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


Message 121 of 357 (545440)
02-03-2010 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by onifre
02-02-2010 6:50 PM


If you mean "macro" objects then you are wrong. We live in a universe with decoherence, which keeps macro objects away from the quantum world - as I understand it.
You understand correctly but macro objects are composed of quanta and quanta aren't physical.
You said that non-locality (quantum entanglement) had issues with GR, but the problem is it doesn't. Could you provide evidence to support that assertion of yours?
The EPR paper on arxiv is a good start. You may want to see why Einstein was so opposed to nonlocal effects and what exactly they challenged.
What human intuitions and preconceived notions are you refering to? Can you be more clear...
That of realism. That there exists a mind-independent outside world.
Yes, I agree with that. But that's irrelevant because you and I experience time. Therefore to humans, there is a past, present and future - we have a history, so does this planet, solar system, etc. There is a time flow for ALL things with mass.
If you say there is time flow at the quantum scale, you'll run into the problem of backward in time travel, backward in time causation, infinite propagation speed, etc. Nothing in the best theories of physics - GR and QM requires time to flow in any direction.
I believe you have allowed this to confuse you a bit much. Time flows for anything with mass. We experience time. It is real.
No, it doesn't. There is no time flow in a 4-D static universe.
There is no universal time clock, that I agree with in accordance with relativity. In other words, you couldn't get in a time machine and go to the year 1975 - there is no 1975.
In our universe, the year 1975 is just as Now as 2010. No year is more real or more Now than any other. They all exist as one, what we experience as time flow happens only within the human head.
Now, that is one thing. But you are claiming that history doesn't exist, that is incorrect and a misunderstanding of relativity.
It stems from quantum theory but SR supports this notion as well.
If you are still asking this question, then you may need to re-read this thread from the beginning (no pun intended).
It's hardly worth the time, unless God spoke through a proxy .

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by onifre, posted 02-02-2010 6:50 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by cavediver, posted 02-03-2010 6:09 PM MatterWave has replied
 Message 125 by onifre, posted 02-03-2010 7:21 PM MatterWave has replied

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


(1)
Message 122 of 357 (545442)
02-03-2010 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by MatterWave
02-03-2010 5:55 PM


I have zero time at the moment, but just for now:
The EPR paper on arxiv is a good start. You may want to see why Einstein was so opposed to nonlocal effects and what exactly they challenged.
There is nothing necessarily non-local about QM and EPR, and neither have any conflict with GR. Given that our most successful understanding of the Universe (QFT) is completely local, I wouldn't worry too much about this. Einstein was far less worried about non-locality than he was about non-realism, and that was his main issue with EPR and QM in general.
Oni writes:
But you are claiming that history doesn't exist, that is incorrect and a misunderstanding of relativity.
It stems from quantum theory but SR supports this notion as well.
You may well come up with some bizarre interpretation that suggests this from QM (no criticism, I come up with all sorts of bizarre interpretations all the time) but there is noting (just about by definition) in SR that suggests this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by MatterWave, posted 02-03-2010 5:55 PM MatterWave has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by MatterWave, posted 02-03-2010 7:03 PM cavediver has replied

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


Message 123 of 357 (545446)
02-03-2010 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by onifre
02-03-2010 5:32 PM


onfire,
onfire writes:
Evidence is the only thing that can lead to an assumtion. Scientific research is due largely to provisional explanations which are constructed by, as you said, speculation, but such hypotheses must be framed in relation to previously ascertained facts and in accordance with the principles of the particular science.
There is still an assumption(room for speculation-ANYTHING GOES).
onfire writes:
So it is not a blind assumtion to think things are random, it is "framed in relation to previously ascertained facts."
neither is having faith in god.. In fact its foolish to be absolute about any opinion.
onfire writes:
Assuming something is due to god would first require evidence for god. There must be some previously ascertained fact that lead to this assumtion. But there isn't, obviously, because it is a belief. So it IS a blind assumtion, where as assuming randomness (or natural means) is not because, again, it is "framed in relation to previously ascertained facts."
I realize nobody has seen god. What if god is the whole of the universe. It is the mind that limits mans understanding of this possibility. What if GOD is not a man. What if we are inside GOD(yes this is speculation but so is assuming its random).
Edited by Sasuke, : err
Edited by Sasuke, : No reason given.
Edited by Sasuke, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by onifre, posted 02-03-2010 5:32 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by onifre, posted 02-03-2010 7:36 PM Sasuke has replied

