AgnosticWeb.com - Light and Matter

Light and Matter (reply)

David Turell — Mon, 23 Jun 2014 17:50:09 +0000

> > 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: another view (reply)

David Turell — Thu, 05 Jun 2014 20:57:41 +0000

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 (reply)

dhw — Wed, 04 Jun 2014 10:40:44 +0000

GATEKEEPER: DWH (is this what you mean by referencing?) And at this level, it all blends anyway.-No, it's purely a matter of procedure. I'm asking you to do what I've just done above and am about to do below ... namely, reproduce the comment you're replying to. Otherwise we have to look through the previous posts to find which one you're responding to. GATEKEEPER: 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!!!-I think you're referring to the issue of whether time began with the Big Bang. I'm not sure from this whether you agree with my argument that we can't know and that it contradicts the God theory, but your fellow believer David certainly doesn't, so you may have to clear everything up with him! In the meantime, I'm still eager to have your answer to certain questions: 1) Do you accept that there is such a thing as "pure energy" and 2) that "pure energy" creates matter, and 3) as a believer, do you agree with David that God is pure, conscious energy which transformed itself into matter? Any reasons for your answers would be welcome. But if you don't wish to be drawn into this discussion, of course, that's fine. (Please note, I've opened a new thread on this subject, so you might like to post your answer on that.)

Light and Matter: another view (reply)

GateKeeper — Mon, 02 Jun 2014 14:15:38 +0000

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: another view (reply)

David Turell — Mon, 02 Jun 2014 13:54:00 +0000

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 (reply)

dhw — Mon, 02 Jun 2014 12:01:53 +0000

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 (reply)

dhw — Mon, 02 Jun 2014 11:57:47 +0000

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 (reply)

David Turell — Sun, 01 Jun 2014 23:03:30 +0000

> > 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 (reply)

GateKeeper — Sun, 01 Jun 2014 17:47:04 +0000

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 (reply)

GateKeeper — Sun, 01 Jun 2014 17:31:42 +0000

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 (reply)

BBella — Sun, 01 Jun 2014 17:06:59 +0000

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 (reply)

David Turell — Sun, 01 Jun 2014 15:22:49 +0000

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 (reply)

GateKeeper — Sun, 01 Jun 2014 14:47:05 +0000

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 (reply)

dhw — Sun, 01 Jun 2014 10:29:54 +0000

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: another view (reply)

dhw — Sun, 01 Jun 2014 10:13:58 +0000

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 (reply)

GateKeeper — Sat, 31 May 2014 12:33:23 +0000

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; dhw read (reply)

GateKeeper — Sat, 31 May 2014 12:12:16 +0000

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.

Light and Matter (reply)

dhw — Sat, 31 May 2014 11:48:48 +0000

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; dhw read (reply)

David Turell — Sat, 31 May 2014 05:24:29 +0000

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 (reply)

GateKeeper — Sat, 31 May 2014 03:28:22 +0000

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.