Will Science Someday Rule Out the Possibility of God?
The Helix Nebula, a planetary nebula in the constellation Aquarius also known as the 'Eye of God.' CREDIT: NASA, ESA, and C.R. O'Dell (Vanderbilt University)
By: Natalie Wolchover, Life's Little Mysteries Staff Writer Date: 17 September 2012 Time: 01:30 PM ET
Over the past few centuries, science can be said to have gradually chipped away at the traditional grounds for believing in God. Much of what once seemed mysterious — the existence of humanity, the life-bearing perfection of Earth, the workings of the universe — can now be explained by biology, astronomy, physics and other domains of science.
Although cosmic mysteries remain, Sean Carroll, a theoretical cosmologist at the California Institute of Technology, says there's good reason to think science will ultimately arrive at a complete understanding of the universe that leaves no grounds for God whatsoever.
Carroll argues that God's sphere of influence has shrunk drastically in modern times, as physics and cosmology have expanded in their ability to explain the origin and evolution of the universe [ http://www.space.com/13320-big-bang-universe-10-steps-explainer.html ]. "As we learn more about the universe, there's less and less need to look outside it for help," he told Life's Little Mysteries.
He thinks the sphere of supernatural influence will eventually shrink to nil. But could science really eventually explain everything?
Beginning of time
Gobs of evidence have been collected in favor of the Big Bang model of cosmology, or the notion that the universe expanded from a hot, infinitely dense state to its current cooler, more expansive state over the course of 13.7 billion years. Cosmologists can model what happened from 10^-43 seconds after the Big Bang until now, but the split-second before that remains murky. Some theologians have tried to equate the moment of the Big Bang with the description of the creation of the world found in the Bible and other religious texts; they argue that something — i.e., God — must have initiated the explosive event [ http://www.lifeslittlemysteries.com/185-was-the-big-bang-really-an-explosion.html ].
However, in Carroll's opinion, progress in cosmology will eventually eliminate any perceived need for a Big Bang trigger-puller.
As he explained in a recent article [ http://preposterousuniverse.com/writings/dtung/ ] in the "Blackwell Companion to Science and Christianity" (Wiley-Blackwell, 2012), a foremost goal of modern physics is to formulate a working theory that describes the entire universe, from subatomic to astronomical scales, within a single framework. Such a theory, called "quantum gravity," will necessarily account for what happened at the moment of the Big Bang. Some versions of quantum gravity theory that have been proposed by cosmologists predict that the Big Bang, rather than being the starting point of time, was just "a transitional stage in an eternal universe," in Carroll's words. For example, one model holds that the universe acts like a balloon that inflates and deflates over and over under its own steam. If, in fact, time had no beginning, this shuts the book on Genesis. [Big Bang Was Actually a Phase Change, New Theory Says [ http://www.lifeslittlemysteries.com/2801-big-bang-water-freezing.html ]]
Other versions of quantum gravity theory currently being explored by cosmologists predict that time did start at the Big Bang. But these versions of events don't cast a role for God either. Not only do they describe the evolution of the universe since the Big Bang, but they also account for how time was able to get underway in the first place. As such, these quantum gravity theories still constitute complete, self-contained descriptions of the history of the universe. "Nothing in the fact that there is a first moment of time, in other words, necessitates that an external something is required to bring the universe about at that moment," Carroll wrote.
Another way to put it is that contemporary physics theories, though still under development and awaiting future experimental testing, are turning out to be capable of explaining why Big Bangs occur, without the need for a supernatural jumpstart. As Alex Filippenko, an astrophysicist at the University of California, Berkeley, said in a conference talk [ http://www.space.com/16281-big-bang-god-intervention-science.html ] earlier this year, "The Big Bang could've occurred as a result of just the laws of physics being there. With the laws of physics, you can get universes."
