Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
The scientific law of conservation of matter states that matter can niether be created nor distroyed, so then, how is a universe suposed to evolve? I know there was the big bang, but scientificly, the pressure, the spark, and the matter all of that consists of had to come from somewhere too. If you answer that, there still is the question of where whatever matter the answer consists of come from? Doesnt that scientificly disprove science? Does ANYBODY have any thoughts on this?
first of all, the law is conservation of energy, and not matter. It applies because of time symmetry when one looks at quantum mechanics.
Matter can, and does appear spontaneously. see virtual particles.
The laws of physics do not apply at a singularity; general relativity does not really work at the big bang, since one cannot apply GR in the quantum reigeme. This says that the standard model is still incomplete, and so coming up with statements like yours is basically applying physical theories outside their remit. There are a number of possible explanations as to how all the energy in the universe came about, Lucaspa has a thread dealing with them.
we must also consider the fact that time is not symmetrical at the Big Bang, this means that Conservation laws do not apply there.
__________________ MSci MSc ARCS DIC PhD..... yes, I am bragging.
You ask how it would evolve since nothing is created not destroyed? It evolves from what is previously there. For example: Astronomers are currently watching planets form around nearby stars other than our Sun. These are called protoplanetary disks or "proplyds". The matter for these is not being created- it is simply coming from somewhere else being brought together by gravity. I find it interesting also that they are peering into Nebulas and watching stars being born and planets being formed. Most Creationists tell us this "Creation" was a one time events-so how could this being going on now??
__________________
None of the gods love wisdom or desire to become wise, for they are wise already -- nor if someone else is wise, do they love wisdom. Neither do the ignorant love wisdom or desire to become wise; for this is the grievous thing about ignorance, that those who are neither good nor beautiful nor sensible think they are good enough, and do not desire that which they do not think they are lacking.
The scientific law of conservation of matter states that matter can niether be created nor distroyed, so then, how is a universe suposed to evolve? I know there was the big bang, but scientificly, the pressure, the spark, and the matter all of that consists of had to come from somewhere too. If you answer that, there still is the question of where whatever matter the answer consists of come from? Doesnt that scientificly disprove science? Does ANYBODY have any thoughts on this?
Energy/matter cannot be created or destroyed. It can change. Thus, we eat food, it changes into energy and waste. We dump gasoline in the tank, and it changes into CO2 and energy. The big bang is simply ONE theory of how the universe came into existence btw. Disproving it would not disprove science (if we disproved the big bang theory tomorrow it is highly unlikely that it would in any way affect the theory of relativity, quantum mechanics, the laws of gravity, the interaction of basic particles, weak nuclear/strong nuclear force, etc.
Last edited by ThePhoenix; 5th October 2003 at 05:24 PM.
Knowing what was 'before' the Big Bang is probably impossible, even if 'before' has any meaning.
The Big Bang started with a singularity. This singularity, by definition, has no dimensions, nowhere for information to be stored. It cannot, therefore, transmit any information about its nature prior to its sudden expansion, even if there was any 'prior'. The BB is an informational bottleneck.
Or so I've heard; I only took physics to A Level.
__________________ I take a stand on justice, I take a stand on race Gonna take me a TV evangelist and punch him in the face I sing about the hope that’s in me and ask why the poor aren’t fed But if I don’t tow the party line, it’s be better if I were dead
I’m a liberal backslider I’ve been sliding ‘bout ten years
People ask me how I’m doin’ and I confirm all their fears I’m swearing like a trooper, and I’m drinking like a bum
I'm a liberal backslider, and it sure is a lot of fun
Knowing what was 'before' the Big Bang is probably impossible, even if 'before' has any meaning.
The Big Bang started with a singularity. This singularity, by definition, has no dimensions, nowhere for information to be stored. It cannot, therefore, transmit any information about its nature prior to its sudden expansion, even if there was any 'prior'. The BB is an informational bottleneck.
Or so I've heard; I only took physics to A Level.
I would be inclined to disagree here. The problem with the big bang is that it is a 4D singularity (a spacetime singularity) but this does not mean that there are no higher dimensions in which this singularity is just an artefact. Furthermore, the singularity only arises because of application of General Relativity outside it's remit (i.e. on quantum scales). While it is possible that the BB is an information bottleneck, there are a number of other avenues that need to be explored before we can reach this conclusion.
__________________ MSci MSc ARCS DIC PhD..... yes, I am bragging.
we must also consider the fact that time is not symmetrical at the Big Bang, this means that Conservation laws do not apply there.
We don't need to go that far. The FRW metrics admit no timelike Killing vector field, which is what time-translational symmetry means in GR. So, Noether's theorem gives us no reason to expect global energy conservation in the first place.
It's not entirely clear to me that 'total energy content of the Universe' is even a meaningful concept, since the FRW metrics are not asymptotically flat.
Hmm. Not really, no. The central issue goes something like this: what we want to do is take the energy over here, and the energy over there, and add them together to get the total energy of the system. OK, we can do that easily in Newtonian physics. It's just a question of adding together two numbers. But in relativity, energy is not just a number. It's a component of a vector. To add together two vectors, we need to move one of them to where the other is and compare them directly. That's easy enough in special relativity, but in general relativity spacetime is curved. In curved spacetime, there's no unambiguous way to move vectors from one place to another. The answer you get depends on the path you take, and there's no obviously 'right' path. What this means is that in GR, there's simply no way to compare a vector over here to one over there, and so we can't simply sum together the energies and expect to get a meaningful answer.
Energy from here to there.Where is here and where is there? The idea of curved vectors is alittle strange to me as a vector is defined by a quantity and direction. This makes addition of vectors quite simple.
How is a curved vector defined.
law of conservation of matter 
Linear Mode
