big bang Theory

[Big_Wave_Legacy]

Now I mself find science proving itself wrong. Astrology describes how the unverse formed from this huge explosion that happened out of nowhere. Now when it comes to chemistry, it states matter cannot be created or destroyed. I know there is smart people in here but try proving me wrong. I mean if matter cannot be created, how is the big bang theory possible.  

[Xahmen]

Big_Wave_Legacy

Now I mself find science proving itself wrong. Astrology describes how the unverse formed from this huge explosion that happened out of nowhere. Now when it comes to chemistry, it states matter cannot be created or destroyed. I know there is smart people in here but try proving me wrong. I mean if matter cannot be created, how is the big bang theory possible.

Well....

Okay, you're simplifying it waaayyyyy too much.
Remember, it's only a theory, and science isn't perfectly spot on when it comes to theories.

Were you aware that instead of drifting farther and farther apart, our universe is slowly shrinking?
A popular concept was that the bing bang was the result of a previous universe hitting it's pinnacle small point and exploding violently outwards, redistributing energy.

Our universe is nothing but space though, and I can't imagine there being a limit to it, a starting point or an ending point.  

[divineseraph]

The big bang coincides with God. If you may, I will take you through the logical steps.

What was the beginning of the universe, in your opinion?  

[Crimson Raccoon]

Well, first off, you mean astronomy, not astrology. A lot of people get them mixed up but they are embarrassingly different things. =P

Also, the law of conservation of matter which you refer to is not a true law of nature. Although high school and lower level college chemistry courses usually teach it as such. The concept of conservation of matter, or mass, only applies to closed systems, such as a strict laboratory experiment. And even in this, it is only an approximation. A very, very accurate approximation, but one nonetheless.

We know for a fact that matter CAN be created and destroyed. For example, an atomic bomb is a particle of matter being converted into energy, thus no longer existing as matter.

Big Bang Theory is an attempt at explaining how the universe developed to be in the form we know it as today. It doesn't really offer any explanation as to the origin or cause of the Big Bang. Many people have made speculations as to what could have caused it, but this is not part of Big Bang Theory itself and is only speculation. It would be impossible for science to ever know what began the universe, since scientific observation and experimentation are limited to the inside of the universe (at least for now they are limited that way). Thus ideas about origins can only be left to religion or non-scientific speculation.

I personally don't think the Big Bang is necessarily in direct contradiction to Christian beliefs. The theory was actually first developed and put forward by a priest, and was mocked and ridiculed by almost all prominent scientists of the time. Before Big Bang theory finally overcame its opposition and was accepted in light of its overwhelming evidence, scientists had believed that the universe was eternal. So this theory is significant because it proved, for all intents and purposes, that the universe is not eternal and did in fact have a beginning. So really, it was a win for the religious side of things.  

[Big_Wave_Legacy]

Crimson Raccoon

Well, first off, you mean astronomy, not astrology. A lot of people get them mixed up but they are embarrassingly different things. =P

Also, the law of conservation of matter which you refer to is not a true law of nature. Although high school and lower level college chemistry courses usually teach it as such. The concept of conservation of matter, or mass, only applies to closed systems, such as a strict laboratory experiment. And even in this, it is only an approximation. A very, very accurate approximation, but one nonetheless.

We know for a fact that matter CAN be created and destroyed. For example, an atomic bomb is a particle of matter being converted into energy, thus no longer existing as matter.

Big Bang Theory is an attempt at explaining how the universe developed to be in the form we know it as today. It doesn't really offer any explanation as to the origin or cause of the Big Bang. Many people have made speculations as to what could have caused it, but this is not part of Big Bang Theory itself and is only speculation. It would be impossible for science to ever know what began the universe, since scientific observation and experimentation are limited to the inside of the universe (at least for now they are limited that way). Thus ideas about origins can only be left to religion or non-scientific speculation.

I personally don't think the Big Bang is necessarily in direct contradiction to Christian beliefs. The theory was actually first developed and put forward by a priest, and was mocked and ridiculed by almost all prominent scientists of the time. Before Big Bang theory finally overcame its opposition and was accepted in light of its overwhelming evidence, scientists had believed that the universe was eternal. So this theory is significant because it proved, for all intents and purposes, that the universe is not eternal and did in fact have a beginning. So really, it was a win for the religious side of things.

okay well, the matter from a nuclear explosion is just turned into gasses. thats still matter.  

[Crimson Raccoon]

Big_Wave_Legacy

okay well, the matter from a nuclear explosion is just turned into gasses. thats still matter.

If a nuclear explosion was just matter being turned into gas, it's uses as a bomb would be only a little superior to dropping a pot of boiling water. =P In a nuclear explosion, matter is converted into energy and no longer exists as matter.

In any case, science cannot offer any truly scientific theory on what caused the so-called "big bang," they can only speculate. So Big Bang Theory does nothing to prove that God didn't create the universe anyway.  

[divineseraph]

Crimson Raccoon

Big_Wave_Legacy

okay well, the matter from a nuclear explosion is just turned into gasses. thats still matter.

If a nuclear explosion was just matter being turned into gas, it's uses as a bomb would be only a little superior to dropping a pot of boiling water. =P In a nuclear explosion, matter is converted into energy and no longer exists as matter.

In any case, science cannot offer any truly scientific theory on what caused the so-called "big bang," they can only speculate. So Big Bang Theory does nothing to prove that God didn't create the universe anyway.

No, energy is released from the split atom, but it's protons and neutrons still exist.

We have no way to actually destroy matter- I think nuclear FUSION may be able to do that, but we can only accomplish FISSION, or releasing energy by splitting atoms, not fusing them together. And even then, fusion creates plasma, which is superheated matter packed with energy- It's so energetic, it loses its chemical association and is basically just charged particles, but it's still matter. So it may actually be black holes that can destroy matter, but even then, they are still just packed into a supercondensed matter until they become singularities. In theory. Though I disagree that they are actually singularities.  

[Crimson Raccoon]

divineseraph

Crimson Raccoon

Big_Wave_Legacy

okay well, the matter from a nuclear explosion is just turned into gasses. thats still matter.

If a nuclear explosion was just matter being turned into gas, it's uses as a bomb would be only a little superior to dropping a pot of boiling water. =P In a nuclear explosion, matter is converted into energy and no longer exists as matter.

In any case, science cannot offer any truly scientific theory on what caused the so-called "big bang," they can only speculate. So Big Bang Theory does nothing to prove that God didn't create the universe anyway.

No, energy is released from the split atom, but it's protons and neutrons still exist.

We have no way to actually destroy matter- I think nuclear FUSION may be able to do that, but we can only accomplish FISSION, or releasing energy by splitting atoms, not fusing them together. And even then, fusion creates plasma, which is superheated matter packed with energy- It's so energetic, it loses its chemical association and is basically just charged particles, but it's still matter. So it may actually be black holes that can destroy matter, but even then, they are still just packed into a supercondensed matter until they become singularities. In theory. Though I disagree that they are actually singularities.

I'm sorry, but I must insist that matter is being converted into energy in a nuclear explosion. Where else does the energy "released" from the split atom come from?

Energy is being converted into matter, and matter into energy, every day, all around us. Even when you burn a candle, a small amount of mass is lost. It's a chemical reaction, so it's an extremely small amount which scientists weren't even able to measure until the past century, but it happens nonetheless. Nuclear reactions are about 10 million times more efficient at converting matter into energy than chemical reactions, which is why they're so hugely explosive.

As for nuclear fusion, which occurs in stars: the Sun is losing 4 million tons of mass every second, by converting it into energy, which is given off as heat and light. Matter is being converted into energy and no longer exists as matter.

We do in fact have a way to destroy matter, and to make it as well. Scientists do it all the time in particle accelerators, such as CERN. Einstein paved the way for all this with his famous equation E=MC^2, proving mass-energy equivalence.

Regardless, you need energy to make matter, and you need matter to make energy, so the Big Bang Theory still does not replace or explain away the need for an "outside cause," such as God. I was just bringing up that matter can in fact be created and destroyed, since that's what Big_Wave_Legacy was using as his main argument against Big Bang theory.  

