What is matter?

Hi DJ, and welcome to EvC.I know the post was for cavediver but I'd like to jump in if I may... This seems to be the same 'bad taste' that has left physicist wanting more out of their current cosmological model of the BB. Cause and effect do need to be explained. This seems a bit presumptuous, to say that cause can't be found, and then assume it can only be defined as a spiritual, or Godly causal act...seems like a God of the Gaps line of thinking. However much it does satisfy as an answer, it no more answers the question of cause as does the current BB model. Sure we will. Most theoretical physicsist believe it will be found once a unifying theory is found.
Unified field theory - Wikipedia Neither do physicist, thus a need for a unifying theory. This is more of a philosophical PoV than a physics derived PoV. If there are eternal fields(note im assuming your definition of eternal as synonomous with 'infinite'), then those fields cannot just be manipulated, or conceptualized, to fit some sort of spiritual, or afterlife ideology. They will just be fields in reality, not in some outside of the universe realm, as I understand it. Have you ever heard of, or read anything on, Michio Kaku? The discriptiion you gave above sounds exactly like Michio's definition of String Theory.Here's a video you might enjoy, as it explains String Theory using your idea of music harmony. It's a 5 part video and I recommend watching all 5 starting with this one...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnQLsERqTIgHope you enjoy.--Oni

---

"All great truths begin as blasphemies""I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

You're quite welcome, and welcome to EvCforum. Edited by onifre, : No reason given.Edited by onifre, : spelling, as always.

I'd say not only is it possible, it will be easy. The ToE will explain the most simplest of forces and their interactions between each other. It's not dealing with complexity. I would say that theoetical physicist come up with the ToE, or the unifying theory, long before an consensus in Abiogenesis. Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

Yeah sorry for my American slang use of words.Simply put physicist will understand the origin of the universe before there is a consensus in abiogenesis, IMO. I believe this is exactly what a unifying theory will cover, bringing the values into real numbers rather than infinite equations. A unifying theory will simply be the union of GR and QM with a final resulting Quantum Gravity Theory. Currently I like Loop Quantum Gravity as the leading theory,Loop quantum gravity - Wikipedia...but thats just personal preference.Also, the beauty of Loop QG is that it removes the Big Bang singularity and infinty from the equations, and proposes a Big Bounce, also a favorite of mine.Big Bounce - WikipediaThis is however, just an account of our universe and does not deal with a multiverse or String/M-Theory(which, in my opinion, hasn't shown much in the area of evidence). But, in Loop QG there is no more use of a singularity and as such there is no longer the concept of infinity, making God, or the need for one, as you put it, also irrelevant. I believe, even if Loop QG fails as a theory, that the unifying theory will have to eliminate the singularity, and thus infinity. Yes, but remember infinity in physics, and specifically at the BB singularity, is just the breakdown of GR into an infinite singularity. A unifying theory must take issue with an infinte singularity and make sense of it, as Loop QG does. Perhaps you have misunderstood the unifying theorys' purpose. I'd like for you to read up on Loop QG and see if any of your concepts have changed.I found an article in SciAm that covers it perfectly,
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=big-bang-or-big-bounceQuote from the article's heading,

quote:

---

Einstein’s general theory of relativity says that the universe began with the big bang singularity, a moment when all the matter we see was concentrated at a single point of infinite density. But the theory does not capture the fine, quantum structure of spacetime, which limits how tightly matter can be concentrated and how strong gravity can become. To figure out what really happened, physicists need a quantum theory of gravity.

​

According to one candidate for such a theory, loop quantum gravity, space is subdivided into “atoms” of volume and has a finite capacity to store matter and energy, thereby preventing true singularities from existing.

​

If so, time may have extended before the bang. The prebang universe may have undergone a catastrophic implosion that reached a point of maximum density and then reversed. In short, a big crunch may have led to a big bounce and then to the big bang.

---

The article explains the physics behind the theory. I'd also like to get cavediver's or son goku's take on this particular theory as a candidate for the ToE. I'll let the QM experts handle this question. I don't know enough about String or 11 Dementional physics to be able to answer with confidence.--Oni

---

"All great truths begin as blasphemies""I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

Wait, what type of 'infinity' are you refering to at the BB singularity? The BB singularity has infinite density, that is all that is meant when physicist speak of infinity at the BB. The Big Bounce removes that infinite density.Wiki quote,

quote:

---

The main idea behind the quantum theory of a Big Bounce is that, as density approaches infinity, the behavior of the quantum foam changes. All the so-called fundamental physical constants, including the speed of light in a vacuum, were not so constant during the Big Crunch, especially in the interval stretching 10’43 seconds before and after the point of inflection. (One unit of Planck time is about 10’43 seconds.)

​

If the fundamental physical constants were determined in a quantum-mechanical manner during the Big Crunch, then their apparently inexplicable values in this universe would not be so surprising, it being understood here that a universe is that which exists between a Big Bang and its Big Crunch. The problem of failed universes (those that fail to produce carbon-based life forms) is also resolved.

---

It says nothing about the amount of BB's, Big Crunch's, Big Bounce's, that have, or will, occur.

I wouldn't call that infinity as equal to the BB singularity though...The difference being that we know the Universe exists. If the physics behind Loop QG holds then we explain how it expanded, how it crunchs, and how it repeats the process, of the universe. That it can occur at infinum is irrelevant to origin, death, and re-birth. We know there is a universe, just because it can repeat the process doesn't add a mystical aspect to it. What would add a mystical aspect, IMO, would be an infinitly dense singularity that doesn't get explained.And note: I said it doesn't say anything about the amount, it leaves that area open for future study I would suppose.Edited by onifre, : spelling

How so? Explain...Perhaps to you but, I see no need for mysticism. We are talking about physics here. The only place any of this makes sense. You can't just manipulate thoeries to sound mystical, even if equations go to infinum, or the number of bounces go to infinum, you have to remember that they only go to infinum on paper, and based off of our mathematics. For all we know this is the first universe ever and it's just our equations telling us otherwise.In fact outside of theoretical physics none of the math means anything to anyone. You can't just take the conceptual idea of the Big Bounce and turn it into a mystical ideology because of your limited understanding of it, this is physics man.

---

"All great truths begin as blasphemies""I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

Since cavediver isn't a big fan of yours I'll play a bit... What energy acting on what energy?Lets pretend you are in a physics class and had to explain your hypothesis, the first question would be, 'What energy and where did it come from? And what type of energy is it acting on?You just used fancy words, now it's time to define them... Light does not bend around anything, light is simply following the curvature of space. It feels no force as it curves.The statement 'energy being influenced by other energy or forces' is nonsense. Define energy and force. I hope you know that you're using Newtonian physics here with you attributing force to gravity...if that is what you're doing. Honestly I can't understand much of this. Where did you ever read that the BB was an explosion?And energy/motion, what is that? Where did you see this hypothetical scenario?Are you using GR for this? Where are you getting the math to support this? This is the only thing thats almost right...Motion, or rather acceleration, increases the mass and the increase in mass requires more energy...wait where did I read about this? Are you fucking serious! Didn't you hear me the first time? Are you fucking serious? How about using a bit of relativity; the galaxies are moving sideways in reference to what?In reference to Earth? Are we the only reference point?
(ps. thats a trick question)Ok, no wonder cavediver gets frustrated with you --OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.Edited by onifre, : spelling, as alwaysEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

---

"All great truths begin as blasphemies""I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

I recommend reading anything from Vilayanur Ramachandrans. He works in the field's of Neuroscience and Psychology. Research the effects of the drug DMT(Dimethyltryptamine ), you wanna talk about mind altering...Here's an interview with an American comedian named Joe Rogan about the effects of DMT.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pE5S9mrE8Xg&feature=relatedEnjoy,--OniModerator: Sorry for off topic reply.

---

"All great truths begin as blasphemies""I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky