Light and Matter (Origins)
An article in today's Guardian reports that scientists at Imperial College London expect to demonstrate within the next 12 months that matter can be made from "pure light". The matter will be in the form of "subatomic particles invisible to the naked eye". Oliver Pike, the lead researcher, said the process "was one of the most elegant demonstrations of Einstein's relationship that shows matter and energy are interchangeable currencies." Andrei Seryi, director of the John Adams Institute at Oxford University, said: "It's breathtaking to think that things we thought are not connected can in fact be converted to each other: matter and energy, particles and light."-The scientists will fire "electrons at a slab of gold to produce a beam of high-energy photons. Next, they fire a high-energy laser into a tiny gold capsule called a hohlraum, from the German for "empty room".*** This produces light as bright as that emitted from stars. In the final stage, they send the first beam of photons into the hohlraum where the two streams of photons collide. [...] "You might call it the most dramatic consequence of QED [quantum electrodynamics] and it clearly shows that light and matter are interchangeable."-*** This is a mistranslation - it means empty space.-Was it BBella who suggested that light might prove to be the ultimate source of all things? However, although I realize that light is a form of energy, I don't quite understand how this experiment proves that matter can be made from "pure light", when the production of the light itself and of the matter seems to require a massive input of a different form of energy. The scientists appear to be using the terms "light" and "energy" as if they were synonyms. I'm out of my depth here, so perhaps someone could "enlighten" me?
Light and Matter
by David Turell 
, Monday, May 19, 2014, 15:53 (3839 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: An article in today's Guardian reports that scientists at Imperial > "You might call it the most dramatic consequence of QED [/i][quantum electrodynamics] and it clearly shows that light and matter are interchangeable." > Was it BBella who suggested that light might prove to be the ultimate source of all things? However, although I realize that light is a form of energy, I don't quite understand how this experiment proves that matter can be made from "pure light", when the production of the light itself and of the matter seems to require a massive input of a different form of energy. The scientists appear to be using the terms "light" and "energy" as if they were synonyms. I'm out of my depth here, so perhaps someone could "enlighten" me?-Read the article more carefully. The answer is there:-"The original idea was written down by two US physicists, Gregory Breit and John Wheeler, in 1934. They worked out that ... very rarely ... two particles of light, or photons, could combine to produce an electron and its antimatter equivalent, a positron. Electrons are particles of matter that form the outer shells of atoms in the everyday objects around us."-Photons are part of several matter particles as this paragraph illustrates, and in many quantum processes photons are given off by those particles. This is just reversing the process. By the way John Wheeler is one of the giants of early theoretical quantum mechanics, along with Feynman, etc.
Light and Matter
Dhw (referring to an article in The Guardian about an experiment to make matter from "pure light"]: Was it BBella who suggested that light might prove to be the ultimate source of all things? However, although I realize that light is a form of energy, I don't quite understand how this experiment proves that matter can be made from "pure light", when the production of the light itself and of the matter seems to require a massive input of a different form of energy. The scientists appear to be using the terms "light" and "energy" as if they were synonyms. I'm out of my depth here, so perhaps someone could "enlighten" me? -DAVID: Read the article more carefully. The answer is there: "The original idea was written down by two US physicists, Gregory Breit and John Wheeler, in 1934. They worked out that ... very rarely ... two particles of light, or photons, could combine to produce an electron and its antimatter equivalent, a positron. Electrons are particles of matter that form the outer shells of atoms in the everyday objects around us."-Photons are part of several matter particles as this paragraph illustrates, and in many quantum processes photons are given off by those particles. This is just reversing the process. By the way John Wheeler is one of the giants of early theoretical quantum mechanics, along with Feynman, etc.-Thank you. What I'm trying to get my head round is the idea that "pure light", energy and matter are "interchangeable". I'm not making a case for anything, but am genuinely trying to understand a concept that has important implications for many of the theories we've been discussing, including those of your god and of panpsychism. Is there any form of light that is independent of matter? You and I have agreed on the concept of first cause energy, and I've been playing with the idea of energy eternally producing matter ... possibly resulting in universe after universe. But if we are to take light and energy as being synonymous and interchangeable with matter ... as stated above ... is there a chicken and egg situation, in so far as you can't have matter without energy, and you can't have energy without matter? This is a genuine question. As I said before, I'm out of my depth, but I can certainly do a bit of wading if you can explain the basics.
Light and Matter
by David Turell , Wednesday, May 21, 2014, 05:46 (3837 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: Thank you. What I'm trying to get my head round is the idea that "pure light", energy and matter are "interchangeable". -Basically everything is energy. Matter is a form of energy. Energy is really all there is. After the Big Bang (it was thought to be cool) and inflation starting during the first 10^-43 seconds and instantaneously expanding, then it heated to enormous temperatures and caused a "plasma" of just energy, no particles. At 300+ K years it cooled enough for particles of energy to appear. They then formed the early lightest elements. The first gases were hydrogen, helium and a little lithium as the original elements. Gradually the stars, as furnaces, produced the heavier elements, which could then form molecules, and matter beyond just burning stars could appear and eventually create what we have as a universe. Yes, interchangeable, and just forms of the same thing. E=mc^2 says it all.
Light and Matter
DAVID: Basically everything is energy. Matter is a form of energy. Energy is really all there is. After the Big Bang (it was thought to be cool) and inflation starting during the first 10^-43 seconds and instantaneously expanding, then it heated to enormous temperatures and caused a "plasma" of just energy, no particles. At 300+ K years it cooled enough for particles of energy to appear. They then formed the early lightest elements. The first gases were hydrogen, helium and a little lithium as the original elements. Gradually the stars, as furnaces, produced the heavier elements, which could then form molecules, and matter beyond just burning stars could appear and eventually create what we have as a universe. Yes, interchangeable, and just forms of the same thing. E=mc^2 says it all.-Thank you again, but I would like to take this back to our original agreement that the first cause is energy. According to you, first cause energy (your Universal Intelligence known as God) consciously created the only matter that is known to us, which is our universe. But if energy and matter are interchangeable, how can one claim that God is energy ... not matter ... which created matter? And since the only intelligence we know is that which appears to "emerge" from matter, why claim that there is a different form of immaterial intelligence that consists solely of energy, even though matter and energy are interchangeable? And my final question for today: if energy and matter are interchangeable, is your statement "energy is really all there is" any more valid than the statement "matter is really all there is"?-I'd like to discuss the implications for both theistic and atheistic forms of panpsychism here, but I need to take this argument one step at a time, so that you or anyone else can point out any flaws as I go along.
Light and Matter
by David Turell , Thursday, May 22, 2014, 20:08 (3836 days ago) @ dhw
> dhW: Thank you again, but I would like to take this back to our original agreement that the first cause is energy. According to you, first cause energy (your Universal Intelligence known as God) consciously created the only matter that is known to us, which is our universe. But if energy and matter are interchangeable, how can one claim that God is energy ... not matter ... which created matter? -The only thing that existed in eternity was/is energy. The atheist scientists (Krauss, Stenger as examples) want it to be a virtual quantum space so a 'quantum perturbation' can create the universe. I am proposing a pure energy form in no space. Can I prove that. No. Krauss-Stenger space exists in our universe, and we cannnot really know what existed before. -> dhw: And since the only intelligence we know is that which appears to "emerge" from matter, why claim that there is a different form of immaterial intelligence that consists solely of energy, even though matter and energy are interchangeable?-Since the only conscious mentation we know is ours and it is created by energy expenditure in the brain, I am assuming a disembodied conscousness make up entirely of energy.-> dhw:And my final question for today: if energy and matter are interchangeable, is your statement "energy is really all there is" any more valid than the statement "matter is really all there is?" -Because you are ignoring the physical laws which state that energy cannot be created or destroyed in this universe. We live in all the energy that is or can be. Matter is a form of energy. Energy underlies and is the basis for everything. When we use matter to form energy, as with wood, all we do is oxidize the carbon to CO2 and feel the warmth of what we transformed in th fire. The CO2 then is used in photosynthesis in leaves to make bigger trees to start the cycle again. Matter is never all that is. Solid Matter is a form of energy. You are correct in the sense that what we call 'particles' are a form of matter, so we must be careful in our definitions. But those particles are really jittering waves in a field per quantum theory, and they seem to exist at a differint level of our reality, per Kastner.
Light and Matter
dhW: Thank you again, but I would like to take this back to our original agreement that the first cause is energy. According to you, first cause energy (your Universal Intelligence known as God) consciously created the only matter that is known to us, which is our universe. But if energy and matter are interchangeable, how can one claim that God is energy ... not matter ... which created matter? -DAVID: The only thing that existed in eternity was/is energy. The atheist scientists (Krauss, Stenger as examples) want it to be a virtual quantum space so a 'quantum perturbation' can create the universe. I am proposing a pure energy form in no space. Can I prove that. No. Krauss-Stenger space [/i[i]]exists in our universe, and we cannnot really know what existed before. -I agree that we can't know what existed before, but if you claim it was "pure energy" and not matter, you will have to drop the claim that energy and matter are "interchangeable".-dhw: And since the only intelligence we know is that which appears to "emerge" from matter, why claim that there is a different form of immaterial intelligence that consists solely of energy, even though matter and energy are interchangeable?-DAVID: Since the only conscious mentation we know is ours and it is created by energy expenditure in the brain, I am assuming a disembodied conscousness make up entirely of energy.-Which consciousness are you referring to here ... ours, or your god's? I thought you believed our consciousness was a phenomenon that emerges from interaction between the physical components of the brain, i.e. from the energy produced by matter. Your assumption of disembodied consciousness made up entirely of energy is the reason why I have questioned whether you can say energy and matter are interchangeable. You now seem to be saying they are not interchangeable. dhw: And my final question for today: if energy and matter are interchangeable, is your statement "energy is really all there is" any more valid than the statement "matter is really all there is?" DAVID: Because you are ignoring the physical laws which state that energy cannot be created or destroyed in this universe. We live in all the energy that is or can be. Matter is a form of energy. Energy underlies and is the basis for everything. When we use matter to form energy, as with wood, all we do is oxidize the carbon to CO2 and feel the warmth of what we transformed in th fire. The CO2 then is used in photosynthesis in leaves to make bigger trees to start the cycle again. Matter is never all that is. Solid Matter is a form of energy. You are correct in the sense that what we call 'particles' are a form of matter, so we must be careful in our definitions. But those particles are really jittering waves in a field per quantum theory, and they seem to exist at a differint level of our reality, per Kastner.-Then matter and energy are not interchangeable. Alternatively, we can argue that matter constantly changes into different forms, as in your wood example, in which solid matter becomes gaseous matter which becomes solid matter in a constant process of material transformation. Since nobody understands quantum "reality", can we really argue that it is not material? -Please remember that I'm trying to understand the implications of the statement that energy and matter are interchangeable ... a statement that you have previously explained and defended. Do you still think it's true?
Light and Matter
by David Turell , Friday, May 23, 2014, 19:03 (3835 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: I agree that we can't know what existed before, but if you claim it was "pure energy" and not matter, you will have to drop the claim that energy and matter are "interchangeable".-Ask Hiroshima about interchangeable. All matter is energy in a more solid form. The energy can be released. I don't see your problem. Pure energy is plasma. We have discussed this. > > dhw: And since the only intelligence we know is that which appears to "emerge" from matter, why claim that there is a different form of immaterial intelligence that consists solely of energy, even though matter and energy are interchangeable?-We don't know exactly what emerges but we do experience it. I simply propose that the universal consciousness is desembodied energy.-> > dhw: Which consciousness are you referring to here ... ours, or your god's? I thought you believed our consciousness was a phenomenon that emerges from interaction between the physical components of the brain, i.e. from the energy produced by matter. Your assumption of disembodied consciousness made up entirely of energy is the reason why I have questioned whether you can say energy and matter are interchangeable. You now seem to be saying they are not interchangeable.-No I am not. We do not understand consciousness or how much quantum mechanics plays a role. Please keep in mind E=mc^2, and we don't know if that applies to consciousness. Interchangeability is simply the recognition that matter is simply made up from bound up energy.-> > dhw: Please remember that I'm trying to understand the implications of the statement that energy and matter are interchangeable ... a statement that you have previously explained and defended. Do you still think it's true?-Of course. But they don't change readily as the prolonged research before the atom bomb shows.
Light and Matter
dhw: I agree that we can't know what existed before, but if you claim it was "pure energy" and not matter, you will have to drop the claim that energy and matter are "interchangeable". DAVID: Ask Hiroshima about interchangeable. All matter is energy in a more solid form. The energy can be released. I don't see your problem. -You will have to forgive my ignorance, but I don't suppose I'm the only one who is confused by the statements that matter and energy are interchangeable, whereas your God is "pure energy" (more later). Hiroshima is a prime example of a colossal amount of energy being released from a small amount of matter. Can we say that it's an example of a colossal amount of matter being released from a small amount of energy? The scientists whose forthcoming experiment was the starting point of this discussion used the terms light and energy as if they were synonymous, and the experiment will set out to prove that matter can be formed from "pure light". Presumably, then, this also means forming matter from "pure energy". But in order to produce this light, they first need to use materials (firing electrons at a slab of gold, firing a high-energy laser into a gold capsule). Do we know of any form of light that does not need a material source? By extension, do we know of any form of energy that does not need a material source? (This is a genuine question, not an argument.) If we do, why is this experiment so important? DAVID: Pure energy is plasma. We have discussed this.-WIKIPEDIA: "Plasma (from Greek πλάσμα, "anything formed") is one of the four fundamental states of matter (the others being solid, liquid, and gas). When air or gas is ionized, plasma forms with similar conductive properties to that of metals. Plasma is the most abundant form of matter in the Universe, because most stars are in plasma state."-No wonder I find all this confusing. How can "pure energy" be the most abundant form of matter in the Universe?-dhw: And since the only intelligence we know is that which appears to "emerge" from matter, why claim that there is a different form of immaterial intelligence that consists solely of energy, even though matter and energy are interchangeable? DAVID: We don't know exactly what emerges but we do experience it. I simply propose that the universal consciousness is desembodied energy.-I know you propose this. But if plasma is pure energy, and your universal God is pure energy, as you mentioned earlier, and if matter and energy are interchangeable, and pure energy/plasma is matter, do you not yourself find the argument confusing? I'll stop here because this is enough confusion for one day. (And I still haven't got on to its relevance to panpsychism!)
Light and Matter
by David Turell , Saturday, May 24, 2014, 23:51 (3834 days ago) @ dhw
edited by unknown, Sunday, May 25, 2014, 00:03
> dhw: You will have to forgive my ignorance, but I don't suppose I'm the only one who is confused by the statements that matter and energy are interchangeable, ..... Can we say that it's [Hiroshima] an example of a colossal amount of matter being released from a small amount of energy?-No you can't. The bomb released a colossal number of energy containing particles from matter.-> > dhw: The scientists whose forthcoming experiment was the starting point of this discussion used the terms light and energy as if they were synonymous, and the experiment will set out to prove that matter can be formed from "pure light". Do we know of any form of light that does not need a material source? By extension, do we know of any form of energy that does not need a material source?-The material source you are proposing is the energy contained in matter. Photons are massless particles of light energy.-> dhw:(This is a genuine question, not an argument.) If we do, why is this experiment so important? > > No wonder I find all this confusing. How can "pure energy" be the most abundant form of matter in the Universe?-Please read the following article by Strassler which explains the various particle families and their mass/energy values. I haven't been clear enough with you, but he is. The 'particles' which really aren't particles but wave smudges in a field. They are the basic particles of matter. Most have mass (not the photon) and all contain energy. All matter is made of these particles, and therefore all matter contains energy. As you can see from the article all of these particles are measured in mass/energy. When the universe was in a state of all plasma, no particles were in a formed state. Therefore matter is made up of energy which can be released as we have discussed, and it can be released in a relatively pure form as energy containing particles in the Standard model as from the atom bomb. So we can create fission, and currently work is being done on fusion of particles as in stars which releases even more energy than fission.-This is why quantum theory is so confusing. The particles contain enormous amounts of energy, but as you know they are hard to pin down as to spin, direction and location when studied. Yet they are the basis of all the solid matter we see and use. -http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/the-known-apparently-elementary-particles/-You will note that the particles combine to make other particles and this zoo of particles combine to make the matter we observe. Technically one can call each particle a matter particle; each particle being a tiny bit of matter. The confusion is that one thinks of them as pure energy, and they are pretty close to that. I think of pure energy as the plasma state when particles are not formed.-Note what the Guardian article said: "The original idea was written down by two US physicists, Gregory Breit and John Wheeler, in 1934. They worked out that ... very rarely ... two particles of light, or photons, could combine to produce an electron and its antimatter equivalent, a positron. Electrons are particles of matter that form the outer shells of atoms in the everyday objects around us."-By combining the most basic elementary energy particles one gets other 'larger' particles that can be considered 'real' matter. So the real problem is where does the definition of 'real' matter begin? Because it all starts with tiny energy particles combining into bigger particles and finally fusing into elements.-I hope this helps.
Light and Matter
dhw: You will have to forgive my ignorance, but I don't suppose I'm the only one who is confused by the statements that matter and energy are interchangeable, ..... Can we say that it's [Hiroshima] an example of a colossal amount of matter being released from a small amount of energy?-DAVID: No you can't. The bomb released a colossal number of energy containing particles from matter.-That, of course, was my point. You used Hiroshima to prove that matter and energy are interchangeable, but it appears they are not. The bomb only proves that energy comes from matter, not the other way round. dhw: The scientists whose forthcoming experiment was the starting point of this discussion used the terms light and energy as if they were synonymous, and the experiment will set out to prove that matter can be formed from "pure light". Do we know of any form of light that does not need a material source? By extension, do we know of any form of energy that does not need a material source? (This is a genuine question, not an argument.) If we do, why is this experiment so important? DAVID: The material source you are proposing is the energy contained in matter.-I'd appreciate a more direct answer to these questions, if possible. We all know that energy is contained in matter, and that it can be released from matter, but that is far from saying that energy CREATES matter (as they're hoping to prove), or that matter and energy are interchangeable. -DAVID: Photons are massless particles of light energy-But do photons exist independently of matter? Is there such a thing as "pure" light/energy? It would seem that even the idea that photons are massless is controversial. I've found the following ... far too difficult for me to follow, but its basic statement is unequivocal:-•	Photon Energy, Mass, Velocity And Wavelength - The Living Universe http://www.living-universe.com/home/7-Photon-Energy.html-The Nature of the Photon The photon is the basic form of mass in the Living Universe-QUOTE: "All measurements show that the photon has mass. The metaphysical assumption of a massless photon is completely without any experimental verification. Experimental physics has measured the photon in nearly every way possible and technology has exploited the nature of the photon to a remarkable extent. Collectively these measurements all measure the nature of the photon's mass. Each idea of a massless photon is someone's concept of the photon that makes it possible to ignore certain aspects of photon measurements."-Dhw: No wonder I find all this confusing. How can "pure energy" be the most abundant form of matter in the Universe? DAVID: Please read the following article by Strassler which explains the various particle families and their mass/energy values -http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/the-known-appar...-Again, it's too difficult for me to follow in detail, but both you and Strassler are clearly breaking matter down into its most basic particles, and you show that matter CONTAINS energy, not that matter is created by energy. Your end summary seems to imply this: "By combining the most basic elementary energy particles one gets other 'larger' particles that can be considered 'real' matter. So the real problem is where does the definition of 'real' matter begin? Because it all starts with tiny energy particles combining into bigger particles and finally fusing into elements."-The question has to be whether what you call "tiny energy particles" are in fact tiny particles of matter that CONTAIN energy, and if I've understood the various arguments, it would seem that this is still a matter of conjecture. It would also seem that matter and energy are not interchangeable at all (see above), and that so far as we know, there is no such thing as "pure energy". You wrote: "You will note that the particles combine to make other particles and this zoo of particles combine to make the matter we observe. Technically one can call each particle a matter particle; each particle being a tiny bit of matter. The confusion is that one thinks of them as pure energy, and they are pretty close to that. I think of pure energy as the plasma state when particles are not formed." -'Pretty close to' is not 'pure', any more than the 'nothing' you describe under "Cosmology; a universe from nothing?" can be called 'nothing'. All of this has a bearing on the whole concept of your God as "pure energy". Would you describe him as intelligent plasma?
Light and Matter
by David Turell , Sunday, May 25, 2014, 16:06 (3833 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: I've found the following ... far too difficult for me to follow, but its basic statement is unequivocal: > > •	Photon Energy, Mass, Velocity And Wavelength - The Living Universe > http://www.living-universe.com/home/7-Photon-Energy.html > > The Nature of the Photon > The photon is the basic form of mass in the Living Universe > > QUOTE: "All measurements show that the photon has mass. The metaphysical assumption of a massless photon is completely without any experimental verification. Experimental physics has measured the photon in nearly every way possible and technology has exploited the nature of the photon to a remarkable extent. Collectively these measurements all measure the nature of the photon's mass. Each idea of a massless photon is someone's concept of the photon that makes it possible to ignore certain aspects of photon measurements."-You have cherry-picked an outlying theory. He might be correct, but as I read the article, even as he presented it in 2008, he had a strong objection from his audience. And (see below) in 2013 Strassler disagress with him, indicating that he has not made much of a dent with mainstream science theory. > > Dhw: No wonder I find all this confusing. How can "pure energy" be the most abundant form of matter in the Universe? > DAVID: Please read the following article by Strassler which explains the various particle families and their mass/energy values > > http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/the-known-appar... > dhw: Again, it's too difficult for me to follow in detail, but both you and Strassler are clearly breaking matter down into its most basic particles, and you show that matter CONTAINS energy, not that matter is created by energy. Your end summary seems to imply this: > > David: "By combining the most basic elementary energy particles one gets other 'larger' particles that can be considered 'real' matter. So the real problem is where does the definition of 'real' matter begin? Because it all starts with tiny energy particles combining into bigger particles and finally fusing into elements." > > dhw: The question has to be whether what you call "tiny energy particles" are in fact tiny particles of matter that CONTAIN energy, and if I've understood the various arguments, it would seem that this is still a matter of conjecture.-I've tried to preserve much of your discussion to make my point. As I said before. much of your confusion is a problem of definition. Where do we define the appearance of 'matter' as it arises from pure energy. Please remember that the story of the universe is that thre was an energy plama first. Then particles containing that energy formed. (see the Strassler zoo) Those particles coalesced into larger particles which then made atoms and elements. When your definition of the moment matter appeared is not the way physicists look at it. The atom smashers have allowed the physicists to create this history. The article that started this discussion has chosen to define electrons as the beginning of matter. For historical reasons from the smashing of matter, I don't view the electrons running through the wire from my room's wall to my computer as matter, but as pure energy. Commonsensically, my computer is matter running controlled energy.-Again: matter is energy on the 'outside' but really matter is pure energy on the inside. difficult to be interchangeable, but interchangeable all the same.-> dhw: All of this has a bearing on the whole concept of your God as "pure energy". Would you describe him as intelligent plasma?-Yes, and I don't know how that works
Light and Matter
DAVID: As I said before, much of your confusion is a problem of definition. Where do we define the appearance of 'matter' as it arises from pure energy.-Earlier you wrote: "Technically one can call each particle a matter particle; each particle being a tiny bit of matter. The confusion is that one thinks of them as pure energy, and they are pretty close to that." And my question remains: is there such a thing as pure energy? "Pretty close to" does not = pure. As a non-scientist, I fully acknowledge my confusion, but I'm beginning to think that the confusion is not just the result of my ignorance.-DAVID: [...] The article that started this discussion has chosen to define electrons as the beginning of matter. For historical reasons from the smashing of matter, I don't view the electrons running through the wire from my room's wall to my computer as matter, but as pure energy. Commonsensically, my computer is matter running controlled energy. -You may not view electrons as matter, but that doesn't make them pure energy, does it? Here is a dictionary definition of electron: "a very small piece of matter with a negative electrical charge that moves around the nucleus of an atom" (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). More confusion? DAVID: Again: matter is energy on the 'outside' but really matter is pure energy on the inside. difficult to be interchangeable, but interchangeable all the same.-Dhw (earlier): Do we know of any form of light that does not need a material source? By extension, do we know of any form of energy that does not need a material source? (This is a genuine question, not an argument.) If we do, why is this experiment so important?-So far you have mentioned plasma, photons and electrons as examples of "pure energy", but there is clearly no consensus on any of them. I can only repeat my questions, with special emphasis on the last one: why is this experiment so important?-dhw: All of this has a bearing on the whole concept of your God as "pure energy". Would you describe him as intelligent plasma? DAVID: Yes, and I don't know how that works.-This is a neat transition to the panpsychism theme, but let me first ask you directly whether, in view of all the above, you yourself do or do not find the so-called interchangeability of energy and matter confusing.
Light and Matter
by David Turell , Monday, May 26, 2014, 20:33 (3832 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: Earlier you wrote: "Technically one can call each particle a matter particle; each particle being a tiny bit of matter. The confusion is that one thinks of them as pure energy, and they are pretty close to that." And my question remains: is there such a thing as pure energy? "Pretty close to" does not = pure. As a non-scientist, I fully acknowledge my confusion, but I'm beginning to think that the confusion is not just the result of my ignorance.-It comes from the problem of definition. the research has shown that everything started with pure plasma energy. When one wants to start calling it matter is by human definition. Mine, which has always been been after the development of the particle phase, may not be ocrrect by some standards. Makes no difference to the overall concept. All matter is energy in a more solid form. > > DAVID: Again: matter is energy on the 'outside' but really matter is pure energy on the inside. difficult to be interchangeable, but interchangeable all the same. > > So far you have mentioned plasma, photons and electrons as examples of "pure energy", but there is clearly no consensus on any of them. I can only repeat my questions, with special emphasis on the last one: why is this experiment so important?-It proved a theoretical proposition from many years earlier. > > dhw: All of this has a bearing on the whole concept of your God as "pure energy". Would you describe him as intelligent plasma? > DAVID: Yes, and I don't know how that works. > > dhw: This is a neat transition to the panpsychism theme, but let me first ask you directly whether, in view of all the above, you yourself do or do not find the so-called interchangeability of energy and matter confusing.-Not at all.
Light and Matter
Dhw: Why is this experiment so important? DAVID: It proved a theoretical proposition from many years earlier.-The experiment hasn't yet taken place. It aims to prove that matter can be made from "pure light". One scientist remarks: "It's breathtaking to think that things we thought are not connected can in fact be converted to each other: matter and energy, particles and light." Another says "matter and energy are interchangeable currencies." But until the experiment has succeeded, presumably this so-called interchangeability has NOT yet been proven, and nor has the ability of "pure" light/energy to be converted into matter. This brings us to the second point: dhw: Earlier you wrote: "Technically one can call each particle a matter particle; each particle being a tiny bit of matter. The confusion is that one thinks of them as pure energy, and they are pretty close to that." And my question remains: is there such a thing as pure energy? "Pretty close to" does not = pure. -DAVID: It [the confusion] comes from the problem of definition. the research has shown that everything started with pure plasma energy. When one wants to start calling it matter is by human definition. Mine, which has always been after the development of the particle phase, may not be correct by some standards. Makes no difference to the overall concept. All matter is energy in a more solid form.-As a non-scientist I can only compare what you tell me with what I discover from other sources. If it boils down to definition, there seems to be no such thing as "pure energy" unless someone wants to call it pure ... as you have done so far with plasma, photons and electrons, all of which have been defined elsewhere as matter. We know matter contains and produces energy, but do we know that energy creates matter? Perhaps at best (if I've understood the terms of the forthcoming experiment) it might produce short-lived, subatomic, invisible particles of matter that we would not equate with the solid, liquid or gaseous stuff we normally understand by the term. How does this make energy and matter "interchangeable"?-Dhw: [...] let me first ask you directly whether, in view of all the above, you yourself do or do not find the so-called interchangeability of energy and matter confusing. DAVID: Not at all.-Am I right, then, in supposing that your confidence relates to a concept of "pure energy" that is based on subjective definition plus faith in an as yet unproven theory? (Again, this is a genuine question, not an argument.)
Light and Matter
by David Turell , Tuesday, May 27, 2014, 21:55 (3831 days ago) @ dhw
Dhw: Why is this experiment so important? > DAVID: It proved a theoretical proposition from many years earlier. > > Dhw:The experiment hasn't yet taken place. -But from the description it will work just fine. > > As a non-scientist I can only compare what you tell me with what I discover from other sources. If it boils down to definition, there seems to be no such thing as "pure energy" unless someone wants to call it pure ... as you have done so far with plasma, photons and electrons, all of which have been defined elsewhere as matter. We know matter contains and produces energy, but do we know that energy creates matter? .... How does this make energy and matter "interchangeable"?-Please go back to the theories about this universe. Matter came from plasma as particles appeared and built up, and we can extract energy from matter where the energy is hiding. > > Dhw: [...] let me first ask you directly whether, in view of all the above, you yourself do or do not find the so-called interchangeability of energy and matter confusing. > DAVID: Not at all. > > Am I right, then, in supposing that your confidence relates to a concept of "pure energy" that is based on subjective definition plus faith in an as yet unproven theory? (Again, this is a genuine question, not an argument.)-Yes you are. The experiment is well thought out. No faith required. Photons are parts of many particles, and there are other subatomic processes where they are released
Light and Matter
by GateKeeper , Wednesday, May 28, 2014, 00:33 (3831 days ago) @ David Turell
"pure" means more like "homogenized" when referencing the type. It's not like an element is a homogenous. "pure" energy can be a mixture of potentials. As they cool down these "potentials" begin to get closer together. Or maybe a better way to put it is they begin to interact. Then some repel and other pull together. Then the hadrons, and other particles "freeze" out. Like ice in water. But that's only less than 10% of what is known, so I don't know.-"photon" I don't think "are in there". they are produced when state changes.
Light and Matter
by David Turell , Wednesday, May 28, 2014, 01:42 (3830 days ago) @ GateKeeper
Gatekeeper: "pure" means more like "homogenized" when referencing the type. It's not like an element is a homogenous. "pure" energy can be a mixture of potentials. As they cool down these "potentials" begin to get closer together. Or maybe a better way to put it is they begin to interact. > Then some repel and other pull together. Then the hadrons, and other particles "freeze" out. Like ice in water. But that's only less than 10% of what is known, so I don't know. > > "photon" I don't think "are in there". they are produced when state changes.-Thanks for the added explanations. I must offer a mea culpa for my last entry. I had forgotten the proposed experiment hadn't been done as yet. My feeble brain making assumptions. But a photon is a discrete particle in tqhe zoo of particles. But the major problem in my discussion with dhw is that it is not clear to me where the demarcaton for matter begins. And I think dhw is confused by what I have described. Penrose in The Road to Reality defines energy as discrete bundles or quanta, but offers no definition of matter. The Strassler article defines particles' masses as GeV (Giga electron volts) measurements of energy, about the energy of the hydrogen atom. -http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/the-known-apparently-elementary-particles/-So I guess, if an electron is the proper beginning of matter from the clumping of quantum particles of less energy than an electron, that is the definition.-My problem, as I see it, is, I have been reading lay interpretations of the story of the universe and it has changed. In the early days, the expansion of the universe lead folks like Hawking to propose a singularity and lots of heat.The Guth developed the idea of inflation and published a lay book about it. Things have changed in the interpretation. Instead of a singularity and then inflation, now a quanticized version is that something started inflation, then there was the hot big bang with tremendous heat that made all the energy into a plasma, which lasted around 230,000 years, and as it cooled reached the current temperature of the CMB of 2.7 Degrees K. And finally, as you point out, with the cooling, various quantum particles began to appear and they finally clump together to make matter. But both descriptions of the beginning of the universe describe all matter as being quantum particles, therefore, simply a more solid form of energy.-And then to mix in the timing issue, the cosmologists, in their equations, can't find a 'past' before the appearance of inflation, and according to Vilenkin this applies to our universe and to all multiverses (in a paper just a few months ago). There is a beginning to the reality we have now.
Light and Matter
by GateKeeper , Wednesday, May 28, 2014, 12:35 (3830 days ago) @ David Turell
no, please, never a "my Fault" with me. You guys are very respectful and reasonable. And I understand my limits. And you were not that far off. Back to topic. That's quantum mechanics. Space itself may be quantized (quanta) but they are not sure yet. they do think it is "something". They did the gyro scope experiment to show it. It is amazing how "small' they can see. the story is ever changing. -Guth's only came up with because of the uniformity of the "mixture". It kind of makes sense to me because something had to repel everything before it collapsed back into "nothing". If the "bang story" is the story that is. So space itself expanded faster than light. But that stuff is out of my league.-When the weal force separated, that being very strong at really small distances fell out inflation started. the temp was between 10^15 and 10^ 27 I think for the forces to "fall" out and quarks to start forming elements. This happen in 10^-27 to 10^-6 second. But this is based on gravity being part of the energy in the initial moments. If gravity if indeed from from "outside" then the temps and story line would be a little different. But I am no expert.-But like you said, that is not set in stone. It can change today. They just can't test any of this yet. It is one mathematically reasonable story. There are a few out there. And we could talk about less mathematical stories, but need to be real careful there. -We should be careful when we talk about "matter". it is not a thing, it is a series of events. It is ok to talk about it as "something you can hold in your hand" but it is an event. That is an important distinction when you are talking about it in the detail you guys are trying to I think. Even the quarks inside the atom are moving close to the speed of light and exchanging gluons at enormous rates. Just think about the photon density in the room you are in right now. way cool. I see the problem of "unification" lying in "time". There is no time. Only state changes that we call time. So they added a dimension that may not even exist. But it graphs nice and works very well. -!!!! I am not no expert though!!!!- wow. I have to say, I have been in an atheists forum. If I posted this (even part of it) they all mock the heck out of me. Call me a fool. They don't even know what they don't know, but they have all the answers
Light and Matter
by David Turell , Wednesday, May 28, 2014, 15:03 (3830 days ago) @ GateKeeper
> GK: Guth's only came up with because of the uniformity of the "mixture". It kind of makes sense to me because something had to repel everything before it collapsed back into "nothing". If the "bang story" is the story that is. So space itself expanded faster than light.-Guth explains that clearly in his book.-> > GK: But like you said, that is not set in stone. It can change today. They just can't test any of this yet. It is one mathematically reasonable story. There are a few out there. And we could talk about less mathematical stories, but need to be real careful there.-Very careful. Some of the theories based on math appear to be very fanciful to me. > > GK We should be careful when we talk about "matter". it is not a thing, it is a series of events. It is ok to talk about it as "something you can hold in your hand" but it is an event. That is an important distinction when you are talking about it in the detail you guys are trying to I think. Even the quarks inside the atom are moving close to the speed of light and exchanging gluons at enormous rates. Just think about the photon density in the room you are in right now. way cool.-You have a very interesting way of approaching the issue of matter. It appeared as a series of events in the early universe, which is what I was trying to show, but didn't put it into words in just that way. > > GK: I see the problem of "unification" lying in "time". There is no time. Only state changes that we call time. So they added a dimension that may not even exist. But it graphs nice and works very well. -Time is a series of events, a human concept. We base its units (human type) on Earth time events, the length of day divided by 12x2 or 24! > > GK: !!!! I am not no expert though!!!!-Neither am I. > > GK: wow. I have to say, I have been in an atheists forum. If I posted this (even part of it) they all mock the heck out of me. Call me a fool. They don't even know what they don't know, but they have all the answers-All they have is faith in the belief: NO GOD. Agnostics have faith in NO PROOFS.
Light and Matter
by GateKeeper , Wednesday, May 28, 2014, 18:55 (3830 days ago) @ David Turell
The interesting way I talk was not mine. It is how they treat "matter", or more precisely, mass. e=MC^2. remember that mass can be talked in terms of equivalence. it is not 100% true as some people think. but it is close enough for everyday and even quantum mech for that matter. And most certainly me. When the distinction between forces disappears at higher energies it is because they begin to act the same way, not they they "are" the same. But if they act the same, they are the same kind of thing. It is all about interactions.-The electron, a lepton, is a fundamental particle. It is not "formed from", rather it "froze out". there is a subtle difference. at least, that's what they think. I think the strong force has a non-fundamental force carrier, they just don't talk about it as such because it is made of other things. i forget whats its called. I would have to look up what. One way Space can be thought of fields. many fields, or descriptors, that can define a region in space. When the point, or sector, is excited a "particle appears. loosely, Think of a thin film of plastic at about 5ft above the ocean, Every wave greater than 5 feet hits the film. That would be a particle. So it looks like a particle is there. You can imagine the different kinds of stuff you see.-now tack on a few dimensions ... mind blowing.-you are right about time. they really do not know what it is really. They are most interested in "rates". again, it points to events, or rates (dT) and not a thing, like time. We are "rainbows" in the mist of what is.- again, a disclaimer ... don't try this at home!!! But it's all on things the "the Universe" series so it close enough. I watch a lot of Susskind at standard too if you want to cross check me. I can't remember the formals any better than I can all the parts in the human body. But he explains it pretty clear.
Light and Matter
by David Turell , Wednesday, May 28, 2014, 21:38 (3830 days ago) @ GateKeeper
GK again, a disclaimer ... don't try this at home!!! But it's all on things the "the Universe" series so it close enough. I watch a lot of Susskind at standard too if you want to cross check me. I can't remember the formals any better than I can all the parts in the human body. But he explains it pretty clear.-Suskind and complexity:-http://www.nature.com/news/theoretical-physics-complexity-on-the-horizon-1.15285
Light and Matter
by BBella , Thursday, May 29, 2014, 00:58 (3829 days ago) @ GateKeeper
We should be careful when we talk about "matter". it is not a thing, it is a series of events. It is ok to talk about it as "something you can hold in your hand" but it is an event. That is an important distinction when you are talking about it in the detail you guys are trying to I think. Even the quarks inside the atom are moving close to the speed of light and exchanging gluons at enormous rates. Just think about the photon density in the room you are in right now. way cool.-Thumbs up to the above! It is difficult to keep in mind that All that Is is ever changing including matter, just at different rates of change. Nothing is ever truly static. So when we discuss matter, what we're really discussing is an event that has slowed its rate of change down long enough for us to observe, discuss, name, and sometimes capture and control it, and then, if possible, use it. But no matter (pun intended), whatever we choose to name or do with "it" eventually it will be something else.-> > I see the problem of "unification" lying in "time". There is no time. Only state changes that we call time. So they added a dimension that may not even exist. But it graphs nice and works very well. -I agree, there is no time. There is only change. We named observable changes "time". But as you say, names "work very well" when you are discussing "events". > !!!! I am not no expert though!!!! > > wow. I have to say, I have been in an atheists forum. If I posted this (even part of it) they all mock the heck out of me. Call me a fool. They don't even know what they don't know, but they have all the answers.-Expert or not, you were able to wisely find your way here, Gatekeeper, where you not only will not be mocked but will be, and are already, greatly appreciated. So please hold tight while we sift your mind like gold miners panning for gold. -bb
Light and Matter
by David Turell , Thursday, May 29, 2014, 06:38 (3829 days ago) @ BBella
> Bbella: Expert or not, you were able to wisely find your way here, Gatekeeper, where you not only will not be mocked but will be, and are already, greatly appreciated. So please hold tight while we sift your mind like gold miners panning for gold. -bbella is correct. You are a keeper. Please stay on with us.
Light and Matter
Gatekeeper, I drafted this post before seeing your latest response, and I shall again have to postpone a reply to that till tomorrow. But please rest assured, this is not a forum for fine writing ... it's the arguments we're interested in, and I for one really appreciate what you're bringing to our discussions.-This thread was opened because of an article in the Guardian announcing a forthcoming experiment to demonstrate that matter can be made from "pure light", which the article appeared to make synonymous with "pure energy". This came as a shock to me, because until now I'd accepted the idea that energy produced matter. (That is not the same, of course, as saying that matter contains and produces energy.) David confirms that the idea of the universe springing from "pure" energy is "the current theory". Theories appear to change from day to day, and so 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.-That's the background to this discussion, which eventually I hope to relate to panpsychism, but there are two items I'd like to comment on now. You say matter is "not a thing, it is a series of events." BBella has elaborated on this with her usual acuity:"All that Is is ever changing", and matter is "an event that has slowed its rate of change down long enough for us to observe, discuss, name, and sometimes capture and control it..." The problem that arises in the context of our current discussion is where in the "All That Is" we can draw the line between matter and energy. When I think of energy, I think of movement, heat, light etc., all of which are produced by what we call matter (solids, liquids, gases). In other words, energy springs from matter, not the other way round, and it's the reverse that is of fundamental importance to theories about the birth of our universe. The scientists talk of "pure" light, and David believes his God not only comprises "pure" energy but is also self-aware and able to transform itself into matter; anyone who believes in an afterlife would presumably also have to believe that an identity can be preserved in the form of "pure" energy, since the material self will disintegrate. Materialists by definition reject any such concept. I've asked David for examples of pure energy, but there seems to be no scientific consensus on any of those he has given (plasma, photons, electrons), so I feel we are stuck, and I am confused! The second point leaves me isolated, but I'll pursue the argument. You say "there is no time", BBella agrees and says we name observable changes "time", and David says that "our" time began with the inflation that preceded the Big Bang. Well, yes, we humans devise terms to help us describe the realities we think we observe. But that need not mean that the terms we devise do not correspond to any reality. We measure time through events or changes, but "time" can be defined differently from its means of measurement: namely, as the continuous passage from past to present to future. Individual events prove the reality of this "dimension", and if you accept the sequence of cause and effect (= before the event, the event itself, the consequences), in my view you are accepting the reality of time, even without the events by which we measure it. In terms of the birth of the universe, this means inflation or the Big Bang (whichever came first ... and at the moment inflation appears to be winning) must have had a cause, and the cause of the cause must have had a cause etc.(perhaps an endless cycle of bangs and inflations - who knows?), and so we can't state with any authority that time does not exist, or that it began with the birth of our universe. All that began was the observability and measurability of time, because we have no way of finding out what happened before our universe was born. At best, we can argue that we do not know when or even if time had a beginning. One more item to comment on briefly: DAVID: All [atheists] have is faith in the belief: NO GOD. Agnostics have faith in NO PROOFS.-As regards atheists, I don't see how you can have faith in a non-belief. I think faith only comes in when atheists argue that chance is capable of producing the almost unfathomable complexities of life and consciousness. As regards agnostics, the traditional concept concerns the impossibility of knowing (or, if you like, of providing incontrovertible proof) ... which we have agreed would make us all agnostics. The definition to which I adhere (neither believing nor disbelieving in the existence of God) requires no faith at all. Each individual needs to be convinced that something is true, and so agnostics are people who are not (yet) convinced by, and therefore have no faith in, any particular theory.
Light and Matter
by GateKeeper , Thursday, May 29, 2014, 18:59 (3829 days ago) @ dhw
I don't know if i should even post this. Its so much writing for me. -I see. this has a lot of stuff that can be addressed. I posted a quick response to what QED is. We can have QGD and others.-to start. They don't know more than they know. We have to understand this. 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. Like you say, and I think it is a great idea, is to try and look from "particles" to "energy".-BBella take is not exactly the way I look at it. But it is very close, I know what she means. And she explained it great in a few sentences. I do not hammer 'bits". I generally look at "the point" of a post.-energy has a few forms. As you know already. But it is interesting to me that you brought up "particles". The "photon". They don't know what it is. Waving becomes important now. "waving" is a "property" like the color "blue".-Also, quantum mech is based on "probability". basically 'what are the chances of ...". I mean even Tunneling is based on "what are the chances of an electron getting through a potential" (out of a well)-These question are way past me guy. I can address them in basic terms. I haven't done these types of calculations in 20 years or so.-photons coupled together as a "new" particle. Yes, there are "force carrying particles". This would be one not seen. But obviously "allowed". can they make "hadron" type stuff ... not known yet.-What is cool, is that as we get colder some particles can store "better" information. Remember so far, we need some possible movement, but not too much, to have "life". Information exchanged in a region space. At the very least, life looks like it has a purpose. A rock doesn't. Short term that is. If there is too much "movement" to hot, the information gets lost in the noise and thus becomes unusable.-Again, this is a basic use. And we just don't know enough yet. But we are using what we know today. Tomorrow, we will use what we know tomorrow. Also "time", we are talking in human scale terms. Time lapse shows maybe a "different type" of life. 10^-10 - is another scale that "life" can emerge. (how about -20 or -43)-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". Hard core atheist hate that idea. Any of you want to collaborate? lol, :) -nature knows how it works ... it is stored in the states of matter. We may be the universe experiencing itself. "intense feeling"
Light and Matter
by David Turell , Thursday, May 29, 2014, 20:19 (3829 days ago) @ dhw
edited by unknown, Thursday, May 29, 2014, 20:25
dhw: This came as a shock to me, because until now I'd accepted the idea that energy produced matter. (That is not the same, of course, as saying that matter contains and produces energy.) David confirms that the idea of the universe springing from "pure" energy is "the current theory". Theories appear to change from day to day, and so 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.-You still do not understand that pure energy particles (quanta in the story of the universe) coalesced into matter. And by special techniques we view those particles (strassler article). 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.-Reread this blog to see the whole outline of our universe's history. Don't accept the idea that quantum fluctuations are 'nothing'.-http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2014/05/22/is-all-the-universe-from-nothing/-> > dhw: That's the background to this discussion, which eventually I hope to relate to panpsychism,-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. -> dhw: When I think of energy, I think of movement, heat, light etc., all of which are produced by what we call matter (solids, liquids, gases). In other words, energy springs from matter, not the other way round, and it's the reverse that is of fundamental importance to theories about the birth of our universe. -This is why you are confused.-> dhw: At best, we can argue that we do not know when or even if time had a beginning.-This is your view. Most folks accept the idea that time began with the origin of the universe. St. Thomas was the first
Light and Matter
by David Turell , Thursday, May 29, 2014, 20:26 (3829 days ago) @ David Turell
dhw: This came as a shock to me, because until now I'd accepted the idea that energy produced matter. (That is not the same, of course, as saying that matter contains and produces energy.) David confirms that the idea of the universe springing from "pure" energy is "the current theory". Theories appear to change from day to day, and so 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. You still do not understand that pure energy particles (quanta in the story of the universe) coalesced into matter. And by special techniques we view those particles (strassler article). 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.- Reread this blog to see the whole outline of our universe's history. Don't accept the idea that quantum fluctuations are 'nothing'. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2014/05/22/is-all-the-universe-from-noth... > > > > dhw: That's the background to this discussion, which eventually I hope to relate to panpsychism, 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. > > > dhw: When I think of energy, I think of movement, heat, light etc., all of which are produced by what we call matter (solids, liquids, gases). In other words, energy springs from matter, not the other way round, and it's the reverse that is of fundamental importance to theories about the birth of our universe. This is why you are confused. > > > dhw: At best, we can argue that we do not know when or even if time had a beginning. This is your view. Most folks accept the idea that time began with the origin of the universe. St. Thomas was the first
Light and Matter: another view
by David Turell , Friday, May 30, 2014, 15:18 (3828 days ago) @ David Turell
Max Planck:-"As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter. ... Das Wesen der Materie [The Nature of Matter], speech at Florence, Italy (1944) (from Archiv zur Geschichte der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft, Abt. Va, Rep. 11 Planck, Nr. 1797)"
Light and Matter: another view
by GateKeeper , Friday, May 30, 2014, 15:56 (3828 days ago) @ David Turell
Touché' plank. Considering how much more we know than he did? -It exactly what we have been saying. but, If I read him correctly ... The only place I disagree with him is that "we don't have to" assume anything. He can, but "we" don't". i do not know if we were 'invented". but we were most certainly "designed".-We know way more today than even 15 years ago. I remember stating to an astronomy professor in the 80's. "there are other planets out there.". he told me "You can't say that.". I told him "I can because of the periodic table. It is more reasonable to think there are other planets than to assume there is not." How about what they know about atp syntase? F1 and F0 .... wow. I remember when it is a "colored" cloud bubble in a book.
Light and Matter: another view
DAVID: Max Planck: "As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter. ... Das Wesen der Materie [The Nature of Matter], speech at Florence, Italy (1944) (from Archiv zur Geschichte der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft, Abt. Va, Rep. 11 Planck, Nr. 1797)"-I take the point about matter originating by virtue of a force. As for the rest:-Stephen Hawking:-"When people ask me if a god created the universe, I tell them that the question itself makes no sense. Time didn't exist before the big bang, so there is no time for god to make the universe in. It's like asking directions to the edge of the earth; The Earth is a sphere; it doesn't have an edge; so looking for it is a futile exercise. We are each free to believe what we want, and it's my view that the simplest explanation is; there is no god. No one created our universe, and no one directs our fate. This leads me to a profound realization; There is probably no heaven, and no afterlife either. We have this one life to appreciate the grand design of the universe, and for that I am extremely grateful." -Stephen Hawking There is no God. There is no Fate. - YouTube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7L7VTdzuY7Y-So what does that prove? We can chuck pro-God, anti-God quotes at each other all day long. However, please note, Hawking agrees with you that time didn't exist before the big bang, which for him knocks God out of the equation. I keep telling you that if you want your God, you must have a "before", and a "before" can't exist without time. But you don't take any notice of me. I might as well be talking to a Planck.
Light and Matter: another view
by David Turell , Sunday, June 01, 2014, 16:22 (3826 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: But you don't take any notice of me. I might as well be talking to a Planck.-I don't understand why you haven't responded to the entries ( several) on energy becoming matter presented in the past 2 days. Quark-gluon plasma as an example from yesterday.
Light and Matter: another view
dhw: But you don't take any notice of me. I might as well be talking to a Planck.-DAVID: I don't understand why you haven't responded to the entries (several) on energy becoming matter presented in the past 2 days. Quark-gluon plasma as an example from yesterday.-WIKIPEDIA: quark...gluon plasma (QGP) or quark soup[1] is a phase of quantum chromodynamics (QCD) which is hypothesized to exist at extremely high temperature, density, or both temperature and density. This phase is thought to consist of asymptotically free quarks and gluons, which are several of the basic building blocks of matter.[citation needed]. It is believed that few milliseconds after the big bang the Universe was in a Quark-Gluon Plasma state.-Hypothesized...thought to...it is believed...Previously you have listed electrons, plasma and photons as "pure" examples, but these have turned out to be debatable, and the question remains whether the building blocks of matter are themselves material or, as you claim, "pure energy". Earlier, in response to a blog which you recommended as "the whole outline of our universe's history", I asked in all seriousness if your God was a "metastable false vacuum which deliberately transformed its virtual particles into a vacuum bubble". You didn't answer. Now perhaps I should ask if he is a QGP. However, you misunderstand my problem. I keep asking why the "pure light" experiment is necessary if it has already been established as a scientific fact that "pure energy" produces matter, as I had previously taken for granted throughout all our discussions on first cause energy. I'm not trying to make a point ... I'm seeking clarification, because the process is so central to the first cause energy concept, whether that first cause is conscious or not. The only straight answer I have had is that the experiment proved a theory ... but you said that before you realized that the experiment had not yet taken place.-Of course my remark about talking to a Planck concerned your insistence that pre-BB time is not necessary for your concept of God. I've elaborated on this in my response to Gatekeeper, and am still hoping he will help me with the pure-energy-makes-matter problem.
Light and Matter: another view
by David Turell , Monday, June 02, 2014, 14:54 (3825 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: (quote from Wikipedia): It is believed that few milliseconds after the big bang the Universe was in a Quark-Gluon Plasma state.[/i] > > Hypothesized...thought to...it is believed...Previously you have listed electrons, plasma and photons as "pure" examples, but these have turned out to be debatable, and the question remains whether the building blocks of matter are themselves material or, as you claim, "pure energy".-The current theory is that they are pure energy. Electrons, photons, and the plasma I mentioned previously and now identified Quark-gluon plasma are all elementary energy particles. Note there are others. Please carefully read the article I've referred several times about the elementary energy particles:-http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/the-known-apparently-elementary-particles/-Note the masses are in GeV's, energy measurments.- > dhw: Earlier, in response to a blog which you recommended as "the whole outline of our universe's history", I asked in all seriousness if your God was a "metastable false vacuum which deliberately transformed its virtual particles into a vacuum bubble". You didn't answer. Now perhaps I should ask if he is a QGP.-I didn't answer, because an answer is knowingly impossible: I have no serious answer to your un-serious question. No one can know if an eternal intelligence has a recognizable form or structure.-> dhw: I'm not trying to make a point ... I'm seeking clarification, because the process is so central to the first cause energy concept, whether that first cause is conscious or not. -Whether first cause is conscious energy or not cannot be proven by any experiment testing the current theories. Recognizing by current fully established findings that elementary energy particles coalesced to make matter is fully established, except in your mind, is the curent discussion issue.- > dhw: Of course my remark about talking to a Planck concerned your insistence that pre-BB time is not necessary for your concept of God. I've elaborated on this in my response to Gatekeeper, and am still hoping he will help me with the pure-energy-makes-matter problem.-He should easily help.
Light and Matter: another view
by David Turell , Thursday, June 05, 2014, 21:57 (3822 days ago) @ David Turell
For dhw a new approach: look at this fusion experiment. They are using matter, hydrogen, to produce energy by fusion:-http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fusion-experiment-breakthrough/?&WT.mc_id=SA_SPC_20140605-Not yet successful to produce more energy than used, but the point is trying to turn matter back into energy.
Light and Matter: another view
by BBella , Sunday, June 01, 2014, 18:06 (3826 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: > Max Planck: > > "As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter. ... Das Wesen der Materie [The Nature of Matter], speech at Florence, Italy (1944) (from Archiv zur Geschichte der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft, Abt. Va, Rep. 11 Planck, Nr. 1797)" > > I take the point about matter originating by virtue of a force. As for the rest: > -I go with you and Max on the fact of "all matter" originating and existing by a virtual (<--my word) force...though I do not assume "behind" this force is the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind, but that a conscious and intelligent mind can use and direct the force (or the fabric of all that IS).
Light and Matter: another view
by GateKeeper , Sunday, June 01, 2014, 18:31 (3826 days ago) @ BBella
that is right. Between you and david you just nailed my belief to a tea. -Everything we "see" has some type of feedback to it. There are no nouns, there are only verbs. That may just include god.-"virtual" has a meaning that is used. It Looks like it is breaking a conservation rule. I think that this particle looks like this because of what we don't know. But the big boiz are looking to see why that is. -You have a knack at simplifying a complex idea in less words... lucky you.
Light and Matter: another view
by David Turell , Monday, June 02, 2014, 00:03 (3826 days ago) @ BBella
> > BBella:I go with you and Max on the fact of "all matter" originating and existing by a virtual (<--my word) force...though I do not assume "behind" this force is the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind, but that a conscious and intelligent mind can use and direct the force (or the fabric of all that IS).-The problem is When Planck got into his quantum research he found that his conscious choices definitely the results. To follow up look up John Wheeler's delayed choice proposal and its been done recently:- http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.4926
Light and Matter: another view
by GateKeeper , Sunday, June 01, 2014, 18:47 (3826 days ago) @ dhw
dwh-We can sit down and ask steven what he means. -His stance on "time" maybe be flawed. Do you understand where dwh?
Light and Matter: another view
GATEKEEPER: We can sit down and ask Steven what he means. His stance on "time" may be flawed. Do you understand where dwh?-You have probably not followed my discussion with David on this subject. Hawking's stance is the same as David's (there was no time before the Big Bang). I am the one who considers it to be flawed, because even if I were to accept David's event-related definition of time, we have no way of knowing whether there were or were not any events before the BB. All we can say is that we don't know if or when time had a beginning; we can only measure it as from the BB. The idea that first cause energy, whether conscious or unconscious, would do absolutely nothing for eternity until a few billion years ago seems highly unlikely to me anyway. My own definition of time is the passage from past to present to future,*** and if we believe in cause and effect, there is no way round that sequence (before the event, the event, the consequences of the event). If the BB is the event, and we believe it had a cause, we cannot argue that there was no before, i.e. no past, i.e. no time.-***(Edited later: I should have added that I see this "flow" as being independent of events, which are means of measuring time and, by virtue of the cause and effect sequence, are proof that time exists. Not knowing of events does not mean the non-existence of time.)-I'm still hoping that you will respond to my post of 1 June at 11.29, as my question to you was the starting point of this whole thread, but perhaps like me you are having trouble keeping up with all these posts. May I please also ask you again to quote whatever statements you're responding to, as it's often difficult to follow discussions without the reference points.
Light and Matter: another view
by GateKeeper , Monday, June 02, 2014, 15:15 (3825 days ago) @ dhw
DWH (is this what you mean by referencing?) And at this level, it all blends anyway.-If you were in front of me I could clear everything up in 1/2 an hour. Everything. I understand exactly what you are asking. I followed your path. -Keep up the good work!!!
Light and Matter
by GateKeeper , Thursday, May 29, 2014, 22:05 (3829 days ago) @ David Turell
M- theory and Quantum soup. Even multiple "inflationary domains" or "regions" address before our universe. We can talk about "no time" or nothing before this universe or we can talk about "something" before this universe. neither exclude 'god". Both are reasonable for now. Although I must admit. Nothing freaks me out more than "nothing" so I am as "something" guy.-In fact, I would have to suggest that people that think there is no higher complexity in the universe would need to show some real data. Everything I see means there is more. -There is no need to talk about "before" other than M, QST, or others as proof. They are not testable yet. Thus I use then as complementary pieces of data. -Hey, I have an Idea. I call it "seeding". A black hole is the best accelerator we will probably ever know. Every so often a particle will be accelerated to an energy of a universe ... boom ... big birthing. I wonder if anybody looked at this?
Light and Matter
by David Turell , Friday, May 30, 2014, 00:52 (3829 days ago) @ GateKeeper
> GK: Hey, I have an Idea. I call it "seeding". A black hole is the best accelerator we will probably ever know. Every so often a particle will be accelerated to an energy of a universe ... boom ... big birthing. I wonder if anybody looked at this?-I've heard of theories about universes appearing through black holes, but nothing was ever solidly shown.