[divineseraph]

Crimson Raccoon

divineseraph

Crimson Raccoon

Big_Wave_Legacy

okay well, the matter from a nuclear explosion is just turned into gasses. thats still matter.

If a nuclear explosion was just matter being turned into gas, it's uses as a bomb would be only a little superior to dropping a pot of boiling water. =P In a nuclear explosion, matter is converted into energy and no longer exists as matter.

In any case, science cannot offer any truly scientific theory on what caused the so-called "big bang," they can only speculate. So Big Bang Theory does nothing to prove that God didn't create the universe anyway.

No, energy is released from the split atom, but it's protons and neutrons still exist.

We have no way to actually destroy matter- I think nuclear FUSION may be able to do that, but we can only accomplish FISSION, or releasing energy by splitting atoms, not fusing them together. And even then, fusion creates plasma, which is superheated matter packed with energy- It's so energetic, it loses its chemical association and is basically just charged particles, but it's still matter. So it may actually be black holes that can destroy matter, but even then, they are still just packed into a supercondensed matter until they become singularities. In theory. Though I disagree that they are actually singularities.

I'm sorry, but I must insist that matter is being converted into energy in a nuclear explosion. Where else does the energy "released" from the split atom come from?

Energy is being converted into matter, and matter into energy, every day, all around us. Even when you burn a candle, a small amount of mass is lost. It's a chemical reaction, so it's an extremely small amount which scientists weren't even able to measure until the past century, but it happens nonetheless. Nuclear reactions are about 10 million times more efficient at converting matter into energy than chemical reactions, which is why they're so hugely explosive.

As for nuclear fusion, which occurs in stars: the Sun is losing 4 million tons of mass every second, by converting it into energy, which is given off as heat and light. Matter is being converted into energy and no longer exists as matter.

We do in fact have a way to destroy matter, and to make it as well. Scientists do it all the time in particle accelerators, such as CERN. Einstein paved the way for all this with his famous equation E=MC^2, proving mass-energy equivalence.

Regardless, you need energy to make matter, and you need matter to make energy, so the Big Bang Theory still does not replace or explain away the need for an "outside cause," such as God. I was just bringing up that matter can in fact be created and destroyed, since that's what Big_Wave_Legacy was using as his main argument against Big Bang theory.

The energy comes from the highly energetic connection the neutrons and protons have to be fused as an element. When that is broken, the energy holding them together is released.

And yes, matter can change to energy and energy to matter (Which is an example of monism) but It does not occur in ordinary conditions.

As for the beginning of the universe, it was supposed to be a singularity with infinite mass (since it was a singularity.) Somehow, it decided to explode, and when it did so, it released all of it's energy, which traveled and cooled into plasma which cooled into heavier elements.  

[Crimson Raccoon]

divineseraph

The energy comes from the highly energetic connection the neutrons and protons have to be fused as an element. When that is broken, the energy holding them together is released.

And yes, matter can change to energy and energy to matter (Which is an example of monism) but It does not occur in ordinary conditions.

As for the beginning of the universe, it was supposed to be a singularity with infinite mass (since it was a singularity.) Somehow, it decided to explode, and when it did so, it released all of it's energy, which traveled and cooled into plasma which cooled into heavier elements.

I don't know why we're arguing about this. Most of what you're saying is true and what I'm saying is true at the same time, we're just describing different aspects of what happens. What you say about where the energy comes from in a nuclear explosion is true, but it is also true that a certain amount of matter is destroyed by being converted into pure energy.

You obviously know a decent amount about the subject, but you just can't be saying things like "We have no way to actually destroy matter," or that matter doesn't change into energy and back under normal conditions, things which are just plain falsified by reading a few science encyclopedia articles or a physics textbook.

As I already said, humans are very much capable of creating or destroying particles of matter; this is one of the primary functions of particle accelerators.

