Light - For Those Who Are More Educated In This Field

[Ben Dhyan]

This is simply wrong: Matter and Energy: A False Dichotomy. Note second bullet point below.

Ok, so what is an electron made of if not a form of energy?

An electron is a particle of negative energy that revolves around the nucleus as a satellite does around the Earth.

Understanding Electricity | Atoms and Electrons | Hydro-Québec

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You're still completely stuck in a Newtonian view of time. If the BB was the start of time, then things have 'always' existed, that is there is no time at which nothing at all existed and therefore no transition from nothing to something.

For information: mass is not conserved, it can be converted to energy and vice versa but neither of them is stuff, they are both properties. The total energy in the universe may actually be zero.

Ok, spacetime comes into existence after the BB, space and time are two aspects of the one thing, existence. So logically, before spacetime, there was no spacetime (no spacetime =nothing)! Is this what you mean by my being stuck in a Newtonian view of time?

 

[ratiocinator]

Ok, so what is an electron made of if not a form of energy?

It's a fundamental particle in our current understanding, so you've reached the bottom of the "what's it made of" forever question until and unless we find something further. You could explain it in terms of a quantum field but I don't think that will add much to the discussion.

An electron is a particle of negative energy that revolves around the nucleus as a satellite does around the Earth.

Understanding Electricity | Atoms and Electrons | Hydro-Québec

What a dog's dinner of an explanation. Negative energy? I think they mean negative charge. As for electron "revolves around the nucleus as a satellite does around the Earth." Err, no they don't. That is a very dated understanding that totally ignores quantum mechanics. I think somebody has tried to simplify way too much.

Ok, spacetime comes into existence after the BB, space and time are two aspects of the one thing, existence. So logically, before spacetime, there was no spacetime (no spacetime =nothing), am I stuck in a Newtonian view of time?

In your use of "before spacetime". You can't use the word "before" if there is no time,

 

[Ben Dhyan]

It's a fundamental particle in our current understanding, so you've reached the bottom of the "what's it made of" forever question until and unless we find something further. You could explain it in terms of a quantum field but I don't think that will add much to the discussion.



What a dog's dinner of an explanation. Negative energy? I think they mean negative charge. As for electron "revolves around the nucleus as a satellite does around the Earth." Err, no they don't. That is a very dated understanding that totally ignores quantum mechanics. I think somebody has tried to simplify way too much.



In your use of "before spacetime". You can't use the word "before" if there is no time,

The people who wrote that about the electron deal in electrical energy, if you think they are incorrect in their description of an electron as a particle of electric energy, write a letter to them or something, but for now eat humble pie.

So how does one phrase the question of where the mass of the universe come from, if it has not always existed?

 

[ratiocinator]

The people who wrote that about the electron deal in electrical energy, if you think they are incorrect in their description of an electron as a particle of electric energy, write a letter to them or something, but for now eat humble pie.

An electron is a particle that has negative electric charge, and positive mass (Electron). It could have negative potential energy energy in the sense that you can freely define a zero in potential energy. So, for example, we often define gravitational potential energy on the surface of Earth as zero and then use E=mgh (as you may have learnt at school). The alternative is to define zero as far away in empty space, in which case all gravitational potential energy is negative. None of this means that a particle is energy.

So how does one phrase the question of where the mass of the universe come from, if it has not always existed?

But it has always existed, in the sense that at every moment in time is has been there. If time itself is finite in the past that cannot possibly change that.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

We don't have access to that. Our senses can fail. Our observations always have error bars.

And, of course, you are making assumptions about 'everywhere' and 'always' that may or may not be the case.

All we ever have is a 'conceptualization of reality'. When you talk about space or time, yo are using concepts that may or may not apply to reality. WEhen you talk about causation, you don't know that applies to reality: it is a conceptalization of the regularities of how things behave.

So, yes, mathematics is a good language to use to help us describe reality. And yes, it is a conceptualization, but so is ALL language. And yes, of course, science is about reality. that is sort of the whole goal: to get a predictive, testable description of as much of reality as we can manage.

Your phrase 'reality is what always is, now' is utterly meaningless, even as a description. It applies to everything and to nothing. it would apply if time and space are finite or if they are both infinite or even if one is finite and the other infinite.

As to why there is a Big Bang. What sort of answer are you looking for? Given that causality only applies *after* the BB, what possible answer could there be to the 'why' question?

Maybe reality 'just is' and there is no further 'why'.

