Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Where did the matter and energy come from?
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 76 of 357 (543625)
01-19-2010 9:49 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by MatterWave
01-19-2010 1:57 PM


Off Topic...sorry, couldn't help it.
require a deeper understanding than the one we currently have.
No it doesn't. The world as described by physics does exist as is, however yes, it is quite different from what we normally refer to as the physical world (since the physical world is represented as each individuals subjective world - described by our conscious experiences).
The world as we perceive it is one representation produced by processes in the brain interacting with real energies, real matter, in the world - which models the nature of the realities in which we are embedded.
What you seem to be getting at is that what we see needs to be more objectively ontological, right? If I'm correct in that assessment, you seem to be confusing the subjective/objective relationship as two seperate things when it's actually one and the same.
Here's a thought experiement:
Say I'm studying your brain, and for this example lets say I can pin point the exact neural correlates of any given experience. Lets say the experience is you looking at a book and I'm the scientist inspecting your brain.
We are both getting a representation of the book. You subjectively in your mind. And me by objectively viewing the neural functions.
At first glace it would seem that what I see, as the scientist, has more objective ontological status than what you see. But that is incorrect. The easiest way to see that it's incorrect is that our roles are interchangeable. I can now look at the book and you look at my brain, making you the scientist and me the subject.
But why are my experiences of the book now suddenly subjective, however, when I was the scientist, my experiences of studying your brain that was looking at the book was objective?
Point is, it's all the same thing, and nothing deeper has to be taken into account due to subjective experiences.
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by MatterWave, posted 01-19-2010 1:57 PM MatterWave has not replied

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


Message 77 of 357 (543811)
01-20-2010 9:04 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by cavediver
01-19-2010 12:51 PM


Re: mass has energy
But your title leaves me a little queasy - energy has mass would be much better.
Oh I don't like this! You just went to some trouble to at least lay the groundwork for an understanding that energy isn't a thing at all, but rather a measurement. Now you are treating it like something, something which has qualities like mass. You are at least going to have to explain what mass is now.
My bet is that an even better title would be "mass is energy."
* from Message 90
Edited by Iblis, : topic hop

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by cavediver, posted 01-19-2010 12:51 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by cavediver, posted 01-21-2010 3:47 AM Iblis has not replied

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


Message 78 of 357 (543821)
01-21-2010 3:47 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by Iblis
01-20-2010 9:04 PM


Re: mass has energy
energy isn't a thing at all, but rather a measurement. Now you are treating it like something, something which has qualities like mass.
Think of it in the loose sense of - a circumference has a length, but lengths don't have circumferences It's a hierarchy of measurements. Too busy right now but I'll explain all this is my forthcoming summary.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Iblis, posted 01-20-2010 9:04 PM Iblis has not replied

  
hawkes nightmare
Junior Member (Idle past 5028 days)
Posts: 28
Joined: 01-26-2010


Message 79 of 357 (544675)
01-27-2010 8:33 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by cavediver
01-12-2010 4:03 PM


Re: Mass Has Energy
the big bang started with all of the matter in the universe suddenly being sucked in to a space smaller than this period . , then blown apart again. What caused the vaccuum? what was the point? those are the questions that should be asked.
Edited by hawkes nightmare, : No reason given.

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

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


Message 80 of 357 (544857)
01-28-2010 7:17 PM


Some terminology
Ok, this is long overdue. We started this thread with some specifics about matter and fields, but there's stil confusion with the terms matter, force, energy and mass.
Matter: forget colloquial use - matter refers to fermions or spin 1/2 particles. These obey the Pauli Exclusion Principle (PEP), which restricts their number but allows them to build up into structure, such as nuclei and entire atoms. But tangible "stuff" is not just matter - it requires:
Force: bosons or integer spin particles, which are free from the Exclusion Principle, meaning they can build up and re-inforce each other such that their effects can be felt at large scale levels - magnetism, gravity, lasers.
The interactions between fermions and bosons (matter and force) give rise to the familiar solidity we experience every day. But that solidity is almost entirely empty space, and lots of particle interactions. Think of that when you next clap your hands.
Energy: the fields that give rise to the boson and fermion particles can only interact consistently - in very simplified language, if the total amount of excitation across all fields at time T1 is E, then it must be E at T2, even if those excitations are now shared out differently across the fields. This is what we call conservation of energy. To be clear, there is no such "stuff" as energy, it is merely an accounting or quantifer of excitation of the fields.
Mass: gravitons interact between all types of particles, including other gravitons. This means that gravity is generated by ALL field excitations. The measure of ALL field excitations in a volume is what we would call the energy in that volume, and the measure of gravitational attraction to the field excitations in that volume is what we call mass. So mass is simply another way of talking about the total energy in a volume, but used in the context of gravitational attraction.
I'll add some practical examples later...

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Larni, posted 01-29-2010 2:27 PM cavediver has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 81 of 357 (544870)
01-28-2010 11:03 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Sasuke
01-17-2010 8:32 PM


Re: Universe = Obsolete Model
Sasuki writes:
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.
Thanks
Sasuke
P.S. Nothing wrong with saying before the BB with this multiverse model.
Hi Sasuki. If that be the case it would seem that conventional science must revise the whole concept of space and BB expansion as it stands. The Buzsaw model of space is that it is static unbounded area in which all forces, energy and matter exist.
The multiverse model implies an outside of our universe and space between our universe and other universes.
As well, there still remains the question of the origin of the multiverse, it's before and outside of. It appears that all this does is raise additional questions relative to origins.

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 61 by Sasuke, posted 01-17-2010 8:32 PM Sasuke has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Sasuke, posted 01-30-2010 6:03 PM Buzsaw has replied

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


(3)
Message 82 of 357 (544913)
01-29-2010 12:36 PM


An example
Ok, let's put our terminology to some use:
Start with some stuff, say a piece of wood. Remember, I am discussing the terminology of particle physics, not chemistry, biology, nor economics. We wouldn't usually use these terms about something as large as a piece of wood - but hopefully it will clear up the confusion.
Is it matter? Well, there's certainly a large number of fermions in it (electrons and quarks), so it contains matter, but those fermions are interacting with a practically inifnite number of force bosons (photons and gluons), so it is a mixture of matter and force.
Is it energy? No, energy isn't a thing. The energy of the wood would be a measure of just how much particle excitation (matter and force) makes up the wood.
Is it mass? No, mass isn't a thing. The mass of the wood is the measure of the gravitational attraction of the wood. And because gravity attracts to all field excitations, it is equivalent to the energy of the wood. If you could accurately measure the gravitational attraction of the wood, you would have a measure of the energy of the wood. If you heat up the wood, its energy and hence its mass will increase.
Can we turn the wood into pure energy? No, energy is not a thing. We can swap one type of field excitation for another, i.e. change one type of particle into another, but whatever we do, we'll just have a bunch of field excitations with the same energy (and thus mass) as before.
What if we hit the wood with an equivalent piece of wood made from anti-matter? Well, many of the fermions will annihilate with their anti-matter equivalents, turning into bosons. So they'll be a big explosion as all the bosons fly away. But we're still just swapping one type of field excitation for another.
And moving away from the wood...
Can we turn matter into energy? No. Energy is not a thing. We can turn matter particles into other matter particles. We can turn matter particles into force particles (bosons), such as in matter/anti-matter annihilation.
Can we turn mass into energy? No. They are essentially the same thing. Mass is a measure of how much energy there is in a volume of space. So talking of turning one into the other is meaningless.
Can we turn energy into matter. No. Energy is not thing. We can turn photons (which are sometimes incorrectly thought of as "pure" energy) into matter particles, and we can even combine particles, such that a photon of energy E vanishes as it combines with an electron, and that electron now has an increase of E in its own energy.
What does it mean in a nuclear explosion, when we say that a small amount of the original mass has been turned into energy?
Let's say the bomb has a mass of M. This mass is measure of the total energy of the bomb - the sum of all the field excitations that make up the bomb. This energy is mainly in the force bosons that bind the whole stuff of the bomb together - the bonds holding the atoms together, the bonds holding the nuclei together, the bonds holding the quarks together into the nucleons. A tiny amount of the energy is in the matter particles (the electrons and quarks.)
In the nuclear explosion, many of the force bosons holding the nuclei together are converted into free bosons that fly out of the bomb. Also some matter particles may be ejected as the nuclei destabilise. If you add up the mass (or energy) of all of the remains including the bosons and fermions that have radiated away in the explosion, you will find that the total Mass has actually... wait for it... has what?
Answers on my desk by Monday.
Bonus mark if you can compare and contrast this with a chemical explosion.

