Is it the matter of the universe self-created or not? Which answer is more irrational?

[Enric]

What's the source of the matter of the universe? Where does come from? And the question of the million: it is self-created (created alone by itself) or not? Which answer is more irrational?

[Strange]

Most of the matter in the universe is hydrogen and helium. This was created in the first few minutes of the big bang. Since then, heavier elements (e.g. the Earth, you and everything else) have been created by supernova explosions.

[TheDivineFool]

What's the source of matter of the universe? Where does it come from?

 

I don't think anyone can answer that question. Perhaps available data does not allow us to form a coherent theory.

 

Is it self-created or not?

 

My high school physics knowledge tells me "matter can neither be created nor destroyed" and E = mc^2.

 

So either matter always existed or it was created from pure energy.

 

Which answer is more irrational?

 

Since, no hypothesis exists, we cannot judge which is more "irrational".

 

Possibly, it would be very "irrational" to construct a hypothesis of any kind at the moment.

[Strange]

I don't think anyone can answer that question.

 

I just did.

[TheDivineFool]

Hi Strange

 

I read your post. I thought it didn't answer the OP's question. Sorry.

 

Does current physics support the claim that matter was "created" during the Big Bang? I thought the Big Bang just says that the entire universe (matter & energy) was crunched up in a singularity at one point in time. Was matter "created" or was it always there, only in a very very very small point in space?

 

I agree with the rest of the post about the heavier elements.

[Strange]

Hi Strange

 

I read your post. I thought it didn't answer the OP's question. Sorry.

 

Does current physics support the claim that matter was "created" during the Big Bang? I thought the Big Bang just says that the entire universe (matter & energy) was crunched up in a singularity at one point in time. Was matter "created" or was it always there, only in a very very very small point in space?

 

I agree with the rest of the post about the heavier elements.

 

I guess that depends on the definition of "matter". I was thinking in terms of the elements that make up matter as we know it. If "matter" means something else, then the answer will be different.

 

So, for example, I think that quarks and gluons (and electrons?) were formed about a millionth of a second after "time zero". And neutrons and protons a few hundred microseconds after that.

[TheDivineFool]

@Strange: I only have a high school understanding of physics and I've forgotten most of it. Back then we were only taught about electrons, protons and neutrons. I also remember hearing 'positron'.

 

Anyway, I had an intuitive understanding of what was meant by 'elementary' particles in the sense electrons, protons and neutrons had smaller masses than atoms. So 'elementary'. Is my viewpoint correct?

 

What is the current criteria of 'elementary'? Are quarks and gluons smaller in size/mass than electrons, protons?

 

I have some idea that the method used is 'particle smashing' like in CERN. But, how can we be sure that the particles that come out of the collision are more elementary than the original particles. How do we know that what is happening is not simply a 'chemical reaction' in the sense, what ensues is simply products of it and not sub-particles?

 

 

Please keep it as simple as possible...a for dummies version if you like. Thanks

[Strange]

Just to avoid confusion, I meant "element" in the chemical sense. It might have been better if I had said "atoms".

 

OK. So atoms are made of protons, neutrons and electrons. All these (and other) particles have anti-matter partners: anti-proton, anti-neutron and anti-electron - that last one is also known as a positron.

 

Now when I was at school, there were hundreds of other known particles (it looked like a new family was discovered every time someone did an experiment). But at about the same time, the quark model was worked out and it turns out that many members of this zoo of particles could be described in terms combinations of 2 or 3 quarks (held together by gluons). These are known generically as hadrons, and include protons and neutrons.

 

So the current list of elementary particles is pretty short. There is a nice table, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_particle

 

The particles that come out of particle collisions are not necessary smaller or more elementary. Sometimes they are big, heavy particles, which decay rapidly to lighter particles. The properties of the original particle and its decay products can be used to determine what it was.

Edited March 30, 2015 by Strange

[Enric]

Well, matter comes from helium, hidrogen, energy, etc... But we can move the same question a step and infinite steps I suppose. Are all self-created -created by themselves or alone- or not? Which answer is more irrational? This is hard philosophy.

[TheDivineFool]

Well, matter comes from helium, hidrogen, energy, etc... But we can move the same question a step and infinite steps I suppose. Are all self-created -created by themselves or alone- or not? Which answer is more irrational? This is hard philosophy.

 

What's really strange is that the OP asks "Which is more irrational?"

 

That suggests that he considers all options as a spectrum of possibilities within the domain of irrationality. If so, why pick any option at all, since all are irrational.

 

I think the more natural question would be "Which is more rational?

 

The OP tackles the problem in a unique way by phrasing the question as he did. I wonder if there is a significant difference between the two questions.

 

Does he mean to say that science is about reducing the level of irrationality in our answers? Isn't that a condemnation of the scientific spirit which proclaims itself the most rational human endeavor till date?

 

This is a side issue but I'd like to know your views on this.

[Enric]

Well. We know that all things in this universe have a creation or a source at the beginning of all. All things that sorround us.

 

At the beginning of all: No creation, no source. It doesn't seem very rational.

 

At the other hand, also at the beginning of all: A source or a creation... From what? It doesn't seem either very rational.

Sorry. Maybe the word 'creation' is wrong. Is better the word 'transformation' from the source, natural or artificial.

[Mr. Laymen]

What's the source of the matter of the universe?

 

I'd assume it's information. Information in the sense of an undefined variable. Meaning I can't answer that exactly, but abstractly it's some sort of information. And information has boundaries and logic that we have used to determine what constitutes as information. Specifically, injective function. The laws of injective function describe how information can be preserved and observed as distinct information. It's from information that matter is constructed of, as is the source of matter whatever it may be, it is also of "information". Perhaps.

 

 

Where does come from?

 

 

A predecessor, or parental type of structure? Most things appear to come from predecessors as we experience a forward sort of momentum or vector in regards to time or space-endured.

 

 

And the question of the million: it is self-created (created alone by itself) or not? Which answer is more irrational?

 

 

Maybe you're asking how matter is created? I think the answer is just that matter is only a single facet of energy. And energy has a multitude of expressions that change depending on circumstance. Like relativity.