Just a theory I developed a couple days ago

[ComradeChris]

While in my philosophy club we started discussing different philosophical interpretations of life and its role in the universe. Someone mentioned the idea that everything is linked in a sort of symbiotic way. This started my train of thought on this one.

Now scientifically, the universe could have gone two ways in the big bang: either all radiation, or all matter as it did. Now where did this radiation come from. My personal belief (as I'm sure it's a scientific theory) is that matter is made up of condensed radiation or energy. This is why some atoms actually give off radiation, because they are made of it.

Now what triggered that result? I believe that all that energy is somehow connected. Using other principles such as matter cannot be created nor destroyed, only replacing it with energy; the universe seems to have it's own ways of maintaining stability. We can see this at a much more local level, in that of our example of Earth. When things become over populated, they'll either run out of resourses, or something will limit their population (ie. Disease). Predominately when I say things I'm moreso directing it at humans, but other things as well. This seems to behave like a form of homeostasis for the world, and the entire universe.

This behaviour mimics any living organism capable of internal homeostasis. So my conclusion is kind of a mix of this symbiotism and the idea that incorporates that into a larger organism. I've always been fascinated by the theory that maybe we're just inside a minute particle (a quark for instance) and that the big bang is the particle being destroyed. I wish I could explain this better. If you need clarification on specific questions or constructive criticism please feel free to address this.

[CommieBastard]

Now scientifically, the universe could have gone two ways in the big bang: either all radiation, or all matter as it did.

As far as I'm aware current scientific theorysays the universe is composed of both matter and radiation.


Now where did this radiation come from. My personal belief (as I'm sure it's a scientific theory) is that matter is made up of condensed radiation or energy. This is why some atoms actually give off radiation, because they are made of it.

Almost all atoms (i think maybe all?) radiate energy in some form. They radiate heat and light at the least.

Actual 'radiation' is not always energy. Sometimes what is meant by radiation is that the 'atom' is releasing a particle.


Now what triggered that result? I believe that all that energy is somehow connected.

For the earth, in a holistic sense, it almost certainly is.
As for energy throughout the universe, this is possible (quantuum entanglement etc) but there is currently no reason to believe it is the case.


Using other principles such as matter cannot be created nor destroyed, only replacing it with energy; the universe seems to have it's own ways of maintaining stability. We can see this at a much more local level, in that of our example of Earth. When things become over populated, they'll either run out of resourses, or something will limit their population (ie. Disease). Predominately when I say things I'm moreso directing it at humans, but other things as well. This seems to behave like a form of homeostasis for the world, and the entire universe.

I fail to see why you think there is such a guarantee for stability.
If we look at the planets near Earth they have very violent atmospheres which are anything but stable.
Earth is supposed to have gone through a lot of extreme changes in the past that cannot be described as stable.
The fact that humanity has maintained some form of stability is also no proof that it will continue to do so.
Right up until they went extinct any of the species which have died out could have served as this 'proof'.


This behaviour mimics any living organism capable of internal homeostasis. So my conclusion is kind of a mix of this symbiotism and the idea that incorporates that into a larger organism.

This all depends on your definition of 'organism'.


I've always been fascinated by the theory that maybe we're just inside a minute particle (a quark for instance) and that the big bang is the particle being destroyed.

Whilst intriguing as a theory, it is slightly contradictory.
If we define a quark as a particle which is minute to us, then to be inside of it is technically nonsense, as whatever we are inside (no matter what other features it shares with a quark) is definitively something different.

I think it's String theory which says that the universe is inside a type of 'string' of which there are an untold number each containing universes.

[ComradeChris]

As far as I'm aware current scientific theorysays the universe is composed of both matter and radiation.

I think that's how they knew it would have been all radiation wasn't it? They could somehow estimate the date of certain radiation by determining how long it would have taken to travel from the "universe's edge" type of idea.

I'm sorry I have a hard time expressing my thoughts sometimes. They always sound so much better in my head but then sometimes vague and nondescript when written.


Almost all atoms (i think maybe all?) radiate energy in some form. They radiate heat and light at the least.

Actual 'radiation' is not always energy. Sometimes what is meant by radiation is that the 'atom' is releasing a particle.

Interesting. I didn't know it was actually the atoms that emmitted energy...unless of course they are losing electrons. I always thought it was "free energy" that caused motion of atoms, and not vice versa.

Yeah, sometimes particles are meant of radiation too...such as Rutherford's "Gold Foil" experiment using a radiated form or helium (if my memory serves correct). But maybe that's not the idea of radiation your discussing. I've heard the term Ion describe my example. Is "ion" just a more general term?


For the earth, in a holistic sense, it almost certainly is.
As for energy throughout the universe, this is possible (quantuum entanglement etc) but there is currently no reason to believe it is the case.

Particles all are within a limited proximity of one another. I think there's one hydrogen particle in every square inch in space. I'm really stretching my memory for these...I learned that number back in grade ten.


I fail to see why you think there is such a guarantee for stability.
If we look at the planets near Earth they have very violent atmospheres which are anything but stable.
Earth is supposed to have gone through a lot of extreme changes in the past that cannot be described as stable.
The fact that humanity has maintained some form of stability is also no proof that it will continue to do so.
Right up until they went extinct any of the species which have died out could have served as this 'proof'.

Maybe having life on such planets (intelligent life) may cause an influx of activity in an isolated region. And, for instance, if the universe is some entity, allowing only one species of life to survive would be benificial. I heard a number too, that on average there "should" be life every 200 light years in distance from one another. Of course that's an hypothesis and an average. But even in keeping such distances may somehow maintain a form of homeostasis.


This all depends on your definition of 'organism'.

Just a form of living entity I guess. I really don't know. These are just raw thoughts I had while entering this discussion with my peers.


Whilst intriguing as a theory, it is slightly contradictory.
If we define a quark as a particle which is minute to us, then to be inside of it is technically nonsense, as whatever we are inside (no matter what other features it shares with a quark) is definitively something different.

How is it contradictory? Somethings very in size depending on the point of view. An ant appears very small to us, while we appear very large to them. I"m not saying we're inside one of "our quarks" for instance. Just perhaps in another universes quarks. Or maybe even some very large living entity.


I think it's String theory which says that the universe is inside a type of 'string' of which there are an untold number each containing universes.

That's the string theory? I didn't know that. I've heard of the string theory...and obviously of it's ideas...but never has anyone told me "this is the string theory and these are it's postulates."

Thank you for your comments. I prefer questions anyway. I have a hard time just talking about something. It allows me to clarify my views as well.

[NovelGentry]

My personal belief (as I'm sure it's a scientific theory) is that matter is made up of condensed radiation or energy.

Sticking to energy here. When you combine matter with anti-matter the combined mass is converted into a form of pure energy. Just more ideas on how matter/energy are linked.

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 03:08 PM

My personal belief (as I'm sure it's a scientific theory) is that matter is made up of condensed radiation or energy.

Sticking to energy here. When you combine matter with anti-matter the combined mass is converted into a form of pure energy. Just more ideas on how matter/energy are linked.
I'm not exactly clear what anti-matter is. But I'll look into that.

And the reason I think matter is energy, is when you collide two particles you get energy when the particles break apart.

Do you know any good sources pertaining to anti-matter?

[encephalon]

new scientist frequently has articles on the nature of anti-matter and it's relation to matter. Though it's targeted towards the scientific community, the articles are usually pretty self-explanatory.

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 02:12 AM
new scientist frequently has articles on the nature of anti-matter and it's relation to matter. Though it's targeted towards the scientific community, the articles are usually pretty self-explanatory.
Ignore my comment in the other Science and Environment thread :lol: . I check the forum going from bottom to top, and didn't notice you had made a reply.

