Young Earth Creation theory put to rest!

[stahrwe]

And, Stahrwe, there are some newer theories pushing for the BB Theory as misinterpreted data. In the wave structure of matter cosmology red shift is seen as a decrease in wave interaction with distance, not an expanding universe with a fixed beginning ( http://www.quantummatter.com ). The universe doesn't get any younger here at all, rather it gets pushed back to infinitely old in this case. So from the old YEC (6-12 thousand years old) biblical ideas physical evidence has arisen that shows an old earth and universe (13.7 billion years old), and then beyond that some are suggesting an interpretation of the evidence that suggests an infinite space with no beginning or end where matter is constantly cycling through various changes always and forever. In any event, creation is an ongoing process that hasn't stopped by any means (it didn't stop on the six day of a non-literal seven day formatted creation myth). It just keeps going and going and going like the energizer bunny...

And your final answer is?

[stahrwe]

As for a direct answer to how old are the particles in the universe, see the link Interbane posted detailing the estimated age of the universe. The earliest produced elements are going to be Hydrogen and Helium, which continue to comprise the bulk of the universe, whereas elements heavier than these are generally created through the processes that occur in stars, and would have been created later.

I don't care about that. I am looking for your number. How old is the matter in the universe?

[stahrwe]

Geez, why are you making it so complicated? I was taught in physics that matter can neither be created nor destroyed, so assuming all matter is still around today, how old are the original pieces, making up whatever you are dealing with be it hamburger, or diamond?

If you want simple answers, read some man made fantasy. Where do babies come from? Storks! How old is matter? Goddidit! You seem to think reality should be simple. Perhaps that is indicative of a simple mind? The truth is, reality is not simple. It is incredibly complex. I challenge you to build a computer, or even a calculator for that matter, if you think otherwise. Heck, even explain how they work to me(in detail) and I'll be satisfied. I guarantee you will miss something. The people who can fully explain how a computer works are few and far between. There may only be a handful on Earth. I'm talking everything from the pure science of electromagnetism to the applied science of the chemical synthesis of the polymers used to reduce overheating in graphics cards. Reality is extremely complex, but with the combined efforts of the people in our society, we're able to specialize and leap hurdles that would otherwise be insurmountable.

I answered your question with a link to Wikipedia. That's only the tip of the iceberg. The law of conservation of energy you'd learned in your introductory physics class may have... I'm not trustworthy. I just realized you'll stare blankly at the screen unless I post quotes or something from some "authority".

In the everyday world, energy is always unalterably fixed; the law of energy conservation is a cornerstone of classical physics. But in the quantum microworld, energy can appear and disappear out of nowhere in a spontaneous and unpredictable fashion. (Davies, 1983, 162)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The uncertainty principle implies that particles can come into existence for short periods of time even when there is not enough energy to create them. In effect, they are created from uncertainties in energy. One could say that they briefly "borrow" the energy required for their creation, and then, a short time later, they pay the "debt" back and disappear again. Since these particles do not have a permanent existence, they are called virtual particles. (Morris, 1990, 24)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Even though we can't see them, we know that these virtual particles are "really there" in empty space because they leave a detectable trace of their activities. One effect of virtual photons, for example, is to produce a tiny shift in the energy levels of atoms. They also cause an equally tiny change in the magnetic moment of electrons. These minute but significant alterations have been very accurately measured using spectroscopic techniques. (Davies, 1994, 32)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Virtual particle pairs] are predicted to have a calculable effect upon the energy levels of atoms. The effect expected is minute - only a change of one part in a billion, but it has been confirmed by experimenters.

In 1953 Willis Lamb measured this excited energy state for a hydrogen atom. This is now called the Lamb shift. The energy difference predicted by the effects of the vacuum on atoms is so small that it is only detectable as a transition at microwave frequencies. The precision of microwave measurements is so great that Lamb was able to measure the shift to five significant figures. He subsequently received the Nobel Prize for his work. No doubt remains that virtual particles are really there. (Barrow & Silk, 1993, 65-66)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In modern physics, there is no such thing as "nothing." Even in a perfect vacuum, pairs of virtual particles are constantly being created and destroyed. The existence of these particles is no mathematical fiction. Though they cannot be directly observed, the effects they create are quite real. The assumption that they exist leads to predictions that have been confirmed by experiment to a high degree of accuracy. (Morris, 1990, 25)

It's interesting stuff, huh? Here's a more direct answer in a quote from Stephen Hawking:

There are something like ten million million million million million million million million million million million million million million (1 with eighty [five] zeroes after it) particles in the region of the universe that we can observe. Where did they all come from? The answer is that, in quantum theory, particles can be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle pairs. But that just raises the question of where the energy came from. The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero. The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together. Thus, in a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero. (Hawking, 1988, 129)

And you guys say I won't answer a simple question. Is there some problem with answering my question? How old is the matter in the universe? Pick a number, some number, any number?

[stahrwe]

Not quite.

You are thinking about Mass and energy.

As opposed to mass conservation, the principle of matter conservation (in the sense of conservation of particles which are agreed to be "matter") may be considered as an approximate physical law, that is true only in the classical sense, without consideration of special relativity and quantum mechanics. Another difficulty with the idea of conservation of "matter," is that "matter" is not a well-defined word scientifically, and when particles which are considered to be "matter" (such as electrons and positrons) are annihilated to make photons (which are often not considered matter) then conservation of matter does not take place, even in isolated systems.

Johnson1010,

Nice try. I read the same Wikipedia artible you did, but I read the whole thing and it does apply to matter as well as mass

"The law of conservation of mass, also known as principle of mass/matter conservation is that the mass of a closed system (in the sense of a completely isolated system) will remain constant over time.

Mass is also not generally conserved in "open" systems (even if only open to heat and work), when various forms of energy are allowed into, or out of, the system (see for example, binding energy). However, the law of mass conservation for closed (isolated) systems, as viewed over time from any single inertial frame, continues to be true in modern physics. The reason for this is that relativistic equations show that even "massless" particles such as photons still add mass and energy to closed systems, allowing mass (though not matter) to be conserved in all processes where energy does not escape the system. In relativity, different observers may disagree as to the particular value of the mass of a given system, but each observer will agree that this value does not change over time, so long as the system is closed.

The historical concept of both matter and mass conservation is widely used in many fields such as chemistry, mechanics, and fluid dynamics. In modern physics, only mass conservation for closed systems continues to be true exactly. In relativity, the mass-energy equivalence theorem states that mass conservation is equivalent to energy conservation, which is the first law of thermodynamics."
wikipedia
can matter be created?

See also E=mcsquared.

In relativity, the mass-energy equivalence theorem states that mass conservation is equivalent to energy conservation, which is the first law of thermodynamics.

I'm not even sure what this has to do with my question. I didn't ask about mass I asked about matter. Also, mass may be affected by velocity but the amount of matter making up that mass does not change.

So, how old is that matter?

[stahrwe]

That's essentially the same as asking how old the universe is. How old is the empty space in between matter? How old is energy? How old are the more complex forms of matter, such as the atomic elements?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe

Are you asking this question to try and find the epistemic limits of science? You're on the right track. Another such question is to ask what is there beyond the furthest distance we can see with telescopes? Or perhaps asking about the current progress of superstring theory.

On the other hand, if you want to ask a question that's well within the epistemic bounds, ask the age of the Earth. Science has determined it quite accurately.

Ok, I looked at the link:

"If one has accurate measurements of these parameters, then the age of the universe can be determined by using the Friedmann equation. This equation relates the rate of change in the scale factor a(t) to the matter content of the Universe. Turning this relation around, we can calculate the change in time per change in scale factor and thus calculate the total age of the universe by integrating this formula. The age t0 is then given by an expression of the form

t0 = 1/H0 F(^r,^m,^a, ….)

Where H0 is the Hubble constant.

I looked H0 up in a book I have and its value is 500 km/s/Mpc.

Sorry, I couldn't reproduce the foruma in BT fonts exactly so ^ represent the Greek letter Omega.

Perhaps you can lead me through the rest of the calculation.

thanks.

[Interbane]

And you guys say I won't answer a simple question. Is there some problem with answering my question? How old is the matter in the universe? Pick a number, some number, any number?

Did it go right over your head? The first sentence in the link I provided. As for all the questions you're about to ask, read the quotes I provided, they will answer them(for example: "but that's the age of the universe, it doesn't say anything about the age of the matter in the universe?!?!")

Wikipedia: "The age of the universe is the time elapsed between the Big Bang and the present day. Current theory and observations suggest that the universe is 13.75 ±0.17 billion years old."

Perhaps you can lead me through the rest of the calculation.

I'm afraid not, you'll have to do your own homework. Do you really want to be spoon fed information? Are you that reluctant to learn about your universe? This information isn't the rationalization of a man made fairy tale, it's the empirical evidence of our environment. It's worth studying, in other words.