Parallel universes
But there are other potential grounds for God. Physicists have observed that many of the physical constants that define our universe, from the mass of the electron to the density of dark energy, are eerily perfect for supporting life. Alter one of these constants by a hair, and the universe becomes unrecognizable. "For example, if the mass of the neutron were a bit larger (in comparison to the mass of the proton) than its actual value, hydrogen would not fuse into deuterium and conventional stars would be impossible," Carroll said. And thus, so would life as we know it. [7 Theories on the Origin of Life [ http://www.livescience.com/13363-7-theories-origin-life.html ]]
Theologians often seize upon the so-called "fine-tuning" of the physical constants as evidence that God must have had a hand in them; it seems he chose the constants just for us. But contemporary physics explains our seemingly supernatural good luck in a different way.
Some versions of quantum gravity theory, including string theory, predict that our life-giving universe is but one of an infinite number [ http://www.lifeslittlemysteries.com/2123-visualizations-infinity.html ] of universes that altogether make up the multiverse. Among these infinite universes, the full range of values of all the physical constants are represented, and only some of the universes have values for the constants that enable the formation of stars, planets and life as we know it. We find ourselves in one of the lucky universes (because where else?). [Parallel Universes Explained in 200 Words [ http://www.lifeslittlemysteries.com/2394-parallel-universes-explained.html ]]
Some theologians counter that it is far simpler to invoke God than to postulate the existence of infinitely many universes in order to explain our universe's life-giving perfection. To them, Carroll retorts that the multiverse wasn't postulated as a complicated way to explain fine-tuning. On the contrary, it follows as a natural consequence of our best, most elegant theories.
Once again, if or when these theories prove correct, "a multiverse happens, whether you like it or not," he wrote. And there goes God's hand in things. [Poll: Do You Believe in God? [ http://www.lifeslittlemysteries.com/2364-god.html ]]
The reason why
Another role for God is as a raison d'être for the universe. Even if cosmologists manage to explain how the universe began, and why it seems so fine-tuned for life, the question might remain why there is something as opposed to nothing. To many people, the answer to the question is God. According to Carroll, this answer pales under scrutiny. There can be no answer to such a question, he says.
"Most scientists … suspect that the search for ultimate explanations eventually terminates in some final theory of the world, along with the phrase 'and that's just how it is,'" Carroll wrote. People who find this unsatisfying are failing to treat the entire universe as something unique — "something for which a different set of standards is appropriate." A complete scientific theory that accounts for everything in the universe doesn't need an external explanation in the same way that specific things within the universe need external explanations. In fact, Carroll argues, wrapping another layer of explanation (i.e., God) around a self-contained theory of everything would just be an unnecessary complication. (The theory already works without God.)
Judged by the standards of any other scientific theory, the "God hypothesis" does not do very well, Carroll argues. But he grants that "the idea of God has functions other than those of a scientific hypothesis."
Psychology research suggests that belief in the supernatural [ http://www.livescience.com/14183-hawking-afterlife-fairy-story.html ] acts as societal glue and motivates people to follow the rules; further, belief in the afterlife helps people grieve and staves off fears of death.
"We're not designed at the level of theoretical physics," Daniel Kruger, an evolutionary psychologist at the University of Michigan, told LiveScience last year. What matters to most people "is what happens at the human scale, relationships to other people, things we experience in a lifetime."
David Coppedge: Intelligent Design Advocacy Not Reason For NASA Worker's Dismissal, Judge Rules
David Coppedge, a former computer specialist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, was not dismissed because he advocated his belief in intelligent design while at work, a Superior Court judge has tentatively ruled.
11/01/12 10:57 PM ET EDT
LOS ANGELES — A former computer specialist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory was not dismissed because he advocated his belief in intelligent design while at work, a Superior Court judge has tentatively ruled.
Judge Ernest Hiroshige said Thursday he is leaning in favor of JPL's argument that David Coppedge instead was let go because he was combative and did not keep his skills sharp.
Hiroshige, who presided over the lawsuit's trial in April, ordered a final ruling to that effect be drawn up and distributed within 30 days.
Coppedge's attorney, William Becker, declined to comment until the final ruling is issued. JPL officials also had no immediate comment.
Coppedge, a self-described evangelical Christian, had worked on NASA's Cassini mission to explore Saturn for 15 years until he was dismissed in 2011.
In his wrongful termination suit, Coppedge claimed he was demoted in 2009, then let go for engaging his co-workers in conversations about intelligent design and for handing out DVDs on the topic while at work. Intelligent design is the belief that life is too complex to have developed through evolution alone.
Becker argued at trial that a supervisor told Coppedge to "stop pushing your religion," and that Coppedge was retaliated against for disputing a written warning and filing a lawsuit against the Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
JPL attorney Cameron Fox, however, contended Coppedge was a stubborn and disconnected employee who decided not to heed warnings to get additional training, even when it became clear the Cassini mission would be downsized and computer specialist positions eliminated.
Coppedge often was confrontational and insensitive to customers and colleagues, who had complained about his behavior and his advocacy of intelligent design, Fox said.
Coppedge is active in the intelligent design sphere and runs a website that interprets scientific discoveries through the lens of intelligent design. His father wrote an anti-evolution book and founded a Christian outreach group.
Coppedge also is a board member for Illustra Media, a company that produces video documentaries examining the scientific evidence for intelligent design. The company produces the videos that Coppedge was handing out to co-workers, Becker said.
Empty space has more energy than everything in the Universe, combined
Posted by Ethan on July 26, 2012 (56)
Hubble Ultra Deep Field
“Nothing exists except atoms and empty space; everything else is just opinion.” -Democritus of Abdera
When you take a look out at the Universe, past the objects in our own solar system, beyond the stars, dust and nebulae within our own galaxy, and out into the void of intergalactic space, what is it that you see?
Image credit: BRI composite-image of the FORS Deep Field, ESO, VLT.
Image credit: 2-degree Field Galaxy Redshift Survey.
And yet, if we map out everything known in the Universe, and trace out the cosmic structure, we find that the normal matter — things made out of all the known elementary particles — is less than 5% of the total energy density of the Universe. There’s got to be about 20-25% of the Universe in the form of dark matter, a type of clumpy, collisionless matter that is made up of a yet-undiscovered particle, in order to get the type of clustering we see.
In articles about the nature of dark energy, I frequently see “quintessence” mentioned as one possibility. I’ve never seen any explanation of what that would be. In my present state of knowledge, the word might as well be “magic”. Assuming it is legit (i.e. not a handwave or ether redux) can you give us some idea of what it is? -anatman
Let’s back up a little bit and explain “dark energy” first. When physicists say “dark energy,” we mean that we observe a uniform accelerated expansion .. http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2009/07/15/the-last-100-years-1998-and-th/ .. to the Universe, and in physical cosmology the thing that causes that is a uniform energy density with a sufficiently negative pressure.
The simplest model that fits the data is to have dark energy be what Einstein called a cosmological constant .. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant , where the pressure is equal to the negative of the energy density times the speed-of-light squared [ P = – ? c2 ], and that’s still 100% consistent with the best data we have today from all sources. But it could be something more complicated: dark energy could be time dependent, it could have the pressure not satisfy the above equation exactly, it could behave in any way other than this that you can imagine. A large class of the models we can imagine (parametrized by a scalar field .. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quintessence_(physics) , if you care for that detail) are known as quintessence .. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quintessence_(physics) .
They may be fun (for some) toys to play with, but there is so far no evidence to indicate that dark energy requires any more complexity than the simplest explanation: the cosmological constant.
In your opinion, what length of timeframes and advances in technology do you relatively think it’ll take to understand dark energy beyond just observing its effect on the expantion of the universe? -James G.
Is there a known (or suspected by a theory) connection between dark energy and fundemental particles? -Erol Can Akbaba
Is there any plausible experimental handle on dark energy? Any reasonable way, either on the ground, or at least on Solar-system scales, to directly interact with whatever it is? -Michael Kelsey
That depends on whether dark energy is related to a particle or not. If it is, then all it will take is a powerful enough collider to create that particle, and a way to distinguish that missing energy from things like neutrinos.
If dark energy isn’t a particle, however — and since it doesn’t appear to interact, clump or cluster the way other particles do — our prospects are much more pessimistic. Which is to say, I can’t even imagine how to do it under those circumstances, given the physics that I currently know.
[ curvature of the Universe ]
Image credit: Shashi M. Kanbur at SUNY Oswego.
How does the previous post about a universe being so flat flat flat that there could be trillions of years of expansion enter into this? -Dave Dell
Curvature and energy density are very closely related in cosmology: you measure the expansion rate (which allows you to calculate the Universe’s critical density .. http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_density ), you measure the energy density, and then you compare those two to determine the curvature. As far as our measurements can tell, the actual average energy density of the Universe — including dark energy — is indistinguishable from the critical density, and that’s why our Universe’s curvature .. http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2012/07/18/how-big-is-the-entire-universe/ .. is indistinguishable from flat.
[ WMAP sky map of the Cosmic Microwave Background ]
Image credit: WMAP Science Team / NASA.
Could Dark Energy be the final stage of light? I learned in High School (provided my memory serves me right) that as light travels and expands it moves further along the spectrum and that the universe is filled with Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation. Could Dark Energy be that radiation? -Jordan Brooke
I wish that were possible. Radiation — in this case, in the form of photons — is generically a massless particle that moves at the speed of light. Unfortunately, it’s incredibly well understood, it does contribute to the expansion rate of the Universe, but it slows the expansion down, and has a positive, not a negative pressure. So while it does exist and does contribute to the expansion rate, it is not the cause of dark energy.
On the other hand, dark energy actually causes the radiation to redshift faster than it would in a Universe without dark energy. So in our Universe, the presence of dark energy actually makes the cosmic microwave background radiation less important to the fate of the Universe than a Universe without it!
Image credit: NASA, STScI, Adam Riess, and the High-Z Supernova Search Team.
The reason I have a hard time accepting Dark Energy is because I have no idea what I’m even supposed to be thinking of. As anatman said, it seems like so much “Abra Kadabra!” and poof, an F appears on my physics test. -Donovan, seconded by Jeff
I once had a (very cranky) physicist describe dark energy as “The biggest F U the Universe could have possibly given us.” While I don’t quite agree, I do sympathize with that point of view. I think of it as a fluid that permeates throughout all of space with a positive energy density and a negative, outward-pushing pressure. That may be dissatisfying, but it’s what the math and physics tell us, and at this point, that’s the best I’ve got.
[ Pie chart of the Cosmological Composition ]
Why is it called, dark ‘energy’? – Jeffrey Boser
The energy part doesn’t bother me nearly as much as the “dark” part does. The energy part is because it’s an intrinsic energy to space — the zero-point energy .. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy .. — that actually has a positive, non-zero value. I would prefer to call it “vacuum energy” because it’s the energy intrinsic to empty-space, or the quantum vacuum, but this dude .. http://astro.uchicago.edu/people/michael-s-turner.shtml .. said “dark energy” before anyone knew who I was and now everyone calls it that, and most of us hate the name, too. Bummer.
If the universe is accelerating, where is the equal and opposite reaction? -Bobby van Deusen, for his 14-year-old son, Jack
The answer, believe it or not, is “dark energy.” The accelerated expansion of the Universe is the reaction, and dark energy is the thing that causes it, does the work on our spacetime and is the action. If the Universe either had dark energy and no acceleration, or had acceleration with no dark energy, then we’d have a problem. But we have one because we have the other, and in fact that’s how we know we have dark energy.
