Every thing created in Pair

[islam means peace]

"Every thing created in Pair" , a great article about the scince and the next world.

Everything Created in Pairs | Islam-faq

 

[themadhair]

From the article:

Many present-day scientists are of the opinion that this anti-world is an entity apart from us, having a parallel existence of its own. This world is made up of matter; according to the law of opposites there should be another world made up of anti-matter. It is estimated that 20 million years ago, when the Big Bang explosion occurred, photon-matter and anti-matter came together in two separate forms. The two then started to form the world and the anti-world.

The first people to work on this theory were a Swedish pair, physicist Osker Klein and astrophysicist Hannes Alven. The results of their research were published in 1963. The Soviet mathematician, Dr Gustav Naan, further consolidated the theory. According to him, the anti-world cannot be fully explained by known theories and laws of physics, yet he is convinced that the anti-world exists, even now. It is, however, independent of us, existing on its own, parallel to this world. In the present world all anti-particles are in an unstable condition; but in the anti-world they will all be stable, for the nuclei of atoms have a negative electric charge, while electrons are positively charged. Since this world is ephemeral, it follows that the anti-world, or to use its religious term, the hereafter, must be an eternal world.

The discoveries of modern science, then, have given us a picture of the next world which accords with that of the Qur’an.

There is simply so much wrong with the above that it is difficult to know where to start. Whenever religious believers, of any stripe, debaucher modern scientific knowledge in an ignorant attempt to validate their religious convictions there is usually on one result – a complete and utter mess that proudly and loudly tells the world of the author’s cluelessness when it comes to matters of science.

The list of, quite frankly, laughable errors include:

1) No present day scientists believe in an anti-world as described above. In fact such an anti-world is completely at odds with big bang theory which surmises that the current (baryonic) matter is the leftovers of the matter/antimatter annihilation shortly after the universal expansion began. This anti-world is also at odds with fringe theories of plasma cosmologies too (more below).

2) Big bang in not an explosion, and it began much much further in the past than 20 million years as suggested by the uniformed author.

3) There is no such thing as ‘photon matter’. Photons do have an equivalence mass, but it makes absolutely no sense to label them as matter.

4) The author has completely misrepresented Klein’s work on KK-theory, which was an attempt to unify the forces of electromagnetism and gravity (and largely succeed IMO). I’m guessing that the author was referring to Klein’s idea that extra dimensions can exist but be ‘curled up’ (which the author combined with Klein’s plasma cosmology – more below). While this idea is quite useful to the string theorists, it isn’t another world and definitely not one composed of anti-matter (something that makes absolutely no sense within the concept).

5) Hannes Alfvén and Oskar Klein have never co-published to my knowledge. Alfvén is a plasma cosmologist who outright denies big bang theory (which is funny given that the author thinks all this has something to do with big bang). Alfvén-Klein cosmology, invented by Klein who extended Alfvén’s ideas as means of avoiding creationism (something the author didn’t know I’ll bet), proposes that the universe is composed of clumps of both matter and anti-matter. The idea is that these localised clumps are undergoing expansion and annihilation when they interact. We, according to this cosmology, are merely in a matter bubble. This is very fringe science and one completely incompatible with big bang theory. It should also be note that COBE and WMAP sort of buried this idea.

6) The description of the anti-world and opposites appears to have been pulled out of the authors arse from what I can tell. I’m unfamiliar with any scientific proposal that could be twisted into that interpretation.

7) Given that the entire passage is devoid of modern science, are we to conclude that a stunning ignorance of modern science is required to hold the above koranic view?

 

[Valjean]

I don't see how the fact that there are pairs of some things in Nature has anything to do with the ultimate truth of the Quran. For one thing, pairs are hardly universal, even among atomic particles as suggested in the article. And the male/female pairing that we're so familiar with is not that common a system in biology. Mammals, birds, and a lot of fish and reptiles use sexual selection most -- not all -- of the time, But to look on the system used by us and most of our livestock as universal is just plain wrong.
Themadhair pointed out many other problems with the article (I'm still shaking my head at a 20 million year old universe) that make it clear the author has very little knowledge of the world.

You might as well point to accurate historical or geographical suras as proof of divine inspiration, but just because The Prophet realised that Jerusalem was to the North of Arabia doesn't reflect on The Book's metaphysical philosophy.

 

[YmirGF]

(7) Given that the entire passage is devoid of modern science, are we to conclude that a stunning ignorance of modern science is required to hold the above koranic view?

Evidently so. I have yet to see any Muslim here on RF actually prove any scientific point they were making.

 

[DadBurnett]

In pairs/ I wonder.
The physical world seems to be the stuff of threes. Take the atom, for example, protron, electron, neutron. Any combination of two, without the unifying force, the neutron produces notihing. All of the elements are created of atoms ... a neutron and some number of paired electrons and protrons.

 

[Don Penguinoini]

*looks down*

Nope, just one.

 

[painted wolf]

And yet most life is asexual and hasn't got a pair to speak of.

Hydrogen is just one proton and one electron... no neutron... so the threes thing is out.

wa:do

 

[DadBurnett]

Well now, I'm not so sure, there may be no neutron, but the hydrogen atom is more than just a protron and neutron ... consider
From Wikipedia
A hydrogen atom is an atom of the chemical element hydrogen, and an example of a Boson. The electrically neutral atom contains a single positively-charged proton and a single negatively-charged electron bound to the nucleus by the Coulomb force.

