Heaven - A Fool's Paradise - DPChallenge Forums

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D

04/27/2010 01:25:28 PM · #126

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

First, in my mind you cannot postulate an external observer where there cannot be one.

If a tree falls in a forest and no observer is there, does it make a sound? You point is moot anyway because of the way spacetime works: you weren't around to see the Andromeda galaxy as it appeared 2+ million years ago, yet you can do just that with a pair of binoculars.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Second, the t=0 problem is mathematical and not an experimental observation.

Relativity is both mathematical and an experimental observation.

Message edited by author 2010-04-27 13:25:45.

tate

Apple iPhone 15 Pro

04/27/2010 01:32:08 PM · #127

Non-believers please send all you Christmas gifts to me. Especially if they are Nikon compatible.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

04/27/2010 01:32:21 PM · #128

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

potential energy is a property of matter, not energy.

Matter = energy. There is no spoon.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

04/27/2010 01:32:27 PM · #129

Originally posted by scalvert:

... you weren't around to see the Andromeda galaxy as it appeared 2+ million years ago, yet you can do just that with a pair of binoculars.

With good eyes and clear skies you can see Andromeda without external magnification -- it's the furthest object you can see unaided. If someone asks how far you can see the answer could be 12 quintillion miles ... :-)

04/27/2010 01:33:27 PM · #130

Originally posted by eqsite:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Thanks. I did think about potential energy as a possibility, but didn't bring it up because it fails for a different reason. Potential energy requires dimensionality. As your link says in the first line "Potential energy is energy stored within a physical system as a result of the position or configuration of the different parts of that system." You cannot have position or configuration if you do not have dimension. The skydiver has potential energy because he is removed from the center of the earth. If he and the earth occupied the same location, there would be no potential energy.

Yes, but in most string theories, a singularity doesn't zero out all dimensions.

Good point, although string theory predicts both nothing and everything. Still, there should be no matter and, in my eyes, no potential energy. I will, however, allow some wiggle room on this point.

One more thing about the relativity issue is it does not work on a quantum level (otherwise we would have a theory of everything). The initial singularity falls in the domain of quantum physics and not special relativity.

04/27/2010 01:34:31 PM · #131

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
potential energy is a property of matter, not energy.

Matter = energy. There is no spoon.

This is obviously not true since the equation is E=mc2 not E=m. Matter can be transformed to energy and vice versa, but they are not the same thing.

04/27/2010 01:34:54 PM · #132

Originally posted by tate:

Non-believers please send all you Christmas gifts to me. Especially if they are Nikon compatible.

Unless you think spirits actually rise from the grave on Halloween, I'll take that candy... ;-)

04/27/2010 01:38:43 PM · #133

Posts are flying too fast and this actually has been a decent conversation so I will allow my esteemed (or is it just steamed) opponent to regroup and re-present his position given the last dozen posts. If he doesn't want to, I can re-present my position.

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

04/27/2010 01:50:01 PM · #134

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
potential energy is a property of matter, not energy.

Matter = energy. There is no spoon.

This is obviously not true since the equation is E=mc2 not E=m. Matter can be transformed to energy and vice versa, but they are not the same thing.

Not so fast (pun intended) hombre. The laws of physics allow for space to expand faster than the speed of light, and during the initial period of inflation the universe expanded by a factor of more than 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 in a time-scale of less than .000000000000000000000000000001 second. Gee, could that be mass moving at the speed of light squared?

Message edited by author 2010-04-27 13:55:39.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

04/27/2010 01:53:53 PM · #135

Anyway, "m" stands for "mass", not "matter".

R.

04/27/2010 02:08:16 PM · #136

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Anyway, "m" stands for "mass", not "matter".

R.

Good point Robert.

Note what Wiki says...

The earliest phases of the Big Bang are subject to much speculation. In the most common models, the Universe was filled homogeneously and isotropically with an incredibly high energy density, huge temperatures and pressures, and was very rapidly expanding and cooling. Approximately 10−37 seconds into the expansion, a phase transition caused a cosmic inflation, during which the Universe grew exponentially.[31] [/b]After inflation stopped, the Universe consisted of a quarkâ��gluon plasma[/b], as well as all other elementary particles.

I believe your idea that actual matter is flying apart during inflation or that matter exists at t=0 is wrong. Energy exists. While you equate the two, at best you can say matter is a special form of energy, but not all energy is matter. That much is obvious. Whatever energy is represented by matter, it did not exist at t=0 and I do not think it even existed during inflation.

04/27/2010 02:21:05 PM · #137

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Anyway, "m" stands for "mass", not "matter".

R.

Good point Robert.

Note what Wiki says...

The earliest phases of the Big Bang are subject to much speculation. In the most common models, the Universe was filled homogeneously and isotropically with an incredibly high energy density, huge temperatures and pressures, and was very rapidly expanding and cooling. Approximately 10−37 seconds into the expansion, a phase transition caused a cosmic inflation, during which the Universe grew exponentially.[31] [/b]After inflation stopped, the Universe consisted of a quarkâ��gluon plasma[/b], as well as all other elementary particles.

I believe your idea that actual matter is flying apart during inflation or that matter exists at t=0 is wrong. Energy exists. While you equate the two, at best you can say matter is a special form of energy, but not all energy is matter. That much is obvious. Whatever energy is represented by matter, it did not exist at t=0 and I do not think it even existed during inflation.

I'll admit that I'm a little baffled by how you are using the word "matter". Science can't even agree on a definition, so maybe you can rephrase? (see wikipedia). What we can say is that there was energy at t=0, something happened and the volume of the universe began to expand, the universe cooled, and some of the energy condensed into things that have mass (elementary particles). So to say that matter didn't exist but then suddenly did is just to restate the phase change. It's like saying there was water, but no ice, but then it got cold and suddenly there was ice where there wasn't any before.

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D

04/27/2010 04:28:09 PM · #138

Originally posted by eqsite:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Anyway, "m" stands for "mass", not "matter".

R.

Good point Robert.

Note what Wiki says...

The earliest phases of the Big Bang are subject to much speculation. In the most common models, the Universe was filled homogeneously and isotropically with an incredibly high energy density, huge temperatures and pressures, and was very rapidly expanding and cooling. Approximately 10−37 seconds into the expansion, a phase transition caused a cosmic inflation, during which the Universe grew exponentially.[31] [/b]After inflation stopped, the Universe consisted of a quarkâ��gluon plasma[/b], as well as all other elementary particles.

I believe your idea that actual matter is flying apart during inflation or that matter exists at t=0 is wrong. Energy exists. While you equate the two, at best you can say matter is a special form of energy, but not all energy is matter. That much is obvious. Whatever energy is represented by matter, it did not exist at t=0 and I do not think it even existed during inflation.

I'll admit that I'm a little baffled by how you are using the word "matter". Science can't even agree on a definition, so maybe you can rephrase? (see wikipedia). What we can say is that there was energy at t=0, something happened and the volume of the universe began to expand, the universe cooled, and some of the energy condensed into things that have mass (elementary particles). So to say that matter didn't exist but then suddenly did is just to restate the phase change. It's like saying there was water, but no ice, but then it got cold and suddenly there was ice where there wasn't any before.

Ya, I was thinking and maybe it's easier to point out that the energy of the very early universe was radiation and not matter. It's all energy theoretically, but radiation does not equal matter.

raish

Olympus C-2500L

04/27/2010 06:05:21 PM · #139

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

radiation does not equal matter.

yes it does

04/27/2010 06:11:01 PM · #140

Originally posted by raish:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

radiation does not equal matter.

yes it does

Care to back that up?

04/27/2010 06:11:49 PM · #141

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Ya, I was thinking and maybe it's easier to point out that the energy of the very early universe was radiation and not matter. It's all energy theoretically, but radiation does not equal matter.

What raish said. Also, I thought you were trying to poke a hole in the Law of Conservation of Enery by showing that the big bang claims that matter comes into existence where previously there was none. This is flawed, because the law concerns energy, not matter (whatever that is), and the big bang doesn't claim that the energy of the universe wasn't present beforehand. It simply claims that is has changed form.

