论坛风格切换切换到宽版
  • 2451阅读
  • 343回复

[宇宙物理]宇宙大爆炸:最大的科学真理,还是最大的科学谎言? [复制链接]

楼层直达
离线henryharry2

发帖
2194
盟币
1546
威望
2
魅力值
6
版主工龄
0
宣传币
0
从事行业
物理
(毕业)院校
东南大学
只看该作者 80楼 发表于: 2015-08-29  粉丝: 4   好友:3
45个可否定大爆炸理论的事实依据
"The principle is clear, however, and no physicist doubts it. Antimatter can exist.
"But does it exist in actuality? Are there masses of antimatter in the universe? . . If they encountered ordinary matter, the massive annihilation reactions that result ought to be most noticeable. It ought to be, perhaps, but it is not. Astronomers have not spied any energy bursts anywhere in the sky that can be identified unequivocally as the result of matter-antimatter annihilation. Can it be, then, that the universe is almost entirely matter, with little or no antimatter? If so, why? Since matter and antimatter are equivalent in all respects but that of electromagnetic charge oppositeness, any force that would create one [such as a Big Bang or steady state theory] would have to create the other, and the universe should be made of equal quantities of each.
"This is a dilemma. Theory tells us there should be antimatter out there; and observation refuses to back it up." —*Isaac Asimov, Asimov's New Guide to Science (1984), p. 343.
离线henryharry2

发帖
2194
盟币
1546
威望
2
魅力值
6
版主工龄
0
宣传币
0
从事行业
物理
(毕业)院校
东南大学
只看该作者 81楼 发表于: 2015-08-29  粉丝: 4   好友:3
45个可否定大爆炸理论的事实依据
So the situation is simple enough: A selfcreation of matter (which is what these various stellar evolutionary theories begin with) would produce equal amounts of matter and antimatter. Half of the hydrogen atoms would have their electrons spinning one direction, while the other half would be spinning the other direction. The result would be opposite-charged hydrogen atoms which would immediately fly toward one another and instantly destroy both in a mutual holocaust.
The following brief review will help you in your understanding of matter and antimatter:
Matter: in the center is the nucleus. It is composed of a varied number of particles called protons (positive charged) and neutrons (no charge; electrically neutral). These particles are called nuclides, and together are called nucleons.
离线henryharry2

发帖
2194
盟币
1546
威望
2
魅力值
6
版主工龄
0
宣传币
0
从事行业
物理
(毕业)院校
东南大学
只看该作者 82楼 发表于: 2015-08-29  粉丝: 4   好友:3
45个可否定大爆炸理论的事实依据
Around the nucleus orbits electrons (negative charged). They are whirling fast around the nucleus. Eight electrons can be thus orbiting the nucleus at a certain distance out from it. After that, a new collection of electrons may orbit at a distance farther out from the nucleus. Each group of eight (or less) electrons is called a "shell. "
Think of ft as a dot in the center (the nucleus), with a ring around ft (the first shell with its orbiting electrons). Beyond that are additional rings.
The proton and the neutron carry equal though opposite electric charges, yet the proton is 1,836 times as massive as the electron. The diameter of the nucleus is very small; it is only 1/100,000th that of the diameter of the entire atom, including its orbiting electrons.
The number of protons, neutrons, and electrons in each atom determines which element it is. Hydrogen is the simplest, with one proton and one electron. All the elements except hydrogen have neutrons.
Nuclides with equal numbers of protons are isotopes, nuclides with equal numbers of neutrons are isotones.
离线henryharry2

发帖
2194
盟币
1546
威望
2
魅力值
6
版主工龄
0
宣传币
0
从事行业
物理
(毕业)院校
东南大学
只看该作者 83楼 发表于: 2015-08-29  粉丝: 4   好友:3
45个可否定大爆炸理论的事实依据
Antimatter: Antimatter has all the charges reversed. In the center of antimatter hydrogen is an antiproton (negative charged), and circling around it is a positron (positive charged).
Some scientists have theorized that there is "invisible" antimatter out there somewhere. But (1) antimatter would not be "invisible." Although it has an opposite charge, it is like matter in every other way. (2) If large amounts of antimatter existed, it would be destroying matter and we would see the effects of that mutual destruction.
Another way-out theory is that, when the Big Bang exploded, the matter went one direction and the antimatter went the other! It all sorted itself out to begin with, and then by mutual agreement decided to go in opposite directions. Aside from the fact that atoms are not quite that intelligent, the initial self-creation of matter would produce a completely equal amount of both types, entirely mixed together. Total war would occur before the evolutionist's theorized peace council could be convened.
离线henryharry2

发帖
2194
盟币
1546
威望
2
魅力值
6
版主工龄
0
宣传币
0
从事行业
物理
(毕业)院校
东南大学
只看该作者 84楼 发表于: 2015-08-29  粉丝: 4   好友:3
45个可否定大爆炸理论的事实依据
"There are some theories, however, which have been proposed to account for the apparent lack of antimatter in the universe. The best of these theories require that the universe be expanding evenly in two directions and at a different rate in the third direction (dimension). But this, too, is not observed." —Gerardus D. Bouw, "Cosmic Space and Time, " in Creation Research Society Quarterly, June 1982, p. 29.
*Gary Steigman summarizes a number of reasons why scientists can know that antimatter is almost entirely lacking.
"That the moon and Venus are made of ordinary matter is clear from direct observations. That the solar system in general contains no antimatter follows from the lack of solar-wind induced annihilation gamma rays. An 'antiplanet' [a theoretical antimatter planet] for example, would have been the strongest gamma-ray source in the sky. Similarly, gamma-ray observations show no nearby star is an 'antistar.' Indeed, that the Galaxy can contain no interesting amounts of antimatter is strongly suggested by the absence of antinuclei in the cosmic rays, by the observations of Faraday rotation, and by the observations of galactic gamma rays."—*Gary Steigman, "Observational Tests of Antimatter Cosmologies, "Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 14:339 (1976).
离线henryharry2

发帖
2194
盟币
1546
威望
2
魅力值
6
版主工龄
0
宣传币
0
从事行业
物理
(毕业)院校
东南大学
只看该作者 85楼 发表于: 2015-08-29  粉丝: 4   好友:3
45个可否定大爆炸理论的事实依据
In 1928, *Paul Dirac, a Cambridge mathematician, predicted a new atomic particle would be found. Identical to the electron in every respect, it would have a positive charge. *Carl D. Anderson, a physicist at Caltech, found it in 1932 while searching in cloud chambers for cosmic rays. Anderson named it the positron. This was the first "antimatter" ever discovered. Since then, researchers have found that, whenever they split atoms and make particles in accelerators, an equal number of negative particles (matter) and positive particles (antimatter) are the result. The nuclear researchers are astonished at the discovery, for this reason: (1) Although in laboratories an equal amount of matter and antimatter is always produced, yet (2) outside of the laboratories in our world and in the universe—there is only matter! Only a great Intelligence could have filled the universe with matter only, when normal atom-splitting always produces both matter and antimatter.
离线henryharry2

发帖
2194
盟币
1546
威望
2
魅力值
6
版主工龄
0
宣传币
0
从事行业
物理
(毕业)院校
东南大学
只看该作者 86楼 发表于: 2015-08-29  粉丝: 4   好友:3
45个可否定大爆炸理论的事实依据
"Even more fascinating was the realization confirmed by a series of experiments during the 1950s and 1960s—that the electron-positron relationship is standard in the subatomic world; For each type of matter particle there is an antimatter equivalent that is opposite in electrical charge or some other fundamental property . .
"Although the symmetrical creation of matter and antimatter is common in such experiments, the universe outside the physics laboratory is dominated by matter—an asymmetry cosmologists find baffling . .
"The implication was obvious: Extremely energetic processes that create matter should just as easily create antimatter. One such process, of course, was the formation of the universe, in which matter and energy came into being. Given the dynamics of the forces at work shortly after the Big Bang, antimatter should be just as abundant in the cosmos as matter. Where then is it?" —*Time-Life, Cosmic Mysteries (1990), pp. 98, 100.
离线henryharry2

发帖
2194
盟币
1546
威望
2
魅力值
6
版主工龄
0
宣传币
0
从事行业
物理
(毕业)院校
东南大学
只看该作者 87楼 发表于: 2015-08-29  粉丝: 4   好友:3
45个可否定大爆炸理论的事实依据
This is similar to the left and right-handed amino acid quandary we will learn about in chapters 9 and 10: When amino acids are made in the laboratory, equal numbers of both types are produced, —yet only one type exists in the amino acids found in living creatures. Likewise, when atomic particles are produced in the laboratories, both negative and positive particles are equally made, yet, with hardly an exception, only the negative exists in nature.
The Big Bang theory would require that an equal amount of matter and antimatter be originally made at the time of the initial explosion; yet the universe only has matter, and lacks the antimatter. This is a strong evidence against the Big Bang—and any other theory of initial selfcreation of matter in the universe.
离线henryharry2

发帖
2194
盟币
1546
威望
2
魅力值
6
版主工龄
0
宣传币
0
从事行业
物理
(毕业)院校
东南大学
只看该作者 88楼 发表于: 2015-08-29  粉丝: 4   好友:3
最新研究发现太阳系附近存在大量的暗物质
由量子引力定性可以知道,哈勃红移使光子的能量减少,同时由于宇宙自能使得光子减少的能量转移到了暗物质粒子的动能上。所以太阳系附近应该存在大量的暗物质,它们倾向于分布在太阳系的外围,下面的这则消息证实了我们的想法,但是定量上分析量子引力的效应还有很多细节问题。

  据国外媒体报道,暗物质最早由瑞士天文学家弗里茨 兹威基(Fritz Zwicky)于上世纪30年代提出来的。他发现,星系团中充斥着的神秘暗物质产生的引力防止星系分崩离析。
  几乎同时期,荷兰天文学家简 奥尔特(Jan Oort)发现太阳附近空间的物质密度(density of matter)达到了仅用可见的恒星和星云来解释的两倍。在这之后的数十年中,天文学家发展了暗物质和天体结构形成的理论来解释星系团和星系的性质,但是太阳系附近的暗物质数量仍然是个谜团。
  在奥尔特测量的几十年之后,科学家发现了比之前认为的要多3-6倍的暗物质。然而,去年用新方法得出的新数据却声称暗物质的数量比期望的要少。天文学界进入两难境地,通常认为这些测量和分析都不够灵敏到给出可信测量的程度。
离线henryharry2

发帖
2194
盟币
1546
威望
2
魅力值
6
版主工龄
0
宣传币
0
从事行业
物理
(毕业)院校
东南大学
只看该作者 89楼 发表于: 2015-08-29  粉丝: 4   好友:3
最新研究发现太阳系附近存在大量的暗物质
  在最近的一次研究中,论文的作者对于他们的测量和误差充满了信心。这是因为,在这项技术在用于真实中的测量之前,他们对银河系进行了高水准的模拟来检验了这项质量测量技术。这次研究给出了很多令人惊讶的结果。他们发现,在过去20年中使用的标准的测量技术有失偏颇,倾向于低估暗物质的数量。他们提出了一种全新的技术从模拟数据中得到了正确的答案。他们把这项技术应用到太阳附近的数以千计的橙色K型矮恒星上,根据它们的位置和速度,就能得到太阳附近局部暗物质密度的新结论。
  该研究论文的第一作者西尔维亚 嘎巴瑞(Silvia Garbari)说:“我们有99%的信心确认太阳附近有暗物质存在。实际上,我们期望的暗物质密度比这还要高些。这仅仅有10%的可能性是一种统计误差。我们有90%的信心会发现更多的暗物质。如果将来的数据进一步确认了暗物质存在的这种高密度,那么将会存在很多令人兴奋的应用。这将是第一次有关我们银河系存在暗物质圆盘的直接证据,正如最近有关星系形成的理论和数值模拟所预测的那样。亦或是我们银河系中的暗物质晕受到了挤压而促使了局部暗物质密度的增加。”
离线linsunche

发帖
2091
盟币
2566
威望
3
魅力值
20
版主工龄
0
宣传币
0
从事行业
化学
(毕业)院校
中興大學
只看该作者 90楼 发表于: 2015-08-29  粉丝: 25   好友:16
一切都是造物者的所創.
离线henryharry2

发帖
2194
盟币
1546
威望
2
魅力值
6
版主工龄
0
宣传币
0
从事行业
物理
(毕业)院校
东南大学
只看该作者 91楼 发表于: 2015-08-30  粉丝: 4   好友:3
45个可否定大爆炸理论的事实依据
(36) A BIG BANG EXPLOSION WOULD HAVE DESTROYED ALL MATTER—Someone will say, "There is no antimatter because the matter destroyed it just after the Big Bang occurred." But, not so. The Big Bang would have produced equal amounts of matter and antimatter. Both would immediately have destroyed each other. Nothing would be left; no matter at all! If anything could possibly remain, it would be equal amounts of matter and antimatter. Gradually, over a period of time, those particles would have attracted each other like magnets and annihilated one another till nothing remained.
This is an extremely important point and totally rules out any possibility of a chance origin of matter, such as could be caused by the Big Bang or any other theory of origin of matter (steady state universe, oscillating universe, inflationary universe, etc.; all of which will be discussed later in this chapter).
离线henryharry2

发帖
2194
盟币
1546
威望
2
魅力值
6
版主工龄
0
宣传币
0
从事行业
物理
(毕业)院校
东南大学
只看该作者 92楼 发表于: 2015-08-30  粉丝: 4   好友:3
45个可否定大爆炸理论的事实依据
If both negative and positive particles had been produced in nature —they would have destroyed one another, since, as soon as they are made in the laboratory, they must be Instantly photographed—because the next instant they come together and explode, annihilating each other! Big Bang theorists offer the weak argument that the antimatter somehow "got separated" from matter after the initial explosion—and formed separate "antimatter stars."
"Clearly, no antimatter exists in any appreciable amount on Earth; if it did, it would readily come into contact with matter and vaporize [both of them] in huge explosions. And since Earth is made of matter, the Solar System must be also . . As for the entire galaxy, if there are such things as antimatter stars, some would already have gone supernova, pouring vast quantities of antiparticles into the interstellar medium and thereby producing almost constant matter—antimatter annihilations and their telltale bursts of energy." —*Time-Life, Cosmic Mysteries (1990), pp. 98, 100.
离线henryharry2

发帖
2194
盟币
1546
威望
2
魅力值
6
版主工龄
0
宣传币
0
从事行业
物理
(毕业)院校
东南大学
只看该作者 93楼 发表于: 2015-08-30  粉丝: 4   好友:3
45个可否定大爆炸理论的事实依据
37) THE UNIVERSE IS LUMPY—We already know that hydrogen gas can not form itself into stars, but even assuming that it could, the outflowing gas from the Big Bang would be too smooth to produce the needed lumps to produce the stars. This is called the "heterogeneity problem."
Instead of homogenous (smooth) matter, everywhere we turn in the universe we find that nearly all matter is clumped together into stars and galaxies. Yet, according to Big Bang theory, this cannot be. The even outward flow of hydrogen gas from the initial explosion would not have produced these objects. This heterogeneity problem is deeply troubling to the evolutionists.
离线henryharry2

发帖
2194
盟币
1546
威望
2
魅力值
6
版主工龄
0
宣传币
0
从事行业
物理
(毕业)院校
东南大学
只看该作者 94楼 发表于: 2015-08-30  粉丝: 4   好友:3
45个可否定大爆炸理论的事实依据
The astronomers see the problem this way: (1) The Big Bang theory should have produced a "homogenous" universe of smooth gas ever flowing outward with, at best, almost no "inhomogenities," or lumps such as stars and island universes. But in the universe around us, we see very little gas and a lot of stellar objects.
(2) As we shall discuss shortly under "background radiation," because there are so many stars and galaxies, the left-over gas should not be smooth—yet it is extremely smooth.
"The large-scale distribution of matter is strikingly clumpy; we see stars in galaxies, galaxies in groups and clusters, and clusters in superclusters." —*P. Peebles, "The Origin of Galaxies and Clusters of Galaxies, " in Science, 224 (1984), pp. 1385-1386.
离线henryharry2

发帖
2194
盟币
1546
威望
2
魅力值
6
版主工龄
0
宣传币
0
从事行业
物理
(毕业)院校
东南大学
只看该作者 95楼 发表于: 2015-08-30  粉丝: 4   好友:3
45个可否定大爆炸理论的事实依据
"Theorists are particularly disturbed by the growing evidence of large-scale inhomogeneity in the universe's structure, which conflicts with the uniformity of the cosmic background radiation." —*Horgan, "Big-Bang Bashers," in Scientific American, September 1987, pp. 22.
"[The lack of homogeneity] is in fact one of the major unsolved problems of cosmology." —**Waldrop, "Delving the Hole in Space," in Science 214 (1981), p. 1016.
"It is questioned whether the homogeneous four-dimensional big-bang model will survive in a universe of inhomogeneous three-dimensional structures." —*H. Allven, On Hierarchical Cosmology (1982), p. 24.
"The standard Big Bang model does not give rise to lumpiness. That model assumes the universe started out as a globally smooth, homogeneous expanding gas. If you apply the laws of physics to this model, you get a universe that is uniform, a cosmic vastness of evenly distributed atoms with no organization of any kind. 'No galaxies, no stars, no planets, no nothing'.' Needless to say, the night sky, dazzling in its lumps, clumps, and clusters, says otherwise.
离线henryharry2