Ah huh, you are getting it, all you know conceptually is a representation of reality, if you want to take it to the next step and partake of it actually, it is necessary to learn to apprehend reality without conceptualizing it. After all, you are a part of absolute reality, try feeling being not just a part, but an integral of reality, experience being one with it. The hard part is letting go of the conditioned way of conceptualizing reality as you see it now.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

An electron is a particle that has negative electric charge, and positive mass (Electron). It could have negative potential energy energy in the sense that you can freely define a zero in potential energy. So, for example, we often define gravitational potential energy on the surface of Earth as zero and then use E=mgh (as you may have learnt at school). The alternative is to define zero as far away in empty space, in which case all gravitational potential energy is negative. None of this means that a particle is energy.



But it has always existed, in the sense that at every moment in time is has been there. If time itself is finite in the past that cannot possibly change that.

Yes, that is the definition of nothing, no time, no space. How does the mass of the universe come from nothing?

 

[Polymath257]

I take Occam's razor to the question of the universe and it only makes sense to me as an indivisible whole. The apparent almost infinite number of differentiated distinctions of the universe observed by human science are just that, human created distinctions, and these can easily obscure the underlying unity to the uninitiated mind.

For example, what does science know about an electron, what is it made of? Energy, what is energy made of? Dark Energy? Etc., etc.. Science does not yet know what the most fundamental essence of the universe is, yet claims to know how the universe began. I am not saying science is a waste of time, but when it is in error, those errors need to be corrected, just like any corrupt instrument. Is it not logical to do this?

Absolutely. And that is precisely what the scientific method does.

BBers assume a beginning to the universe, therefore there logically must be a cause.

Nope. That is NOT logic. It is an assumption of causality. In other words, that there are laws of physics already operative and that there was a *before* the beginning of the universe.

Both assumptions have good *logical* reasons to be doubted.

First, since ALL causality is within the universe, there cannot be a cause for the universe as a whole.

Second, since time is also a part of the universe, it makes no sense to talk about 'before the universe'.

I appreciate your almost always thoughtful posts Polymath, but for the life of me, I can not accept the present claims of BBT,

Well, that seems to be a 'you problem'. Perhaps the difficulty is the assumptions you bring into the discussion? You want those assumptions to be 'logic', when they are, in fact, assumptions that can be and thereby should be questioned.

 

[Polymath257]

All sub-atomic particels are made of energy, ergo atoms are made of energy, molecules, substances, worlds, stars, galaxies, the universe.

No, they are not. They all have a property of having energy, but energy is a property, not the material from which they are made.

I would also point out that you are making the assumption that there is a common 'material' from which everything is 'made'. This is also a point at issue and is very likely to be wrong.

I could go on but it would be a waste of time for both of us. I could tell you that 'absolute reality' actually can be realized but that could only come with your a mind in a non-dual state which is not going to happen so long as you see reality through conceptualization. I don't mean that you are wrong seeing reality through conceptualization, but fwiw, there is more to reality than science has ever dreamed of yet, but it will evolve I am sure.

Yes, there are certain mental states that give an illusion of unity. I have experienced such states. But I recognize them as a data point, not a conclusion. What I have figured out, instead, is that those mental states are illusions.

 

[ratiocinator]

Yes, that is the definition of nothing, no time, no space. How does the mass of the universe come from nothing?

And you still can't get out of your Newtonian thinking. There was no time at which there was nothing, so there was never a "nothing to something" event, because that would requires time to exist before as well as after.

It's better to imagine, from a relativistic point of view, the whole space-time manifold as a 4-dimensional object. It being finite in the past time direction does not mean that it 'started to exist' at that point - that's just as far as you can go in that direction.

 

[Polymath257]

My logic is this. Mass afaik cannot be converted to nothing, and the reciprocal, that mass can not come from nothing.

And this is known to be false. There are, in fact, spontaneous formations and annihilations of electron-positron pairs in a vacuum. This has been demonstrated by actual observation.

However BBT says that universal mass had a beginning, mass came from nothing, but that because time did not exist, we have no direct proof, but we've got red shift.

We have much more than just red shifts. They are a part of the evidence, but quite far from the only evidence. Also relevant are the light element distributions, the ages of stars andgalaxies, the CMBR and its specifics, the overall description of gravity (general relativity) which predicts exactly such an expansion, etc.

Ok, so time now does exist, and so please, no excuses, do the reciprocal of the BB and convert an amount of mass into nothing* and I will accept the BB is possible.

*Nothing here means zilch, absolute nothing.

As you have said, 'nothing' does not exist. ALL we have is the universe. If it is finite (we don't know either way), then existence is finite. If it had a beginning, then existence had a beginning.

There is nothing before the universe because 'before the universe' does not exist.

 

[Polymath257]

Yes, that is the definition of nothing, no time, no space. How does the mass of the universe come from nothing?

It didn't. Whenever there was time, there was also matter and energy.

 

[Polymath257]

Ok, so what is an electron made of if not a form of energy?

