Creating matter

gammarayburst · Sep 11, 2005

How is matter created? If matter cannot be created or destroyed then how did so much matter reside in one place, POB or point of beginning, and then be able to explode. If nothing can escape a black star then how could a black star a billion times the size be able to explode? If all the matter in the universe was in one place the gravity would not have allowed anything to escape. Even if it did explode the matter would not have been able to escape the stars massive gravity.

spaceinator · Sep 11, 2005

...matter cannot be created or distroyed... Not technically distroyed, but it can be converted to energy, and energy into matter. ...how did so much matter reside in one place, POB or point of beginning, and then be able to explode. If nothing can escape a black star then how could a black star a billion times the size be able to explode? If all the matter in the universe was in one place the gravity would not have allowed anything to escape. Even if it did explode the matter would not have been able to escape the stars massive gravity. Your talking about the big bang? There are many theories about exactly what caused it. One of them has to do with string theory -- parallel universes "bumping" into each other. Just google "big bang" and "string theory". This theory does not require a whole bunch of mass to be suddenly created.

bonepile · Sep 13, 2005

The "where did it come from" question can never be answered. If you believe God created it, you must then ask "where did God come from?" If you believe it was a byproduct of parallel universe interaction, you must then ask "where did the parallel universes come from?" Where did time come from, and where did all the laws of physics come from for that matter? In a nutshell, existence is a fundamental property of existence. Asking where something came from implies that time existed at some point when nothing else did. In reality, time is a physical parameter, just like energy and gravity. So either something exists, or it does not. Time, and hence causality, is part of that something. And I think we're all agreed that it exists. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

spaceinator · Sep 13, 2005

wow. deep. my head hurts... <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

vogon13 · Sep 13, 2005

In the long run, (10^1000 years) matter and energy (and us) are a negligble, infinitesimal statistical fart. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!So many people, so few recipes !!Let's clean up this stinkhole !! </div>

vogon13 · Sep 13, 2005

I can go 'deep' too. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!So many people, so few recipes !!Let's clean up this stinkhole !! </div>

spaceinvador_old · Sep 14, 2005

BonePile said, "If you believe God created it, you must then ask "where did God come from?" God is a spirit not some form of matter or energy. God speaks and that is what it is... matter cannot be created without matter. Something doesn't come from nothing. But we are something.

siarad · Sep 15, 2005

You've hit on the reason I can't believe in the BB, gravity just wouldn't allow it, unless the rules were different then so why would they be. I've read one reason to overcome this by saying it wasn't a point but happened everywhere, er wherever that was. If so what synchronised it & to do so would require time to be moving infinitely fast or C to be infinite. I base this on upon scientist ability to go back to an incredibly close time to it's happening. Gravity must be able to escape a BH or it wouldn't be able to attract matter Gravity causes time dilation so by escaping, thus reducing, time would gradually slow making the Universe appear to expand as distance is relative to the passage of time & not fixed. I'm no scientist so don't believe this just mull it over.

bonepile · Sep 15, 2005

The explanation I have heard is that space-time, not just matter, is expanding. And I'm not sure what the rules are for space-time expansion. It is a little bit hypothetical at this point.

spaceinvador_old · Sep 15, 2005

How can science tell us the universe is expanding when we cannot see the edge of the universe in the present/now??? Also the rate at which things happen change as they go through or by different things. We do not know anything...

vogon13 · Sep 15, 2005

Virtually everything we see between us and the edge of what we do see is moving away from us. Additionally, the rate at which everything recedes is proportional to how far away it is. It all adds up. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!So many people, so few recipes !!Let's clean up this stinkhole !! </div>

spaceinvador_old · Sep 16, 2005

So the further away an object becomes, the dimmer it gets? But what if the light from that object or whatever has been refrationed?

Saiph · Sep 16, 2005

First, he said the further away it is, the faster it receeds. Now, distance itself causes the observed light to diminish as well. This is why headlights way down the road are fainter than those sitting right in front of you. Light is generally emitted in a spherical fashion (i.e. not a cone of light from a flashlight). Stars, and most other astronomical objects, emit light in this fashion. When light spreads out this way, it's observed strength diminishes with the square of the distance (the inverse square law). If you increase the distance by a factor of two, the light diminishes by a factor of 4. So yes, further objects are dimmer assuming they have the same brightness to begin with. You can have an object further away appear brighter, if it is putting out far more light than the closer objects. This is why how bright an object appears is not a good indicator of how bright it really is. Light that is refracted normally diminishes in strength as well. Only when a lot of light is refracted in a specific fashion (say a telescope lense) and focused, does the object become brighter. However the observed luminosity of the object is considered to be the light just prior to going through such a lense. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

spaceinvador_old · Sep 16, 2005

I'm still kinda new at using a computer and don't know how to quote certain lines in your post to respond. I understand the faster things receede as we look deeper/further into space. I also understand that light dims 4x at twice the distance. But, what we see is as old as it is far away, pertaining to the image. What if the edge of space was in the beginning act of retracting or contracting? We couldn't tell as it is billions of light years from telling us. Is this correct? I'm just trying to understand how people can see the edge of space at its present location and say it's expanding...

Saiph · Sep 16, 2005

to quote sections of my text you can do one of several things. you can use the "quote" tags ["quote"] quoted text here ["/quote"] without the " ", or you could chang ethe color (replace "quote" with a color, like blue). Now, we could tell if the expansion was different then, as the velocity vs distance relationship would be different out at that distance. This is determined by plotting an objects distance, vs the velocity of the object, and finding the slope of the resulting line. Near us the slope is say, 70 km/s/Mpc. Far away it would change (assuming expansion was different then) to say, 50 km/s/Mpc. If it changes signs (like -50 km/s/Mpc) we'd see it contracting then. Such an analysis is the basis of the "accelerating universe" idea that's cropping up now. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

bonepile · Sep 16, 2005

In answer to your question, SPACEINVADOR, we don't know. What we do know is that based on our understanding of the laws of physics, the part of the universe that we are able to observe is expanding. It is a reasonable assumption to hold that the portion of the universe that we have not observed is doing the same thing.

alkalin · Sep 16, 2005

Hi gammarayburst, Notice some in the convent declare they know, yet do not include how they know, or even what they know. They usually divert this issue into some side issue. Giving birth to fiction is a common issue. Hehe. That’s because what you ask violates all rules of thermodynamics, which contains very important ideas of our local universe. Do we assume these rules apply to the entire universe of space and time? Of course not, if you adhere to cosmological thinking. How silly, we must presume that everything can come from nothing. Why, just look around us, the entire universe came from nothing. Yet tied to your question is the validity of Doppler in terms of the red shift we see, a fundamental error, in my view. So big bang has been building on error ever since. An important side issue, but not relevent in the long run. Alkalin

spaceinvador_old · Sep 16, 2005

Can we see the edge of space only in one direction, or can it be seen in all directions around us as we look up into the sky/north pole-south pole?

newtonian · Sep 17, 2005

Spaceinvador - We are not seeing the edge of space. We are limited by the speed of light and time. The Hubble deep field was an attempt to see near the edge of our visibility horizon, not to be confused with the edge of space which we cannot see. That famous, and awesome, photo shows more and more galaxies way distant from us. The problem is that if our universe was created by God 15 billion years ago, we cannot see any of the universe beyond 15 billion light years away, since its light has not reached us yet. However, in answer to your question: Yes, we can see in all directions and our universe is expanding in all directions, including North.

newtonian · Sep 17, 2005

alkalin - Our universe did not come from nothing. God obeys the laws he creates, including the law of conservation of matter and energy. Thermodynamics was not violated because God inputed energy to the system.

newtonian · Sep 17, 2005

Bonepile - Excellent posts. On your question: where did God come from: God is the first cause. His name, Jehovah, is the causative form of the Hebrew verb to be and means He causes to be (also, by extension, he accomplishes what he purposes). As such He is the First Cause. Scientifically, one would have to believe either in a First Cause or an infinite number of past causes and effects in infinite past time. Does that sound logical to you? That does, however, leave the question of whether God created time. I might add, there is a difference between our universe specific space-time which was created at the origin of our universe, and primordial time during which our universe with its space time was created. My definition of time is, btw: the medium through which cause and effect flow.

Saiph · Sep 17, 2005

having a "first" cause still falls to the "watchmaker" syndrome. You say god started it, because someone had to start it. For any reason you give me that it had to be started by something, it applies just as well to why someone needed to create God. Anyway, you really should stop professing biblical references as proof for scientific explainations. I don't mind seeing you discuss it, but not all over the place. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

siarad · Sep 17, 2005

Surely we don't need to know the distance, which is a bit of a trick but the angle between galaxies. The increasing angle will show expansion & the rate of change acceleration. It won't give it at any defined distance but proves expansion without the tricks used for distance.

Saiph · Sep 17, 2005

unfortunately, if they're moving directly away from us, along a radial line, the angles will never increase. Good thought though. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

newtonian · Sep 17, 2005

Saiph - Are they moving directly away from us - or at various slight angles? Siarad - Sounds like a parallax method approaching! Or, er, receeding!

Creating matter

gammarayburst

Guest

spaceinator

Guest

bonepile

Guest

spaceinator

Guest

vogon13

Guest

vogon13

Guest

spaceinvador_old

Guest

siarad

Guest

bonepile

Guest

spaceinvador_old

Guest

vogon13

Guest

spaceinvador_old

Guest

Saiph

Guest

spaceinvador_old

Guest

Saiph

Guest

bonepile

Guest

alkalin

Guest

spaceinvador_old

Guest

newtonian

Guest

newtonian

Guest

newtonian

Guest

Saiph

Guest

siarad

Guest

Saiph

Guest

newtonian

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page