You First

So what happened first? You know, at the very beginning? The very very VERY beginning? There was that big bang, and we're now learning what happened after that. But what happened before the first moment? Does that question even make sense? Is the first moment still the first moment if something came before it?

These questions are real noodle-benders. Some physicists say that we cannot asked what happened before the big bang because there's no such thing as 'before' the big bang since that's when time began as well. Yeah. I think I just blew some brain cells trying to figure out the limits of language and whether or not it can encompass questions about the beginnings of our universe. The coolest answer I've seen so far comes from a satire piece Edward Current did on christians fighting atheists where he actually quotes a physicist that I can't find the source to:

As part of a quantum fluctuation, a singularity spontaneously inflated into a vast field comprising matter and energy in a constantly expanding fabric of space and time, causality also arising in the process - thus making a causative agent not only unnecessary but impossible.

At least we can all agree that using logic and reason to know what happened after the big bang works, but understanding concepts around and 'before' that point might be near impossible - although fun if you like breaking your brain.

Well we can all agree - except for creationists.

Of course creationists claim the answer is so, so easy. To explain where this incredible, wonderful, complex, vast expanse of mass and energy originated from, creationists declare that positing a god makes the most sense. Clearly the best way to explain how this universe was 'made' is to declare a maker.

Except ... who made the maker? And why do creationists never care about who made god? It's been my experience that they immediately claim 'nobody' made god because apparently he wasn't made.

Well, why can't the universe be made by a 'nobody'?!?!? Opining the existence of a god doesn't answer all or any of the questions, but (if true) would simply raise even MORE questions. Where did that god come from? How did he/she/it get here? Is there an even more powerful god? Until we regress to infinity in this childish game of trying to wish any imaginary character into existence.

We're lucky to live in a day and age where we know more about our origins than any other generation in history. We are the universe become aware of itself. I for one have no problem even relishing the mystery of our beginnings (especially since my frail mind hurts when thinking about it anyhow, it's much easier to stand in awe). But I will not muck it up with childish fantasies and piss-poor logic. If we accept the reasoning by these creationists like Ray Comfort and Ken Ham then why not let Santa Claus start the universe? Apparently believing in a magical being that can do it will simply make it so.

Or not. I'd rather spend my time doing something useful, like clipping my toenails.

Boom!

Happy 2009!

I hope that everyone had a lovely 'ring-in-the-new-year' event. My evening was spent with friends and spirits, so it was a fun time indeed.

One of my new year's resolutions is to stick to a routine with my blogging; so that I can get better at writing and so that I can have an archive of the things I think about. And what better way to start off the new year, than with an exciting example of how science works?!

Just recently, published in the Astrophysical Journal, scientists have managed to test hypotheses concerning the formation of supernovae, using as a case study an event just a mere 13 million light years away from us.

Last year, on my birthday (March 28th for all those who want to remember the date and gift me something wonderful :-), a special notice was sent out that supernova 2008bk had been discovered on March 25th. The notice indicated that:

This supernova has not yet been spectrally classified, but the galaxy is undergoing active star formation and a core collapse supernova is possible.

Stars in our universe, like our very own Sun, are sites of nuclear fusion: a process which creates larger nuclei from smaller ones, generating an enormous amount of energy - energy that is necessary to keep the weight of the star from crumbling on top of itself. When a star runs out of fuel, it cannot support its own weight anymore without the release of this energy, and so one of two fates can occur depending on the mass of that star.

In the case of our Sun, a series of steps in stellar evolution will take it through the phases of a dwarf star as luminosity slowly decreases due to the lack of fusion. In other stars that have roughly 8 times or more than the mass of our own Sun, a spectacular event occurs called a Supernova. This is where enough mass collapses down that the implosion leads to the most powerful explosion known in our universe. During this time, unimaginable amounts of light are given off and that is what astronomers observed in March of 2008.

Just recently scientists went back to maps of the sky from BEFORE the big explosion and searched the area for possible candidate stars that could have been responsible. Using a new image of supernova 2008bk taken from the Very Large Telescope they were able to reasonably identify the culprit: a red supergiant. Based on what we know about parameters for supernovae to form, they predicted that the original mass of the star must have been at least 8 times that of our Sun. After careful calculations, the original mass of the star was determined to be 8.5 solar masses.

Question. Observation. Hypothesis. Prediction. Experiment. Results. Hypothesis SUPPORTED. By Zeus, I love the scientific method!

Now, if only I could only see a supernova up close without getting obliterated ...