1. Joined
    15 Nov '09
    Moves
    13683
    04 Nov '15 20:24
    if there is enough energy, matter can exist "out of nothing"
  2. Joined
    10 Apr '14
    Moves
    273
    04 Nov '15 20:48
    Originally posted by Nicksten
    Excellent - I wonder what arguments evolutionists will have now again...
    The big bang was first theorised by a catholic monk in order to prove god was real.
  3. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    13644
    05 Nov '15 02:03
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    So you are talking about it being THE Bb V an BB? An big isn't very good English. A big bang is more correcter.
    You should try attending Sunday School with the kids. I bet they could explain it to you at your level. 😏
  4. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Quarantined World
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    87415
    05 Nov '15 07:33
    Originally posted by robbebop
    if there is enough energy, matter can exist "out of nothing"
    That's not ex nihilo, and in that process all quantum numbers must be conserved. A simple example is beta decay in a nucleus. Two new particles are produced, but overall the charge, spin, baryon and fermion numbers are all conserved.

    The best guess in theoretical physics I know of at the moment is that an inflationary era generated all the free energy in the universe. But one can insist on the necessity of a creator god based on the principle of sufficient reason, which roughly speaking states that every effect must have a cause. This is the basis for many theists claim that there must be a creator God. However, our understanding of physics is that processes are either allowed or ruled out depending on conservation laws but are not deterministic, so a radioactive atom may or may not decay in a time equal to its half life - we can state it's fifty fifty, but beyond that there's no rhyme or reason. What physics does is impose rules where otherwise anything could happen. So, there is no reason to suppose the principle of sufficient reason exists at anything beyond a stochastic level within the universe and not at all outside it. We have no empirical justification for claiming the laws of physics that we know work in domains outside the universe or that there are any analogous rules in such domains whatsoever. So I'd regard the principle of sufficient reason as a conspiracy of stochastic systems and valid only at a macroscopic level within this universe. Without a strong principle of sufficient reason arguments for the logical necessity of a creator seems less compelling.
  5. Joined
    15 Nov '09
    Moves
    13683
    05 Nov '15 08:291 edit
    Originally posted by DeepThought
    That's not ex nihilo, and in that process all quantum numbers must be conserved. A simple example is beta decay in a nucleus. Two new particles are produced, but overall the charge, spin, baryon and fermion numbers are all conserved.
    But can particels exist out of purely energy? Beta-decay is not out of energy, is it?
  6. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Quarantined World
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    87415
    05 Nov '15 10:18
    Originally posted by robbebop
    But can particels exist out of purely energy? Beta-decay is not out of energy, is it?
    What do you mean by "purely energy". In physics we often treat energy as a real thing that actually exists, but really it's a theoretical construct. It's usefulness in our theories is due to the way it is a conserved quantity. However there is no direct way of measuring it. One measures things like position, speed and mass and puts them into a theoretical formula to calculate an energy.

    Now, in Quantum Field Theories there is no potential energy. There is only kinetic and mass energy (or more precisely there is only four momentum). This energy is always associated with a specific particle. So there is no such thing as "pure energy". What there are are gauge connections, photons and so forth, and you may regard bosons as being "pure energy", I don't think that this is right, they are particles and the energy is associated with a particle. However, if this is what you had in mind then yes, a photon with an energy of more than about 1 MeV can spontaneously "decay" into a positron electron pair provided there is another charged particle present to dump momentum into. So the only real difference is that in the case of beta decay the particle decaying is a fermion whereas for positron electron production it's a boson.

    You might also be talking about vacuum fluctuations. These do not produce lasting particles, and there is no initial energy required to make it happen or final energy carried away.
  7. Joined
    15 Nov '09
    Moves
    13683
    05 Nov '15 10:33
    Originally posted by DeepThought

    You might also be talking about vacuum fluctuations. These do not produce lasting particles, and there is no initial energy required to make it happen or final energy carried away.
    Yes I was talking about those (but I didn't know the correct term in English 😳 ) , but now I see I am wrong. Thank you for your explanations.
  8. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    13644
    05 Nov '15 15:09
    Originally posted by robbebop
    if there is enough energy, matter can exist "out of nothing"
    As Donald Trump would say, "God is high energy." 😏
  9. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    53223
    05 Nov '15 18:361 edit
    Originally posted by DeepThought
    That's not ex nihilo, and in that process all quantum numbers must be conserved. A simple example is beta decay in a nucleus. Two new particles are produced, but overall the charge, spin, baryon and fermion numbers are all conserved.

    The best guess in theoretical physics I know of at the moment is that an inflationary era generated all the fr ...[text shortened]... sufficient reason arguments for the logical necessity of a creator seems less compelling.
    I think it more correct to say the big bang CONVERTED energy, transformed a previous source of energy rather than generating it directly. That makes it more sane, conservation of mass and energy wise.

    I am thinking of the multi-universe hypothesis that says a parent universe generated a black hole that became the big bang that caused our universe to be born, the other side of the black hole or a white hole here, black hole there.
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree