The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: where did matter come from?  (Read 17940 times)

Online Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1804
  • Thanked: 11 times
    • View Profile
Re: where did matter come from?
« Reply #25 on: 27/10/2013 21:42:28 »
Fair comment. It's not life or death, so I shall take it elsewhere.  :)
 

Offline Pmb

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1838
  • Physicist
    • View Profile
    • New England Science Constortium
Re: where did matter come from?
« Reply #26 on: 27/10/2013 22:00:15 »
Quote from: webplodder
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.
 

Offline Pmb

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1838
  • Physicist
    • View Profile
    • New England Science Constortium
Re: where did matter come from?
« Reply #27 on: 28/10/2013 00:21:03 »
Back to the assertion that Einstein said
Quote
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
Quote
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.
« Last Edit: 28/10/2013 00:30:07 by Pmb »
 

Offline webplodder

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 72
    • View Profile
Re: where did matter come from?
« Reply #28 on: 28/10/2013 08:48:55 »
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.

« Last Edit: 28/10/2013 08:58:47 by webplodder »
 

Offline webplodder

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 72
    • View Profile
Re: where did matter come from?
« Reply #29 on: 28/10/2013 10:19:40 »
Quote from: webplodder
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?
 

Offline Ophiolite

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 716
  • Thanked: 6 times
    • View Profile
Re: where did matter come from?
« Reply #30 on: 28/10/2013 11:40:00 »
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.)
Quote
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.
 

Offline webplodder

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 72
    • View Profile
Re: where did matter come from?
« Reply #31 on: 28/10/2013 16:05:15 »
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?
« Last Edit: 28/10/2013 16:20:45 by webplodder »
 

Offline scienceofscience

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 19
  • take my head out of the box before I asphyxiate
    • View Profile
Re: where did matter come from?
« Reply #32 on: 28/10/2013 16:20:08 »
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.

 

Offline webplodder

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 72
    • View Profile
Re: where did matter come from?
« Reply #33 on: 28/10/2013 19:53:20 »
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.
« Last Edit: 28/10/2013 20:03:27 by webplodder »
 

Offline Pmb

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1838
  • Physicist
    • View Profile
    • New England Science Constortium
Re: where did matter come from?
« Reply #34 on: 28/10/2013 21:13:06 »
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
Quote
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.
Quote from: scienceofscience
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.

Quote from: scienceofscience
Break down the ingredients of energy...? 
What ingredients? This isn’t a cake you know! :)

Do you mean the forms of energy?
 

Offline scienceofscience

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 19
  • take my head out of the box before I asphyxiate
    • View Profile
Re: where did matter come from?
« Reply #35 on: 28/10/2013 23:42:05 »
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
 

Offline Pmb

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1838
  • Physicist
    • View Profile
    • New England Science Constortium
Re: where did matter come from?
« Reply #36 on: 29/10/2013 02:14:09 »
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?
« Last Edit: 29/10/2013 02:18:17 by Pmb »
 

Offline scienceofscience

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 19
  • take my head out of the box before I asphyxiate
    • View Profile
Re: where did matter come from?
« Reply #37 on: 29/10/2013 04:36:43 »
because reading yours first will show me more about your knowledge, and then I can read the other...
 

Offline Pmb

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1838
  • Physicist
    • View Profile
    • New England Science Constortium
Re: where did matter come from?
« Reply #38 on: 29/10/2013 04:54:11 »
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.
 

Offline scienceofscience

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 19
  • take my head out of the box before I asphyxiate
    • View Profile
Re: where did matter come from?
« Reply #39 on: 29/10/2013 05:07:08 »
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.
 

Offline Pmb

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1838
  • Physicist
    • View Profile
    • New England Science Constortium
Re: where did matter come from?
« Reply #40 on: 29/10/2013 05:42:05 »
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.
 

Offline webplodder

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 72
    • View Profile
Re: where did matter come from?
« Reply #41 on: 29/10/2013 09:23:09 »
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.
« Last Edit: 29/10/2013 12:58:29 by webplodder »
 

Offline Ophiolite

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 716
  • Thanked: 6 times
    • View Profile
Re: where did matter come from?
« Reply #42 on: 29/10/2013 12:12:06 »
webplodder, Tippler and Barrow do not represent the consensus views of cosmologists.
 

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3366
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Re: where did matter come from?
« Reply #43 on: 29/10/2013 17:44:47 »
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
 

Post by webplodder click to view.

Offline webplodder

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 72
    • View Profile
Re: where did matter come from?
« Reply #44 on: 29/10/2013 19:07:28 »
Shrunk
Disappointing to see that censorship is still alive and well when it suits some. A threat to power will do that....
 

Offline scienceofscience

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 19
  • take my head out of the box before I asphyxiate
    • View Profile
Re: where did matter come from?
« Reply #45 on: 29/10/2013 19:43:20 »
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?
« Last Edit: 29/10/2013 19:55:55 by scienceofscience »
 

Offline AndroidNeox

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 251
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Re: where did matter come from?
« Reply #46 on: 29/10/2013 20:56:58 »
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.
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Re: where did matter come from?
« Reply #47 on: 29/10/2013 21:28:28 »
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.
 

Offline Pmb

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1838
  • Physicist
    • View Profile
    • New England Science Constortium
Re: where did matter come from?
« Reply #48 on: 29/10/2013 22:20:51 »
Quote from: dlorde
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. :)

Quote from: dlorde
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
« Last Edit: 30/10/2013 01:08:33 by Pmb »
 

Offline scienceofscience

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 19
  • take my head out of the box before I asphyxiate
    • View Profile
Re: where did matter come from?
« Reply #49 on: 29/10/2013 23:53:00 »
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.
« Last Edit: 29/10/2013 23:56:02 by scienceofscience »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: where did matter come from?
« Reply #49 on: 29/10/2013 23:53:00 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums