Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Where did the matter and energy come from?
Sasuke
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 137
Joined: 08-21-2009


Message 166 of 357 (545957)
02-06-2010 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by cavediver
02-06-2010 12:08 PM


cavediver,
what is QM?

"The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ [be] with you all. Amen."
Sasuke!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by cavediver, posted 02-06-2010 12:08 PM cavediver has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by Percy, posted 02-06-2010 5:50 PM Sasuke has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 167 of 357 (545958)
02-06-2010 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by Sasuke
02-06-2010 5:48 PM


Quantum mechanics.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by Sasuke, posted 02-06-2010 5:48 PM Sasuke has not replied

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


Message 168 of 357 (546035)
02-07-2010 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by cavediver
02-06-2010 12:08 PM


That can and should be looked into only after first understanding the mathematical basis that gives rise to the QM interpretational issues in the first place!
Thanks for the response, cavediver. I didn't think you meant solely subjective, but I just wanted to be clear that there is an objective world that there is a consensus on.
I'm curious as to your opinion on Roger Penrose's Orch-OR theory?
When I first got to this forum I read on a thread you recommending his book Road to Reality, which I bought on your recommendation. So I figured he's a theoretical physicist whos work you respect.
I was wondering if you think his take on consciousness being at the QM level, found inside Microtubules, has good evidence to support it?
I'll provide a quote of what Orch-OR is for others reading who aren't familiar with it.
quote:
The Orch OR theory combines Penrose's hypothesis with respect to the Gdel theorem with Hameroff's hypothesis with respect to microtubules. Together, Penrose and Hameroff have proposed that when condensates in the brain undergo an objective reduction of their wave function, that collapse connects to non-computational decision taking/experience embedded in the geometry of fundamental spacetime.
The theory further proposes that the microtubules both influence and are influenced by the conventional activity at the synapses between neurons. The Orch in Orch OR stands for orchestrated to give the full name of the theory Orchestrated Objective Reduction. Orchestration refers to the hypothetical process by which connective proteins, known as microtubule associated proteins (MAPs) influence or orchestrate the quantum processing of the microtubules.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by cavediver, posted 02-06-2010 12:08 PM cavediver has not replied

  
xXGEARXx
Member (Idle past 5121 days)
Posts: 41
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 169 of 357 (550186)
03-13-2010 12:47 PM


huh??
This is where I really get lost. I completely do not understand where it all ends. I totally get how the big bang could have happened. Possibly one superforce, then they split apart, etc. I know, I know, I am really dumding it down. The real issue I have is grasping what starts it all. If indeed there are Branes that touch and make big bangs, that would conclude parallel universes. Ok fine, but where does it end? Where is the generator that creates the branes?
This is the problem religion runs into, which by the way, I am agnostic for whatever it is worth. Religion says there is a God or Gods. This "entity" has just simply existed. Well, ok, I guess maybe?? Problem there lies in the fact no such being has been seen or found in the universe. Ever. Science dictates for something to be correct it has to be observed and measured. Other than that a theroy is then created-based on facts. At least the core facts anyway. Even M theory is based on factual mathmatics. This is another reason why religion fails. How can you mathmatically prove the stories in the bible or koran for instance? You can't.
So all of that being said. Is it really that there is never a "beginning"? Just simply deeper and deeper mysteries? Strings and branes and such? If that is the case then infinity and
particles are reality. Non living materials are immortal and we just happen (life that is) to be a by product, an accident if you will. Heck, maybe that is the real answer. Non living created the living. Always would have?
I would love to hear what some of you think about this. I just can't wrap my brain around where it all starts-if it even does.
By the way, Islam teaches that Allah's throne is larger than the entire universe. That is one big throne, lol?
One other point that I would like to make about a supreme being. It is POSSIBLE that life was created in another universe. One with different rules than our own universe, of course. A being of energy that developed intelligence by accident, evolved if you will. That being learned how to manipulate space time, energy, etc. Even down to the quantum level. This being could pass from universe to universe and do whatever it liked. To all of us, that being would be God-or some version of that. I am not convinced that this even happened, but consider this. M theory involves an infinite number of universes. That would also mean infinite possiblities... who knows where it ends. I feel honored to even have been born with a brain that allows me to be self aware and can grasp how much more there is beyond us.

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by onifre, posted 03-13-2010 1:18 PM xXGEARXx has replied
 Message 180 by thewordofgod, posted 02-12-2011 6:52 PM xXGEARXx has not replied

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


Message 170 of 357 (550199)
03-13-2010 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by xXGEARXx
03-13-2010 12:47 PM


Re: huh??
So all of that being said. Is it really that there is never a "beginning"?
Ask yourself this, have you ever witnessed anything begin from nothing? Or is everything just a change from another form?
So what even has a beginning?
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by xXGEARXx, posted 03-13-2010 12:47 PM xXGEARXx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by xXGEARXx, posted 03-13-2010 1:28 PM onifre has replied

  
xXGEARXx
Member (Idle past 5121 days)
Posts: 41
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 171 of 357 (550200)
03-13-2010 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by onifre
03-13-2010 1:18 PM


Re: huh??
Crap, it has been so long I can't remember how to makes quotes. [q] is that it??
If everything is a change from another form, then OTHER forms are infinite and never begin. Hard concept to grasp-at least for me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by onifre, posted 03-13-2010 1:18 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by onifre, posted 03-13-2010 2:03 PM xXGEARXx has replied

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


Message 172 of 357 (550207)
03-13-2010 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by xXGEARXx
03-13-2010 1:28 PM


Re: huh??
Crap, it has been so long I can't remember how to makes quotes. [q] is that it??
Just use "peek" and you can see how I did it.
If everything is a change from another form, then OTHER forms are infinite and never begin. Hard concept to grasp-at least for me.
Absolutely true. It is a hard concept to grasp, but I think its the same for all of us. We experience time, so it's only natural to feel as thou things should begin and end. But this is only true for our macro, and more specifically, local world. Not so in quantum mechanics where there is no concept of time, beginning or end.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by xXGEARXx, posted 03-13-2010 1:28 PM xXGEARXx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by xXGEARXx, posted 03-13-2010 3:39 PM onifre has not replied

  
xXGEARXx
Member (Idle past 5121 days)
Posts: 41
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 173 of 357 (550219)
03-13-2010 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by onifre
03-13-2010 2:03 PM


Re: huh??
Absolutely true. It is a hard concept to grasp, but I think its the same for all of us. We experience time, so it's only natural to feel as thou things should begin and end. But this is only true for our macro, and more specifically, local world. Not so in quantum mechanics where there is no concept of time, beginning or end.
Now I can quote. I feel empowered...ha!
That makes a lot of sense to me. I have often wondered that same thing. Since we humans are bound by time, it matters to us. Then the answer could simply be-reality is timelessness and we just happen to have developed with time as our boundary. Our subsystems-IE quantum world, would know nothing of the sort because it revolves in a natural state of different rules.
I still say there could be a creator of sorts, even life after death. That may not invlove any of the known religions either. It may simply be something all to its own. Then again, it may be nothing-just simple death. I can't remember the past 13 billion years before my birth, can you? Therefore, if I cease to exist now, I don't think the wait until my particles reassemble into something else will matter much.
We all come from startdust anyway.
I was certainly crushed beyond belief when I lost my faith. Now I just realize that I am a part of the universe-now and later. At least I know that my energy will be released at death into something else. That is better than feeling utter dread from this life to possible utter nothingness.
As dumb as it may sound to some of you, that thought helped me to get over the blow of faithlessness. A version of that anyway....
I did learn to enjoy my life more now. Maybe that is the real lesson to be learned.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by onifre, posted 03-13-2010 2:03 PM onifre has not replied

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


Message 174 of 357 (601707)
01-23-2011 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Iblis
01-12-2010 1:19 PM


