Zone1 A christian-atheist compromise?

[ding]

But again, let's say atoms are the only possible stable configuration of matter, thus requiring our exact infitesimally unlikely physical laws. In that case, Answer my question here, please: given enough universes, wouldn't even the most unlikely be probable to form? And if enough with our exact laws formed, wouldn't it be likely that the factors for life would arise in some of those many, many universes just like ours?

How many times do I need to address this?

Our universe was created in an unnatural way with NEARLY equal amounts of matter and anti-matter instead of equal equal amounts of matter and anti-matter which is natural for paired particle production. So in your analogy it would require an infinite number of universes being created unnaturally. Which would effectively mean that what we know is unnatural - unequal paired production of particles - is actually natural. Which we know it's not.

 

[ding]

Aren't you shooting at the hip and assuming this latest "gap" in science has no scientific answer? So the Standard Model can not account for the extra matter. There are plenty of theories, just like there have been for past concepts that didn't yet have an explanation and now do. What happens when they find the explanation for this one?

Each major breakthrough in scientific history wound up explaining what had seemed unnatural, since newton's belief that gravity was god actively holding the planets together to now.

Which gap is it that you think I am filling exactly? The question I am asking is if the universe was created intentionally. And from the evidence we have I don't see how it can be any other way. The evidence shows a finely tuned universe created in an unnatural way.

 

[john54]

How many times do I need to address this?

Our universe was created in an unnatural way with NEARLY equal amounts of matter and anti-matter instead of equal equal amounts of matter and anti-matter which is natural for paired particle production. So in your analogy it would require an infinite number of universes being created unnaturally. Which would effectively mean that what we know is unnatural - unequal paired production of particles - is actually be natural. Which we know it's not.
You are shooting from the hip. You don't know the science behind the big bang.

We're catching up with each other's comments. Hold on.

I understand your point now. The universe is not just ridiculously unlikely in its fine tuning, but, you believe, unnatural. I understand what you're saying now.

 

[expat_panama]

Which gap is it that you think I am filling exactly? The question I am asking is if the universe was created intentionally. And from the evidence we have I don't see how it can be any other way. The evidence shows a finely tuned universe created in an unnatural way.

Please explain what kind of evidence you have that requires an intentional universe. Certainly no physical observable evidence. If you're referring to reasoned sensibility then that wouldn't be evidence but rather an interpretation of of the evidence.

 

[john54]

Which gap is it that you think I am filling exactly? The question I am asking is if the universe was created intentionally. And from the evidence we have I don't see how it can be any other way. The evidence shows a finely tuned universe created in an unnatural way.

Super symmetry is one theory predicting as-of-yet undetected subatomic particles that could account for the extra matter in the early universe. Larger particle accelerators will be made that may detect them.

Newton, likely the smartest man to ever live, assumed gravity was unnatural, and he was wrong.

Tesla assumed electricity existed in a divine ether, and he was wrong.

Why do you jump to "unnatural" rather than "not yet explained" when we are continuing to find new physics, new subatomic particles, just like we have throughout history. Why do you assume this is "the end"?

 

[ding]

We're catching up with each other's comments. Hold on.

I understand your point now. The universe is not just ridiculously unlikely in its fine tuning, but, you believe, unnatural. I understand what you're saying now.

Our life filled universe is implausible and was created in an unnatural way.

 

[ding]

Please explain what kind of evidence you have that requires an intentional universe. Certainly no physical observable evidence. If you're referring to reasoned sensibility then that wouldn't be evidence but rather an interpretation of of the evidence.

The structure of matter is finely tuned for life. Slightly alter it (change the charge of electrons and protons such that they are not exactly equal and opposite, size of electron changes, distance between electron and nucleus changes) and the universe could still created in the exact same way but would be impossible for life to arise. Our universe was created in an unnatural way. Through paired particle production that produced unequal amounts of matter and anti-matter which is what is unnatural. Paired particle production produces equal amounts of matter and anti-matter which would have left only a radiation filled universe.

 

[ding]

Super symmetry is one theory predicting as-of-yet undetected subatomic particles that could account for the extra matter in the early universe. Larger particle accelerators will be made that may detect them.

Newton, likely the smartest man to ever live, assumed gravity was unnatural, and he was wrong.

Tesla assumed electricity existed in a divine ether, and he was wrong.

Why do you jump to "unnatural" rather than "not yet explained" when we are continuing to find new physics, new subatomic particles, just like we have throughout history. Why do you assume this is "the end"?

Because paired particle production creates equal amounts of matter and anti-matter. Do you know what the CMB is? Or how it came to be?

 

[john54]

Because paired particle production creates equal amounts of matter and anti-matter. Do you know what the CMB is? Or how it came to be?

The photons that were released during decoupling of the paired particles 378,000 years after the big bang, which can now be detected as microwave radiation, due to the increase in wavelength in the 13 and a half billion years since.

 

[ding]

People who can't show the humility needed to say something like that are stunted and suffer from an arrested development

Or they never were taught better and haven't learned anything from their experiences. Which is another reason I believe the universe was created intentionally. If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for universal good behaviors. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. Which we do through consequences. We are constantly receiving feedback.

 

[ding]

The photons that were released during decoupling of the paired particles 378,000 years after the big bang, which can now be detected as microwave radiation, due to the increase in wavelength in the 13 and a half billion years since.

Not exactly. That is a consequence of the creation/release/conversion of radiation and the temperature of the universe. The radiation was released by the mutual annihilation of matter and anti-matter. Which later decoupled from the remaining matter after the mutual annihilation of matter and anti-matter as the universe cooled enough for radiation to decouple from matter.

Do you know how much matter and anti-matter was annihilated relative to the matter that was remaining - which is the matter in the universe that creates our space time?

 

[john54]

Not exactly. That is a consequence of the creation/release/conversion of radiation and the temperature of the universe. The radiation was released by the mutual annihilation of matter and anti-matter. Which later decoupled from the remaining matter after the mutual annihilation of matter and anti-matter as the universe cooled enough for radiation to decouple from matter.

Do you know how much matter and anti-matter was annihilated relative to the matter that was remaining - which is the matter in the universe that creates our space time?

I believe the extra matter accounted for about one part per billion of the entire matter-anti-matter mix?

 

[ding]

Super symmetry is one theory predicting as-of-yet undetected subatomic particles that could account for the extra matter in the early universe. Larger particle accelerators will be made that may detect them.

Newton, likely the smartest man to ever live, assumed gravity was unnatural, and he was wrong.

Tesla assumed electricity existed in a divine ether, and he was wrong.

Why do you jump to "unnatural" rather than "not yet explained" when we are continuing to find new physics, new subatomic particles, just like we have throughout history. Why do you assume this is "the end"?

You are now talking about dark matter/dark energy which is an entirely different subject. But one that I think is even more evidence of an intentionally created universe.

 

[ding]

I believe the extra matter accounted for about one part per billion of the entire matter-anti-matter mix?

For every 1,000,000,000 particles of anti-matter there were 1,000,000,001 matter particles. So for every remaining matter particle there were 2 billion particles ( 1 billion anti-matter and 1 billion matter particles) that were annihilated. So the CMB is equivalent to 2 billion times the observable matter in the universe.

That's a lot of matter. Where do you believe it came from? Because there was no time when there was a created thing that preceded the universe and out of which the universe was made.

 

[john54]

For every 1,000,000,000 particles of anti-matter there were 1,000,000,001 matter particles. So for every remaining matter particle there were 2 billion particles ( 1 billion anti-matter and 1 billion matter particles) that were annihilated. So the CMB is equivalent to 2 billion times the observable matter in the universe.

That's a lot of matter. Where do you believe it came from? Because there was no time when there was a created thing that preceded the universe and out of which the universe was made.

Yes, I was just reading about that. The analogy one physicist makes is if you flipped a coin enough times, you would expect an even number of heads and tails (matter and antimatter being created and annihilating equally), and yet this significant discrepancy somehow occurs.

It seems like there is progress being made to answer how this happened though. The LHC has found that matter and anti-matter don't have identical properties and that is still being investigated. Also, have you heard of electroweak baryogenesis as a theory to explain it?

 

[ding]

Yes, I was just reading about that. The analogy one physicist makes is if you flipped a coin enough times, you would expect an even number of heads and tails (matter and antimatter being created and annihilating equally), and yet this significant discrepancy somehow occurs.

It seems like there is progress being made to answer how this happened though. The LHC has found that matter and anti-matter don't have identical properties and that is still being investigated. Also, have you heard of electroweak baryogenesis as a theory to explain it?

I'm well aware of that. I'm also aware that this means they aren't identical which they are. And it still doesn't address the question of where everything came from.

 

[ding]

Yes, I was just reading about that. The analogy one physicist makes is if you flipped a coin enough times, you would expect an even number of heads and tails (matter and antimatter being created and annihilating equally)

I'm not sure that's a valid analogy. Paired particle production isn't a statistical thing.

• In the early universe, matter and anti-matter were being created equally out of the radiation
  • pair production
    • pair production is the production of matter and anti-matter in pairs
    • two photons can produce a pair
    • particle-antiparticle annihilation (the reverse process) is also possible

• Anti-Matter
  • What is anti-matter (anti-particles)?
    • A type of matter which has the same mass as normal matter, but opposite charge

  • particle​	charge of particle​	anti-particle​	charge of anti-particle​
    proton​	positive​	anti-proton​	negative​
    neutron​	neutral​	anti-neutron​	neutral​
    electron​	negative​	anti-electron or positron​	positive​

• Matter and anti-matter can be created in pairs from energy (or electromagnetic radiation)
  • E = m c2
    • E = energym = massc2 = speed of light squared (here just a constant of proportionality)
  • For example
    • energy -------->proton + anti-protonenergy --------> electron + positron
  • OR matter can annihilate in pairs
    • proton + anti-proton ----------> energyelectron + positron (anti-electron) ---------> energy

 

[ding]

john54 the point I am actually trying to make is that your belief in the "non-existence" of God is not as cut and dried as you might believe. So you might want to lay off of the thinly veiled attempts at subordinating Christianity. It's more than a little insulting to some of your fellow human beings. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you and all that.

 

[john54]

john54 the point I am actually trying to make is that your belief in the "non-existence" of God is not as cut and dried as you might believe. So you might want to lay off of the thinly veiled attempts at subordinating Christianity. It's more than a little insulting to some of your fellow human beings. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you and all that.

Well I wasn't trying to be an ass as much as scoping out where logic ends and belief begins with this particular faith.

You've raised the likelihood of a God in my mind to above Santa, ok. But really not by a lot because all I'm reading about baryogenesis is that it's just one more scientific question we're inching closer to having the answer to. A revision of the standard model has been long in the coming anyway, given that it can't even explain presently observable quantum effects.

I can't understand why you would find an omnipotent intelligent entity creating the extra matter more likely than just another scientific quirk we haven't figured out yet. Einstein thought much of quantum theory was ridiculous and a lot of what he thought was absurd has since been proven - if someone that smart couldn't see a path forward and still be wrong, why are you so confident that it's not just a matter of time?

 

[expat_panama]

Or they never were taught better and haven't learned anything from their experiences. Which is another reason I believe the universe was created intentionally. If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for universal good behaviors. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. Which we do through consequences. We are constantly receiving feedback.

Maybe I can understand your point better, but let's agree that we're not talking about scientific evidence but rather it's reasoned sensibility.

Steven Hawking mentioned in his book that if the gravitational constant were to vary bay a tenth of a percent the universe would either never have formed stars, or they'd all just collapse in on themselves. We got a great constant that makes us all possible.

Of course that doesn't prove anything, we could be here because there are an infinite number of universes and we just happen to be in the one that makes us possible. Or maybe there's some other as yet undiscovered reason why the constant has to be what it is. mho is all that's a bit contrived, but the fact is there's no scientific proof that points either way.