Notion of matter, space and time

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the philosophical notions of matter, space, and time, contrasting these ideas with physical interpretations. Participants explore the implications of materialism and idealism, the nature of existence, and the relationship between matter and motion, while also questioning the validity of concepts such as the Big Bang in relation to the origins of matter and the universe.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that matter is a category of existence independent of the mind, while others argue from an idealist perspective that matter is secondary to consciousness.
  • There is a claim that matter cannot exist without motion, and that time and space are modes of existence of matter.
  • Some participants propose that the Big Bang theory does not denote the absolute beginning of time, space, and matter, but rather describes the evolution of the universe from a previous state.
  • One participant questions the origin of matter, suggesting that it cannot be created from nothing, while another counters that matter has always existed and only transforms between forms.
  • There is a discussion about the relationship between matter and energy, with references to theoretical physics concepts such as Planck's Constant and the nature of particles and waves.
  • Some participants emphasize the need to distinguish between philosophical and physical definitions of matter, noting that energy and fields are considered material in philosophical terms.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the nature of matter and its relationship to consciousness, motion, and the Big Bang theory. There is no consensus on these philosophical interpretations, and the discussion remains unresolved.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the limitations of definitions and the implications of materialism as a philosophical school of thought, particularly in relation to the Big Bang theory and the nature of existence.

  • #61
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.
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
  • #62
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.
 
  • #63
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!
 
  • #64
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.
 
  • #65
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.
 
  • #66
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?
 
  • #67
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...
 
  • #68
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.
 

Similar threads

Graduate Space-Time & Matter: Explaining the Difference
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Graduate Dark matter and spacetime metric
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
Graduate Question on possible dark matter classification
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Undergrad Integrity of matter / space and time
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
5K
Graduate Gravity as space-time curvature?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Graduate What Is the Relationship Between Time and Space in the Universe?
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
7K
Undergrad Why is the observed local region of space flat?
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
Undergrad About quantum interference: space and time
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
4K
Graduate Inquiry Regarding Concept in Time and Celestial Motion
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Graduate Dark matter and the fabric of space time,
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K