The antimatter issue in the ‘Big Bang’ theory
Some have decided to point out that one explanation of the ‘Big Bang’ theory has an antimatter problem, but that CERN scientists may have an explanation:
The Standard Model of particle physics is a thing of beauty. Developed over by generations of the world’s smartest minds, it can predict, with astonishing precision, accuracy, and simplicity, the behavior and interactions of almost every known form of matter and energy.
It does, however, fall short in a few key areas. For instance, according to the Standard Model, we shouldn’t exist right now.
That’s because, according to the Standard Model, for every bit of matter that popped into existence with the Big Bang, there should have been a corresponding bit of antimatter, which is just like regular matter except that it has an opposite electric charge and quantum spin.
Matter and antimatter don’t mix well. When the two touch, they annihilate each other in a flash of radiation and other subatomic particles. According to the Standard Model, that’s what should have happened an instant after the Big Bang, leaving behind a universe that would best be described as very boring.
It seems that this didn’t happen. So instead, physicists suspect that at the dawn of the universe there was just a hair more matter than antimatter. Perhaps, for every billion antimatter atoms, there were a billion and one matter atoms. So after the two annihilated each other, there was some matter left behind, which now takes the form all the stars, planets, shopping malls, and you, among other things.
Nobody knows why the matter atoms outnumbered the antimatter atoms at the beginning of the universe. Physicists call this imbalance Charge Parity violation, and it’s a big problem for the Standard Model.
But now a team of physicists might have an explanation. Using particle accelerators at CERN, Europe‘s nuclear physics lab near Geneva, Switzerland, the scientists fired a beam of high-energy protons at a chunk of uranium carbide. Smashing protons into uranium at high speed is a terrific way to make all sorts of exotic isotopes. As the current edition of Nature reports, researchers found that the nuclei of two of these isotopes, radium 224 and radon 220, have distinct pear shapes.
Most atomic nuclei are shaped like rugby balls, so a lopsided nucleus is big news.
“The pear shape is special,” said University of Michigan physicist Tim Chupp, who participated in the study, in a press release. “It means the neutrons and protons, which compose the nucleus, are in slightly different places along an internal axis.”
Researchers believe that the nuclear forces that produced the asymmetry in the nucleus also produced an asymmetry in the amounts of matter and antimatter created by the Big Bang. http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2013/0509/Why-hasn-t-everything-been-annihilated-yet-Pear-shaped-atomic-nuclei-could-hold-answer
Most nuclei that exist naturally are basically spherical or rugby-ball shaped, but the new research from the CERN facility suggests that some atoms are lopsided like pears, with more mass at one end than the other. The experimental observations at CERN will help physicists better understand the theory of nuclear structure and help refine searches for electric dipole moments (EDM) in atoms.
The Standard Model of particle physics predicts that the value of the EDM is so small that it cannot be observed. However there are many theories that suggest that there is a way to measure the EDM. The pear-shaped atom gives physicists the best known example to test these theories and get closer to obtaining observable measurements of the EDM.
“Our findings contradict some nuclear theories and will help refine others. The measurements will also help direct the searches for atomic EDMs currently being carried out in North America and in Europe, where new techniques are being developed to exploit the special properties of radon and radium isotopes,” said Peter Butler, the physicist from the University of Liverpool who carried out the measurements and led the research. http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/1832/20130509/pear-shaped-atoms-tests-standard-model-physics-offers-big-bang.htm
There are various reasons to realize that the Creation was not just a random event. And not just because scientists have tended to overlook the antimatter problem with one of their theories.
It is interesting, to me at least, that it was the European CERN project that discovered certain possibly explanations to the Big Bang theory. I have long written that I felt that the CERN particle colliders were significant for the physics world and still suspect that it will help the Europeans develop military technology to fulfill biblical prophecies such as:
“Who is like the beast? Who is able to make war with him?” (Revelation 13:4)
Now, getting back to the Creation, the Bible teaches:
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. (Genesis 1:1-2)
Was the Creation Random or Did God Make It?
We need to realize that there are only two choices: there either was at some time God (or similar power, the term “God” will be used throughout this article) which started the universe or there was not. If there was not, then the universe is completely random and life has no purpose. If there was a God, does this God still exist and if so does this existence affect our lives (a related article of interest may be What is the Meaning of Life?)?
Because there now is existence (and we do not intend to debate this point), then something has always existed. Either God always existed or matter has always existed. If there was no God, then matter has always existed. Matter, as much as is scientifically known is composed of atoms which are composed of protons, neutrons, and electrons (no one really knows what protons, neutrons, or electrons are composed of–though some type of energy appears probable; plus quarks and other items seem to be involved).
Electrons “orbit” the nucleus of atoms (the nuclei normally consist of protons and neutrons) at incredible speeds. They are always orbiting. As much as we humans know about about energy, is that without an external source, everything will eventually run out of energy. Thus, it is not logical that matter has always existed. Also, as much as humans know about motion, it is not possible for something to start moving without being affected by something else; thus it is not logical that electrons would be in motion unless something started them to be in motion.
