Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Where did the matter and energy come from?
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 31 of 357 (542884)
01-13-2010 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by thingamabob
01-13-2010 11:52 AM


Re: Existence
Where did all that existence that is made up of fields came from?
That's the topic of this thread so stay tuned.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by thingamabob, posted 01-13-2010 11:52 AM thingamabob has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Briterican, posted 01-14-2010 2:56 PM Larni has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 357 (542889)
01-13-2010 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by thingamabob
01-13-2010 11:52 AM


Re: Existence
Where did all that existence that is made up of fields came from?
I don't think they "came from" anywhere/thing.
Where did god come from?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by thingamabob, posted 01-13-2010 11:52 AM thingamabob has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Buzsaw, posted 01-13-2010 5:39 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 357 (542914)
01-13-2010 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by New Cat's Eye
01-13-2010 1:45 PM


Re: Existence
CS writes:
I don't think they "came from" anywhere/thing.
Where did god come from?
Hi CS. According to the literal reading and implications of the Biblical record, God was eternal. Thus he, existing in the cosmos of the universe, the universe, including all energy and matter. All energy and matter has been eterna in some form or anotherl and eternally managed via work of the supreme creator. The basic laws of heat all applied, subject to work by the designer.
This is not the case with BB theory. Thus the mystery of origins relative to this topic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-13-2010 1:45 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Briterican, posted 01-14-2010 2:50 PM Buzsaw has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 357 (542920)
01-13-2010 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Iblis
01-13-2010 1:45 AM


Re: Skeptics Dilemma
Hi Iblis. Thanks for the thoughtful response.
Iblis writes:
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.
Ah Ha! So relativity, relative to the aleged singularity begins in the mind of humans who observe a current expansion in the observable cosmos. Assuming relative (I say relative) uniformity, a hypothesis is advanced to become peered theory, calculating back billions of years when the calculations arrive at T=0, beyond which point the theory fails, having no space for existence of any force, energy or matter, no time to have existed in and no explanation validating the relative uniformity assumptions which rule the day in the science arena.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Iblis, posted 01-13-2010 1:45 AM Iblis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Iblis, posted 01-15-2010 1:18 AM Buzsaw has replied

  
Iblis
Member (Idle past 3896 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 35 of 357 (542923)
01-13-2010 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by cavediver
01-12-2010 6:14 PM


grammarye
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.
Yep, got it long since, in elementary physics, hence my fondness for Maxwell and his patron.
Energy isn't a real noun at all, it's a verb form, similar to infinitives like "vibrating" and "propagating" but more general; which is useful since the vibrating of the hydrogen turning into helium can become the propagating of the light can become the vibrating and propagating of the electricity can become the vibrating of the grill can become the propagating of the heat can become the vibrating of my soup, mmmm good.
Energy in a sense is a generic infinitive for all real-world verbs: not just doing verbs like running and hitting and shoveling and exploding but also being verbs as well, as you are demonstrating here. But the stuff a lot of people think of as energy, like light and electricity and gasoline, actually does consist of stuff (the photon, the electron, the exxon) so you may want to sort that out when you get the chance.
Edited by Iblis, : e = mc hawking

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by cavediver, posted 01-12-2010 6:14 PM cavediver has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 36 of 357 (542990)
01-14-2010 10:10 AM


So how does this all work with the energy released by both the electromagnetic fields (photochemical reactions) and nuclear reactions (strong and weak forces)?

  
Briterican
Member (Idle past 3949 days)
Posts: 340
Joined: 05-29-2008


Message 37 of 357 (543008)
01-14-2010 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Buzsaw
01-13-2010 5:39 PM


Re: Existence
Hi Buzsaw
Buzsaw writes:
All energy and matter has been eterna in some form or anotherl and eternally managed via work of the supreme creator.
Evidence please Buz. A large amount of evidence exists that supports the big bang theory, and the fact that the theory doesn't address the ultimate origin question (in the same way that the ToE doesn't address abiogenesis) doesn't suddenly mean all that evidence is flawed somehow. We simply have no way of knowing what did or didn't exist or occur outside of our universe, and quite possibly never will. We talk about the big bang theory and the expanding universe because of a preponderance of evidence supporting it.
Positing "the supreme creator" doesn't get us any closer to understanding things on a rational basis, and since this is the science forums, I think it is important that we discuss things on a rational basis.
(PS - as a side note thanks for your civil reply to my somewhat uncivilsed rant against you on the Jesus thread. Apologies for having forgotten my manners.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Buzsaw, posted 01-13-2010 5:39 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Buzsaw, posted 01-15-2010 12:58 PM Briterican has replied

  
Briterican
Member (Idle past 3949 days)
Posts: 340
Joined: 05-29-2008


Message 38 of 357 (543009)
01-14-2010 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Larni
01-13-2010 1:14 PM


