First matter/first energy

[Scott1]

I discussed this a bit with Pah on another thread and decided that I needed more help to understand.

What I would like to know is:

Can science prove how the first matter/energy was created?.... I was under the assumption that it was a scientific principle that "something" could not come from "nothing".

 

[scitsofreaky]

Science really couldn't prove the "first cause," if you will, because then they would have to explain where that came from. So the first cause is impossible to reach.
But, I would say that it would be possible to prove what caused the big bang. But, perhaps there was no cause. Quantum physics is starting to discover that perhaps everything is not cause- effect, and that the big bang just happened with no (concievable) cause.

 

[Saw11_2000]

I think I've said before if you keep asking a person, well, Where did that come from? evenually you will get them to say I don't know.

More and more of those Where did that come from?s are getting answered, but they can never be totally suppressed.

 

[No*s]

Science really couldn't prove the "first cause," if you will, because then they would have to explain where that came from. So the first cause is impossible to reach.
But, I would say that it would be possible to prove what caused the big bang. But, perhaps there was no cause. Quantum physics is starting to discover that perhaps everything is not cause- effect, and that the big bang just happened with no (concievable) cause.

I have my doubts on this. Just because we haven't found the causes underlying QM doesn't mean they don't exist. Our models may simply be wrong, and I'm more convinced that there are rules behind it that we haven't discovered than I would be that they have no cause.

 

[linwood]

Can science prove how the first matter/energy was created?.... I was under the assumption that it was a scientific principle that "something" could not come from "nothing".

No science cannot nor ever will be able to falsifiably verify "First Cause" although alot of people keep talking like they can and have.
Please see the "Misconceptions about the Big Bang" thread.

I do not believe something can come from nothing.

It has been stated that "particles" have "appeared" out of no where in certain scientific experiments.
These "Virtual Particles" appear and disappear quickly.

I don`t know if these experiments have been duplicated or falsified yet.

As far as I`m concerned if it can be proven first cause actually happened I will be dropping my atheistic stance and converting to deism.

I don`t believe something can come from nothing without a metaphysical cause.

 

[scitsofreaky]

I have my doubts on this. Just because we haven't found the causes underlying QM doesn't mean they don't exist. Our models may simply be wrong, and I'm more convinced that there are rules behind it that we haven't discovered than I would be that they have no cause.

I agree that there are probably underlying rules that we don't know of/don't understand. But, we don't know yet, and I was just pointing out what has been found thus far.

 

[Scott1]

Interesting..... I thought I would be bombarded by scientific proof (that I would have to ask painted wolf via pm what they meant!).... but..... none.

Now I understand why many get upset when theists whine about evolution..... when they seem (to me at least) to be fighting windmills.

I get you now..... thanks everyone (especially linwood) for the help.

Scott

 

[scitsofreaky]

It is perfectly possible that energy has always existed, and it just is in a constant state of change (oxymoronic). I think it is very plausible that the energy that this universe is made of has made completely different universes in the past, and will in the future.

 

[Pah]

I think I've said before if you keep asking a person, well, Where did that come from? evenually you will get them to say I don't know.

More and more of those Where did that come from?s are getting answered, but they can never be totally suppressed.

Exactly! Just like a child asking "why?" contuniously

 

[Master Vigil]

I hated being a kid. Cuz I always needed a reason for things. I ALWAYS asked why. I always got the same answer, "because." And then I would always reply... "Because why?"

 

[linwood]

Now I understand why many get upset when theists whine about evolution..... when they seem (to me at least) to be fighting windmills.

I feel the same way when atheists or theists state a first cause as scientific fact.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Can science prove how the first matter/energy was created?.... I was under the assumption that it was a scientific principle that "something" could not come from "nothing".

Well, your assumption seems well-founded in day-to-day life, and in most physics...but recent discoveries have shown that "something" appears to be able to come from "nothing" after all. Virtual particles have been detected that pop in and out of existence at random. The paradigm that everything must be cause and effect was a useful one until mathematics began predicting the contrary and observations began supporting those predictions. It is prudent, of course, that people hang on to this assumption for a while in spite of some observation to the contrary....but to hold on to this idea simply because "it must be so" is not scientific, but a kind of religious dogmatism. There simply is no reason to assume that everything about how the universe works--which evolution has trained us to understand by breaking it down into patterns and logic--must make sense to us. Something may indeed be able to come from nothing....why? Because, as my astronomy book puts it, " 'nothing' is unstable."

As for your question...science cannot "prove" anything. It can only make observations which verify or falsify various claims to various degrees of certainty. There are a number of good theories about how the universe came into existence...but little is certain. That does not, of course, mean that science will never be able to make observations in the future that provide better certainty of the origins of the universe.

 

[LISA63]

I used to consider the question "what would happen if an unstopable force were to meet an unmoveable object". For a long time I wrestled with this apparently unanswerable question until I met my freshman year professor of physics.

Quite simply the answer is that if an unstopable force exists then the unmoveable object could not

So the question was wrong in its essence. We assume that nothing can exist right? but what if all we assume to be nothing is really much smaller something that we can't see? Then we could never say that something can't come from nothing because nothing doesn't exist. The more we advance in science the futher we seem to be able to break things down into ever smaller components. Suppose for a moment that space is really a sea of components for things that we can now observe
and the concept of nothing is simply a human invention to explain the unknown?
We know that matter exists in certain forms and we have proven that we can alter that form by adding energy to it or taking energy from it so maybe there are some forms of energy not understood as of yet such as gravity and their interactions are what cause what we now observe?
WE might then be able to say that since "nothing" or the absence of anything never existed then something always comes from something.

 

[Green Man]

I discussed this a bit with Pah on another thread and decided that I needed more help to understand.

What I would like to know is:

Can science prove how the first matter/energy was created?.... I was under the assumption that it was a scientific principle that "something" could not come from "nothing".

In the last century,science made the discovery,that space is not merely an empty void.Space can be affected by gravity,bent and even torn.Scientists can create matter using only space and an energy source.I don't think there ever was a first cause.That is a very human way of looking at things,and I think matter and energy have always existed in one form or another.One last thing about space.Science has discovered that space has a low level of energy of a kind we've never seen before.So,space is something that can be measured and quantified,but we don't have the technology at present and more research needs to be done in this area.Bottom line,space is not nothing,it is something.(I bet my english teacher must be turning in her grave.)

 

[meogi]

Quite simply the answer is that if an unstopable force exists then the unmoveable object could not

I would say that quite simply the answer is that if an unmoveable object exists, then both exist. Picture space, put an unmoveable object in it. It can't move, but space can. Anything running into it would find it an unstopable force against them.

Alas, much like pondering if god could create something he couldn't lift, I don't find the premises of the question sufficient.

We assume that nothing can exist right? but what if all we assume to be nothing is really much smaller something that we can't see?

Is it just me, or does 'assuming nothing can exist' sound a tad oxymoron-ish to anyone else? But you're right, maybe there isn't 'nothing.' Only problem I have with that is:

WE might then be able to say that since "nothing" or the absence of anything never existed then something always comes from something.

Mainly the word always. The conflict comes from our respective views of time=0 and what it means, I think.

 

[Rex]

I love this debate


Lets try to think of things this way to stimulate the mind.

A = First Cause

A1 + A2 + A3 = 2nd cause

Meaning there could have been any amount of first causes all created at the same time.

It would get even more interesting if it went like this

A1 > 2ND CAUSE > 3RD CAUSE

A2 > 2ND CAUSE > 3RD CAUSE

A3 > 2ND CAUSE > 3RD CAUSE

Now you have 3 seperate first causes causing entirely different causal chains.

And let us not forget.

1 = first cause

-3, -2, -1, 0 , 1, 2 ,3

You can still have a first cause in a causal chain, but that doesn't really mean anything.