Was the early universe liquid? Using xenon acceleration, researchers from the University of Copenhagen and the Large Hadron Collider have shown that the "primordial soup" that filled the universe at the beginning of its existence has liquid properties
Physicists from the Niels Bohr Institute at the University of Copenhagen together with researchers from the Hadron Collider in Geneva published an interesting discovery about the early universe. To prove their conclusions, the researchers accelerated charged xenon particles (charged atoms with a "smaller" nucleus) instead of "normal" ions. The powerful encounters between the ions create high densities of energy and temperature for the second particle and recreate the conditions in which the early universe prevailed. To be precise, the temperature of the collision exceeds a billion degrees Celsius and lasts less than a thousandth of a billionth of a billionth of a second (more precisely, 10 to the minus 22th power of a second). Under these conditions, the quarks that make up the atoms we are made of and the gluons that stick them together are in a special quantum state, a state where they are as if free. In nature we do not find free quarks, because unlike the electric or gravitational force, the more you move quarks away from each other, the forces between them become stronger. So what is meant by "as if free"? At such high temperatures quarks have enough energy to move freely through space for a few moments until they are momentarily captured by another quark and immediately released again. The time that characterizes the movement of the quarks is very short but enough to characterize the material to be in a new phase (state). The new study shows that the same "semi-free" state can be described as if the quarks and gluons were a liquid, in fact the hydrodynamic equations of motion are valid in this case.
How to describe the moment of creation
According to Zo, a postdoctoral fellow from the Niels Bohr Institute, "one of the main challenges in heavy ion collisions comes from the fact that only the final state of those ions is available for measurement. However, we are more interested in knowing what happened at the beginning of the collision and a few moments after it. Using new and powerful methods we have now been able to evaluate the properties of a "drop" from the early universe that we produced in the laboratory." The researchers from the institute and the accelerator used experimental tools for a spatial description of that galvanic quark plasma and were thus able to extract the shape of the resulting droplet and its properties. With the help of the distinction that the particle density changes with the viewing angle, the researchers were able to describe the initial geometry of the collision, measure the properties of the quarks, and measure the viscosity of the quark-gluon plasma. The viscosity characterizes how the material flows, and according to this it is one of the most important properties to measure for the plasma. With the help of the viscosity it is possible to show how much the quarks and gluons are bound to each other. As for example in honey or liquid glue, the stronger the internal bonds (between the molecules), the more viscous the material becomes.
"With the help of xenon acceleration, we added some very limiting conditions to the theory. It doesn't matter if it's xenon ions or lead, the experiment should produce the same result. If this or that viscosity appears in one of the experiments, it should appear in all of them." Now, thanks to the new experiment, it is possible to measure additional and interesting properties of that "ancient soup" more easily. The researchers hope to be able to accelerate more nuclei, but this will require significant upgrades to the accelerator in Geneva.
More of the topic in Hayadan:
- Is a large concentration of dark energy at the beginning of the universe responsible for accelerating the expansion of the universe that began 7 billion years ago and is felt today?
- New research reveals that the early universe expanded much faster than today
- Dark matter, dark energy and the fate of the universe - a chapter from the book "Journey to the Dawn of the Universe"
58 תגובות
What created the early universe?
What was it in the first place and where did it come from?
Long before the early universe which caused the big bang up to this moment
Complete
In Genesis it is not written anywhere that God created the universe. He barely created the heavens and the earth. And it turned out to be a mess...
Don't forget that in those days they really believed that the earth is flat, that the sky is above, that there is a firmament (meaning something rigid) above the earth, and that the sun and the moon are sources of light.
In verse XNUMX it does not say liquid, it says water! Is Hebrew a foreign language for you?
It is interesting that already in the book of Genesis in the description of the creation of the world, that is, the universe, this matter of a liquid universe that came after the light is mentioned in chapter XNUMX, meaning that there was already ancient knowledge that modern physics thinks it has discovered. Who would have this knowledge if we leave God out of the story?
It's amazing that serious scientists are talking about a state of accretion of the universe.
When the new discoveries cast doubt on the entire theory of cosmological inflation.
It's kind of like talking about the possibility that the sand from which man was created was sea sand or mud.
Raphael
And again - you dismiss what contradicts your belief, solely because it contradicts your belief. Very mature…
You exist entirely by chance. When your parents "made you", your father made something like 100 million sperm cells. That means 100 million different Rafales could have been created. And your father was also created with such a probability, and so on.
