You are indirectly connected to every human that lived

[ding]

We aren't talking about pair production ...

Yes, we are ... my claim is that because of pair production ... there is missing antimatter in the universe ...

I admire George Wald ... the man was gifted in taking complex subjects and explaining them simply ... and I'm sure the piece he wrote that you're relying on was true and correct at the time of the writing ...

50 years ago ...

We've learned a lot about the universe since then ... including that the early universe was opaque ... something George Wald (and you) didn't take into consideration ... sure, later in the history of the universe, when it becomes transparent, we find more matter than antimatter ... my question is why? ... and the answer must come from the time before the universe was transparent, before CMB could travel freely through the universe ...

We can recreate these early conditions in the lab ... and in every experiment, we produce particles in pairs ... electrons and positrons ... protons and antiprotons ... neutron and antineutrons ... always ... one in two billion is fine until we do this 10 trillion times and always always always we produce particles in pairs ...

A short article ... give you an idea of the state-of-the-science in this "matter" ...

"Physicists Zoom in on Mysterious 'Missing' Antimatter" -- Phys.org -- Apr 4th, 2018

No. There are only pairs if you start with existing energy and break it apart. This energy was created from nothing and has no such symmetry requirement because it was created from nothing in sub atomic form (i.e. anti-matter particles and matter particles).

 

[ding]

We aren't talking about pair production ...

Yes, we are ... my claim is that because of pair production ... there is missing antimatter in the universe ...

I admire George Wald ... the man was gifted in taking complex subjects and explaining them simply ... and I'm sure the piece he wrote that you're relying on was true and correct at the time of the writing ...

50 years ago ...

We've learned a lot about the universe since then ... including that the early universe was opaque ... something George Wald (and you) didn't take into consideration ... sure, later in the history of the universe, when it becomes transparent, we find more matter than antimatter ... my question is why? ... and the answer must come from the time before the universe was transparent, before CMB could travel freely through the universe ...

We can recreate these early conditions in the lab ... and in every experiment, we produce particles in pairs ... electrons and positrons ... protons and antiprotons ... neutron and antineutrons ... always ... one in two billion is fine until we do this 10 trillion times and always always always we produce particles in pairs ...

A short article ... give you an idea of the state-of-the-science in this "matter" ...

"Physicists Zoom in on Mysterious 'Missing' Antimatter" -- Phys.org -- Apr 4th, 2018

You should start with rules rather than exceptions. I can't think of a worse thing to do than to start with what you don't think it is. So if we start from the rule, what is the generally accepted belief on the universe being created with nearly equal amounts of matter and anti-matter. It would at least be nice if you acknowledged that what I am stating is the generally accepted belief because of the CMB.

Or you could just practice some more critical theory. Your call.

 

[ReinyDays]

No. There are only pairs if you start with existing energy and break it apart. This energy was created from nothing and has no such symmetry requirement because it was created from nothing in sub atomic form (i.e. anti-matter particles and matter particles).

Whoa Nelly ... "This energy was created from nothing" ... okay Boomer ... I have no answer to that ...

"Physicists Zoom in on Mysterious 'Missing' Antimatter" -- Phys.org -- Apr 4th, 2018

You should start with rules rather than exceptions. I can't think of a worse thing to do than to start with what you don't think it is. So if we start from the rule, what is the generally accepted belief on the universe being created with nearly equal amounts of matter and anti-matter. It would at least be nice if you acknowledged that what I am stating is the generally accepted belief because of the CMB.

Or you could just practice some more critical theory. Your call.

"Generally accepted belief" from 50 years ago ... now compare to what is "generally accepted belief" from 2 years ago ... see the difference? ...

I'm guessing not ... the rule is pair production, there seems to be no exceptions ... you want to be creating energy and matter willy-nilly ... and I do believe that violates some conservation laws ...

