What is energy?

[Rick O'Shez]

Yes it is in so far as these physical vehicles are concerned...the pain designed into these vehicles if the 'driver' errs is to ensure they are not unnecessarily damaged...but the underlying unity of cosmos stands... So please show some sense of opened mindedness and accept that contemporary science is relatively primitive...it has just learnt in recent times that all they have been dealing with is less than 5% of cosmos stuff... Contemporary orthodox science doesn't even know what an electron is made of...but some skeptics do....dark matter/zpe...

Science has a lot left to discover and understand, of course. But that's the beauty of science, it keeps looking and doesn't pretend to know all the answers, unlike some of the religious types who preach certainty.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Science has a lot left to discover and understand, of course. But that's the beauty of science, it keeps looking and doesn't pretend to know all the answers, unlike some of the religious types who preach certainty.

Good point and I've often pondered why this is so...the reason is that people are not equal...those whose intuitive faculty is developed to a point that it is ahead of the game in so far as human evolutionary center on the 'bell curve' is concerned ....are leaders...otherwise the orthodox scientists would lead the world into a new dark age of the church of scientism... Now there are great scientists out there who are leaders...but are generally dismissed by the orthodox majority of hack players...

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Could it be that what we call 'matter' and 'energy' are, in reality, simply manifestations of a conscious force that is behind both?...what the Hindus refer to as 'Brahman', or as the 'ground of being', or what science calls 'the unified field'?

It's possible, but do you have any coherent basis for suggesting this? I think we need to be cautious about what looks like a "God-of-the-gaps" approach, choosing an area which is still poorly understood by science and then trying to fill it with religious content.

 

[godnotgod]

It's possible, but do you have any coherent basis for suggesting this? I think we need to be cautious about what looks like a "God-of-the-gaps" approach, choosing an area which is still poorly understood by science and then trying to fill it with religious content.

Watch the John Hagelin video I provided re: the unified field for the coherent basis you inquire about.

Brahman, the ground of being; the unified field; is not anthropomorphic; it's idea came about centuries before modern science, and it points to an eternal condition. Science has only been nibbling around its edges for a few decades.

 

[godnotgod]

But seriously, you will only confuse yourself it you try to mix up sub-atomic physics and sunyata. The experience of sunyata is a realisation of the conditionality of the 5 aggregates, it was never intended as an ontological statement about the sub-atomic world. You will confuse yourself even further if you then try to muddle these concepts up with ideas about cosmic consciousness.

Sunyata includes the nature of all phenomena. It is a statement/realization of the true nature of all things. IOW, nothing has any intrinsic nature of its own, including sub-atomic particles. All things are empty. The nature of sub-atomic particles, according to the scientific findings I referenced, is that their nature is virtual, rendering all of reality virtual as well.

If Sunyata is pointing to the idea that there is no self, then 'no-self' can only point to the universal, and that means that consciousness is universal, though we are fooled into thinking it a localized phenomenon.

Virtuality, the quality of having the attributes of something without sharing its (real or imagined) physical form.
Wikipedia

 

[godnotgod]

Science has a lot left to discover and understand, of course. But that's the beauty of science, it keeps looking and doesn't pretend to know all the answers, unlike some of the religious types who preach certainty.

The primary focus of science is factual knowledge, and while discoveries on this pathway do yield useful information, they cannot provide a true understanding of the nature of reality. There is a point at which a true understanding is reached, however, but its pathway is not the rational, discriminating mind, but the intuitive mind. Once a true understanding has been reached, there are not two ways of looking at it. Reality is seen as it actually is. This state of consciousness is that which the Buddha attained, and if you look at what he said, his statements are in pretty certain terms. There is nothing left to consider. The discourse on the five aggregates and sunyata, for example, is also called The Perfection of Wisdom. A final certainty has been reached, which, when seen and understood clearly, is then put away.

OTOH, those who, as you state, 'preach certainty', are those who base their pronouncements on beliefs and doctrines, rather than the direct seeing into the true nature of Reality itself. This is the crucial difference between basing one's conclusions on thought, as compared to basing them on pure seeing, without thought. Both science and religion base their conclusions on thought; one on beliefs, the other on facts. But it is the mystic who goes directly to the source to get to the heart of the matter.

 

[`mud]

And who's going to get the olives ?
~
'mud

 

[godnotgod]

And who's going to get the olives ?
~
'mud

Oh, you want to get fancy, do you?

 

[`mud]

You want to get 'fancy' ?
SERIOUSLY ?
~
'mud

 

[Looncall]

Sunyata includes the nature of all phenomena. It is a statement/realization of the true nature of all things. IOW, nothing has any intrinsic nature of its own, including sub-atomic particles. All things are empty. The nature of sub-atomic particles, according to the scientific findings I referenced, is that their nature is virtual, rendering all of reality virtual as well.

If Sunyata is pointing to the idea that there is no self, then 'no-self' can only point to the universal, and that means that consciousness is universal, though we are fooled into thinking it a localized phenomenon.

Virtuality, the quality of having the attributes of something without sharing its (real or imagined) physical form.
Wikipedia

That is not what is meant by a virtual particle. A virtual particle occurs together with its antiparticle. Usually, they immediately annihilate. Their existance is very brief.
This new trend of the religious hijacking scientific ideas to support their woo is tiresome.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

That is not what is meant by a virtual particle. A virtual particle occurs together with its antiparticle. Usually, they immediately annihilate. Their existance is very brief.
This new trend of the religious hijacking scientific ideas to support their woo is tiresome.

Perhaps so....I have read that the natural electrodynamic forces still apply in that virtual positrons occur as an almost continuous cloud around the permanent electron...

 

[godnotgod]

That is not what is meant by a virtual particle. A virtual particle occurs together with its antiparticle. Usually, they immediately annihilate. Their existance is very brief.

The article I am referencing points out that these fluctuations are what creates the mass of the proton, but this mass is not real mass; it is virtual mass. It is, however, measurable as if it were real mass.

Is the 'annihilation' you refer to the 'random popping into existence/disappearance' that my referenced article is talking about?:

"Each proton (or neutron) is made of three quarks - but the individual masses of these quarks only add up to about 1% of the proton's mass. So what accounts for the rest of it?

Theory says it is created by the force that binds quarks together, called the strong nuclear force. In quantum terms, the strong force is carried by a field of virtual particles called gluons, randomly popping into existence and disappearing again. The energy of these vacuum fluctuations has to be included in the total mass of the proton and neutron."

It's confirmed: Matter is merely vacuum fluctuations - physics-math - 20 November 2008 - New Scientist

The article goes on to conclude that the mass of the atom is virtual mass, created by the fluctuations in the Quantum field together with the Higgs field.

But the quarks themselves are virtual in nature, as the article explains:

"Until recently, lattice QCD calculations concentrated on the virtual gluons, and ignored another important component of the vacuum: pairs of virtual quarks and antiquarks."

[Is that what you are referring to?}

"Quark-antiquark pairs can pop up and momentarily transform a proton into a different, more exotic particle. In fact, the true proton is the sum of all these possibilities going on at once."

The bottom line is that ALL MASS IS VIRTUAL; THEREFORE ALL PHYSICAL REALITY IS VIRTUAL, which is in perfect harmony with what Eastern wisdom has stated over the centuries. No hijacking of your precious science going on here. Not only is it in perfect harmony with the East, but is in accordance with what Quantum physics has stated: that the 'physical' world is a 'field of possibilities'.

 

[godnotgod]

Perhaps so....I have read that the natural electrodynamic forces still apply in that virtual positrons occur as an almost continuous cloud around the permanent electron...

Again, at least according to the article I am referencing, the mass of the electron is also virtual:

"The Higgs field is also thought to make a small contribution, giving mass to individual quarks as well as to electrons and some other particles. The Higgs field creates mass out of the quantum vacuum too, in the form of virtual Higgs bosons."

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Again, at least according to the article I am referencing, the mass of the electron is also virtual:

"The Higgs field is also thought to make a small contribution, giving mass to individual quarks as well as to electrons and some other particles. The Higgs field creates mass out of the quantum vacuum too, in the form of virtual Higgs bosons."

This is all consistent with mass being energy at a high density level....

 

[godnotgod]

This is all consistent with mass being energy at a high density level....

Yes, and further.....

"Physicists now use a class of theories called quantum field theories,or QFTs, which were first postulated in the late 1920s and developed over the following decades. QFTs are intriguing, but they take some getting used to. To start, let’s think only about electrons. Everywhere in the universe there is a field called the electron field. A physical electron isn’t the field, but rather a localized vibration in the field. In fact, every electron in the universe is a similar localized vibration of that single field.


Electrons aren’t the only particles to consist of localized vibrations of a field; all particles do. There is a photon field, an up quark field, a gluon field, a muon field; indeed there is a field for every known particle. And, for all of them, the thing that we visualize as a particle is just a localized vibration of that field. Even the recently discovered Higgs boson is like this. The Higgs field interacts with particles and gives them their mass, but it is hard to observe this field directly. Instead, we supply energy to the field in particle collisions and cause it to vibrate. When we say “we’ve discovered the Higgs boson,” you should think “we’ve caused the Higgs field to vibrate and observed the vibrations.”

The Good Vibrations of Quantum Field Theories - The Nature of Reality — The Nature of Reality | PBS

 

[godnotgod]

You want to get 'fancy' ?
SERIOUSLY ?
~
'mud

Uh...I said 'fancy'....not 'frisky'.

Fancy condiments are down the hall to the right for religious fancies, and on your left for science fancies. We mystics like our salads plain and simple, but not simplistic.

 

[godnotgod]

So how is it that mystics, thousands of years ago before science, can have determined the virtual nature of the physical world? Because the awakened state of consciousness they are employing to pierce the facade is precisely the same consciousness that is creating the virtual reality we only think to be of a 'physical' nature.

 

[godnotgod]

10 Reasons Why Our Universe Is A Virtual Reality
[URL='http://listverse.com/authors/?Brian%20Whitworth']Brian Whitworth November 26, 2014[/URL]

Physical realism is the view that the physical world we see is real and exists by itself, alone. Most people think this is self-evident, but physical realism has been struggling with the facts of physics for some time now. The paradoxes that baffled physics last century still baffle it today, and its great hopes of string theory and supersymmetry aren’t leading anywhere.

In contrast, quantum theory works, but quantum waves that entangle, superpose, then collapse to a point are physically impossible—they must be “imaginary.” So for the first time in history, a theory of what doesn’t exist is successfully predicting what does—but how can the unreal predict the real?

Quantum realism is the opposite view—that the quantum world is real and is creating the physical world as a virtual reality. Quantum mechanics thus predicts physical mechanics because it causes them. Physics saying that quantum states don’t exist is like the Wizard of Oz telling Dorothy, “Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.”

Quantum realism isn’t The Matrix, where the other world making ours was also physical. Nor is it a brain-in-a-vat idea, as this virtuality was in play long before humans came along. Nor is it that a phantom other world modifies ours—our physical world is the phantom. In physical realism, the quantum world is impossible, but in quantum realism the physical world is impossible—unless it is a virtual reality—as these examples demonstrate:

10 Reasons Why Our Universe Is A Virtual Reality - Listverse

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Sunyata includes the nature of all phenomena. It is a statement/realization of the true nature of all things.

No, it was never intended as an ontological statement, sunyata is framed in terms of the 5 aggregates of human experience.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

So how is it that mystics, thousands of years ago before science, can have determined the virtual nature of the physical world?

They didn't. Anyone can sound profound after a few hallucinogens.