+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Universe Without God Shouldn’t Exist, CERN Research Suggests

  1. Link to Post #1
    UK Avalon Member Star Mariner's Avatar
    Join Date
    15th November 2011
    Location
    Southwest UK
    Posts
    1,640
    Thanks
    8,935
    Thanked 10,445 times in 1,561 posts

    Default Universe Without God Shouldn’t Exist, CERN Research Suggests

    Interesting article about recent new insights from CERN, which are suprisingly 'spiritual' in nature.

    *****
    Universe Without God Shouldn’t Exist, CERN Research Suggests

    Evidence boosts 2009 theory of Hypercosmic God

    CERN researchers are baffled at how matter thrived in the early universe when it should have been destroyed by antimatter, a discovery which evokes a theory that the universe is controlled by a mysterious realm lying outside space and time.



    The researchers made a technological breakthrough when they compared the magnetism of an antiproton to that of a proton using a new technique which is 350 times more precise than the measurement taken in January.

    But they found that, despite the breakthrough, there wasn’t a difference between the two, meaning that matter and antimatter should have destroyed each other eons ago, preventing the universe from even existing.

    Yet obviously that’s not what happened.

    All of our observations find a complete symmetry between matter and antimatter, which is why the universe should not actually exist,” said research lead Christian Smorra. “An asymmetry must exist here somewhere but we simply do not understand where the difference is.

    What is the source of the symmetry break?

    Perhaps the physical laws of the universe are steered by something – or someone – outside the universe; in other words, the universe isn’t the “base reality” but is rather one level of existence contained in another superstructure unknown to man.

    Continues: https://www.infowars.com/universe-wi...arch-suggests/
    "When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace."
    ~ Jimi Hendrix

  2. The Following 17 Users Say Thank You to Star Mariner For This Post:

    Baby Steps (30th October 2017), Bruno (31st October 2017), ceetee9 (31st October 2017), chris_walker (31st October 2017), DeDukshyn (30th October 2017), enigma3 (31st October 2017), Ewan (31st October 2017), justntime2learn (31st October 2017), Lifebringer (1st November 2017), naste.de.lumina (31st October 2017), Noelle (31st October 2017), pabranno (31st October 2017), sandy (31st October 2017), Sunny-side-up (1st November 2017), sunwings (31st October 2017), toppy (31st October 2017), WhiteLove (31st October 2017)

  3. Link to Post #2
    Canada Avalon Member DeDukshyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    22nd January 2011
    Location
    From 100 Mile House ;-)
    Language
    English
    Age
    45
    Posts
    7,758
    Thanks
    24,909
    Thanked 32,282 times in 6,947 posts

    Default Re: Universe Without God Shouldn’t Exist, CERN Research Suggests

    Metaphysics has been saying exactly this forever ... nice to see the support from science though
    When you are one step ahead of the crowd, you are a genius.
    Two steps ahead, and you are deemed a crackpot.

  4. The Following 12 Users Say Thank You to DeDukshyn For This Post:

    Bruno (31st October 2017), enigma3 (31st October 2017), justntime2learn (31st October 2017), Lifebringer (1st November 2017), Noelle (31st October 2017), pabranno (31st October 2017), pueblo (31st October 2017), sandy (31st October 2017), Star Mariner (31st October 2017), Sunny-side-up (1st November 2017), toppy (31st October 2017), Wind (31st October 2017)

  5. Link to Post #3
    Canada Avalon Member Ernie Nemeth's Avatar
    Join Date
    25th January 2011
    Location
    Toronto
    Age
    61
    Posts
    3,565
    Thanks
    15,223
    Thanked 20,876 times in 3,327 posts

    Default Re: Universe Without God Shouldn’t Exist, CERN Research Suggests

    Interesting that researchers don't understand how regular and antimatter can co-exist. Not their little samples of course. But large masses can and do set up boundary areas that consist of rarified plasma. The annihilation boundary, where anti and regular meet, is constantly under bombardment by concussive force and the accompanying shock front. It is this shock front that separates areas of regular and anti. There are little interactions between anti and regular particles because of this shock front.

    It is sonic in nature. The same method used in creation itself.