So what makes you think you're so special? Would you really rather have some heartless monster murdering 150 thousand people every day? Would you rather think you are that monster's toy, or his servant? Is that what you really want to think?
Open your eyes, Raphael. You may see that there is light outside.
Miracles
"It's very likely that it's all by chance"
So you're basically saying that it's just a case that there are laws in nature...
Well, I'm tired.
Goodbye until the next pointless tussle.
Raphael
Lawrence Croes is a physicist just like Brian Greene. So you only accept the opinion of physicists when it matches what you have already decided is true? It doesn't work like that 🙂
Why does the universe run according to mathematical formulas? Can you imagine a universe that doesn't run like this?
Suppose that the electron charge would not exactly cancel out the proton charge - then we would not have objects as we know them, because there were tremendous electric forces between any two objects.
Suppose that the force of gravity did not depend exactly on the square of the distance. So, the planets would not orbit at a (roughly) constant distance from their suns and there would be no life.
It was not possible to build machines, or buildings. No planets would have formed, and certainly no life.
So you couldn't ask that question.
Beyond that - what you said is simply slander, or a basic lack of understanding. All science does is explore the world. We ask why there are such and such types of particles, and what is the origin of the particles. People spend their lives trying to understand what an electron is and why it has the properties it does.
Whether we really need to investigate it is another question. After all, the whole issue of quarks and dark matter and such does not help people live better. As I said - we have all the knowledge needed to study the human body in order to cure and prevent diseases. If the money invested in the LHC was invested in breast cancer research, then this disease would no longer exist.
But note - the word "why" is problematic. In science there is no "why", i.e. "for what purpose". There is only "why" - for what reason. Everything that happens in the world, from the level of the particle to the sociology of nations, happens because of what happened in the past, and not for a particular purpose. The future does not exist, only the past. Of course - it should be added that the present is a combination of the past and randomness.
Your faith is also a result of the past. If a Muslim family had adopted you as a child, then you would probably not be a religious Jew today. What you understand as absolute truth is only a result of your past.
do not get me wrong. I am not saying that on some level there are no desires and loves and pains and free choice. But all of these are based on lower layers, and these are ultimately the result of an initial state and randomness.
Raphael, think about the fact that there is no obstacle for your religious belief to change because of a chemical substance you ingested, or a change in the physiology of the brain (let's say certain surgeries).
And yes, it is very likely that everything is by chance, if randomness really exists in the world. And in terms of observations, we see that there is indeed probably randomness.
I would love to understand what makes you think otherwise.
Miracles
"You do understand that the "debate" here is philosophical, right?"
Definately not! I recommend you listen to Brian Greene explain it again.
"You asked where the laws of physics come from? Excellent question. we do not know. But, nothing comes from what we don't know"
It follows from the fact that it turns out that we know nothing. I do not underestimate the fact that the scientists discovered a number of formulas according to which the universe runs, but the first thing that should have occurred to them is why the universe runs according to mathematical formulas? Could it be that all this is a coincidence and no one enacted these formulas in nature?
And there are others who are arrogant, like Lawrence Krauss, whose discovery of these formulas further led them to the conclusion that this is the proof that there is no creator of the world.
Raphael
You do understand that the "debate" here is philosophical, right? It's like saying: "Let's drop a small stone from the Tower of Pisa at night." The impact on the ground will only happen if someone looks at the point of impact in the light.
If you accept that the stone will hit the ground even when there is no observer, then you accept what I said in the previous comment (there is, there is not, an image of a struggle on the photographic film).
And if not, then nothing matters. It's like saying the dinosaurs didn't fly because no one saw them fly.
So this matter is closed. The subject of the quantum eraser is also closed to me - it is not intuitive, but there is no contradiction. If the non-locality assumption yields
you to a contradiction, then the implication is that the non-locality assumption is wrong.
You asked "where do the laws of physics come from"? Excellent question. we do not know. But, nothing follows from what we don't know. It certainly does not follow that the God of Judaism created these laws. Nor does it follow that someone or something created them.
Miracles
"And this will happen even if no one is watching the detector results, right?"
You will never know this as I explained according to Brian Green. Read my last comment again.
Raphael
If in the two slits experiment we put a detector on one of the slits, then we won't get an interference image, right?
And this will happen even if no one is watching the detector results, right?
