Origin of Matter

[RedSox]

What is the origin of the positive energy?  Are quantum fluctuations a process that occurs that produces positive energy?  Thanks.

Quantum flucuations is a term that is thrown around a lot, and I want to avoid the impression that it is a catch-all term for obfuscation a la "it's a miracle". The term has a precise definition. In quantum physics (i.e. in physics once you look close enough) most if not all quantities seem to be intrinsically uncertain. Take any quantity such as the velocity of a particle. Try as you may to give it a precise velocity from the outset, it will only lead to an uncertainty in its position, seemingly existing in many places at once until it is observed, which in turn spoils any velocity measurement. The fields that are present in otherwise empty space are subject to the same thing. If you try to imbue them with a value of precisely zero, they automatically will have a rate of change that renders them non-zero. Likewise, the fields governing the geometry of spacetime can be assumed to be subject to this, and one effect of that is that the universe can spontaneously expand and dump all the excess energy into its own contents in the form of particles.
If you ask me why do these fields exist and why are the dynamics such that these fluctuations occur, I'd have to say nobody knows probably.

Thanks, AK, for that description of quantum fluctuations.  Do you have any thoughts on the origin of positive energy?

[vorlon13]

Alex, putting myself in the mindset of a theist,  think I know where he's coming from.
For a zero net sum early universe, he wants to know why the net zero isn't just " nothing".
Why does it have to be composed of 2 alternate energies resulting in a net zero.
Is this a theoretical explanation or is it occurring in nature constantly?
Is this argument a little like abiogenesis where we know we are here and hence work backwards to find a natural explanation? I assume neither can be proven or recreated in a lab.

OP, please know that if skyfairies exist, science will be the first to let you know,  I promise.
Lots of nobels to go around when the time comes... Until then, don't waste your time with bronze age fairy tales.

It is ocurring in nature constantly. The particle-antiparticle pairs which constantly appear in the vacuum due to the uncertainty of matter fields do basically the same thing.

If you wait long enough (and in an infinite expanse of eternal infinite void, what else is there to do?) eventually something more interesting than 'just' a particle/antiparticle pair will appear.




And if you wait long enough after that happens, your little item of interest will vanish too . . . .

[Mister Agenda]

What I said was that whatever the cause it would be natural.

No supernatural or paranormal thing has ever been found to actually be real when properly investigated.

Feel free to prove me wrong, but I require properly scientifically verified evidence not some vague argument.

Thanks, downbeat.  I hear ya on whatever the origin of matter being natural.  Can you expand on that given the two questions here:
(1) Wouldn’t matter being the origin violate the theory that matter can neither be created nor destroyed in a closed system… and only transferred across open systems?  Am I incorrectly understanding that theory... I may very well be.
 
(2) Additionally, if matter is the origin of matter then what is the origin of the earliest matter that ever existed… would it be infinite?  Not talking about the universe or planets here, just matter itself.

Welcome RedSox. If we seem a little touchy, it's because many of your predecessors have been trolls, but that's not the vibe I'm picking up from you so far.

Matter and energy only transforming and never being created or destroyed is a principle that applies within the cosmos and does not necessarily apply to the cosmos. An H2O molecule is not 'wet' but enough of them together at the right temperature are, the whole of a puddle of water has properties that the molecules it is composed of do not.

Since time began with the initial expansion, matter and energy have existed as long as time, that is, they've always existed. What was 'before' the initial expansion is pretty mysterious, including whether it makes sense to say 'before' an event that includes the beginning of time. There are many plausible natural explanations that fit the evidence, fit the known physics, and have math that works; but a shortage of ways to test them.

There don't seem to be any actual infinities within the cosmos, so no reason to think the origin of matter is something actually infinite. Some takes on quantum foam could be reasonably described as such, though...in my opinion, QF could share all the attributes ascribed to a bare minimum creator deity except consciousness, intent, ability to think, and personhood. But QF isn't necessarily the correct origin.

You've also asked about the origin of positive energy. It appears that there's considerable leeway for localized 'non-zero-ness' as long as the total is zero. As Alex K pointed out, it looks like the net energy of the cosmos may be zero...if it's not, it's very close to it. 0=6+3-12+2-5+6=0. If the laws of the cosmos have a main requirement of the total sum of energy not being more or less than zero, it appears to be within budget.

And a pro-tip: Someone not knowing the answer to a question does not affect the probability that another answer is correct in the slightest. All explanations must stand or fall on their own. Using someone else's lack of answers to prop up another answer is the logical fallacy known as an Argument from Ignorance. If no one has an explanation that stands up to careful scrutiny, the only honest answer is 'We don't know.'

[RedSox]

Mister Agenda, thanks for the comments (in italics)!  Some responses below (non-italicized)...

Matter and energy only transforming and never being created or destroyed is a principle that applies within the cosmos and does not necessarily apply to the cosmos. An H2O molecule is not 'wet' but enough of them together at the right temperature are, the whole of a puddle of water has properties that the molecules it is composed of do not.
 
OK, so matter and energy can be created and/or destroyed to the cosmos themselves but not within the cosmos.  On a macro level (outside of cosmos or to cosmos themselves) creation/destruction occur, but on a micro level (within the cosmos) it does not and cannot.  Am I understanding that correctly? 

You've also asked about the origin of positive energy. It appears that there's considerable leeway for localized 'non-zero-ness' as long as the total is zero. As Alex K pointed out, it looks like the net energy of the cosmos may be zero...if it's not, it's very close to it. 0=6+3-12+2-5+6=0. If the laws of the cosmos have a main requirement of the total sum of energy not being more or less than zero, it appears to be within budget.
 
If the net of an equation is zero, for example, 0=6+3-12+2-5+6=0, there are still positive entities within said equation (6, 3, 2, 6 in this example).  I’m trying to figure out what the origin of those positive entities (in this case, energy)?  Or for an illustration, if I have a beer in my hand (+1) and then consume it (-1) that beer still existed at some point (nevermind that the properties of the beer still exist in my stomach, just humor me here).  What is the origin of that beer?  Apologies if that example is clear as mud… or a Guinness.

And a pro-tip: Someone not knowing the answer to a question does not affect the probability that another answer is correct in the slightest. All explanations must stand or fall on their own. Using someone else's lack of answers to prop up another answer is the logical fallacy known as an Argument from Ignorance. If no one has an explanation that stands up to careful scrutiny, the only honest answer is 'We don't know.'
 
Yes, of course.

[Mister Agenda]

Mister Agenda, thanks for the comments (in italics)!  Some responses below (non-italicized)...

Matter and energy only transforming and never being created or destroyed is a principle that applies within the cosmos and does not necessarily apply to the cosmos. An H2O molecule is not 'wet' but enough of them together at the right temperature are, the whole of a puddle of water has properties that the molecules it is composed of do not.
 
OK, so matter and energy can be created and/or destroyed to the cosmos themselves but not within the cosmos.  On a macro level (outside of cosmos or to cosmos themselves) creation/destruction occur, but on a micro level (within the cosmos) it does not and cannot.  Am I understanding that correctly? 

Almost. We can't extrapolate from within the cosmos to the cosmos itself without more evidence than we have, so the cosmos may or may not obey some conservation principle of it's own. The evidence is highly suggestive that the 'energy balance' of the cosmos must be at or very close to zero, for instance. Energy is created and destroyed all the time at the truly micro (quantum) level. At the 'middle level', the human level, it never happens for all practical purposes.

You've also asked about the origin of positive energy. It appears that there's considerable leeway for localized 'non-zero-ness' as long as the total is zero. As Alex K pointed out, it looks like the net energy of the cosmos may be zero...if it's not, it's very close to it. 0=6+3-12+2-5+6=0. If the laws of the cosmos have a main requirement of the total sum of energy not being more or less than zero, it appears to be within budget.
 
If the net of an equation is zero, for example, 0=6+3-12+2-5+6=0, there are still positive entities within said equation (6, 3, 2, 6 in this example).  I’m trying to figure out what the origin of those positive entities (in this case, energy)?  Or for an illustration, if I have a beer in my hand (+1) and then consume it (-1) that beer still existed at some point (nevermind that the properties of the beer still exist in my stomach, just humor me here).  What is the origin of that beer?  Apologies if that example is clear as mud… or a Guinness.

Alex K touched on at least one origin for such: at the quantum level, the energy of a particular point at the quantum level can't stay zero for long...it 'fizzes' into a pair of oppositely charged particles referred to as 'virtual particles' because they annihilate each other almost instantaneously. At the quantum level, the universe is constantly going 0=-1+1=0 over and over. The math works (though it's currently just a hypothesis that we can't yet test) for one of these 0=-1+1=0 events to occasionally undergo runaway expansion, and that is a possible origin for our cosmos. It's hard to wrap your head around, but even without space and time, these quantum vacuum fluctuations cause tiny 'blips' of space-time, and once you've got space-time out of a vacuum fluctuation, you've got energy, and if it keeps expanding, some of that energy will 'condense' into matter.

And a pro-tip: Someone not knowing the answer to a question does not affect the probability that another answer is correct in the slightest. All explanations must stand or fall on their own. Using someone else's lack of answers to prop up another answer is the logical fallacy known as an Argument from Ignorance. If no one has an explanation that stands up to careful scrutiny, the only honest answer is 'We don't know.'
 
Yes, of course.

Thanks, just being cautious...we've had a number of people who were 'just asking questions' that were just trying to set us up for that kind of 'gotcha'.

[RedSox]

Almost. We can't extrapolate from within the cosmos to the cosmos itself without more evidence than we have, so the cosmos may or may not obey some conservation principle of it's own. The evidence is highly suggestive that the 'energy balance' of the cosmos must be at or very close to zero, for instance.

Right, but even with a zero ‘energy balance’ there still exists a positive energy to counter the negative energy.  I’m wondering the origin of that positive energy.

I’m struggling with reconciling these two comments.  Can you clarify a bit further? (1) Matter and energy only transforming and never being created or destroyed is a principle that applies within the cosmos and does not necessarily apply to the cosmos. (2) Energy is created and destroyed all the time at the truly micro (quantum) level.  Would it be correct to state that matter and energy can be created and destroyed within the cosmos due to the actions at the micro level?

At the quantum level, the universe is constantly going 0=-1+1=0 over and over. The math works (though it's currently just a hypothesis that we can't yet test) for one of these 0=-1+1=0 events to occasionally undergo runaway expansion, and that is a possible origin for our cosmos.

If one of the events occasionally undergoes runaway expansion which is a possible origin for the cosmos, we’re still left with figuring out the origin of those events that precedes the expansion (for example, the +1 in the equation 0=-1+1=0).

It's hard to wrap your head around, but even without space and time, these quantum vacuum fluctuations cause tiny 'blips' of space-time, and once you've got space-time out of a vacuum fluctuation, you've got energy, and if it keeps expanding, some of that energy will 'condense' into matter.
 
Is it your position that quantum vacuum fluctuations are truly null/void of any energy, matter, etc.?  If not, can you comment on what a quantum vacuum fluctuation contains, if we know at all?  Thanks.

[Alex K]

@RedSox,

As long as we remain in the realm of science, there will always be the question: and where does that come from, or, why is that the way it is. While we can try to find more general underlying principles which unify our explanations of the universe and have predictive power, there is always the possibility to keep asking. Any description or explanation that is currently the most fundamental we have, is at that frontier where the answer to that next question is inevitably "we don't know". The crucial ability any good thinker has to have is to be very curious, but at the same time be comfortable with not knowing something for now. You have to resist filling that frontier with quick answers that provide an illusion of closure.

What are quantum fluctuations? I've written something upthread about what the term means in physics. They are an aspect of our currently best description of nature. Where do they come from, what are they *really*? To the extent that this is even a valid well defined question, it is not known. They are something nature seems to do, and we can describe it mathematically and measure their effect...

[RedSox]

As long as we remain in the realm of science, there will always be the question: and where does that come from, or, why is that the way it is.
 
Understood.  If we’re always left asking “where does that come from” would that logically lead to the belief that at least one of the following is infinite past (has always been)?: energy or matter or quantum fluctuations or really anything that is not null/void.
 
While we can try to find more general underlying principles which unify our explanations of the universe and have predictive power, there is always the possibility to keep asking. Any description or explanation that is currently the most fundamental we have, is at that frontier where the answer to that next question is inevitably "we don't know". The crucial ability any good thinker has to have is to be very curious, but at the same time be comfortable with not knowing something for now. You have to resist filling that frontier with quick answers that provide an illusion of closure.
 
I do find joy in seeking and studying the wonder of it all.  And curiosity is something I encourage to others as well.

What are quantum fluctuations? I've written something upthread about what the term means in physics. They are an aspect of our currently best description of nature. Where do they come from, what are they *really*? To the extent that this is even a valid well defined question, it is not known. They are something nature seems to do, and we can describe it mathematically and measure their effect...
 
Thank you for expanding on that a bit.  Since nature seems to do quantum fluctuations, they are, for lack of a better word, orchestrated or controlled by nature… would you agree, disagree, stupid question, etc.?    Additionally, would you say nature is infinite, finite, we don’t know, etc.?  This is assuming the definition of nature from Webster’s is acceptable: “a creative and controlling force in the universe,”  “the external world in its entirety,” “the genetically controlled qualities of an organism.” Thanks.

[downbeatplumb]

Thank you for expanding on that a bit.  Since nature seems to do quantum fluctuations, they are, for lack of a better word, orchestrated or controlled by nature… would you agree, disagree, stupid question, etc.?    Additionally, would you say nature is infinite, finite, we don’t know, etc.?  This is assuming the definition of nature from Webster’s is acceptable: “a creative and controlling force in the universe,”  “the external world in its entirety,” “the genetically controlled qualities of an organism.” Thanks.

People get the wrong idea about laws of nature. They think that this is something that is set and nature gets in trouble when it breaks it. What they are are observations of what happens.  Why those things happen can have simple reasons or many different causes. What is needed to find out what is study and evidence.

One example I can think of to explain what I am talking about is gravity.

People used to assume that it was a force that pulled on you, but that is not what the evidence has shown, it is a consequence of the curvature of spacetime

[FatAndFaithless]

And shit, sometimes nature breaks its own rules in special places and circumstances. It certainly ain't any sort of intent or aim or agent.

..edited twice because apparently I can't spell "Ain't"