A Creation Story for Materialists

[manu1959]

OK, I have never said magic apples or fairy tales. If you disagree provide the link.

Mythology I have mentioned because all the major and most of the minor religions feature it. Would you care to disprove that? You can't, so just silence yourself.

liar

 

[Max Power]

Even if we were able to determine that there have been a number of cycles of Big Bangs and Big Crunches (which goes against the scientific evidence I have read, BTW), that still does not explain the origin of matter.

That question is more rooted in philosophy than science.
Science is more about the observable, the measurable.

But to attempt to answer your question, there are many possibilities. First of all, you need not think so linearly. Perhaps there both was matter and was not, and of course (anthropic principle) we can only observe a universe with matter. Perhaps there always was matter, and something existed prior to the big bang. Time need not be linear, perhaps it is the same matter that exists right now.
This is all conjecture of course.

 

[Nuc]

liar

Sorry manu, If you can show me a link where I say either "magic apples" or "fairy tales" I'll eat my words.

Or if you're complaining about mythology, please tell me of a religion that doesn't use it to tell stories and teach simple lessons. I'm curious.

:read: :read: :read: :read: :read: :read: :read: :read: :read:

 

[dilloduck]

Depends on how you define "origin". Physicists create matter out of energy all the time in the lab.

If you assertion is that all matter is converted energy then where did all this energy originate? and when are you gonna figure out that this line of thinking will always come up empty of a final answer ?

 

[Max Power]

If you assertion is that all matter is converted energy then where did all this energy originate? and when are you gonna figure out that this line of thinking will always come up empty of a final answer ?

Why does it have to originate?

 

[dilloduck]

Why does it have to originate?

good question--religion says god did it
science is still looking
time is a tough dimension to comprehend

Maybe we are really going backwards from where everything was to where everything isn't.
BTW----where do thoughts come from?

 

[Max Power]

good question--religion says god did it
science is still looking
time is a tough dimension to comprehend

Is religion really "ahead" of science though?

I mean, if you require an origin of the Universe, then why not require an origin for God?

And if you really think about it, from a religious perspective, then what was God doing before creating the universe? Twiddling his thumbs? I mean... I doubt that he sat there for an eternity doing *nothing* before deciding to create a universe.

 

[dilloduck]

Is religion really "ahead" of science though?

I mean, if you require an origin of the Universe, then why not require an origin for God?

And if you really think about it, from a religious perspective, then what was God doing before creating the universe? Twiddling his thumbs? I mean... I doubt that he sat there for an eternity doing *nothing* before deciding to create a universe.

I never said anyone was closer than the other---religions have simply accepted an answer
Science refuses that notion and need solid evidence---they just don't have any.

 

[5stringJeff]

That question is more rooted in philosophy than science.
Science is more about the observable, the measurable.

But to attempt to answer your question, there are many possibilities. First of all, you need not think so linearly. Perhaps there both was matter and was not, and of course (anthropic principle) we can only observe a universe with matter. Perhaps there always was matter, and something existed prior to the big bang. Time need not be linear, perhaps it is the same matter that exists right now.
This is all conjecture of course.

I would agree that time must not always be linear. However, for physical matter in the known universe, it is linear.

Also, there could not have the condition where there both was matter and was not matter. The Law of Non-Contradiction says that you cannot have both 'A' and 'not A' at the same time.

The question (where did matter come from?) still remains for science to answer. However, I have a feeling that there is no "natural" answer for the question; therefore, scienctists will be unwilling to accept it.

 

[5stringJeff]

Stick with science. It, at least, is supported by independently verifiable and repeatable experimental evidence to support its hypotheses and theories. Religious experience is neither independently nor repeatably verifiable.

While scientific facts are generally independently verifiable and/or repeatable, not all truth statements must be. For example, it is true that I have been wearing a Shiner Bock beer t-shirt all day. However, no one can verify that, because nobody saw me put it on, and it is unrepeatable, because I cannot me made to relive today and put the shirt back on. Nevertheless, the truth remains. Therefore, a truth statement does not need to pass a scientific test.

