Is it really possible for atoms and molecules to come from nothing?

Firstly, the time comparison factor cannot be answered period.
For Rajesh's education.....
To try and compare the time in a FoR for anything or anyone that is inside the EH to someone outside of the BH does not make any sense for obvious reasons.
One being that time comes to a standstill at the EH [although we never see time coming to a stop] and evidenced in the fact that an outside observer will never really see anything fall inside a BH. Strange as it may seem, this even includes the surface of the star that collapses to form a BH.
In the second point re "to my satisfaction and delight" which is simpler to answer, one needs to realise that Rajesh, has spit the dummy with regards to me being a prime motivator and initiator in having his previous paper totally rebuked by experts.
As a consequence, he employs cheap sarcasm to detract from his ignorance.
Don't be too detracted by such childish carryings on pluto.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Matter and antimatter form when very high energy photons split. The original matter of the universe, formed from very high energy, and not just any energy. IR or microwaves cannot split into matter and anti-matter. You need to go to gamma and beyond to make electrons and protons.

Matter exists near the top of the energy curve, as a new condensed phase, with extreme energy potential. E=MC2 shows us how much potential energy is contained in the condensed matter phase. Matter is stable, in spite of being at the top of the potential energy hill, because the anti-matter of the universe, has become out of proportion, and therefore is no easy way to detonate the matter. The needed activation energy, that could be supplied by anti-matter is not there, so it can return to pure energy in a direct way.

If matter has to form from extreme energy, the early energy of the universe had to reach extreme energy before matter could condense. If we had space-time expanded to an extreme, where energy could appear out of the vacuum, this energy could not form much matter unless extreme energy quanta appear everywhere.

The alternative is lower level energy appearing out of the vacuum, in conjunction with extreme space-time contraction, so all the low energy sources in space and time become concentrated and blue shifted toward a condensation point.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It is actually the opposite of that. The very early universe had to expand and cool enough so that the energy level DECREASED enough to allow the formation of matter.

 

you realise that virtual particles aren't particles at all? so no mass, or energy, is actually created? but in you example you "created" two extra particles from nothing but a field. so i would think that mass, in your example, has been added to the universe.

http://profmattstrassler.com/articl...ysics-basics/virtual-particles-what-are-they/

 

The term condensation of matter from energy is misleading, because it brings to mind steam; energy, condensing into water; matter, or moving from a hotter to a cooler phase. If terms of matter and energy, say we start with radio waves in the lab, and lower wavelength to microwave, IR, etc., Matter and anti-matter will not appear until the energy value of the photons gets really high; gamma and beyond. Once we get matter and anti-matter, at the upper end of photon energy values, matter and anti-matter will try to recombine, to lower the potential back to high level energy.

If you take away anti-matter, before it can recombine with matter, the matter will persist. This matter exists at higher potential than the surrounding energy; above gamma, and would like to go back to energy, but it can't unless it can climb the activation energy hill, that anti-matter used to catalyze. With this path walled, matter has to nickel and dime it way to lower potential by releasing piece meal energy via the forces of nature.

The analogy is we can make TNT or trinitrotoluene by heating nitric acid and toluene. Once the TNT forms, it is rich in energy value with the bonds stable. As such, we can cool it and even freeze it even though it contains a lot of potential energy, this does nit impact its energy value. It is moderately stable and needs a detonator to generate activation energy, before it can release all its potential energy. If you left it by itself, the air will slowly oxidize it releasing some of its energy in piece meal fashion. Matter and antimatter from energy is an endothermic reaction, that creates a stable matter phase that needs an anti-matter detonator to reverse; electron and protons are very stable.

By placing matter, at the top of the energy hill, you can start the universe out of a vacuum, since you only need the lowest level energy to appear, randomly across a fully space-time expanded empty universe. This state is where time reference is the fastest, allowing the most incidents of subtle energy appearance; all else equal. The only thing we need, which is easier said than done, is to contract the fully expanded space-time vacuum, so space-time begins to contract to where the subtle energy quanta begin to concentrate and blue shift until matter and anti-matter appear.

Most models of the universe call t=0 the point where we have concentrated energy contracted to a point. The above analysis brings the needed energy back to a source out of a vacuum. Once it is concentrated and blue shifted than we get the traditional starting point. The cooling of energy to matter, is due to the endothermic formation of matter and antimatter, just like TNT will absorb energy during its formation.

 

One theory I developed over 10 years ago was the persistence of matter, like protons, is connected to it having built in time dilation. This time dilation was inferred from the observation that the sub-particles of protons, for example, will persist for billions of years, when configured as a proton. If we disrupt the proton, such as in a collider, these same sub-particles now only last a fraction of a second.

The change of time scale can't be due to the sub-particles changing properties, or else that would mean the particles we see in colliders, are not what is really inside the proton. What has changed is, the built in time dilation, from original creation, was disrupted, and the particles, which always last a fraction of a second, are now in our reference. This built in time dilation is what gives matter inertia.

