Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: stremba

My question was the "original" matter creating itself.


211 posted on 12/14/2004 10:30:10 AM PST by cynicom (<p)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies ]


To: cynicom
My question was the "original" matter creating itself.

I still don't understand how your question relates to evolution.
214 posted on 12/14/2004 10:33:14 AM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 211 | View Replies ]

To: cynicom

Pair production and the Casmir effect are the processes that are theorized to have created the first matter in the universe. The current big bang cosmology states that there was no matter originally present in the universe during its first moments. Only radiation (let there be light?) was present. From the vacuum, virtual particles formed. Under normal conditions these particles would annihilate(sp?) each other. However, there was a period of rapid inflation during the early universe which allowed these virtual particles to separate and thus survive. Further particles were produced via pair production from the radiation present. As for where the energy of the radiation came from, that is more speculative. It is possible that the negative gravitational energy of the universe precisely cancels the positive energy represented by the radiation and matter in the universe today. Therefore, both before and after the big bang the energy of the universe is zero, and energy is conserved. Another speculation comes from superstring theories which state that there are 10 (or possibly 26, depending on the theory)dimensions, all but four of which are "curled up" into a very small length, which is why we don't notice them. It is theorized that these dimensions were more or less equivalent, but a quantum fluctuation caused four of them to expand while the rest contracted, the energy for the expansion of the familiar four dimensions being derived from the contraction of the rest. I'm not a theoretical physicist (I've just read some books about theoretical physics written for laymen) so I am sure that I don't have these entirely correct. The point is that there is a scientific explanation for the creation of the universe. Whether this is correct or not, it is the best that science can do currently.


239 posted on 12/14/2004 11:35:40 AM PST by stremba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 211 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson