Register to reply

How all matter antimatter particles annihilated after bigbang

Share this thread:
bapowell
#19
May8-12, 01:35 PM
Sci Advisor
P: 1,682
Quote Quote by Radrook View Post
What is he saying exactly and in detail. I mean apart from the superficially obvious.
He's saying that matter arose after inflation, not before the big bang as you interpreted it.
Radrook
#20
May8-12, 01:41 PM
P: 334
Quote Quote by bapowell View Post
He's saying that matter arose after inflation, not before the big bang as you interpreted it.
I did not interpret that he said matter definitely arose before the BB. However his qualifier "theoretically", does seem to make room for that possibility. So based on that I adressed the possibility that he was perhaps considering it a possibility of sorts.
bapowell
#21
May8-12, 01:49 PM
Sci Advisor
P: 1,682
Quote Quote by Radrook View Post
I did not interpret that he said matter definitely arose before the BB. However his qualifier "theoretically", does seem to make room for that possibility. So based on that I adressed the possibility that he was perhaps considering it a possibility of sorts.
Huh? You said,

When you postulate the possibility of the presence of matter before the BB...
I'm saying that he made no such postulation. His qualifier "theoretically" is supposed to mean "according to theory" which I suspect is intended to indicate that, technically, matter was generated after inflation, which is after the big bang. If his statement leaves room for its interpretation as asserting that matter was created before the big bang, then it leaves room to be interpreted as saying virtually anything.

It's not a big deal. If you misinterpreted something, it's not the end of the world. No need to belabor the point.
Radrook
#22
May8-12, 04:13 PM
P: 334
Quote Quote by bapowell View Post
Huh? You said,


I'm saying that he made no such postulation. His qualifier "theoretically" is supposed to mean "according to theory" which I suspect is intended to indicate that, technically, matter was generated after inflation, which is after the big bang. If his statement leaves room for its interpretation as asserting that matter was created before the big bang, then it leaves room to be interpreted as saying virtually anything.

It's not a big deal. If you misinterpreted something, it's not the end of the world. No need to belabor the point.
1. You are insultingly and presumptuously attributing a character flaw to me that doesn't t exist.

2. I am using the pronoun "you" in the same general non-personal manner that I assume he employs it when he comments on my views.

3. You are reaching an unjustifiable conclusion. His statement does not allow for everything or anything interpretations as you claim because the subject matter is clearly unambiguous.

4. No point is being belabored by me. From where I stand you seem to be belaboring imaginary issues.

5. The term "theoretically" is often used as something distantly connotatively akin to alleggedly. So it does leave room for a certain justifiable doubt. Who knows? Maybe he does have ideas as to how matter could have been present before the BB. Why don't you let him respond himself so we can find out?
bapowell
#23
May8-12, 04:30 PM
Sci Advisor
P: 1,682
Quote Quote by Radrook View Post
1. You are insultingly and presumptuously attributing a character flaw to me that doesn't t exist.
Overreact much?
2. You are ignoring the qualifier "if" which introduces hypotheticals.
There is no "if" anywhere in your statement.

Radrook, if you are supposing that I am a turtle, then you are greatly mistaken.
3. You are reaching an unjustifiable conclusion. His statement does not allow for everything or anything interpretations as you claim because the subject matter is clearly unambiguous.
Clearly unambiguous. Which is why you totally didn't get it.

EDIT: I see you've changed your 4 theses to 5, and swapped out your erroneous point regarding "if" to some semantic distinction regarding pronouns. Except that this is not how you used "you", since you directed your comment directly to Chronos. If you meant for your comment to be an isolated observation not directly related to any prior comment, then it did not at all come across this way as written.
bapowell
#24
May8-12, 04:39 PM
Sci Advisor
P: 1,682
Quote Quote by Radrook View Post
5. The term "theoretically" is often used as something distantly connotatively akin to alleggedly. So it does leave room for a certain justifiable doubt. Who knows? Maybe he does have ideas as to how matter could have been present before the BB. Why don't you let him respond himself so we can find out?
Not at all. Unless you take a "theory" to be a vague set of untested guesses. Which is not at all what a scientific theory is.

He might think that matter was created before the big bang. He might also think that fairies live in his garden (sorry Chronos, sake of argument.) My point is simply that your assertion followed from a statement that HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS ASSERTION.

If you think there some connection/equivalence between "before big bang" and "after inflation", then state it. Otherwise, we'll chalk this one up to simple misunderstanding.
Radrook
#25
May8-12, 05:16 PM
P: 334
Quote Quote by bapowell View Post
Not at all. Unless you take a "theory" to be a vague set of untested guesses. Which is not at all what a scientific theory is.

