• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

My argument against materialism

yy2bggggs said:
It's my understanding that the residual nuclear force is the strong force. See strong interactionWP.
I'm not sure about this one. Keep in mind the earth is quite massive and spinning, so it's not to be compared to, say, a comet.
I remain unconvinced here. The fact that force carrying particles have energy does not mean that force is energy. The mouse pad sitting on my desk is applying a constant force to the earth, and the earth is applying a constant force back. But I can't use this constant force to do an indefinite amount of work, so it's not energy.

Thanks, yes. This was wrong. I meant to say wave function, not waveform.

Sure!
Click to expand...
yy2bggggs You misunderstand, the strong interaction is the same as strong nuclear or color force. The force's bosons are gluons and these act on quarks. The secondary or residual nuclear force is much weaker and its bosons are mesons. These act on nucleons.

Gravity is not primary in holding together planets and comets. These are made of molecules and these are "glued" together via covalent bonds of the electromagnetic force. Stars however are plasmas and consist of massive numbers of ions. Gravity is primary in holding them together.

Energy is one of the most difficult things to define. It comes in many forms and has several characteristics such as transforming from one form into another and has differing qualities. You want to talk about potential energy while I was referring to Einstein's famous equation connecting mass and energy. No one has yet come up with an all encompassing definition. However in the E = Mc2 sense it applies to all Standard Model particles including bosons or force carriers.
 
Last edited:
yy2bggggs said:
It's my understanding that the residual nuclear force is the strong force. See strong interactionWP.
I'm not sure about this one. Keep in mind the earth is quite massive and spinning, so it's not to be compared to, say, a comet.
I remain unconvinced here. The fact that force carrying particles have energy does not mean that force is energy. The mouse pad sitting on my desk is applying a constant force to the earth, and the earth is applying a constant force back. But I can't use this constant force to do an indefinite amount of work, so it's not energy.

Thanks, yes. This was wrong. I meant to say wave function, not waveform.

Sure!
Click to expand...
yy2bggggs You misunderstand, the strong interaction is the same as strong nuclear or color force. The force's bosons are gluons and these act on quarks. The secondary or residual nuclear force is much weaker and its bosons are mesons. These act on nucleons.

Gravity is not primary in holding together planets and comets. These are made of molecules and these are "glued" together via covalent bonds of the electromagnetic force. Stars however are plasmas and consist of massive numbers of ions. Gravity is primary in holding them together.

Energy is one of the most difficult things to define. It comes in many forms and has several characteristics such as transforming from one form into another and each form has differing qualities. You want to talk about potential energy while I was referring to Einstein's famous equation connecting mass and energy. No one has yet come up with an all encompassing definition. However in the E = Mc2 sense it applies to all Standard Model particles including bosons or force carriers.
 
Last edited:
PixyMisa said:
Yes.


No.


What is a singularity, and why do you think that is a meaningful question?
Click to expand...

Are we descending into the rubicon now?

Well the description of a singularity I quoted in my previous post, has a "yes", under it. So if I stick with this description for now.

The question is meaningful to me because, I am not in full posession of the facts/equations by which the physicists arrived at their "singularity". The question is begging from any casual observer.

Perhaps you will enlighten me.
 
Last edited:
PixyMisa said:
Wrong question.
Click to expand...

Yes I remember your answer to this question, I was happy with it as an answer.
It merely confirmed that what energy and consequently the energy forming matter is, is a mystery.

Matter is constituted of energy is it not?
 
punshhh said:
Are we descending into the rubicon now?

Well the description of a singularity I quoted in my previous post, has a "yes", under it. So if I stick with this description for now.
Click to expand...
What is a singularity, punshhh?

The question is meaningful to me because, I am not in full position of the facts/equations by which the physicists arrived at their "singularity". The question is begging from any casual observer.

Perhaps you will enlighten me.
Click to expand...
No, it's because you don't understand what a singularity is. If you did, you wouldn't ask that question.

It's like constantly asking how do triangles have kittens?
 
PixyMisa said:
Yes.


No.


What is a singularity, and why do you think that is a meaningful question?
Click to expand...
We know matter can arise from energy but we don't yet know the how & why questions. Nothing can come out of or arise from a singularity. The Big Bang answers many questions but the singularity problem is an anomaly. There are other ways to account for the known detections such as the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB), the arise of light elements such as hydrogen and helium in the early universe, the expansion of the universe etc. I'm working on a model that can't have an early universe singularity. The QGP is a product of an early very energetic or hot environment. The aforementioned CMB proves the early universe was hot. We know that when the first photons or light took to flight the temperature was about 4,000 degrees Kelvin. What the temperatures were prior to that point is less certain but it was hotter.

We also know that we are here! And that we need to get some sleep! Bye bye for now!
 
kenkoskinen said:
We know matter can arise from energy but we don't yet know the how & why questions. Nothing can come out of or arise from a singularity.
Click to expand...
That's not exactly true, but near enough.

The Big Bang answers many questions but the singularity problem is an anomaly.
Click to expand...
What problem? What anomaly?

There are other ways to account for the known detections such as the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB), the arise of light elements such as hydrogen and helium in the early universe, the expansion of the universe etc.
Click to expand...
Those are all accounted for by the Big Bang, and have nothing to do with any singularity.

I'm working on a model that can't have an early universe singularity.
Click to expand...
Okay.

The QGP is a product of an early very energetic or hot environment. The aforementioned CMB proves the early universe was hot. We know that when the first photons or light took to flight the temperature was about 4,000 degrees Kelvin. What the temperatures were prior to that point is less certain but it was hotter.
Click to expand...
But nowhere in there is there any mention of a singularity.

We also know that we are here! And that we need to get some sleep! Bye bye for now!
Click to expand...
Bye.
 
kenkoskinen said:
yy2bggggs You misunderstand, the strong interaction is the same as strong nuclear or color force. The force's bosons are gluons and these act on quarks. The secondary or residual nuclear force is much weaker and its bosons are mesons. These act on nucleons.
Click to expand...
That's still the strong force. See the wiki article.

If you doubt that, see this:
http://aether.lbl.gov/elements/stellar/strong/strong.html
Or this:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/funfor.html#c2

Or see the cute animation at nuclear forceWP, where you see the text:
wiki said:
The nuclear force is now understood as a residual effect of the even more powerful strong force, or strong interaction, which is the attractive force that binds particles called quarks together, to form the nucleons themselves.
Click to expand...
...or cite the source that tells me that this is not called the strong force any more.

Gravity is not primary in holding together planets and comets.
Click to expand...
I didn't say comets, I said planets. And the context is forces that cause form. PixyMisa provided a link.
These are made of molecules and these are "glued" together via covalent bonds of the electromagnetic force.
Click to expand...
Indeed they are. But the form of planets is kept in place by gravity. Without gravity you won't have planets hanging around. See PixyMisa's link.
You want to talk about potential energy while I was referring to Einstein's famous equation connecting mass and energy.
Click to expand...
You have this backwards. I want to talk about energy, and you want to talk about Einstein's famous equation connecting mass and energy.

What I'm talking about is the thing we say is conserved when we refer to the law of conservation of energy. If we're not talking about this, then I vote we use a different term than "energy".
However in the E = Mc2 sense it applies to all Standard Model particles including bosons or force carriers.
Click to expand...
Why yes, it does.
 
PixyMisa said:
What is a singularity, punshhh?


No, it's because you don't understand what a singularity is. If you did, you wouldn't ask that question.

It's like constantly asking how do triangles have kittens?
Click to expand...

Are I think we have an answer;

The QGP, did not arise in this singularity described by the physicists.
or it could not conceivably have done so.
or it is nonsensical to consider that it did.

Does this cover it?
 
punshhh said:
I understand your argument and I agree to a point in a theoretical situation.
Click to expand...
Nothing theoretical about it. You don't really seem to understand what I am saying. Because you keep asking for the name of the bachelor's wife.
However in this case though we have a quite simple physical system,
Click to expand...
Simple?

If you think so then you probably don't understand it.
which appears to have come out of nowhere.
Click to expand...
When and where do you think this "nowhere" is?
it makes sense to me that it requires a "fabric" out of which its forms arise, it is this fabric I am looking for.
Click to expand...
Spacetime is itself a fabric.

But suppose you could find this other "fabric".

Do you think that you could know what it is?
 
PixyMisa said:
They never said it did.


Yes. But why?
Click to expand...

Ok, I'll take that as read for now.

Then where did the QGP come from then?

Did it just pop into existence with no pre-existing state.

or was there a pre-existing state.

or is it neither, but something else.

or was it always thus?

Why, well if I were a materialist I would ask these questions, I would want to know what i was dealing with.
 
Robin said:
Nothing theoretical about it. You don't really seem to understand what I am saying. Because you keep asking for the name of the bachelor's wife.
Click to expand...

Ok, this means that matter and energy emerged from itself presumably by the process known as inflation.

This would also mean that the initial state perhaps the QGP was part of an existing state.

Fine so we have sort of by passed the big bang scenario(at least with a singularity)

Simple?

If you think so then you probably don't understand it.
Click to expand...

simple in the sense that there are only a few things to consider, matter, energy, spacetime and some x perhaps.

When and where do you think this "nowhere" is?
Click to expand...

I am positing a nowhere as the alternative answer in order to frame the question.

Spacetime is itself a fabric.
Click to expand...

Yes, I have been waiting for someone to state this and explain how matter is manifest in this fabric.

But suppose you could find this other "fabric".

Do you think that you could know what it is?
Click to expand...

No, but what it represents in the scheme of things.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom