Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


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 1 of 357 (542742)
01-12-2010 10:20 AM


The tail end of this thread:
How did round planets form from the Big Bang?
EvC Forum: How did round planets form from the explosion of the Big Bang?
had a suggestion of thins topic and I think it could be interesting as Cavediver seems inclined to be involved.
So, where did all the matter and energy contained in the big bang come from or, what form did the matter and energy (for want of more accurate labels) have at that point?
Kept having to remind my self not to put 'before' the big bang.
Cosmology please.
Edited by Larni, : Clarity

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Aware Wolf, posted 01-12-2010 12:36 PM Larni has not replied
 Message 5 by Dr Jack, posted 01-12-2010 12:51 PM Larni has not replied
 Message 7 by Iblis, posted 01-12-2010 1:19 PM Larni has not replied
 Message 61 by Sasuke, posted 01-17-2010 8:32 PM Larni has replied
 Message 175 by thewordofgod, posted 02-12-2011 7:02 AM Larni has replied
 Message 313 by Phat, posted 11-18-2011 2:49 AM Larni has replied
 Message 314 by IamJoseph, posted 11-18-2011 4:07 AM Larni has replied
 Message 339 by Portillo, posted 12-16-2011 5:02 PM Larni has replied
 Message 345 by hugenot, posted 02-13-2012 10:17 PM Larni has replied

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


Message 17 of 357 (542790)
01-12-2010 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by cavediver
01-12-2010 4:03 PM


Re: Matter and Energy
Energy - what about energy? - energy is merely an accounting system,
So energy is like yard or an inch, but also a relative gradient, but only really an a notation of state of the field in question?

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

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


Message 19 of 357 (542792)
01-12-2010 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by New Cat's Eye
01-12-2010 4:29 PM


Re: Matter and Energy
I think it would help, me at least, if you expound on what it is to be an "excitation of a field" and how it differs from a (or part of a) field without an excitation.
I have always thought of it as a flat horizontal rubber sheet that dimples upwards (the reverse of the lead weight gravity example) where the 'taller' the dimple (moving away from a ground state) the more the properties of the field changes.
So photons (a once inch dimple) act differently to gluons (a two inch dimple) as they are different levels of excitation of the field causing different 'real world' effects of the two different partials.
That's how I keep it straight in my head from what Cavediver has said but I'm probably way off track.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-12-2010 4:29 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-12-2010 4:49 PM Larni has not replied

  
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

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


Message 50 of 357 (543090)
01-15-2010 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by cavediver
01-14-2010 5:03 PM


Re: Are the fields eternal, or are they multiplying?
Am I right in thinking that there is something special about the graviton field?
I saw a program years ago about M theroy that said gravity was so weak becuse it was a field that was not 'on' our brane but it leaked in from aonther 'adjacent' one.
Am I miss remebering this?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by cavediver, posted 01-14-2010 5:03 PM cavediver has not replied

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


Message 64 of 357 (543445)
01-18-2010 5:57 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Sasuke
01-17-2010 8:32 PM


Re: Universe = Obsolete Model
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.

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 65 by Sasuke, posted 01-18-2010 7:20 AM Larni has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 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 164 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

  
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

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


Message 176 of 357 (604462)
02-12-2011 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 175 by thewordofgod
02-12-2011 7:02 AM


This is a science thread, friend.
It does not need to be cluttered up with Allah or Yahweh or Odin or Zeus or what ever one of the many gods you happen to believe in.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by thewordofgod, posted 02-12-2011 7:02 AM thewordofgod has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by thewordofgod, posted 02-12-2011 6:33 PM Larni has not replied

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


Message 315 of 357 (641253)
11-18-2011 8:28 AM
Reply to: Message 313 by Phat
11-18-2011 2:49 AM


Re: Plausible explanation
You cant have something come from nothing.
Yeah, you can.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.
Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 313 by Phat, posted 11-18-2011 2:49 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 325 by Phat, posted 11-19-2011 4:31 PM Larni has replied

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


Message 316 of 357 (641255)
11-18-2011 8:33 AM
Reply to: Message 314 by IamJoseph
11-18-2011 4:07 AM


