I think a lot of the confusion here is due to one aspect that I didn't like about her explanation: She says that the universe started with the Big Bang. This is not entirely correct. The Big Bang Theory says absolutely nothing about the origin of the universe, but covers only the evolution of the universe since a very early time, specifically from when the universe was 10^-43 seconds old. The time before this is called the Planck epoch, and the knowledge we have of physics today is insufficient to describe what happened then.

Any speculation about what happened before The Big Bang (or more precisely, the Planck Epoch) is just that, speculation. Some speculation is more qualified than other speculation though, and I think she does a good job of laying out a variety of ideas that has been pushed forward during the years. The ideas from string theory and M-Theory linked to above are very interesting, but they too are so far only speculation, albeit very good speculation involving some interesting high-level mathematics.

So please keep on speculating!

The guy who created this video is apparently unfamiliar with the works of Schroedinger, Heisenberg and Planck (among many others.)

There are series that abuse technobabble and fake technology, but Star Trek really wasn't one of them. The beauty of Star Trek (specifically, TNG and onwards) was that all of their science was theoretically possible, based on our current knowledge.

Of course, once reason that it sounds a bit like "technobabble" is because they attempt to dumb down the ideas enough to fit into the episode. It wouldn't do any good for them to launch into a technical description on quantum reality and n-dimensional physics during a one hour episode, now would it? I mean, then we wouldn't have any time for the actual fiction part of the show.

^I took AST 205: Stars and Galaxies awhile back and had to learn all about the particle physics, GUT and spectroscopy, etc.

Bear with me, it was a few semesters ago so I may forget/muddle some of the details. Basically, as the molecules of hydrogen, helium and other trace gases are squeezed together by gravity, the electron shells of the individual atoms begin to collide with one another. When they do, the electrons collide and change their orbit around the nucleus, and then revert back to their original orbit. This releases a store of energy as photons. The same thing happens when an X particle strikes a weak boson. The larger the bang, the farther the change in orbit and the more energy is released, when it returns back to its original orbit. Or something like that. Look up the Bohr model, Planck's Constant, etc for more info.

Long story short, the resulting photons which are released make up the electromagnetic energy in the universe, depending on frequency, etc.

It's all through measuring light via spectroscopy and a little triangulation that we can tell the size, rotation speeds, mass, velocity, age, composition, etc, of the stars and galaxies, nebulae and other celestial objects. Pretty crazy once you get your head all wrapped around it.

>> ^imstellar28:
>> ^Aendolin:
^I'd say evolutionary theory is harder to accept, not grasp.

You think quantum mechanics is easy to accept? Planck, Bohr, Schroedinger, and Einstein all considered it ludicrous, and they were much smarter men than most.
Quantum mechanics says that if you place a cat under a large box, and lift the box to peek in enough times, one of those times it will be a horse. You're okay with that?


My own opinion is that evolutionary theory is rather easy to grasp and understand. Quantum mechanics, not so much. I mean, I can recite some of the implications of quantum mechanics, but they're still beyond imagination and I have no concept of how these things happen.

And no, quantum mechanics doesn't say anything about cats transforming into horses. Quantum mechanics says that quantum particles exist in all possible states at all times unless they are observed. You'll be nominated for a golden crocoduck yourself if you keep saying things like that.

Einstein and Planck essentially founded quantum theory, though Einstein wasn't fond of its implications, and Schrodinger is famous for pointing out how ridiculous it is. They all still believed it because the evidence indicates it's true. Not sure if you were implying that they were all disbelievers, but that's how I read that part of your comment.

>> ^Aendolin:
^I'd say evolutionary theory is harder to accept, not grasp.


You think quantum mechanics is easy to accept? Planck, Bohr, Schroedinger, and Einstein all considered it ludicrous, and they were much smarter men than most.

Quantum mechanics says that if you place a cat under a large box, and lift the box to peek in enough times, one of those times it will be a horse. You're okay with that?

>> ^EDD:
^ Those collisions planned at LHC have no - that's ZERO, NIL, NONE, NOUGHT, NADA, ZIP - risk of creating micro black holes unless one supplements the standard model of particle physics with several extensions that factor in the possibility of extra spatial dimensions which these micro black holes might originate from. And even then those very same extensions lead one to conclude that the decay on those mbhs due to Hawking radiation would have them existing (and not in a manner in which they can do ANY harm) for a matter of seconds at the outside.
So whoever made this video - DIAF. That's right - you should die in a freaking fire for attempting to induce mass hysteria based on your complete fucking ignorance.


Wasn't there also a fear of that strange matter (quark matter) in the form of Strangelets being created as well?

"Clearly this potential risk is based on speculative theories. But
these theories were constructed to explore real possibilities. The probability
that they are correct is not negligible."

R. Plaga a
aFranzstr. 40, D-53111 Bonn, Germany

Quantum black holes are in principle unstable, i.e. they evaporate because
no conserved quantum number forbids them to do so. However, it is well
known that their Hawking luminosity is strongly suppressed with respect to
semiclassical expectations for black-hole masses below the Planck mass in
4 space-time dimensions.

yeah! remember that country song???

What if Jesus came back like that...
A planck sized dot of inifinite mass!

What if Jesus came back like that...
Decayed right away.. and gone like that!

What if Jesus came back like that...
But years too early.. from the proton smacks!

What if Jesus came back like that...
Light speed, burned.. and pissed at Cern!

what the hell!?
did I say I believed it? did I not put quotation marks everywhere?

that Randi fellow stinks of religious zeal.
Stinks to the high heavens where Einstein, Newton, Max Planck and the gang are smelling the philosophical ignorance of self proclaimed skeptics who don't even understand the meaning of the word.

