Stephen Hawking: ‘Heaven is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark’
Stephen Hawking: ‘Heaven is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark’
Heaven is a ‘fairy story for people afraid of the dark’, Professor Stephen Hawking suggestd yesterday.
As well as saying there is no heaven or afterlife, the renowned scientist said that our brains switch off like ‘broken down computers’ when we die.
His comments upset some religious groups, already angry at his statement last year that the universe was not created by God.
Professor Hawking’s latest remarks came in an interview in which the theoretical physicist told how he had learnt to live in the shadow of death since being diagnosed with motor neurone disease aged 21.
The disease, which is incurable, was expected to kill him within a few years. Instead, he said, it ultimately led him to enjoy life more.
The 69-year-old Cambridge University academic said: ‘I have lived with the prospect of an early death for the last 49 years.
‘I’m not afraid of death, but I’m in no hurry to die. I have so much I want to do first.
‘I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail.
‘There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark.’
His remarks are more radical than those laid out in his 2010 book, The Grand Design, where he asserts that the universe is governed by the laws of science and did not need a ‘creator’ to bring it into being.
In the interview Professor Hawking – who will today give a lecture entitled ‘Why are we here?’ at the Google Zeitgeist meeting in London – was asked: ‘Is our existence all down to luck?’
He replied: ‘Science predicts that many different kinds of universe will be spontaneously created out of nothing. It is a matter of chance which we are in.’
In answer to another question, he said people should use their time on Earth to fulfil their potential, saying: ‘We should seek the greatest value of our action.’
His lecture today will focus on M-theory, a broad mathematical framework in which 11 dimensions of the universe are identified and which many physicists say is the best hope yet of developing a ‘theory of everything’.
Last night Professor Hawking, whose 1988 science book A Brief History Of Time has sold nine million copies, was criticised by Stephen Green, director of lobby group Christian Voice.
‘The comparisons to a computer switching off shows a man who is only able to think of things in a materialistic way,’ he said.
‘It is a dim viewpoint of a man who is trying to understand something he is spiritually unable to do.
‘People who believe in the afterlife don’t do so because they are afraid of death, that’s a misunderstanding of religious thinking.
‘Belief in God dispels a fear of the dark, of death. I don’t see why Hawking finds it such a struggle to comprehend the spiritual dimension.
‘Hawking is happy to discuss the M-theory, in which the universe is said to have 11 dimensions. Why then could the universe not have a 12th spiritual dimension?’
Earlier this month Professor Hawking explained how motor neurone disease had ultimately allowed him to be much happier.
He said: ‘I don’t have much positive to say about motor neurone disease.
‘But it taught me not to pity myself because others were worse off, and to get on with what I could still do.
‘I’m happier now than before I developed the condition.’
May 17, 2011 @ 02:20:17
The man speaks the truth. While it seems harsh the way he puts it (that is, there almost certainly not being an afterlife of paradise or torture for humans), he is correct in a sense. The way I see it, many people who believe in an afterlife are rather afraid of death itself, but we can’t prevent it. Why continue wasting your time worrying about death and what happens once you die (not literally as in our bodies decomposing but the pondering if our conscience survives our physical death and we are suddenly taken to a “spiritual world”).
All I can say is that you can’t make reality be the way that you want it to be. No one can. There are so many things I WISH would happen but I don’t have the power or authority for that.
Just enjoy your life. As long as you stay off of risky lifestyles then you should be able to live a long and healthy life. I don’t do drugs, smoke, or drink NOT because of “sin” but because I want to take care of my health. I stay away from sex outside of marriages and people I don’t trust. I love my life and I give myself a purpose here. I will one day have kids and I will see them grow up to become intelligent, successful people. This is the beauty of life.
Religion, to me, is not a necessity… perhaps not even a want either. But if a story gives you comfort then who am I to judge?
May 17, 2011 @ 02:41:31
well said, i couldn’t agree more. life is not forever, but that’s what makes it beautiful.
