Naked Science Forum
Non Life Sciences => Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology => Topic started by: scienceofscience on 24/10/2013 14:06:04
-
Ok, we know matter equals "solid, liquid and gas"...and this includes (of course) heat, cold, warm, freezing...
Anything else is just space...nothingness....
Without matter, would space have a temperature?...without matter is there even 'space'?
The answer to the above questions is NO.
We know that matter can not be created from nothingness, so where did matter come from?
If you think beyond any type of big bang (because the big bang requires matter to exist to begin with bla bla bla...), and go back in time so far, picturing matter in space...what created matter from nothingness?
Has it always existed? Matter has existed for an eternity? Sitting in our shoes (we mere humans), there is infinity..it can't be disproven...or proven...except by faith either way.
Only stubborn minds will say matter came "to be" from nothingness...just like the stubborn minds who 'have faith' in the "theory" of evolution.
Mans mind is limited but yet so unlimited...are we supposed to know all the answers? Lol we can't, and never will until we accept some kind of "creator" created matter and all that it forms...Then we can learn everything we need to know...because the race for answers would be canceled and replaced with wisdom...and frustration with peace of mind...
But we seem to approve of ourselves instead of humbling...
The act of scientology (knowing/study of/knowing how to know) is mistaken to mean "study of what one wants to know"...in the context of one (a person) studying a particular subject that they are enthusiastic about studying...instead of...studying a particular subject on all aspects...with all possibilities. In plain English, some, or most people only want to study in what they 'want' to believe.
A true scientist will examine ALL aspects/realms of the subject in order to give ALL scientology a chance to show itself for a derivative answer....not just the answer he/she "hopes" for..."to be open to a conclusion that most answers the question" .
I believe colleges must not graduate students in scientology unless the students prove to be open for the most favorable answer that manifests through ALL aspects of study....and not show preferences of popular propaganda to improve their status in society. Anything else is a waste of time and money...
When will the true scientists put their foot down against these "status", "shallow", "self-serving" fools?
-
Ok, we know matter equals "solid, liquid and gas"...and this includes (of course) heat, cold, warm, freezing...
Anything else is just space...nothingness....
Without matter, would space have a temperature?...without matter is there even 'space'?
The answer to the above questions is NO.
We know that matter can not be created from nothingness, so where did matter come from?
If you think beyond any type of big bang (because the big bang requires matter to exist to begin with bla bla bla...), and go back in time so far, picturing matter in space...what created matter from nothingness?
Has it always existed? Matter has existed for an eternity? Sitting in our shoes (we mere humans), there is infinity..it can't be disproven...or proven...except by faith either way.
Only stubborn minds will say matter came "to be" from nothingness...just like the stubborn minds who 'have faith' in the "theory" of evolution.
Mans mind is limited but yet so unlimited...are we supposed to know all the answers? Lol we can't, and never will until we accept some kind of "creator" created matter and all that it forms...Then we can learn everything we need to know...because the race for answers would be canceled and replaced with wisdom...and frustration with peace of mind...
But we seem to approve of ourselves instead of humbling...
The act of scientology (knowing/study of/knowing how to know) is mistaken to mean "study of what one wants to know"...in the context of one (a person) studying a particular subject that they are enthusiastic about studying...instead of...studying a particular subject on all aspects...with all possibilities. In plain English, some, or most people only want to study in what they 'want' to believe.
A true scientist will examine ALL aspects/realms of the subject in order to give ALL scientology a chance to show itself for a derivative answer....not just the answer he/she "hopes" for..."to be open to a conclusion that most answers the question" .
I believe colleges must not graduate students in scientology unless the students prove to be open for the most favorable answer that manifests through ALL aspects of study....and not show preferences of popular propaganda to improve their status in society. Anything else is a waste of time and money...
When will the true scientists put their foot down against these "status", "shallow", "self-serving" fools?
We could slightly re-phrase this question into: where did energy come from? We're told matter and energy are interchangeable (E = mc^2), right? And if energy cannot be destroyed, only changed in form, then does it last forever? Entropy says no because it says that matter eventually becomes so disorganised that it can no longer do anything useful. So what kick-started the universe? Are we really in a universe created by a black hole? Many perplexing questions. I think the big hurdle in our understanding of what is going on is, I believe, the concept of time as a forward flowing arrow. If we keep asking the question about what caused this and what caused that and what caused that, etc., etc., we end up nowhere, so I think we have to take a fresh perspective about how the universe and reality, in general, works. If we re-work our ideas about space and time to regard the universe/multiverse as an unbroken whole, a massive, intricately formed crystal where everything is literally connected where time and space are merely surface features, then we can see that it is our focus that is real and reveals subtleties we could never have imagined.
You will receive a number of scientific theories here that will only go so far in answering your question but in the end you have to ask yourself whether any if them cut the mustard and, just maybe, something much more revolutionary is required.
-
First off it is my opinion that this thread is about religion, not science. I don't mean to be a back seat moderator and that is not my goal here. I simply mean that when discussing scientology as that term is widely used means that you're not following the scientific method regardless of the "science" root of that term
We could slightly re-phrase this question into: where did energy come from? We're told matter and energy are interchangeable (E = mc^2), right?
No. Matter is not a well-defined term in physics and is often confused with mass. The term “matter” is often used to refer to (loosely speaking) “stuff” whereas mass is a measurable quantity which quantities a body’s momentum.
And if energy cannot be destroyed, only changed in form, then does it last forever?
Yes.
Entropy says no because it says that matter eventually becomes so disorganised that it can no longer do anything useful.
That doesn't mean that energy changes with time.
-
There seem to be some misunderstandings in the OP
Ok, we know matter equals "solid, liquid and gas"...and this includes (of course) heat, cold, warm, freezing...
Your meaning here is obscure. As written you are saying that heat, cold etc are forms of matter. Was this bad phrasing, or do you really mean this?
Anything else is just space...nothingness....
Space, or perhaps more accurately space-time is, as I understand it, considerably more than nothing. It is the fabric within which things exist and events occur. It can generate virtual particles. It appears to be much more than nothing.
Without matter, would space have a temperature?...without matter is there even 'space'?
The answer to the above questions is NO.
Again, from my understanding your second statement is false. Perhaps a more knowledgeable individual will correct one or other of us.
We know that matter can not be created from nothingness, so where did matter come from?
We most decidedly do not know this. We do know that in our current universe this appears to be impossible. We do not know if it impossible in all universes and we do not know if it was true prior to the appearance of our universe.
If you think beyond any type of big bang (because the big bang requires matter to exist to begin with bla bla bla...), and go back in time so far, picturing matter in space...what created matter from nothingness?
Has it always existed? Matter has existed for an eternity? Sitting in our shoes (we mere humans), there is infinity..it can't be disproven...or proven...except by faith either way.
Only stubborn minds will say matter came "to be" from nothingness...just like the stubborn minds who 'have faith' in the "theory" of evolution.
These strike me as peculiar ideas. Here are some points that could correct the peculiarities.
1. Big Bang theory says nothing about the origin of the universe.
2. Big Bang theory does not require matter to have been present before, or for it to have emerged from nothing.
3. Big Bang theory definitely does not start with matter. That appears some time after t=0.
4. I have little interest in what stubborn minds think about evolution, and generally have contempt for those who have faith in it. I have much respect for those who have studied the evidence and realise that the Modern Synthesis provides the best current explanation for diversity of lifeforms on this planet.
Mans mind is limited but yet so unlimited...are we supposed to know all the answers?
This implies teleology, something generally rejected by the current methodological naturalism employed by science.
Lol we can't, and never will until we accept some kind of "creator" created matter and all that it forms...Then we can learn everything we need to know...because the race for answers would be canceled and replaced with wisdom...and frustration with peace of mind...
But we seem to approve of ourselves instead of humbling...
As Pmb has pointed out, this seems be more religion than science and therefore merits no further comment here.
The act of scientology (knowing/study of/knowing how to know) is mistaken to mean "study of what one wants to know"...in the context of one (a person) studying a particular subject that they are enthusiastic about studying...instead of...studying a particular subject on all aspects...with all possibilities. In plain English, some, or most people only want to study in what they 'want' to believe.
This may well be true of most people. Even if it were true of some scientists it is not true of science. That is the beauty and elegance of the scientific process. If you study what you want to believe science will only support that belief if it turns out to be validated by repeatable observation, validated predictions and confirmed hypotheses.
And scientology is generally taken to refer to the pseudo-religion created by that preeminent con-artist L.Ron Hubbard. To maximise the quality of communication it is best to use words the way they are conventionally used or defined.
A true scientist will examine ALL aspects/realms of the subject in order to give ALL scientology a chance to show itself for a derivative answer....not just the answer he/she "hopes" for..."to be open to a conclusion that most answers the question" .
Scientists are human and subject to time constraints. They will examine a portion of a problem in depth to add a tiny amount to global knowledge. I refer you to Newton's comment about the shoulders of giants.
I believe colleges must not graduate students in scientology unless the students prove to be open for the most favorable answer that manifests through ALL aspects of study....and not show preferences of popular propaganda to improve their status in society. Anything else is a waste of time and money...
