pilgrim.1:

This was why I simply left the thread jeje. When someone is determined to substitute irrationality for intelligence, what is left at the end of the day?

I was just wondering the gap in this wide berth:

(A)
(B)
On the one hand, (A) the "origin of the universe" is best explained by the Big Bang;
but on the other hand, (B) the same "origin of the universe" is not explained by the Big Bang!

The confusion may be best explained by this presumption:

In honest and very simple terms, where did Christians say what you have attributed to them?

Pilgrim, your question was the origin of matter, viz.

In case we missed it, what is the origin of the matter that gave rise to the Big Bang?

To which my answer was;

That is indeed a very good question.  But it is not explained by the Big Bang.  It will take another theory to explain that.  As for me, the short answer is that I don't know. But if I remember correctly from material I have read, the relationship between energy and matter as described by Einstein (E=mc2) is at the root of that explanation.

It is quite possible that following the Big Bang, the universe existed for many millions of years before matter was formed.  I have not checked this out, but it is not outside the realms of possibility.

I am not surprise that you would quote-mine and take my statements out of their context.  If you take the universe to be the 3 + 1 dimensional space around us, then clearly it is the Big Bang (Cosmic Expansion) that created that space.  Big Bang does not deal with things pre-Big Bang.

At some basic fundamental level there may be an interaction between the various forces in the universe, but until such is found we shall have to treat many of our theories as independent where we can find no links.  The Big Bang was responsible for expansion, gravity for the coalescing of matter, electromagnetism for electrical forces, etc.  And something else for the formation matter.

Do you think a respected cosmologist is likely to claim the Big Bang accounts for the virulence of some viruses?   


So you have taken my comments out of their context in your desperate bid to show they are contradictory.

By the way, I am not an expert cosmologist.  Just as if I was suffering from an illness, I would seek the advice of the experts in the field,  there are experts cosmologist who have earned Nobel prices investigating the Big Bang.


Are you objections to the Big Bang scientific or theological.  If they are scientific, rest assured that I can dig out the best available information on the subjects, which might alley your concerns.  But if they are theological, am afraid I cannot help you.

For examples of those who claim the Big Bang explains life, why not talk to your trusted friend Davidylan.  He has litter NL with such nonsensical claims.

davidylan*:

Quote from: huxley on Today at 09:39:15 AM
Your dishonesty knows no bounds. I shall refer you to what I said earlier, viz;

The best explanation of the state and origin of the universe is called "Big Bang". These ignorant Christians characteristically mispresent Big Bang, saying that it explain the origin of life. BB is not an explanation of the origin of life. For that check out abiogenesis (not evolution). Nowhere in the Big Bang theory is there any comment for how life came about. (Get this)

And you have consistently failed to redeem yourself by answering the challenge - "Where in the definition of Big Bang is there a description of the origin of life?"


this post wins the stupidity award of the yr. What then did the big bang create? Ordered planets in the absence of time?
Did you know that abiogenesis itself is also a theory WITHOUT ANY SHRED OF PROOF?

This is the definition I culled from WKPD, which is actually not bad. Show me where it talks about the creation of matter?

The Big Bang is the cosmological model of the universe that is best supported by all lines of scientific evidence and observation. As used by scientists, the term Big Bang generally refers to the idea that the universe has expanded from a primordial hot and dense initial condition at some finite time in the past, and continues to expand to this day.

AFAIK, BB does not talk about planet formation.

What do you understand by abiogenesis? Can you enlighten me, please?

@huxley,

huxley:

I am not surprise that you would quote-mind and take my statements out of their context. If you take the universe to be the 3 + 1 dimensional space around us, then clearly it is the Big Bang (Cosmic Expansion) that created that space. Big Bang does not deal with things pre-Big Bang.

Please don't be surprised, as I did no such thing. I had called your attention to calm reason rather than being driven with your attitude because I noticed some very fundamental flaws in your submissions which I had wanted to highlight for your attention. But you went on and on about reserving the right to be rude as if that was helping anyone to see anything reasonable in your arguments. Since you were not inviting a discussion thereto, I simply left the thread for you to assume that we were as ignorant as you had pressumed.

The one thing that people like you should note is that there is nothing you want to tell the public here about the BB theory that we don't already know! It is not helping your discussion when you assume such an unwelcome attitude - because predictably it only leads the reader to wonder if there is any substance in the arguments of people who act the way you had reiterated was best suited to your style.

However, I would not have even replied your reposte for the simple reasons that you either still wrongly assume that others are ignorant, or that your style could be mistaken for rational dialogue. Whatever the case, I hinted that hubris and extremum were not ideal positions to assume when someone wants others to see him/her as an intelligent thinker.

Yet, don't you still get the basic flaw in your arguments? If you wanted to discuss the Big Bang theory, no one would bother you - we already know where to go for info about such. But my dear huxley, the serious flaw in your argument is to mistake the Big Bang theory as the best explanation for the "ORIGIN" of the Universe! That was why I started out first asking you not to be so driven with vituperations, and consequently proposed a simple question about "the origin of the matter". The universe did not just exist on its own by a BB - whatever are the underlying principles or working mechanisms for the BB, they still have one question to answer: that of the origin of matter itself.

As some scientists are too embarrassed to face up honestly to that basic question, they switch over to attack Christian theists with all sorts of accusations! I mean, just as you so widely alleged that Christians were saying that the BB explains the "origins of life", I asked you a direct question about that and you predictably and conveniently ducked that question. It is unreasonble for people to assume extremum positions just to make a point - often, it borders on dishonesty; and that is not going to help any discussions at all.

huxley:

Are you objections to the Big Bang scientific of theological.

