If the universe was finite, would you believe in a creator?

[flobadob]

Imagine that the universe consisted of just our galaxy for example. It would give us enough interest to explore it knowing there was nothing else to find out about. If this was the case, would you find it easier to believe in an actual creator of said universe, rather than having to believe in a supposed creator of a universe which is, in effect constantly being created?

[flobadob]

You know, it's all well and good just talking about big bangs, and god or no god and getting on with things. But the other night there I was having a bit of bother dozing off and bang, it hit me full on. HOW IN THE HELL HAVE WE COME ABOUT? Seriously, even if a singularity expanded into infiniteness, a million trillion whatever galaxies and such just came into existence. It doesn't pan out for me. Oh my proverbial.

[beso]

Clanard // Incidently... for various reason, the geometry of the (U)niverse is probably flat, like a sheet of paper... not a sphere. A slim possibility exists that is may be saddle shaped. //

You have obsiously read some literatue on this but it is even more obvious that you didn't actually understand what you were reading.

Much like your lame interpretation of the Uncertainty Princliple.

[Clanad]

Very good beso... perhaps you could post at least a partial CV to verify your obsious superiority in understanding or, perhaps, even developing such literature that we lesser students don't grasp...

I'm hoping you can give me some insight concerning the Copenhagen Intrepretation. I'm sure you know that event, though it's ancient, it still holds great sway in quantum philosophy today... at least in many circles.

This quote indicates that all the main players participated in th "CI" and not a whole lot of value has been added (or revised) since:

"The CI formed gradually in 1920's in Copenhagen, Denmark, through the work of Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, Max Born, John von Neumann, and others (Cushing 1994; Heisenberg 1958; Jammer 1974)."

Again, sincere thanks for your assistance...

Your help will be greatly appreciated as will the anticipated CV or other bona fides...

[beso]

I have a lifelong interest that started when I was a child and wondered how the Universe could be infinite. I have put a lot of time into understanding but QM and Relativity pver the past more than thirty years since I got my first grasp of Relativity and QM.

A CV is inconsequential. What matters is a debate on the knowledge. You attempted to support your case by mentioning Einstein's name. In fact his contribution to later Quantum Mechanics is relatively (no pun intended) small beyond his ground work in the the quantisation of energy.

Of course I know the Copahagen Interpretation and yes it is the most accepted theory. As for it being accepted "in certain circles" you might consider that circle as the largest. The alternative "guiding wave" hypotheses proposed by De Broglie and Bohm is no doubt popular "in certain circles" too.

This theory holds that an unknown master wave function covering the whole universe is exerting its influence on every transaction resulting in the governing of all interactions being covered by cause and effect.

It is a fair interpretation but reality can be accurately described by the probabilistic wave functions. There being no evidence for a master wave function and the fact that it does not contribute any further information to our understanding it is hence nothing more than conjecture.

Not a whole lot has happend in either theory in the ensuing decades. The CI has not needed adjustment to explain new observations and the master wave has not provided any better reason to support it.

The quotes you posted in the other thread didn't even address either of these issues and were rubbish in the context. I suspect you have posted them entirely out of context as some random attempt to discredit the Copenhagen Interpretation.

[starone]

So - have I got this right? The Universe is expanding, so presumably that means our Galaxy is also expanding. So we are taking up more of the Universe's space. So if there are other Universes out there somewhere are we going to meet head on and will there be conflict as to who is taking up someone else's space? Or are we just a figment of someone's imagination? Think I'll stop - my mind is beginning to boggle. Not good on what is supposed to be a peaceful Sunday - or perhaps that's a figment of MY imagination?

[beso]

The Universe is expanding but our galaxy isn't.

The Milky Way is held together by gravitational attraction. It doesn't completely collapse from gravity because of the momentum of its component stars keeps them in their orbits.

[venator]

This is as useful as a bunch of intelligent beetles sitting in a glass jar and pronouncing on the nature of the shiny lights in the sky.

We are just not intelligent yet to comprehend what we see.

A whole succession of accepted scientific theories has been disproved, in some cases after we have killed to support them.

[beso]

@ venator

You might not have the intelligence to comprehend what we see but we are sitting in front of machines that use technologies based on Quantum Mechanical devices.

GPS technology requires the inclusion of Relativity calculations. Vast amounts of observations of the universe have been made and found to be consistent with our theoretical understanding.

The LHC is smashing atoms together and looking at the debris. They have not found anything unexpected yet. Lucky guesses eh?

[beso]

And while the church has certainly threatened scientist with death for disagreeing with their dogma I don't know of any scientists who killed for their theory.

How about you back your assertions with some examples?

[beso]

Actually Clanard, on further contemplation, the Guiding Wave hypothesis appears to suggest that there is a definite momentum and position for a particle at any time but we simply cannot predict it because we don't know the state of the master wave.

This does not sit well with the observed fact that an atomic nucleus has been coaxed into a state where it simultaneously exists in two places at once and where a silicon bar is both vibrating and stationary at the same time.