Concept of Eternity.

[WConn]

I have spent much time reading/perusing the Bible and this site, looking for answers to questions and trying to understand
some of the most difficult concepts I have ever encountered. Accepting on faith the presence of God, heaven and eternity are enough to blow my mind. (Don't get me wrong, somehow I believe in God, it's the other stuff I have problems with) I did well in some very difficult college courses in a very difficult discipline, (started in Nuclear Engineering, saw the writing on the wall) and I always thought I was a reasonably intelligent fellow.

I guess I need to have more concrete, scientific proof of things and that's why I found this site so acceptable. That being said, I was thinking about eternity and how difficult a concept that was.....until I remembered a college course in which the professor discussed the Law of conservation of mass/matter.

The law of conservation of mass/matter, also known as principle of mass/matter conservation is that the mass of a closed system will remain constant over time, regardless of the processes acting inside the system. (might out universe be a closed system?) A similar statement is that mass cannot be created/destroyed, although it may be rearranged in space, and changed into different types of particles. This implies that for any chemical process in a closed system, the mass of the reactants must equal the mass of the products. This is also the main idea of the first law of thermodynamics. In short, matter can neither be created nor destroyed, only changed in form.

I remember that he said to look around you....everything you see right now always existed somewhere in the universe, it's just that right now you see it in a different form. Fascinating to think about....he noted that every atom which made up every molecule of our personal beings existed somewhere at the beginning of time. The question I asked at the time was......where did the original form of matter come from? The question I have right now is: Is this law inconsistent with Christianity? Might God not have been the original creator of mass/matter.

Thank you for your response.

W

[cslewislover]

That's so neat, I love thinking about stuff like that. But, I've had very little physics.

I don't see why it would go against anything Christian. God created everything, and it doesn't matter whether it gets recycled of not. Is that what you're asking?

This might sound really silly, but when I was in my one physics class, we learned about how the electrons (I believe that's right) of an atom travel far from its nucleus. So, the atoms in our body have electrons traveling out from all around us. I wondered if it was at all remotely possible for this to have an effect on our senses. Ha ha, don't laugh at me. There are times when someone or something is far from you, but not too far, and for some reason you sense it. It could be just sound waves and other physical movements that we detect, subconsciously, but you look up and there they are, coming up from behind, or from a blind spot. Or you look up all of a sudden, and you and someone else look at each other from a distance. I don't know. Lol. I wonder about things like that.

[WConn]

That's so neat, I love thinking about stuff like that. But, I've had very little physics.

I don't see why it would go against anything Christian. God created everything, and it doesn't matter whether it gets recycled of not. Is that what you're asking?

This might sound really silly, but when I was in my one physics class, we learned about how the electrons (I believe that's right) of an atom travel far from its nucleus. So, the atoms in our body have electrons traveling out from all around us. I wondered if it was at all remotely possible for this to have an effect on our senses. Ha ha, don't laugh at me. There are times when someone or something is far from you, but not too far, and for some reason you sense it. It could be just sound waves and other physical movements that we detect, subconsciously, but you look up and there they are, coming up from behind, or from a blind spot. Or you look up all of a sudden, and you and someone else look at each other from a distance. I don't know. Lol. I wonder about things like that.

CS, an interesting observation. There is much about ourselves we don't really know, especially when it comes to our mind and senses. My point was that if matter is eternal, and we are made up of matter, then in a science sense, we are eternal. Just an observation on my part.

You are right, the center of an atom is called the nucleus. It's made of protons and neutrons, protons are positively charged particles, neutrons are neutrally charged. The electrons, (negatively charged with no mass) often called "orbital" electrons circle the nucleus at different levels. Think of our solar system. The sun is the center, the nucleus if you will with orbital planets. Kind of like a massive atom if you will. Not sure if your hypothesis is correct but we do have instincts and senses which sometimes cause us pause. I know mind do.