As far as we know, it is a fundamental particle. In other words, it isn't made from anything else.

 

[Polymath257]

Ok, spacetime comes into existence after the BB, space and time are two aspects of the one thing, existence. So logically, before spacetime, there was no spacetime (no spacetime =nothing)! Is this what you mean by my being stuck in a Newtonian view of time?

You are assuming that there was a 'before'. No such 'before' existed. That is your logical mistake.

 

[Polymath257]

Ah huh, you are getting it, all you know conceptually is a representation of reality, if you want to take it to the next step and partake of it actually, it is necessary to learn to apprehend reality without conceptualizing it. After all, you are a part of absolute reality, try feeling being not just a part, but an integral of reality, experience being one with it. The hard part is letting go of the conditioned way of conceptualizing reality as you see it now.

We all participate in reality all the time. But we don't have full information about that reality because of the inaccuracy of our senses. This means we always have a slightly distorted view of reality. We modify our views by testing and observation and require predictability of new observations. That is the scientific method.

I am sure you had a mental state where you were convinced of the unity of the universe. I have as well. But I realized that such a state is a data point, not a conclusion. It is one piece of evidence and so needs to be evaluated and tested by observation.

I can easily enough 'let go' and simply not think deeply about these matters. And that, from what I can see, is what you are advocating: giving up on any real understanding so you can get an illusion of unity.

 

[exchemist]

My logic is this. Mass afaik cannot be converted to nothing, and the reciprocal, that mass can not come from nothing.

However BBT says that universal mass had a beginning, mass came from nothing, but that because time did not exist, we have no direct proof, but we've got red shift.

Ok, so time now does exist, and so please, no excuses, do the reciprocal of the BB and convert an amount of mass into nothing* and I will accept the BB is possible.

*Nothing here means zilch, absolute nothing

You are still looking at this through the wrong end of the telescope. The evidence is that there was expansion from a hot dense state. What happened before we can't say with confidence because physics stops working at a certain point. But that does not throw our deductions about expansion into doubt, because everything points that way.

You are like a detective who denies that there has been a murder because the murder weapon is unknown and no motive has been established, even though the corpse is on the ground in front of him.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Absolutely. And that is precisely what the scientific method does.

Nope. That is NOT logic. It is an assumption of causality. In other words, that there are laws of physics already operative and that there was a *before* the beginning of the universe.

Both assumptions have good *logical* reasons to be doubted.

First, since ALL causality is within the universe, there cannot be a cause for the universe as a whole.

Second, since time is also a part of the universe, it makes no sense to talk about 'before the universe'.


Well, that seems to be a 'you problem'. Perhaps the difficulty is the assumptions you bring into the discussion? You want those assumptions to be 'logic', when they are, in fact, assumptions that can be and thereby should be questioned.

I agree with your points, they are consistent with a steady state eternal universe, ie., all causality is within, there is no outside, there is no before.

So if TLT holds up, we do not need a beginning to the universe, nor an expansion to explain how it grew from nothing a tiny point.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No, they are not. They all have a property of having energy, but energy is a property, not the material from which they are made.

I would also point out that you are making the assumption that there is a common 'material' from which everything is 'made'. This is also a point at issue and is very likely to be wrong.


Yes, there are certain mental states that give an illusion of unity. I have experienced such states. But I recognize them as a data point, not a conclusion. What I have figured out, instead, is that those mental states are illusions.

So what is it of an electron that has the property of energy? What is the material of an electron made of?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

And you still can't get out of your Newtonian thinking. There was no time at which there was nothing, so there was never a "nothing to something" event, because that would requires time to exist before as well as after.

It's better to imagine, from a relativistic point of view, the whole space-time manifold as a 4-dimensional object. It being finite in the past time direction does not mean that it 'started to exist' at that point - that's just as far as you can go in that direction.

Ok, so no nothing, no beginning, no outside. I do not have a problem with that, you are describing a steady state eternal universe,

 

[Ben Dhyan]

And this is known to be false. There are, in fact, spontaneous formations and annihilations of electron-positron pairs in a vacuum. This has been demonstrated by actual observation.

We have much more than just red shifts. They are a part of the evidence, but quite far from the only evidence. Also relevant are the light element distributions, the ages of stars andgalaxies, the CMBR and its specifics, the overall description of gravity (general relativity) which predicts exactly such an expansion, etc.

As you have said, 'nothing' does not exist. ALL we have is the universe. If it is finite (we don't know either way), then existence is finite. If it had a beginning, then existence had a beginning.

There is nothing before the universe because 'before the universe' does not exist.

I am surprised you were not aware that in electron-positron annihilations, the result is not nothing, but gamma rays.

There is nothing before the universe because it never had a beginning.