Posted on 06/01/2010 12:39:32 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Physicists have long wondered why the universe exists when matter and anti-matter particles obliterate each other on contact.
But new data from a particle accelerator in the United States suggests a reason.
The tests showed that when anti-protons and protons collide, the resulting new particles show a one per cent skew toward matter over anti-matter. Over a long period of time, this characteristic of the universe could explain why matter has come to dominate over anti-matter.
"Many of us felt goose bumps when we saw the result," said Stefan Soldner-Rembold, a physicist at the University of Manchester in the United Kingdom.
"We knew we were seeing something beyond what we have seen before and beyond what current theories can explain."
Every basic particle of matter has a matching anti-particle. The anti-particle has the same mass as the standard particle, but an opposite electric charge. Anti-matter is not to be confused with dark matter.
While anti-matter has been demonstrated in numerous experiments, dark matter remains a hypothesis used to help explain the effects of mass which scientists cannot currently see.
The dark matter hypothesis helps to explain why the universe hasn't expanded into a cold and relatively motionless void. The extra mass, and resulting gravity, is the reason galaxies form into clumps rather than flying apart.
Particle accelerators, such as the Tevatron collider at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory in Illinois, which conducted the tests, and the Large Hadron Collider at CERN on the Swiss-French border, use electric fields to smash particles into each other at incredibly high speeds.
(Excerpt) Read more at ca.news.yahoo.com ...
Agreed
bump for later
I didn’t see anywhere where he was claiming the Bible was a book of science - it isn’t. It’s, for the most part, a book of history and prophecy.
Science is simply a means of discovering how this history unfolded. Science is a tool, like a scale or a ruler.
I was hoping for a 60" LCD TV in my mansion, but I'm not sure which side to argue to get me that. ;)
His post # 3.
Are you suggesting that no FR member believes that Scripture is the inerrant Word of God? It is you who is trying to deceive!
Very few believe that the Bible should be treated as a book of science.
The Bible is the factual, inerrant Word of God. I don’t care if you call it science or not. Where science and the Bible conflict, the Bible wins.
Really? Please quote the relevant passages in the Bible that reveal the Earth is only 6000 years old.
Start with Genesis, stop when you reach the back cover.
While true, finding such an explanation will likely lead to all sorts of interesting, and possibly even useful things.
The fact of their being such a skew, when the theories say there should not be one, means the theories need to be adjusted a bit. Doing that has often lead to great things.
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life is the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood [better translation--overcome] it."
And then, the beautiful words, "The Word became flesh, and made his dwelling among us"; and "...to all who received him, to all those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God..."
Touche’
That would be NO. Conservation of mass-energy still applies. You'd put more in that you got out. But still, could maybe be used to store energy from one form to be used in another. It might be a very compact form of energy storage.
But you won't see me driving around in a ground vehicle powered by anti-matter. Nope, not this cat.
Something must have always existed. The simplest idea is that existence itself is what has always existed.
Absolute nothing cannot exist. Absolute nothing would be the total, universal absence of any and all distinctions. But nothing is itself a distinction from not-nothing, and so it would be a logical contradiction (between the fact it requires a distinction from not-nothing, and requires total, universal absence of any and all distinctions.)
Therefore, absolute nothing can only exist if true = false.
I agree.
Much Science supports a young Earth. No humans were there to tell us for sure.
I believe the Word of God over the guesses of men.
Secular scientists have a real hard time trying to dispute intelligent design. The math alone shows it to be the most likely scientific explaination.
I do believe Genesis in the Old Testament. Thus it's also part of the Jewish Religion. And for the most part, of the Islamic one as well.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.