[_ Old Earth _] Big Bang ?

[Barbarian]

In layman's terms, the first law of thermodynamics says that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, but can only change form.

Hence, the universe still has zero net energy as it did at the beginning. Hence, no violation of the first law. And we can still see that process. Virtual particles do exactly the same thing, appearing out of nothing, one particle, one antiparticle, and then shortly thereafter cancel each other out. The weak nuclear force depends on virtual particles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle

According to the big bang theory, energy created itself out of nothing.

No.

 

[th1b.taylor]

First, to those that believe Christianity is a religion, the point has been driven past without ever being viewed. Christianity has never been and will never be a religion! Christ came to re-establish the relationship with man he had in the Garden with Adam. (Before contention with this point read John 1:1-3, please.)

Now, about evidence and the preponderance there of.

and for those that are truly seeking the truth in an easy format,
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=evidence+for+a+young+world

 

[Pizza]

First, to those that believe Christianity is a religion, the point has been driven past without ever being viewed. Christianity has never been and will never be a religion! Christ came to re-establish the relationship with man he had in the Garden with Adam. (Before contention with this point read John 1:1-3, please.)

You don't have a dictionary?

 

[Edward]

There is also evidence that it could never possibly have happened. What the big bang theory basically boils down to is "First there was nothing, and then for no reason (because there was nothing that could cause anything), nothing exploded and became everything." This contradicts the first law of thermodynamics, one of the foundational laws of physics.

The TOG​

There you go brother.That makes a lot of sense.
The first law of common sense says you don't get something from nothing.

Nothing can't explode.

 

[Free]

First, to those that believe Christianity is a religion, the point has been driven past without ever being viewed. Christianity has never been and will never be a religion! Christ came to re-establish the relationship with man he had in the Garden with Adam. (Before contention with this point read John 1:1-3, please.)

Let's not go spreading such rumors. Christianity is and always has been a religion. I don't understand for the life of me why such an erroneous idea--Christianity isn't a religion--continues to persist in some Christian circles.

 

[Free]

There you go brother.That makes a lot of sense.
The first law of common sense says you don't get something from nothing.

Nothing can't explode.

And that's why no one believes that there was nothing, as far as I know. Sounds like a straw man to me.

 

[Edward]

What you are suggesting is still completely implausible. You are asking readers to believe that thousands and thousands of experts basically lie to themselves and to the world (you are telling us that proponents of the Big Bang are wrong about obvious facts of physics) just to avoid having to involve God. Well surely there must be one believing physicist with a real degree from a real university who is a Christian (or perhaps a Muslim for that matter) who agrees with you in respect to your critique, reproduced following:

1. The universe has always existed (which contradicts the second law of thermodynamics)
2. The universe has a finite age and came into being out of nothing at some point (which contradicts the first law of thermodynamics)

Please name just one such physicist.

Dr. Russell Humphreys PHD in Physics, Louisiana State University (1972)

 

[Edward]

Let's not go spreading such rumors. Christianity is and always has been a religion. I don't understand for the life of me why such an erroneous idea--Christianity isn't a religion--continues to persist in some Christian circles.

I'm not sure what you're basing that on brother. Christianity is not a religion. The difference between Christianity and every other faith in the world is that all other religions are about man trying to reach up to God. Christianity is about God reaching down to man. Drawing us to Him and encouraging us to enter into a personal relationship with Jesus.

Christianity is no more a religion than, say...My engagement to my fiance. We have a relationship but it is not a religion.

 

[Pizza]

Christianity is no more a religion than, say...My engagement to my fiance. We have a relationship but it is not a religion.

No, your relationship to your fiance is not a religion - you could easily introduce me to your fiance - no matter if I believe you have a relationship with her or not, you could demonstrate it to be true.

You cannot do that with Christ. Belief in Christianity is a religion.

The difference between Christianity and every other faith in the world is that all other religions are about man trying to reach up to God.

