Matter

stevejazzx

I have a problem with matter. I'm not sure I understand the idea of something 'popping' into existence as quantum physics implies (in my very limited understanding on the subject) but apparently certain subatomic particles have appeared 'spontaneously' in particle accelerators which is not too big a leap away from a universe appearing after ultra-massive decompression. It is not that such an anomaly makes me look for a creator but rather that such an anomaly exists at all. The twisting logic explaining singularities at a time when science holds very thorough explanations for everything else appears very unsatisfactory. It seems that human mind is not made to understand a non and cause and effect event and that's the part I have trouble with. If we cannot explain the origin of matter or indeed the space and time in which it exists then what are we really left with? Do any of you bright minds have any thoughts on this?

Zombrex

stevejazzx wrote: »

I have a problem with matter. I'm not sure I understand the idea of something 'popping' into existence as quantum physics implies (in my very limited understanding on the subject) but apparently certain subatomic particles have appeared 'spontaneously' in particle accelerators which is not too big a leap away from a universe appearing after ultra-massive decompression. It is not that such an anomaly makes me look for a creator but rather that such an anomaly exists at all. The twisting logic explaining singularities at a time when science holds very thorough explanations for everything else appears very unsatisfactory. It seems that human mind is not made to understand a non and cause and effect event and that's the part I have trouble with. If we cannot explain the origin of matter or indeed the space and time in which it exists then what are we really left with? Do any of you bright minds have any thoughts on this?

Maths

That is the only way to understand what is going on at these levels, because they simply do not map to our every day experience.

For example when one thing hits another we envision these things stopping because they bang into each other. They aren't. They never "touch". It is the forces between the atoms themselves that repel one thing against another.

In fact "matter" appears to simply be a state of fields. Thinking of an atom as a small ball is fundamentally flawed away of thinking about it. Nature is really just energy fields, solid "things" are just collections of points of these fields that are excited with certain properties.

MrPudding

Glad that's cleared up.

MrP

robindch

stevejazzx wrote: »

I have a problem with matter. I'm not sure I understand the idea of something 'popping' into existence as quantum physics implies

As far as I understand it -- which isn't greatly -- spontaneous creation and destruction of particles can occur if everything happens below the energy-time limitations imposed by Heisenberg's Uncertainity Principle.

Particles and/or energy turning up rapidly and disappearing again just as quickly has been predicted and observed in many places and things like the Casimir Effect, which depends upon this vacuum energy, shows up in the design and operation of modern electronic gear. More on this here.

.

Stercus Accidit

Matter and energy are interchangeable, its the principle behind the h-bomb, and nuclear fision reactors.

That einstein lad, clever chap, had an 'aul theory of relativity that equates matter and energy, so you can calculate how much energy would be released by converting a certain amount of matter to energy.


Its a pity I havn't continued to read about these things, in latter years, it will never affect my work, but knowing these things is partly cause and effect of my being an atheist.

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

Nature is really just energy fields, solid "things" are just collections of points of these fields that are excited with certain properties.

My God! That's pretty much the nub of our world-view disagreement.

I don't think I could ever accept that everything in nature is simply an aggregate of matter that stands in energy fields relative to each other. For me this would have massive ramifications on the existence of things like objective intrinsic values, final cause (teleological cause) and possibly free will - none of which I think I could truly believe in.

I digress...

MrB

I cannot recommend "Antimatter" by Frank Close enough for those looking to get a better handle on all this "Matter" stuff! Relatively short and a good read for an interested non-scientist (like myself).
It's actually the story of Antimatter (the title is a dead giveaway ) but as matter and antimatter are basically the same thing it could just have easily been called "Matter" and in the anti-Universe it may very well have been

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0199550166

stevejazzx

Wicknight wrote: »

Maths

That is the only way to understand what is going on at these levels, because they simply do not map to our every day experience.

For example when one thing hits another we envision these things stopping because they bang into each other. They aren't. They never "touch". It is the forces between the atoms themselves that repel one thing against another.

In fact "matter" appears to simply be a state of fields. Thinking of an atom as a small ball is fundamentally flawed away of thinking about it. Nature is really just energy fields, solid "things" are just collections of points of these fields that are excited with certain properties.

robindch wrote: »

As far as I understand it -- which isn't greatly -- spontaneous creation and destruction of particles can occur if everything happens below the energy-time limitations imposed by Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.

Particles and/or energy turning up rapidly and disappearing again just as quickly has been predicted and observed in many places and things like the Casimir Effect, which depends upon this vacuum energy, shows up in the design and operation of modern electronic gear. More on this here.

.

Ok. However if I can be a bit pedantic - I'm also interested in the 'something' that matter popped into. Without clawing this into a technical debate it strikes me as very odd that certain events have their own or indeed no rules. The problem I would with these events is that we clearly don't understand them well enough (as accurate as quantum physics is in other areas). The reason I posted it is because it keeps coming up in debate with someone I know and I am always short on answers and the texts on the subject are just massive. The position of my Friend is that this area will never be understood by humans and that it most certainly indicates a creator - yes I always point the fallacy of that argument but it always countered by the 'well this creator exists outside of everything argument' so we're at a kind of stalemate.

Dades

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I don't think I could ever accept that everything in nature is simply an aggregate of matter that stands in energy fields relative to each other. For me this would have massive ramifications on the existence of things like objective intrinsic values, final cause (teleological cause) and possibly free will - none of which I think I could truly believe in.

What's different about creationists not accepting evolution because of the ramifications it has on their world view? :pac:

Although I appreciate the science of "matter" is so far out, it's not fair to compare it to evolution - I'm only picking up on the "refusal to accept" principle!

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

My God! That's pretty much the nub of our world-view disagreement.

Leave God out of this

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I don't think I could ever accept that everything in nature is simply an aggregate of matter that stands in energy fields relative to each other.

Two things. Firstly that isn't actually what nature is. "Matter" is simply energy in a particular state (or at least that is the most likely explanation at the moment). So matter doesn't stand in an energy field. Matter is the energy field.

Secondly I really don't understand the mind set of someone who could say they don't think they could ever accept something or other about nature.

Nature is not under any obligation to be acceptable to humans, and this has been demonstrated countless times in the last 100 years as humans have discovered the quantum world. The universe is utterly weird when contrasted to our local experience. That is simply a fact of life.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

For me this would have massive ramifications on the existence of things like objective intrinsic values, final cause (teleological cause) and possibly free will - none of which I think I could truly believe in.

It has massive ramifications on things a lot more important than those things.

Things are going to get really really weird when we start working out things like M-theory through experiments.

For example, imagine that the 3D universe is actually some form of 2D holographic projection on the edges of reality, a theory that there is some support for given the way that the entropy of a black hole is related to its surface area not its volume (ie 2D not 3D).

stevejazzx

Wicknight wrote: »

In fact "matter" appears to simply be a state of fields. Thinking of an atom as a small ball is fundamentally flawed away of thinking about it. Nature is really just energy fields, solid "things" are just collections of points of these fields that are excited with certain properties.

Just expand on how the fields got there to begin with..
I know, it's like asking Hawking to expand on a BHOT!:)

Zombrex

stevejazzx wrote: »

Ok. However if I can be a bit pedantic - I'm also interested in the 'something' that matter popped into.

Brian Greene's The Fabric of the Cosmos deals a bit with the idea of the "something", the question of whether or not space is an actual tangible thing, or is it just the absence of something else. Humans haven't quite figured that out yet, though it seems that energy fields exist everywhere, though sometimes at zero state. The interesting thing about the Higgs field is that it's state of least energy is not it's zero state, it takes energy to raise it to zero. This could explain the inflation of the Big Bang.

stevejazzx wrote: »

The reason I posted it is because it keeps coming up in debate with someone I know and I am always short on answers and the texts on the subject are just massive. The position of my Friend is that this area will never be understood by humans and that it most certainly indicates a creator - yes I always point the fallacy of that argument but it always countered by the 'well this creator exists outside of everything argument' so we're at a kind of stalemate.

The "my creator exists outside of everything" argument is some what of a paradox. What does the creator exist in and where did that come from.

Anyway, the idea that these rules suggest a creator only pleases humans up to a point. A bit like intelligent design the more you look at how the universe is, and how weird it is, the more you have to conclude that the designer is bat **** crazy if you wish to assign design to him.

And because the idea of a totally alien creator is not pleasing to humans it is quickly disregarded by those looking to find a comforting answer. The creator not only has to be a creator but he has to be a creator like us, who creates things like us for human like reasons.

Which simply highlights why people think the universe must have a creator in the first place, not because that seems likely but because it provides a pleasing answer for our brains that evolved to think in terms of agency.

Zombrex

stevejazzx wrote: »

Just expand on how the fields got there to begin with..
I know, it's like asking Hawking to expand on a BHOT!:)

No one knows.

But there are some ideas in theoretical physics that have eternal fields constantly banging into each other, causing big bangs every few hundred billion years.

It is looking more likely that our universe is not everything, that it is a thing in something else, something "bigger" or more fundamental. But again science is still waiting for the experiences to catch up with the maths to confirm any of this.

Naz_st

stevejazzx wrote: »

I have a problem with matter. I'm not sure I understand the idea of something 'popping' into existence as quantum physics implies

Ok, Quantum Mechanics is an area of science that is almost impossible to make easily understandable. It fundamentally goes against certain in-built characteristics of how the human brain works and rationalises things IMHO.

Even Niels Bohr, a father of the whole field of quantum mechanics, said:
"For those who are not shocked when they first come across quantum theory cannot possibly have understood it. "

And Richard Feynman, a more modern expert:
"I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics"

For what it's worth (and I'm not an expert by any stretch):

At the quantum level, you can't apply the normal mathematics as they are applied to classical physics. Everything boils down to "probability". In quantum mechanics every physical system (e.g. a subatomic particle) is modelled by a wave function. The values of the wave function are probability amplitudes (think peaks and troughs in a normal "wave") and these correspond to the likelihood of finding a particle in a specific position at a specific time. So there is always a non-zero probability of a given particle existing at any point in space and time. It's only by ascertaining its position that the probability wave collapses into an (almost) certain point (i.e. position).

This probability wave nature of quantum mechanics is what gives rise to the weird concepts possible. For instance, a particle can be in more than one "position" at a given time (or, more accurately, it has equal quantum probability of being in 2 different positions). By "observing" it, it is forced into one of the 2 positions it may be equally likely to be in. If it is "unobserved" it is effectively in both positions at the same time. This is known as superposition and it's the cornerstone of the concept of a quantum computer.

If you're interested in learning more on this, I'd recommend either "Quantum Theory cannot Hurt you" by Marcus Chown or "A Shortcut through time" by George Johnson. Neither are over-complicated tomes and both are very accessible on such a mind-bending subject.

stevejazzx

Naz_st wrote: »

At is, I'd recommend either "Quantum Theory cannot Hurt you" by Marcus Chown or "A Shortcut through time" by George Johnson. Neither are over-complicated tomes and both are very accessible on such a mind-bending subject.

So I suppose you lads are saying i should read more about this...do Feynman Lectures count? I just downloaded the audio book! Thanks for the recommendations.

Zombrex

stevejazzx wrote: »

So I suppose you lads are saying i should read more about this...do Feynman Lectures count? I just downloaded the audio book! Thanks for the recommendations.

Or just read the Bible and make it up ... the Christians seem pretty happy doing this :pac:

Naz_st

stevejazzx wrote: »

So I suppose you lads are saying i should read more about this...do Feynman Lectures count? I just downloaded the audio book! Thanks for the recommendations.

Yes, absolutely. Though the Feynman lectures deal with a LOT more than just quantum mechanics. And it may be a case of jumping in at the deep end as AFAIK they were pitched at the level of undergraduate students in physics and not at the general public as some of the more accessible "popular science" books are.

stevejazzx

Wicknight wrote: »

Or just read the Bible and make it up ... the Christians seem pretty happy doing this :pac:

Funny you should say that..the guy I debate with accuses matter of just pooping into existence without evidence, it reminds me of the kind of trite comments a certain Christian poster on here might make.:pac:

stevejazzx

Naz_st wrote: »

Yes, absolutely. Though the Feynman lectures deal with a LOT more than just quantum mechanics. And it may be a case of jumping in at the deep end as AFAIK they were pitched at the level of undergraduate students in physics and not at the general public as some of the more accessible "popular science" books are.

I suppose I'll just have to rough it..this way I quote things I really don't get and look very impressive....or stupid!

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

Two things. Firstly that isn't actually what nature is. "Matter" is simply energy in a particular state (or at least that is the most likely explanation at the moment). So matter doesn't stand in an energy field. Matter is the energy field.

I was using the term matter in its common usage, so anything that has mass, occupies space and has inertia. A quick Google search seems to suggest that energy and matter are two separate things - where matter consists of atoms held fast by electromagnetic forces. Whatever the truth, I would have though that my original point is clear enough.

Wicknight wrote: »

Secondly I really don't understand the mind set of someone who could say they don't think they could ever accept something or other about nature.

Nature is not under any obligation to be acceptable to humans, and this has been demonstrated countless times in the last 100 years as humans have discovered the quantum world. The universe is utterly weird when contrasted to our local experience. That is simply a fact of life.

OK, again we come to the nub. I think Russell said it with a rare eloquence:

That man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labours of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of man's achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins.

This seems like a brutally honest summation of a scientific naturalistic universe from a human perspective. So on a personal level, if I was suddenly to accept a naturalist perspective, then I wouldn't be concerned with the theoretical existence of a bunch of extra dimensions, I would be concerned with what it actually means to be human. After all, quarks remain quarks with or without us. But what of all those pressing questions about life?

As an aside, I would argue that nature is "acceptable to humans" - we exist, after all, and this continued demonstration seems to trump all others. By definition the obligation of the universe can never factor into your world. For that matter, I'm not sure it necessarily factors into the Christian world either.

Out of curiosity - and I realise that this is completely off topic and probably better suited to another thread - do you actually believe in those things I mentioned - objective intrinsic truths (inc. objective morality), free will and final causes (as opposed to efficient causes)? Or are they simply constructs of our mind?

Fanny Cradock

Dades wrote: »

What's different about creationists not accepting evolution because of the ramifications it has on their world view? :pac:

Although I appreciate the science of "matter" is so far out, it's not fair to compare it to evolution - I'm only picking up on the "refusal to accept" principle!

I've never defended creationists, so I would be happy to slip by this challenge by saying: possibly not a great deal of difference.

Zombrex

stevejazzx wrote: »

Funny you should say that..the guy I debate with accuses matter of just pooping into existence without evidence, it reminds me of the kind of trite comments a certain Christian poster on here might make.:pac:

Believers seem to have little trouble with stuff just popping into existence so long as something cause that to happen. Had many a fun time asking Christians, who were arguing that something cannot come from nothing, where did all the stuff that God made the universe come from? To them this question is unnecessary to the point of being silly, God made it all. Out of nothing. Once you had the "God did it" bit what is the point in discussing the rest ...

Again this hints at the real reason why some people insist their must be a creator. Not to actually explain what happened but to provide an "answer" that fits with an need to have the solution framed in a certain way. None of them have trouble with something coming from nothing so long as something did it.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Whatever the truth, I would have though that my original point is clear enough.

My point is that what ever you think nature is like, it isn't.

This is the fallacy of believing that nature is going to act the way we think it should, which is where a lot of the arguments for God come from.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

After all, quarks remain quarks with or without us. But what of all those pressing questions about life?

What about them?

How does delusion and fantasy help these "pressing questions about life" any more than quarks do?

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

As an aside, I would argue that nature is "acceptable to humans"

Quite the opposite seems to be true given the amount of people who simply refused, and still refuse, to accept certain things about the universe that science is demonstrating (and I'm not talking about religious questions, rather things like absence of locality, or uncertainty).

It has been argued that the universe is too weird for humans to understand. Because of this we have a tendency to retreat to simpler answers, including religious ones, because we also have a desire to understand things.

The problem occurs when people start thinking that the universe must be a certain way because they find it easier if it is.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Out of curiosity - and I realise that this is completely off topic and probably better suited to another thread - do you actually believe in those things I mentioned - objective intrinsic truths (inc. objective morality), free will and final causes (as opposed to efficient causes)? Or are they simply constructs of our mind?

