It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


How do you believe the first molecule of matter came into existence?

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 09:35 PM
There is no answer. Even for those that claim GOD! the question still remains. Where did god come from? cant create something out of nothing can we? So there are always two conclusions I can think of, either matter has always existed or god has or both. Personally I believe this universe is a simulation but still the question remains. I do not believe the answer will ever truly be found

posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 09:38 PM
Well I swore never to tell, but I will anyway...I farted...then bam the big bang occurred.

Just kidding.
But seriously, there's no way of us ever knowing.

posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 10:02 PM
reply to post by lobotomizemecapin

For those that believe in a creator, the theory is that He is not made of matter, and does not exist on the same dimensional plane as we least he doesn't live here. An infinite, eternal creator, one not made of matter (at least not matter as we know it to exist), existing outside of his creation...a creator never created but infinite....actually, logic nor science has any issue with that concept. Infinite matter does not exist, because all matter eventually loses its energy. I personally believe this, because I can find no other reasoning or logic that makes any sense. If matter exists, it came from somewhere. I am enjoying reading others thoughts on the subject.

I don't agree with infinite universes because if there is matter in that universe, than it came from somewhere....there is a cause for each and every effect. We as human beings have given names to particle, calling them atoms, molecules, antimatter and matter...the scientific naming process itself almost robs humans of the ability to see the Divine, because we have categorized it, labeled it, and we are looking for the next cause.

I don't solely believe based on cause and effect, I also believe because of my own personal opinions on biblical prophecy and on the evidence that I have found throughout my life.

I'll add that it is very, very easy for me to see why an atheist or agnostic does not or will not believe in a creator. I have known extremely intelligent atheists and extremely intelligent Christians ( as well as other religions obviously) IMO, God's plan is far too complex for any mortal person to ever truly understand, and therefore there are naturally people with IQ's of like 180 who are going to simply shrug their shoulders and say, whatever....I am too smart for that nonsense. There are other issues concerning that, such as, what do we base our moral compass on if there is no God? But those issues are oft debated, and we are talking about the creation of matter.

I toss the idea around alot....if you took away the ethical nature of God, as in the biblical God...would atheists admit that there is a creator, at least? Or is the universe being infinite and completely unbiased in its own existence required for the disbelief in a creator? Does the thought of a being with a mind and the power to create all that we know offend the mind of some people?

I really respect all opinions, even if I do disagree. Alot of intelligent and interesting stuff.

edit on 29-12-2012 by BSFC123 because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-12-2012 by BSFC123 because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 10:03 PM
reply to post by ldyserenity

That would explain alot about everything seeming so crappy all of the time.

posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 10:10 PM
In the beginning there was no you OP
Somewhere along the became and questioned, the time of the first moment, and how it became.
You are asking human beings all across the world...a question that asks things that occurred before anything physical existed.
Perhaps in that , lies the answer.

posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 10:17 PM
reply to post by OrionsWitness

Good point and well put. The only thing any of us can do is look at the evidence we have and draw our own conclusions.

posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 10:34 PM
I'm going to go with either

1) "Matter" poured into this universe through a puncture wound it received in a knife-fight with a far denser universe.

2) "Matter" isn't actually "in" our universe. Instead, think of our universe as a barrier -- like a black sheet laid down over several boxes of Legos dumped in a pile on the floor. What we perceive as "matter" is actual a perturbation of that sheet due to the underlying shape of a large block or collection of blocks beneath it. Our understanding of our "flat" universe is due to our perspective as creatures living inside its apparent boundary: We only perceive one side of one block, because we -- and every other star in the universe -- are pressed up against an underlying geometry we can not perceive directly, but can explore by measuring its impact against our filter.

3) PFM


4) A tiny black hole formed, and swallowed a man. This man was an architect, or a poet, or perhaps a madman. I can never remember. Anyway -- everything he ever "knew" or imagined was sucked in, and splattered up against the outer edge of the new black hole. Finally, a hologram of this record was broadcast into a rapidly expanding bubble, via "white-hole," and this encoded-copy-of-the-one-man's-experiences in his own universe become the lattice upon which our own was arranged.

Personally? I'm leaning towards PFM, and a pizza.

posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 01:14 AM
According to the reciprocal system of physical theory, all energy and matter is based on motion, or more specifically time and space. Time and space are two elements in which we are unable to locate a beginning or an end and as such may very much be infinite.