Which makes Christianity very different from other religions. You might even say, "It is the one, true, religion."

 

[Edward]

No, your relationship to your fiance is not a religion - you could easily introduce me to your fiance - no matter if I believe you have a relationship with her or not, you could demonstrate it to be true.

You cannot do that with Christ. Belief in Christianity is a religion.


Which makes Christianity very different from other religions. You might even say, "It is the one, true, religion."

Eh, it's just loosely referred to as a religion. I think it's more of a slang thing or grouping in with the others for ease of conversationalism thing rather than being an actual fact.

 

[TOG]

And that's why no one believes that there was nothing, as far as I know. Sounds like a straw man to me.

It's not a straw man, but an inescapable conclusion of the laws of physics. Let me explain it in layman's terms, so everybody can understand it.

Although they seem very different to us, matter and energy are simply different forms of the same thing. All matter and energy can therefore be thought of as a single phenomena.

Energy flows "downhill", that is, from a higher level of energy to a lower level of energy. Although we may not know exactly what they are and they may not even exist in today's universe, logic dictates that there must be both an upper and lower limit to the levels energy can achieve. As time goes on, the average level of energy in the universe is getting lower and lower, and more and more of the energy in the universe has reached the lowest possible level. Eventually, all energy will reach the lowest possible level and after that, nothing will happen. Conversely, as we go farther and farther back in time, less and less of the total energy is at the lowest level, more and more is at the highest level possible and the average level of energy in the universe is higher and higher. If we keep going back in time far enough, we will eventually reach a point where all energy was at it's highest level. Before that point, nothing had happened. Not even one electron had orbited the nucleus of a single atom. It was at this point that matter and energy came into existence. If God didn't create everything, and nothing could have existed before this point, then there's no getting around it. Nothing must have exploded into everything.

The TOG​

 

[Rick W]

The entire problem rests on the fact that we cannot conceive of something from nothing. We can understand transformation, the manipulation of what already exists, but full blown creation from absolutely nothing is one part of God's power man's science simply cannot embrace.

TOG,
Yes, "matter and energy are simply different forms of the same thing."
Energy is the potential to do "work" whether it's a difference in mass and velocity or the collection of electrons moving to fill an imbalance. Even light has mass and can be bent by gravitational force.

 

[Barbarian]

The entire problem rests on the fact that we cannot conceive of something from nothing.

In the sense of the Big Bang, that's directly observed. We can detect virtual particles that come from nothing at all. At the quantum level, virtual particle/antiparticle pairs spontaneously form, exist for a brief time, and the annihilate each other, returning to nothing. Charge and energy are conserved, just as the initial zero energy state of the universe is conserved.

 

[Free]

I'm not sure what you're basing that on brother. Christianity is not a religion. The difference between Christianity and every other faith in the world is that all other religions are about man trying to reach up to God. Christianity is about God reaching down to man. Drawing us to Him and encouraging us to enter into a personal relationship with Jesus.

Christianity is no more a religion than, say...My engagement to my fiance. We have a relationship but it is not a religion.

I'm basing it on the clear teachings of Scripture and using sound reasoning. Your statements do not address whether or not Christianity is a religion. As I have said, and will continue to say, Christianity is and always has been a religion.

I suggest that if anyone wants to discuss this further that we start a new thread and I can move these posts out of here.

 

[Edward]

I'm basing it on the clear teachings of Scripture and using sound reasoning. Your statements do not address whether or not Christianity is a religion. As I have said, and will continue to say, Christianity is and always has been a religion.

I suggest that if anyone wants to discuss this further that we start a new thread and I can move these posts out of here.

Oh I'm sorry brother, I thought my post was clear that I don't believe that Christianity is a religion. Yeah start the other thread brother because I would like to read these scriptures that you stated teach that Christianity is a religion. Maybe I'm wrong? I doubt it but I'll sure read and consider your scriptures to see. I can learn. I don't usually change my mind fast, but if the truth is there, then it's there. Fair enough?

 

[Rick W]

In the sense of the Big Bang, that's directly observed. We can detect virtual particles that come from nothing at all. At the quantum level, virtual particle/antiparticle pairs spontaneously form, exist for a brief time, and the annihilate each other, returning to nothing. Charge and energy are conserved, just as the initial zero energy state of the universe is conserved.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle
In physics a virtual particle is a *conceptual entity that is found in mathematical calculations about quantum field theory. It refers to mathematical terms that have some appearance of representing particles inside a subatomic process such as a collision. Virtual particles, however, do not appear directly amongst the observable and detectable input and output quantities of those calculations, which refer only to actual, as distinct from virtual, particles.


http://profmattstrassler.com/articl...ysics-basics/virtual-particles-what-are-they/
Matt Strassler, theoretical physicist — currently a visiting scholar at Harvard University, and until recently a full professor at Rutgers University — with over 75 papers on string theory and on particle physics.

Virtual Particles: What are they?
The best way to approach this concept, I believe, is to forget you ever saw the word “particle” in the term. A virtual particle is not a particle at all. It refers precisely to a disturbance in a field that is not a particle. A particle is a nice, regular ripple in a field, one that can travel smoothly and effortlessly through space, like a clear tone of a bell moving through the air. A “virtual particle”, generally, is a disturbance in a field that will never be found on its own, but instead is something that is caused by the presence of other particles, often of other fields.

More at the link
Good read



*Conceptual entity:
Like centrifugal force that was discussed recently as fictional. It's a combination of forces and is not a force of it's own but can and is used in mathematical calculations. Likewise, virtual particles are fictitious.

Technically, "centrifugal force" is a "fictional force" which is merely the result of two other forces.

http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/39269/creation-of-particle-anti-particle-pairs
Creation of particle anti-particle pairs

The reference to creation out of the vacuum is for unmeasurable virtual particles only, which are visual mnemonics for lines in a so-called Feynman diagram.

Those who believe that virtual particles have some sort of real existence then add virtual verbal imagery involving vacuum fluctuations and the uncertainty relation to ''explain'' such unphysical behavior.

 

[Edward]

Modern technology and science is proving (has proven) creationism. There's plenty of "evidence". Science is finding that the appearance of the universe is that it was designed for man. In constructing a mathematical model of what we believe we know about the universe, scientists have found that there are hundreds of delicate ratios that, if altered the slightest, would render life impossible here on earth, some as little as 1 part in 10 to the 55th.

The delicate ratios of almost everything in the universe are too finely tuned to be able to rationally consider chance as a factor in the existence of the universe and life. Everything is too perfect for it to have come about by accident. For instance:

Earth's distance from the Sun. If we were closer to the sun, it would be too warm to maintain a stable water cycle. If farther from the sun, it'd be too cold to have one.
Surface Gravity. If it were stronger, then we'd have too much ammonia and methane in the air. Weaker, and the atmosphere would lose too much water.
Thickness of the Earth's crust. If it was thicker, too much oxygen would be transferred to the crust. Thinner, then volcanic and tectonic activity would be too great.
Earth's Rotational Period. It takes 24 hours for one rotation, one day. If it took longer then diurnal temperature differences would be too great. If days were shorter then atmospheric wind velocities would be too great.
Axial Tilt of the Earth. If it were greater then surface temperatures would be too great. If it were less then surface temperatures would be too great.
Albedo (Reflectivity of the Earth). If it were greater then a runaway ice age would develop. If it were less, then a runaway greenhouse effect would develop.
Earth's Magnetic Field. If it were stronger then electromagnetic storms would be too severe. Weaker, then then there would be inadequate protection from hard stellar radiation.
Ozone Level. If it were greater, then surface temperature would be too low. If it were less, then surface temperature would be too high. Plus, we'd have too much UV radiation at the surface. Interestingly, the Ecologists keep repeating that if there were 1/10th of 1% change in the ozone level, that it would bring cosmic doom upon us. Thereby inadvertently acknowledging that the ozone level is sensitive and exactly where it needs to be to support life. This being so, it begs the question...who made the Ozone level to this number level? Entropy? (Random accident from a big bang) HA! No way...and more importantly who maintains it to this level? Jesus does my brothers and sisters, and it's in scripture in Colossians 1: 16-17
CO2 and Water Vapor Levels. If greater, a runaway greenhouse effect would develop. If less then the greenhouse effect would be insufficient.

