|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Where did the matter and energy come from? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sasuke Member (Idle past 5183 days) Posts: 137 Joined: |
Greetings,
It's my understanding that the old idea of a "universe" is obsolete. The current idea is that there is a "multiverse" and that "universes" spring into existence from a larger space. This larger space is unstable and this is why "universes" are born from it. Another way universes spring into existence is when energy is pact into a infinately dense state which leads to a expansion. This energy that is packed into a infinately dense state is done via blackholes that exist in a universe and are born from the death of quasars in that universe. When blackholes have fed enough energy into this stored chamber(infinately dense state) the energy has no option but to expand the space it's stored in and when this happens whiteholes are born. Eventually this process leads to an evitable universe like ours born from another universe. ThanksSasuke P.S. Nothing wrong with saying before the BB with this multiverse model. References: Dr. Machio Kaku interview BBC video Edited by Sasuke, : Concept error Edited by Sasuke, : References Edited by Sasuke, : Spelling error
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Meldinoor Member (Idle past 4837 days) Posts: 400 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Buzsaw writes: Imo, progressing from the alleged singularity to the magnitude of complexity observed today would require an illogical and phenomenal aggregate decrease of entropy; impossible, even. And this is where you are wrong. Admittedly, the Universe may contain more interesting stuff now than it did shortly after the expansion. Things like stars, planets, people, etc. But entropy doesn't measure the "prettiness" of the Universe. Ever heard of Cosmic Background Radiation? COBE (the Cosmic Background Observer) detected differences in temperature in the early universe. See hereIn a universe that was fully run down, where entropy was high, we would not see these temperature differences; the "seeds" of galaxies as it were. The universe today exhibits more entropy than back then, just like it will have more entropy in another 15 billion years. Nowhere is any law of thermodynamics violated. Respectfully, -Meldinoor Edited by Meldinoor, : Changed subtitle
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sasuke Member (Idle past 5183 days) Posts: 137 Joined: |
Meldinoor,
products of the struggle to fight against the wear and tear of the cosmos... ThanksSasuke
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
This larger space is unstable and this is why "universes" are born from it. Well, it asserts the state of a region of space for creation ex nilo but not the why of it.
When blackholes have feed enough energy into this stored chamber(infinately dense state) the energy has no option but to expand the space it's stored in and when this happens whiteholes are born. I thought black holes evaporate via Hawking radiation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sasuke Member (Idle past 5183 days) Posts: 137 Joined: |
Hey Larni,
Larni writes: Well, it asserts the state of a region of space for creation ex nilo but not the why of it. You mean the "how of it?" that is the "why of it?". Why does it happen? Because the space is unstable. "How of it?" = Has never been observed so there is no way to know HOW it happens.
Sasuke writes: When blackholes have feed enough energy into this stored chamber(infinately dense state) the energy has no option but to expand the space it's stored in and when this happens whiteholes are born.Larni writes:
I thought black holes evaporate via Hawking radiation. In reality, what happens is completely speculative since we're talking about singularities. It could be that matter is fed into a singularity only for it to inevitably feed into darkmatter and in which case expands our comos creating gravity. ThanksSasuke Edited by Sasuke, : Argument
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13042 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
A matter/energy discussion broke out over at the How did round planets form from the explosion of the Big Bang? thread, and I requested that that discussion move over here.
I haven't reviewed this thread yet, but just in case, let me say this: I don't care how many times you've explained this stuff, please do not post impatient and denigrating responses. Either respond helpfully and constructively, or don't respond at all. I've read many layperson books about modern advances in our understanding of physics and cosmology (e.g., Brian Greene's books), but I found the matter/energy descriptions over at How did round planets form from the explosion of the Big Bang? difficult to follow. So please just assume that these concepts are not simple, give people a break, boil it down and make it as simple as you can, and repeat the explanations as often as necessary. You have an audience, don't alienate them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MatterWave Member (Idle past 5059 days) Posts: 87 Joined: |
Mathematics says NOTHING about what an electron is. cavediver writes: Actually, it says everything - that is the bizarre revelation of fundemental physics, and marks the boundary between the classical physics of "stuff" with properties, and the modern realisation that there is no "stuff". It's the task of physics to account for our observations and i don't see this purely platonic approach as a viable tool to explain these observations. There must, in principle, be more than a mere description.
MatterWave writes: It's been proposed that there is an electron and an accompanying wave at the same time, that the particle electron does not exist and there is never any collapse, but just an apporximation(illusion) of it, that there is an electron only when you measure it, etc. ect. cavediver writes: You are confusing our existing discussion with that of quantum mechanical interpretation. Although that is an interesting topic, once you get away from the sloppy layman terminology, it is largely irrelevant for our discussion here as it actually sits at a higher level. Agreed, I was actually trying to keep this discussion as simple as possible, while still making clear that it's not a settled issue what "matter" is. At least not until a local realist picture of matter emerges somehow(which seems pretty much impossibe at this time). Or there are new insights that confirm both experiments and at the same time explain observations.
cavediver writes: When I say electron, I mean a one-electron state. I don't care that you are upset that this could be interpreted as a matter wave, localised particle, or whatever. Which of these all depends upon the environmental conditions of which you, as an observer, are part. That's certainly a valid way of looking at it, but not the only one and not something that's generally agreed upon. Decoherence lacks the explanatory powers that some circles wish to attribute to it. And what the "environment" constitutes is anything but clear, in light of the EPR, the Delayed choice experiment, the murky correspondence between configuration and 3D space, etc.
MatterWave writes: Maths only lets you calculate probability, charge, charge density, spin... it says nothing about the nature of the "entity" being described. cavediver writes: Hmm, what is this "nature" and what is the "entity"? That was actually my question.
cavediver writes: And do these characteristics enter into our observations? Some yes. You sure have(or have seen) polarized sunglasses.
cavediver writes: If I have a set of quantum numbers describing an electron state, then what am I missing? The realist picture that's essential for someone claiming to know what "matter" is. That "stuff" might be fundamentally mathematics is not(yet) the mainstream view. So while there is circumstantial evidence that might support such a view, I maintain that it's simply a viewpoint that fits the evidence that comes out of experiemnts, not the de facto accepted fundamental description of matter. There is always the possibility that inductive reasoning is beginning to fail. Edited by MatterWave, : No reason given. Edited by MatterWave, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3672 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
It's the task of physics to account for our observations and i don't see this purely platonic approach as a viable tool to explain these observations. What observations are we failing to explain?
There must, in principle, be more than a mere description. Must there?
while still making clear that it's not a settled issue what "matter" is. Again, you are using the word matter far too loosely for this conversation. What do you mean by "matter"?
but not the only one and not something that's generally agreed upon. Decoherence lacks the explanatory powers that some circles wish to attribute to it. What I am describing does not only apply to decoherence - I am not using environment in that strict context.
And what the "environment" constitutes is anything but clear, in light of the EPR, the Delayed choice experiment There is very little that is murky in either EPR and delayed choice.
Some yes. You sure have(or have seen) polarized sunglasses. What results can I obtain from polarized sunglasses that are not explained by photon quantum numbers?
That "stuff" might be fundamentally mathematics is not(yet) the mainstream view. So while there is circumstantial evidence that might support such a view, I maintain that it's simply a viewpoint that fits the evidence that comes out of experiemnts Yep, that's sort of what we do in science. But I am certainly not pushing the strong platonic view. I am merely explaining what we use and understand in fundemental physics. The QM agonisers can worry about interpretations, and we'll just keep going, building our understanding.
not the de facto accepted fundamental description of matter. Again, your hang-up on the word matter... What is it about spin-1/2 that so confuses you, where-as integer spin is not an issue?
There is always the possibility that inductive reasoning is beginning to fail. Evidence? Edited by cavediver, : No reason given. Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4046 Joined: Member Rating: 7.4
|
Hi Sasuke,
quote: In reality, what happens is completely speculative since we're talking about singularities. It could be that matter is fed into a singularity only for it to inevitably feed into darkmatter and in which case expands our comos creating gravity. "Speculative" isn;t really a very good choice of words. Hawking radiation is not just an idea the good Prof. came up with one day - it's based on mathematics derived from our observations and understanding of the Universe - much the same way we derive the existence of black holes in teh first place. Hawking radiation is the process by which virtual matter/antimatter particle pairs (which spontaneously generate and annihilate all the time) are partially captured by the gravity well of teh black hole (one particle is caught, and the other escapes) instead of annihilating. Conservation of mass means that the black hole loses mass in the transaction. It's theorized that tiny black holes (the sort that may be created in the Large Hadron Collider) will evaporate nearly instantly due to Hawking radiation while larger black holes will be around for quite some time (the mass of a single particle being much more significant for an object with the mass of a few protons than, say, something with the mass of a thousand stars). But firther, your description of black holes is way out in left field. I;m not saying this to be insulting, Sasuke, I;m simply pointing out some very basic errors.
When blackholes have feed enough energy into this stored chamber(infinately dense state) Black holes do not have a "chamber." Black holes are the result of collapsed stars, where matter has become super-dense. I know you understand that part - the thing is, a black hole is still just an ultradense collection of matter/energy. The marked difference between a black hole and other forms of ultradense matter (like a neutron star) is the event horizon - the radius beyond the actual singularity where the spacetime distortion is so great that even light is curved into the singularity and cannot escape. The way I conceptualize this is to imagine that all matter has an event horizon - except that it's such a tiny radius that the actual size of each particle is larger than the radius of the event horizon. Black holes are objects where normal matter has collapsed to such a density that the event horizon's radius is larger than the actual object. I'm sure this is an inaccurate conceptualization - it just helps me understand at the macroscale how we can talk about black holes having sizes ranging from the mass of a few protons to thousands of stellar masses. The object itself is referred to as the "singularity," but that isn't much of a term. "Singularity" is just a word that means "our math isn't working any more; standard physics models don't apply here." A singularity is not a container, or even really a "thing."
the energy has no option but to expand the space it's stored in and when this happens whiteholes are born. This is where you leave the ballpark altogether. "White holes" have not been observed to exist. There is no boundary on the size of a black hole where they "Expand the space they're stored in." Black holes are not "stored in" anything. The event horizon of a black hole increases as it accumulates more mass, but that;s simply because additional mass causes a greater and greater distortion in spacetime. Black holes do not explode into "white holes." Take a look at the Wiki entry for black holes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MatterWave Member (Idle past 5059 days) Posts: 87 Joined: |
What observations are we failing to explain? Our subjective experience.
Must there? Yes, if you think there is something that resembles a world.
Again, you are using the word matter far too loosely for this conversation. What do you mean by "matter"? The general definition - that which occupies volume and has mass.
There is very little that is murky in either EPR and delayed choice. I agree that the interpretation of the EPR and Delayed Choice Experiment withits retrocausality and action-at-a-distance is not murky. It's completely missing, as far as the macro world is concerned(where matter as defined above resides). cavediver writes: What results can I obtain from polarized sunglasses that are not explained byphoton quantum numbers? You asked:
cavediver writes: And do these characteristics enter into our observations? and i replied:
MatterWave writes: Some yes. You sure have(or have seen) polarized sunglasses. cavediver writes: Yep, that's sort of what we do in science. But I am certainly not pushing the strongplatonic view. I am merely explaining what we use and understand in fundemental physics. The QM agonisers can worry about interpretations, and we'll just keep going, building our understanding. You can't know nature, reality and even what matter is without a proper interpretation of what theresults of experiments mean. What is this "matter" that gets manifested out of quantum fields that permeat all of spacetime under certain circumstances? If you can't answer this question, how could you know what matter is? Do you claim to have knowledge that eigenvalues and eigenstates of a single wave function are not realized in different universes? If you don't, how does this support your position that there is some form of concensus on what matter is? Again, there is no consensus on what matter is, in terms of the wave-particle duality. cavediver writes: Again, your hang-up on the word matter... What is it about spin-1/2 that so confuses you, where-asinteger spin is not an issue? The OP was asking about the relationship between matter and energy and my position was thatwhat and how matter is(beyond a mere descrption of properties), is disputed and the debate is ongoing. MatterWave writes: There is always the possibility that inductive reasoning is beginning to fail. cavediver writes: Evidence? The largely missing ontologies of our best tested theories - GR and QM might be interpreted to suggest this.