|
Author
|
Topic: ID, Special Creation, Setterfield cosmology possibly confirmed
|
Salvador T. Cordova
Member
Member # 959
|
posted 15. August 2007 22:39
In evolutionary biology we have missing links. It is not well known, but in the evolution of stars there are both missing links and something equivalent to the OOL problem. Let us call it the Origin-of-Stars Problem and the Origin of Galaxies Problem.
This thread will focus on the missing links in the evolution of stars.
Here is the Wikipedia link to a discussion of one of the foremost missing links in the theory of Stellar Evolution, namely Population III Stars.
Metallicity
quote:
When the universe first formed, according to the Big Bang theory, it consisted almost entirely of hydrogen which, through primordial nucleosynthesis, created a sizeable proportion of helium and only trace amounts of lithium. The first stars, referred to as Population III, had virtually no metals at all. These stars were incredibly massive and, during their lives, created the elements up to iron in the Periodic Table via nucleosynthesis. They subsequently died in spectacular supernovae which dispersed those elements throughout the universe. As of 2007, no Population III stars have been found; rather, their existence is inferred in current models of the origin of the universe.
Walt Brown's bibliography:
quote:
“One might expect Population III stars [stars with only hydrogen and helium and no heavier elements] to have the same sort of distribution of masses as stars forming today, in which case some should be small enough (smaller than 0.8 the mass of the Sun) still to be burning their nuclear fuel. The problem is that, despite extensive searches, nobody has ever found a zero-metallicity star.” Bernard Carr, “Where Is Population III?” Nature, Vol. 326, 30 April 1987, p. 829.
u “Are there any stars older than Population II [i.e., Population III stars]? There should be, if our ideas about the early history of the universe [i.e., the big bang theory] are correct. ... There is no statistically significant evidence for Population III objects [stars].” Leif J. Robinson, “Where Is Population III?” Sky and Telescope, July 1982, p. 20.
u “Astronomers have never seen a pure Population III star, despite years of combing our Milky Way galaxy.” Robert Irion, “The Quest for Population III,” Science, Vol. 295, 4 January 2002, p. 66.
Supposedly, Population II stars, stars having slight amounts of some heavy elements, evolved after Population III stars. Predicted characteristics of Population II stars have never been observed.
Spectral studies of ancient [Population II] stars in the Milky Way haven’t turned up anything so distinctive [as the chemical elements that should be present], [Timothy] Beers notes, but the search continues. Ibid., p. 67.
Consider what we actually see when we supposedly peer back into the supposedly deep past. It looks something like this:
It shows fully formed stars and galaxies. To my knowledge we've not seen any evidence of a convincing (emphasize the word convincing) evolutionary progression from Population III stars into mature galaxies. Like the Cambrian explosion in biology, all we see are fully developed forms. We can't even in principle conceive of a plausible intermediary.
I once thought the solution would be simple and even though for many years believe life was created, I was certain stars evolved according to Big Bang Cosmology.
It is extremely difficult to reconcile our ability to see homogeniety of age. I humorously expressed the problem with these pictures.
Looking from left to right (which is like looking from the nearest galaxy to the farthest galaxy) we should see something analogous to this.
But instead see something analogous to this:
Even with a supposed stellar evolutionary model, the "fossil" record of stars does not accord with any sort of convincing progression. We should see a backward progression from age (near us) to extreme youth (far awy). What we see instead is an abundance of fully mature (but youthful) forms of the same age wherever we look.
I invite exchange of information on the spectral content of various galaxies with respect to distance. I believe the homogenieity problem is very real.
We also would hope to see new stars popping into existence to replace the ones dying out. This has actually not been an easy question to settle! A testable hypothesis in principle is to see the population of stars decline over time.
quote:
We have seen hundreds of stars die, but we have never seen a star born.d
Walter Brown
This is subject to empirical validation. Claims of star briths need to be taken also with skepticism. I welcome input on this. Star births are yet another missing link.