There's evidence in the microcosm. At the atomic & sub-atomic level, the slightest variation in any of the primary constants of physics, some as sensitive as 1 part in over 1,000,000,000 causes life to be impossible. There's your evidence of design. Scientific evidence. The more rare these relationships are, the more they unequivocally reveal both- skillful design in their origin, as well as- diligence in their maintenance!! They weren't just created, then left alone thousands of years ago and set up, left to go to pot. NO! They're maintained. That what Paul tells us in Colossians 1. They are held together by Jesus Christ. So have faith in the Word of God, brothers and sisters.

It never ceases to amaze me that brothers and sisters in the Lord... Christians, say they believe in God and His Word, but then embrace evolution. Geez, maybe I should've put this in the Dinosaur thread where they're screaming for evidence, lol.

 

[Barbarian]

Gordon Kane, director of the Michigan Center for Theoretical Physics at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, provides this answer.
Virtual particles are indeed real particles. Quantum theory predicts that every particle spends some time as a combination of other particles in all possible ways. These predictions are very well understood and tested.

Quantum mechanics allows, and indeed requires, temporary violations of conservation of energy, so one particle can become a pair of heavier particles (the so-called virtual particles), which quickly rejoin into the original particle as if they had never been there. If that were all that occurred we would still be confident that it was a real effect because it is an intrinsic part of quantum mechanics, which is extremely well tested, and is a complete and tightly woven theory--if any part of it were wrong the whole structure would collapse.

But while the virtual particles are briefly part of our world they can interact with other particles, and that leads to a number of tests of the quantum-mechanical predictions about virtual particles. The first test was understood in the late 1940s. In a hydrogen atom an electron and a proton are bound together by photons (the quanta of the electromagnetic field). Every photon will spend some time as a virtual electron plus its antiparticle, the virtual positron, since this is allowed by quantum mechanics as described above. The hydrogen atom has two energy levels that coincidentally seem to have the same energy. But when the atom is in one of those levels it interacts differently with the virtual electron and positron than when it is in the other, so their energies are shifted a tiny bit because of those interactions. That shift was measured by Willis Lamb and the Lamb shift was born, for which a Nobel Prize was eventually awarded.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-virtual-particles-rea/

 

[Barbarian]

Modern technology and science is proving (has proven) creationism. There's plenty of "evidence". Science is finding that the appearance of the universe is that it was designed for man. In constructing a mathematical model of what we believe we know about the universe, scientists have found that there are hundreds of delicate ratios that, if altered the slightest, would render life impossible here on earth, some as little as 1 part in 10 to the 55th.

Which means we are here, because the universe is set up for beings like us. Which is not a very strong argument, and supports evolutionary theory. And it's incompatible with YE creationism.

The delicate ratios of almost everything in the universe are too finely tuned to be able to rationally consider chance as a factor in the existence of the universe and life. Everything is too perfect for it to have come about by accident. For instance:

Earth's distance from the Sun. If we were closer to the sun, it would be too warm to maintain a stable water cycle. If farther from the sun, it'd be too cold to have one.

Earth's distance from the Sun when it's summer in the Northern Hemisphere is about a million miles farther from the Sun as when it's winter in the Northern Hemisphere. Looks like that one won't work.

Surface Gravity. If it were stronger, then we'd have too much ammonia and methane in the air. Weaker, and the atmosphere would lose too much water.

Seems really unlikely, seeing at ammonia and methane are metabolized by bacteria. But show us the numbers. Water is found on places like TItan, which is much smaller, and Methane is also found on smaller moons.

Earth's Rotational Period. It takes 24 hours for one rotation, one day. If it took longer then diurnal temperature differences would be too great. If days were shorter then atmospheric wind velocities would be too great.

Days were a lot shorter hundreds of millions of years ago. And no sign of terrible winds capable of destroying all life.

Axial Tilt of the Earth. If it were greater then surface temperatures would be too great. If it were less then surface temperatures would be too great.

The tilt of the Earth has also varied over the ages. No noticable problems for living things.

Albedo (Reflectivity of the Earth). If it were greater then a runaway ice age would develop. If it were less, then a runaway greenhouse effect would develop.

We have had runaway ice ages. But the insolation from the Sun is just not great enough for albedo to force runaway greenhouse effects.

Earth's Magnetic Field. If it were stronger then electromagnetic storms would be too severe. Weaker, then then there would be inadequate protection from hard stellar radiation.

It's fluctuated a great deal in the past, and will again. Currently, it's weakening, but that could change.

CO2 and Water Vapor Levels. If greater, a runaway greenhouse effect would develop. If less then the greenhouse effect would be insufficient.

It does matter, but not much chance of a runaway. The linear effect of more CO2 is less than you think. Enough to make things uncomfortable and even catastrophic for some places, but not enough to end human life.

But none of this has anything to do with evolution, which is God's creation.

It never ceases to amaze me that brothers and sisters in the Lord... Christians, say they believe in God and His Word, but then embrace evolution.

Once you're willing to let God be God, you won't be upset by evolution any longer.

 

[Rick W]

Gordon Kane, director of the Michigan Center for Theoretical Physics at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, provides this answer.
Virtual particles are indeed real particles. Quantum theory predicts that every particle spends some time as a combination of other particles in all possible ways. These predictions are very well understood and tested.

Of course. No argument there.

Real combinations... much like centrifugal force is the real combination of the forces we saw discussing that force earlier. Yet, it's agreed centrifugal force exists but only as the interaction of other forces.

Bottom line:
There are no virtual particles without something else in combination.
And:
There is no creation from nothing. For the conceptual entity to exist there must first be something already in existence to cause it as declared, "as a combination of other particles..".


Virtual particles cannot exist in static since it's the activity or disturbance of other forces that produces the resultant reaction we observe and term as "virtual particle", a conceptual entity like that of centrifugal force. Yes, again the result of a disturbed force is observable but that result cannot stand on it's own when the force is no longer opposed, stressed or otherwise influenced by another separate outside force. The time the result lasts is the time the interaction exists between the two forces.

The Casimir effect is another phenomenon where one will find virtual particles again mentioned. In this scenario two extremely thin plates placed very close together in the vacuum of space will be pulled together. It's declared that the vacuum of space is full of virtual particles. Again a conceptual object.
There are waves of light, electromagnetic waves, ,microwaves, radio waves within space, waves throughout the spectrum. The interaction of these waves forms what we need to term as virtual for use in the mathematical calculations required to solve a problem. Again, much like calculations also include centrifugal force which as you've pointed out is fictional. It is the combination of the existing energy in waves whereby the virtual particle comes into discussion of the Casimir effect. So it's said space vacuum is full of "virtual particles".
As the two plates approach each other the longer waves cannot occupy the space. Only the smaller, higher frequency waves remain between. This creates a differential of pressure lower between the plates and greater outside forcing the plates together.

It's also this phenomenon that we are now finding we must deal with concerning MOSFET semiconductor devices as speed increases and size decreases. Two plates within the device may be only 20nm apart and the result when a signal is applied is influenced due to the Casimir effect. But again, virtual particles included in the calculations are just that, virtual, conceptual used as a tool to perform those calculations.