1
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: where did matter come from?
« on: 29/10/2013 19:07:28 »
Disappointing to see that censorship is still alive and well when it suits some. A threat to power will do that....
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
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.
Quote from: webplodderIn 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.
Quote from: webplodderPmb, 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.
How do you know that energy lasts forever? How can you demonstrate that?QuoteBy 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.
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?
The same argument can be made for the difference between a piece of wood and a bacterium, say, because although a bacterium is nothing like a human being it is even less like a piece of wood!I'm aware of the varying complexities of wood, bacteria, and humans. But it's not just complexity that's relevant. A dead person is far more complex, yes, and dynamic, than a bacterium. But which has conscious experience (if either) ?
So, to repeat the question, are you saying that bacteria, fungi, plants, etc., all have conscious experience and can use it to generate the illusion of time?
If so, can you explain precisely what you mean by 'conscious experience' ?
If conscious experience causes the illusion of time which is necessary to exist as an organism, then all existing organisms must cause the illusion of time. Which suggests that bacteria, plants, fungi, etc., have conscious experience that can cause the illusion of time. I'm not sure that's what you meant, so I was hoping you'd clarify.
Quote from: webplodderI believe time is really just an illusion caused by our conscious experiences in order to allow us to exist as organisms.I strongly disagree. When physicists use the term time they have something very specific in mind. Time is a measurable phenomenon and is defined according to the change in things that are not related to different locations in space. E.g. think of a room with four boxes in it, one box sitting on the floor in each corner of the room. Now think of the same room and the same boxes but where the boxes are no longer in the corner but are stacked on top of each other in the middle of the room. This is a obviously a measurable phenomenon. We define time to denote the two configurations. We say that the rooms only differ in “time.”
A singularity is warping spacetime to a much greater degree than an ordinary mass, such as a star, therefore, I would have thought one could refer to spacetime crossing the event horizon and entering the singularity. Or is this misguided?I'm not qualified to say. When I first heard this as the river & waterfall analogy, I assumed the analogy was just with the effects of gravity on matter falling towards a black hole. Subsequently I've seen several articles by people who should know (and now Cox's video) who talk of space literally 'flowing' into the black hole, moving at c at the event horizon, and continuing to accelerate past it (this sounds analogous to the expansion of space by dark energy, that causes the most distant galaxies to recede from us faster than c). In this case, I'd expect infalling light to be red-shifted due to the acceleration expanding or stretching of space towards the black hole and outgoing light (above the EH) also red-shifted climbing out of the gravity well.
I'm still not clear whether they're saying the acceleration due to gravity is actually physically equivalent to space flowing (i.e. the physics is the same), or whether it is simply an overblown analogy and a misuse of 'literally' (never mind what the OED says)...
I'd be grateful for an authoritative view on this.
It's hard to know how much of a popular science programme is analogy and how much is hard physics, but Cox does explicitly say that space flows into the black hole with increasing velocity. It occurs to me that in that model the tidal force spahettification is due to the increasing 'stretching' of space, which should lead to the wavelength of infalling light lengthening...