The Watchmaker Revisited

[shunyadragon]

No, I did no such thing; but Tong did very clearly.

What you are referring to as 'real particles' Tong calls 'bundles of energy'. Do you deny that he said that 'there are no particles in the world'?

You are taking Tong's description out of context. You have to listen to the whole lectures in context. It describes particles as real objective verifiable objects in the macro world.

What you are calling 'matter of fact verifiable evidence' is the result of perception via the five senses and their extensions. IOW, what is 'real' to you is determined via perceptual reality, but not Ultimate Reality. 'Reality' via perception only SEEMS real, in a similar manner that the dream world seems real when on that level of consciousness. Calling the material world 'real' does not make it real. 'Material reality' is just form in constant flux that comes and goes, but consciousness does not come and go. It is the only true reality. You are still attached to form, thinking they are 'things'. They aren't.

Requires your metaphysical interpretation of the macro world based on a religious agenda (Buddhism}.

If anything forms the foundation of our macro world it is empty space, as it represents some 99.9999....% of the atom.

The micro world of the 'Quantum World of Quantum nothing' forms the foundation of the macro world. The empty space is not empty. You are basing this misleading notion on the old Bohr' description of atom. This uninformed statement clearly reflects your lack of knowledge to understand the basics of physics and Quantum Mechanics, which the lecture series including Tong are based You need to go back to basic high school physics.

From: https://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~neum/physfaq/topics/touch.html

"There is no empty space around a nucleus, as in Bohr's superseded model. The electrons make up a tiny proportion of the mass of an atom, while the nucleus makes up the rest. The nucleus makes up a tiny proportion of the space occupied by an atom, while the electrons make up the rest.
According to quantum electrodynamics, the space is filled by an electron field around the nucleus which neutralizes its charge and fills the space defining the atom size. What is displayed by a field ion microscope is the boundary of this field. But this boundary is not perfectly defined but a bit fuzzy, more like the surface of a piece of fur or of a cloud.

The electrons are therefore rather like a very low-density glue-like viscous fluid surrounding the nuclei and making up the spatial extent of the atom, transparent for neutrons but not for other electrons. Chemists draw the shape of these fluid clouds (more precisely, the electron density) as orbitals. Electrons show up as particles only under particular circumstances; e.g., in detectors such as Geiger counters."

Metaphysical philosophical/theological claim based on your religious agenda (Buddhism), and not science nor Tong's video, particularly if you watch all the lectures..

You're making things up. What I said here is neither philosophical nor theological.

It sure is based on your Buddhist metaphysical philosophical/theological interpretations and assumptions.

Science is not necessarily the standard I am using to determining the true nature of things.

I am merely using it as a means to communicate to those who think it is. Tong takes us to the threshold of scientific knowledge.

It is the necessary standard of Tong and the other lecturers on the you tube you cited,

I am merely completing the picture, but Tong says in so many words, that what we call 'material reality' comes out of nothing, which are the Quantum fluctuations in the vacuum. It is these Quantum fluctuations that are the same thing as 'bundles of energy' that you are calling 'real' particles. They are no such thing. 'Particle' is an outdated term for what we used to think of as basic material building blocks of the macro world. And it is because of that, that the title of the video reads as 'Quantum Fields: the REAL building blocks of the universe' (as compared to 'particles' which are not.)

No problem with particles are not the real building blocks of the macro world. The micro world of Quantum Mechanics is the REAL foundation of the macro world. The particles remain REAL in the macro world. and make up REAL atoms.

You are misusing Tong to justify your religious (Buddhism) agenda.

 

[Polymath257]

A = A. That's all you're saying, really.

No, if that is what I meant, I would have said that.

From what you just said, part of the rock is not part of the Universe, with the other part of the rock being separate from the Universe; ALL of the rock is part of the Universe, correct? What that can only mean is that 100% of the rock is integrated into the Universe.

Yes, that is what it means to be *part* of the universe. But it is NOT the case that *all* of the universe is in the rock. So the rock is not *one* with the universe.

All interaction is in reality the activity of The Universe. IOW, there is not a 'rock' over here, and the Universe over there, with interaction going on between them; the 'rock, the Universe, and the entire process of interaction is a single Reality. The problem with your approach is that you have been trained to see things in a scientific manner and that means dissection and reduction, all of which go on in the mind. So you see 'this part' separate from 'that'. You are seeing reality in terms of a highly conditioned, and might I add, controlled view, but are not aware of this subject/object split existing in the mind.

Right again, the rocks are part of the universe and different parts of the universe are interacting with each other. These are validly different parts that tend to interact as a whole with little interaction except across the boundaries.

And no, that means it is NOT simply in the mind. I do understand what you are saying, but I think it is wrong.

 

[gnostic]

No, gnostic. You didn't watch the video because you are afraid of the truth.

Why are you so insistent in me in watching the video on Tong?

There would be no point in me watching it, when I can see that ecco and shunyadragon watched them, and pointing how you keep taking Tong’s lecture out of context.

Even when you are not talking about the video, when you talk about science, you have the tendency of twisting it around to suit your warped version of Buddhism.

And when people disagree with you, especially when they correct you about this or that, you will to us, that physicists don’t have any real answers, but mystics do.

Which is really a load of crocks.

Here, you are boasting what the all-knowing mystics can do:

Even if physics did have all the answers, they still would not know what energy is, contrary to the self-assured sterile definition that Polymath posted. They know how it behaves, can make predictions, and what the mechanisms are, but can never tell you exactly what it is. For that, you need a kind of knowledge that is different than the kind that is the result of Reason, Logic, and Analysis. In short, the method of the investigation determines what the outcome will look like, contrary to what science likes to think of itself, as being 'objective'. There are things beyond the reach of such methods. Some physicists, like Planck, Goswami, Capra, Hagelin, Penrose, and others have realized this, and have gone on from the strict materialist paradigm.

Contrary to what the physicists tell us; that you have to understand the math in order to understand Quantum Physics; that's so much hype. They themselves don't actually have an understanding about what it is they are dealing with. They only understand mechanisms, but lack the bigger picture. They absolutely hate it when mystics who do have the bigger picture interpret the scientific 'findings'.

So what discoveries have mystics found?

What is this “energy” that physicists don’t know or don’t understand?

 

[godnotgod]

.

gng has repeatedly claimed there are no particles. He quotes Tong as saying "There are no particles". He ignores the context of the comment and ignores all other references made by Tong that clearly show gng is completely wrong about Tong's beliefs.

When Tong said "There are no particles", he was clearly implying that particles are not the basic building blocks of the Universe; energy fields are the basic building blocks of particles and of the Universe.

The title of the talk as shown on the screen is "Quantum Fields: The Real Building Blocks ..."

Did gng just somehow miss that?

Quantum Fields are not blocks; they are fields of energy. 'Building Blocks' is just a manner of speech used to point up the fact that, contrary to public and previously held scientific opinion, particles are NOT the fundamental nature of the Universe; The Quantum Field is it's source.

When Tong said: "there are no particles in the world", he meant that there are no material substances in the world. He makes this perfectly clear (no implication) when he then identifies 'particles' as 'bundles of energy'. Show me where 'bundles of energy' can be material particles. He is just using the term 'particles' because that is the term everyone has been using all along. He's trying to make clear that, even though we still use this term, there are, in actual fact, no such things. What is it about 'bundles of ENERGY' that you don't understand? What you are doing is adding crap into what he is saying that doesn't actually exist to suit your own conceptual framework. Tong is NOT implying what you claim; that is just your fabrication from whole cloth.

Around 20 minutes Tong says:

"Ripples of quantum fields are tied into bundles of energy. This is what we call the particle - the electron. These energy fields are the basic building blocks of everything."​

Yes, fool: 'bundles of energy' are what we only CALL 'the particle', not that they ARE the particle. Their true nature is that of energy, not matter. He is using the term 'particle' as a convention of speech only. Learn how to read before you post such glaring errors in logic and comprehension.​

To further show that Tong does believe in particles, he refers to the Higgs Boson as a particle and shows a chart of Quarks.

He doesn't 'believe in any such thing. 'Higgs Boson' referred to as 'particle' = convention of speech. As he already established: 'bundles of energy' are what we 'call' 'particles'.

Out of that entire one hour video, gng took one short sentence and intentionally misrepresented it's meaning. This is something that people of his ilk repeatedly do. It's their stock in trade. They'll take a scientific comment or fact and turn and twist it until it is barely recognizable and proudly proclaim: See - science corroborates my nonsensical mystical views.

Yes, indeedy! People of my 'ilk' (barf) should be institutionalized.

Such a pity that people of your ilk still don't know how to use the tool you so highly prize: Logic. On top of that, you use it in a corrupted manner with authority and without blinking an eyelash. It's called LYING! You will do anything to defend the dead materialist paradigm you so dearly cling to for security, won't you? Well, it's time to let some light and fresh air into that stuffy old chamber. *cough*

Consider your argument demolished in a pile of rubble. If I see it again, I will kill it again.

 

[godnotgod]

Going on vacation - carry on.

Toodles. Enjoy those bundles of energy, now.

 

[godnotgod]

No, if that is what I meant, I would have said that.

It may not be what you meant, but is IS what you said. I don't think you actually know what you mean at this point. That's OK, though. Confusion is the beginning of knowledge.

Yes, that is what it means to be *part* of the universe. But it is NOT the case that *all* of the universe is in the rock. So the rock is not *one* with the universe.

I did not say that " *all* of the universe is in the rock": I said that all of the rock is fully integrated into the Universe. That means that the rock is one with the Universe, as everything else is. Why? Because we live in The Uni-verse. Having said that, it is true that 'all of the Universe is actually in the rock, and in everything else, a discussion for another time.* Think about it, but don't think too hard. Just see what is, that's all.

Right again, the rocks are part of the universe and different parts of the universe are interacting with each other. These are validly different parts that tend to interact as a whole with little interaction except across the boundaries.

There are no 'validly different parts' to the Universe. That's just a conceptual framework created by the mind. The reality is of a seamless and singular Universe, that is not a collection of different 'things', but of a single Reality that is in flux with itself. There may be regions that have more flux than others, but at no time are these activities separate 'things' acting upon the whole, or vice versa. Your level of magnification is too severe. Back off. You have been hypnotized.

And no, that means it is NOT simply in the mind. I do understand what you are saying, but I think it is wrong.[/QUOTE]

Your subject/object split is showing. Heal that first, and then come back with a new way of looking at Reality. You may even come to love Quantum Physics. But I do want to help you, so I will provide a hint for impetus:

Q: Who, or what is it that is making observations of The Universe? Is it something or someone separate from the Universe, or is it the Universe itself? Careful how you answer.

*hint: 'holographic universe'

 

[godnotgod]

You are taking Tong's description out of context. You have to listen to the whole lectures in context. It describes particles as real objective verifiable objects in the macro world.

I am simply quoting Tong in the context of the complete video. He never once alluded to having to go to other videos in order to understand what he is saying. What he said in one video is perfectly clear. Why would he say one thing in one video and contradict himself in another? Why would he deliberately mid-lead his audience? As a scientist, he would know that if some people only attended this one lecture, they would have the wrong information. He would have explained what he meant, but he did not say: "There are no particles", and then in the same video say: 'Particles are real things'. In fact, he said the exact opposite. He then clarified the fact that what we call 'particles' are 'bundles of energy'; he never once said that particles are 'real' objects.

Requires your metaphysical interpretation of the macro world based on a religious agenda (Buddhism}.

I never alluded to Buddhism as the basis of my argument, though I sometimes use examples from Buddhism, Hinduism, and Taoism to add a larger view to the narrow scientific materialist viewpoint. I am speaking from the POV of insight into the nature of things. Insight into the nature of things is not a doctrine or a religion. It is the way things are. Science and religion attempt to tell us how they are via limited conceptual frameworks.

The micro world of the 'Quantum World of Quantum nothing' forms the foundation of the macro world.

Right. What I've been saying all along: Everything comes out of Nothing. The world is an illusion. Only consciousness, the ultimate 'No-thing', is real.

The empty space is not empty.

Tong says it is. You say it isn't. I'll go with Tong, not a geologist.

Metaphysical philosophical/theological claim based on your religious agenda (Buddhism), and not science nor Tong's video, particularly if you watch all the lectures..

It sure is based on your Buddhist metaphysical philosophical/theological interpretations and assumptions.

You have Buddhism wrong! It is neither a philosophy nor a theology. It is the direct experiential apprehension of Reality itself, without doctrine of any kind. But I am not speaking from the Buddhist POV in referring to the material world being an illusion. Tong agrees with me that 'particles' are non-existent. He says so at least a couple time in the video.

THERE IS NO MATERIAL REALITY!

