The Instigator
tkgrant7
Pro (for)
Winning
1 Points
The Contender
naeesaim181
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Is the universe made of matter or antimatter?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
tkgrant7
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/18/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 654 times Debate No: 86834
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (12)
Votes (1)

 

tkgrant7

Pro

I'm astounded by physics and even as a strong Christian I still like to debate my position on some of the theories of space without involving my spiritual beliefs. A major question I have is why the universe is made up of matter and not antimatter. In class, i am currently learning about the Higgs boson particle and all of it seems a bit foreign to me. Also as to why it could potentially wipe out all life. Could anyone shed any light on any of this? I believe that the universe is made out of matter.
naeesaim181

Con

I accept, Ill argue for the universe is made out of anti-matter
Debate Round No. 1
tkgrant7

Pro

Thanks, the universe would have to be composed of matter+ in order to stabilize the nuclear particles floating throughout space. If antimatter had been introduced at an equal or higher rate then this would cause a spacial imbalance, resulting in the reduction of the speed of light, gravitational pull of planets, or even the appearance of major particles that rely on matter+. The universe could not be made of anti matter in this case. ( studying physics in high school)
naeesaim181

Con

Antimatter has the same properties as matter, and if the same amount of antimatter is present (No matter, otherwise they would annihilate each other) they would do the exact same thing as matter. If the matter is spaced far enough away from the antimatter, unless it is close, it would be indistinguishable from normal matter. Also to clarify, are you arguing the entire universe is made of matter or only matter not around us
Debate Round No. 2
tkgrant7

Pro

Only in space, and not necessarily. Anti Matter contains a negative charge while matter is neutral. This is crucial when determining the concentration of matter in the universe. Everything contains matter but, antimatter couldn't be on a equal level or dominant in the universe because this doesn't explain why some things only contain positive charges. If antimatter was present at the same concentration of matter then everything would be polar, which is not the case.
naeesaim181

Con

naeesaim181 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Furyan5 1 year ago
Furyan5
Well that's one way of looking at it, but my personal favourite is that reality as we know it is a perception based on electrical stimuli from our sense organs which are interpreted by our brains into pictures, sounds, taste, smell and touch. Can anyone prove that anything we perceive is actually real? Or anyone else for that matter. The only fact that we can know beyond a doubt is that we exist. If we did not, we could not consider the possibility that we don't.
Posted by Stonehe4rt 1 year ago
Stonehe4rt
Well if someone can take that logic of lets just have faith that modern day science that is based of theories that are based of theories that don't have mathetical prof like the Comological Principle which states everywhere in the universe follows the same laws which we obviously can't test and we use this principle for much of our math and science to determine how far stars are and everything then why can't everyone just accept religion? Lol at least most religion have had more stability than crazy ideas that random people come up with and claim is a scientific law. Like the Coperincan Principle, sure Copernicus was a smart dude but he was from so far in the past his educational level would be below an average Alegrabra college student. And we take his word that the entire universe is Homogenous basically the same. Nothing is different anywhere in the universe, science depends on this, however we just push aside anomalies like Blackholes and the like since they don't fit the theory. And by scientific method we should throw out the theory but modern day science doesn't do that, just covers up the signs of failure and continues. Really I feel like a bunch of idiots are just sitting down and stating whatever they want is a law. Like Copernicus also stated in his theory there is no Special Observer basically he was trying to pull a "cause I said so, God doesn't exist." So the question is are any of our theories reliable? If someone is putting their bias ideas or just non testable ideas and making them fact?
Posted by Furyan5 1 year ago
Furyan5
Perhaps we should take it on faith. LOL
Posted by Stonehe4rt 1 year ago
Stonehe4rt
Yeah it's crazy how many theories are taught as fact nowadays. But we must remember they are indeed still theories. A good guess with a little evidence to possibly support it. Just like how it is taught that Dark matter is 95% of the universe but in the definition of Dark Matter it is blatantly called hypothetical. Bottom line is we know nothing xD
Posted by Furyan5 1 year ago
Furyan5
@JayShay Theories are nice, but not once in all of recorded history has something been created from nothing, by nothing.
Posted by Stonehe4rt 1 year ago
Stonehe4rt
Well firstly we can break the law of "Mass and Energy cannot be destroyed nor created" Because of two reasons. One Scientist try to prove Nothing spilt into two somethings, Which would be creating. Science depends one creation of mass and energy. Secondly, ask yourself if there is an edge to the universe? If not then compare infinity to the only other infinite thing we have, Time. Time is ever growing, hence the universe would be to if infinite, Which would mean mass and energy are being created. If there is an edge then would you come in contact with some wall or become nothing? This will mean something pushes back, creating mass and energy, or you disappear from existence being destroyed. So that law is broken as all hell. Secondly, it is mathmetically impossible for nothing two split into two somethings. Lets keep it simple. What is 0 divided by 2? I'll give you a hint, it is 0. However if we started with something, Anything, could be a pencil for all i care. And with that you can create the universe, Something divided by nothing is Infinity or Undefined. Put it into a Calculator, You get an error. Because 1 \ 0 = Everything. This is a matter of separating something so much it becomes nothing, But from what we know, everything can all get smaller and smaller, leaving it to separate for all eternity. So base line is: We need something to start with and divide in a place that has no space nor time, That is an absolute 0 in every manner. With that you can create a Big Bang.
Posted by tkgrant7 1 year ago
tkgrant7
The pro would be you agreeing that the universe is made entirely of matter and antimatter the con. If the entire universe is made up of both then why is the absence of antimatter posing such a problem for scientists, seeing that matter cannot be created or destroyed? At the beginning of the Big Bang the percentage of antimatter was as high as 65 percent, and now percent has decreased to below 30.
Posted by condeelmaster 1 year ago
condeelmaster
There's no dilema such as the universe is made of matter or antimatter? The universe is made of both. The universe couldn't exist if it was made of only one of those.
Posted by ssadi 1 year ago
ssadi
Ccan you please explicitly state what Pro has to do and what Con has to do? I am very interested in this debate.
Posted by JayShay 1 year ago
JayShay
@Furyan5 "How could something be created from nothing?" We have ideas https://en.wikipedia.org...
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by U.n 1 year ago
U.n
tkgrant7naeesaim181Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture.