PDA

View Full Version : From where the material came from?



Scorch
2007-Feb-26, 07:58 PM
I kept asking myself where is the universe, but, the question the needs to be asked is from where the materials that build everything around us came from?

since humans create and from example a car created from x,y,z the human thinking, is that everything got created somehow.

Professor Mayhem
2007-Feb-26, 09:47 PM
If you're asking about the origins of matter, a good primer on that question can be found here (http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=631) and here. (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/02/010219080946.htm)

Long story short, current astrophysics tells us that the early universe was dominated by high-energy photons. Photons are known to spontaneously decay into particle and antiparticle pairs. A portion of mass in the universe came about as a result of this particle decay.

Peter Wilson
2007-Feb-27, 12:59 AM
I kept asking myself where is the universe...Right here, last time I checked :shifty:


...but, the question the needs to be asked is from where the materials that build everything around us came from?

since humans create and from example a car created from x,y,z the human thinking, is that everything got created somehow.That's what a human would think...but nobody knows :)

Physics is about dynamics, that is, how things change with time. No one knows the origin. Contrary to popular misconception, the Big Bang theory is not about origins, but about how things have changed since then.

astromark
2007-Feb-27, 05:56 AM
The following is not the answer you are looking for. It may not even be correct.
In that nanosecond that saw the expansion begin there was not matter, just energy. As the temperature began to drop some of that energy became mater. Slowly cooling and transiting from plasma to mater. Only in the super hot core of the larger stars and Nova events can there be enough matter under enough pressure to allow some of the heavy metals be formed. For example gold can not be created here on planet Earth. It must have been created in the core of a dieing star, nova event. Only after many billions of years did the mass of matter that became our solar mass form. Hence some of that material found its way into the crust of planet Earth. Our sun is only 4.5 to 5 billion years old. Not the 13.7 odd billions of the universe its self. A second generation star. Used second hand...Hmmm...
As for your original question 'where is the universe'? If you have no knowledge of an outside then you can only ask where in it we are. That is much simpler. HERE.:)
The real answer to your question is found in the fact that mater can be produced from energy. As energy can be all thats left of mater.

Scorch
2007-Feb-27, 07:46 PM
hmm, energy? us humans and other things around us are built from the same table of elements, from where those elements came from or energy? I think thats the question needs to be asked, to figure out the universe question in general.

Kaptain K
2007-Feb-27, 09:55 PM
Hydrogen and helium (and a very small amount of lithium) were created in the big bang. All other elements were created in stars.

Occam
2007-Feb-28, 07:15 PM
Hi Scorch. The simplest explanation I can give is this:
Energy and matter are the same thing. Energy cannot be destroyed but it can be transformed into a different state. Everything you think of as "matter" was created in stars, which were themselves formed from the basic elementary particles created in the "big bang". To use a simplistic analogy, when you burn a piece of paper, nothing gets destroyed. Some of the energy in the paper is released as electromagnetic radiation (light and heat) and some of the energy/matter takes on new form (ash and soot etc). Though a vastly simplistic analogy, if you think of the paper as the matter in a star, the transformation of energy during its life and death is what creates all the other materials - iron, carbon etc. Every particle of your body was created in a long dead star.

Professor Mayhem
2007-Mar-02, 03:39 PM
One also has to keep in mind that the baryonic matter we directly observe is probably only a small component of the overall composition of the universe. At this point, it is assumed that the early universe contained equal amounts of baryons and anti-baryons after the Big Bang. The term used to described the processes that resulted in an asymmetrical amount of baryons to anti-baryons in physical cosmology is called baryogenesis. It is believed that these processes are what produced the detectable matter of the universe we see today.

As modern cosmology has come to find out, the vast majority of the universe is probably dominated other forms of non-baryonic matter such as dark matter and dark energy. The most precise measurements we have indicate that as much as 96% of the universe exists in these "dark" states that we are only just beginning to indirectly observe.

RalofTyr
2007-Mar-02, 07:46 PM
Note my sig.

Perhaps humans are unable with their version of logic to understand how something can come out of nothing.

Most of the answers here, just report on what we've observed. None tell why. Why is there matter? Why is there light? Where did the stuff that makes us come from? Why is it here? Not even Stephen Hawkings can answer that question.

Kaptain K
2007-Mar-03, 05:59 AM
"Why" is outside the purview of Science. Science is concerned with "what", "when" "where" and "how". Once you get into "why", you've crossed over into Philosophy (and/or Religion)!

