What came before the Big Bang?

[idav]

Well, we are now back to my original question: how does the material brain create non-material consciousness? I don't understand why you are making the statement about (1) the brain creating consciousness, and (2) that it is temporal.

The immaterial world, all of it, is a projection of substance/ the material world. Just like a real projector it takes substance to create the projected illusion. Really everything is just one thing in different forms and vibrational frequencies but still material, whether it is something we can see or not doesn't matter. However the energy and matter and particles popping in and out are not immaterial. Anything with mass is material, the immaterial are forces like gravity. Gravity is a great example of immaterial being a direct result of material mass.

 

[idav]

Yeah! It's called SILENCE. When sound begins and ceases, there is the default state of total silence. Silence is non-local.

Brain activity occurs against the default state of non-local consciousness.

We only think consciousness is local (ie 'my consciousness') because of the self-created mind we call "I" or the self.

I am using TV signals as a metaphor for non-local consciousness. They are present before the TV set is turned on and after it is turned off.

Well we would need evidence that our brains can receive and process signals like a radio or TV. That's my whole objection, we aren't receiving cosmic data. Everything we can think of is a result of direct interactions with our world.

Edit: One thing that helps this argument is the fact that every part of us has been around since the beginning of the universe. That can count for the interaction I'm looking for and in a real physical sense.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

The immaterial world, all of it, is a projection of substance/ the material world. Just like a real projector it takes substance to create the projected illusion. Really everything is just one thing in different forms and vibrational frequencies but still material, whether it is something we can see or not doesn't matter. However the energy and matter and particles popping in and out are not immaterial. Anything with mass is material, the immaterial are forces like gravity. Gravity is a great example of immaterial being a direct result of material mass.

From what I understand when physicists speak of energy they are referring to what "stuff has" not an actual thing. So energy would be immaterial I believe.

However the reason I don't buy the illusion idea is because if I take a photo of something, leave it for 20 years and go back in 20 years the photo of what I had taken stays the same even if what had been there has change. So something obviously existed there, something obviously was removed form there. It is hard for me to even fathom this idea that it's all some giant non-substance base illusion. The properties that we perceive may not necessarily be correct (though who is to say what is "correct"), but something is obviously there.

 

[idav]

From what I understand when physicists speak of energy they are referring to what "stuff has" not an actual thing. So energy would be immaterial I believe.

However the reason I don't buy the illusion idea is because if I take a photo of something, leave it for 20 years and go back in 20 years the photo of what I had taken stays the same even if what had been there has change. So something obviously existed there, something obviously was removed form there. It is hard for me to even fathom this idea that it's all some giant non-substance base illusion. The properties that we perceive may not necessarily be correct (though who is to say what is "correct"), but something is obviously there.

I figure that since energy is just another form of matter then energy is some sort of stuff, that is, it is as much stuff as anything else is including matter. I mentioned mass because in the atom you have various particles and forces, some with mass, some without. Anything "immaterial" in an atom, other than space, would be a product of something material and likely material with some sort of mass.

With our experiments we have mapped out all the atomic particles and there is definitely something there, just at specific frequencies. The immaterial portions of matter would be dependent on the stuff that is there. For example, the higgs boson is giving everything mass and keeping everything from flying a part, and I believe that the higgs boson should count as some sort of stuff or substance. If there were nothing there, there wouldn't be any boson to look for in the first place.

I've heard people talking about virtual particles. Is that supposed to mean it is virtually a particle, almost but not quite? Particles popping in and out of existence doesn't really work for me, there are likely more reasonable explanations, like the boson is always there in the atom but just pops in and out of where we happen to be looking.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I figure that since energy is just another form of matter

It isn't. Not in physics anyway.

 

[idav]

It isn't. Not in physics anyway.

The maths say otherwise. Matter formed when the plasma/energy from the big bang had enough time to cool down and become something else. What am I missing here? It is all relative to frequency, mass, energy etc. Something is gained on one end and gets lost on the other end which is what relativity alludes to.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

The maths say otherwise. Matter formed when the plasma/energy from the big bang had enough time to cool down and become something else. What am I missing here? It is all relative to frequency, mass, energy etc. Something is gained on one end and gets lost on the other end which is what relativity alludes to.

Well I don't think particles are energy, they are matter and they have energy. I think the implication is that at the singularity all matter was compressed into one point that was infinitely dense and hot, and then at one point it all expanded and as the heat dissipated among the matter things cool down and started clumping together due to gravity.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

The maths say otherwise.

If you are referring to equivalence relations like Einstein's equation, then you are mistaking what the mathematical relation means. It doesn't equate matter and energy but establishes a relationship between the two for any physical system. You may as well say that matter is equivalent to work (we have mathematical relations here as well). Rest mass and potential energy are properties of systems the way that mass is (usually- there are a few exceptions). Matter is the physical substance that makes up a system whereas energy describes other properties that relate to e.g., angular momentum or velocity. The famous equation that relates energy and mass has other forms which relate energy not to mass and the speed of light squared but mass and speed. Yet we don't say matter is another form of speed.

Matter formed when the plasma/energy from the big bang had enough time to cool down and become something else.

Before there were things like electrons and quarks we don't know what was going on. However, plasma isn't energy. It's a state of matter.

Something is gained on one end and gets lost on the other end which is what relativity alludes to.

If you mean (again) the equivalence relation between matter and energy then yes, certain losses mean certain gains. If you accelerate while driving a car, you increase the amount of energy it has because the energy of a system is function of both mass and speed. When you slow down, you decrease the amount of energy. None of this makes either mass or speed the same thing as energy

 

[idav]

If you are referring to equivalence relations like Einstein's equation, then you are mistaking what the mathematical relation means. It doesn't equate matter and energy but establishes a relationship between the two for any physical system. You may as well say that matter is equivalent to work (we have mathematical relations here as well). Rest mass and potential energy are properties of systems the way that mass is (usually- there are a few exceptions). Matter is the physical substance that makes up a system whereas energy describes other properties that relate to e.g., angular momentum or velocity. The famous equation that relates energy and mass has other forms which relate energy not to mass and the speed of light squared but mass and speed. Yet we don't say matter is another form of speed.



Before there were things like electrons and quarks we don't know what was going on. However, plasma isn't energy. It's a state of matter.

If you mean (again) the equivalence relation between matter and energy then yes, certain losses mean certain gains. If you accelerate while driving a car, you increase the amount of energy it has because the energy of a system is function of both mass and speed. When you slow down, you decrease the amount of energy. None of this makes either mass or speed the same thing as energy

I had watched a long video on some physics people talking about what energy is and they talked about the forming of the universe and energy eventually becoming matter. They said that the beginning of the universe would be a "pure" state of energy, whatever that means. The way they explained it is that the mass is the energy of matter. When energy becomes matter you end up with gravity left over, which corresponds to the relativity maths in that energy has a correspondence to mass. Energy becomes matter when enough energy clumps together to create a particle with mass.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I had watched a long video on some physics people talking about what energy is

They may well have been using an informal definition. We talk about energy in terms of things like what we feel we have more of when we drink coffee, the sun and its effects, electricity, nuclear power, etc. Energy in physics is much more specific. It is a property of systems distinct from both matter and mass.

Energy becomes matter when enough energy clumps together to create a particle with mass.

In particle physics, fluctuations in energy can result in the appearance of virtual particles, but these are not energy. They pop into existence as a result of energy fluctuations yet they are not themselves "units" of energy or otherwise equivalent to energy.

 

[idav]

Energy in physics is much more specific. It is a property of systems distinct from both matter and mass.

Of course they are distinct but both matter and energy come from the same place. It is either matter or energy but this doesn't stop energy from becoming matter or vice versa. Energy = mass at higher frequencies. Energy is mass vibrating at the speed of light squared. Are you saying energy never becomes matter or vice versa?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

It isn't. Not in physics anyway.

How about the reciprocity of E=MC^2 and M=E/C^2, doesn't this imply they are of the same essence?

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

How about the reciprocity of E=MC^2 and M=E/C^2, doesn't this imply they are of the same essence?

M is for Mass not Matter.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

How about the reciprocity of E=MC^2 and M=E/C^2, doesn't this imply they are of the same essence?

No. That's the equivalence relation I was referring to here:

If you are referring to equivalence relations like Einstein's equation, then you are mistaking what the mathematical relation means. It doesn't equate matter and energy but establishes a relationship between the two for any physical system. You may as well say that matter is equivalent to work (we have mathematical relations here as well). Rest mass and potential energy are properties of systems the way that mass is (usually- there are a few exceptions). Matter is the physical substance that makes up a system whereas energy describes other properties that relate to e.g., angular momentum or velocity. The famous equation that relates energy and mass has other forms which relate energy not to mass and the speed of light squared but mass and speed. Yet we don't say matter is another form of speed.



Before there were things like electrons and quarks we don't know what was going on. However, plasma isn't energy. It's a state of matter.

If you mean (again) the equivalence relation between matter and energy then yes, certain losses mean certain gains. If you accelerate while driving a car, you increase the amount of energy it has because the energy of a system is function of both mass and speed. When you slow down, you decrease the amount of energy. None of this makes either mass or speed the same thing as energy

 

[Ben Dhyan]

M is for Mass not Matter.

Does not mass imply in this context, a quantitative measured aspect of matter as distinct form energy?

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Does not mass imply in this context, a quantitative measured aspect of matter as distinct form energy?

Not necessarily. Mass is in relation to how much resistance something has to a force, Energy is what is the amount of work stuff can do (or something close to that, Legion can correct me).

So I think the formula is saying that given X quantity of stuff (with more mass meaning more resistance, when multiplied by the speed of light (which is a measure of movement), gives you the amount of energy that is produced by that.

 

[idav]

M is for Mass not Matter.

Yes and mass has everything to do with matter.

 

[idav]

So I think the formula is saying that given X quantity of stuff (with more mass meaning more resistance, when multiplied by the speed of light (which is a measure of movement), gives you the amount of energy that is produced by that.

So we know what it takes for mass to become energy. We could flip it and say that mass is equal to Energy divided by the speed of light squared.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

So we know what it takes for mass to become energy. We could flip it and say that mass is equal to Energy divided by the speed of light squared.

Right but mass itself isn't matter, but rather a property of matter. As Energy is what that matter has to do work (and probably more than that, but I find it easier to say work).

So when you say that there is a chair, what you do is in part describe it's properties, those properties describe what that stuff is, so whenever physicist use matter they are talking about stuff, and it's a really vague term. But when they talk about Energy it's something very specific they are talking about.

lol though I might just be confusing the issue.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Not necessarily. Mass is in relation to how much resistance something has to a force, Energy is what is the amount of work stuff can do (or something close to that, Legion can correct me).

So I think the formula is saying that given X quantity of stuff (with more mass meaning more resistance, when multiplied by the speed of light (which is a measure of movement), gives you the amount of energy that is produced by that.

Thank you, though I must say my intuitive sense still tells me there is an underlying unity of matter and energy.

Btw and fwiw, Zero Point Energy, Dark Energy, Higgs Field, the concept of Aether, Spirit, etc, are all seen by their respective adherent's as being omnipresent, and I personally adhere to the understanding that matter is composed of spherical standing waves of such omnipresent cosmic energy frequency continuum background.