Before The Big Bang

Originally posted by dragonridr

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
God existed before the big bang, it has been repeated that you cannot create matter or energy out of nothing. I was a physics major in college, I know.

edit on 053030p://6America/ChicagoWed, 06 Jun 2012 17:16:17 -0500 by THE_PROFESSIONAL because: (no reason given)

Well i guess you need to do some more research you cant stop learning after graduation.Because the fact is we can create something from nothing in fact we all ready have. Ill try to explain first a vacuum isnt really a void.A vacuum is a balanced combination of antimatter and matter or particles and anti particles.Now we cant observe there characteristics because they cancel each other out. Leaving empty space with a sum of 0. When matter and antimatter annihilate each other they produce gamma-ray photons, and these high-energy particles of light can produce additional electrons and positrons which can be coaxed into making all kinds of particles by adding a magnetic field.If strong enough this causes the cacuum to break down creating matter.CL P could probably explain this better.

To sum it up in a void one can produce electrons and those electrons can be coaxed into becoming a number of other particles.And when your done you have more particles than you started with (because you started with a vacuum). In theory this happens in nature near pulsars and neutron stars. Something for nothing.Now before you say its impossible because you took physics here is the experiment.

www.bibliotecapleyades.net...

edit on 6/6/12 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)

No, we cannot create something from nothing. Just because there is a sum of zero doesn't mean there is "nothing". What you describe is creating matter from energy and energy from matter, but not creating something from "nothing". There is no matter, but there is energy, thus there is not "nothing".
"Nothing" would be the absence of anything and everything.

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
God existed before the big bang, it has been repeated that you cannot create matter or energy out of nothing. I was a physics major in college, I know.

edit on 053030p://6America/ChicagoWed, 06 Jun 2012 17:16:17 -0500 by THE_PROFESSIONAL because: (no reason given)

You are very much correct. Matter can be created from energy and energy can be created from matter, but neither can be created from "nothing".
The link given was showing how they were creating matter from energy, not matter from "nothing".

Originally posted by spy66

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
God existed before the big bang, it has been repeated that you cannot create matter or energy out of nothing. I was a physics major in college, I know.

edit on 053030p://6America/ChicagoWed, 06 Jun 2012 17:16:17 -0500 by THE_PROFESSIONAL because: (no reason given)

Than you should also know that no physical or scientific law can create anything from nothing. Or that a mathematical equation can form anything from nothing. Because non of the laws exist where there is nothing.

It is insane to believe that a physical or scientific laws exist where there is nothing. Or that mathematical equations exist where there is nothing. Its just insane that people can believe this. They can not understand science.

One person have stated this and he's name is Hawkins.

edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)

They don't understand the mathematical/physical concepts. A value of zero does not indicate there is nothing, it just indicates the summation of the values is zero. Zero and nothing are not equivalent in Math and Science, only in lay terms and colloquialisms.

reply to post by PurpleChiten


Thank you, for reiterating what I stated.

Matter and Energy are different forms of the same thing that are able to convert to different forms, but You cannot create Matter with zero energy, or create energy with zero matter, meaning you cannot create either matter or energy out of nothing. Really it is just that simple and not that hard.

Before the big bang, there was nothing, and out of nothing comes nothing. Before the big bang there was no matter or energy, and therefore there was nothing to begin with.

reply to post by dragonridr


No, what you have showed me is matter is created from energy which I knew since middle school with the energy mass equivalence of E=mc2.

If you used energy to create matter it is simply saying the same thing as using matter to create matter as matter and energy are different forms of the same thing.

You did not show me matter being created from nothing. You showed me matter being converted from the energy form.

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
reply to post by spy66

 

It is insane to believe that a god with infinite intelligence would allow himself to be understood. for instance lets take the smartest humans known..IQ 250-300. God has infinite IQ, the ratio of gods intelligence to the smartest person to have ever lived is still infinite. We are not meant to comprehend God, just to accept it.

