Notion of matter, space and time

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Royce
I don't believe in the multiple universe possibility. It is unnecessary and inelegant. That of course does not mean that it isn't true. It is a moot point anyway as there is no possiblity that one could influence the other in any way or that there could be any information pass from one to the other. If that were not true then they would not be separate different universes but simply different locations in the same universe.
As far as matter and energy being the same thing in a physical real sense, matter has rest mass, occupies spacetime and is incapable of traveling at C. Energy has 0 rest mass, does not occupy spacetime and can only travel at C meaning that it is outside time. I think that that should do it and as all of this is scientifically proved and accepted for anywhere/time other that quantum levels/times it is practically speaking real in the macro sense.
As far as singularities are concerned I afraid we are stuck with them just like bad neighbors or relatives. Like them or not they are here and here to stay.
Until COBE there was no evidence to support the BG and it may just be coincidence. It is all specutation and hypothasis. There is no way to prove or disprove any of it.

By definition the word "universe" encompasses everything, whether all of everything interacts or not. If you prefer, I'll call it the multi-verse. As for your definition of matter and energy, again, these are merely useful conventions physics has adopted. Exactly what quanta are (matter, energy, and/or something altogether unknowable) is still a hotly debated issue.

Originally posted by heusdens
MATTER in the philosophical sense IS (physical) matter AND energy!

Physics makes the distinction, and E=mc² just explains that (physcial) matter and energy can be transformed from one to the other.

Yes, and E=MCC contradicts QM so you can just go back and forth between the two and invent any interpretation of the ultimate nature of reality you want. Or alternatively, you can just admit how profoundly ignorant physics is on the subject.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Yes, and E=MCC contradicts QM so you can just go back and forth between the two and invent any interpretation of the ultimate nature of reality you want. Or alternatively, you can just admit how profoundly ignorant physics is on the subject.

Just how exactly do they contradict?

 

[Eh]

Yes, I would also like to know.

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by heusdens
Just how exactly do they contradict?

Relativity is an extension of Newtonian Mechanics and classical physics while Quantum Mechanics is the dividing line for modern physics. Classically, energy and mass are explicitely distinctive but not so in Quantum Mechanics. Just as a cat can be alive and dead at the same time in Quantum Mechanics, mass can be energy and vice versa.

 

[Eh]

Where on Earth did you read that? It's not very clear what you're saying.

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Eh
Where on Earth did you read that? It's not very clear what you're saying.

This is nothing I've read anywhere specific. It is simply the metaphysical distinction between classical and modern physics. Classical physics is built upon specific metaphysical assumptions, while modern physics is built upon uncertainty. At the level of quanta, modern physics professes a profound ignorance of not only what a quanta is and is not, but also the exact nature of space-time and existence itself.

Is that any clearer?

 

[Royce]

"while modern physics is built upon uncertainty. At the level of quanta, modern physics professes a profound ignorance of not only what a quanta is and is not, but also the exact nature of space-time and existence itself."

I just the other day posted a question in the physics forum, asking in essence if photons were energy or matter. It seems that the concessus is, in typical QM language, it is and can be either depending on how you look at it. I can't say that it helped me in the least as I, like everybody else, don't understand QM.
I do know that at the macro level matter exist and is different from energy that also exists.

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Royce
"while modern physics is built upon uncertainty. At the level of quanta, modern physics professes a profound ignorance of not only what a quanta is and is not, but also the exact nature of space-time and existence itself."

I just the other day posted a question in the physics forum, asking in essence if photons were energy or matter. It seems that the concessus is, in typical QM language, it is and can be either depending on how you look at it. I can't say that it helped me in the least as I, like everybody else, don't understand QM.
I do know that at the macro level matter exist and is different from energy that also exists.

It isn't just the size that matters so much apparently, but the scale. The more extreme the scale, the more outrageous the statistics that seem to apply. Like virtual particles, the big bang seems to have come from nowhere and been caused by nothing. After three thousand years this one idea has survived observation:

Extremes do matter!