I'm not sure what you would describe as ordinary conditions, but I would consider the activity of the Sun or any star to be an ordinary condition, especially when we're talking about something on the scale of the big bang. If we're considering things on a universal scale, then matter changing to energy, and energy changing to matter, does indeed occur naturally in ordinary conditions. In addition to when it occurs under human direction.

Also, consider that whenever a force is exerted, that it is a creation, exchange, and subsequent destruction of particles. When you push something, the force is caused by your atoms creating particles of matter, being delivered to the atoms of whatever it is you're pushing, and being absorbed as energy, out of existence. These are called force-carrying particles. If anyone wants to look them up, the force carrying particles are known as Gluons for interactions with the strong force; photons for interactions of the electromagnetic force, and W and Z bosons for interactions of the weak force. They are particles of matter, being created and destroyed, if only briefly; and it is occurring at all times, all around us, whenever there is any force being exerted.

The point is simply that the law of conservation of matter is no longer considered a law of nature, and hasn't since, I don't know an exact date, but the early 1900's. It's been proved to be just an approximation which only holds up in peoples' day-to-day experiences. It can be confusing because high schools and lower level college courses often still teach it as a law, because for their purposes, they will never do an experiment that involves them needing to go beyond it.

For my beliefs, I don't know how a singularity of infinite mass could have existed without some cause outside of itself, which is why I say it doesn't definitively disprove an act of Creation.  

[divineseraph]

By "Ordinary" I meant along the lines of "in your kitchen". A mass to energy conversion is not something we can do at this point, it takes too much energy.

Particle accelerators collide particles and stick them together- It may technically be a form of fusion since we are making atoms from protons and neutrons, but I don't see how matter is created or destroyed- I am not a fan of the idea that small particles have zero mass. I think that even light must have some mass, even if it's infinitesimal. Therefore, if we bombard tiny particles that have next to zero mass, we're not making something of nothing, we're just lumping invisible things until they're visible.


My atoms do not create matter when they move energy- The energy is like a wave or force held in them that is passed on to the other atoms. This is why sound travels through air- The vibration rides from air particle to air particle from my mouth to your ear. This is why it is impossible to hear in a vacuum- There is no matter to carry force. Were matter created with force, you could hear in a vacuum because the matter would travel to you anyway.

I don't believe that when I hit a wall to make it vibrate, the vibrations are actually new matter that exists only for a second and only when I interact with something. It seems more probable that the existing wall and my existing hand are transferring energy attached to our respective particles.


And yes, Even Hawking disliked the Big Bang theory because it sounded like creationism. But this is a good point which I agree with. If there is a singularity, firstly, it has no means nor motivation to change- It cannot be interacted with since it is outside of time, and it is infinite in mass so it should have infinite gravity and therefore not be able to escape itself. Short of the singularity actually being a sentient consciousness, I don't see how it could be possible to go from a static, timeless, massless singularity to the exact opposite.  

[Crimson Raccoon]

Divineseraph, as you said, particle accelerators collide particles to stick them together. But that's just one thing they do. They can also collide particles to have them annihilate each other. It happens when they collide a particle of matter with it's corresponding anti-matter particle. The result is that they are both destroyed, converted with 100% efficiency into energy. Scientists can also generate particles of matter by raising energy in a controlled space to extremely high levels. Whenever there is enough heat, particles will be generated.

You are quite correct that small particles do not have zero mass. Everything has mass. And you're also right that even light has mass. This is because light is an energy, and energy and mass are essentially the same thing, like two sides of a coin. This is the concept of mass-energy equivalence, put forward by Einstein's E=MC^2.

"Were matter created with force, you could hear in a vacuum because the matter would travel to you anyway." This is quite an interesting statement you make! Sound travels from air particle to air particle in the air to reach your ear, but it cannot travel through space because there are no air particles. But... what about light? What about heat? They are energies, just like sound, but they can travel through a vacuum. Isn't this evidence, by your own words, that matter is indeed created by the electromagnetic force? What if you had said, "Were matter created with force, you could see light in a vacuum because the matter would travel to you anyway." Well, since we can see light...

Any instance of the electromagnetic force is a generation of photons, a force-carrying particle. The electromagnetic force includes when we hit a wall, because the impact at the atomic level is in fact electrical, in the interactions between protons and electrons, carrying positive and negative electrical charges.


By the way, do you happen to know if Hawking believes or disbelieves in the Big Band Theory? I know he has stated it has clear religious implications, and I know he's said that almost all scientists today believe in the theory, but I don't actually know whether he believes it himself!  

[Big_Wave_Legacy]

we're talking about creating particles, not fusing them. Is there another way atoms can be made besides fission. I honestly dont see energy transforming into matter if thats what you are talking about. And i definately dont see enrgy creating that much freaking matter from an explosion, lol.  

[divineseraph]

Crimson Raccoon

Divineseraph, as you said, particle accelerators collide particles to stick them together. But that's just one thing they do. They can also collide particles to have them annihilate each other. It happens when they collide a particle of matter with it's corresponding anti-matter particle. The result is that they are both destroyed, converted with 100% efficiency into energy. Scientists can also generate particles of matter by raising energy in a controlled space to extremely high levels. Whenever there is enough heat, particles will be generated.

You are quite correct that small particles do not have zero mass. Everything has mass. And you're also right that even light has mass. This is because light is an energy, and energy and mass are essentially the same thing, like two sides of a coin. This is the concept of mass-energy equivalence, put forward by Einstein's E=MC^2.

"Were matter created with force, you could hear in a vacuum because the matter would travel to you anyway." This is quite an interesting statement you make! Sound travels from air particle to air particle in the air to reach your ear, but it cannot travel through space because there are no air particles. But... what about light? What about heat? They are energies, just like sound, but they can travel through a vacuum. Isn't this evidence, by your own words, that matter is indeed created by the electromagnetic force? What if you had said, "Were matter created with force, you could see light in a vacuum because the matter would travel to you anyway." Well, since we can see light...

Any instance of the electromagnetic force is a generation of photons, a force-carrying particle. The electromagnetic force includes when we hit a wall, because the impact at the atomic level is in fact electrical, in the interactions between protons and electrons, carrying positive and negative electrical charges.


By the way, do you happen to know if Hawking believes or disbelieves in the Big Band Theory? I know he has stated it has clear religious implications, and I know he's said that almost all scientists today believe in the theory, but I don't actually know whether he believes it himself!

I believe light travels as a wave on a particle- It does not need to vibrate through matter to travel because it is not pure force. Light is the energy attached to a particle that is blasted from the sun or other heat source. Since there is no matter in space to speak of, it travels at a constant rate and is invisible since there is nothing to reflect off.

When it reaches earth, it diffuses and spreads as energy does through the atmosphere. Think like a baseball game in a vacuum. Normally, when you swing a bat, the bat's energy will diffuse through the air and never reach the fence, at least in a measurable way. This would also occur in a vacuum since the force wouldn't be transfered through anything. Now, if you hit a baseball, it will carry the energy and travel on the matter to the fence, to be diffused on contact. I see the sun as the bat, the light particle as the baseball, and earth as the fence.

This half and half theory also explains why we can't bottle light- The energy from the light particles diffuse in the container and cool to invisibility. The stuff is in there, but it's no longer visible light.

I think that matter comes from "cooling" energy, and energy is superheated matter. that would be why after the big bang, there was energy which became matter over time.

And I'm not sure what Hawking currently believes, but he has at least in the past liked the big bang theory.  

[Crimson Raccoon]

My man, there's not much reason for us to keep going back and forth. xp I just wanted to put some terms here so that anyone can look them up to check out what I've been explaining. These are links to Wikipedia articles, just because that's the easiest for me to find, but it'd be better to look these terms up in any Physics textbook or Science encyclopedia. Of course they're more reliable and go a lot more in-depth.

Conservation Laws - Notice that this specifically says that the law of Conservation of Mass is only an approximation, and only in particular situations.

Force carriers - These are the particles of matter that come into existence any time a force is present, which includes when you push on a wall.

Antimatter - Look to the section about Artificial Production, which speaks about the particle accelerator, CERN, bringing pairs of particles into existence.