I think you may follow the logic of the theory that I'd like to insert...
In creation of all that is, "God" (The term I like to use for the creating force due to my theological beliefs) merely inserted energy into the void and the energy brougth forth all that is. If it was a finite amount of energy that was provided, it would create a finite universe that expands infinitely. The energy created matter as well as transformed to different forms of energy and that is what makes up all that we know.
Thus, those who adhere to the Big Bang Theory would have to consider the initial source of energy that produced the effect. That energy had to come from somewhere outside of the void that existed, hence creationism spawned evolution.
One could argue the finite/infinite aspects indicating that God does continue to insert energy so it's not a finite amount, which could make the universe infinite as well, but still expanding infinitely. Of course if the creating source had the ability to insert energy, that source could possibly also be able to extract energy, and that could lead to other theories that could be produced. However, that may lead to violation of the law of conservation.

This would also infer that the source would have to be in a dimension beyond what we are able to experience, so we would have a limited number of dimensions within our phsyical existance, hence the spiritual realm.
.... a bit of a scientific approach to the biblical ideas.
Glad to have encountered someone with the capacity to entertain and comprehend the theory

Originally posted by dragonridr

Follow the link dont be scared but in case you only scanned it here let me quote this for you.

Photons of light from the green laser were allowed to collide almost head-on with 47-billion-electronvolt electrons shot from the Stanford particle accelerator. These collisions transferred some of the electrons' energy to the photons they hit, boosting the photons from green visible light to gamma-ray photons, and forcing the freshly spawned gamma photons to recoil into the oncoming laser beam. The violent collisions that ensued between the gamma photons and the green laser photons created an enormous electromagnetic field. This field, Melissinos said, "was so high that the vacuum within the experiment spontaneously broke down, creating real particles of matter and antimatter."

Since photons of light were introduced (a form of energy), then the creation of the matter wasn't creation of "something from nothing" but a conversion from energy to matter and antimatter.
Just as the other poster said, you cannot create something from nothing. The light that was introduced took away the "nothingness" of the void.

Originally posted by clevelandklik
To the OP, any chance you have some calculations to back up your theory, or is it just a philosophical attempt at understanding the universe? Either way, you pose some interesting concepts!

And some people here need to give up the classic viewpoint of physics and brush up their understanding of quantum physics. While I only studying quantum mechanics for a few semesters, I feel like it has helped me comprehend some of the more complex concepts presented by some posters.

Truly understanding Hawkings ideas and theories requires years of study though, so anything most posters speculate should be taken with a grain of salt

In some of the cases, those who hold the classic view have a much more in depth understanding then those who are just now being exposed to concepts. You have not yet tied in much of the knowledge that the other, older posters have and don't fully comprehend what they are saying.
Although you are being exposed to concepts now, does not mean you have the grasp on them that others who came before you have. The poster The_Professional is correct in what he has stated. You cannot create something from nothing, especially not at the quantum level. It is merely exchanging one form for another and not violating the law of conservation at all. At the quantum level, the particles that make up both matter and energy are considered, but they are not at all "nothing" in any way.

Knowledge and exposure do not always equal wisdom and comprehension. I would hazard to guess that the other poster has both knowledge and comprehension producing the wisdom that you will gain over time and further study as you continue on your journey. Just remember as you continue learning that knowledge does not equal comprehension and comprehension is what is needed before you can expand knowledge past the level that already exists. Knowledge is capable of deduction only and discovery requires induction as opposed to deduction, the proof of the discovery would use deduction, but the creation of it comes through inductive techniques.

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
reply to post by dragonridr

 

No, what you have showed me is matter is created from energy which I knew since middle school with the energy mass equivalence of E=mc2.

If you used energy to create matter it is simply saying the same thing as using matter to create matter as matter and energy are different forms of the same thing.

You did not show me matter being created from nothing. You showed me matter being converted from the energy form.

edit on 043030p://6America/ChicagoThu, 07 Jun 2012 04:03:48 -0500 by THE_PROFESSIONAL because: (no reason given)

Precisely. And since the ratio of Energy to matter is always a constant value (E/m = c^2 ) that would imply a finite amount of "stuff" (as opposed to "nothing) in the universe, hence, it is finite.

reply to post by ImaFungi

"A vacuum is a balanced combination of antimatter and matter or particles and anti particles."

It sure ain't. A vacuum is a given space with very very few particles or anything else within it. But the particles are not the vacuum, its the space which hold the particles that becomes the vacuum. The particles in this space are all positive compared to the space they are within.

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

"A vacuum is a balanced combination of antimatter and matter or particles and anti particles."

It sure ain't. A vacuum is a given space with very very few particles or anything else within it. But the particles are not the vacuum, its the space which hold the particles that becomes the vacuum. The particles in this space are all positive compared to the space they are within.

precisely, a vacuum isn't the matter, it's the space in which the matter or lack of matter is contained

reply to post by PurpleChiten

They don't understand the mathematical/physical concepts. A value of zero does not indicate there is nothing, it just indicates the summation of the values is zero. Zero and nothing are not equivalent in Math and Science, only in lay terms and colloquialisms.

A empty space is not the value of positive and negative matter. Its not a scale where the equal sum of + and - is neutral. A space like this is far from empty.

A absolutely empty space is neutral if there are no matter/particles present. That is the true 0 "zero" The true constant. Its the true infinite.

We can not create this empty space in our universe, because of the total amount of finite matter/particles the universe is made up of. We can not build a chamber strong enough to withstand the outside pressure from the universe surrounding us.

I also like to add that energy is not infinite. It can't be, because its no a constant. Energy must have been formed because it is constantly changing.
And if energy is not a constant our universe can not be infinite. Our universe will not expand indefinitely. It will expand until it becomes what it used to be. "Infinite". And the infinite does not expand. Its a constant "stationary". So energy will stop expanding when it becomes infinite. That is a hard thing to grasp at first, but if you think about it a bit it might become clear.

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

"A vacuum is a balanced combination of antimatter and matter or particles and anti particles."

It sure ain't. A vacuum is a given space with very very few particles or anything else within it. But the particles are not the vacuum, its the space which hold the particles that becomes the vacuum. The particles in this space are all positive compared to the space they are within.

Particles and anti particles constantly pop into existence in a vacuum.This is vacuum energy the background energy that exists in a void.Now to answer some other people under conditions you can get these particles to stay as i pointed out earlier.Simply a very high magnetic field can cause these particles to stay as shown in the laser experiments several posters miss understood.So in the experiment the scientists proved these particles are there in empty space coming in and out of existence.Now this whole religion thing in reference to the what was before the big bang.Just because we dont know what happened before the big bang doesnt mean god did it.

We dont know what happened before the big bang because we dont have any information prior to that.Without information you cant form a hypothesis.Something caused the rapid expansion of space time we just dont know what it was doesnt mean it was a someone.

Particles and anti particles constantly pop into existence in a vacuum.

The space is not a vacuum until the particle is there. That is very important to know. The empty space is neutral "absolutely empty" before the particle is there. The empty space does not become a vacuum until the particle appears.

Now, what physical laws apply in a absolutely empty space for a particle to appear from nowhere?

The only physical law that can explain this, is that the particle dosent pop into existence from nowhere. So the space that this has been observed has not been empty. And the particle didn't appear from nowhere, it was always there within the space. That is also why you probably call that space a vacuum. Because it was never empty.

A vacuum in a chamber is not the same as having a absolute empty infinite space/universe. It dosent even begin to resemble it. There are no walls in a infinite empty space. So the forces are way different. A chambered vacuum space will never be neutral, it will always be negative because of the chamber. The chamber consists of matter. And that can only create a vacuum. Never a absolute neutral environment to make any certain scientific conclusions about what takes place in a absolute neutral and empty space/universe.

A vacuum is not neutral, it is negative to begin with. So what you and your scientific community say is false, when it comes to what happens in a absolute empty space. What you and your friends have been observing is what can take place in a vacuum. A vacuum is a negative space because it is in contact with matter already.


So where do you think the particles appeared from? Nowhere???

Originally posted by dragonridr


Particles and anti particles constantly pop into existence in a vacuum.This is vacuum energy the background energy that exists in a void.Now to answer some other people under conditions you can get these particles to stay as i pointed out earlier.Simply a very high magnetic field can cause these particles to stay as shown in the laser experiments several posters miss understood.So in the experiment the scientists proved these particles are there in empty space coming in and out of existence.Now this whole religion thing in reference to the what was before the big bang.Just because we dont know what happened before the big bang doesnt mean god did it.

We dont know what happened before the big bang because we dont have any information prior to that.Without information you cant form a hypothesis.Something caused the rapid expansion of space time we just dont know what it was doesnt mean it was a someone.

No, I understood the experiment quite well and I'm pretty sure The_Professional did as well. I haven't discussed as much with Spy66, but he seems to have the concepts although there is some terminology at play for him, you are still having some issues with terminology and concepts, but you are beginning on the right path.
You are starting to concieve that the particles didn't become something out of nothing.
Since there is background energy present, it's not actually a "void" in the mathematical sense, meaning it is not empty of absolutely everything. It has a zero sum of particles of matter due to the volitile nature and only being present for milliseconds, but does have background energy, therefor it is not "nothing". The energy is being converted to matter, ie, the particles, and the particles don't remain due to the volatile nature of their structure and revert to energy.
This is actually a concept that those who have studied physics have known for ... a very long time

Originally posted by spy66

Particles and anti particles constantly pop into existence in a vacuum.

The space is not a vacuum until the particle is there. That is very important to know. The empty space is neutral "absolutely empty" before the particle is there. The empty space does not become a vacuum until the particle appears.

Now, what physical laws apply in a absolutely empty space for a particle to appear from nowhere?

The only physical law that can explain this, is that the particle dosent pop into existence from nowhere. So the space that this has been observed has not been empty. And the particle didn't appear from nowhere, it was always there within the space. That is also why you probably call that space a vacuum. Because it was never empty.

A vacuum in a chamber is not the same as having a absolute empty infinite space/universe. It dosent even begin to resemble it. There are no walls in a infinite empty space. So the forces are way different. A chambered vacuum space will never be neutral, it will always be negative because of the chamber. The chamber consists of matter. And that can only create a vacuum. Never a absolute neutral environment to make any certain scientific conclusions about what takes place in a absolute neutral and empty space/universe.

A vacuum is not neutral, it is negative to begin with. So what you and your scientific community say is false, when it comes to what happens in a absolute empty space. What you and your friends have been observing is what can take place in a vacuum. A vacuum is a negative space because it is in contact with matter already.


So where do you think the particles appeared from? Nowhere???

edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)

I think she is confusing the concept of a perfect vacuum with the concept of a QED or QCD vacuum. A perfect vacuum doesn't exist, it's a mathematical theory just as absolute zero doesn't exist on the temperature range that we are able to measure. They are theoretical in nature and cannot be found or produced in the known universe which can be shown mathematically and theoretically, but are used as a standard by which to base measurement.

reply to post by PurpleChiten

I think she is confusing the concept of a perfect vacuum with the concept of a QED or QCD vacuum. A perfect vacuum doesn't exist, it's a mathematical theory just as absolute zero doesn't exist on the temperature range that we are able to measure. They are theoretical in nature and cannot be found or produced in the known universe which can be shown mathematically and theoretically, but are used as a standard by which to base measurement.

Personally i think people misunderstand what the difference is between a vacuum, a absolute vacuum and a absolutely empty and neutral space/universe is.

These are actually three very different environments. And a absolute empty and neutral space can not be looked upon as related to any vacuum. Because this space is not a vacuum. People tend to think this space is like a absolute vacuum, but its not even close.

What i have underlined in you comment is that you say that we use the infinite within math and physics. Thereby we already know it exists theoretically. So the dimension cannot be ruled out when we talk about the beginning of finite existence. Its just that we first have to agree on where the beginning is. And i guess that would be the absolute emptiness of space.

Originally posted by spy66

Personally i think people misunderstand what the difference is between a vacuum, a absolute vacuum and a absolutely empty and neutral space/universe is.

These are actually three very different environments. And a absolute empty and neutral space can not be looked upon as related to any vacuum. Because this space is not a vacuum. People tend to think this space is like a absolute vacuum, but its not even close.

Very good point. They are, indeed, different things.
I guess it's the result of being in the learning process and not making the connection between the concepts as well as over generalizing. They "skip over" some very important concepts and that skews their latter understanding due to early negligence of not comprehending the basic nature of what they are trying to investigate. Hence, we have people stating that something comes into existance from "nothing" as opposed to seeing that it's energy changing to matter and the matter back to energy that is responsible for the particles "popping in and out of existance" and they are not, at all, being produced from "nothing".

Originally posted by spy66

What i have underlined in you comment is that you say that we use the infinite within math and physics. Thereby we already know it exists theoretically. So the dimension cannot be ruled out when we talk about the beginning of finite existence. Its just that we first have to agree on where the beginning is. And i guess that would be the absolute emptiness of space.

It's also important for them to realize that the term "space" has many different concepts involved as well. What we theoretically know of as "space" is the area in which the universe exists as opposed to the physical regions between known, measureable matter which is also called "space". Although it would add a great deal of vocabulary in, we should incorporate the differences in the theoretical and physical senses to prevent the errors that are made when generalizing a concept.
The absolute emptiness of space would be in the theoretical construct, not the physical construct as the physical construct would not yet exist in the beginning of things, it is part of what resulted within the theoretical space.
I see that you do have a good handle on the concepts!

Originally posted by PurpleChiten

Originally posted by spy66

What i have underlined in you comment is that you say that we use the infinite within math and physics. Thereby we already know it exists theoretically. So the dimension cannot be ruled out when we talk about the beginning of finite existence. Its just that we first have to agree on where the beginning is. And i guess that would be the absolute emptiness of space.

It's also important for them to realize that the term "space" has many different concepts involved as well. What we theoretically know of as "space" is the area in which the universe exists as opposed to the physical regions between known, measureable matter which is also called "space". Although it would add a great deal of vocabulary in, we should incorporate the differences in the theoretical and physical senses to prevent the errors that are made when generalizing a concept.
The absolute emptiness of space would be in the theoretical construct, not the physical construct as the physical construct would not yet exist in the beginning of things, it is part of what resulted within the theoretical space.
I see that you do have a good handle on the concepts!

I guess we all have different approaches to view space. I do agree that how you describe them are very important if you like others to fallow the concept, so that they can both learn and make a contribution to make the pieces fit.

The absolute emptiness of space would be in the theoretical construct, not the physical construct as the physical construct would not yet exist in the beginning of things, it is part of what resulted within the theoretical space.
I see that you do have a good handle on the concepts!

The problem here is that a absolute empty space is not a "theoretical construct", That to will confuse people.

Before we had the construct of physical space. The space we today call the theoretical space was the only physical space. This space has never disappeared. But we talk about it and treat it as if it dosent exist anymore.

The irony is that we use the infinite in math and physics. But we argue that it hasn't been proven to exist. I see a lot of irony in that with people.


I also agree in the way you described the space between physical knows. Because i think a lot of people don't pay attention to details like that. I did a experiment with some people just to prove just that with this image.
I asked them how many dimension do they see: They all said two. They left out the dimension surrounding the two knows.