Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Where did the matter and energy come from?
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 16 of 357 (542789)
01-12-2010 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by cavediver
01-12-2010 4:03 PM


Re: Matter and Energy
Thanks cavediver.
I think it would help, me at least, if you expound on what it is to be an "excitation of a field" and how it differs from a (or part of a) field without an excitation.
ABE:
Well, actually (as explained in Message 20) I was having a brain fart so you can skip over this request.
Or feel free to explain it if you think the lurkers will benefit.
Edited by Catholic Scientist, : see abe

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by cavediver, posted 01-12-2010 4:03 PM cavediver has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Larni, posted 01-12-2010 4:37 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 17 of 357 (542790)
01-12-2010 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by cavediver
01-12-2010 4:03 PM


Re: Matter and Energy
Energy - what about energy? - energy is merely an accounting system,
So energy is like yard or an inch, but also a relative gradient, but only really an a notation of state of the field in question?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by cavediver, posted 01-12-2010 4:03 PM cavediver has not replied

  
Iblis
Member (Idle past 3895 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


(1)
Message 18 of 357 (542791)
01-12-2010 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by cavediver
01-12-2010 4:03 PM


Re: Matter and Energy
Energy - what about energy? - energy is merely an accounting system, reflecting conservation of excitations between the fields. Energy is simply quantification of the field excitations - given a particular configuration of excitations at time T1, this limits those configurations at time T2. Does this concept sound like the sort of thing that stuff is made of??? NO!!!
So matter isn't frozen energy, it's actually boiling space?
And the reason that m amount of matter disappears when c2 worth of e energy is released, is not because they are the same dealie in different forms, but rather because the energy that was being used to stir up the matter out of these underlying fields is now doing a different job, ie propping up electromagnetic radiation instead?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by cavediver, posted 01-12-2010 4:03 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by cavediver, posted 01-12-2010 4:54 PM Iblis has not replied
 Message 24 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-12-2010 5:06 PM Iblis has replied
 Message 26 by cavediver, posted 01-12-2010 6:14 PM Iblis has replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 19 of 357 (542792)
01-12-2010 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by New Cat's Eye
01-12-2010 4:29 PM


Re: Matter and Energy
I think it would help, me at least, if you expound on what it is to be an "excitation of a field" and how it differs from a (or part of a) field without an excitation.
I have always thought of it as a flat horizontal rubber sheet that dimples upwards (the reverse of the lead weight gravity example) where the 'taller' the dimple (moving away from a ground state) the more the properties of the field changes.
So photons (a once inch dimple) act differently to gluons (a two inch dimple) as they are different levels of excitation of the field causing different 'real world' effects of the two different partials.
That's how I keep it straight in my head from what Cavediver has said but I'm probably way off track.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-12-2010 4:29 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-12-2010 4:49 PM Larni has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 20 of 357 (542793)
01-12-2010 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Larni
01-12-2010 4:37 PM


Re: Matter and Energy
I have always thought of it as a flat horizontal rubber sheet that dimples upwards (the reverse of the lead weight gravity example) where the 'taller' the dimple (moving away from a ground state) the more the properties of the field changes.
So photons (a once inch dimple) act differently to gluons (a two inch dimple) as they are different levels of excitation of the field causing different 'real world' effects of the two different partials.
That's how I keep it straight in my head from what Cavediver has said but I'm probably way off track.
I've seen cavediver's analogy of a sea, with the surface of the water being the field and all the perturbations being the particles.
And actually, now that I've been thinking about it, I've embarrisngly misread what he was writing. For some reason, when I was reading excitation, I was think more along the lines of "exit" that "excite" and becomming confused as to there being anything exiting the fields, but I should have known it was the exciting of the fields >.<
Now that I've reread, it makes a lot more sense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Larni, posted 01-12-2010 4:37 PM Larni has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by cavediver, posted 01-12-2010 4:59 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 21 of 357 (542794)
01-12-2010 4:54 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Iblis
01-12-2010 4:36 PM


Re: Matter and Energy
And the reason that m amount of matter disappears when c2 worth of e energy is released, is not because they are the same dealie in different forms, but rather because the energy that was being used to stir up the matter out of these underlying fields is now doing a different job, ie propping up electromagnetic radiation instead?
Bingo
ABE: but with the caveat I have appended further down...
Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Iblis, posted 01-12-2010 4:36 PM Iblis has not replied

  
Briterican
Member (Idle past 3948 days)
Posts: 340
Joined: 05-29-2008


Message 22 of 357 (542795)
01-12-2010 4:55 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by cavediver
01-12-2010 4:03 PM


Re: Matter and Energy
cavediver writes:
Let's get it right from the start: matter is not energy; matter is not made of energy; matter is not frozen energy.
In the last hour of digging around I've discovered this and it just makes me want to cry that I have such large gaps in understanding, but I'll give myself a break on this one as I suspect others suffer the same misunderstanding. Thanks for clearing that up right at the start. As a side note, did Einstein have this misunderstanding, or were his comments about "frozen energy" a sort of analogy of the proposed relationships between matter and energy?
cavediver writes:
Our current understanding sees that existence is made up of fields. Each field fills space-time, and they overlap each other perfectly. At each point in space-time, there is a value (set of numbers) associated with each field.
Let me be clear, any questions I ask are not out of incredulity, but rather in an attempt to clarify. I realise we are talking about a model, but in this model there would need to be a method of storing these values. How is that addressed in the model? It might not be a valid question given my low level of comprehension here, but I'll never know if I don't ask.
cavediver writes:
These fields are believed to be different facets of one master unified field, and we see this in Supergravity, string theory, and related extended models.
So it sounds like the model based on fields as you've described has the potential to provide a single explanatory framework that could unify quantum mechanics and relativity. Are there those who think it already does? Are there any theories out there now that purport to provide unification?
cavediver writes:
Energy - what about energy? - energy is merely an accounting system, reflecting conservation of excitations between the fields. Energy is simply quantification of the field excitations - given a particular configuration of excitations at time T1, this limits those configurations at time T2. Does this concept sound like the sort of thing that stuff is made of??? NO!!!
This coincides with things I'm reading about energy conservation and energy transfer. You guys are forcing me to perfect my google search skills, but it is worthwhile.
Thanks for the logical route of your overall explanation, i.e. the individual fields interacting to result in varying degrees of "solidity".
cavediver writes:
Existence is made of the fields - or better, existence IS the fields - is the one master unified field.
So to go back to part of the OP:
Larni writes:
So, where did all the matter and energy contained in the big bang come from or, what form did the matter and energy (for want of more accurate labels) have at that point?
Let me try to rephrase this in light of the model you've described. Firstly, "where did the fields come from" is a premature question. If the model did provide any glimpse into this question, maybe you can save it for later (perhaps an example of the extended meanings of "before" and "outside" you mentioned earlier).
How about the second part though: What form did these fields have at the point of the big bang? Would they have been in any way different than the fields that interact today? What I'm trying to grasp here is, that if the fields fill space-time, then by what mechanism would they continue to fill an expanding space-time?
cavediver writes:
Any clearer? What do you mean, "no!"????
Actually, yeah, it is clearer Thanks for the description of the model and I hope the thread continues to expand on the details.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by cavediver, posted 01-12-2010 4:03 PM cavediver has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Iblis, posted 01-12-2010 5:20 PM Briterican has seen this message but not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 23 of 357 (542796)
01-12-2010 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by New Cat's Eye
01-12-2010 4:49 PM


Re: Matter and Energy
Yep, sounds like you have it now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-12-2010 4:49 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 357 (542797)
01-12-2010 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Iblis
01-12-2010 4:36 PM


Re: Matter and Energy
And the reason that m amount of matter disappears when c2 worth of e energy is released, is not because they are the same dealie in different forms, but rather because the energy that was being used to stir up the matter out of these underlying fields is now doing a different job, ie propping up electromagnetic radiation instead?
I like that. It makes sense.
and its funny that you used the word "dealie"
So matter isn't frozen energy, it's actually boiling space?
I'm thinking the more 'thermal' adjectives could add some confusion though.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Iblis, posted 01-12-2010 4:36 PM Iblis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Iblis, posted 01-12-2010 6:23 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Iblis
Member (Idle past 3895 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 25 of 357 (542799)
01-12-2010 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Briterican
01-12-2010 4:55 PM


a frank Einstein
As a side note, did Einstein have this misunderstanding
Yes, sort of, in the sense that he continually argued against the validity of the quantum mechanics from which these field descriptions are derived.
or were his comments about "frozen energy" a sort of analogy of the proposed relationships between matter and energy?
But you have to keep in mind also that, a lot of the time, the absent-minded professor wasn't really talking about physics per se at all. He was campaigning for genocide. Much of the nonsense we hear about e=mc2 somehow describing what is happening in nuclear chemistry is derived from this three-quarter-century-old propaganda push, and he cooperated in this huge smudging of concepts voluntarily, for a reason.
If he had succeeded in achieving his goal, which was actually blocked by our allies in Europe, then nowadays when we might say "Hiroshima" or else "Dresden", and be talking about different contexts, instead we would just say "Berlin" and roll our eyes twice as hard.
So it sounds like the model based on fields as you've described has the potential to provide a single explanatory framework that could unify quantum mechanics and relativity. Are there those who think it already does? Are there any theories out there now that purport to provide unification?
The most recent discussion of M-theory and related string/superstring GUTs is String! Theory! What is it good for ?!?.
It's where I earned most of these stripes I now wear (on my back.)
Edited by Iblis, : sideline

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Briterican, posted 01-12-2010 4:55 PM Briterican has seen this message but not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 26 of 357 (542801)
01-12-2010 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Iblis
01-12-2010 4:36 PM


Re: Matter and Energy
but rather because the energy that was being used to stir up the matter out of these underlying fields
Just want to drag you away from this sense of energy being 'stuff' - it's not. The energy is a coarse measure of the excitations. Otherwise we are back into wondering where this "energy" came from. The focus is the fields.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Iblis, posted 01-12-2010 4:36 PM Iblis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Iblis, posted 01-13-2010 6:43 PM cavediver has not replied

  
Iblis
Member (Idle past 3895 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 27 of 357 (542803)
01-12-2010 6:23 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by New Cat's Eye
01-12-2010 5:06 PM


Re: Matter and Energy
I'm thinking the more 'thermal' adjectives could add some confusion though.
Yep, I led with my clash of cliches and then tried to explain what I meant in the second paragraph.
But I do like the thermal analogy to describe energy, it has a lot going for it. Energy is the potential to do work, expressed as heat it is a measurement of the vibration of the molecules of air or water or whatever being heated. This is a nice macro example of the same sort of thing the quantum energy is really describing, isn't it?
But frozen means having less energy, and "frozen energy" is thus an oxymoron.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-12-2010 5:06 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 357 (542820)
01-13-2010 12:47 AM


Skeptics Dilema
Having read the thread so far the question remains in my mind how the expansion could have happened, having no time in which to have happened, no space in which to have existed and no outside of in which to expand.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Iblis, posted 01-13-2010 1:45 AM Buzsaw has replied

  
Iblis
Member (Idle past 3895 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 29 of 357 (542824)
01-13-2010 1:45 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Buzsaw
01-13-2010 12:47 AM


Re: Skeptics Dilemma
Having read the thread so far the question remains in my mind how the expansion could have happened, having no time in which to have happened, no space in which to have existed and no outside of in which to expand.
Yeah! Ain't it coool?
There's whatever, a mild confusion here which I will talk through while we wait for the brainiacs to smite you.
Relativity observes the expansion, works its way backwards to the alleged singularity where this no-space no-time infinite-density no-outside stuff might apply, which is really the place where their rewind would arrive at a division-by-zero buffer overflow. And they say Well, we certainly have to stop short of that. Then they step back, look at their 4d spacetime, visualize a hypersphere, and say Ok, that's not really an origin, it's just an arbitrary point on the supersurface like the North Pole. "God does not play Secret Santa with the universe!"
A philosopher at this point can imagine himself standing "outside" the universe and interfering with the past present and future, shaping whatever he wants out of it in his own sweet time, if he wants to. But seriously, he has no place to stand and no time to waste, and no way to reach in and do stuff. Hold that thought, though.
Quantum Mechanics laughs, looks at the alleged singularity, and says Well, we certainly have to start sometime after that. Then they do some awesome Free Lunch math, make Something out of Nothing, and requisition another trillion dollars to light their Very Large Ganja Collider with. Does that mean we don't have to divide by zero? Dunno, why do you ask that? Geez man, that question is so 10-36 seconds ago.
Here's Son Goku's awesome chronology again from Why Is Stuff Round? Notice what the very first bit says. Message 27
Between 0 and 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 seconds:
We don't have a clue, although String theory hopes to describe this era. General Relativity stops working and we need to take into account quantum effects on gravity (we presume). Probably our notions of time and space, in fact possibly any single notion we have at all does not make sense. Terra Incognita.
Between 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 and 0.00000000000000000000000000000000001 seconds:
There are a few things we do know with some certainty:
There were probably only two forces, gravity and the electronuclear force. The temperature of the universe was about 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 Kelvin or in shorter words about 100 septillion degrees. The particles that we know today did not really exist, there was no real difference between quarks, neutrinos and electrons yet. What was a single particle back then would manifest itself as two particles now for example. Electric charge didn't exist and neither did the color nuclear charge of quarks.
The universe grew from fist sized to melon sized.
Between 0.00000000000000000000000000000000001 and 0.0000000000000000000000000000001 seconds:
Here we begin to be more certain. The electronuclear force splits into the strong nuclear force and the electroweak force. Quarks and electrons are now different, although neutrinos and electrons are still the same. We are very sure of this.
We suspect that one of the after effects of the forces separating was the result that matter became slightly more common than antimatter.
We suspect that at this time the universe went from being the size of a melon to billions of light years. We are not exactly certain when in this period the huge jump in size happened or what caused it. We suspect it pumped the universe full of more matter with the energy released by it. Eventually this super expansion (inflation) stops and the universe returns to expanding at normal rates.
Between 0.00000000000000000000000000000000001 and 0.000000000001 seconds:
Physics that we properly understand is now in effect. The universe is very large and filled with quarks and electron/neutrinos. The strong force controls the quarks and the electroweak force controls both quarks and electron/neutrinos. The universe continues to expand at normal rates. This is certain.
If supersymmetry is true, then at some point in this period it stopped having an obvious effect on the universe. Supersymmetry says that every particle species has a "twin" species with different spin, at some point in this period the universe became too cold for the twins to exist.
Between 0.000000000001 and 0.000001 seconds:
From now on things are certain unless otherwise indicated. The physics that we see today starts. The electroweak force separates into the electromagnetic force and the weak nuclear force. Electrons and neutrinos start to exist as separate entities. Electric charge and electric current as we know it begin to exist and also light comes into existence. The universe is basically a very hot soup of these particles.
Between 0.000001 seconds and 1 second:
Finally the universe is cold enough to allow quarks to combine into protons and neutrons and other hadrons (name for particles made of quarks), taking us one step closer to having atoms. The universe is now made of hadrons, electrons, neutrinos, anti-hadrons, anti-electrons and anti-neutrinos.
Eventually it is too cold for new hadrons and anti-hadrons to be created, at this point production of these particles effectively ceases. Hadrons and anti-hadrons now begin annihilating each other until there are basically no anti-hadrons left and only a few hadrons. The surviving hadrons are a miniscule fraction of the original amount, but they will form the whole universe we see today.
Electrons, neutrinos, anti-electrons and anti-neutrinos now vastly out number hadrons.
1 second to 376,000 years:
In the next few seconds the universe becomes too cold for new electrons, neutrinos, anti-electrons and anti-neutrinos to be created. Just like the hadrons, they begin to annihilate. Leaving only a tiny bit of the original amount. Essentially no new matter will be created again.
The temperature continues to drop, until it is cold enough for protons and neutrons to stick together forming atomic nuclei. This continues until the universe is 16-17 minutes old, when the temperature drops beneath millions of degrees. This creates mostly hydrogen and helium nuclei.
The universe is now made mostly of light trapped between the hydrogen and helium nuclei and the electrons and stays that way for thousands of years.
At around 70,000 years the universe stops being just a big soup and starts to become clumpy. Irregularities start to develop. Dark Matter probably causes the irregularities to develop, until the universe goes from being a soup to being a bunch of lumps separated by emptiness. This is the first point at which Dark Matter is noticeable.
376,000 years to 150 million years:
The universe becomes cold enough for the hydrogen and helium nuclei to capture the electrons, creating hydrogen and helium atoms. Matter is now electrically neutral and light escapes and begins to move freely. However nothing makes light, so after this initial burst at 376,000 years the universe becomes dark.
150 million to 1 billion years:
Isolated energetic objects begin to exist. That is objects which are hot, independent of the background temperature of the universe. The first big black holes form, sucking in the surrounding matter and blasting out jets of radiation. These huge black holes together with their accretion disks (the spiral of matter surrounding them) are called quasars. The first stars begin to form, outside of galaxies. Eventually the quasars will settle down to become galaxies. The earliest stars produce the heavier elements in their interiors, adding something other than hydrogen and helium to the universe.
The galaxies begin arranging themselves into groups through complex gravitational interactions. On larger scales the groups assemble into clusters. The clusters into superclusters. Finally superclusters string together to form filaments.
1 billion years to 8.5 billion years:
New generations of stars are produced in galaxies.
I could go on from here to our galaxies formation and then our solar system, but I don't want to be "Earth-centric". At this point the present day structure of the universe has developed, except one more event occurs.
8.5 billion to 9 billion years:
The universe starts to expand faster again, although not at the speeds as the early super expansion (inflation). It begins to expand faster and faster as time passes and continues to today. It is suspected that a new form of energy, dark energy, is responsible.
That's right, We Don't Have A Clue.
Now M-Theory and its relatives go beyond this, they postulate other spacetimes or "branes" and 11 dimensions worth of manifold for them to interact in. This is super-duper-awesome stuff, it will probably require a Jumbo Ultra Cheech&Chong Stellar Collider to actually test. But it does say stuff about the alleged singularity and/or brane collision thingie, but it gets by by giving up this no-outside no-spacetime divide-by-infinity boondoggle and replacing it with, well
If you would like to discuss earth as one brane (earth in the sense of a universe) and heaven as another brane having different natural laws and being able to somehow interfere with us in a non-linear extra-dimensional fashion, you are welcome to launch such ruminations in String! Theory! What is it good for ?!?. Do read along first though, so you understand how it works a bit. Good luck!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Buzsaw, posted 01-13-2010 12:47 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Buzsaw, posted 01-13-2010 6:29 PM Iblis has replied

  
thingamabob
Junior Member (Idle past 2616 days)
Posts: 23
From: New Jerusalem
Joined: 02-26-2009


Message 30 of 357 (542858)
01-13-2010 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by cavediver
01-12-2010 4:03 PM


Re: Existence
cavediver writes:
Our current understanding sees that existence is made up of fields.
Where did all that existence that is made up of fields came from?
thing,

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by cavediver, posted 01-12-2010 4:03 PM cavediver has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Larni, posted 01-13-2010 1:14 PM thingamabob has not replied
 Message 32 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-13-2010 1:45 PM thingamabob has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024