The answer is quite simple. An external force which is not limited to the universe must have done-it. We have no scientific or logical alternatives here. Matter and space is being newly created everywhere and at all times: the universe is expanding.
Well, you see, there is no evidence for an external force so no, it is not accurate to say 'must have done it'.
Matter and space are not being created, space is expanding.
Hope that helps.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.
Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 314 by IamJoseph, posted 11-18-2011 4:07 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 318 by IamJoseph, posted 11-18-2011 8:47 AM Larni has replied

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


Message 319 of 357 (641264)
11-18-2011 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 318 by IamJoseph
11-18-2011 8:47 AM


Of course there is evidence - and of the absolute kind.
Until you present this 'evidence' I can't really comment on it, can I?
Thus far, the only response has been it is not possible to prove a negative. This is jargon.
If this is the case it will be easy for you to prove we have not been visited by aliens.
Please explain how something can expand, with a compounding acceleration, hormoniously in all directions, where there was no space and matter before?
Imagine a ruler made of rubber. Stretch it lengthwise. Observe the inches notation. The more it is stretched, the bigger the spaces are between to increments.
Does that make it easier for you to understand?
IMHO, one possibility is that the matter possesses traits and attributes which are able to react to a command or directive;
So for you ideas to work we need a magician (your god) and a universe with properties that allow it to be affected by the magician's thoughts and desires?
You did not think that one through, did you?

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.
Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 318 by IamJoseph, posted 11-18-2011 8:47 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 320 by IamJoseph, posted 11-18-2011 9:45 AM Larni has replied

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


Message 321 of 357 (641270)
11-18-2011 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 320 by IamJoseph
11-18-2011 9:45 AM


There is evidence.
Then please present it. Thought experiments and cod philiosophy don not count.
There is no reason to believe in aliens - there is no such evidence for 15 Billion years in the known universe.
Please prove this. You said not being able to prove a negative is jargon. Show me I'm wrong.
Nor does this align with negating a causative factor for a manifest universe. A complexity cannot be the result of a random - and still remain as science.
Can I put this in my sig and attribute it to you?
A definitive use-by date applies in your example; not to mention the rubber is clearly becoming rarer in density - iow, a transfer of matter is occuring, as opposed to new matter emerging.
I'll try to explain this as it is an important point point: I was using an analogy. Space time is not really made of rubber. It is not really shaped like a ruler.
Please read the following:
wiki writes:
The metric expansion of space is the increase of distance between distant parts of the universe with time. It is an intrinsic expansionthat is, it is defined by the relative separation of parts of the universe and not by motion "outward" into preexisting space. In other words, the universe is not expanding "into" anything outside of itself, although a frequently used analogy is the expansion of the surface of an expanding rubber balloon. If this analogy is used, this surface should be seen as an intrinsic manifold.
Now, follow this link and read it:
Expansion of the universe - Wikipedia
If there is a specific point you disagree with we can discuss it (and hope Cavediver or Son Guko happens by).
not for me, but for any measure of science. When the cause factor is negated - science goes out the window.
I don't believe that this is tha case: please show me where and how science goes out out the window.
I know about slight of hand casino science.
You suggest I'm trying to trick you? Sir, you wound me. I demand an apology, or satisfaction.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.
Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 320 by IamJoseph, posted 11-18-2011 9:45 AM IamJoseph has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 322 by NoNukes, posted 11-18-2011 12:51 PM Larni has not replied
 Message 330 by Butterflytyrant, posted 11-19-2011 10:06 PM Larni has replied

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


Message 327 of 357 (641500)
11-19-2011 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 325 by Phat
11-19-2011 4:31 PM


Re: Plausible explanation
As far as I'm aware ther cannot be (by definition) 'before' time started.
And perhaps 'nothing' is an impossible condition is this our universe.
But I suppose Cavediver is correct. Unless one has firm grounding in the maths of this field (excuse the pun) we are like kids discussing sex in the playground.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.
Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 325 by Phat, posted 11-19-2011 4:31 PM Phat has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 328 by cavediver, posted 11-19-2011 6:42 PM Larni 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