Hmm, this is actually not helping you at all. In simple terms, I have not even stated any objections or affirmations about the BB. Nor was I so gullible to assume that the BB is a theological enquiry! Why do people have such narrow minds as to assume that THEOLOGY and TELEOLOGY are the same? This was why I shared with Chrisbenogor that when we fail to see the paradigm between both and either fields of enquiry, then we become the victims of the arguments and not the thinkers!

In simple terms, in my view, I do not see the BB as a theological question. The fundamental mistake people make is to quickly assume the hubris of mistaking theology for teleology - huxley, they are not the same!

huxley:

For examples of those who claim the Big Bang explains life, why not talk to your trusted friend Davidylan. He has litter NL with such nonsensical claims.

Oh c'mon, huxley. Why this weak exculpation? It is even illogical to make such assumptions. I am willing to be a disciple of my own ideas such that I will not assume any hubris or extremum here; but I am largely ignorant of the assertion that davidylan has made such a claim. If he has done so, then I don't see why he would come back here to fight against his own postulations. That is why I asked simply where Christians have been saying what you attributed to them.

pilgrim.1:

@huxley,

Please don't be surprised, as I did no such thing. I had called your attention to calm reason rather than being driven with your attitude because I noticed some very fundamental flaws in your submissions which I had wanted to highlight for your attention. But you went on and on about reserving the right to be rude as if that was helping anyone to see anything reasonable in your arguments. Since you were not inviting a discussion thereto, I simply left the thread for you to assume that we were as ignorant as you had pressumed.

The one thing that people like you should note is that there is nothing you want to tell the public here about the BB theory that we don't already know! It is not helping your discussion when you assume such an unwelcome attitude - because predictably it only leads the reader to wonder if there is any substance in the arguments of people who act the way you had reiterated was best suited to your style.

I think you are absolutely right. My tone in this post must be difficult for most people coming fresh into the debate without some knowledge of science and the BB and its opposition by some for theological reasons. There was a reason for that. My inclinations are those of a polemicist and so am not averse to using shock methods sometimes.

pilgrim.1:

However, I would not have even replied your reposte for the simple reasons that you either still wrongly assume that others are ignorant, or that your style could be mistaken for rational dialogue. Whatever the case, I hinted that hubris and extremum were not ideal positions to assume when someone wants others to see him/her as an intelligent thinker.

I don't think you are ignorant as much as you are evasive or intellectually dishonest. You warn against taking extreme, a worthy caution, I might add. On my part, where am I being extreme. I have taken the position of the scientific consensus. Is this an extreme position.

You are are asking question, but question that are not addressed by the Big Bang. This is what makes you look dishonest and ignorant. I have said and posted many times the scientifically accepted definition of BB, yet you keep asking the self-same questions that are not addressed by the BB.

pilgrim.1:

Yet, don't you still get the basic flaw in your arguments? If you wanted to discuss the Big Bang theory, no one would bother you - we already know where to go for info about such. But my dear huxley, the serious flaw in your argument is to mistake the Big Bang theory as the best explanation for the "ORIGIN" of the Universe! That was why I started out first asking you not to be so driven with vituperations, and consequently proposed a simple question about "the origin of the matter". The universe did not just exist on its own by a BB - whatever are the underlying principles or working mechanisms for the BB, they still have one question to answer: that of the origin of matter itself.

OK, what in your opinion is the best explanation for the origin of the Universe? How do you account for observed cosmic expansion and Cosmic Microwave Background?

I serious would like an answer and would also like to know why the BB is inadequate.

On the question of the origin of matter, I shall post on this shortly.

pilgrim.1:

As some scientists are too embarrassed to face up honestly to that basic question, they switch over to attack Christian theists with all sorts of accusations! I mean, just as you so widely alleged that Christians were saying that the BB explains the "origins of life", I asked you a direct question about that and you predictably and conveniently ducked that question. It is unreasonble for people to assume extremum positions just to make a point - often, it borders on dishonesty; and that is not going to help any discussions at all.

As fas as is reasonably possible to accept, there are no scientist who dispute BB on scientific grounds. There are many scientist, mainly creationists (check out Answers In Genesis) who dispute it on theological grounds, but have not advanced any credible scientific evidence for their position. The last major scientist who disputed BB was Fred Hoyle, but he change his position on the discovery of CMB. In fact, his favour position was even more anathema to standard theology, he was a steady-state theorist - meaning the universe had always existed.

pilgrim.1:

Hmm, this is actually not helping you at all. In simple terms, I have not even stated any objections or affirmations about the BB. Nor was I so gullible to assume that the BB is a theological enquiry! Why do people have such narrow minds as to assume that THEOLOGY and TELEOLOGY are the same? This was why I shared with Chrisbenogor that when we fail to see the paradigm between both and either fields of enquiry, then we become the victims of the arguments and not the thinkers!

I did ask, if you object to BB, on what grounds? Scientific or otherwise? Why don't you state your position now?

pilgrim.1:

Oh c'mon, huxley. Why this weak exculpation? It is even illogical to make such assumptions. I am willing to be a disciple of my own ideas such that I will not assume any hubris or extremum here; but I am largely ignorant of the assertion that davidylan has made such a claim. If he has done so, then I don't see why he would come back here to fight against his own postulations. That is why I asked simply where Christians have been saying what you attributed to them.

I named Davidylan because he is right here with us at NL, but out there there are many. Check out the list at Answers In Genesis website. Others are people like Kent Hovind, Jonathan wells, etc, etc.

@huxley,

huxley:

I think you are absolutely right. My tone in this post must be difficult for most people coming fresh into the debate without some knowledge of science and the BB and its opposition by some for theological reasons. There was a reason for that. My inclinations are those of a polemicist and so am not averse to using shock methods sometimes.