No materialist physicist has demonstrated where the original matter came from. It is a hard (no pun) problem that will never be solved because matter is an illusion of the mind. As Tong tells us several times, 'particles' are in reality, 'bundles of energy'. Bundles of energy are not matter, BUT THEY APPEAR AS MATTER. We live in a world of appearances. When we awaken from the dream we are in, we will know that to be the case. Until then, we will go on convinced of a 'material' reality based on sensory experience, not realizing there are higher states of conscious awareness that show us clearly the illusory nature of these experiences, and that the only true reality is beyond all perceptual experience. That true reality is NO-THING, out of which EVERYTHING comes. It can be no other way, once you get a glimpse and pierce the facade of materialism. The ordinary man is beating the dead horse of materialism because he puts stock in his thinking mind, and not in his consciousness.

It is the necessary standard of Tong and the other lecturers on the you tube you cited

Which is why I posted it, so materialist science types can hear a scientist tell us that the material world is not material; it is energy. I, a mystic, am not saying it; Tong is saying it.

No problem with particles are not the real building blocks of the macro world. The micro world of Quantum Mechanics is the REAL foundation of the macro world. The particles remain REAL in the macro world. and make up REAL atoms.

Nope. Fluctuations in the Quantum Field, aka 'bundles of energy', make up the macro world. The world is made of fields, not particles, 'particles' merely being ripples on the surface of the field, just as waves are ripples on the surface of the ocean. There are no separate waves; 'waves' are the ocean, playing itself as 'waves'.

You are misusing Tong to justify your religious (Buddhism) agenda.

Throughout, I have been pristinely faithful not only to the letter, but to the spirit, of Tong's Law. You and the others here are the deviants, always pointing away from his words in a vain effort to protect the crumbling materialist paradigm.

Buddhism? Ha! Buddhism is just a finger pointing to the moon, but is not the moon itself. You are attached to the pointing finger, and deny yourself an eye-opening glimpse of the moon.

Buddhism has no agenda or god, and requires no justification. It is what it is without apology. It is just trying to help others see things as they are to end their metaphysical anxiety and suffering due to their own ignorance.

 

[shunyadragon]

I am simply quoting Tong in the context of the complete video. He never once alluded to having to go to other videos in order to understand what he is saying. What he said in one video is perfectly clear. Why would he say one thing in one video and contradict himself in another? Why would he deliberately mid-lead his audience? As a scientist, he would know that if some people only attended this one lecture, they would have the wrong information. He would have explained what he meant, but he did not say: "There are no particles", and then in the same video say: 'Particles are real things'. In fact, he said the exact opposite. He then clarified the fact that what we call 'particles' are 'bundles of energy'; he never once said that particles are 'real' objects.

No, you are not simply quoting Tong. You have consistently misrepresented him by selective quotes to justify your religious agenda.

The whole lecture series is simply based on standard physics and Quantum Mechanics, and you are making 'much a do about nothing'

Right. What I've been saying all along: Everything comes out of Nothing. The world is an illusion. Only consciousness, the ultimate 'No-thing', is real.

This represents a Buddhist metaphysical assertion you say you do not make,

You have Buddhism wrong! It is neither a philosophy nor a theology. It is the direct experiential apprehension of Reality itself, without doctrine of any kind. But I am not speaking from the Buddhist POV in referring to the material world being an illusion. Tong agrees with me that 'particles' are non-existent. He says so at least a couple time in the video.

THERE IS NO MATERIAL REALITY!

This represents a Buddhist metaphysical philosophical/theological assertion you say you do not make,

 

[gnostic]

I am simply quoting Tong in the context of the complete video. He never once alluded to having to go to other videos in order to understand what he is saying. What he said in one video is perfectly clear. Why would he say one thing in one video and contradict himself in another? Why would he deliberately mid-lead his audience? As a scientist, he would know that if some people only attended this one lecture, they would have the wrong information. He would have explained what he meant, but he did not say: "There are no particles", and then in the same video say: 'Particles are real things'. In fact, he said the exact opposite. He then clarified the fact that what we call 'particles' are 'bundles of energy'; he never once said that particles are 'real' objects.

Excuse me, but saying particles are “bundles of energy”, does not necessarily mean there are “no particles” or that particles don’t exist. You are deliberately misinterpreting Tong’s statement, with your own ignorant belief.

Some particles have mass (eg quarks and leptons, and Z and W bosons), while others don’t eg (photons and gluons). Some have electrical positive or negative charges, while others don’t. And some particles have spins, while others don’t.

I may not have listened to Tong’s video, but I doubt that Tong said particles and matters are illusions.

@shunyadragonor @ecco, did Tong say “matters” are but “illusions”?

I am convinced that godnotgod is making things up about what Tong is saying, because from past experiences with him, indicates that he often twist thing out of proportion just as I suspected as he is doing this now.

But back yo you, godnotgod.

Energy required a source, be the source be from a particle or from a field. Otherwise energy cannot exist.

And you talk of quantum theory, such as quantum fields and yet, you have not understood a single anything about it.


You wrote:

Nope. Fluctuations in the Quantum Field, aka 'bundles of energy', make up the macro world. The world is made of fields, not particles, 'particles' merely being ripples on the surface of the field, just as waves are ripples on the surface of the ocean. There are no separate waves; 'waves' are the ocean, playing itself as 'waves'.

You got that wrong too.

If you look at electric charge, an electron has negative charge. An electron is a particle, one of the lepton particles, and because of the charge, it is surrounded by “electric field”. If the electron don’t exist, then so would electric field not exist.

Electron isn’t an illusion. It is real, and it is attracted to positive charged particle or atom.

Likewise, a proton is a hadron baryonic particle (consisting of 3 quarks). Each quark has charge, which when added up, make +1 electric charge.

If the atom has no electron, or missing one or two electrons, then the positive charged proton will have electric field around it, hence the atom is ionised. But when electrons matched the number of protons, then the atom is stable and electrically neutral, thus no electrical field.

To give you another example, a magnet is a matter, and it is “real”. The magnet has magnetic fields, and will attract some metal object, eg iron. The magnet is a real object, not an illusion, so if you remove a magnet, the magnetic field won’t be there.

The Earth is real, and because the Earth has mass, it is the source for gravitational fields. Gravitational field exert force in all other objects, and it is what keep other matters from floating away into space.

I really think you still haven’t grasp basic science concept, and you are allowing your religion to bias and cloud your judgement.

 

[godnotgod]

No, you are not simply quoting Tong. You have consistently misrepresented him by selective quotes to justify your religious agenda.

Demonstrate to me and to the others on this thread that any quote taken from the video changes the meaning of it when listened to in context. He did not say, for example, that: "there are no particles in the world" (his exact words), and then say: "what I mean to say is that particles do not originate from the world, but from fields".

On top of that, you have yet to demonstrate any such 'religious agenda' I am supposedly justifying. I have no need to do anything of the sort. The mystical view has established the illusory nature of the world centuries ago. Why would we require scientific proof for something we already know to be the case? I'm only presenting the video to demonstrate to those who still think materialism to be the case, that it is not the case. And that is precisely what Tong is saying: 'there are no particles in the world'. There is no other way to understand this statement, along with 'what we call particles are in reality, bundles of energy'. If you still disagree, show me the part of the atom that is materially real.

The whole lecture series is simply based on standard physics and Quantum Mechanics, and you are making 'much a do about nothing'

You best believe I am, and that is because Everything coming out of Nothing is THE most compelling thing for consciousness to realize. Once that event comes into play, your entire view of the world will change dramatically. What science says about the world will remain the same, except for the fact that scientific knowledge will now be placed in the correct context, that of Reality itself, where it should be.

This represents a Buddhist metaphysical assertion you say you do not make.

This represents a Buddhist metaphysical philosophical/theological assertion you say you do not make,

What I have asserted may also be part of the Buddhistic view, but it does not come from Buddhist doctrine perse. The Buddha's realization was beyond all doctrine. It was the direct insight into the true nature of Reality. Buddhist doctrine came after Buddha. What I am saying to you and everyone else is a result of my own realization, but not of any belief system or religious, theological, or philosophical doctrine, and once again: Buddhism is NOT a philosophy, but I guess you would have to understand what Buddhism is to realize that. Buddhism is always an experience in consciousness, never a belief. The Buddha's Enlightenement was a radically transformative experience, in consciousness, not a mere belief. But, judging from your ongoing comments, you will continue on in your own ignorant way, firmly believing your opinions, without going to see for yourself. [/QUOTE]

 

[shunyadragon]

.

@shunyadragonor @ecco, did Tong say “matters” are but “illusions”?

Tong's lectures are a part of a series of lectures on very very standard physics and Quantum Mechanics and nothing more.

@godnotgod is trying desperately try and find a reputable physicist that he can selectively cite and interpret to justify his religious Buddhist agenda.

You continually take exact phrases out of context to justify what you believe.

 

[shunyadragon]

Demonstrate to me and to the others on this thread that any quote taken from the video changes the meaning of it when listened to in context. He did not say, for example, that: "there are no particles in the world" (his exact words), and then say: "what I mean to say is that particles do not originate from the world, but from fields".

This world includes both the micro world of Quantum Mechanics, and the macro world as one physical existence. They are not two different worlds. The fields are a part of this world. Tong does not refer to 'another existence' in different worlds.

I have been over this many times. YOU are taking his words out of context to justify your religious (Buddhist) agenda.

You continually take 'exact phrases' out of context to justify what you believe without considering the context of all the lecturers..

 

[gnostic]

I am simply quoting Tong in the context of the complete video. He never once alluded to having to go to other videos in order to understand what he is saying. What he said in one video is perfectly clear. Why would he say one thing in one video and contradict himself in another? Why would he deliberately mid-lead his audience?

Oh, the irony.

You keep telling me “watch the video”, and when shunyadragon tell you there other videos of his lectures on quantum physics, you ignored these other videos, making excuses not to watch them.

The main reason I did bother to watch the videos, is because I know that you would have selectively quote something and interpret it out of context.

I know from the past that you have brought up the subject, of there being no real object, just “standing waves”, and that you are trying to connect your flawed interpretations and reasonings to justify your cosmic consciousness and ultimate reality craps.

You are definitely no better than the Christian young earth creationists or their Intelligent Design followers. Your belief in a warped zen version of the Brahman, are just as unsubstantiated fantasy as these deluded groups.

 

[godnotgod]

Excuse me, but saying particles are “bundles of energy”, does not necessarily mean there are “no particles” or that particles don’t exist.

If particles are bundles of energy, that means ALL particles are energy, not matter. He also did say that 'there are no particles in the world', which, last time I checked, means that they do not exist.

Logic 101

Some particles have mass (eg quarks and leptons, and Z and W bosons), while others don’t eg (photons and gluons). Some have electrical positive or negative charges, while others don’t. And some particles have spins, while others don’t.

That does not turn 'bundles of energy' into 'particles'. Get it through your head: Tong said there are no particles, and that 'particles' are none other than 'bundles of energy', that's E-N-E-R-G-Y, not matter.

I may not have listened to Tong’s video, but I doubt that Tong said particles and matters are illusions.

He didn't, but I never made the claim that he did. I said that. But if what we have been calling 'particles' are not matter, but energy, and that all particles are in reality only fluctuations in the Quantum Field, as Tong has told us, and further, that the Quantum Vacuum is 'absolutely nothing', then what would you call a particle, if not an illusion that it is materially real? Something that comes out of Nothing is an illusion. I realize you may not feel comfortable with finding out that YOU are an illusion, but that is actually the case. It is your CONSCIOUSNESS that is real, but not a self that is conscious. There is no such 'self'. If you find one, bring it here so we can give it a good whacking.

I am convinced that godnotgod is making things up about what Tong is saying, because from past experiences with him, indicates that he often twist thing out of proportion just as I suspected as he is doing this now.

You cannot show me one thing that I have twisted in any way. Can you?

Energy required a source, be the source be from a particle or from a field. Otherwise energy cannot exist.

The field IS energy; energy IS the field, but it is not matter. It only APPEARS as matter. Formless water, for example, is the fundamental reality to ice, clouds, waves, and snowflakes. It is formless water appearing in those temporal forms, which always return to the state of formless water, their true nature. All material, temporal forms in the macro world are made up of bundles of energy called 'particles', which emerge from, and return to, their fundamental state of energy. Such forms only appear as real 'things', but in reality, are only forms originating from the underlying energy fields.

If you look at electric charge, an electron has negative charge. An electron is a particle, one of the lepton particles, and because of the charge, it is surrounded by “electric field”. If the electron don’t exist, then so would electric field not exist.

Tong says all particles are 'bundles of energy'. Electrons are particles, and therefore, are bundles of energy in the energy field. Particles are bundles of energy.

Electron isn’t an illusion. It is real, and it is attracted to positive charged particle or atom.

Electron is not matter; it is energy. It is not 'real' as in 'material reality'. It is not a material particle. The word 'particle' comes from our previous notion of atoms being composed of matter, called 'particles'. They aren't. They are energy fluctuations in the energy field, 'bumps', if you will.

Likewise, a proton is a hadron baryonic particle (consisting of 3 quarks). Each quark has charge, which when added up, make +1 electric charge.

If the atom has no electron, or missing one or two electrons, then the positive charged proton will have electric field around it, hence the atom is ionised. But when electrons matched the number of protons, then the atom is stable and electrically neutral, thus no electrical field.

If you are smart enough to watch the video, you will hear Tong explain that electrons are part of the matter field, not the electrical field. But even the matter (or material) field is still a field of energy.

To give you another example, a magnet is a matter, and it is “real”. The magnet has magnetic fields, and will attract some metal object, eg iron. The magnet is a real object, not an illusion, so if you remove a magnet, the magnetic field won’t be there.

The magnet is a material illusion itself, but when the magnet is 'removed', the energy in the magnetic field still exists, and goes somewhere, as per the Constancy Laws. If you 'remove' the magnet, the magnetic fields go with the magnet. I think you meant 'destroyed'?

The Earth is real, and because the Earth has mass, it is the source for gravitational fields. Gravitational field exert force in all other objects, and it is what keep other matters from floating away into space.

It's just one field attracting/repelling other fields which contain forms, forms which are made up of bundles of energy called 'particles'. There are no material particles.

I really think you still haven’t grasp basic science concept, and you are allowing your religion to bias and cloud your judgement.

That must mean that I am in the same company with the illustrious Max Planck:

“As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clearheaded science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about the atoms this much: There is no matter as such! All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. . . . We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter.”
― Max Planck, The New Science

 

[godnotgod]

Your belief in a warped zen version of the Brahman....*snip*

ROFLOL. That is probably the most hilarious thing I have heard all year, your warped view of what I may have stated of Zen or Brahman. What on earth is a 'zen version of Brahman'?

 

[gnostic]

Tong's lectures are a part of a series of lectures on very very standard physics and Quantum Mechanics and nothing more.

@godnotgod is trying desperately try and find a reputable physicist that he can selectively cite and interpret to justify his religious Buddhist agenda.

You continually take exact phrases out of context to justify what you believe.

The problem is godnotgod, is trying to unite two competing and opposite religious concepts, from Hinduism and Zen Buddhism.

The thing is the whole consciousness in Hinduism related to Brahman, but their concept is also related to the soul (Atman, which I think it is called), but he has rebranded the Brahman into Buddhist ideology.

Zen is a mongrel case of Buddhism, because it originated from China’s Chan Buddhism, which very early on mixed with some aspects of Taoism. And by the time Chan arrived in Japan in 11th or 12th century (I don’t remember when exactly, because my history knowledge of japan and Japanese religions are limited), it a bit of foreign influences Buddhism again, this time from Shinto, coloured it.

And all last year, I couldn’t understand why godnotgod’s religion is so bewildering confusing. Because one moment, I thought he might be a Hindu, but the next moment he was showing sign that he is Buddhist, then back again to being Hindu.

And then it hit me, I only recently discovered why I cannot pinpoint his religion, because he mixed them up together, creating a mongrel religion.

He clearly followed Brahman, but Brahman don’t actually exist in Zen Buddhism. Well, not unless he coloured it.

And to you, @godnotgod, you wrote this...

The bigger mistake is for you to trash a rich heritage and culture of which you are completely ignorant of. Such a pity, really, especially in light of the fact that, as I understand it, you yourself are of Asian descent.

Yes, I am Asian, or Chinese to be more precise, but my parents followed mixture of Taoism and Shen folk religion, not Buddhism.

How do you expect me to proud of heritage that I never followed, nor brought up in?

 

[godnotgod]

This world includes both the micro world of Quantum Mechanics, and the macro world as one physical existence. They are not two different worlds. The fields are a part of this world. Tong does not refer to 'another existence' in different worlds.

Who said there are two worlds? I never did, nor did Tong. You're making crap up again, fabrications out of whole cloth.

I have been over this many times. YOU are taking his words out of context to justify your religious (Buddhist) agenda.

You continually take 'exact phrases' out of context to justify what you believe without considering the context of all the lecturers..[/QUOTE]

BS. Prove it. I have never once alluded to any Buddhist beliefs as they may pertain to anything in the video.

Show me, via demonstration, that anything I quoted from the video changes any meaning Tong may have had in full context. This is my second request for such proof, but you only come up empty handed, trying to degrade my comments by associating them with Buddhism, a cheap shot to be sure, especially when I have already caught you a couple of times demonstrating your ignorance of Buddhist thought.

S**t or get off the pot!

 

[godnotgod]

The problem is godnotgod, is trying to unite two competing and opposite religious concepts, from Hinduism and Zen Buddhism.

The thing is the whole consciousness in Hinduism related to Brahman, but their concept is also related to the soul (Atman, which I think it is called), but he has rebranded the Brahman into Buddhist ideology.

Zen is a mongrel case of Buddhism, because it originated from China’s Chan Buddhism, which very early on mixed with some aspects of Taoism. And by the time Chan arrived in Japan in 11th or 12th century (I don’t remember when exactly, because my history knowledge of japan and Japanese religions are limited), it a bit of foreign influences Buddhism again, this time from Shinto, coloured it.

And all last year, I couldn’t understand why godnotgod’s religion is so bewildering confusing. Because one moment, I thought he might be a Hindu, but the next moment he was showing sign that he is Buddhist, then back again to being Hindu.

And then it hit me, I only recently discovered why I cannot pinpoint his religion, because he mixed them up together, creating a mongrel religion.

He clearly followed Brahman, but Brahman don’t actually exist in Zen Buddhism. Well, not unless he coloured it.

And to you, @godnotgod, you wrote this...


Yes, I am Asian, or Chinese to be more precise, but my parents followed mixture of Taoism and Shen folk religion, not Buddhism.

How do you expect me to proud of heritage that I never followed, nor brought up in?

I never suggested that you be proud of anything; I said:

"The bigger mistake is for you to trash a rich heritage and culture of which you are completely ignorant of. Such a pity, really, especially in light of the fact that, as I understand it, you yourself are of Asian descent"

Is it clear to you now that you make mistakes in reading comprehension? Another poster, ben d pointed this out as well in discussions with him.

Fortunately, Zen and Hinduisms are off topic here, so I refuse to address your post, above. If you wish me to respond, start a new thread on the topic and I will be glad to address your delusions concerning Zen and Buddhism. But if you wish to try to show how I am trying to jusify any religious agenda with the video in question, then my all means, please proceed.

If you never followed nor was exposed to your culture's world views, I suggest you go look and see for yourself, leaving your baggage at the door.

 

[godnotgod]

Even when you are not talking about the video, when you talk about science, you have the tendency of twisting it around to suit your warped version of Buddhism.

And when people disagree with you, especially when they correct you about this or that, you will to us, that physicists don’t have any real answers, but mystics do.

I never said that. With all due respect to science, it is still a narrow view of reality, providing us with only the characteristics and behavior, but not the meat of Reality. It tries to tell us how the Universe behaves, but not what it actually IS.

I have not twisted anything re: the content of the video, but have taken off where the video leaves off. Science has a limited view, by definition and scope, but the mystical view is The Big Picture, as it exists here and now. Science gives us bits and pieces in the attempt to someday piece the puzzle all together to come to some epiphanic moment of realization.

 

[gnostic]

If particles are bundles of energy, that means ALL particles are energy, not matter.

Logic 101

First off, science is logic plus evidences.

Without the evidences, the explanations is theoretical, and therefore not a “scientific theory”. A scientific theory has to followed the process of scientific method, which mean verification, and which mean...

OBSERVATION
TESTINGS
EVIDENCES​

Science 101, godnotgod.

Science don’t relied on logic alone.

Theoretical physics relied on conceptual models, mixed with solving equations. Hence, the solution in theoretical physics is abstract, not on verifiable evidences.

The fields in theoretical physics, eg superstring theory (and supersymmetry), multiverse models, oscillating universe model, etc, are so untestable, therefore are not accepted as scientific theory.

Second.

You are ignoring that most particles, not including gluons and photons have masses.

The energy come from mass of the particle. You as a person, contained many different types of molecules and compounds, which when broken down further, a whole bunch of different atoms, mostly of oxygen, hydrogen, carbon and nitrogen, hence you have both mass and energy.

Matters, meaning all those atoms, and smaller particles, have two properties, mass and energy, which are related.

You have potential energy, when you are at rest, but once you start doing work, the store energy turned into kinetic energy, which means the energy is the measurement of work done.

Mass is what give object or a person - volume, density and shape.

And whenever you calculate energy, except for gluons and photons, be that formula of classical energy (with unit in joules) or that of Einstein’s mass-energy equivalence equation, mass is involved to find the energy.

You keep ignoring mass, which is real.

Sorry, but you are grossly uneducated in matter of science. All you are doing is selectively choosing which parts of science you want to believe, and twist it out of proportion to meet your religious agenda.