Inflation and the Singularity
Bleeding in from How Darwin caused atheism
Me being an ass, to ApostateAbe
The best explanation for how the universe started is with a singularity much like a black hole.
Not at all, that conception of the Big Bang is about thirty years obsolete. Inflation requires no matter singularity, and indeed such a singularity was the biggest flaw in the BB theory before Guth, as nothing comes out of a black hole. Other flaws included missing strange particles like monopoles, consistency in areas causally unconnected, and the appearance of fine tuning. Inflation resolves these problems.
But, that theory is by no means testable, except with a very big stretch in the definition--it is simply the best out of all explanations that we have.
Sorry, no. The singularity version of the Big Bang was falsifiable, clearly, as it has been falsified. Inflation is also falsifiable, in that it makes predictions. One of these predictions was the consistency of the CMB, which has since been found, its a black body temperature of 4 Kelvin for the whole shebang. Its consistency is within the bounds of the prediction, the minor variations within these bounds have given us a lot of info about the early universe. So the test has supported the current theory.
Cavediver being an arse, to me
Sorry, no. The singularity version of the Big Bang was falsifiable, clearly, as it has been falsified.
No, it hasn't been falsified. It is not a case of inflation or singularity - they are in entirely different categories of concept. Guth obviously has his place in the annals of cosmology, and inflation is a leading contender for solving a number of the issues with the Big bang model, but the language he uses in your link is awful: both misleading and innacurate. I would look elsewhere for details on modern cosmology; Guth seems to have lost perspective.
For example,
Inflation requires no matter singularity, and indeed such a singularity was the biggest flaw in the BB theory before Guth, as nothing comes out of a black hole.
is non-sequiturial nonsense
Me being a donkey
non-sequiturial nonsense
Thanks man, but I'm going to need a lot more than that. The "old" version of the big bang depicts all the matter currently making up the universe as being compressed into an area smaller than whatever, a nucleus for example. This is a classic black hole of enormous quantity, and I don't see any way for that matter to ever get out.
Guth's version begins without this excess matter, and uses "false vacuum" to produce the mass of crap and expansion and whatnot that we observe as the universe, in a process that certainly seems to my layman math-impaired thinking to correspond in some sense to the wonders of "vacuum energy".
Obviously based on your response I need a lot of work. Fine, where do I start? And why am I starting now, rather than one of the other times that I have posted this basic line of crap right in front of you?
* As, for example
Message 7
Message 48
And now, hopefully, cavediver being a mule:

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Iblis, posted 01-12-2010 1:19 PM Iblis has not replied

  
thewordofgod 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4792 days)
Posts: 31
Joined: 02-12-2011


Message 175 of 357 (604444)
02-12-2011 7:02 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Larni
01-12-2010 10:20 AM


Larni writes:
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.
The worlds were formed from the inside out with intense light energy that formed the atoms. They become a hot ball of lava that eventually cool down to make a planet or move. The stars were designed to keep a steady flow of heat coming from their core nuclear reactors. God planned every single atom so whatever we see was planned before it was created.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Larni, posted 01-12-2010 10:20 AM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by Larni, posted 02-12-2011 11:45 AM thewordofgod has 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

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 177 of 357 (604496)
02-12-2011 6:05 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by cavediver
01-31-2010 5:44 AM


Re: Alike Properties
cavediver writes:
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.
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.
quote:
There is no more "substrate". There is no more lower level stuff. There is no more modelling.
Mmm, those same properties of the supernatural are disallowed in the science fora.

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by thewordofgod, posted 02-12-2011 6:35 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
thewordofgod 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4792 days)
Posts: 31
Joined: 02-12-2011


Message 178 of 357 (604502)
02-12-2011 6:33 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by Larni
02-12-2011 11:45 AM


Larni writes:
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.
Who do you think planned for science to exist? There's a reason science doesn't understand the truth and it's because of the same arrogance that you have.
Nothing in the universe was built until everything was planned. In order to build it, light energy was needed so where do you think light energy and the plans to make all the atoms come from?
Science can't answer this question because they don't believe a plan was established. There's nothing more selfish than scientists who have to make plans to make an atom smashing accelerator to find out what's inside the atom that had to be planned and designed with perfection by something they won't admit to.
God is going to destroy everything soon so you don't have to be concerned about what I said. Go about your arrogant ways until you're burned up with hot molten lava.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Larni, posted 02-12-2011 11:45 AM Larni has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-12-2011 9:54 PM thewordofgod has not replied

  
thewordofgod 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4792 days)
Posts: 31
Joined: 02-12-2011


Message 179 of 357 (604503)
02-12-2011 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by Buzsaw
02-12-2011 6:05 PM


Re: Alike Properties
Buzsaw writes:
cavediver writes:
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.
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.
quote:
There is no more "substrate". There is no more lower level stuff. There is no more modelling.
Mmm, those same properties of the supernatural are disallowed in the science fora.
That intelligent designer sure is smart, isn't he. Science could work another million years on the atom and they still wouldn't understand it. That's because they refuse to believe in God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by Buzsaw, posted 02-12-2011 6:05 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
thewordofgod 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4792 days)
Posts: 31
Joined: 02-12-2011


Message 180 of 357 (604507)
02-12-2011 6:52 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by xXGEARXx
03-13-2010 12:47 PM


Re: huh??
xXGEARXx writes:
This is where I really get lost. I completely do not understand where it all ends. I totally get how the big bang could have happened. Possibly one superforce, then they split apart, etc. I know, I know, I am really dumding it down. The real issue I have is grasping what starts it all. If indeed there are Branes that touch and make big bangs, that would conclude parallel universes. Ok fine, but where does it end? Where is the generator that creates the branes?
This is the problem religion runs into, which by the way, I am agnostic for whatever it is worth. Religion says there is a God or Gods. This "entity" has just simply existed. Well, ok, I guess maybe?? Problem there lies in the fact no such being has been seen or found in the universe. Ever. Science dictates for something to be correct it has to be observed and measured. Other than that a theroy is then created-based on facts. At least the core facts anyway. Even M theory is based on factual mathmatics. This is another reason why religion fails. How can you mathmatically prove the stories in the bible or koran for instance? You can't.
So all of that being said. Is it really that there is never a "beginning"? Just simply deeper and deeper mysteries? Strings and branes and such? If that is the case then infinity and
particles are reality. Non living materials are immortal and we just happen (life that is) to be a by product, an accident if you will. Heck, maybe that is the real answer. Non living created the living. Always would have?
I would love to hear what some of you think about this. I just can't wrap my brain around where it all starts-if it even does.
By the way, Islam teaches that Allah's throne is larger than the entire universe. That is one big throne, lol?
One other point that I would like to make about a supreme being. It is POSSIBLE that life was created in another universe. One with different rules than our own universe, of course. A being of energy that developed intelligence by accident, evolved if you will. That being learned how to manipulate space time, energy, etc. Even down to the quantum level. This being could pass from universe to universe and do whatever it liked. To all of us, that being would be God-or some version of that. I am not convinced that this even happened, but consider this. M theory involves an infinite number of universes. That would also mean infinite possiblities... who knows where it ends. I feel honored to even have been born with a brain that allows me to be self aware and can grasp how much more there is beyond us.
There's a reason man has to think and plan before he builds something. He learned that he can't put materials in a pile and watch it build itself to whatever it desired to look like.
If men have to plan before they build, then how do you think the universe could be built without plans? How would an atom know how to build itself? How would atoms know how to adust their energy level, ions, electrons and photons and the rest of the inner parts without plans to do so?
What are the chances of all the elements being formed in the exact amounts needed on this earth to sustain life? How did the Hydrogen atom and Oxygen atom know how much water and air to make before there was any life on earth?
I know the answers to these questions but it's obvious that science doesn't.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by xXGEARXx, posted 03-13-2010 12:47 PM xXGEARXx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by frako, posted 02-12-2011 7:26 PM thewordofgod has not replied
 Message 182 by crashfrog, posted 02-12-2011 9:30 PM thewordofgod has not replied
 Message 187 by John 10:10, posted 02-15-2011 12:35 PM thewordofgod 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