Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is matter?
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 31 of 54 (484292)
09-27-2008 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Agobot
09-27-2008 5:03 PM


Abogot writes:
It removes the singularity at the expense of introducing infinity(infinte number of Big Bangs and consequent universes)
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Agobot, posted 09-27-2008 5:03 PM Agobot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Agobot, posted 09-27-2008 5:28 PM onifre has replied

  
Agobot
Member (Idle past 5530 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 32 of 54 (484298)
09-27-2008 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by onifre
09-27-2008 5:18 PM


"According to some oscillatory universe theorists, the Big Bang was merely the beginning of a period of expansion that followed a period of contraction. In this view, one could talk of a Big Crunch followed by a Big Bang, or more simply, a Big Bounce. This suggests that we might be living in the first of all universes, but are equally likely to be living in the 2 billionth universe (or any of an infinite other sequential universes)."
Big Bounce - Wikipedia

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by onifre, posted 09-27-2008 5:18 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by onifre, posted 09-27-2008 5:54 PM Agobot has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 33 of 54 (484307)
09-27-2008 5:54 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Agobot
09-27-2008 5:28 PM


Abogot writes:
This suggests that we might be living in the first of all universes, but are equally likely to be living in the 2 billionth universe (or any of an infinite other sequential universes)."
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Agobot, posted 09-27-2008 5:28 PM Agobot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Agobot, posted 09-27-2008 7:12 PM onifre has replied

  
Agobot
Member (Idle past 5530 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 34 of 54 (484314)
09-27-2008 7:12 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by onifre
09-27-2008 5:54 PM


onifre writes:
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.
If it can repeat the process infinite number of times, it will bring mysticism. If it cannot, then the start of the first Big Bang will be pretty much unexplainable(unless it didn't pop out of other dimensions that were themselves infinite in numbers). Or if you posit that the emergence of the universe doesn't have to make sense to us, it will simply wipe out all science efforts and bring even more gods and monsters. There is no theory that solves all problems(yet).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by onifre, posted 09-27-2008 5:54 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by onifre, posted 09-27-2008 10:10 PM Agobot has replied

  
V-Bird
Member (Idle past 5585 days)
Posts: 211
From: Great Britain
Joined: 03-22-2004


Message 35 of 54 (484316)
09-27-2008 7:20 PM


To the OP
It is my opinion that Matter is simply an effect of energy acting on other energy, the 'act' is for the energy to be 'corralled' by other energies in the form of forces. This is not in the least 'unique', we see light bending around an object in space and what we actually see is again energy being influenced by other energies or forces.
Matter is in my opinion formed in a very particular way, which runs counter to the existing BB theory, the BB is not in my opinion just a singular explosion but rather a tearing apart in all directions of what was original a tiny speck of energy/motion, this tearing apart is caused by the very presence within a perfect vacuum of this tiny amount of energy/motion further motion meant further energy and that 'excess' of energy caused their to be an excess of energy within the tiny space continually, this excess caused and still to this day causes the formation of matter as a way of balancing the excess energy for space ratio.
If I am right then the cosmos is not only expanding but will also be forming more energy and more matter at the cusp.
If I am right also it would mean that the apparently random coalescing of clusters would occur as the localised energy excess forming would move existing galaxies 'sideways' in space due to the intense gravitational effects that would be also present at the cusp and would have huge influence with our visible cosmos.

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Straggler, posted 09-27-2008 7:34 PM V-Bird has replied
 Message 39 by onifre, posted 09-27-2008 10:39 PM V-Bird has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 36 of 54 (484318)
09-27-2008 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by V-Bird
09-27-2008 7:20 PM


Re: To the OP
Your "model" seems to break all of the laws of thermodynamics.
Do you consider that a problem?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by V-Bird, posted 09-27-2008 7:20 PM V-Bird has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by V-Bird, posted 09-27-2008 10:18 PM Straggler has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 37 of 54 (484343)
09-27-2008 10:10 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Agobot
09-27-2008 7:12 PM


Abogot writes:
If it can repeat the process infinite number of times, it will bring mysticism.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Agobot, posted 09-27-2008 7:12 PM Agobot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Agobot, posted 09-28-2008 6:12 AM onifre has not replied

  
V-Bird
Member (Idle past 5585 days)
Posts: 211
From: Great Britain
Joined: 03-22-2004


Message 38 of 54 (484347)
09-27-2008 10:18 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Straggler
09-27-2008 7:34 PM


Re: To the OP
Straggler could you be more specific in which way you consider the laws of thermodynamics might be infringed?
I don't think they would apply at the cusp as there is a force acting outside of the cosmos, the force is entirely negative to our universe as an energy enters nothingness it will not behave in the same manner that energy behaves within the cosmos because it is not effected by the rest of the energy filled cosmos on one side of its existence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Straggler, posted 09-27-2008 7:34 PM Straggler has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 39 of 54 (484353)
09-27-2008 10:39 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by V-Bird
09-27-2008 7:20 PM


Re: To the OP
Since cavediver isn't a big fan of yours I'll play a bit...
It is my opinion that Matter is simply an effect of energy acting on other energy,
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...
we see light bending around an object in space and what we actually see is again energy being influenced by other energies or forces
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.
the BB is not in my opinion just a singular explosion but rather a tearing apart in all directions of what was original a tiny speck of energy/motion
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?
further motion meant further energy
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?
If I am right
Are you fucking serious!
If I am right
Didn't you hear me the first time? Are you fucking serious?
random coalescing of clusters would occur as the localised energy excess forming would move existing galaxies 'sideways' in space
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
--Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
Edited by onifre, : spelling, as always
Edited 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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by V-Bird, posted 09-27-2008 7:20 PM V-Bird has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by V-Bird, posted 09-28-2008 7:55 PM onifre has not replied

  
Agobot
Member (Idle past 5530 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 40 of 54 (484391)
09-28-2008 6:12 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by onifre
09-27-2008 10:10 PM


onifre writes:
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.
This is more meta-physics than real physics, unless you want to show me an example of "infinity" or "eternity" from our macro physical world.
Abstract mathemathics is not always confirmed in our reality by a long shot. In fact, very often mathematics lies outside our "reality" and scientists are struggling to reconcile their mathematical findings to the laws of our Newtonian world. this probably has to do with our perception of reality and the fact taht we have 2 so very immensely different worlds here that scientists are in awe as to how to go about uniting them. Or as physicist Freeman Dyson pointed out "The road to the unified field theory is littered with the corpses". Same goes for Michio Kaku who is selected to work on the Theory of everything - "sadly, every attempt to merge these 2 theories has failed, some of the greatest mind of our century have tackled this problem, only to be unsuccessful."
As a matter of fact we live in two different worlds at the same time - the world we know quite well from our daily lives and the quantum world. They are sooo vastly different that probably I have more in common with my pekingese than our physical world has with the quantum one. In the quantum world particles have no disctinct location(they can be in 2 or multiple places - uncertainty principle), they can break the speed of light(spooky action at a distance), "stuff" can be particles and waves at the same time, etc.
The contrast between our world and the quantum world is so vast, that Einstein refused to believe in the Quantum theory. And as far as i can tell - the border between the 2 worlds lie merely in our minds and our distorted perception of reality. That makes me think the 2 worlds will never be united, unless we solve the big mistery of the perception of our reality.
onifre writes:
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.
I'll let Einstein handle my reply to this statement - "I believe that if a theory couldn't be broadly explained to a child it wasn't working. I believe that there should be a picture behind the theory."
Although at the end of his life he almost lost himself in equasions and there was no "picture" guiding him, I do believe that if you can't explain a theory of the creation of the Universe to a 16 year old, it's probably bogus. Introducing more uncertainty by saying we don't know what happened before the 2000(or any number of) births of universes, does not solve the mystery of the creation of the universe. It simply sends it further into the oblivion of the untestable and unknowable.
onifre writes:
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.
I agree that it solves the singularity riddle but at the same time it introduces "the unknown" that was at the start of all big bangs. That's why this theory is only a fractual theory and it takes quite a bit of religious belief in science to make you a hard atheist(if you are). And to me, the singularity popping out of nowhere makes more sense than an "unknown" behind the start of multiple big bangs(and most of the scientists believe in the singularity altough that fact doesn't lend more credibility to their theory). But all the theories so far(multiverse, multiple big bangs in an eternal universe, multiple dimensions..) leave the door at least partly open for gods, because we are looking for an elusive beginning or a cause - that's why Einstein and Michio Kaku(from the little i read so far on him) are trying to "read the mind of god", where god could simply be a set of laws we have not yet discovered or a simulation played by an alien race, or simply the unknown. IMHO(I could be wrong), all the unsolved riddles of the beginning(if there ever was one) lie in our perception of reality and the border between the quantum and the classical world.
"Decoherence" could be a way out of the quantum world but scientists are still working in that direction and it still seems to make us much sense as a spaghetti monster. Basically it superimposes the role of the observer in defining the world around us(our reality). But if physics tells us that that is correct and is what constitutes our "reality", maybe we should just swallow that fact, whether we like it or not. That is until we understand what really constitutes an "observer" and so far science is hopeless.
Edited by Agobot, : Spelling
Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.
Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.
Edited by Agobot, : Sorry for the edits

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by onifre, posted 09-27-2008 10:10 PM onifre has not replied

  
Agobot
Member (Idle past 5530 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 41 of 54 (484398)
09-28-2008 7:29 AM


I'm not going to do another edit as i will get a suspension, but just to continue my thoughts from the previous post - the whole decoherence stuff seems to imply that the world may have looked quite different before the arrival of the "observer" - i.e. us. Either we are going into a wrong direction or the "reality" may never reveal its secrets to us(i.e. the software will not "know" what the computer running it truly is). Or my imagination is too limited and flawed.
But from the evolutionary point of view, one could argue that reality emerges out of the evolutionary context. 10 millions years ago our ancestors would hardly see themselves if they looked in the mirror. A cat does not see itself in the mirror, in that context i would argue that each successive evolutionary species in humans brings more "reality", more detail to the picture of realism(although realism is a wrod my human mind struggles to comprehend). So as evolution brings more reality to us, we are made more environment-aware, i.e. we and evolution create our reality. Everything gets more real until we reach a certain level(the level Einstein was stuck in and the level we are still stuck in) where reality simply falls apart and you understand that reality is simply an illusionary creation of the mind(where the mind is the creation of the brain, and the brain itself is the miraculous creation of the fields surrounding the nuclei of atoms - what we perceive as "matter").
But if you believe in causuality, you'd ask what/who sets this realistic illusion in motion? Unfortunately neither i nor science has found an answer and i'll just label it "Mind" although this word is practically devoid of any concrete meaning in the context of our daily lives.
Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.
Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.
Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

  
Agobot
Member (Idle past 5530 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 42 of 54 (484419)
09-28-2008 1:42 PM



It's all a Big fucking ugly lie and I think scientists are the saddest persons in the world. In moments like this let me quote the greatest mind of the 20th century - uncle Einstein:
"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognise, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support of such views."
"The fanatical atheists, are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who--in their grudge against traditional religion as the 'opium of the masses'-- cannot hear the music of the spheres."
Let's just say that uncle Einstein burst my bubble about life and that if i was a woman i'd probably be crying. QM is the future of mankind although its discoveries are very grim in certain ways. I will not take part in any further discussion on QM as it's disturbing me and I am afraid might disturb other people too.
Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

  
V-Bird
Member (Idle past 5585 days)
Posts: 211
From: Great Britain
Joined: 03-22-2004


Message 43 of 54 (484480)
09-28-2008 7:55 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by onifre
09-27-2008 10:39 PM


Re: To Onifire
Energy as in ElectroMagnetic Radiation, the E in e=mc2.
Space as an entity does not exist, space is not bent, what is bent is EMR and it is bent by other forms of EMR or the forces it carries and occasionally is bound into mass by.
Energy is motion, without motion there is no energy, motion is four dimensional not just confined to the three simple ones.
The four forces are part of energy they are not separate they are simply aspects of the way energy behaves, in other words we often see the forces only in how we perceive energy behaving or influencing other energy.
Energy cannot be defined as anything other than motion and vice versa.
I try to avoid swearing as it is the last refuge of a failed argument, debate is good, countering what I say with example is good, abuse is failing to either, please refrain from further outbursts.
Some Galaxies in certain areas of the cosmos are found to be moving counter to what big bang theory postulates. This has only recently been confirmed by observation but was predicted by me more than ten years ago.
Cavediver does get frustrated by me because for his own reasons, perhaps one of them is because my ideas overturn many treasured milestones in his achievement of becoming what he is now, heresy no matter how right is always greeted by the established thinking with disdain and by the the hoi-polloi with abuse, it has always been that way, you are living proof of such.
Please ask questions, prove me wrong, metal sharpens metal, venom does not do much to metal.
Thankyou.
Edited by V-Bird, : Spelling and context.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by onifre, posted 09-27-2008 10:39 PM onifre has not replied

  
Agobot
Member (Idle past 5530 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 44 of 54 (484532)
09-29-2008 10:03 AM


What the fuck is this?
Would somebody care to wake me up? WTF is this horrible dream?
Here is Einstein's reply to a fellow scientist:
"Do you really believe that the Moon exists only when you look at it?"
And guess what? Later Einstein was proven wrong. The moon does exist only when we look at it.
Later Einstein met Bohr in Copenhagen and responded:
"It didn't matter if particles might affect one another over vast distances, or that particles had no observable properties before they are observed."
As Bohr later said, "There is no quantum world. There is only an abstract quantum physical description."
The reason we see our world as we do is because of what we use to observe it. The human body is a just barely adequate measuring device(it can only measure larger bodies of God knows what, there is no word for it, let's just call it a horrible delusion). We just do not have the sensitivity to observe the quantum world and quantum effects around us with our innate sensors - eyes, brain, etc). In essence we do create the classical world we perceive, and as Brukner said, "There could be other classical worlds completely different from ours".
And on top of that there are no real particles, fuck. As we go deeper in the quantum world every building block of matter is just wave and energy(quarks, electron, gluons, etc). There are no real particles with physical dimensions in this "world". It turns out everything in our pathetic existence is made out of nothing(physical) - the Moon, the Sun, the Universe, your children, your mothers and fathers, your EVERYTHING. They simply don't exist physically. Everything is a silly, fucking distorted perception.
From Wikipedia:
"All of these factors combined such that the very notion of a discrete "particle" has been ultimately replaced by the concept of something like wave-packet of an uncertain boundary, whose properties are only known as probabilities, and whose interactions with other "particles" remain largely a mystery, even 80 years after quantum mechanics was established."
Subatomic particle - Wikipedia
Would somebody prove me wrong, that we are not made of energy and wave? That the whole world is not hanging in the air like a cheap Chinese gizmo?
Would somebody prove these guys wrong:
Quantum physics says goodbye to reality
Page not found – Physics World
This is disturbing and i long thought before posting this. I think you have to know the truth, if everything Einstein was fighting against, is correct.
Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.
Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by cavediver, posted 09-29-2008 10:30 AM Agobot has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 45 of 54 (484537)
09-29-2008 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Agobot
09-29-2008 10:03 AM


Re: What the fuck is this?
Yep, that's pretty much it. Except I say "Wow, that's amazing!" How we respond to major paradigm shifts says far more about our own particular state of mind at that time, than anything really about the paradigm shift itself. In a week, month or year, you'll be in another stae of mind and will be delighted by these revelations. Just wait and see. As long as ice cream still tastes as good, sex feels as good, and mountains, caves, and the night sky still look as good, then no harm done...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Agobot, posted 09-29-2008 10:03 AM Agobot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Agobot, posted 09-29-2008 11:00 AM cavediver has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024