Richard Feynman amuses himself with an old puzzle – why do mirrors seem to switch left and right, but not top and bottom?
The Big Bang
Every day beautiful and miraculous objects suddenly appear, from snowflakes on a cold winter morning to vibrant rainbows after a late-afternoon summer shower. Yet no one but the most ardent fundamentalists would suggest that each and every such object is lovingly and painstakingly and, most important, purposefully created by a divine intelligence. In fact, many laypeople as well as scientists revel in our ability to explain how snowflakes and rainbows can spontaneously appear, based on simple, elegant laws of physics. —Lawrence Krauss, A Universe from Nothing, p.xi
Before the so-called “big bang” that brought our universe into existence (or at least that is a current scientific theory), there was “nothingness.” But what is that? And what caused nothingness to become something?
If we start from our axiomatic system (see Philosophy for Heroes: Part 1: Knowledge), then there is no room for “nothingness” in the conventional sense. While we cannot use pure philosophy to decide what exactly existed before our universe, we can make general statements about entities, properties, and their effects. By applying philosophical principles of Objectivism, we can be sure that there is no beginning of the universe; even the so-called “big bang” would be just a result of the properties of “something” which existed before the big bang and which had the properties to create a big bang. If there had been “nothingness” before the big bang, that nothingness would have no properties that could cause a big bang.
We are ultimately faced with the same issue as when we first started to discuss philosophy: we first need to clearly define what we are speaking about when we use words like “big bang,” “nothingness,” or “universe.” We have to be careful not to take on a view of the universe that is based on pure linguistics or intuitive interpretations of the words and instead take care to start from a common,clear basis of definitions.
The intuitive understanding of nothingness is that when you have a bowl of apples and empty that bowl, there is “nothing” left in the bowl. Of course, scientists early discovered that it is actually not empty, there is still air in the bowl and that if you take any space and pump out the air, you are left with “true” nothingness: a vacuum. But this view of constructed nothingness is based on the classical view of physics. At this point, I want to stress that as students of reality, we need to get away from the idea that everything starts with our intuitive understanding of the world. We need to be careful to be objective at all times, especially when it comes to non-intuitive questions from philosophy and physics. When one removes all entities from a box by pumping out the air and creating a vacuum, that does not mean that the space inside the box is left with no properties. While you might be unable to “move” space in the conventional sense of a thing, it would still fit in our definition of an entity. There is no requirement for the universe having to have a clean, property-less canvas on which it draws its entities; the canvas itself can have properties.
In quantum gravity, universes can, and indeed always will, spontaneously appear from nothing. Such universes need not be empty, but can have matter and radiation in them, as long as the total energy, including the negative energy associated with gravity, is zero. —Lawrence Krauss, A Universe from Nothing, p169
One of these properties of space is that it can spontaneously create two particles that cancel each other out energetically. This has been shown to actually happen in a number of experiments. For example, you can create a vacuum and place two metal plates in them facing each other. According to classical physics, nothing special should happen. Measurements have shown, though, that there is a force to push those plates away from each other, despite being in a vacuum and despite no other forces being at work. Likewise, we can detect the Hawking radiation emitted by black holes. If particles are generated at the event horizon of a black hole, one can fall into the black hole while the other escapes, ultimately canceling out the black hole in the long term.
While we have argued that a part of space can be an entity because it has properties, we need to examine this more closely. What exactly is the universe? Is it everything exists? Is it the canvas on which other entities are “painted”? This question looks difficult to answer and depends on the context. The concept of “universe” is used in various ways. In the classical sense, the universe is everything that came into existence resulting from the big bang. That is then simply a set of entities, not an entity itself. An alternate view is that the universe is everything that exists, but not as a set, rather as a whole entity consisting of loosely connected particles. Likewise, if we use the idea from above that the universe is a canvas, it would be infinitely large.
Either it is a set and thus not an entity, or it is “everything” and thus cannot interact with other entities and thus the attribute “concept” loses its meaning, as there is only one universe in existence. Or it is infinite and thus has no identity either. Infinity has some strange consequences, though. An infinite universe would mean that there were an infinite number of big bangs, that produced an infinite number of worlds where a copy of us sits an infinite amount of times thinking about this question.
If we ignore the larger canvas and quantum theory for a moment and focus on the universe as simply the product of the big bang, we can at least make some statements. First, this universe is finite. It is as large as particles traveled since the bing bang. If there were no big bang and if the universe were infinite, the night sky would be either brightly lit with the light of “infinite suns” or the suns would all have to be so far from each other that, from an observer’s point of view, there are only a limited number of suns visible at any point in time (which does not correlate with our observations).
Ultimately, we are faced with a difficult problem. At this point, it is up to future philosophers, cosmologists, and physicists to expand our conceptual understanding of the world. Everything points to a fundamental understanding of reality that is missing. Maybe ultimately, we will discover that the universe is but a closed fractal that does not so much go into infinity as it goes into itself. But at this point, we can only wonder about the mysteries we will unravel in the future.
[…] when we allow for the dynamics of gravity and quantum mechanics, we find that [our] commonsense notion is no longer true. This is the beauty of science, and it should not be threatening. Science simply forces us to revise what is sensible to accommodate the universe, rather than vice versa. —Lawrence Krauss, A Universe from Nothing, p151
An interesting look at the Bystander Effect.
What makes someone an effective and strong leader? Is this a skill that can be acquired? These are questions that are often asked about leadership. There are varying perspectives on leadership at the fringes, but at the core there are qualities that are absolutely necessary to be an effective leader.
In this issue of Smith Business Close-Up with the University of Maryland’s Robert H. Smith School of Business, host Jeff Salkin sits down with Gary Cohen to talk about what makes a good leader and how to become one.
As assistant dean of executive education, Cohen heads up the Smith School’s online MBA program. He also leads the school’s executive MBA programs in College Park, Md. and China; custom degree offerings; and the design and development of customized and open-enrollment, non-degree programs offered by the Smith School.
It makes one wonder what the evolutionary tree of this idea [the theory of evolution] would look like, were it an organism that could be mapped out by fossil record rather than words. The concept is one that faded nearly into obscurity, only now to be revived with slight mutation. What I personally gather from this is that survival of ideas depends less on the actual quality of the idea, but rather the climate into which it is introduced. Quite literally, survival of the fittest, but not necessarily the best. Aquinas and Evolution, http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/319
When people think about the theory of evolution, it is typically Charles Darwin who comes to mind—he is celebrated as the one who came up with a revolutionary idea. But people tend to remember the first (or last) participants in a long series of events. For example, take the first humans on the moon: Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin are well known, but who remembers the person staying in orbit, Michael Collins?
Michael Collins was the third person of the Apollo 11 mission, remaining in orbit while Armstrong and Aldrin descended onto the moon. The mission would have been impossible without him, just as the mission would have been impossible without the people building the moon lander, the computers, and the rocket, or the people managing the operation on the ground. “Heroes” would not have been able to land on the moon and successfully return. The operation was too complex to be achieved with a singular heroic effort; thousands of things had to be just right. Sure, the astronauts were risking their life, but so did the people on the ground, every day they drove to work.
Collins feared that something would happen and that he would be the only one to return, with all the spotlight on him, then being “a marked man.” In a recent interview, at the age 78, he said that he is bothered by today’s inflation of heroism and adulation of celebrities, adding that he is no hero and that “heroes abound, but don’t count astronauts among them. We worked very hard, we did our jobs to near perfection, but that is what we had been hired to do.”
Learning about the complexity of the moon landing relativizes the role of the astronauts, just like learning about the centuries-long evolution of the theory that Darwin made famous relativizes his role. Neither the moon landing nor the theory of evolution is magic or a singular heroic effort. Each can be understood by looking at the whole chain of industry, of scientists, and of ideas.
A Chain of Events
We are often taught only about the last element of a long chain of events. And those not familiar with a subject see this last element as almost supernatural. In science, with new theories and discoveries, it’s easy to overlook how theories were developed over centuries. This also applies to the theory of evolution, which is difficult to understand if one simply jumps over thousands of years of scientific progress and focuses only on the final result.
In ancient times, during Homer’s era (ca. 750 BC), life was understood as the result of the action of whimsical, inconsistent gods. In this world, the rather primitive statement by Thales “The first principle and basic nature of all things is water” launched a dramatic shift in people’s minds. No longer were people discussing the moods and personalities of human-like gods. Instead, these early philosophers looked for patterns in nature to explain natural events. Rather than relying on stories and myths, people were beginning to test truths on a first-hand basis.
One of the first documented thinkers who promoted this idea—that the phenomena of nature cannot be explained by supernatural gods or magic, but by observable facts—was Anaximander (610 – 547 BC). Starting with Thales’ idea that water is the origin of all things and the observation of humidification and cloud formation, Anaximander concluded that in earlier times, the Earth had to have been covered by water. The existence of fossils further strengthened his view, which led to the conclusion that humans also had to have emerged from water.
Not long after, Empedocles (490 – 430 BC) offered an explanation of why organisms in nature look as if someone had designed them for a specific purpose. Those organisms happened to have properties that allowed them to survive in their environment. Those that did not died and hence, were not part of nature anymore. He also held the view that life could have developed without an underlying purpose or a godly creator.
Further support to this idea was provided by Aristoteles (384 – 322 BC). He was an explorer of nature, classifying different animal species. He also recognized that animals’ properties were specifically adapted to their environment. He disagreed with Empedocles, though, as to whether or not they had a higher purpose.
Later, in the Roman empire, Lucretius (97 – 55 BC) took interest in the subject and based his work De Rerum Natura (“On the Nature of Things,” published by Cicero (106 – 43 BC) after Lucretius’ death) on the writings of Epicurus. The book describes the universe as a purely mechanistic entity, without supernatural influence. This idea thrived within an environment of the then-popular Stoicism, the view that to attain happiness, you need to understand nature. Contrary to the theory of evolution, though, people still believed that everything happened for a reason, that the world was designed for a purpose (teleology).
With the deterioration of the Roman Empire came the attempt to keep the empire together by raising Christianity to the state religion. Augustin of Hippo (354 – 430 AD), one of the so-called “Church Fathers” with a strong influence on the philosophy and theology, respectively, of Christianity. He argued against the idea of literal interpretation of the Bible, claiming that new species can develop.
The Roman Empire fell in 476, and it took until the 9th century until new learning centers in the Middle East rediscovered and translated old Greek and Latin books. Similarly to Aristoteles, Al-Biruni (776 – 868 AD) categorized in his Book of Animals over 350 different animal species, their environments, and their places in the food chain. One of his notable discoveries was that animals are constantly in a fight for survival, and that successful properties of the animals are inherited to the next generation, resulting in adaptations and even new species.
As climatic conditions in Europe improved during the High Middle Ages, scientific progress returned. From the Middle East, translations from Arabic books, old Greek and Latin writings, and even scientists returned to Europe, creating the foundation for people like Thomas Aquinas (1225 – 1274). His view was that God provided an objective world with cause and event in an endless loop, and that animals had a god-created potential to develop into new species. Besides the initial potential of nature to create this diversity, there would be no further godly interventions in this progress (opposed to what we hear from believers of Intelligent Design in the present).
The Crusades and the Mongol Invasion in the Middle East, and the subsequent destruction of libraries and the fabric of society, left Europe as the keeper of knowledge. With the beginning of the Little Ice Age (1300 – 1750), a strengthening of the Catholic church, the persecution of heresy by religious inquisition, as well as with a lack of literacy in the general population, it took until Rene Descartes (1596 – 1650) for a revival of a mechanical view of the universe, as opposed to a supernatural one.
Benoît de Maillet (1656 – 1738) was a student of geology and discovered that the Earth must have been created not by a singular act of creation, but by a slow, natural process. He estimated the true age of the Earth at around 2 billion years and assumed that humans must have been developed from animals that came out of the water.
Finally, in the following two centuries, the idea of evolution took off.
First, while fossils were found and interpreted as being the remains of life forms from ancient times, the fossil record was very sparse. This gap began to close thanks to industrialization, which increased the need for professional geologists, and coal mining uncovered new fossils.
Second, ship voyages brought home a wealth of information about the flora and fauna abroad. The development of life in different geographical areas provided evidence for a relationship between the species.
Third, the ancient writings became known and available to more and more people. Book printing grew from a few hundred titles per year in the 17th century to thousands of titles per year in the 18th century.
Fourth, general science of categorizing the natural world created the foundation for further scientific theories including the theory of evolution by filling gaps, focussing the research on the questions that remained open.
Science Is a Collaborative Enterprise
Science is a collaborative enterprise spanning the generations. We remember those who prepared the way, seeing for them also. Carl Sagan
With this background in mind, Charles Darwin’s (1809 – 1882) Theory of Evolution looks like a much smaller step than when taken on its own. It did not come out of the void and we have to remember those who paved the way. Charles Darwin’s research certainly was a heroic act, given the resistance he faced (and still faces). His integration of all the pieces that were available to him, including his own research he conducted when taking part in the voyages of the HMS Beagle around the world, was revolutionary—despite having an evolutionary record.
Likewise, the history of the theory of evolution did not end with Darwin. There still were many gaps being filled in the following decades. Advances in other fields of technology opened the door for genetic research and we are only now slowly beginning to understand the code in which life is written.
- Anaximander provided the idea that natural phenomena can be discovered through observation instead of relying on the idea of godly intervention.
- Milet theorized that life emerged and originated from the sea.
- Empedokles had the idea that the life forms weren’t just there, but that they had their properties in order to survive in their environment—without any higher purpose.
- Aristotle conducted plant/animal gathering and classification work, agreed with Empedokles about their adaption to the environment, but assumed a higher purpose.
- Lukrez and Cicero held the views of a mechanistic universe.
- Augustinus had the idea that new species / life could evolve.
- Al-Biruni again, like Aristotle, was someone who categorized animals (which seemed to be the key in understanding evolution) and proposed the idea that animals are in a fight for survival and new traits could be inherited to a new generation and that this way, new species could evolve.
- Aquinas held the view that life forms have an inherent potential to develop into new species—without any intervention by God.
- Descartes again picked up the view of a mechanistic universe.
- Benoît de Maillet studied geology and found the Earth not static and original as it was created by God, but in a constant change. He estimated the age of the earth at 2 billion years and deduced that animals evolved from life forms from the sea.