Where did the matter and energy come from?

Classic 'God of the Gaps' crap. Classic projection of your philosophical condundrums onto your antigonistic 'the atheist'. What do you mean visualize? By photons? Quarks do not transmit or retransmit photons so by this measure you are right that we cannot visualize them. This along with the fact that they are bound inside nucleons with no direct method to 'visualize' them. However we can detect them through other means. Direct visualization using photons only gets us so far, other methods take us the rest of the way in quantum physics. Numbers are not real, tangible objects. You really need to stop with your religious voodoo bullshit. Math is a tool used to help us describe the universe. Math is not the universe. Wrong. Matter is not numbers. You are hopelessly confused. What are you defining as matter? What does free will have to do with matter????? WTF? Why are you combining physics with human psychology? I hear Scientology needs some more members. How do you know? You can't even define matter and energy much less prescribe where it came from.

---

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's original. You might want to credit Wolfgang Pauli when you plagerize his quotes. Can you be a little more specific? What does this have to with math not being matter? They aren't just abstract things conjured by our brains. 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.I think you are confusing the "things" that properties describe with the properties that describe these "things" i.e. virtual particles, real particles, fields, etc. Again, mathematics and its many abstract precepts is an human conceived concept used to describe how the universe operates it is not the universe itself. Yet you capriciously toss around these labels without even attempting to define them while at the same time stating that because we don't know all the answers than some supernatural being which no one can prove exists, has to be the answer to everything.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

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

I understand that blobs of matter at the most fundamental level do not exist. However the spacetime of the universe itself does exist does it not? And is that not what mathematics describes? Is a field not the dimensions of spacetime (the universe) itself, interacting with itself? Of course spacetime itself is a mathematical 'object' which mathematics describes. But would it be correct to say than that the universe itself is mathematics?It makes sense that at the most fundamental level HOW the universe interacts (mathematics) and WHAT it is break down and become one since mathematics is the attempt of humans to describe the universe in which they exist. That makes sense. However to call the universe mathematics at its most fundamental seems to strike as misuse of the proper definition of the term mathematics. I think the term mathematics is being confused here for what mathematics is describing/defining.Is mathematics not the human derived language used to interpret how the universe works?Just my layman thoughts. Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

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

Why? What does religious belief have to do with any of this????Why are you dragging the existence of a supernatural entity which is not falsifiable into this?The existance or non existance of God is not required for nonlocality. If you think so, please tell me why.

---

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

Of course you can. This is a free countrie(s).You can say the universe lies on the back of turtles. However, you saying it does not make it so.And I of course have the right to challenge your assertions. Why is the assertion that the sun rising tomorrow not falsifiable? All we have to do is wait until the morning and observe the sun rise. If it doesn't than the assertion/theory that the sun always rises after it sets is proven false and therefore this hypothesis/theory is falsifiable. One day the Earth will possibly be swallowed up by the Red Giant phase of the Sun before going Nova. Then the Sun will not rise in the sky of the Earth. Thus this theory is falsifiable even if we are not there to observe it.
There is a possibility that Earth could 'fall apart' (whatever that means) due to an unobserved phenomena. However this is not a prediction but a probability (even if very small) based on the laws of physics of which they themselves are falsifiable.So again explain how a supernatural force/entity, itself outside of the natural universe and its laws, is falsifiable. Sure they are. I am not even saying they aren’t important questions to ask. I am all for free thinking and inquiry. I am just saying that they are not in the realm of scientific verifiability and validation. If so please show me how. I am only upset in the fact that people like you use the term God as a cop-out to cover gaps in our knowledge. How about being honest and just saying I don’t know. Why do you have to fit your definition of God into this. It could be God, it could be Brahma or any other religious entity. Or it could be a totally natural phenomena. You have no way of proving or disproving this. How so? Please explain. Who said I figured it out. I am not the one claiming ‘God’ to be the answer. My answer is I don’t know. At least I am honest. You are the one bringing God into this. Why should I be defining your God?I do not have to prove the nonexistence of something. The burden of proof lies with the one asserting the existence of something (in this case ‘God’) not 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

How about #3. I don't know but lets discuss what we do know. Why the leap of faith to some unseen, unverifiable, unsubstantiatable, supernatural designer?Bringing a capricious, supernatural entity into the discussion results in dodging around important scientific questions that must be asked i.e. why does nonlocality exist at the quantum level, etc. So instead of trying to answer these, some super religious zealots just evoke the 'God of the Gaps' cop-out as an unseen and unknowable force that moves the universe.I am not even saying this isn't or can't be true. However, it does nothing to answer the question of non-locality (or any other inquiry) in scientific (natural) terms. In essence, evoking the supernatural is a scientific cop-out.

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

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