1: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2: And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3: And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4: And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 5: And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
6: And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
1. The initiation of space-time.
2. Which initially was invisible or perhaps opaque, and lacked any structure (waters).
3. Light or the potential for light was created along with space-time: its appearance merely awaited the divine signal.
4. Light and darkness presumably were originally homogenous(?): at this point in time they were divided or clinically separated. Both darkness and light are created phenomena.
5. Time is already ticking over.
6. The brand new universe is expanding, and gravitational segregation has begun. (Firmament equals an expansion.)
Where does the Higgs Boson concept fit?
At (2) all matter was stupendously compact and energetic. No object could have been travelling below light speed. According to the known laws of physics, nothing with mass can travel at the speed of light. So, where did the universe get its mass?
Higgs’s idea was essentially that those speeding, massless ‘particles’ found themselves in a sea of something-or-others, named ‘bosons’, which, when encountered by the other something-or-others, gave the other something-or-others their mass. Not that it was as if the bosons had any mass to give: these Higgs’s hingammies are real enough if you can catch them with a very fast camera shutter (so to speak) but whether they are really there or not in our time-governed world is perhaps debatable. Notably, no sooner are they detected, the little pikers turn into light photons or crazy quarks or something. The light photon aspect is possibly significant.
Another way of visualizing the early universe scenario is perhaps as follows. “In the beginning, space-time was created. Mass did not even exist. Existence itself only existed in the person of God and the created angels. There was nothing here – only void. But that seemingly valueless dead loss, had potential. Matter is organized energy. The energy initially was so brand new, none of the organizational capacity had yet kicked in (we are possibly talking fractions of a second?) but as soon as it did, light began to shine. Until that moment, light could not shine: light and darkness were one.”
What happened to the darkness, after whatever it was was divided into light and darkness? Hmm.
The Higgs idea is perhaps most easily thought of simply as time-space interacting with an organizational capacity which thus manifests as a subatomic particle. Time and the speed of light are intimately involved. Light, of course, is timeless. Below the speed of light, we have our time. Above the speed of light, time goes backwards. So, time, and light, are involved in giving objects mass – and because mass is mysteriously attracted to mass, we have gravity.
Here are a series of entries recently made at the Sydney Morning Herald, mid-July, 2012. The article is titled A Modern Creation Story.
Higgs’s was beaten to the mark by nearly a century by one A. Einstein. Einstein showed conclusively that there is no reality unless something can be located or described relative to something else. In other words, just as Kepler put the sun, a type or figure of God, at the centre of the planets, Einstein put God at the centre of Everything. The only way that anything can exist, or be measured, is for there to be God, relative to whom, things are real. Hence, Relativity. As for knowing that God exists, personally and really, “…He that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.” And that also is a scientific, testable law.
philip bruce heywood
You know as well as I that Einstein was one of the pioneers of Quantum Physics. Like Hawkings, and, for that matter, Higgs, he was unable to come up with the mathematical formula for Everything — and possessed enough humility to acknowledge the fact. Is there a mathematical formulation of the Cosmos? No, and never shall be. Why? Because gravity is not a created substance as such: it is an ongoing action of the Divine. The All Blacks have as good a chance of finding a formulation of Everything, as do the physicists. “The earth and all the inhabitants thereof are dissolved; I bear up the pillars of it” The Bible here says that gravity gives all things their form, and the ‘pillar’, which is the effect of gravity, has at one end, the Creator. The other end is force equals mass times the inverse of distance squared, or whatever it is. Since Divinity cannot be quantified mathematically, Hawkings, Higgs (if he speculated on such matters) and Co., have been bashing a brick wall. Einstein, to his credit, appears to have had more sense.
As for the personal aspect of Christianity — the science aspect is an aside — either the Creator is a fraud and a failure, or these words are true: “Look unto me, and be ye saved [delivered from destruction], all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.”
Good heavens, Dick G.; how do you put up with it? After reading some of these comments, I’m joining you and abandoning any mention of religion whatsoever.
