Mother Nature holds many secrets from Man or does She?

[JohnDBarrow]

How is gravity even possible? How can one body of matter draw another body of matter, separated by a void, toward itself with no apparent material or mechanical connection between the two bodies? If I reel in a fish toward me, the fishing line is the material connection between me and the fish I'm drawing toward myself. There are no apparent strings attached between the moon or the earth but the moon somehow exerts some invisble pulling force upon our oceans to create tides. When an apple falls to the ground from a tree branch, how is the planet earth somehow "reeling in" the apple toward it? 

How is the existence of matter even possible? Something, logically speaking, can't arrise from absolute nothing. Every change or new existance in our universe must have a means of causation. The Big Bang did not bang itself. "Who" or "what" "pushed the figurative start button" to set off the Big Bang, if there ever was such thing as a Big Bang at all? It only seems logical to say that matter never had a beginning at all and that it has been in existance literally forever. 

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

Moved to philosophy, as these are questions of metaphysics

 

[JohnDBarrow]

Does modern science turn a blind eye to metaphysics? 

[swansont]

3 minutes ago, JohnDBarrow said:

Does modern science turn a blind eye to metaphysics? 

Some scientists think about it, but most probably don’t, since it’s not necessary in order to do most science.

We don’t know why masses attract, but we observe that they do, and can quantify the effect. Why they do so isn’t testable, at least at this time, and thus not science.

[JohnDBarrow]

It's probably true that a person falling from a tall building without a parachute doesn't stop to ponder how the earth is 'somehow reeling him in' toward his death. There are probably more serious things to think about than gravity's root cause. 

 

Speaking of natural origins and causes, there is the common question of which came first: the chicken or the egg? Nobody ever factors the sperm into that question. After all, it takes two to tango. I will now ask, "Which came first: the chicken, the egg or the sperm?" 

Edited May 27 by JohnDBarrow

[CharonY]

Sperm is optional in a range of species. 

[zapatos]

52 minutes ago, JohnDBarrow said:

"Which came first: the chicken, the egg or the sperm?" 

Sperm first - 600 million years ago

Eggs second - 300 million years ago

Chickens third - less than 10,000 years ago

[MigL]

Assume you and I are prehistoric people who have no idea the Earth is round.
We are both at the equator, but separated from each other by a couple of thousand miles along it, and we decide to do an 'experiment'.
We both head due North, and after several hundred miles of travel, we notice that our lateral distance has decreased considerably.
The farther north we travel, the faster our lateral distance decreases, until finally, at a place with the signpost "North Pole", we crash into each other.
So what do we conclude from our 'experiment' ?
Some mysterious 'force' seems to be drawing us together, and this 'force' seems to act without any connection between us.

Now all this is due to the fact that prehistoric peoples didn't know they were living on a curved surface.
We present day people, know the Earth's surface is curved, so we don't come to such foolish conclusions.

But what if it isn't just two dimensional surfaces that can be curved; what if both space and time comprise a manifold that can be 'warped' or curved by the configuration of the energy contained within it, whether that energy is in the form of mass, momentum, stress, or even pressure.
It seems some of us are still foolish enough to make those assumptions, and wonder what is connecting the two bodies drawn toward each other, when the 'path' ( known as a geodesic ) is simply constrained to the 'lay' of the land ( known as a 4 dimensional space-time manifold )

[Sensei]

5 hours ago, JohnDBarrow said:

How can one body of matter draw another body of matter, separated by a void, toward itself with no apparent material or mechanical connection between the two bodies?

..between two electrically charged particles also exists a void..

 

 

The solid state of matter is an illusion (human perception of time etc.) that exists only in a state of very low energy.

The longest physical experiment has been going on for 97 years:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitch_drop_experiment

 

[JohnDBarrow]

39 minutes ago, Sensei said:

..between two electrically charged particles also exists a void..

 

 

The solid state of matter is an illusion (human perception of time etc.) that exists only in a state of very low energy.

The longest physical experiment has been going on for 97 years:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitch_drop_experiment

 

It therefore seems as pitch is slower than molasses in January at falling in drops. 

[MigL]

5 hours ago, JohnDBarrow said:

It only seems logical to say that matter never had a beginning at all and that it has been in existance literally forever. 

