I prefer the theory that the universe has no matter or energy. The idea, is if you add, let's say an electron with a virtual particle embedded in the vacuum, then you can say that $$((E=Mc^{2})+(E=-Mc^{2})=0)$$. Strange this nothing stuff isn't it?
Consciousness and Uncertainty
- Thread starter Mike Honcho
- Start date
I prefer the theory that the universe has no matter or energy. The idea, is if you add, let's say an electron with a virtual particle embedded in the vacuum, then you can say that $$((E=Mc^{2})+(E=-Mc^{2})=0)$$. Strange this nothing stuff isn't it?
Yes, that works if you think everything will equal out that wayI prefer the theory that the universe has no matter or energy. The idea, is if you add, let's say an electron with a virtual particle embedded in the vacuum, then you can say that $$((E=Mc^{2})+(E=-Mc^{2})=0)$$. Strange this nothing stuff isn't it?
.That idea reminds me of the matter/antimatter problem in BBT. I don't have a definitive answer but it seems that the Big Bang was supposed to have included spontaneous symmetry breaking as the inflationary epoch occurred in the early instant of the bang. This broke the symmetry of nothingness and divided nothing into matter and antimatter.
The problem is of course where is all the antimatter. Maybe you have just found it.
BTW, this scenario is not science as far as I know, only speculation and not supported by any observation unless someone else has a link.
Yes.
There should have been an equal amount of matter and antimatter at the birth of the cosmos, but a CPT violation corrupted this, and this seems to be an explanation to why we see more matter than antimatter.
I haven't found a solution alas. It would be more complicated than that. It does arise however, that every electron has a partner in the vacuum.
There should have been an equal amount of matter and antimatter at the birth of the cosmos, but a CPT violation corrupted this, and this seems to be an explanation to why we see more matter than antimatter.
I haven't found a solution alas. It would be more complicated than that. It does arise however, that every electron has a partner in the vacuum.
You could have given us this link :bugeye: but you didn't. So here it is. Interesting concept if you feel you must resolve the question of missing antimatter.
Personally I have no such desire because I don't think there was equal amount of matter and antimatter, and in fact my model preference is that there was no birth of the cosmos and no spontaneous symmetry breaking at the instant of the big bang. The cosmos is what I call the greater universe beyond, before, and after the BB and that has alway existed.
Consider a model of an infinite universe filled with energy that has always existed and where the average energy content is greater than the equalization threshold so that matter has always existed. The only antimatter would be the product of high energy physics which would occur in various locations throughout the cosmos as stars form and explode or as events that produce gamma ray bursts occur and in and around black holes.
But all of that antimatter would annihilate an equal amount of matter and so there would be no net change in energy or matter content of the cosmos.
Disclaimer: The model scenario I mention is just speculation and is not supported by any observation and should not be relied upon by naive young people and students who don't already have a firm grasp of the standard model.
And my apologies to Honcho for hogging his thread. Maybe we can get back on topic which is ... Uncertainty and Consciousness.
The uncertainty principle gave rise to the wave function which seems to be a pillar of quantum mechanics though I'm not sure how it helps. For discussion purposes does anyone have a contribution to say how it is beneficial?
Last edited:
I go with the simple answer, energy has alway existed
But energy always existing doesn't explain why matter exists. IMHO there is too much energy at the average energy density of the universe for matter not to exist. A characteristic that I attribute to energy is energy density equalization, meaning that in a given energy density environment, the energy density changes to equalize the density across the environment.
In an infinite universe where the average energy density is above the equalization threshold, matter must form. So effectively matter has always existed too
I probably need more prerequisite knowledge of "energy density equalization" to thouroughly understand that post.
I assume what you are getting at would be similar to particulates condensing from a super saturated liquid or maybe dew forming when humidity is to high for the given ambient temperature.
To back track a little, I would like to clarify what I mean by "nothing".
I consider absolute nothingness to be infinite POTENTIAL energy.
So, I concede, energy has always existed.
I currently like to think that before the BB (or whatever sparked the current universe) this infinite potential energy always existed.
Now here is the part that is deservedly in pseudoscience:
It seems an outside force is necessary to "realize" potential energy.
Is the will of God a force?
Please don't write me off for that one. I speculate wildly of course.
If you care, I can explain consicely WHY I believe nothingness is potential energy. I also understand if this is a bit too off the wall for your liking.
btw, I have been reading up on WSM. Good Stuff!
Those are not bad analogies.
The problem with using analogies is that they all have baggage. By baggage I mean that there are many things about super saturated liquids or about dew forming in high humidity that don't apply, baggage.
Matter is composed of energy quanta in my opinion. In particular, I describe energy quanta and quantum action in my thread about "Mass has Gravity". I do use an analogy there where I say that energy quanta and quantum action are akin to rouge ocean waves. If you don't agree that matter is composed of energy in quantum increments, offer an alternative idea about the composition of matter.
Here is a link to an explanation of energy density equalization and the equalization threshold.
I won't write you off for that. Wouldn't even think of writing you off for mentioning God. If interested I will give you my perspective.
Please explain. And as for "off the wall", if I can have my own personal cosmology, anyone can!:cheers:
When you are ready let's discuss it because there is plenty of good content, and I have a couple of comments that distinguish QWC from the standing wave idea.