The point was that the device you employed there was a very poor 'shock method'.

huxley:

I don't think you are ignorant as much as you are evasive or intellectually dishonest. You warn against taking extreme, a worthy caution, I might add. On my part, where am I being extreme. I have taken the position of the scientific consensus. Is this an extreme position.

This is quite an excuse, huxley. Are you so polarized as to assume that no theist is involved in science? What is this brashness as to taking a "scientific consensus" and making it a tool for your anti-theistic imbroglio?

huxley:

You are are asking question, but question that are not addressed by the Big Bang. This is what makes you look dishonest and ignorant. I have said and posted many times the scientifically accepted definition of BB, yet you keep asking the self-same questions that are not addressed by the BB.

You seriously are not interested in a discussion, I can see. If we want an understanding of the BB theory, we know where to go - and your fascination with this idea that others are ignorant is a most illiterate position to assume. Are you the only person so quite unaware that the BB does not answer to the ORIGIN of the universe?

This is why I asked very simple questions - and as I have said, you're not bound to answer them if you do want to do so. To turn round and use your flawed argument as a wager for your hubris of others are "ignorant" is a waste of material, I'm sorry to say. Rather than go round again and again, it has been established that while you are forcing this issue about the BB as the best explanation for the origin of the universe, you came back in answer saying the same BB does not answer that question! Even the theorists themselves would have to admit midway that their assertions are seriously flawed, because the basic premise is this: what is the origin of the matter that were responsible for the BB? They have no answer - so what is this miserly assertion of trying to force the BB as the "best explanation" for the ORIGIN of the UNIVERSE?

If you have no answers to the basic question, it were better to say "I don't know" and hold on to the BB theory - not as the best explanation for th ORIGIN of the universe as if the BB answers the question of the origin of matter itself! To go on accusing others just to demonstrate your hubris won't pass you as a thinker. More than anything, it just indicates to me that it is the same thing I have seen others do - which is: to duck behind the BB as a device for slurring and castigating other people. If that is all this effort is geered towards, we don't need to go any further, because then it would be better appreciated that the real issue here was not even the BB, but the drive to be more comical than coherent.

Dear huxley, when you are arguing a question as deep as the ORIGIN of the universe, the germane question would be this: what is the origin of the matter in the BB? If there's no answer to that basic question, what then is the excuse of using the BB as an explanation for the "Universe ORIGIN"?

huxley:
OK, what in your opinion is the best explanation for the origin of the Universe? I serious would like an answer and would also like to know why the BB is inadequate.

I think you already had answered that the BB does not provide answers to the ORIGIN - it just simply does not. Any other argument in protest is okay, but I shall not deny anyone their right to make such protests as best may suit them, even though they won't answer that same question. The BB is not equal to the ORIGIN of the universe.

huxley:

The Big Bang is the cosmological model of the universe that is best supported by all lines of scientific evidence and observation. As used by scientists, the term Big Bang generally refers to the idea that the universe has expanded from a primordial hot and dense initial condition at some finite time in the past, and continues to expand to this day.

This is a flawed concept that again HAS NO PROOF. Science has continously modified the BB theory for the last century and no one is any closer to any real explanation. The theory itself begs the question - where did the "primordial hot and dense initial condition" appear from? When did "time" start?

If the universe is truly still expanding why have we seen no significant changes to the earth in over 6000 yrs?

huxley:

AFAIK, BB does not talk about planet formation.

Then what in God's name do they talk about?

huxley:

What do you understand by abiogenesis? Can you enlighten me, please?

abiogenesis is the study of how life could have emanated from inorganic molecules. Now mr. . . . have you EVER SEEN inorganic molecules spontaneously generate life? Just keep trotting out bogus names to confuse the gullible.

Why has someone not generated life all these yrs?

@huxley,

huxley:

I did ask, if you object to BB, on what grounds? Scientific or otherwise? Why don't you state your position now?

Did you read the point I made about THEOLOGY and TELEOLOGY? Or you rather skimmed that point?

Okay, huxley, let me try once again to make it simple for you by referring to the basic idea behind the recent effort at the E[/b]uropean [b]C[/b]enter of [b]N[/b]uclear [b]R[/b]esearch, or [b]CERN. The basic idea is that the scientists involved believe the Big Bang "to be the event that caused the beginning of the universe"; thus they hope to demonstrate this assumption by "crashing protons together at high speed".

Keyword now for us: protons.

Now huxley sir, as ignorant as we are, the basic question is this: where did those protons originate from?

That is the basic question. If we argue what they have not argued, we become the victims of an unnecessary argument rather than students who follow on to become thinkers! Who is going to be fooled by the assertion that the BB theory best explains the origin of the universe, and then come back to disengage from that same assertion by saying the BB does not explain the question of the origin of matter?!? If that is the case, ignorant as they want to make everyone else, we still ask: did the universe arive on its own without matter (or, the "protons" CERN hopes to crash at high speed)?

When people make assertions and have no answers to the basic questions, then it won't be very long before hubris and extremum begin to come into play. When queried a bit further, we find irrational statements being traded across fences as if such attitudes are supposed to be the answer to the basic question.

huxley:

I named Davidylan because he is right here with us at NL, but out there there are many. Check out the list at Answers In Genesis website. Others are people like Kent Hovind, Jonathan wells, etc, etc.

Please be specific and let's see where they used the BB as an explanation for thr origin of life. It's easy to make these accusations to fly in the face; but it would be helpful to see where you got that accusation from.

@huxley,

huxley:

AFAIK, BB does not talk about planet formation.

(1) Okay, granted. Others have stated the following:

"The Big Bang describes how this fireball grew to form all the stars and planets
we see around us now." (BBC Science & Nature)


(2) Please note: I said earlier that the Big Bang theory is not equal to the ORIGIN of the Universe:

"Without any evidence associated with the earliest instant of the expansion,
the Big Bang theory cannot and does not provide any explanation for such
an initial condition; rather, it describes and explains the general evolution of
the universe since that instant." (Wikipedia)

The evolution of the universe is not the same thing as the ORIGIN of the universe!!!



Dear huxley, we may be slobbered with accusations of "ignorance", and we are thankful. But like I said:

_____[pilgrim.1's quote earlier]_____________________________________

"there is nothing you want to tell the public here about the BB theory that
we don't already know . . . if you wanted to discuss the Big Bang theory,
no one would bother you - we already know where to go for info about such.
______________________________________________________________


Nothing personal. . hubris and extremum are not ideal positions to assume; and we had better learn to be thinkers and not the victims of needless arguments.

Warmest regards.

pilgrim.1:

@huxley,

The point was that the device you employed there was a very poor 'shock method'.

This is quite an excuse, huxley. Are you so polarized as to assume that no theist is involved in science? What is this brashness as to taking a "scientific consensus" and making it a tool for your anti-theistic imbroglio?

You seriously are not interested in a discussion, I can see. If we want an understanding of the BB theory, we know where to go - and your fascination with this idea that others are ignorant is a most illiterate position to assume. Are you the only person so quite unaware that the BB does not answer to the ORIGIN of the universe?

This is why I asked very simple questions - and as I have said, you're not bound to answer them if you do want to do so. To turn round and use your flawed argument as a wager for your hubris of others are "ignorant" is a waste of material, I'm sorry to say. Rather than go round again and again, it has been established that while you are forcing this issue about the BB as the best explanation for the origin of the universe, you came back in answer saying the same BB does not answer that question! Even the theorists themselves would have to admit midway that their assertions are seriously flawed, because the basic premise is this: what is the origin of the matter that were responsible for the BB? They have no answer - so what is this miserly assertion of trying to force the BB as the "best explanation" for the ORIGIN of the UNIVERSE?

If you have no answers to the basic question, it were better to say "I don't know" and hold on to the BB theory - not as the best explanation for th ORIGIN of the universe as if the BB answers the question of the origin of matter itself! To go on accusing others just to demonstrate your hubris won't pass you as a thinker. More than anything, it just indicates to me that it is the same thing I have seen others do - which is: to duck behind the BB as a device for slurring and castigating other people. If that is all this effort is geered towards, we don't need to go any further, because then it would be better appreciated that the real issue here was not even the BB, but the drive to be more comical than coherent.

Dear huxley, when you are arguing a question as deep as the ORIGIN of the universe, the germane question would be this: what is the origin of the matter in the BB? If there's no answer to that basic question, what then is the excuse of using the BB as an explanation for the "Universe ORIGIN"?

I think you already had answered that the BB does not provide answers to the ORIGIN - it just simply does not. Any other argument in protest is okay, but I shall not deny anyone their right to make such protests as best may suit them, even though they won't answer that same question. The BB is not equal to the ORIGIN of the universe.

Well, I get your drift.  I would not address them point by point, but would focus into you main question.  The origin of matter.  This is a good question but is a side issue to BB.


It would also be much appreciated if you would answer my questions about CMB and cosmic expansion. I have asked this repeatedly by each time absolutely no attempt is made to address it.

Now on the question of matter.

Are you familiar with the equation E=mc².   Simply put, this means matter and energy are interchangeable.  If a lump of coal were to travel at the speed of light it would simply become energy.   This realisation was at the heart of the atomic bomb, so there is ample evidence that this is really the case.

So where is all the matter from the universe from?  From the Energy in the Universe.  Now, the law of conservation of energy, also know as the first law of thermodynamics requires that energy comes from somewhere.  This law allows that energy be converted from one type to another as long as the total for a closed system remains fixed.  The total energy for the universe appears to the zero.  

From Stephen Hawkins,s A Brief History of Time "In the case of a universe that ia approximately uniform in space, one can show that the negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive represented by the matter".  So the total energy of the universe is zero.  Specifically, within small measurement errors, the mean energy density of the universe is exactly what it should be for a universe that appeared from initial state of zero energy, within a small quantum uncertainty (Taken from Astrophisical Journal 2003, page 483-86.)

A close balance between positive and negative energy is predicted by the modern extension of the BB, called inflationary BB, according to which the universe underwent a period of rapid, exponential inflation during a tiny fraction of its first second (The Inflationary Universe, Alan Guth, 1997).  The inflationary theory has recently undergone a number of stringent observational tests that would have been sufficient to prove it false.  So far it has successfully passed all the tests (Victor Stenger).

So in summary,  matter and energy are interchangeable.  All the matter came from a state of zero energy.  Zero energy because positive energy is exactly cancelled out by negative energy.

So that is the best scientific explanation for matter.  But this is not BB, I hasten to add.  But you are right in the sense that had the origin of matter not had a plausible explanation it would have been extremely difficult to accept BB as credible.

Now, can you attempt my questions?

1)  How would you explain the observe cosmic expansion?
2)  How would you explain CMB?

Cheers and good luck.  Apologies for being a pain.

pilgrim.1:

@huxley,

(1) Okay, granted. Others have stated the following:

"The Big Bang describes how this fireball grew to form all the stars and planets
we see around us now." (BBC Science & Nature)


(2) Please note: I said earlier that the Big Bang theory is not equal to the ORIGIN of the Universe:

"Without any evidence associated with the earliest instant of the expansion,
the Big Bang theory cannot and does not provide any explanation for such
an initial condition; rather, it describes and explains the general evolution of
the universe since that instant." (Wikipedia)

The evolution of the universe is not the same thing as the ORIGIN of the universe!!!



Dear huxley, we may be slobbered with accusations of "ignorance", and we are thankful. But like I said:

_____[pilgrim.1's quote earlier]_____________________________________

"there is nothing you want to tell the public here about the BB theory that
we don't already know . . . if you wanted to discuss the Big Bang theory,
no one would bother you - we already know where to go for info about such.
______________________________________________________________


Nothing personal. . hubris and extremum are not ideal positions to assume; and we had better learn to be thinkers and not the victims of needless arguments.

Warmest regards.

I think you have touched on something here. I know to some extent our wrangle is about semantics. I used the word origin, which strictly speaking is the wrong word.

I was going to use the word evolution, but from previous experience, the moment the e-word (ie evolution ) is mentioned, the uninitiated take it to mean biological evolotion. That is why I chose "origin" instead.

davidylan*:

This is a flawed concept that again HAS NO PROOF. Science has continously modified the BB theory for the last century and no one is any closer to any real explanation.

For the last century, eh? Even the older conception of the Big Bang theory isn't up to a century old. In any case, there really isn't any thing wrong with modifications to a theory when new information is discovered. The essence of modern science is to avoid dogmatism and leave room for future falsification and improvements.

The theory itself begs the question - where did the "primordial hot and dense initial condition" appear from? When did "time" start?

The presence of the singularity ("primordial hot and dense initial condition" may have arisen through a quantum fluctuation or even a reaction on a possible brane. There is no way to adequately determine that aspect and it is as a result of your next question: time. Time appears to have "started" after the expansion of space. Now, scientists can only go back to very early periods of time (planck time), but at the moment breaching a space without time is almost paradoxical for science.

If the universe is truly still expanding why have we seen no significant changes to the earth in over 6000 years?

The Earth is an extremely minute object in the universe. In fact, less than minute is probably flattering the size of the Earth. Further, expansion of the universe wouldn't exert any noticeable force on the state of the Earth.

Why has someone not generated life all these years?

Technically, Sidney Fox did just that.

On the origins of matter, Huxley is right about matter not being a general part of the Big Bang theory, as the Big Bang theory can exist and be unfalsifiable without any reasonable answer for the origin of matter existing, and more importantly, matter would only have come into existence after the Big Bang occured. A good while ago I posted a brief summary of how matter may have arisen - if anyone cares to find it, that would be nice. Also, if anyone is interested, reading about baryogenesis may give some insight into possible explanations for the origins of matter.

So more interesting stuff here

KAG:

On the origins of matter, Huxley is right about matter not being a general part of the Big Bang theory, as the Big Bang theory can exist and be unfalsifiable without any reasonable answer for the origin of matter existing, and more importantly, matter would only have come into existence after the Big Bang occured. A good while ago I posted a brief summary of how matter may have arisen - if anyone cares to find it, that would be nice. Also, if anyone is interested, reading about baryogenesis may give some insight into possible explanations for the origins of matter.

KAG, you have been gone a long while. How are ya?

Thanks for this contribution. I have been racking my brain trying to remember baryogenesis. Many thanks for that and I hope others find it useful too.

huxley:

KAG, you have been gone a long while. How are ya?

Thanks for this contribution. I have been racking my brain trying to remember baryogenesis. Many thanks for that and I hope others find it useful too.

I'm fine thank you. You? How do you do? No problem, I was just passing through.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=big-bang-or-big-bounce

Big Bang or Big Bounce?: New Theory on the Universe's Birth
By Martin Bojowald

Our universe may have started not with a big bang but with a big bounce—an implosion that triggered an explosion, all driven by exotic quantum-gravitational effects

Atoms are now such a commonplace idea that it is hard to remember how radical they used to seem. When scientists first hypothesized atoms centuries ago, they despaired of ever observing anything so small, and many questioned whether the concept of atoms could even be called scientific. Gradually, however, evidence for atoms accumulated and reached a tipping point with Albert Einstein's 1905 analysis of Brownian motion, the random jittering of dust grains in a fluid. Even then, it took another 20 years for physicists to develop a theory explaining atoms—namely, quantum mechanics—and another 30 for physicist Erwin Müller to make the first microscope images of them. Today entire industries are based on the characteristic properties of atomic matter.

Physicists' understanding of the composition of space and time is following a similar path, but several steps behind. Just as the behavior of materials indicates that they consist of atoms, the behavior of space and time suggests that they, too, have some fine-scale structure—either a mosaic of spacetime "atoms" or some other filigree work. Material atoms are the smallest indivisible units of chemical compounds; similarly, the putative space atoms are the smallest indivisible units of distance. They are generally thought to be about 10–35 meter in size, far too tiny to be seen by today's most powerful instruments, which probe distances as short as 10–18 meter. Consequently, many scientists question whether the concept of atomic spacetime can even be called scientific. Undeterred, other researchers are coming up with possible ways to detect such atoms indirectly.

The most promising involve observations of the cosmos. If we imagine rewinding the expansion of the universe back in time, the galaxies we see all seem to converge on a single infinitesimal point: the big bang singularity. At this point, our current theory of gravity—Einstein's general theory of relativity—predicts that the universe had an infinite density and temperature. This moment is sometimes sold as the beginning of the universe, the birth of matter, space and time. Such an interpretation, however, goes too far, because the infinite values indicate that general relativity itself breaks down. To explain what really happened at the big bang, physicists must transcend relativity. We must develop a theory of quantum gravity, which would capture the fine structure of spacetime to which relativity is blind.

The details of that structure came into play under the dense conditions of the primordial universe, and traces of it may survive in the present-day arrangement of matter and radiation. In short, if spacetime atoms exist, it will not take centuries to find the evidence, as it did for material atoms. With some luck, we may know within the coming decade.

Pieces of Space
Physicists have devised several candidate theories of quantum gravity, each applying quantum principles to general relativity in a distinct way. My work focuses on the theory of loop quantum gravity ("loop gravity," for short), which was developed in the 1990s using a two-step procedure. First, theorists mathematically reformulated general relativity to resemble the classical theory of electromagnetism; the eponymous "loops" of the theory are analogues of electric and magnetic field lines. Second, following innovative procedures, some that are akin to the mathematics of knots, they applied quantum principles to the loops. The resulting quantum gravity theory predicts the existence of spacetime atoms [see "Atoms of Space and Time," by Lee Smolin; Scientific American, January 2004].

Other approaches, such as string theory and so-called causal dynamical triangulations, do not predict spacetime atoms per se but suggest other ways that sufficiently short distances might be indivisible [see "The Great Cosmic Roller-Coaster Ride," by Cliff Burgess and Fernando Quevedo; Scientific American, November 2007, and "The Self-Organizing Quantum Universe," by Jan Ambjørn, Jerzy Jurkiewicz and Renate Loll; Scientific American, July]. The differences among these theories have given rise to controversy, but to my mind the theories are not contradictory so much as complementary. String theory, for example, is very useful for a unified view of particle interactions, including gravity when it is weak. For the purpose of disentangling what happens at the singularity, where gravity is strong, the atomic constructions of loop gravity are more useful.

The theory's power is its ability to capture the fluidity of spacetime. Einstein's great insight was that spacetime is no mere stage on which the drama of the universe unfolds. It is an actor in its own right. It not only determines the motion of bodies within the universe, but it evolves. A complicated interplay between matter and spacetime ensues. Space can grow and shrink.

Loop gravity extends this insight into the quantum realm. It takes our familiar understanding of particles of matter and applies it to the atoms of space and time, providing a unified view of our most basic concepts. For instance, the quantum theory of electromagnetism describes a vacuum devoid of particles such as photons, and each increment of energy added to this vacuum generates a new particle. In the quantum theory of gravity, a vacuum is the absence of spacetime—an emptiness so thorough we can scarcely imagine it. Loop gravity describes how each increment of energy added to this vacuum generates a new atom of spacetime.

The spacetime atoms form a dense, ever shifting mesh. Over large distances, their dynamism gives rise to the evolving universe of classical general relativity. Under ordinary conditions, we never notice the existence of these spacetime atoms; the mesh spacing is so tight that it looks like a continuum. But when spacetime is packed with energy, as it was at the big bang, the fine structure of spacetime becomes a factor, and the predictions of loop gravity diverge from those of general relativity.

Attracted to Repulsion
Applying the theory is an extremely complex task, so my colleagues and I use simplified versions that capture the truly essential features of the universe, such as its size, and ignore details of lesser interest. We have also had to adapt many of the standard mathematical tools of physics and cosmology. For instance, theoretical physicists commonly describe the world using differential equations, which specify the rate of change of physical variables, such as density, at each point in the spacetime continuum. But when spacetime is grainy, we instead use so-called difference equations, which break up the continuum into discrete intervals. These equations describe how a universe climbs up the ladder of sizes that it is allowed to take as it grows. When I set out to analyze the cosmological implications of loop gravity in 1999, most researchers expected that these difference equations would simply reproduce old results in disguise. But unexpected features soon emerged.

Gravity is typically an attractive force. A ball of matter tends to collapse under its own weight, and if its mass is sufficiently large, gravity overpowers all other forces and compresses the ball into a singularity, such as the one at the center of a black hole. But loop gravity suggests that the atomic structure of spacetime changes the nature of gravity at very high energy densities, making it repulsive. Imagine space as a sponge and mass and energy as water. The porous sponge can store water but only up to a certain amount. Fully soaked, it can absorb no more and instead repels water. Similarly, an atomic quantum space is porous and has a finite amount of storage space for energy. When energy densities become too large, repulsive forces come into play. The continuous space of general relativity, in contrast, can store a limitless amount of energy.

Because of the quantum-gravitational change in the balance of forces, no singularity—no state of infinite density—can ever arise. According to this model, matter in the early universe had a very high but finite density, the equivalent of a trillion suns in every proton-size region. At such extremes, gravity acted as a repulsive force, causing space to expand; as densities moderated, gravity switched to being the attractive force we all know. Inertia has kept the expansion going to the present day.

In fact, the repulsive gravity caused space to expand at an accelerating rate. Cosmological observations appear to require such an early period of acceleration, known as cosmic inflation. As the universe expands, the force driving inflation slowly subsides. Once the acceleration ends, surplus energy is transferred to ordinary matter, which begins to fill the universe in a process called reheating. In current models, inflation is somewhat ad hoc—added in to conform to observations—but in loop quantum cosmology, it is a natural consequence of the atomic nature of spacetime. Acceleration automatically occurs when the universe is small and its porous nature still quite significant.

Time before Time
Without a singularity to demarcate the beginning of time, the history of the universe may extend further back than cosmologists once thought possible. Other physicists have reached a similar conclusion [see "The Myth of the Beginning of Time," by Gabriele Veneziano; Scientific American, May 2004], but only rarely do their models fully resolve the singularity; most models, including those from string theory, require assumptions as to what might have happened at this uneasy spot. Loop gravity, in contrast, is able to trace what took place at the singularity. Loop-based scenarios, though admittedly simplified, are founded on general principles and avoid introducing new ad hoc assumptions.

Using the difference equations, we can try to reconstruct the deep past. One possible scenario is that the initial high-density state arose when a preexisting universe collapsed under the attractive force of gravity. The density grew so high that gravity switched to being repulsive, and the universe started expanding again. Cosmologists refer to this process as a bounce.

The first bounce model investigated thoroughly was an idealized case in which the universe was highly symmetrical and contained just one type of matter. Particles had no mass and did not interact with one another. Simplified though this model was, understanding it initially required a set of numerical simulations that were completed only in 2006 by Abhay Ashtekar, Tomasz Pawlowski and Parampreet Singh, all at Pennsylvania State University. They considered the propagation of waves representing the universe both before and after the big bang. The model clearly showed that a wave would not blindly follow the classical trajectory into the abyss of a singularity but would stop and turn back once the repulsion of quantum gravity set in.

An exciting result of these simulations was that the notorious uncertainty of quantum mechanics seemed to remain fairly muted during the bounce. A wave remained localized throughout the bounce rather than spreading out, as quantum waves usually do. Taken at face value, this result suggested that the universe before the bounce was remarkably similar to our own: governed by general relativity and perhaps filled with stars and galaxies. If so, we should be able to extrapolate from our universe back in time, through the bounce, and deduce what came before, much as we can reconstruct the paths of two billiard balls before a collision based on their paths after the collision. We do not need to know each and every atomic-scale detail of the collision.

Unfortunately, my subsequent analysis dashed this hope. The model as well as the quantum waves used in the numerical simulations turned out to be a special case. In general, I found that waves spread out and that quantum effects were strong enough to be reckoned with. So the bounce was not a brief push by a repulsive force, like the collision of billiard balls. Instead it may have represented the emergence of our universe from an almost unfathomable quantum state—a world in highly fluctuating turmoil. Even if the preexisting universe was once very similar to ours, it passed through an extended period during which the density of matter and energy fluctuated strongly and randomly, scrambling everything.

The fluctuations before and after the big bang were not strongly related to each other. The universe before the big bang could have been fluctuating very differently than it did afterward, and those details did not survive the bounce. The universe, in short, has a tragic case of forgetfulness. It may have existed before the big bang, but quantum effects during the bounce wiped out almost all traces of this prehistory.

Some Scraps of Memory
This picture of the big bang is subtler than the classical view of the singularity. Whereas general relativity simply fails at the singularity, loop quantum gravity is able to handle the extreme conditions there. The big bang is no longer a physical beginning or a mathematical singularity, but it does put a practical limitation on our knowledge. Whatever survives cannot provide a complete view of what came before.

Frustrating as this may be, it might be a conceptual blessing. In physical systems as in daily life, disorder tends to increase. This principle, known as the second law of thermodynamics, is an argument against an eternal universe. If order has been decreasing for an infinite span of time, the universe should by now be so disorganized that structures we see in galaxies as well as on Earth would be all but impossible. The right amount of cosmic forgetfulness may come to the rescue by presenting the young, growing universe with a clean slate irrespective of all the mess that may have built up before.

According to traditional thermodynamics, there is no such thing as a truly clean slate; every system always retains a memory of its past in the configuration of its atoms [see "The Cosmic Origins of Time's Arrow," by Sean M. Carroll; Scientific American, June]. But by allowing the number of spacetime atoms to change, loop quantum gravity allows the universe more freedom to tidy up than classical physics would suggest.

All that is not to say that cosmologists have no hope of probing the quantum-gravitational period. Gravitational waves and neutrinos are especially promising tools, because they barely interact with matter and therefore penetrated the primordial plasma with minimal loss. These messengers might well bring us news from a time near to, or even before, the big bang.

One way to look for gravitational waves is by studying their imprint on the cosmic microwave background radiation [see "Echoes from the Big Bang," by Robert R. Caldwell and Marc Kamionkowski; Scientific American, January 2001]. If quantum-gravitational repulsive gravity drove cosmic inflation, these observations might find some hint of it. Theorists must also determine whether this novel source of inflation could reproduce other cosmological measurements, especially of the early density distribution of matter seen in the cosmic microwave background.

At the same time, astronomers can look for the spacetime analogues of random Brownian motion. For instance, quantum fluctuations of spacetime could affect the propagation of light over long distances. According to loop gravity, a light wave cannot be continuous; it must fit on the lattice of space. The smaller the wavelength, the more the lattice distorts it. In a sense, the spacetime atoms buffet the wave. As a consequence, light of different wavelengths travels at different speeds. Although these differences are tiny, they may add up during a long trip. Distant sources such as gamma-ray bursts offer the best hope of seeing this effect [see "Window on the Extreme Universe," by William B. Atwood, Peter F. Michelson and Steven Ritz; Scientific American, December 2007].

In the case of material atoms, more than 25 centuries elapsed between the first speculative suggestions of atoms by ancient philosophers and Einstein's analysis of Brownian motion, which firmly established atoms as the subject of experimental science. The delay should not be as long for spacetime atoms.

KAG:

Technically, Sidney Fox did just that.

Nope. Microspheres do not pass on any genetic material which is the basis for life itself.

Besides Fox fails to tell us how his amino acids suddenly appeared.

davidylan*:

Nope. Microspheres do not pass on any genetic material which is the basis for life itself.

Passing on genetic material is the basis for continuing life, not life itself. To that effect, Fox's protocells meet the most basic and technical considerations for what constitutes life - including reproduction.

Besides Fox fails to tell us how his amino acids suddenly appeared.

Spontaneously

KAG:

Passing on genetic material is the basis for continuing life, not life itself. To that effect, Fox's protocells meet the most basic and technical considerations for what constitutes life - including reproduction.

That is not true. You need genes to create the proteins essential for life. If you deleted certain genes from a cell it will cease to exist not because it cant reproduce but because it cannot generate the required mechanisms for life.
Hence Fox's protocells do NOT meet the basic considerations for what constitutes life.

KAG:

Spontaneously

From what? How do perfectly created amino acids just spontaneously appear? If you believe proteins spontaneously appear then i wonder why creationism is such a huge impossibility to you.

Looks like there was some kind of epiphany about the question of Big Bang and the origin of matter, especially with the timely contribution of KAG.

I trust this is so, and that our newly acquired knowledge will stand us in good stead in all our future endeavours and will help brighten the path to a better understanding of reality.

davidylan*:

That is not true. You need genes to create the proteins essential for life. If you deleted certain genes from a cell it will cease to exist not because it can't reproduce but because it cannot generate the required mechanisms for life.
Hence Fox's protocells do NOT meet the basic considerations for what constitutes life.

Yes, and protocells do have a very basic and proto-genetic (though untransferable) regulator of amino acids. Fox's protocells do meet the basic technical considerations of life which constitute of: respiration, reproduction, the need for some form of nutrition, growth, movement to at least a small extent, irritability, and excretion. They accomplished those.

From what? How do perfectly created amino acids just spontaneously appear? If you believe proteins spontaneously appear then i wonder why creationism is such a huge impossibility to you.

It hearkens back to what was shown by the Miller-Urey experiments: amino acids can be formed spontaneously.

KAG:

Yes, and protocells do have a very basic and proto-genetic (though untransferable) regulator of amino acids. Fox's protocells do meet the basic technical considerations of life which constitute of: respiration, reproduction, the need for some form of nutrition, growth, movement to at least a small extent, irritability, and excretion. They accomplished those.

I'm not sure you truly understand Fox's work. Fox designed MICROSPHERES or protein protocells. Unlike the protocells you describe above, his can only grow and undergo diffusion. His protocells cannot respire, do not possess the capacity for nutrition, do not move and have no capacity for irritability or excretion.

Protocells are theoretical ideas of what a cell would have been like at the begining, no working model has been developed yet in any lab.

KAG:

It hearkens back to what was shown by the Miller-Urey experiments: amino acids can be formed spontaneously.

Did you know that Miller's experiments without the use of a cold trap failed to generate any amino acids?
Did you know that Miller's experiments showed that amino acids are very unstable and needed to be removed immediately by the cold trap method? A clear indication that they do not form spontaneously.
Did you also know that Miller could only generate 3 out of 20 amino acids - - - most predominantly glycine which isnt really required for life?

There are many flaws in Miller's experiments - Methane and ammonia are quite rare in the atmosphere so his "primitive atmosphere" idea is wrong. Why did he not use atmospheric N₂ as his nitrogen source?
- For his experiment to work he needed a high concentration of all gases in a confined space, that is not physiologically possible.

KAG:

Yes, and protocells do have a very basic and proto-genetic (though untransferable) regulator of amino acids. Fox's protocells do meet the basic technical considerations of life which constitute of: respiration, reproduction, the need for some form of nutrition, growth, movement to at least a small extent, irritability, and excretion. They accomplished those.

The protocells you describe above are none existent. The proto-genetic regulator of amino acids you mention is perhaps refering to RNA polymerase which was not present in Fox's microspheres.

good to see you again KAG, welcome back.

Ooparts: scientific and archaelogical evidence of God and the super natural http://www.s8int.com/ http://www.s8int.com/dna1.html

KunleOshob:

Ooparts: scientific and archaelogical evidence of God and the super natural http://www.s8int.com/ http://www.s8int.com/dna1.html

You really think that if i click on the link it will show me unequivocal evidence that God of the Bible exists? Lol. Please tell me why your God decided to allow the hijackers crash their planes into the world trade centre without preventing them? Isn't he supposed to be omnipresent? The the thing i found really funny was after the incident Bush had the audacity to go on live Telivision and say 'God is on our side' He meant the same God that allowed the terrorist to succeed!

KunleOshob:

Ooparts: scientific and archaelogical evidence of God and the super natural http://www.s8int.com/ http://www.s8int.com/dna1.html

ha what a bunch of BS.

KunleOshob:

Ooparts: scientific and archaelogical evidence of God and the super natural http://www.s8int.com/ http://www.s8int.com/dna1.html

manmustwac:

You really think that if i click on the link it will show me unequivocal evidence that God of the Bible exists? Lol. Please tell me why your God decided to allow the hijackers crash their planes into the world trade centre without preventing them? Isn't he supposed to be omnipresent? The the thing i found really funny was after the incident Bush had the audacity to go on live Telivision and say 'God is on our side' He meant the same God that allowed the terrorist to succeed!

bawomolo:

ha what a bunch of BS.

mazaje:

The least you can all do is to browse throught the sites to see if what is written there makes any sense, but it seems you guys have your minds made up, i know the concept of God in the bible/quoran and most religions might not be entirely accurate becos of the human factor of exagerating or adulterating or mis -information but that does not discount the existence of God, first of all i think you guys should forget what religions tell you about God it would do you a lot of good to first of all realize God exists becos of the numerous evidence of a creator. You can then choose not to worhip him for what evr reason but to say God does not exist cos most religions have their faults is to me fool hardy

KunleOshob:

Ooparts: scientific and archaelogical evidence of God and the super natural http://www.s8int.com/ http://www.s8int.com/dna1.html

Thank you for that. God bless you many times today. . . and always.