RalofTyr
2007-Mar-03, 06:29 AM
I disagree with you Kaptain. "Why", is the very heart of science. Why does the sun rise? Why is the sky blue?

astromark
2007-Mar-03, 11:32 AM
Yes, why is not a Philosophical question, nor is it religiously motivated. Why can simply imply a question as to what circumstances might bring into play a change. As in 'Why did comet Shoemaker-Levey break into many parts?' Why is not outside the purview of science as it is the motivating force to want to know.

Bogie
2007-Mar-03, 01:07 PM
I kept asking myself where is the universe, but, the question the needs to be asked is from where the materials that build everything around us came from?

since humans create and from example a car created from x,y,z the human thinking, is that everything got created somehow.
There have been some good answers to your question based on what science knows but as you can see, science does not claim to have everything figured out. There are many possible answers supported by many different views of science. There is one answer that I like best to the question "where did the materials that build everything around us come from?" That answer is that matter is composed of energy, energy has always existed, and there is a matter to energy to matter process that converts energy to matter and back to energy on a continual basis throughout the greater universe.

Limbo
2007-Mar-03, 01:20 PM
I remember hearing from my astronomy teacher that every single molecule of Hydrogen on the universe goes back to the big bang and that no new hydrogen was made. All hydrogen on the universe.... in the air, water and in our bodies is the same stuff from the time everything was made...

Pretty cool, huh?



Hydrogen and helium (and a very small amount of lithium) were created in the big bang. All other elements were created in stars.

trinitree88
2007-Mar-04, 01:20 AM
I'm growing weary of explaining the lies that persist with regards to particle physics, cosmology and the Big Bang Theory. As this is the questions and answers sections, I'll stick to the facts, not any ATM theory.
1. There has never been an adequate explanation of the presently observed asymmetry of matter over antimatter in the universe. I asked that question of Ernest O. Moniz, who at the time was Chair of the Department of Physics at MIT, and was shortly thereafter appointed President Clinton's Science Advisor in Washington,D.C., so he knows a bit about science, but like anybody has some limitations. It wasn't a question that I conceived...it's been around for a long time, and has generally been "swept under the rug" for housecleaning.
His answer? "There is presently no evidence from particle physics to explain the presently observed excess of matter over antimatter...none. Since that time, the early nineties ..(MIT ran a course in Nuclear and Particle Physics for High School Teachers Winter of 91-92..)..searches for asymmetry have shown some slight effect in B-meson production, but they do not decay into baryons (either protons or neutrons), and THAT is where the predominant observed asymmetry in the universe exists. Not in B-mesons, in protons, and electrons to a perfect match,with additional asymmetric neutrons thrown in for good measure.
Not a single experiment, not a single detector, not a single run....and there have been trillions of events searched in 50 + years . The statistics, which is all we really have in physics and the other real sciences, don't lie. There is no explanation for the presence of the universe as we see it...dominated by matter. There is no experiment, anywhere, anytime, anyhow that has seen a piece of dark matter...none. There is the same criterion for dark energy..Neither has been captured, identified, massed, and the properties deduced experimentally the way Canal Rays turned out to be protons, or Cathode Rays turned out to be electrons...none. It's all handwaving, and mysticism to the first degree.
There have been legions of articles about supersymmetry and 17 particles along with their supersymmetric partners...for a total of 34...and not a single particle experiment has seen evidence for a single one of them. None. Not a single detector, not a single experiment, not a single run, not one....none.
The onus on the explanation to a question in science is "Where is the evidence?" Show me. Show me the rationale for explaining answers to questions that readers in this forum ask with zero experimental evidence to back you up.
Now, I have a question.."How is that construed to be science?" I'll listen to the facts. Ciao. Pete.

Bogie
2007-Mar-04, 01:34 AM
I'm growing weary of explaining the lies that persist with regards to particle physics, cosmology and the Big Bang Theory. As this is the questions and answers sections, I'll stick to the facts, not any ATM theory.
1. There has never been an adequate explanation of the presently observed asymmetry of matter over antimatter in the universe. I asked that question of Ernest O. Moniz, who at the time was Chair of the Department of Physics at MIT, and was shortly thereafter appointed President Clinton's Science Advisor in Washington,D.C., so he knows a bit about science, but like anybody has some limitations. It wasn't a question that I conceived...it's been around for a long time, and has generally been "swept under the rug" for housecleaning.
His answer? "There is presently no evidence from particle physics to explain the presently observed excess of matter over antimatter...none. Since that time, the early nineties ..(MIT ran a course in Nuclear and Particle Physics for High School Teachers Winter of 91-92..)..searches for asymmetry have shown some slight effect in B-meson production, but they do not decay into baryons (either protons or neutrons), and THAT is where the predominant observed asymmetry in the universe exists. Not in B-mesons, in protons, and electrons to a perfect match,with additional asymmetric neutrons thrown in for good measure.
Not a single experiment, not a single detector, not a single run....and there have been trillions of events searched in 50 + years . The statistics, which is all we really have in physics and the other real sciences, don't lie. There is no explanation for the presence of the universe as we see it...dominated by matter. There is no experiment, anywhere, anytime, anyhow that has seen a piece of dark matter...none. There is the same criterion for dark energy..Neither has been captured, identified, massed, and the properties deduced experimentally the way Canal Rays turned out to be protons, or Cathode Rays turned out to be electrons...none. It's all handwaving, and mysticism to the first degree.
There have been legions of articles about supersymmetry and 17 particles along with their supersymmetric partners...for a total of 34...and not a single particle experiment has seen evidence for a single one of them. None. Not a single detector, not a single experiment, not a single run, not one....none.
The onus on the explanation to a question in science is "Where is the evidence?" Show me. Show me the rationale for explaining answers to questions that readers in this forum ask with zero experimental evidence to back you up.
Now, I have a question.."How is that construed to be science?" I'll listen to the facts. Ciao. Pete.I'd say somebody got up on the wrong side of the virtual particle this morning :).

But I agree with you and would be surprised if the final answer to the question that Scorch asked in the OP would include a discussion of asymmetry. On the other hand it wouldn't surprise me if the answer consisted of how matter forms from some unifying particle that is indestructible and has always existed.

Kaptain K
2007-Mar-04, 02:36 AM
Many of the (now) known particles were predicted before they were experimentally verified, including your favorite, the neutrino! The predicted masses of supersymmetric particles have (so far) been out of reach. Some of the lower mass particles may be within reach of the LHC and upgraded Tevatron. Eventually, we will reach a "make or break" point and either these particles will be found or supersymmetry will have to be discarded. We have not reached that point yet!

trinitree88
2007-Mar-04, 02:01 PM
I'd say somebody got up on the wrong side of the virtual particle this morning :).

But I agree with you and would be surprised if the final answer to the question that Scorch asked in the OP would include a discussion of asymmetry. On the other hand it wouldn't surprise me if the answer consisted of how matter forms from some unifying particle that is indestructible and has always existed.

Bogie. Snippet..Re:".wrong side of the virtual particle." I think it's important to stand one's ground on the side of the experimental corroboration for theoretical constructs. I'm not an experimentalist. I teach kids labs, and hands-on, and data analysis, and hope for a regular proof-of-principle effect from the process, but I've seen some funny things....using a borrowed cosmic-ray telescope, a light-shielded plastic scintillator coupled to a photomultiplier from the Bates Linear Accelerator. It has a directional sensitivity, so over a few days you can show that there's a statistical increase from the zenith vs the horizon of the atmosphere.(mostly muon showers). That's normal. But, it doesn't prevent the occurence of a high transient burst from near the horizon, even though the atmospheric attenuation is much higher there due to the long path length. If someone runs a short experiment, you can get a very skewed result...that's why we look again, and again for corroboration.
So, I didn't laugh at Pons & Fleischman when they thought they had cold fusion. Sneaky initiators of nuclear interactions can occur at spastic intervals unless the results are taken from deep mines..(like the IMB, Kamiokande).
People can close their eyes, ears and instruments to reason....I recall eating dry Cheerios for breakfast in Dec.1956-Jan. 1957 because the strontium-90 levels in the milk from the cows in Vermont was so high the AEC had to pull all the milk out of the stores in Eastern Massachusetts to avoid radiation poisoning from downwind fallout from the Nevada military tests.
The presence of mass in the universe remains totally unexplained. Finding a Higgs would be as exciting as the J/Psi revolution, and could initiate parity studies yielding an answer to the asymmetry. Failing that would lead to more interesting turns of events. pete

mugaliens
2007-Mar-04, 04:16 PM
I'm not sure about the origens of the universe, but I do recall hearing my college physics professor discussing nuclear decay. All elements except one spontaneously give off various particles from time to time, loosing a proton here and there, or an electron, or even a neutron. Some decay is very rapid, on the order of microseconds. Some of our heaviest elements are manmade, and most don't stick around very long. Other manmade elements are more stable, but the reason they don't occur in nature (to any extent that we can actually find them, anyway), is because they are unstable.

Similarly, the lighter elements such as hydrogen, helium, etc. tend to capture neutrons, transforming into heavier elements such as deuterium. Another proton and neutron, and deuterium becomes helium, giving off energy in the process.

