Where did Matter come from if it cannot be created?

[alokmohan]

Quasi-steady state cosmology (QSS) is a nonstandard cosmology proposed in 1993 by Fred Hoyle, Geoffrey Burbidge, and Jayant V. Narlikar as an alternative to the big bang. The idea suggests there may have been expansions and pockets of creation other than the big bang occurring over time within the universe, sometimes referred to as minibangs, mini-creation events, or little bangs. After the observation of an accelerating universe, further modifications of the model were done. Mainstream cosmologists who have reviewed QSS have pointed out flaws and some discrepancies with observations left unexplained by proponents. [1]<br /><br />Contents [hide]<br />1 Description <br />2 Goals and targets <br />3 See also <br />4 External articles and references <br /> <br /><br /><br />[edit]<br />Description<br />The issues of observational and astronomical concerns over the universe's origins, history, structure, and dynamics from the Quasi-steady state were discussed in two papers, Astrophysical deductions from the quasi-steady state (1994) [2] and Astronomy Further astrophysical quantities expected in a quasi-steady state [3]. The basic theoretical framework was expounded upon in Quasi-Steady State Cosmology: Analytical Solutions of Field Equations and Their Relations to Observations [4]. R Sachs, J V Narlikar and F Hoyle researched and arrived at the exact solutions of the basic equations that gave simple homogeneous and isotropic models (such as in The Quasi-Steady State Cosmology: Analytical Solutions of Field Equations and Their Relations to Observations [5]). The production of light nuclei have been researched by F Hoyle, G Burbidge and J V Narlikar [6] and by Burbidge and Hoyle [7]. The process of structure formation was achievable through a "toy model" (by Ali Nayeri, Sunu Engineer, J. V. Narlikar, and F. Hoyle) and may offer a viable choice to the "standard" hot big bang cosmology. [8] With recent evidence indicating that the universe is accelerating, the quasi-steady state had pr

 

[alokmohan]

QSS is led by Indian scientist JV Narlikar.

 

[llivinglarge]

Anything that occurred before the Planck era cannot be explained without bringing up the notion of a higher power.

 

[vandivx]

"There is really no difference between believing 'God is infinite' and accepting an axiom that says 'energy exists'. In the first case you are assuming God has always existed and in the latter you are assuming that energy has always existed."<br /><br />problem is that God is permanent (I mean the idea of it/him) but energy comes and goes, a non-mystical equivalent to God would be permanent background of some ether substance that could contain energy as well as give rise to matter but it itself would always be there same as God is supposed to be, eternal and unquestionable, something that you just have to accept as a basis and go on from there<br /><br />vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[alokmohan]

Ether substace is a myth.It is very old concept.Michelson Morley experiment diapproved it.

 

[enigma10]

God was created, in so much as the concepts,ideals and ethics surrounding the definitions. Energy, as far as man is concerned, has been around since man could define itself as something other than instictual. As far as either existing in a state defined as never having a beginning or end, is purely a man made concept to hypothesize the unexplainable. The major difference between the two is , eventually, one can be answered this side of death through direct observation and experimentation. Outside of god telling us he exists and that he was never created or had a beginning, there is no way to find out.<br /><br /> So. Talk with god lately? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"<font color="#333399">An organism at war with itself is a doomed organism." - Carl Sagan</font></em> </div>

 

[Kalstang]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>So. Talk with god lately? <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Actually I talk with God all the time. Weather or not he answers is the real question <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#ffff00"><p><font color="#3366ff">I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer.</font> <br /><font color="#ff0000">"Imagination is more important then Knowledge" ~Albert Einstien~</font> <br /><font color="#cc99ff">Guns dont kill people. People kill people</font>.</p></font><p><font color="#ff6600">Solar System</font></p> </div>

 

[alokmohan]

Aether was disproved by science.The Michelson-Morley experiment, one of the most important and famous experiments in the history of physics, was performed in 1887 by Albert Michelson and Edward Morley at what is now Case Western Reserve University, and is generally considered to be the first strong evidence against the theory of a luminiferous aether. Primarily for this work, Albert Michelson was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1907.<br /><br />Physics theories of the late 19th century postulated that, just as water waves must have a medium to move across (water), and audible sound waves require a medium to move through (air), so also light waves require a medium, the "luminiferous aether." The speed of light being so great, designing an experiment to detect the presence and properties of this aether took considerable thought<br />

 

[casualphilosoph]

^^ just wanted to point out that the Aether vanDivx spoke about has the same name but is not the same concept as the Aether disproved by Michelson-Morley and replaced by the theory of relativity and modern electrodynamics.<br />So mentioning that stuff does not relate in any way to what vanDivx said.<br /><br />Rather the concept would be that either large amounts of energy are contained in some usually non interacting substance, that spontaneously or trough an inherent conscious/will would set energy free in a specdific form or absorb energy from the universe or that there is some dimensional realm that allows a violation of the law of energy conservation attached to or normal world and that this realm might contain some form of conscious or intent.<br />At least that what I understand van proposed.

 

[serak_the_preparer]

<i>Actually I talk with God all the time.</i><br /><br />Me, too. During a chat with Him just yesterday, I had the nerve to ask Him about the mid-term elections. He said, 'Can't we talk about something else?'<br /><br />I said, 'Okay, Big Guy, as you know -'<br /><br />'Of course.' Big smile.<br /><br />'Right, okay. People on that site are wondering whether You ever took part in a real version of a Creation Myth. You know, where did matter come from, Who created it, et cetera?'<br /><br />'Wow. Well, I guess that is one way to waste time. Matter and energy are conserved. The equation has to balance. Matter cannot be destroyed - or created. It just is. Like Me.' Another smile.<br /><br />'It always has to be about You, doesn't it?'<br /><br />'Always.'

 

[vandivx]

<p>"^^ just wanted to point out that the Aether vanDivx spoke about has the same name but is not the same concept as the Aether disproved by Michelson-Morley and replaced by the theory of relativity and modern electrodynamics."<br />-------------------<br /><br />yes but what alokmohan is saying is that the Michelson-Morley experiment disproved Aether as such meaning one cannot come up with Aether again if one respects their experiment, more precisely their conclusion but the point is their conclusion wasn't valid<br /><br />what they did was they put up a bugaboo - their idea how nature (Aether) should behave - and they shot it down or more precisely their experimental findings as they interpreted them did<br /><br />their experiment was interpreted as proof of non-existence of Aether as such and for all times<br /><br />their problem was, they weren't God to dictate to nature how it should be behaving, their ideas how light moved about in Aether didn't have to be (and weren't) the right ideas and so their conclusion as to the imposibility of existence of Aether was false (or such conclusion of the interpreters of their experiment)<br /><br />they said in effect 'light propagates in Aether in such and such way and therefore the experimental results should be such and such according to our expectation' and then when they weren't they didn't question their preconcieved notions how the nature should be made up (as would befit to God) but instead proclaimed non existence of Aether (of course it couldn't exist as they concieved it and their experiment did indeed disprove their wrong idea of it but that's something else from disproving the Aether as such)<br /><br />of course, my claiming that presumes I know how the light moves about in Aether (one doesn't have to be God to figure that out LOL) and how does it manage to preserve the validity of Michelson-Morley experimental findings at the same time and I admit I have pretty good idea how the light does it</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[alokmohan]

Aether is all nonsense.Hoever how matter came from nothing is difficult to conceive.Read this.Creation-field cosmology: A possible solution to singularity, horizon, and flatness problems<br />J. V. Narlikar and T. Padmanabhan<br />Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Homi Bhabha Road, Bombay 400005, In dia <br />Received 26 March 1985<br /><br /><br />A solution of Einstein’s equations which admits radiation and a negative-energy massless scalar creation field as a source is presented. It is shown that the cosmological model based on this solution satisfies all the observational tests and thus is a viable alternative to the standard big-bang model. The present model is free from singularity and particle horizon and provides a natural explanation for the flatness problem. We argue that these features make the creation-field cosmological model theoretically superior to the big-bang model.<br /><br />©1985 The American Physical Society<br /><br />URL: http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v32/p1928<br />DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.32.1928<br />PACS: 98.80.Bp, 04.60.+n, 98.80.Dr<br />

 

[vandivx]

"Aether is all nonsense.Hoever how matter came from nothing is difficult to conceive"<br />-----------------------<br /><br />well, it IS difficult to conceive how anything could come from nothing <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />, I agree, that's why I talked about the need to accept something as starting point that is not further questioned, else the alternative is mysticism or paradoxes, in short you get tied up in your own shoelaces<br /><br />as to 'Aether is all nonsense' pronouncement, you should be carefull, words like these have a nasty habit at coming back to you as nightmares and are too often eaten before too long by their proclaimers LOL<br /><br />if and I say IF physics were proceeding more or less forward during the last fifty years or so, your dismissal would cary more weight, as it is though physics is in a huge stalemate with no end in sight, the old issues left us by Bohr and Einstein haven't been resolved and new ones are pondered for many decades with no results (prime example is dark matter that has the whole field stymied and bumbling LOL)<br /><br />vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[Kalstang]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Me, too. During a chat with Him just yesterday, I had the nerve to ask Him about the mid-term elections. He said, 'Can't we talk about something else?' <br /><br />I said, 'Okay, Big Guy, as you know -' <br /><br />'Of course.' Big smile. <br /><br />'Right, okay. People on that site are wondering whether You ever took part in a real version of a Creation Myth. You know, where did matter come from, Who created it, et cetera?' <br /><br />'Wow. Well, I guess that is one way to waste time. Matter and energy are conserved. The equation has to balance. Matter cannot be destroyed - or created. It just is. Like Me.' Another smile. <br /><br />'It always has to be about You, doesn't it?' <br /><br />'Always.' <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />LOL <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> You know the funny thing is, is that I can see the last two lines being applied to us. (about God of course <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> ...and our wifes applying it to us men and visa versa <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> ) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#ffff00"><p><font color="#3366ff">I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer.</font> <br /><font color="#ff0000">"Imagination is more important then Knowledge" ~Albert Einstien~</font> <br /><font color="#cc99ff">Guns dont kill people. People kill people</font>.</p></font><p><font color="#ff6600">Solar System</font></p> </div>