For example, say we had piece of string that is soft and limp. We stretch it out and then hypothetically place this in a space-time reference, close to the speed of light. Because time has slowed, the string will maintain the stretched out orientation only slowly moving back to limp. If we could touch the string, in the other reference, since time is moving so slow, the soft string will appear very hard, because it can't be displaced in our time frame, the same way. It is moving to the beat of a different drum and we can't beat that drum in our reference in the same way. We can only nickel and dime it. We can react the proton to make water but we can not detonate it without getting closer to its time reference.

 

I assume you're referencing a singularity before the Big Bang? In that case they don't come from nothing they come from a specific quantity of energy in infinitely dense space. Personally I view the singularity as outside the domain of GR, or an incomplete GR, either way I don't believe they exist outside of extrapolated GR mathematics. But even in that case matter (and space, time) comes from existing energy.

 

In order to be effective or fulfill the role, a "cause" or a provenance for "something" (whether particles or the entire bulk circumstance of being) would already itself have instantiated existence or introduced the category of existence. Accordingly, such could not be a literal nothing (non-existence contradictorily reified as an object; absence of everything perversely treated as "something"). "Nothing" might be attached as a label to an origin for particles, but it would be a "pseudo-nothing" that lacks the extreme meaning.

The traditional demand which causality makes upon our commonsense reasoning, that "something" [in the most general sense] had to have a cause, falls out of a hierarchical error. In which we unthinkingly place causality as logically prior to existence.

People often appeal to a variety of abstract concepts for regulating the world or for what their descriptive models conform to, or both (like the assorted "principles of nature" that range from commonsense to philosophical to physics contexts). Their supposed potency or effectiveness ("You can't escape time! You can't escape cause-and-effect! You can't defy the law or the principle of ___!") would have to count as their manner of existence (as well as validate such). Thus existence, in a certain sense, makes them possible, not vice versa.

 

Wow! You certainly like to make things sound so complicated.
See what origin said.
At the instant of the BB when space and time [spacetime] evolved, temperatures and pressures were so high that it was impossible for matter to exist.
As spacetime/Universe expanded, temperatures and pressures dropped, allowing our first basic fundamentals to form. Expansion continued, temperatures and pressures kept dropping. After 3 minutes we had atomic nuclei and protons and neutrons. 380,000 years later, temperatures had dropped sufficiently to allow electrons to couple with the atomic nuclei, forming the first light element of hydrogen.
From that point is was plain sailing, relatively speaking of course!

 

At the instant of the BB..that is t = 0, how the temperature and pressure could be very high rather how could they exist ?? And secondly let us say matter could not exist then what caused this pressure and to what it was applied at your pet t = 10^-43 seconds. ?.....You can't answer, I know its written somewhere and you just copy pasted it without realizing what it meant.

What you copy pasted is no less complicated than the poster you are falsely accusing of.

PS : Do not flood the thread further with another copy paste or links...we all know this.

 

Although GR breaks down at 10-43 seconds, and any first hand knowledge of this period is unknown, reputable cosmologists have extrapolated back to t=0 and the best theory we have is as follows.
At between the t=0 and t+ 10-43 seconds, the four forces were united into a superforce. As expansion of spacetime/Universe took hold, temeperatures and pressures dropped, even a fool like you should see that.
The rest is history as they say.

see.....
http://molaire1.perso.sfr.fr/e_superforce.html

or this......
http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~yukimoon/BigBang/BigBang.htm
What is the Big Bang?

According to the big bang theory, the universe began by expanding from an infinitesimal volume with extremely high density and temperature. The universe was initially significantly smaller than even a pore on your skin. With the big bang, the fabric of space itself began expanding like the surface of an inflating balloon – matter simply rode along the stretching space like dust on the balloon's surface. The big bang is not like an explosion of matter in otherwise empty space; rather, space itself began with the big bang and carried matter with it as it expanded. Physicists think that even time began with the big bang. Today, just about every scientist believes in the big bang model. The evidence is overwhelming enough that in 1951, the Catholic Church officially pronounced the big bang model to be in accordance with the Bible.

Until the early 1900s, most people had assumed that the universe was fixed in size. New possibilities opened up in 1915, when Einstein formulated his famous general relativity theory that describes the nature of space, time, and gravity. This theory allows for expansion or contraction of the fabric of space. In 1917, astronomer Willem de Sitter applied this theory to the entire universe and boldly went on to show that the universe could be expanding. Aleksandr Friedmann, a mathematician, reached the same conclusion in a more general way in 1922, as did Georges Lemaître, a cosmologist and a Jesuit, in 1927. This step was revolutionary since the accepted view at the time was that the universe was static in size. Tracing back this expanding universe, Lemaître imagined all matter initially contained in a tiny universe and then exploding. These thoughts introduced amazing new possibilities for the universe, but were independent of observation at that time.



deuterium (an isotope of hydrogen) in the universe. A hot, dense, and expanding environment at the beginning could produce these nuclei in the abundance we observe today. Third, astronomers could actually observe the cosmic background radiation—the afterglow of the explosion—from every direction in the universe. This last evidence so conclusively confirmed the theory of the universe's beginning that Stephen Hawking said, "It is the discovery of the century, if not of all time."



