where does all the matter come from?

[True_Blue]

An excellent question!

My limited reading would indicate that it is a matter not understood by science.
I certainly remember when reading Dawkin’s ‘The God Delusion’ this question was not answered to my satisfaction.

I have done a little more digging and would like to offer an alternative slant on this matter. Forgive the crudity and lack of science in my approach.

I cannot find the thread/article, however I have come across research which states that matter has been measured to appear and disappear out of nothing in empty space.
In physics we hear of positive and negative fields/charges/forces etc.
I understand that if energy/matter in its simplest form (sub atomic) can appear/disappear spontaneously, then there is no reason why if some of such matter remains how over time it could not gain mass with other such particles. Thus explaining mass, but not to the level of that required for the Big bang.

The Big bang, this may be the beginning of the universe as we know it.

I would suggest that perhaps in the past much as a collapsing star all/much of the energy in the universe collapsed in on itself and then exploded (like a supernova) giving us the expanding universe as we see today.

Indeed, there is no reason to think that this is the first such universe or that there are not other parallel universes. (Like the one I inhabit at times).

I wonder is there anyone out there who has access to information on sub atomic particles and their spontaneous appearance/disappearance etc.. Something a lay man can understand.

I applaud your honest attempt to answer the question of this thread, unlike several other posts on this page. At least it gives us a basis for a conversation. I have also heard of people speculating about particles appearing out of nowhere with regards to quantum mechanics. In my view, if someone tells me that something or anything appears out of nothing from a naturalistic process, I would say the theory is wrong and that the person needs to go back and collect more data and refine their theory. I would say that either lay people have misunderstood the physics being described, or the physicists themselves have done a poor job explaining the theory, or the theory itself is wrong. The whole point of common sense is to rule out the theory of a particle appearing out of nowhere.

As many philosophers have previously said, it is clear that everything we observe in the universe is an effect that is the result of an original Cause. It's not possible for the Cause itself to be the effect of something else. The mere fact that we don't understand how the Cause itself came to be does not mean that the Cause does not exist. Quite the oppose, because we observe effects everywhere, including ourselves, therefore the Cause must exist. It's much less intellectually satisfying to attribute effects to an infinite series of past effects.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I applaud your honest attempt to answer the question of this thread, unlike several other posts on this page. At least it gives us a basis for a conversation. I have also heard of people speculating about particles appearing out of nowhere with regards to quantum mechanics. In my view, if someone tells me that something or anything appears out of nothing from a naturalistic process, I would say the theory is wrong and that the person needs to go back and collect more data and refine their theory.

In the scientific world, we call this 'personal bias'. Or 'systematic idiocy'.

I would say that either lay people have misunderstood the physics being described, or the physicists themselves have done a poor job explaining the theory, or the theory itself is wrong. The whole point of common sense is to rule out the theory of a particle appearing out of nowhere.

...
Seriously?

Common sense also tells us that walls are solid. I guess you don't believe in atoms then, True_Blue?

As many philosophers have previously said, it is clear that everything we observe in the universe is an effect that is the result of an original Cause. It's not possible for the Cause itself to be the effect of something else. The mere fact that we don't understand how the Cause itself came to be does not mean that the Cause does not exist. Quite the oppose, because we observe effects everywhere, including ourselves, therefore the Cause must exist. It's much less intellectually satisfying to attribute effects to an infinite series of past effects.

Which all rests on the big fat assumption that every event must have a cause. Event A causes event B, yes, but that doesn't mean A itself had a cause. Indeed, you yourself postulate an Uncaused Causer, so you defy your own logic.

Gods, give me strength...

 

[Adivi]

I applaud your honest attempt to answer the question of this thread, unlike several other posts on this page. At least it gives us a basis for a conversation. I have also heard of people speculating about particles appearing out of nowhere with regards to quantum mechanics. In my view, if someone tells me that something or anything appears out of nothing from a naturalistic process, I would say the theory is wrong and that the person needs to go back and collect more data and refine their theory. I would say that either lay people have misunderstood the physics being described, or the physicists themselves have done a poor job explaining the theory, or the theory itself is wrong.

Oh no, the concept of particle-antiparticle pairs appearing out of nowhere is well-defined and has been observed; it also leads to what is known as the Casimir effect, where two large parallel plates will attract slightly because fewer particles can be produced between them for various reasons; this is subtle but measurable. Quantum mechanics gives us excellent predictions that are mostly verified, and the parts that are weird certainly have nothing to do with particle-antiparticle pair production, which is a consequence of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, one of QM's core principles.

The whole point of common sense is to rule out the theory of a particle appearing out of nowhere.

Common sense is a useful tool at a certain level, but we've found that physics at certain points violates common sense. And since no matter how many times we try the experiments, common sense doesn't work, we just have to discard it. Common sense is no match for experimental data.

 

[True_Blue]

Oh no, the concept of particle-antiparticle pairs appearing out of nowhere is well-defined and has been observed; it also leads to what is known as the Casimir effect, where two large parallel plates will attract slightly because fewer particles can be produced between them for various reasons; this is subtle but measurable. Quantum mechanics gives us excellent predictions that are mostly verified, and the parts that are weird certainly have nothing to do with particle-antiparticle pair production, which is a consequence of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, one of QM's core principles.

Common sense is a useful tool at a certain level, but we've found that physics at certain points violates common sense. And since no matter how many times we try the experiments, common sense doesn't work, we just have to discard it. Common sense is no match for experimental data.

I don't have a problem with the Casimir effect, only its extension to exotic matter with "negative density," and other similarly absurd sorts of extrapolations. Science without observed data is not science.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I don't have a problem with the Casimir effect, only its extension to exotic matter with "negative density," and other similarly absurd sorts of extrapolations. Science without observed data is not science.

Don't be ridiculous. Science is about aquiring knowledge about the world. Why on Earth would we limit ourselves to what we can observe? Or do you not believe in anything historical?

Besides, read up on how they found Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto: by inference. They deduced the planets were there, then went out and found them. That's the whole point about falsifiability: you propose the existence of a phenomenon, and then go out and see if it really exists.

 

[True_Blue]

Don't be ridiculous. Science is about aquiring knowledge about the world. Why on Earth would we limit ourselves to what we can observe? Or do you not believe in anything historical?

Besides, read up on how they found Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto: by inference. They deduced the planets were there, then went out and found them. That's the whole point about falsifiability: you propose the existence of a phenomenon, and then go out and see if it really exists.

Wiccan, I don't limit myself to things that can be observed--that's why I am a Christian and accept many things about God and the universe based on faith.

Science, however, is limited to observation and reasonable inferences based on observation. A scientific theory that says something comes from nothing, or says that particles have negative mass, is not a reasonable inference and does not belong in science. People who believe in objects that come from nothing, or objects with negative attributes are creating a religion.

 

[Adivi]

I don't have a problem with the Casimir effect, only its extension to exotic matter with "negative density," and other similarly absurd sorts of extrapolations. Science without observed data is not science.

Ah, but the only reason for the Casimir effect is because of those particles popping in and out of existence that you deny! The effect arises because those particles have wavelengths, and when you constrain the wavelengths by forcing them to fit in between two plates, you have a lower energy density; the energy density creates a pressure differential, which leads to the Casimir effect. So in order to have the Casimir effect, you have to accept the fact of particle appearance/disappearance.

Oh, and the 'negative energy' explanation relies on the assumption that we call the energy of the vacuum our zero energy. It's like this: usually we call the potential energy of the ground zero, at least when doing calculations there. But the region below the ground then has negative potential energy; this isn't a contradiction, it just depends on our zero energy point. The analogy in't perfect, because the vacuum energy isn't a strict potential energy, but it's good enough.

 

[Adivi]

Science, however, is limited to observation and reasonable inferences based on observation. A scientific theory that says something comes from nothing, or says that particles have negative mass, is not a reasonable inference and does not belong in science. People who believe in objects that come from nothing, or objects with negative attributes are creating a religion.

I've already shown you how we have demonstrable evidence for the so-called quantum foam; we can't necessarily observe it directly, but we can collect substantial evidence. As for exotic matter, I don't think it exists either, but I'm not going to rule it out on the basis of common sense.

By the way, it's not 'something coming from nothing'; the energy of the created particles multiplied by the time before they annihilate each other are inversely related. The more energetic the particles, the less time they have.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Wiccan, I don't limit myself to things that can be observed--that's why I am a Christian and accept many things about God and the universe based on faith.

It is one thing to acknowledge the logic of inferrence, but quite another to have faith. Faith is tantamount to "I believe in X because I really really want X to be true!". My mother is a spiritual woman, and believes in the afterlife because she can't bear the thought of not seeing her sister again. And let's not forget Blessed Teresa of Calcutta's infamous crises of faith (note the plural)

Science, however, is limited to observation and reasonable inferences based on observation. A scientific theory that says something comes from nothing, or says that particles have negative mass, is not a reasonable inference and does not belong in science.

On the contrary, it is a reasonable inference: we directly observed it. If that isn't reasonable, then I refer you to Solipsism.

And besides, if you cannot observe it, and you cannot infer it, then it doesn't matter whether we believe in its existence. The Sun, for instance, is so important that our acknowledgement of its existence is mandatory. But suppose there exists some particle that cannot interact with our 'normal' matter. Such a particle cannot be either observed nor inferred; why should we care about such an entity?

I put it to you that your 'God hypothesis' (to steal Dawkins' term) can and will be subject to scientific scrutiny. It is not "beyond" the scientific magesterium.

People who believe in objects that come from nothing, or objects with negative attributes are creating a religion.

No. Please read up on the science. Just go on Wikipedia and search for the Casimir effect.

 

[True_Blue]

No. Please read up on the science. Just go on Wikipedia and search for the Casimir effect.

I wasn't referring to any specific scientific theory.

 

[Adivi]

I wasn't referring to any specific scientific theory.

But the quantum foam is specifically 'particles coming from nothing', and the only reason that we know of for the Casimir effect is this 'particles coming from nothing' whole thing. So if you reject that, you have to reject Casimir, and vice versa.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I wasn't referring to any specific scientific theory.

On the contrary, you said:

"People who believe in objects that come from nothing, or objects with negative attributes are creating a religion."

This is a specific scientific theory. Namely, the theory that particles can exist ex nihilo. The Casimir effect is direct observational evidence for this phenomenon.

Again, do your bookwork.

 

[True_Blue]

On the contrary, you said:

"People who believe in objects that come from nothing, or objects with negative attributes are creating a religion."

This is a specific scientific theory. Namely, the theory that particles can exist ex nihilo. The Casimir effect is direct observational evidence for this phenomenon.

Again, do your bookwork.

We're gonna have to agree to disagree.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

We're gonna have to agree to disagree.

Not really. At best, you can deny that such evidence exists, even though it's a known fact. It's not just a whiffy theory, it's a proven fact.

But if you can't handle the truth...

 

[sinan90]

Technically the particles aren't out of nothing, but formed by taking an energy loan from the whole universe then repaying it extremely quickly. It may seem like nothing, but there is no such thing as nothingness in the universe.

 

[The_Master]

Technically the particles aren't out of nothing, but formed by taking an energy loan from the whole universe then repaying it extremely quickly. It may seem like nothing, but there is no such thing as nothingness in the universe.

So maybe the whole universe is on loan from itself, and the payment is coming due.

 

[sinan90]

So maybe the whole universe is on loan from itself, and the payment is coming due.

That is one interpretation of the universe, is that its basically a quantum fluctuation and what we see is a result of a particular history of all the particles, while there will be an almost infinite amount of other universes in which a different history for energy and particles to have taken.

It's very interesting but its just an interpretation of the same evidence just like many of the ideas people have come up with in imagining the quantum world,

 

[Cleaver611]

.....

.....but an expansion of space itself. .....
.....

Peter

Where did "space itself" come from?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Where did "space itself" come from?

Who says it had to come from anywhere?

 

[Gawron]

"Who says it had to come from anywhere?"

So space itself has no beginning or no end? Or it is the beginning and the end? The Alpha and the Omega? It was just here?

Where have I heard that before?