In trying to picture how the first bits of matter developed I like to imagine this vast area of time and space like an ocean, with waves that develop on the surface. With every rise there is a trough so the basic balance of the universe remains. But over time more complex and larger waves do develop, wrapping up time and space into very tight packages and forming the first building blocks of the universe. Over more time even more complex arrangements are made as the forces of diffusion, diversity and many others lead us on towards the first molecule and eventually us.

posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 02:54 AM
Matter can spontaneously appear in a vacuum by "borrowing" energy from the universe. It comes in the form of a particle and anti-particle. These two particles are completely opposite to each other in everything but mass. They have opposite charge, baryon/lepton number etc.

Since they are particle and anti-particle, when they collide they annihilate and release energy equivalent to the "borrowed" energy used to create them. Usually they exist for only fractions of a second before they annihilate, but sometimes they can pull away from each other and exist for longer periods.

For a more complex explanation, see this quote. The source site also has a multitude of other quotes explaining around the subject, which are all themselves sourced back to a respected physicist's work.

There are something like ten million million million million million million million million million million million million million million (1 with eighty [five] zeroes after it) particles in the region of the universe that we can observe. Where did they all come from? The answer is that, in quantum theory, particles can be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle pairs. But that just raises the question of where the energy came from. The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero. The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together. Thus, in a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero. (Hawking, 1988, 129) [thanks to Ross King for this quote]

Just so you have a brief understanding of what "the universe = 0" means in context:
One of the most fundamental or basic particle known in the universe is the quark. There are 6 types of quark, up u, down d, top t, bottom b, strange s and charm c, each with a different fractional value in certain categories. The most important (and easiest to understand) categories are electric charge and baryon number. There are many more, but let's just leave it at that for now.

The values are:
Quark Charge Baryon No.
u +2/3 +1/3
d -1/3 +1/3
t +2/3 +1/3
b -1/3 +1/3
c +2/3 +1/3
s -1/3 +1/3

These quarks all have a corresponding anti-quark, signified by the symbol used to represent the quark, but with a bar on top e.g
These anti-quarks also have the same quantity in terms of charge and baryon number, but with the +/- symbol reversed.

Protons and neutrons are made up of quarks, namely the u and d quarks. Protons and neutrons are both made up of 3 quarks, and have a baryon number of 1.
Proton: uud = charge of 2/3 + 2/3 - 1/3 = 1
Neutron: udd = charge of 2/3 - 1/3 - 1/3 = 0
Antiproton: - - - = charge of 1/3 - 2/3 - 2/3 = -1
u u d

When a particle and anti-particle collide they release energy via annihilation. The protons cease to exist and instead form a variety of mesons, which are made of a quark and anti-quark pair, these mesons then decay further and release gamma radiation (y).

That's why no conservation laws are broken by matter existing - it all eventually becomes energy one way or another. Proton annihilation is actually a complex process, thinking back I should have used electrons instead, but it illustrates the point well enough I think.

I don't have enough space left to describe the process of pair production where a photon decays in to an electron and positron, but you can look it up on the internet easily enough.

Anyway, to clarify:
- latent energy in universe becomes matter (pair production)
- sometimes matter exists for very short time
- sometimes matter exists for very long time
- matter that exists for a long time forms material universe we can see and inhabit
- eventually matter becomes energy (annihilation)
- read the quoted website to see some people cleverer than me explain it in a way better than I ever could

posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 03:23 AM
reply to post by BSFC123

the first molecule of matter was formed by a chemical reaction between attoms of its parent elements - simples

having answered that - i believe you asked the wrong question - want to try again ?

posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 04:04 AM
E = mc2

Matter can be created from energy. It is done every day in particle accelerators.

The question is, where did this useful energy come from? I think thats a mystery. Altough some say that the total energy of the universe is zero. Vacuum fluctuations involve particles popping in and out of existence, with their total energy being zero. So, maybe the universe is a giant vacuum fluctuation that will in time again annihilate into nothingness.
edit on 30/12/12 by Maslo because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 05:41 AM
reply to post by nerbot

Sperm is very much a living thing in the first place.

You're claiming that sperm isn't made, that it's been alive throughout all of eternity?

posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 05:44 AM

Originally posted by mavwynn
This question cannot necessarily be answered.

