Questions on Matter

odnora

Hi all. Long time lurker first time poster. I am following with interest a debate of sorts on another forum (a forum a user of boards invited me to) and it has reached the point where I do not know if one of the users is talking complete baloney or making some sense. Perhaps the more physics trained among you can tell me which it is and if the former exactly what is nonsense or unfounded in the text or where it breaks down from fact into nonsense.

The target of the users argument is not in physics, but the user appears to be trying to use physics to establish that the universe is itself conscious (therefore the universe is god) and that this is why we are conscious. He is one of the types of people who sees the brain not as producing consciousness, but as being some kind of receiver for it.

That part seems to be a stretch but I would be interested in knowing what the physics he is using actually says as there are quite a few terms I do not understand in it. Below is basically what he has been saying:

Existentially, there is no such thing as matter just "energy events" of varying vibratory states. Molecular activity is the "slowest" form of "energy event" due to aggregation of energy constituents (massing and slowing of vibratory rates). Photons and sub-atomic "particle events" are the "fastest."

Energy is ALL that exists in a universal field that establishes the parameters for the aggregation of "energy events" into mass of varying "spherical standing waveforms" we interact with as matter. Einstein's equation reveals this mass-energy equivalence that leads to the philosophical implications for the composition of reality I have tried to explain.

E = mc^2. E represents the total energy of a physical system. The symbol (m) represents the relativistic mass of the system as "measured" by an observer moving with a constant velocity (v) relative to the system.

When the observer and the system are in a relative state of rest . . . the mass is called the inertial rest mass . . . or the tendency of the system to resist changes in velocity. The value of the energy in the rest state is the rest energy . . . and is a measure of all of the energy (including the potential energy) of the constituents of the system. This is the form of Einstein's equation we are exploring the implications of for the nature of reality . . . because at rest the Lorentz factor is 1 and disappears.

The three main philosophical questions concerning the interpretation of E = mc^2 are:

1. What is mass-energy equivalence and are mass and energy the same property of physical systems?;
2. Are we dealing with conversion or transformation of mass into energy in some physical interactions?;
3. Are there any ontological consequences of Einstein's equation? If so what?

The relationship between mass-energy equivalence and hypotheses concerning the nature of reality rest on assumptions concerning the nature of matter. The actual relation derived from special relativity is:

E = (m − q)c^2 + K,

K just fixes the zero-point of energy and is conventionally set to zero. However, unlike the convention to set K to zero, setting q = 0 involves a hypothesis concerning the nature of matter . . . because it rules out the possibility that there exists matter that has some mass which can not be “converted” into energy.

This relates directly to the issue of conversion/transformation and physicists have no evidence whatsoever that there exists ANY matter for which q is NOT equal to zero. The view that mass and energy are the same property of physical systems requires that q = 0. Mass and energy cannot be the same property if there exists matter that has any mass that cannot be “converted” into energy. Bottom line: Rainville, et al. have empirically demonstrated the mass-energy equivalence directly as recently as 2005 with an accuracy for Einstein's equation of 0.00004%.

What can we take away from this equivalence philosophically about the structure of reality and the nature of matter? Actually Einstein's classical distinction between matter and fields has given way to an ontology entirely comprised of fields. This makes the preferred view of 'particle" physicists that the "same property" is physical mass questionable (Lange, et al. . . . such physical bias is to be expected from physicists I suppose). But Einstein's ontological field view (universal field) requires that energy be the "same property" rest state (basic "substance") . . . NOT mass.

The most recent efforts relying on this "same property" view have shown that the very structure of timespace must be altered to account for any transformations. Minkowski's topological analysis of timespace is instructive. I deliberately reverse the typical "spacetime" expression to "timespace" because it is increasingly evident that time is the more crucial and "real" aspect of reality and that "energy events" are the true "structural components."

My assertion that energy is the basic property of timespace stands . . . Einstein's universal field is validated . . . and consciousness as energy is established (since there is nothing else for it to be!)

Morbert

It's crap. Energy is not a substance that exists on its own. It is a property of things.

odnora

Can you tell me more. I am not totally illiterate in science but this has gone a little beyond my level. Does any of this "energy events" and "Spherical standing waveforms" stuff mean anything or is it all just being made up? Is anything above accurate or is it all nonsense? Or is it sensible but punctuated with nonsense slipped in here and there? Which is which?

Ta! Nora.

Morbert

odnora wrote: »

Can you tell me more. I am not totally illiterate in science but this has gone a little beyond my level. Does any of this "energy events" and "Spherical standing waveforms" stuff mean anything or is it all just being made up? Is anything above accurate or is it all nonsense? Or is it sensible but punctuated with nonsense slipped in here and there? Which is which?

Ta! Nora.

Terms like "event", and "energy" and "standing wave" mean things on their own, and there are some true statements. But the post itself is word salad.

Saying only energy exists is like saying only "fast" exists. An electron or photon has energy, but this does not mean it is energy. A car might have speed, but this does not mean it is speed.

krd

odnora wrote: »

The target of the users argument is not in physics, but the user appears to be trying to use physics to establish that the universe is itself conscious (therefore the universe is god) and that this is why we are conscious.

Well, there is such a thing as a Boltzmann brain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain


If you're reading any science stuff on the internet. Be wary of its provenance.

I think most of the stuff that appears on Youtube, as "quantum physics", has as much to do with with quantum physics, as Irish pyschics live has to do with meteorology.

But plenty of genuine physics is nearly in the realm of black magic. Einstein's relativity is one. Events that seem simultaneous to one observer, may not be, when view by another observer.

But all the modern technology we take for granted, is actually magic. With a mobile phone, you can talk to anyone in the world. Everyone takes them for granted, but when you make a call on one of those things, you are actually a sorcerer.

krd

Morbert wrote: »

It's crap. Energy is not a substance that exists on its own. It is a property of things.

Do you see how your own statement there might lead to confusion, and doesn't really explain anything.

What are things?.......They are substances........


I've started using the Khan Academy recently to revise my maths. And the thing is, that when I was a child, many of my teachers were so brutal, I never understood many of the basics properly, and went onto third level busking through it. It would be really good if there was a Khan Academy equivalent for physics - that went from the very basics right up to contemporary theory. I'm getting an inkling, that quite a bit of the stuff is not as impenetrable as it first seems. But you need the tools.

I've been caught rotten with Youtube.....Watching a few minutes of incomprehensibly maths, only for the guy to start going on about flying saucers and intergalactic conciousness.


But at the same time, the whole Youtube craziness is exciting. People are beginning to build their own working fusion reactors at home (or at least try) - there's a great vid of an old guy giving a little demonstration of his attempt - his wife in the background doing house work and singing to herself - and he tells her to shut up.

The future of science could be suburban Victor Frankensteins working in their suburban basement laboratories, applying the concepts in a way conventional scientist lack the insanity to.

Even teenagers are building nuclear reactors these days.

http://www.ted.com/talks/taylor_wilson_yup_i_built_a_nuclear_fusion_reactor.html

elasticspastic

Grab yourself the Feynman Lecture series, they're pretty famous for being some of the most accessible, well written introductory texts on physics written by someone known to be one of the greatest teachers and theorists.

Look up some of his "Fun to Imagine" clips on youtube to see what he's like.

Use that in conjunction with the MIT Open Courseware materials, and the khan academy videos and you have all you really need.

There'd also be no harm in running through a secondary school physics textbook to get a quick introduction.

Morbert

krd wrote: »

Do you see how your own statement there might lead to confusion, and doesn't really explain anything.

What are things?.......They are substances........

Energy is a property of things. It does not exist on its own. I.e. A photon has energy, but a photon is not energy. It is a simple statement.

odnora

Seems the rantings are getting even more non sensical. I am lost on whether this guy is making stuff up on the spot - or misunderstanding actual things that I also do not understand.

...there is no such thing as matter . . . just aggregations of energy "frequency traffic jams." All that exists are ENERGY systems in various forms of aggregation that we experience or "measure" as substance in various states. That is the major implication of mass-energy equivalence.

Does this make sense to anyone here?

Morbert

odnora wrote: »

Seems the rantings are getting even more non sensical. I am lost on whether this guy is making stuff up on the spot - or misunderstanding actual things that I also do not understand.

Does this make sense to anyone here?

No.

What forum is this?

krd

odnora wrote: »

Seems the rantings are getting even more non sensical. I am lost on whether this guy is making stuff up on the spot - or misunderstanding actual things that I also do not understand.

Does this make sense to anyone here?

No. But I do know what it is. It's "New Age" Quantum Physics. The internet is full of this stuff. Some "New Agey" hippy selling healing crystals and other junk, reads a few popular science books, and then constructs some gibberish to validate their New Age gibberish. And it is gibberish. I have read this stuff - first for little entertainment, now I get really annoyed when I see it. Claims that psychic communication is proved by quantum tunnelling. Or interpretations of quantum physics that prove the universe is a projection of our conciousness - that nothing can happen unless observed by a human - and to change the universe all we need is a "positive" attitude.

Jesus. I've even seen tripe where they connect "positive" and "negative" attitudes to electricity. I will tell you how much of an idiot one of my secondary school science teachers was. He told us running water creates negative ions in the air - and supposedly these negative ions, put people in a better mood. But he said he could understand why they didn't use "positive" ions instead.