Please provide evidence that this is not already occurring.
When will the true scientists put their foot down against these "status", "shallow", "self-serving" fools?
Every time a scientist applies the scientific method he or she is doing so. Every time a scientist submits their work to peer review they are doing so. Every time a scientist engages in discussion with fellow scientists they are doing so. What more do you want?
-
Pmb, it is the "measurable" aspect of matter that I am addressing; I cannot see the point in talking about "stuff" when we haven't really defined it. I don't think people would have been very impressed if Einstein had formulated E = "stuff"c^2. You like to keep things scientific so I'm surprised at your reaction here.
How do you know that energy lasts forever? How can you demonstrate that?
-
Pmb, it is the "measurable" aspect of matter that I am addressing; ...
Then the term you're looking for is mass. But in that case the statement We're told matter and energy are interchangeable becomes a tautology.
Einstein defined the term matter as whatever is left when there is no gravitational field present. This implies that both the electric and magnetic fields are forms of matter. Some physicists still adhere to this. In fact Ohanian refers to the electric/magnetic field as a 5th state of matter.
You like to keep things scientific so I'm surprised at your reaction here.
You lost me. What is it that you think my reaction is? The reason I said what I did is because “matter” is not really a scientific term. At least not one which is well defined or whose definition is universally accepted. E.g. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter where the first thing that wiki page says is Matter is a poorly defined term in science (see definitions below).
Notice that there are several definitions given there.
How do you know that energy lasts forever? How can you demonstrate that?
By the law of conversation of energy which states that energy is conserved. From a cosmological perspective the total energy of the universe has remained the same since it was created and perhaps before. The value being zero! (See Guth's book on inflation for this - if you do I'll state the page to look at)
The same way you know that entropy says no because it says that matter eventually becomes so disorganized. I.e. it’s a law of nature, i.e. it’s one of the laws of physics.
-
Welcome to the forum, scienceofscience.
Explaining everything by saying, "God did it!", is a dead end. It is a pretense at understanding everything. If you understand everything in one word, why strive to discover and name new things? That kind of religious thinking is anathema to science.
I recommend that you not use the word "scientology" in any sense other than that of Scientology® (http://http//www.scientology.org/). The word was invented and registered by L. Ron Hubbard; it has no meaning other than what he assigned to it. Anyone who has studied Scientology® will assume you know what it means, which you apparently do not.
-
Pmb, this is all very interesting, however, whatever technical definitions people apply to matter does not alter my point about matter, whether that implies mass, electromagnetism, or whatever, essentially being a form of energy. Nothing in your possible classifications of what matter might or might not be be alters that. What I was driving at was to ask what was behind the matter we see in the universe. I think you've slightly missed the point here, with all due respect. Surely you must realise that the basic driving force of the universe is energy because nothing could exist without it. It is only through trying to understand what energy is and where it comes from that we might one day gain a deeper understanding about our universe.
-
How do you know that energy lasts forever? How can you demonstrate that?
By the law of conversation of energy which states that energy is conserved. From a cosmological perspective the total energy of the universe has remained the same since it was created and perhaps before. The value being zero! (See Guth's book on inflation for this - if you do I'll state the page to look at)
The same way you know that entropy says no because it says that matter eventually becomes so disorganized. I.e. it’s a law of nature, i.e. it’s one of the laws of physics.
I find this quite a remarkable position when it is probable we live in a multiverse, so how can we really talk about spacetime as a separate and independent entity? How do we know what interactions take place over the multiverse that alter parameters over time. In the final analysis, we are making scientific pronouncements about what spacetime will be like in the remote future which strikes me as highly presumptuous, given that we have yet to make further major discoveries about time and space and, of course, energy.
-
Pmb, this is all very interesting, however, whatever technical definitions people apply to matter does not alter my point about matter, whether that implies mass, electromagnetism, or whatever, essentially being a form of energy. Nothing in your possible classifications of what matter might or might not be be alters that.
If that’s what you believe and you don’t think the point I’m trying to get across to you makes any difference then I’ll end my participation in this thread.
I do wish you were more patient since given more time I would have gotten my point across. It takes time to learn what you’re assumptions are about matter before I can explain what the flaw in them is. It takes more than a few paragraphs to get across a complete understanding of concepts such as this one. That is precisely why not all encyclopedia entries are less than a paragraph long.
-
Pmb, this is all very interesting, however, whatever technical definitions people apply to matter does not alter my point about matter, whether that implies mass, electromagnetism, or whatever, essentially being a form of energy. Nothing in your possible classifications of what matter might or might not be be alters that.
If that’s what you believe and you don’t think the point I’m trying to get across to you makes any difference then I’ll end my participation in this thread.
I do wish you were more patient since given more time I would have gotten my point across. It takes time to learn what you’re assumptions are about matter before I can explain what the flaw in them is. It takes more than a few paragraphs to get across a complete understanding of concepts such as this one. That is precisely why not all encyclopedia entries are less than a paragraph long.
I do not see anything particularly controversial in stating that all forms of matter are also forms of energy because any structure must have the ability to retain the properties of itself and this requires some kind of force or forces to achieve. How do atoms retain their individual characteristics if they do not have the ability to keep their electron field in place or the nucleus in balance? I'm no physicist, but even I know things like EM radiation are forms of energy, in fact, I cannot think of anything that can be measured that is not a form of energy. If this were not so it logically follows that it would not be possible to measure things at all. I expect this may be one reason why many scientists are now rejecting the idea that our universe came from nothing because literally nothing cannot be considered a scientific term since it is impossible to measure nothing and measuring is one of the most fundamental aspects of the scientific method! Also, how can energy suddenly appear without cause when we are told energy cannot be destroyed? If we settle for the idea that energy was somehow spontaneously created from nothing I think we're in 'Genesis' country. I think one can make an even more general statement : anything that can change must possess energy and we know our universe, as well as ourselves, are changing constantly.
-
Matter in the form of temperature (IE: heat, cold etc.)... Any temperature is "readable" thereby being a substance, created by substance/matter.
I applaud the replies...all of them.
The god factor was not meant to use as an all-in-one answer to questions we do not yet understand, but many scientist include or come-to this upon their eventual findings of a study. I am not trying to make this a religious post or push any belief or opinions...but what I am trying to put across is that a true scientist will not leave anything out....in order to get all perspectives....and there are famous people/scientists who have done this...
An earth worm has more intricacies and "order" than the worlds current 'smartest' computer...a design that is blueprinted to function as a unit...(I read this in some science book)...
I just hope you and all sincere minds of science do not leave out the god factor in fear of it being a religious one...this is part of science...exploring all possibilities...but not meant to be an easy answer for those who can't explain something in the lab either.
To me, "matter" is anything that we can see (or proven), touch, feel, smell, breath...it's a simple definition...related to all of our senses (and equipment).
Some "thing" created matter (like my word "thing" lol?) which began the 'cause and effect' stream...but as some of you say...it could have always been "here"....or "there".
Thanks again for your replies and intelligent opinions/help in seeing other views.
marty
s
-
I do not see anything particularly controversial in stating that all forms of matter are also forms of energy ...
That’s because you’re using the term matter incorrectly. Of course I can’t begin to guess how you came to have your current understanding of that word but for our current purposes I suggest that you begin the process of unlinking you association of matter with mass and start forming a connection with the term material since that’s the nearest English term which brings to mind what the term matter really means. I used the term stuff below but the astronomy text I have uses the term material which much better fits the bill.
Now let’s consider what the last statement that I quoted above of yours means, i.e. all forms of matter are also forms of energy. Let us next let’s list all the forms (aka phases) of matter
Phases of matter = {solid, liquid, gas, plasma, field}
It is your contention that each of these is a form of energy. That’s clearly wrong since it’s intuitively obvious that solid is not a form of energy. Neither is liquid, glass, plasma or field a form of energy. While it’s true that each of those phases of matter has mass and if you’re given an amount of mass m there is an amount of energy associated with that mass and whose quantity E is related to it by E = mc2. That’s the correct description of the relationship between matter and energy.
Before we go on let’s list out all the forms of energy. The forms of energy are
Before we go on let’s list out the forms of energy
Forms of energy = {kinetic energy, potential energy, thermal energy, chemical energy, mass-energy, EM energy}
I left out mechanical energy since that’s what kinetic and potential energy.
It appears to me that somehow along the way you got the impression that the terms matter and mass were synonymous. I can tell you that they’re not. When you make comments like that it becomes apparent that you’re either not familiar with phrases such as matter is converted into energy. Let me give you an example of this so that we have something tangible to work by
From the web page http://www.askamathematician.com/2012/02/q-would-it-be-possible-in-the-distant-future-to-directly-convert-matter-into-energy/ we find
Physicist: You hear about nuclear devices taking advantage of E = mc2 to turn matter into energy, so nuclear power seems like it might be a good way to go. But it so happens that everything that releases energy loses mass in the process. The statement that nuclear devices turn mass into energy, while true, is giving them more credit than they deserve.
….
In order to convert matter into energy requires us to get past a few conservation laws. These are the conservation laws that keep us from turning into energy just whenever. For example, there’s a conservation law that says that the total number of protons + neutrons has to stay the same forever, and there doesn’t seem to be an easy way around that.
All of this is why I said above that it takes time and patience to learn all these things about matter since it’s not a trivial thing to both describe and then explain. Please don’t make the mistake of assuming that all terms used in physics can be completely and clearly given in a statement that consists of only a single paragraph. It’s simply not possible. Your last post made it clear that you seem to be satisfied with your beliefs so I’m dropping the matter at this point (pun not intended).
I was uncertain that I’d be able to do justice to the term matter but when I learned that the term material was used as a synonym I was glad to know that such a term existed. It made my job a lot easier. :)
-
Pmb, you seem to be saying that we can only ever convert a certain amount of energy from a given amount of matter but that does not mean there does not remain energy which is "locked" within material that we cannot normally convert. Energy is energy and I do not think it is helpful to obfuscate the essential concept of what it is. Whatever particles are not subject to a more "pure" form of energy does not alter the fact that they have the ability to form consistent configurations within the atomic structure which, I would conclude, means they are part of an energy lattice. You say a solid is not a form of energy but what you probably mean is that a solid does not radiate energy which seems to be misrepresenting what the basic concept if energy is. Looking at specific examples of energy should not allow one to lose sight of the more general forms. If a solid is not a form of energy then please tell me what exactly is holding all of its atomic structure in place?
"Albert Einstein showed that ultimately all matter is capable of being converted to energy (known as mass-energy equivalence) by the famous formula E = mc2, where E is the energy of a piece of matter of mass m, times c2 the speed of light squared."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter
-
Webplodder – Before I address the rest of your comments please explain why you thought it was necessary to make turn this thread into a discussion about energy.
Pmb, you seem to be saying that we can only ever convert a certain amount of energy from a given amount of matter but that does not mean there does not remain energy which is "locked" within material that we cannot normally convert.
No. That’s not what I’m saying. From the start you’ve been working with the wrong idea of what matter is. Until you correct that problem you’re not going to understand anything I explain to you correctly.
BTW – What in the world does “can only ever” mean?
Energy is energy and I do not think it is helpful to obfuscate the essential concept of what it is.
Then please stop doing so. You have a penchant for making accusations about he people you disagree with. Doing so is very unwise and never welcome in scientific conversations. You have a poor understanding of this subject and until that’s corrected you’re going to keep taking this off topic into the unrelated topic of energy and the mass-energy relationship.
Whatever particles are not subject to a more "pure" form of energy ….
There is no such thing as a more “pure” form of energy. When someone uses phrases like this it means that they have a misunderstanding of what energy is and it’s relationship to mass as well as matter.
You say a solid is not a form of energy but what you probably mean is that a solid does not radiate energy which seems to be misrepresenting what the basic concept if energy is.
You’re confusing things again. Whether a particular matter is in the solid phase, gas phase or liquid phase makes no difference whatsoever as it pertains to the form of energy that it possesses. Take water as an example; H2O can exist as a solid (ice) as a liquid (water) or as a gas (water vapor). In each phase a particular amount of H2O has a given amount of rest mass. It’s rest mass that is a form of energy. That is the proper way to describe what’s going on here.
If a solid is not a form of energy then please tell me what exactly is holding all of its atomic structure in place?
First off let’s get this phrased correctly. Matter is not a form of energy by its virtue of being in a particular phase but by its virtue of having rest mass. Next, since energy is not what holds anything into place it’s certainly not what “holds atomic structure in place.” I assume by “holds atomic structure in place” that you’re referring to what holds atoms together as it what causes electrons to form the outer portion of an atom while the inner nucleus is constructed of protons and neutrons. It’s the electromagnetic interaction that holds the atom together while its the strong force which holds the nucleus together.
I want to back up to a comment I made above; I suggested that you’re not familiar with phrases like matter is converted into energy. I want to make it clear that while this phrase is a very common phrase to see it is not a correct one. In retrospect I shouldn’t have used that as an example. Depending on the precise definition of matter a more correct phrase would be matter can be converted into radiation
The statement you quoted here
Albert Einstein showed that ultimately all matter is capable of being converted to energy (known as mass-energy equivalence) by the famous formula E = mc2, where E is the energy of a piece of matter of mass m, times c2 the speed of light squared.
is wrong. While Einstein showed that E = mc2 it has long been demonstrated that the idea of converting matter to energy and the name mass-energy equivalence are wrong.
Just in case there are those out there who think that the correct phrasing is that one can convert mass into energy then please read the following
Does nature convert mass into energy? by Ralph Baierlein, Am. J. Phys. 75 (4), April 2007
Abstract - First I provide some history of how the equation E=mc2 arose, establish what “mass” means in the context of this relation, and present some aspects of how the relation can be understood. Then I address the question, Does E=mc2 mean that one can “convert mass into energy” and vice
versa?
In this article the author writes
Q. Does the equation E=mc2 mean that one can “convert
mass into energy” and vice versa?
A. Not really, but the issue is complex, …
If anybody wants to read this then you can send me your e-mail address and when I get that I’ll e-mail the article to you.
-
We know that matter can not be created from nothingness, so where did matter come from?
We most decidedly do not know this. We do know that in our current universe this appears to be impossible. We do not know if it impossible in all universes and we do not know if it was true prior to the appearance of our universe.
Although the first quote is something I have said more than once. It is interesting to stand back a little from it and savour its dogmatic tone. :)
The second quote is, of course, absolutely right, but we must not lose sight of the fact that while it is true as a response to “We know that matter can not be created from nothingness”; it would no longer be demonstrably true if the “We know that…” were removed.
We are surrounded, in this Universe, by evidence that something cannot come from nothing. The challenge is still out there to produce an example of something from nothing.
-
Although the first quote is something I have said more than once. It is interesting to stand back a little from it and savour its dogmatic tone. :)
I fully agree. One is not on solid scientific grounds when taking what we know to be true after the big bang epoch and assume that it must also have been true during and before that epoch.
I also think that one is not on stable ground when assuming that the universe started from nothingness. We know that in the beginning the universe was flooded with radiation in the form of photons. Those photons can be combined to create other paticles.
Re – whether matter can be created or destroyed - As I explained above, whether matter can be created or destroyed depends on how the term matter is defined. According to one definition photons are not a form of matter. In this case when you start off with matter in the form of an electron and a positron and they annihilate each other producing two photons then matter is destroyed in the process.
-
then we get back to the same question...where did the electrons come from....
As you say this is a dilemma arena of science.
And, what do electrons consist of? How deep must one go to see/find the actual 1st spark??? And what does it consist of? Does all matter have infinite ingredients?
Ok now i'm getting into the realm of the booga booga man....but it is a good way to humble ourselves.
-
then we get back to the same question...where did the electrons come from....
You already know the answer to that question. The answer is: Nobody knows!
And, what do electrons consist of?
An electrons is a type of particle known as an Elementary Particle or Fundamental Particle . Such a particle is particle unknown to have substructure, thus unknown to be composed of other particles. In this sense an electron does not consist of simpler things. At this level a particle is merely defined/determined by its basic properties such as mass, spin, charge, etc.
I’m curious as to what kind of answer were you expecting when you asked what electrons consist of? I’m just curious by the way,
-
Science has discovered so much in the last 30 years, I will not be surprised when they discover particles that are inside these particles....just as they have with the larger ones...thus my comment about infinite ingredients.
I think I was not expecting an answer...more of a rhetorical question I guess.
-
Science has discovered so much in the last 30 years, I will not be surprised when they discover particles that are inside these particles....just as they have with the larger ones...thus my comment about infinite ingredients.
There are good reasons to assume that won't be the case.
-
Pmb, energy makes things happen, so without it there would be no universe, no me, no you. This is why it is of such interest to me and, indeed, many other people. When I referred to 'pure' forms of energy I merely meant energy that is liberated from being locked up within particles. You'll notice I did provide a quote from Albert Einstein where he asserted that matter should in principle be able to be converted to energy so I think this underlines my main point about matter and energy being equivalent, at least in theory. Even if you do not count quarks or leptons or photons as being matter they still possess energy, therefore, they are simply different aspects of energy, as are things with rest mass. Why is it that objects with mass increase their mass when accelerated? It must be because they have the ability to absorb energy, which tells me objects with mass are a different side of the same coin, viz. energy. What happens when matter meets anti-matter? Total annihilation, producing pure energy so we see that it is quite possible to obtain energy from matter. Electromagnetic interaction and the nuclear strong force are not forms of energy? What then, are they? In any case, it is wrong to regard atomic particles as being real since they are probabilistic entities only existing when observed. This is why you should not think of matter existing as a separate and self-sustaining phenomena where we can apply classical Newtonian parameters as we do to clocks, for example. Observation is an important element in producing our models of the sub-atomic world so it would seem inflexible to keep banging on about fixed measurements that have been well trodden because measurements can and probably will change in the future depending on what new experiments yield. You should be aware that the model of the atom has undergone a number of transformations over the years and I fully expect this process to continue in the future. This is why I'm a little disappointed at the way you quote ideas about this subject as though written in stone. Nothing is written in stone and we must always be cognisant that this whole field is "work in progress".
-
Webplodder – Since it’s impossible to determine which of the questions you pose are rhetorical and which aren’t then please end rhetorical questions with “!?” and non-rhetorical questions simply with “?” so that I know which ones you desire a response to.
Pmb, energy makes things happen, so without it there would be no universe, no me, no you.
That’s a common misconception about energy. Please see http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/mech/what_is_energy.htm
This page also addresses the errors other people make when discussing the concept of energy.
This is why it is of such interest to me and, indeed, many other people.
That doesn’t answer my question though, i.e.
…please explain why you thought it was necessary to make turn this thread into a discussion about energy
Your response just tells us there is interest in the concept of energy. It doesn’t tell us why you chose this particular thread.
When I referred to 'pure' forms of energy I merely meant energy that is liberated from being locked up within particles.
I recommend that you don’t use that term again. To understand why please see
http://www.askamathematician.com/2013/04/q-what-is-energy-what-is-pure-energy-like/
Physicist: Unfortunately, “pure energy” isn’t really a thing. Whenever you hear someone talking about something or other being “turned into pure energy”, you’re listening to someone who could stand to be a little more specific about what kind of energy. And whenever you hear someone talking about something being “made of pure energy”, you’re probably listening to someone who’s mistaken.
You'll notice I did provide a quote from Albert Einstein where he asserted that matter should in principle be able to be converted to energy so I think this underlines my main point about matter and energy being equivalent, at least in theory.
Yes. I saw that. Einstein was wrong when he said that, the reasons why appear in several locations in the physics literature. Would you like to take a guess as to why? If you guess that it’s because the expression E = mc2 is wrong then you’d be wrong.
Even if you do not count quarks or leptons or photons as being matter they still possess energy, therefore, they are simply different aspects of energy, as are things with rest mass.
I’m in agreement with Einstein who defined matter as anything that has a non-vanishing stress-energy-momentum tensor making all of those fall under the definition of matter.
Why is it that objects with mass increase their mass when accelerated?
It’s a result of the properties of spacetime. Have you ever seen the derivation of that fact? If not then its on my website at
http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/sr/inertial_mass.htm
It must be because they have the ability to absorb energy, …
To “absorb” energy means that the energy content of the body increased which then caused it’s rest mass to increase. The increase in mass due to motion is a result of the increase of energy in the form of kinetic energy. That requires no changes in the rest mass of the body. Consider an electron- An electron is an elementary particle and as such it’s a point particle having no internal structure. This means that it can’t absorb energy.
Electromagnetic interaction and the nuclear strong force are not forms of energy?
The problem here is that your entire argument is steeped in semantics and that’s causing you to arrive at wrong conclusions. You mistakenly believe that since the electromagnet interaction binds electrons to the nucleus and that since the electromagnetic field possesses energy then it’s energy that holds atoms together. That is erroneous. You’re confusing properties that coexist with cause an effect. If I used that kind of a argument on a physics exam in quantum mechanics or electrodynamics then not only would I get that answer marked wrong but the teacher would question whether I belonged in that class due to my giving such an incorrect answer. That’s a fact, not a guess.
What then, are they? In any case, it is wrong to regard atomic particles as being real since they are probabilistic entities only existing when observed.
That conclusion is wrong and rooted a misunderstanding of quantum mechanics.
I found your philosophical arguments on my competence to understand such trivial things to be very disturbing. Please don’t insult my intelligence like that again.
-
Pete, if momentum "....p is defined as the product of mass m and velocity v." could it not be argued that it is only momentum that increases - not mass - as velocity increases?
-
Pete, if momentum "....p is defined as the product of mass m and velocity v." could it not be argued that it is only momentum that increases - not mass - as velocity increases?
That would take this thread off topic and in so doing I'd be violating forum policy that prohibits changing forum content a . I won't do that unless someone's health and/or life was in danger.
-
Fair comment. It's not life or death, so I shall take it elsewhere. :)
-
In any case, it is wrong to regard atomic particles as being real since they are probabilistic entities only existing when observed.
My comment in a previous post explains why I disagree with this assertion. In addition to that comment I want to add the following; quantum mechanics does not say that atomic particles as being real since they are probabilistic entities only existing when observed . The role played by probability is with regards to the nature of observation. For example, suppose you wanted to keep I want a real Shetland Pony straight from Scotland.
Another example is a particle in a box. If the particle cannot be said to exist before its measured to then there is no reason to assume that any particle will be detected since, if you’re right, the particle is in there.
-
Back to the assertion that Einstein said
Albert Einstein showed that ultimately all matter is capable of being converted to energy (known as mass-energy equivalence) by the famous formula E = mc2, where E is the energy of a piece of matter of mass m, times c2 the speed of light squared."
Let’s assume that Einstein did say this for the sake of argument. Many people today still continue to make this same mistake.
I found the concept of relativistic mass so interesting that I took it up as a research project. After numerous years of study I wrote an article on the subject called
On the concept of mass in relativity by Peter M. Brown
that currently resides at http://arxiv.org/abs/0709.0687 I tackle as much of the subject as can at this time as I do.
During my study I came across the following article called
A relativistic misconception by C.R. Eddy, Science, 104, 303-304 (1946)
Max Jammer discusses this article in his book Concepts of Mass in Contemporary Physics and Philosophy by Max Jammer, Princeton University Press, (2000), page 87. Quoting Eddy, Jammer writes
It is evident, from many recent writings on the atomic bomb, that a serious misconception still exists, no only in the popular press but also in the mind of some scientists. The idea that matter and energy are interconvertible is due to a misunderstanding of Einstein’s equation E = mc2[/sup[/I]. This equation does not state that a mass, m, can be converted into an energy E, but that an object of mass, m, can be contains simultaneously an energy E.
And that clarifies what I’ve been saying all along about this subject.
-
Pmb:
"Encounters between particles and antiparticles lead to the annihilation of both, giving rise to varying proportions of high-energy photons (gamma rays), neutrinos, and lower-mass particle–antiparticle pairs. Setting aside the mass of any product neutrinos, which represent released energy which generally continues to be unavailable, the end result of annihilation is a release of energy available to do work, proportional to the total matter and antimatter mass, in accord with the mass-energy equivalence equation, E=mc2."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimatter
Why do you have a problem with the notion of energy changing its aspect? Once again, all matter, while not necessarily having mass, has energy. What is so difficult about this concept? I don't accept that matter is ill defined because, as I have tried to make clear, all matter is energy, therefore, it is the nature if energy that we need to address. You do not agree with this so I must insist that you provide a rationale as to what holds configurations of matter in place? If you opt for "force", for example, then I would point out that this is simply a synonym for energy. In the earlier universe particles did not exist, only radiation, and developed only after some time from the energy created in the BB, so I would defend Einstein's assertion that, in principle, energy from matter should be possible, it is just that we have yet to develop the techniques to achieve this.
What you do not seem to grasp is that any experimental situation is an intrinsic part of any observation so it is impossible to consider any phenomena (such as quantum mechanics) separate and independent from the whole set-up. This is why the role of observers (us) is a vital component in creating scientific theories. In short, consciousness creates science. The symbols I am typing in this post are useless and serve no purpose unless another mind is going to interpret them. You have to get away from the Newtonian classical orthodoxy view of reality and embrace a more realistic model by stop insisting that your world view is written in stone.
-
In any case, it is wrong to regard atomic particles as being real since they are probabilistic entities only existing when observed.
My comment in a previous post explains why I disagree with this assertion. In addition to that comment I want to add the following; quantum mechanics does not say that atomic particles as being real since they are probabilistic entities only existing when observed . The role played by probability is with regards to the nature of observation. For example, suppose you wanted to keep I want a real Shetland Pony straight from Scotland.
Another example is a particle in a box. If the particle cannot be said to exist before its measured to then there is no reason to assume that any particle will be detected since, if you’re right, the particle is in there.
The point is, a particle does not become a particle until observed. Before observation a "particle" is just a potential and has to interact with something in order to become a particle. It is often said that a particle does not need to be observed to "collapse" into a particle, just by interacting with something in the environment is sufficient, however, this does not constitute an "observation" since how, for example, can an inanimate object make an observation?
-
Once again, all matter, while not necessarily having mass, has energy. What is so difficult about this concept? I don't accept that matter is ill defined because, as I have tried to make clear, all matter is energy, therefore, it is the nature if energy that we need to address.
Two statements/questions appear to arise from your assertions.
1. Matter having energy is not equivalent to matter is energy.
2. If all matter is energy, is it or is it not true to say that all energy is matter? If not, why not and what forms of energy are not matter? (In your book.)
It is often said that a particle does not need to be observed to "collapse" into a particle, just by interacting with something in the environment is sufficient, however, this does not constitute an "observation" since how, for example, can an inanimate object make an observation?
Surely that depends upon how you define observation.
-
Ophiolite,
To me, the distinction between matter and energy is a convenience which allows us to attribute different properties to each in relation to measurements that we make. When we look into the heart of the atom what do we detect? We do not see solid objects, as was once thought to be the case, but a complex of probability fields which interact with scientific instruments that are used in order to interact with the objects under observation. Logically, then, the objects we study must have the properties to create a chain of events leading to a "disturbance" representing a measurement. You cannot shoot quantum objects at a complete vacuum to produce a measurement because nothing would register, there existing nothing to interact with, or, more to the point, no energy fields with which to interact with. It follows from this, then, that any scientific observation uses energy to interact with energy to produce a result. It's all energy, in the final analysis, but rather like the eddies and whirlpools in a stream of flowing water, various energy fields present different "qualities".
Ultimately, a observation consists of a chain of events comprising phenomena, scientific instruments and, possibly most important, a conscious observer. What good would be a scientific set-up that was designed to measure some phenomena or other be when there was nobody present to interpret the results?
-
The original question could have been..."where did energy come from?"...
Break down the ingredients of energy...?
Cause and effect...or does this come in to play with this question? We can not have an effect without a cause. Nobody was around back then to observe.
-
The original question could have been..."where did energy come from?"...
Break down the ingredients of energy...?
Cause and effect...or does this come in to play with this question? We can not have an effect without a cause. Nobody was around back then to observe.
Which is why we need a new model of reality, one that does not incorporate time as a fundamental part of its structure. Once you accept that the spacetime model as introduced by Einstein is, fundamentally, the way things are you immediately run into trouble about causality. If we can forever retreat backwards from the present and look for what led to the conditions we see today we're engaged on an endless quest which leads nowhere and is ultimately a futile exercise. The reason is because we can never, ever find any original cause which leads to the point we find ourselves at today we have no logical reason to regard causality as valid since cause-and-effect can never be traced to an original event. A better alternative would be to adopt a non-local model of reality as being correct because in a non-local situation nothing is separated from anything else so nothing can be considered in a particular location or "local" to itself, instead, existing everywhere simultaneously so that time and space are unnecessary and just an illusion at our conscious level of operation. It is already known that particles which are separated by light years are still "in touch" instantaneously with one another in some mysterious way currently unknown to science, although they are incapable of transferring conventional information which would violate the speed of light. I think this is showing us that on some more fundamental level the non-local nature of reality is a valid and that the spacetime model is but a special case of a wider multiverse that many physicists are now accepting as a necessary construct in order to account for thus far unresolved problems in physics. With a non-local paradigm we no longer have the problem of infinite regression in order to account for the history of the universe because time and space are created by consciousness in order to navigate a sentient being like ourselves through birth to death.
So what is energy? I believe energy is nothing other than the conscious universe in action. When we die we are returned to this "universal mind" and we are capable of interacting with it during our lives in various ways including through scientific experiments which are really an excersise in melding mind and matter thereby building reality. So I'm saying we can create our own reality out of this all encompassing consciousness by shaping our environment as sentient beings. This is what scientific theories accomplish, viz. they "sculpture" our universe by inventing new ways of looking at things. The Theory of Relativity is a prime example of this and there will be others in the future. String theory is one of the contenders.
-
Scienceofscience -
A bit of advice – Physicists put a lot of time and effort into the work they do and they think long and hard about it and have years of experience in what they’re researching. That’s why I’ve said what I have about ‘matter”. All of what I posted is a result of a great of thought on the subject and reading everything in the physics literature that was available to me. What I read was well reasoned out arguments where the author spelled out his proofs. This is done through an entire community of scientists, not someone who has never obtained a degree in science or formally studied that science etc. You shouldn’t listen to anybody who refuses to look up counter arguments that have been published in the physics literature because they think they know better. Some people live in a vacuum and ignore the proofs given to them by everyone else. There’s a reason they do this. They tried it he other way and their ideas were rejected.
That’s why I recommend skipping webplodder’s posts. There’s nothing useful there. He has a demonstrated and strong tendency to ignore any proof that’s presented to him which proves he’s wrong. I don’t recall how many such articles
I suggested that he read in the American Journal of Physics which he never even thought about reading the abstract to.
I myself put him in my ignore list since he was posting misinformation faster than I could correct him.
In this case webplodder doesn’t know what energy is. If you meet someone who says, “I believe this is what … is” then run away. Never consider anything someone says about a definition, law of physics or outcome of an experiment when they qualify it by saying I believe …. That’s just bad juju. :)
If you really want to know what energy is then read the following
http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/mech/what_is_energy.htm
Even better read Energy is Not the Ability to Do Work by Robert L. Lehrman, The Physics Teacher, Jan 1973, pp 15-18
I’m in the process of reading it now but from what I have already read it’s superb. If you can’t get your hands on a copy then let me know and I’ll get one sent to you. Here’s an important part of it
The lesson of this brief history of energy is clear. Energy is defined because its conserved. Any definition that is not rooted in its conservation property is false at its core.
That’s so right that it almost brought a tear to me-eye. :)
Now that that’s over with, on to better things.
The original question could have been..."where did energy come from?"...
Suppose I said to you All the energy I have adds up to zero! would you ask me
where it al went to?
In a book I have written by Alan H. Guth he explains that the total amount of energy in the universe is zero. The energy from the forms such as kinetic energy, rest energy etc. contribute to the “+” amounts while the “-“ is from gravitational potential energy. Add them all up and you get zero.
Break down the ingredients of energy...?
What ingredients? This isn’t a cake you know! :)
Do you mean the forms of energy?
-
This subject is intriguing. This topics possible answers are coming from a new realm of science...new to me anyways....and way over my head...
PMB, I might just read the link you posted thanks
-
This subject is intriguing. This topics possible answers are coming from a new realm of science...new to me anyways....and way over my head...
PMB, I might just read the link you posted thanks
I'm confused. Why wouldn't you want to read The Physics Teacher article on energy when my article is but a mere shadow of that when that one is?
-
because reading yours first will show me more about your knowledge, and then I can read the other...
-
because reading yours first will show me more about your knowledge, and then I can read the other...
And knowing about my knowledge is important to you in some way?
Note that I wrote the web page long before I read that paper. I was happy to see how close I was to that author's take on all of this.
-
well, if I am to learn/listen to you then i'd like to know yes..but after reading some (I got interrupted by a notice from N.S. lol)...I see that it may be more than I can chew...I will read on..
Oh, the metal box w/ the Mag...won't the metal box have an effect on the mag & E?...lol JK...a joke..
Let me read and figure it out please.
-
well, if I am to learn/listen to you then i'd like to know yes..but after reading some (I got interrupted by a notice from N.S. lol)...I see that it may be more than I can chew...I will read on..
Oh, the metal box w/ the Mag...won't the metal box have an effect on the mag & E?...lol JK...a joke..
Let me read and figure it out please.
Okay. Feel free to let me know where you have problems with it. I might have made assumptions about who's reading it than I should have.
-
scienceofscience,
Don't you find the conclusion that the total energy in the universe = 0 quite staggering? Does this not show that science has got itself into total confusion and allowed itself to be fooled by its mathematical game-playing? How can the total energy in the universe be nothing when we see activity going on all the time? If there were no energy in the universe how am I able to type this post and you reply (possibly)? Presumably, this comes out of the same stable as the proposition that the universe came from nothing! I find it all quite laughable and it does show that scientists need to apply at least a modicum of common-sense before issuing grand pronouncements that violate reality. One has to remember that the problem with adopting a particular model of reality is that if it is incorrect then the ramifications of it will be incorrect and lead to contradictions, which is the case here. The spacetime idea works very well up to a point but only to a point and we are now seeing its limitations when we see silly statements asserting we have no available energy in the universe.
Of course, another problem with the spacetime model is that it does not begin to answer the OP, where did matter come from? The fact is, it never will, rooted as it is in classical Newtonian mechanics.
-
webplodder, Tippler and Barrow do not represent the consensus views of cosmologists.
-
webplodder,
Your posts have strayed well away from accepted science. I understand from your posts that you don't agree with the accepted scientific thinking on this subject, but please bear in mind that this is a science discussion and Q&A forum. If you want to promote alternative theories, the New Theories section of the forum is the appropriate place to do so. Please keep discussion in this thread on the topic of what science has to say about the question "Where did matter come from?"
Thanks,
The moderators
-
Disappointing to see that censorship is still alive and well when it suits some. A threat to power will do that....
-
scienceofscience,
Don't you find the conclusion that the total energy in the universe = 0 quite staggering? Does this not show that science has got itself into total confusion and allowed itself to be fooled by its mathematical game-playing? How can the total energy in the universe be nothing when we see activity going on all the time? If there were no energy in the universe how am I able to type this post and you reply (possibly)? Presumably, this comes out of the same stable as the proposition that the universe came from nothing! I find it all quite laughable and it does show that scientists need to apply at least a modicum of common-sense before issuing grand pronouncements that violate reality. One has to remember that the problem with adopting a particular model of reality is that if it is incorrect then the ramifications of it will be incorrect and lead to contradictions, which is the case here. The spacetime idea works very well up to a point but only to a point and we are now seeing its limitations when we see silly statements asserting we have no available energy in the universe.
Of course, another problem with the spacetime model is that it does not begin to answer the OP, where did matter come from? The fact is, it never will, rooted as it is in classical Newtonian mechanics.
an all encompassing multi-verse based on a singular consciousness where time/energy is observed only by humans...animals to not 'wait' or 'have anxiety' for tomorrow or the past...therefore humans must be part of this consciousness...
getting back to the OP....matter/energy is an effect caused by our observation....? Our perpetuation of this matter (pun intended lol) will take us to new discoveries of the fourth kind
...realism is based on what "animals" see, touch and smell?
a tree falls and hits the ground in the forest....did it make any sound or ground shake if we were not there to hear it or feel it? Did the tree actually fall?...Is there a tree there at all?
-
Like many, maybe most, of you, I've puzzled over why there's something rather than nothing. I don't accept explanations based on the assumption that the physical laws we see would have been in effect prior to the existence of our universe. That seems an unwarranted assumption. We don't know that the set of physical laws we see are the only ones possible.
It's occurred to me that, whatever happened 13.8 or so billion years ago, it was a causal violation. We can use causality to examine reality on any scale and what we find, except when our theories are obviously wrong, is that everything is consistent, all the way back to time = zero.
So, then I considered, what if pre-Big Bang was a non-causal condition? Difficult for me to even consider but, in essence, it would be a condition where no conservation symmetries existed. Such a condition could possess an infinite quantity of information and anything else. Then it occurred to me that our conservation symmetries just filter out non-causal observations (that rule is built into QM... causally inconsistent observation would leave the observer's state matrix non-Hermitian). Maybe the multiverse is infinite information (or whatever) and the finiteness and order we see are artifacts of observation.
Even more so than politics, all physics is local.
-
There seems to be a basic misunderstanding here of what energy is and isn't. It isn't 'stuff' - it's not something that exists of itself - you can't have 'pure' energy. It's an indirectly observed quantity, an equivalence relation between stuff in various states & contexts.
Elsewhere I compared it to financial value; things have value of themselves and according to their context; you can convert value in currency to value in commodities or man-hours of work, or art. You can convert the value of some gold into a pile of bricks and wood, and that and the value of some days of work by builders, into the value of a house, and so-on. But there isn't anything you can isolate as 'pure' value; it has no independent existence - so it is with energy.
Energy seems to be conserved, unlike financial value. If financial value was like energy, the value of a house would the same as the combined value of its components, the wages of the builders, etc; and when you pulled it down, the value of the rubble and the wages of the demolition crew, etc., would be the same as the value of the house.
-
There seems to be a basic misunderstanding here of what energy is and isn't. It isn't 'stuff' - it's not something that exists of itself - you can't have 'pure' energy. It's an indirectly observed quantity, an equivalence relation between stuff in various states & contexts.
That is beautifully stated. Bravo! Someone who actually gets it. :)
is with energy.
Energy seems to be conserved,....
More than 'seems', it 'is' conserved since it's the defining property of energy.
I found that article online. To read Energy is Not the Ability to Do Work by Robert L. Lehrman, The Physics Teacher, Jan 1973, pp 15-18, please click on http://www.loreto.unican.es/Carpeta2012/TPT(Lehrman)WorkEnergy.pdf
-
so 'if' there was a point 0 (time - 0)...we're back to the chicken vs egg/matter vs energy or visa versa.
matter needed energy to become matter, and energy needed matter to manifest itself also?
There is/was an anomalous type of energy we have not discovered that obviously fired-up the boiler...using the point 0 theory.
but as I said before this is way over my head...but sooooooooo interesting.
-
I know i'm being lazy, but is there a written theory on our universe being created/started/came into being from another universe via a black hole? Or would this be a question for a new subject?
-
firstly.. a black hole is not a hole to somewhere else (although it may be mwhaha) its a densely packed mass witha gravity so strong that light cannot escape its gravitation field (or a better wikipedia definition of the same ilk)
Secondly, pmb, that article you posted is complete and utter codswallop.. he says one thing and then goes on to prove his statement is wrong without realising it. As do you in several points in the thread.
Energy IS the potential for doing something.. nothing does anything without energy.. whether you want to dress this statement up or not, this is what it boils down to. It may not be a useful something.. it may not be a visible something.. but something it is.. but then trying to dress energy up to be a tangible 'something' the idea of pure energy is pointless..
And you both stated E=Mc2 does not mean that you can convert mass to energy, yet both state mass is a form of energy.. so what you have pretty much said is that you cannot convert one form of energy to another.. which is funny.. because that happens a fair bit in the universe. The energy of mass (if i have studied correctly)is the inertia the mass has (i.e. ability to resist change <- see what i did there?) So its the ability for it to do something, (not specifically
For the question what is energy, I feel is the wrong question to ask, as energy is always intangible and all we can observe is what the energy allows to occur, with the premise that this (for example) electromagnetic wave contains x amount of energy.. where as the total situation would be this electromagnetic wave has the potential for doing x amount of work because lets face it we can only measure the energy content of things by observing the amount of work they do.. Inventing ideas to deny the fact that energy provides the potential for things to do work negates the entire principal of experimentation, as if you cannot observe it in any way at all (can only observe work) it may as well be 'GOD'.. unobservable, immeasurable and unknown.
-
Energy IS the potential for doing something.. nothing does anything without energy.. whether you want to dress this statement up or not, this is what it boils down to. It may not be a useful something.. it may not be a visible something.. but something it is.. but then trying to dress energy up to be a tangible 'something' the idea of pure energy is pointless..
Not all energy is available to do work, because for energy to 'do something', you need some kind of energy gradient, i.e. low entropy (2nd Law of Thermodynamics). When a system reaches thermodynamic equilibrium and entropy is at a maximum, there is no longer any energy gradient; there is the same amount of energy present, but none available to do work. Energy that is available to do work is known, understandably, as 'available energy' or exergy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Available_energy).
...we can only measure the energy content of things by observing the amount of work they do..
You can calculate the energy (energy is conserved).
-
You missed the point dlorde, its not necessarily WORK that the something that energy gives the potential to do (many forms of it do) as an atom at rest can do no work, but energy gives it inertia (or something along those lines.. such as energy is inertia, inertia is energy) it has resistance to outside influences, which without any outside influences it does no work so its energy remains constant, but there is no 0 energy. The atom at rest can be hit by another atom and its system gains energy (exergy if you wish) and the system of now 2 atoms conserves all the energy involved. neither atom has lost mass or gained it, otherwise momentum and in turn energy would not be conserved.
We can only calculate to an arbitrary frame of reference. The conservation calculations work because the difference between 12 and 14 is the same as the difference between 2 and 4. if there was a +10 to each side the energy is still seen to be conserved.
-
... an atom at rest can do no work, but energy gives it inertia (or something along those lines.. such as energy is inertia, inertia is energy)
Energy is not inertia, and inertia is not energy. In theory (special relativity), mass having inertia implies that inertia is also associated with energy, but only to the extent that energy has a mass equivalence.
-
Circumlocutory:)
Ultimately E is an effect...go back in time (if time=0) to 0, E had to of became in existence by a cause.
my hypothesis (loose term because it probably can't be studied further) is that something unknown to us created E from E/created...so this hypothesis is not accepted as a tangible means of science because science says something can't become from nothing.
The hypothesis / assumption that a black hole leads to nowhere also can't be proven...it will be many years before we're able to send a probe through one...the 1st probes being destroyed before they have a chance to get close...so of course the 1st probes will not be designed to go through one, but to analyze the matter/space/surroundings...but by then scientists will have more information on M & E just to get to a black hole.
Thoughts on E & M...I feel i'm beating this subject up, but E had to of been made after M matter, based on how we see it in action. IE: how E shows itself after a cause.
So if M matter precluded E energy...we're back to the (using a point 0 theory/ time=0) same quandary.
So after all the replies,......the result is still "we just don't know"...and because we reach a dead end we look at other things that can be further explored that hopefully can be understood..in little bits at a time, to add to other little bits of information, as PMB stated earlier...
Thanks for all the information everyone, it was interesting to say the least.
-
so 'if' there was a point 0 (time - 0)...we're back to the chicken vs egg/matter vs energy or visa versa.
matter needed energy to become matter, and energy needed matter to manifest itself also?
There is/was an anomalous type of energy we have not discovered that obviously fired-up the boiler...using the point 0 theory.
but as I said before this is way over my head...but sooooooooo interesting.
Actually, all we need is information. It doesn't matter what form(s) it takes, so long as all the necessary quantities instantiate. That's my interpretation of Wheeler's "it from bit", http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It_from_bit#Wheeler.27s_.22it_from_bit.22 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It_from_bit#Wheeler.27s_.22it_from_bit.22). In fact, if somehow reality possesses some background state of infinite information content, that would be sufficient for every possible observation... instantiation of every event for a multiverse. Just a speculation.
Given that causality seems to break at time = zero, perhaps there was a non-causal condition prior to the Big Bang (if words like "prior" have any meaning pre-time). Non-causality could contain boundless information, in countless interpretations.
It from bit combined with the assumption that there is a background of infinite information makes the observation of every possibility, for every possible set of physical laws, inevitable. But, I'm pretty confident that all observable systems would have to be purely causal. Q.M. requires that all observations must be causally consistent (in terms of physical symmetries).
Gödel’s Theorems show that purely causal, non-trivial systems (e.g. odd integers would be trivial) cannot be fully defined by a finite set of rules. There's always at least one possible state that cannot be predicted or fully described by the existing set of rules. However, a new rule, consistent with pre-existing rules, accounts for the new state. But, this would yield a complete and consistent system, and so Gödel showed it's an infinite progression.
Personally, I think the physical universe must qualify as a non-trivial, causally-consistent system. And, symmetry breaks, when new gauge symmetries appear, could very well correspond to unpredictable/indescribable states and the corresponding new rules in a Gödelian system.
Anyway, it provides for a self-consistent explanation for why we'd have a complete compliment of multiverses without needing any rules to start with. Given perfect chaos, every form of observable order could be inevitable.
I was about at this point in pondering when the spigot algorithm, Bailey-Borwein-Plouffe (BBP), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spigot_algorithm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spigot_algorithm), was discovered. Using a fixed number of computations, any hexadecimal digit of pi could be determined. Theoretical physicists argued that it couldn't work because the necessary information set (infinite information) would have to be encoded in a finite, and small, quantity of information.
After BBP was proven to be correct, the physicists shut up. But I don't think they should have. They were right, I think. Somehow, spigot algorithms, maybe, access infinite information. In a sense, pi is fully defined at every point in space and time. If BBP were the only spigot algorithm I might accept that it worked because pi is built into the geometry of our universe. But, they keep finding new ones. There might be infinitely many spigot algorithms.
Personally, I find this model persuasive. It's not particularly aesthetically appealing but it is, at least, simple and explains observations.
Somebody earlier in this thread, I believe, asked if there might be some way to tell if we're existing in some Matrix-like reality. I think Wheeler's "it from bit" answers that. All you need is enough information "instantiating" (my word for "happen") and every observation from every observer under every possible condition should instantiate.
I suspect Einstein wouldn't like this because it suggests there's no real place for free will. Maybe.
-
Secondly, pmb, that article you posted is complete and utter codswallop.. he says one thing and then goes on to prove his statement is wrong without realising it. As do you in several points in the thread.
Both assertions are incorrect. However if you're willing to make an attempt at proving your case I'll read it.
Energy IS the potential for doing something..
That's wrong and the paper explains why its wrong. I don't see you providing any counter arguement. Any physicist who really knows their stuff knows that fact. E.g. see An Introduction to Thermal Physics by Daniel V. Schroeder page 17 for further clarification. To obtain a copyu online go to http://book4me.org/
I won't address the rest of your comments because they're far from containing any solid science but merely beliefs of what you "feel" is true. There's no scientific arguement there
-
There is an excellant paper about the mass-energy relation online
A re-interpretation of the concept of mass and of the relativistic mass-energy relation by Stefano Re Fiorentin
, Found.Phys.39:1394-1406,2009 -- http://arxiv.org/abs/1102.1170
It's a nice paper with some important points but is not error free. One important part about matter vs mass reads
It is also worthwhile to underline (...) that mass must not be confused with matter: all matter has the property of mass, but not all mass has the property of matter: mass is always conserved, matter not. We identify matter with rest energy: both the energy content and the inertial properties of matter are described by its mass.
From A Relativistic Misconception by C. Roland Eddy, Science 27, Sept. 1946, Vol. 104 no. 2700 pp. 303-304
It is evident, from many recent writings on the atomic bomb, that serious misconceptions still persists, not only in popular press but also in the minds of some scientists. The idea that matter and energy are interconvertible is due to a misunderstannding of Einstein’s equation, E = mc2. This equationi does not state that a mass, m, can be converted into an energy, E. But that an objeft of mass m contains simultaneously an energy, E.
In nuclear reations there is never any actual change in the total mass content of the universe. […]
Mass is not destroyed but merely dispersed, just as potential energu originally contained in the fissionable nucleus is dispersed as kinetic energy of the particles struck by the fission fragments.
-
It has been speculated that the Big Bang occurred because of quantum fluctuations. Because quantum fluctuations are fundamental changes in state, they can be associated with what we understand as releases of energy. Energy is the capacity to initiate change. Because matter was produced following the Big Bang, and it is associated with the change in state, matter is a product of that change. Therefore, matter was produced from this change in state initiated thru a release of energy which may or may not have occurred because of a quantum fluctuation.
-
There is an excellant paper about the mass-energy relation online
A re-interpretation of the concept of mass and of the relativistic mass-energy relation by Stefano Re Fiorentin
, Found.Phys.39:1394-1406,2009 -- http://arxiv.org/abs/1102.1170
It's a nice paper with some important points but is not error free. One important part about matter vs mass reads
It is also worthwhile to underline (...) that mass must not be confused with matter: all matter has the property of mass, but not all mass has the property of matter: mass is always conserved, matter not. We identify matter with rest energy: both the energy content and the inertial properties of matter are described by its mass.
From A Relativistic Misconception by C. Roland Eddy, Science 27, Sept. 1946, Vol. 104 no. 2700 pp. 303-304
It is evident, from many recent writings on the atomic bomb, that serious misconceptions still persists, not only in popular press but also in the minds of some scientists. The idea that matter and energy are interconvertible is due to a misunderstannding of Einstein’s equation, E = mc2. This equationi does not state that a mass, m, can be converted into an energy, E. But that an objeft of mass m contains simultaneously an energy, E.
In nuclear reations there is never any actual change in the total mass content of the universe. […]
Mass is not destroyed but merely dispersed, just as potential energu originally contained in the fissionable nucleus is dispersed as kinetic energy of the particles struck by the fission fragments.
Interesting stuff, thanks for that. So it's correct to say that a nuclear explosion converts a tiny amount of matter to energy, but not that it converts mass to energy.
-
It has been speculated that the Big Bang occurred because of quantum fluctuations. Because quantum fluctuations are fundamental changes in state, they can be associated with what we understand as releases of energy. Energy is the capacity to initiate change. Because matter was produced following the Big Bang, and it is associated with the change in state, matter is a product of that change. Therefore, matter was produced from this change in state initiated thru a release of energy which may or may not have occurred because of a quantum fluctuation.
"From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
File:Vacuum fluctuations revealed through spontaneous parametric down-conversion.ogv
The video of an experiment showing vacuum fluctuations (in the red ring) amplified by spontaneous parametric down-conversion.
In quantum physics, a quantum vacuum fluctuation (or quantum fluctuation or vacuum fluctuation) is the temporary change in the amount of energy in a point in space,[1] arising from Werner Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.
According to one formulation of the principle, energy and time can be related by the relation[2]
\Delta E \Delta t \approx {h \over 2 \pi} (<---see the actual on the original web page)
That means that conservation of energy can appear to be violated, but only for small times. This allows the creation of particle-antiparticle pairs of virtual particles. The effects of these particles are measurable, for example, in the effective charge of the electron, different from its "naked" charge.
In the modern view, energy is always conserved, but the eigenstates of the Hamiltonian (energy observable) are not the same as (i.e., the Hamiltonian doesn't commute with) the particle number operators.
Quantum fluctuations may have been very important in the origin of the structure of the universe: according to the model of inflation the ones that existed when inflation began were amplified and formed the seed of all current observed structure."
Again, back to....what caused/gave birth to the Quantum Fluctuations...energy?!
-
Again, back to....what caused/gave birth to the Quantum Fluctuations...energy?!
That is the fundamental question isn't it. I believe personally that extra dimensional anomalies occur changing our space/time frame resulting in spontaneous eruptions of matter and energy. Proving this will obviously be very difficult if not entirely impossible.
-
Interesting stuff, thanks for that. So it's correct to say that a nuclear explosion converts a tiny amount of matter to energy, but not that it converts mass to energy.
Yes, at least in that author’s opinion. In any case he has the right idea. Recall what I said above, that Einstein defined matter such that an EM field would be considered matter. In his viewpoint if an electron and a positron annihilated each other then the result would be two photons which are still defined as matter so that we'd start with matter and we'd end up with matter. But with just that we can say no more since there’s no quantity that we can refer to as a “quantity of matter.”
When I was thinking that this stuff had a chronic
This is very tricky stuff, isn't it? :)
This memory thing is really a good
-
Secondly, pmb, that article you posted is complete and utter codswallop.. he says one thing and then goes on to prove his statement is wrong without realising it. As do you in several points in the thread.
Is there a reason why you failed to prove the author of that paper wrong after I challenged you to do so? In the future please don’t make claims that you have no intention of backing up
There is not one iota of evidence to support your claim about that paper and there is also not one iota of evidence to substantiate your claim that I’ve said one thing and then go on to prove my own statement wrong. It appears that your problem is that you don’t read very carefully the arguments that you’re claiming to be wrong.
I have never did such a thing anywhere on this forum at any point in time since I became a member. Yet you haven’t been here more than five weeks before you’ve started making such false claims. That doesn’t speak well of you or what we can expect from you in the future.
I gave you a fair chance and challenged you to prove any of your claims true and you haven’t made any attempt to do so. You’ve been caught making false allegations now, so early on in your posting career here and that doesn't speak well of you. I recommend that you don't make anymore false allegations from herein.
I’ll explain why you’re so wrong in your claims: First off don’t claim a paper is wrong without offering at least a tidbit of an argument to support it. Such claims are useless in science since anybody can make such claims. Science demands proof.
Here’s a demonstration why you’re wrong. You’d have everyone here believe that energy is the ability to do work. Your phrasing “the potential to do something” means the same thing but in a poorer way. An electron at rest in an isolated system has energy so what is it that you claim it can do in such an isolated system?
Let’s now consider the claim that energy is the ability to do work. The author of that paper explains the obvious problem with that statement, i.e. that it doesn’t meet the defining property of energy, i.e. that it’s conserved. That this is true is a version of the first law of thermodynamics – I.e. energy is conserved. It’s a defining property of energy. However “ability to do work” is not a conserved quantity.
Let's try to apply that poor attempt of a definition to an arbitrary system S: Suppose we determine the amount of work that the system S is capable of doing. Now we "extract" that energy by letting that system do its maximum amount of work that we said that it could do. After this is done the system S can no longer do work, right? Now let's compare that to the property of energy whereby its amount is conserved. As such the system should still have that same ability to do work. Since that system has already done its maximum amount of work we have a contradiction - Therefore the definition of energy being the ability to do work contradicts the first law of thermodynamics.
And you both stated E=Mc2 does not mean that you can convert mass to energy, yet both state mass is a form of energy..
You’re absolutely wrong. I’ve never made such an assertion. Please go back read again, this time more carefully.
The error you made here is that I never said that “mass is a form of energy.” What I actually[/I] said is in post #14
It’s rest mass that is a form of energy.
I highlighted “rest” so that nobody could make the mistake you just did.
energy gives it inertia
That’s vague. If you mean anything other than increasing the amount of energy in a body coincides with an increase in inertial mass then you’re wrong. When it is said that a system’s energy increases all it means is that there is a change in its internal configuration and when that change in configuration there is an increase in energy. But it’s the change in configuration that changes the inertia and not the “bookkeeping device” which keeps track of how the change happens. Nothing more. E.g. two charges can change how close they are to each other and that corresponds to the change in energy. But it’s the change in distance that causes the change in the inertial properties of the system.
-
And you both stated E=Mc2 does not mean that you can convert mass to energy, yet both state mass is a form of energy..
You’re absolutely wrong. I’ve never made such an assertion. Please go back read again, this time more carefully.
PMB, maybe you didn't state it but you present the statement as authoritative: "The idea that matter and energy are interconvertible is due to a misunderstannding of Einstein’s equation".
Energy isn't a "thing" except that it's a conserved quantity we've identified. Energy is the universally fungible quantity... every form of matter is composed of energy but there is no unique form of matter that is just plain "energy".
-
Somewhere along the line I made the mistake of associating the existance of a universe with no matter and zero energy as being consistent with a universe which has matter but still zero energy. I don't believe that's true at the moment. Later I'll come back to this when I talk to a friend of mine who's an expert on the subject. I think that gravitational potential energy can be transformed to kinetic energy and that means that matter, in the Einsteinian sense, can be created within the laws of physics.
-
Ok, we know matter equals "solid, liquid and gas"...and this includes (of course) heat, cold, warm, freezing...
Anything else is just space...nothingness....
Without matter, would space have a temperature?...without matter is there even 'space'?
The answer to the above questions is NO.
We know that matter can not be created from nothingness, so where did matter come from?
In terms given by general relativity, matter is everything that is not the gravitational field.
If you think beyond any type of big bang (because the big bang requires matter to exist to begin with bla bla bla...), and go back in time so far, picturing matter in space...what created matter from nothingness?
Has it always existed? Matter has existed for an eternity? Sitting in our shoes (we mere humans), there is infinity..it can't be disproven...or proven...except by faith either way.
Only stubborn minds will say matter came "to be" from nothingness...just like the stubborn minds who 'have faith' in the "theory" of evolution.
Mans mind is limited but yet so unlimited...are we supposed to know all the answers? Lol we can't, and never will until we accept some kind of "creator" created matter and all that it forms...Then we can learn everything we need to know...because the race for answers would be canceled and replaced with wisdom...and frustration with peace of mind...
But we seem to approve of ourselves instead of humbling...
The act of scientology (knowing/study of/knowing how to know) is mistaken to mean "study of what one wants to know"...in the context of one (a person) studying a particular subject that they are enthusiastic about studying...instead of...studying a particular subject on all aspects...with all possibilities. In plain English, some, or most people only want to study in what they 'want' to believe.
A true scientist will examine ALL aspects/realms of the subject in order to give ALL scientology a chance to show itself for a derivative answer....not just the answer he/she "hopes" for..."to be open to a conclusion that most answers the question" .
I believe colleges must not graduate students in scientology unless the students prove to be open for the most favorable answer that manifests through ALL aspects of study....and not show preferences of popular propaganda to improve their status in society. Anything else is a waste of time and money...
When will the true scientists put their foot down against these "status", "shallow", "self-serving" fools?
[/quote
In terms given by general relativity, matter is everything that is not the gravitational field.
-
woolyhead - Did you make an error in your last post? What were you trying to say?
-
woolyhead - Did you make an error in your last post? What were you trying to say?
I'm left wondering about that myself Pmb............Scratching my head??
-
woolyhead - Did you make an error in your last post? What were you trying to say?
All but the last line was a quote from scienceofscience. Just before the last line is a corrupted end quote tag... QED.
-
In terms given by general relativity, matter is everything that is not the gravitational field.
At least that's how Einstein defined the term in his 1916 GR review article. I agree that his definition is a good one. However not everyone agrees as such as evidenced in this forum an in some places in the physics literature.
-
In terms given by general relativity, matter is everything that is not the gravitational field.
At least that's how Einstein defined the term in his 1916 GR review article. I agree that his definition is a good one. However not everyone agrees as such as evidenced in this forum an in some places in the physics literature.
Hi Pete
I hadn't read this thread up until now but your phrase "matter can be converted into radiation" has to be one of the most impressive responses I have seen. It sums the situation up succinctly. Full marks to you.
-
I don't personally see the idea of something originating from nothing to be that problematic. If what you start with is a state of true nothingness, then the laws of physics and logic don't exist. If nothingness is unbound by rules, then absolutely anything can happen.
-
In terms given by general relativity, matter is everything that is not the gravitational field.
At least that's how Einstein defined the term in his 1916 GR review article. I agree that his definition is a good one. However not everyone agrees as such as evidenced in this forum an in some places in the physics literature.
Hi Pete
I hadn't read this thread up until now but your phrase "matter can be converted into radiation" has to be one of the most impressive responses I have seen. It sums the situation up succinctly. Full marks to you.
Thanks. Of course when using that one needs to keep in mind that the term matter does not refer to radiation in this sense. It refers to objects and particles which have non-zero rest mass.
-
I don't personally see the idea of something originating from nothing to be that problematic. If what you start with is a state of true nothingness, then the laws of physics and logic don't exist.
I don't see why not. The laws of physics apply no nothing too. E.g. the total energy of a an empty system is zero and remains that way so that energy is conserved. Maxwell's equations hold good in an empty space even though they're concerned only with empty space with no fields etc.
A universe where nothing happens does obey the laws of physics as far as I'm aware.
-
I'm talking about a state of absolute nothingness. No universe, no space, no time.
-
I'm talking about a state of absolute nothingness. No universe, no space, no time.
Yup. And no laws of physics which could be violated. But what does that matter. There;s no reason to assume that such a state ever existed. And even using the word "ever" means that there was a time for it.
So what was the point about this nothingness again anyway?
-
I'm talking about a state of absolute nothingness. No universe, no space, no time.
Yup. And no laws of physics which could be violated. But what does that matter. There;s no reason to assume that such a state ever existed. And even using the word "ever" means that there was a time for it.
So what was the point about this nothingness again anyway?
There is no reason to assume that such a state never existed. Therefore it should not be excluded from consideration.
-
I don't see how 'absolute nothingness' can exist (as it's the negation of existence), let alone be a 'state'. Can someone explain what they mean by it?
-
I won't push the issue, as it is basically philosophical and I've been locking swords with DonQuichotte over such things so much lately that I'd rather not have another unprovable argument on my hands.
-
There is no reason to assume that such a state never existed. Therefore it should not be excluded from consideration.
That's just poor logic. The same thing could be said about fairies, witches, ghosts and flying saucers. In the context in which I made the statement in which this is a response, things that aren't observed in that sense should never be considered. There's an infinite about of things which never been observed and are not considered for that reason.
-
The point is, a particle does not become a particle until observed.
There's no justification for that. In quantum mechanics particles are still particles regardless of whether we know where they are or not. When we observe them they then have a position. But before that they're still particles.
Before observation a "particle" is just a potential ...
Not only incorrect but meaningless. There's no meaning to "is just a potential" in the context you use it here.
It is often said that ...
Something isn't more true merely because of the number of times it's been said.
-
Interesting stuff, thanks for that. So it's correct to say that a nuclear explosion converts a tiny amount of matter to energy, but not that it converts mass to energy.
I made a mistake on this point. Nothing can be converted into energy and energy cannot be converted into something else. I can't recall what I was thinking when I said otherwise. My apologies.
I have an article on this point from the American Journal of Physics written by a colleague of mine. Would you like to read it?