The End Of Matter?

[Joshua Valentine]

No, you simply don't understand what he is saying. He is not saying that nothing else existed. 

 

 

What creates the photons? What about quantum mechanics? 

 

Instead of talking about my understanding and what he didn't say, how about making a constructive statement about what he did say?

 

By the way, I didn't say he said there was nothing else existing. What he effectively said is that:

 

1) none of the matter, space and laws of this particular universe existed

2) that that makes a pretty good "nothing"

3) that there were other randomized universes coming about

4) implying that there was this whole other system, that existed, and in which (or from which) all those universes (including ours) existed and came from

 

#1 is not a definition of nothing in any sense, by itself. It is a description of our universe not existing. Our universe not existing is simply a description of a truism for something that has yet to come into existence. So #2 is false, he hasn't described a significant nothing, instead he has only described "T minus 1 second to liftoff".

 

#3, admittedly, in itself does not cause a problem for his "nothing". They can just be "elsewhere" and unrelated. However, he basically states that our universe is just one among many, many other "randomly" occurring universes. The very strong implication is that there is a system related to these universes "popping up", a multiverse, but then were back to something that is quite different than nothing. Not only that, but unless we are just going to declare this a "multiverse of the gaps" or a "quantum chaos of the gaps" that we simply cannot understand and so is practically "nothing", then he has just reintegrated a system (space, time and laws) all over again, but wants you to think he has described a "pretty good 'nothing'" after all.

 

Don't forget his left hand as he flourishes his right.

[Joshua Valentine]

Photons are created out of nothing, virtual particles are popping in and out of existence. Our universe may have been created out of nothing. 

 

PS and that doesn't contradict LDS theology because if the universe was created out of nothing, it means there are other universes too.

 

Note: I certainly do not claim to understand everything these scientists and theorists do, I simply find what he says in this video surprisingly self-contradictory to the possible extent of his being wrong, or horrible at communicating, or deceptive (and bad at being deceptive).

 

However, I am pretty sure that all this "stuff coming from 'nothing'" talk is logically untenable, and thus unscientific. The science cannot prove an ultimate negative any better than a debater can. These scientists are:

 

At Best -

1) forgetting that simply because they don't understand something, doesn't mean it doesn't exist

Or

2) forgetting that simply because they can't seem to observe something, doesn't mean that something doesn't exist

Or

3) Even if their theories show a pre-time before everything we do know about, doesn't mean they have found a true "nothing" (they've only found a "not anything we know about"

 

Worse - confusing their own observations as sufficient to declare a true "nothing", despite the requirement of omniscience

 

Worst - trying to find what they want to find, that nothing is behind all existence 

 

With crazy videos like this one, we can only hope against evidence that its not that last (worst) scenario.

 

So any kind of statement or theory claiming a true nothing by observation or theory is committing, in a way, an error of negative proof. The only way they could know if there was truly nothing, and not simply that we are unable to observe or postulate with our limitations what is "there", is if they knew everything about that nothing, possibly everything altogether. Gives new meaning to "can't prove a negative", which is not always true. Perhaps it would have to be said, "you can't prove a true nothing".

[TheSkepticChristian]

 So #2 is false, he hasn't described a significant nothing, instead he has only described "T minus 1 second to liftoff".

 

It is nothing, just like virtual particles are created out of nothing. 

Here is a better video that explains, see 1:30 - 1:50. 

 

 

 

 Our universe not existing is simply a description of a truism for something that has yet to come into existence. 

 

When an atom in an excited energy level drops to a lower level and emits a photon, a particle of light, we find no cause for that event, nothing caused it.

That is what he means by nothing. 

Edited July 25, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[ERayR]

What creates the photons? What about quantum mechanics? 

 

They just evolved.

[mfbukowski]

No nothing but certainly a lot of meaningless words to describe it.

 

No mention of no unicorns.  No mention of no gremlins either.

 

Two negatives make a positive therefore there was something in nothing.

 

Oops I left out leprechauns.  

 

There goes that theory.

[mfbukowski]

Note: I certainly do not claim to understand everything these scientists and theorists do, I simply find what he says in this video surprisingly self-contradictory to the possible extent of his being wrong, or horrible at communicating, or deceptive (and bad at being deceptive).