 

[3.14]

i wonder who told them (bet it was there twin )

 

[painted wolf]

Something tells me you didn't actually read the wiki article...

Protium, the most common isotope of hydrogen, has one proton and one electron. Unique among all stable isotopes, it has no neutrons (see diproton for discussion of why others do not exist).

*emphasis mine
And here is a diagram of Hydrogen... notice the lack of a neutron.

http://www.kwugirl.com/cyberspace/atom.jpg

I mean this is basic chemistry ... the kind you learn in high school. If Hydrogen had a neutron then it would Helium.

wa:do

 

[DadBurnett]

Something tells me you didn't actually read the wiki article...

*emphasis mine
And here is a diagram of Hydrogen... notice the lack of a neutron.

http://www.kwugirl.com/cyberspace/atom.jpg

I mean this is basic chemistry ... the kind you learn in high school. If Hydrogen had a neutron then it would Helium.

wa:do

Okay, I admit my mistake, my representation of the atom did not take into account the most prevalent atom in the universe, that of hydrogen. A cursory search would seem to indicate that it is indeed unique in that there is no third “particle,” no neutron.

The original premise of this thread was that everything exists in pairs, I attempted to use the structure of the atom to show that there is more to “stuff” than two things. My explanation was flawed, to a point.

A search of various websites revelas that the representation of the hydrogen atom illustrated in your response is only an oversimplified illustration, good enough for general discussions; discussions of the hydrogen atom require mor than just a peotron and electron to explain what it actually is. Understanding of what the hydrogen atom really is requires considering things like energy, light, gravity and motion.

What I had wanted to imply is that I don’t perceive that everything is created in pairs. “Stuff” is more complex that that. Even in the hydrogen atom, with only two charged particles, more is required than just the two particles.

We have a tendancy (we have been taught, perhaps) to think in pairs. We are taught to choose right or wrong, to look left and right, etc. There are male and female, old and young, positive and negative, mine and yours, friend and enemy. This concept of pairs is deceptive and problematic. It is for me, too simplistic.

There are two sides to a coin, but these two sides have no independent reality. I know seem to be arguing again scripture here, but I am not trying to invalidate scripture. ”And all things We[re] made in pairs, so that you may give thought. (51:49)” is of course correct when seen in the context of the whole of scripture. Put in the greater perspective, there is always more. People were created in pairs that they may give thought … give thought to what? Perhaps to there being more. All scripture, I think, is a call to look beyond self and to recognize there is more to everything, there is that which we call God, Allah. Omitting Allah from the understanding of what we are, of what things are, is like leaving the “energies” out of the hydrogen atom equation. There is a divine structure and a divine energy beyond the visible representations of things. The concept of pairs has place and purpose and the scripture seems to tell us that one of the purposes is to give us cause to think beyond physical representations and perceptions.

 

[painted wolf]

Okay, I admit my mistake, my representation of the atom did not take into account the most prevalent atom in the universe, that of hydrogen. A cursory search would seem to indicate that it is indeed unique in that there is no third “particle,” no neutron.

The original premise of this thread was that everything exists in pairs, I attempted to use the structure of the atom to show that there is more to “stuff” than two things. My explanation was flawed, to a point.

I agree... there are things that exist in triples, quadruples, singles.... reality is quite complex.

A search of various websites revelas that the representation of the hydrogen atom illustrated in your response is only an oversimplified illustration, good enough for general discussions; discussions of the hydrogen atom require mor than just a peotron and electron to explain what it actually is. Understanding of what the hydrogen atom really is requires considering things like energy, light, gravity and motion.

I did use the easiest model to understand... I figured it would be more clear than the electron cloud model or the plum pudding model for example.
Yes it does require physics to understand exactly whats going on... but we can stop here.

What I had wanted to imply is that I don’t perceive that everything is created in pairs. “Stuff” is more complex that that. Even in the hydrogen atom, with only two charged particles, more is required than just the two particles.

We have a tendancy (we have been taught, perhaps) to think in pairs. We are taught to choose right or wrong, to look left and right, etc. There are male and female, old and young, positive and negative, mine and yours, friend and enemy. This concept of pairs is deceptive and problematic. It is for me, too simplistic.

I agree the false dichotomy of 'pairs' is frustrating...
I just don't like to see people use flawed science to fight flawed science.

wa:do

 

[Valjean]

And isn't that proton "made of" three, not two, quarks?

 

[DadBurnett]

I agree... there are things that exist in triples, quadruples, singles.... reality is quite complex.

I did use the easiest model to understand... I figured it would be more clear than the electron cloud model or the plum pudding model for example.
Yes it does require physics to understand exactly whats going on... but we can stop here.


I agree the false dichotomy of 'pairs' is frustrating...
I just don't like to see people use flawed science to fight flawed science.

wa:do

Perhaps because people and human perception are flawed ...

 

[painted wolf]

And isn't that proton "made of" three, not two, quarks?

Yup, two up and one down I think... It may be the other way round but I don't feel like hunting it down at the moment.

wa:do

 

[painted wolf]

Perhaps because people and human perception are flawed ...

That's why we have a system of checks and balances ... to work out flaws.

wa:do

 

[DadBurnett]

That's why we have a system of checks and balances ... to work out flaws.

wa:do

Sometimes checks "bounce" and balance scales tip more one way than the other

 

[painted wolf]

That's why you have more than one set.

wa:do