Why does that seem 'logical' to you ?
The universe is 'expanding', and separations between galaxy clusters getting larger, so if we wind the clock backwards, they start coming together.
If we wind it back far enough, we get to the primordial Hydrogen and Helium gas, before the first stars and galaxies formed.
If we wind back further, we are effectively 'compressing' and putting energy into the system , making it very hot.
Back a little further and atoms cannot form ( where CMB comes from )
Back a little further and elementary particles can't even exist; it is all radiation and nothing has mass (forces recombine into electroweak ).
The last wind takes us back to a point where the geometry of space-time is lost. There are no distances and no time; the universe is in a small hot dense state where the chaos of quantum fluctuations rule and 'bubbles' and (worm ) holes pop up indiscriminately.
It makes no sense to speak of distances at these scales ( called Planck scale ) because there are infinitely many paths to any destination, nor does it make sense to speak of time, because past and future all occur randomly.
J A Wheeler called this state, quantum foam, and this state would have been unstable; just like balancing a pencil on its tip, eventually it will fall over, and we don't know when.
Similarly, the hot dense early universe was unstable, and it could have been in that state for trillions of years, or for an instant; it is irrelevant because there was no time. A quantum fluctuation 'tipped the pencil over', and the expansion resulted which we call the Big Bang.

Notice that all this is simply winding time backwards, we don't introduce any 'causative actors' because if we introduce anything, it needs to come from somewhere or be caused by something.
And, as you said ...

6 hours ago, JohnDBarrow said:

Something, logically speaking, can't arrise from absolute nothing. Every change or new existance in our universe must have a means of causation.

Oh, and there is no such thing as 'absolute nothing'.

[exchemist]

37 minutes ago, Sensei said:

..between two electrically charged particles also exists a void..

 

 

The solid state of matter is an illusion (human perception of time etc.) that exists only in a state of very low energy.

The longest physical experiment has been going on for 97 years:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitch_drop_experiment

 

Eh? Surely this does not mean the solid state is an “illusion” but that pitch behaves as a viscous liquid rather than as a solid?

[JohnDBarrow]

10 minutes ago, MigL said:

Why does that seem 'logical' to you ?
The universe is 'expanding', and separations between galaxy clusters getting larger, so if we wind the clock backwards, they start coming together.
If we wind it back far enough, we get to the primordial Hydrogen and Helium gas, before the first stars and galaxies formed.
If we wind back further, we are effectively 'compressing' and putting energy into the system , making it very hot.
Back a little further and atoms cannot form ( where CMB comes from )
Back a little further and elementary particles can't even exist; it is all radiation and nothing has mass (forces recombine into electroweak ).
The last wind takes us back to a point where the geometry of space-time is lost. There are no distances and no time; the universe is in a small hot dense state where the chaos of quantum fluctuations rule and 'bubbles' and (worm ) holes pop up indiscriminately.
It makes no sense to speak of distances at these scales ( called Planck scale ) because there are infinitely many paths to any destination, nor does it make sense to speak of time, because past and future all occur randomly.
J A Wheeler called this state, quantum foam, and this state would have been unstable; just like balancing a pencil on its tip, eventually it will fall over, and we don't know when.
Similarly, the hot dense early universe was unstable, and it could have been in that state for trillions of years, or for an instant; it is irrelevant because there was no time. A quantum fluctuation 'tipped the pencil over', and the expansion resulted which we call the Big Bang.

Notice that all this is simply winding time backwards, we don't introduce any 'causative actors' because if we introduce anything, it needs to come from somewhere or be caused by something.
And, as you said ...

Oh, and there is no such thing as 'absolute nothing'.

Matter can neither be created nor destroyed. Only it's form can change. All mass is conserved in the universe. 

I think of time as a geometrical straight line or a number line. The line extends infinitely in either direction. 

Edited May 27 by JohnDBarrow

[swansont]

5 minutes ago, exchemist said:

Eh? Surely this does not mean the solid state is an “illusion” but that pitch behaves as a viscous liquid rather than as a solid?

The solid earth acts like a fluid on the right time scale; the “illusion” would seem to stem from an unrealistic assumption that a solid is infinitely rigid.