====== from my colleague "wombatty" =====
Here's a news story from Sciencenow.org about just this problem. It seems to be growing trend. Phil Berardelli, in Growing Up Fast in the Cosmos, details the new findings:
quote:
Astronomers have discovered five full-sized galaxies in the extremely distant--and therefore extremely young--universe. The galaxies, which are forming stars very rapidly, are big for their age, meaning that astronomers might have to rethink current ideas about galaxy formation.
[...]
Now astronomers have spotted five galaxies at least as big as the Milky Way that existed 12 billion years ago, or just a little more than a billion years after the first stars formed.
[...]
"We have no idea why these galaxies grew so large so soon," says astronomer and co-author Giovanni Fazio of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, Massachusetts. He says the team has turned the data over to theorists, who are developing new computer models to try to explain the findings. "I think we still have a lot new to learn about what's happening in the early universe," Fazio says.
[ 15. August 2007, 22:41: Message edited by: Salvador T. Cordova ]
IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Salvador T. Cordova
Member
Member # 959
|
posted 16. August 2007 22:33
quote:
Think this stirs the pot?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/08/16/scispeed116.xml
"A pair of German physicists claim to have broken the speed of light - an achievement that would undermine our entire understanding of space and time."
You bet! Light Speed decay theory (CDK) is founded on theories that say such things are possible (things like Feynman's QED and Putoff's SED, ZPE,ZPF, etc.)
The lab results are another boon to CDK theory. Einstein was mostly right, but there was room for improvement. The case for special creation just got a lift from the work of these physicists.
[ 16. August 2007, 22:33: Message edited by: Salvador T. Cordova ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Stephen Wright
Member
Member # 195
|
posted 19. August 2007 17:15
Salvador T. Cordova,
Thanks for getting another thought provoking discussion going. You have attracted comments from Christopher D. Beling, whose opinions I find attractive and substantial. I sincerely see a corrected view of the structural aspects of information - and the math descriptions of probability that subsume the transformations of these structural aspects - as a key to "getting at" this subject matter.
While finding, as unlikely, special creation or a young universe in the material dimensionality of cause and effect - there are surely aspects of physics that strongly suggest that information resides in a corresponding dimensionality of action that transcends manifest time and space and has casual and law driven transforms that are based on future and past probability for manifestation. Further; that mind is active and causal in the building-up and complexification of virtual structures that are causal but not manifest – until sometime in the future of physical events.
The “virtual machines” that are described by A. Sloman are confirmation for me, others think along these lines.
Information as real, causal and having substantial pragmatic structure is still a paradigm that is yet to be embraced or promoted fully.
The evolution of metals, as a building-up of the complexity of atomic nuclei, is a topic of great amateur interest for me. I have never encountered a "problem" as to how they are seen as being produced by the "furnaces" in the interior depths of stars at various stages in the unfolding cosmological development of matter. Without researching at all - I remember reading about early stars that made some of the lower periodic table elements - being wiped out during the period of "inflation", that has left us with an expanding universe.
I hope to see further comment on this subject.
IP: Logged
|
|
Melvin H. Fox
Member
Member # 1684
|
posted 19. August 2007 18:33
Hi Chris,
My vacation was a smashing success. Far from the lights of the city we gazed nightly into the vastness of space very much in awe of God’s creation.
I agree with you that God is outside space and time [universe = open system]. He does not experience time, although He is able to as He did so in the person of His Son Jesus Christ.
I believe the creation account in Genesis to be accurate in every detail. Notably this account is not complete. Unlike Schroeder, I don’t spend much time attempting to reconcile Big Bang cosmology with Genesis. I understand the fundamental principles well enough to know any scientific statement of an absolute age for the universe would be positively innocuous.
Sal has pointed out some real problems with respect to evolutionary cosmology. I am familiar with Walt Brown’s work but I must catch up with some of the other links before I make any attempt to contribute here.
-Mel
IP: Logged
|
|
Melvin H. Fox
Member
Member # 1684
|
posted 19. August 2007 19:47
Gunter Time
There seems to be some controversy [big surprise] as to exactly what Nimtz and his cohorts are measuring [evanescent waves] and how they are measuring it. Does anyone here understand light well enough to unravel the group velocity verses the signal velocity conundrum?
- Mel
IP: Logged
|
|
Christopher D. Beling
Member
Member # 723
|
posted 21. August 2007 10:13
Hi Sal,
Thanks indeed for starting the nice discussion. You are making me aware that there is more going on than is currently assumed in BB cosmology. I do fear, however, about "throwing out the baby with the bath water". There have been evidences against BB cosmology in the past - but most have been found to be incorrect. I remember that there was some case of a globular cluster seeming to have an age larger than that of the universe, but refined calculations showed it to be in error. With population III stars it could simply be that there is an astrophysical process that we don't yet know about. It is, however, a very worrying feature that there is no observation of these stars. I am sure that there must be some discussion about this in the astrophysical literature - does anyone know? The point that Walter makes about no new star births being recorded is also fascinating and demands an answer.
I would point out, however, that we do have an abundance of evidence for the BB - (i) The cosmic microwave background (CMB), (ii) The galaxy redshift pointing to space expanding from a spatial condensation (singularity) and (iii) The amounts of cosmic primordial Helium (~25%), deuterium and lithium (which concur with known nuclear reaction rates). But there are also evidences that suggest that your 2nd picture (Grandma, ma, daughter) above is the correct one:
(iv) Radio galaxies are only found at large distances (large redshifts)
(v) Quazars (black holes violently sucking in matter from a halo of pre-galaxy gas)
(vi) Young galaxies without the mature spiral features of aged galaxies are found only at large distances (If you look closely at your deep field picture you will see that the galaxies are very simple in structure).
With regard to the faster than speed of light experiment - it would be nice to get confirmation from another lab. With regard to the Lorentz vs Einstein theories, I think it a bit like the interpretation of quantum mechanics - both give the same answer (same dynamical equations) - so I am told. How then are we to know which is correct. Students should perhaps be taught both - but I don't think this matter effects the present discussions?
In general one has to concur that any "science of the past" (origins science) is never going to be more than a best inference from the data and current theory. Thus although I believe the evidences give a very high probability of the BB theory being close to what really happened I do not believe this with 100% certainty. To build one's faith on the BB would thus be wrong. The BB is, however, highly consistent with Creatio ex Nihilo and thus is most supportive of theistic faith.
Could you give a reference to Walter Brown's work? I hope to get back to you and Bruce with respect to ideas on a young earth and the meaning of special creation.
Best, Chris
[ 21. August 2007, 20:02: Message edited by: Christopher D. Beling ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Christopher D. Beling
Member
Member # 723
|
posted 21. August 2007 20:22
Mel,
quote:
I agree with you that God is outside space and time [universe = open system]. He does not experience time, although He is able to as He did so in the person of His Son Jesus Christ.
Yes! I too believe it is Jesus who reveals God's compassion and humility [Col 1:15]. I think I made a mistake in an earlier post, namely in saying that God is "totally other". I think it was a famous theologian (can't remember which one) that said that and of course it is partly true. We are never going to understand how God is self existent, or how His cognitive designer abilities are as they are(a point which Richard Dawkins makes so much of). Being Creatures enmeshed in space-time we just cannot conceive these things. However where I feel "totally other" is not correct is with regard to the fact that we have derivative characteristics. We have Creative freedom (ability to freely love, and design), intelligence, moral sense, a sense of beauty - all of which find poor or no explanation on Darwinian grounds. These are surely small reflections (derivatives?)(projections?) of God's unfathomable Super-Personal nature. [Ps 8:3-5]
One question I do have, though, arises out of the Lorentz vs Einstein formulations of the nature of space and time as mentioned by Sal. I am told that the Lorentz picture keeps the concept of universal time intact - while dynamical time and space vary with respect to it. If Lorentz's formulation (interpretation) is correct then could universal time be God's time? - Well Newton believed it so. God and Heaven experiencing the whole of our universe at the same instance - even the observers in high gravitational fields or traveling close to the speed of light! I have an inclination in this direction. After all when Jesus entered our space-time he was no longer in Heaven.
All for now, Chris
[ 22. August 2007, 03:08: Message edited by: Christopher D. Beling ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Christopher D. Beling
Member
Member # 723
|
posted 22. August 2007 03:30
Sal,
An astrophysicist colleague who specializes in stars has just given me his view on population III stars.
quote:
As for the population III stars, the only
explanation I can find now is that they have all gone (as a result of supernova
explosions), and we cannot observe them nearby. The very early stars cannot be
detected directly, being very far in time and space and we can detect only the
galaxies. From spectral analysis one can infer the global composition of the
early galaxies, and this may be an indirect evidence for the composition of the
stars. The direct observation of the very first stars is probably right now
beyond the technical capabilities of the astronomers.
Hope this is helpful. Best. Chris
IP: Logged
|
|
Melvin H. Fox
Member
Member # 1684
|
posted 24. August 2007 13:10
As I understand things, time is a measurable space [distance in seconds between two events]. Since we observe the measured value of time is a function of velocity, then we must conclude something is happening to the space being measured as a result of the speed of the measurer. If there is a universal time as Newton demanded and God only knows, then it has yet to be confirmed scientifically. It would be reasonable to suspect that some transcendent [super natural] property would have to be at play for the measurer in order to counter the dilation affect.
Chris, here is a link to an on-line version of one of Walt Brown’s works:
creationscience
-Mel
IP: Logged
|
|
Stephen Wright
Member
Member # 195
|
posted 24. August 2007 15:59
Sal and all,
What’s NOT so Special about the Big Bang, as a Creative event, being billions of years ago and starting from a single point of time and space? Especially when the discrete ranges of probability for future developments - emerging with it - are considered in tandem? Is the potential for simple acts of kindness already there, virtually?
These virtual developmental vectors in “information space” came connected within the holistic big picture. They seem to be ignored, as fundamental and intrinsic to the universe, while science has focused on materiality. It may be possible that certain star types are extinct in stellar evolution. There may be perfectly logical conditions that left one level of development behind and added others, predictable from the information structured early on. Just today, they are reporting a large sector, devoid of any objects, in the universe. The past evolution does not appear to be a smooth, simple progression.
Chris B. points to enduring signals like the CMB that can be decoded, telling us a lot about its natural aspects and lead us to think rationally about the physical unfolding after the BB. Material science has provided a wealth of facts and conjectures about the processes and pathways taken by matter and energy as it follows the course of the forward arrow of time.
The suggestion presented in this post is: that with the high energy matter that burst on the scene, there is also information - as the probability (reduced uncertainty) for certain things, events and processes to take place sometime in the future. We call these the “laws” when in fact they well may be as empirical and pragmatic information structures, just as are measurements of mass or wavelength. (see comments by G. Chaitin on the semi-empirical nature of math) I suggest while the first appearance of matter/energy was simple – there are solid reasons to assume the informational state of affairs was complex and contained virtual structures; with both near-by and long-range potentiality for manifestation.
Tacit to the received scenarios, such as Stephen Hawking’s ideas about the first seconds of time, is the near fully determined potential for the 4 forces to dominate the matter/particle structures of atomic nuclei. This configuration of force and mass can be viewed as accomplished by a virtual machine that “manufactures” the information structures, which precede manifest atoms bound up nice and tight and ready for chemical reactions. This is clearly an “it from bit” viewpoint.
The point herein is - from my simplistic but “out of the box” view - that one way to parse transformations pragmatically is to see the physical changes in parallel with the informational changes. The current paradigm sees the material changes, foremost, with the information as a “hat” they wear. Some even think this hat is created only when abstracted by an observer. In contrast, the state of affairs is that two fundamental and distinct levels, ( or degrees, spaces or dimensions) correspond to each other, but are asymptotic as to direct interaction. Further - this POV (point of view) defines a diffusion boundary “layer” that describes a “space” where highly probable alternatives sort out and only one real event happens. This are is highly constrained space - by the fact that both the laws of physics and the laws and principles of information theory BOTH must govern. I would see DNA’s activity and superposition of particles as active in this “space”.
Rather than creating contrary worlds where science and religion clash – it puts forth the Anthropic Principle and leaves it to the individual to sort behavioral guidance from ethics and not from physicality. This PoV describes a SoA (state of affairs) where both humanist and theist can agree on pragmatic models for data.
The Big Bang with an “empty hat” of information is seen as evidence of a random, cold universe. In fact, when information is seen as real and fundamental and as occurring as a prior state to physical manifestation – a different picture emerges. This picture suggests that along with hot particles, comes telenomic potentiality for the universe to observe its own nature and create cybernetic functionality. Further, these same processes can develop to observe itself, while observing, and therefore become self-aware.
The pattern of the stars is both literally and figuratively the model to understand our past, our character and our future. Salvador, I like your pictures pointing to anomalies in star populations. I hope to learn more from this thread. I just don’t see the jump to a definitive conclusion about the early times of the cosmos or straight to Teleology. I still see the first moment, as the first movement and as the first space but with some large collections of virtual structuring.
Seems pretty special to me.
[ 24. August 2007, 16:10: Message edited by: Stephen Wright ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Christopher D. Beling
Member
Member # 723
|
posted 24. August 2007 22:59
Stephen,
Thanks for your post. I now understand more fully what you were driving at in your earlier post. I have a PoV very similar to yours – namely as regards the informational structure that must have already existed at the formation of the space-time structure of our universe – at the instance of the BB (which I have stated that I believe in although it cannot in the strictest sense be proven).
Like you I see information is the key – it is perhaps even more fundamental than matter and energy (that could possibly derive from it?). But as in biological ID maybe we should most simply speak of Energy/Matter being governed by CSI (Complex Specified Information). Likewise if we look at the physical cosmos, we see the “laws of physics” – that describe the way the 4 forces behave to give us the stuff around us and the way it behaves – but we also see information (I think you call these informational structures?] that organizes that matter. This I believe is seen in two ways:
(i) The cosmological anthropic balances – strengths of the fundamental forces – masses of the fundamental particles – speed of light and Planck’s constant etc – being “just right”
(ii) The terrestrial anthropic balances – type of galaxy, type of star, type of planet, magnetic field, right sized moon, right atmosphere etc.
Here we have two vector spaces – with two rather precise vectors describing low probability SoAs. There is thus super-high CSI here, especially when you consider that you are dealing with the product of the two spaces.
One of the difficulties I have with a young universe scenario is that it messes with the fundamental constants – which we see as already informational structures embedded in the universe’s creation. The variation of the speed of light is the item in question in this thread (belonging to the space (i)). As such it might be expected to remain constant (and I believe the present evidence supports this) since it is determined by the cosmological information embedded at the instance of Creation.
Sal, has made the analogy with the Cambrian explosion – as an example of things changing in the past in a way that natural (physical and biological) law would not allow. I think this is a good point. One might indeed ask if the speed of light could vary by way of a new informational input. Well I can see no reason why the Creator could not do so. However, what is being supposed by Sal and Setterfield is a continuous slowing down (not an abrupt one as expected for an informational input such as the Cambrian Explosion).
I like your idea of “virtual structures (machines)”. I think I know what you mean (although would like some more clarification). I think you are talking about information that was present at the BB but did not express itself until much latter – for example in the formation of the Solar System. The is "telenomic information"? The analogy in the biological realm could be the structure of the dog family that was embedded in an original “wild type” prior to human intervention. The information was there but was virtual?
Some times I am inclined to believe there must be a kind of DNA coding at the Planck scale of matter, since there is so much information in the universe – particularly type (i) balances. This information could possibly be embedded onto the structure of space – but I have extreme problems in envisaging how this information would always give the same electron mass?
Some kind of double helix structure maybe? - Could that be why we always get a positron created with an electron? But why does the information not degrade with time as with biological information? Or does it?
Best, Chris
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 26. August 2007 03:15
Quote
We have seen hundreds of stars die, but we have never seen a star born.
Walter Brown
_______________________________________________
We have seen thousands of species become extinct, but we have never observed the origin of even a new Genus. We have observed the extinction of every taxonomic category from species to Phylum. The first to become extinct were the Phyla, followed by Classes, Orders etc. in descending order. Once extinct, no taxon ever reappeared. Today we see no evidence for creative evolution at all, not even the natural production of new verifiable species.
I am incompetent to evaluate cosmological matters. I offer these conclusions only as a potential model for the matters being discussed on this thread.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
[ 26. August 2007, 03:17: Message edited by: nosivad ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Stephen Wright
Member
Member # 195
|
posted 27. August 2007 16:35
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2001/21/image/a
quote:
ABOUT THIS IMAGE:
NASA's Hubble Space Telescope has snapped a panoramic portrait of a vast, sculpted landscape of gas and dust where thousands of stars are being born. This fertile star-forming region, called the 30 Doradus Nebula, has a sparkling stellar centerpiece: the most spectacular cluster of massive stars in our cosmic neighborhood of about 25 galaxies.
Better tools to observe have answered the "star birthing" question. I don't know, but once the first generation of stars blew apart and "seeded" all parts of the universe with elements up to iron - the manufacturing of "metals" reached all stars. Maybe heavier elements are catalytic to the process. Would love to see knowledgable posts about this subject.
From Paul Davies website:
quote:
May 3: evening: Can the universe engineer its own bio-friendliness? The Royal Society, Carlton House Terrace, London. The launch of the book "Universe or multiverse?" edited by Bernard Carr
Abstract: Scientists agree that the laws of physics seem fine-tuned for life, but they disagree on what it means. Is life merely a lucky bonus permitted by accidentally bio-friendly laws? Or is our universe a rare winner in a vast cosmic lottery? Both accounts appeal to something beyond the observable universe: unexplained laws that just happen to permit life, or a host of unobservable universes. This transcendent aspect is akin to invoking an unexplained external designer. In this lecture I shall outline an explanation for cosmic bio-friendliness that appeals only to physical processes within the universe. To succeed, it is necessary to relinquish some cherished, but unproved, assumptions about the nature of physical law, and the relationship between mathematics and physics.
Reading P. Davies new book - it should speak to the subject of this thread.
IP: Logged
|
|
Salvador T. Cordova
Member
Member # 959
|
posted 27. August 2007 18:08
Dr. Beling and my fellow colleagues at ISCID,
Regarding Dr. Brown's work, visit
www.CreationScience.com.
If I may offer a modest position. It is entirely possible that a more figurative reading of Genesis could be in order, but the universe still substantially younger than supposed, say 500,000,000 years instead of 10,000 but not as high as 13,000,000,000.
If the universe is no greater than 500,000,000 old, it would be devastating to the current Darwinian views.
We see the stars following similarly what Linnaues saw in biological forms. We see patterns and classifications, almost deliberate structures. We don't see hap hazarad amalgamations of what random flucuations through matter combined with gravity would be expected to create. This has been known for a long time, and the orderliness and design of the universe is difficult to explain.
Of course many invoke fine tuning, but there could be a limitation. From a dynamical point of view, one could in principle fine tune the tossing of a dart to hit a distant target. However, one cannot fine tune a dart to get through a maze. The complexity of the trajectory would resist even the best possible fine tuning.
Mathematically speaking, any fine tuned evolutionary trajectory might be precluded. The presumption that fine tuning is sufficient is understandable, but possibly flawed. In mathematical terms, fine tuning "is necessary, but not sufficient". We do have fine tuning, it is real, but it is only part of the story. It may be that planets had to be created from the start, and that evolutionary pathways (like darts navigating through a maze) might be precluded almost by definition.
So there are many issues here.
I should point out, the prestigious organization Sigma Xi (with many Nobel Laureates) published a fierce criticism of the Big Bang recently:
Modern Cosmology, Science or Folktale
as well as David Berlinski of the Discovery Institute
Was there a Big Bang
That was cosmology. I've also become highly suspicious of Lyellian geology. Raup was quick to realize, it couldn't possibly be right. We see evidence of catastrophism not Lyellian uniformitarianism.
So, when these things are considered, the door to a Young Universe cosmology is opened. I am not saying the cosmolgy is correct, but if true, then the hypothesis of ID is confirmed rather dramatically.
[ 27. August 2007, 18:56: Message edited by: Salvador T. Cordova ]
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic