The 'best' arguments for atheism and Christianity

[Kbertsche]

So you are claiming that quantum field theory does NOT require space-time?!? How so? If there is no space-time, where do the fields reside?

[Tassman]

So you are claiming that quantum field theory does NOT require space-time?!? How so? If there is no space-time, where do the fields reside?

[Starlight]

You still have to have SPACE, Tassy, for this to happen. and TIME. Neither of which existed prior to the big bang.

God exists in the gaps between space and time...

[JimL]

So you are claiming that quantum field theory does NOT require space-time?!? How so? If there is no space-time, where do the fields reside?

I don't think anyone knows what lies beyond our universe, so how do you know that space and time do not?

[Sparko]

wrong. the particles appear over time and in space.

God didn't come from anywhere, he is eternal.

[JimL]

wrong. the particles appear over time and in space.

Particles are a form of energy, and energy doesn't appear over time.

God didn't come from anywhere, he is eternal.

He? thats funny! Matter didn't come from anywhere, its eternal. See, I can do that too. The only difference is that the existence of matter is an empirical truth, the existence of God is not.

[Sparko]

Particles are a form of energy, and energy doesn't appear over time.

go back to school. you have no idea what you are talking about. Ice is a form of water. It takes time for water to turn into ice. think about it.

He? thats funny! Matter didn't come from anywhere, its eternal. See, I can do that too. The only difference is that the existence of matter is an empirical truth, the existence of God is not.

sure you can "do that too" -- if you want to reject everything science says about the big bang.

[Kbertsche]

So you are claiming that quantum field theory does NOT require space-time?!? How so? If there is no space-time, where do the fields reside?

Do you have some solid support for this from a scientific reference?

The normal concept of a "field" in physics is that energy exists in a specific form, spread through a region of space at a particular time. E.g. an electromagnetic field propagates from a radio antenna, spreading through space and changing in time. Space and time are essential for the field to exist and to propagate. Space-time must exist a priori. There is no need for particles per se to exist (though particles can be considered to be made of fields).

Perhaps someone has dreamed up a new sort of "field theory" which does not require space-time. This is what I am asking you to defend, as I am not aware of such a thing.

Yes, it is possible to dream up all sorts of ideas. But do we have experimental, observational evidence for any of these ideas?

[Kbertsche]

I don't think anyone knows what lies beyond our universe, so how do you know that space and time do not?

The claim was that quantum fields can exist in the absence of space-time. I question this, and am asking for scientific support for the claim.

[Sparko]

Do you have some solid support for this from a scientific reference?

The normal concept of a "field" in physics is that energy exists in a specific form, spread through a region of space at a particular time. E.g. an electromagnetic field propagates from a radio antenna, spreading through space and changing in time. Space and time are essential for the field to exist and to propagate. Space-time must exist a priori. There is no need for particles per se to exist (though particles can be considered to be made of fields).

Perhaps someone has dreamed up a new sort of "field theory" which does not require space-time. This is what I am asking you to defend, as I am not aware of such a thing.


Yes, it is possible to dream up all sorts of ideas. But do we have experimental, observational evidence for any of these ideas?

He is probably thinking branes.

[rogue06]

He is probably thinking branes.

0000000000000cg2z.jpg

[JimL]

go back to school. you have no idea what you are talking about. Ice is a form of water. It takes time for water to turn into ice. think about it.

Ice is water, it only takes time for the water to change form, its still water, and the same goes for all matter, its still matter, no matter what form it takes in time. Think about it.

sure you can "do that too" -- if you want to reject everything science says about the big bang.

The big bang tells us nothing of what caused or existed prior to the bang itself.

[Tassman]

wrong. the particles appear over time and in space.

God didn't come from anywhere, he is eternal.

Because the bible tells me so, right?

[Tassman]

The claim was that quantum fields can exist in the absence of space-time. I question this, and am asking for scientific support for the claim.

There is no firm scientific support for any claim regarding the universe(s) at this stage, but there are many viable possibilities of which I referred to one. My main point is that Big Bang Theory, as trumpeted by Sparko, is no longer the prevailing model.

Currently physicists have converged on inflationary cosmology as the dominant model. This model avoids a BB singularity and suggests space beyond our universe.

[Kbertsche]

There is no firm scientific support for any claim regarding the universe(s) at this stage, but there are many viable possibilities of which I referred to one. My main point is that Big Bang Theory, as trumpeted by Sparko, is no longer the prevailing model.

Currently physicists have converged on inflationary cosmology as the dominant model. This model avoids a BB singularity and suggests space beyond our universe.

First, I don't see what any of this has to do with your claim that quantum fields can exist in the absence of space-time. Are you now backing away from this claim?

Second, I agree that inflationary cosmology is now the dominant model. But this is not an alternative to the Big Bang. It is an addition to the Big Bang, and is commonly referred to as "inflationary Big Bang cosmology".