So where am I wrong? (I'm asking seriously).
Miracles
He said that we will never know whether the measuring device has an effect or the consciousness because in order to check if the measuring device has an effect we need to watch the measurement results at some point and this is where the consciousness comes in which can change the results even in retrospect. That's why when you said that "our viewing does not affect observations. It's just unnecessary new age gibberish. Any measuring device will affect the results, and no observer is needed." So I told you that you will never be able to prove it.
Raphael
Where did Green say that what affects is the awareness of the observer and not the measurement itself? After all, he is clearly talking about the "measurement problem"...
Miracles
"And that's what physicists say"
Not Brian Greene, unless you don't think he's called a physicist.
Vigdor Rechnitz
I have no idea what you meant.
What's more, if you claim to know what the future holds, then you are wrong.
Raphael
I'm not the one who has to prove that awareness has no effect on physics. You are the one who has to prove that there is an impact.
I say this, because any experiment that supposedly shows the effect, actually shows that the measuring device has an effect on the result. And that's what physicists say.
Israel
I'm not a scientist and I don't have the possibility to fully understand the meaning that c is not constant but I have the feeling that it shows that we know and understand nothing (or close to nothing) of what is happening in our universe.
Raphael
In the quantum eraser experiment and also in the delayed choice experiment the apparent problem is the effect of a present action on a past event.
In the delayed choice experiment, measurement of a photon in Israel affects its polarization when it left Andromeda already two million years ago - a puzzling and questionable result.
But note that in every paradox of influence on the past is embodied the assumption that the photon moves only at one speed, c. If you removed this assumption - and quantum mechanics does not necessarily support it - then all the paradoxes of the influence on the past are resolved.
So what is more serious - a long photon moving at all speeds or an effect on the past?
Miracles
"Our viewing does not affect observations. It's just unnecessary new age gibberish. Any measuring device will affect the results, and no observer is needed."
You can never prove that. So you are the one who is talking. And Brian Green addressed this point in the above video.
Miracles
You wrote: This is also the case in our body, and in the nervous system in particular - we do not see any phenomenon that cannot be explained at a relatively high level. In principle - if I know the state of your atoms precisely the moment you read my response - I can calculate *exactly* what you will write in the response."
reactive:
The process of all the paradigms will reach a clarification that will be the end of the stage of the development of human awareness.
The perception of reality in relation to the change of our interiority, this will be the place that will occupy the researchers in the not too distant future.
I do not perceive what is outside of me, but the internal tools in me that produce for me admiration that revolves around something external that I do not perceive.
When I see white, red, green, black light.
Do I catch him? the light? Or am I actually achieving a discovery of actions that revolve from the light and thus impress me?
And if so, can it be said that I will never be able to perceive what the light itself is, but only impressions and results of the light when they touch my senses?
And to sum up: the same method that will prove to be capable of changing the grouping of separate parts in me (that is, the molecules), in which my bones are included, will be the new paradigm of the 21st century
Raphael
Try to be less arrogant and more thoughtful. Because you didn't understand... I'm really trying to explain to you what I think, and you just scoff. Is this how you were taught to treat others? I do not think so.
It is below the threshold of what affects us. Today we don't know how to explain down to the lowest level, and we don't even know what the lowest level is, and if there is such a level at all.
How do we know there is no effect? Good question. I will try to illustrate to you with some simple examples. Think of a simple machine built from a spring and some gears - an old wristwatch for example, or a toy monkey that plays cymbals when the spring is stretched. We can completely explain the operation of these machines with simple mechanics. There is no need to go into the chemistry of the metal or plastic, certainly not at the level of atoms, and certainly certainly not at the level of fermions and bosons.
This is also the case in our body, and in the nervous system in particular - we do not see any phenomenon that cannot be explained at a relatively high level. In principle - if I know the state of your atoms precisely the moment you read my response - I can calculate *exactly* what you will write in the response. It sounds crazy, but there is no a priori reason to believe that it is not so. And beyond that - we know how to influence thoughts, and even read thoughts in a basic way already today.
Technically - I can ask you to think about a color, and tell you what color you were thinking about (and even - before you decided what color you would think about!).
Our viewing does not affect views. It's just unnecessary new age gibberish. Any measuring device will affect the results, and no human observer is needed.
Miracles
got it.
It is "below the threshold" so there is no need to explain it.
