where did matter come from?

  • 83 Replies
  • 18224 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline scienceofscience

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 19
  • take my head out of the box before I asphyxiate
    • View Profile
where did matter come from?
« 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?

*

Offline webplodder

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 72
    • View Profile
Re: where did matter come from?
« Reply #1 on: 24/10/2013 15:00:17 »
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.

*

Offline Pmb

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1838
  • Physicist
    • View Profile
    • New England Science Constortium
Re: where did matter come from?
« Reply #2 on: 24/10/2013 15:17:52 »
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

Quote from: webplodder
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.

Quote from: webplodder
And if energy cannot be destroyed, only changed in form, then does it last forever?
Yes.

Quote from: webplodder
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.

*

Offline Ophiolite

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 718
    • View Profile
Re: where did matter come from?
« Reply #3 on: 24/10/2013 16:54:57 »
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?
Observe; collate; conjecture; analyse; hypothesise; test; validate; theorise. Repeat until complete.

*

Offline webplodder

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 72
    • View Profile
Re: where did matter come from?
« Reply #4 on: 24/10/2013 16:59:22 »
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?

*

Offline Pmb

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1838
  • Physicist
    • View Profile
    • New England Science Constortium
Re: where did matter come from?
« Reply #5 on: 24/10/2013 19:36:06 »
Quote from: webplodder
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.

Quote from: webplodder
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.

Quote from: webplodder
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.
« Last Edit: 24/10/2013 19:50:37 by Pmb »

*

Offline Phractality

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 523
    • View Profile
Re: where did matter come from?
« Reply #6 on: 24/10/2013 20:05:06 »
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®. 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.   
 
 
Imagination is more important than knowledge. Einstein

*

Offline webplodder

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 72
    • View Profile
Re: where did matter come from?
« Reply #7 on: 25/10/2013 08:43:01 »
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.

*

Offline webplodder

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 72
    • View Profile
Re: where did matter come from?
« Reply #8 on: 25/10/2013 08:55:00 »

Quote from: webplodder
How do you know that energy lasts forever? How can you demonstrate that?
Quote
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.


*

Offline Pmb

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1838
  • Physicist
    • View Profile
    • New England Science Constortium
Re: where did matter come from?
« Reply #9 on: 25/10/2013 11:48:48 »
Quote from: webplodder
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.

*

Offline webplodder

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 72
    • View Profile
Re: where did matter come from?
« Reply #10 on: 25/10/2013 20:19:54 »
Quote from: webplodder
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.

*

Offline scienceofscience

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 19
  • take my head out of the box before I asphyxiate
    • View Profile
Re: where did matter come from?
« Reply #11 on: 26/10/2013 00:08:51 »
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

*

Offline Pmb

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1838
  • Physicist
    • View Profile
    • New England Science Constortium
Re: where did matter come from?
« Reply #12 on: 26/10/2013 06:33:06 »
Quote from: webplodder
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
Quote
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. :)

*

Offline webplodder

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 72
    • View Profile
Re: where did matter come from?
« Reply #13 on: 26/10/2013 09:12:43 »
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
« Last Edit: 26/10/2013 12:42:58 by webplodder »

*

Offline Pmb

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1838
  • Physicist
    • View Profile
    • New England Science Constortium
Re: where did matter come from?
« Reply #14 on: 26/10/2013 16:48:56 »
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.

Quote from: webplodder
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?

Quote from: webplodder
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.

Quote from: webplodder
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.

Quote from: webplodder
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.

Quote from: webplodder
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
Quote from: webplodder
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
Quote
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
Quote
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.

*

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1862
    • View Profile
Re: where did matter come from?
« Reply #15 on: 26/10/2013 19:33:46 »
Quote from: scienceofscience
We know that matter can not be created from nothingness, so where did matter come from?

Quote from: Ophiolite
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.

*

Offline Pmb

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1838
  • Physicist
    • View Profile
    • New England Science Constortium
Re: where did matter come from?
« Reply #16 on: 26/10/2013 21:32:21 »
Quote from: Bill S
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.

*

Offline scienceofscience

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 19
  • take my head out of the box before I asphyxiate
    • View Profile
Re: where did matter come from?
« Reply #17 on: 26/10/2013 22:10:02 »
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.

*

Offline Pmb

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1838
  • Physicist
    • View Profile
    • New England Science Constortium
Re: where did matter come from?
« Reply #18 on: 27/10/2013 00:16:18 »
Quote from: scienceofscience
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!

Quote from: scienceofscience
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,

*

Offline scienceofscience

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 19
  • take my head out of the box before I asphyxiate
    • View Profile
Re: where did matter come from?
« Reply #19 on: 27/10/2013 01:15:53 »
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. 

*

Offline Pmb

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1838
  • Physicist
    • View Profile
    • New England Science Constortium
Re: where did matter come from?
« Reply #20 on: 27/10/2013 01:39:01 »
Quote from: scienceofscience
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.

*

Offline webplodder

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 72
    • View Profile
Re: where did matter come from?
« Reply #21 on: 27/10/2013 09:46:01 »
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".
« Last Edit: 27/10/2013 11:42:37 by webplodder »

*

Offline Pmb

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1838
  • Physicist
    • View Profile
    • New England Science Constortium
Re: where did matter come from?
« Reply #22 on: 27/10/2013 14:28:52 »
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.

Quote from: webplodder
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.

Quote from: webplodder
This is why it is of such interest to me and, indeed, many other people.
That doesn’t answer my question though, i.e.
Quote
…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.

Quote from: webplodder
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/
Quote
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.

Quote from: webplodder
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.

Quote from: webplodder
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.

Quote from: webplodder
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

Quote from: webplodder
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.

Quote from: webplodder
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.

Quote from: webplodder
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.
« Last Edit: 27/10/2013 20:50:55 by Pmb »

*

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1862
    • View Profile
Re: where did matter come from?
« Reply #23 on: 27/10/2013 19:44:48 »
 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?







*

Offline Pmb

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1838
  • Physicist
    • View Profile
    • New England Science Constortium
Re: where did matter come from?
« Reply #24 on: 27/10/2013 20:43:46 »
Quote from: Bill S
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.

*

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1862
    • 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
  • ******
  • 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
  • ******
  • 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
  • ***
  • 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
  • ***
  • 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
  • *****
  • 718
    • 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.
Observe; collate; conjecture; analyse; hypothesise; test; validate; theorise. Repeat until complete.

*

Offline webplodder

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 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
  • **
  • 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
  • ***
  • 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
  • ******
  • 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
  • **
  • 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
  • ******
  • 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
  • **
  • 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
  • ******
  • 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
  • **
  • 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
  • ******
  • 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
  • ***
  • 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
  • *****
  • 718
    • 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.
Observe; collate; conjecture; analyse; hypothesise; test; validate; theorise. Repeat until complete.

*

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3366
    • 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

*

Offline webplodder

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 72
    • View Profile
Re: where did matter come from?
« Reply #44 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....

*

Offline scienceofscience

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 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
  • ****
  • 259
    • 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
  • ******
  • 1441
  • 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
  • ******
  • 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
  • **
  • 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 »