Who is God? Part 2

Continuation of the
Considerations from Dipl.Math. Ulrich Meyer , September 2004
                    To the main side:    Homepage Ulrich Meyer
email_to                                                 To German text:    in English

Stimulation to this continuation come from the book ' The Universe in a Nutshell ' Book
of  Stephen Hawking.

to the Stephen Hawking side

This is a translation from German language and therefore it may be not perfect.

1. Where do we come from?
2. Understanding by simplifying
3. The laws of nature
4. Searching for a simplified God picture
5. Am I an Atheist?
6.  To the continuation:  Who is God? Part 3 - The answer.
7. Notes

1. Where do we come from?

  Our modern science found enormous knowledge about our universe and his origin from the Big Bang. By Einstein's relativity theory the three space dimensions with the time dimension form a unity, the so-called space-time and in this there is matter, which is by Einstein (E = m*c²) equal to energy. The laws of nature describe then the interaction between the matter particles. This all was concentrated at the time of the start of the Big Bang at one point, which mathematically is a singularity (see below - Kap.3 of laws of nature). A highest concentration of mass and/or energy on a small spatial point, which expand then by the ‚Big Bang’ to our universe and still continues to expand. There you must think about, that the smallest change with the Big Bang or his initial conditions, we would not very probably have been occurred in the history or we would have occurred as something completely different in a very another world. E.g. if the expansion speed one second after the Big Bang would have been smaller only around 10-15 % (Note  [ 1 ]), the universe would have collapsed again. The development after the Big Bang is then very explainable. Thus we are a result of an inevitable operational sequence of an evolution. The today's actual conditions of our world were the most but not completely specified by the Big Bang.

2. Understanding by simplifying

 What was before the Big Bang and what is outside and still much what is within our universe, is impossible to understand for our conventional imagination, which is marked by our senses on our earth. Only by most modern scientific measurements and computations there are attempts for a possible partial explanation. In order to make these realizations more understandable, we try to reduce them, for instance, for an explanation in the dimensions. The curved space-time of the universe, which was computed and proved by Einstein, you can make more understandable by the following example. You think about a two-dimensional space, so this is an area, which should be the surface of a ball. Living beeings on this ball have only a two-dimensional thinking and they cannot know something about the curvature of the ball. If they move however in direction straight for them, they return after an orbiting of the ball again to their starting point, which contradicts however their understanding totally (Note  [ 2 ]) . With such reductions on an understanding for our conventional senses we must try to understand the computed and assumed phenomena in our universe and outside of it.
 Stephen Hawking has tried this in his books „A Brief History of Time“ and „The Universe in a Nutshell“ very descriptive. One possible description of Hawking of our expanding universe from a Big Bang is a comparison with cooking water, in which spontaneously steam bubbles were created and grow up. I find this comparison attempt very impressive. Our universe would be then only one of many similar however nevertheless inevitable chance products in a over universe, a kind origin water from where our energy comes. We would have come from a kind of energy-crystallizationpoint, which would have unloaded himself in the form of our universe. This description may appear for our feeling first roughly seen as nearly plausible. But with the complexity of our universe for our understanding, which can hardly understand the curved space with singularities by our normal senses, such an explanation would already be too simple. Perhaps but it is a possible reduced explanation, as described above, and must be extended by dimensions and other circumstances to come closer to the reality. Already this picture of bubbles in cooking water is by Hawking more complex than it first seems to be. Here our universe should not be the whole bubble but only the surface, a so-called Bran (Note [ 3 ]), whose inside should be a higher-dimension space. This reminds us to our above example of the 2-dimensional thinking beings on a ball. With the surface form there is no center and no border, which corresponds to our realizations about our expanding universe very well.
 With such a picture God could be contained in any form in this cooking water, in which we would be completely embedded. This would have also a remarkable symbolic meaning, since for us life is always connected with the existence of water. On unknown planets we always look for water, in order to find the possiblility of life. In reality this cooking water would be a kind plasma or any soup of particles and energy or something completely different.
 But now we have again new questions, how does it look outside of the Bran? Hawking talk therefore of two further variants for our universe, which can be deduced mathematically. Once a bubble like the above model of the cooking water, but outside of it is absolutely nothing, not yet empty space. Or a bubble, whose exterior completely connect to the exterior of an equal bubble, with its inside is turned outward. The Bran would be then the surface of both bubbles. There would be also nothing outside of the bubble. This model is already more difficult to understand.
 With the last two models only the higher-dimension inside of the bubble would remain as a place for God. We already feel his 'arms' in the form of energy, as we assumed in chapter 4  'Where now is God?'  from the first part of 'Who is God?'.

3. The laws of nature

 Now I want talk about the laws of nature. You should differentiate between the laws of nature as the true interaction in the nature and the laws of nature, which describe scientists with mathematical formulas. Of the true, real laws of nature there may be much more than we do now know about.
 Mathematics is a science, which on certain bases, e.g. our number system, has developed a logical building or system in itself. With the description of the laws of nature by physical formulas, a mathematical model is compared with nature to get some predictions. If then these calculation agree with the reality, we accept this model as a law of nature. Perhaps any other beings in our universe may be haved developed a completely different number system, which is also logical in itself. Their mathematically laws of nature may be look other, but they have the same results.
 There is a problem in the correspondence of nature with mathematical formulas particularly by singularities. HyperbolaA singularity is for example when x come to zero in the function f(x) = 1/x. The value f(x) gets then infinitely and is there not defined. However In our universe singularities always occur, e.g. the matter density by the start of the Big Bang or by black holes. Then there are difficulties with the mathematical description of these states. But these singularities are very interesting, because they are possibly slip holes or a kind of valves from our universe to outside.
 After Einstein had formulated his theory of relativity, this seemed first in contradiction to the classical mechanics. But relativity theory change to Newton's laws by condition of speeds, which are very small in relation to the speed of light or with very small gravitation forces. Also the theory of relativity could not be used for the description of atomic procedures. These get only possible by quantum mechanics. In addition, the classical mechanics is a special case of quantum mechanics. An incompleteness of the mathematical formulation is also in the description of the light. We describe it in a binary model once as a corpuscle and once as a wave depending of the regarded process. The interference of light can be described only as overlay of light waves and not by the corpuscle model. On the other hand the energy of the light is sent out in quants, the so-called photons, and not in a continuous stream. This is explainable only by a particle model. By the description of light phenomena you must always decide, which model you can use for the explanation.
 The mathematical theories are actually only models, which are projected onto nature, in order to describe the process from events and to precalculate these. Stephen Hawking and other scientists are still until today on the search for a uniform theory, which can describe the universe altogether. All well-known theories of classical physics, theory of relativity, quantum theory, string theory till to the newest Bran worlds models should be contained in this uniform theory then as special cases. With such a theory many questions of today from the universe would be explained and we come closer to the wisdom of the Doomsday.

4. Searching for a simplified God picture

 The science will still need some time to come to an uniform theory. Then we would be much more closer to an answer to our question 'Who is God?'. Hence, we should go forward with all the speculations about God just like we do it with our attempts for explanations about our universe. Therefore we shall think of his 'being' as something far away from our understanding. He can only exist in a form, which is far outside of our comprehension. We shall look first therefore for a simplified God picture. Our descriptions could be only a reduced form, similarly as we do it by the scientific descriptions of the universe. So also the above description attempts should be regarded. The look at God as an old man in the heaven, may be also a reduced description. However this fits to times of an much earlier understanding. With the today's scientific level of knowledge you must proceed nevertheless from a much more complicated existence. The problem here is still however, that this existence would have to be in a space, which is also not yet completely cleared for us at the present.

5. Am I an Atheist?

 I have asked myself much times also in responsibility to my children, if I am a atheist. Many religious people would thing so according to my above statements. My answer however is a clear No. I accept and support the Christian doctrine and that of other religions as a necessity for positive, peaceful and future-oriented living and living together of the humans. But I do not accept the old-fashioned representation and the views of the today's church. Also today more and more people have this opinion, which you can see by the many church leavings. For the explanation of my opinion I can refer to my homepage.

6. Here you come to the continuation - the Part 3 of 'Who is god?' with the answer!

7. Notes:
[ 1 ]: This is 0.0000000000000001 % and percent means again 1/100.  [back]

[ 2 ]: Exactly we have the same in our universe. If we could fly away with a rocket in a straight direction, we would return some day after a long long time to our starting point. Such a flight is however impossible because of our short lifetime and the absence of an appropriate rocket.  [back]

[ 3 ]: A p-Bran is an object which expands in p-space directions. Especially a membran is a 2-dimensional and a string a 1-dimensional Bran. [back]

Last change: December 2013                                                                              Home