He might think that matter was created before the big bang. He might also think that fairies live in his garden (sorry Chronos, sake of argument.) My point is simply that your assertion followed from a statement that HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS ASSERTION.

If you think there some connection/equivalence between "before big bang" and "after inflation", then state it. Otherwise, we'll chalk this one up to simple misunderstanding.

1. I do not take theories to be vague untested sets of guesses because my formal education teaches me otherwise. Please stop asssumiung or insinuating ignorance. It is time-wasting and can become gradually a bit annoying. Please remember that I could just as easily assume the same about you.

2. It is a well known fact that the whole sequence of events is causally connected. You disagree with that? If so, why? If so, please show at what point one stage became disconnected from the other.


3. I made no assertion. I merely probed to see what his opinion really is because he planted a doubt either consciously or unconcsiously via the use of the word theoretically and yu took umbrage.

As I stated before and as is well-known to anyone familiar with the English language, the term can also be used to connote uncertainty. Therefore, I am fully justified in suspecting that such might be the case and have a right to see if it is or not. I mean, I could easily make this thread into the rhetorical use of words one but this is not a forum for such purposes. However, if you wish, I can provide you with links where the connotative meaning of the word theoretically is explained and declared legitimate.
Chronos
#26
May8-12, 05:25 PM
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Chronos's Avatar
P: 9,432
Apparently there is some confusion about the inflationary timeline. This is the one I had in mind - http://burro.cwru.edu/stu/advanced/cosmos_history.html
bapowell
#27
May8-12, 05:30 PM
Sci Advisor
P: 1,682
Quote Quote by Radrook View Post
1. I do not take theories to be vague untested sets of guesses because my formal education teaches me otherwise. Please stop asssumiung or insinuating ignorance. It is time-wasting and can become gradually a bit annoying. Please remember that I could just as easily assume the same about you.
You define precisely what you mean by "theory" here:
The term "theoretically" is often used as something distantly connotatively akin to alleggedly. So it does leave room for a certain justifiable doubt.
Self-contradiction seems to be a recurring theme with you.
2. It is a well known fact that the whole sequence of events is causally connected. You disagree with that? If so, why? If so, please show at what point one stage became disconnected from the other.
I'm by no means disputing causality, merely pointing out that exchanges of the form:

Person 1: Statement A is true
Person 2: Person 1, if you suppose that Statement B is true, then such and such...

are incomprehensible and teetering on the edge of illogical. Person 2 in this exchange is either misunderstanding what Person 1 is saying (misunderstood that they claim the truth of Statement A not B), or they are bringing up Statement B for the first time in the discussion and merely pointing out to Person 1 such and such. The former makes sense, the latter is unusual and liable to lead to confusion. Which is why I asked you what the connection is between Statement A, that "matter was created after inflation", and Statement B that, "matter was created before the big bang". If there is no connection, then you could just as easily have said "I like pineapples" in response to Chronos.
Radrook
#28
May8-12, 05:46 PM
P: 334
Quote Quote by bapowell View Post
You define precisely what you mean by "theory" here:

Self-contradiction seems to be a recurring theme with you.

I'm by no means disputing causality, merely pointing out that exchanges of the form:

Person 1: Statement A is true
Person 2: Person 1, if you suppose that Statement B is true, then such and such...

are incomprehensible and teetering on the edge of illogical. Person 2 in this exchange is either misunderstanding what Person 1 is saying (misunderstood that they claim the truth of Statement A not B), or they are bringing up Statement B for the first time in the discussion and merely pointing out to Person 1 such and such. The former makes sense, the latter is unusual and liable to lead to confusion. Which is why I asked you what the connection is between Statement A, that "matter was created after inflation", and Statement B that, "matter was created before the big bang". If there is no connection, then you could just as easily have said "I like pineapples" in response to Chronos.

World English Dictionary
lacking practical applicatin r existence
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theoretical
ZapperZ
#29
May8-12, 05:50 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
ZapperZ's Avatar
P: 29,238
This thread is done since we are no longer sticking to the topic.

Zz.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Virtual particles are not matter-antimatter, is it? Quantum Physics 16
AntiMatter/Matter balance in the Universe General Physics 14
Can we tell apart antimatter from matter? Astronomy & Astrophysics 3
Could mirror matter p-parity explain matter-antimatter assymetry? High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics 0
Antimatter and matter Classical Physics 11