Title: Big Bang Machine?
Post by: Theist on March 02, 2008, 05:19:04 AM
Post by: Theist on March 02, 2008, 05:19:04 AM
Hello. It's certainly been a long time since I've been around on this forum, so I'm not entirely sure who's here and who's not. I'd like to shout out to Big Mac and McQ, who may or not remember me. But anyway, to the point...
If you follow this link,
http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/new ... fffaae2b2c (http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/story.html?id=550cb09c-720c-46cb-a73c-7ffffaae2b2c)
You will find an article that discusses Canadian scientists engaged in an experiment to develop a machine that reproduces the effect of the "Big Bang" That is to say, they are doing this to find the answer as to how matter was created from an explosion. But this articule, rather than support the big bang theory as one might expect, actually refutes it.
They need a machine, in order to reproduce the effect of the Big Bang yeah? Indicating that it would have been impossible for the "Big Bang" to occur out of nothing, without the assistance of such a machine. I'm curious then, how one expects matter to have come out of an explosion if the explosion could not have occured in the first place? I'd be interested to get some feedback.
If you follow this link,
http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/new ... fffaae2b2c (http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/story.html?id=550cb09c-720c-46cb-a73c-7ffffaae2b2c)
You will find an article that discusses Canadian scientists engaged in an experiment to develop a machine that reproduces the effect of the "Big Bang" That is to say, they are doing this to find the answer as to how matter was created from an explosion. But this articule, rather than support the big bang theory as one might expect, actually refutes it.
They need a machine, in order to reproduce the effect of the Big Bang yeah? Indicating that it would have been impossible for the "Big Bang" to occur out of nothing, without the assistance of such a machine. I'm curious then, how one expects matter to have come out of an explosion if the explosion could not have occured in the first place? I'd be interested to get some feedback.
Title:
Post by: MysticalChicken on March 02, 2008, 05:23:05 AM
Post by: MysticalChicken on March 02, 2008, 05:23:05 AM
I read (in David Mills' Atheist Universe) that the matter was probably converted from the energy that was always there. That makes the most sense to me. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, but matter apparently can be converted from energy. I think Einstein made some sort of obscure equation about that...
Title:
Post by: Theist on March 02, 2008, 06:05:15 AM
Post by: Theist on March 02, 2008, 06:05:15 AM
alright. Say the energy was always present then. But what then triggered the spontaneous act of the creation of matter?
Title: Re: Big Bang Machine?
Post by: McQ on March 02, 2008, 05:10:07 PM
Post by: McQ on March 02, 2008, 05:10:07 PM
Quote from: "Theist"Hello. It's certainly been a long time since I've been around on this forum, so I'm not entirely sure who's here and who's not. I'd like to shout out to Big Mac and McQ, who may or not remember me. But anyway, to the point...
If you follow this link,
http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/new ... fffaae2b2c (http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/story.html?id=550cb09c-720c-46cb-a73c-7ffffaae2b2c)
You will find an article that discusses Canadian scientists engaged in an experiment to develop a machine that reproduces the effect of the "Big Bang" That is to say, they are doing this to find the answer as to how matter was created from an explosion. But this articule, rather than support the big bang theory as one might expect, actually refutes it.
They need a machine, in order to reproduce the effect of the Big Bang yeah? Indicating that it would have been impossible for the "Big Bang" to occur out of nothing, without the assistance of such a machine. I'm curious then, how one expects matter to have come out of an explosion if the explosion could not have occured in the first place? I'd be interested to get some feedback.
WB, theist.
I promise to read the link when I have enough time to properly do it. Thanks for posting it.
Of course, even without reading it there is one error to point out. You said the scientists were Canadian. As a Canadian, you, of all people, should be aware that no Canadians are scientists...you guys are all lumberjacks. :wink:
You're not fooling anyone with putting a white lab coat on this guy.... :lol:
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vantagetravel.com%2FVContent%2FimageLib%2FOptional%2520Tours%2FCanada_LumberjackShow.jpg&hash=905c1120f1c166b1b14e9ea11b47853aa96a7a1b)
:wink: :lol:
Title:
Post by: Mister Joy on March 02, 2008, 06:52:03 PM
Post by: Mister Joy on March 02, 2008, 06:52:03 PM
He's talking about the large hadron collider.
Incidentally, theist, I'm pretty sure that it doesn't actually recreate the big bang. It's actually an attempt to simulate the conditions immediately afterwards. I haven't read the article yet but if it says otherwise, then I'll bet you fifty Canadian dollars that it's wrong.
Even so...
I'm sure that we would indeed need a machine of some sort if we were ever going to recreate the big bang, however stupid an idea that might be. Nevertheless, this isn't, as you imply, damning of big bang theory. You aren't taking into account a few things there. Example: The conditions now are completely different to the conditions pre big bang, otherwise - presumably - we'd be on the verge of a second one (that and we wouldn't even be here, of course
).
And vice versa! That can sometimes produce a bit of a 'bang' as well, come to think of it.
They're all lumberjacks and they're ok, they sleep all night and they work all day... sorry, I couldn't resist.
It isn't a Canadian experiment anyway, for they are but one of the many nations involved. I'm looking forward to May; fingers crossed it wont be delayed again.
Incidentally, theist, I'm pretty sure that it doesn't actually recreate the big bang. It's actually an attempt to simulate the conditions immediately afterwards. I haven't read the article yet but if it says otherwise, then I'll bet you fifty Canadian dollars that it's wrong.
Even so...
Quote from: "theist"But this articule, rather than support the big bang theory as one might expect, actually refutes it.
I'm sure that we would indeed need a machine of some sort if we were ever going to recreate the big bang, however stupid an idea that might be. Nevertheless, this isn't, as you imply, damning of big bang theory. You aren't taking into account a few things there. Example: The conditions now are completely different to the conditions pre big bang, otherwise - presumably - we'd be on the verge of a second one (that and we wouldn't even be here, of course
).Quote from: "MysticalChicken"Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, but matter apparently can be converted from energy.
And vice versa! That can sometimes produce a bit of a 'bang' as well, come to think of it.
Quote from: "McQ"Of course, even without reading it there is one error to point out. You said the scientists were Canadian. As a Canadian, you, of all people, should be aware that no Canadians are scientists...you guys are all lumberjacks.
They're all lumberjacks and they're ok, they sleep all night and they work all day... sorry, I couldn't resist.
It isn't a Canadian experiment anyway, for they are but one of the many nations involved. I'm looking forward to May; fingers crossed it wont be delayed again.
Title:
Post by: McQ on March 02, 2008, 08:11:04 PM
Post by: McQ on March 02, 2008, 08:11:04 PM
A quick look at this confirms what MisterJoy said. it is the Large Hadron Collider, which I am familiar with. The official site:
http://lhc.web.cern.ch/lhc/ (http://lhc.web.cern.ch/lhc/)
Wiki has a very accurate page on it too:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider)
CERN's page:
http://public.web.cern.ch/Public/en/LHC/LHC-en.html (http://public.web.cern.ch/Public/en/LHC/LHC-en.html)
Repeating the conditions in the moments after the Big Bang does not affirm or preclude something coming from nothing. It is not the goal of the experiment, or of any of the proposed upgrades, as far as I know.
The closest this experiment comes to that is simply repeating the change of energy to matter, and hoping to answer the questions of exactly how energy was transformed to matter in the early stages of the formation of the universe.
http://lhc.web.cern.ch/lhc/ (http://lhc.web.cern.ch/lhc/)
Wiki has a very accurate page on it too:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider)
CERN's page:
http://public.web.cern.ch/Public/en/LHC/LHC-en.html (http://public.web.cern.ch/Public/en/LHC/LHC-en.html)
Repeating the conditions in the moments after the Big Bang does not affirm or preclude something coming from nothing. It is not the goal of the experiment, or of any of the proposed upgrades, as far as I know.
The closest this experiment comes to that is simply repeating the change of energy to matter, and hoping to answer the questions of exactly how energy was transformed to matter in the early stages of the formation of the universe.
Title:
Post by: Friel on March 05, 2008, 07:41:31 PM
Post by: Friel on March 05, 2008, 07:41:31 PM
I think part of the problem some people have is the misconception that the energy (or matter) for the big bang had to come from somewhere. Time is finite, and therefore it has a definite beginning with nothing before it. To put it a different way:
"Asking about a time before the beginning of our spherical spacetime is like asking what lies north of the North Pole. There is no such thing." Taner Edis
Now, if you say that this isn't true, and that has to be something before the big bang, then the also applies to a creator. If the universe needs an outside source for creation then the creator also needs to be created by a source outside itself.
Hope that makes sense.
"Asking about a time before the beginning of our spherical spacetime is like asking what lies north of the North Pole. There is no such thing." Taner Edis
Now, if you say that this isn't true, and that has to be something before the big bang, then the also applies to a creator. If the universe needs an outside source for creation then the creator also needs to be created by a source outside itself.
Hope that makes sense.
Title: Re:
Post by: karadan on April 20, 2008, 11:33:32 AM
Post by: karadan on April 20, 2008, 11:33:32 AM
Quote from: "Friel"I think part of the problem some people have is the misconception that the energy (or matter) for the big bang had to come from somewhere. Time is finite, and therefore it has a definite beginning with nothing before it. To put it a different way:
"Asking about a time before the beginning of our spherical spacetime is like asking what lies north of the North Pole. There is no such thing." Taner Edis
Now, if you say that this isn't true, and that has to be something before the big bang, then the also applies to a creator. If the universe needs an outside source for creation then the creator also needs to be created by a source outside itself.
Hope that makes sense.
Lol. What an incredible point immaculately articulated.