If it's a trick, O.K. But please don't throw your assumptions at me...

(( Though I think this is generally a load of horse crap and them bantying around terms like "quantum physics" and "planck scale" with their holistic mental BS is a joke. )) The lady at the end, Charo melded with Catherine O'Hara... "When do we make the leap from me... to one..." pshaaa, load another bong hit.

I am not sure what this video hoped to prove. It is easy to find intelligent people on both sides of the debate. However, I would submit, that the following list of THEISTS is far more impressive than the people mentioned in this video.

• Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543)
Copernicus was the Polish astronomer who put forward the first mathematically based system of planets going around the sun. He attended various European universities, and became a Canon in the Catholic church in 1497.

• Sir Fancis Bacon (1561-1627)
Bacon was a philosopher who is known for establishing the scientific method of inquiry based on experimentation and inductive reasoning. In De Interpretatione Naturae Prooemium, Bacon established his goals as being the discovery of truth, service to his country, and service to the church. Although his work was based upon experimentation and reasoning, he rejected atheism as being the result of insufficient depth of philosophy, stating, "It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion….

• Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)
Kepler was a brilliant mathematician and astronomer. He did early work on light, and established the laws of planetary motion about the sun. He also came close to reaching the Newtonian concept of universal gravity - well before Newton was born!

• Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Galileo did his most useful theoretical work, which was on dynamics. Galileo expressly said that the Bible cannot err, and saw his system as an alternate interpretation of the biblical texts.

• Rene Descartes (1596-1650)
Descartes was a French mathematician, scientist and philosopher who has been called the father of modern philosophy. His school studies made him dissatisfied with previous philosophy: He had a deep religious faith as a Roman Catholic, which he retained to his dying day, along with a resolute, passionate desire to discover the truth. Descartes was to establish the near certainty of the existence of God - for only if God both exists and would not want us to be deceived by our experiences - can we trust our senses and logical thought processes. God is, therefore, central to his whole philosophy.

• Isaac Newton (1642-1727)
In optics, mechanics, and mathematics, Newton was a figure of undisputed genius and innovation. In all his science (including chemistry) he saw mathematics and numbers as central. He was devoutly religious and saw numbers as involved in understanding God's plan for history from the Bible. He did a considerable work on biblical numerology, and, though aspects of his beliefs were not orthodox, he thought theology was very important. In his system of physics, God is essential to the nature and absoluteness of space. In Principia he stated, "The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion on an intelligent and powerful Being."

• Robert Boyle (1791-1867)
Boyle gave his name to "Boyle's Law" for gases, and also wrote an important work on chemistry. Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "By his will he endowed a series of Boyle lectures, or sermons, which still continue, 'for proving the Christian religion against notorious infidels...

• Michael Faraday (1791-1867)
Michael Faraday was the son of a blacksmith who became one of the greatest scientists of the 19th century. His work on electricity and magnetism not only revolutionized physics, but led to much of our lifestyles today, which depends on them (including computers and telephone lines and, so, web sites). Faraday was a devoutly Christian member of the Sandemanians, which significantly influenced him and strongly affected the way in which he approached and interpreted nature.

• Gregor Mendel (1822-1884)
Mendel was the first to lay the mathematical foundations of genetics, in what came to be called "Mendelianism

• William Thomson Kelvin (1824-1907)
Kelvin was foremost among the small group of British scientists who helped to lay the foundations of modern physics. His work covered many areas of physics, and he was said to have more letters after his name than anyone else in the Commonwealth. Interestingly, his fellow physicists George Gabriel Stokes (1819-1903) and James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) were also men of deep Christian commitment, in an era when many were nominal, apathetic, or anti-Christian. The Encyclopedia Britannica says "Maxwell is regarded by most modern physicists as the scientist of the 19th century who had the greatest influence on 20th century physics; he is ranked with Sir Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein for the fundamental nature of his contributions.

• Max Planck (1858-1947)
Planck made many contributions to physics, but is best known for quantum theory, which revolutionized our understanding of the atomic and sub-atomic worlds. In his 1937 lecture "Religion and Naturwissenschaft," Planck expressed the view that God is everywhere present, and held that "the holiness of the unintelligible Godhead is conveyed by the holiness of symbols." Both science and religion wage a "tireless battle against skepticism and dogmatism, against unbelief and superstition" with the goal "toward God!"

• Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
Einstein is probably the best known and most highly revered scientist of the twentieth century, and is associated with major revolutions in our thinking about time, gravity, and the conversion of matter to energy (E=mc2). Although never coming to belief in a personal God, he recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe. The Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "Firmly denying atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in "Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists." This actually motivated his interest in science, as he once remarked to a young physicist: "I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details." Einstein's famous epithet on the "uncertainty principle" was "God does not play dice" - and to him this was a real statement about a God in whom he believed. A famous saying of his was "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

Actually, Kristol comes off as a smart guy with a sense of humour. Nice to know that not all neocons are deluded, greedy, lying schmucks. What we *really* need are people like Krystol to defend various plancks of their policy agenda openly and without ad hominems, claims to divine inspiration, or deliberate misrepresentations of the facts (by either side). Trouble is, regular TV seems now to have become the wrong medium for adult discussion. You should check out British TV. If this Colbert video 'blazes the trail' by asking questions the mainstream will not then we need very badly to relearn the art of fiercely honest, rational political discussion.