Are the fields eternal, or are they multiplying?
Hi Larni
Where did all that existence that is made up of fields came from?
That's the topic of this thread so stay tuned.
My guess is that the model described by cavediver doesn't really get any closer to answering this question than anything we haven't already heard. It seems more of a philosophical question.
I DO however hope that cavediver or others can address a query I made earlier that has gone unanswered...
How does this model account for the expansion of space in relation to the fields? Does each field expand along with space? Do the "gaps" made by expansion get filled in with new fields?
I think it is safe to say the fields must be incredibly tiny, at least as tiny as a quark I would guess. So... does the model say anything about the continuous existence of all the fields since the beginning of time, or does it suggest that new fields come into existence? Or are these questions not addressed by the model?
Edited by Briterican, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Larni, posted 01-13-2010 1:14 PM Larni has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by cavediver, posted 01-14-2010 3:39 PM Briterican has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3644 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 39 of 357 (543014)
01-14-2010 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Briterican
01-14-2010 2:56 PM


Re: Are the fields eternal, or are they multiplying?
I think it is safe to say the fields must be incredibly tiny
No - I think you need to read through my posts again, but with the following in mind: each field fills the entirety of space-time - from the beginning of time to its end (if such boundaries exist.) There is only one electron field, and every electron in existence is just a little bump, excitation, or wavelet in that field. Similarly for the photon field, and all of the others.
How does this model account for the expansion of space in relation to the fields?
Expansion is a much higher level concept than the fields themselves. Don't forget that distance itself is just a case of the values of the grvaiton field, and so expansion is simply the values in the graviton field increasing as time increases. Although the values in the graviton field will affect the dynamics in the other fields, it would be a mistake to think of the fields as "expanding" - expansion is something we perceive with our coarse high-level emergent persepctive.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Briterican, posted 01-14-2010 2:56 PM Briterican has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-14-2010 3:44 PM cavediver has replied
 Message 41 by Briterican, posted 01-14-2010 4:26 PM cavediver has replied
 Message 42 by Taq, posted 01-14-2010 4:44 PM cavediver has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 357 (543015)
01-14-2010 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by cavediver
01-14-2010 3:39 PM


Re: Are the fields eternal, or are they multiplying?
each field fills the entirety of space-time
What kind of relationship do the fields have to each other?
Are they like layers or a lamellar structure, or something?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by cavediver, posted 01-14-2010 3:39 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by cavediver, posted 01-14-2010 5:11 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Briterican
Member (Idle past 3949 days)
Posts: 340
Joined: 05-29-2008


Message 41 of 357 (543022)
01-14-2010 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by cavediver
01-14-2010 3:39 PM


Re: Are the fields eternal, or are they multiplying?
cavediver writes:
There is only one electron field, and every electron in existence is just a little bump, excitation, or wavelet in that field. Similarly for the photon field, and all of the others.
Thanks for that, it is a distinction I hadn't appreciated.
cavediver writes:
Although the values in the graviton field will affect the dynamics in the other fields, it would be a mistake to think of the fields as "expanding" - expansion is something we perceive with our coarse high-level emergent persepctive.
That is a further helpful way of thinking about it.
The idea of the "values" is still perplexing me. I'm unclear about how the values would be stored, although someone did mention something earlier about a value being analagous to pit or bulge of varying depth/height.
It must be difficult to explain the details in layman's terms, and I thank you for taking the time to do so.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by cavediver, posted 01-14-2010 3:39 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by cavediver, posted 01-14-2010 5:16 PM Briterican has seen this message but not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 42 of 357 (543025)
01-14-2010 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by cavediver
01-14-2010 3:39 PM


Re: Are the fields eternal, or are they multiplying?
There is only one electron field, and every electron in existence is just a little bump, excitation, or wavelet in that field. Similarly for the photon field, and all of the others.
Is this true for the strong and weak nuclear forces?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by cavediver, posted 01-14-2010 3:39 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by cavediver, posted 01-14-2010 5:03 PM Taq has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3644 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 43 of 357 (543026)
01-14-2010 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Taq
01-14-2010 4:44 PM


Re: Are the fields eternal, or are they multiplying?
Is this true for the strong and weak nuclear forces?
Yes, absolutely. There is the SU(3) field of QCD(strong) which gives rise to the gluons, and the associated matter fields of the quarks. And the electroweak fields giving rise to the W+/-, Z0, and photon fields (following electroweak symmetry breaking)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Taq, posted 01-14-2010 4:44 PM Taq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Larni, posted 01-15-2010 10:11 AM cavediver has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3644 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 44 of 357 (543027)
01-14-2010 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by New Cat's Eye
01-14-2010 3:44 PM


Re: Are the fields eternal, or are they multiplying?
What kind of relationship do the fields have to each other?
Are they like layers or a lamellar structure, or something?
There is no dimension for them to layer "through" - they overlap perfectly - but we often picture them as layers, and use the analogy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-14-2010 3:44 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Iblis, posted 01-14-2010 5:15 PM cavediver has not replied
 Message 47 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-14-2010 5:26 PM cavediver has not replied

  
Iblis
Member (Idle past 3896 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 45 of 357 (543028)
01-14-2010 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by cavediver
01-14-2010 5:11 PM


Re: Are the fields eternal, or are they multiplying?
There is no dimension for them to layer "through" - they overlap perfectly - but we often picture them as layers, and use the analogy.
Might another good analogy be to think of them as different "frequencies" of the original single field? This seems to be the implication of the various points of symmetry-breaking in Son Goku's calendar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by cavediver, posted 01-14-2010 5:11 PM cavediver 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