foundation and R. Elisabeth Cornwell

Filmed by
Josh Timonen and Wayne Marsala

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvJZQwy9dvE [with comments]


===


(linked in):

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=30820541 and preceding and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=73719495 and preceding and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=73644584 and preceding and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=73555046 and preceding and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=73379857 and preceding (and any future following)

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=73059286 (and [expands the] preceding) and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=72860073 and preceding and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=72460924 and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=72380723 and preceding and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=72699174 and preceding and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=72503897 and preceding and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=72429366 and preceding and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=72131063 and preceding and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=71561891 and preceding and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=70927195 and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=68995614 and preceding and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=66689085 and preceding and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=66439751 and preceding and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=63358892 and preceding and following;
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=57342847 and preceding (and any future following)

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=40358526 and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=32639759 and preceding and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=73614280 and preceding and following