Theoretical physics

[methylatedghosts]

Now, I was talking to a guy at Uni a while ago, and he mentioned that "high level theoretical physics needs to assume the existence of a creator."

Now I don't pretend to know an awful lot about theoretical physics, just a little. Does anyone know anymore about this? Does theoretical physics really need to begin assuming that there is a creator?

I don't know, but this really intrigued me.

[seventil]

I guess I can understand energy not having weight but then on the other hand I guess it is implied with E-MC^2 as light is both a wave and a particle. It just interested me when they mentioned the universe expanding faster then light and being it was energy or light maybe it went backward in time, even to before the beginning. Tat would make itself its own first cause. It reminds me of when Philip J. Fry went back in time and be came his own grand father on "Futuroma".
I will have to read the site you gave me when I am not so tired.
My bed is calling me.
It seems it cooled as it expanded. At least enough to explode.
The whole pure energy expanding faster than the speed of light interested me.

Cathar:

The problem is you (er, the program you watched) are using relativistic physics to explain something that obviously needs something else to explain it.

This is where superstring or a "unified theory" come in to play. A lot of physicists agree that the birth of the universe cannot be explain properly using reletevistic physics.

I like to think of this as the limit of Einsteins work. He crushed Newtonian physics when it came to astronimical bodies - and something else will have to "crush" relativistic physics to make it all work.

That, of course, is just a theory. The birth of the universe explain in relativistic friendly terms is just too unreasonable. Will we ever find the answer to how it all began? I hope so.

The others answered your questions pretty well, but I'll be glad to discuss anything else with you if you would like. Theoretical physics is some good stuff.

[seventil]

Neither. The guy I was talking to said that theoretical physics needs to assume a creator in order to explain certain things

I think what your friend meant is theorectical physics needs to assume some "unknown factors" to explain certain things.

For me (who is a believer) I assume a Creator to explain all things: but that doesn't keep us (as in mankind) from trying to figure out HOW he did it.

The study of physics (and all science) is exactly that: finding out how the Creator made the universe. When God "poofs" something into existance, Nature behaves a certain way. Laws are there. Everything works in a beautiful, utterly complex and miracalous way.

So, I don't agree with the question.

[QED]

The problem is you (er, the program you watched) are using relativistic physics to explain something that obviously needs something else to explain it.

Certainly, but perhaps not for the reasons Cathar quoted. According to Einstein mass and energy are the same thing.

This is where superstring or a "unified theory" come in to play. A lot of physicists agree that the birth of the universe cannot be explain properly using reletevistic physics.

A Quantum theory for gravity being the missing piece.

I like to think of this as the limit of Einsteins work. He crushed Newtonian physics when it came to astronimical bodies - and something else will have to "crush" relativistic physics to make it all work.

To be fair to everyone, by "crush" I think you mean "extend". Too often science is misrepresented as being "no better than any other process for arriving at explanations". The Earth can be considered flat for the purposes of building a house, but not for efficient navigation. In some peoples view this should also have them conclude (incorrectly) that houses are in some way "unsafe".

[Cathar1950]

Thanks folks.
QED is correct I wasn't looking for explanation or something else.
I was interested in the idea of "pure energy" expanding faster than the speed of light. It got me thinking about the faster than the speed of light and that nature of "pure energy". Expanding where is an interesting problem but I think some one has already address that.
Also "A Quantum theory for gravity" seems to still be elusive. I have read about string theory and even seen the show on Nova. I also read the guys books and "The God Particle". I just like thinking about things that give me the willies.
I remember my little brother when we were kids had a nightmare and kept yelling "little world" and "the world is shrinking". I got to thinking maybe the universe was not expanding but everything was shrinking.
I was 9 or 10 before we had mind expanding drugs.
The stuff I have read on time travel seems to think I need a cylinder of infinite length to build a time machine. I looked at Kmart and not one in stock. Also if the universe is spinning we could do it. I thought maybe if we spin something fast and relative to the universe it would be the same thing as a spinning universe but there are problems like being out side of the universe.

So before I take my meds for gout I would like to agree that Quantum Mechanics did not crush anything but did expand ideas as QED mentions.
Also Einsteins work did not crush Newtonian physics, it filled in holes and even explained it so some extent. I would like to see more on string theory but it seems it is going to be some time before we get anywhere. But I am waiting. Anyway I just wanted you to know big things and little things give me anxiety attacks but they are fun.

[Confused]

The problem is you (er, the program you watched) are using relativistic physics to explain something that obviously needs something else to explain it.

Certainly, but perhaps not for the reasons Cathar quoted. According to Einstein mass and energy are the same thing.

This is where superstring or a "unified theory" come in to play. A lot of physicists agree that the birth of the universe cannot be explain properly using reletevistic physics.

A Quantum theory for gravity being the missing piece.

I like to think of this as the limit of Einsteins work. He crushed Newtonian physics when it came to astronimical bodies - and something else will have to "crush" relativistic physics to make it all work.

To be fair to everyone, by "crush" I think you mean "extend". Too often science is misrepresented as being "no better than any other process for arriving at explanations". The Earth can be considered flat for the purposes of building a house, but not for efficient navigation. In some peoples view this should also have them conclude (incorrectly) that houses are in some way "unsafe".

QED: Someday I would love to pick your brain dude.

I would love to know exactly what department of theoretical physics the person who first stated the "creator" theory was associated with. I know a few physicists who are religious, but they never mix science with their theological beliefs. Could it be he was assuming a creator only in the context of an event rather than a person. It is easy to make a hypothesis about a known, then work backwards to find the event to support or disprove the hypothesis. But to make a hypothesis that is currently impossible to work through would require that we are very very cautious in the assumptions we make. Words like creator, god, etc...are generally avoided. Quantum physics and Einsteins theory of relativity remain at opposite poles (though I still have hope in the superstring theory w/multiple dimension). But I dont know anyone in these fields that would consider the thought of a creator being a physical thing as opposed to an event.

[QED]

It's actually quite common for Physicists to talk in terms of "God doing this" or "God doing that". It points to nothing particularly theological, it's more a stand-in for "whatever the underlying cause might be" -- be it God or some other process. I think it's to their credit that they are not so desperate as to eliminate all references to a creator. I see it as a sign of confidence in their ability to accept whatever science leads them to. In particular a popular way of talking about the seemingly remarkable fine-tuning of the physical constants is to talk of God "setting the dials of creation" to precise values. Any process that results in the same outcome thus acquires the name "God" -- whether it is tasteful to the theistic mind or not.

[Confused]

It's actually quite common for Physicists to talk in terms of "God doing this" or "God doing that". It points to nothing particularly theological, it's more a stand-in for "whatever the underlying cause might be" -- be it God or some other process. I think it's to their credit that they are not so desperate as to eliminate all references to a creator. I see it as a sign of confidence in their ability to accept whatever science leads them to. In particular a popular way of talking about the seemingly remarkable fine-tuning of the physical constants is to talk of God "setting the dials of creation" to precise values. Any process that results in the same outcome thus acquires the name "God" -- whether it is tasteful to the theistic mind or not.

I can only assume they avoid that word around me then. I have heard of the usage of event, origin, and creator. And there is the occasional jab at the "God principle". But as a general rule of thumb, it isn't in reference to a God per se. Only for lack of better terminology (or in some cases, to simply mock religion).