Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Waves become Matter?

  1. Oct 22, 2007 #1

    baywax

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    How do such a diverse number of conditions and events take place in this universe? Why is it that a simple thing like an electromagnetic radiant wave has formed an astounding divergent display of synergistic conditions that we call suns, planets, plants, animals, liquids, solids, gases and so on?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 23, 2007 #2

    malawi_glenn

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    what do you mean by wave? Remember wave-particle duality.

    And if our minds is just a product of matter, how can we say with certanty that it gives us the truth?
     
  4. Oct 23, 2007 #3

    baywax

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Here's something about wave-particle duality.

    On the particle-wave duality


    http://cyberdyno1.tripod.com/on.html

    Please feel free to discredit this statement.

    Here's more about light being turned into matter then back into light.

    http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2007/02.08/99-hau.html

    I've also read that after the big bang the radiation, in the form of light, began to form the matter we know today. There were colisions between quantum elements that began to form matter. But what we are able to observe today is a wave-particle duality and it is best described by this article about


    http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2002/20mar_newmatter.htm

    So, are we just seeing an analogy of waves in matter or is matter simply waves or what? And, again, how does so much diversity emerge from the simple propagation of waves?
     
  5. Oct 23, 2007 #4
    Matter and energy have certain properties we can observe.

    Probability.
     
  6. Oct 23, 2007 #5

    baywax

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Or potential?

    You write as though energy and matter are two different states when they appear to be the same state.
     
  7. Oct 23, 2007 #6

    malawi_glenn

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    laws of physics?
     
  8. Oct 23, 2007 #7
    I'm not a physicist, my understanding is that matter and energy have a relationship.... described by Einstein's famous equation. Historically they have been treated as separate and I wanted to make sure I was being clear.
     
  9. Oct 23, 2007 #8

    baywax

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    You're being clear. So far I see that energy and matter are "two forms of the same thing".

    Here's a good explaination of Einsteins equation:

    http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=477866
     
  10. Oct 23, 2007 #9

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    There are a ton of misinformation and misinterpretation of physics here. I strongly suggest that if you wish to under the physics itself that you pose your question in the physics forums, not in the philosophy forum, unless you do not care about the accuracy of the responses that you are getting.

    For example, the Lene Hau's experiment is NOT an example of mass-energy conversion, and it has nothing to do with challenging Einstein's speed-of-light limit. Simply showing that she can produce a system that can have a coherent absorption of light and then 'replaying' that later has nothing to do with violating any aspect of Special Relativity. Read her papers if you don't believe me.

    One should also be careful where one cites one's sources.

    Please note that the PF Guidelines also applies to this forum, and that any kind of distribution of misinformation constitutes the same violation as if it was done in the physics section of PF.

    Zz.
     
  11. Oct 23, 2007 #10

    baywax

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Thank you ZapperZ. I'm sorry if some of the references and statements here are invalid or incorrect with regard to physics. I guess, since my understanding of physics is, at best, disjointed, I thought I would pose the dilemma of wave/particle duality in the philosophy section to try to get a response in terms of what this condition might mean philosophically under headings like "reality", "existence", "logic" and "perception".

    You'll notice that most of my posts are questions because I want to understand how non-solids like waves can produce solids like matter. And, I'm also trying to determine the mechanism that renders the many diverse forms of matter we are able to observe today. To come up with an answer to this last question really requires philosophical-type introspection and that's why the question is in Philosophy. I think the physics of wave/particle duality is already well covered in the Physics thread and, we would do well to quote from that area in this one to support any philosophical musing about perception, reality, existence and the logic of these conditions. Thanks again.
     
  12. Oct 23, 2007 #11

    malawi_glenn

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper


    Solids just forms from the electromagnetic interaction of atoms below certain temperatures for certain elements. If you want to understand the other things, then I think physic forums are better.
     
  13. Oct 25, 2007 #12

    baywax

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    What I want to understand is the why we perceive matter as solid. Why do different organisms see matter in so many different formats by different mechanisms? Does this expose reality as being dependent upon perception or perception dependent upon reality? I would propose it is the latter of the two conditions.

    I'd also like to know how different organisms see "reality" in different ways. It's a no brainer to say that this is the way they have evolved to survive and to adapt to their limited conditions or to the conditions in their environment. But if you look at the diverse ways of seeing among the different organisms you begin to see the wide spectrum of ways of seeing... and the diversity that is essentially born of "waves".

    For instance, if there were an organism that only made its way through life because of its ability to see the waves that are matter what would it see? Would it be seeing a large field of moray patterns born by intersecting waves? Would it avoid the more concentrated areas because they represent something you can bump into?

    Bats see with their ears. The aural centre is hooked into their brain the way eyeballs are. I don't know if they "see" or are aware of sound waves but they react to the stimulus of sound and "ping" their way throughout their lives. That's their reality. Like a person who's born blind, their aural nerve centres become highly accurate and multifunctional in terms of perceptive abilities.

    A wolf's sensitivity to its environment is because of its ability to accurately interpret waves of light, sound and matter and use them as an indication of its immediate position and condition.

    And what I'd also like to understand is what keeps us from falling between atoms or waves. What keeps our waves from slipping between the other waves that make up the the matter of the sidewalk? We are not like two galaxies that never actually collide with one another because of the space to matter (wave) ratio.

    The only information we can report is purely a result of waves. Tactile information is delivered to brains in the form of electromagnetic waves. Our occular centres are stimulated by light waves, direct, reflected and refracted which in turn stimulate waves of ems in the occular nerves. Our brain's aural centre is stimulated by sound waves which also stimulate em waves in aural nerves. So, we do perceive the world in terms of waves and nothing more. Is this an analogy of wave/particle duality or is this a condition and function brought about by wave/particle "reality"?
     
    Last edited: Oct 25, 2007
  14. Oct 25, 2007 #13
    I won't get into the physics here, but from what I can tell you are talking about several different things.

    I think that matter is perceived in such a way because all matter pushes other matter away.
    This is the fundamental function of it, it separates at the quantum level itself, and it has weight.
    If you want to know why that is we would be getting into physics again which I'm trying to avoid.
    Matter itself doesn't have to be a 'solid' on the quantum level, but it certainly is in the macroscopic level.
    All organization of quantum events do not happen as far as I know on the quantum level, it happens on higher levels like chemistry, physics, biology and so forth.
    My point I guess is that as of today we have to separate between the macro level and the quantum level, even if no such separation exists in reality.

    Weight, mass, solidity, all these things are things that are fundamentally quantum but macroscopically something different.

    Also about the animals, I wasn't quite certain how those examples fit into your theory about solidity and mass, because both the wolf and the bat example do not really relate, unless I'm missing the point.
    Just because a bat 'pings' its way through reality doesn't mean it doesn't perceive solidity.

    Well, I hope I'm in the right arena here.
     
  15. Oct 26, 2007 #14
    If you think about it, everything you have seen since you first opened your eyes is the sum total of your visual 'experience'. Of course, your brain has "forgotten" or filtered a large quantity of this out. But your eyes are the "receivers" for information in the form of photons. These "produce" electrical impulses in the neurons in the eye and in the visual cortex, because the photon's energy is 'absorbed' by an electron in a pigment molecule. A neuron fires after many photons have "collided" with electrons in the rhodopsin molecules. So your 'map' of the visual world is a bit patchy, you might say. The other senses, like sound, are due to energy ultimately, but sound is dominated by gravity, which is the most apparent force (apart from light). Also photons don't bowl you over when they hit your eyes. But the "inner waves" are not due to either gravity or photons, but electrical and chemical (thermodynamic) processes. There is a lot of debate about the nature (the energy/mass) of "brain information", and I guess it's probably safe to say the jury's still out.
     
  16. Oct 26, 2007 #15

    baywax

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Thank you octelcogopod. Sorry for the disjointed post, it reflects my confusion with regard to perceived reality and actuality. The reason I have a wolf and a bat in the post is not because its near halloween! Its because they represent diverse ways of perceiving the environment. The environment doens't change because of the way they perceive it. Its simply their mode of perception that uses specific elements in the environment. Yet, as you point out, the rules that make up our environment are, as you point out, a result of some other rules that are microscopic. So, in effect, the perception of the bat, a single celled animal and the wolf is actually working with the same laws found at the quantum/microscopic level. Yet the percepetive abilities are tuned and honed to how those laws translate at a macroscopic level.

    I guess this is where I have to go to the Physics section and ask what the transformation is that takes place between these two levels that causes a diversity of signals which in turn produces the cause for so many different ways of perceiving "reality".
     
  17. Oct 26, 2007 #16

    baywax

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Before we open our eyes our experience is much different. In the womb we're accutely aware of sound, warmth, nutrients and the stresses or the relaxed mode of our mother. We are also undergoing rapid mitosis and this growth of our tissues must also provide a certain amount of stimulus. The quality of stimulus is determined by how far along our nervous system has developed and by the genetically determined quantity of neurotransmitters we possess. There will be moments where light stimulates our developing ocular neurons but all of these "reports" to our developing brain will only be registered as "waves" and momentary interuptions to our sleep. The information doesn't appear to "stick" since the function of memory/learning probably hasn't fully developed.

    Weighing memory and/or brain information is new to me. My own idea of memory and memory storage is as follows:
    stimulus represents a certain "environment" in the brain and body. It can be continuous and it can be sporatic. The more continuous a stimulus is, the more it becomes "expected" by neurons and other cells. As cells die off and new ones are formed, natural selection evenutally will ensure that those ones have genetic traits more suitable to deal with the continuous stimulus. Those genetic traits could be considered "memories". If you weigh these specific allelomorphs, you get the weight of "brain information".
     
    Last edited: Oct 26, 2007
  18. Oct 27, 2007 #17
    If you google any 2 or 3 words from the following list: "brain information mass energy learn"; you will get a lot of links to the subject of learning, brain function, neuron growth, and so on. Currently they are discussing things like how the brain "handles" information, or discriminates between "useful" stuff, and "noise". They use terms like "compression", "filter", "clustering", when talking about "brain info".
    If you look at the quantum angle, there seem to be plenty of theories about what happens in our heads at this level, and if its important, etc. I would say most research is looking at the brain as a thermodynamic machine of some kind, rather than a quantum computer, but there isn't really much to go on (yet), and a bit early to come to conclusions (except theories). The conclusions awaited eagerly: what the brain really "does" with information (input from the "senses"), and how memories are "stored", etc. are possibly some distance away -maybe decades, but there is plenty of research...
     
    Last edited: Oct 27, 2007
  19. Oct 27, 2007 #18

    baywax

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I see, that's cool stuff. It might be a matter of being able to weigh heat or it might be a matter of being able to weigh electrons. But why would the actual structures that generate the heat and electrons not be part of the over all weight of brain information?
     
  20. Oct 27, 2007 #19
    If you think about it, every molecule and every electron transfer, every electrical impulse that gets delivered to thousands (we aren't sure about that by at least a factor of ten) of other electrical "delivery" stations, it's all information, in some sense. What we need to do is look at it from all levels, I guess. There are some fringe quantum theories around, and some attempts at logically classifying what "kind" of information is in there, but the processing itself is representative. There are a lot of different functions and functional areas (partitions) in what is, after all, the result of >500 million years of time to get there.
     
  21. Oct 27, 2007 #20
    You could argue something like: "the collection of cells (neurons) are a higher level of process and are the true 'map' of information content (the encoding)", but the "background" environment or content is affected by this 'collection' and affects it at the same time (there's a feedback, or loop). Such "circular" properties are a common feature, not just in the brain, but just about everywhere. Also our emotions seem to be ruled by different chemicals (mostly used between synapses -serotonin and oxytocin e.g.), which illustrates that the 'network' isn't purely electrical, because these transmitter molecules play a part too.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Waves become Matter?
  1. Becoming a cyborg. (Replies: 21)

  2. How to become a genius ? (Replies: 21)

Loading...