Material Creation

[coldcreation]

 

Nothing is created from nothing.

 

Doesn't that mean matter has always existed then in one form or another?

 

That depends on what you mean by "one form or another."

 

All models for the formation of matter I am aware of require a phase transition, or a transformation, from a state dominated by energy or radiation, to one dominated by mass (in the form of atoms), in accordance with Einstein's equivalence of mass and energy, as expressed by his famous equation, E = mc2.

 

The transofmation process from energy to mass does not violate energy conservation as expressed by the first law of thermodynamics.

 

And that is the case for both the standard model and QSSC, though only one has the creation of energy itself. That is a violation of natural law. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, just transformed.

 

 

The question is: Where did the energy come from? Has energy always existed?

 

The short answer has to be yes, energy has always existed (in some form or another: e.g., potential energy, available energy), it is an irreducible property of the vacuum. We know this from the Casimir experiment, we know this from quantum mechanics and from general relativity. How and when energy is transformed depends on the model.

 

 

When all is said-and-done, I am left hopeful and confident that all is NOT said-and-done, that still is much more to be learned about the origin of hydrogen and its physical relation to the global cosmological picture, to material creation and observed abundance of all the other elements and their isotopes.

 

 

 

Ex nihilo nihil.

(Nothing [comes] from nothing)

 

 

 

 

CC

[HydrogenBond]

If we look at the current expansion of the universe and move the film back one year, the universe was smaller. If we keep playing it backwards it gets smaller and smaller. There are many ways to explain this. The easiest is the BB, since the extrapolation of an expansion backwards will logically result in an initial tiny state. Another way to explain this, is the constant addition of material but this is not supported by the observation.

 

Another possible explanation is some type of repulsive force. Its affect is sort of anti-gravity. This would preclude the creation of matter. Anti-matter does not explain this since anti-matter is a misnomer and is just regular mass with the charges reversed. It still is affected by gravity. The alternative explanation is matter is being lost, causing gravity to lower. But this is not observed to occur. Matter simply changes state.

 

Another alternative is the universe was always here. But this has the problem of why is it expanding? One possible explanation is the output due to fusion, by converting matter to energy, is increasing the energy value which is reflected in the bulk increase in kinetic energy. But the problem with that is if we play the expansion backwards, we still end up with rarified matter before there was any formation of stars, i.e., lower energy output. If it was always here, then why the need for all these transitions.

 

Another alternative is the universe is on recycle mode, where the expansion is fueled by the recycle of matter that reappears after recycle. But we don't see that much new matter appearing to account for the expansion.

 

The only theory that does not require going out on the limb to explain the expansion is the BB. The BB's conceptual problem lies within its initial creation. There are arguments against this, but once it is in motion, the other theories have conceptual problem with the expansion. They need to add some new laws of physics, which are not yet proven.

 

The conceptual problem with the BB lies within an assumption. If we assume a cyclic universe, for the sake of argument, the initial and final state looks like a huge black hole which seems very unlikely to expand. If the universe appeared or recycles as a white hole this is not a problem. White holes do not have to use the exact space-time coordinates of a black hole. In other words, the black hole state was here and white hole was there.

 

All the other models are implying this, with matter-energy creation, not requiring the exact coordinate position of black holes. These do not use a single white hole, but use a dispersion type affect. If a white hole appearance in space-time is not restricted to a just one point in space-time, but can appear distributed in both space and time, we get all the other theories. Everyone is correct and explains all that is possible during a white hole genesis dispersion within space-time, from bulk galaxies all the way down to isolated anti-particles. The huge black hole is over there. This does not dispute any theory but just uses BB and white hole dispersion.

[C1ay]

That depends on what you mean by "one form or another."...

 

The question is: Where did the energy come from? Has energy always existed?

