“The Big Bang should have created equal amounts of matter and antimatter in the early universe. But today, everything we see from the smallest life forms on Earth to the largest stellar objects is made almost entirely of matter. Comparatively, there is not much antimatter to be found. Something must have happened to tip the balance. One of the greatest challenges in physics is to figure out what happened to the antimatter, or why we see an asymmetry between matter and antimatter.”
YOU CAN READ THE REST OF THE ARTICLE FROM CERN HERE.
Science does not have all of the answers and I understand Christianity is no different. However, some give science way too much credit, I think, when scientific proof is a myth.
At least, THIS ARTICLE says so.
When I first posted this I FORGOT TO INCLUDE THE MOST INTERESTING OF THE THREE ARTICLES. IT DISCUSSES RAMIFICATIONS OF THE FIRST ARTICLE ABOVE. IT’S CALLED:
The universe shouldn’t exist, scientists say after finding bizarre behavior of anti-matter
cr
Wings of the Wind 
Reblogged this on Ciprian Barsan.
Thank you for another reblog, Pastor Barsan. I hope you are enjoying Israel!
Hi, Chris! I want to read the article. The CERN experiments are frightening actually, that is, from my extremely limited understanding.
I’ve heard the same from online sources as well. I was having a “conversation” via internet with someone who actually works on the LHC. It has cost billions of dollars and I was curious about the justification for such an endeavor. He actually had some good answers.
Are they playing with fire? I don’t know and this gentleman seems unafraid to be involved with it. Of course, that doesn’t make it the right thing to do. I have very limited understanding about the thing myself so I probably shouldn’t comment any further at this time.
Oh..by the way, I’m having trouble making comments on others’ blogs. If you don’t see a fairly recent comment on your blog, that is the reason why. I tried at least 10 times to leave comments on a friend’s blog and they all disappeared into cyberspace. I can’t seem to leave a comment on Dan’s blog either. I can like a post but that’s it.
I haven’t had the time to contact wordpress but hopefully I’ll have some free time during the Christmas holidays. I’m pretty sure the problem is on my end.
Otherwise, I hope you and your family are doing well.
God’s blessings…
Chris, I read the article. The physics is way beyond me. Just a thought: splitting the atom led to the atomic bomb and Hiroshima. What will result from particle acceleration? In our fallen condition, we can’t be trusted with such knowledge.
Something else came to mind about the author’s view that we can never know things, that knowledge is always preliminary and tentative:
1 Timothy 6
20 O Timothy! Guard what was committed to your trust, avoiding the profane and idle babblings and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge— 21 by professing it some have strayed concerning the faith.
Grace be with you. Amen.
Brother, are you using Google Chrome? That is the recommended browser for WordPress. I’m sorry you’re having trouble with commenting at other blogs! You have a lot to share.
Maria: “The physics is way beyond me.”
Chris: “I have very limited understanding about the thing myself so I probably shouldn’t comment any further at this time.”
I think most advanced physics cannot be understood in the way we usually “understand”. It is really advanced mathematics; the concepts that go into it (and come out of it!) are entities in equations and so on. Physisists and mathematicians are not able to sort of visualise them adequately any more than we are.
As Chris knows, I don’t have any problem with being Christian and accepting science, but nor do I have any problem with others believing differently. Either way, advanced physics is a mystery to us unless we are clever mathematicians, but the points of evolution really aren’t hard to understand, although some of the terminology that came to be used is unfortunate and can easily be misleading, such as “survival of the fittest”. “Fit” here really just means “surviving and breeding offspring”, so it means “Those who survive, survive”.
Marianne, thank you for explaining some of the issues with theoretical physics and advanced mathematics! The one author seemed to be saying that most science is theoretical to a degree.
About origins, I believe that the Lord revealed all we need to know about them in the Holy Scriptures and am grateful. The truth of our fall explains what we see around us in the abuse of children, for example, and the vicious usurpation of parental authority by the state, etc.
Thank you for sharing your knowledge, Marianne.
I sort of messed up here.
There are implications about this “matter” (hehe) that aren’t mentioned in this post. I should have included a link to another article entitled:
“The universe shouldn’t exist, scientists say after finding bizarre behaviour of anti-matter”
You may find it an interesting read as well.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/universe-exist-cern-universe-matter-bizarre-behaviour-scientists-a8015216.html
I find this comment refreshing:
“Physicists and mathematicians are not able to sort of visualize them adequately any more than we are.”
So many of them would never admit such a thing.
Thank you, again.
God’s blessings…
Actually, I’m not using Google Chrome. I will definitely have to give that a try. It would be so cool to be able to comment again! And thank you for your kind words, Maria.
I know that some are afraid that Pandora’s box may be opened by the thing. Many scientists seem to have no such concern.
I am also not that knowledgeable in physics but I think the implications of the article demonstrate the limitations of current science. I forgot to put a link to this important related article which makes the statement that science doesn’t have all the answers. (I hope all Christians will admit the same and by specifying the two I would never say there is no connection between Christianity and science.)
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/universe-exist-cern-universe-matter-bizarre-behaviour-scientists-a8015216.html
It’s entitled:
The universe shouldn’t exist, scientists say after finding bizarre behaviour of anti-matter
Thank you for sharing your thoughts.
God’s blessings…
Oh, golly. It turns out I am using Google Chrome. Thanks for trying though. I’m still going to try and figure it out. I miss commenting on other sites.
Chris, I will read the article – thank you! Hope you get to comment again soon! Maybe you can check the WordPress help forums.
I definitely plan on checking the forums as time allows. 🙂
☺
oh, two articles!!
Yes. I have come to understand that most atheists and theistic evolutionists (also calling themselves creationist evolutionists) admit that scientific proof is a myth. However, they also feel that there is so much evidence for their position, that it is the only one that should be considered.
I’m a young earth creationist. Our numbers aren’t too bad in the U.S. but there are fewer and fewer of us in Europe as each year passes.
I can’t wait for God to make it clear (more clear than it is to me now and I think it’s pretty clear) how He created everything!
That will be wonderful, Chris!!
Chris:
““Physicists and mathematicians are not able to sort of visualize them adequately any more than we are.”
So many of them would never admit such a thing.”
(The strips will be getting too thin if I was to put my comment just under yours, Chris.)
Actually, I think you are wrong! The scientists would gladly admit that they cannot visualise many of the things they discuss. They are talking about entities in mathematical equations and relations and so on, abstract units in structures, way beyond the level where we visualise soil and water and flowers and golf-balls, way beyond the way we usually go about verifying things.
The reason I put in that remark about abstractness was that I thought, when you and Maria said you did not understand physics, that you were making demands of yourselves which really cannot be met, and I think we can be calm about it! But I guess we naturally find it difficult to grasp or accept that something can be real without being demonstrable in the way we are used to. (So what does “real” mean?) Remember Euclidean geometry: “Through a particular point on a plane it is only possible to draw one straight line parallel with another straight line.” An accepted, “modern” modification is that that depends entirely on how you define “straight” and “plane”. If the plane is the surface of a ball, things are different. My mathematics teacher (a very clever one) said to us with a smile, “Actually, it seems to fit best to say that it’s possible to draw two.”
Hi Marianne.
In this case, I hope you are correct that I am wrong. All I ask for is honesty among all, including those involved in the sciences and particularly Christians. I only hope I can be more expectant of myself than I am of others.
“So what does “real” mean?” I wish that every human would be serious about this question and I do think that most deal with it in some way. Postmodernism has thrown a real wrench into the “What is real?” question.
In John 18, Pilate asked Jesus a similar question:
38 “Pilate *said to Him, ‘What is truth?’
And when he had said this, he went out again to the Jews and *said to them, ‘I find no guilt in Him.'”
I would hope that all are on a quest for truth. I don’t think any more can be asked of anyone.
“I thought, when you and Maria said you did not understand physics, that you were making demands of yourselves which really cannot be met, and I think we can be calm about it!”
I agree, Marianne, and appreciate this comment.
It sounds like you had a clever teacher, indeed.
Definitions are so important. How many discussions/conversations are derailed because people who think they are having a discussion are talking about two different things. Some of these conversations can go on for quite some time without the realization that no communication is taking place. Some never figure it out and I know I’ve been involved in this kind of dialog many times.
I wish you a blessed day my friend. Your comments are always appreciated.
I was watching, on tv, the Nobel Prize ceremony in Stockholm which took place this afternoon. It is always on Nobel’s birthday. All the Nobel prizes are given out in Stockholm, Sweden, except the Peace Prize, which is given out in Oslo, Norway, on the same day. That ceremony was earlier today, in Oslo’s town hall; I saw some of that too. (Alfred Nobel’s testament has instructions that that the Norwegian parliament appoints a committee for selecting Peace Prize winners, so the ceremony is here also – hmm, he probably didn’t quite trust his own countrymen (he was Swedish) when it came to peace, or what? I have been too lazy to look up what the explanation can be.)
Anyway, the prize for physics was awarded to 3 scholars who had contributed the most to developing measuring “gadgets” which have actually been able to detect “gravitational waves”. A sort of wave in a vacuum. Completely un-understandable for laymen, I should say, but I am sure it is real, as all the scientists say.
I knew the peace prize was given out in Norway but, I’m a bit embarrassed to admit, I thought the rest were given there as well.
I am a very late bloomer when it comes to interest in science but I must admit that my ears are always open to hear of new ideas, new finds, new discoveries, and the rest. I guess anyone who marvels at a sunset or a butterfly must be interested to some degree in science.
I hope that these new discoveries help mankind is some good way.
I have disagreed with the selection of the Nobel peace prize winners in the past but such is life. There was a woman who was nominated whom I felt was much more deserving than the recipient.
It is interesting that Albert Nobel chose Norway for the peace prize. I bet there is a juicy story behind that one but, alas, I have other fish to fry.
Thank you for sharing, Marianne. The things that interest you tell me that I would have loved to have been in one of your classes except that I’m not much of a language guy. I guess I did take three years of Spanish in high school.
Here is the Stockholm event. It is taken from Norwegian tv, but the program info says it is available always (alltid) and in the world (verden), in contradistinction to only in Norway, so you should be able to see it.
The sound does not seem to come in until about 4 minutes. There is apparently no texting or translation. (Of course Swedish and Norwegian are closely related languages, so we have no trouble.) The person introducing the physiology/medicine prize delivers his speech in English, starting about 45 minutes into the program.
Even if the Swedish is of no use to you, it may amuse you to click here and there, see the prize winners come forward to receive their prizes from the king, and so on. The soprano singing a couple of times is first class.
Thank you, Marianne. This will be a cultural experience for me. Looking forward to watching parts of this. 🙂
What happened: I left out the link:
https://tv.nrk.no/serie/nyheter/NNFA41020517/10-12-2017
It’s my day off, so I’m looking forward to watching this.
I don’t know how relevant or interesting this is for anybody, but anyway:
The program of the Stockholm Nobel prize awarding, as shown in the Norwegian tv program:
https://tv.nrk.no/serie/nyheter/NNFA41020517/10-12-2017
Welcome by the spokesman for the Nobel Foundation, Carl-Henrik Heldin:
from about 10 – 17 minutes. This speech is in English.
I am sure the laureates are provided with translations of those introductory speeches which they do not understand.
The order of the prizes:
Physics (3 laureates sharing)
The introduction, describing the essence of the physics prize achievement from about 25 – minutes. This speech is in Swedish.
Calling on the three to receive their prizes, 30 – 33.
Chemistry (3 laureates sharing)
The introduction is in Swedish, 33 – 38.
Calling on the three to receive their prizes, 38 – 41.
Medicine (3 laureates sharing)
The introduction 45 – 51. The speech is in English.
(Interesting: This is about our biological clock.)
Calling on the three to reiceive their prizes: 51 – 53.
Literature
The introduction 56 – 1:02:40. The Speech is in Swedish.
Calling on the laureate 1:02:40 – 1:04:00
Economics
The introduction 1:08:00 – 1:13:00. The speech is in Swedish.
(Very amusingly interesting about Adam Smith.)
Calling on the laureate 1:13:00 – 1:14:00.
After that:
The Swedish National Anthem is played and sung.
Then some interviews and commentaries. There will be a dinner in the evening.
Wow. This was quite a bit of work, Marianne. I, for one, plan to take advantage of the schedule you have shared here. I’ll print it out and watch the parts I’m interested in. I’ve never seen the Stockholm Nobel prize awarding before!
hours later…
It was well worth the time watching this, Marianne. I did skip through a few of the foreign language statements but it was a bit of a cultural experience for me.