Notion of matter, space and time

  • Thread starter heusdens
  • Start date
  • #26
Eh
718
1
Originally posted by heusdens
You're mixing up here two different notions of matter, the philosophical meaning and the physical meaning.
The philosophical meaning of matter includes energy and fields.

Energy is as "physical" as particles (prtons, neutrons, electrons, etc) and fields. And all of these are forms of matter in the philosophical sense.
No, I'm not mixing them up. Royce indicated there is a difference between we he calls physical matter and energy. I'm just clarifying that space does not require matter (whatever he meant by physical matter, while excluding other forms of energy) for it's existence.
 
  • #27
1,648
0
Originally posted by Eh
That would be incorrect, because in the first microseconds the universe was not a singularity. You need to go back to t=0, where you get an infinite density within zero volume of space. Effectively at this point, spacetime does not exist. Neither does matter.
At what point? A point outside spacetime?

Where did the matter come from? That same "point" outside spacetime?

That is just another way of saying "God did it"....
 
  • #28
1,648
0
Originally posted by Eh
No, I'm not mixing them up. Royce indicated there is a difference between we he calls physical matter and energy.
Physcics keept them seperate, yes, but in philosophy both are matter. And please note that this notion of matter was "invented" even before physicists proved that mass can be transformed into energy and vice versa!

I'm just clarifying that space does not require matter (whatever he meant by physical matter, while excluding other forms of energy) for it's existence.
Without matter, space is not a measurable entity or property.

And besides, physcs showed us that our concept of "empty space" is not a physical concept, all parts of space, even the most distantiated parts in between galactic clusters, contain matter in the form of photons (CMBR), the gravitational field, and virtual particles that get created and annihilated every time in every cubic inch of space.

"Empty space" is therefore an "empty notion", a human concpet for something that does not exist (same way as the "nothing" does not exist).
 
  • #29
Eh
718
1
Originally posted by heusdens
At what point? A point outside spacetime?

Where did the matter come from? That same "point" outside spacetime?

That is just another way of saying "God did it"....


You'll never see me arguing that singularities are anything but absurd. But I was just trying to clarify some cosmological terms.
 
  • #30
Eh
718
1
Originally posted by heusdens
Without matter, space is not a measurable entity or property.
I was referring to the kind of matter (seperate from energy) Royce was talking about.

In physics, empty space seems to more a matter of geometry, rather than a reference to some independent space which may contain seperate matter.
 
Last edited:
  • #31
1,944
0
Originally posted by heusdens
Matter does neither escape from the universe or drops into the universe from nowhere, matter just transforms from one shape into another, and this motion of matter is therefore eternal. A "begin" of matter is therefore not a possibility.
Note that this definition does not resolve the issue of whether or not we can distinguish between "matter" and "energy." Unless you can make a clear distinction the statement remains possibly paradoxical.
 
  • #32
1,481
0
It is of course possible that I am out of date, maybe even hoplessly so but the last comology book that I read, John Gribbin's "In the Beginning" published in 2002 Still treated matter and energy as seperate phenomena though interchanable in certain circumstances. I'm sure ther are time/event charts of the big bang on line I have seen several of them in a number of different books. I'm sure that microseconds is the wrong time scale to use but it was a generality.
 
  • #33
1,944
0
Originally posted by Royce
It is of course possible that I am out of date, maybe even hoplessly so but the last comology book that I read, John Gribbin's "In the Beginning" published in 2002 Still treated matter and energy as seperate phenomena though interchanable in certain circumstances. I'm sure ther are time/event charts of the big bang on line I have seen several of them in a number of different books. I'm sure that microseconds is the wrong time scale to use but it was a generality.
That is a convention used out of practicality by default, not because that is necessarilly the reality of the situation. Quantum phenomena are too bizarre for us to speak meaningfully of them in the everyday sense. The two possibilities are that the cat is both alive and dead at the same time, or that when the cat dies a new universe is created where the cat does not die. If the cat dies and a new universe is created, this can help to preserve the identities of matter and energy as distinct.

Unfortunately, no one has proven this actually occurs, much less that it is less absurd than the cat being both alive and dead simultaneously. Fortunately, both words remain useful no matter what the case.
 
  • #34
1,481
0
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 seperate 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.
 
  • #35
1,648
0
Originally posted by wuliheron
Note that this definition does not resolve the issue of whether or not we can distinguish between "matter" and "energy." Unless you can make a clear distinction the statement remains possibly paradoxical.
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.
 
  • #36
1,944
0
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 seperate 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.
 
  • #37
1,648
0
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?
 
  • #38
Eh
718
1
Yes, I would also like to know.
 
  • #39
1,944
0
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.
 
  • #40
Eh
718
1
Where on earth did you read that? It's not very clear what you're saying.
 
  • #41
1,944
0
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?
 
  • #42
1,481
0
"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.
 
  • #43
1,944
0
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!
 
  • #44
Eh
718
1
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?
 
  • #45
Eh
718
1
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.
 
  • #46
1,944
0
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.
 
  • #47
1,648
0
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?
 
  • #48
1,648
0
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.
 
  • #49
1,481
0
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 concensus 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.
 
  • #50
1,944
0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
 

Related Threads on Notion of matter, space and time

  • Last Post
2
Replies
35
Views
5K
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
4K
Top