 

[muscles]

There are four main components to our universe: space, time, matter, and energy. It is important that we understand that all four of these elements are dependant on each other. One cannot exist in this world without the other three. Time is the measurement of the distance between events, and events only take place when energy is applied to matter. Thus we can say that time is relative to matter. <br /><br />If matter cannot have existed without time, then where did time begin, if it even had a beginning? Well, first let us assume that time never had a beginning and was infinant. This would propose that matter never had a beginning and simply always has been. Isn't it true that an infinite distance can never be trespassed? So if there was a moment in time infinitly ago it could never pass through an infinite amount of time to reach today. I know it's a little confusing, but time must have had a beginning or else it wouldn't make sense logically.<br /><br />So if time is finite then matter must be as well. Time and matter must have been caused into being in the same event. One might suggest that the universe is in a constant cycle of birth, death, and rebirth. I dissagree. There cannot be an infinite regression of contingent events. Something cannot be self-caused because it would have already had to have existed in order to have caused itself. There must have been a situation in which time, space, matter, and energy did not exist. <br /><br />So, as far as I can tell, matter can be created. Although I don't believe that we have the means to do it.

 

[paintwoik]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>There are four main components to our universe: space, time, matter, and energy.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />These are all the same thing in a manner of speaking. Energy being the fundamental entity ... we are in a sea of it. Matter being the localization of these entities. Space being the extension of these entities. Time being what these entities are composed of. The composition is nothing, as this is what it all came from. Hence the universe is no more than The Reality Of Non-Existence, or reality is the definition of nothing. Logic will tell us that nothig is undefinable. This would be true. Thusly the universe as a definition is incomplete. We can further deduce that the universe is an ongoing process, due to be completed only after an eternity.

 

[search]

According to some of the latest scientific theories, time began with the Big Bang, and any inquiry into what happened before the big bang is either meaningless or totally inaccessible to us.<br /><br />Time is related with space...space-time<br /><br />In physics, space-time is a mathematical model that combines three-dimensional space and one-dimensional time into a single construct called the space-time continuum, in which time plays the role of the 4th dimension. According to Euclidean space perception, our universe has three dimensions of space, and one dimension of time.<br /><br />Time<br />Space<br />Energy<br />Matter<br /><br />Matter Creation<br /><br />Summary (see Big Bang timeline):<br /><br />Singularity=point "where all physics laws break down".<br /><br />Big Bang=Energy released and space-time is created. Extreme temperatures. <br /><br />Inflation: During inflation, the universe is flattened and the universe enters a homogeneous and isotropic rapidly expanding phase in which the seeds of structure formation are laid down in the form of a primordial spectrum of nearly-scale-invariant fluctuations. This is a grey area. Flatness or space curvature (Omega=1, Omega<1, Omega>1) of universe is unknown and from it depends the future of the universe: Big Crunch, Big Freeze...<br /><br />Ion

 

[alokmohan]

There no time before big bang.Excellent post.

 

[vandivx]

"22% is of an unknown type of dark matter, which does not emit or absorb light.<br />74% is of a mysterious dark energy, which acts to accelerate expansion.<br /><br />We are so close to finding how much we still need to know... "<br /><br />it is always hardest to find what is right there for us to see, this dark this dark that remainds me of the man looking for his eyeglasses while he has them pushed up on his forhead, even right on his nose, it is also nice to be paid those fat science grants while looking, I know if I was in the position to receive them I'd look in all the impossible places first LOL<br /><br />vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[maxsage]

Acctually, matter can be destroyed. For every "matter" there is an "antimatter". For example: the matter "electron" has the antimatter "positron". When matter and their corresponding antimatter collide the destroy each other. In fact at the beggining of the universe only i believe about 300000years from the big bang which spewed matter and antimatter throughout the universe, there was a massive electron/positron massacre. Fortunately the electrons won that war or matter as we know it would not exist.<br /><br />Technically, the red shift signifies that the "big Bang" is still happening but the most dramatic action in the big bang would have taken place within the first few fractions of a second.<br /><br />Matter is still being created. Supernovas or exploding stars spew new ellements all the time into space.<br /><br />Srry but i have no clue wat you are talking about in the magnetic field part. However lite is energy and cannot be manipulated by magnetic fields. But lite actually CAN be bent by GRAVITY. Lite appears to be some sort of hybrid as it played a role in matter/energy conversion when the universe was still young. Lite an energy/particle..........????????????????<br /><br />There are holes in black stars at the axis???? never new that. every cluster int heuniverse seems to be in disk shape though, downt know why, you would think it would be a sphere as a sphere is the most natural shape of all individual things for some wierd reason.<br /><br />Dont think about this so much, einstein got a nervous breackdown and went insane cause he thought too much. You mught as well wonder why there is exact circumference when pi is an imaginary number.

 

[yevaud]

Well, several misconceptions here.<br /><br /><i>Acctually, matter can be destroyed. For every "matter" there is an "antimatter". For example: the matter "electron" has the antimatter "positron".</i><br /><br />However, this is not destroying matter, it's converting it. Matter and energy are, after all, two faces of the same coin. Matter hasn't just vanished, after all.<br /><br /><i>In fact at the beggining of the universe only i believe about 300000years from the big bang which spewed matter and antimatter throughout the universe, there was a massive electron/positron massacre. Fortunately the electrons won that war or matter as we know it would not exist.</i><br /><br />It would still be entirely recognizable as our universe, but the proportion of matter to anti-matter would be likely reversed. We ourselves wouldn't even know the difference, except we'd consider a Positron to be "normal" matter, and an electron to be "anti-matter." And so on down the line.<br /><br /><i>Matter is still being created. Supernovas or exploding stars spew new ellements all the time into space.</i><br /><br />All Supernovas do is allow existing matter to recombine into new combinations. No actual "new" matter is created; the total amount of matter/energy held within the universe remains the same. <br /><br />(I'll let someone else take a whack at the rest. Kinda busy this evening)<br /><br />Hope this helps clarify things a bit for you. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

just to anyone, i will posit that matter is the veneer of consciousness. this is not going to be empirically provable, per se, by conventional sciences. the universe is extraordinary. and it's existence unfolds for extraordinary reasons; reasons beyond knowing through empirical data. consciousness creates the universe at it beholds itself through living matter. <br /><br />the universe itself is an experiment in progress. experiments thus conducted upon this active experiment of the cosmos will, then, render results that are obsoleted as soon as they are discovered. the experiment unfolds in perpetuity. the answers change as soon as more questions arise. <br /><br />to presume a finite cosmos, thus implying it's containment with knowns and boundaries, is of upmost arrogance and myopia. the cosmos is not a moose head mounted as a trophy over a mantle. it is beyond the infinite.

 

[kmarinas86]

<font color="yellow">to presume a finite cosmos, thus implying it's containment with knowns and boundaries, is of upmost arrogance and myopia. the cosmos is not a moose head mounted as a trophy over a mantle. it is beyond the infinite.</font><br /><br />Touché!

 

[search]

I am sure Yevaud can present his own arguments but I have a few of my own.<br /> <br />"to presume a finite cosmos, thus implying it's containment with knowns and boundaries, is of upmost arrogance and myopia. the cosmos is not a moose head mounted as a trophy over a mantle. it is beyond the infinite."<br /><br />Did anybody said finite universe? What was said was "the total amount of matter/energy held within the universe remains the same." That is believed to be true either you are talking about a finite or infinite universe.<br /> <br />It is okay to presume since presuming is based on probability and in the standard accepted models many times the only thing we have is probability. Now "arrogance and myopia" that could be considered if someone would be "assuming" which is not based on fact but I do not think that was the case and maybe it is better to ask first what do you mean by what you said.<br /><br />"Touché!" Did anybody said anything against Multiverses or Oscilatory Universe? I fail to see the reason for "Touche".<br /><br />Of course I am"presuming" that those comments were related with that phrase but if that is not the case then you can "touche" me for wrong assumptions...softly please.

 

[bonzelite]

^^^the "mechanisms" behind the cosmos are not within the grasp of science. that is what the touche' is about. the universe is not something that will ever be known, ie, how it works, where it came from, how it began if it even did. consider most assumptions about the universe to be incorrect. science is nowhere near figuring it out. <br /><br />where to begin... for example, if one adheres to the 'matter cannot be created nor destroyed' premise, then this presupposes the universe to have always been here, as matter is included in the known universe. but talk of origins and BB theory contradict this entirely. this is why no empirical "data" will ever confirm or deny the "origins" of matter. <br /><br />the very language used to discuss 'origns' or the 'universe,' left unexamined, hypnotizes us into believing things. upon closer scrutiny, the meaninglessness of the language used is revealed. "all of existence originiated at the big bang" is meaningless if "matter cannot be created nor destroyed." <br /><br />that is but one example. there are many more.