Missing Matter

IMHO, this is the most fundamental issue that needs to be resolved before we can argue Creator/No Creator on EvC. That's why i made the thread about matter and reality, I wish we all had the QM/CM knowledge to participate as equals in such an epic discussion.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

Do you believe in a sub-quantum world that could explain the weirdness of the observed phenomena?Anyway, i wonder why we should continue to close our eyes to uncomfortable questions. QM says the floor you are sitting on is made 99.999% of empty space. Einstein proved that matter is a form of condensed energy. De Broglie claimed that all matter has related to it a wave length and a frequency of that wave, a certain number of wave cycles per second. Not only had humanity learned that matter was not matter, we now had to believe that everything is a wave. Everything ” you and I included. Seventy years of experiments have sustained both Einstein's and de Broglie's preposterous, counterintuitive(to avoid my favourite "fucked up") claims. What we perceive as solid matter is actually de Broglie's waves separated by open space, made impermeable by invisible, immaterial fields of force that somehow pervade the space. The world simply is not as it seems and De Broglie tells us light and stones is one and the same.
The sub-structure of all existence is just an idea. As Einstein has found out, the sub-structure of energy is even more elusive.So why do we keep saying there is nothing wrong with the findings of QM? How does that not change the way we look at reality and our existence?Here is a short list of the most prominent physicists of our time that believed in a creator(not always the same as God):1. Steven Hawking
Pacific News2. Albert Einstein3. Machio Kaku4. Max Plank
Homepage - adherents5. Werner Heisenberg
http://www.edinformatics.com/great_thinkers/heisenberg.htm6. Niels Bohr7. Enrico Fermi(the father of the atomic bomb)8. Nikola TeslaEtc.If all these greatest physicists of our time, that have dedicated their whole lives to physics, reality and QM have found the existence of a higher intelligence mandatory to their discoveries, why should we doubt them?How is human Free will not an incoherent notion when it requires one to be the author of oneself, a logical impossibility and paradox, wheter you think of it in terms of Evolution or God(Biblical or not)?Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

Ok i thought you meant that the relativity theory is an essentially deterministic theory and the quantum theory is essentially indeterministic and hence the rift between them.

It seems you are saying that Einstein was right in his famous remark:"God does not play dice"

---

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind""I am a deeply religious nonbeliever - This is a somewhat new kind of religion"-Albert Einstein

Why do scientists try to use General Relativity at the Singularity? The way i see it is this - prior to the BB there was nothing physical, just energy. After the BB there is still nothing physical, just energy and thus nothing arose of nothing and something did not arise of nothing. There was just an enormously dense enegy prior to the BB that has since then spread out considerably. Why would we try to apply physical laws from our classical world to an energy point with no physical dimensions? Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

---

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind""I am a deeply religious nonbeliever - This is a somewhat new kind of religion"-Albert Einstein

Hi onifre,How is a singularity part of our reality? In what way? In my classical reality, infinite energy dots with zero physical dimensions don't make sense at all. They simply don't belong in my realm of existence. I've seen quotes stating the singularity to be 2 cm in diameter as well as zero. Is there a concensus in the scientific community on this topic?Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

---

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind""I am a deeply religious nonbeliever - This is a somewhat new kind of religion"-Albert Einstein

Let me add a few more questions to your confusion -1. How can a zero-dimensional zero-volume particle have a 3D field around it that is one of the reasons we get the impression of solidness of "matter" and the non-zero volume of atoms(around it is an approximation, i am lost where in the zero the field would lie)? Does quantum physics consider such a particle to physically exist(whatever "physically exist" means outside our human perspective).2. Would the 1 dimensional particles(strings) in String Theory resolve the above conundrum?3. Is there anything else to our existence beside mass, energy and field?Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

---

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind""I am a deeply religious nonbeliever - This is a somewhat new kind of religion"-Albert Einstein

While we are on the topic of matter, i'd like to see what you think about programmable atoms. This idea has its reasons and logic, but i don't see it happening in our life-time. Basically, it says it can change atoms from one element to another with the use of quantum "dots" in place of the nucleus and changing the numbers of electrons(same thing that happens to a human body when someone dies) and for instance the technology will be able to turn water to coke.
But then that's how i view our reality and existence, if this ever becomes true we should be able to produce whatever physical reality we wish - even a small realistic "simulation" of our reality with the human beings inside it. This didn't sound right until i saw that credible universities are working on this issue. I'll stop short of saying such a technology could let us become gods, as the idea seems to be still in diapers and the authors seem to suggest the technology would not arrive earlier than the 22th century.Ultimate Alchemy | WIREDProgrammable matter - Wikipediahttp://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_/ai_99187018As tempting as it sounds, the hype does leave me with an impression of a multi-billion dollar appeal for funds for something that will possibly be intriguing in the year 2222.

---

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind""I am a deeply religious nonbeliever - This is a somewhat new kind of religion"-Albert Einstein

I'd say yes, but then cavediver said QM is deterministic in this thread, so to my layman understanding it'd mean that we should be able to calculate the probability amplitudes of all points with precision and so they wouldn't really be probabilities any more. Of course, I am trying to fill my gaps of QM knowledge with reason and common sense, so i could be plain wrong on the above conclusion. I am interested to know if cavediver and san goku would go as far as to say the probability amplitudes are infinite or whether they are near-infinite(but not infinite) and locally bounded. I'd take a wild guess and say as much as needed so that the Hilbert space could be represented and defined mathematically. But i am also interested to know if those points stand for elementary particles of the quantum field with their wavefunction in this approach of description.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.