1. Limited time only! Sign up for a free 30min personal tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Antimatter recreating the big bang

  1. Mar 15, 2014 #1
    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?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 15, 2014 #2

    Simon Bridge

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    2016 Award

    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.
     
  4. Mar 15, 2014 #3
    Thank you.
     
  5. Mar 15, 2014 #4

    Simon Bridge

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    2016 Award

    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.
     
  6. Mar 15, 2014 #5

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2016 Award

    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.
     
  7. Mar 15, 2014 #6

    Simon Bridge

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    2016 Award

    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.
     
  8. Mar 15, 2014 #7

    Nugatory

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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.
     
  9. Mar 15, 2014 #8

    Dale

    Staff: Mentor

    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.
     
  10. Mar 15, 2014 #9

    Simon Bridge

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    2016 Award

    ... 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.

    Don't think anyone is suggesting otherwise.
     
  11. Mar 15, 2014 #10
    Exactly. The problem is that he says its true
     
  12. Mar 15, 2014 #11

    Dale

    Staff: Mentor

    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.
     
  13. Mar 15, 2014 #12

    Simon Bridge

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    2016 Award

    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.

    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.
     
    Last edited: Mar 15, 2014
  14. Mar 15, 2014 #13

    micromass

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2016 Award

    The OP has been answer. Locked.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Antimatter recreating the big bang
  1. Who needs Big Bang? (Replies: 11)

  2. Before the 'BIG BANG' (Replies: 1)

  3. Big Bang (Replies: 10)

Loading...