but this is clearly not the case
..............................................................................................................................................................
The technical term is
Astrophysics tells us that the Big Bang should have produced equal amounts of matter and antimatter,
but this is clearly not the case
..............................................................................................................................................................
The technical term is
Something, something, dark (matter) side.
😂
I was listening to Rupert Sheldrake do a talk on morphic resonance the other day. The foundations of modern science aren't as unshakeable as they'd have you believe.
I suspect that the biggest problem is journalism.
The journalists can't report to us what the scientists tell them correctly.
I won't argue with that. There aren't many actual journalists in journalism these days. Most of what we call journalists are just flair for the propaganda.
Hawking pointed out that virtual particle pairs that spontaneously erupted at the Schwarzschild radius of a black hole would sometimes not self annhilate, leading to the creation of new matter, when one particle escaped the radius and it's counterpart didn't.
This same process could have been operating at creation, on a larger scale.
We sure don't know.
I wouldn't necessarily put a lily in it's hands and close the lid just yet. Much still recommends the Big Bang theory, and the absence of a lot of antimatter doesn't prove it didn't get created along with matter.
There are little more than speculations to go on regarding the origin of the universe, and it's even possible that an anti-universe is shrinking in negative dimensions right now where they're trying to figger out the lack of matter, and postulating 'light energy' to explain the slower than expected implosion of the universe...
I happen to think that there was no 'origin'.
the word 'eternity' comes to mind.
Given our feeble understanding of time both theories could be true. Since spacetime is a single entity, not two separate features of the universe, the eruption of space from a point is also the eruption of time.
In this way, the Big Bang does not have a time that it started, since there was no time before it began.
Our monkey brains really aren't equipped to wrassle such concepts. We try anyway =p
I see no need to concern my self about it.
It doesn't affect my life one way or the other.
Wow! It is a complicated issue! But this, in the volatility of my thought and my ignorance in astrophysics, makes me think that if the Big Bang produced equal amounts of matter and antimatter, then should there be two parallel universes? ... someone should look for it.
Scientists rarely claim their theories to be infallible. In fact some of the greatest scientific minds in the history were humble souls who not only believed in existence of god but subscribed to teachings of institutionalized religions.
It is the common folks like us who think the scientific theories are infallible.
not me.
Me neither.
Scientific theories are a process as opposed to a conclusion. Theories are made with respect to certain constraints. Once those constraints/parameters are removed the theory fails and a new one with a more encompassing approach is brought forth...............and so the process continues.
yup...theories can NOT be proven correct.
they can only be demonstrated to be incorrect....
People still believe in that big bang idea?
Apparently they do.