[stahrwe]

And you guys say I won't answer a simple question. Is there some problem with answering my question? How old is the matter in the universe? Pick a number, some number, any number?

Did it go right over your head?

Evidently not. I can only conclude that you can't tell me how old the matter in the universe is. I am quite surprised because I thought I was asking an easy question.

The first sentence in the link I provided. As for all the questions you're about to ask, read the quotes I provided, they will answer them(for example: "but that's the age of the universe, it doesn't say anything about the age of the matter in the universe?!?!")

Why not?

Wikipedia: "The age of the universe is the time elapsed between the Big Bang and the present day. Current theory and observations suggest that the universe is 13.75 ±0.17 billion years old."

So, now I am really confused. Science tells you that the universe is 13.75+/-0.17 billion years old, but you don't know how old the matter in the universe is. Aren't the two the same thing or can you have a universe without matter or matter without a universe?

stahrwe wrote: Perhaps you can lead me through the rest of the calculation.

I'm afraid not, you'll have to do your own homework. Do you really want to be spoon fed information? Are you that reluctant to learn about your universe? This information isn't the rationalization of a man made fairy tale, it's the empirical evidence of our environment. It's worth studying, in other words.

You completely missed the Easter Egg* I put in there. It's another chance to correct me, but be careful. Perhaps you should leave it to tat tvam asi, as clever a fellow as he was in high school all those years ago should certainly be able to handle it.

*(Sorry, but it is that time of year after all)

[johnson1010]

Current theory and observations suggest that the universe is 13.75 ±0.17 billion years old.

So, that is how old the oldest hydrogen would be, based on best estimates. All you had to do was read to this sentence. That is hardly a dodge. Now, the fact that we are several pages into this thread without you having once addressed Tat's opening post... that is a dodge.

E=MCsquared is relavant because it is the literal destruction of matter to produce energy. Energy and mass are conserved, since they can be considered almost interchangeable, while the matter itself is destroyed.

Matter is not necessarily mass. I would think you would be familiar with these concepts, since you work for Nasa. *wink*

[stahrwe]

Current theory and observations suggest that the universe is 13.75 ±0.17 billion years old.

So, that is how old the oldest hydrogen would be, based on best estimates. All you had to do was read to this sentence. That is hardly a dodge. Now, the fact that we are several pages into this thread without you having once addressed Tat's opening post... that is a dodge.

E=MCsquared is relavant because it is the literal destruction of matter to produce energy. Energy and mass are conserved, since they can be considered almost interchangeable, while the matter itself is destroyed.

Matter is not necessarily mass. I would think you would be familiar with these concepts, since you work for Nasa. *wink*

If you had read my post about relativistic mass you would have seen that I distinguish between them.

I'm wondering now if you can prove the age of the universe? My Easter egg will help the discussion.

[Interbane]

Evidently not. I can only conclude that you can't tell me how old the matter in the universe is. I am quite surprised because I thought I was asking an easy question.

I guess it did go over your head, let me go find it.

So, now I am really confused. Science tells you that the universe is 13.75+/-0.17 billion years old, but you don't know how old the matter in the universe is. Aren't the two the same thing or can you have a universe without matter or matter without a universe?

That was the part that went right over your head. Yes, most matter is the age of the universe. I apologize for not connecting the dots for you. The laundry list of quotes show some of the exceptions and provide more detail.

Johnson's right, I'm amazed this isn't part of NASA 101, even if you're a janitor. Which means you think you have a rabbit up your sleeve. Out with it! Let's hear the punch line.

This makes me think of the other thread where you asked me a question and became flabberghasted at my answer. I believe it was about how science gets it's knowledge. Whatever the false answer was that you had in mind lead you to believe I would fall into a trap, or some such thing. The real answer was that scientific knowledge is gained by the process of the scientific method. I'm waiting for your reply here on the topic of matter that what we're giving you isn't the 'real' answer. Where do you get all your false information from anyways, some apologetics website or from a stack of apologetics books?

On the other hand, there are millions of questions you can ask me to which my answer would be "I don't know". I used to be omniscient, but I'm not anymore. I don't think johnson is either. Are you attempting to slowly draw in on such a question then go "aha!, gotcha!"? I'll give you the right questions to ask if you'd like, you don't need to beat around the bush if that's what you're doing. After all, what I don't know is infinitely greater than what I do know. I take paradoxical pride in this humility.