First cause of the universe.

[Polymath257]

More chemicals inventing themselves eh? Processes require someone to set the laws in motion to create the process.

No, they do not require a 'someone' to do that. All they need is to exist.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Atheism is even less of a source...to be precise

That is a very odd statement. Atheists are not claiming to be a source. Do you think that theists are the source of the beginning of the universe? I have never seen a theist claim that either.

 

[Wildswanderer]

You assume there needs to be something to 'start' the process.

On the contrary, the formation of matter/anti-matter pairs happens spontaneously and out of nothing. This is a measured phenomenon.

One of the difficulties in this discussion is that precise language is required to accurately relate the different possibilities.

For example, the phrase 'has a beginning' can mean several different things:

1. there was a time when the thing did not exist. At a later time it did.

2. the thing did not exist for an infinite amount of time in the past.

3. there is an instant of time when it comes into existence. In other words, it did not exist before, but it did exist after that time.

These are three different notions.

For example, 2 could happen without 1 if time itself only goes finitely far into the past. 1 could happen without 3 if time is not continuous.

There is also the relation of these to the notion of 'being caused', which means there was some prior event or circumstance that, through the laws of physics, gives rise to the thing. Notice that causality requires both time and physical laws.

So I assume you are a Hawkings fan?
Gravity could not invent itself. A natural law requires something to set that law in motion. You are just kicking the can up the road.

 

[Polymath257]

Not. It freezes because of a reaction to the temperature. Nothing spontaneous about it.

Actually, it freezes because the water evaporating carries energy away, leading to the formation of an orderly crystal structure.

Temperature isn't a separate thing that can be interacted with. The water would also freeze if there was a vacuum around it, for example.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So I assume you are a Hawkings fan?
Gravity could not invent itself. A natural law requires something to set that law in motion. You are just kicking the can up the road.

You use such strange language. Gravity is merely a side effect of the existence of space time. No "inventing" needed.

 

[Polymath257]

So I assume you are a Hawkings fan?
Gravity could not invent itself. A natural law requires something to set that law in motion. You are just kicking the can up the road.

Really? Why is that required?

And, how exactly are laws 'set in motion'? What laws govern that process?

the most fundamental laws cannot have deeper explanations because an explanation has to be in terms of deeper laws.

 

[Wildswanderer]

No, they do not require a 'someone' to do that. All they need is to exist.

And how did that happen? Chemicals form from elements. Do elements just poof into existence? No they require the existence of matter.... You're using some sort of circular reasoning to say everything formed itself, but it doesn't work.

 

[stvdv]

Scripture is not a reliable source for knowledge, so irrelevant.

Scripture IS the reliable source for WISDOM

Science is the reliable source for knowledge

Atheism is nothing except "lack of..."

 

[Polymath257]

Because nothing does .. spontaneous generation of life was disproved a long time ago.

Looks to me that you don't understand Pasteur's experiment and how it relates to abiogenesis.

Nutrients alone do not produce complex life. That was established.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And how did that happen? Chemicals form from elements. Do elements just poof into existence? No they re

Elements are formed in stars. Did you not know that?

So where does the initial hydrogen, and helium come from (I thought that I would ask that one for you)? They came directly from energy fairly shortly after the Big Bang. began.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Scripture IS the reliable source for WISDOM

Science is the reliable source for knowledge

Atheism is nothing except "lack of..."

Really? You have evidence of that? I don't see all that much wisdom in scripture.

 

[Polymath257]

And how did that happen? Chemicals form from elements. Do elements just poof into existence? No they require the existence of matter.... You're using some sort of circular reasoning to say everything formed itself, but it doesn't work.

Elements form out of protons, neutrons, and electrons. protons and neutrons form out of quarks. Electrons and quarks are, from what we understand currently, fundamental particles: they are not made out of anything else.

They can, however, spontaneously form through quantum fluctuations. And, electron positron pair formation is a known and well measured phenomenon.

Electrons don't 'form themselves', but they do spontaneously form with no precursors.

 

[Wildswanderer]

You use such strange language. Gravity is merely a side effect of the existence of space time. No "inventing" needed.

You use such strange language. Gravity is merely a side effect of the existence of space time. No "inventing" needed.

Which requires matter, which didn't create itself either.

 

[Polymath257]

Elements are formed in stars. Did you not know that?

So where does the initial hydrogen, and helium come from (I thought that I would ask that one for you)? They came directly from energy fairly shortly after the Big Bang. began.

Actually, nucleogenesis is a well studied collection of events in the Big Bang.

At the start of nucleogenesis, all matter was made of neutrons that had condensed out of the quark plasma that was just before.

Quarks seem to have formed spontaneously through quantum fluctuations.

 

[Polymath257]

Which requires matter, which didn't create itself either.

It isn't creating itself. A vacuum with 'nothing in it' (no matter or energy) is a higher energy than a system that does have matter in it. The energy difference is what produces the matter/anti-matter pairs.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Elements form out of protons, neutrons, and electrons. protons and neutrons form out of quarks. Electrons and quarks are, from what we understand currently, fundamental particles: they are not made out of anything else.

They can, however, spontaneously form through quantum fluctuations. And, electron positron pair formation is a known and well measured phenomenon.

Electrons don't 'form themselves', but they do spontaneously form with no precursors.

That raises an interesting side question. I have a feeling that this could not be built on Earth:

How large of a a particle accelerator would be needed to form a proton-antiproton pair?

 

[Wildswanderer]

Elements form out of protons, neutrons, and electrons. protons and neutrons form out of quarks. Electrons and quarks are, from what we understand currently, fundamental particles: they are not made out of anything else.

They can, however, spontaneously form through quantum fluctuations. And, electron positron pair formation is a known and well measured phenomenon.

Electrons don't 'form themselves', but they do spontaneously form with no precursors.

Naughty, naughty, you are leaving out the stars... once again you need energy and elements to exist first.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Actually, nucleogenesis is a well studied collection of events in the Big Bang.

At the start of nucleogenesis, all matter was made of neutrons that had condensed out of the quark plasma that was just before.

Quarks seem to have formed spontaneously through quantum fluctuations.

Neutrons and anti-neutrons?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Naughty, naughty, you are leaving out the stars... once again you need energy and elements to exist first.

No, he was jumping ahead for you. Stars were formed by gravity. The concentration of matter shortly after the Big Bang was not 100% uniform.

 

[Polymath257]

That raises an interesting side question. I have a feeling that this could not be built on Earth:

How large of a a particle accelerator would be needed to form a proton-antiproton pair?

Already done routinely.

Even Fermilab did this as a matter of course: it took high energy protons and slammed them together. The energy was enough to form a slew of other particles, among which were often found proton/anti-proton pairs.

A proton has an energy equivalent of just under 1 GeV. To get a proton/anti-proton pair requires a bit under 2 GeV under ideal circumstances. Center of mass energies at this scale have been done for decades now.