You may ask "Which Universe Am I In?"

[westwall]

The latest science says that our big bang is one of many.
Christianity now needs to revise it's beliefs.

the universe before the big bang - Search Videos

www.bing.com

The latest science says no such thing.

 

[westwall]

Short answer:
If the charges, sizes and distances of the subatomic particles were even slightly different the universe could have been created in exactly the same way but would be devoid of life.

Long answer:
"There is good reason to believe that we are in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. How many such places are there? Arthur Eddington, the great British physicist, gave us a formula: one hundred billion stars make a galaxy, and one hundred billion galaxies make a universe. The lowest estimate I have ever seen of the fraction of them that might possess a planet that could support life is one percent. That means one billion such places in our home galaxy, the Milky Way; and with about one billion such galaxies within reach of our telescopes, the already observed universe should contain at least one billion billion -- 10^18 -- places that can support life.

So we can take this to be a universe that breeds life; and yet, were any one of a considerable number of physical properties of our universe other than it is -- some of those properties basic, others seeming trivial, almost accidental -- that life, that now appears to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere....

...I should like now to raise two problems to do with protons and electrons, one involving their masses, the other their electric charge.

Every atom has a nucleus composed of protons and neutrons, except the smallest one, hydrogen, which has only one proton as its nucleus. Electrons orbit these nuclei at distances relatively greater than separate our sun from its planets. Both protons and neutrons have masses almost two thousand times the mass of an electron -- 1840 times when I last looked -- so virtually the whole mass of an atom is in its nucleus. Hence the atom is hardly disturbed at all by the motions of its electrons, and an atom can hold its position in a molecule, and molecules their positions in larger structures. Only that circumstance permits molecules to hold their shapes, and solids to exist.

If on the contrary the protons and neutrons were closer in mass to the electrons, whether light or heavy, then the motions of the electrons would be reflected in reciprocal motions by the others. All structures composed of such atoms would be fluid; in such a universe nothing would stay put. There could not be the fitting together of molecular shapes that permits not only crystals to form, but living organisms.

And now, electric charge: How does it come about that elementary particles so altogether different otherwise as the proton and electron possess the same numerical charge? How is it that the proton is exactly as plus-charged as the electron is minus-charged?

It may help to accept this as a legitimate scientific question to know that in 1959 two of our most distinguished astrophysicists, Lyttleton and Bondi, proposed that in fact the proton and electron differ in charge by the almost infinitesimal amount, 2 x 10 -18e -- two billion billionths e, in which e is the already tiny charge on either the proton or electron. The reason they made that proposal is that, given that nearly infinitesimal difference in charge, all the matter in the universe would be charged, and in the same sense, plus or minus. Since like charges repel one another, all the matter in the universe would repel all the other matter, and so the universe would expand, just as it is believed to do. The trouble with that idea is that yes, the universe would expand, but -- short of extraordinary special dispensations - it would not do anything else. Even so small a difference in electric charge would be enough to overwhelm the forces of gravitation that bring matter together; and so we should have no planets, no stars, no galaxies -- and, worst of all, no physicists.

No need to worry, however. Shortly after Lyttleton and Bondi’s proposal, John King and his group at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology began to test experimentally whether the proton and electron differ in charge, and found that the charges appear to be wholly identical. That is an extraordinary fact, and not made easier to understand by the present belief that, though the electron is a single, apparently indivisible particle, the proton is made up of three quarks, to of them with charges of +2/3 e, and one with a charge of -1/3 e.

To summarize, if the proton and neutron did not have enormously greater mass than the electron, all matter would be fluid; and if the proton and electron did not possess exactly the same electric charge, no matter would aggregate. These are primary conditions for the existence of life in the universe..."

George Wald: Life and Mind in the Universe

elijahwald.com

That is certainly for life as WE know it. But that doesn't preclude life in other forms.

 

[Donald H]

As near as I can tell, the universe is an alternate reality that exists in the mind of God. That everything is made up of mind stuff. That the constant presence of mind created a universe that evolves like a living organism such that given enough time and the right conditions, beings that know and create arise.

Ding's way of saying that 'symbolic' and 'literally true' mean the same thing!

This is his logic that needs to be accepted as a satisfactory explanation before the entire Christian house of cards collapses.

I agree!

 

[ding]

That is certainly for life as WE know it. But that doesn't preclude life in other forms.

Wald talked about that too. It's very unlikely life will be much different than it is here.

"...Of the 92 natural elements, ninety-nine percent of the living matter we know is composed of just four: hydrogen (H), oxygen (O), nitrogen (N), and carbon (C). That is bound to be true wherever life exists in the universe, for only those four elements possess the unique properties upon which life depends..."

 

[ding]

Ding's way of saying that 'symbolic' and 'literally true' mean the same thing! This is his logic that needs to be accepted as a satisfactory explanation before the entire Christian house of cards collapses. I agree!

You're looking pretty desperate, bro.

 

[ding]

The latest science says no such thing.

He's an imbecile. Most trolls are.

 

[westwall]

Wald talked about that too. It's very unlikely life will be much different than it is here.

That is his opinion. My opinion is otherwise. There's no reason that you can't have life forms based on other compounds, and physical structures.

We have evidence of that with tube worms, instead of being based on photosynthesis, as every other lifeforms on Earth seems to be, they use chemosynthesis. They ARE aliens on this planet.

 

[ding]

The latest science says that our big bang is one of many.
Christianity now needs to revise it's beliefs.

the universe before the big bang - Search Videos

www.bing.com

And each and every one (if there are indeed others) had a beginning just like ours. So you just contradicted your previous post, dummy.

 

[ReinyDays]

I do understand what this website is saying. Paired particle production is literally the mechanism for the creation of matter and radiation in the universe.

As the matter and anti-matter annihilate each other, radiation is released which produces more paired particles which produce more radiation and so on and so on. For every remaining matter particle in the universe there is the equivalent radiation from the annihilation of 1 billion matter particles and 1 billion antimatter particles. The question isn't where did they come from? The question is why were there 1 billion and 1 matter particles for every 1 billion antimatter particles if they were truly produced in pairs.

But to answer your question, the best answer is that they only existed in a state of probability; neither existing or not eixisting.

Feel free to tell me your belief.

My cite says energy is consumed during pair production ... and this energy is return during annihilation ...

"Pair production is the creation of a subatomic particle and its antiparticle from a neutral boson" ...

What's a "neutral boson" ... well ... photons come to mind ... so called "energy carriers" ... your magical pixie dust radiation isn't ... or show me a citation that confirms your belief, because the University of Oregon page doesn't ...

Pair production creates radiation? ... that's funny ... it consumes radiation ...

 

[ReinyDays]

The latest science says that our big bang is one of many.
Christianity now needs to revise it's beliefs.

the universe before the big bang - Search Videos

www.bing.com

We used to have the oscillating universe theory ... assuming gravity will eventually slow the expansion of the universe and suck it all back together ... almost to a singularity, but then rebounding in another Big Bang episode ... which solves the quantum problems ...

It's generally dismissed these days ... the expansion is still accelerating which isn't supposed to be happening ... quantum problems remain ... I blame the Bush XLI Administration ...

 

[ding]

My cite says energy is consumed during pair production ... and this energy is return during annihilation ...

"Pair production is the creation of a subatomic particle and its antiparticle from a neutral boson" ...

What's a "neutral boson" ... well ... photons come to mind ... so called "energy carriers" ... your magical pixie dust radiation isn't ... or show me a citation that confirms your belief, because the University of Oregon page doesn't ...

Pair production creates radiation? ... that's funny ... it consumes radiation ...

So you aren't aware that there were not equal amounts of matter and anti-matter being produced from paired particle production during the creation of the universe? Did you miss that part of my post?

 

[ding]

Pair production creates radiation? ... that's funny ... it consumes radiation ...

Try reading what I wrote. Focus on the words "As the matter and anti-matter annihilate each other, radiation is released which produces more paired particles which produce more radiation and so on and so on.

It's because you don't understand this process that you are being an idiot. That and it seems to be your nature.

 

[ReinyDays]

Try reading what I wrote. Focus on the words "As the matter and anti-matter annihilate each other, radiation is released which produces more paired particles which produce more radiation and so on and so on.

It's because you don't understand this process that you are being an idiot. That and it seems to be your nature.

That violates Einstein's Conservation of Mass/Energy Law ...

Mass–energy equivalence - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"Runaway Universe Effect" ... too funny ...

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Here's one thing we do know... the universe was created according to the laws of conservation and quantum mechanics.

We do not "know" that at all. It's a contradictory statement, paradoxical so must be false. The "universe" refers to all that exists which obviously includes the laws you mentioned.

The same laws that prescribe how the universe operates which means that the laws were in place before space and time itself.

Can the presence of those laws be explained scientifically? of course not, therefore this line of attack to "explain" the presence of the universe isn't an explanation at all. Explaining the state of the universe in terms of already existing phenomena is fine, but explaining in terms of nothing, before there were any phenomena, that's the problem we face, the problem I'm trying to get across to some here in this forum.

Nothing before the big bang is answerable through the scientific method. That is the realm of logic and philosophy.

Yes, in the sense we cannot falsify any hypotheses, but more problematic is the fact that we cannot even construct a hypothesis.

There is no possibility of devising a scientific explanation for anything unless we assume things first and the assumed things remain unexplained.

The only escape from this is to postulate a non-scientific explanation, only then can we continue in our quest to understand.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

There's no assuming the laws of nature exist. Paired particles popping into and out of existence is an empirical observation whose photon's energy conversion into mass is predicted by Einstein's E=mc² special relativity equation.

what is the evidence of paired particle production?

Material phenomena (like "pair production") are governed by laws, or do you disagree with me on this point?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

As near as I can tell, the universe is an alternate reality that exists in the mind of God. That everything is made up of mind stuff. That the constant presence of mind created a universe that evolves like a living organism such that given enough time and the right conditions, beings that know and create arise.

Well we might be closer to agreement than I thought.

To my mind the material universe with it's laws and intelligibility cannot be attributed to matter and laws. Something quite different to matter and laws and determinism must be the cause of matter and laws existing.

The only phenomenon I know of personally that seems to not be governed by determinism and laws, is my will, my innate free will.

Will is uncaused, it can cause but is itself uncaused, it is an innate "thing" I have (and since I'm not a solipsist I assume others too).

But I can't create universes or laws, so I must hypothesize that an altogether more capable will created the universe. It did not create it because it had to, it chose to, it willed the universe to exist and it came to exist.

This is the most intellectually satisfying explanation, it is not a naturalistic explanation though, it is super-naturalistic or simply "supernatural".

 

[ding]

That violates Einstein's Conservation of Mass/Energy Law ...

Mass–energy equivalence - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"Runaway Universe Effect" ... too funny ...

What's funny is you don't understand how the universe was created.

 

[ding]

We do not "know" that at all. It's a contradictory statement, paradoxical so must be false. The "universe" refers to all that exists which obviously includes the laws you mentioned.

Can the presence of those laws be explained scientifically? of course not, therefore this line of attack to "explain" the presence of the universe isn't an explanation at all. Explaining the state of the universe in terms of already existing phenomena is fine, but explaining in terms of nothing, before there were any phenomena, that's the problem we face, the problem I'm trying to get across to some here in this forum.

Yes, in the sense we cannot falsify any hypotheses, but more problematic is the fact that we cannot even construct a hypothesis.

There is no possibility of devising a scientific explanation for anything unless we assume things first and the assumed things remain unexplained.

The only escape from this is to postulate a non-scientific explanation, only then can we continue in our quest to understand.

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.

 

[ding]

Material phenomena (like "pair production") are governed by laws, or do you disagree with me on this point?

Governed by quantum mechanics that obey the laws of conservation and are based upon probabilities.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

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.

Any medium in which something "can happen" by definition - exists - it is something with material properties that exists, to what can we attribute it's existence?

So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing.

That is only true IF the "laws of quantum mechanics" exist already. I've got no issue with using laws to explain the behavior of the universe, no problem that's what physics is all about. What I am seeking if the reason those laws exist.

One cannot describe a system that has behavioral properties as "nothing", nothing has no properties, no laws. This is the kind of silly trickery peddled by the likes of Krauss and Hawking.

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.

Right, if we assume laws exist already then of course we can devise theories, but to what do we attribute the existence of any laws?