Big bang - put bigger thing into smaller container?

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by Saint, Feb 8, 2017.

  1. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,941
    First light occurred when the universe was 380,000 years old. That was when it had cooled enough for electrons and protons to combine, allowing photons to pass freely, making the universe transparent for the first time.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,919
    Thank you Dave.
    Well its after the inflation period so the universe must have been very large.
    Alex
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Saint Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,373
    Can we observe matter to pop up from vacuum in lab?
    To prove that the universe comes from nothingness?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,505
    Yes. A good example is the Large Hadron Collider. In a typical collision in the detector, two protons go in, and a whole heap of different particles come out.

    "Nothingness" an a quantum vacuum are not quite the same thing.
     
  8. Boris2 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,104
  9. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,919
  10. Saint Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,373
    Answer me,
    if no answer, Scientists mostly know how to bull-shit.
     
  11. Saint Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,373
    It is still a process with input and output.
    It is not something from nothing.
     
  12. Saint Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,373
    When scientists try to deny God,
    they will say, "The universe can come into existence from nothingness, it does not need a CREATOR. The laws of physics exist by itself.".
     
  13. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,438
    True
     
  14. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,438
    Well a creator , is to me a being , not a god , but a being .
     
  15. Boris2 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,104
    Bugger off with your god, this is a science thread not religion. go pester the believers in that sub-forum. And you don't have a clue as to what scientists say. Go read something other book than a bible.
     
  16. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,941
    Two things:
    1] scientist =/= atheist. There are plenty of theist scientists.

    2] Atheists do not "deny" God; they simply say "What God? Show me this God and we will talk about it."

    It would certainly help you if you got your facts straight and understood who and what it is you think you are judging. At the moment, what you are judging is your own preconceptions.
     
  17. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,505
    Saint:

    You didn't ask about "something from nothing" there. You asked whether things can be created from the vacuum, and I told you that they can.

    Let me give you a simpler example. Some atoms radioactively decay by beta radiation. In one version of that process a single proton in the atomic nucleus disappears and is replaced by one neutron, one electron and one anti-neutrino. That is, the "input" is one particle and the "output" is three particles. Where did the "extra" particles come from? Answer: the vacuum. There's nowhere else they could come from - a proton does not, for example, contain any electrons.

    Scientists aren't in the business of denying God. God isn't part of science.

    You're right though that nothing in science compels us to hypothesise the existence of a supernatural CREATOR.
     
  18. Saint Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,373
    Not true, mass is conserved throughout the process.
     
  19. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,941
    No it is not.
    If you weigh the ingredients and the products, you will find a difference.
     
  20. Saint Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,373
    Conservation of mass and energy cannot be violated.
     
  21. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,941
    That's not what you said.
     
  22. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,505
    No. Mass is not conserved. Energy is conserved, but energy isn't a "something" that can be created or destroyed.
     
  23. timojin Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,154
    You originally stated atom. It have 2 particles ( proton & electron ) the beta can be positive or negative in case of atom it would be a negative particle loss ? you should describe the composition of a proton which is made of quarks which are composed of other particles. So it is hard to accept that you are producing material in vacuum because proton is composed of more then particle
     

Share This Page