(or, A Debate With Stephen Hawking in his Absence)
Part Two
EMPIRICAL VERIFICATION OF EVOLUTIONARY AND
BIBLICAL COSMOLOGICAL MODELS – microcosmos
Why empirical verification is necessary in science
In 1931 the
Austrian mathematician Kurt Gödel drew the incompleteness
theorems, according to which the formal systems of logic and mathematics
are semantically inadequate and do not allow strict proof (or refutation). As a
simple example we could point out the impossibility to resolve the Zeno's
puzzles - Achilles (the fastest runner in the world) could not catch up with a
tortoise if she only started a few strides in front of him. Hitherto, no one
could refute the assertions of the philosopher of Elea in theory, but in practice
even a small child can easily cope with a similar problem. Therefore, today it
is not enough to create a scientific formulation, but there should be certain
corollaries, that allow an empiric verification of its genuineness.
The most significant blemish of the
Christian view on the Creation remains the circumstance that this view is based
primarily on the critics of the evolutionary theory, and does not develop its
own theory which should be subject to verification. In this article we will try
for the first time to present the Biblical model that allows for its
corollaries to be deduced theoretically with the aid of physics and
mathematics, as well as to be verified by observation, experiments, computer
simulations , etc.
The main question of philosophy is: “Which one is primary – matter or
consciousness?”
Friedrich Engels successfully
divided the great diversity of idea-based systems of mankind into two main
groups: “Has God created the world, or the world has always existed?”, asked
Engels. Depending on how they answer this question, philosophers have flocked
into two large camps. Those who assert that the Spirit is primary to nature and,
consequently, accept some kind of Creation of the world, have built the
idealism camp. The others, who see nature as primary [to consciousness/spirit],
have contributed to the formation of the various schools of materialism”.[1] Below we
will discuss how dialectical materialism and Christianity relate to these two
diametrically opposite view-of-the-world systems of thought in order to see to
what extent each of these views is supported by scientific evidence.
A) Dialectical Materialism
According to this philosophical
position, matter is eternal, uncreatable
and indestructible, and consciousness has come into existence only at a
later stage in the development of matter. Vladimir Lenin asserts that “There is
nothing in the world except for moving matter”[2],
and many contemporary scientists completely agree with him. The American
astronomer Carl Sagan opened his famous television series with the words: “The
Cosmos is everything that has been, is or will ever be”. Sterling Lamprecht gives a more extended definition of
naturalism: “"a philosophical position, empirical method that
regards everything that exists or occurs to be conditioned in its existence or
occurrence by causal factors within one all-encompassing system of
nature.".[3]
According to
Charles Darwin the
factors of biological evolution are brought down to mutability, heredity
and natural selection. However, if we consider things in a strictly
naturalistic manner, we could relate his doctrine also to the evolution of the
inanimate nature. Russian physicist Andrei Linde (currently working in Stanford
University) proposes the idea of the "chaotic inflation". It
states that the quantum fluctuations of vacuum permanently lead to the
origination of mini-universes. They evolve in isolation, and initially they are
inflated by inflation processes, while later on – they evolve according to the
classical hypothesis of the Big Bang (fig. 1).
Fig. 1 Linde's
model of chaotic inflation is illustrated as a tree-like structure, consisting
of an infinite number of multiplying "bubbles" (inflationary
universes). Each newly obtained universe could "sprout", thus forming
new mini-universes. (The change in colour presents "mutations"
in the physical laws against the parent universes.)
With each
appearance of a new world what is observed is mutability in the
laws and the constants of the matter. The accidental recurrences of some of
them are regarded as a type of heredity. The natural
selection is also in force, since it preserves the physical structures
- atoms, molecules, celestial systems, that, with the combination of
appropriate parameters, are stable. Further, on planets of suitable conditions, evolution determinately
leads to the evolvement of living, and at some places, of conscious creatures.
But if Darwinism
could be applied to animate and inanimate nature, then we have to accept it
as a universal dialectic-materialistic concept, which
preconditions the self-organization of the universe. It is curious to note that exactly this
philosophy is one of the pillars on which authoritarian communist regimes were
founded and continue being founded. Therefore, the fact that this philosophy is
now accepted in a New Europe without criticism
and it is being used as a foundation for scientific paradigms and for morality
and ethics norms prompts legitimate concern.
As in contemporary scientific
theories vacuum appears to be some kind of a proto-matter giving the beginning
of everything else, we will say a few words on this. What is understood as
vacuum in physics is an enclosed space devoid of all matter, i.e. devoid of any
atoms, molecules, protons, neutrons, etc., as well as of particles conveying
interaction – photons, gravitons, etc. However, vacuum has some ‘end energy’,
physical fields therein maintain their forces, the so called virtual particles
constantly come and go, fluctuations occur, etc. The quantum theory allows for
the existence of multiple states of vacuum, it being (thereby) accepted that cosmic
or cosmological inflation is due to various transformations between such states.
The American physicist of Ukrainian
origin Alexander Vilenkin equates the initial vacuum with the “nothing”,
stating further: “Nothing is the condition of non-classical space-time … an
area of unlimited quantum gravity; a rather bizarre state in which all our notions
of space, time, energy, entropy, etc. lose all their relevance”.[4] Elsewhere, he however acknowledges: “The
nature of the primary condition is too much a speculative subject even by
cosmological standards”.[5]
And the researcher of philosophical
ideas in cosmology Chris Isham adds: “Conceptual issues in quantum cosmology
are so serious that many professional physicists assume that its entire agenda
may turn to be entirely erroneous”.[6]
The Big Bang Theory
It is well known that the Big Bang theory rests on three observation
pillars - the expansion of the Universe, the cosmic background radiation, and
the abundance of light elements. The classic formulation of this concept,
however, was not in the position to cope with a number of challenges that it
faces, for instance the problems of the
cosmic horizon, the flatness of space, magnetic monopoles etc. At the end
of 1979 Alan Guth and Henry Tye, in one of their articles, developed the so
called inflation cosmology, which eliminates the pointed difficulties standing
in front of the standard cosmological model.[7] According to them, shortly after the Big Bang, the energy of the
Universe was carried by an inflatonic field with negative pressure. Thanks to this field
for a period of about 10-36 to 10-32 seconds, the Universe
inflated exponentially more than 1030 times. The field gradually released
the energy it contained in the form of almost
homogeneous
sea of particles and radiation, and later on the Universe evolved according
to the conventional scenario (see Table 1).
Time
elapsed after the Big Bang
|
Event
|
Years
before our age
|
0
|
Big Bang (singularity)
|
13,7 (13,82) billion years
|
10-36 to 10-32 sec.
|
Inflation era.
|
|
10-33 sec.
|
Quark - gluon plasma
|
|
10-5 sec.
|
Quarks unite in protons and neutrons.
|
|
10-3 sec.
|
Synthesis of hydrogen and helium atoms.
|
|
1 to 3 min.
|
Formation of light elements up to boron.
|
|
380 thousand years.
|
The Universe becomes transparent. Cosmic
microwave background radiation (CMBR) is released.
|
|
200-500 million years.
|
Birth of the first stars and protogalaxies.
|
13,5-13,2 billion years.
|
3,3 billion years.
|
Formation of mature galaxies, quasars and of the
oldest stars in the Milky Way.
|
10,4 billion years.
|
8,1 billion years.
|
The Sun System originates, including the Earth.
|
5,6 billion years.
|
Table 1
As in this part
reference will be made to the coming into existence of micro-cosmos, we will
limit ourselves to the period up to around 380 thousand years after the Big
Bang.
Critical Analysis
Let us remember Hawking’s conclusion
at end of the Great Design: "Because there is a law like gravity,
the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is
the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why
we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and
set the universe going."[8]
In the latter statement however
there are several unsustainable premises:
In the first place, vacuum is being
equated to “nothing”, because of the fact that it does not contain matter which
is rather misleading especially for people that do not deal with physics. As we
noted vacuum has certain energy, virtual particles constantly come and go in
it, etc., which means that vacuum, strictly speaking, is definitely
“something”, as opposed to absolutely “nothing”. If vacuum is something, then
vacuum too requires explanation for its coming into existence.
Secondly, we are told of a “law such
as the law of gravity” which brings the Universe into existence. We will
shortly see how problematic is the position according to which there is any
kind of firmly established “law”.
Here, we will only cite Heinz Pagels who asks a similar question: “Yet this
unthinkable void converts itself into the plenum of – a necessary consequence
of physical laws. Where are these laws written into the void?”[9]
Thirdly, it remains also unclear
where space and time come from. In his book “A Universe Out Of Nothing”,
Lawrence Krauss tries to further develop Hawking’s premise by overcoming the
difficulties pointed, but, in our opinion, he is not particularly convincing.
To put it differently, Hawking and Mlodinow
have totally failed to answer the question “why there is something instead of
nothing?”, as they try to persuade their readers, but they have only shifted
things towards the unfathomable primary vacuums.
Now let us look at those three premises in greater detail.
The first of them is that matter has come into existence out of
vacuum, and in the beginning there was a process of inflation.
(To visualize things better we will
return to Table 1).
Singular
cosmic beginning requires rigorous solution, which inflation is still not in a
position to give, because it is still not well integrated in String theory, therefore it is not part of
the merger of the quantum mechanics and the General theory of relativity.
No one could
say how the inflaton field arises with a suitable form of the potential energy
for inflation to emerge. We don't know the exact parameters of the primordial
explosion - when it happened, how long did it take, what quantity of energy it
converted into particles and radiation, etc. Therefore, there is no way to
avoid the impression that physicists just tailor their concepts so that they
coincide with the astronomic observations.
But the most significant problem
here is the following: Theory states that the
initial Universe was made entirely of high energy radiation, creating
spontaneously particles and antiparticles. Around one microsecond after the
explosion the temperature dropped below 1013К. Quarks and antiquarks
decelerated and were caught by the strong interaction which stuck them together
in groups of three - forming barions and antibarions, respectively. According
to the statistical law, however, it is expected that their number should have
been equal and the inevitable collisions between them would have led to
complete annihilation. The energy of the resulting radiation would have
gradually dissolved with the expansion of the Universe, wherefore no new
couples of particles would have been born i.e., no substance could be existent
today.
Russian
physicist Andrey Sakharov assumes that in that epoch there was a violation of
the so called СР-symmetry (charge-particle symmetry), which resulted in
disbalance - for every billion of antibarions there are a billion and one barions. After the big firework was
exhausted, the surviving barions turned into protons and neutrons, from which
later on all atomic nuclei were built.
The point is
that there should have been lepton asymmetry in which the number of the
surviving electrons was exactly the same as the number of the produced protons
(so that atoms are electro-neutral), which is a statistical absurdity.
(It is necessary to make the
following clarification: If there existed just a slight predominance
either of the positive or negative charges, they would have repulsed with a
power that exceeds 1036 times gravity and they would have ruptured all structures in the world
that we know, excluding atomic nuclei, because in the nuclei the strong
interaction is about a hundred times greater than electromagnetic one.)
To put it differently, at least for
now, the concept of the birth of the world out of vacuum is unconvincing for
the fact that it fails to offer a sufficiently good rational explanation of the
coming into existence of matter.
Secondly, the issue of laws arises.
In this respect, two sub-questions are
brought up:
а) Is it possible for a matter which is
in the state of absolute chaos to come by chance to its contemporary level of order.
What will
happen, though, if the so called "undetermined mutability" (according
to Darwin) acts at the level of fundamental constants, laws and interactions?
Let us try to imagine a world in which everything changes in a totally chaotic
way. In this world some of the characteristics of the elementary particles
might be constant, while others might transform permanently. For example, if
the electric charge changes arbitrarily, it could take absolutely random
values: +1; –1; +7/8; +14/3; –112/27, etc. The same is assumed also for the
mass, the spin, the magnetic moment, etc., we should assume even a qualitative
(evolutionary?) transformation of particles into something different from what
they are in reality. The law of gravity now could be written as follows:
and in a short
while:
then it could
change into some other type, etc. (Due to the lack of durability, in that case
we could not talk about laws neither.) Having in mind the delicate balance of
all forces in nature, it becomes absolutely clear that with whatever
metamorphosis of the interactions, everything will fall apart "before our
eyes". In such a world neither any stationary or dynamic structures could
be created, nor could they be stable in time. If, in the primary matter that
builds our world, a similar "undetermined mutability" existed, it would
lead to an absolute chaos, which is not capable of producing
any arrangement or organization whatsoever.
Here we will make one clarification.
Some scientists state that the new string theory offers a powerful
conceptual paradigm, which has the potential to respond to the question:
"what is the reason for the elementary particles to possess exactly these
observed properties". Therefore, let us say a few words on that. The
strings can perform an infinite number of resonance wave oscillations, which
means that they should generate an infinite row of elementary particles with
all sorts of properties. In that case we can ask, why there exist only those
limited number of observed particles, which, as we have noted in chapter ІV,
resemble the elements of a perfect meccano (construction set), allowing the
assembling of our world? The response given by the string theory is that there
are at least six (or seven) additional dimensions of space, which at
microscopic level are rolled into the so called Calabi-Yau shapes(fig. 2).
(Named after Eugenie Calabi and Shing-Tung Yau, who have discovered them in
mathematics even before their meaning for the string theory is known.)
а)
b)
Fig. 2 a) One
of the possible Calabi-Yau shapes. b) Big enlargement of an area in space with
the additional dimensions in the form of miniature Calabi-Yau shapes.
The additional
dimensions have a great influence on the way the strings oscillate, and, as a
result,on the properties of the particles. But the equations show that there
are an infinite number of Calabi-Yau shapes, and each of them is as valid as
all the rest. That is to say that we come to a dead-end again - how were those
shapes, which generate exactly the necessary elementary particles, selected? Or
the question is only shifted, but not solved.
We will remind however, that the string
theory fails to meet the verification and falsification criteria and it remains
a purely speculative research field, thereby failing to yet achieve the status
of scientific quality. In his work on the history of quantum gravity Carlo
Rovelli point out: “So, where are we, after 70 years of research? There
are well-developed tentative theories, in particular strings and loops, and
several other intriguing ideas. There is no consensus, no established theory,
and no theory that has yet received any direct or indirect experimental
support. In the course of 70 years, many ideas have been explored, fashions have
come and gone, the discovery of the Holly Graal has been several times
announced, with much later scorn.”[10]
Hawking and Mlodinow, citing this
very problematic strings theory, say that it predicts the possible existence of
10500 universes[11].
But even if such hypothesis turns true, this will not still mean that those
universes actually exist. And, as we shall be convinced in a little while, the
number [of universes] stated is absolutely insignificant for the purpose of ‘saving’
Hawking and Mlodinow’s theory of the emergence of some orderly world.
b) The second sub-question on the issue
of laws is: “what is the statistical probability for the accidental coming into
existence of any stable and well-ordered universe?”
The
fundamental constants, the characteristics of the elementary particles, etc.,
are measured with analogue quantities, therefore they allow for an infinite (∞)
number of values of their settings. Let us assume that a system of n elements
is required for the existence of such a world. Generally, the possibility for
each member of the system to have exactly the appropriate parameters is
1/∞, and for all n elements - 1/∞n. Even if the system has an
endless number of stable configurations, the probability to have any one of
them formed by chance is:
∞/∞n = 1/∞n-1
(Where n is a whole positive
number bigger than one. Presently
we can say that for our world n has
a value of around 100,
because presently there are at least one hundred parameters whose value has to
be precisely adjusted.)
If we assume that n-1=k, the expression will take the form: 1/∞k, i.e. this probability is on a certain degree
less times smaller than infinitely small (fig. 3).
Fig. 3 Possible configurations of
the values of parameters that ensure working (stable and functioning) conditions
from I to ∞. Systems І, ІІ, ІІІ and so on, may be like other worlds,
similar to the physical structures being formed within them.
To put it differently, for systems that allow an endless number of values for their
parameters, a peculiar paradox occurs. Although they could possess countless
working conditions, even then the probability to reach any one of them by
chance is smaller than infinitely small or, in practice, it could never be
fulfilled.
We will once again make a short
detour to give readers who are not experts in mathematics some clarification. In
theory, statistical laws allow for the realization of events with
insignificantly small probability. However, practical experience shows that
such events never happen. Therefore, some scientists assume that for each event
there is a certain "probability threshold", under which its
realization is unlikely. But, as unconceivably small, as these relations might
be, such as for example 1/10500; 1/1065 720 etc., still,
there are other people who argue that such probabilities could be materialized.
However, when we get a probability 1/∞, it is infinitely smaller than the
smallest probability that we could write or even think about. That is why we
hope that even to such "optimists" a probability of 1/∞ most surely
will show an absolute "prohibition" for a certain event to be
realized in practice.
There arises
the question whether it makes sense to raise 1/∞ to some power, since the 1/∞
ratio actually tends to zero and shows a total inability for an event to
happen? We should follow, however, the rules in mathematical theory, according
to which the total probability for two or more events to happen is equal to the
product of the probabilities for each of them to be implemented separately.
When a total probability 1/∞ to some power is achieved, this, according to us,
shows more than an absolute impossibility for the realization of
something.
The above tells us that the 10500 universes are an immaterially small number. But even if their number is
increased to an infinite value, calculations cited here allow us to understand
that still no chance materializes for the coming into existence of a world like
ours.
With living
organisms the variations are limited, since their components (DNA, proteins,
etc.) are built in strictly determined number of discrete units (nucleotides,
amino acids, etc.). But in fact, there appear to be negligibly small,
practically unrealisable probabilities for an accidental formation of the
protocell, which is able to realize all processes of life. To put it differently, in the
highlighted areas, the existing dynamic and statistical laws forbid the
self-arrangement of matter.
Figure 3 allows us to make another
important conclusion, namely, that no evolutionary processes are possible
either in dead or in living nature.
According to the definition, The system is a
multitude of elements that are in relations and connections between each other
and form a certain unity, a wholeness. All elements of the system are
interdependent, i.e. each of them affects the rest, and vice versa - they also
have an impact on it. The structure of the system determines its internal form
of arrangement, i.e. it is an expression of the order existing therein. The
full description of the order in the complexly organized systems is studied by
a comparatively new science, called taxiology (logic of order), which is being
developed as one of the most fundamental
and important logical theories. But its basic principles and categories are
studied through too complicated extensional mathematical logic and theoretical
computation methods. Therefore, we shall not examine them here, but will apply
an extremely simplified approach, which will allow us to make conclusions
regarding the possibility for an evolution of hierarchically structured systems.
A principle
known as "all or nothing" is valid with them, referring to the
fact that the structure must be composed of suitable elements, which should be
arranged in the correct order, so that the action of the system is not
disturbed. If we change the parameters even of a single one of them, or we totally
remove it, or we change places of some of the elements, a disturbance will
occur in the functioning of the system that will destroy it or take it out of
use. Therefore, either everything is fine and the system functions in a normal
way, or otherwise, it is as if nothing is fine and the system is terminated.
This principle
forbids the gradual "evolution" of one structure into another. Could
a small mechanical watch gradually transform itself into a clock? Let us
presume that one of its gears has grown bigger, as for a clock. Then, it will
be incompatible with all the mechanisms of the small watch and the latter will
not tell the time correctly, or will not be able to work at all. Let the other
parts also transform and become as for a clock. While one part of its
mechanisms is for a small watch, and the other - for a bigger one, its function
will be considerably disturbed or could not be realized at all. The watch/clock
will work normally only when either all its parts are small, or all parts are
big.
And what will
happen if one of the parts of the watch is replaced by a computer part? For
example, a transistor is put in place of a gear. It is absolutely sure that the
watch will go out of use now. On the other hand, even the computer will not
realize its function even when we have assembled all the computer parts, and
only one part is left from the watch.
Based on the
aforesaid we could make the following conclusion: when one object is gradually
transformed into another object of the same type (but different in some way -
by size, by model, etc.) the function is hampered, or even ceased. And when an
object of one type is transformed into an object of another type the function
cannot be realized at all. Therefore, either "everything" is in line
and the system is functioning normally, or even if one thing is not in order,
it is as if "nothing" is in order and the function is broken.
Of course, the
relations between the elements of the systems in nature are significantly more
complicated; we have taken these examples only to illustrate the principle
"all or nothing". By analysing Fig. 3 we could make the following
conclusion regarding the possibility for an evolution of the systems with an
infinite number of values of their parameters: Neither gradual nor saltatory
("quantum") transition of one working system into another is
possible.
In the first
case, i.e. with a gradual transition, if one of its parameters
changes its value, it will not be in accordance with its other parameters any
more, and the system will get out of order. But, the other system will not be
fit to work until all its necessary parameters are completely built. As we have
clarified, here the principle "all or nothing" applies.
The second
case, of the "quantum" (sudden) transformation, is also
impossible to be realized. The probability for all parameters of the system to
suddenly change and to acquire exactly the necessary values of the parameters
of any other functioning system is smaller than infinitely small (according to
the calculations above – 1/∞k).
At the
beginning we already mentioned that every metamorphosis in the parameters of
the micro-world (characteristic of the particles, intensity of interactions,
etc.) makes atoms unstable and results in their being destroyed. In other
words, the atoms and the other chemical elements are discrete structures, which
cannot pass one into another through a series of intermediate forms,
but they require strictly calculated design. We could think about the celestial
formations - planetary, stellar, galactic in a similar way.
As it is well
known, proteins have a very important role within living creatures. They build
the cell structures, perform catalytic functions, participate in the
realization of the genome, etc. But one part of them are
species-dependent. Therefore if a mutation occurs, that will lead to the
formation of a different protein, its action will not be in unison with the
work of the other proteins. In that way the genetic mutations impede the
synchronization of the systems in the organism and for that reason, in fact,
they appear harmful for the individual, i.e. they do not assist the individual
in the fight for existence. In other words, the principle "all or
nothing" does not aid the gradual evolution of organisms and there are no new data for
“quantum-driven” (i.e. sudden) emergence of new species.
Theoreticians
propose two different explanations for the course of the evolutionary
process in biology. The first one is called "phyletic gradualism".
According to this point of view, the present living creatures have gradually
evolved from earlier and simpler organisms. In that case, however, we should
observe constant lines of transitional forms among the species, as well as
among higher taxa. It is inexplicable why this line of intermediary links is
missing not only with the contemporary organisms, but also with the fossils. In
that direction, N. Heribert-Nielsen, Director of the Botanical Institute with
the University of Lund, Sweden, has made a very indicative statement.