    Nice to see them flounder around and in confusion seek their nemesis, since science is the study of the refutation of god.
    Forget about it

  6. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Ernie Nemeth For This Post:

    enigma3 (31st October 2017), Noelle (1st November 2017), Sunny-side-up (1st November 2017)

  7. Link to Post #4
    Ecuador Avalon Member boolacalaca's Avatar
    Join Date
    26th December 2016
    Location
    Cuenca, Ecuador
    Posts
    99
    Thanks
    468
    Thanked 763 times in 100 posts

    Default Re: Universe Without God Shouldn’t Exist, CERN Research Suggests

    Quote "All of our observations find a complete symmetry between matter and antimatter, which is why the universe should not actually exist,” said research lead Christian Smorra. “An asymmetry must exist here somewhere but we simply do not understand where the difference is."
    A non-physicist delving into this might get confused very fast. Here we have researchers from CERN finding only symmetry in their experiments when they expect an asymmetrical break. Then again, back in 2008, the Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded to three men whose research showed we were "born from broken symmetry." One set of scientists finds broken symmetry, another now find symmetry. No wonder I trust metaphysics more -- ha ha! Give physics another 100 years -- they'll be saying something else and laughing at those who say what they're saying today.

    What about what we've been told about the symmetry of the four primary forces breaking at the Big Bang? So which is it -- gravitation, electromagnetism, the weak interaction, and the strong interaction -- these were together and symmetrical until the Big Bang, at which time symmetry broke or is there still some kind of symmetry existing? I know, I know, I'm not a physicist and obviously there are different kinds of symmetry to consider. Oh, my! How convenient! Why should we conclude that everything hinges on the balance of matter/anti-matter anyway? Why get hung up on matter? Especially when current quantum spookiness delves so much into the significance of conscious observation...

    "Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking
    The weak and electromagnetic fundamental forces seem very different in the present relatively low temperature universe. But when the universe was much hotter so that the equilibrium thermal energy was on the order of 100 GeV, these forces may have appeared to be essentially identical - part of the same unified "electroweak" force. But since the exchange particle for the electromagnetic part is the massless photon and the exchange particles for the weak interaction are the massive W and Z particles, the symmetry was spontaneously broken when the available energy dropped below about 80 GeV and the weak and electromagnetic forces take on a distinctly different look. The model is that at an even higher temperature, there was symmetry or unification with the strong interaction, the grand unification. And higher still, the gravity force may join to show the four fundamental forces to be a single unified force. Trefil invokes some interesting analogies to illustrate the concept of spontaneous symmetry breaking."

    http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...ces/unify.html


    It reminds me how cosmologist and physics professor Sean Carroll be-musingly but tacitly ridiculed Joe Rogan (episode #1003) when Rogan mentioned how the atom was basically empty space....oh how backward, how lame, no no no, boy, that's not how it is at all, that's completely wrong --- but Rogan asserted that's how the physics of the atom was explained to him in school. Yes, the classic "little solar system" model of the atom. Ha, ha, ha, scoffed Carroll - that's the old, simplistic, and very wrong explanation. We know better now, the atom is nothing like that. It's a dissipated fog of infinite probability states that only collapse into something we measure when we make it happen by our conscious observations. Clear enough for you?

    Science is wonderful and has discovered so much, but I wish scientists would drop their high-handed pretense of superiority and realize the shifting ground they stand on. They claim they do when pressed on the issue, but their behavior doesn't reflect this. Over and over again, Carroll laughed at concepts presented to him by Rogan -- as if he had all the answers....the final answers. There is no God, there is no reason for the universe, asking how it started or where it's going...? Well, boy, you just don't understand -- those questions don't make any sense, so stop asking them! Got it?


    Born from broken symmetry

    By Marianne Freiberger
    Submitted by plusadmin on October 10, 2008

    The 2008 Nobel Prize in Physics has been awarded to three men whose work has contributed significantly to our understanding of why we're here. Makoto Kobayashi of the High Energy Accelerator Research Organisation, Japan, and Toshihide Maskawa of Kyoto Sangyo University share one half of the prize, with the remaining half going to Yoichiro Nambu of the University of Chicago. Their combined body of work paves the way towards solving two of the biggest mysteries of physics.

    Where are our anti-twins?
    Physicists believe that the Universe erupted into being around 14 billion years ago, when the Big Bang caused its initial extremely hot and dense state to expand and cool. Within split seconds after the Big Bang the fundamental particles that make up all matter we see in the Universe today and the fundamental forces that govern their interaction had been born.

    It turns out, however, that the fundamental particles were not alone: in the early twentieth century the physicist Paul Dirac showed that each fundamental particle comes with a twin called an antiparticle, which has the same mass but opposite electric charge. When two twins meet, they annihilate each other and their mass is transformed into energy. The concept of antiparticles originally dropped out of a mathematical equation which had one more solution than was expected, but since their theoretical conception antiparticles have actually been observed in cosmic rays and produced in laboratories.

    Now the problem is this: whenever scientists have managed to produce antiparticles, they couldn't help but produce the corresponding particles in the process. The same must have happened during the Big Bang, so how come things didn't just annihilate each other and vanish in a puff of energy? Why do we see only matter and no antimatter?

    We're all familiar with mirror symmetry.
    At the heart of this conundrum lies the notion of symmetry. Physicists traditionally believed that the laws of nature should be perfectly symmetrical: if you were to step into a mirror world unawares, you would never notice the difference, as the laws of physics should behave in just the same way there as they do in the normal world. In terms of particle physics, this means that whenever a particle or process exhibits "handedness", then the laws of nature should treat the left-handed version the same as the right-handed one. This is the concept of mirror symmetry, but there is a similar one, called charge symmetry, regarding matter and antimatter. It states that particles should behave exactly like their anti-twins.

    But if charge symmetry prevails, how come we see no antimatter today? Could our antimatter-free world be the result of a violation of symmetry which caused young nature to "favour" particles over antiparticles, leading to the latters' eventual demise? This idea was first postulated in 1967 by Nobel Laureate Andrei Sakharov, who set out three pre-requisites for a world like ours to come into existence: one of them was that the laws of nature should indeed distinguish matter from antimatter.

    The first proof that symmetry can in fact be broken had already been furnished in 1956, when the physicists Tsung Dao Lee and Chen Ning Yang proposed experiments that revealed a violation of mirror symmetry (and received the 1957 Nobel Prize in Physics as a result). Physicists at the time, however, clung on to the symmetry dream. They conjectured that while mirror symmetry and charge symmetry could be broken separately, the combination of the two would remain intact: if you were transported into an mirror world made of antimatter rather than matter, everything would behave just as you would expect. But in 1964 this last bastion of symmetry was shattered too: James Cronin and Val Fitch detected a violation of charge-mirror symmetry in the radioactive decay of strange particles called kaons (and in turn received the 1980 Nobel Prize in Physics for their work).

    Charge-mirror symmetry: your anti-self in a mirror world should be just like you.
    With the violation of charge-mirror symmetry now established by observation, what was still missing was the theoretical underpinning for this phenomenon — existing theories couldn't account for it. And this is where Kobayashi and Maskawa come in. They realised that the symmetry violation could be explained if one assumes the existence of three new types of fundamental particle. Once these are incorporated in the theory, the underlying mathematics obligingly works out to predict symmetry breaking. The hypothetical particles arising from their theory, known as charm quarks, bottom quarks and top quarks, were later observed in experiments. Kobayashi and Maskawa also predicted symmetry violation in other particles called B-mesons, and this was verified by experiment in 2001.

    Why mass?
    The second half of the 2008 Nobel Prize goes to Yoichiro Nambu for his work concerning another one of the big questions of particle physics: why do things have mass? Theory suggests that particles should have no mass at all, so how did they acquire it? What's more, why are their masses so different, with the heaviest, the top quark, more than 300,000 times heavier than the electron?

    Perhaps surprisingly, Nambu's work towards an answer also involves broken symmetries, but this time they arise in connection with the vacuum. Technically, a vacuum is defined as a state with the lowest possible energy, not empty space as it is commonly thought of. As a very rough analogy, imagine yourself at your lowest possible energy state: slumped on the couch in front of the TV. You'll be relaxed, but chances are that you won't look symmetrical. To do that, you have to invest some energy in arranging your limbs and keeping them in place. Once you sit bolt upright with your muscles all tense, a small nudge would knock you out of position.

