Where did Matter come from if it cannot be created?

Page 4 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.
Status
Not open for further replies.
N

newtonian

Guest
Bonezelite – There is plenty of evidence that our universe was created – why do you believe our universe always existed?
 
N

newtonian

Guest
Yevaud - ? <br /><br />The evidence is that our universe began in a very hot state - too hot for matter to exist. <br /><br />Most scientists agree our universe began with energy, and then energy was converted into matter.<br /><br />Since matter was created after our universe was created, I am not sure how your statement is logical?<br /><br />The evidence I am aware of is that both were created, first our universe and then later: matter.
 
B

bonzelite

Guest
<font color="yellow"><br />Bonezelite – There is plenty of evidence that our universe was created – why do you believe our universe always existed?</font><br /><br />i'm just throwing out a premise: matter cannot be created nor destroyed.<br /><br />take that and run with it. far. <br /><br />to posit that there was then a creation of matter is to contradict the aforementioned premise. <br /><br />
 
B

bonzelite

Guest
<font color="yellow"><br />The evidence is that our universe began in a very hot state - too hot for matter to exist. </font><br /><br />contradiction<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Most scientists agree our universe began with energy, and then energy was converted into matter. <br /></font><br /><br />this has no meaning and is tantamount to a magical act of faith -- a universe of pure "energy" is then what? was spontaneously converted to matter? <br /><br />most scientists do not understand the cosmos. and they will not understand it for as long as they cannot go back to the moment of creation, if there ever was one. <br /><br />they admit there was no creation event by making the law: matter cannot be created nor destroyed. only to then recant this law by saying that there was initially a very hot state of energy that was converted to matter is a complete fallacy and fantasy. <br /><br />this does not constitute evidence. it constitutes cluelessness.
 
S

search

Guest
The post is about photon mass calculation. It is new and the acceptance is as many other scientific reports. It as been published and takes the normal road of scientific acceptance (long hard trial way).<br /><br />Our Universe of energy into mater and matter into energy is misterious enough for me to worry about the time before it existed...
 
N

newtonian

Guest
bonezelite - You are correct that stating "most scientists agree" is no proof at all - it would constitute an act of faith in scientists, and perhaps also science, as a sort of religion.<br /><br />However, I can assure you that, while I love science, I do not worship science.<br /><br />Also I am well aware that in the history of science many errors have been made and what is popularly believed is often wrong.<br /><br />However, there is actual evidence for what I stated, and this is actually a change from popular scientific belief in that Aristotle taught an eternal universe, and the more recent Steady State theory taught similarly.<br /><br />See my thread on Biblical astronomy - concerning whether heaven and earth had a beginning. In that thread some of this evidence has been considered.<br /><br />I will endeavor to post more evidence here. in my next post.
 
N

newtonian

Guest
SEARCH - Up early like me? Or in a different time zone? I am in Central Standard, USA, btw.<br /><br />Segwaying to thread theme - there may be some difference between primordial time and our universe specific space/time - or perhaps the flow rate is the same - these are things we simply do not know [although the Bible does indicate our Creator has a different concept of time, whereby 1,000 years, or even 7,000 years, is like a day to HIm - see 2 Peter 3:8; Psalms 90:4].<br /><br />On those phantom photons - is that similar to virtual particles that seem to appear and disappear from space?<br /><br />On the latter, I suspect, as do many scientists, that the law of conservation of matter and energy is not being violated.<br /><br />I wonder whether this has anything to do with either forms of dark matter or forms of dark energy?
 
N

newtonian

Guest
bonezelite - You correctly noted I did not actually post evidence. I will now post some observational evidence - feel free to post alternate interpretations of this observational evidence:<br /><br />Evidence for origin of universe.<br /><br />I will start with the popular Big Bang model. Keep in mind that evidence for the Big Bang could also be evidence for other models that agree on the point that our universe had a beginning, but disagree on such points as to whether our universe began as a singularity or expanded from some finite size as in the Eddington-Lemaitre model.<br /><br />1. Source counts.<br /><br />This involves looking back in time, and I will quote an older source but note that more recent data also shows some difference in ancient galaxies compared with more modern ones – e.g. recent Hubble deep field photos.<br /><br />“Astronomers have counted the number of radio galaxies and quasars to fainter and fainter limits, and (assuming that the fainter the source the greater the distance) have found that these objects were brighter or more numerous—possibly both—in the past than they are now. This “source count” evidence shows that the universe is evolving, and cannot be in a steady state.” – “The World of Science,” Volume 8 entitled “The Universe,” 1991, by Andromeda Oxford Ltd. (distributed by Britannica), page 109.<br /><br />In my next post I will consider the Helium problem.
 