Light and Matter
I'd like to combine this thread now with the one on "Cosmology: time begins".-DAVID: I had forgotten the proposed experiment hadn't been done as yet.-However, like the experimenters, you are confident it will succeed: "But from the description it will work just fine." The experiment is meant to prove that "pure" light/energy can produce matter. If it hasn't yet been proven, doesn't there have to be a doubt over the whole idea of the universe springing from "pure" energy?-DAVID: But the major problem in my discussion with dhw is that it is not clear to me where the demarcation for matter begins. And I think dhw is confused by what I have described.-I am indeed, and if demarcations are not clear to you, then I'm surprised that you yourself are not confused by the concepts of "pure" energy and interchangeability between energy and matter.-DAVID: My problem, as I see it, is, I have been reading lay interpretations of the story of the universe and it has changed.-No doubt it will go on changing. But for the moment you are following the line that "something started inflation, then there was the hot big bang with tremendous heat that made all the energy into a plasma [...] with the cooling, various quantum particles began to appear and they finally clump together to make matter. But both descriptions of the beginning of the universe describe all matter as being quantum particles, therefore, simply a more solid form of energy."-So what started inflation and what caused the "hot big bang"? According to the article you recommended under "Cosmology: time begins", inflation may stretch back for ever. Nobody knows. If it had a finite cause, might that not have been another big bang? Again, the article suggests that time may be cyclical, so maybe big bangs and inflations are cyclical. Nobody knows. If all matter is a solid form of energy, as opposed to merely containing and releasing energy, why do we need an experiment to prove that light/energy can produce matter? You say cosmologists can't find a past before the appearance of inflation. (Previously they couldn't find a past before the big bang.) So does that mean there was no past? For this layman, every aspect of the story is one of complete confusion, and yet it gives rise to authoritative statements concerning the beginning of time, "pure" energy giving rise to all the materials of the universe, the interchangeability of energy and matter...-Here are some theories to be taken with the utmost seriousness: 1) all the matter in the entire universe came from absolutely nothing (which may not have been absolutely nothing, but we'll call it nothing); we don't know how. 2) All the matter in the entire universe came from a tiny grain of matter which went bang; we don't know how. 3) All the matter in the entire universe was created by eternal, pure energy (i.e. neither dependent on nor contained in nor associated with any kind of matter), which was and is conscious of itself; we don't know how. 4) There has been a mindless mishmush of energy and matter for ever, producing endless cycles of universes; we don't know how. Any alternatives? Do any of them sound more likely than the others?-(Ugh, and I still haven't got onto panpsychism!)-******* I have just read the latest, very interesting exchange between Gatekeeper and David, but will need time to digest some of the implications, and will have to return to this tomorrow.
Light and Matter
by David Turell , Wednesday, May 28, 2014, 17:58 (3830 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: I'd like to combine this thread now with the one on "Cosmology: time begins". > > DAVID: I had forgotten the proposed experiment hadn't been done as yet. > > dhw: However, like the experimenters, you are confident it will succeed: "But from the description it will work just fine." The experiment is meant to prove that "pure" light/energy can produce matter. If it hasn't yet been proven, doesn't there have to be a doubt over the whole idea of the universe springing from "pure" energy?-Not at all. That is the current theory. See GK and me. > > DAVID: And I think dhw is confused by what I have described. > > dhw:I am indeed, and if demarcations are not clear to you, then I'm surprised that you yourself are not confused by the concepts of "pure" energy and interchangeability between energy and matter.-Because it is a matter of understanding the development in the history of the universe.- > > DAVID: My problem, as I see it, is, I have been reading lay interpretations of the story of the universe and it has changed. > > dhw: But both descriptions of the beginning of the universe describe all matter as being quantum particles, therefore, simply a more solid form of energy[/i]."-Per Penrose: energy=s quantum particles > > dhw: For this layman, every aspect of the story is one of complete confusion, and yet it gives rise to authoritative statements concerning the beginning of time, "pure" energy giving rise to all the materials of the universe, the interchangeability of energy and matter...-The accepted theory of the start of the universe provides for energy in stages becoming matter. Before the start, no one knows what existed, but they theorize. The atheists pick virtual quantum vacuum; I pick God. > > dhw: Here are some theories to be taken with the utmost seriousness: ... Any alternatives? Do any of them sound more likely than the others?-There had to be energy.
Light and Matter
by David Turell , Monday, June 23, 2014, 18:50 (3804 days ago) @ David Turell
edited by unknown, Monday, June 23, 2014, 19:31
> > GK: "photon" I don't think "are in there". they are produced when state changes.-The Strassler article does not identify photons as matter. This confused me and the relationship to the article about creating photons as matter.:-> http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/the-known-appar... this discussion about the Higgs and how it relates to fermions and bosons:-http://blogs.nature.com/news/2014/06/higgs-particle-linked-to-matter-not-just-force-particles.html-"Physicists working at CERN, the European particle accelerator near Geneva, have snared a new first for the Higgs boson. They have watched it decay directly to the particles that make up matter (called fermions) rather than just the particles that convey force (bosons), as they had before."-Original discussion is the first entry looking at a Guardian article, I believe 5/19-http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/may/18/matter-light-photons-electrons-positrons
Light and Matter
by GateKeeper , Thursday, May 29, 2014, 12:29 (3829 days ago) @ dhw
I didn't read all the post so if this is a repeat ... sorry.-To start off we have to understand that they do not know what "light" is. We can only describe some of its properties.-Also energy. It is not well understood "what" it is. so we can use the words "potentials". Or deference's in regions of space that can cause something to move. Known as "work". There are a few different types of "energy" also. Here you are talking about EMR... Just one type.-Then from here they use "the standard model". Basically everything we see can be described as 4 fundamental forces and particles. There are many particles. And more than 4 forces, but only four fundamental ones. This uses conservation laws at the heart of it. Conservation of everything really.-I must point it. They understand it has many limitations. but it is all we have today and it works great so far.-E=MC^2. This experiment just shows it is still working great. They just don't know why really. But this brings them one step closer. remember, they tried for many years to try and find the speed of light. It kept coming up the same. Einstein was the first to say "screw it", we can measure it just fine. let's keep it constant and let time change. This makes sense because there is no time. Only state changes. And state changes happen differently inside of in "fields". The field they talk about is "gravitational field". So "time" changes in gravitational fields. -QED. "quantum" just means discrete "level(s)" or in this case "packets". An example of this would be QHR, or quantum human race. The quanta would be "people". E, is just electro, or electromagnetic radiation. It is just one of the four fundamental forces. The "photon" is the carrier of this force. Keep in the back of your head it is JUST ONE. Humans use it a lot because our universe based on electron movements. Not electron, no us. "D" dynamics, or ever changing.-Does this make sense dw? It's just the start. I could write more. But if you now this .... there is no need.-This is way past my limit in writing. Guys, I just don't write that well, in fact I suck at it. I don't mean that to say "poor me". You guys write very well. It is just a fact and if I misstate anything please point it out to me.
Light and Matter
by GateKeeper , Friday, May 30, 2014, 17:44 (3828 days ago) @ GateKeeper
no reply? I am concerned that what I said has an error?
Light and Matter
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.
Light and Matter
by GateKeeper , Friday, May 30, 2014, 22:43 (3828 days ago) @ dhw
thank you for your honesty. Believe the one you know first. But I am not backing off my post. When we reach this level it is very important to be "precise". -"pure energy". we cannot go outside of the standard model to describe anything like "pure energy" before our universe. David will have to talk directly to me about that. But please, believe him. -You posted about Heisenberg uncertainty and time. we would have to address theses carefully. Which I can. But do you understand what I said in QED first. I can explain any of it for you. But a lot of it is quantum mech. It's weird but if you can get your head around "waving" and "probability" it is somewhat, kind of, sort of, understandable. lmao understand?-I will not draw any conclusions for you ... I will help you understand the data first ... then draw your conclusions. that is important to me.-I will wait for your post. TAKE ALL THE TIME YOU NEED. I have been following this stuff since cosmos-1 in the 8th grade. its too much if I go to fast.
Light and Matter
GATEKEEPER: thank you for your honesty. Believe the one you know first. But I am not backing off my post. When we reach this level it is very important to be "precise". "pure energy". we cannot go outside of the standard model to describe anything like "pure energy" before our universe. David will have to talk directly to me about that. But please, believe him. [...] I will not draw any conclusions for you ... I will help you understand the data first ... then draw your conclusions. that is important to me.-I need to give you some background here. As you will have gathered, I am not a scientist, and the ins and outs of physics are way beyond me. My personal quest is a philosophical one, the culmination of which would be the answer to the question: Is there a God, and if so, what might it/he/she be like? There are many different approaches to this. Clearly science plays an enormous role here, but I'm only able to understand the conclusions that scientists draw from their findings, and if they disagree among themselves, I can only assume that the scientific evidence is inconclusive. And so what is important to me is not the data but the conclusions, which I can then measure against other conclusions and against my own observations of the world as I know it.-This particular discussion was sparked by an article reporting on a forthcoming experiment, in which scientists will attempt to prove that matter can be made from "pure" light/energy. This came as a shock to me. For years I have accepted the idea that matter was energy, and David and I have agreed that the First Cause has to be energy, in which case it stands to reason that energy created matter. David insists that first cause energy has always been conscious, and that is the point at which I am able to discuss the subject with him on level terms. But the article suggests that energy creating matter is only a theory ... and that throws into question the whole concept of energy as first cause. This is why I keep asking whether there is such a thing as "pure" energy, and whether we know of any form of energy that is not produced through matter. So far I have not had a satisfactory answer. But if you and David both assure me that I have misunderstood the purpose of this experiment, and pure energy does exist and does create matter, I will accept it (unless another scientist steps in and says you are wrong). For me the purpose is not to try and understand quantum theory ... I'm afraid I'll never be able to get my head round waving and probability etc.! ... but to use scientists' conclusions to form an overall picture. If scientists disagree, the lack of consensus is a clear reflection on the value of their findings in relation to the questions I'm trying to get answers to. And so what would help me most would be to know your conclusions and, in layman's language, your reasons for reaching them. You won't need me to tell you that there is a gulf between science itself and the philosophical conclusions people draw from their scientific knowledge. The gulf is the area I inhabit. There's more background for you in my response under "Innovation and Speciation: pre-planning".-(Apologies in advance, but I shan't be able to post any responses until tomorrow.)
Light and Matter
by GateKeeper , Saturday, May 31, 2014, 13:33 (3827 days ago) @ dhw
you are right. It is my fault, not yours. I am sorry. Also there is probably some 'background noise" that I am unaware of. -David and I don't disagree on the "facts". We differ in the way we are using them. But that is because I came in late. I don't "prove" god. I would have to lean towards rom's stance on "proof" at this level.-But I did prove the power is on when I hit that damn switch. And it went 'on'
Light and Matter
GATEKEEPER: you are right. It is my fault, not yours. I am sorry. Also there is probably some "background noise" that I am unaware of. David and I don't disagree on the "facts". We differ in the way we are using them. But that is because I came in late. I don't "prove" God. I would have to lean towards rom's stance on "proof" at this level.-(A procedural note: It would be very helpful if in your posts you would quote whatever you're responding to. This applies to all correspondents ... it is very difficult for the rest of us to follow discussions if we keep having to dodge back and forth between posts.) I don't actually know what you're apologizing for, though it's very kind of you to do so! I am really the one who should apologize, because I have somewhat ungraciously turned down your offer to teach me all about quantum theory! As for "proof" of God, I think we all agree that it is not possible. We can only sift the evidence for and against, and form ... or in my case, not form ... a personal conclusion. What is then interesting is to exchange and test these ideas. Those who try to impose their conclusions on others soon disappear from this forum, but the rest of us continue to learn from one another. Or at least I do!-And so I'm still going to ask you for help, because I remain unhappy about the implications of the experiment with "pure light". You say you and David don't disagree on the "facts". Just to recap, the experiment aims to prove that "pure light/energy" can be transformed into matter, and since the experiment has not yet been carried out, I don't know where fact ends and theory begins. This process, however, as I understand it ... but he will correct me if I'm wrong ... is crucial to David's concept of God, and so my question to you, as a believer, is this: do you agree with David that God is pure, conscious energy which transformed itself into matter? Any reasons for your answer would be welcome.-(On a personal note, let me reassure you that David and I have been hammering away at each other for over six years, and are the best of friends! I even had the privilege of helping to edit his latest book.)
Light and Matter
by GateKeeper , Sunday, June 01, 2014, 15:47 (3826 days ago) @ dhw
edited by unknown, Sunday, June 01, 2014, 15:52
to dwh -listen guys, I just looked up that book. I heard of it, and had to teach others in other forums what I thought the author was using, based on what the poster posted. When I said "heard of", I only meant from some poster that was asking about the stuff in it. Now you are telling me I am talking to him? There are some things that would have to be real clear now. -Thanks fer the heads up in addressing the post.
Light and Matter
by David Turell , Saturday, May 31, 2014, 00:04 (3828 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: 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.-GK and I are the same. With appologies to him, I don't think English is his first language, so he expresses himself slight askew. A photon is a wave and a particle, and really a smudge in afield. (Strassler)-> > dhw: 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". -The history of the universe is what I keep directing you toward. The hot bb was a plasma of energy which as it cooled formed the particles that have been discovered so far. It is these energy particles that formed atoms, which formed elements which made the matter we know. > > dhw:You describe this unproven theory as "the whole outline of our universe's history". If the scientists themselves have such reservations, shouldn't we? -Of course it is all theoretical history, but the theory led to the atom bomb.-> > dhw:But can atomic energy be produced without matter?-In a way, yes, but actually we are working the universe's history backward from the radioaactive matter we have to work with. Ordinary matter cannot be exploded or put in nuclear electric plants or submarines.- > dhw; 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.-I'm using the article to educate you. If something existed without change before our universe appeared, there was no sequesnce of events to produce the illusion of time. > > 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". > > dhw: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.-Thank you.
Light and Matter
by GateKeeper , Saturday, May 31, 2014, 01:57 (3827 days ago) @ David Turell
edited by unknown, Saturday, May 31, 2014, 02:09
hey, Dave, where is the skew? Please, I am trying to write better and understand. quantum mechanics is not probabilities? Waving is not important? -for a photon. Particle wave duality means just that. They don't know what it is. Yes, it is a "smudge" in a field. They list a set of properties for the photon. -Let's talk about this "plasma" you are referring to. That's at 10^30-ish degrees and 10^-30 -ish seconds. What is this "plasma"? One fundamental particle? A group of particles? Or one field?- then I would like talk about what you said Nuclear stuff if that's ok
Light and Matter; dhw read
by David Turell , Saturday, May 31, 2014, 03:00 (3827 days ago) @ GateKeeper
GK: hey, Dave, where is the skew? Please, I am trying to write better and understand. quantum mechanics is not probabilities? Waving is not important? -I'm not complaining, just observing how you communicate, and I follow your thoughts. Keep working at it. Quantum relationships are always the sum of probabilities. No one fully understands QM, but with renormalization per Feynman the formulas and equations work. > > GK: for a photon. Particle wave duality means just that. They don't know what it is. Yes, it is a "smudge" in a field. They list a set of properties for the photon.-There is more than one type of photon. Please read Matt Strassler's blog for a better understanding of his smudge in a field approach. He is very instructive to follow. > > Let's talk about this "plasma" you are referring to. That's at 10^30-ish degrees and 10^-30 -ish seconds. What is this "plasma"? One fundamental particle? A group of particles? Or one field?-After inflation and with the start of the hot BB all energy was in the form of plasma. Quark gluon plasma:-http://www.physics.umd.edu/courses/Phys741/xji/chapter2.pdf-Just read the first three paragraphs; after that is math proofs, that I cannot follow. Note as this gas cools the quarks begin to form baryons and fermions > > > then I would like talk about what you said Nuclear stuff if that's ok
Light and Matter; dhw read
by David Turell , Saturday, May 31, 2014, 03:04 (3827 days ago) @ David Turell
GK: hey, Dave, where is the skew? Please, I am trying to write better and understand. quantum mechanics is not probabilities? Waving is not important? I'm not complaining, just observing how you communicate, and I follow your thoughts. Keep working at it. Quantum relationships are always the sum of probabilities. No one fully understands QM, but with renormalization per Feynman the formulas and equations work. > > > > GK: for a photon. Particle wave duality means just that. They don't know what it is. Yes, it is a "smudge" in a field. They list a set of properties for the photon.- There is more than one type of photon. Please read Matt Strassler's blog for a better understanding of his smudge in a field approach. He is very instructive to follow. > > > > GK: Let's talk about this "plasma" you are referring to. That's at 10^30-ish degrees and 10^-30 -ish seconds. What is this "plasma"? One fundamental particle? A group of particles? Or one field? After inflation and with the start of the hot BB all energy was in the form of plasma. Quark gluon plasma: http://www.physics.umd.edu/courses/Phys741/xji/chapter2.pdf- Just read the first three paragraphs; after that is math proofs, that I cannot follow. Note as this gas cools the quarks begin to form hadrons then baryons and fermions. And finally matter as we know it. Why most antimatter disappeared is still not understood. > > > > > > GK: then I would like talk about what you said Nuclear stuff if that's ok-OK
Light and Matter; dhw read
by GateKeeper , Saturday, May 31, 2014, 04:28 (3827 days ago) @ David Turell
yes, I know you are not complaining, that's why I asked for the help. Thank you. Most of it is fast typing and dyslexia. I am sorry. I am born and raised in Philly Pa, USA. Yes, I have a city boy edge. well old man really. I would greatly appreciate any help in writing. as much as I like learning about physics.-That's right. The sum of probabilities. And nobody understands it really. But "probability" is very important. Quantum tunneling is a result of this. waving, at this scale, becomes very important. It works in conjunction with probability. You know the guy. and it effects heizenburge's-Yes, I know there is more than one type of "photon". It is a gauge boson. Yes, That is what I thought you meant at plasma. Actually hoping. After inflation. But that is the standard model. I thought you were talking about before inflation, before anything separated. -At lower temps. Plasma is where the kinetic energy is greater than some of the "electrostatic interactions'. As we increase the temp then Bla bla bla. Like boiling.-The plasma you are referring to is a plasma that is so hot, So fast, that even "gluons" cannot hold quarks together. This is long before a second. And as you stated, it is more of a "soupy mixture". I am just simplifying it. The "pure energy" you are speaking about is made up 'pieces". these pieces are in the standard model.-I am not sure they know what the weak force is. Or Strong force, or gravity. Or the carrier of the electromagnetic force, the proton. they can describe them, but that is different than "knowing" to me. When they know what a photon "is" I think they will unify Einstein and quantum mechanics. -dwh. we were talking about different times at the beginning of the universe. before you go any further, do you understand what we said about "energy" and a "photon", a "force carrier". What I posted before still stands.-'energy" has a few forms. It is based on some type of "particle exchange" and conservation laws. If you like. I will bow out so I don't confuse you.
Light and Matter; dhw read
by David Turell , Saturday, May 31, 2014, 06:24 (3827 days ago) @ GateKeeper
GK: When they know what a photon "is" I think they will unify Einstein and quantum mechanics.-I don't think so. I think they are two different levels of reality and cannot be fully combined. > > GK: dwh. we were talking about different times at the beginning of the universe. before you go any further, do you understand what we said about "energy" and a "photon", a "force carrier". What I posted before still stands. > > 'energy" has a few forms. It is based on some type of "particle exchange" and conservation laws. If you like. I will bow out so I don't confuse you.-I don't think you are confusing him. He doesn't understand the concepts of energy at the atomic level and energy at the wood and coal level, as totally different.
Light and Matter; dhw read
by GateKeeper , Saturday, May 31, 2014, 13:12 (3827 days ago) @ David Turell
You are right. I should said "hope". really what I mean is that we would have a better understanding of why we can't if we know we can't. Like what a photon is. What "energy' "is". That would be cool.-redox and nuke, they both release "energy". But maybe we have to be more precise in the wording. I was assuming more than average understanding because we are using to "prove" something. But "more than average" does not mean "expert" in my case. -I yield to you so I don't confuse him. Thank you for spending the time with us.