Ah thanks for those links Coffee, tbh I had only heard a few things about multi-verse hypothesis. Contrary to popular belief, I'm still a lay person and do not know everything hehe.

As for matter to be infinite, it should fill all of existence. Thing is when you start looking into space further and further you eventually reach the end of the observable universe. There is a certain point beyond which you cannot 'see' anything anymore.
Another strong clue for matter being finite is the lack of anti-matter.
Anti-matter is very real, it's not something made up by science-fiction. Anti-matter is, well, the opposite of matter. When matter and anti-matter meet they both annihilate. It is assumed that during the big bang the amount of matter and anti-matter were slightly uneven, as matter and anti-matter annihilated each other the anti-matter ran out before matter did. Why should matter be infinite but not anti-matter? It's more plausible to assume both were finite but there was a slight discrepancy in the amount.
Also the universe is expanding, this means the empty space between galaxies, and eventually stars will increase. No extra matter is being created to fill the void (Well maybe a little due to quantum fluctuations.)

Then again, I could be wrong. Like I said I am a lay person myself. And I'm very much open to being corrected on such matters.

quote:

Originally posted by CoffeeOwl:
Shadow, you finally came! So good to have your input! How have you been?

quote:

Originally posted by ShadowDragon:

quote:

Also we hear of the Age problem of stars. Some stars are older than the estimation of the age of the universe.

That's the first time I've heard of this tbh. Do note that when looking into space you're looking back in time. When you look at a star millions of lightyears away, you're looking at light that's millions of years old. The star itself may be gone already.

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_age.html

quote:

Though you should do some research on the multi-verse hypothesis.
And gravity can do strange things to matter.

http://academia.wikia.com/wiki/K._Marinas'_Cyclic_Multiverse_Hypothesis - is this the one, Shadow?

quote:

As for the universe, matter is finite

Why?

Thanks Shadow, I learned most of this and you helped clear up some of the science for me.

As for coffee,looks like we got the same nasa link:

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_age.html

Thats actually where I tried to learn more about the big bang.

O yeah and shadow, I knew it was inflated, I was just curious about the paradoxes that keep popping up in the theory. Have you read anything on it? For example, I was watching on the national geographic channel a program on this. The greatest scientists are still baffled at why there are so many paradoxes between quantum mechanics, physics and theory and their almost impossible contradictions to the nature and laws on how particles interact, behave and exist.

We all know there was a big bang, or at least it is the most widely accepted theory.

Yet there are still paradoxes that would normally prove the big bang impossible as what created the universe. That something would have to have existed before the big bang, because:

- matter, nor energy, can be created nor destroyed.

Yet if you read the speed of light you will turn to energy. And if you touch antimatter you will be blown up out of existence.

This is where the M-theory comes into play to help explain why there are so many paradoxes, but we havent really found any real indisputable evidence for many dimensions.

A shorter question I have is:

Why exactly dont quantum physics and particle physics agree, why do they seem to contradict eachother.

Like in the case of the big bang when matter and energy can be neither created nor destroyed. And how do they come up with alot of these theories.

I have been studying it, I love science, especially physics which is hard for me to comprehend you see.

quote:

Originally posted by ShadowDragon:
Ah thanks for those links Coffee, tbh I had only heard a few things about multi-verse hypothesis. Contrary to popular belief, I'm still a lay person and do not know everything hehe.

As for matter to be infinite, it should fill all of existence. Thing is when you start looking into space further and further you eventually reach the end of the observable universe. There is a certain point beyond which you cannot 'see' anything anymore.
Another strong clue for matter being finite is the lack of anti-matter.
Anti-matter is very real, it's not something made up by science-fiction. Anti-matter is, well, the opposite of matter. When matter and anti-matter meet they both annihilate. It is assumed that during the big bang the amount of matter and anti-matter were slightly uneven, as matter and anti-matter annihilated each other the anti-matter ran out before matter did. Why should matter be infinite but not anti-matter? It's more plausible to assume both were finite but there was a slight discrepancy in the amount.
Also the universe is expanding, this means the empty space between galaxies, and eventually stars will increase. No extra matter is being created to fill the void (Well maybe a little due to quantum fluctuations.)

Then again, I could be wrong. Like I said I am a lay person myself. And I'm very much open to being corrected on such matters.

You fooled me, I thought you were a scientist. lol. How do we know more matter isnt being created though? We only see what happened billions of years ago, we simply cant know if more is coming into existence, or if the big bang is caused by a white hole, if there is any relation to the big bang and white holes.

quote:

Yet I was reading something on the formation of stars. It is known that black holes are really dense neutron stars spinning so fast, they literally cause everything around them to spin so fast stars don't age because they are constantly colliding with other stars.

This whole thing about black holes is wrong. Black holes are formed when a star collapses. The material packs together and becomes so dense the escape velocity is greater than the speed of light.

Nothing gets sucked into black holes unless it enters the gravitational pull, sometimes material from nearby stars can enter them. Some black holes even have other stars orbiting them, like the one in the center of the galaxy.


Black holes make my brain hurt.

quote:

Originally posted by MidnightStar:

quote:

Yet I was reading something on the formation of stars. It is known that black holes are really dense neutron stars spinning so fast, they literally cause everything around them to spin so fast stars don't age because they are constantly colliding with other stars.

This whole thing about black holes is wrong. Black holes are formed when a star collapses. The material packs together and becomes so dense the escape velocity is greater than the speed of light.

Nothing gets sucked into black holes unless it enters the gravitational pull, sometimes material from nearby stars can enter them. Some black holes even have other stars orbiting them, like the one in the center of the galaxy.


Black holes make my brain hurt.

I'm aware of this.

quote:

Originally posted by ShadowDragon:
Ah thanks for those links Coffee, tbh I had only heard a few things about multi-verse hypothesis. Contrary to popular belief, I'm still a lay person and do not know everything hehe.

But you know more about this stuff then most of us here.

quote:

As for matter to be infinite, it should fill all of existence. Thing is when you start looking into space further and further you eventually reach the end of the observable universe. There is a certain point beyond which you cannot 'see' anything anymore.
Another strong clue for matter being finite is the lack of anti-matter.
Anti-matter is very real, it's not something made up by science-fiction. Anti-matter is, well, the opposite of matter. When matter and anti-matter meet they both annihilate. It is assumed that during the big bang the amount of matter and anti-matter were slightly uneven, as matter and anti-matter annihilated each other the anti-matter ran out before matter did. Why should matter be infinite but not anti-matter? It's more plausible to assume both were finite but there was a slight discrepancy in the amount.
Also the universe is expanding, this means the empty space between galaxies, and eventually stars will increase. No extra matter is being created to fill the void (Well maybe a little due to quantum fluctuations.)

Then again, I could be wrong. Like I said I am a lay person myself. And I'm very much open to being corrected on such matters.

Mmmm... So it all comes down to our ability to observe and count, no? If we can't currently see past some point, it doesn't mean that nothing exist there. Years ago, when I had more free time on my hands, I was fascinated with the concept of anti-matter. Unfortunately, nothing I read about it proves finiteness of matter or anti-matter. We can count and compare both in the range that is visible to us, but there is always a huge unknown variable laying beyond our current capabilities.

quote:

Originally posted by sonofhorus:
For example, I was watching on the national geographic channel a program on this. The greatest scientists are still baffled at why there are so many paradoxes between quantum mechanics, physics and theory and their almost impossible contradictions to the nature and laws on how particles interact, behave and exist.

National Geographic is a rather distorted reflection of how things really are in science, history, mythology, or about anything else they touch. They add too much emotion to their programs which is understandable since they want to keep people's interest up from start to finish. But as a trustworthy source on anything but images they suck. Trust me, they put up incredible BS when it comes to history/mythology, why their treatment of cosmology would be any different?

quote:

We all know there was a big bang, or at least it is the most widely accepted theory.

Yet there are still paradoxes that would normally prove the big bang impossible as what created the universe. That something would have to have existed before the big bang, because:

- matter, nor energy, can be created nor destroyed.

But some part of that matter managed to get inflated to create something that we chose to claim the whole Universe. Our error, not Nature's.

quote:

Why exactly don't quantum physics and particle physics agree, why do they seem to contradict each other.

Like in the case of the big bang when matter and energy can be neither created nor destroyed. And how do they come up with alot of these theories.

I have been studying it, I love science, especially physics which is hard for me to comprehend you see.

My very unscientific guess would be that they both are taking on a very ambitious task having limited tools and knowledge to do so. Hopefully as science progresses, the picture will become more and more complete and different branches of science will find more and more common ground and together form a better explanation. The Big Bang theory is still relatively young, others are even younger. Like, have patience

<---hearts shadow dragon.

But how do you have a big bang with the first law of thermodynamics, you know the conservation of mass-energy, which states that energy can not be created nor destroyed, in which neither can mass.

quote:

Originally posted by sonofhorus:
But how do you have a big bang with the first law of thermodynamics, you know the conservation of mass-energy, which states that energy can not be created nor destroyed, in which neither can mass.

God.

quote:

Originally posted by -GhOst-:

quote:

Originally posted by sonofhorus:
But how do you have a big bang with the first law of thermodynamics, you know the conservation of mass-energy, which states that energy can not be created nor destroyed, in which neither can mass.

God.

Or the flying spaghetti monster, or papa smurf etc.

One can never draw a positive conclusion from a lack of data. It's called 'god of the gaps' and it's a logical fallacy.

There is nothing wrong with saying "I don't know" when one lacks information.

Which is how I would respond to sonofhorus' question. We all crave explanations but we must suspend our judgement when we don't have enough information.

I'm glad I stumbled across this thread. Honestly, I think that if god does exist, he just kinda took over a planet... There is proof of the Big Bang, and the Earth is older that... 6 thousand years I think... How could it not be true?

Brit, the question is not whether or not the big bang is true. It is why it happened, where the matter originated from, and what is going to happen at the end of the universe.

@ShadowDragon, I am not going to suspend judgment on the matter, I am going to trust to my beliefs to fill a gap that is otherwise void. I do not care what you call the "supreme being," papa smurf is cool with me. I do not care what anyone thinks the "supreme being is" whether a multidimensional creature that has control over many "universes" or a supreme almighty God that controls this and only this sector of space and does so with direct control and application.

I personally believe that God is a source of infinite energy and our universe is a "bud" from this source.

It happened out of luck?

quote:

Originally posted by sonofhorus:
But how do you have a big bang with the first law of thermodynamics, you know the conservation of mass-energy, which states that energy can not be created nor destroyed, in which neither can mass.

For your reading pleasure:

"Something can not come out of nothing" - the first law of thermodynamics

Actually, the whol epage is damn good if you have time to read.

quote:

Originally posted by Evil Angel:
As far as god only ruling this sector of the universe.....interesting they don't mention the rest of the completely infinite space that's out there in the Bible, eh?

See, the texts from which the Bible originated were written in times when obsession with being in control of absolutely everything haven't kicked in yet. Local, partial was perfectly sufficient back then. The rest was probably overlooked during compilation.