And besides "it has no effect on the phenomena we see in our world"
How are you so sure that it has no effect on phenomena we see in "our" world?
And how do you explain that our observation affects what happens to the particle and even in retrospect!
Does some particle come out of our brain and deflect the observed particle?
Is there a physical explanation for this?
Or maybe it is also "below the threshold" and then we are exempt from explaining it?
Raphael
Beautiful. This is a good example of a phenomenon that is below the threshold of what I said. I emphasized that there are things we do not understand, but they have no effect on the phenomena we see in "our" world (phenomena that you and I feel).
It should be emphasized that this experiment is not a contradiction! It does contradict if you assume locality. So don't assume... and there is no contradiction.
Raphael, the point I'm trying to make is that there is no need to assume that something is happening in our brain that cannot be explained biologically/chemically. Therefore, there is no need to assume that there is a soul.
And on the other hand - if you assume there is a soul then you come to strange conclusions. Think, for example, about cloning. I can in principle take a cell from a person and clone that person freely. So "someone" looks on from the sidelines and pushes a soul into these embryos at the right moment? Does man have the ability to create souls?
And let's look at "Judaism". Imagine that we exchange chromosomes in a sperm cell. Does anyone know that the sperm cell is now Jewish? Are there genes that define a Jewish soul?
Imagine a situation where a child is born and they don't know who the mother is (it is certainly possible today). So - is there a way to diagnose afterwards that the child is Jewish?
Therefore, my conclusion is that it is better not to assume in advance axioms that only complicate life.
Miracles
Please explain to me the phenomenon called Delayed-choice quantum eraser
Not just what is happening but an explanation of why it is happening
Miracles
Please explain to me the phenomenon called Delayed-choice quantum eraser
Not just what is happening but an explanation of why it is happening
Islands. how nice "And the Spirit of God hovers over the surface of the water"
Raphael
Say, have you noticed that everything you do is a personal attack? You never said anything meaningful.
I asked for an unexplainable phenomenon - instead of stating one, you just valid.
You are allowed to have axioms, but I am not allowed.
It is clear to both of us why you only attack - because there really is no basis and no logic in your belief.
Your belief claims that Jews are better than full Jews, that healthy are better than "damaged", that men are better than women and that straight are better than gays.
You are of course an honest and "healthy" Jewish man...
And you call me arrogant?
Really Raphael, instead of hiding behind other people's sentences that you are unable to understand, try to contradict what I am saying. And I'll say it again:
1. Our world can be described in layers, from physics to sociology.
2. Phenomena can be explained by focusing on a certain layer.
3. The principles of each layer can be explained by the layer below it.
4. We know how to completely explain all observed phenomena starting from the "core" layer, which is built from the standard model and the theory of relativity.
5. There is not a single (observational) reason to believe in idols, God, ghosts or Bigfoot.
Where am I wrong? Let's focus on one of the claims and try to have an interesting discussion. are you able
Miracles
You wrote "Can you tell me about a phenomenon that we cannot explain? I'm not talking about what happens inside a black hole, or how the big bang started, or what happens in collisions between particles at energy levels of trillions of electron volts. I'm talking about the world you and I live in."
I mean you don't know how it all started and why it started and you don't know what happens to a black guy and you don't know why the world behaves according to mathematical formulas etc. You don't know you are the basis, but you are sure that there is no other phenomenon that you cannot explain. This is the definition of arrogance at its best. If you watch the video again you will see that Brian Greene says himself that he does not understand what happens to all the other possibilities of the places where the particle is once you are viewing it. He doesn't understand but you do. I have great respect for scientists, but arrogance, apart from being a bad and obscene measure, it also closes the eyes and does not allow further discoveries.
Raphael
There is no contradiction in the passage of the "particle" through 2 slots. There is not even one contradiction in all of physics.
Instead of being arrogant, open a book and learn a little…
sixth
Can you tell me about a phenomenon that we cannot explain? I'm not talking about what happens inside a black hole, or how the big bang started, or what happens in collisions between particles at energy levels of trillions of electron volts. I'm talking about the world you and I live in.
Fiscals claim (not me) that there is no observed phenomenon that we are fundamentally unable to explain. In particular - there is no action inside our brain that is not the result of the known laws of physics. Therefore, for sure, there is no "soul" and no "life after death".
I am truly sorry if this offends anyone's religious feelings. The world created by God (or Allah or Zeus or Brahma or Marduk...) can be fully explained without God. I asked God what he thought about it - he had nothing to say....
Miracles
You wrote "What I don't understand is how religious people don't see the contradictions in their faith"
Do you understand how one particle can pass through two slits?
Too bad...
Miracles
"We have perfect knowledge of the layer of physical chemistry!" How much arrogance is there in the sentence you wrote...
Woe to us if this is what Albert Einstein would have thought before he published his theories (to remind you, the popular opinion was
that we invented everything and they won't find anything new in physics....) You were wrong in the positioning of our satellites and errors of tens of kilometers....and this is just the beginning!
Do not dismiss anything outright!
And we must not accept that what is before our eyes is true
A little humility wouldn't hurt
sixth
Miracles
"We have perfect knowledge of the layer of physical chemistry!" How much arrogance is there in the sentence you wrote...
Woe to us if this is what Albert Einstein would have thought before he released his theories (to remind you, the popular opinion was that we invented everything and they would not find anything new in physics...) you would have been wrong in locating our satellites and errors of tens of kilometers....and this is just the beginning!
Do not dismiss anything outright!
And we must not accept that what is before our eyes is true
A little humility wouldn't hurt
sixth
Raphael
I have nothing to do with you, or with anyone else, about Judaism.
For me, Judaism, Christianity, homeopathy, astrology and Scientology are the same thing - adapting reality to belief.
If it doesn't hurt people or animals then I really don't care. If it hurts, then I do care…
What I don't understand is how people of faith don't see the contradictions in their faith. It always reminds me of the blindfolds you put on horses.
Miracles
1. Regarding the existence of a creator for the world who gave us Torah - for me this is not an axiom but a reality stronger than any other reality.
2. If Brian Green, who I think has more knowledge about Judaism than you do, emphasizes that he will not enter into a discussion in a field he does not understand, then I think it is worth learning from him.
Raphael
I listened to the two-chess until the end. Brian Green emphasizes that he will not enter into a discussion in a field that he does not understand, there is no debate between him and Sam Harris about the content of things. Green says he's learned that such discussions are neither helpful nor convincing.
It might be worth emphasizing that this is indeed Harris's field of expertise - the study of the brain, philosophy and the study of religion.
The conversation is very interesting and these are two very smart people, who speak in a way that is easy to understand.
Raphael
That's not exactly what he says... there is a continuation of this sentence. The continuation is that what will replace the language we speak, the mathematics, will be different, but it will only be different mathematics.
I haven't gotten to the second section you describe yet.
I understand what you say about faith in God and the Torah. You accept as an axiom the correctness of the Torah and I do not. And this is the difference between us - an axiom to me is a simple fact that is clear to all of us that it is true. Galileo accepted as an axiom that the laws of physics do not depend on the frame of reference. Newton accepted as an axiom that the laws of physics do not depend on place. Someone said they don't depend on time either (Hamilton maybe?). Einstein accepted as an axiom that the speed of light is constant in a frame of reference and so on.
I cannot accept as an axiom the Torah, or the existence of the "Jewish" God. I don't find anything unique in the Torah or the Jewish religion and worse than that - I find many contradictions within the Jewish religion (contradictions between the religion and reality, I don't have enough understanding of what happens within the religion).
I also see no need to assume such axioms. I know of nothing in the world that cannot be explained within the existing principles of physics. And vice versa - I see a lot of things in the world that cannot be explained if you do practice religion.
It is everyone's right, and perhaps also their duty, to believe what they think is right. If it is I have no problem. The problem is when one person's belief violates the individual rights of another. With you - your axioms clearly enable and support this harm, and here I have a real problem.
Miracles
Pay attention to 2 things in the video (at least):
1. Brian Greene said that it could be that everything we know today about the universe is like the "understanding" of a bacterium compared to the understanding of a person. That is, he is not of the opinion that we understand everything, nor are we close to understanding everything.
2. Brian Green did not give in to the pressure of Sam Harris who defined those who believe in a creator of the world, nor does he dismiss science as one that eats the cake and wants to leave it intact.
Regarding the Torah - as soon as you are convinced that the Torah was given by the One who created the world, then you accept that even if there are things you do not understand, then the problem is only in you and your limitations compared to the Creator of the world who is infinite. But if you think that the Torah is a copy of the legends of other nations, then surely you should treat it the way you do.