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Larni, posted 01-29-2010 2:37 PM cavediver has replied
 Message 85 by lyx2no, posted 01-29-2010 4:59 PM cavediver has replied

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


Message 83 of 357 (544927)
01-29-2010 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by cavediver
01-28-2010 7:17 PM


Re: Some terminology
Thanks, CD. That really puts it into terms I can understand.
Keep going, though; interesting stuff!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by cavediver, posted 01-28-2010 7:17 PM cavediver has not replied

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


Message 84 of 357 (544929)
01-29-2010 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by cavediver
01-29-2010 12:36 PM


Re: An example
you will find that the total Mass has actually... wait for it... has what?
Not changed, but as it has (energy being a metric of mass) radiated away from the initial point it looks like the mass has shrunk but it's just changes in field excitations at a specific point of measurement?
In a chemical explosion bonds break and reactions take place so mass can change as field excitations re-stabilise?
Edited by Larni, : Head scratching

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by cavediver, posted 01-29-2010 12:36 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by cavediver, posted 01-30-2010 6:30 AM Larni has not replied

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 85 of 357 (544944)
01-29-2010 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by cavediver
01-29-2010 12:36 PM


Re: An example
you will find that the total Mass has actually... wait for it... has what?
Been conserved.
In a chemical explosion the mass is also been conserved; however, no nucleic bosoms are freed, only photons.

You are now a million miles away from where you were in space-time when you started reading this sentence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by cavediver, posted 01-29-2010 12:36 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by cavediver, posted 01-30-2010 6:30 AM lyx2no has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 86 of 357 (544976)
01-30-2010 6:30 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by Larni
01-29-2010 2:37 PM


Re: An example
Not changed, but as it has (energy being a metric of mass) radiated away from the initial point it looks like the mass has shrunk but it's just changes in field excitations at a specific point of measurement?
Exactly - this whole "mass has been converted to energy by Einstein's e=mc2" bullshit is so ingrained into the folklore of atomic physics that it's hard to combat - as seen recently here at EvC.
In a chemical explosion bonds break and reactions take place so mass can change as field excitations re-stabilise?
No, it's exactly the same situation as above, but with the difference pointed out in the above post.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Larni, posted 01-29-2010 2:37 PM Larni has not replied

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


Message 87 of 357 (544977)
01-30-2010 6:30 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by lyx2no
01-29-2010 4:59 PM


Re: An example
Been conserved.
In a chemical explosion the mass is also been conserved; however, no nucleic bosoms are freed, only photons.
Nice

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by lyx2no, posted 01-29-2010 4:59 PM lyx2no has seen this message but not replied

  
Sasuke
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 137
Joined: 08-21-2009


Message 88 of 357 (545007)
01-30-2010 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Buzsaw
01-28-2010 11:03 PM


Re: Universe = Obsolete Model
Buzsaw,
Buzsaw writes:
Hi Sasuki. If that be the case it would seem that conventional science must revise the whole concept of space and BB expansion as it stands.
All models go through a constant state of revision, this is nothing new. Also, perhaps it is you who needs to be updated. GO regather your data related to the mulitverse concept and perhaps look for new data that your oblivious to...
Buzsaw writes:
The Buzsaw model of space is that it is static unbounded area in which all forces, energy and matter exist.
Explain redshift and gravity....
Buzsaw writes:
The multiverse model implies an outside of our universe and space between our universe and other universes.
Indeed.
Buzsaw writes:
As well, there still remains the question of the origin of the multiverse, it's before and outside of. It appears that all this does is raise additional questions relative to origins.
What is wrong with that? I never said that Science is going to answer all questions..?? It's just to find ideas that are more probable.... Falling back in myth is not going to answer every question either....
Edited by Sasuke, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Buzsaw, posted 01-28-2010 11:03 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Buzsaw, posted 01-30-2010 7:11 PM Sasuke has replied

  
MatterWave
Member (Idle past 5029 days)
Posts: 87
Joined: 01-15-2010


Message 89 of 357 (545008)
01-30-2010 6:16 PM


The excitations of the fields that make up what we label "stuff/matter" in this orderly and comprehensible universe suggest that we and the whole universe are the thoughts of God. This is the nightmare of the atheist physicist. You have a chunk of matter, you split it apart till you get to the atoms, then on to the nucleus, you split the nucleus and you get the "bare" properties that we label "quarks", which are imposible to visualize. Then you realize you only have mathematical objects(virtual messanger particles - virtual gluons and virtual photons) - Numbers. Yep, matter is numbers according to our best understanding and to answer the OP, "matter" didn't come from anywhere. The problem of free will is only solvable if we accept that we are the thoughts of God. How could there be free will? Free from what? From te laws of the universe and your human body? How so? There is more than meets the eye, physicists are joining hands with philosophers on the future GUT. The question - "Where did the matter and energy come from?" will be answered, but not in the way the average Joe would expect.

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 01-30-2010 6:41 PM MatterWave has replied
 Message 91 by Buzsaw, posted 01-30-2010 6:54 PM MatterWave has not replied
 Message 97 by Larni, posted 01-31-2010 6:37 AM MatterWave has not replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 90 of 357 (545011)
01-30-2010 6:41 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by MatterWave
01-30-2010 6:16 PM


The excitations of the fields that make up what we label "stuff/matter" in this orderly and comprehensible universe suggest that we and the whole universe are the thoughts of God.
Classic 'God of the Gaps' crap.
This is the nightmare of the atheist physicist.
Classic projection of your philosophical condundrums onto your antigonistic 'the atheist'.
You have a chunk of matter, you split it apart till you get to the atoms, then on to the nucleus, you split the nucleus and you get the "bare" properties that we label "quarks", which are imposible to visualize.
What do you mean visualize? By photons? Quarks do not transmit or retransmit photons so by this measure you are right that we cannot visualize them. This along with the fact that they are bound inside nucleons with no direct method to 'visualize' them. However we can detect them through other means. Direct visualization using photons only gets us so far, other methods take us the rest of the way in quantum physics.
Then you realize you only have mathematical objects(virtual messanger particles - virtual gluons and virtual photons) - Numbers.
Numbers are not real, tangible objects. You really need to stop with your religious voodoo bullshit. Math is a tool used to help us describe the universe. Math is not the universe.
Yep, matter is numbers according to our best understanding and to answer the OP,
Wrong. Matter is not numbers. You are hopelessly confused.
"matter" didn't come from anywhere.
What are you defining as matter?
The problem of free will is only solvable if we accept that we are the thoughts of God.
What does free will have to do with matter?????
How could there be free will?
WTF? Why are you combining physics with human psychology?
Free from what? From te laws of the universe and your human body? How so? There is more than meets the eye, physicists are joining hands with philosophers on the future GUT.
I hear Scientology needs some more members.
The question - "Where did the matter and energy come from?" will be answered, but not in the way the average Joe would expect.
How do you know? You can't even define matter and energy much less prescribe where it came from.

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection
"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan
"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by MatterWave, posted 01-30-2010 6:16 PM MatterWave has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by MatterWave, posted 01-30-2010 7:07 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024