It's confirmed: Matter is merely vacuum fluctuations

reply to post by Lecter


Now that is the real question. That the world might be virtual says more about how our human psychology processes the universe than that of our actual existence, which we can now safely discard as irrelevant (in the context of language). It's a product of our evolved psychology.

reply to post by dave420

Originally posted by Zepherian
Who said you couldn't get something out of nothing?

Science is just trying to keep people from realising matter is made from energy, so their last resort is saying matter is made from... vibrating nothing. Woo. Way to go Einstein... wannabes.

O come on! Lighten up. That was hilarious.

[edit on 21-11-2008 by cognoscente]

reply to post by Europe


Do you mean Nick Bostrom ? www.nickbostrom.com... and more here on the simulation argument www.simulation-argument.com....

Cheers.

According to Lee Smolin, in his book Three Roads to Quantum Gravity, the spin networks of Roger Penrose can be used to calculate the smallest possible volume in the universe and it has a finite value. It is a very small volume, existing on the Planck scale, but Smolin (working with Penrose) has nevertheless concluded that there is a finite division of space beyond which one cannot go. Note that we are not speaking of particles, but the very nature of spacetime itself. According to Smolin, the stuff of space itself is not infinitely small. In this picture, space itself is very like a foam in its texture, with every point on the spin network connected to the next.

He also asserts several times in the text that "there are no things, only processes". The implication is that all matter is the interaction of vibrations along this network. This would seem to support the OP's premise.

[edit on 21-11-2008 by OuttaHere]

Originally posted by OuttaHere
It is a very small volume, existing on the Planck scale, but Smolin (working with Penrose) has nevertheless concluded that there is a finite division of space beyond which one cannot go.l

Sounds awfully like a computer hd cluster. You can't have a file smaller than the size of a cluster for a particular disk. If space-time is quantified with a finite smallest size, it somehow supports a simulation argument. A computer can address only so much data, hence the cluster size Wait... that's not funny. Does it mean I'm a sim?

Originally posted by Zepherian
Personally I think all this modern physics is sand in the eyes, an academic quagmire designed and funded to keep people away from the mass = energy reality of our universe, and the realization that it is a living system.

I think you failed to get familiar with the result that the computer model of a proton has brought about, because the result fully supports the idea that mass = energy, which led to the confirmation of energy equals mass times speed of light squared. mentioned by Einstein.

Come on, Zeph. Quit bitching -- unless you like it.

Out of vacuum eh, reminds of the Daodejing.

From the Daodejing

"Tao is empty (like a bowl),
it may be used but its capacity is never exhausted.
It is bottomless, perhaps the ancestor of all things.
It blunts its sharpness, it unties its tangles.
It softens its light.
It becomes one with the dusty world.
Deep and still, it appears to exist forever.
It seems to have existed before the Lord." (4)

"There was something undifferentiated and yet complete,
which existed before heaven and earth.
Soundless and formless, it depends on nothing and does not change.
It operates everywhere and is free from danger.
I do not know its name; I call it Tao.
If forced to give it a name, I shall call it great." (25)

"Tao produced the One.
The One produced the two.
The two produced the three.
And the three produced the ten thousand things.
The ten thousand things carry the yin and embrace the yang,
and through the blending of the material force (ch'i) they achieve harmony." (42)

Maybe, just maybe.

[edit on Fri, 21 Nov 08 by Jazzyguy]

Originally posted by Zepherian
What you're saying is mass comes from energy which comes from tiny bits of mass interacting with each other...
... And I have never bought the "the math is too complex, you wouldn't understand it" smokescreen being thrown up either. Thats for gullible left brain slaves to be caught up in, spend half their lives solving equations and getting disconnected from reality to then think they know something which they don't.

I read the article, I just didn't take it very seriously, sorry.

No, I didn't say that.
The energy is what makes the quarks and gluons interact, sorry for not being clear enough before. Anyways, this energy produces 99% of mass. Quarks are the remaning 1% of mass. Gluons don't have mass.

If we let
massa = mass of atom
massb = mass of quark

then massa = Energy*constant + massb, and from there you can solve for energy:
Energy = (massa-massb)/constant.

If we allow massa-massb = mass then we see all mass is energy scaled by some constant. So I still fail to see why in your opinion modern physics is "sand in the eyes" when they are cearly saying exactly what you are proposing (all mass is energy).

The constant turns out o be 1/c2.

As far as "the math is too complex, you wouldn't understand it" argument, shame on whoever told you that. You either understand what you are presented with, or you don't, but no scientist should ever deny you any information based on that argument.

If you understand the information and disagree, then you are free to formulate your own theory.

If you don't understand it, then you can't disagree because they might actually have arrived at the same conclusion you had - exactly what just happened in this thread.

[edit on 22-11-2008 by daniel_g]

reply to post by daniel_g


Fair enough. In that case we really are transitioning from quanta physics to energy field fluctuation or vibrational physics, and that I can live with.

I guess another thing I have a problem with is the notion of vacuum, because understood this way it's not really nothing, it's, well, everything, a plenum from which matter is embodied. We exist as data in an information field? We exist as thoughts in the mind of God? This sort of physical outlook opens up some quite astounding possibilities. And also the possibility of some quite astounding deceptions.

Ok, I'll stop bitching.

[edit on 22-11-2008 by Zepherian]

reply to post by Zepherian


Oh I love this stuff.... Has anyone here read the book The Elegant Universe? Or watched the video from nova? If you want to watch the full three hours (parts) on goggle video it is very inspirational. This is exactly what String Theory posits, that all particles are but different vibrations of a fundamental energy (the vacuum).

Just think about the possibilities! If all matter is fundamentally the same energy why would it not be possible then to say... change it, or make it momentarily disappear from one point and reappear at another? Suddenly now there is at least a possibility for paranormal activities like.. ufos.. ghosts.. time shifts, to be scientifically explained and therefore real.

I understand the feeling of being suppressed and being held back with information, freedom, and many other things. But I think it is important to look at the possibilities instead of just the impossibilities so we can pull ourselves beyond a negative past and into a more positive future.

Zeph, I echo your sentiments about truth, and how important it is to remain humble.
And you are completely right about science being hirarchical and sensored, there is no doubt about that, anyone who think science is still a noble pursuit of truth solely for the progression of man, is living in happy land, science, just like most walks of our life, is drip fed to us and lied about.

reply to post by Outlawstar


Yes, but this is the information age, the floodgates are breaking on censorship dam. Things are going to get very interesting in the next few years. And yes, there will be many lies in the mix, as the elitist psuedopriests do their best (worst) to keep the world ignorant and pliable.

My guess is they will fail, we are going to have a multispectrum disclosure, whether the elites like it or not. They will try to push us into war to stop this, but I don't see that happening, their own global economy broke their global false flag system, so I very much doubt they will be able to pull off WWIII.

Unless the vacuum fluctuates of course

reply to post by constantwonder

I couldn't agree more. I don't see anything improbable in the idea that what we call matter consists of quantum fluctuations in spacetime; indeed, when you consider matter in spacetime (which is the only way you can consider it), it's pretty hard to imagine what else it could be. We know from General Relativity that matter distorts spacetime, so why should that not be its essential property?

But that isn't quite what these guys are getting at. What they're telling us is that the sum of the energies of phenomena that (theoretically speaking) go to make up a proton are calculated to add up to roughly the proton mass (the error is two percent). Which is great, but it's just a calculation that supports the theory. We can't regard that as experimental verification. As you say, we have to wait for the LHC (or some other apparatus) to give us some proof of this.

reply to post by Zepherian

Personally I think all this modern physics is sand in the eyes, an academic quagmire designed and funded to keep people away from the mass = energy reality of our universe, and the realization that it is a living system.

As was pointed out to you by daniel_g, and is also implied in the earlier part of this post of mine, matter is energy. E = mc^2 is the archetypal equation of modern physics.

Originally posted by stander
Why don't you take your conspiracy infected opinion and voice it where it belongs? The General Conspiracies Forum would surely welcome your contribution.

Seconded. In the Science & Technology forum, one expects to be talking to people who actually know enough about the subject being discussed to make their opinion worth having.

Zepherian, you don't have a thing to contribute to the science that is being discussed here. Your opinions about modern physics are completely irrelevant to this thread, which you have successfully trolled and derailed for two pages now. Look, this is interesting stuff to people who understand it. You clearly don't. You have voiced your opinion, which nobody interested in the science we're discussing here gives two hoots about anyway. Why are you still here?

[edit on 27-11-2008 by Astyanax]

Originally posted by FunSized

Matter is built on flaky foundations. Physicists have now confirmed that the apparently substantial stuff is actually no more than fluctuations in the quantum vacuum. The researchers simulated the frantic activity that goes on inside protons and neutrons. These particles provide almost all the mass of ordinary matter.

source


(ex tags)

[edit on 20/11/08 by Jbird]

Quantum vacuum?............So I guess that means we suck, since we are made from this flaky matter.......Sounds like God just cleaning up house..

Originally posted by dave420
reply to post by Zepherian

 

Science is not a hierarchical sstructure. Science is a methodology applied by many different organisations around the world. It is not a unifying world-view, only a way to objectively investigate.

mostly government organizations... they give the money

your views about science are very idealistic and the 'objective' truth evades you

modern science is just another tool of the governments keeping the sheep
in fear and control

nothing else

Originally posted by Astyanax
In the Science & Technology forum, one expects to be talking to people who actually know enough about the subject being discussed to make their opinion worth having.

so, you are telling us that ATS is a science forum?



and when someone does not agree with you, you want him to go away?

that tells a lot about you...

Zepherian is just trying to explain to you that it is not wise to follow
scientists and their observations blindly like a sheep

and yes, modern science is trying to hide the fact that matter is energy
so they are saying that it is 'merely vacuum fluctuations'

but what is vacuum itself?

vacuum is energy so the title of this 'observation' should be

It is confirmed: Matter is merely energy fluctuations




[edit on 27-11-2008 by donhuangenaro]

reply to post by donhuangenaro

so, you are telling us that ATS is a science forum?

No, I am telling you that this is the Science & Technology Forum on ATS. Look at the top of the page.

As I said to Zepherian, so I say to you: say something relevant, or begone.

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by donhuangenaro

 

so, you are telling us that ATS is a science forum?

No, I am telling you that this is the Science & Technology Forum on ATS. Look at the top of the page.

As I said to Zepherian, so I say to you: say something relevant, or begone.

funny, so you are saying ATS is not a conspiracy forum?

and who are you to judge what is relevant or not?

the problem is that you ignore what is relevant because of your close mindedness and you are trying to impose your views upon others or you try to force them away

that is not very polite

nothing is real, save endless void and you and you are but a thought.

trippy happenings.

[edit on 27-11-2008 by caballero]

reply to post by donhuangenaro


Thank you for understanding my posts. At the end of the day I find it funny that they, the science adoration society, criticize me for not adding anything to the thread, but their own science, kicking and screaming, has to agree with the statement that matter is energy, which is something I've been defending for a while now.

But you know how they think, if you're not part of the science club, if you don't kiss academias ass, you can be right all you want, but you'll still be a pariah.

They, if they want to get closer to truth, need to grow out of being such beta males (and possibly females but I'd wager most of this posturing comes from imature male), trying to prove themselves for the tribe of science, and actually care about the topics they study.

Scientific method is fine, I endorse it. Scientific establishment needs to be viewed with extreme skepticism, as it has a track record which is less than pristine.