[ de Sitter spacetime ]
Image credit: John D. Norton from the University of Pittsburgh.
Is Dark Energy a fundamental force of nature? -Jon
As far as we can tell, it is not a separate force the way electromagnetism, the weak force, or the strong force is. It is part of the force of gravity, and was even predicted by general relativity originally .. http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~jpl/cosmo/blunder.html . Gravity could have existed with zero dark energy, but that doesn’t appear to be the Universe we live in. Regardless, it isn’t an extra force, just one aspect of General Relativity that happens to exist the way it does.
[ The Luminiferous Aether ]
Image credit: Relativity Calculator.
Sounds like ether to me. -Alan
The big difference, remember, was that ether was a thing that light needed to travel through. With the exception of the expansion rate of the Universe, nothing we can measure would be any different if it weren’t for dark energy. While dark energy appears to have one thing in common with the old luminiferous aether — it permeates all of space, uniformly, everywhere — it neither has a preferred reference frame nor is it required as a medium for anything to travel through.
At least, as far as we know.
Image credit: The Hercules Galaxy Cluster, by Russ Croman / RC Optical Systems.
Is this new dark energy being created that is strong enough to overcome gravity attraction between galaxies? -BillK
We live, right now, in either a very interesting or a very disgusting time, depending on your point of view. On one hand, gravity is still working in full-swing, and all masses are gravitationally attracted to all other masses in the Universe. On the other, there is this intrinsic dark energy “pushing” things that are expanding away from one another to accelerate away from one another even faster.
At this point in time, everything that is already gravitationally bound to one another — including us and our local group, and all the individual galaxies in a large cluster (like Hercules, above) — will stay that way; dark energy will lose to gravitation on those scales. But on larger scales, those groups and clusters that are not already bound to one another never will become so, and will accelerate away from one another as the Universe continues to expand.
Image credit: .
My question is basically why the need for DE? The whole universe can still be homogeneus and isotropic on the largest scale but have fluctuations on small scales. -Sinisa Lazarek
If what we observed as “dark energy” were just a fluctuation — a result of our observable Universe being a different density than most of the Universe — we would be about a 10,000-sigma fluctuation away from what we’d normally expect. The probability of that happening is about the same as your odds of playing “1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6? and winning the lottery every week in a row for your entire life.
In other words, it’s unlikely enough that we don’t even consider that as a reasonable possibility.
And finally, one last one…
[ Hubble Ultra Deep Field ]
Image credit: NASA, ESA, R. Windhorst and H. Yan.
Why should I care whether Dark Energy exists or whether it’s just an intellectual exercise????? aka ‘What’s in it for me?’ -Norma Parfit
See all those things in the night sky? Everything out beyond the stars in our own galaxy? In a few billion years, we’ll merge together with Andromeda, the only other large galaxy in our local group, and our combined, giant elliptical galaxy will eventually gobble up the remaining dwarf galaxies orbiting us, and then all we’ll have beyond our own galaxy is this: the intergalactic void.
Because thanks to dark energy, all of this — every other galaxy, group, cluster, and supercluster of galaxies — will disappear from our observable Universe. What’s in it for you? The opportunity to know the Universe, as it is right now, and as it won’t be in a trillion years.
In fact, if humans came on the scene, for the first time, a trillion years from now, we never would have learned about the cosmic microwave background, about distant galaxies, clusters, or have seen a single “spiral nebula” in the night sky. Because dark energy is going to accelerate that all away. Even the Virgo cluster .. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgo_Cluster , the closest large collection of galaxies to us, will disappear from view.
[ Virgo Cluster ]
Image credit: Randy Brewer.
And if that doesn’t make you care, I don’t know what will. Even though I wish we understood its nature better, this is our Universe, full of dark energy, as we know it today. Enjoy it while it lasts, because it only gets lonelier from here!
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