And I have no intention of convincing you that the Torah was given by the One who created the world and that it is infinite wisdom, and this for two reasons - one, this is not the place, and for years I estimate that it has no chance with you, you are simply not there.
Raphael
And thanks for the link to the video. I will certainly listen to it.
Raphael
So the world was really created in six days? Did the sons of God really sleep with human women? God really murdered women and children?
This is what is written in the Torah. I can understand that these are fables meant to educate people, fables that were suitable for ancient times. But, I can't understand it in a "simplified" way.
Miracles
If you have patience then listen to this video on YouTube:
Sam Harris & Brian Greene – Toronto – Sept 5th 2018
Miracles
If you have patience then listen to this video on YouTube:
Sam Harris & Brian Greene – Toronto – Sept 5th 2018
Miracles
Although it won't help and you will never be able to come out of your shell and understand, I will answer your questions.
Everything that is written in the Torah is true also in the sense that it is foolish, but not only. There is also a hint of a sermon and a secret.
Regarding the future - in the end the scientists will discover that there is no physicality at all in the world and everything is spiritual and comes from one source. Maybe it will come when they discover the "theory of everything".
Ed
Think about it that the names of the Hebrew months are .. Babylon. And Rosh Hashanah is at its end, like in Babylon.
Ed
In Anuma Elish the story of creation is in six stages, starting with a mess, dividing the water in two, creating the sun and the moon and after that man.
It is clear that this is not the same story, because the meaning of the stories is very different. And obviously both are stories, stories with intention.
I know it is very common to take an ancient text and adapt it to what we know today. It's not complicated - you just interpret the words in a delusional way...
But let's do a reverse exercise - take an ancient text, and tell me one thing that speaks of the future. Does it say what is the next elementary particle we will discover? Is there an explanation for dark matter? Or maybe the dark energy?
And another exercise is possible. Is there something scientific written there that can be understood in a simple way? Is there material on bacteria? To evolution? continental drift? Leave - is there anything there about the shape of the earth (apart from the fact that it is flat....)?
I really want to understand what you are saying. Are you saying that the content of the Torah directly describes reality? Are you claiming that the story of Noah's Ark actually happened? Were the first two people really created about 6000 years ago?
Miracles,
I don't understand why you don't understand what I was trying to say. The link I mentioned leads to text analysis, as a good (secular, to be exact) Bible teacher should demonstrate to his students.
If you had read the Anoma Elish, you would have realized how well anchored this analysis is in the texts. On the other hand, the source you mentioned reflects the dogmatic and unintelligent opinion that once prevailed among Assyrologists and biblical "scholars", often anti-Semitic, who were full of fashionable, fabricated theories like pomegranates but had a rather embarrassing control over the biblical material and the understanding of what is read in it.
The clear conclusion is that there is no adequacy between the Anoma Elish and the description of creation in Genesis chapter XNUMX, and the time has come to stop with the fabricated slogan as if the Anoma Elish is a "source" for the biblical description of creation.
And as for the comparison between the biblical story of creation and our cosmological knowledge - it was not for nothing that I referred you to the book of Prof. Natan Aviezer, a respectable physicist by all accounts. It turns out that the similarity between the biblical description and our cosmological knowledge is much greater than you know and imagine. read the book It's not bad every now and then to try to open your mind to new directions and get out of the dogmatic platonic cave.
Raphael
I tried to have a fruitful discussion with you. My mistake.
Miracles
If you agree with me then why don't you agree with me?
It was a rhetorical question
Raphael
What you said is true, and only reinforces my point. I said that knowledge progresses in a "linear" way. It was once thought that the earth was flat and above it was a sky. After that they thought the earth was cylindrical, and after that we discovered (2400 years ago) that it is spherical.
Then - they thought he was the center of the universe, and everything revolved around us. After that, everything was thought to revolve around the sun.
The size of the universe has increased over the years, as you said. The age has also increased, both of the earth and of the universe.
But, these things converged into the values we know today. And more than that - today we know how to set limits to our lack of knowledge, which was not possible before.
Raphael - I say that science is progressing, and I explained why I think so. You inferred a reinforcement for this and then claim that I don't think so. Why?
miracles,
It won't hurt if you think a little before you jump to dismiss my words automatically. 100 years ago they still thought that our galaxy was the only one in the universe and that the universe was static. At that time the theory of relativity had not yet been published and we knew nothing about quantum theory. And there are many more examples.
