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

reply to post by BSFC123


This is my problem with the big bang theory.

Sure the universe looks like there could have been a big bang, but where did the matter come from

reply to post by lucifersghost

Well,I suppose to me it goes something like this: Mind and matter are, on some level, the same thing.

I just don't see it. If this were the case then we'd be able to create something out of nothing just by thinking about it. I don't care if it's dust or being able to excite the atoms in the air enough to make a candle flame flicker. Our thoughts are manufactured by the brain - meaning that whatever comes out of our minds has no substance or power whatsoever.

reply to post by jiggerj

I just don't see it. If this were the case then we'd be able to create something out of nothing just by thinking about it.

Did you learn how to ride a bike just by thinking about it?

I don't care if it's dust or being able to excite the atoms in the air enough to make a candle flame flicker.

What makes you think this hasn't been done?

Our thoughts are manufactured by the brain - meaning that whatever comes out of our minds has no substance or power whatsoever.

Actually, scientists are as yet unable to isolate the precise nature and location of the mind.

Originally posted by Beavers
reply to post by BSFC123

 

This is my problem with the big bang theory.

Sure the universe looks like there could have been a big bang, but where did the matter come from

Pair production.

reply to post by Dispo


hah, wouldn't it be ironic if the second one was manifested via the first one's rib?

reply to post by Beavers


It would be like ra-i-aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaain on your wedding day.

we can't understand it, but I think it goes like this

matter has always been, and always will be, like a circle

The answer is it did not come into existence. It already existed.

reply to post by Maslo

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.

I'm talking about beginning/ending in a chronological sense, not in a physical sense. If time is an integral part of our universe and is also infinite we can assume that the universe is infinite because time itself has no beginning or end.

amazing - 4 pages - and only 2 replies actualy address the question asked

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
amazing - 4 pages - and only 2 replies actualy address the question asked

The question asked was not the intended question though. I count 14 answering the intended question.

If god created everything, who created god?

So we are not doing science then? I gave a good scientific explanation of what happen and everyone starts talking about god........?!?!

reply to post by AfterInfinity

Did you learn how to ride a bike just by thinking about it?

What does that have to do with making a material thing with just your mind?

I don't care if it's dust or being able to excite the atoms in the air enough to make a candle flame flicker.

What makes you think this hasn't been done?

Show us one example. Surely somebody would have youtubed it.

Our thoughts are manufactured by the brain - meaning that whatever comes out of our minds has no substance or power whatsoever.

Actually, scientists are as yet unable to isolate the precise nature and location of the mind.

This from National Institute of Health

When you plan a schedule, imagine the future, or use reasoned arguments, these two lobes do much of the work.

reply to post by BSFC123


iust because our own lives are finite does not mean that the universe in which we exist is,to try and comprehend something infinite is impossible for a finite mind, that said I believe that the universe is infinite and did not start in the sense you implied

The universe existed, but it was small and empty and spherical.

We see that matter does get continually created and destroyed as virtual photons continually pop into and out of existence. Over the millennium, some photons were created but not destroyed. These photons slammed into the edge of the universe as they bounced around which started the universe undulating like a bubble being poked. As the universe's edge became more and more turbulent it started twisting and turning and pinching off portions of itself.

Some of these portions exist outside of our universe, but some became trapped inside. These pinched off portions of the universe were the first particles of matter.

These, combined with an ever larger amount of photons, caused the universe to blow up like a balloon.

I have no idea what I'm talking about

reply to post by BSFC123


Hi there, thanks for your post, I am very much interested in that topic as well!

Here is how I see it. We can analyse the beginning of the universe up until about parts of a second after the big bang. Physicists can analyse the background radiation and therefore calculate which elements formed when. It all started with helium and under pressure and heat over millions and millions more and more elements formed.

I see it this way. We know that the big bang happened. There are more than enough visible and measurable facts that proof that.

Now, science has no answer what happened before the big bang, and it probably cannot ever answer that. Why? Because time itself as we know it started back then, and science has no possibility to look beyond that.

BUT, there are a few things that we know definitely, some laws that at least seem to be stable and infinite in our universe.

1. Energy cannot be destroyed only converted into something else.

2. Newtons third law: For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.


Those indicate to me that there is something bigger than the universe, that the universe is not the biggest element, but part of something bigger.

Meaning that the universe wasn´t created out of nothing but as part of a normal process.

Take cell division for example. From some points of view you could argue that new cells are created out of nothing, while the truth is that they were part of an organism.

Take the forming and dying of stars, a supernova has quite a few similarities to the big bang.

So the whole concept of something shrinking into a single point and then violently exploding is not new to us. Suns do it all the time.

We know that all the energy that exists in this universe was created by / during the big bang. We know that energy doesn´t come out of nothing, ergo someone / something / some process must be responsible for the big bang.

Now, what exactly IS repsonsible for the big bang? I am sorry, but I think we have about as much chance understanding that, than a dog has understanding a combustion engine.

We assume that we are able to understand anything, yet we fail to grasp more than three dimensions for example. I think the whole ecosystem is far more wonderful and complex than we can even begin to imagine.

Should we therefore stop looking for answers? Of course not. I just think that we may not have the intellect to fully understand, and that science simply can´t answer the "before" question because it is simply not possible to cross time.

All we can do is guess, I guess

Dog had an idea, and it echoed so profoundly in the rising deep

reply to post by BSFC123

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

Molecules appeared once a couple of atoms bonded together. That happens when exterior electrons from the atom "grabs" by electrical force the other atom's exterior electrons.

reply to post by swan001


How did those electrons come into existence? How did any of those particles come into existence?