Big Bang...How Did it Happen?

What? And you've had small "Big Bangs" (would that make it a little bang?) going off in your garage recently?{ENOUGH OF THE FLASHBACK - LET'S TRY TO HAVE A SERIOUS TOPIC NOW - Adminnemooseus (minnemooseus with maxi admin powers)}[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 03-13-2004]

*deleted text*[This message has been edited by Navy10E, 03-13-2004]

No more than I've seen any other atoms - anti-matter only exists on Earth as one atom at a time, when researchers make it. Both very good questions to which I don't have the answers.

That's bad for some reason? It's surprising to you to find out that the physical world is so complicated that it takes a lifetime of study to even begin to construct models about it? Well, I could muddle through, but why would you want to settle for my half-assed explanations when so many Ph.D'd scientists are itching to explain it to you? Why cheat yourself? Funny, I don't see it that way.The way I see it, what I'm doing and what you're doing are drastically different. What I'm doing is putting my trust in a methodology for the aquisition of knowledge - the scientific methodology - with proven results. And what you're doing is putting your faith in something that nobody anywhere has ever credibly seen do anything - God.It's trust vs. faith. Looks like a big difference to me. Ok. That's fine. Then take a position, and try to support it with evidence. The rest of us have no idea what you want to talk about, or where your expertise or interests lie, so it's up to you to set the topic of any debates you want to start.Here's an idea for you, though. You said you were a creationist but so far you've only participated in cosmology topics. I presume you oppose the Theory of Evolution so why don't you start a topic about that? Why don't you hit us with the evidence that evoution is false? (Remember cosmology and evolution have nothing to do with each other - evolution is a biological theory.)Anyway, take your time. I don't expect you to answer my every post, or even any of them, if you don't want. A lot of us have jumped into your threads simply because you're the first live wire to show up in a good long time. If you need to take your time you're more than welcome to do so.I look forward to some good discussions. You're obviously a person of intelligence.

You have the empty space, that will be soon filled with the universe, just sitting there. Then, nothing is split into matter and anti-matter. Things just don't happen on by themselves. Cause and effect should still apply, right?
Also, does anti-matter have anti-gavity?

Thank you for your kind words.
There are Docterates in Theology just as there are Doctorates in the Scientific fields. They can both create better explainations in thier respective fields then you or I. However, that does not mean I trust, or put faith into (I see the two concepts as two sides of the same coin) what they are saying, blindly. Now, we who are not stupid, but neither are we brilliant, can discuss what we know. If you asked me a theological question, I wouldn't say "Read the Bible, figure it out for yourself." I would say, here's how I understand it, "blah blah blah".
Faith isn't a dirty word. We put faith into chairs everytime we sit in them. When I go onboard a ship and we are underway, I put faith into the integrety of that vessel. I mean, it better keep me out of the freakin' ocean! You have faith that the sheer brilliance of those who have developed and outlined the Theories of the Big Bang and Evolution won't lead you wrong.
The flip side of faith is this, whatever you have faith in, has power over you. If that ship had a mind of it's own, and decided to take a tour to the Continental Shelf, it would have the power and there isn't anything I could do to stop it. I'm not sure if you are a free thinker, or a follower, or a mixture of both. I know you are not stupid, so I know this is Cliche', but think for yourself. Evaluate everything. Just because people who are smarter then us think something, doesn't mean we need to think the same thing. Signing out...JoeEdit- But to summerize. The leaders of the Evolution/Big Bang/Godless Universe Theorys are who you have your faith in right now. If you want to call it trust, that is fine. Just remember that in the Christian world: To officially "commit the act" of becoming a Christian is to "put your trust in Jesus".Joe agian[This message has been edited by Navy10E, 03-13-2004][This message has been edited by Navy10E, 03-13-2004][This message has been edited by Navy10E, 03-13-2004]

No. But on the other hand, if I asked you "what does Matthew 5:22 say?" you might very well point me to the Bible, as it's not likely that you know the Bible so well you can quote chapter and verse at random, right?Well, that's the thing. If you want my opinion, that's one thing. But if you want to know the accepted scientific theory, that's something you're best served looking up.I guess the thing I'm most afraid of is that I'm going to wind up making science look bad because I made a mistake. I don't want you to get the wrong idea about the effacacy of science simply because my comprehension is not perfect. No, that's trust. You trust in something because of your experience - chairs don't usually let you down. You have faith in something in spite of your experience - you've never seen God, but you have faith that he exists.I choose not to have faith. That doesn't mean I don't have trust in trustworthy things. Done so. Within my limited expertise I'm comfortable concluding that creationism is false and evolution is supported by the evidence. It's neither trust nor faith that lead me to that conclusion but rather an honest look at the evidence. Negative. I do trust the evidence, however. Please don't conflate faith and trust. They're very different things. The reason that I'm not a Christian any more is because when I put my trust in Jesus, he let me down. Ergo I no longer trust Jesus.[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 03-13-2004]

No, the empty space is a part of the expanding universe. Even today we observe space itself expanding. What's outside the space of the universe? Since it won't ever affect anything, who cares? Not to the beginning of the universe. But the split of energy into matter and anti-matter is caused by the expanding and cooling of the universe. The "cause" of matter is the cooling of the universe, just like the "cause" of an ice crystal is the cooling of water. No, it has regular mass. Anti-matter is like matter except that the charge and spin of the constituent particles is reversed compared to their regular counterparts.

Regarding antimatter... What is it that makes them annihilate just their 'twins'?Is there something that happens because they have opposite spin but the same matter, and if so, aren't there instances where more than one particle pair has the same characteristics?

So you are saying that empty space is expanding? Into what? I know that you said you don't care, but when I said space I meant, void of all mass and energy. You are having nothing expand into nothing. Or are you saying that the laws of physics themselves began with, and are expanding with, this initial wave that the Big Bang sent out?I'm sure you've picked up the fact that I'm in the Military. Another thing that I'm sure is apparent to all...we like to blow things up. I've seen more then one thing blow into several million pieces, and I must say, I kind of enjoyed it. (Job well done, sort of thing. No life was taken, which is a different matter and I would not enjoy at all.) Every time we blast something to kingdom come...I see...no order, no creation. I see a freakin' mess. And that was after we started with some order. (For examply, my sisters doll house was much less orderly by the time I got done with it, in my younger years.) While temporarily ignoring how "nothing" can cool and contract, I want to know: can you point to an example of an explosion putting things together. I mean, science is repeatable after all. So can you repeat even THAT portion of the Big Bang?

What I want to know is if there are anit-matter people living in a anti-matter solarsystem? Could I use anti-matter sun light/radiation as sun screen? And my only serious question in this post:
We believe that Anti-matter has been created in labs. I'm still a lil' unsure of that, but assuming that it is, have we found any naturally occuring anti-matter?

If two particles have the same spin, mass, charge, etc, then they're the same kind of particle, and they have the same anti-particle, I would think.What would happen if, say, a neutron and an anti-proton collided? I don't know. I doubt that they would annihalate each other. Maybe somebody who knows more than I do could tell you.

Well, neutrons and protons has different masses...But for example, has two different particles been detected with the same spin and mass, but with for example different charge?

As far as we know, there is no anti-radiation. For example, when a particle and an antiparticle annihilates eachother, there is not a pair of energy and anti-energy from that.Similarily, we know anti-particles affects/is affected by gravity in exactly the same way as normal particles.There are some ideas that most likely, there are whole galaxies made up out of anti-matter, in other parts of our universe. It is just a matter of what is more common, locally.There can not exist any naturally occuring stable anti-matter in 'our' part of space, since there is WAY too much normal matter which would collide with it within a VERY short time of it being created. Though, most likely loads of anti-matter particles are created all over the place, but they don't stay long enough to affect us. For example, the radiation from black holes is thought to come from this.Also note that what we refer to as 'normal' particles is just the sort which is most common to us. If there were people created out of anti-matter, they would call us anti-people.

quote:

---

So you are saying that empty space is expanding? Into what? I know that you said you don't care, but when I said space I meant, void of all mass and energy. You are having nothing expand into nothing. Or are you saying that the laws of physics themselves began with, and are expanding with, this initial wave that the Big Bang sent out?

---

This is not a bad question, because the expansion of "space" is probably the prime reason the big bang theory causes confusion. Intuition suggests that empty space is some static, unphysical, unmovable background in which objects move about. But this is purely inutition, and furthermore this intuition has been shown to be incorrect in the light of modern physics. Space has a geometry that is not necessarily Euclidean and is always dynamic. This is the "space" of Einstein and needs no more explanation than why matter can behave in the way it does. The expansion means that the distance between points increases, but implies neither that the universe is finite nor expanding into any larger volume.Calling empty space "nothing" seems like an odd thing to do, and is again purely related to intuition and doesn't have anything to do with physical reality.[This message has been edited by Beercules, 03-13-2004]