May 17, 2011 @ 02:49:09
I wouldn’t bet on that…
He just might want to take a look at our history.
There are facts and there are truths…he’s ignoring the truths.
There is a God somewhere and when one dies, you will know it, if you do not already.
Just ask those who have had genuine NDEs.
May 17, 2011 @ 06:09:15
What “truths” is he ignoring? Please provide all your evidence for this God you speak of. NDEs don’t equal an afterlife. There are far more rational explinations, you’re simply ignoring them in favour of a spiritual explination.
people can believe in whatever they jolly well please, but until they start offering real evidence for those beliefs they can’t get all bent out of shape when people reject them. Simple.
May 17, 2011 @ 16:46:58
Ben;
Could you please distinguish the difference between “facts” and “truths” for us ?
I find myself a little confused.
If something is not a “fact”, does that make this non-fact a “truth” ?
Help us out here…
May 21, 2011 @ 15:48:18
No response yet? Where is your god anyway? Oh that’s right: in your mind.
May 17, 2011 @ 06:39:14
“His remarks are more radical than those laid out in his 2010 book…”
“Radical”? Oh, it’s from the Daily Moron. Righto.
May 17, 2011 @ 07:46:06
ISIAIh 41 BRING forth your IDOLS did they PREACH to you see they can’t speak they can’t DO ANYTHING all they do is cause confusion. spalms 115 and spalms 135 thier IDOLS are FALSE cant speak can’t hear cant smell and those that make them shall become like them. Jeremiah 10 they nail their IDOL down like a scarecrow it can’t move can’…t speak can’t move must be carried these are nothing but the WORK of CON men.john 10 jesus christ sais his sheep hear his voice and another voice thy will not follow and if another person tries to preach to them they WILL FLEE from him. jeremiah 5 the priests bear rule on their own authority what will you do when your judged my word is not inside them. Now here is the kicker john 5 son of man voice goes back in time mathew 16 jesus christ claims to be the son of man.1 cor2 mind of CHRIST preached internally and john 16 sais the spirit of truth comes in the future. Ezekiel 13 lying prophets of ISRAEL my word is not inside them saying god sais god sais god sais wrote hoping mankind would CONFIRM their WORDS. all of this is EASILY verifiable.
May 17, 2011 @ 09:03:28
That’s great.
Now please show me proof that God exists.
May 18, 2011 @ 07:55:06
someone always brings that silly sadistic bible cult book that came from somewhere from the middle east by a person or persons claiming to be an authority on god! All that book does is contaminate the debates with delusions of sadistic selfishness! Who wants or needs some other people’s direction or description of god cult or no cult when we can think for ourselves! It’s almost as if these are rules to follow and these rules can only be of propaganda rules of selfishness! A true god presents no books to understand god and understanding can only be met by ones own self reasoning and not by some other person or person’s cookbook!Sadistic? It’s certainly is! look how they worship the nailing of a being to a cross! Every Easter when that crucifixion movie comes around Christians gather in movie houses with their bags of popcorn and watch it! Some people paint pictures of it on canvases! Don’t tell me that’s not sadistic! It’s an infection in society!I was born a catholic and now I have no religion threw that junk away and now I’m an agnostic. I may believe in a god but it’s the same kind of god others see as!
May 17, 2011 @ 11:05:07
You are, at the very least, practically illiterate, and by the looks of things also insane. You say “all of this is EASILY verifiable” – but what “this” is in this case is almost impossible to tell, you’ve written in such an incoherent babble. A babble that resembles that of a schizophrenic. See a decent doctor.
But… before you see the doctor, kindly try again and give us some conclusive, verifiable, substantiated evidence of God’s/Heaven’s/Hell’s/Satan’s/Any character from a Brothers Grimm story’s existence. It’ll be amusing, and then it’ll hopefully be added to your case notes.
May 17, 2011 @ 12:50:25
Although exsistance , being infinitely vast, also is infinitely small Hawkings fails to remember. SO this “Other” God that people don’t except (very blind statement) of vast infinite HAwkings states that we are minute, insignifigant…. thats where his logic fails.
In what comparison? what comparison is there to infinite. SO some have emtpy religions or lack of , while others find the infinite in everything, and thats that. You can only accept exsistance for what it is. IT IS , I AM so is God. Mater is vibrations of energy, do u eminate love or or disregard, self-serving, ego building?
May 17, 2011 @ 14:04:43
“Belief in God dispels a fear of the dark, of death. I don’t see why Hawking finds it such a struggle to comprehend the spiritual dimension.”
Um, I’d say he’s hit the nail right on the head.
May 17, 2011 @ 16:00:40
Learn to spell. Your comment looks very unprofessional and it is embarrassing your own god (if he even exists).
May 18, 2011 @ 07:07:46
If there was a almighty thinking comunicative god it would not hide itself and play games like hide and seek because that would be ignorant!The old saying “Just look at the evidence around” is not aa good excuse any true almighty god would be to powerful to hide and plainly seen by everything! From this the only kind of god I can see is another George Burns movie!
May 21, 2011 @ 15:49:29
It doesn’t matter to the faithful anyway; they’ll just say that we were given “free will” to believe or not believe in their god. Oh, and that he’s “testing” us.
May 21, 2011 @ 17:23:12
isn’t hes constantly making pope and Galileo jokes in his speeches?
May 21, 2011 @ 17:23:49
still holding onto my seat for a comment about sore children’s bottoms
Jun 13, 2011 @ 20:32:00
Oh my… poor freaking robot-semi-dead hawking…
Hehe just saying :)
Jun 30, 2011 @ 05:56:33
OH MY GOD!when will you leave the god.
Aug 04, 2011 @ 00:42:26
Stephen quoted:
“I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark,” he added.
Stephen compares computers as to human beings and derives his conclusion that there is no afterlife. However, he fails to identify the discrepancies between human beings and computers that would come to the conclusion that we could not use non-living objects, such as, computers, to challenge the thought of human beings:
a) Computers do not have soul and emotion and yet computers do not have;
b) Computers could not be movable and human beings could travel on foot;
c) Human beings could recuperate themselves from some illnesses and could even fight with diseases if their bodies are strong. Yet computers could not recover or even counter-attack viruses unless antivirus software is installed;
As there are a great difference between computers and human beings, it is erroneous to use computer system to describe or even to predict the lives of human beings. Or in other words, as computers would stop working when its components fail, it is erroneous to use it to explain the same to human beings to be without afterlife since both of them are of different nature. One is a living thing and another is not.
Aug 10, 2011 @ 18:54:50
Stephen Hawking supported that this universe was created spontaneously. Charles Darwin supported that human beings were evolved from apes. However, science could not explain why human beings could speak various types of languages. Not only that, you could never find apes speak in human languages. As apes could never speak in human languages, how could human beings be evolved from apes? Even if Stephen Hawking supported spontaneous creation, how could it by luck that all human beings were created to speak in various languages? This can never be by chance or by luck. Even if Stephen Hawking would use quantum theory or gravity to support the creation of the universe, there could not be such a co-incidence that human beings were created with diversified languages, such as, Germany and Arab languages are entirely different.
The Bible has the explanation on how the languages to be diversified. The following is the extract:
Genesis 11:9, “Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.”
Without the Bible and without God, there is no way for human beings to speak various kind of languages.
Aug 10, 2011 @ 19:01:48
You have GOT to be joking. Seriously, you’re just trolling me, right?
Lol.
Aug 10, 2011 @ 21:57:02
I can’t even think of something sarcastic to say to this.
Aug 10, 2011 @ 22:14:38
AND GO SAID UNTO THEM, SPEAK ENGLISH! SPEAK ENGLISH IN AUSTRALIA, INDIAN, AMERICAN, BRITISH AND CANADIAN ACCENTS AND/OR DIALECTS!
Aug 12, 2011 @ 23:16:19
Go said this? When did he say that?
Aug 11, 2011 @ 23:57:26
Of course. The Bible is the Word of God.
Sep 15, 2012 @ 08:44:39
Could Big Bang Theory exist in the very beginning to create something out of nothing?
Indeed nobody has ever existed prior to the creation of this universe. Big Bang Theory is just a wild imagination from scientists that this universe could be created through it since nobody has eye-witness about its existence for the creation of this universe.
As Big Bang Theory mentions that this universe was used to be very small and very dense in the beginning, the mass and/or energy and/or protons and/or other particles that are within this tiny universe to trigger off Big Bang Theory would have limited volume. As the mass from universe in the beginning that would work under the Big Bang theory would slowly release the mass from it, it would turn up to be big universe and not so dense. No matter how the mass or energy or particles(,i.e. protons and etc.), that would be released from this tiny universe under the Big Bang Theory, there would come to a point of time in which nothing would be left in it as a result of the entire releasing of mass to its surrounding. Thus, it would come to a time that the universe would no more keep on expanding since the universe that works on Big Bang Theory has released all its mass to its surrounding. Unless the thing or the small universe that would trigger off Big Bang Theory in the very beginning would create more mass of space by itself so as to replenish the mass that has been released from it, there would be no way for Big Bang Theory to create mass of space unceasingly to cause the unceasing expansion of universe especially the law of conservation of mass and energy in the website address, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_mass, states that the mass and energy could not be created. How could Big Bang Theory support that this universe would keep on expanding as if that the mass of space could keep on producing without ceasing?
As mass could never be created by itself, the total mass of matter and/or energy and/or particles and/or protons in the thing or universe in the beginning (that would generate Big Bang Theory) would have the same mass as all the mass of all stars and planets among all the galaxies in this current and sophisticated universe since the mass could never be created as stated in the law of conservation of mass and energy. How could this little universe (that would have existed in the very beginning with the capability to trigger off Big Bang Theory) have the same amount of mass and these include all the stars and planets that are among all the galaxies in this modern world? When Big Bang theory mentions that the universe could be very dense, could the density of the rocks among all the planets and stars in this entire universe be lower than the very high density of the space or whatever in the universe that would generate Big Bang Theory? As there are more than billions of planets and stars in this current universe and the density of rocks in each planet is higher than anything else especially the very high density of space in the universe that would create Big Bang Theory in the beginning, how could the density of the space in the universe that would generate Big Bang Theory be greater than the rocks of all the planets and stars in this universe and yet the size of that universe would yet be very small then? If you would add up all the mass of planets and stars of different galaxies in this world, it would form a gigantic ball and the outlook would be many times bigger than our galaxy and it would not be a very tiny universe as mentioned in Big Bang Theory. To generate the same amount of mass of all the stars and planets for different galaxies in this modern universe, the universe that would generate Big Bang Theory in the beginning must have the same mass and it should be in gigantic size as many times as bigger than our galaxy especially the weight of a planet is many times as heavy as the very high density of space. As the universe that would generate all the stars and planets for different galaxies in the beginning should be in gigantic size, how could Big Bang Theory supports that that universe would be small and very dense especially the law of conversation of energy and mass states that mass and energy could not be created?
Is it true that the thing that would have existed in the very beginning for the generation of Big Bang Theory could be very dense in nature? This theory seems weird in the sense that how the small little thing or so-called, universe, could be very dense. If you take a balloon to blow air on it and try to suppress its expansion so as to make the air in it to be very dense, it would explode. Thus, if the thing or the so-called, very small universe, that would have generated Big Bang Theory would turn up to be very dense, that thing or universe would explode itself since it would be under hard pressure. If you take a box and blow air in it so as to make it dense, it would reach a stage that no air could enter into the box when the air in the box has been filled up. How could it be possible for the thing or the universe that would have existed in the very beginning to be very dense so as to generate Big Bang Theory since explosion would occur within a limited space? What would have caused the thing or the so-called, universe, to be very dense in the first place?
It is irrational to assume that the thing that would exist in the very beginning would release all its masses continuously non-stop until eternity for the fact that mass and energy could never be created under the law of conservation of mass and energy. As mass and energy could not be created by itself, how could the Big Bang Theory produce mass of space continuously as the law of conservation of mass and energy states that mass could never be created by itself? As mass and energy could not be created by itself in the thing that would have existed since the beginning, it would cease to increase in its mass when all the elements that would be within the Big Bang Theory have run out till nothing is left inside. Yet in reality what scientists have mentioned about Big Bang Theory is the forever increasing of mass of space in this universe. The forever increasing in the space expanding gives the implication that the assumption that the thing that would have been initiated with Big Bang Theory has been proven to be wrong since how could mass or energy be created itself when the law of conservation of mass and energy mentions that mass and energy cannot be created in the first place?
A simple conclusion has to be made here. How could the Big Bang Theory generate mass of space forever to allow its continuous expansion when the law of conservation of matter states that matter or energy could never be created? If the reply is that Big Bang Theory could generate more mass of space through the work of space and time, the result would turn up to be contradictory with the law of conservation of matter that states that matter and energy could never be created.
Big Bang Theory supports the continuous expansion of space. Is there any mass in the space? Yes, there is. The following is the extract from the 2nd paragraph in the website address, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_state, under the sub-title, Vacuum State:
(According to present-day understanding of what is called the vacuum state or the quantum vacuum, it is “by no means a simple empty space”, and again: “it is a mistake to think of any physical vacuum as some absolutely empty void.” According to quantum mechanics, the vacuum state is not truly empty but instead contains fleeting electromagnetic waves and particles that pop into and out of existence.)
As the phrase, vacuum state…contains fleeting electromagnetic waves and PARTICLES that pop into and out of existence, is mentioned in the extract above, it implies that the space that is in vacuum state is never empty since it contains electromagnetic waves as well as particles that pop into and out of existence. Or in other words, the increase in space could cause the increase of electromagnetic waves as well as those particles that would pop into and out of existence in the space that is in vacuum state.
Is there any mass for particles or electromagnetic wave?
The following is the extract from the 1st paragraph of the website address, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson, under the sub-title, Higgs boson:
(The Higgs boson or Higgs particle is an elementary particle in the Standard Model of particle physics. The Higgs boson is predicted to exist for theoretical reasons, and may have been detected by experiments at the Large Hadron Collider. If confirmed, this detection would prove the existence of the hypothetical Higgs field—the simplest of several proposed mechanisms for the breaking of electroweak symmetry, and the means by which elementary particles acquire mass. The leading explanation is that a field exists that has non-zero strength everywhere—even in otherwise empty space—and that PARTICLES ACQUIRE MASS when interacting with this so-called Higgs field…)
As the phrase, particles acquire mass when interacting with the so-called Higgs field, is mentioned in the extract above, it gives the implication that there is mass among particles.
The title, Mass of an Electromagnetic Wave, in the website address, http://vixra.org/pdf/1105.0041v2.pdf, has spelt out that there is mass for electromagnetic wave.
As there are particles as well as electromagnetic wave in the space in vacuum state and yet it has been proven above that there is mass among particles as well as electromagnetic wave, it would come to the conclusion that the particles in space that are in vacuum state have mass. As the expansion of this universe implies the increase in space results in the multiplication of particles as well as the increase in electromagnetic wave, the entire mass of this universe would increase simultaneously. Thus, the expansion of universe would lead to the entire increase of mass.
As the Big Bang Theory supports the expansion of this universe would lead to the entire increase of mass of space and yet the law of conservation of mass and energy states that mass could not be created, how could this theory be reliable since it supports forever increasing of mass of space as if that the mass could be created even though it could not?
Big Bang Theory supports that the expansion of the universe is in slow pace ever since the beginning. Discuss.
The following is the extract from the 7th paragraph after the question, Is this universe expanding faster than the speed of light?, in the website address, http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=575:
(If we use the definition of distance given above (and only if we use this definition and no other), then the Hubble constant tells us that for every megaparsec of distance between two galaxies, the apparent speed at which the galaxies move apart from each other is greater by 71 kilometers per second….)
As the phrase, the apparent speed at which the galaxies move apart from each other is greater by 71 kilometer per second, is mentioned above, it implies that this universe would have been expanding in a fast speed at 71 kilometre per second instead of in slow pace. As Big Bang Theory suggests a continuous expansion of this universe ever since its creation and it maintains such a high speed constantly at 71 kilometers per SECOND, the mass of space that it would have been generated must be many times bigger than the thing or the universe that would generate Big Bang Theory. How could this be possible for the mass that would be generated would be many times more than its original mass when the law of conservation of mass and energy states that mass and energy cannot be created? Big Bang Theory is itself unreliable and contradictory.
The Big Bang Theory seems illogical especially its derivation would be from very tiny point. The following is the extract from the 3rd paragraph under the sub-title, The Big Bang, in the website address, http://www.exploratorium.edu/origins/cern/ideas/bang.html:
(The universe began, scientists believe, with every speck of its energy jammed into a very tiny point. This extremely dense point exploded with unimaginable force, creating matter and propelling it outward to make the billions of galaxies of our vast universe. Astrophysicists dubbed this titanic explosion the Big Bang.)
The phrase, The universe began…with every speck of its energy jammed into a very tiny point, as mentioned above seems irrational and illogical since how this very tiny point could hold the mass that is equivalent to the total mass of space, planets, stars, comets and etc. of this modern universe especially the law of conservation of matter and energy states that mass cannot be created. Big Bang Theory is itself contradictory and unscientific.
Sep 17, 2012 @ 10:23:18
a)What is the impact on mass-energy equivalence (E = MC^2) and energy if the law of conservation of mass and energy is obsolete? Should the law of conservation of mass and energy be abandoned? Should we abandon the law of conservation of mass and energy to accept Big Bang Theory since there are contradictory?
Indeed, all the things in this universe are in the operation of the law of conservation of mass and energy. The following is the possible scenario if the law of conservation of mass and energy is obsolete:
All chemistry and scientific formula could never be equal due to the possible and unexpected creation and/or destruction of mass and/or energy if the law of conservation of mass and energy is obsolete. Let’s give you an illustration. As we know H2 + O = H2O (water). What if there would be a destruction of oxygen, the equation would turn up to be H2 + O = H2. What if there would be a creation of nitrogen in the interval, the equation would turn up to be H2 + O = H2 + O + N. The absence of the law of conservation of mass and energy would turn up to be that H2 + O could never be equal to H2O. As the law of conservation of mass and energy states that mass cannot be created or destroyed, H2 + O would turn up to be equal to H2O. Let’s give you another illustration. E = MC^2 (mass –energy equivalence). If the law of conservation of mass and energy does not work on mass-energy equivalence, the equation could never be equal. What if there would be a destruction of energy, the equation would turn up to be E – E1 = MC^2. What if there was a creation of mass by 10000 times during the process, the equation would turn up to be E = 10000*MC^2. What if there was a destruction of mass by N, the equation would turn up to be E = (M-N)C^2. What if there was a destruction of energy by 80%, the equation would turn up to be E = MC^2*20%. As mass and energy cannot be created or destroyed, the equation would turn up to be E = MC^2. If the law of conservation of energy and mass is not at work, the General Relativity’s formula could never be established as Ruv – (1/2) guv R = (8 Pi G/c4) Tuv. What if the energy would be destroyed by 80%, the equation would turn up to be as Ruv – (1/2) guv R = [(8 Pi G/c4) Tuv.]*20%. Besides, as we know G = gravitational constant and gravitational constant has been established as {F = G (m1 m2)/(r) ^2, where F is the force between the masses, G is the gravitational constant, m1 is the first mass, m2 is the second mass, and r is the distance between the centre of the masses}. If substance could be destroyed completely in the interval, the equation would turn up to be F = G(m10)/(r)^2. What if there would be a sudden creation of m3 in the interval, F =G(m1m2m3)/[(r1)^2*(r2)^2*(r3)^2]. Note: r1 is the distance between m1 and m2; r2 is the distance as a result of the sudden creation of m3 between m1 and m3; and r3 is the distance as a result of the sudden creation of m3 between m2 and m3. All these would alter the result of gravitational constant and have direct influence upon the equation of General Relativity. What if there would be a creation or destruction of energy, T, the General Relativity would turn up to be as Ruv – (1/2) guv R = (8 Pi G/c4) Tuv + or – T. Or in other words, the mathematical formula for mass-energy equivalence could never balance if the law of conservation of mass and energy has become obsolete. It is upon the law of conversation of energy and mass that the formula has turned up to be equal due to there would not be any creation or destruction of mass or energy.
Mass-energy equivalence expresses that E = MC^2 and that implies that matter could be converted to energy. However, this equation does not imply that energy may be converted to matters. There is no evidence from scientists that energy can be converted to matter currently. As energy could not be converted to matter, how could Big Bang Theory support that the creation could start up with energy from a very hot condensed state in a very tiny point whereby the energy could be converted to mass that is equivalent to the total mass of planets and etc. in this modern universe as if that mass could be created in which the law of conservation of mass states that it cannot?
b)How could the density of the hot condense state in a very tiny point as suggested by Big Bang Theory be greater than the density of rock of any planets? If the density of the hot condense state could not be greater than the density of rock of any planets, how could the mass in this very tiny point be equal to the total mass of all the planets and etc. in this modern world? This is by virtue of the total mass that would be in the hot condense state must be equal to the total mass of all the planets, stars and etc. that are among all galaxies since the law of conservation of mass and energy states that mass and energy cannot be created.
c)Some might comment that the particles in the space might not carry much mass. As we know there is electromagnetic wave in the space and each wave carries much particles. As much space in vacuum state implies more particles for much electromagnetic wave, much space implies much mass and carries more weight.
d)If you might know the experiment that has been carried out through Large Hadron Collider at CERN, you should have known that it serves no purpose to convince the world that universe in the very hot dense could produce a mass of a huge planet. This is by virtue of we have heard of the production of matter and antimatter through it and yet none of the experiments have come to our mind that it could produce a big planet through this machine and not even a small little sand. For instance, if LHC could be so efficient to create an environment that would meet the condition that is required by Big Bang Theory, the experiment should show a creation of a planet or a small little rock instead of a tiny particle. Some might consider the existence of 6 dimensions to be at work. Why is it that the possible existence of 6 dimensions could not cause LHC to generate a piece of rock instead of tiny small particles currently when this system has generated the environment that seems to meet the condition that Big Bang Theory should be? If LHC could not create a piece of rock but small particles, how could we be sure that the very tiny point that has been assumed by scientists in Big Bang Theory in the beginning could create the mass that is equivalent to the total mass of planets and etc. in this current universe?
e)Would there be possible that LHC could create new particles?
The following is the extract from the website address, http://www.lhc.ac.uk/About+the+LHC/What+is+the+LHC/11833.aspx:
(The LHC accelerates two beams of atomic particles in opposite directions around the 27km collider. When the particle beams reach their maximum speed the LHC allows them to ‘collide’ at 4 points on their circular journey.
Thousands of new particles are produced when particles collide and detectors, placed around the collision points, allow scientists to identify these new particles by tracking their behaviour. )
As the phrase, Thousands of new particles are produced when particles collide, is mentioned above, it implies the new particles could be generated from LHC. However, question has to be raised about the two initial beams of atomic particles in opposite directions before the collision. Where should they be after the collision? It seems to be that the initial two beams should have vanished. The two initial beams should have been transformed into these thousands of new particles after colliding instead of being treated as new particles are created out from nothing. This is the same logic as why a new product, water, should be formed when hydrogen is burned in the air.