Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


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


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Where did the matter and energy come from?
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3644 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 86 of 357 (544976)
01-30-2010 6:30 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by Larni
01-29-2010 2:37 PM


Re: An example
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?
Exactly - this whole "mass has been converted to energy by Einstein's e=mc2" bullshit is so ingrained into the folklore of atomic physics that it's hard to combat - as seen recently here at EvC.
In a chemical explosion bonds break and reactions take place so mass can change as field excitations re-stabilise?
No, it's exactly the same situation as above, but with the difference pointed out in the above post.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Larni, posted 01-29-2010 2:37 PM Larni has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3644 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 87 of 357 (544977)
01-30-2010 6:30 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by lyx2no
01-29-2010 4:59 PM


Re: An example
Been conserved.
In a chemical explosion the mass is also been conserved; however, no nucleic bosoms are freed, only photons.
Nice

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by lyx2no, posted 01-29-2010 4:59 PM lyx2no has seen this message but not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3644 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 95 of 357 (545032)
01-31-2010 5:44 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by DevilsAdvocate
01-30-2010 9:52 PM


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.
On the contrary, the field is only defined as a mathematical concept. There is nothing else. At this level, we are way beyond what you are suggesting - the classical physics of "blobs" with properties that can be approximately modelled mathematically. Those idealised blobs - planets, cannon balls, atoms, nucleons - are eventually exhausted and all that is left (the electrons, quarks, photons, gluons) is composed out of purely mathematical concepts.
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.
To be clear, this is not just my own view as some bizarre Platonist but also that of many if not the majority in this field of study.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 01-30-2010 9:52 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 01-31-2010 6:19 AM cavediver has replied
 Message 105 by Buzsaw, posted 01-31-2010 5:19 PM cavediver has not replied
 Message 177 by Buzsaw, posted 02-12-2011 6:05 PM cavediver has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3644 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


(1)
Message 98 of 357 (545039)
01-31-2010 7:07 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by DevilsAdvocate
01-31-2010 6:19 AM


However the spacetime of the universe itself does exist does it not?
I'm not sure Distance between two points is "just" a value in a field. The whole concept of "space" seems to me to be just as much a result of consciousness interpretation as the concept of "blue" or "C#".
We're really tripping on the edge of our understanding here, and it's always much easier to say what things are not, than to say what they are...
However to call the universe mathematics at its most fundamental seems to strike as misuse of the proper definition of the term mathematics.
Well, it depends what you mean - and that is the whole problem at the heart of this - what do we each mean by the words we're using. In that, MatterWave is correct - we end up just label shuffling. I'm certainly not talking about equations, integers, and geometric objects floating around in some Platonic realm. But to do this topic justice requires far more time than I have at the moment... and it will re-appear in this thread as we progress further into our deep questions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 01-31-2010 6:19 AM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by onifre, posted 01-31-2010 12:33 PM cavediver has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3644 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


(1)
Message 99 of 357 (545040)
01-31-2010 7:09 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by Larni
01-31-2010 6:37 AM


MatterWave writes:
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.
Actually, as far as I am concerned, the excitations of the fields that make up what we label "stuff/matter" in this orderly and comprehensible universe suggest that you and the whole universe and God are all just my thoughts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Larni, posted 01-31-2010 6:37 AM Larni has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3644 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 101 of 357 (545054)
01-31-2010 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by onifre
01-31-2010 12:33 PM


Consciousness interpretation? What does that mean, cavediver?
It is our brains that give rise to our everyday understanding of colour, our understanding of sound, of texture.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by onifre, posted 01-31-2010 12:33 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by onifre, posted 01-31-2010 1:35 PM cavediver has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3644 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

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3644 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

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3644 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

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3644 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 165 of 357 (545933)
02-06-2010 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by onifre
01-31-2010 1:35 PM


Finally getting some free time, so will try to catch up on this thread...
So are you saying that distance and space are subjective concepts that are experienced also?
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by onifre, posted 01-31-2010 1:35 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by Sasuke, posted 02-06-2010 5:48 PM cavediver has not replied
 Message 168 by onifre, posted 02-07-2010 6:03 PM cavediver has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3644 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


(4)
Message 324 of 357 (641428)
11-19-2011 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 313 by Phat
11-18-2011 2:49 AM


Re: Plausible explanation
If at one time, something was highly compressed and static, it is basically illogical to assume that it would change without prompting.
It's difficult to know where to start with a statement like this because the number of misconceptions it holds is almost greater than the number of words making up the statement!
This conjures up the image of a primeval egg, sat in in the middle of a great (infinite) arena of nothingness, waiting long aeons for the right moment to explode, filling the surrounding empty space with light and matter.
There was no egg, there was no arena, there were no long aeons, there was no right moment and there was no explosion.
In terms of understanding existence, physics has left pure ontology so far behind, that listening to talks such as this one is like listening to kids' playground chatter.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 313 by Phat, posted 11-18-2011 2:49 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3644 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


(2)
Message 326 of 357 (641497)
11-19-2011 6:24 PM
Reply to: Message 325 by Phat
11-19-2011 4:31 PM


Re: Plausible explanation
all I am basically asking is how nothing, by definition, can ever become something.
It can't. As far as I am concerned, there is no such thing as "nothing".
I am aware that in the case of the universe, there has always been something.
Yep
Even before time started
See what you did there?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 325 by Phat, posted 11-19-2011 4:31 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 332 by Phat, posted 11-20-2011 5:40 PM cavediver has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3644 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 328 of 357 (641503)
11-19-2011 6:42 PM
Reply to: Message 327 by Larni
11-19-2011 6:35 PM


Re: Plausible explanation
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.
Just to be clear, I was refering to Phat's video.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 327 by Larni, posted 11-19-2011 6:35 PM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 329 by Larni, posted 11-19-2011 6:55 PM cavediver 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