NASA re-revises position on the Big Bang

Does the Christian Right consider the total definition of the word "theory?" They act like they have something to prove, but it's FAITH, and as long as it remains FAITH they don't have to prove anything! As long as the individual believes that this is what happened, what does it matter what others think? Are they that afraid that they might be wrong? That their entire religion is based on a belief in the inexplicable--what do they think religion is? *deep sigh* Why can't we all get along?!

The Big Bang, while explaining some aspects of the universe's conception, has so many problems that it should effectively be crossed off of the list of possible explanations for the beginning of the universe. That is not to say that creationism, which has even less going for it on scientific terms, has any more claim to sovriegnity in the classroom. Instead, there's the Westergard-Hotson universe (I dunno how many of you have heard of this) but it's got the world to do with spin and the Bose-Einstein Condensate and all that...if anyone's interested, I have the paper with the new paradigm...

 

.

 

well, yes, but the quasar dilemma is only one of many--it's true though, it shouldn't be based on this single conception.
Why doesn't everyone just admit that we know nothing because all of our projections are based on theory, and then go from there?

 

.

 

the big bank has been recreated in switzerland by a company highly ahead of the pack, who created anti-matter, or in other words...matter from nothing. ever watched star trek? not me but it's amazing science fiction is usually science writing once the public consensus gets geared to that, by rights.
i find this highly intriguing. a good book on the subject is obtainable in your neighborhood grocery store, "angels and demons" by dan brown, the author of the da vinchi code. Highly informative stuff...don't trust the crities...go see for yourslef don't fit in the flock.

 

if anything...i think the big bang is prooof of a creator, creatress...who create thought. in other words, the spark of imagination. their attention is vast.

to say just as is theorized the universe is doing, expanding contracting...this is doing it in harmony...like say breathing perhaps...only ever more lungs to fill so it's growing...this organism webing of life. the universe feeds off of positivity...or else, it starts to contract. this is all relative to personal growth.

 

The big bang has not been created exactly but periods of time up to about 10^(-44)s after the big bang have, even here things are uncertain as something called a quark-gluon plasma has yet to be directly observed. Although conditions very close to the big bang have been achieved at CERN (Geneva) and also at Fermilab Illinois, I think that currently the highest energy is at Fermilab although in the next 12 months CERN should go ahead. To achieve this an electron is collided with a positron (an anti-electron, at the risk of being the person who ruins the myth an anti particle is only a regular particle with the opposite charge, generating them is trivial). There is nothing special about anti-particles their choice is merely engineering, if the charges are opposite its easier to design magnets to make them go in opposite directions. Infact the new accelerator that will soon open in Geneva uses all 'regular' matter for its very high energy work although there is still an experiment running to create an anti-hydrogen atom.

As for creation, science has relatively little to say about the big bang and creation although philosophically the big bang does seem distincly like a creation. If superstring theory is correct then the big bang is an interaction in higher dimensional space. Though going back to the spiritual interpretation a variation of this shows a creator. If you assume that a system must be 'observed' to exist then the fact the universe exists is proof of a creator.

 

The world's largest scientific research facility-Switzerlan's CERN-recently succeeded in producing the first particles of antimatter. Antimatter is identical to physical matter except that it is composed of particles whose electric charges are opposite to those found in normal matter.
Antimatter is the most powerful energy source known to man. It releases energy with 100 percent efficiency (nucleur fission is 1.5 percent efficient). Antimatter creates no pollution or radiation, and a droplet could power NYC for a full day.
-2000 angels and demons facts page.

 

The positron was first suggested to exist in 1928 by Paul Dirac after solvng the Dirac eqn, it was discovered in 1932 by Carl Anderson, this was the initial discovery of anti-matter. I dont know the dates for the various other anti-particles but by the 70's when we were going through collecting quarks anti particles were created as a matter of course. Finding quarks is a messy process from a particle physics perspective the collisions used to find quarks create a lot of wreckage with a lot of matter and anti-matter. However what I think you are referring to the the anti-hydrogen project which created anti-hydrogen in 2002.

Anti-matter is now use din everyday life PET (Positron Emission Tomography) here naturally created positrons from radioactivity are used to image the human body and presumeably to other stuff, wiki it, but it shows that anti-matter is now more than some abstract thing.

 

yes the anti-matter created in this experiment or in other words the side effect of creating matter from nothing (yin and yang to everything) registerd hydrogen in it's chemical makeup although other elements were used to make it, and would not sound metal detectors, however adhered to magnetic principals as a metal.

 

I dont really know if its making matter from nothing all quantities are conserved. Saying you make something from nothing implies that there is something there that there wasnt before this isnt the case. Though I guess you can think of it in a number of ways in pop sci literature the idea of a mirror image is often used and as far as electrodynamics goes this isnt an unreasonable analogy.

 

well technically, it isn't from nothing because HUGE amounts of energy are needed initally, and a special type of gas (damnit i should take notes when i read i used to but found i spent more time writing than reading).
does this place in Illionis have anything to do with Stelle, or have you heard of that?

 

but yes the mirror image analogy goes along these lines. if religion teaches us anything, it's that duality permeates everything. so it's locigal to deduce since there is matter, there already is anti-matter, so techncally you aren't creating something from nothing, because it is already there. the initial experiments were trying to create something from nothing and anti-matter was the unexpected side effect, and thats how CERN discovered it, in really dumbed down terms because i just finished the onslaught of that book and it is overwhelming right now.

 

Huge amounts of energy are not required to generate positrons, they occur quite naturally in beta+ radioactive decay. In school 3 types of radiation are covered, alpha (a helim nuclues), beta (a neutron decays into a proton, releasing an electron) and gamma rays (high energy EM waves from nuclear energy state transitions). There is a variation of beta decay called beta+ which releases an positron instead of an electron, the textbook example of this is C11 -> B11 + positon + electron neutrino (the numbers should be superscript).

The reason that places like CERN and Fermilab (near Chicago, I have no idea what or where Stelle is) use such high energies are to overcome very high binding energies. The idea is that the harder you bang particles together the smaller the bits they'll break into.

You talk about duality (which incidentally is an unlrelated philosophical principle to do with the spiritual and the physical) but anti-matter is only a name if we had just called it the positron and got on with it then no one would have noticed. Its like patients not wanting to get into an NMR machine but loving the idea of MRI just dropping the nuclear made all the difference, its all in the name. Incidentally a better Yin/Yang example in physics may be the idea that every particle has a super symmetric partner (sparticle), as for a handful of particles (eg neutrinos and photons) they are their own antiparticle.

 

um the facitlity at CERN which did this is essentially a cicular pipeline 16 miles around, you're saying it doesn't take a lot of energy to charge it up?
so positrons are the same as anti-matter?

 

I know what is CERN is ive been there, and would like to go again for a long time after '07 and yes it does take a lot of energy but ive explained why that is. A positron is an anti-electron it was the first to be found and pre-dates the anti- prefix to save coming up with names we just stick anti in front of everything.

 

jeez if that happened in the us we wouldn't hear about it until the bomb went off
it comes as a surprise there is even an unclassfied facility here! leave it to illionis

 

When I talk about a lot of energy its important to take scale into account. These huge devices work at energies of hundreds Gev, which is still a miniscule fraction of a joule but its an immense amount of energy for a tiny particle. The field is called high energy physics because you give individual particles huge amounts of energy but only a small amount of particles every attain that energy. Its not really work of any significant interest to the military, at the moment at least.

 

it will be because a drop could wipe out manhatten

 

A drop of what anti-matter? Anti-matter will interact with its partner particle to create two gamma rays, which I guess could potentially make some kind of weapon, quite how much explosive power as opposed just irradiating I dont know. But the delivery system would have to be evacuated or something to stop the actually weapon being 'anihilated'. In essence I dont imagine you'd get any advantage of a hydrogen bomb.