N

newtonian

Guest
bonezelite - Another line of observational evidence for a hot origin for our universe:<br /><br />2. The Helium problem.<br /><br />This involves why the relative proportion of Helium to Hydrogen in our universe is constant throughout our universe.<br /><br />Specifically, that ratio is 70% hydrogen and 27% Helium.<br /><br />Helium is formed from Hydrogen fusion (thermo-nuclear fusion).<br /><br />However, most Helium formed within stars remains locked up in said stars (red giant to white dwarf).<br /><br />Only a small portion of stars scatter their Helium into space in supernovae. There have not been nearly enough supernovae to account for 27% Helium to 70% Hydrogen ratios.<br /><br />This constitutes evidence for a very hot origin for our universe – notably the big bang model among other models—as the extreme heat (I will post specifics on this heat in another post) necessary for thermonuclear fusion of Hydrogen into Helium would have been present at said hot origin of our universe.<br /><br />Again, I took this from the above 1991 source, “The World of Science,” Vol.8, p. 109.
 
N

newtonian

Guest
3. The Cosmic microwave background radiation (= CMBR).<br /><br />This is relatively uniform in the whole sky, to within .01 %. Its strongest wavelength is about 1mm. <br /><br />If one accepts the big bang model (or a similar hot origin model – e.g. tiny but finite size near to Planck length as radius for example) and extrapolate back (about 12-14 billion years – age of universe, less than the 20 billion year Hubble time) and calculate based on the expansion rate of our universe and laws of themodynamics involving cooling with expansion and time, the temperature of 3 degrees Kelvin is consistent with this model.<br /><br />That is the temperature of the CMBR!<br /><br />From Ibid., p. 109. <br /><br />BTW, this also gives us a specific origin temperature - I will post on this later.
 
N

newtonian

Guest
bonezelite - From the above lines of evidence, and other evidence involving red shfts showing expansion rate, and evidence from type 1A supernovae (I hope to post on the latter in my Biblical astronomy thread.), comes the standard big bang model.<br /><br />In that model, the temperature after the first millionth of a second from start of expansion calculates out to be (by extrapolating back): 10^12 degrees Kelvin.<br /><br />Then down to about 3,000 K by 100,000 years after Big Bang, at which point matter and energy decoupled and the CMBR was released.<br /><br />Now, the standard model has matter and antimatter all forming from energy within the first millionth of a second! And also mutually annihilating, leaving a slight surplus of matter over antimater surviving.<br /><br />Protons and neutrons would also have been formed in the first millionth of a second.<br /><br />Much earlier, in minute fractions of this first millionth of a second, all the properties of our universe were fine tuned - probably within 10^-43 second. That is, of course, a miracle - and it also involves the establishment of the laws of our universe!<br /><br />Electrons and positrons stopped being formed a few seconds after big bang, at a temperature of a few billion degrees K.<br /><br />About 3 minutes after BB, the universe had cooled to one billion K, and protons and neutrons fused to form Helium, Deuterium, tritium and a small amount of Lithium [i.e. the nuclei only.] {deuterium before tritium before helium}<br /><br />There is new data which I hope other posters will post on, and these shed light on how galaxies may have formed.<br /><br />Note that there is evidence of re-ionization, and the present IGM (intergalactic medium) is both highly ionized and extremely hot.<br /><br />There is a very good Scientific American article on the IGM, and the apparent history of temperature and ionization which is not a steady decrease from BB at all, btw.<br /><br />This evidence may indicate that ionization, and resul
 
K

kyle_baron

Guest
<i><br />The evidence is that our universe began in a very hot state - too hot for matter to exist. <br /><br />contradiction </i><br /><br />I agree<br /><i><br />Most scientists agree our universe began with energy, and then energy was converted into matter. <br /><br /><br />this has no meaning and is tantamount to a magical act of faith -- a universe of pure "energy" is then what? was spontaneously converted to matter? </i><br /><br />I have to disagree. E=Mc2 shows the equivalency of mass and energy. Energy was converted to mass over a period of time, not spontaneously. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>
 
K

kyle_baron

Guest
What you say may be true. But, what has this to do with the topic at hand? I've gone off topic at times, but you've gone to pluto. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>
 
B

bonzelite

Guest
<font color="yellow"><br />What you say may be true. But, what has this to do with the topic at hand? I've gone off topic at times, but you've gone to pluto.</font><br /><br />LOL!!<br /><br />his rant was actually interesting, though. good ol steve. a resident character indeed.
 
B

bonzelite

Guest
<font color="yellow"> The universe before it existed is not the same as the universe after it existed. Nothing does NOT equate with Something!! </font><br /><br />right. and this is exactly why matter was not created from nothing. there was not a nothingness that begot somethingness. science attempts to circumvent this by packing all of creation into a singularity of infinite density, of zero volume. <br /><br />then when that came under fire, differing flavors of singularities began to conveniently emerge, like a pantheon of gods and demigods, singularities, through differing mathematical models. and these models do not describe reality.
 
B

bonzelite

Guest
<font color="yellow"><br />Therefore there is no contradiction because the conditions before and after the universe' creation were NOT the same. <br /></font><br /><br />^^^this is forever the escape hatch or lifeboat of BB theory that all disciples follow. it absolves the believer in the BB theory of any and all accountability for the belief. yet the something-from-nothing premise still exists but is conveniently evaded.
 
A

alokmohan

Guest
Jayant Visnu Narlikar ,Indian scientist thing big bang theoryis shrouded with mysticism.
 
K

kyle_baron

Guest
<i><br />right. and this is exactly why matter was not created from nothing. there was not a nothingness that begot somethingness.</i><br /><br />I agree. The word nothing is a poor description for the creation of matter. This is a semantic problem. Empty space is NOT nothing, it's vacuum energy, which is virtual waves of energy (and therefore virtual particles because of the wave-particle duality). These REALLY exist, as was proven experimentally in 1948, by the Casimir Effect:<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect<br /><br />Then BB Theory "inflates" a higher density version of vacuum energy, doubling the universe 85x to the size of a golf ball. After this, the vacuum energy is transformed in to matter and radiation. All this doubling occuring in 10 -35 power, of a second (Sky & Telescope Dec. 2006 p.39). <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>
 
B

bonzelite

Guest
this is hilarious. <br /><br />your condescension is actually funny, so i will enjoy it for it's entertainment value. i'm getting some popcorn right now. back in a minute....
 
B

bonzelite

Guest
someone else: <font color="yellow">VIZ. "A photon has mass." </font><br /><br />steve: <i>No, it doesn't. </i><br /><br />dunno why you attributed that statment to me. never mentioned photons. but i will examine your posts regardless <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />
 
B

bonzelite

Guest
<font color="yellow"><br />Apparently you seem not to realize that with the loss of an educated population, which is what is happening in the US, comes a loss of standard of living, an impoverishment, etc. <br /><br />Which is DIRECTLY tied in to an inability to think logically, have the self discipline to be educated, and scientifically trained. <br /></font><br /><br />yes, steve, i'm so lost and at a disadvantage. i think i'll go put a bullet in my mouth. <br /><br />by the way, you nearly sound like some social engineer seeking the master race. your digression into societal ramifications of 'lack of an education' and 'not thinking logically' is not really on the point, but it sure is bizarre and entertaining in a condescending kind of a way! <br /><br /><br />
 
E

enigma10

Guest
Why do i get the feeling you have pointed ears and hail from a planet called Vulcan. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />joking<img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"<font color="#333399">An organism at war with itself is a doomed organism." - Carl Sagan</font></em> </div>
 
E

enigma10

Guest
Interesting story. One could conclude several morals to the story other than the general "I told you so". Of course if they did, one would then miss the other points of interest.<br /><br />• Was he happy with his lifestyle? If so, wouldn't it then be concluded it was more of a choice of lifestyle versus the general peer pressure from friends and family to live thier lifestyle?<br /><br />• Was he overly critiqued into a point of resentment toward those around him that displayed an overabundance of superiority. This resentment so strong, coupled with a common form of depression with certain medical conditions may have created an almost suicidal defiance to everyone around. Thus oversuggestions actually pushing him over the edge?<br /><br /><br /> Sadly, we may never know and obviously some have no idea.<img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"<font color="#333399">An organism at war with itself is a doomed organism." - Carl Sagan</font></em> </div>
 
E

enigma10

Guest
Let me know when you meet him. <br /><br />.<br />.<br />.<br /> <br /> And bring a strawman hat for yourself. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"<font color="#333399">An organism at war with itself is a doomed organism." - Carl Sagan</font></em> </div>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts