A few astronomical (and such) questions...?

Question

First, is there a such thing as space without matter?
Secondly, how does one know that the Big Bang is a valid theory? Is there any actual observable proof to the theory that doesn't defy every other known situation? (I put it like this because most of the explanations I've heard thus far up to 11th grade seem to be affluent with blatant flaws).
Third, what is antimatter, and have we actually observed it/used it/created it on earth?
And finally, is there an actual explanation to how people (and life in general) came to be (this is more of an evolution question, which I ask because, as with the BBT question, I have yet to find an answer to this that I've found adequate).

I would prefer the answers to be in your own words, and if you do reference someone else that who you reference isn't someone who is payed to not know they are talking about.

By the way, I am a Christian, but an open-minded one, so I may not necessarily agree with what you say, but I'd still like a few explanations.

Answer 1

Hi, I'll do my best to answer your questions.



First question. Yes there is space without matter. If you meant "is there anywhere in our universe that doesn't have matter?" then yes, the space between galaxies has practically no matter.



Second question, we know that the Big Bang theory is valid because it has passed its tests. In science, if you come up with an idea, that is called a hypothesis. It only becomes a theory when it has been tested, when scientists have said "what does this hypothesis predict?" and found that these predictions are correct.



For the Big Bang theory, we have found the best evidence, in the form of something called the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB). It is the energy from the early universe, and shows just the kind of universe that the Big Bang predicts. It is usually referred to as the "echo" of the Big Bang. One of the scientists involved in the first image of the CMB compared it to a Christian seeing the face of God, proof that what you had believed was true. There is a false idea that he said it WAS the face of God, he did not.



Thirdly, what is antimatter? It is a kind of mirror image of the normal matter we see all around us, like the world of "Alice through the Looking Glass". In normal matter, the protons at the centre of an atom are positively charged and the electrons that surround it are negatively charged. In antimatter, the protons are negatively charged and the electrons are positively charged. If matter and anti-matter meet, they annihilate each other, producing gamma radiation. Antimatter has been created at places like CERN, the home of the lovely Large Hadron Collider.



The evidence for evolution is very good, as shown by the fact it is the theory of evolution not the hypothesis of evolution. The ideas of Creationism and Intelligent Design are flawed. Intelligent Design often says that parts of a living being are "irreducably complex", ie if you take one part away, the whole thing stops working. Such people ask "what use is half an eye?". The answers are that the irreducible complexity is nothing of the sort. To take the eye as an example, the eye gradually evolved, it wasn't half an eye, it was a less efficient eye. A few years back, some scientists looked at how long it would take to go from a primitave light sensing organ (plant cells react to the energy of light, so such an organ would be very easy to evolve naturally) to a functioning eye like the ones we have, through tiny mutations of the sort that would happen naturally. The most pessimistic estimate was 400,000 years.



I am also a Christian. I'm actually writing a book on how science and the Bible agree. To take the Big Bang as an example, immediately after the Big Bang, the universe was a 'sea' of energy, there was nothing, no matter, no light. As the universe expanded and cooled, the first thing to 'condense' out of the energy was gamma radiation, a form of electromagnetic radiation. Another word for this is light (gamma radiation is simply of a wavelength that we cannot see). What does Genesis chapter 1 say was the first thing God created?



Science is not a threat to religion, they compliment each other. Science deals with the questions what, where, how and when. Religion deals with the who and the why.

Answer 2

Yes, there is such a thing as space witout matter.It's known as a vacuum.



The Big Bang is a valid theory since every galaxy is travelling away from a single point. Therefore, every galaxy must have been there at a point in the past. No other thoery beside Bing Bang can explain this, yet it is very well established.



Antimatter is a form of matter that has an opposite charge. Upon contact with regular matter, they annihilate each other. We have indeed created antimatter, usually in CERN or similar facilities.



What can I say? Evolution. The various cocktails of chemicals that existed on Earth billions of years ago bonded together, forming amino acids. These amino acids created more of themselves, and evolution started to occur.

Answer 3

1) For all practical means, inter galactic space has no matter. You will find trace amounts of hydrogen, but it is mostly void of any matter



2) The Big Bang is a theory. Its predictions have been thoroughly tested and observed in the cosmos, such as the redshifting of galaxies and the cosmic microwave background radiation. So far nothing that the big bang has predicted has been found to be incorrect. The actual big bang need not be replicated. We use this explanation because it is the one that best fits the observable data.

If what you mean by one of the flaws of the big bang is that something came from nothing, save yourself the trouble of pointing it out, because the big bang does not say that. It never said anything of the sort. All it says is that at one point in the past, EVERYTHING in the universe was compressed into an incredibly small, incredibly dense spot. How creationists take the big bang theory that clearly states EVERYTHING and interpret it to mean NOTHING is completely beyond me.



3) Antimatter is a sort of mirror image of matter. An ordinary matter atom is made of a proton with a positive charge, neutrons with neutral charge, and electrons with a negative charge. Antimatter atoms are made of antiprotons in the nucleus with negative charge, antielectrons around the nucleus with a positive charge (also called positrons), and antineutrons with neutral electric charge.

The difference between a neutron and an anti neutron is that a regular neutron is made of one up quark and 2 down quarks. An anti neutron is made of an up antiquark and 2 down antiquarks.



We make antimatter everyday in atom smashers like the one in CERN or Fermi Lab. Streams of positrons have also been detected emanating from lightning storms. At present, it is very difficult to use antimatter for anything because it is so difficult to store.



4) Are you asking about the source of life, or evolution? These are two separate disciplines in science. The origins of life is called biogenesis. The study of how life-forms diversify AFTER biogenesis is evolution.

Let me start by addressing evolution first:

What's important is that you understand what the theory of evolution actually says, and not what you think it says. This is a similar problem to what I mentioned previously about the big bang saying something came from nothing. It doesn't say that and it never did.

There is an astounding amount of evidence for evolution. Fossil evidence as well as DNA and genetic evidence. We have actually observed it occur in nature and in the lab.

The most famous example of it are ring species. You can do a quick google search for the different ring species that have been observed in nature all over the world. You can also watch this short video that gives a quick explanation http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pb6Z6NVmLt8



As far as biogenesis goes, we really don't know. We have some ideas, but nothing has been proven as much and as solidly as evolution has or the big bang.

What you must understand is that biogenesis studies the genesis of life in general, and not just the genesis of life on this planet. What I mean is that if we can find a way to create life, it might not be the same way that it happened here on earth, but its still biogenesis. Of course this hasn't happened to a satisfiable degree yet.

The closest we have come are experiments like the Miller-Urey experiments. These show that organic building blocks of life, known as amino acids, can form naturally. The experiment doesn't show that this is what happened on earth billions of years ago, but it shows that synthesizing inorganic matter into living material is possible. All that is needed is an amino acid that replicates itself (RNA or DNA or even prions)

Answer 4

1) Technically no. We have yet to observe something that lacks traces of gasses or vapors

2) The Big Bang is a hypotheses, a theory suggests it has been tested repetitively, and so far we have been unable to replicate the Big Bang. We use that explanation because it is the best we can come up with currently without falling back on the belief of God (which I personally don't believe in)

3) Antimatter is matter constructed of neutrons with an inexplicable charge (not positive, negative, or null), protons that have a negative charge, and electrons with a positive charge. We have made antimatter numerous times in lab conditions, full atoms of hydrogen that are antimatter. It does not occur in nature as far as we know.

4) Not yet. Our observations of the past are based on the working backwards of observable occurrences, and right now we can't trace backwards through space accurately. But it used to be we couldn't follow tracks through water, we can now. Give it some time, and we'll learn.

Answer 5

there is, afaik, no minimize on the size of an Oort cloud inhabitant, that's the place our comets come from. I presume they are incredibly constrained with the aid of the quantity of gases and dirt that have been of their section whilst the photograph voltaic equipment became cobbled jointly. If one crashes into in inner planet it may be related to the worst which you are able to imagine disaster you will think of; dropping in from the Oort cloud is the subsequent terrific undertaking to infinity, so their velocity could be related to the optimal that a organic merchandise could desire to attain falling into the solar's gravity properly. Kinetic capability is a million/2 * m * v ^ 2, so doubling the cost will advance capability with the aid of four.