this post was submitted on 05 Nov 2023

-14 points (37.9% liked)

Showerthoughts

30017 readers

908 users here now

A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. A showerthought should offer a unique perspective on an ordinary part of life.

Rules

All posts must be showerthoughts
The entire showerthought must be in the title
Avoid politics
- 3.1) NEW RULE as of 5 Nov 2024, trying it out
- 3.2) Political posts often end up being circle jerks (not offering unique perspective) or enflaming (too much work for mods).
- 3.3) Try c/politicaldiscussion, volunteer as a mod here, or start your own community.
Posts must be original/unique
Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

-14

Every particle that made up your body is older than you, some of them are older than the universe (self.showerthoughts)

submitted 1 year ago by DangerousWasabi to c/showerthoughts

19 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 20 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] spittingimage 29 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Older than the universe? How you figure?

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago

^^^^

How can something be older then everything?

[+] DangerousWasabi -12 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Yes, some of the elemental particles in our body (electrons, quarks, ...) were actually popped into existence along with the universe during the first fraction of time of the Big Bang, and remained still until today. So whatever or wherever these particles came from (assuming they do), they carried with them information that is older than the universe itself.

[–] 6mementomori 14 points 1 year ago

at best, that means they're as old as the universe, not older than it. also, didn't most of those particles constantly annihilate each other?

[–] Floufym 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If I am not mistaken, accordingly to the Big Bang theory, all particules were created at the same time. Not before or after, or few of them but all of them at the same time.
No new electrons/quarks/… were created since then.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Photons are an exception (at least, in as much as that they are a particle), and you can make new particls from energy, but definitely there's a limit to how old a particle can be. No particle is older than the universe (as far as the big bang is concerned).

[–] DangerousWasabi -4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The universe in the Big Bang theory does have an age (approximately 13.7 billion years), so in a way, the Big Bang theory does not explain the origin of the universe, but rather the state of the universe 13.7 billion years ago. With that said, it is the limit of the universe, not the particles. The age of a particle could be infinity.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Your argument is not defending your position.

If we say the Big bang is true, and it's the creation of all matter. That would include the constituent elements of matter. Even if some elements have a longer lifespan than others, that doesn't speak to when they were created.

It's perfectly possible there's a different model, the better represents reality, that would allow for something to exist before the Big bang, but that would not be the Big bang theory. That would be a different theory, if we're working with the Big bang theory then nothing existed before it.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Except the big bang is the start of both space and time, so nothing in the universe could be older than the universe because there's no time to speak of (not to mention the space for it to exist).

The moment after the big bang is called the Planck epoch. I just learned this from Wikipedia "In this stage, the characteristic scale length of the universe was the Planck length, 1.6×10−35 m, and consequently had a temperature of approximately 1032 degrees Celsius. Even the very concept of a particle breaks down in these conditions. A proper understanding of this period awaits the development of a theory of quantum gravity.". I don't really understand this, but it seems the early universe wasn't conducive to particles. Even if it was, they wouldn't be atoms. They'd just be quarks.

All of our physics breaks down at the singularity before the big bang, so assuming quarks that are around today existed then is just that, an assumption.

[–] Arrakis 4 points 1 year ago

elemental particles in our body (electrons, quarks, …)

I don't think you know what either elements or particles are...

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Ah, good point. The universe hadn't expanded yet.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago

“Be humble for you are made of earth. Be noble for you are made of stars.”

—Serbian proverb

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Older than the universe? How does that work?

[–] DontAskAboutUpdog 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Everything is possible if you lie.

[–] KepBen 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No that's not true, that's impossible

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

Search your feelings. You know it to be true.

[–] DangerousWasabi 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The universe appears to have a finite age in the Big Bang model and can be calculated to give an approximate value. Particles however, do not seem to have any correlation with time. The lifespan of a fundamental particle, without colliding with its anti-particle through annihilation, appears to be infinite.

[–] LemmyFeed 3 points 1 year ago

We're all truly children of the stars.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

As if I didn't already feel too old -_-