 

One form or another includes those forms where matter exists as energy. My only point is that I don't subscribe to any "creation of matter" theories where something came from nothing. I do think the observable evidence suggests there was an event of some kind approximately 13.7 Gyr ago but I don't believe that evidence suggests or supports the idea that such an event is actually responsible for the creation of matter (energy) in any form, only the transformation and/or distribution of matter (energy) that already existed.

[C1ay]

The only theory that does not require going out on the limb to explain the expansion is the BB. The BB's conceptual problem lies within its initial creation. There are arguments against this, but once it is in motion, the other theories have conceptual problem with the expansion. They need to add some new laws of physics, which are not yet proven.

 

The conceptual problem with the BB lies within an assumption. If we assume a cyclic universe, for the sake of argument, the initial and final state looks like a huge black hole which seems very unlikely to expand. If the universe appeared or recycles as a white hole this is not a problem. White holes do not have to use the exact space-time coordinates of a black hole. In other words, the black hole state was here and white hole was there.

 

All the other models are implying this, with matter-energy creation, not requiring the exact coordinate position of black holes. These do not use a single white hole, but use a dispersion type affect. If a white hole appearance in space-time is not restricted to a just one point in space-time, but can appear distributed in both space and time, we get all the other theories. Everyone is correct and explains all that is possible during a white hole genesis dispersion within space-time, from bulk galaxies all the way down to isolated anti-particles. The huge black hole is over there. This does not dispute any theory but just uses BB and white hole dispersion.

 

I think there is another model that fits our observation which would explain a universe that resembles a cyclic model.

 

Imagine an infinite space. For the sake of visualization just imagine the room you are in now as that infinite space. Now imagine your fist as the observable, expanding universe as we know it, within that infinite space. Now imagine other expanding universes throughout that infinite space. Imagine that there are points where the matter from various expanding universes begins to intercept, overlap and condense into contracting universes. These contracting universes would eventually lead to a kind of super black hole containing as much or matter as the local universe we know. Now imagine those black holes reaching a point where their energy causes something like the big bang. Something like a supernova that forms a new expanding universe.

 

In this model the matter of our own universe came from others in an infinite space. Our universe went through an initial big crunch of existing matter and then there was the big bang and we became an expanding universe. We cannot see this because we cannot see beyond the event horizon. What we can see though is globular clusters that appear to be older than the 13.7 Gyr approximation for the age of our universe. This could be true if these are actually clusters from another nearby expanding universe in a larger infinite space. This larger infinite space would also explain what our expanding universe is expanding in.

 

Do keep in mind that this is just a personal thought on a model that might fit our observations. Consider it food for thought.

[modest]

Primordial creation is only powerful to the extent that the final result is in accord with the abundances of elements observed (and extrapolated). However, when you look at the opposite end of the scale (nearer the moment of creation), you will see that the quantity of each element necessary to fulfill requirements is arbitrary, i.e., depending on production rate now extrapolated back in time. That is why I said before if 55% helium was observed the chart would accommodate it just as easily: by shifting the entire He line, and thus the initial primordial quantity required.

 

This is such a huge misunderstanding of BBN on your part. There is nothing arbitrary about BBN's prediction of 25% Helium-4. The value was predicted before it could be measured with accuracy. About 10 years ago there was a mistaken belief by some that the universe had less than 25% He-4 by mass, leading to people questioning the validity of BBN. I will explain how .25 is obtained:

 

The only assumption we need to make is that primordial conditions were hot and dense enough for protons and neutrons to transform into each other. If these are the conditions then a ratio of 1 neutron to 7 protons is realized because (and only because) of their different relative masses. When cool enough, the universe binds the nucleons in the easiest way. Out of 16 nucleons - 4 become Helium-4 - 25% by mass. This is the only proportion of Helium-4 that works in BBN. So, you cannot say "the quantity of each element necessary to fulfill requirements is arbitrary" or "if 55% helium was observed the chart would accommodate it just as easily". These are either a huge misunderstanding or misleading. The link I gave you may help you understand how predictions of BBN are made as well as how the theory behind it works. This is preferable to you assuming it is all just made up and propagating such a misunderstanding.

 

There are other aspects of BBN which are very successful that I don't have time to get into right now. I would suggest you do some research into the topic with an open mind.

 

-modest

[modest]

Interesting about big bang nucleosynthesis is the density parameter. In the equilibrium physics equations of BBN there is a parameter η (greek eta) that is the number of ordinary matter particles divided by the number of photons in an area of described space. Depending on the value η we choose - the resulting proportion of light elements changes. This is because the primordial interactions are dependent on the density of their environment. If we graph the expected proportions of light elements as a function of η we get this:

 

 

This graph above represents no observations, only theory. We can add astronomical observations of dwarf galaxies and old stars that show good indications of primordial element proportions:

 

 

The dotted lines above represent astronomer's best data on ancient light element abundances. If we follow the intersection between observation and BBN theory we can predict the baryon density of the universe.

 

 

What's cool about this is WMAP was recently able to measure this value using the CMBR. It is a completely independent measure of η that strongly verifies BBN with a very high constraint. The red line in this graph represents both the WMAP data and the BBN prediction. :)

 

-modest

 

• I should note that I added no error bars to these graphs and they should be treated as conceptual

[Mike C]

I deleted this post and sent it to the Newtonian Mechanics site.

 

Mike C.

[Mike C]

To All

 

The AD HOC science that can be easily explaned by the content in the stars that are/were here before the BB'ers supplied their answers to mass content in our universe is based on math(?).

 

The Laws of Conservation say that matter always existed. So IMO, their was no 'ceation' of matter.

I give more 'credibility to those experiments than the AD HOC creations of matter

by math?

No thanks.

 

Mike C

[modest]

The Laws of Conservation say that matter always existed. So IMO, their was no 'ceation' of matter.

I give more 'credibility to those experiments than the AD HOC creations of matter

by math?

No thanks.

 

Mike C

I don't really know what you mean here. I agree that creating matter is a fundamental violation of conservation. Any theory describing what came before the big bang would need to explain this I should think. Or, it could be plausible that what came before the big bang had equal mass/energy as after - who could say. But, big bang nucleosynthesis is only concerned with plasma's metamorphosis to subatomic particles to atomic particles, not what came before. BBN uses 'math' to describe the evolution of matter in a hot, dense, small universe that expands. There is no math in BBN describing the creation of matter - only its transformation.

 

Is this more to your liking? Or, have I misunderstood you?

[Mike C]

I don't really know what you mean here. I agree that creating matter is a fundamental violation of conservation. Any theory describing what came before the big bang would need to explain this I should think. Or, it could be plausible that what came before the big bang had equal mass/energy as after - who could say. But, big bang nucleosynthesis is only concerned with plasma's metamorphosis to subatomic particles to atomic particles, not what came before. BBN uses 'math' to describe the evolution of matter in a hot, dense, small universe that expands. There is no math in BBN describing the creation of matter - only its transformation.

 

Is this more to your liking? Or, have I misunderstood you?

 

To begin with, IMO, nuclear research is a waste of money because it is 'backward' science. Just exactly what are they searching for? Destroying matter is backward science.

 

Stars 'fuse' matter when creating energy. But the actual fusion is not the generator of energy. It is the electron movements in these star plasmas that result in very strong magnetic pulses that create the energy. Forces here are the creators of the energies.

 

To get back to the BBU, I have a book here written by Michael Zeilik about the subject of Astronomy. This book is recommended by Ned Wright at CalTech.

Zeiliks opening pages (inside covers) give you a picture of the 'evolution' of the BBU.

At the time of Planck time (10^-44 sec.) supergravity starts off the creation of the BBU followed by the inflationary period and then the forces and then the particle era.

 

This sounds like a creation theory to me. So I still say the BBU is cosmogony.

 

Mike C

[coldcreation]

.

 

 

Hello all,

 

In his plain-speaking way, Hoyle struck at the two fundamental defects in the new relativists system—internally, at big bang nucleosynthesis, primordial creation of the light elements (see, The Origin of Helium and the Other Light Elements), and externally, the cosmic microwave background as relic radiation (same link).

 

A third defect, world instability, would be left to the anti-expansionist, Halton Arp (and other enemy combatants), whose approach has always been to observe, observe and to observe again to try and come up with the big ideas, rather than to come up with the big idea first and then test it. (Halton Arp is no relativist, for him, the universe is non-expanding, but even to some of us relativisits, there is a viable static solution: one that is allowed by observation, one that does not lead to the physical break-down of the natural laws at some time t).

 

But reality finally hit the big bang and its fans in the late 1990s, on fourth and four inside the rival’s 10-yard line, it was goal-to-go with only one second on the clock, the big bang quarterback took the snap and threw a bomb over the head his intended receiver (one of the Friedmann models) who’s long-shot hope for a catch was negated by the blinding light of a distant Supernova Type Ia.

 

 

It may be a little early, though, to exchange chest-bumps and heart-taps.

 

 

 

 

CC

[C1ay]

Stars 'fuse' matter when creating energy. But the actual fusion is not the generator of energy. It is the electron movements in these star plasmas that result in very strong magnetic pulses that create the energy. Forces here are the creators of the energies.

 

I'll wager your membership here that you cannot and will not support that claim. Where's your proof?

[modest]

A third defect, world instability, would be left to the anti-expansionist, Halton Arp (and other enemy combatants), whose approach has always been to observe, observe and to observe again to try and come up with the big ideas, rather than to come up with the big idea first and then test it.

 

What was (or I guess is) Arp’s stance on matter evolution or creation? I know a lot more about Hoyle’s work. Does Arp have a position - obviously that BBN is wrong because he favors non-expansion; but, is that something he's written about?

[Mike C]

I'll wager your membership here that you cannot and will not support that claim. Where's your proof?

 

That is TOO BIG of a gamble to wager.

 

Besides, I am not supposed to be on Hypography, so I will not answer this question until my suspension is lifted.

Craig suspended me for criticizing the nuclear research as an UNachievable goal since I said the destruction of matter is useless in our scientific research.

 

Besides, science is not religion. So freedom of opinion in this field should be allowed. I am not an infidel or a heretic, but am an honest evaluator of science as I interpret it. May the TRUTH have its say.

 

So I am refusing to answer questions directly till my suspension is lifted.

 

Mike C

[C1ay]

Besides, science is not religion. So freedom of opinion in this field should be allowed. I am not an infidel or a heretic, but am an honest evaluator of science as I interpret it. May the TRUTH have its say.

 

So I am refusing to answer questions directly till my suspension is lifted.

 

Science is not simply one's opinion either. It doesn't matter what freedom you think you should have. Backing up your claims is clearly stated in our rules. Comply or your repeated infractions will earn you a permanent suspension.

[coldcreation]

What was (or I guess is) Arp’s stance on matter evolution or creation? I know a lot more about Hoyle’s work. Does Arp have a position - obviously that BBN is wrong because he favors non-expansion; but, is that something he's written about?

 

 

Arp devoted himself to a kind of high-wire act—poised on the brink between acceptance and rejection, between success and failure—with the same air of suspense as a murder mystery. The crime scene: outer space. Audaciously, Arp meticulously sifted through vast amounts of data—much of it gathered by his own telescope time—and was able to refute theories that bandied out redshift z as evidence of a change in the scale factor with time t. Arp simply looked at the evidence, zeroed in the physical aspects (visible connections, luminous bridges) of celestial objects with divergent redshift and drew his own, often very astute conclusions. Because of the overwhelming evidence, the idea that redshift could be a measure of distance in an expand universe he found outrageous, absurd and even laughable.

 

Such a far-reaching conclusion about the gross deviations from the Hubble flow, and their corresponding implications for theoretical cosmology, will indisputably take twenty-first century observational astronomy much further. Nevertheless, it is probably premature to assume that any changes of profound importance will come from the majority of astronomers leading to the achievement of a deeper, fuller understanding of the universe we live in. However, with the defunct, non-operational Doppler shift on his hands, Halton Arp has not lost headway.

 

For the full recount of Arp’s take on the redshift, read Seeing Red. Here are just a couple of excerpts: “lower-mass electrons will give higher redshifts…younger electrons would be expected to have lower mass.” Both Arp and Hoyle seem to agree that the creation of ‘new’ matter comes from ejections out of active galactic nuclei. When speaking of ‘new’ matter, it is not meant that matter is coming into existence from nothing, or from somewhere else outside of the universe ‘there is nowhere else.’ It is the materialization through transformation of a previously diffused state of existing mass-energy (a quantum physics concept). The redshifts, according to Arp, are non-cosmological, non-velocity: They are due to the ‘age’ of the matter. Older matter shows less redshift; while younger matter shows higher redshift. As we look out into space, we are looking back in time (due to the finite speed of light), so it is logical that some objects situated at greater distances are younger than objects closer to home (provided, of course, they formed around the same universal time, whatever that is). Discordant redshifts occur because the newly ejected material is younger than the progenitor galaxy. The conclusion is crystal clear: The universe is not expanding.

 

Astronomers usually victoriously interject at this point: If the universe is not expanding, why does it not collapse due to the ‘attractive’ nature of gravitational force (RE: the Newtonian ‘attraction’ irony)? Arp explains that, “the variable particle masses with time produce mass dependent terms in the dynamical side of the equation which, as Jayant Narlikar has pointed out, guarantee stability.” Very ingeniously, Halton Arp states; “Of course for Big Bangers, who have a universe blowing apart, it is heartbreaking testimony to their plight that they would attempt to make a major criticism of a rival theory because it was unstable!” (Arp 1998, p. 223).

 

Certainly, behind Arp’s theory, some of it well established, some of yet to be proved, is a considerable backlog of scientific data. Much of the data was gathered as a freelance observational astronomer. To him all freelancers owe a great debt. His was the method of choice, he was successful. He attained his goal without ever having become the product of any organization but his own. His allegiance was always to observations first (and what observations they were), then to his beliefs, and only thereafter to whoever was footing the bill.

 

 

 

CC

[HydrogenBond]

I alway had a problem with red shift data versus distance. It had to do with the data not being real time data, but historical data. The light seen from the farthest objects has taken 10-15 billions years to reach us. We would not know for another 10-15 billions years, what it is doing today, unless light can travel faster than C. All we can say, by that data, is that at 10-15 billions years ago, it had this max red shift.

 

If you get closer, the lower red shift reflects an event that is closer in time, relative to the present. It too is not real time data but historical data. For example, if it was 8 billions light years away, all we know its the red shift 8 billion years ago. This is less than event of 10-15 billion years ago. If the universe formed at the same time, the 8B object also gave off light at the 10-15B time slot. But this light has long passed us. We have no good data for the 8B object before or after 8B years. It could have just appeared or could have been there since the most distance object. It is inconclusive. If one assumes the entire universe formed at the same time, then it is decelerating. The 10-15B year object won't show this lower level of red shift for another 2-7B years. It is not real time data, but a map of the historical data with the expansion slowing for the closer objects.

 

According to Arp, the generation of new electrons should have the most red shift. What that means, relative to the above discuss, is the 8 billion light year object, by having existed longer, i.e., 10-15 billions years, has gone through more changes. The light from the first 2-7B years of changes has long passed by us, so we were not able to see these changes. Based on this, if we assume the newer 8B object has more Arp red shift, than the old 10-15B data, then that would imply that although it has this stronger Arp red shift, it is nevertheless giving off a smaller red shift. This would imply a blue shift in velocity to compensate for the stronger Arp red shift. Arp theory changes the deceleration into a contraction cycle.