Where did the matter and energy come from?

Energy/density curves spacetime...get it right, the nerds are watching. - Oni

From here: Message 109Define force? Ultimately yes. Mass, momentum and energy are all interelated properties of matter (see here: Momentum in relativistic mechanics.I agree with Rhavin. It seems we are throwing around arbitrary terms in order to try to get a grasp of the funamental nature of the quantum world i.e. what is matter? what is energy? what is mass? etc.. To get a good understanding of what is going on we need to define the terms we are using and have a subject matter experts like cavediver gently nudge us in the right direction.

---

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

Rahvin, here is where I have to be a little analy semantic as well. At the most fundamental levels, matter and energy are one in the same. Essentially everything boils down to energy. It is the Higgs field which gives mass to the most fundamental particles i.e. quarks, leptons, etc. Yes much of this is still theoretical but mathematics and quantum physics corroborate much of this and so far it is our best guess as depicting reality.This is what I believe Cavediver describes when he says below a certain level everything is mathematics. I prefer the term energy but that is just my layman preference based on my limited understanding of this science.Just my thoughts on the matter.

---

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

That isn't what's happening. The good Dr's model for these intents is. A second atom is unnecessary. According to Bohr, electrons orbit about the nucleus, but only in orbits that have angular momentums that are integer multiples of Plank's constant divided by 2π: L_n=nh/2π. When an electron absorbs or emits a photon they gain or lose, respectfully, the energy of that photon. In gaining energy the electron will to jump to a higher energy orbit. (Possibly to a state higher then the atom will be able to sustain and the electron will be shed creating an ion.) If there is an empty lower orbit the electron will spontaneously emit a photon dropping into that orbit. (Everything likes being in the lowest available energy state.) The photo is then free to interact with another electron. If there are few electrons to interact with that photon may zip off to the other side of the Universe. If there are lots of high energy photons about where absorption out paces emission the you get a lot of high angular momentum electrons. It is that they have the potential to fall that gives them the potential energy. The rock in the hand can be dropped to the ground. The rock on the ground can be kicked into a hole. If they are falling they have kinetic energy. The Earth and the rocks are in free fall around the Sun. This would be their kinetic energy. In the case of the Earth's near circular orbit there is little exchange back and forth of its potential and kinetic energy. Halley's comet demonstrates a great exchange back and forth of its potential and kinetic energy having a very elliptical orbit. The potential and kinetic energies are relative. When my reference frame is the little two meter box I react within the rock in my hand has potential energy while the rock on the ground does not. When my reference frame includes a 1000 meter cliff edge both rocks have essentially the same potential energy.

---

You are now a million miles away from where you were in space-time when you started reading this sentence.

Rahvin, Point taken. I am not sure what you're saying here. It's my understanding that all matter is made of atoms. These atoms are listed on the periodic table. Elements/atoms listed on the periodic table are made of protons, neutrons and electrons. Every element on the periodic table has its specific atomic number and mass per atom. So, all elements have a specific quantity of protons, neutrons and electrons per atom. These atoms bond to form either ions or molecules. These are the only components to atoms/elements and therefor matter. Point taken. I am not exactly sure what you're talking about on this one. I will have to do a little more reading but point taken.

---

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

DA, When the universe expanded it did so because, according to the bb theory, of its infinately dense/hot state. This expansion was due to an explosion. This explosion projected atomic particles outward in all directions which eventually caused elements of matter to form due to the bonding of these protons, neutrons and electrons(or the smaller stuff). I should of never started off any of my posts sounding like I knew what I was talking about. I will take this post to make a point though. Originally I thought that matter and energy were really the same thing. Cavediver then argued that matter is a field that fills a volume of spacetime which is different than energy because energy does not fill a volume of spacetime but yet it does have a mass. Then as I started to read a little further it seems that you find that matter and energy are the same thing. In reality if I imagine energy having mass I start to visualize protons, neutrons and electrons but then I could also visualize matter having energy also, with such concepts like the rock concept Rahvin was speaking of... So in short, I will have to conclude as you do, matter and energy are really the same thing. I have a question for anyone that may answer. What energy is there that is not made of or comes from the fundamental atomic particles(or the momentum of matter even)? If there is no such thing then how can energy not be matter? It seems true that everything is made of something... This idea that cavediver spoke of is seemingly more inaccurate the more I think about it. So, I am sorry if I seemed to come off like an ass... I will just agree that there is still yet a lot to learn about energy and mass, even for physicists and the fundamentalists.....

---

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

lyx2no, So, photons are actually emited and reabsorbed? This is how light travels from point a to b? Its essentially chemical interactions? Is there only 1 hally's comet or is it a different one each time it(they) passes by? Right. Potential energy is "potential energy" or energy that can be released but is not being released at the moment. Kinetic energy is energy that is being released but is specific to matter?

---

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

When you say, "Matter is not bound energy," that doesn't sound like nitpicking to me. Given that Sasuke's primary question is whether "energy = matter," it seems like the most important point you could make.When Sasuke was presented the equation for kinetic energy he responded as if it were a revelation that one could quantify such concepts, and I think this means that he's approaching the topic from an intuitive perspective uninformed by even high school physics.--Percy

Yes, Cavediver is giving you the specific quantum physics definition of energy and matter. Both energy and matter are defined by spacetime itself. Both are derived from spacetimeand thus ultimately both are interrelated. That is what I really mean when I inaccurately stated that ultimately they are the same thing. Instead I should have said they are derived from the same thing aka spacetime. Matter is, in my layman understanding is endowed with mass caused by the Higgs field, specifically Higgs particles.Try reading some books on the subject i.e. Brian Green's The Fabric of the Cosmos and it will help you attain a basic laymans perspective of this subject. I have to reread it because I think I still misunderstand much of what he is saying.

---

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

To say photon transmission is a chemical interaction is kind of a misnomer because chemistry (the study of atoms of elements interacting with each other) breaks down at the quantum level. It is more accurate to call this phenomena 'electromagnetic interaction' because photons are the messenger particles of the electromagnetic force.Think of chemistry as being more a macroscopic level/perspective of our universe than that of quantum physics. However, phenomena that occurs in quantum physics does affect phenomena that occurs at the chemistry level and vice versa.

---

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

Yes. Photons are emitted and reabsorbed by electrons. But it's important to remember that an electron's environment dictates the specific energies of the photons that the electron can emit or absorb. A spectrograph shows the pattern of large numbers of photons revealing the environment of these electrons; i.e., 2.725 K hydrogen.No, photons do not requiring a medium to travel. Electrons hinder the travel of photons. That's why c had to be specified in a vacuum.Not chemistry. Chemistry is the interactions of atoms and molecules via electrons. Photons are not reacting with the atom as a whole; only the electrons. However, because the atom or molecule is the environment of the electron, the energies of the associated photons tell us a lot about the atom or molecule as a whole. There is only 1 Halley's comet. Halley's has an extended elliptical orbit with a period of 76 years. At aphelion it is 35 times as far from the Sun as does the Earth and has a huge potential energy and little kinetic energy. At perihelion it is half as far from the Sun as is the Earth and has little potential energy and a hugh kinetic energy. There are hundreds of named comets. Kinetic energy is not being "released". Say you are floating along side the HST with a spanner in hand. Relative to you the HST has a kinetic energy 200 times greater, and the spanner 200 times lesser. Do you notice any energy transfer?

---

You are now a million miles away from where you were in space-time when you started reading this sentence.

DA,Yes. So next term I am taking physics 101.

---

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

It gets smaller than that. Protons and neutrons themselves are comprised of quarks.The definition of "matter" that you're using is fine for chemistry, but doesn't work accurately for physics. it's like how I can describe a nuclear reaction as an "explosion," and that's accurate enough when dealing with the effects, but isn't very accurate when looking at the details.Science is all about accuracy. We can never quite hit the bullseye, but we can get "close enough for the discussion at hand," and we can get "as close as we can get with current knowledge." Saying that water is made of hydrogen and oxygen is accurate, and good enough for some topics, but it's not as accurate as saying that water is made of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom, which itself is less accurate than a diagram that shows the structure of the molecule, etc.Atoms are not the smallest unit of matter. They're simply the smallest unit of a given element that can still be identified as a distinct element.Physicists have discovered all manner of different subatomic particles beyond the "neutron, proton, electron" trinity discussed in Chemistry. At this point, physicists are trying to garner ever more accurate models of what matter actually is, why matter and energy have mass, and generally unlock the secrets of the Universe.

Percy, I will agree that there are so many different terms out there and that people use them universely which is why I made the point that communication is difficult. It is extreamly important to use the correct terminology esp when discussing Science that way the communication can be as pure as it can be(assuming the receiver and sender are aware of this concept). Well it was not so much a revelation as it was newly aquired knowledge. I am fully aware of the fact that there are equations to represent these concepts, in reality all concepts, but I just didn't know of that specific equation(which explains KE). I will also admit when I graduated from HS in 2000 I was not the best student at the school but things do change as we age. I will also admit that I am now attending college in relation to Applied Science. Edited by Sasuke, : grammar

---

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

Finally getting some free time, so will try to catch up on this thread... I'd hesitate to say subjective as there is an obvious concensus, but I would agree that distance and space as we think of them are just "experienced". However, this is heading off too far in Matterwave's direction and I do not think that is appropriate for this thread. We can quite legitimately look at the physical basis of matter and energy without having to fall into quantum mechanically inspired solipsism. 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!