Let me thank the gentleman who knows how to spell Hawking. The only item of fact and rationality I gained from this exercise in masochism. Messrs Kiwi & C.,Martin, should read the one-legged pirate’s entry. You could be enlightened. Only, gravity isn’t the result of being overwhelmed by noodles, it’s caused by excessive verbal spouting, the trigger of mega gravitational events which could deteriorate into black holes, and suck cyberspace and the SMH thereinto. Yes, I know you shouldn’t end a sentence with ‘to’. But being sucked down into a black hole did not sound quite correct. After all, Professor Hawking (NO S) would disapprove. My sympathy to the Noderator! Or should that be noodlerater?
You might notice I give my full name. That was so that people who are ‘doctors’, noodle merchants, and rantocanters generally, need not jump in without looking and bump their precious selves. But obtaining facts is not the habit of self- professed convinced persons.
I came to this site because I regularly check under CREATION THEORY. My publications, which end the Origins Controversy, are often the top result (not today — more like third or fourth, today) and have been the top or near-top result for years. This forum happens to be mentioned on the same GOOGLE page. Hence my curiosity.
Higgs’s is early days yet, but not without points of interest.
Will someone here learn to GOOGLE stuff? And, no. I won’t be spending my life correcting people who are so religiously convinced that they are greater than GOOGLE, WIKIPEDIA, and for that matter, CAMBRIDGE RELATIVITY QUANTUM GRAVITY. Give sanity a break.
Gravity is rather different from the other physical forces, whose classical description involves fields (e.g. electric or magnetic fields) propagating in spacetime. The classical description of gravity is given by general relativity, which says that the gravitational force is related to the curvature of spacetime itself.
Thanks for the invitation, but I happen to have family members who will debate, “Which end of the egg do we chop, eh. Doctor Gulliver?” You could catch up on me, over in the archives at TALKORIGINS.PANDA’S THUMB.
P.B H., ex Geological Survey of Queensland.
Ah. Lucidity at last. Captain Flint, the parrot, when he (she?) comes back to us, will be named Phoenix.
Pen of hrba; As you suggest, the googling you do is mostly in the bathtub?
Have a splash at what you have written:
“In coming to terms with gravity we must consider that the planets and stars also move by distortions in space and time, and the effect of mass and gravity may be warping of space and time as everything that has mass creates distortions.”
Not exactly the way everyone would express it, but certainly to the point when considering Higgs’s thesis. (Not that I am any further advanced in the relevant mathematics than Higgs’s parrot would have been, had there been such a worthy animal.)
1) Subatomic particles (quanta) such as electrons have mass. Does gravity have any effect whatsoever upon such particles? If so, would gravity, operating constantly over immense periods of time, have some effect upon the basic structure of matter? The answer, of course, is, No: but how is it No?
2) What mathematical formulation explains why matter attracts matter (gravity)? The answer, again, is, No known mathematical formulation. Matter possesses no known describable property which accounts for gravity.
Hence, the interest in Higgs’s formulations — which I do not pretend to understand and which no-one I have heard of pretends to claim are the force of gravitational attraction.
The quantum universe makes sense — measured from the reference frame of light. Light defines the universe; the universe does not define light. Quanta, such as electrons, often approach light speed. Their mass increases greatly at such speeds. Yet the mass of matter of which they are a part, remains constant. How? Become a light beam, find out!
Matthew;yes, well, we have parrot plagues at times and they give me a headache. I think I am correct in saying (in regard to one or two others’ posts) 1) Newtonian and the more sophisticated Einsteinian descriptions of gravity are of an observed phenomenon, always constant and predictable, able to be described in its effects mathematically, the source or engine of which has never been determined mathematically. No-one knows what it is; but scientists are all but certain that it is not a waveform, like light or other quanta. As an aside, ‘gravity waves’ to my knowledge are nothing more than faint fluctuations of gravity caused by sudden movements of stupendously large bodies.
Interesting point regarding Higgs’s field which is supposed to give mass. Does giving something mass, account for gravitational attraction? I am completely in the dark, but intuitively doubt that it will be straightforward. I can only understand quantum concepts intuitively. Coming to the speed-of-light-mass question: the mass does indeed increase, but as you say, it is ‘relativistic mass’. The mass increases in a frame of reference which is the frame of reference of the speeding electron, not the frame of reference of the casual, stationary observer. Here of course is the foundation of Relativity. Light in all its wavelengths travels through Space at one set speed. No matter how fast a measuring device is propelled anywhere in Space, it always measures the speed of any light beam (in Space) at exactly the set speed of light. Thus, time changes, light does not. Light beams are slightly bent by very large objects but is this because of gravity or because light is part of the definition of space-time, and therefore defines gravity in some way? I suspect a link between light, Higgs’s field, and gravity.
I say, this is wizard. Thankyou for running this forum, Mr. G.. Let us set down the facts.
1) The most understandable verbalization of Higgs’s I have read is an analogy to items moving through molasses. Some of the molasses sticks, causing the items to have mass. Travel is defined by time and distance. Time could be the significant factor.
2) Time is a created phenomenon. God himself is outside time.
3) Gravity is the ‘pillar’ which lends substance to the things about us. God holds one ‘end’ of the pillar: the other end is gravitational acceleration, mathematically quantifiable.
4) Therefore, since God is eternal, or outside time, gravity, which is an aspect of God at work, can probably be explained in a frame where time has no effect or perhaps comes into and out of existence. This ties with Relativity. It also aligns with travel through molasses. Travel is time related. Time can vary: the universal constant, the speed of light, cannot.
Higgs’s will presumably become decipherable if we factor in time as a variable which can approach zero? Time becoming zero is a divine aspect. On the last day, time shall cease –and what shall coincidentally happen? The universe shall dismaterialize. Time is written into the fabric of gravity.
Thanks for solving it, Dick. I suppose SMH will be pleased to allow me to publish this.
Think about light for a moment, contributors to the verbo-pile. Can light be absorbed by darkness? If a photon is never corrupted or degraded in any way, can all the darkness in the universe stop it? Although the darkness may appear to destroy it, does it destroy it? Can it destroy it? Does the sun, a type or figure of Christ, appear to be destroyed, every day? Does it rise again?
O.K., Ockham’s : as I see it from what you have raised, ‘dark matter’ [helping hold galaxies together] and ‘dark energy’ [driving expansion] are some as yet unexplained feature of space-time, intimately bound up with the nature of matter itself, yet not detectable as matter? Interestingly, NASA, I see, is claiming evidence of dark matter during some sort of galaxial big event when space-time must have been doing some gymnastics.
“In addition to the Chandra observation, the ………. and the Magellan optical telescopes were used to determine the location of the mass in the clusters. This was done by measuring the effect of gravitational lensing, where gravity from the clusters distorts light from background galaxies as predicted by Einstein’s theory of general relativity.
The hot gas in this collision was slowed by a drag force, similar to air resistance. In contrast, the dark matter was not slowed by the impact, because it does not interact directly with itself or the gas except through gravity. This produced the separation of the dark and normal matter seen in the data. If hot gas was the most massive component in the clusters, as proposed by alternative gravity theories, such a separation would not have been seen. Instead, dark matter is required.”
As I dimly perceive it, dark matter must be some feature of space-time which somehow gets to be associated with large aggregations of matter in Space and gives them a sort of balance or cohesion, staving off chaos. Space-times’ ability to respond to the need for balance. Dark energy on the other hand I perceive as an expansive factor written into the universe, almost like yeast, which actually ‘feeds itself’’ in an almost exponential manner. Properties of space-time. If we knew how light was/is ‘separated’ from darkness, the picture might clarify? Cheers.
philip bruce heywood
Postscript: in other words: Space-Time appears to be designed something like a loaf of bread in which yeast causes increasing expansion. Another analogy might be a spreading tree? Whatever it is that causes increasing expansion might be more understandable if we understood how it is that light and darkness were manufactured and mathematically divided in the first place? As the expansion goes on, it might build on itself, like yeast? If the yeast analogy is correct, the final collapse of everything at some future, unknown time, is logical.
Meanwhile, to stop wild chaotic behavior by untold numbers of hurtling cricket balls, it almost seems that clusters of hurtling balls (galaxy clusters) trigger an effect known as dark matter. Built-in self correction?