That being said, I can talk about my opinion on "origin theories."

I happen to disagree with both "intellegent design" and the big bang theory, or any origin theory for that matter. What these theories fail to concieve is the concept of our universe being infinite. How can something without bounds have a beginning or an end? Our universe always has been and always will be.

Agree. Seems we can't count in infinity amounts so we just measure some beginnings and ends.

posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 06:14 AM
The only thing that can be said with certainty on this topic is that its all speculation
at this point, the simple truth is we do not know yet, this for me goes into one
fundamental problem we have, what was before the big bang? that's one that
will take something different to answer, the reason being is that before the big
bang, things like gravity and time did not exist, not in the way we think of them
now at least, so really its a big question mark for now, one day though we may
well grasp it fully and then go on to explain the multiverse
but i couldn't
for the life of me guess when, i don't think many could accurately.

posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 06:23 AM
reply to post by BSFC123

Wrong question. Feynman figured out that in the void "virtual particles" and their anti-particles appear and disappear continuously in a hazy storm of energy.

The pertinent question is why the first one stayed! This has something to do with the non-symmetrical ratio of matter and antimatter we see.

My guess would be that in the long infinite moment, a Boltzmann brain (go check Wikipedia for that) appeard had a moment of awareness in which it perceived the nature of the quantum indeterminacy in the middle, had a boltzmann WTF? Moment ( might have something on these) and thought something primitive that we would verbalize as "looks like a 1 to me" and thereby COLLAPED THE FIRST WAVEFUNCTION.

Immediately after the Boltzmann brain sublimated back into the twittering void.

In some cases this sets off a cellular automata like chain reaction, and if you read some Steven Wofram you will see that some of these are Turing complete.

Leave to stew in its own juices for 13 billion years and you have subsets that ask "how did all this start?".

That leaves the question on where the quantum indeterminacy came from. If you ask it it can't make up its mind on how to not tell you.

Now the interesting part to me is how people want to tack a label onto the Boltzmann brain called 'God'. While the real ineffible phenomena is the holonic chain of consiousness that results from the interplay of the Turing logic and quantum 'computer'.

I think religions are most often the shells left after the living experience of this incredible construct goes through it life cycle of discovery, amazement, assumption and death.

True science (not the political religion it is threatening to decompose into) is also a deep adventure into this astounding phenomena. So is true spirituality. Same thing, diametrically opposed axes of description. Hmmm, reminds me of the real and imaginary axes in complex algebra. ......

posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 06:35 AM
reply to post by mavwynn

What these theories fail to concieve is the concept of our universe being infinite. How can something without bounds have a beginning or an end?

It is quite simple, when you go in one direction, eventually you return to where you came from. Its like a game of asteroids, or like a surface of the Earth, which is finite but there is no edge of the Earth you can fall through. The same thing is apparently possible with three-dimensional space, which can be modeled like a three-dimensional surface of a four-dimensional hypersphere.
edit on 30/12/12 by Maslo because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 06:41 AM

posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 07:39 AM
I'm thinking that there was a form of latent energy that became agitated and began to coalesce into matter as it become more and more active. That's the best guess I have to offer.

posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 09:11 AM

Originally posted by jiggerj
reply to post by nerbot

Sperm is very much a living thing in the first place.

You're claiming that sperm isn't made, that it's been alive throughout all of eternity?

Absolutely not, that would be daft!

I'm saying that when something can first be defined as "sperm" (when it's made) then it is alive from that moment. I'll leave the dilemma of what it is made from also being alive up to you.

posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 09:14 AM
Well,I suppose to me it goes something like this: Mind and matter are, on some level, the same thing. I pair this with the thought that if a creator exist at all that this creator would most likely, to me, be pure energy, thus able to inhabit each and every particle in creation. Now, I am not saying that this entity is aware, or conscious, of itself.

I do not believe in a "bang" either. I think more along the lines that matter exist in different phases. Just look at dark matter. If what I have heard is correct, the vast majority of the universe is made of this. I also do not believe in the concept of "infinity." For me, everything has a beginning and and end, even god. To me, the only way something could be infinite would be if something could exist outside of time, and let's not even go there as that is one hell of a headache.

So, to wrap this up and clarify, I tend to think that the universe came into existence in its physical form from its non-physical state, and may eventually go back to that non-physical state before re-emerging as a physical construct once again.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in