I did a little research on anti-matter...and it was nothing like I thought is was...But it's still very facinating.

[Dyst]

Am I not right when I say that anti-matter is like matter, only oppositively charged (somehow, I do not know)? And if it comes into contact with anything, really anything including air, it blows up. I thought I heard somewhere that just extremely small amounts of anti-matter has enough energy to blow up as much as for example the Hiroshima nuclear bomb did.

Sounds to me like an extremely dangerous weapon, if in the wrong hands. Of course some would say that is us. Heh. What I meant was if it was not used for scientific purposes.

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2005, 11:01 AM
Am I not right when I say that anti-matter is like matter, only oppositively charged (somehow, I do not know)? And if it comes into contact with anything, really anything including air, it blows up. I thought I heard somewhere that just extremely small amounts of anti-matter has enough energy to blow up as much as for example the Hiroshima nuclear bomb did.

Sounds to me like an extremely dangerous weapon, if in the wrong hands. Of course some would say that is us. Heh. What I meant was if it was not used for scientific purposes.
Yeah I hadn't the foggiest as to what it was. I thought it was literally the opposite of matter. But now that I know what it is is makes perfect sense lol.

But I guess it could be a very dangerous weapon. But the fact that it creates energy helps the hypothesis that matter is condensed energy.

[Malvinas Argentinas]

Well, anti-matter atoms are the opposite to matter atoms in the following way: While protons in commmon atoms hve a positive charge, in anti matter atoms they have negative charge ( antiprotons). the same with the electrons, in anti-matter atoms, instead of having a negative charge, they have positive charge
(antielectrons or positrons).

When an anti-matter atom crushes (or whatever) with a matter atom, they are canceled. And the reaction causes a 100% of energy liberated, and that is a large amount. the thing is how can you get an ati matter atom. Well it is a very expensive process were a partcicle accelerator is used. the energy used to convert an ordinary atom to its opposite is half the energy obtained after the process of cancelling to opposite atoms. So you otaine the double of energy = very efficient.

The problem that concerns as, it is not new. We will have the same debate, people had 60 years ago with the develpment of nuclear energy. The energy obtained can as too helpful as harmful for humanity. The difference is that now we dont have to super-powers developing it, we have only one(guess who?). Well, i think there is a problem there but what can i do?

[CommieBastard]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2005, 06:46 PM
But the fact that it creates energy helps the hypothesis that matter is condensed energy.
I thought this was allready accepted scientific theory?

[encephalon]

QUOTE (ComradeChris @ Jan 31 2005, 06:46 PM)
But the fact that it creates energy helps the hypothesis that matter is condensed energy.

I thought this was allready accepted scientific theory?

As did I. Oh well.

It should be noted that, at least last time I read up on the subject a few years ago, it is theorized that anti-matter and matter are different mainly because of the way the quarks are arranged, and that which makes up the quarks (muons, puons, etc.) are different, leading to different +/- vaues for the larger particles (protons, electrons, etc.).

I need to get ahold of some gluons.

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by CommieBastard+Feb 10 2005, 12:56 AM--> (CommieBastard @ Feb 10 2005, 12:56 AM)
[email protected] 31 2005, 06:46 PM
But the fact that it creates energy helps the hypothesis that matter is condensed energy.
I thought this was allready accepted scientific theory? [/b]
Still just a THEORY. It can always be disproved possibly.

[CommieBastard]

There is no other coherent account of what matter might be, therefore we have to act on the account that it is energy pending the arrival of such a disproof.

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2005, 09:26 AM
There is no other coherent account of what matter might be, therefore we have to act on the account that it is energy pending the arrival of such a disproof.
Ok...that's what I was saying originally. I'm not arguing it. But anything in science is wrong, or could be right (until something better comes along). What is that condensed energy made of?

[CommieBastard]

in my view if you get right down to the core of the universe and what it is composed of, it is simply information.