Light and Matter (Origins)

by dhw, Friday, May 30, 2014, 20:34 (3608 days ago) @ GateKeeper

GATEKEEPER: No reply? I am concerned that what I said has an error?-I must apologize, but I can't keep up with you! I always draft replies and reread them before posting them, but by then, if the day has been busy, you folk will have left me far behind ... as you've done now. So please have patience with me! I'm trying to focus on particular arguments, which means extracting individual points from your posts and David's:-dhw: I'm now questioning whether there is even such a thing as "pure" energy, and whether we can say matter and energy are "interchangeable", as the current theory maintains.
DAVID: You still do not understand that pure energy particles (quanta in the story of the universe) coalesced into matter.
GATEKEEPER: Where the confusion lies in main stream knowledge is that they don't really know what "pure energy" is. So to use it as a descriptor, at this level, isn't really an option yet.-Which of you should I believe? David says photons are pure energy. GK says they don't know what photons are. He says waving is important ... so is there a link between waving and pure energy? GK says quantum mech is based on "probability". Probabilities seem to change with every new discovery ... see below. -DAVID: Reread this blog to see the whole outline of our universe's history...
 http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2014/05/22/is-all-the-universe-from-noth... According to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, quantum fluctuations in the metastable false vacuum ... a state absent of space, time or matter ... can give rise to virtual particle pairs. Ordinarily these pairs self-annihilate almost instantly, but if these virtual particles separate immediately, they can avoid annihilation, creating a true vacuum bubble. The Wuhan team's equations show that such a bubble has the potential to expand exponentially, causing a new universe to appear. All of this begins from quantum behavior and leads to the creation of a tremendous amount of matter and energy during the inflation stage. -I'm not going to pretend that I understand all this, but it might help me if you could tell me what part of the process constitutes "pure energy". I've read that virtual particles can't come into being without "real" particles, but apparently this is not so in a metastable false vacuum. Would it, then, be true to say that since you believe this unproven theory (see below), your God is a conscious metastable false vacuum which deliberately transformed its virtual particles into a vacuum bubble? I know this sounds facetious, but it's a genuine question. I'm trying my hardest to bring your chosen theories together.-QUOTE: Ultimately, this mathematical proof needs to be checked out by others and ideally put to some yet-to-be-determined tests. In the end, the work may or may not be accepted. [...] Our universe and the physics at its foundation are incredibly complex and will continue to yield new knowledge about our past, present and future for a long time to come. Perhaps until the end of time. 
-You describe this unproven theory as "the whole outline of our universe's history". If the scientists themselves have such reservations, shouldn't we? -DAVID: Matter is made up of energy particles. The energy we released in ordinary ways is not the same, burning wood or coal for example. That is chemical oxidation. You are confusing it with what GK and I are discussing, atomic energy.-But can atomic energy be produced without matter?
 
dhw: That's the background to this discussion, which eventually I hope to relate to panpsychism.
DAVID: I have no idea what bug about panpsychism is on your mind, but until you see what we are presenting, it won't go anywhere in discussion.-Your own panentheism is a form of panpsychism, but I shan't try to make the link until we have some sort of clarity on the subject of "pure" energy.
 
dhw: At best, we can argue that we do not know when or even if time had a beginning.
DAVID: This is your view. Most folks accept the idea that time began with the origin of the universe. St. Thomas was the first. -QUOTE: Given the quantum behavior of virtual particles in a vacuum as put forth in this paper, it's reasonable to assume this hasn't happened only this once, but rather many or potentially even an infinite number of times.-These scientists, whose article you have recommended, favour the multiverse theory, and the use of the present perfect certainly does not preclude universes in the past. But there cannot be a past without time. Ergo, we cannot state with any certainty that time began with the origin of OUR universe.-GATEKEEPER: I could write a book on this stuff relating to "god", basically the book would be title "it is ok to believe using real science".-David is too modest to mention that he has already beaten you to it. He has just published a book called The Atheist Delusion ... Science IS Finding God. I recommend it, even to my fellow agnostics and to those atheists whose minds are not yet fully closed.