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


Message 124 of 357 (545449)
02-03-2010 7:03 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by cavediver
02-03-2010 6:09 PM


There is nothing necessarily non-local about QM and EPR, and neither have any conflict with GR. Given that our most successful understanding of the Universe (QFT) is completely local, I wouldn't worry too much about this. Einstein was far less worried about non-locality than he was about non-realism, and that was his main issue with EPR and QM in general.
This is certainly correct but reading onifre's reply, i have the impression that he implicitly made the realism assumption.
You may well come up with some bizarre interpretation that suggests this from QM (no criticism, I come up with all sorts of bizarre interpretations all the time) but there is noting (just about by definition) in SR that suggests this.
How does QFT support realism(which was the point behind my statement)?
Edited by MatterWave, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by cavediver, posted 02-03-2010 6:09 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by cavediver, posted 02-04-2010 3:13 AM MatterWave has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(1)
Message 125 of 357 (545454)
02-03-2010 7:21 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by MatterWave
02-03-2010 5:55 PM


You understand correctly but macro objects are composed of quanta and quanta aren't physical.
Yes. I know. And what seperates the micro from the macro so that its not paradoxical?
That of realism. That there exists a mind-independent outside world.
I still don't get how knowing that is a problem if we know we live in a universe with decoherence...?
Curiously though, how do you know for sure that you live in a mind-independent outside world?
If you say there is time flow at the quantum scale, you'll run into the problem of backward in time travel
Well I didn't say that. Nor was it implied. I said humans experience time. We do so at 300,000 m/s. That is a fact.
Oni writes:
I believe you have allowed this to confuse you a bit much. Time flows for anything with mass. We experience time. It is real.
MW writes:
No, it doesn't. There is no time flow in a 4-D static universe.
You do understand the difference between "universal time flow" and "experienced time" right? Anything with mass experiences time.
That is not the same as there being an actual time, I again agree that there is no universal time clock. But experienced time is real, time dilation is real. Speed does affect the time things (any thing) experiences.
They all exist as one, what we experience as time flow happens only within the human head.
Then explain why 2 people travelling at different speeds would experience time differently - and thus age differently?
It stems from quantum theory but SR supports this notion as well.
As cavediver has pointed out, it does not.
It's hardly worth the time, unless God spoke through a proxy .
Define "god"? To me, god died when Carlin died.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by MatterWave, posted 02-03-2010 5:55 PM MatterWave has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by MatterWave, posted 02-04-2010 6:47 AM onifre has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(1)
Message 126 of 357 (545457)
02-03-2010 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by Sasuke
02-03-2010 6:26 PM


There is still an assumption
I agreed on that, however, you said they were the same, which they are not if we evaluate the methods used to reach them.
We can assume anything: the matrix, FSM, Invisible unicorns, etc., what matters, at least in honest conversations, is the methods used to reach each assumption.
You would agree that if I claimed I assumed invisible unicorns were pulling earth around the sun, that it would not be the same as assuming a force in nature was coausing us to orbit, right? You would agree that the two are not the same, yes?
I realize nobody has seen god. What if god is the whole of the universe. It is the mind that limits mans understanding of this possibility. What if GOD is not a man. What if we are inside GOD(yes this is speculation but so is assuming its random).
What if D O G really spelled cat? (10 points if you/anyone know/s what movie that's from)
I grant you that there are plenty of assumptions. The matrix, created by someone in another, more advance universe, etc., etc., etc., I agree that assumptions are assumptions.
But you have to agree that there is are difference methods of establishing assumptions and that some are more qualiified as being logical than others - of course, as always, leaving room for any and all possbilities to satisfy the imagination.
Grounding an assumption based on evidence is a lot better and accurate than basing it on blind faith, right?
That difference is what doesn't make them equals.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Sasuke, posted 02-03-2010 6:26 PM Sasuke has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Sasuke, posted 02-03-2010 7:44 PM onifre has not replied

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


Message 127 of 357 (545467)
02-03-2010 7:44 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by onifre
02-03-2010 7:36 PM


onfire,
Ok. For me this is simple. An assumption is an assumption(no absolute). Logic is based on the individuals capacity to visualize. To me if invisible unicorns are responsible then be it as it is... In reality we have no IDEA what is accurate and what is not accurate. It's all based on interpretation.
Edited by Sasuke, :
Edited by Sasuke, : 2
Edited by Sasuke, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by onifre, posted 02-03-2010 7:36 PM onifre has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 128 of 357 (545483)
02-03-2010 8:22 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by Sasuke
02-03-2010 5:11 PM


Hi Sasuke,
If you'd like to discuss the nature of science, please take it to one of the threads in the Is It Science? forum.
This thread is hosting a scientific discussion about where matter and energy came from. Regardless of the validity or any lack thereof of your own personal ideas about the nature of science, they are not the topic of this thread.
My replies were not an attempt to engage either you or MatterWave in a discussion of the nature of science. I originally responded to MatterWave claiming that he could "drag in anything that I think makes sense." That is definitely not true here in the science forums. You can only drag in things that are on-topic and for which you have scientific evidence and argumentation.
This is not a message to which anyone should respond. It's just a continuation of my attempts to coax discussion back to the topic. If this appeal doesn't work I'll cease participation as Percy and intervene as Admin.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Sasuke, posted 02-03-2010 5:11 PM Sasuke has not replied

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


(2)
Message 129 of 357 (545522)
02-04-2010 3:13 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by MatterWave
02-03-2010 7:03 PM


How does QFT support realism
It doesn't, but I get the strong feeling that you are using "realism" in the philosophical sense, not the quantum physics sense. There is a vast difference.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by MatterWave, posted 02-03-2010 7:03 PM MatterWave has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by MatterWave, posted 02-04-2010 6:21 AM cavediver has not replied

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


Message 130 of 357 (545534)
02-04-2010 6:21 AM
Reply to: Message 129 by cavediver
02-04-2010 3:13 AM


It doesn't, but I get the strong feeling that you are using "realism" in the philosophical sense, not the quantum physics sense. There is a vast difference.
I see no reason to discard relativity(i have not lost my mind that much yet), but yes, now that i think about it, you could say that i am often overstepping into philosophical realism. How would i not? These are maddening questions to ponder - something exists out there(mathematics, qubits, something incomprehensible) or nothing but thoughts, dreams and consciousness exists. In general, physics has been blending with philosophy in the 20th century(as Smolin points out - physics has been continuously borrowing topics from philosophy).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by cavediver, posted 02-04-2010 3:13 AM cavediver has not replied

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


Message 131 of 357 (545537)
02-04-2010 6:47 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by onifre
02-03-2010 7:21 PM


Yes. I know. And what seperates the micro from the macro so that its not paradoxical?
You sure know by now from our discussion that this is something that NOBODY knows. If i knew the answer to the question,
i'd be 10 times as famous as Einstein and would be making the headlines across the globe for hundreds of years. My name would be there right beside that of Einstein and Newton.
I still don't get how knowing that is a problem if we know we live in a universe with decoherence...?
Decoherence doesn't restore the 'world' of our perceptions. Decoherence is just a mechanism that attempts to explain pure states transitioning to mixed states. It's also an appearance of classical objects(no collapse), not objects existing in space made of particles.
Curiously though, how do you know for sure that you live in a mind-independent outside world?
I don't. This assumption proves exceeding hard to maintain.
Well I didn't say that. Nor was it implied. I said humans experience time. We do so at 300,000 m/s. That is a fact.
yep
You do understand the difference between "universal time flow" and "experienced time" right? Anything with mass experiences time.
We have been misunderstanding "universal time flow" and "experienced time" as being one and the same. Now we know there is no universal time flow. As for the experienced time, it's subjective, there isn't really anything that resembles a flow of time in a relativistic universe.
Then explain why 2 people travelling at different speeds would experience time differently - and thus age differently?
Time running faster in space means that the duration between two events as measured by a clock in space is a little greater than that measured by a clock on earth. It is the interval of time between the events that is the issue, not some mystical temporal motion by which the world travels from one event to the next.
MatterWave writes:
It stems from quantum theory but SR supports this notion as well.
as cavediver has pointed out, it does not.
That was a misunaderstanding. Reativity is certainly still valid.
Define God"? To me, god died when Carlin died.
We don't really die. Our observations(what you label a 'world' or 'universe') may cease to exist(for us) but in a sense we are eternal(as long as the universe is eternal). You could always find a frame of reference where your deceased relatives are alive or where dinosaurs are still not extinct or where the universe is just 5 seconds old. Don't do the mistake of thinking too much about this stuff or you'll go insane. Existence is, I think therefore i am, this is enough for most folks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by onifre, posted 02-03-2010 7:21 PM onifre has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by cavediver, posted 02-04-2010 7:21 AM MatterWave has not replied

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


(1)
Message 132 of 357 (545544)
02-04-2010 7:21 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by MatterWave
02-04-2010 6:47 AM


We don't really die. Our observations(what you label a 'world' or 'universe') may cease to exist
Completely the wrong thread for this, but surely your concept of "cease" implies the very time flow you have been denying Think along the lines of quantum suicide...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by MatterWave, posted 02-04-2010 6:47 AM MatterWave has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Sasuke, posted 02-04-2010 1:01 PM cavediver has not replied

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


Message 133 of 357 (545595)
02-04-2010 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by cavediver
02-04-2010 7:21 AM


confusion
cavediver,
cs, da and I have been discussing the relation between matter and energy. Perhaps you could help me out on this one. If I am wrong I would love to be corrected but if they are wrong please assist. .. I have been trying to convince them that matter is not energy. You are the one that influenced my opinion here..
Maybe you could review our conversation in this other thread and then post in response to them when they post here as I think they will eventually do so..
EvC Forum: How did round planets form from the explosion of the Big Bang?
(additions)
cavediver,
Since matter has potential energy doesn't that mean matter is energy? I realize matter is a field because it takes up spacetime which energy does not. However, part of the description of energy is potential energy. Energy - Wikipedia
So, if matter has "potential energy" how come its not "energy"?
Edited by Sasuke, : question
Edited by Sasuke, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by cavediver, posted 02-04-2010 7:21 AM cavediver has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-04-2010 1:43 PM Sasuke has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 134 of 357 (545604)
02-04-2010 1:43 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by Sasuke
02-04-2010 1:01 PM


Re: confusion
I have been trying to convince them that matter is not energy.
For the record, I don't think matter is energy and I don't see anywhere that you were trying to convince me that it isn't.
You were saying that matter has no capacity to do work, which I was disagreeing with.
Here, look here: Message 15:
quote:
Let's get it right from the start: matter is not energy; matter is not made of energy; matter is not frozen energy.
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. A fundemental particle is an excitation in its underlying field, and there are as many fields as there are types of particle: photon, gluon, electron, quark, and even graviton. The graviton field is what gives us the concept of distance and space-time geometry. Think about this for a minute - it is the field that defines the distances we measure between objects - whether from your nose to your right big toe, or from your nose to the quasar 3C273!
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.
Matter fields are those with spin-1/2, and matter particles (fermions: electron, quark, etc) are excitations of these fields. The spin-1/2 means that these partciles obey the Pauli Exclusion Principle and this gives rise to the first level of "solidity" - we see this in the atom, where virtually empty space is given structure by the electron shells surrounding the nucleus.
Force or *Gauge* fields are those with integer spin, and gauge particles (bosons: photons, gluons, gravitons) are the excitations of the these fields. They obey Bose-Einstein statistics, and can overlap freely - great for lasers but crap for building things!
Combining the two particle types (matter and gauge) gives us the next (and familiar) level of solidity - photons interacting with electrons give rise to the electromagnetic interactions that create the solidity of everyday experience. The reason your hands don't pass through each other when you clap is not because they are "solid" - your hands are essentially empty space - but because of electromagnetic interactions.
Our current theories of fundemental physics (General Relativity, Electroweak, Qunatum Chromodynamics) explain how these fields interact and relate to each other, and build up to give us the existence we know.
Notice anything curiously absent in our above description of everything?
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!!!
Existence is made of the fields - or better, existence IS the fields - is the one master unified field.
Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Sasuke, posted 02-04-2010 1:01 PM Sasuke has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Sasuke, posted 02-04-2010 1:51 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

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


Message 135 of 357 (545609)
02-04-2010 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by New Cat's Eye
02-04-2010 1:43 PM


Re: confusion
CS,
right. I've been trying to discuss that energy and matter are different. I think the capacity to do work in relation to matter relies on what type of matter we're talking about. However, I've been refuted on matter having no capacity to do work. You've been trying but failed to explain that point. Eventually I caught on after rahvin responded. p...... The more I think about matter and energy.. I will have to agree the only difference is that matter takes up spacetime and energy does not. I think that is what I've been trying to explain this entire time........................................................... p I will just blame you for not understanding.. NOT my excellent communication skills.. p
Edited by Sasuke, : No reason given.
Edited by Sasuke, : edit p
Edited by Sasuke, : p ---argh
Edited by Sasuke, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-04-2010 1:43 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-04-2010 1:53 PM Sasuke 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