Objective intrinsic morality - Nope, and I don't think you do either if you thought about it (there is a difference between an objective intrinsic morality, morality as a property of something independently of anyone judging it and God's opinion on morality, though Christians do seem to have a tendency to confuse these too)

Free will - Depends on how that is defined.

Final Causes - Probably not in the way you mean it (an over arching purpose)

robindch

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I would be concerned with what it actually means to be human. After all, quarks remain quarks with or without us. But what of all those pressing questions about life?

The universe does not owe us answers to questions regarding the "meaning" of life. Most irreligious people would suggest that religion has stepped in to fill this meaning-gap by providing a series of superficially-plausible answers to deep questions.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

do you actually believe in those things I mentioned - objective intrinsic truths (inc. objective morality), free will and final causes (as opposed to efficient causes)? Or are they simply constructs of our mind?

In general, these concepts are constructed by religion in order to give substance to pure wind.

Borneo Fnctn

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I don't think I could ever accept that everything in nature is simply an aggregate of matter that stands in energy fields relative to each other.

Oh? I suppose you're well read on the subject? Could you disprove it?

Zombrex

jackpalance wrote: »

Oh? I suppose you're well read on the subject? Could you disprove it?

It has been disproven, nature is not an aggregate of matter that stands in energy fields relative to each other.

Yes I'm being pedantic :pac:

Borneo Fnctn

Wicknight wrote: »

It has been disproven, nature is not an aggregate of matter that stands in energy fields relative to each other.

Yes I'm being pedantic :pac:

Fair enough. I know nothing about it. What I'm getting at is that religious people will often refuse to accept something pointe blanc because it goes against their nice ideas.

Goduznt Xzst

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I don't think I could ever accept that everything in nature is simply an aggregate of matter that stands in energy fields relative to each other.

I think "simply" is a fairly huge understatement.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

For me this would have massive ramifications on the existence of things like objective intrinsic values, final cause (teleological cause) and possibly free will - none of which I think I could truly believe in.

Why? I can see no reason why accepting this definition of matter has any affect on your beliefs. Regardless of how we define matter, you still believe that we have been imbued with a soul and that objective values and morals exist.

Fanny Cradock

jackpalance wrote: »

Oh? I suppose you're well read on the subject? Could you disprove it?

Disprove what?

@ Wicknight - sorry, I've been meaning to reply to this for a while now. I might get a chance later.

The Mad Hatter

Wicknight wrote: »

Anyway, the idea that these rules suggest a creator only pleases humans up to a point. A bit like intelligent design the more you look at how the universe is, and how weird it is, the more you have to conclude that the designer is bat **** crazy if you wish to assign design to him.

And because the idea of a totally alien creator is not pleasing to humans it is quickly disregarded by those looking to find a comforting answer.

What?! That's brilliant! I might just form a religion around this great mad Chaos God. (tbh, I could use the money.)

All hail the great Chaos gOd ksAf'lasjdf:)!tj42yos, whose Ways cannot be understood by mere mortal minds.

Zombrex

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

I think "simply" is a fairly huge understatement.

Yeah there is a lot of this on the Creationist thread .. as if 4 billion years of evolution means that humans are "just" a collection of atoms

It is fun to flip it around from the materialists point of view

I refuse to accept that humans are just the product of a deity, that we just exist because he decided we would, and that the universe is just the product of his will.

:pac:

It really just highlights the bias desires that some religious people have, the some what skewed priorities in their beliefs.

Zombrex

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

What?! That's brilliant! I might just form a religion around this great mad Chaos God. (tbh, I could use the money.)

All hail the great Chaos gOd ksAf'lasjdf:)!tj42yos, whose Ways cannot be understood by mere mortal minds.

I predict your religion will not be very popular

robindch

Wicknight wrote: »

I predict your religion will not be very popular

Who cares as long as it's tax-free?

The Mad Hatter

Wicknight wrote: »

I predict your religion will not be very popular

I'll make you Psychopomp if you can pronounce hIs name right.;)