Where did the matter and energy come from?

Thanks cavediver.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.ABE:Well, actually (as explained in Message 20) I was having a brain fart so you can skip over this request.Or feel free to explain it if you think the lurkers will benefit.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : see abe

I've seen cavediver's analogy of a sea, with the surface of the water being the field and all the perturbations being the particles.And actually, now that I've been thinking about it, I've embarrisngly misread what he was writing. For some reason, when I was reading excitation, I was think more along the lines of "exit" that "excite" and becomming confused as to there being anything exiting the fields, but I should have known it was the exciting of the fields >.<Now that I've reread, it makes a lot more sense.

I like that. It makes sense.and its funny that you used the word "dealie" I'm thinking the more 'thermal' adjectives could add some confusion though.

I don't think they "came from" anywhere/thing.Where did god come from?

What kind of relationship do the fields have to each other?Are they like layers or a lamellar structure, or something?

Okay. That makes sense... maybe its like an embeded overlay, or something

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.

well now you're just being an ass

Ummm, no. To be falling towards the earth you'd have to be moving relative to it, which you are not. The rest of the cosmos is irrelevant. And that is all that matters for this point.

Shedding of electrons... No.The electron will emit a photon when it moves from an outer shell to an inner shell (higher to lower energy state). Its almost the opposite of "shedding". They're not both falling to the earth as neither one is moving relative to it.And its not just relative to the earth. Earth's gravity is what is causing it to have the potential energy so even relative to Alpha Centauri, the rock above your head has more potential energy. Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

Photons are shed from electrons when they move from an outer shell to an inner shell: That's the Bohr model of an atom. The concentric rings represent electron shells. When the electron goes from the outer shell to the inner one, a photon is emmitted. All mass creates gravity. The earth, the moon, and the sun all have their own gravitational pulls. It is reletive to the amount of mass so the suns is greater that the earths is greater than the moons. You'd weigh less on the moon because there is less mass beneath your feet pulling you towards it (take it easy on that one nerds, I know about the bending of sapcetime and the lack of an actual "pull" of gravity). Also, the effect of gravity get less as distance from the object is increased. The moons pull isn't going to send you flying off the planet but interestingly enough, it can cause the tides. The rocks are not moving. Once the rock starts falling, it has kinetic energy.The potential energy comes from the gravitational attraction to the earth, it is not "relative to it".Shit, i gottta go.

That would indicate that the universe is NOT "just right" for us. What makes you think it is? Especially in light of the fact that 99.999% of it would kill us instantly.And would you also argue that a pothole shows signs of being designed to fit perfectly around the puddle that is in it? That is the same argument as the universe or earth being made just right for our existence.

Oh, I get it.Excuse me for mistaking you as staying in the context of planetary travel.But what does that have to do with the topic? And why are you avoiding discussion of it? I did ask you a direct question.Do you have any intention of debating your claims?

But the earth is not "just right" either. Most of the surface of the Earth is inhospitable to humans as well. Do some math. Obviously, we wouldn't find life where it couldn't live. Look at this puddle: Do you see how the edges of that pothole are perfectly designed, down to the millimeter, so that it fits perfectly around the water in it?That is just as amazing as finding that life fits withing the boudaries that the Earth allows for.Oh, and the Habitable Zone around the sun is millions of miles thick. Its not nearly as "fine tuned" as your making it out to be. Simply show that there is any truth to it at all, I'm not unconvincable.