1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Featured Can You Do Me a 'Solid?' Would It Really 'Matter?'

Discussion in 'Science and Religion' started by SalixIncendium, Nov 14, 2017 at 4:53 AM.

  1. SalixIncendium

    SalixIncendium Resident Hermit
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2016
    Messages:
    1,450
    Ratings:
    +1,012
    Religion:
    Nondualism
    I'm fascinated by the notion that nothing in our perceived reality is actually solid and that it is everything we perceive as matter is merely constructed of non-solid energy. Admittedly, my knowledge is limited on this subject. I'm studying this independently and would like to know more.

    "What we perceive as our physical material world, is really not physical or material at all, in fact, it is far from it."

    Nothing Is Solid & Everything Is Energy – Scientists Explain The World of Quantum Physics

    One may conclude that we are individual observers that are involved in creating our own reality and that the universe is a perceived construct in our consciousness.

    While I'd like input from our science-minded RFers, I would like to hear from others as well who would accept this or attempt to disprove it.

    What, if any, are the holes in this view?

    Assuming this is true, what role does our ever elusive consciousness play in this?

    What are the spiritual/religious implications?
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Winner Winner x 1
  2. Kuzcotopia

    Kuzcotopia If you can read this, you are as lucky as I am.

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2015
    Messages:
    1,717
    Ratings:
    +1,337
    Religion:
    Fat Stack 'o Pancakes
    Implications. . .

    You just wrote my response.
     
  3. Brickjectivity

    Brickjectivity simple man
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2012
    Messages:
    17,953
    Ratings:
    +4,384
    Religion:
    Liberal Christian almost quaker
    I am, too. I have had college level physics but not masters level. What I can add is that there are theories about what the energy of matter is. Its not being overlooked, however its hard to test theories about it. I like the idea that all of the energy is actually a pattern, like a mathematical pattern; so there is a subject called informational structural realism that I like to combine with fractals and think of the entire world as a huge set of numbers. This for me explains things better than consciousness, however there doesn't appear to be any way to rule one or the other out. Its possible that we are somehow in consciousness, yet this does not explain the consciousness. Another popular theory discussed by physicists is that we could all be in a simulation. All of these get played with by Scientists in spare time but are so far untestable.

    I disagree with this statement in the article "What does it mean that our physical material reality isn’t really physical at all? It could mean a number of things, and concepts such as this cannot be explored if scientists remain within the boundaries of the only perceived world existing, the world we see." I disagree on the basis that Science is of limited scope and only applies to what can be tested. It must never be used for any other purpose, because it is a discipline. It is a discipline of identifying and putting aside any assumptions, and so it just cannot be applied in the way the article criticizes. Scientists have not "Taken the leap," but through hard work have discovered that matter consists of energy and hence patterns. From that it becomes necessary to speculate about the nature of the energy in a Scientific way, but Science is still limited to what can be tested.

    "One great example that illustrates the role of consciousness within the physical material world (which we know not to be so physical) is the double slit experiment." What they say here is wrong and does not follow the experimenter's discovery. The double slit experiment does not have anything to do with conscious wishing. Its about the nature of particles and discovering that they are not solid but have the properties of waves and have a statistical nature; so this is where the writer is misrepresenting the situation. The conclusion that we are all energy and radiating a unique energy signature isn't necessarily wrong, but it doesn't follow from the information they give in the article. Its not related and not Science --- but the Science does not contradict it. That doesn't justify saying that Scientists ought to take leaps and stop being as objective as possible.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Kemosloby

    Kemosloby Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2016
    Messages:
    4,506
    Ratings:
    +1,079
    Religion:
    Christian
    Rock beats Scissors, live with it.
     
  5. Terese

    Terese ॐ ātmā na deho'smi viṣṇu-śeṣo-parigrahaḥ
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2015
    Messages:
    2,955
    Ratings:
    +2,464
    Religion:
    Gaudiya Vaiṣṇava
    What is rock and what are the scissors? :)
     
    • Like Like x 2
  6. Terrywoodenpic

    Terrywoodenpic Oldest Heretic

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2005
    Messages:
    14,113
    Ratings:
    +2,370
    Religion:
    Anglican...heretic
    Most of everything is empty space.
    This has nothing at all to do with how things feel.
    In the day to day world, even solids can be seen to be penetrable by light, xrays, radiation, magnatism, gravity and electricity.
    The term solid is relative.
     
  7. SalixIncendium

    SalixIncendium Resident Hermit
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2016
    Messages:
    1,450
    Ratings:
    +1,012
    Religion:
    Nondualism
    Correct. Now please expound on how this relates to the topic. After considering @Terese's question here, share with us your thoughts on why rock beats scissors.
     
  8. Kemosloby

    Kemosloby Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2016
    Messages:
    4,506
    Ratings:
    +1,079
    Religion:
    Christian
    Just making a joke, if there is no solids rock would not beat scissors. It sounded like you were trying to weasel your way out of a bad Rock Paper Scissors match.
     
  9. Terese

    Terese ॐ ātmā na deho'smi viṣṇu-śeṣo-parigrahaḥ
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2015
    Messages:
    2,955
    Ratings:
    +2,464
    Religion:
    Gaudiya Vaiṣṇava
    Salix is not saying that material objects don't exist, but that all objects are composed of non-solid energy when looked into very deep levels. An example would be a rug. It has complex patterns with very nice bright colours. But looked deeper, the rug is actually made of many very fine threads, that create the whole rug. Does this make sense? The article might help too :)
     
    • Like Like x 1
  10. Kemosloby

    Kemosloby Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2016
    Messages:
    4,506
    Ratings:
    +1,079
    Religion:
    Christian
    I know what he means.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    3,813
    Ratings:
    +3,259
    Religion:
    Agnostic with strong atheistic tendencies. Perhaps apatheist or ignostic.
    Well, it is a good thing to start with why we see, say, a piece of ice as 'solid', the water in a glass as 'liquid' and the steam from a kettle as 'gas'. They are all made of the same 'type of stuff': they are all made from water molecules. In a gas, those molecules are fairly far apart and don't interact with each other strongly. In a liquid, they are closer and interact significantly, but move past each other. And in the solid, they are fixed in position and interact very strongly.

    The reason we see them as 'solid' is that two solids will interact with each other in a way that prevents the atoms from moving past each other. Essentially, the atoms repel each other a bit, which keeps them from moving around in each individual solid piece as well as keeping them from moving past each other for two solid pieces.

    For liquids, however, it is possible that the molecules of two different liquids will move past each other, allowing the liquids to mix. But it is also possible that they do NOT and we get a situation like oil and water, where the liquids do NOT mix because of the interactions between the molecules of water and those of oil.

    Now, molecules are made from smaller pieces, called atoms. A molecule of water, for example, has two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. The atoms within the molecule interact much more strongly than those between different molecules, so even in ice (solid water), the atoms in the individual molecules are 'bound' to each other in a way that different molecules are not. This type of bonding is called a chemical bond and is what defines a molecule (a collection of atoms that are bonded together chemically). This is true no matter whether the molecule is part of ice, or liquid water, or steam.

    But now we can go down further and look at what atoms are made from. Each atom has a nucleus, which is quite small and is surrounded by a number of electrons. A chemical bond is simply a way that atoms can share electrons. In fact, it is the electrons and their interactions with other electrons that determines that atoms bind together or repel each other (when in different molecules). So 'solidity' ultimately comes from the fact that electrons repel other electrons so atoms do not penetrate other atoms. This is also why atoms 'take up volume'. Electrons simply don't like being in the same space as other electrons. Within an atom, they align themselves in 'orbitals' to keep as far apart as possible while still being close to the nucleus (to which they are attracted).

    But once we get smaller than an atom, the notions of 'solid', 'liquid' and 'gas' just don't apply as well. The concepts themselves are more appropriate for collections of atoms, not individual atoms.

    Now, like I said, the nucleus of an atom is very small, even compared to an atom (which is itself quite small). The electrons surrounding the nucleus take up most of the 'space' of the atom. But electrons are, as far as we can tell, point particles: they are also very small. Which means an atom is mostly 'empty space'. Well, except that the repulsion of electrons by other electrons keeps that empty space from allowing things in. Well, mostly.

    it is quite possible to take particles that don't interact strongly with electrons (such as neutrons) and they will happily go right through an atom. They are NOT kept out by the electrons. So, for a neutron, the atom does act like 'empty space'. Unless, that is, it collides with the nucleus.

    Now, the nucleus is very small and at the center of the atom. So different nuclei don't get to interact with each other unless something is done about all those electrons. Even then, the protons and neutrons in the nucleus interact so strongly, that unless the nuclei are forced together very strongly, they will simply bounce off each other. So, in that sense, they can be thought of as 'solid'.

    What does it take to get rid of those electrons? Well, if the temperature is high, the atoms in molecules will break out of the molecules because they hit each other so hard. At much higher temperatures (millions of degrees), the atoms hit so hard that the electrons break away and the nuclei can start interacting: that happens inside the core of the sun and such interactions release a LOT of energy.



    I would take strong issue with this interpretation. The difficulty is defining carefully what it means to be 'physical' or 'material'. As I said before, a lot breaks down in the terminology once we get smaller than an atom.

    This goes *way* farther than the science says.

    None that I can see.
     
    • Informative Informative x 4
  12. Nowhere Man

    Nowhere Man Bompu Zen Man.

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2009
    Messages:
    13,089
    Ratings:
    +3,750
    Religion:
    Zen Buddhism
    We're not sure empty space is actually empty space. It could be that some forms of matter are so small we can't see it, and perceive it as empty.
     
  13. Terrywoodenpic

    Terrywoodenpic Oldest Heretic

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2005
    Messages:
    14,113
    Ratings:
    +2,370
    Religion:
    Anglican...heretic
    There is no matter only energy.
     
  14. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    3,813
    Ratings:
    +3,259
    Religion:
    Agnostic with strong atheistic tendencies. Perhaps apatheist or ignostic.
    Energy is a property of particles, not something separated from them.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. PureX

    PureX Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2006
    Messages:
    7,114
    Ratings:
    +1,582
    Religion:
    Philosophical Taoist/Christian
    Actually, what we call "particles" are various phenomenal properties of expressed energy. Everything is an expression of energy, even "empty space". And yet we have no idea what energy is. And perhaps more importantly, we have no idea what is governing the way energy can, and cannot, express itself. Yet it is that governance that defines everything that exists.

    The mystery is profound.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  16. idav

    idav Being
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2011
    Messages:
    17,199
    Ratings:
    +2,346
    Religion:
    Pantheist
    Yes, I am also very fascinated by the fact that the only thing that keeps us falling through the floor are the immaterial forces coming from those discrete energies. The first experiment really to show this was shooting electrons through a gold film, truly proved that walking through walls is theoretically possible.
    The Gold Foil Experiment
     
    • Like Like x 1
  17. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    3,813
    Ratings:
    +3,259
    Religion:
    Agnostic with strong atheistic tendencies. Perhaps apatheist or ignostic.
    Um. No. Energy is a very particular property of particles. Other properties of particles are momentum, spin, charge, etc. None of those is the same as energy.

    Um. No. The curvature of empty space has energy (because of the gravitons), but empty space is NOT an 'expression' of energy.

    It is the fourth component of the energy-momentum vector. It is no more mysterious than momentum or any other particle property. Probably less so because it is more studied.

    Sure we do. The whole subject of thermodynamics is devoted to the study of the ways energy can 'express itself'. And we know a fair amount about that subject.

    Not as profound as you seem to think.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Informative Informative x 2
  18. PureX

    PureX Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2006
    Messages:
    7,114
    Ratings:
    +1,582
    Religion:
    Philosophical Taoist/Christian
    You should explain it all to the scientists, then, because they don't seem to have a clue, compared to you.
     
  19. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    3,813
    Ratings:
    +3,259
    Religion:
    Agnostic with strong atheistic tendencies. Perhaps apatheist or ignostic.
    Which ones do you think don't know this? it is standard in physics texts.
     
  20. SalixIncendium

    SalixIncendium Resident Hermit
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2016
    Messages:
    1,450
    Ratings:
    +1,012
    Religion:
    Nondualism
    @Polymath257, I'm curious about your opinions on the accuracy of this statement from the article in the OP, given the composition of an atom as you describe above.

    "If you observed the composition of an atom with a microscope you would see a small, invisible tornado-like vortex, with a number of infinitely small energy vortices called quarks and photons."
     
Loading...