W

[Gman]

I remember that he said to look around you....everything you see right now always existed somewhere in the universe, it's just that right now you see it in a different form. Fascinating to think about....he noted that every atom which made up every molecule of our personal beings existed somewhere at the beginning of time. The question I asked at the time was......where did the original form of matter come from? The question I have right now is: Is this law inconsistent with Christianity? Might God not have been the original creator of mass/matter.

Thank you for your response.

W

It's interesting how many go through life and not even fathom the works of God. Many go through life banking on our world then become distressed when it blows up in their face.. Even beauty.. It's fleeting. It's there one day then gone the next. Or the stock market.. You have money one day, then gone the next. It seems we put so much emphasis on it, and for what? A moment in time? A picture on the wall? And when we die and others that knew us also die it was as though we never even existed in this world. That is why we really should put our emphasis on the eternal things of God.. God is the key and everything else is temporary.. We don't always know what can happen to us. It's here one day but it could be gone tomorrow..

About your question, God lives inside and outside of our time... If we look at the big bang we find that it had a finite beginning.. That is it emanated from a single source, some say the size of a basketball or atom. Imagine that? All matter emanating from such a tiny source like a tree seed.. And it was from this source that all matter came to existence.. And what was the catalyst for this beginning? Well, it must have been an outside source.. It must have been God..

Someone once told me, if you ever wanted to prove the existence of God, all you need to do is buy a telescope..

Just my two cents..

[cslewislover]

CS, an interesting observation. There is much about ourselves we don't really know, especially when it comes to our mind and senses. My point was that if matter is eternal, and we are made up of matter, then in a science sense, we are eternal. Just an observation on my part.

You are right, the center of an atom is called the nucleus. It's made of protons and neutrons, protons are positively charged particles, neutrons are neutrally charged. The electrons, (negatively charged with no mass) often called "orbital" electrons circle the nucleus at different levels. Think of our solar system. The sun is the center, the nucleus if you will with orbital planets. Kind of like a massive atom if you will. Not sure if your hypothesis is correct but we do have instincts and senses which sometimes cause us pause. I know mind do.

Hey, thanks. Well, I wouldn't consider that eternal in any significant sense, though. And actually, I'm not sure if it would be considered that in a scientific sense either, since some scientists think there will be an end, right? I'm not up on the latest considerations of the longevity of the universe. Anyway, if we are eternal in a biblical sense, it means our conscious selves, of course, which doesn't rely on the matter that makes up our present body. But I know you're searching for answers . . .

[litewave]

It is possible that the total energy of our Universe is exactly zero, because the positive energy of matter (mc^2) seems to be compensated by negative gravitational potential energy. So the universe could have arisen from nothing without violating the law of energy conservation.

http://www.astrosociety.org/pubs/mercur ... thing.html

[WConn]

It is possible that the total energy of our Universe is exactly zero, because the positive energy of matter (mc^2) seems to be compensated by negative gravitational potential energy. So the universe could have arisen from nothing without violating the law of energy conservation.

http://www.astrosociety.org/pubs/mercur ... thing.html

Anything is possible. Many theorists, Stephen Hawking among them, have suggested the "zero energy" concept. It is attractive because it "avoids the problem of a universe that sprang from nothing to something." This seems to be in conflict with your position that the total energy of the universe being zero means the universe could have arisen from nothing. The universe consists of positive energy (matter) and negative energy (gravity) whose total is exactly zero! This is a valid mathematical solution for the Hamiltonian density of the universe in GR. The issue is, however, complex and different answers are possible depending on the geometry of space time.

Lots of info on the internet with lots of conflicting opinions. I am not a theoretical physicist so I don't have all the answers but again, anything is possible.

W

[litewave]

Anything is possible. Many theorists, Stephen Hawking among them, have suggested the "zero energy" concept. It is attractive because it "avoids the problem of a universe that sprang from nothing to something." This seems to be in conflict with your position that the total energy of the universe being zero means the universe could have arisen from nothing.

What conflict is there? If there was nothing at the beginning then it had zero energy. Now the universe still has total energy zero, but it is split into positive and negative energy.

[WConn]

Anything is possible. Many theorists, Stephen Hawking among them, have suggested the "zero energy" concept. It is attractive because it "avoids the problem of a universe that sprang from nothing to something." This seems to be in conflict with your position that the total energy of the universe being zero means the universe could have arisen from nothing.

What conflict is there? If there was nothing at the beginning then it had zero energy. Now the universe still has total energy zero, but it is split into positive and negative energy.

Well, you are saying there was NOTHING at the beginning. I understand that all the matter in the universe right now existed at the moment of the big bang and before. The zero energy concept avoids the problem of a universe that sprang from nothing to something. In short, the way I understand it is that all the matter that exists now in the universe, always existed and always will exist, consistent with the law of conservation of matter and energy. You are suggesting that the zero energy concept suggests that there was NOTHING in the beginning which is inconsistent with what I understand the zero energy concept suggests.

W

[litewave]

Well, you are saying there was NOTHING at the beginning. I understand that all the matter in the universe right now existed at the moment of the big bang and before. The zero energy concept avoids the problem of a universe that sprang from nothing to something. In short, the way I understand it is that all the matter that exists now in the universe, always existed and always will exist, consistent with the law of conservation of matter and energy. You are suggesting that the zero energy concept suggests that there was NOTHING in the beginning which is inconsistent with what I understand the zero energy concept suggests.

W

So you're saying that matter always existed, without a beginning, but its total energy was always zero? Well, if you have a universe with an eternal past then the law of energy conservation would hold even if the total energy of the universe was not zero. But if you want a universe with a beginning and the law of energy conservation holds then total energy of the universe must remain what it was at the beginning when the universe was nonexistent - zero.

[WConn]

Well, you are saying there was NOTHING at the beginning. I understand that all the matter in the universe right now existed at the moment of the big bang and before. The zero energy concept avoids the problem of a universe that sprang from nothing to something. In short, the way I understand it is that all the matter that exists now in the universe, always existed and always will exist, consistent with the law of conservation of matter and energy. You are suggesting that the zero energy concept suggests that there was NOTHING in the beginning which is inconsistent with what I understand the zero energy concept suggests.

W

So you're saying that matter always existed, without a beginning, but its total energy was always zero? Well, if you have a universe with an eternal past then the law of energy conservation would hold even if the total energy of the universe was not zero. But if you want a universe with a beginning and the law of energy conservation holds then total energy of the universe must remain what it was at the beginning when the universe was nonexistent - zero.

My friend, we could continue to discuss this but the fact is these are only theories. No one other than God knows the answer. Maybe all the matter was in existence and he caused the big bang and here we are. Not even Stephen Hawking is sure of what happened, how could you or I.

W

[cslewislover]

Could you explain, litewave, how matter (something) could come from nothing? How do the people who espouse this theory explain that?

[litewave]

Could you explain, litewave, how matter (something) could come from nothing? How do the people who espouse this theory explain that?

Zero splitting into opposite values, that is + and -. Thus nothing splits into something. Obviously, it has no reason to do that, that's why it happens randomly -- without reason, just from nothing.

[cslewislover]

Could you explain, litewave, how matter (something) could come from nothing? How do the people who espouse this theory explain that?

Zero splitting into opposite values, that is + and -. Thus nothing splits into something. Obviously, it has no reason to do that, that's why it happens randomly -- without reason, just from nothing.

I've never heard anyone say before that there was some way of getting something from nothing. It seems very irrational (how can zero, or nothing, split? It makes no sense.). Not that we can understand how God himself did it. But this sounds like just some fantasy, some made-up thing, some just-so story. Lol. I think if there was anything serious behind it, it would've been plastered all over the news and I would have heard about it . . . eventually.

[litewave]

It's just one of scenarios. Nobody knows for sure.