Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Where did the matter and energy come from?
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 91 of 357 (545013)
01-30-2010 6:54 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by MatterWave
01-30-2010 6:16 PM


MatterWave writes:
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.
Hi MatterWave. Welcome to EvC. The Biblical model has been the base from which I have hypothesised. This model has it that the universe is eternal, Jehovah god being eternal. The NT states that from him all things came and in him all things exist. I'm not sure I agree that what exists is thought but that it is somehow related to the creator, Jehovah.
It does appear that physicists are discovering that matter and energy entails some aspects of the non-visible metaphysical. There appears to be a thin line, if any, between the physical and the metaphysical/supernatural. Perhaps I'm oversimplifying in musings here.

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 89 by MatterWave, posted 01-30-2010 6:16 PM MatterWave has not replied

  
MatterWave
Member (Idle past 5031 days)
Posts: 87
Joined: 01-15-2010


Message 92 of 357 (545014)
01-30-2010 7:07 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by DevilsAdvocate
01-30-2010 6:41 PM


Devil's Advocate, you are not even wrong. You live in the 19 or 18 century, the only thing i was able to see in your post was 'labels'.
Math is not the universe.
You say this because you know what quantum fields and matter are? Why didn't i see anything at all about what a quark or an electron is? Or an excitation of a field? Or what virtual particles are? If all you have is labels, i'll let you talk to yourself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 01-30-2010 6:41 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 01-30-2010 9:52 PM MatterWave has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 93 of 357 (545015)
01-30-2010 7:11 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Sasuke
01-30-2010 6:03 PM


Re: Universe = Obsolete Model
Buzsaw writes:
Sasuki writes:
. 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...
Perhaps you could furnish enough data to address my point. If there is now believed to be space outside of the BB singularity event how does space and time expand within what now appears to be an open system model of space within space?

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 88 by Sasuke, posted 01-30-2010 6:03 PM Sasuke has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Sasuke, posted 02-02-2010 5:02 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3102 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 94 of 357 (545020)
01-30-2010 9:52 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by MatterWave
01-30-2010 7:07 PM


Devil's Advocate, you are not even wrong.
That's original. You might want to credit Wolfgang Pauli when you plagerize his quotes.
You live in the 19 or 18 century, the only thing i was able to see in your post was 'labels'.
Can you be a little more specific?
You say this because you know what quantum fields and matter are?
What does this have to with math not being matter?
Why didn't i see anything at all about what a quark or an electron is?
They aren't just abstract things conjured by our brains.
Or an excitation of a field?
An excitation of a field is not a number. A number or any mathematical concept is a property of the field not the field itself.
I think you are confusing the "things" that properties describe with the properties that describe these "things" i.e. virtual particles, real particles, fields, etc. Again, mathematics and its many abstract precepts is an human conceived concept used to describe how the universe operates it is not the universe itself.
If all you have is labels...
Yet you capriciously toss around these labels without even attempting to define them while at the same time stating that because we don't know all the answers than some supernatural being which no one can prove exists, has to be the answer to everything.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

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 92 by MatterWave, posted 01-30-2010 7:07 PM MatterWave has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by cavediver, posted 01-31-2010 5:44 AM DevilsAdvocate has replied

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


Message 95 of 357 (545032)
01-31-2010 5:44 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by DevilsAdvocate
01-30-2010 9:52 PM


An excitation of a field is not a number. A number or any mathematical concept is a property of the field not the field itself.
On the contrary, the field is only defined as a mathematical concept. There is nothing else. At this level, we are way beyond what you are suggesting - the classical physics of "blobs" with properties that can be approximately modelled mathematically. Those idealised blobs - planets, cannon balls, atoms, nucleons - are eventually exhausted and all that is left (the electrons, quarks, photons, gluons) is composed out of purely mathematical concepts.
All properties of an electron are contained in its quantum numbers, and the actual nature of the electron via the Pauli Exclusion Principle, shows that there can be nothing more. There is no more "substrate". There is no more lower level stuff. There is no more modelling. That is not to say we are at the deepest level, by no means. But at this point it is mathematics all the way down.
If there is one thing that 20th C fundemental physics has taught us, it is that reality is no longer about stuff. It is all about symmetry, consistency, and relationship - otherwise known as mathematics.
To be clear, this is not just my own view as some bizarre Platonist but also that of many if not the majority in this field of study.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 01-30-2010 9:52 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 01-31-2010 6:19 AM cavediver has replied
 Message 105 by Buzsaw, posted 01-31-2010 5:19 PM cavediver has not replied
 Message 177 by Buzsaw, posted 02-12-2011 6:05 PM cavediver has not replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3102 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 96 of 357 (545033)
01-31-2010 6:19 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by cavediver
01-31-2010 5:44 AM


On the contrary, the field is only defined as a mathematical concept. There is nothing else. At this level, we are way beyond what you are suggesting - the classical physics of "blobs" with properties that can be approximately modelled mathematically. Those idealised blobs - planets, cannon balls, atoms, nucleons - are eventually exhausted and all that is left (the electrons, quarks, photons, gluons) is composed out of purely mathematical concepts.
All properties of an electron are contained in its quantum numbers, and the actual nature of the electron via the Pauli Exclusion Principle, shows that there can be nothing more. There is no more "substrate". There is no more lower level stuff. There is no more modelling. That is not to say we are at the deepest level, by no means. But at this point it is mathematics all the way down.
If there is one thing that 20th C fundemental physics has taught us, it is that reality is no longer about stuff. It is all about symmetry, consistency, and relationship - otherwise known as mathematics.
To be clear, this is not just my own view as some bizarre Platonist but also that of many if not the majority in this field of study.
I understand that blobs of matter at the most fundamental level do not exist. However the spacetime of the universe itself does exist does it not? And is that not what mathematics describes? Is a field not the dimensions of spacetime (the universe) itself, interacting with itself? Of course spacetime itself is a mathematical 'object' which mathematics describes. But would it be correct to say than that the universe itself is mathematics?
It makes sense that at the most fundamental level HOW the universe interacts (mathematics) and WHAT it is break down and become one since mathematics is the attempt of humans to describe the universe in which they exist. That makes sense. However to call the universe mathematics at its most fundamental seems to strike as misuse of the proper definition of the term mathematics. I think the term mathematics is being confused here for what mathematics is describing/defining.
Is mathematics not the human derived language used to interpret how the universe works?
Just my layman thoughts.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

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 95 by cavediver, posted 01-31-2010 5:44 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by cavediver, posted 01-31-2010 7:07 AM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 97 of 357 (545035)
01-31-2010 6:37 AM
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.
No it do'sent: I smell an argument from incredulity, here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by MatterWave, posted 01-30-2010 6:16 PM MatterWave has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by cavediver, posted 01-31-2010 7:09 AM Larni has not replied

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


(1)
Message 98 of 357 (545039)
01-31-2010 7:07 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by DevilsAdvocate
01-31-2010 6:19 AM


However the spacetime of the universe itself does exist does it not?
I'm not sure Distance between two points is "just" a value in a field. The whole concept of "space" seems to me to be just as much a result of consciousness interpretation as the concept of "blue" or "C#".
We're really tripping on the edge of our understanding here, and it's always much easier to say what things are not, than to say what they are...
However to call the universe mathematics at its most fundamental seems to strike as misuse of the proper definition of the term mathematics.
Well, it depends what you mean - and that is the whole problem at the heart of this - what do we each mean by the words we're using. In that, MatterWave is correct - we end up just label shuffling. I'm certainly not talking about equations, integers, and geometric objects floating around in some Platonic realm. But to do this topic justice requires far more time than I have at the moment... and it will re-appear in this thread as we progress further into our deep questions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 01-31-2010 6:19 AM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by onifre, posted 01-31-2010 12:33 PM cavediver has replied

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


(1)
Message 99 of 357 (545040)
01-31-2010 7:09 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by Larni
01-31-2010 6:37 AM


MatterWave writes:
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.
No it do'sent: I smell an argument from incredulity, here.
Actually, as far as I am concerned, the excitations of the fields that make up what we label "stuff/matter" in this orderly and comprehensible universe suggest that you and the whole universe and God are all just my thoughts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Larni, posted 01-31-2010 6:37 AM Larni has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 100 of 357 (545053)
01-31-2010 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by cavediver
01-31-2010 7:07 AM


The whole concept of "space" seems to me to be just as much a result of consciousness interpretation as the concept of "blue" or "C#".
Consciousness interpretation? What does that mean, cavediver?
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by cavediver, posted 01-31-2010 7:07 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by cavediver, posted 01-31-2010 1:02 PM onifre has replied

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


Message 101 of 357 (545054)
01-31-2010 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by onifre
01-31-2010 12:33 PM


Consciousness interpretation? What does that mean, cavediver?
It is our brains that give rise to our everyday understanding of colour, our understanding of sound, of texture.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by onifre, posted 01-31-2010 12:33 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by onifre, posted 01-31-2010 1:35 PM cavediver has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 102 of 357 (545058)
01-31-2010 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by cavediver
01-31-2010 1:02 PM


It is our brains that give rise to our everyday understanding of colour, our understanding of sound, of texture.
Ah ok. Due to our interaction with reality, and our complex sensory system, we are able to experience color, sound and texture in the manner that we do (some different from others).
So are you saying that distance and space are subjective concepts that are experienced also?
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by cavediver, posted 01-31-2010 1:02 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by MatterWave, posted 01-31-2010 2:27 PM onifre has replied
 Message 165 by cavediver, posted 02-06-2010 12:08 PM onifre has replied

  
MatterWave
Member (Idle past 5031 days)
Posts: 87
Joined: 01-15-2010


Message 103 of 357 (545061)
01-31-2010 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by onifre
01-31-2010 1:35 PM


So are you saying that distance and space are subjective concepts that are experienced also?
- Oni
Local realism is pretty much dead, if inductive reasoning is to hold(for the sake of science and all of its previous successes, it's pretty much mandatory that we keep it no matter what turn our understanding of reality takes). The ontology of Non-local realism is not well-defined yet, and at least one of its iterations stands at odds with GR(and a large class of hidden variable theories were scrapped by Zeilinger in 2007). Nonlocal realism is also a very weak form of realism, if realism at all. Nonseparability is another possibility that is covered by my suggestion in post 89. All in all, if we are to make progress and further our understanding, there would be no coming back to the old billiard ball electrons and atoms in matter(still taught in high school textbooks).
So, in a nutshell, yes, there is substantial circumstantial evidence that reality is relational. Only the perception of Now exists, the past, it never existed. Where the dinosaur bones and evidence of the Rome Empire come from, is too Big a question. If you were religious, you'd consider it an act of God and if you were an atheist, it seems a major revision would be due.
Edited by MatterWave, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by onifre, posted 01-31-2010 1:35 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 01-31-2010 4:17 PM MatterWave has replied
 Message 112 by onifre, posted 02-01-2010 5:47 PM MatterWave has replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3102 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 104 of 357 (545072)
01-31-2010 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by MatterWave
01-31-2010 2:27 PM


If you were religious, you'd consider it an act of God and if you were an atheist, it seems a major revision would be due.
Why? What does religious belief have to do with any of this????
Why are you dragging the existence of a supernatural entity which is not falsifiable into this?
The existance or non existance of God is not required for nonlocality. If you think so, please tell me why.

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 103 by MatterWave, posted 01-31-2010 2:27 PM MatterWave has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by MatterWave, posted 01-31-2010 5:43 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 105 of 357 (545076)
01-31-2010 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by cavediver
01-31-2010 5:44 AM


Cavediver writes:
If there is one thing that 20th C fundemental physics has taught us, it is that reality is no longer about stuff. It is all about symmetry, consistency, and relationship - otherwise known as mathematics.
Cavediver, how do we differenciate between all of this and metaphysics? Who and what determines the line between the two?

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 95 by cavediver, posted 01-31-2010 5:44 AM 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