04/27/2010 06:34:55 PM · #142

Originally posted by eqsite:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Ya, I was thinking and maybe it's easier to point out that the energy of the very early universe was radiation and not matter. It's all energy theoretically, but radiation does not equal matter.

What raish said. Also, I thought you were trying to poke a hole in the Law of Conservation of Enery by showing that the big bang claims that matter comes into existence where previously there was none. This is flawed, because the law concerns energy, not matter (whatever that is), and the big bang doesn't claim that the energy of the universe wasn't present beforehand. It simply claims that is has changed form.

Well, actually it was Shannon who made that association first. I agree the First Law concerns Energy and not matter.

But let's clear up the radiation and matter issue. Black and white: What is electromagnetic radiation? If we think of it as a particle, it is a photon and no commonly used definition of matter includes photons. If you can find me a quote that says such, I am open, but the wiki for matter, for example, will say the opposite:

ordinary matter is everything that is composed of elementary fermions, namely quarks and leptons.

Photons are bosons and thus do not qualify in a conventional quantum definition of matter.

I am open to rebuttal.

Message edited by author 2010-04-27 18:35:38.

04/27/2010 06:51:06 PM · #143

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by eqsite:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Ya, I was thinking and maybe it's easier to point out that the energy of the very early universe was radiation and not matter. It's all energy theoretically, but radiation does not equal matter.

What raish said. Also, I thought you were trying to poke a hole in the Law of Conservation of Enery by showing that the big bang claims that matter comes into existence where previously there was none. This is flawed, because the law concerns energy, not matter (whatever that is), and the big bang doesn't claim that the energy of the universe wasn't present beforehand. It simply claims that is has changed form.

Well, actually it was Shannon who made that association first. I agree the First Law concerns Energy and not matter.

But let's clear up the radiation and matter issue. Black and white: What is electromagnetic radiation? If we think of it as a particle, it is a photon and no commonly used definition of matter includes photons. If you can find me a quote that says such, I am open, but the wiki for matter, for example, will say the opposite:

ordinary matter is everything that is composed of elementary fermions, namely quarks and leptons.

Photons are bosons and thus do not qualify in a conventional quantum definition of matter.

I am open to rebuttal.

I'll concede the point that EM radiation is not considered matter (although other forms of radiation are: alpha and beta radiation come to mind). I think the conversation would be best served, however, if you would drop the use of the word matter, as I don't know of any physical laws that use the term. I am also open to rebuttal :).

04/27/2010 06:54:42 PM · #144

What are the odds Hawking would just shudder if he came across this conversation? :) A bunch of yahoos who all think they know something.

I've really sorta forgotten what the point is too. :) Originally I just didn't like Shannon thinking that in was "intrinsically impossible" for God to create matter. From there the First Law of Thermodynamics was evoked and then the matter/energy debate came up.

Nobody took a stab at my frozen world thought experiment. Is that because it hit home? Can people see some of the issues that arise?

04/27/2010 06:54:55 PM · #145

Originally posted by eqsite:

I think the conversation would be best served, however, if you would drop the use of the word matter, as I don't know of any physical laws that use the term.

Law of the Rant: Whatever we think doesn't matter.

Pentax D-FA* 70-200mm f/2.8 ED DC AW

04/27/2010 06:56:31 PM · #146

Originally posted by eqsite:

a civilized opponent, to be sure. :) I will try not to use it unless it is necessary (say we were talking about gravity).

K3Master

Pentax K-3

04/27/2010 07:03:31 PM · #147

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by eqsite:
I'll concede the point that EM radiation is not considered matter (although other forms of radiation are: alpha and beta radiation come to mind). I think the conversation would be best served, however, if you would drop the use of the word matter, as I don't know of any physical laws that use the term. I am also open to rebuttal :).

a civilized opponent, to be sure. :) I will try not to use it unless it is necessary (say we were talking about gravity).

Now that is a matter of some gravity.

Art Roflmao

Canon EOS-6D Mark II

04/27/2010 07:05:40 PM · #148

I heard Stephen Hawking reads these threads.

04/27/2010 07:06:50 PM · #149

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

I heard Stephen Hawking reads these threads.

That explains the crippling neurological problems.