Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It is not impling any such thing.
What you have been saying, and what you are saying, is wrong.
Regarding consciousness: An open question in physics and neuroscience is whether or not consciousness can be simulated (More rigorously, we ask whether or not a Turing machine can produce consciousness). The mainstream opinion is that yes, consciousness can emerge from a sufficiently robust neural computer. Though Roger Penrose has written a couple of excellent books arguing that processes in the brain that result in consciousness cannot emerge from a computer/simulation. But it must be pointed out that such arguments are completely unrelated to the waffle MysticPhD is putting out here.
As for mass being a transient form of energy: It is true that mass is not conserved under relativity. Physical processes can change the amount of mass in a system, and mass and energy are intimately related, but this does not mean energy is all that exists. Energy is a property of things, things have "energy", but you cannot have energy alone, just as you cannot have "fast" alone or "momentum" alone. Take light as an obvious example: A photon is a quantized excitation of the electromagnetic field, it possesses energy, but this does not mean it is energy. Similarly, it possesses momentum, but this does not mean it is momentum.
To extend the example further. Consider this photon in a perfectly reflective can (not technically possible, but bear with me). The photon has energy and momentum, but no mass. Yet since the photon is bouncing back and forth within the can, the system's inertia, and hence mass increases. Similarly, two particles with a given mass might annihilate to produce the photon(s) with no mass, but a given energy equivalent to the amount of annihilated mass. This might help illustrate the relation between mass and energy, but notice that the system never reduces to just energy. Even string theory, which postulates particles as representations of string vibrations, does not say all that exists is energy. In String theory, it is the strings that have energy.
Blah, blah, blah . . . Until you actually read and substantively address what I have rigorously presented point by point about the philosophical implications of mass-energy equivalence . . . you are not qualified to call my views waffle or any other pejorative. How does one presume to criticize what has not even been read or substantively addressed?
The actual science question that you keep harping on that is adequately addressed by my responses is:
Which is your inability to explain what you meant when you said "EM energy (E=hf) is energy that cannot be contained in matter as we know it".
The dark energy hypothesis is plausible and adequately supported circumstantially to be a legitimate HYPOTHESIS.
I still don't see an explanation here. Are you saying your dark energy produces a universal consciousness god field hypothesis predicts that atoms can't absorb and emit photons? Please be specific - don't just throw out random sciencey-sounding words. Try to actually connect the phrases together into a coherent train of thought.
Snipped more lame attempts at poisoning the well. Keep at it, eventually you'll convince everyone you have nothing to offer but insults.
Blah, blah, blah . . . Until you actually read and substantively address what I have rigorously presented point by point about the philosophical implications of mass-energy equivalence . . . you are not qualified to call my views waffle or any other pejorative. How does one presume to criticize what has not even been read or substantively addressed?
I have been reading through the thread and you have not rigorously presented anything. You have been butchering physics.
I still don't see an explanation here. Are you saying your dark energy produces a universal consciousness god field hypothesis predicts that atoms can't absorb and emit photons?
You cannot possibly be genuine. You can reject and dispute the dark energy hypothesis because that is all it is at this time . . . but a plausible and supportable one using extant science. You can dispute the field aspects of consciousness but they are supported by current science. But you have not disputed my rigorous (and not at all controversial) explanation of mass-energy equivalence that provides the rationale for my assertion that there is nothing but energy in vibratory energy event systems and transformations of the only thing that exists (energy) into different FORMS (event systems).
YOU keep talking about absorbing and emitting. The phrase "matter as we know it" refers to the mistaken idea that matter is some static, stable substance that exists throughout time and either absorbs or emits energy. While this is useful for our macro models of reality and enables physicists and chemists to predict and perform wonderful manipulations of our reality . . . it is not the underlying reality. Matter is a spherical standing waveform energy EVENT system that we experience as substance. Absorbing and emitting is the result of transformations by adding or removing higher frequency forms of the only thing that exists (energy) to the system.
