ishalon

What do you believe is the origin of matter? Where did it all come from?

(I have no idea, and I am aware that this question is entirely irrevelant to religion)

Bill

If you believe in the current "hot Big Bang" model of the origin of the universe, then all matter begins as energy; the energy is present at the time of the "Big Bang." As the universe expands, the finite and fixed amount of energy present at the time of the "Big Bang" spreads out in the expanded amount of space causing the average temperature to cool sufficiently to allow matter to "condense" out of the energy cloud.

A more detailed explanation is <a href="http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~js/ast123/lectures/lec19.html" target="_blank">HERE</a> and <a href="http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~js/ast123/lectures/lec22.html" target="_blank">HERE</a>, which are pages taken from <a href="http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~js/ast123/" target="_blank">Professor Schombert's Astronomy 123 on-line course</a>. As you can see, the current theories are really quite a bit more complicated than what I've stated, above. But still, my summary is at least close to what physicists actually believe.

== Bill

[ July 11, 2002: Message edited by: Bill ]</p>

ishalon

Where'd the energy come from? :

Bluenose

ishalon asked where did the energy come from?

The false vacuum.

And where did the false vacuum come from ????

The IPU ????

The links given by Bill led me to a page where a comment was made to the effect that science has gone a long way toward solving the ultimate how questions, but still can't answer the why questions.

The best work on these questions comes from the convergence of astrophysics, cosmology and particle physics esp: the "standard model" aka quantuum chromodynamics. The math is way beyond me. BUT the best work always has to pass what I call the math test.

[ July 13, 2002: Message edited by: Bluenose ]</p>

ishalon

i asked where

recovering xtian

I, in NO way can claim personal knowledge on this matter. My exp in physics are less than armchair, but, I'll relate what I just read in 'the Elegant Universe' by Brian Greene PhD.

Einstein dismissed his finding that the universe was expanding. It was Hubble who observed galaxies moving away from one another that backed Einsteins orignal theory. Hubble (I believe), plotted the trajectory of these galaxies and theorized if time were reversed, the trajectories of the moving galaxies would bring them all back to one origin. Now, using modern physics, they say that as the matter comes together, it starts getting smaller and more dense. Matter, as we know it breaks down, and, at the instance of the big bang, we are left with a universe of pure energy smaller than a grain of sand. Actually it is microscopic.
Pure energy=infinity. Of course, physics as we know it breaks down at the instance the big bang ends or starts (i forget which). Anyway, matter came about due to this energy cooling in the vacuum of the expanding universe. Beginning with hydrogen and progressing from there. (correct me if Im wrong).
A better question would be where did this infinite (pure) energy come from. Kinda mind blowing, IMHO.

Bill

I don't believe that there is an agreed scientific answer to that question. There are some scientific hypotheses, but none have been validated in any substantial way.

As Bluenose indicated, one of those possible answers is "the false vacuum." The idea is that the total amount of positive and negative energy in the universe sums to zero, or close to it. Accordingly, you can create a nearly infinite amount of energy so long as you create both positive and negative energy at the same time. This naturally occurs due to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. But on larger scales, we have the "universal space/time foam" and the "false vacuum" that operate to create all this energy that eventually "condenses" into matter. This is an answer which comes to us from quantum mechanics, but since quantum mechanics has yet to have a valid theory of quantum gravity incorporated into it, there are clearly some very necessary "missing pieces."

Another possible answer is that there is a higher-dimensional reality that cannot support an ordered existence (for highly technical reasons, we believe that only a space/time continuum containing exactly three spatial dimensions and one time dimension can support an ordered reality; any higher number of spatial dimensions and order becomes impossible), and that the energy to support the "Big Bang" comes to us courtesy of that higher-dimensional reality. This alternative is most likely to be true if the so-called "superstring" theory ultimately proves to be true. Superstring theory, in turn, is the most promising approach (to date) to unifying Einstein's Theory of Relativity with Quantum Mechanics (and thereby achieving a viable theory of quantum gravity). The problem is that, so far, nobody can actually formulate the actual theory of strings so as to even begin to try to test and verify superstring theory. All we have to date are some very enticing over-simplifications that lead us to believe that this might be a promising approach if (or when) we ever are able to actually write down the mathmatics for the actual theory.

=====

It is at this boundary line, where science must necessarily answer "I don't know," where the "God of the Gaps" generally is injected as the "first cause" of the unexplained scientific phenomena. Science might accept this approach if religion had not been trying this same stunt for thousands of years, only to have science eventually come up with a fully natural explanation for what was, at one time, believed to be a supernatural cause.

So, I am quite willing to stop right there at the "I don't know" and leave it at that. If we are guessing, though, I would say that the record of scientific progress over the past several thousand years gives us license to presume that, eventually, a scientific explanation for "where did the energy come from" will be proven beyond any reasonable doubt. Just saying that "I don't know" justifys an answer of "God did it" (the "God of the Gaps" answer) generally proves to be a poor excuse for logical reasoning by the religiously indoctrinated.

== Bill

GeoTheo

Bill,
I'm not going to pretend I am smarter than you or anything, but aren't you just kind of hoping there is no God at this point? You have basically gotten down to a dividing line here where there could be three basic choices. Agnosticism, which is where you are. "I don't know". Theism of some type albeit as you say "God of the gaps" or atheism.
But really just the hope of athiesm because you are leaving it up to some future discovery.
Can athiesm be based on hope?

GeoTheo

This question reminds me of what you say on your profile "I don't know and you don't either."
Would a person who does not know, but lives on the assumption that this first cause is God be inferior to a person who doesn't know either, but lives on the assumption that science will prove their is no God once and for all?
If so Why?

Philosoft

This is why the characterization of atheism as the doctrine that there are absolutely, positively no gods as conceived currently and potentially is so erroneous. I think I speak for the majority of atheists on this site when I say that none of us has a vested interest in most gods' non-existence. We're content to wait and see; we're just not content to presume we've already seen it.