* Vesto Slipher noticed that there are more galaxies going away from us than approaching us. Astronomers know that a galaxy is approaching or receding by looking at the spectrum of its light. If the spectrum is shifted toward shorter wavelength (blueshift), then the galaxy must be approaching, just like the sound of an approaching racing car has a higher pitch (shorter sound wavelength). If the spectrum is shifted toward longer wavelength (redshift), then the galaxy must be receding, just like the sound of a racing car that has passed us has a lower pitch (longer sound wavelength). The degree of the shift depends on the speed of approach or recession. So in other words, Slipher observed more galaxies whose spectrum was redshifted than those whose spectrum was blueshifted.

In 1929, Edwin Hubble discovered that farther galaxies are going away from us at higher speeds, proportional to their distance. In other words, the spectra of more distant galaxies had higher redshifts. From distant galaxies, light takes millions or even billions of years to reach us. This means we are seeing an image from millions or billions of years ago. In redshift, the spectrum is shifted from shorter wavelength to longer wavelength as the light travels from the galaxy to us. This increase in wavelength is due to expansion of the very fabric of space itself over the years that the light was traveling. If the wavelength had doubled, space must have expanded by a factor of two. Thus, Hubble's discovery was that this expansion factor was roughly proportional to the distance light traveled, or equivalently, to how far back in time you looked. This means that the universe was smaller and smaller earlier and earlier. The universe has been expanding.



Velocity-Distance Relation among Extra-Galactic Nebulae

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Radial velocities, corrected for solar motion, of galaxies in a cluster are plotted against distances estimated from involved stars and mean luminosities (Edwin Hubble, 1929.http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/diamond_jubilee/1996/hub_1929.html)



Tracing back this expanding universe, we see that the separations between galaxies become smaller while the density becomes higher. This continues until all matter is compacted into a completely shrunk volume of the universe with an incredible density—the moment of the big bang. We can estimate how long ago this was by dividing the distance to a galaxy by its recessional velocity. This way we estimate how long ago the distance between that galaxy and ours was essentially zero. Calculation shows that the big bang occurred as long as 10-15 billion years ago, which is about three times the age of the Earth.

As a way of checking this age estimate, we can examine the oldest things we find in the universe to verify that they are 10-15 billion years old, but definitely not older. From radioactive dating of uranium isotopes, we know that the oldest isotopes were created (through nuclear reactions in supernovae) about 10 billion years ago. From our current model of star evolution, we know that the oldest stars in our Galaxy are about 12 billion years old. These ages are consistent with the age estimated from the observed expansion of the universe. This agreement suggests that the universe really began a finite time ago, providing an encouraging reason to believe in the big bang model of the universe.



* George Gamow, once a student of Friedmann, suggested that nuclear fusion must have taken place when the universe was so hot in the beginning. This process, called the "big bang nucleosynthesis", would have created helium and deuterium (plus trace amounts of elements like lithium and beryllium) out of an initial sea of energetic protons and neutrons.

In the early 1960s, spectroscopic studies of local stars showed that the abundance of helium was about 20-30% by mass, the rest being mostly hydrogen. Stars and hydrogen bombs are the only things we know of that make helium in the present universe. They both combine hydrogen nuclei (protons) into helium nuclei through nuclear fusion, releasing great amounts of energy. Astronomers calculate that the night sky should be much brighter if all the helium we now observe had come from stars burning (or bombs exploding). Some, if not most, of the helium must have existed before star formation.


much more at the link.....

 

Paddoboy

And you did exactly that !!

 

I'm really sorry you are having so much difficulty following the chronology of the Universe/spacetime from the BB.
Here's another more precise and to the point article.
If you disagree rajesh, please come up with some reference supporting what you believe....Because in all honesty, and as your record on this forum shows with threads moved to the fringe sections, no one is able to take what you say with any semblance of belief. Especially after the BNS debacle, and Professor Bennett Link leaving due to your childish obstinancy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe
In the first phase, the very earliest universe was so hot, or energetic, that initially no matter particles existed or could exist perhaps only fleetingly. According to prevailing scientific theories it was at this time that the forces we see around us today merged into one unified force. Space-time itself expanded during an inflationary epoch due to the immensity of the energies involved. Gradually the immense energies cooled – still to a temperature inconceivably hot compared to any we see around us now, but sufficiently to allow forces to gradually undergo symmetry breaking, a kind of repeated condensation from one status quo to another, leading finally to the separation of the strong force from the electroweak force andthe first particles.
more at the link......