When t = 0 ... we have a singularity ... of which I am not qualified to characterize ...
When t = dt (in the first instant) ... we have an infinitely small universe ... a volume of dV (infinitely small) ... all particles known to humans occupy a definite volume, which by definition is much much larger than the universe at dV ... generally accept belief today (not 50 years ago) is that this universe is all energy ... and hot ... very hot ...

Time had to elapse before the universe cooled enough for matter to condense ... read the article again, with the Wikipedia article in mind ... this is how we look at the universe today ...

Or you could just practice some more critical theory. Your call.

Einstein said mass/energy is conserved ... I choose to believe him ... it's a voluntary thing ...

 

[esalla]

No. There are only pairs if you start with existing energy and break it apart. This energy was created from nothing and has no such symmetry requirement because it was created from nothing in sub atomic form (i.e. anti-matter particles and matter particles).

Whoa Nelly ... "This energy was created from nothing" ... okay Boomer ... I have no answer to that ...

"Physicists Zoom in on Mysterious 'Missing' Antimatter" -- Phys.org -- Apr 4th, 2018

You should start with rules rather than exceptions. I can't think of a worse thing to do than to start with what you don't think it is. So if we start from the rule, what is the generally accepted belief on the universe being created with nearly equal amounts of matter and anti-matter. It would at least be nice if you acknowledged that what I am stating is the generally accepted belief because of the CMB.

Or you could just practice some more critical theory. Your call.

"Generally accepted belief" from 50 years ago ... now compare to what is "generally accepted belief" from 2 years ago ... see the difference? ...

I'm guessing not ... the rule is pair production, there seems to be no exceptions ... you want to be creating energy and matter willy-nilly ... and I do believe that violates some conservation laws ...

When t = 0 ... we have a singularity ... of which I am not qualified to characterize ...
When t = dt (in the first instant) ... we have an infinitely small universe ... a volume of dV (infinitely small) ... all particles known to humans occupy a definite volume, which by definition is much much larger than the universe at dV ... generally accept belief today (not 50 years ago) is that this universe is all energy ... and hot ... very hot ...

Time had to elapse before the universe cooled enough for matter to condense ... read the article again, with the Wikipedia article in mind ... this is how we look at the universe today ...

Or you could just practice some more critical theory. Your call.

Einstein said mass/energy is conserved ... I choose to believe him ... it's a voluntary thing ...

Generally accepted theory.

Only until the next generally accepted theory

Apple is still splitting genius

Fact

 

[ReinyDays]

Generally accepted theory.
Only until the next generally accepted theory

Why this LIGO Experiment has theoretical physicists and cosmologist drooling ... there's no information from the early universe in electromagnetic radiation ... the hope is that gravity waves will allow us to explore this early universe without light ...

The scale up will have to be orbital ... to big to fit on Earth alone ...

 

[esalla]

Generally accepted theory.
Only until the next generally accepted theory

Why this LIGO Experiment has theoretical physicists and cosmologist drooling ... there's no information from the early universe in electromagnetic radiation ... the hope is that gravity waves will allow us to explore this early universe without light ...

The scale up will have to be orbital ... to big to fit on Earth alone ...

Where was the big bang? I mean if there was such an explosion and all the mass of the universe is in motion because of it then all the trajectories of the mass in motion could be traced back to the zero point.

So where did the big bang happen?

Ill wait

 

[ReinyDays]

Where was the big bang? I mean if there was such an explosion and all the mass of the universe is in motion because of it then all the trajectories of the mass in motion could be traced back to the zero point.

So where did the big bang happen?

Ill wait

Where? ... 13.8 billion years ago ... we need only look 13.8 billion light years away to see it ... something we're working on ...

That's not an intuitive answer ... so if I might paraphrase someone else ... let's drop this down a dimension ... where is the center of the surface of a sphere? ... well, there is none, the sphere has a center, but it's not located on it's surface ... back up a dimension, you're asking where in 3-space is the center, it doesn't exist in this 3-space, it's in 4-space, 13.8 billion years ago ... I know, tricky ... but the math works out ...

 

[esalla]

Where was the big bang? I mean if there was such an explosion and all the mass of the universe is in motion because of it then all the trajectories of the mass in motion could be traced back to the zero point.

So where did the big bang happen?

Ill wait

Where? ... 13.8 billion years ago ... we need only look 13.8 billion light years away to see it ... something we're working on ...

That's not an intuitive answer ... so if I might paraphrase someone else ... let's drop this down a dimension ... where is the center of the surface of a sphere? ... well, there is none, the sphere has a center, but it's not located on it's surface ... back up a dimension, you're asking where in 3-space is the center, it doesn't exist in this 3-space, it's in 4-space, 13.8 billion years ago ... I know, tricky ... but the math works out ...

Actually the zero point would be at the center of an empty sphere in space so to speak so your brain is in the right frame. However the sphere does not exist so the big bang theory goes poofy.

Now the clowns are claiming that God is really a computer programmer and that the universe, including us are all simulations................................

So much for the big poof

 

[jackflash]

From Jesus to Caesar to Washington to Newton to Napoleon
Every time you drink water - you’re drinking molecules that passes through their kidneys

Every time you breath air - you’re breathing in molecules that passed through their lungs

Let’s drink and breath in Jesus

A long ways back I read a link that stated ALL human DNA is traceable back to ONE woman, it did not say anything about one man though. My major was Sociology not biology/genetics so unfortunately I am not the best one to consult regarding the hard sciences. I DO hear you loud & clear about Yahshua tho!!!

 

[BothWings]

From Jesus to Caesar to Washington to Newton to Napoleon
Every time you drink water - you’re drinking molecules that passes through their kidneys

Every time you breath air - you’re breathing in molecules that passed through their lungs

Let’s drink and breath in Jesus

Weird people are weird

Now can you tell us what the molecules are in outer space

I assume mostly Hydrogen. One day those H atoms can be collected to be used as plasma fuel .
Also a lot of Helium and trace amounts of others

But...but...but!....if all these atoms once were human beings and someday could be again....how can we burn hydrogen without KILLING BABIES???

 

[ReinyDays]

... However the sphere does not exist ...

I take it you're not from Earth ...

 

[esalla]

... However the sphere does not exist ...

I take it you're not from Earth ...

Sorry that is not an answer, however I do not expect an answer from a dork on the internet when no professor can offer one.

But by all means do try again

 

[esalla]

From Jesus to Caesar to Washington to Newton to Napoleon
Every time you drink water - you’re drinking molecules that passes through their kidneys

Every time you breath air - you’re breathing in molecules that passed through their lungs

Let’s drink and breath in Jesus

A long ways back I read a link that stated ALL human DNA is traceable back to ONE woman, it did not say anything about one man though. My major was Sociology not biology/genetics so unfortunately I am not the best one to consult regarding the hard sciences. I DO hear you loud & clear about Yahshua tho!!!

Funny huh, even one woman and one man are impossible unless they were built

 

[ding]

No. There are only pairs if you start with existing energy and break it apart. This energy was created from nothing and has no such symmetry requirement because it was created from nothing in sub atomic form (i.e. anti-matter particles and matter particles).

Whoa Nelly ... "This energy was created from nothing" ... okay Boomer ... I have no answer to that ...

"Physicists Zoom in on Mysterious 'Missing' Antimatter" -- Phys.org -- Apr 4th, 2018

You should start with rules rather than exceptions. I can't think of a worse thing to do than to start with what you don't think it is. So if we start from the rule, what is the generally accepted belief on the universe being created with nearly equal amounts of matter and anti-matter. It would at least be nice if you acknowledged that what I am stating is the generally accepted belief because of the CMB.

Or you could just practice some more critical theory. Your call.

"Generally accepted belief" from 50 years ago ... now compare to what is "generally accepted belief" from 2 years ago ... see the difference? ...

I'm guessing not ... the rule is pair production, there seems to be no exceptions ... you want to be creating energy and matter willy-nilly ... and I do believe that violates some conservation laws ...

When t = 0 ... we have a singularity ... of which I am not qualified to characterize ...
When t = dt (in the first instant) ... we have an infinitely small universe ... a volume of dV (infinitely small) ... all particles known to humans occupy a definite volume, which by definition is much much larger than the universe at dV ... generally accept belief today (not 50 years ago) is that this universe is all energy ... and hot ... very hot ...

Time had to elapse before the universe cooled enough for matter to condense ... read the article again, with the Wikipedia article in mind ... this is how we look at the universe today ...

Or you could just practice some more critical theory. Your call.

Einstein said mass/energy is conserved ... I choose to believe him ... it's a voluntary thing ...

100% the universe was created from nothing. Apparently you aren't very up to date on your science.

Inflation Theory, the First Law of Thermodynamics and quantum mechanics tells us that it is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.

You still haven't provided an explanation for how the CMB came into existence, Boomer.

 

[ding]

The simplest answer is that there is no anti-matter left because the universe did not start with equal amounts. Problem solved.

No need to invent ridiculous assertions that anti-matter particles don't decay the same way. That just creates a different symmetry problem.

And the most ridiculous explanation of all is that there is a big glob of anti-matter out there. That's stupid.

KISS

 

[ReinyDays]

100% the universe was created from nothing. Apparently you aren't very up to date on your science.

Inflation Theory, the First Law of Thermodynamics and quantum mechanics tells us that it is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.

You still haven't provided an explanation for how the CMB came into existence, Boomer.

A singularity is something ... but please please please please ... show me the QM math that describes gravity ... with citations ...

I did explain CMB ... it's the radiation that existed when the universe became transparent and thus could be propagated ...

 

[esalla]

100% the universe was created from nothing. Apparently you aren't very up to date on your science.

Inflation Theory, the First Law of Thermodynamics and quantum mechanics tells us that it is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.

You still haven't provided an explanation for how the CMB came into existence, Boomer.

A singularity is something ... but please please please please ... show me the QM math that describes gravity ... with citations ...

I did explain CMB ... it's the radiation that existed when the universe became transparent and thus could be propagated ...

Now explain what medications you take daily

 

[ding]

100% the universe was created from nothing. Apparently you aren't very up to date on your science.

Inflation Theory, the First Law of Thermodynamics and quantum mechanics tells us that it is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.

You still haven't provided an explanation for how the CMB came into existence, Boomer.

A singularity is something ... but please please please please ... show me the QM math that describes gravity ... with citations ...

I did explain CMB ... it's the radiation that existed when the universe became transparent and thus could be propagated ...

At this point I'm not even sure you know what a singularity is. Most people think it means something it's not.

No, you didn't explain how the CMB could come about if not from mutual annihilation. You did a lot of arm waving but you really didn't provide any details.

How about I provide the author of the equations and he can tell you for yourself how a universe from nothing can come about. Then you can go look up the papers yourself. Fair enough?

 

[norwegen]

From Jesus to Caesar to Washington to Newton to Napoleon
Every time you drink water - you’re drinking molecules that passes through their kidneys

Every time you breath air - you’re breathing in molecules that passed through their lungs

Let’s drink and breath in Jesus

If I'm connected to Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton, it wasn't my plan.

 

[ding]

100% the universe was created from nothing. Apparently you aren't very up to date on your science.

Inflation Theory, the First Law of Thermodynamics and quantum mechanics tells us that it is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.

You still haven't provided an explanation for how the CMB came into existence, Boomer.

A singularity is something ... but please please please please ... show me the QM math that describes gravity ... with citations ...

I did explain CMB ... it's the radiation that existed when the universe became transparent and thus could be propagated ...

I'm curious about something. If you think the universe was created from existing matter, where did that matter come from? And how long did it exist before that? Because as time approaches infinity all objects will reach thermal equilibrium. So the only way a universe that is not in thermal equilibrium is to be created is spontaneously from nothing. You can't get around it.