A question. What before bang?

You can create matter. Two photons can combine to create an electron if they have an energy greater than 1/2 the mass energy of the electron. So infact you can create matter, and for that matter destroy it by combining and electron and a positron. The field does not conserve mass its conserves energy. Mass can be created in an interaction where enough energy is present.

 

thats pretty cool fat tony: so when matter is created btwn the two photons is there a loss of energy in that system that corresponds to the formation of that matter? likewise when the positron and electron anihilate e/o is there some kind of energy increase corresponding to the loss of matter?

 

The annihilation of two gamma rays will result in the creation of two 512 keV gamma rays. This process can happen in reverse. An electron will annihilate with a positron as this conserves charge 1 + (-1) = 0. A single gamma ray can create an electron/positron pair (called pair production) if the gamma ray is over 1024 keV in energy. Mind you any electron created at just over the pair production will not travel very fast as pretty much energy goes into 'making' the electron.

 

so where do the sub-sub atomic particles (quarks or whatever the hell it is) come from to make this electron if the system is just energy (gamma radiation). mind you your talking to someone who is used to dealing with larger (atomic, molecular) bodies so I don't even know what a quark is but i thought its a particle with mass.

 

The matter comes from the energy thats what E= mc^2 is all about. The kinematics are determined by special relativity and the mechanics, i,e, what particles can be created in a given situation are determined by quantum mechanics. Its how nuclear power works, you split and element into two lighter elements, the sum of the mass of the two lighter elements is smaller than the single larger element. That mass is converted to energy which makes the atoms travel faster, macroscopically this is hotter, so you can generate power.

 

I think the question we havent asked is


does it really matter?

 

But it would take an infinite amount of time, for the black hole to eat "all of infinity" so that it would never happen.

 

God happend before the big bang. What was before God? Nothing.

 

Dawn of light lying between a silence and sold sources,
Chased amid fusions of wonder, in moments hardly seen forgotten,
Coloured in pastures of chance dancing leaves cast spells of challenge,
Amused but real in thought, we fled from the sea whole.
Dawn of thought transfered through moments of days undersearching earth
Revealing corridors of time provoking memories, disjointed but with purpose,
Craving penetrations offer links with the self instructors sharp
And tender love as we took to the air, a picture of distance.
Dawn of our power we amuse redescending as fast as misused
Expression, as only to teach love as to reveal passion chasing
Late into corners, and we danced from the ocean.
Dawn of love sent within us colours of awakening among the many
Won't to follow, only tunes of a different age.
As the links span our endless caresses for the freedom of life everlasting.

 

Smokin

Cannot agree. There is not even indicative evidence that there was ever
a state of [non-reality] where nothing existed.

Creation and dissolution of realities is speaking in absolutes.
And humans have always scored very poorly in such conceptualisation.
If occam is not mistaken. The only true absolute is that something exists.

Occam suggests reality has always existed. Our univese being but a small part of it.
There is no evidence to dispute this.. and much to uphold it.
For reality exists.

What religion calls god. And what science terms god for he sake of ease
of communication.
Is most easily explained as a product of a reality of infinite duration.

Occam

 

Ronald

What prime cause is that...?
Why does reality require a beginning?
If it has always existed. Causality does not apply.

We humans suffer a inherent predisposition. That everything must have a
beginning, and an end.
In the case of structure within realities framework, this may be true.
Stars, planets, people are structures withn reality and transient.
In the case of existant reality, there is no evidence whatsoever to support this position.
We know so very little even about the small facet of reality called our universe. Yet in our hubris, claim 'knowing' that reality 'must have' a beginning and end.

This is patently absurd

Occam