发帖
2194
盟币
1546
威望
2
魅力值
6
版主工龄
0
宣传币
0
从事行业
物理
(毕业)院校
东南大学
只看该作者 96楼 发表于: 2015-08-30  粉丝: 4   好友:3
45个可否定大爆炸理论的事实依据
"How then did the lumps get there? No one can say—at least not yet and perhaps not ever. The prerequisite for a cosmos with clusters of concentrated matter is inhomogeneity—some irregularity, some departure from uniformity, some wrinkle in the smoothness of space-time—around which matter, forged in the primordial furnace, could accrete.
"For now, some cosmologists all but ignore this most vexatious conundrum. They opt, instead, to take the inhomogeneity as given, as if some matrix of organization, some preexistent framework for clumping somehow leaked out of the primeval inferno into the newly evolving universe. With lumpiness in place, the laws of physics seem to work fine in explaining the evolution of the cosmos we've come to know." —*Ben Pabusky, "Why is the Cosmos Lumpy?" Science 81, 2:96, June 1981.
离线henryharry2

发帖
2194
盟币
1546
威望
2
魅力值
6
版主工龄
0
宣传币
0
从事行业
物理
(毕业)院校
东南大学
只看该作者 97楼 发表于: 2015-08-30  粉丝: 4   好友:3
45个可否定大爆炸理论的事实依据
(38) THE UNIVERSE IS FULL OF SUPERCLUSTERS—The stars and galaxies, with their intricate and interworking orbits, could never result from random explosions. But, recently, it has been found that the galaxies are grouped into galaxy clusters, and these into still larger superclusters! Big Bang theory, with its smooth radiation, can never in any way account for the existence of such organized structures.
Scientists cannot give any satisfactory reason for how planets, stars, and galaxies could be produced out of smooth, outflowing gas. Nor can they explain the origin of their complicated, balanced, interrelated orbits.
离线henryharry2

发帖
2194
盟币
1546
威望
2
魅力值
6
版主工龄
0
宣传币
0
从事行业
物理
(毕业)院校
东南大学
只看该作者 98楼 发表于: 2015-08-30  粉丝: 4   好友:3
45个可否定大爆炸理论的事实依据
Mankind gradually learned that moons cluster about planets, planets around stars, and stars around galaxies. Then scientists discovered still larger collections: Galaxies cluster in larger galactic clusters, and, most recently, the discovery was made that these large clusters are grouped in super clusters! They do not crash together, but have been carefully placed near one another; indeed, they often circle in mutual orbits! (More on this in chapter 4, The Stars).
"Over the last 300 years, we have repeatedly discovered ever-larger inhomogeneities in the distribution of matter: stars, clusters, galaxies, groups of galaxies, clusters of groups, and clusters of clusters.''—*R. Oldershaw, "The Continuing Case for a Hierarchical Cosmology, " in Astrophysics and Space Science, 92 (1983), p. 349.
离线henryharry2

发帖
2194
盟币
1546
威望
2
魅力值
6
版主工龄
0
宣传币
0
从事行业
物理
(毕业)院校
东南大学
只看该作者 99楼 发表于: 2015-08-30  粉丝: 4   好友:3
45个可否定大爆炸理论的事实依据
Recent surveys have shown a surprisingly lumpy distribution of galaxies. They are associated in groups, and between them are vast bubble-like voids in space. The overall arrangement is described as "filamentary," "foamy," or "Swiss cheese-like." ("Cosmic Foam" In Science 86:7(3):8; a "Massive Supercluster Tests Theories of Its Evolution," in Research and Development 28:(2):48; `J. Silk, "Discovering a Bubbly Universe," in Nature 320:12). We see here inhomogeneity on a vast scale of billions of light years, yet Big Bang theorists require a strictly smooth universe.
The "Big Bangers" (as they are sometimes referred to) casually reply that "gravity waves" produced the galaxies. But, as we have observed, gravity could not do it. Gravity could not form a star or planet out of gas; make a galaxy into its marvelous disk network of stars; produce the precisely balanced orbits of planets, stars, and galaxies; or produce the arrangement of the supercluster groups of galaxies.