A fined tuned universe

[webboffin]

Matter is energy so really we just forms of energy ourselves. So everything is just energy. So what exactly is energy?

 

[DNAunion]

DNAunion: But matter isn't energy. (I wish I had time to find the fuller explanation I gave of this to Lucaspa when he said the same thing, but....)

Energy and matter are not the same thing, they are interconvertible. As an analogy, think about 4 quarters and a one-dollar bill. You can freely convert between the two all day without anyone losing in the process. Yet a gumball machine may accept only coins, no bills. At that point it is obvious that the two equivalent sums of money are not the same thing.

Same with energy and matter. When you have matter, well, you have matter. It is possible to convert it into energy, but it is not energy at that moment.

Same with energy. The process of pair creation takes energy and converts it into matter. Before pair creation, energy; after pair creation, matter.

 

[crazyfingers]

Originally posted by seebs
If things were different, perhaps life forms entirely unlike us would be arguing that their different universe was the only one that could support "life as we know it".

Exactly.  I'd be more amazed if life as we know it was not made from the stuff that is found in abundence in the universe.

It seems pretty clear to me that life is as it is because it used what was available.

 

[kaotic]

It seems pretty clear to me that life is as it is because it used what was available.

I agree.

 

[Joe_Sixpack]

"Matter is energy so really we just forms of energy ourselves. So everything is just energy. So what exactly is energy?"

To put it simply, energy is a property of particles. Matter is just a collection or single in some cases particle that has mass. The problem comes in when you try to consider what mass is. This is still an open question in physics, but Higgs has done the best work so far in answering it.

Now back to the original question: someone else mentioned it, but the real flaw in the finely-tuned discussions of the Universal constants is that they assume that "constants" could possibly have had different values. More than likely, all or most of these constants are actually contigent values and thus rely upon a more fundamental description of the Universe (vibration frequencies of strings - for example).

A more sophisticated question regarding the finely-tuned arguments would be to ask why the initial entropy conditions of the Universe were such that the "lumpiness" of the early Universe would lead to galactic formation instead of even distribution. This still suffers from the same logical flaw of all "fine-tuned" arguments, but at least it isa tough question in physics. Hawking and Hartle believe they solved it, but I am skeptical.

Cheers

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Originally posted by webboffin
But from a scientific perspective, is implying the existance of multiple universes about as useful as science putting God into the equation?

Exactly! There is NO evidence for any other Universe.

(but there is evidence of God outside of empirical measurements)

 

[webboffin]

I have go with Joe_Sixpack on this one. I have read in scientific description myself that matter is a form of energy. I have read (skimmed over) something about lumpiness in the initial universe but have yet to do it in detail.

 

[webboffin]

Originally posted by Chris†opher Paul
Exactly!
(but there is evidence of God outside of empirical measurements)

I don't know what that means exactly. But do I hold on to my own rational views. 

Having come back to read this I didn't notice I placed the word I and do the wrong way around.

I meant: I don't know what that means exactly. But I do hold on to my own rational views. 

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

I was agreeing with you that putting other universes into the equation is just as scientific as putting God into the equation.

There is no evidence of other universes.

There is evidence of God (outside of this context though)

 

[kaotic]

Originally posted by webboffin
I have go with Joe_Sixpack on this one. I have read in scientific description myself that matter is a form of energy. I have read (skimmed over) something about lumpiness in the initial universe but have yet to do it in detail.

Do you remember on which website you read this on?

 

[webboffin]

It was in a books. I have read a few from a library on various scientific subjects but been a while since last time I borrowed as  since internet I use that for much of my reading.                         

Think Einstein and E=M*(C squared) had something to do with it.

Any profs here?  

 

[DNAunion]

Webboffin: Think Einstein and E=M*(C squared) had something to do with it.

DNAunion: E=mc^2 has to do with what? Lumpiness???? Matter is energy is matter? I'll assume we are back to the second.

Let me try a different way: think about a nuclear power plant. What is it's input? Plutonium (IIRC). What is its output? Energy. If matter were energy, you wouldn't need a nuclear power plant to CONVERT the mass into energy.

Going deeper into nuclear fission. You start with an unstable atomic nulceus, say, Uranium 235. It fissions into two lighter daughter nuclei and (IIRC) three neutrons. If you add up all of the mass of the products, it comes out to be less than the mass of the original Uranium 235 nucleus. Did mass just disappear? No, it was CONVERTED into energy - that's where the energy comes from in fission: CONVERSION of mass into energy.

What I said about a nuclear powerplant goes for a coal-burning power plant also. The input it coal; the output is energy. If you measure the mass of the starting coal, and the mass of the coal and all byproducts of the combustion after it is burned, you will find that the total mass has decreased. Where did it go? You guessed it: that mass was CONVERTED into energy.

Same goes for nuclear fusion, such as occurs in our Sun. In the summary "equation", four free protons are converted into a helium nucleus with the release of energy. Where does the energy comes from? From mass: the total mass of four free protons is greater than the total mass of a helium nucleus - mass "disappeared" and energy "appeared out of nothing" (of course, it's actually an instance of mass->energy conversion).

Although I already pointed it out, going the other way there is pair creation. If enough energy is concentrated in a small enough volume, you can create an electron and its antimatter counterpart, the positron. Once you do that, the energy that was present before the matter was formed is gone: used up (if it weren't, a SECOND pair could be created from that energy, and a THIRD pair could be created from that energy, and a FOURTH pair, and so on: then you really would have mass appearing out of nothing because the books wouldn't balance).

So matter and energy are not the same thing: they are interconvertible, or, equivalent: like four quarters and a one-dollar bill.

 

[webboffin]

the word converted can apply to electricity being converted to light and heat, say by a light bulb. Electricity,light and heat are energies. So using the word coverted does not exclusively mean change something non energy to energy.

E=M*(C sqrd) is Energy = Mass [matter] * Constant of light (sqrd)This as far as I understand shows exchange of energy and mass.

Coal burning you mention is a chemical reaction which changes one matter to another matter through the release of energy.
http://www.sciencenet.org.uk/database/Physics/Original/p00165d.html


Oh about a lumpy early universe. Like I said I don't know a great deal about it to really mention anything about it.
  

 

 

[DNAunion]

Webboffin: Coal burning you mention is a chemical reaction which changes one matter to another matter through the release of energy.
http://www.sciencenet.org.uk/databa...al/p00165d.html

DNAunion: Where did I say otherwise?

The point remains that the total mass of all the products after combustion of coal is less than the starting mass, with the missing mass having been converted into energy.

 

[tacoman528]

I can't believe that you all think that this is just a coincidence.

 

[Orihalcon]

Yesterday at 11:47 PM DNAunion said this in Post #34

DNAunion: Where did I say otherwise?

The point remains that the total mass of all the products after combustion of coal is less than the starting mass, with the missing mass having been converted into energy.

no it hasn't.  it's the chemical bonds between the atoms that have broken and turned into energy.  total mass remains the same.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Yesterday at 09:37 PM Orihalcon said this in Post #36

no it hasn't.  it's the chemical bonds between the atoms that have broken and turned into energy.  total mass remains the same.

Quite right. Of course the chemical bonds don't "turn into" energy; we just witness the release of energy that was tied up in those chemical bonds. It can appear that the mass changes if you don't account for the gaseous or vaporous products and/or reactants, but the number of massive particles (electrons, protons & neutrons) stays the same in any chemical reaction.


Of course, in a nuclear reaction, fission or fusion, mass is converted into energy. The number of massive particles decreases and the total energy of the system increases.

 

[lucaspa]

3rd February 2003 at 10:42 PM webboffin said this in Post #6

But from a scientific perspective, is implying the existance of multiple universes about as useful as science putting God into the equation?

DNAUnion was quite explicit in saying that having a deity create the universe this way was one  of the possibilities.  However, having alternative hypotheses means your claim that the fine-tuning means that a deity must  have made the universe this way is not valid. 

IOW, you attempted (like a lot of creationists) to use the "fine-tuning" as a way to win the atheism vs theism debate for theism.  That is, to "prove" the existence of deity.

One possibility that DNAUnion didn't mention was M Theory.  Remember, one of the underpinnings of the fine-tuned argument is that the constants are arbitrary.  That is, that they don't seem to arise out of any more fundamental process.   M Theory has many of these "fine-tuned" constants be a result of the very nature of matter/energy as vibrating strings or membranes.  That removes the arbitrary and thus the need to have them "chosen" by a deity.

 

[lucaspa]

Yesterday at 08:59 PM tacoman528 said this in Post #35

I can't believe that you all think that this is just a coincidence.

That you don't is a misapplication of elementary logic. 

"According to the Anthropic Principle, we are entitled to infer facts about the universe and its laws from the undisputed fact that we (we anthropoi, human beings) are here to do the inferring and observing.  The Anthropic Principle comes in several flavors.
In the "weak form" it is a sound, harmless, and on occasion useful application of elementary logic: if x is a necessary condition for the existence of y, and y exists, then x exists.  If consciousness depends on complex physical structures, and complex physical structures depend on large molecules composed of elements heavier than hydrogen and helium, then, since we are conscious, the world must contain such elements.
"But notice that there is a loose cannon on the deck in the previous sentence: the wandering "must".  I have followed the common practice in English of couching a claim of necessity in a technically incorrect way.  As any student in logic class soon learns, what I really should have written is:   *It must be the case that*: if consciousness depends ... then, since we are conscious, the world *contains* such elements.

The conclusion that can be validly drawn is only that the world *does* contain such elements, not that it *had* to contain such elements.  It *has* to contain such elements *for us to exist*, we may grant, but it might not have contained such elements, and if that had been the case, we wouldn't be here to be dismayed.  It's as simple as that. 
Take a simpler example.  Suppose John is a bachelor.  Then he *must* be single, right?  (That's a truth of logic.)  Poor John -- he can never get married!  The fallacy is obvious in this example, and it is worth keeping it in the back of your mind as a template to compare other arguments with."
Daniel Dennett, Darwin's Dangerous Ideas, pp. 165-166.

 

[lucaspa]

4th February 2003 at 12:48 PM DNAunion said this in Post #22

DNAunion: But matter isn't energy. (I wish I had time to find the fuller explanation I gave of this to Lucaspa when he said the same thing, but....)

Energy and matter are not the same thing, they are interconvertible. As an analogy, think about 4 quarters and a one-dollar bill. You can freely convert between the two all day without anyone losing in the process. Yet a gumball machine may accept only coins, no bills. At that point it is obvious that the two equivalent sums of money are not the same thing.

Same with energy and matter. When you have matter, well, you have matter. It is possible to convert it into energy, but it is not energy at that moment.

When you have that "=" sign, it signifies equality.  Matter and energy are two different forms of the same entity.  For Weboffin, it should be easy to grasp since in his beleifs the Father and the Son are two different forms of the same entity -- God. 

Yes, you can convert matter to energy and energy to matter, but to say "Energy and matter are not the same thing" is to deny that "=" sign in E = mc^2