Both reduction decay and building "decay" gives off energy.

Eventually, and this won't occur for a very long time, everything will decay into iron. Not billions of years, not even trillions, but many trillions of trillions of years. Even then, we might not get to 100% iron, the matter having grown far too cold to exhibit any further activity of any significance.

But yes - we're all headed back to the Iron Age, albeit of a different sort.

Ken G
2007-Mar-04, 05:35 PM
I remember hearing from my astronomy teacher that every single molecule of Hydrogen on the universe goes back to the big bang and that no new hydrogen was made.

That is so cool that it is probably forgivable that it isn't entirely correct. Radioactive elements made from hydrogen in stars can decay back again by sending out neutrons that in a few minutes decay back to protons, i.e., to hydrogen nuclei. Since the "hydrogenness" was certainly lost during that entire process, I wouldn't say it's a stretch to call those end products "new hydrogen". Still, the teacher's point is well taken-- the very vast majority of hydrogen we find around us was indeed made in the first few minutes of the universe, and since then has pretty much gone its merry way.

Enphilistor
2007-Mar-05, 08:31 PM
If you're asking about the origins of matter, a good primer on that question can be found here (http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=631) and here. (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/02/010219080946.htm)

Long story short, current astrophysics tells us that the early universe was dominated by high-energy photons. Photons are known to spontaneously decay into particle and antiparticle pairs. A portion of mass in the universe came about as a result of this particle decay.

Your answering the "current astrophysics", is not answering his question, and it is probably the wrong question, in any case. The question is not where did matter come from, or even where the high energy photons came from, but where did space come from?

Enphilistor

Limbo
2007-Mar-06, 04:29 AM
That is so cool that it is probably forgivable that it isn't entirely correct. Radioactive elements made from hydrogen in stars can decay back again by sending out neutrons that in a few minutes decay back to protons, i.e., to hydrogen nuclei. Since the "hydrogenness" was certainly lost during that entire process, I wouldn't say it's a stretch to call those end products "new hydrogen". Still, the teacher's point is well taken-- the very vast majority of hydrogen we find around us was indeed made in the first few minutes of the universe, and since then has pretty much gone its merry way.

Now If the elements are decaying BACK to hydrogen, couldn't we also say that hydrogen were always there (by number of atoms) and are not really new H being created...?

I just like the original poetry of we all being made from the original stuff better :)

Professor Mayhem
2007-Mar-06, 04:01 PM
Your answering the "current astrophysics", is not answering his question, and it is probably the wrong question, in any case. The question is not where did matter come from, or even where the high energy photons came from, but where did space come from?

Enphilistor

You can't imply that energy is "created" without throwing conservation of energy and momentum out the window. That's why you won't see any sort of "ultimate" origin postulated by modern physics. Our Newtonian preconceptions regarding "cause and effect" and "beginning and end" have no real meaning at subatomic levels.

The big bang model is only used as a theoretical framework for a universal time scale based on the earliest measurable event in the universe, that being the big bang itself. The energy contained within the big bang, according to just about everything that has every been observed in physics, should have already been there at the time of the singularity. Matter itself is finite, and the mechanics behind how it is created in its various states is well known. However, no one can really suggest that energy itself is created without violating conservation of energy and momentum. Suggesting otherwise runs into a whole mess of fundamental contradictions.

Squashed
2007-Mar-06, 04:44 PM
This is a very interesting topic which I have engaged in at various times:

The Law of Conservation of Entity Count (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=52908)

Electrons From Photons (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=52459)

Especially in the thread entitled: The Law of Conservation of Entity Count; I learned that it is very likely that photons are not the basic building block of the universe.

I would like, very much, for that to be the case because it fits my understanding of the universe better but particle physics seems to say otherwise.

If photons are not the elemental entity of the universe then the big bang was not an expanding ball of photons as astromark and Professor Mayhem suggest but instead the big bang was composed of a multitude of different entities: photons, quarks, neutrinos, and who knows what else.

The big bang was a true soup with a variety of ingredients without any of which would result in an unpalatable slop.

The universe was at its simplest state at the big bang but it was definitely not a simple single-entity beginning: photons.

Peter Wilson
2007-Mar-06, 06:11 PM
I'm growing weary of explaining the lies that persist with regards to particle physics, cosmology and the Big Bang Theory. As this is the questions and answers sections, I'll stick to the facts, not any ATM theory.
1. There has never been an adequate explanation of the presently observed asymmetry of matter over antimatter in the universe. I asked that question of Ernest O. Moniz, who at the time was Chair of the Department of Physics at MIT, and was shortly thereafter appointed President Clinton's Science Advisor in Washington,D.C., so he knows a bit about science, but like anybody has some limitations. It wasn't a question that I conceived...it's been around for a long time, and has generally been "swept under the rug" for housecleaning.
His answer? "There is presently no evidence from particle physics to explain the presently observed excess of matter over antimatter...none. Since that time, the early nineties ..(MIT ran a course in Nuclear and Particle Physics for High School Teachers Winter of 91-92..)..searches for asymmetry have shown some slight effect in B-meson production, but they do not decay into baryons (either protons or neutrons), and THAT is where the predominant observed asymmetry in the universe exists. Not in B-mesons, in protons, and electrons to a perfect match,with additional asymmetric neutrons thrown in for good measure.
Not a single experiment, not a single detector, not a single run....and there have been trillions of events searched in 50 + years . The statistics, which is all we really have in physics and the other real sciences, don't lie. There is no explanation for the presence of the universe as we see it...dominated by matter. There is no experiment, anywhere, anytime, anyhow that has seen a piece of dark matter...none. There is the same criterion for dark energy..Neither has been captured, identified, massed, and the properties deduced experimentally the way Canal Rays turned out to be protons, or Cathode Rays turned out to be electrons...none. It's all handwaving, and mysticism to the first degree.
There have been legions of articles about supersymmetry and 17 particles along with their supersymmetric partners...for a total of 34...and not a single particle experiment has seen evidence for a single one of them. None. Not a single detector, not a single experiment, not a single run, not one....none.
The onus on the explanation to a question in science is "Where is the evidence?" Show me. Show me the rationale for explaining answers to questions that readers in this forum ask with zero experimental evidence to back you up.
Now, I have a question.."How is that construed to be science?" I'll listen to the facts. Ciao. Pete.:clap:

closetgeek
2007-Mar-06, 06:48 PM
But the "why" in science is actually looking for the "what cause". Why did the cup fall off the table can also be broken down to 'what force caused the cup to fall off the table". Generally the "why is there matter" if meant, what caused matter to exist can be answered scientifically. "Why is there matter at all" is philosophical as in searching for a force with a will.

I disagree with you Kaptain. "Why", is the very heart of science. Why does the sun rise? Why is the sky blue?

Ken G
2007-Mar-07, 10:41 PM
Yes, I think KaptainK was merely making the point that some questions are not properly posed for the methods of science to be able to answer. Oftentimes that difference can be summarized as "how" vs. "why", but of course it depends on how the asker means those words-- sometimes no distinction is intended, sometimes a world of distinction is intended. It is a point I made on another thread-- the words we use tend to be woefully inadequate to communicate clearly, and we should all endeavor to describe what we mean more clearly rather than trusting in vague shared understanding of what simple words mean.

Kaptain K
2007-Mar-08, 03:55 AM
I'm sorry I did not make myself clear. What I was trying to do was distinguish between science and religion/philosophy. Call it big why and little why. Little why can be thought of as a subset of "what/how" and as such, is within the realm of science. Big why questions are not amenable to scientific inquiry. I hope this clarifies my earlier statement.

Ken G
2007-Mar-08, 01:55 PM
There, you see, we already have two new desperately needed words-- bigwhy and littlewhy!

stutefish
2007-Mar-09, 03:01 AM
Or we could just agree on a convention where "why?" means "to what purpose?" and is a metaphysical/philosophical question outside the scope of science to answer, and consider any other interpretation of "why?" to actually mean "how?", and be within the scope of science to answer.

Ken G
2007-Mar-09, 08:43 AM
That was clearly KaptainK's meaning as well. I think it is still not precise enough, though. The right answer to any question depends on the intention of the questioner in asking, and just "why = to what purpose" or "how = by what mechanism" is still not good enough. I've often noticed that when you ask a question to someone knowledgeable, they can often answer, but when you ask a true expert, there will invariably follow a question back-- "do you mean...?", before there can be an answer. That's because the expert knows so many answers to any one question that further clarification is generally required. For example, if someone asked, "by what process did you learn your physics", the answer could be "by reading books", or it could be, "by working through the problems in the books", or it could be, "by questioning all my assumptions and building them up and tearing them down until I had a working set that was successful at solving the problems in the books", etc. Or, if asked "for what purpose did you learn physics", the answer could be, "to get a job", or "to explore what is meant by the concept of objective reality", etc. It all depends on what the questioner is really asking, and the words we generally use are pretty woefully inadequate without a lot of further clarification. That is never more true than with the ever popular, "why am I here?" Determining what is actually meant by such questions can be most of the process of answering them.