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3672 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
I agree that the interpretation of the EPR and Delayed Choice Experiment with its retrocausality and action-at-a-distance is not murky. There is no retro-causality nor action-at-a-distance in either of EPR and delayed choice. You are falling for the spin. Similarly with your comments about wave-partcile duality. This is basic stuff in QM, but always talked up into spooky bullshit by those who don't know better. As for the rest, it does not belong in this thread. Your problem is not a lack of definiton of matter, which is well-defined despite your protestations, but a lack of definition of consciousness, and that which creates the subjective experience of reality. While I do have my ideas, they are, like everyone else's, highly subjective and fanciful to some degree. And not for this thread...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MatterWave Member (Idle past 5059 days) Posts: 87 Joined: |
cavediver writes: There is no retro-causality nor action-at-a-distance in either of EPR and delayed choice. You are falling for the spin. Similarly with your comments about wave-partcile duality. This is basic stuff in QM, but always talked up into spooky bullshit by those who don't know better. Bell-Aspect and Wheeler delayed-choice experiments are easily understood only if the state vector is all that exists.
cavediver writes: As for the rest, it does not belong in this thread. Your problem is not a lack of definiton of matter, which is well-defined despite your protestations, but a lack of definition of consciousness, and that which creates the subjective experience of reality. While I do have my ideas, they are, like everyone else's, highly subjective and fanciful to some degree. And not for this thread... At the level of treating matter to engineer new products and technologies, it is pretty well defined and understood, there is no question about it. However, questions like "What is matter?", "What is energy?", "What is spacetime?"(asked by Sasuke in post 65 in EvC Forum: How did round planets form from the explosion of the Big Bang?, that started this debate),... require a deeper understanding than the one we currently have.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lyx2no Member (Idle past 4745 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined: |
The way I conceptualize this is to imagine that all matter has an event horizon - except that it's such a tiny radius that the actual size of each particle is larger than the radius of the event horizon. Black holes are objects where normal matter has collapsed to such a density that the event horizon's radius is larger than the actual object. I'm sure this is an inaccurate conceptualization - it just helps me understand at the macroscale how we can talk about black holes having sizes ranging from the mass of a few protons to thousands of stellar masses. This is the meter-mass equivalent. Its conversion factor is kg=7.424×10-28m. This is analogous to the meter-time equivalent, sec=2.998×108m. Both serve the purpose of keeping all the units the same in calculations. AbE: Of course, it's not an event horizon unless the mass is tucked into that space. The meter-mass equivalent of the Earth, ME, is 0.444cm. But were we to dig a hole down to 0.444cm we'd not find ourselves within the event horizon of the Earth. In fact we'd be practically weightless. Edited by lyx2no, : Formating. Edited by lyx2no, : Lurker addendum. You are now a million miles away from where you were in space-time when you started reading this sentence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sasuke Member (Idle past 5183 days) Posts: 137 Joined: |
Rahvin,
But none of this, what happens on the other side of a blackhole has been theorized yet. It's still very speculative or maybe hypothetical regardless of the evidence because they have not been able to validate their claims in majority... Edited by Sasuke, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Iblis Member (Idle past 3924 days) Posts: 663 Joined: |
I explain waveforms and the Delayed-Choice experiment in totally non-murky terms at Message 188. Since then cavediver has explained EPR in Quantum Entanglement - what is it?, to the point where eventually even me and Percy got it (Message 207 and thereabouts), and also covered solitonics at Message 36, a clue to how matter appears to form out of fields.
I'm not chasing you off, feel free to ask questions about matter and energy here based on what you find there, and/or slap around anything that still seems "murky".
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024