Just now, JohnDBarrow said:

Matter can neither be created nor destroyed. Only it's form can change. All mass is conserved in the universe. 

Nope. 

[exchemist]

8 minutes ago, swansont said:

The solid earth acts like a fluid on the right time scale; the “illusion” would seem to stem from an unrealistic assumption that a solid is infinitely rigid.

Nope. 

Sure, creep in solids is a recognised phenomenon. That does not make the solid state an illusion, though.

[MigL]

9 minutes ago, JohnDBarrow said:

Matter can neither be created nor destroyed. Only it's form can change. All mass is conserved in the universe. 

Really ? How do you explain pair creation from energetic photons, or matter-antimatter annihilation to energetic photons ?
Neither 'matter' nor 'mass' is conserved in these known processes; mass-energy ( they are equivalent ) and momentum are conserved.
Your assumed model doesn't predict what is observed.

22 minutes ago, JohnDBarrow said:

I think of time as a geometrical straight line or a number line. The line extends infinitely in either direction. 

Yet I can go backwards and forward on a number line; I can only go forward at a specific rate in time, a rate which changes according to relative velovities of different observers, and, depth in a gravitational well of different observers.
Also a number line can be infinitely subdivided, there is no indication that space, time, or space-time can be.

The geometric aspect of our best theory, GR, which is based on observational evidence ( not assumptions ), fails at extremely small scales. No geometry means nothing as simple as a number line, or even multiple number lines for multiple observers.
Your assumed model doesn't predict what is observed.

[JohnDBarrow]

5 hours ago, MigL said:

Really ? How do you explain pair creation from energetic photons, or matter-antimatter annihilation to energetic photons ?
Neither 'matter' nor 'mass' is conserved in these known processes; mass-energy ( they are equivalent ) and momentum are conserved.
Your assumed model doesn't predict what is observed.

Yet I can go backwards and forward on a number line; I can only go forward at a specific rate in time, a rate which changes according to relative velovities of different observers, and, depth in a gravitational well of different observers.
Also a number line can be infinitely subdivided, there is no indication that space, time, or space-time can be.

The geometric aspect of our best theory, GR, which is based on observational evidence ( not assumptions ), fails at extremely small scales. No geometry means nothing as simple as a number line, or even multiple number lines for multiple observers.
Your assumed model doesn't predict what is observed.

Space is infinite. It has no end nor beginning. 

[Genady]

12 minutes ago, JohnDBarrow said:

Space is infinite. It has no end nor beginning. 

The real interval \(0 \lt a \lt 1 \) has no end nor beginning. Nevertheless, it is finite.

[JohnDBarrow]

Perhaps, then, perception is not always reality. Humans really know damned little about nature, indeed. 

Edited May 28 by JohnDBarrow

[Bufofrog]

5 hours ago, JohnDBarrow said:

Humans really know damned little about nature

I heartily disagree.

[MigL]

"The real interval 0<a<1 has no end nor beginning. Nevertheless, it is finite."

 

I would say that as "The above interval has an end and a beginning, yet is comprised of an infinite number of discrete points"
( don't know what you did, but it's impossible to quote your post )

Or you could use the Earth's surface as an example, It has no beginning and no end, yet it is definitely finite.

 

8 hours ago, JohnDBarrow said:

Perhaps, then, perception is not always reality. Humans really know damned little about nature, indeed. 

Absolutely. Perception, and even measurement, are not always reality.
But we do know quite a lot about nature.
The interesting thing about nature, however, is that for every question we answer about it, two ( or ) more questions are revealed.

You never finish inquiring about science; it is a lifelong endeavor.

[Genady]

13 minutes ago, MigL said:

you could use the Earth's surface as an example, It has no beginning and no end, yet it is definitely finite.

I could, of course, and it is a common example, but I think my example is simpler.

There are no end and beginning points in an open interval. The points \(0\) and \(1\) do not exist in the interval. For any value in the interval, there are values in the interval less than and greater than that.

Edited May 28 by Genady

[JohnDBarrow]

The universe is infinitely large. True or false? 

[zapatos]

Don't know.

[exchemist]

11 hours ago, JohnDBarrow said:

Perhaps, then, perception is not always reality. Humans really know damned little about nature, indeed. 

Pity about your second sentence. The first is undoubtedly correct.