What came before the Big Bang?

[LegionOnomaMoi]

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.

The equation isn't really E= mc^2. It's

. The subscript (the naught in E-naught) is because this is only true even in theory for a particle at rest (it's rest energy). For photons and other massless particles, it's E=pc or energy equals momentum times the speed of light. On the other hand, for kinetic energy the equation is

. In general, neither equation relating mass and energy holds true. The required equation for the total energy of a particle is E=

. That bottom part is usually expressed by the Greek letter gamma (just take out the mc^2 and keep the denominator as a denominator only written under the numerator 1). A simpler equation is E= mc^2 + pc.
The point is that the equation doesn't define energy as mass. It tells you that some physical system with x amount of energy travelling at y speed must have z mass, or that a physical system with z mass and x energy must be going at y speed, or that a physical system with z mass going at y speed must have x energy. These are all properties of physical systems in relativistic physics, but they do not define energy, mass, or speed. These are defined already as properties of physical systems (including those which aren't intuitively physical such as massless particles).

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

The equation isn't really E= mc^2. It's

. The subscript (the naught in E-naught) is because this is only true even in theory for a particle at rest (it's rest energy). For photons and other massless particles, it's E=pc or energy equals momentum times the speed of light. On the other hand, for kinetic energy the equation is

. In general, neither equation relating mass and energy holds true. The required equation for the total energy of a particle is E=

. That bottom part is usually expressed by the Greek letter gamma (just take out the mc^2 and keep the denominator as a denominator only written under the numerator 1). A simpler equation is E= mc^2 + pc.
The point is that the equation doesn't define energy as mass. It tells you that some physical system with x amount of energy travelling at y speed must have z mass, or that a physical system with z mass and x energy must be going at y speed, or that a physical system with z mass going at y speed must have x energy. These are all properties of physical systems in relativistic physics, but they do not define energy, mass, or speed. These are defined already as properties of physical systems (including those which aren't intuitively physical such as massless particles).

I like to think that's what I said, but I'm not sure lol.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I like to think that's what I said, but I'm not sure lol.

What you said was clearer, simpler, and therefore better. I get more than a little obsessive when it comes to details, that's all.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

What you said was clearer, simpler, and therefore better. I get more than a little obsessive when it comes to details, that's all.

Details Also means you know your stuff. I'm looking forward to finishing with my current masters so I can turn my focus to my hobbies, understanding physics being one of them.

 

[idav]

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.

Thats understandable. There is still a correlation because gravity is matter doing work due to mass. So gravity can be seen as a form of energy that is inherent within matter because of how mass is relative to energy.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Thats understandable. There is still a correlation because gravity is matter doing work due to mass. So gravity can be seen as a form of energy that is inherent within matter because of how mass is relative to energy.

Mass isn't relative to energy. And although technically there is a correlation between mass, energy, and speed (because changes in any one of these will tend to change the others), a better word would probably be "relation". It's only a correlation in the purely mathematical sense.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Thats understandable. There is still a correlation because gravity is matter doing work due to mass. So gravity can be seen as a form of energy that is inherent within matter because of how mass is relative to energy.

I'm not sure what gravity can be seen as.

It doesn't seem to be a form of energy, as when people talk of gravity they look at the attraction that it brings between things. But that attraction isn't necessarily a form of energy. It can produce energy, because it can cause movement, which can lead to collisions. But what gravity is, I'm not sure I can even become to really postulate how it works, it doesn't seem to work like magnetism, the only pre-requisite that it seems to have is mass, and since I would think all matter has some form of mass, everything produces a gravitational effect.

 

[idav]

Mass isn't relative to energy. And although technically there is a correlation between mass, energy, and speed (because changes in any one of these will tend to change the others), a better word would probably be "relation". It's only a correlation in the purely mathematical sense.

Its a correlation in a math sense because it represents something real.

I'm not sure what gravity can be seen as.

It doesn't seem to be a form of energy, as when people talk of gravity they look at the attraction that it brings between things. But that attraction isn't necessarily a form of energy. It can produce energy, because it can cause movement, which can lead to collisions. But what gravity is, I'm not sure I can even become to really postulate how it works, it doesn't seem to work like magnetism, the only pre-requisite that it seems to have is mass, and since I would think all matter has some form of mass, everything produces a gravitational effect.

It is doing work due to the attraction. Of course gravity is a whole other ballgame as it does what it does by bending space itself.

I feel this phrase rings true somewhat. "Today a young man on acid realized that matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, we are all consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, theres no such thing as death and life is but a dream with the imagination of ourselves. ......" Bill Hicks

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Its a correlation in a math sense because it represents something real.

Fair enough. Just as long as it is understood that correlation doesn't mean mass and energy are interchangeable. They are different things.

Of course gravity is a whole other ballgame as it does what it does by bending space itself.

Actually, it'd be more accurate to say that gravity is the bending of spacetime itself.

I feel this phrase rings true somewhat. "Today a young man on acid realized that matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, we are all consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, theres no such thing as death and life is but a dream with the imagination of ourselves. ......" Bill Hicks

It may ring true, but it isn't physics.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Fair enough. Just as long as it is understood that correlation doesn't mean mass and energy are interchangeable. They are different things.


Actually, it'd be more accurate to say that gravity is the bending of spacetime itself.


It may ring true, but it isn't physics.

Just watched a video lecture on youtube that standford put up by Leonard Susskind and they just went over the E=MC2 formula.

So Gravity from what I understand is considered to be the "indentations made by matter in the fabric of spacetime"

So if Space/time was a bed sheet, gravity is the dents or valleys made by things put on that bed sheet.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Just watched a video lecture on youtube that standford put up by Leonard Susskind

He's got some great lectures. I've been watching his recently released Advanced Quantum Mechanics series and have been enjoying these.

So Gravity from what I understand is considered to be the "indentations made by matter in the fabric of spacetime"

Spacetime curvature, yes. Which lecture series were you watching? I think a link to the lecture would probably be useful for people here.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

He's got some great lectures. I've been watching his recently released Advanced Quantum Mechanics series and have been enjoying these.


Spacetime curvature, yes. Which lecture series were you watching? I think a link to the lecture would probably be useful for people here.

[youtube]2eFvVzNF24g[/youtube]
Lecture 1 | New Revolutions in Particle Physics: Basic Concepts - YouTube

It's the basic concepts lecture.

Most of it is still rather over my head. It's such a tight woven connection of science and mathematics, that Its hard to not just go "nah ya'll make things up"

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

It's the basic concepts lecture.

I've watched some of this course. Not bad at all.

Its hard to not just go "nah ya'll make things up"

I often wonder whether physicists simply figured everything out at Copenhagen and then realized that they'd be out of a job and are now having fun seeing how much junk they can get everybody to believe:
"What if we tell them the fundamental constituents of the universe are yarn, or string, or something?"
"Nah, they'll never believe something so outrageous. We only sold them on the made up dimensions of spacetime because nobody can really think in more than 3 or 4 dimensions."
"Well, let's try it. We'll call it string theory in honor of Schrödinger's cat."

 

[idav]

Just watched a video lecture on youtube that standford put up by Leonard Susskind and they just went over the E=MC2 formula.

So Gravity from what I understand is considered to be the "indentations made by matter in the fabric of spacetime"

So if Space/time was a bed sheet, gravity is the dents or valleys made by things put on that bed sheet.

Gravity is that powerful. Legion is correct about it is about measurements in motion but there is more to it I think. The reason for the speed of light squared is because energy in motion corresponds to the mass and thus its gravitational effect. Which to me spells out how matter can be energy at a slower vibration. The math shows that.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Gravity is that powerful.

Gravity is that, not that powerful. It doesn't cause curvature in spacetime, it is the curves in spacetime.

The reason for the speed of light squared is because energy in motion corresponds to the mass

Energy doesn't move.

The math shows that.

The math is very specific in ascribing to some system variables with certain values. The equations do not involve motion but rather what a system (which may be moving at some speed) has in terms of values of certain properties that relate to one another.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

How about the force of gravity being a macro Casimir Effect, ie. that only the smaller wavelengths of the ZPE continuum can resonate between material objects based on the distance between them, but all those wavelengths plus the larger wavelength energy exists on the other side hence leading to a higher energy level and thus causes a pushing effect conducive to bringing objects closer together.

If it is shown to be working thus at the quantum level, why would the principle not also be in effect across the whole continuum of vibration and space?

 

[godnotgod]

Matter produces energy, energy as far as I know is immaterial, yet matter is material...so how does something that is material produce something that is immaterial.

It appears to me that your analogy with my example is faulty.

Firstly, does matter actually produce energy? The potential for energy is inherent in matter, and when a reaction occurs, that energy is released, not produced. Were it actually produced, matter would be unchanged, but in actuality, the mass of the material in question is reduced. Wood, for example, is reduced to ash when it is burned and the energy released. The energy released can be measured in terms of space and time.

Consciousness cannot be measured in this way. It is truly non-material, existing outside of space and time. It is more of a state, rather than a process.

The analogy of a material brain producing non-material consciousness is not the same as the mass of matter 'producing' non-material energy.

So how does the brain 'create' consciousness? What is the pathway, or mechanism, by which this occurs?

Again, I use the metaphor of a TV set, which does not create TV signals, but merely receives and transmits them, and which are present prior to the TV set being turned on, and present when the TV set is turned off. They are non-local. The TV set is not 'producing' the signals. Likewise, the brain is not 'producing' consciousness, consciousness being non-local, rather than local.

Science tells us that space-time was created during the BB. That means that space-time did not exist prior to that, but this is saying that the material universe was created out of a state where there was no space or time. The problem is that what we call the 'material' universe is thought of as real, hard matter. But if it is not real, then it must be some kind of apparition, which would make 'sense' in terms of it emerging from a state where no time or space exists, such as consciousness.

Transformational Causation

Now the rules that govern transformational causation are very well understood... The energy that goes into an operation at the beginning comes out at the end. Although the form of the energy may change, you never get any new energy that way. It's like pouring gold. You melt it and pour it into a set of forms. Then you remelt it and pour it into another set of forms. You never get rich that way. No matter how many times you remelt it, you never get any new gold. Transformational causation is like that. What you put in at the beginning comes out at the end. It is governed by the conservation laws. Whether it's matter, energy, momentum or electrical charge -- whatever you put in at the beginning comes out at the end. And since the Universe is made out of energy, the changes of which are governed by these conservation laws, the Universe cannot have arisen through transformational causation. It cannot have come out of nothing.

Apparitional Causation

But what [is] referred to as apparitional causation is a very different thing. When you mistake a rope for a snake, the rope is not transformed into a snake. It's just a mistake, and it's something you're doing now. So the question is not: "How did the Absolute become the Universe?" That can't be answered. The Absolute has not become the Universe...

'The universe IS the Absolute as seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation'
Vivikenanda

http://quanta-gaia.org/dobson/EquationsOfMaya.html

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

It appears to me that your analogy with my example is faulty.

Firstly, does matter actually produce energy? The potential for energy is inherent in matter, and when a reaction occurs, that energy is released, not produced. Were it actually produced, matter would be unchanged, but in actuality, the mass of the material in question is reduced. Wood, for example, is reduced to ash when it is burned and the energy released. The energy released can be measured in terms of space and time.

Consciousness cannot be measured in this way. It is truly non-material, existing outside of space and time. It is more of a state, rather than a process.

The analogy of a material brain producing non-material consciousness is not the same as the mass of matter 'producing' non-material energy.

So how does the brain 'create' consciousness? What is the pathway, or mechanism, by which this occurs?

Again, I use the metaphor of a TV set, which does not create TV signals, but merely receives and transmits them, and which are present prior to the TV set being turned on, and present when the TV set is turned off. They are non-local. The TV set is not 'producing' the signals. Likewise, the brain is not 'producing' consciousness, consciousness being non-local, rather than local.

Then let me put it like this. Energy is what stuff has. Either potential when it is at rest in relative to other things, or Kinetic when it is moving. You're also interchanging mass and matter. Matter has mass, so when you burn wood you still have stuff, the stuff is now in a different state, the mass and energy though of the system remains the same. Neither mass or energy are destroyed or created so on that point you are correct.

Does the brain create consciousness? Not in the way you are trying to perceive it, the brain is not a receiver either, but consciousness is a product of a complex interaction of the brain and the body and the environment.

 

[godnotgod]

You're also interchanging mass and matter.

No. That's not what I said. I said that the mass of matter releases it's potential energy when a reaction takes place, such as when wood is burned, 'mass' being a property of matter.

.... consciousness is a product of a complex interaction of the brain and the body and the environment.

All of which is just to say that non-material consciousness is produced by the material, which says nothing at all. Again, consciousness is outside of time and space, while the material brain functions totally within time and space. If consciousness were a 'product', as you say, then it could be measured and contained, but that is not possible.

How can you say that something called 'consciousness' is produced when you don't even know what it is that's being 'produced' (as if that were even possible)?

 

[Slapstick]

I hope I don't have a transceiver built into my brain somewhere that I don't know about. I would hate to think I'm being controlled by something I have no control over. Wouldn't that make me like some kind of robot or something?

Why didn't I come preinstalled with night vision, lasers, and anti gravity boots?