Nature as GOD

[nutronjon]

I am not sure if there is a simple way for Mike C. to make his point, and I am kind of blown away by Infinite's response to Mike C. Whatever, perhaps this information will help................

 

Origin of Matter in the Universe: How Protons, Electrons, and Neutrons Formed in the Big Bang

Origin of Matter in the Universe

How Protons, Electrons, and Neutrons Formed in the Big Bang

© Paul A. Heckert

 

Aug 15, 2007

 

In the big bang theory, matter formed in the early universe as elementary particles including protons, electrons, and neutrons.

Formation of Matter in the Universe

After the inflationary period matter began to form in the early universe. Initially heavy particles such as protons formed. Next lighter particles such as electrons formed. After these basic particles formed, nucleosynthesis could begin to form the few elements made during the big bang. How did these particles form?

 

In his special theory of relativity, Einstein found that matter and energy are interchangeable. Matter can be converted into energy and vice versa. His famous formula, E=mc squared, gives the conversion for how much energy corresponds to a given amount of matter.

 

Matter and Antimatter

One way in which this conversion can take place involves antimatter. For each type of elementary particle, there is a corresponding antimatter particle that has the same properties but an opposite electric charge. For example a positron, the antimatter particle corresponding to an electron, has the same properties as an electron, with the exception of a positive rather than a negative electric charge.

 

When matter and antimatter come into contact, they mutually annihilate and convert into energy. The amount of energy generated is determined by Einstein's formula.

 

The reverse process also occurs. When two high energy gamma rays, possessing sufficient energy, interact in the right way, they can produce a particle-antiparticle pair. Protons and antiprotons are about 2000 times more massive than electrons and positrons. For this reason, much more energy is needed to produce a proton-antiproton pair than an electron-positron pair.

 

Heavy Particles

In this early stage of the universe most of the mass-energy of the universe was in the form of energy. The elementary particles formed when gamma rays of the proper energy interacted to form the particle-antiparticle pairs. Protons and other relatively massive particles were formed by this process first because the universe was so hot that the gamma rays had enough energy to make the massive particles.

 

Light Particles

As the universe aged, expanded, and cooled, the gamma rays did not have enough energy to form the massive particles. The interactions made less massive particles such as electron-positron pairs. Neutrons then formed, just as they do in neutron stars, when protons and electrons merged.

 

Where Has all the Antimatter Gone?

When astronomers first deduced this history, they wondered what had happened to all the antimatter. We are still not sure. However as we learned more about particle physics at very high energies, some of our theories predict that the process is not quite perfectly symmetric. The theories still need to be completely tested. We do know from observing the universe that more matter than antimatter is made. For every billion or so proton-antiproton pairs an extra proton was made. This small asymmetry is enough that the universe is matter rather than either antimatter or a mixture of the two.

 

By the time the universe was about a second or so old, it had expanded and cooled to the point that the gamma rays no longer had enough energy to make even light particles such as electrons. The fundamental particles such as protons, electrons, and neutrons had been made. Now they needed to combine to form the various types of atomic nuclei.

 

Previous

GUTS and Inflation in the Big Bang

 

Next

Nucleosynthesis in the Big Bang

 

Further Reading

Barrow, J.H. and Silk, J., The Left Hand of Creation, Oxford, 1983.

 

Silk, J., The Big Bang, Times Books, 2000.

 

Harrison, E.R., Cosmology The Science Of the Universe, Cambridge, 1981.

 

Friedman, H., The Astronomer's Universe, Norton, 1998.

 

 

 

The copyright of the article Origin of Matter in the Universe in Astrophysics is owned by Paul A. Heckert. Permission to republish Origin of Matter in the Universe must be granted by the author in writing.

 

I would say Mike C. is a doing a better job making a reasonable argument than Infinite who only seems limited to attacking what Mike C. says without contributing any helpful information. Manifestation as we know it does begin with electrons, protrons and neutrons. I think we could say the Nature of God is energy and matter manifest in electrons, protrons and neutrons according to the laws of physics. This might not be the only argument, but it is a legitimate one.

[freeztar]

I think we could say the Nature of God is energy and matter manifest in electrons, protrons and neutrons according to the laws of physics. This might not be the only argument, but it is a legitimate one.

 

And how would you reconcile this with Mike's belief that there are only two real particles that matter (I really didn't mean to make that pun...promise).

 

You imply that Neutrons are important, Mike does not. :(

 

"God energy" is something else entirely, imho.

[ughaibu]

I think we could say the Nature of God is energy and matter manifest in electrons, protrons and neutrons according to the laws of physics. This might not be the only argument, but it is a legitimate one.

It's not at all legitimate, where does god come into it?

[nutronjon]

It's not at all legitimate, where does god come into it?

:shrug: Did God fall out of it? How did that happen?

 

This thread is titled "Nature as God". Nature is made up of energy, electrons, protrons and neutrons and the laws of physics. That means God is energy, electrons, protrons and neutrons and the laws of physics. As

Cicero and Jefferson said, by studying nature, we can infer something about God.

[InfiniteNow]

:shrug: Did God fall out of it? How did that happen?

 

This thread is titled "Nature as God". Nature is made up of energy, electrons, protrons and neutrons and the laws of physics. That means God is energy, electrons, protrons and neutrons and the laws of physics.

 

No, actually, it's not. That's what we call a logical fallacy of non-sequitur.

 

 

Bananas are yellow and have lots of potassium, so rhinoceros horns cause erections in pigmies. :eek2:

[REASON]

:shrug: Did God fall out of it? How did that happen?

 

This thread is titled "Nature as God". Nature is made up of energy, electrons, protrons and neutrons and the laws of physics. That means God is energy, electrons, protrons and neutrons and the laws of physics. As

Cicero and Jefferson said, by studying nature, we can infer something about God.

 

You say nature is God. You say reason is God. You say democracy is reason is God. Ergo, democracy is God.

 

You say nature, democracy, and reason are all God.

 

SO WHAT! I say you're wrong and I'm REASON. (:eek2:)

 

It means diddly squat, will be rejected by the majority of the population who grant supernatural powers of creation, control, and hope to their god, and is completely subjective.

 

I am tired of hearing you blather on about Cicero and Thomas Jefferson like they are the only people throughout history that have had anything valid to say, and that the scientific community should defer to thier reasoning such as you have. You know, it's great that you have read some philosophy that has resonated for you and had a profound effect on your perspective. But your perspective is just that - YOUR PERSPECTIVE. It's not mine, and it may not be that of the scientific community or the general public.

 

You appear desperate to be validated. Well, maybe you should consider the fact that your position, your logic and your reasoning are difficult to validate, and is why you are getting so much resistance. It doesn't matter how obvious it appears to you. If you intend on making claims on a science fora website such as Hypography, you should expect a critique. The tone of that critique is likely to be proportional to the absurdity of your claim relative to a current scientific understanding of the topic. This isn't dogmatism. It's being up-to-date with your understanding and reasoning, which, from a scientific standpoint, is subject to change. And you shouldn't expect a democratic response either. Contributers here are not going to get together and vote on whether or not you are making a valid claim. You will either find agreement and dialogue, or challenges and criticism. It goes with the territory.

 

Whining about it and crying foul constantly will not help your case. It is not your responsibility to dictate the tone of the discussion, it is the moderator's. If you have a problem because you feel like no one will accept your opinion or that you are being insulted, why don't you either provide an adequate defense to your position, or file a complaint by Private Message to a Moderator or Administrator.

 

Meanwhile, maybe you could offer a convincing argument as to the societal benefit of arbitrarily defining Nature as God.

 

Otherwise, it will continue to be an insignificant assertion beyond what you choose to believe as an individual.

[nutronjon]

You say nature is God. You say reason is God. You say democracy is reason is God. Ergo, democracy is God.

 

You say nature, democracy, and reason are all God.

 

SO WHAT! I say you're wrong and I'm REASON. (:shrug:)

 

It means diddly squat, will be rejected by the majority of the population who grant supernatural powers of creation, control, and hope to their god, and is completely subjective.

 

I am tired of hearing you blather on about Cicero and Thomas Jefferson like they are the only people throughout history that have had anything valid to say, and that the scientific community should defer to thier reasoning such as you have. You know, it's great that you have read some philosophy that has resonated for you and had a profound effect on your perspective. But your perspective is just that - YOUR PERSPECTIVE. It's not mine, and it may not be that of the scientific community or the general public.

 

You appear desperate to be validated. Well, maybe you should consider the fact that your position, your logic and your reasoning are difficult to validate, and is why you are getting so much resistance. It doesn't matter how obvious it appears to you. If you intend on making claims on a science fora website such as Hypography, you should expect a critique. The tone of that critique is likely to be proportional to the absurdity of your claim relative to a current scientific understanding of the topic. This isn't dogmatism. It's being up-to-date with your understanding and reasoning, which, from a scientific standpoint, is subject to change. And you shouldn't expect a democratic response either. Contributers here are not going to get together and vote on whether or not you are making a valid claim. You will either find agreement and dialogue, or challenges and criticism. It goes with the territory.

 

Whining about it and crying foul constantly will not help your case. It is not your responsibility to dictate the tone of the discussion, it is the moderator's. If you have a problem because you feel like no one will accept your opinion or that you are being insulted, why don't you either provide an adequate defense to your position, or file a complaint by Private Message to a Moderator or Administrator.

 

Meanwhile, maybe you could offer a convincing argument as to the societal benefit of arbitrarily defining Nature as God.

 

Otherwise, it will continue to be an insignificant assertion beyond what you choose to believe as an individual.

 

I am sorry, I find your wording so extremely offensive and such a distortion of logic, I can not read beyond the opening words. At this point I am am wondering about the maturity of people posting here.

 

Democracy is not God, but when understood through philosophy it is the human quest for truth and the human effort of reason.

 

I will not be reading any more post that I find offensive, but will limit my participation to looking for post that I can enjoy.

[REASON]

I am sorry, I find your wording so extremely offensive and such a distortion of logic, I can not read beyond the opening words. At this point I am am wondering about the maturity of people posting here.

 

Democracy is not God, but when understood through philosophy it is the human quest for truth and the human effort of reason.

 

I will not be reading any more post that I find offensive, but will limit my participation to looking for post that I can enjoy.

 

You may filter your reality all you like, nutron. It is a typical behavior of people in this world.

 

It isn't that my words are offensive. It is that they are contrary to your understanding that you find upsetting.

 

Good luck in your quest to insulate yourself with those who will validate your chosen beliefs. I'm sure there are plenty out there that are of the same mind as you.

[ughaibu]

Did God fall out of it?

God hasn't yet come into it.

This thread is titled "Nature as God". Nature is made up of energy, electrons, protrons and neutrons and the laws of physics. That means God is energy, electrons, protrons and neutrons and the laws of physics.

This is your argument:

1) "Nature as God"

2) nature is made up of energy, electrons, protons and neutrons and the laws of physics.

3) therefore, God is energy, electrons, protons and neutrons and the laws of physics

This isn't an argument, it's a definition of 'god' as nature. It establishes nothing, other than to confuse people who use the word "god", and as we have the word 'nature' to describe nature, it's a useless, unnecessary and, as noted, confusing definition. It's also highly contentious to claim that "laws of physics" are part of nature, personally I wouldn't even accept the claim that laws of nature exist. So, all in all, thoroughgoingly illegitimate.

As Cicero and Jefferson said, by studying nature, we can infer something about God.

And they probably meant what they said, whereas you have inferred something about nature by studying nature.

[Mike C]

Mike, your statement above is simply not true and has no supporting evidence.

 

For example, neutrons form H atoms as well:

 

 

Neutron - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Discussing physics here is off topic.

My view of Nature as GOD is based on the biological life rather than the physical.

 

So I would like to discuss this part of our lives.

 

Thank you.

 

Mike C

[Mike C]

Simply repeating a claim without addressing criticisms of it, without providing ANY evidence, does not make that claim any more valid than the first time you made it.

 

I would like to keep this discussion on topic So my version of Nature deals with the biological realm.

 

Thanks

 

Mike C

[freeztar]

Discussing physics here is off topic.

 

Most cretainly not! If nature is god, then neutrons are a part of God. Don't you agree Mike?

My view of Nature as GOD is based on the biological life rather than the physical.

So it's only biological life that contains God?

:Exclamati

[InfiniteNow]

I didn't know the laws of physics could be broken when doing biology. Interesting! It's amazing what we can achieve when we replace knowledge with god. :Exclamati

[Mike C]

Most cretainly not! If nature is god, then neutrons are a part of God. Don't you agree Mike?

 

So it's only biological life that contains God?

:hihi:

 

Yes.

There are no laws to direct or control the living organisms except for the DNA that they more or less comply to. But that is an unconscious function.

The animals do not need the bible or the popes to tell them what to do.

 

Those religions are for dummies.

 

Mike C

[Mike C]

I didn't know the laws of physics could be broken when doing biology. Interesting! It's amazing what we can achieve when we replace knowledge with god. :hihi:

 

I almost overlooked that subtle hi hi.

 

If you want to learn something, look to Nature for answers.

Like I told Freeztar, the current religions are for dummies .

 

Mike C

[Moontanman]

Yes.

There are no laws to direct or control the living organisms except for the DNA that they more or less comply to. But that is an unconscious function.

The animals do not need the bible or the popes to tell them what to do.

 

Those religions are for dummies.

 

Mike C

 

Are you saying that life doesn't follow the laws of the universe? Or laws of religion?

[nutronjon]

Most cretainly not! If nature is god, then neutrons are a part of God. Don't you agree Mike?

 

So it's only biological life that contains God?

:confused:

 

Why you being so rude? The "thought police" thread was started specifically for you. You are bullying people and trying to be the sole determiner of what people will or will not talk about. If you don't like the chosen subject and limits that were very nice requested, stay out of the thread, and stop bullying everyone to do things your way. You act like the "thought police", and it is very unpleasant. To clarify, it is your rude behavior I am objecting to, not what you think.