I have been reading through the thread and you have not rigorously presented anything. You have been butchering physics.
More bald assertions without any substance actually rebutting the specific rationale that was presented for the philosophical implications of the mathematics. If you are genuine . . . you would recognize the legitimacy of the rationale and provide your alternate interpretations for rejecting it and substituting mass as the "same property" of our reality. How or why do you interpret the philosophical significance of the math differently? Be sure to specifically address what I have presented and provide your alternate interpretations . . . not some more irrelevant and off point blah, blah, blah of your own.
Last edited by MysticPhD; 05-01-2012 at 09:14 AM..
I don't claim to know a lot about physics, but I'm pretty good at google.
And it looks to me like Mystic's discussion regarding the equivalance of mass and energy is NOT outside the mainstream of modern philosophy of science. There's a division in the field, as there is in many things in physics. But it appears that Mystic's interpretation (as it pertains to mass and energy) is a legitimate mainstream point of view.
2.2 Same-property interpretations of E = mc[SIZE=3]2[/SIZE]
The first interpretation we will consider answers “Yes” to the first interpretative question posed above: mass and energy are the same property of physical systems. Consequently, there is no sense in which one of the properties is ever physically converted into the other.
Philosophers such as Torretti (1996) and physicists such as Eddington (1929) have adopted the same-property interpretation. For example, Eddington states that “it seems very probable that mass and energy are two ways of measuring what is essentially the same thing, in the same sense that the parallax and distance of a star are two ways of expressing the same property of location” (1929, p. 146). According to Eddington, the distinction between mass and energy is artificial. We treat mass and energy as different properties of physical systems because we routinely measure them using different units. However, one can measure mass and energy using the same units by choosing units in which c = 1, i.e., units in which distances are measured in units of time (e.g., light-years). Once we do this, Eddington claims, the distinction between mass and energy disappears.
Like Eddington, Torretti points out that mass and energy seem to be different properties because they are measured in different units. Speaking against Bunge's (1967) view that their numerical equivalence does not entail that mass and energy “are the same thing,” Torretti explains:
If a kitchen refrigerator can extract mass from a given jug of water and transfer it by heat radiation or convection to the kitchen wall behind it, a trenchant metaphysical distinction between the mass and the energy of matter does seem far fetched (1996, p. 307, fn. 13).
For Torretti, the very existence of physical processes in which the emission of energy by an object is correlated with the decrease in the object's mass in accordance with Einstein's equation speaks strongly against the view that mass and energy are somehow distinct properties of physical systems. Torretti continues:
Of course, if lengths and times are measured with different, unrelated units, the ‘mass’... differs conceptually from the ‘energy.’ But this difference can be understood as a consquence of the convenient but deceitful act of the mind by which we abstract time and space from nature (1996, p. 307, fn. 13).
Thus, this footnote in his masterly Relativity and Geometry suggests that, for Torretti, we are misled into using different units for mass and energy merely because of how we perceive space and time. As we have seen, one can use the same units for mass and energy by adopting the convention Torretti himself uses of slecting units in which c=1 (pp. 88–89). However, it may be useful to remember that merely using the same units for spatial and temporal intervals does not entail that space and time are treated “on a par” in special relativity; they are not, as is evident from the signature of the Minkwoski metric.
The main merit of Torretti's view is that it takes very seriously the unification of space and time effected by special relativity and so famously announced in the opening lines of Minkowski (1908). It is also consistent with how mass and energy are treated in general relativity.
Interpretations such as Torretti's and Eddington's draw no further ontological conclusions from mass-energy equivalence. For example, neither Eddington nor Torretti make any explicit claim concerning whether properties are best understood as universals, or whether one ought to be a realist about such properties. Finally, by saying that mass and energy are the same, these thinkers are suggesting that the denotation of the terms “mass” and “energy” is the same, though they recognize that the connotation of these terms is clearly different.
I am not merely saying MysticPhD holding a fringe philosophical viewpoint. I am saying he is saying incorrect things about physics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill
I don't claim to know a lot about physics, but I'm pretty good at google.
And it looks to me like Mystic's discussion regarding the equivalance of mass and energy is NOT outside the mainstream of modern philosophy of science. There's a division in the field, as there is in many things in physics. But it appears that Mystic's interpretation (as it pertains to mass and energy) is a legitimate mainstream point of view.
"In relativistic physics, as in classical physics, mass and energy are both regarded as properties of physical systems or properties of the constituents of physical systems. If one wishes to talk about the physical stuff that is the bearer of such properties, then one typically talks about either “matter” or “fields.” The distinction between “matter” and “fields” in modern physics is itself rather subtle in no small part because of the equivalence of mass and energy. Nevertheless, we can assert that whatever sense of “conversion” seems compelling between mass and energy, it will have to be a “conversion” between mass and energy, and not between matter and energy."
---
From MysticPhD's posts:
"Actually, the only thing that exists in our universe is energy."
"OH for God's sake . . . there is no such thing as matter . . . just aggregations of energy"
"When matter is "accelerated" to the square of the speed of light C^2 (E=mc^2) . . . i.e., its frequency of propagation increases (E=hf), it ceases to be matter AS WE EXPERIENCE IT"
"Everything that exists as an identifiable independent entity interacting with reality HAS TO BE some form of energy composite."
"Light and heat appear to leave the source, but in the totality of the universe, they remain as energy. The two forms of energy, light and heat, possess different characteristics."
"Matter, or mass, is energy decelerated from the square of the speed of light. Conversely, energy is matter accelerated to the square of the speed of light."
"Relativity theory, remember, yields the conclusion that energy is merely matter accelerated to the square of the speed of light, essentially very "speedy" substance. If we suspend our incredulity for a bit, the universe could be viewed as a "flow" of energy at that speed."
"It [mass] becomes pure energy, indistinguishable from any other energy, and therefore timeless."
"Existence at C-squared is existence as energy and is eternal or timeless."
"Our soul is in the high frequency range of pure energy. Since our soul represents an accelerated state of energy"
---
My previous posts:
"It is not true that there is no such things as matter. It is in no way implied by either experimental data, or mathematical formalisms of relativity."
"No, and I am sure it is irrelevant, since the energy-momentum equation does not say everything is mass, just as it does not say everything is momentum, or everything is energy."
"As for mass being a transient form of energy: It is true that mass is not conserved under relativity. Physical processes can change the amount of mass in a system, and mass and energy are intimately related, but this does not mean energy is all that exists. Energy is a property of things, things have "energy", but you cannot have energy alone, just as you cannot have "fast" alone or "momentum" alone. Take light as an obvious example: A photon is a quantized excitation of the electromagnetic field, it possesses energy, but this does not mean it is energy. Similarly, it possesses momentum, but this does not mean it is momentum.
To extend the example further. Consider this photon in a perfectly reflective can (not technically possible, but bear with me). The photon has energy and momentum, but no mass. Yet since the photon is bouncing back and forth within the can, the system's inertia, and hence mass increases. Similarly, two particles with a given mass might annihilate to produce the photon(s) with no mass, but a given energy equivalent to the amount of annihilated mass. This might help illustrate the relation between mass and energy, but notice that the system never reduces to just energy. Even string theory, which postulates particles as representations of string vibrations, does not say all that exists is energy. In String theory, it is the strings that have energy."
---
Now, I do not like the philosophical position that mass and energy are the same thing, as I made clear in post #135. The Energy-momentum relation is E = m + p, not just E = m. Though I have less of a problem if we use the concept of "relativistic mass", which really is just an expression for the energy of the system. But this is less important.
What is important: What MysticPhD has been saying is not merely wrong for philosophical reasons. It is incorrect physics. "Pure energy" makes no physical sense. A photon has energy. Confine it, and it can add mass to the system, but the photon itself is not energy. Energy is not "matter accelerated to the speed of light." Energy not "matter moving/vibrating at the speed of light". Mass does not become "pure energy".
Also, the above is only a small sample of the inaccuracies in MysticPhD's posts.
I am not merely saying MysticPhD holding a fringe philosophical viewpoint. I am saying he is saying incorrect things about physics.
And you are incorrect.
Quote:
From the same article:
"In relativistic physics, as in classical physics, mass and energy are both regarded as properties of physical systems or properties of the constituents of physical systems. If one wishes to talk about the physical stuff that is the bearer of such properties, then one typically talks about either “matter” or “fields.” The distinction between “matter” and “fields” in modern physics is itself rather subtle in no small part because of the equivalence of mass and energy. Nevertheless, we can assert that whatever sense of “conversion” seems compelling between mass and energy, it will have to be a “conversion” between mass and energy, and not between matter and energy."
None of this conflicts with what I have said. In fact it reiterates it. The distinction made between matter and fields is obsolete. It is ALL fields now . . . and uncontroversially so.
Quote:
"Actually, the only thing that exists in our universe is energy."
Absolutely true. You can add within a field, if it makes you feel better. I call the universal field a consciousness field. The only controversial aspect of field theory.
Quote:
"OH for God's sake . . . there is no such thing as matter . . . just aggregations of energy"
Absolutely true. That is what an energy system IS . . . an aggregation of energy within the universal field.
Quote:
"When matter is "accelerated" to the square of the speed of light C^2 (E=mc^2) . . . i.e., its frequency of propagation increases (E=hf), it ceases to be matter AS WE EXPERIENCE IT"
This refers to my analogy that was used to make the concepts more accessible to a wider audience not familiar with the frequency/energy relationships. You do not like the analogy and insist on treating it literally because given your predilection for NOT reading my presentations . . . you probably didn't bother to actually read my use of analogy in my synthesis.
Quote:
"Everything that exists as an identifiable independent entity interacting with reality HAS TO BE some form of energy composite."
Absolutely true. There is nothing else it CAN be . . . since energy systems are all that exist.
Quote:
"Light and heat appear to leave the source, but in the totality of the universe, they remain as energy. The two forms of energy, light and heat, possess different characteristics."
Another use of analogy to convey the process nature of our composite consciousness and why it will continue to exist unless there exists some process for transforming it into some other form. This concept clearly flies right over your head.
Quote:
"Matter, or mass, is energy decelerated from the square of the speed of light. Conversely, energy is matter accelerated to the square of the speed of light." "Relativity theory, remember, yields the conclusion that energy is merely matter accelerated to the square of the speed of light, essentially very "speedy" substance. If we suspend our incredulity for a bit, the universe could be viewed as a "flow" of energy at that speed."
More analogy to emphasize the relational aspects of the different energy states that exist . . . with pure or disaggregated energy comprised of the the highest frequencies. It also obtains from Minkowski's topological conception of the constancy of the world interval . . . where the relationship of time to the reference frame of the square of the speed of light is made explicit. More things from my synthesis you have not read but feel competent to judge.
Quote:
"It [mass] becomes pure energy, indistinguishable from any other energy, and therefore timeless." "Existence at C-squared is existence as energy and is eternal or timeless."
A focus on the illusion of time (as we measure it).
Quote:
"Our soul is in the high frequency range of pure energy. Since our soul represents an accelerated state of energy"
Since you do not believe in a soul and since a soul has no science-derived definition . . . totally irrelevant to the science part of this discussion. It is part of my BELIEF system that obviously is not restricted to the legitimate science that provided the basis for it.
Quote:
My previous posts:
"It is not true that there is no such things as matter. It is in no way implied by either experimental data, or mathematical formalisms of relativity."
Totally baseless and unsupported assertion that is refuted by extant field theories.
Quote:
"No, and I am sure it is irrelevant, since the energy-momentum equation does not say everything is mass, just as it does not say everything is momentum, or everything is energy."
Another baseless assertion based on a refusal even to consider what I presented that anyone can see is baseless Thanks to Box and the Stanford Encyclopedia which I referenced, btw.
Quote:
"As for mass being a transient form of energy: It is true that mass is not conserved under relativity. Physical processes can change the amount of mass in a system, and mass and energy are intimately related, but this does not mean energy is all that exists. Energy is a property of things, things have "energy", but you cannot have energy alone, just as you cannot have "fast" alone or "momentum" alone. Take light as an obvious example: A photon is a quantized excitation of the electromagnetic field, it possesses energy, but this does not mean it is energy. Similarly, it possesses momentum, but this does not mean it is momentum.
You cannot be genuine. This entire presentation is based on what we "measure" NOT what it philosophically implies about what IS. I have said repeatedly that everything is in a universal FIELD (not MATTER)
and there is plenty of evidence that this is so. That you are not familiar with it or choose to retain the pragmatically useful (but philosophically blind) macro view of matter is not dispositive.
Quote:
To extend the example further. Consider this photon in a perfectly reflective can (not technically possible, but bear with me). The photon has energy and momentum, but no mass. Yet since the photon is bouncing back and forth within the can, the system's inertia, and hence mass increases. Similarly, two particles with a given mass might annihilate to produce the photon(s) with no mass, but a given energy equivalent to the amount of annihilated mass. This might help illustrate the relation between mass and energy, but notice that the system never reduces to just energy. Even string theory, which postulates particles as representations of string vibrations, does not say all that exists is energy. In String theory, it is the strings that have energy."
These " measured" energy events with useful names do not contradict anything I have said about the reality that underlies them. The "particle" (instead of particle event) perspective of physicists is understandable but not dispositive . . . all they have are their "measures." The inescapable fact that those "measures" are themselves "energy events" seems to get obscured in the penumbra of their considerations. But since they cannot function without them . . . any implications about what they philosophically reveal about reality are basically irrelevant. Philosophers of science are not surprised by this lack of philosophical perspective. They have more important and relevant work to do than consider what the implications of their formulations are for the structure and composition of reality.
Quote:
Now, I do not like the philosophical position that mass and energy are the same thing, as I made clear in post #135. The Energy-momentum relation is E = m + p, not just E = m. Though I have less of a problem if we use the concept of "relativistic mass", which really is just an expression for the energy of the system. But this is less important.
Fortunately what you like or do not like is totally irrelvant to the physics or the philosophical implication for our reality. The fact remains that mass-energy equivalence is true and that energy is the most reasonable and rational candidate for the "same property" of the universal field that is our reality.
Quote:
What is important: What MysticPhD has been saying is not merely wrong for philosophical reasons. It is incorrect physics. "Pure energy" makes no physical sense. A photon has energy. Confine it, and it can add mass to the system, but the photon itself is not energy. Energy is not "matter accelerated to the speed of light." Energy not "matter moving/vibrating at the speed of light". Mass does not become "pure energy".
Also, the above is only a small sample of the inaccuracies in MysticPhD's posts.
Thank God they are YOUR inaccuracies born of your deliberate refusal to engage my presentations rigorously instead of proceeding from a point of ignorance about them. You are mired in the concrete world of measures and application and simply do not (or cannot) seem to grasp the philosophical perspective necessary.
I'll just have to stay out of this conversation. I can barely understand what is being argued.
But I think I see what you are saying.
I think you are right. I am following this with great interest even though the subject is over my head. I am almost thinking that the knowledgeable people here are inadequate for making a definitive pronouncement on Mystic's hypothesis -and hypothesis it surely is at best.
As you saw, much of it can be fitted into valid areas of science - he gave me loooong pause for thought in the area of consciousness and epistemology with especial reference to the arguments of David Chalmers regarding the nature of consciousness, but the suspicion arises that it is being adapted to the theory - not to use the word 'butchered'.
Where are we going to attract the attention of a think -tank of top - level physicists, philosophers, consciousness specialists and biochemists (since Mystic seems to shift from one discipline to the next every time he seems to come under pressure) who can deliberate on this theory and give it marks out of ten?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