 

However, I am pretty sure that all this "stuff coming from 'nothing'" talk is logically untenable, and thus unscientific. The science cannot prove an ultimate negative any better than a debater can. These scientists are:

 

At Best -

1) forgetting that simply because they don't understand something, doesn't mean it doesn't exist

Or

2) forgetting that simply because they can't seem to observe something, doesn't mean that something doesn't exist

Or

3) Even if their theories show a pre-time before everything we do know about, doesn't mean they have found a true "nothing" (they've only found a "not anything we know about"

 

Worse - confusing their own observations as sufficient to declare a true "nothing", despite the requirement of omniscience

 

Worst - trying to find what they want to find, that nothing is behind all existence 

 

With crazy videos like this one, we can only hope against evidence that its not that last (worst) scenario.

 

So any kind of statement or theory claiming a true nothing by observation or theory is committing, in a way, an error of negative proof. The only way they could know if there was truly nothing, and not simply that we are unable to observe or postulate with our limitations what is "there", is if they knew everything about that nothing, possibly everything altogether. Gives new meaning to "can't prove a negative", which is not always true. Perhaps it would have to be said, "you can't prove a true nothing".

Sorry but this is not much better than the video.

 

You guys are generating carbon dioxide and melting the poles.  Cut it out.  I don't like swimming in ice water. 

[Joshua Valentine]

It is nothing, just like virtual particles are created out of nothing. 

When an atom in an excited energy level drops to a lower level and emits a photon, a particle of light, we find no cause for that event, nothing caused it.

That is what he means by nothing. 

 

 the key phrase here is "we find no cause". That does not mean there was no cause. To assume otherwise, that there is no cause simply because we can't find it is the kind of error I was describing in my last comment ...

 

Sorry but this is not much better than the video.

 

You guys are generating carbon dioxide and melting the poles.  Cut it out.  I don't like swimming in ice water. 

 

and that mfbukowski apparently finds wanting. It seems a simple piece of reason and regular wisdom. We should be careful about what we don't know.

Edited July 25, 2015 by Joshua Valentine

[ERayR]

 

and that mfbukowski apparently finds wanting. It seems a simple piece of reason and regular wisdom. We should be careful about what we don't know.

 

 

And whose interpretation of the data we swallow.  Hook, line and sinker.

[Robert F. Smith]

Photons are created out of nothing, virtual particles are popping in and out of existence. Our universe may have been created out of nothing. 

 

Hogwash !!

 

PS and that doesn't contradict LDS theology because if the universe was created out of nothing, it means there are other universes too.

More nonsense.

Edited July 25, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[ERayR]

Hogwash !!

 

More nonsense.

 

Well put succinct and to the point.

[TheSkepticChristian]

 That does not mean there was no cause.

 

True, but is simply a scientific model. There are other models for an eternal universe. We do not know the answer. 

1.Perhaps the universe is finite, but had no cause.  2. Perhaps a God create it 3. Perhaps our Universe is infinite.      4. Perhaps the Big Bang literally happened everywhere 

 

LDS theology doesn't teach that God created the universe.

 

Dr. Hellings is open to many possibilities, see 26:30 to 27:50

 

 

Hogwash !!

 

More nonsense.

 

So do you have the right answer? Scientists are looking for answers.

 

I am still waiting for someone to answer my question.

 

What caused the photon that is hitting your eye? 

What causes virtual particles? 

Edited July 25, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[thesometimesaint]

Photons are not things in the ordinary sense of the word. They are units of measure. Like saying an inch. it by itself doesn't mean much until you say an inch of what. IE; I'm 74 inches tall. 

 

What creates a photon is the jump of electrons to a lower orbit around the nucleus of an atom. A little bit of energy is given off in that jump.

 

Virtual particles are a bit difficult to understand outside of QM. But here is the latest thinking on them.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-virtual-particles-rea/

[TheSkepticChristian]

Photons are not things in the ordinary sense of the word. They are units of measure. Like saying an inch.

 

Photons are a tiny particle of light

 

 

What creates a photon is the jump of electrons to a lower orbit around the nucleus of an atom. A little bit of energy is given off in that jump.

 

"You can’t say that there was that—you cannot say that that photon, which was emitted by an electron, which changed energy levels in [the] atom, had a cause; it just randomly did it " - Physicist Lawrence Krauss 

 

 

Virtual particles are a bit difficult to understand outside of QM. But here is the latest thinking on them.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-virtual-particles-rea/

 

Nice article 

[Joshua Valentine]

Now that we've processed some QM...

IF Joseph was right - that matter cannot be created.

And

IF we understand him correctly as meaning not just that gods can't create matter, but that matter is such a thing that there cannot become more of it.

THEN, by definition, there is a finite amount of matter

And

Given enough time there will not be any more matter to produce another generation.

There are other implications but this is the most straightforward.

So, yes, it will eventually be the end of matter.

Does anyone have a good way to avoid this?

[thesometimesaint]

Photons are a tiny particle of light

 

 

 

"You can’t say that there was that—you cannot say that that photon, which was emitted by an electron, which changed energy levels in [the] atom, had a cause; it just randomly did it " - Physicist Lawrence Krauss 

 

 

 

Nice article 

 

Photons are a unit of measure of light. Light is not a particle it is an energy wave that sometimes acts like a particle.

SEE http://www.wired.com/2013/07/is-light-a-wave-or-a-particle/

 

At least at the non Quantum scale it isn't random. Put energy into an atom and its electrons jump to a higher orbit. Take away that energy and the orbit decreases releasing a unit of energy called a photon. It is easy to see this non random effect every time you look at your computer screen or TV. An electron loses no mass when it decreases its orbit around the nucleus.

Edited July 25, 2015 by thesometimesaint

[TheSkepticChristian]

IF Joseph was right - that matter cannot be created.

 

D&C doesn't say that matter cannot be created, it says the elements are eternal, and that is the case in a infinite universe. 

 

Photons are a unit of measure of light. Light is not a particle it is an energy wave that sometimes acts like a particle.

SEE http://www.wired.com/2013/07/is-light-a-wave-or-a-particle/

 

At least at the non Quantum scale it isn't random. Put energy into an atom and its electrons jump to a higher orbit. Take away that energy and the orbit decreases releasing a unit of energy called a photon. It is easy to see this non random effect every time you look at your computer screen or TV. An electron loses no mass when it decreases its orbit around the nucleus.

 

and our universe used to be in a quantum state, that is why it is possible that it came from nothing. 

We are talking about quantum mechanics. 

Edited July 25, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[thesometimesaint]

Now that we've processed some QM...

IF Joseph was right - that matter cannot be created.

And

IF we understand him correctly as meaning not just that gods can't create matter, but that matter is such a thing that there cannot become more of it.

THEN, by definition, there is a finite amount of matter

And

Given enough time there will not be any more matter to produce another generation.

There are other implications but this is the most straightforward.

So, yes, it will eventually be the end of matter.

Does anyone have a good way to avoid this?

 

Whether JS was right or wrong on his science is open to debate. His personal opinion was that this earth was 2.5 billion years old. Which is far better than the 6000 years old of his contemporaries. But his methodology in getting that age is equally as dubious.

 

E=MC(squared) is the best explanation we have so far. At the very beginnings of this universe all space, energy, and matter were in one infinitely small and hot place. Matter(atoms) as we know them didn't exist. The Big Bang released all that energy/matter and through billions of years of cooling produced the energy/physical universe we know today.

 

The question is is there enough useful energy in this universe for it to continue forever? At this point in our knowledge no there isn't. Eventually everything will undergo entropy and this universe will be a place of uniform energy and density. No more useful work can be done. 

 

Who knows maybe the Gods at that far distant time will once again say "Let there be light" and it will be.

[Joshua Valentine]

D&C doesn't say that matter cannot be created, it says the elements are eternal, and that is the case in a infinite universe. 

It turns out Joseph Smith did use stronger language than simply "can't be created". If it has no beginning, then it can't be created and it can just spontaneously pop into existence (otherwise known as beginning).

" Hence, we infer that God had materials to organize the world out of chaos-chaotic matter, which is element…. Element had an existence from the time [God] had. The pure principles of element are principles which can never be destroyed; they may be organized and reorganized, but not destroyed. They had no beginning and can have no end" (HC 6:308-309) Joseph Smith

There is this quote and more at http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Matter

[Joshua Valentine]

Who knows maybe the Gods at that far distant time will once again say "Let there be light" and it will be.

The above quote and others in the link seem to preclude any new matter. So are you suggesting that while LDS gods cannot create matter, they may be able to anyway? Or just reenergize it? But energizing it doesn't seem to help ultimate scarcity.

[TheSkepticChristian]

It turns out Joseph Smith did use stronger language than simply "can't be created". If it has no beginning, then it can't be created and it can just spontaneously pop into existence (otherwise known as beginning).

" Hence, we infer that God had materials to organize the world out of chaos-chaotic matter, which is element…. Element had an existence from the time [God] had. The pure principles of element are principles which can never be destroyed; they may be organized and reorganized, but not destroyed. They had no beginning and can have no end" (HC 6:308-309) Joseph Smith

There is this quote and more at http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Matter

 

but that is not in the official canon. What is "chaos-chaotic matter"? How does he define elements? Sure, elements are eternal if the universe is infinite. 

 

 

 they may be organized and reorganized, but not destroyed.

 

Element that enters a Black Hole is completely destroyed. If matter and anti-matter collide, both get destroyed. 

 

 

PS there is a debate about "information" but the elements still get destroyed. 

Edited July 25, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[ERayR]

Element that enters a Black Hole is completely destroyed. If matter and anti-matter collide, both get destroyed. 

 

 

Nope they only change their form.

Edited July 25, 2015 by ERayR

[TheSkepticChristian]

Nope they only change their form.

 

Did you bother to do some research before responding? Even the atoms get destroyed.

but to be fair

http://www.nature.com/scitable/blog/thebeyond/what_happens_to_matter_inside

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics/2013/12/do-black-holes-destroy-information/

Edited July 25, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[ERayR]

Did you bother to do some research before responding? Even the atoms get destroyed.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox

 

but to be fair, "Unfortunately, we can't give you a full answer yet...well, no one can. But, assuming you didn't immediately disintegrate from the force, you would most likely fall towards the center of the black hole at the fastest possible speed, the speed of light. Because everything around you would also be traveling at the speed of light, you would not be able to perceive the passage of time. It would seem as though you would float in space forever, until you finally reached the center and became part of the singularity. This dilation of time inside of the black hole (due to relativistic effects caused by the immense gravity and by your extreme speed) would also cause something else to happen: everything outside of the black hole would appear to be moving through time much more rapidly than you, allowing you to see the "future" of the space outside of the black hole. A few seconds to you would mean thousands of years to a person on Earth! So, you can probably see why black holes have become so essential to the study of theoretical physics. All of the principles that physicists have elucidated in the past century, especially General and Special Relativity, are exemplified by black holes. Not only do they embody an entirely new area of intrigue, but they also serve as a guide for future scientists to conduct groundbreaking study. Maybe one day we will even be able to travel into the abyss itself. Until then, the black hole will be a mystery covered only by theoretical answers to theoretical questions."

http://www.nature.com/scitable/blog/thebeyond/what_happens_to_matter_inside

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox

 

Are you that obtuse?  What happens when you destroy an atom?  Hint:  Mushroom clouds and much destruction.  Can we say it a destroyed atom changes to energy. e =mc2

[TheSkepticChristian]

Are you that obtuse?  What happens when you destroy an atom?  Hint:  Mushroom clouds and much destruction.  Can we say it a destroyed atom changes to energy. e =mc2

 

 

Is that what happens in CERN? LOL Atom smashers, hello?  LOL  Atomic explosions happen after the nuclei of atoms split. 

 

In a black hole, atoms get destroy by a process known as spaghettification. A black hole soaks up information along with the matter it swallows, but black holes are also supposed to evaporate over time. That would cause the information to disappear forever.

 

However, everything I said here has not been proven, it is just theoretical physics, but it doesn't matter to you because you are always right. 

 

 

PS What happens to virtual particles? What happens when matter collides with anti-matter? 

Edited July 26, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[longview]

TheSkepticChristian needs to read a few more college level textbooks and refrain from speculating on jr high school science.  Too many people on this board are dabbling in junk science.