After 40 years of investigations in the area of paleontology and botany,
finally, he was forced to say: "It is not even possible to make a
caricature of an evolution out of paleo-biological facts. The fossil material
is now so complete that … the lack of transitional series cannot be explained
as due to the scarcity of the material. The deficiencies are real; they will
never be filled.".[12]
The second
view is known as "punctuated (discrete) equilibrium". This
term denotes a hypothetical process, with which mutations in the species should
be made saltatory and to have a quick evolution in small populations. S.
Stanley calls this "quantum" (in this case "sudden")
emergence of new type. Such an imaginary process could explain the universal
absence of transitional structure, but there are no genetic proofs of it
whatsoever.
Here is the
evaluation that two famous evolutionists - J. Valentine and D. Erwin give to
this concepts: "We conclude that … neither of the contending theories
of evolutionary change at the species level, phyletic gradualism or punctuated
equilibrium, seem applicable to the origin of new body plans".[13]
From the
consideration made we have come to the following conclusion: Intermediate
states are: (a) unstable – in atomic and celestial structures, and (b)
non-functioning – in living organisms. This means that the concept of a
universal Darwinian evolution of systems in non-living and living nature alike
is definitively unacceptable.
The third
issue in Hawking and Mlodinow’s book pertains to the emergence of space and
time.
Chris Isham
devotes plenty of focus on the fact that, as of now, it remains unclear what
the theory of quantum gravity should look like and on what data it should be
based. According to Isham, the main difficulties with building a quantum theory
of gravity, and, hence, with quantum cosmology, ensue from the fact that “general relativity is not just a theory of
the gravitational field—in an appropriate sense, it is also a theory of
spacetime itself; and hence a theory of quantum gravity must have something to
say about the quantum nature of space and time.”.[14]
We will
discuss this issue in more detail in the last article of our series.
B) Christian Theism
(To be continued): http://kosmos-21.blogspot.bg/2015/09/contemplations-on-grand-design.html
REFERENCES AND NOTES
[1] Engels, F., Ludwig Feuerbach, International
Publishers, New York,
1974, p. 21
[2] Lenin, V., Materialism and Empiro-criticism,
see 5 Time and Space.
[3] Lamprecht, Sterling Power, The
Metaphysics of Naturalism, Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York, 1960, p. 160
[4] Vilenkin, A. “Birth of Inflationary Universes” – In: Physical Review, 27, 12,
1983, р. 2851.
[5] Vilenkin, A., E. P. S. Shellard Cosmic strings
and other topological defects, Cambridge 1994, р. 49.
[6] Isham, С. Quantum Cosmology and the Laws of Nature, Berkeley 1993. р. 77.
[7] A year earlier (1978) Russian
physicists Genadiy Chibisov and Andrei Linde arrive at the idea of inflation,
but upon their detailed analysis they come to the realization that it has many
problems and they decide not to publish their research.
[8] Hawking, S., Mlodinow, L. “The
Great Design”, Bard Publishing Ltd, Sofia 2012, p. 214
[9] Op. cit.: Vaas R. Time before time. Classifications of universes in
contemporary cosmology, and how to avoid the antinomy of the beginning and
eternity of the world. p.
11.
[10] Rovelli, C., Notes for a brief history of quantum gravity –
www.arxiv.org gr-qc/0006061.
[11] Hawking, St., Mlodinow, L. “The
Great Design”, Bard Publishing Ltd, Sofia 2012, p. 143
[12] Paul A. Moody, Introduction
to Evolution /New York:
Harper and Row, 1962/, p. 503. /Synthetische Artbildung, 1953/.
[13] James W. Valentine and
Douglas H. Ervin, “Interpreting Great Development Experiments. The Fossil
Record.” An article from
Symposium published in Development as an Evolutionary Process, Alan R.
Lias, Inc., 1987, p. 96.
Symposium article, in Development as an Evolutionary Process, Alan R.
Lias, Inc., 1987, p. 96.
[14] Butterfield, J., Isham C., Spacetime and the
Philosophical Challenge of Quantum Gravity
Няма коментари:
Публикуване на коментар