Moved from Creation Evolution - Astronomy

[nuttypiglet]

I have a good basic understanding of science, and I am a Christian through and through, but something about Astronomy confuses me. In real basic terms, Astrophysicists state that there was a hugely condensed energy which became unstable. Forgetting how it became unstable or where this energy came from, it exploded outward creating the Universe. As the energy gradually cooled, some energy converted into matter, giving rise to sub atomic particles. Now the confusing part. We know there is plenty of room in the universe, it continues to speed up every minute with the expansion rate, but what caused these particles to slow down sufficiently to allow attraction? I think this was seen as a problem recently with sub atomic particles making up Atoms, because the sub atomic particles really want to shoot off in any direction at the speed of light. So a dampening effect was basically invented 'Higgs field'. This is made up of an invented particle 'boson'. It still has issues because the boson would need something like a mass of 10,000 tons per cubic centimetre but we can only show the weight of a proton. So something else will likely be invented soon. We have massive black holes in the centre of galaxies, which could account for affecting the sub atomic particles, allowing attraction, but what created them? I have emailed several Astrophysicists but none seem to give an answer. Doesn't it seem odd that particles making atoms are affected, but all the other sub atomic particles are not. They are still happily whizzing around at incredible speeds. So what determines if they are to be affected by this Higgs field?

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

An oldie but goodie.

Krauss '09: "A Universe From Nothing" - YouTube

 

[nuttypiglet]

Seen this before, and it doesn't really go into what I'm asking. With Quantum, the rules are very different and there are no real explanations to how things formed. We just seem to have observations as to where 'clumps' are, but don't know how they got there. He does seem to have a lot of trouble conveying truth too. One minute he says how little we know and this should make us humble. Then he goes on about how the universe wasn't created because we can imagine that we could be one of an infinite number of universes and the next minute he says how balanced and fine tuned it is. He is right about one thing, the universe will end, as obviously will the earth. Religion has known this for thousands of years. Perhaps you could read the secrets of Enoch where God explained to Enoch how he created the Universe. I personally find it difficult to follow, but perhaps if you know more about science it may have some relevance.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

Seen this before, and it doesn't really go into what I'm asking. With Quantum, the rules are very different and there are no real explanations to how things formed. We just seem to have observations as to where 'clumps' are, but don't know how they got there. He does seem to have a lot of trouble conveying truth too. One minute he says how little we know and this should make us humble. Then he goes on about how the universe wasn't created because we can imagine that we could be one of an infinite number of universes and the next minute he says how balanced and fine tuned it is. He is right about one thing, the universe will end, as obviously will the earth. Religion has known this for thousands of years. Perhaps you could read the secrets of Enoch where God explained to Enoch how he created the Universe. I personally find it difficult to follow, but perhaps if you know more about science it may have some relevance.

Sean Carroll Refutes Supernatural Beliefs - YouTube

 

[nuttypiglet]

So when certain quantum particles disappear and reappear, it doesn't matter that we don't know where they went. When particles appear in different places across the universe at the same time, and communicate to each other instantly across the universe, this isn't important? It isn't important that particles seem to have the ability to go back in time and do things in a different way? It's a bit like saying we know a car works, we can manipulate the car but it isn't important to see the design in the small detail and realise it was created.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

So when certain quantum particles disappear and reappear, it doesn't matter that we don't know where they went. When particles appear in different places across the universe at the same time, and communicate to each other instantly across the universe, this isn't important? It isn't important that particles seem to have the ability to go back in time and do things in a different way? It's a bit like saying we know a car works, we can manipulate the car but it isn't important to see the design in the small detail and realise it was created.

That's not what he implied ... at all.

 

[nuttypiglet]

he said that because we understand how atoms work, and their laws, and we don't understand the smaller world of particles, it doesn't really matter.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I have a good basic understanding of science, and I am a Christian through and through, but something about Astronomy confuses me. In real basic terms, Astrophysicists state that there was a hugely condensed energy which became unstable. Forgetting how it became unstable or where this energy came from, it exploded outward creating the Universe. As the energy gradually cooled, some energy converted into matter, giving rise to sub atomic particles.

There are various errors in that, but it's perhaps close enough.

Now the confusing part. We know there is plenty of room in the universe, it continues to speed up every minute with the expansion rate, but what caused these particles to slow down sufficiently to allow attraction?

Attraction occurs regardless of distance - whether two particles are adjacent or lightyears apart, any electromagnetic or gravitational attraction between them persists.

I think this was seen as a problem recently with sub atomic particles making up Atoms, because the sub atomic particles really want to shoot off in any direction at the speed of light.