 

[Max Power]

I would agree that time must not always be linear. However, for physical matter in the known universe, it is linear.

Einstein would disagree.
And experiments have backed up his theory.

Also, there could not have the condition where there both was matter and was not matter. The Law of Non-Contradiction says that you cannot have both 'A' and 'not A' at the same time.

Ahh, I see you are not familiar with quantum physics. Needless to say, you are incorrect.
See Schrodinger's cat.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schrodinger's_cat
Can a cat be both dead and alive at the same time? Perhaps.

 

[Annie]

Einstein would disagree.
And experiments have backed up his theory.


Ahh, I see you are not familiar with quantum physics. Needless to say, you are incorrect.
See Schrodinger's cat.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schrodinger's_cat
Can a cat be both dead and alive at the same time? Perhaps.

WhY?

 

[Max Power]

WhY?

Well, a particle can be trapped in a quantum superposition between two states, and the particle does not "choose" to occupy one of the states until an observation is made.
You might say "Well, it was in that state all along," but it isn't.

For example, if you shoot a photon through two-slits, your intuition tells you that it must travel through one of the slits, but it doesn't. It travels through both. And its location on a screen after the slits demonstrates this.

The details on how this applies to the macroscopic world are debatable and confusing.
The Schrodinger's Cat debate was that if a particle, in a superposition between two states, would kill a cat in one of the two states. Until an observation is made, the particle is said to occupy both states, so does this mean that the cat is both alive and dead at the same time?

 

[Annie]

Well, a particle can be trapped in a quantum superposition between two states, and the particle does not "choose" to occupy one of the states until an observation is made.
You might say "Well, it was in that state all along," but it isn't.

For example, if you shoot a photon through two-slits, your intuition tells you that it must travel through one of the slits, but it doesn't. It travels through both. And its location on a screen after the slits demonstrates this.

The details on how this applies to the macroscopic world are debatable and confusing.
The Schrodinger's Cat debate was that if a particle, in a superposition between two states, would kill a cat in one of the two states. Until an observation is made, the particle is said to occupy both states, so does this mean that the cat is both alive and dead at the same time?

what if the supposition is incorrect?

 

[Max Power]

what if the supposition is incorrect?

It has been demonstrated numerous times.

 

[Annie]

It has been demonstrated numerous times.

What?? That it's incorrect????

 

[Max Power]

What?? That it's incorrect????

That the supposition it is correct.

 

[Annie]

That the supposition it is correct.

Which?
The supposition is correct or incorrect?

 

[Max Power]

Which?
The supposition is correct or incorrect?

Sigh...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment#The_thought_experiment

Young's experiment can, in theory, be performed one photon at a time -- with identical results.

If either slit is covered, the individual photons hitting the screen, over time, create a pattern with a single peak -- much as if gunshot were being poorly aimed at a target.

But if boths slits are left open, the pattern of photons hitting the screen, over time, again becomes a series of light and dark fringes.

This result seems to both confirm and contradict the wave theory. On the one hand, the interference pattern confirms that light still behaves much like a wave, even though we send it one particle at a time.

On the other hand, each time a photon with a certain energy is emitted, the screen detects a photon with the same energy. Since the photons are emitted one at a time, the photons are not interfering with each other -- so exactly what is the nature of the "interference"?

Modern quantum theory resolves these questions by postulating probability waves which describe the likelihood of finding the particle at a given location -- these waves interfere with each other just like ordinary waves do.

So, you see, the particle must travel through BOTH slits at the same time. It exists in two states at once. This has been experimentally verified.

Here is a picture

 

[Annie]

Sigh...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment#The_thought_experiment



So, you see, the particle must travel through BOTH slits at the same time. It exists in two states at once. This has been experimentally verified.

Here is a picture

No, I don't see "why" they "must."