 

[Eh]

Originally posted by wuliheron
This is nothing I've read anywhere specific. It is simply the metaphysical distinction between classical and modern physics. Classical physics is built upon specific metaphysical assumptions, while modern physics is built upon uncertainty. At the level of quanta, modern physics professes a profound ignorance of not only what a quanta is and is not, but also the exact nature of space-time and existence itself.

Is that any clearer?

Clear, but uncertainty in no way contradicts E=MC2. Nor does it insist mass and other forms of energy are the same. Maybe you're thinking of how general relativity (not special) and quantum mechanics are not speaking to each other?

 

[Eh]

Originally posted by Royce

I just the other day posted a question in the physics forum, asking in essence if photons were energy or matter. It seems that the concessus is, in typical QM language, it is and can be either depending on how you look at it.

Are you sure this was claimed? Matter has rest mass, while light does not, even in QM.

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Eh
Clear, but uncertainty in no way contradicts E=MC2. Nor does it insist mass and other forms of energy are the same. Maybe you're thinking of how general relativity (not special) and quantum mechanics are not speaking to each other?

I hate to be the one to inform you, but E=MCC is far from an uncertain proposition. It is an absolute and unrelenting statement about existence.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Relativity is an extension of Newtonian Mechanics and classical physics while Quantum Mechanics is the dividing line for modern physics. Classically, energy and mass are explicitely distinctive but not so in Quantum Mechanics. Just as a cat can be alive and dead at the same time in Quantum Mechanics, mass can be energy and vice versa.

Yes, ok. And what is contradictionary there?

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by wuliheron
It isn't just the size that matters so much apparently, but the scale. The more extreme the scale, the more outrageous the statistics that seem to apply. Like virtual particles, the big bang seems to have come from nowhere and been caused by nothing.

This is just an assumption, and which is used in some theories (like the Hawking-Turok thesis) but apprearently there have been developed ideas about what could have caused the Big Bang. For instance in M theory / string cosmology the ekpytoric universe as a collision of branes, and in open / chaotic / eternal inflation theory, the bubble which is our universe, was formed in a self-reproducing universe, based on the phenomena of inflation.

 

[Royce]

Originally posted by Eh
Are you sure this was claimed? Matter has rest mass, while light does not, even in QM.

No, I'm not sure of anything at this point. My understanding was the same as yours; but, others seem to think that photons have all of the same attributes as matter and matter has some of the attributes of energy. I'm not sure that any consensus was reached and it rapidly went over my head. It is a thread on the physics forum now on page 3 entitled Photons started by me, Royce, if you want to read it.

 

[wuliheron]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by wuliheron
It isn't just the size that matters so much apparently, but the scale. The more extreme the scale, the more outrageous the statistics that seem to apply. Like virtual particles, the big bang seems to have come from nowhere and been caused by nothing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by heusdens
This is just an assumption, and which is used in some theories (like the Hawking-Turok thesis) but apprearently there have been developed ideas about what could have caused the Big Bang. For instance in M theory / string cosmology the ekpytoric universe as a collision of branes, and in open / chaotic / eternal inflation theory, the bubble which is our universe, was formed in a self-reproducing universe, based on the phenomena of inflation.

You have it backwards, M-theory is an assumption, an unsubstantiated theory, what I state is an observation. We don't know if the big bang has an origin and for all practical purposes at this point it came from nowhere. Likewise, virtual particles according to some theories come from somewhere, but for all practical purposes they observably come from nowhere.

This is consistent with other observations of QM which show that the size is not so much the factor as the scale. At super low temperatures, for example, Quantum weirdness such as Bose-Einstein condensates has been observed in macroscopic sized collections of molecules and evidence exists that Quantum weirdness may even be manifest in objects as large as dwarf stars. In other words, it is the extremes of the conditions, the scale of phenomena, rather than just the size of the particles that appears to be the deciding factor in whether we observe Quantum weirdness or not.

One possible explanation for this is the paradox of existence. As science probes nature at greater and greater extremes the "shadow" if you will of the paradox becomes more pronounced.

 

[Eh]

Originally posted by wuliheron
I hate to be the one to inform you, but E=MCC is far from an uncertain proposition. It is an absolute and unrelenting statement about existence.

That has nothing to do with the uncertainty of QM. The uncertainty principle rather bluntly states that you cannot know the precise position and momentum of a particle at the same time. The most common interpretation is that particles simply do not posses both attributes at once. But that is all. QM does not say the definition of fields and particles is uncertain, nor that mass and energy are the same thing. Just because the energy distribution in uncertain, does not mean physical laws must fail.

 

[Eh]

Originally posted by Royce
No, I'm not sure of anything at this point. My understanding was the same as yours; but, others seem to think that photons have all of the same attributes as matter and matter has some of the attributes of energy. I'm not sure that any consensus was reached and it rapidly went over my head. It is a thread on the physics forum now on page 3 entitled Photons started by me, Royce, if you want to read it.

Well it gets confusing when someone mentions that light does have mass - but only relavistic mass. The important thing to remember here is rest mass. Light does not have it, and in science it is not considered matter. Neither are the other messenger particles.

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Eh
That has nothing to do with the uncertainty of QM.

Prove it. Theoretical physicists have been arguing for decades whether Relativity is subject to QM or vice versa. If you can prove the two have nothing to do with each other, at the very least, you will make some of the greatest minds on the planet look like fools.

 

[Eh]

They are talking about general relativity, not special. In fact, special relativity is an important aspect of quantum field theory, which has been quite successful. It seems to be the curved spacetime of general that causes so much difficulty.

Actually, you caught me before I finished editing a post. The uncertainty of QM is associated with energy, but does not mean physical laws and definitions are also uncertain.

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Eh
They are talking about general relativity, not special. In fact, special relativity is an important aspect of quantum field theory, which has been quite successful. It seems to be the curved spacetime of general that causes so much difficulty.

Actually, you caught me before I finished editing a post. The uncertainty of QM is associated with energy, but does not mean physical laws and definitions are also uncertain.

Experiments are still being conducted to see if protons die or not, and whether or not the speed of light changes over time. Whether the laws of nature are unvarying is still up in the air and very much the subject of study today.

At issue again is whether or not nature is fundamentally chaotic, as QM asserts, and if so why do we perceive just a few things as virtually unchanging in a universe that is otherwise changing constantly. On these issues Standard theory has nothing to say and precisely because it has not been fully integrated with Relativity yet it remains suspect.

 

[Eh]

Whether or not the speed of light varies, or if protons decay or not isn't the point. The claim that E=MC2 contradicts QM is wrong.

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Eh
Whether or not the speed of light varies, or if protons decay or not isn't the point. The claim that E=MC2 contradicts QM is wrong.

And why is that? As far as I can see E=mcc makes a fundamental metaphysical assertion about nature that contradicts QM which strongly implies there is no metaphysical basis for nature... unless you consider chaos to be "principle."

 

[Eh]

QM makes no such metaphysical statements, and therein lies the problem. As I said, the uncertainty principle is only a matter of the energy level and position of a particle.

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Eh
QM makes no such metaphysical statements, and therein lies the problem. As I said, the uncertainty principle is only a matter of the energy level and position of a particle.

Thus far there are eight parameters of subnuclear particles which QM is applied to. It applies to not only the energy levels and position, but to the spin, magnetic moment, and other measurable characteristics. In recent decades this list has been slowly expanding to include characteristics such as the "shape" of what have otherwise been described merely as point particles. To assert that Uncertainty principle applies only to the energy level and momentum of a particle is absurd.

 

[Eh]

Spin has to do with energy, and the properties of fields such as EM do as well. So the uncertainty applies there. Really, it's not really debatable. The uncertainty principle by definition, only deals with the energy and position. It does not make the metaphysical claims you say it does.

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Eh
Spin has to do with energy, and the properties of fields such as EM do as well. So the uncertainty applies there. Really, it's not really debatable. The uncertainty principle by definition, only deals with the energy and position. It does not make the metaphysical claims you say it does.

Exactly, they are all inter-related and which position you choose to view the subject from is entirely subjective. Is it really merely energy and position, shape and spin, or whatever? To assert that it is merely the position and energy levels is to assert the reductionist position which remains unproven and, in fact, is contradicted by the theory itself and the observational evidence.

 

[Eh]

They are all fundementally the same thing. So the uncertainty of position and momentum of a particle can be related to the equivalent for fields. Remember that quantum theory is a theory about energy. It is not a theory of space and time, and it certainly is not a theory about the laws of physics. In fact, quantum field theory itself is built on these physical laws, (the postulates of special relativity are included) and requires a backdrop of spacetime.

So QM in its current state does not say there is no metaphysical basis for nature. A quantum theory of spacetime simply does not yet exist.

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Eh
They are all fundementally the same thing. So the uncertainty of position and momentum of a particle can be related to the equivalent for fields. Remember that quantum theory is a theory about energy. It is not a theory of space and time, and it certainly is not a theory about the laws of physics. In fact, quantum field theory itself is built on these physical laws, (the postulates of special relativity are included) and requires a backdrop of spacetime.

So QM in its current state does not say there is no metaphysical basis for nature. A quantum theory of spacetime simply does not yet exist.

Again, exactly! Quantum theory is an ad hoc theory arrived at by default precisely because no other theory at the time could describe what was being observed. Whether or not such a theory can be said to possesses a metaphysics or not is extremely debatable and the subject of controversy. Exactly what QM describes and does not describe is the entire focus of the theory!

 

[Eh]

There is no debate though, that current quantum theory does not describe spacetime itself. In fact, quantum theory assumes a fixed background of some absolute spacetime metric in which events of the quantum world take place. Since spacetime seems to be fundamental in nature, it will take a TOE to see what metaphysical claims about the ultimate reality of the world quantum theory can make.

In it's current form, QM is not contradicted by Einstein's famous equation, and simply does not deal with the issue of space and time.

 

[r637h]

Thank you for your answer concerning spin.I suppose spin is considered a quantum unit. The same way with quarks: since they have mass, they must obey quantum principles.

My statement concerning concerning Physics vs. Philosophy (more properly, Metaphysics) was intended as analogy, not a logical proposition.

Back to Planck: I believe the hypothesis is that, before Planck time,
there was no dichotomy between matter and energy. Some believe it was singularity (particle, if you will) and some believe there was only energy; I believe the concepts are moot. The laws of Physics did not exist before Planck time. We can't ever know (a bold statement) what existed before Planck time, because it cannot be measured.

 

[ando]

Question for the gurus:

Have a running debate with a friend of mine that says if I run 1 mile then I will have burned the same energy when I walk a mile. I say that since E=MC2, then the amount of energy I burn increases exponentially as I increase my rate of travel. Does anyone have a difinitive answer to this question? Could you possibly quote sources or provide a URL to an essay or article that explains this?

 

[FZ+]

You are both wrong.

Your friend is wrong because the way your body does work is not an ideal system. You are not working up some potential or something, but rather the running or walking movement, and the use of your muscles is extremely inefficient. There is an optimum rate of motion for your muscles that would save more energy and give the most effective technique, minimising waste heat.

You are wrong because you misuse E=mc^2. E= mc^2 is a conversion formula from mass to energy for resting objects. The human body sadly does not run on nuclear power...

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by FZ+
The human body sadly does not run on nuclear power...

Sadly? Let us be happy we have all the nuclear power we need, but in safe distance for the next couple of biliion years.