Nothing can come from nothing so something always existed!

[Bufofrog]

The current accepted theory of the BB is that the early universe was much to hot for atoms or even massive particles.  What evidence or support do you have for there to have been atoms in the early universe?

[jday]

Ask yourself what happens to our atoms when we die, are they destroyed , because if atoms/ particles came from nothing isn't there a possibility of destroying atoms back into nothing? Part of Newton's laws is that energy can't be created nor destroyed so how does that support the Big Bang theory? How was energy created if their were particles/ atoms that have poteinal energy to create a charge @Bufofrog

[Bufofrog]

6 minutes ago, jday said:

Ask yourself what happens to our atoms when we die, are they destroyed , because if atoms/ particles came from nothing isn't there a possibility of destroying atoms back into nothing?

I of course did not say that atoms came from nothing, so your question is not germane.

[beecee]

On 10/30/2021 at 1:11 PM, jday said:

I agree with you because "energy can't be created nor destroyed. I personally feel that the universe has so much more to tell and I personally believe that the Big Bang isn't the full story. Onto that you were stating atoms in my option have always been here. 

Pretty sure most cosmologists agree that the universe has much more to offer, and of course they also understand that the BB isn't the full story.

No atoms have not always been here. In the very early moments of the BB, temperatures and pressures were so great that atoms definitely could not exist. In fact it wasn't until around 380,000 years post BB before temperatures were such that electrons could combine with protons to form our first atoms of hydrogen and other light elements. Those same atomic nuclei could not form until 3 minutes post BB. And earlier times suggest that all that existed was space, time, and a superforce of all known forces combined into one. 

37 minutes ago, jday said:

Ask yourself what happens to our atoms when we die, are they destroyed , because if atoms/ particles came from nothing isn't there a possibility of destroying atoms back into nothing? Part of Newton's laws is that energy can't be created nor destroyed so how does that support the Big Bang theory? How was energy created if their were particles/ atoms that have poteinal energy to create a charge @Bufofrog

When we die, our atoms are changed into other stuff and recycled into the ecosystem.

The very first fundamentals were formed via E=Mc2, and as the superforce started to decouple (gravity first) as temperatures dropped due to the expansion of spacetime.

Edited November 17, 2021 by beecee

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, jday said:

Part of Newton's laws is that energy can't be created nor destroyed so how does that support the Big Bang theory?

You're hung up on the idea of something from nothing, which is not the case. And energy can take many forms without being "destroyed". The model for the BBT shows that nuclear energy wasn't possible until atoms were formed, allowing for the eventual production of stars.

When you die, cremation or decomposition releases stored up energy in your cells, and the bonds between the molecules are broken. Ash gets left over if this release is incomplete, and pieces of you that aren't eaten and converted to chemical energy break down in other ways. The various energies that are a property of your body never leave the system (universe) entirely. 

[jday]

In your previous statement you said that “nuclear energy wasn’t possible until atoms are formed allowing for the eventual production of stars” however the one thing that was present before the production of nuclear energy was atoms. If there wasn’t potential for Energy to transform into a nuclear energy there was something prior to that. My belief or theory here  is that from something there’s always endless possibilities to occur same relation into energy, from something transforms into something else. I hope this makes sense but going back to the nuclear energy, nuclear energy wasn’t able to transpire with out the potential to and with that potential energy there’s many outcomes to occur. 

[Genady]

Here are two slides from Alan Guth's lecture 1 in the MIT class on Early Universe. He has explained there how something can come from nothing while obeying the energy conservation. Don't worry about his use of word "miracle". He uses its meaning as "a very amazing or unusual event, thing, or achievement" (Merriam-Webster)

[jday]

Even so wouldn’t you say that there is potential of energy and regardless of active or inactive the fact that there is “to be”,  is something rather than nothing. If the statement was zero and inevitably zero without any counter action to increase then that will conclude as nothing however if there’s a possibility of the nothing becoming something then there has always been a potential to something. @Genady

Edited January 14, 2022 by jday

[Genady]

3 minutes ago, jday said:

Even so wouldn’t you say that there is potential of energy and regardless of active or inactive the fact that there is “to be”,  is something rather than nothing. If the statement was zero and inevitably zero without any counter action to increase then that will conclude as nothing however if there’s a possibility of the nothing becoming something then there has always been a potential to something. @Genady

I do have some idea what 'nothing' and 'something' means, but I don't have any idea what is 'potential for /of /to something'. If you mean that it happened because it could happen, then it seems just circular, i.e. it could happen because it happened.

[martillo]

This thread with just about 80 replies surprinsigly reached more than 60k views in a short period of time. Now, the "Big Bang" theory is being heard becoming to have no sense.  Coincidence?

For me, a thread in this forum, making history...

 

Edited June 13, 2022 by martillo

[Bufofrog]

16 minutes ago, martillo said:

Now, the "Big Bang" theory is being heard becoming to have no sense.

I wonder what that means.

16 minutes ago, martillo said:

Coincidence?

I would say the 2 sentences were unrelated, so there could be no coincidence.

17 minutes ago, martillo said:

For me, a thread in this forum, making history...

That's nice that something about this thread makes you feel important and worthwhile.

[martillo]

The thread worthed...

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, martillo said:

This thread with just about 80 replies surprinsigly reached more than 60k views in a short period of time. Now, the "Big Bang" theory is being heard becoming to have no sense.  Coincidence?

For me, a thread in this forum, making history...

 

Arguably the worst video on Youtube with over 161,000,000 views. Perhaps "views" is not a good measure of the kind of history you wish to make.

 

[martillo]

7 hours ago, zapatos said:

Perhaps "views" is not a good measure of the kind of history you wish to make.

The high number of "views" in a very short period of time would not guarantee the quality of the content of the thread but do mean it is very probable the thread has been seen and taken into account by many physicists nowadays.

Of course the only way to be completelly sure about that iwould be asking the physicists if they actually are aware about the thread or not. As for now is just my guess, I know.

Edited June 14, 2022 by martillo

[Intoscience]

9 minutes ago, martillo said:

The high number of "views" would not guarantee the quality of the content of the thread but do mean it is very probable the thread has been seen and taken into account by many physicists nowadays.

I doubt it.

[StringJunky]

There's no maths in it for a start, so a physicist wouldn't give it a second glance.

[martillo]

13 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

I doubt it.

Who do you think have been viewed the thread then? What does the high number of views in a thread in a physics' forum would mean then?

6 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

There's no maths in it for a start, so a physicist wouldn't give it a second glance.

Do you mean physicsists don't care about logical subjects? I don't think so.

Edited June 14, 2022 by martillo

[StringJunky]

42 minutes ago, martillo said:

Who do you think have been viewed the thread then? What does the high number of views in a thread in a physics' forum would mean then?

Do you mean physicsists don't care about logical subjects? I don't think so.

It isn't whether it's logical or not, what interests physicists is lots of maths... that is their language.

[martillo]

40 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

It isn't whether it's logical or not, what interests physicists is lots of maths... that is their language.

Then I would ask the same question as for Intoscience:  If not many physicists, who do you think have been viewed the thread then?

As for now 68.1k views...

Edited June 14, 2022 by martillo

[Intoscience]

1 hour ago, martillo said:

Who do you think have been viewed the thread then? What does the high number of views in a thread in a physics' forum would mean then?

Do you mean physicsists don't care about logical subjects? I don't think so.

There are masses of people who are interested in science who are not scientists, myself included.

This doesn't mean no scientists read threads like these, this forum has many scientists both active and retired. But as it as already been pointed out, the number of views is not an indication as to the quality or validity of the content. Plus, I certainly doubt a thread such as this is going to change many views, especially those who are experts in the field. 

[martillo]

35 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

There are masses of people who are interested in science who are not scientists, myself included.

This doesn't mean no scientists read threads like these, this forum has many scientists both active and retired. But as it as already been pointed out, the number of views is not an indication as to the quality or validity of the content. Plus, I certainly doubt a thread such as this is going to change many views, especially those who are experts in the field. 

I think some threads in this forum could matter to real scientists and experts as I think scienceforums.net forum could matter to them. You doubt this thread could matter to them, I'm thinking it did matter. Seems the thread didn't matter to you, I think it did matter to otherones.

Edited June 14, 2022 by martillo

[swansont]

2 hours ago, martillo said:

If not many physicists, who do you think have been viewed the thread then?

bots crawling the web

1 hour ago, Intoscience said:

There are masses of people who are interested in science who are not scientists, myself included.

This doesn't mean no scientists read threads like these, this forum has many scientists both active and retired. But as it as already been pointed out, the number of views is not an indication as to the quality or validity of the content. Plus, I certainly doubt a thread such as this is going to change many views, especially those who are experts in the field. 

The fraction of scientists who are interested in outreach such as this forum provides is likely quite small. It's of little value to an academic, as they get to/have to address all kinds of problems with fundamental concepts if they are teaching, and nothing here is likely to touch on any cutting edge research that they'd be doing at a university.

 

1 hour ago, martillo said:

I think some threads in this forum could matter to real scientists and experts as I think scienceforums.net forum could matter to them. You doubt this thread could matter to them, I'm thinking it did matter. Seems the thread didn't matter to you, I think it did matter to otherones.

The value of SFN to my job is that occasionally I have to refresh my memory on some topics in order to explain a concept or rebut a crackpottish claim. Occasionally, that topic has relevance to some aspect of research I'm involved in, so the info is fresh in my mind when I discuss it with colleagues. There's also just the exercising of the brain that comes with answering questions. It's like warming up before you physically exert yourself.

But there has never been an instance where someone has shown up with some "outside the box" physics where my reaction has been "Wow, they're right! I can use this!"

Never.

[martillo]

2 hours ago, swansont said:

bots crawling the web

Bots??? Other relatively short threads in the forum didn't receive so high amount of views so it would be about bots looking for Parménides' principle???  I don't think so...

 

[iNow]

24 minutes ago, martillo said:

I don't think so...

Well, that settles it then.  😂

[zapatos]

8 hours ago, martillo said:

The high number of "views" in a very short period of time would not guarantee the quality of the content of the thread but do mean it is very probable the thread has been seen and taken into account by many physicists nowadays.

 

More likely it has been viewed by a great number of web crawlers.