I think sometimes the physicist are to blame - when they say some things that could be interpreted as mystical. Like saying because of superposition, the atoms in your body could be anywhere in the universe - saying because of quantum theory you could be in two places at once. You're obviously not in two places at once. To say something like that chimes with theologians, who often claim the material world does not exist but is a mere figment of the imagination of God.

odnora

Morbert wrote: »

No.

What forum is this?

A forum a guy I know who posts here too invited me to read along on recently. I lurk and never post usually but I thought I would pick the brains of people here to see if they had any idea what was going on there.

There seems to be only one user left challenging him but it is getting a little funny to read. The OP user recently claimed "EM energy (E=hf) is energy that cannot be contained in matter as we know it" to which his opponent simply asked how he thought street lights work therefore.

Only join the fray if you have a thick skin though. Seems the OP poster gets quite irritable and insulting with anyone who disagrees with him.

Morbert

odnora wrote: »

A forum a guy I know who posts here too invited me to read along on recently. I lurk and never post usually but I thought I would pick the brains of people here to see if they had any idea what was going on there.

There seems to be only one user left challenging him but it is getting a little funny to read. The OP user recently claimed "EM energy (E=hf) is energy that cannot be contained in matter as we know it" to which his opponent simply asked how he thought street lights work therefore.

E = hf tells us how much energy a photon has. It does not say a photon is energy.

Only join the fray if you have a thick skin though. Seems the OP poster gets quite irritable and insulting with anyone who disagrees with him.

Excellent.

krd

Morbert wrote: »

E = hf tells us how much energy a photon has. It does not say a photon is energy.

This is the kind of thing that drives me out of my mind. E = hf, is the energy of the photon when its wave function collapses, and it becomes a quanta of energy?


It's so long since I studied this stuff. I seem to remember - though this could be my imagination. Is there a formula that lets you know which electron orbital has emitted a photon, if you find the wavelength/frequency.


Another question.........Is there an upper limit on the frequency of light?

And is there a relativistic effect on the wave path of light, that can cause it to bend like a banana?

citrus burst

odnora wrote: »

what was going on there.

This thread has gotten quite interesting, well worth a read through for anyone interested in quantum or relativity. It poises some interesting ideas and Morbert gives a pretty good picture of how modern physics has evolved.

FISMA

Morbert wrote: »

It's crap. Energy is not a substance that exists on its own. It is a property of things.

+1
Energy is a property of a system.

Work is a process by which Energy is transferred or transformed.

ZorbaTehZ

That thread is painful to read. Morbert seems to be a glutton for punishment.

krd

FISMA wrote: »

+1
Energy is a property of a system.

That doesn't really explain anything. You could say energy is property of matter.

And you can describe anything as a system. So if thoughts, and conciousness, are systems, they must have energy. Do you you see how people get their ideas?......

Work is a process by which Energy is transferred or transformed.

When Joule came up with the term Work, he did actually mean the energy needed for a system to perform mechanical work. Or the energy required in a mechanical operation.

odnora

ZorbaTehZ wrote: »

That thread is painful to read. Morbert seems to be a glutton for punishment.

Or he is our hero He is doing well jus wish he would post a bit more often on it.

Morbert

krd wrote: »

That doesn't really explain anything. You could say energy is property of matter.

And you can describe anything as a system. So if thoughts, and conciousness, are systems, they must have energy. Do you you see how people get their ideas?......

To be fair, FISMA was essentially correct. Thoughts and consciousness would be examples of other, more complex, and somewhat more notional, emergent properties of systems.

krd

Morbert wrote: »

To be fair, FISMA was essentially correct. Thoughts and consciousness would be examples of other, more complex, and somewhat more notional, emergent properties of systems.

I know he's essentially correct. It's very difficult to explain energy unambiguously. My computer has billions of small circuits, that are either running with energy, or not, depending on the logic. But the information contained in that logic is not energy. The "consciousness" as energy thing, is believing the information is energy.

Then the word "information" can mean something completely different in physics to the more general and ambiguous interpretations of the word.

I can't really think of a completely unambiguous way to describe energy. I'll try: Energy is the potential for action.

I think the problem is, energy is the emergent property, of things that are much harder to explain or understand. It's not simple at all. Even if it follows some incredibly simple rules. All the energy of the universe was created at the moment of the big bang, and no more can be created or destroyed. Though that's probably not completely true, and at some level, imbalances are allowed where net positive or negative energy is created. I will get through that maths someday, just out of pure bloodymindness if anything else

If a kilo of anti-matter, was travelling at your head, at the speed of c. What would happen when it hit your head?

odnora

I see the thread was locked Morbert, not that it has stopped that user saying the same things, and talking about YOU here.

odnora

Awww hope I didnt get you in trouble Morbert. I see you dont post any more over there and nearly all the posts you ever made have been deleted. What happened?