but who created the atoms, energy?

florian said:
The question is often asked , how all the matter in the universe could be packed into the 'seed' that became the big bang. However in fact there was no matter until some short time after the big bang when a phase transition took place and the various forces condensed out . I did read an explanation of how matter could have come out of nothing . It was something like this (I havn't got my books handy but will check when I get home ) . After the big bang there was a period of rapid expansion called 'inflation' . This expansion of empty space produced a negative pressure in the expanded universe . Since negative pressure is the same as gravity this meant that the empty universe contained a powerful gravitational force . Since gravity in a sense is 'stuff' i.e whether 'graviton' messenger particles or gravity waves (BTW neither of which have been yet detected ) This would account for at least the presence of a large source of energy/particles which may then have led to the other constituents of the early universe .
Click to expand...

Correct, as matter is nothing more than energy at a slower level of vibration (not frequency).

Perhaps your thought about how so much "energy" could be packed so tightly into a 'seed' became the Big Bang, has a pseudo answer. Just look at the energy packed into an Atomic bomb...

Consider also a 'singularity' pulling all that material and energy into it, building building....What would happen if it reversed itself and released all it had absorbed, all at once? And still that is miniscule compared to the Big Bang.

My thoughts.

v/r

Q
 
In fact it may not require much matter to make a universe. It was once suggested that there is in fact only 1 individual electron (& possibly one individual example of each of the other particles ) but because it zips back and forward in time it is able to appear in many places simultaneously (to us ) as if there are countless multitudes forming all the atoms in the universe .
Perhaps a bit like the way a tv works , a tiny stream of electrons vibrating back and forth gives the illusion of an entire visible world .
So you don't need much actual matter ,all that is needed to create the illusion of a universe is a series of simple vibrations in time and an observer with a nervous system wired in such a way that confabulates from its restricted view a moment to moment continuous cosmos.
 
To answer one of the question about who created atoms or energy......according to one of einsteins' theories energy can not be created or destroyed, only proccessed.......but that still doesn't answer the question of origin.......definetly a thought worth pondering..
 
The law of conservation of matter and energy only applies to a closed system and not if the singularity of the big bang was a linked to another universe . It also seems that virtual particles ( i.e. pairs of particles and anti-particles that spontaneously appear for very short times can also violate the law of matter/energy conservation for the minute period of time that they exist .
 
Hi, Peace,

capthowdy said:
To answer one of the question about who created atoms or energy......according to one of einsteins' theories energy can not be created or destroyed, only proccessed.......but that still doesn't answer the question of origin.......definetly a thought worth pondering..
Click to expand...

Or "processing", eh, cap'n?;)

Don't know why (yes I do) I decided to stop by this thread tonight. Anyway, I just wanted to say that I appreciate the way you put that.

I would also like to say that I really appreciate florian's presence here--there are places in this forum now which are going through some transitions, so I just want you both to know, if you don't already, that this is a place of ongoing change and consistency.

Betcha knew that anyway--just needed someplace to hang out for a few minutes.:)

InPeace,
InLove
 
Well, now, that did not make a whole lot of sense, did it?

Will it be sufficient for me to say that I just appreciate you both, and thanks for the posts?:)

I hope someone knew what I was trying to say...

(by the way, in case you did not notice, it did not sound very scientific...)

Anyway...on with the thread!

InPeace,
InLove
 
God and creation are not separate. God for one is not an object. It's an idea, a philosophy, a thought.

We can not say God created the world or universe. Because that naturally leads to the question of who created God then. There is no "creation"...There just "is"

Get it? :p

satay
 
satay said:
God and creation are not separate. God for one is not an object. It's an idea, a philosophy, a thought.

We can not say God created the world or universe. Because that naturally leads to the question of who created God then. There is no "creation"...There just "is"

Get it? :p

satay
Click to expand...

Life is but a dream? Hope the "dreamer" never awakens...;)
 
Awaiting_the_fifth said:
When I was young, I used to ask, who created the universe and my Dad would say, God created the universe.

Then I would say, who created God? and my Dad would say no-one created God, he's just always been there.

If you can accept that it is possible for something to have always been there, then why does it have to be God, why cant you just say that the Universe has always been there? Certainly not in it's current form, but maybe the Big Bang was not a beginning, just a change caused by whatever it was before? Our science cannot at present determine what that might have been, but if we all accept that it was just Gods will, we'll stop trying.

We should remember that the Catholic church has changed it's mind about the nature of the universe several times in accordance with science. First it accepted the ptolemic model of the universe, then the Big Bang theory, when that theory is disproved I have no doubt that the church will find a new place for God to live until that too is disproven.
Click to expand...

What about G-d being a "general law of everything, including everything and everyone where everything we see is G-ds effects?"

In my mind scientists who are working hard at finding the "Theory of Everything" are actually true religious people searching for G-d. They just use different terms and methods, that is it.

As such it is indestructible, imortal, perfect, etc.
 
satay said:
Did I wake you? :D

satay
Click to expand...

No, no...I'm still in lala land. But I stir from time to time...really messes things up dream wise. ;)

v/r

Q
 
Going back to the comment about the Catholic Church being quick to accept the big bang theory , I read somewhere that the scientists who had been working on this were rather embarassed by the Church's enthusiasm , (Stephen Hawking even went to meet the Pope to discuss his theories ) . Some physicists felt that the church was eager to accept the theory for reasons of self interest and not because the Scientific evidence was good . They had had their fingers burnt in the Galileo affair (though obviously not as much as Galileo did if he was consigned to everlasting punishment )and were anxious to avoid appearing stuck in the middle ages .It must have seemed a 'Godsent' opportunity to the Church .The big bang offered them a way out of the embarassment of having to accept the steady state theory.i.e. a universe that had existed unchanging for an infinite time . Clearly they could come to some accommodation with a cosmos that had an origin of some sort rather than one that had existed for an eternity and therefore had no need of a creator .
 
florian said:
Going back to the comment about the Catholic Church being quick to accept the big bang theory , I read somewhere that the scientists who had been working on this were rather embarassed by the Church's enthusiasm , (Stephen Hawking even went to meet the Pope to discuss his theories ) . Some physicists felt that the church was eager to accept the theory for reasons of self interest and not because the Scientific evidence was good . They had had their fingers burnt in the Galileo affair (though obviously not as much as Galileo did if he was consigned to everlasting punishment )and were anxious to avoid appearing stuck in the middle ages .It must have seemed a 'Godsent' opportunity to the Church .The big bang offered them a way out of the embarassment of having to accept the steady state theory.i.e. a universe that had existed unchanging for an infinite time . Clearly they could come to some accommodation with a cosmos that had an origin of some sort rather than one that had existed for an eternity and therefore had no need of a creator .
Click to expand...

Is this speculation, or fact? ;)

v/r

Q
 
My sources (as far as I can find them) are as follows :

re the Church and the big bang .G. Smoot (who worked on the detection of echoes of the big bang in the cosmic background radiation) writes " Fred Hoyle [the leading proponent of the steady state universe ] accused advocates of the big bang of being 'culturally motivated' by which he meant swayed by unscientific motives .He goes on to say ' other critics claim the Big Bang is popular because in the view of Christian apologists it resembles the creation as depicted in the first pages of Genesis .. critics also point out that the first big bang theorist ; Lemaitre was a Catholic priest .('Wrinkles in Time' p80)

Re Hawking's visit to the Vatican , he describes this on p46 of 'A Brief History of Time' how "the Catholic church seized on the idea of the big bang ..on p.116 he describes his visit to the Vatican and how he felt about Galileo's treatment by the church .He says that the Pope told him 'it was all right to study the evolution of the universe after the big bang but Scientists must not inquire into the big bang itself as that was the work of God .

 
florian said:
My sources (as far as I can find them) are as follows :

re the Church and the big bang .G. Smoot (who worked on the detection of echoes of the big bang in the cosmic background radiation) writes " Fred Hoyle [the leading proponent of the steady state universe ] accused advocates of the big bang of being 'culturally motivated' by which he meant swayed by unscientific motives .He goes on to say ' other critics claim the Big Bang is popular because in the view of Christian apologists it resembles the creation as depicted in the first pages of Genesis .. critics also point out that the first big bang theorist ; Lemaitre was a Catholic priest .('Wrinkles in Time' p80)

Re Hawking's visit to the Vatican , he describes this on p46 of 'A Brief History of Time' how "the Catholic church seized on the idea of the big bang ..on p.116 he describes his visit to the Vatican and how he felt about Galileo's treatment by the church .He says that the Pope told him 'it was all right to study the evolution of the universe after the big bang but Scientists must not inquire into the big bang itself as that was the work of God .
Click to expand...

1. Actually that makes sense. The Vatican cautioned scientists to not speculate past the Big Bang, since they have no data, for reference past that single point in time. Unless one suggests scientists use their imagination to explain the before the "Big Bang"...but then would not scientists be as guilty as "theologians", in filling in gaps in history with no reference to facts?

2. What? Scientists have copyrights to the beginning of our time theories, that the church can not seize upon? I find it ironic that the world of science would not welcome a "religious affiliation", for acknowledging their theories, as nervously as they deal with those religious affiliatons that attempt to debunk science, concerning the beginning.

That sounds an awful lot like one "religious" affiliation, wanting other religious affiliations to stay away from their "religious" turf...:eek:

Imagine that...scientists being "priests" of their faith...

LOL

v/r

Q
 
I agree that scientists can be influenced (perhaps unconsciously) by their "religious affiliation" and background but still produce good science .It may even be beneficial if their religion gives them a context for ideas which make them receptive to the development of original theories .
In addition to the Catholic Lemaitre and big bang theory , I could mention string theorist Michio Kaku who, Zen-like was watching carp in a Japanese garden and became fascinated by the idea of multiple universes . Hindus claim their Vedic tradition of maths makes them at ease when dealing with vast numbers and calculations and their scientists have made great contributions to science .
Ideologies can also hinder reception of new ideas (we mentioned Galileo's treatment by the Catholic church.) Nazi scientists initially refused to study the neutron as it was considered somehow 'Jewish'. Chinese scientists were able to discover an important plant for treatment of malaria , it was rejected by western science initially as they associated Chinese herbal medicine with ancient superstition .Soviet era science suffered when it had to conform to Marxist-Leninist principles and went down many blind alleys .

 
God is dynamic energy, Jehovah means he courses to become

Due to the abundance of dynamic energy, he also being vigorous in power,

"Raise your eyes high up and see. Who has created these things? . . . Due to the abundance of dynamic energy, he also being vigorous in power, not one of them is missing."—Isa. 40:26.

 
InLove said:
Hi, Peace,



Or "processing", eh, cap'n?;)
Click to expand...

hehe...yeah, I don't always check spelling...so thanks

InLove said:
Don't know why (yes I do) I decided to stop by this thread tonight. Anyway, I just wanted to say that I appreciate the way you put that.

I would also like to say that I really appreciate florian's presence here--there are places in this forum now which are going through some transitions, so I just want you both to know, if you don't already, that this is a place of ongoing change and consistency.

Betcha knew that anyway--just needed someplace to hang out for a few minutes.:)

InPeace,
InLove
Click to expand...


Thank you, comment appreciated, it's always good to meet nice people....


anyways back to the topic at hand..
 
Hey Cap'n--

I didn't notice any speeling:) problems--I was actually commenting on your comment--I thought it was comment-worthy. (And I was feeling a bit displaced at the time, which I suppose I made quite obvious.)

Anyway, like you say--back to the topic at hand...ummm...what was the question:D ?

InPeace,
InLove
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top