God and Energy (The nature of a \'Creator\')

by dhw, Wednesday, June 04, 2014, 12:05 (3608 days ago)

I'm opening a new thread, because I'd like to explore the implications of the "pure light" experiment in relation to the God theory and later panpsychism. First, though, I'll respond to David's last post:
 
dhw: (under "Light and Matter: another view"): ...the question remains whether the building blocks of matter are themselves material or, as you claim, "pure energy".
DAVID: 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-appar...-Note the masses are in GeV's, energy measurements.-STRASSLER: Over the past 115 years, physicists have discovered that pretty much everything material, including rocks and rain, sun and sunshine, ocean waves and radio waves, can be described in terms of particles (and their corresponding fields.) Experiments have uncovered a large handful of types of particles that appear so far to be elementary (i.e., not made from yet more elementary things.) The full complexity of our daily world is constructed from just a few of these. The rest of the particles are evanescent, decaying away so quickly that we don't encounter them in normal circumstances. But they may hold the keys to secrets of the universe that continue to elude us at the moment. [...]-•	I've drawn heavier particles at the top, the lighter particles at the bottom. (I do this because massless is as low as a particle can go, but particles can have an arbitrarily high mass; in short, there's a hard floor below, but above, the sky's the limit.)
•	Instead of masses I've given the equivalent mass-energies (E = m c-squared) which is what particle physicists typically use. (Keeping track of energy, which is never lost or gained, is easier than keeping track of mass, which can change in some processes, such as decays.) -It's a pity Strassler doesn't call them elementary energy particles, as you do (does energy decay?), and I wish I could find a general consensus on the existence of "pure energy". Strassler says he's using energy measurements because energy is easier to track than mass, which is not the same as saying the particles themselves are "pure energy", let alone that "pure energy" creates matter. But if that is the current theory, so be it. It's now clear to me, however, why the experiment is so important: "pure energy" creating matter is a theory and not a fact ... which is what I wanted to know.
 
(A brief digression: in the posts that followed Strassler's article was a fascinating observation from a 14-year-old girl named Marie: "It is said that when a particle meets its anti-particle they annihilate each other, transforming into energy. However, when our universe was created, matter somewhat 'overtook' antimatter." It appears that this is one of the many unexplained mysteries that physicists are grappling with.)
 
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.-DAVID: 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.-My reason for starting this discussion was the range of implications arising from the "pure light" experiment. Structure is one of them. See below.-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. 
DAVID: 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 current discussion issue.-It has always been your contention that First Cause is self-aware energy, which created all the matter of the universe. I've gone along with energy as First Cause, but not necessarily self-aware. If energy does not create matter, then of course the whole theory will have to be rethought. Meanwhile, let's adopt your theory, and assume that "pure energy" (your God) consciously created matter. In that case, all the processes you're outlining have to be those used by your God to create the universe, and he has to BE all the so-called pure energy particles you refer to, unless you're saying his pure energy is different from that which he used to form our universe. I don't know why you should see it as a problem, since it fits in perfectly well with your panentheism. But instead you say: "No one can know if an eternal intelligence has a recognizable form or structure." How can you separate your first cause intelligence from your first cause energy? I'll wait for your response before going any further.