The fact of radioactivity also suggests that matter has not always existed. Radioactive substances are in a state of constant disintegration, thus if they would have been disintegrating forever, there would be no radioactive matter left. And science has proved that radioactive matter still exists.
To get around this point, some scientists suggest that the atomic structure of matter is reconfigured every several billion/trillion years through a hypothesis known as the oscillating universe theory: it is an interesting idea, but one that there is absolutely no proof for–as well as one that violates the known laws of physics as well as the known pattern of the universe. One on its major tenets is that as energy is exhausted from our expanding universe (hence they accept the earlier point that motion cannot continue without an external source), the gravity of the universe finally brings all matter together for a later reconfiguration (and explosion). This concept is absurd: it is like saying that after all material in an explosion stops moving that the attraction of all the material will bring it back together. I used to use firecrackers as a child and can tell you this does not happen. I understand about the effects of gravity and friction, but there is no friction in outer-space, thus there is nothing to slow the expansion down. Furthermore, the Hubble telescope has proved that the rate of expansion of the universe is increasing, rather than decreasing, thus totally disproving the oscillating universe theory. Many scientists now have correctly concluded that the universe will expand forever (see Scientists Agree With Bible that Universe Will Expand Forever). And is consistant with what the Bible teaches (Isaiah 9:7). I always felt that the oscillating universe theory violated the known laws of physics and was an attempt by some scientists to try to persuade themselves that there the universe had no beginning and that there was no God
It has been argued that the fact that there is natural law, design, and order in the universe, this proves that there was a law giver, designer, and order maker in the universe. This is consist ant with what the Bible teaches on this subject:
Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them: for God hath shown it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse (Romans 1:19-20).
Similarly I Corinthians says,
Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?…But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty (1:20,27).
The fact that God created the universe should be obvious to those sincerely interested in the truth.
Mathematicians Support the Idea that the Physical Universe Had a Beginning
Mathematicians at Tufts University have concluded that the physical universe must have had a beginning and that the ideas that it did not are mathematically flawed:
For instance, one idea is that the universe is cyclical with big bangs followed by big crunches followed by big bangs in an infinite cycle.
Another is the notion of eternal inflation in which different parts of the universe expand and contract at different rates. These regions can be thought of as different universes in a giant multiverse.
So although we seem to live in an inflating cosmos, other universes may be very different. And while our universe may look as if it has a beginning, the multiverse need not have a beginning…
Audrey Mithani and Alexander Vilenkin at Tufts University in Massachusetts say that these models are mathematically incompatible with an eternal past. Indeed, their analysis suggests that these three models of the universe must have had a beginning too.
Their argument focuses on the mathematical properties of eternity–a universe with no beginning and no end. Such a universe must contain trajectories that stretch infinitely into the past.
However, Mithani and Vilenkin point to a proof dating from 2003 that these kind of past trajectories cannot be infinite if they are part of a universe that expands in a specific way.
They go on to show that cyclical universes and universes of eternal inflation both expand in this way. So they cannot be eternal in the past and must therefore have had a beginning. “Although inflation may be eternal in the future, it cannot be extended indefinitely to the past,” they say.
They treat the emergent model of the universe differently, showing that although it may seem stable from a classical point of view, it is unstable from a quantum mechanical point of view. “A simple emergent universe model…cannot escape quantum collapse,” they say.
The conclusion is inescapable. “None of these scenarios can actually be past-eternal,” say Mithani and Vilenkin. (KFC. Mathematics of Eternity Prove The Universe Must Have Had A Beginning. MIT, April 24, 2012. http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/27793/?ref=rss)
And if the physical universe had to have a beginning, then something that was not physical must have started it. And that leads to the logical conclusion that a non-physical being, like God, must have done so. And that is what the Bible teaches (Genesis 1:1).
The fact that CERN may have a technical explanation as to why all matter was not destroyed by antimatter does not change that.
Some articles of possibly related interest may include:
Is God’s Existence Logical? Some say it is not logical to believe in God. Is that true?
Is Evolution Probable or Impossible or Is God’s Existence Logical? Part II This short article clearly answers what ‘pseudo-scientists’ refuse to acknowledge. Here is a link to a YouTube video titled Quickly Disprove Evolution as the Origin of Life.
How Old is the Earth and How Long Were the Days of Creation? Does the Bible allow for the creation of the universe and earth billions of years ago? Why do some believe they are no older than 6,000 years old? What is the gap theory? Where the days of creation in Genesis 1:3 through 2:3 24 hours long?
Where Did God Come From? Any ideas? And how has God been able to exist? Who is God?
How is God Omnipotent, Omnipresent, and Omniscient? Here is an article which answers what many really wonder about it.
What is the Meaning of Life? Who does God say is happy? What is your ultimate destiny? Do you really know? Does God actually have a plan for YOU personally?
Bible: Superstition or Authority? Should you rely on the Bible? Is it reliable? Herbert W. Armstrong wrote this as a booklet on this important subject.
Large Hadron Collider may result in military applications The Europeans have the largest physics project on the planet. Some scoff, but might it result in military applications? May the Large Hadron Collider help fulfill Revelation 13:4?
 |
Tweet |
|