The True Nature of Matter and Mass

[Obvious Leo]

I think that shifting the blame of actions down to a theorized "Plank level" is merely cheating the audience and begging the question. It is similar to claiming that there was a Big Bang wherein all of the laws of physics were different or nonexistent. It amounts to superstition (the superimposing of mental stitching in order to connect the dots and claim knowledge). It is a form of scapegoating.

Bollocks. The philosophy of the quantum is possibly the simplest and most unshakable principle in all of metaphysics and I've never heard of a philosopher who would attempt to try and refute it. ( I'm excluding Aquinas because he was an apologist rather than a philosopher). In order for something to be definable as physically real it cannot be infinitely divisible. This means that there absolutely MUST be a fundamental scale at which reality is made and we already know from E=mcc that this scale lies BENEATH the scale of subatomic particles, which are therefore being incorrectly labelled as quantum entities. They are no such thing. They are emergent processes being specified for by quantum entities.

The string theorists have now gone the way of phlogiston, and not before time, but they are to be acknowledged for at least realising that particles are not fundamental. There was no such thing as a particle at the big bang! They were late to the party so SOMETHING must have caused them to come into existence and there were no physical "laws" around to do it. This rather narrows the field of candidates to time, gravity and energy since these were all which could be meaningfully said to exist.

Maybe quarks really are the smallest division of reality?

You'll be staying after class for detention, Greta, to brush up on Logic 101. Quarks have physical properties, such as mass, charge and spin. Where the fuck did these properties come from, Santa Claus?

Science is about WHY things are happening, not merely that they are.

This does not apply to physics and in all fairness to the geeks they don't claim this themselves either. They know perfectly well that the methodology of physics precludes this science from addressing "Why" questions. Physics is a purely predictive discipline with no explanatory authority, which is why the geeks make no fucking sense every time they try to play outside their own sandbox.

the speed of light it is only a single moment in time (for the photon).

In the spacetime paradigm space contracts to zero and time dilates to infinity at the speed of light. What this means is that in the referential frame of the photon the universe does not exist. Actually Maxwell never really thought of the speed of light as a speed at all. He defined it as a dimensional constant but nobody was smart enough to figure out what he meant.

[JSS]

The philosophy of the quantum is possibly the simplest and most unshakable principle in all of metaphysics and I've never heard of a philosopher who would attempt to try and refute it.

Really.
Well,
You have heard of one now.

In order for something to be definable as physically real it cannot be infinitely divisible.

"Bollocks".
Where did you get that bit of nonsense?

[Obvious Leo]

Leo, was going to post this in the 'multiverse' thread, but.. When you scope down to the binary ultimate level of space, is it really ultimate, i mean if 1 is true, an event, then can we not have zeroes for the stretches of existence that we cannot ascertain. In other words, if there are zeroes - no events but still space, then what is dark energy\matter is there any correlation?

You've missed the major point of the story, atto. Space is not physically real. Space is nothing more than a construct of the consciousness of the observer whereby he translates a time interval into a spatial distance. We look at the sun and imagine that we see an object which exists 150 million kms "away" but this is the wrong way to think the world. What we're actually looking at is an object which existed 8.3 minutes AGO.

This a vastly simpler picture of the universe and it means that dark energy and dark matter can vanish back into the luminiferous aether which gave birth to them. They are a prediction of the spacetime theory but they are NOT a conclusion from the evidence in the absence of this theory.

[Obvious Leo]

The philosophy of the quantum is possibly the simplest and most unshakable principle in all of metaphysics and I've never heard of a philosopher who would attempt to try and refute it.

Really.
Well,
You have heard of one now.

In order for something to be definable as physically real it cannot be infinitely divisible.

"Bollocks".
Where did you get that bit of nonsense?

Have you ever read a philosophy book? If so which one?

[attofishpi]

Leo, was going to post this in the 'multiverse' thread, but.. When you scope down to the binary ultimate level of space, is it really ultimate, i mean if 1 is true, an event, then can we not have zeroes for the stretches of existence that we cannot ascertain. In other words, if there are zeroes - no events but still space, then what is dark energy\matter is there any correlation?

You've missed the major point of the story, atto. Space is not physically real. Space is nothing more than a construct of the consciousness of the observer whereby he translates a time interval into a spatial distance. We look at the sun and imagine that we see an object which exists 150 million kms "away" but this is the wrong way to think the world. What we're actually looking at is an object which existed 8.3 minutes AGO.

This a vastly simpler picture of the universe and it means that dark energy and dark matter can vanish back into the luminiferous aether which gave birth to them. They are a prediction of the spacetime theory but they are NOT a conclusion from the evidence in the absence of this theory.

Leo, when i talk of "space" i'm not talking about x,y,z i realise the makeup of the events ARE the "space"

[JSS]

Have you ever read a philosophy book? If so which one?

Are you a philospher or a librarian?

Just answer the question. That is what good sincere philosophers do. Making up questions, any moron can do.

The question:

In order for something to be definable as physically real it cannot be infinitely divisible.

Where did you get that bit of nonsense?

What makes you think that something must be finite to be defined as physically real?

[Obvious Leo]

Are you a philospher or a librarian?

I'm a philosopher of science.

What makes you think that something must be finite to be defined as physically real?

That's not what I said. I said that in order for something to be definable as physically real it cannot be infinitely divisible. This is a metaphysical first principle which has underpinned every major school of applied metaphysics since the pre-Socratics. It has also been empirically proven by Max Planck in his work on black body radiation and in countless experiments since. it is a principle which drove the entire scientific and technological revolution of the 20th century through the theory of quantum mechanics and never ONCE has there been a demonstrated counter-example. Not only is energy not infinitely divisible but neither is time. You might imagine that the arrow of time flows in a smooth continuous manner but this is false. Time proceeds in a sequence of no-further-divisible steps and because of gravity these steps are of unequal duration.

The convention in philosophy is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof so if you wish to claim that physical reality is infinitely divisible then kindly go ahead and present your argument. On the other hand you might prefer to read some philosophy before presuming to pontificate on the subject because then you might discover that no such argument exists.

[JSS]

What makes you think that something must be finite to be defined as physically real?

That's not what I said. I said that in order for something to be definable as physically real it cannot be infinitely divisible.

To me, that is the same thing. But okay, let's go with your words.

This is a metaphysical first principle which has underpinned every major school of applied metaphysics since the pre-Socratics.

Well, that isn't exactly true, but not really relevant. I asked you why you believe it.

It has also been empirically proven by Max Planck in his work on black body radiation and in countless experiments since.

Emm... no. That is certainly not true. Plank, much like Einstein, speculated that if one were to extrapolate the known formulas, one would find a true extreme pole or asymptote. From there, they were said to have proved something. In fact, their speculations were wrong. One cannot merely extrapolate known formulas in order to find the extremes.

They have both been proven wrong with followup experiments that require absolute nonsense in order to try to justify their theories (Young's Double-Slit being merely one). It takes only one paradox to completely disprove a hypothesis. Quantum Physics is filled to the brim with them. Relativity only has a few problems. But like I said, it only takes one.

Both relativity and quantum mechanics are good tools in science but limited. Neither actually qualifies for a valid ontology of existence. Neither are about physical science, but rather about mental perspectives as tools for limited situations.

The convention in philosophy is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof so if you wish to claim that physical reality is infinitely divisible then kindly go ahead and present your argument. On the other hand you might prefer to read some philosophy before presuming to pontificate on the subject because then you might discover that no such argument exists.

Oh I agree that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I am still waiting for your evidence for the absurd claim that energy cannot be infinitely divided (not to mention time).

So far, you have merely presented that "they told me so", just as any religion would profess.
I take it that you also accept that Jesus walked on the water? Moses divided the Sea?

Do you personally know the reasoning behind the thought that nothing can be physically real and also infinitely divisible? I personally know it to be a silly notion, much like Zeno's paradoxes. I think that you are trying to defend something that is indefensible.

You are claiming that Man CANNOT do something. That is a little different than saying that he can do something. You are proposing an impossibility with only rumor as your evidence. Historically the statistics are very much against you (not to mention me arguing with you about it).

[Obvious Leo]

Obvious Leo wrote:
This is a metaphysical first principle which has underpinned every major school of applied metaphysics since the pre-Socratics.


Well, that isn't exactly true, but not really relevant. I asked you why you believe it.

I didn't say I believed it. I said I was a philosopher of science and therefore belief of any description is not part of my conceptual make-up. My views are informed by the principles of formal logic combined with the data of empirical science. That physical reality is not infinitely divisible accords perfectly with both.

I have nothing more to say about the rest of your post because you have no background in either science or philosophy.

[JSS]

I said I was a philosopher of science and therefore belief of any description is not part of my conceptual make-up.

So you have doubt in all things?
I doubt many things. I doubt that good philosophers should doubt all things .. because they should know what kind of thing to doubt and not doubt.

Science is about Nullius in Verba. I agree with that motto. But that means that I have to find out how to know things for myself, void of rumors.

My views are informed by the principles of formal logic combined with the data of empirical science. That physical reality is not infinitely divisible accords perfectly with both.

Well good. I believe that is a great position to hold onto. But of course, it does require serious information/rumor examination. It is easy to be misled by the past good intentions of others that are no longer so good.

I have nothing more to say about the rest of your post because you have no background in either science or philosophy.

Oh, I see. You are British??
Such is a common attitude when cornered; "uppity".

So you have no defense for the notion that existence, distance, mass, time, and space are all necessarily not infinitely divisible.

So we can proceed assuming that they actually might be infinitely divisible without further interruption. There would appear to be nothing to prevent infinite division and without a cause, it can't be accepted as necessary.

[Obvious Leo]

There would appear to be nothing to prevent infinite division and without a cause,

Nothing except the rules of formal logic.

[Greta]

It just is

That is what Moses said. When you can't explain something merely say "it just is what it is".

And that is fine for religions. But for science, not so much. Science is about WHY things are happening, not merely that they are. People die, "it is what is it is". But science is about why they are dying .. what is killing them.

The quote's out of context. My point was that reality - the ontological reality - is not limited by our knowledge, nor our ability to probe it. We can say "this is what we have observed" but we cannot be sure that we have all the relevant information.

Re: the possibility of dynamics occurring on the Planck scale:

In fact, they aren't. But that isn't my point.

Since you can't possibly know what happens at the Planck scale with current tech, your statement is effectively a declaration faith unless you can qualify it. When considering probabilities, the chance that a a giant Santa-like man lives in the sky can be considered so unlikely as to be discounted. Not so with Planck scale calculations. Not all mathematical models turn out to tally with reality but some mathematical predictions do, famously black holes and the Higgs boson.

Planck scale dynamics may or may not be real. Maybe quarks really are the smallest division of reality? However, the possibility exists and may one day be tested irregardless of one's preferred approach.

If there is a Plank level to existence, which there certainly is not, WHY is it there? What is going on such that there would be such a thing?

How do you know nothing exists at the Planck scale that affects our reality? One day we'll be able to test the idea. I can only take your statements as your opinion that our current quantum zoo of particles are the baseline of reality and that nothing will be found to exist at Planck scale. It's just one opinion, though and plenty of serious physicists hold different views.

[Greta]

Maybe quarks really are the smallest division of reality?

You'll be staying after class for detention, Greta, to brush up on Logic 101. Quarks have physical properties, such as mass, charge and spin. Where the fuck did these properties come from, Santa Claus?

Leo, you must have noticed that I'm just entertaining contrary views to my own.

Your argument raises an interesting thought. If Planck (or other) scale entities are the cause of the quark's mass, charge and spin then that would make the baseline level of reality at Planck scale might be lacking in those properties - unless they impose those properties on each other.

Is this is going to lead us to your ideas of information holding primacy in reality? If you lack mass, spin and charge then what else do you have (other than Santa)?

[Obvious Leo]

Your argument raises an interesting thought. If Planck (or other) scale entities are the cause of the quark's mass, charge and spin then that would make the baseline level of reality at Planck scale might be lacking in those properties - unless they impose those properties on each other.

If the Planck scale entities are just energy quanta, as Einstein's mass/energy equivalence clearly mandates, then the emergent properties which we codify at the subatomic scale cannot be a property of what these energy quanta ARE. At this emergent hierarchy of informational complexity these properties MUST be being determined by what these energy quanta ARE DOING. It is quite impossible within our current state of knowledge to meaningfully speculate as to what these energy quanta might be doing but there is at least one truth statement which we can about this process. Whatever the hell they might be doing they're doing it at the speed of light because this is the only speed which energy quanta know.

The Standard Model is simply not designed to deal with processes beneath the subatomic scale because the entire model is predicated on Special Relativity. This imposes a spatial extension onto the particles which simply doesn't work because to model a quark or an electron as having an inside is mathematically impossible. This is why these things can only be modelled in the language of the wave function which assigns them only a probabilistic location and momentum but no modern physicist continues to claim that this an ontology for the atom. This is nothing more than a mathematical representation of an ontology for the atom and the actual nature of the Planck scale processes remain hidden behind the veil. The stringies spent forty years on this shit, Greta, and got exactly NOWHERE with it because they were trying to jam a square peg into a round hole. The way to make the Planck scale work is to get rid of the spatial dimensions altogether, not invent more the bloody things.

Naturally it is also assumed that the subatomic particles do confer their properties on each other but once again these properties must be a function of what these particles are doing and not simply a function of what they are. All they are is a finite number of energy quanta which are behaving in a particular way and it is this behaviour which makes the reality. Instead of thinking of the atom as a little ball of "stuff" we must think of it as a complex web of energy quanta maintaining themselves in thermodynamic equilibrium.

Is this is going to lead us to your ideas of information holding primacy in reality?

Yes. At the Planck scale the energy quanta are perfectly analogous to Wheeler's "bits" in his longed-for "it from bit" universe. They are also perfectly analogous to "bits" as they are commonly understood in any other way of modelling a computation.

If you lack mass, spin and charge then what else do you have (other than Santa)?

It remains convenient to think of the current zoo of particles and their defined properties as a first-order emergent hierarchy of complexity beyond the Planck scale but this may not continue to be the case in a proper fractal model. Luckily we can always do what we've always done before with our epistemic objects in science. We can chuck them in the bin when they've reached their use-by date and simply invent new ones. I very much doubt that this methodology for doing science can ever be improved on but what we should stop doing is assuming that there's such a thing as a "correct" solution to an epistemic question. There's only "what works" forever waiting to be superseded by "what works better". ( i.e Santa is not real )

[Arising_uk]

... Science is about WHY things are happening, not merely that they are. ...

I'd have thought it about HOW things are happening? Of course if how is good enough for why then why it is.