Antimatter recreating the big bang

[Manraj singh]

I am reading Dan Brown's book, 'angels and demons'. It said that anti matter is created by accelerating two ultra thin particle beams in opposite directions around the accelerator tube. When the ultrafast beams collided they created antimatter. This means that matter is created out of nothing and shows how the big bang took place. Is all this actually true?

 

[Simon Bridge]

Antimatter can be produced (not "created") in colliding particle beams experiments, but it does not "create matter out of nothing" and it does not show "how the big bang took place".

Dan Brown's book is wrong on so many levels it doesn't bear contemplating.

 

[Manraj singh]

Thank you.

 

[Simon Bridge]

No worries -
This is not the only scientific, or other, inaccuracy in the book.

It would save time just to assume every statement of fact Brown makes is a fabrication of some kind and enjoy the story.

 

[ZapperZ]

But the book is a novel! It is not sold in the non-fiction section.

The problem isn't the book. The problem is people who read it and took it seriously.

Zz.

 

[Simon Bridge]

In general not every statement made in a work of fiction is untrue - it is when the author claims some statements to be true which are not that there is a problem in the book. The extent of the problem depends on how much effort the author makes to convince readers of his scholarship.

I don't think Brown actually claims any of the "science" in the book is real.

That said: in the beginning of the book, Brown claims that "references to all works of art, tombs, tunnels, and architecture in Rome are entirely factual (as are their exact locations). They can still be seen today. The brotherhood of the Illuminati is also factual."

While the book does not specifically say that all of its apparently factual statements are true, Brown's assertions regarding his extensive research have led some readers to take the fictional universe of the book to be congruent to reality.

I think it would be difficult for the average reader to tell how much of which parts of the book are real.

 

[Nugatory]

While the book does not specifically say that all of its apparently factual statements are true, Brown's assertions regarding his extensive research have led some readers to take the fictional universe of the book to be congruent to reality.

And Brown encourages this too - perhaps cynically, perhaps because he believes in the congruence himself. Either way, it is an effective marketing ploy; as with Oliver Stone's JFK and Michael Crichton's appalling "This is a work of fiction… except for the parts that are true" pseudo-disclaimer, not many people would bother with the story if they thought it were pure ungrounded fiction.

 

[Dale]

Still, it is FICTION written by a singer and art history major! No matter how you slice it, it is silly to try and learn cosmology from any work of fiction, regardless of what fraction of the work is claimed to be factual.

 

[Simon Bridge]

Either way, it is an effective marketing ploy; as with Oliver Stone's JFK and Michael Crichton's appalling "This is a work of fiction… except for the parts that are true" pseudo-disclaimer,...

... the idea is to suggest there is more to it than would be suggested by a work of pure fantasy yeh.
Another example that springs to mind is the cast prelude in "The Fourth Kind" movie.

Still, it is FICTION written by a singer and art history major! No matter how you slice it, it is silly to try and learn cosmology from any work of fiction, regardless of what fraction of the work is claimed to be factual.

Don't think anyone is suggesting otherwise.

 

[Manraj singh]

Exactly. The problem is that he says its true

 

[Dale]

And do you think that an art historian and musician is qualified to know how the universe began?

Manraj singh, you seriously need to work on your ability to evaluate the credibility of a source. There is no way that you should take any statement written by a historian in a work of fiction as an accurate representation of physics. The information is written by an author with no credentials and no training in the subject of physics, it has not been peer reviewed by other physicists, it is fiction, it is provided primarily for entertainment, and the author has a vested financial interest in exaggerating for dramatic effect. All of those things make it a very un-credible source.

 

[Simon Bridge]

And do you think that an art historian and musician is qualified to know how the universe began?

Brown has not claimed to be an authority - or that his information comes from personal expertise - he has claimed to have consulted authorities: qualified people and references.

One does not need to be qualified in a subject to get stuff right about it.
Even an art-historian can ask a professor of cosmology questions.

Manraj singh, you seriously need to work on your ability to evaluate the credibility of a source. There is no way that you should take any statement written by a historian in a work of fiction as an accurate representation of physics.

In his defense - he didn't.
He demonstrated his skepticism with the question.
He's learning ... Let's cut him some slack.

I believe we have established that the source is not credible.

 

[micromass]

The OP has been answer. Locked.