Raphael
I think what you just said is baseless. And to be fair, I will back up my words. Let's look, with your permission, at two levels. I'll make it really short…
The first layer is the historical. Observational science is about 400 years old. Since then, and to this day, our knowledge is progressing in a straight line, by and large. The reason is simple - modern science is an excellent method for understanding the world. Make up a hypothesis for yourself - and try to disprove it. The thing is, since we started working properly, we are only refining what we knew before. Newton's physics still works today for almost any purpose.
The second layer is philosophical. Modern science is divided into "layers". Roughly: sociology->psychology->physiology->biology->organic chemistry->physical chemistry->quantum theories.
What is important to understand from this is 3 things:
1. For every observed phenomenon an explanation can be found in one of the layers and you don't need to go all the way to understand the observations.
2. On the other hand - each layer can be fully explained by one layer below it. For example - in principle, all biology can be explained with the help of chemistry.
3. We have perfect knowledge of the layer of physical chemistry! That is to say - from this layer up, there is no observed phenomenon that we cannot in principle explain 🙂
Miracles,
"...everyone is of course very, very far from what we know today"
So let me reveal to you that what we know today is very very far from what we will know tomorrow. So we shouldn't build much on what we know today.
Ed
I don't understand what your link refers to - could you please direct me to the page itself?
The idea is of course not mine, and on the other hand, it is difficult to find a link that is not of theological origin. Here is an interesting link:
https://www.meta-religion.com/World_Religions/Ancient_religions/Mesopotamia/genesis_and_enuma_elish_creation.htm
In any case - the biblical story of creation in Genesis chapter XNUMX does not fit the discoveries of science. It does not even fit the biblical story of creation in Genesis chapter XNUMX.
The story does fit what many peoples in our area thought in ancient times. In general, ancient peoples all over the world have wonderful legends about the creation of the world. All of them are of course very very far from what we know today.
"The researchers accelerated charged xenon particles (charged atoms with a "smaller" nucleus)".
I wondered many and deeply what those charged xenon particles were, which came from the sentence above instead of "normal" ions, and how there could be "xenon particles" with a smaller particle (smaller than what? Probably from "normal" xenon nuclei) until I had to look for the source in English, and indeed It turns out that these are ordinary xenon nuclei, stripped of their electrons, and they are smaller than the lead nuclei used in previous experiments, and the idea is that the results should be similar.
Miracles,
Read the Anoma Elish.
If you do, you will find that the text in chapter XNUMX of Genesis is very different from the Anuma Elish.
I wonder where you got the idea that Hanuma Elish is the "source" of the biblical text, from which the "writers of the Torah" "copied".
I know this idea was once fashionable, but in the meantime we have grown up and acquired the skill of understanding text and analyzing it, haven't we? In any case, you can use the following link: teachers.org.il/data/mikranet/files/63837/66279/29263.do
There are other similar links in the network, for the convenience of people whose time has come to get out of outdated bicycle paradigms.
It seems that in light of the discovery described in the article about the state of the ancient universe, if there was a copy here, it is more likely that the 'writers of the Torah' "copied" the text in Genesis XNUMX precisely from the ancient universe itself...
By the way, the physicist Prof. Natan Aviezer once authored a book called "Bereshit Bara...", where he points to other successful "copies" of the above type. Personally, I do not guarantee the finality of the theories written there, because science changes and develops and discovers additional faces in the biography of the universe... but reading the direction in the book gives a lot of food for thought. Successfully.
kid
Why don't you cite the source of the biblical creation story? This is the Babylonian "Anuma Elish", from which the writers of the Torah copied.
Are any of the researchers religious by chance? The second day of creation:
Genesis Chapter XNUMX Verse XNUMX
"And God said let there be a firmament in the midst of the water and let it separate water from water"
A little tip for researchers, if you are interested in ideas of what preceded the liquid universe, try to deduce something from here:
Genesis Chapter XNUMX Verses XNUMX-XNUMX
"And the earth was confusion and darkness and darkness on the face of the abyss, and the Spirit of God hovered over the face of the waters.
And God said: 'Let there be light.' And there was light.
And God saw the light because it was good, and God made a difference between the light and the darkness"
Just to annoy my father...
Laws of life, interesting articles, in the foreseeable future a lot of experts all over the world who specialize in a wide variety of fields, those experts will be enlightened and will reveal to humanity a great many things that were hidden from us until now.