As indeed they do - but that direction is not always in a spacial dimension. All particles move at lightspeed, but because particles can move in space and time, any apparent slowness in space is made up for by speed in time. So a particle stationary in space is moving at lightspeed through time (i.e., 1 s/s), a particle moving at a speed c/√2 through space is moving about 30% slower through time. A particle moving at c through space has no movement through time.

So a dampening effect was basically invented 'Higgs field'. This is made up of an invented particle 'boson'. It still has issues because the boson would need something like a mass of 10,000 tons per cubic centimetre but we can only show the weight of a proton. So something else will likely be invented soon.

That... isn't true.

The Higgs field is a prediction of three 1964 papers on spontaneous symmetry breaking, a mechanism that would resolve problems with gauge theory in particle physics. It was some time after this that physicists realised that the Higgs field also explains why things like quarks have mass.

So you're incorrect that the Higgs boson was 'invented' - it was a direct consequence of seminal work in theoretical gauge theory. It was no more 'invented' than the planet Neptune was 'invented' when its existence was predicted as an explanation for irregularities in Uranus' orbit.

You're also incorrect in that the Higgs boson would have to have a mass of 10,000 tons per cubic centimetre (9 x 10[sup]12[/sup] kg m[sup]-3[/sup] in SI units). First this quantity is a density, not a mass. Second, the Higgs has a mass of 125 GeV, not tens of thousands of tons.

We have massive black holes in the centre of galaxies, which could account for affecting the sub atomic particles, allowing attraction, but what created them? I have emailed several Astrophysicists but none seem to give an answer.

Because your question makes no sense.

First, supermassive black holes are simply aggregates of black holes that gravitate together at the cores of galaxies. How these form isn't a mystery.

Second, the existence of supermassive black holes has absolutely nothing to do with why subatomic particles have mass. I honestly can't see why you would think that.

Doesn't it seem odd that particles making atoms are affected, but all the other sub atomic particles are not.

It's no more odd than the fact that electrons and protons, but not neutrons, are affected by electromagnetism.

They are still happily whizzing around at incredible speeds. So what determines if they are to be affected by this Higgs field?

Whether they couple to it. Just as neutrons aren't affected by electromagnetism, so too are some particles not affected by the Higgs field.

 

[nuttypiglet]

The Higgs field has more drag effect on some particles than others, converting their kinetic energy into mass. I have no idea what this has to do with 'time'? It is also believed that like other Quantum particles, the Higgs Boson pops in and out of existence. This in itself seems a bit strange because I thought the Universe was a close system, and yet particles are vanishing and reappearing all the time. Are we assuming that as one particle vanishes, another immediately replaces it?
It was once believed that the space between planets contained nothing and now the opposite is being gradually shown. The complexity of the Universe, as indeed with life, is being shown more and more. However, IF, and that is an IF, the Universe is one day completely understood, how does that prove that God does not exist? This is what annoys me. If I give you a car and you explain how it works through natural processes of electrical sparks and an inflammable vapour, does this also mean it was not created? What's the real difference?
If time doesn't exist, can events actually occur? We imagine now that if time stands still, then everything would be static, none functioning or moving. So if the original energy to create the Universe was timeless, how was a cause given to make the Universe?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

The Higgs field has more drag effect on some particles than others, converting their kinetic energy into mass.

Most of the mass in matter comes from the kinetic and potential energy of its constituent baryons. The Higgs field doesn't confer all that much.

I have no idea what this has to do with 'time'?

Per Relativity, space and time are one entity. Everything moves at lightspeed, but its direction might not be entirely in the space direction (it's like moving at c, but only part of that speed is along the north-south axis - the rest is in the east-west axis.

It is also believed that like other Quantum particles, the Higgs Boson pops in and out of existence.

Correct.

This in itself seems a bit strange because I thought the Universe was a close system, and yet particles are vanishing and reappearing all the time. Are we assuming that as one particle vanishes, another immediately replaces it?

No. "The universe is closed" refers to thermodynamic closure (i.e., its net energy), not chemical closure (i.e., the sheer number of particles). The universe has no qualm with new particles coming into existence out of nowhere, so long as conservation laws (charge, energy, etc) are conserved.

As well, there is no evidence as to whether the universe is thermodynamically open or closed, so science is silent on the matter.

It was once believed that the space between planets contained nothing and now the opposite is being gradually shown.

It's not 'gradually' being shown, it's been well known for decades.

The complexity of the Universe, as indeed with life, is being shown more and more. However, IF, and that is an IF, the Universe is one day completely understood, how does that prove that God does not exist?

It doesn't, which is why no one's ever actually made that claim.

This is what annoys me.

Why would you get annoyed at an assertion that no one's made?

If time doesn't exist, can events actually occur? We imagine now that if time stands still, then everything would be static, none functioning or moving. So if the original energy to create the Universe was timeless, how was a cause given to make the Universe?

Principally because timelessness means all events happen simultaneously. If one of those events is the creation of time, then it will happen immediately. It gets a little mind-screwy because our brains didn't evolve to conceptualise pre-4D spacetime, but that's how it would work.

But your argument applies to an eternal deity, too: if God is outside time, as many theists assert, then he is incapable of action or change. He, too, becomes static.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

*bump*

I'm interested to hear your reply, nuttypiglet.

 

[nuttypiglet]

So which theory do you lean towards with the cause of the Universe being fine tuned? Is it the option where it had no choice? the option where is was by chance? or the option it was designed and created to be this way? Of course there is the other option I suppose where we could be one of an infinite number of Universes which just so happened to end up this way. The first two options are really way against the odds, so I assume you lean towards the multiple Universe idea?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

So which theory do you lean towards with the cause of the Universe being fine tuned? Is it the option where it had no choice? the option where is was by chance? or the option it was designed and created to be this way? Of course there is the other option I suppose where we could be one of an infinite number of Universes which just so happened to end up this way. The first two options are really way against the odds, so I assume you lean towards the multiple Universe idea?

As there's no evidence suggesting what, if anything, caused the universe or the Big Bang, I don't lean towards any of the options - unless there's supporting evidence, our opinions are just subjective conjecture.

 

[nuttypiglet]

I'm still uncertain about the initial grouping of gravity to allow galaxies to form. You say that a super black hole could be a culmination of smaller ones, being pulled into each other, but what caused those black holes in the first place. Maybe I'm looking at this wrong? I see a big bang and superhot energy rushing outwards at incredible speed. Having cooled enough we can see some energy start to convert into matter. So we have lots of sub atomic particles shooting out from the origin site of the Universe, so what is there that has enough gravity to bend space into a black hole? of any size? It looks just as though someone has pressed their finger into space at various places and said "Ill have one here, and one here". We can see how the Universe is laid out, but perhaps this is one of those why questions which science likes to leave to philosophy?
If I throw a stone into a pond, you see the energy uniformly going outwards. What I don't see are lots of whirlpools suddenly form.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I'm still uncertain about the initial grouping of gravity to allow galaxies to form. You say that a super black hole could be a culmination of smaller ones, being pulled into each other, but what caused those black holes in the first place.

Short explanation:
Black holes are formed by dying stars.

Medium explanation:
Black holes form when the core of dead stars is dense enough that its gravity squeezes it so dense it's basically just a point in space.

Long explanation:
A star 'lives' by fusing its hydrogen into helium, lithium, and other light elements. Eventually it runs out, and it starts to fuse heavy elements like iron to make even heavier elements like uranium. This makes the star burn far brighter than it ever did, the extra energy balloons the star's outer layers (turning a medium-sized yellow star into a gigantic red star), and it compacts the core denser and denser. Eventually, the star explodes as a supernova, blowing the outer layers away and leaving the exposed, dense core.

This core can be phenomenally dense, and one such outcome is the black hole: if the ball of matter is sufficiently dense, then its own gravity will be strong enough to overcome the other three forces (which would normally prevent matter from coming too close). If this happens, then nothing can stop the ball of matter from collapsing ino itself, becoming a point in space of extreme, or even infinite, density. That is a black hole.

Maybe I'm looking at this wrong? I see a big bang and superhot energy rushing outwards at incredible speed. Having cooled enough we can see some energy start to convert into matter. So we have lots of sub atomic particles shooting out from the origin site of the Universe, so what is there that has enough gravity to bend space into a black hole? of any size?

There is matter. Matter attracts matter, inevitably creating clumps. These clumps are otherwise known as 'stars'. Sufficiently massive clumps can collapse in on themselves, creating black holes.

Normally, the electromagnetic force stops atoms from coming too close to each other, rather like trying to push two magnets together. But like magnets, if you give it enough force, you can eventually overcome that repulsion. Dying stars burn brightly enough that they can do this, and frmo there it's a runaway process.

It looks just as though someone has pressed their finger into space at various places and said "Ill have one here, and one here". We can see how the Universe is laid out, but perhaps this is one of those why questions which science likes to leave to philosophy?
If I throw a stone into a pond, you see the energy uniformly going outwards. What I don't see are lots of whirlpools suddenly form.

Ah, but we do get whirlpools. Only under certain conditions, perhaps, but whirlpools do form - and they form because of the same processes that creates ripples in lakes. Whirlpools aren't anything special, they're just particularily big ripples and waves moving in a particular direction.

 

[nuttypiglet]

Thank you for your replies on this, I think I'm getting it, slowly. I will have to digest what you have written for a bit.
Is it true that we have never observed a Sun being born? Our Sun is around 5 billion years old, so quite young in a Universe of nearly 14 billion years. How do you tell the age of a Sun?

 

[nuttypiglet]

You say matter attract matter, and this is my stumbling block I think. I assumed that sub atomic particles have to be quite close to form an attraction. For example, if I have one element several feet away from a second element, they will not interact, but this is obviously on an atomic level. With Hydrogen and Helium required for Suns, the atoms for both must have formed, and they must have been somehow drawn together in sufficient numbers, VAST numbers to form a Sun. If I have a room full of Hydrogen and a room several feet away full of Helium, one is not going to shoot towards the other.
Maybe you are saying that the sub atomic particles were attracted to each other in clumps, which THEN sorted into the lighter elements, and THEN ignited?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Thank you for your replies on this, I think I'm getting it, slowly. I will have to digest what you have written for a bit.
Is it true that we have never observed a Sun being born?

The process isn't a short, distinct event, so it's hard to say. We've certainly found stellar bursaries with objects in various stages of 'birth' - diffuse clouds, nascent gas balls, true stars.

Our Sun is around 5 billion years old, so quite young in a Universe of nearly 14 billion years. How do you tell the age of a Sun?

One method is to find its place on the stellar lifecycle:

(Diagram courtesy of Wikipedia)

The Sun's path is in yellow. Stars have particular temperatures and luminosities, so we can pinpoint where they lie, and thus their age.

You say matter attract matter, and this is my stumbling block I think. I assumed that sub atomic particles have to be quite close to form an attraction. For example, if I have one element several feet away from a second element, they will not interact, but this is obviously on an atomic level. With Hydrogen and Helium required for Suns, the atoms for both must have formed, and they must have been somehow drawn together in sufficient numbers, VAST numbers to form a Sun. If I have a room full of Hydrogen and a room several feet away full of Helium, one is not going to shoot towards the other.

Actually, they will.

Two objects will always gravitationally attract one another no matter how far apart, so long as they have non-zero mass. The force becomes negligible when the objects are light or far apart, but the force always exists. So even if they're lightyears apart, two hydrogen atoms are still attracted to each other; without anything to stop them, they will, eventually, collide.

So,

1. All objects, no matter how light or far apart, always attract one another due to gravity,
2. The only force really acting on an interstellar cloud of dust is gravity,
3. It's a mathematical inevitability that this gravity accelerates all particles into the centre of the cloud,
4. The pressure from this gravitational collapse ignites thermonuclear fusion at the core of the cloud, halting the collapse and thus creating a star.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I have a good basic understanding of science, and I am a Christian through and through, but something about Astronomy confuses me. In real basic terms, Astrophysicists state that there was a hugely condensed energy which became unstable. Forgetting how it became unstable or where this energy came from, it exploded outward creating the Universe. As the energy gradually cooled, some energy converted into matter, giving rise to sub atomic particles. Now the confusing part. We know there is plenty of room in the universe, it continues to speed up every minute with the expansion rate, but what caused these particles to slow down sufficiently to allow attraction? I think this was seen as a problem recently with sub atomic particles making up Atoms, because the sub atomic particles really want to shoot off in any direction at the speed of light. So a dampening effect was basically invented 'Higgs field'. This is made up of an invented particle 'boson'. It still has issues because the boson would need something like a mass of 10,000 tons per cubic centimetre but we can only show the weight of a proton. So something else will likely be invented soon. We have massive black holes in the centre of galaxies, which could account for affecting the sub atomic particles, allowing attraction, but what created them? I have emailed several Astrophysicists but none seem to give an answer. Doesn't it seem odd that particles making atoms are affected, but all the other sub atomic particles are not. They are still happily whizzing around at incredible speeds. So what determines if they are to be affected by this Higgs field?

The only Higgs Bosun one will ever find:

The Particle Zoo: Subatomic Particle plushies


They are using *High Energy Physics* in an attempt to find an electrically neutral particle, what can one expect? After 100 years of complete and abject failure they still can not take the electrical force out of the atom. Don't expect them to anytime soon put the binding force of the micro into the macro.

And one can but laugh at their abject failure to unite the two theories because they refuse to consider anything but to take the binding force of the micro out of that very state. Without once considering what would happen if they put the micro into the macro since our probes have measured it everywhere they have gone.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

The only Higgs Bosun one will ever find:

The Particle Zoo: Subatomic Particle plushies

Cough.

They are using *High Energy Physics* in an attempt to find an electrically neutral particle, what can one expect? After 100 years of complete and abject failure they still can not take the electrical force out of the atom. Don't expect them to anytime soon put the binding force of the micro into the macro.

And one can but laugh at their abject failure to unite the two theories because they refuse to consider anything but to take the binding force of the micro out of that very state. Without once considering what would happen if they put the micro into the macro since our probes have measured it everywhere they have gone.