    All matter is made up of a number of fundamental particles. But how did they acquire mass? Similarly, the vacuum is a least energy state, but not a symmetrical state. Some sort of collapse of symmetry has occurred to get it into a low energy state, and because of its instantaneous nature, this collapse is known as spontaneous symmetry violation. Based on his previous work in superconductivity, Nambu created the mathematical tools to describe spontaneous symmetry violation in particle physics. He recognised the potential of studying broken symmetry in the vacuum, and his ideas form the basis for a whole body of work in the area. Among other things, they are frequently used to work out the effects of the strong nuclear force.

    But what does all this have to do with mass? In 1964 the physicist Peter Higgs came up with a model for how particles acquired mass. He postulated that at the Big Bang an invisible force field, now known as the Higgs field existed, and it existed in a perfectly symmetrical state. But the Higgs field was unstable, and as the Universe cooled down, it slumped into an asymmetrical lowest energy state. As the zero-mass particles moved through the field, they interacted with it and experienced a drag, which we observe as mass. The mathematical tools created by Nambu paved the way for this theory of mass acquisition.

    The three prize winners' work contributed significantly to our understanding of the Universe, but physics is by no means finished. The symmetry violations established by Kobayashi and Maskawa are far too small to account for the large-scale triumph of matter over antimatter, so more work needs to be done in this area. As for the Higgs field, the theory is still hypothetical. It is predicted that the field should come with its own messenger particle called the Higgs boson, which scientists will be looking for at the Large Hadron Collider at CERN. And while they're busy doing that, the rest of us can sit back and contemplate the curious fact that if it wasn't for a flaw in nature's symmetry, we wouldn't be here.
    "

    https://plus.maths.org/content/born-broken-symmetry



  8. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to boolacalaca For This Post:

    Bruno (31st October 2017), enigma3 (31st October 2017), Foxie Loxie (31st October 2017), happyuk (1st November 2017), Noelle (1st November 2017), pueblo (31st October 2017), Sunny-side-up (1st November 2017)

  9. Link to Post #5
    Germany Avalon Member
    Join Date
    31st May 2010
    Location
    SW Germany
    Age
    64
    Posts
    1,718
    Thanks
    2,304
    Thanked 8,682 times in 1,615 posts

    Default Re: Universe Without God Shouldn’t Exist, CERN Research Suggests

    am not sure how honest the news publishers of CERN are; if one has read Dr. Joseph P. Farrell: he states whenever the largest monetary donation is at one time made the recipient is military in nature; CERN qualified for that-

    we aren't being told the truth about CERN-

    stay well all-

    Larry

  10. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Cardillac For This Post:

    naste.de.lumina (31st October 2017), Noelle (1st November 2017), Sunny-side-up (1st November 2017)

  11. Link to Post #6
    Avalon Member
    Join Date
    4th December 2014
    Posts
    1,442
    Thanks
    2,127
    Thanked 8,740 times in 1,354 posts

    Default Re: Universe Without God Shouldn’t Exist, CERN Research Suggests

    A) A creation with a boundary implies it is infinite, because there must be something both inside and outside of the boundary.

    B) A creation without a boundary implies it is infinite.

    Therefore it appears to me that the combination means that creation is infinite and cannot be anything else.

    When we have made that conclusion we can make the next conclusion - that creation cannot exist without it being something. If the Planck length is the minimum, it is so relative to a boundary condition. If not, it does not matter because relative to infinity there are infinite smaller lengths and infinite greater lengths. The combination of these two conclusions makes it possible that we can conclude that however small or however big an object we choose, creation can house an infinite number of both. I like to think of that one object like a "bit".
    Last edited by WhiteLove; 2nd November 2017 at 23:01.

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to WhiteLove For This Post:

    Noelle (1st November 2017)

  13. Link to Post #7
    UK Avalon Member Sunny-side-up's Avatar
    Join Date
    4th April 2013
    Location
    Between here & there
    Age
    60
    Posts
    3,624
    Thanks
    39,119
    Thanked 16,357 times in 3,341 posts

    Default Re: Universe Without God Shouldn’t Exist, CERN Research Suggests

    Quote Posted by DeDukshyn (here)
    Metaphysics has been saying exactly this forever ... nice to see the support from science though
    Ill second that DeDukshyn
    I'm a simple easy going guy that is very upset/sad with the worlds hidden controllers!
    We need LEADERS who bat from the HEART!
    Rise up above them Dark evil doers, not within anger but with LOVE

  14. The Following User Says Thank You to Sunny-side-up For This Post:

    DeDukshyn (1st November 2017)

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts