A Universe From Nothing (Chapters 3-4)

[Chris Warns]

Chapter 3- Krauss is now beginning to formulate his theory based on the theories that have been discussed in chapters 1-2. So, how CAN one measure the three-dimensionable observable universe. Our author believes it is by starting with Euclidean geometry(two-dimensional mathematics) and discovering if there are any triangles with the sum of its angles equaling a number greater then 180. This task is demonstrated within spherical geometry where one side of a triangle is placed on the equator of a sphere, another (forming a right angle)beginning at the equator going upward from the center, and the last being bent to form three right angles.(Picture: http://math.youngzones.org/Non-Egeome... ). Krauss's next goal is to apply this to our three dimensional universe to determine whether the universe is closed, flat, or open. The sides and angles are found in the scattering of light (more specifically, photons) that can be seen by our eyes from what some cosmologists call the Last Scattering Surface. Now, the Last Scattering Surface comes from what is interpreted by Big Bang proponents what is known as the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation. (CBR: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_b... . CMBR: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_m... ). these lines and angles form a triangle with a point being at the surface of the earth and two lines coming from the the point to construct the rest of the triangle. The two sides keep going until they reach the Last Scattering Surface. So there, we have our triangle. The conclusion is settled by the radiation picked up by a wind instrument called the BOOMERANG detector. This detector indicates that the triangle is not curved; showing that the universe is neither closed nor open, but rather our universe is flat!

Chapter 4- This is the chapter that frustrated me lol.
Lets just skip to the meat of this chapter. Krauss's direction in the chapter is to proof that antiparticles not only exist but to undeniably show that they SEEM to appear from nothing. Relativity is discussed to provide basis for the proof of antiparticles. Feynman proposed that antiparticles were necessary for relativity to be a sufficient theory. This is where Heisenberg's mind boggling uncertainty principle comes into play and where particles act as if they are moving faster then the speed of light. Which by Einsteins equations, tells us they should be moving backwards in time. This is where it would have been good for Krauss to give some references to some of these equations. The conclusions are fascinating for sure, but if there is no reference or equation shown, then its fairly difficult to consider the argument to be concrete. Nevertheless, on pages 62 and 63 we see charged particles moved in a pattern where the x axis refers to space and the y axis refers to time. These patterns, assuming the stated proposition above, show a charged particle along with time but then changes direction negatively on the graph. This means that the charged particle is now moving backwards in time through space. According to Krauss, this produces antiparticles. "However, a negative charge moving backward in time is mathematically equivalent to a positive charge moving forward in time!" This is where the author is seriously mistaken. It is impossible mathematically because the units are not equivalent and if the units are not equivalent then the equation CANT work. This is basic physics. This is where the theory, besides all the assumptions taken in to account, breaks down. Who knows?, I could be wrong. Any insight or objections?

PS: On my two week vacation until summer classes start, so hopefully i can post some more threads on the book. I know, i'm the worst book discussion leader on goodreads, but thats ok! :D. Hope to have some more interesting discussions with this apologetics group!

[Robert]

Chris - first, thanks for leading a discussion, and second, don't worry about the speed as this subject matter takes a grinding reading effort. I noted I was reading material for my personal new book research so wouldn't be reading this one and that is still so, but I'd like to make a general comment. Information gleaned from a supercollider is not necessarily applicable to universal particle physics. The most obvious difference is it is gleaned within earth's environment so subject to constant gravity and limited temperature and pressure parameters. "Out there", depending on the locus in the "Known universe" (a tiny fraction of the unknown, but very real one) gravity, temperature and pressure swing to extremes which cannot be duplicated on earth. Theoretical particle physics is fascinating but in many areas is just an arena for the very bright to sling B.S. at each other. Keep that in mind.

[Rod]

Thanks for discussing all this Chris. I have very little interest in science - but I love the philosophy of science.

Im enjoying your chapter reviews.

[Chris Warns]

Rod- Thanks for the encouraging word. I was actually thinking of leading another book discussion aimed more towards philosophy after I finish this one, since most in the group occupy themselves in this realm of the study. Or maybe a book focused on apologetics and defending the faith.

[Rod]

I'm always reading apologetics and theology books. Not generally the ones people here are into chatting about. Mostly bad timing.