TED Conversations

This conversation is closed.

Where did atoms originally form?

I am studying the Big Bang and trying to make sense of it. Is there research or ideas on how atoms initially formed? Has there been experiments done starting with basic subatomic particles to create a Hydrogen atom, for example? I know we can take existing atoms and smash them together to form higher-order atoms. The question is: Is there an existing level of research addressing (new) Atomic Synthesis?

Share:

Closing Statement from Gary Post

I have asked this question or a form of it on TED and across multiple sites. I have yet to hear a good answer that does not involve deux ex machina (a ghost in the machine) type answer. For example, I read about references to Chaos Theory and plasma and etc. I'm beginning to think some of the Intelligent Design proponents have a better handle on this than mainstream science. At some point, the line between we don't know and the far-reaching fantastical musings screams for the questioner to just have faith that it was a naturally occurring process. Atomic synthesis might happen once or twice by chance, but how could something like this happen in exactly the same way in such a repeated, perfect fashion? It defies logic and believabilty.

  • thumb
    Oct 22 2013: Just copied this from a blog

    The technical details and mathematics of modern physics may be mastered by only small number of scientists at elite academic institutions, but non-technical explanations continue to proliferate. This popularization of physics for the layperson would be welcome were it not for the fact that the foundations of physics are in such disarray. Three new books provide fresh perspectives on this conundrum and should perhaps be added to our summer reading lists. Neil Turok’s contribution is The Universe Within: From Quantum to Cosmos, in which he explores his solution to the ontological puzzle of what started the Big Bang – the Big Bounce. In simple terms, the idea is that our universe is one cycle of an endlessly repeating cycle of Big Bangs and Big Crunches. Jim Baggett, a physicist turned writer, takes a highly critical approach in Farewell to Reality: How Modern Physics Has Betrayed the Search for Science. This work sounds like a polemic by a reformed string theorist who has thrown up his hands in disgust at the lack of progress, but apparently offers good explanations of the key problems and theories. Time Reborn: From the Crisis of Physics to the Future of the Universe by Lee Smolin is a more inventive offering which points to the time-independent formulations of physics (since Newton) as a potential hindrance to deeper understanding. This approach may have merit..

    Hope this helps your research

    And then added a link to a Swedenborg perspective of Atoms:
    http://www.swedenborg.com.au/publications/brochures/SwedenborgScientistPhilosopherTheologian.pdf
  • thumb
    Oct 21 2013: A particle physicist I know well has mentioned Steven Weinberg's short book The First Three Minutes as a good introduction to the beginning of the Universe. You might include that in your research.
    • Oct 22 2013: I will check that out. Thanks!
  • Oct 28 2013: Bumping my previous reply to the top as it expounds on my question..

    6 days ago: Stars form heavier atoms by smashing together EXISTING atoms. The (new) in my question obviously refers to the simplest atom, hydrogen. My understanding is that the protons and neutrons make up the nucleus, with the electron currently thought to exist not in a planed orbit, but in a cloud. The electron is moving very fast in it's orbit, and it's angular momentum is what stops it from falling into the nucleus. My question relates more to how the atom forms.

    Let's say the universe is cooling down and the quarks form the protons and the neutrons, electrons materialize, etc..,,, At this point, there is a real problem, at least in my mind. There is no angular momentum to stop the electron from ramming into the proton at this point, and there is no reason that the electron should prefer to organize versus follow the easy path of electromagnetism. I cannot rationalize this step from particles to atoms. Everything I've read just says the atoms formed once the particles came together.
  • thumb
    Oct 28 2013: Hello, Gary. Great question. Myles has spoken well. All answers to your question are theories. Not enough science to provide definite conclusion. I would suggest that you read about Chaos Theory. It basically discusses in scientific terms how the universe has a strange order in what appears to be chaos, particularly the Big Bang. I have studied for years and come to a rather odd conclusion. For me, the universe was created. It is not self-existent. I know that the implication of that conclusion is the existence of God. Consider Chaos Theory as a source of possible answers for your question. I wish you well in your search.
    • Oct 28 2013: Thanks, Doc! I appreciate it.
  • Oct 27 2013: I'd like to be one of the few people on the internet who can actually say the words " I do not know". It's an interesting topic though, I'll be following the thread to find out what you dig up about it.
  • thumb
    Oct 22 2013: I thought it was Al Gore who invented them just before he invented the internet, but I could be mistaken...
    • Oct 22 2013: NO Craig,
      Al Gore invented Global Warming, he only thought out loud that he had invented the internet.
      Al Gore is known best for not being able to get his home state's votes.
      And then there is that other thing up in Oregon...
      • thumb
        Oct 22 2013: Well Frank, I guess I was confused there.

        I do know that Al's 10,000 square foot house certainly contributes his share and then some....

        What 'other thing in Oregon' are you referring to? There are many 'other things'.... to choose..

        Thanks for the correction.
        • Oct 23 2013: Craig,
          That's why he needed the $5,000,000 prize money. To pay his home's electric bill.
          Gosh, we couldn't warm up the planet, without him burning the candle at both ends.

          What 'other thing in Oregon'?
          The Portland massage and grope thingy... It hit the tabloids for a while.
          I suppose he thought he was just following in Bill's footprints.

          We can forget the Big Bang. It was reversed engineered anyway.
          Kind of like looking at a Flashbulb when getting your picture taken.
          You'll never know if it was really just a magic fairy tossing piffle dust.
          Another 2000 years and it will be disproven.

          Watch out for those falling apples. Colleges still teach Newton's Law.
          They now know it as Newton's Big Guess. It still works well enough
          to be used. So does Al Gore.
  • thumb
    Oct 22 2013: We would need zillions of identical particles to appear (?) at once, & then swing into orbit etc while rushing away from point zero in a straight line trajectory. Sometimes it's good to admit, we just don't know.

    :-)
  • Timo X

    • 0
    Oct 22 2013: I'm curious as to why you would do such an experiment. Where would you get the subatomic particles if not from an atom? It would be like dismantling a TV to make sure that you can build a TV from its constituent parts.
  • Oct 22 2013: Any physicists out there with input on this?
  • Oct 22 2013: Which atoms? Complex atoms were formed by stars.
    • Oct 22 2013: Stars form heavier atoms by smashing together EXISTING atoms. The (new) in my question obviously refers to the simplest atom, hydrogen. My understanding is that the protons and neutrons make up the nucleus, with the electron currently thought to exist not in a planed orbit, but in a cloud. The electron is moving very fast in it's orbit, and it's angular momentum is what stops it from falling into the nucleus. My question relates more to how the atom forms.

      Let's say the universe is cooling down and the quarks form the protons and the neutrons, electrons materialize, etc..,,, At this point, there is a real problem, at least in my mind. There is no angular momentum to stop the electron from ramming into the proton at this point, and there is no reason that the electron should prefer to organize versus follow the easy path of electromagnetism. I cannot rationalize this step from particles to atoms. Everything I've read just says the atoms formed once the particles came together.
      • Oct 22 2013: 1. Not obvious to me
        2. Think about plasma
        3. Think about only hydrogen I am giving you new atoms. of course , it's very hot in a star see 2
        4. There is always In the geginning
        5. Think of the Rig Veda.
        6.Fritzie tells us to go to the start of the Universe - good idea.
        7. I wasn't there.
  • thumb
    Oct 22 2013: None that I'm aware of: when it comes to this matter we have too little knowledge and too many opinions. I've read a few papers about this subjects over the years, but all sound no different from priests talking about God: basically they assume too many concepts to prove their point, sounding just like any religious person.

    Allow me to give you something to think about. Did you ever stopped to notice that we can have the infinite enclosed in a finite limit? Think: how many decimals do we have between 1 and 2? Infinite. Therefore, how many sub-atomic particles might exist? The answer is: infinite. So, how can we make any reasonable theory when the simplest of the elements has in it such a huge level of complexity?
  • thumb
    Oct 21 2013: it's impossible to be sure cause we're in an atomic universe ,maybe if we can understand what we believe it's the nil we can understand the origin of everything...