Energy, Matter, and Life

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by machaon, Aug 27, 2001.

  1. machaon Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    733
    We are built from the wheels up, not the other way around. Our bodies (to include our minds) are tool which have been constructed by our genes to decipher the energies that constitute our immediate environment. Remember that the distiction between energy and matter is an illusion. Our lives are merely the process of interpretation that occurs between the voids that exist before birth and after death. DNA is really a form of energy itself. To me that means life is energy interacting with energy. Life is non-entropy encapsulated within the boundries of the inevitable. Entropy will win. Stars die. People die.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. wet1 Wanderer Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,616
    Hi machaon, Welcome to Sciforums. You certainly have a point in that entrophy does indeed exists and that the ultimate fate of all is haeded in that direction. It's just a matter of time.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. kmguru Staff Member

    Messages:
    11,757
    If Time is taken out of the equation as has been suggested by some prominent physicists, everything lives forever...just because you finish a book does not mean, the book disappears. The pages still exist....they say, it is our perception that defines a state (like finishing a book)....

    It is like those entities who live inside the wormhole in DS9...

    Just a thought....
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. teerum Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    66
    Entropy will win in terms of yor reference, however we should try and fight it throughout our life time, I believe it is a constant force ever invading our body. I have felt the effects, I feel them everyday, I am happier in the fight and my spirit shines when I do fight it. I have to go now......
     
  8. Jahmah Registered Member

    Messages:
    4
    bare withme i have not the time to guide you through the process
    in brief :- man is atoms all is atoms break it down you get to a frequency so wot is it that separates us from the rest of the atoms read my tell all book THEEE BOOK.d Soon tobegin on ??/??/???? it will if you dare tell of wonders answers in lay terms giveing to me by means other than be anounced years in the ongoing production of unknown logical thought that arives yet sets out from unkown piont to begin an excistance yet has always been there without a begining from its arival.
     
  9. glaucon tending tangentially Moderator

    Messages:
    5,502
    Well, I hope you have a really good editor. Your grammar, syntax, and spelling are terrible.

    Anyways, machaon; sounds like a completely reasonable theory. What's your point?

    Your theory must account for quantum effects. How do you rectify this?
     
  10. machaon Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    733
    reply to glaucon (quantum)

    My theory does not need to account for quantum effects. Quantum effects need to account for my theory. My mind constructed that theory. My mind is effected by quantum effects.
     
  11. Reign_of_Error Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    68
    "Life is non-entropy encapsulated "

    That sounds cool to me, cos life is atoms organised into molecules and so forth, in a way that is completely organised...

    however, the universe from its birth, is disorganising itself (if you can forgive my narrow vocabulary) into less order... life seems to be some kind of order but entropy must reign as life is just a brief moment, perhaps, in the life of our universe...
     
  12. wet1 Wanderer Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,616
    Hello Reign_of_Error, welcome to Sciforums! I must say that your name is indeed original.

    Entropy is the final outcome for the state of energy if we understand this correctly. At the end, no matter has any energy. The atoms no longer have electrons orbiting. There is no energy to be had. Compared to the span of time this will take. Our lifetimes do not last the flicker of an eyelash.
     
  13. Reign_of_Error Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    68
    Hi wet1, thanks for the welcome

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    I would like to add that by the time that as you said "The atoms no longer have electrons orbiting. There is no energy to be had"

    That instance of a universe would not be an expanding and ultimately contracting universe...

    it would be a forever expanding universe and by the time that happened.. our 15 or so billion years of universe would be a mere bat of an eyelid in the time it would take to reach that energy less state...

    Please prove me wrong if I am.. I am new to these forums and appreciate any corrections to my posts

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  14. wet1 Wanderer Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,616
    I have no arguement with the end event. I do not know the estimated time it will take. All life will long before ceased to have existed. The time to wind down will be considerably longer than the ability of life to maintain it's hold.
     
  15. Reign_of_Error Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    68
    Wet1

    so I assume you believe in the forever expanding universe theory..

    I believe the universe will expand to a certain point and then contract..

    just my personal belief..

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    I wish you well my friend

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  16. wet1 Wanderer Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,616
    All latest theories seem to point to an open expanding universe. But the estimates of necessary mass is relativily close.
     
  17. kmguru Staff Member

    Messages:
    11,757
    When all the energy is released, where will they go?
     
  18. Stryder Keeper of "good" ideas. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,101
    Schrödingers Cat

    Well from what Reign explained of Matter eventually losing all energy reminds me of the Schrödinger Cat experiement, that was to allow the understanding of atoms.

    Within the experiment the cat would be placed into a box with a radioactive atom, A geiger counter which has a piece of string attached to a hammer, and a sealed glass vial of poisonous gas.

    The hammer is precariously placed over the vial with only the string stopping it from smashing the vial, the string was then fitted as a mechanism to the geiger counter, and while the radioactive atom is present within the box the geiger counter moves, making sure the hammer doesn't fall.

    Over time that radioactive atom will decay, and eventually it would decay to such a point that the geiger counter would move to a static position, causing the hammer to fall and kill the cat through smashing the glass vial and releasing the poisonous toxin killing the cat.

    The point is as this radioactive atom exists in it's state of early decay the cat while in the box, is both ALive and Dead.

    The reason of course for the cat being in both of these states is the fact that at some point full decay will cause that cat to die, Of course since decay hasn't fully occured because the geiger needle keeps bouncing across the static position, the cat in that state is still alive.

    Of course Schrödinger was trying to explain about his understanding of sub-atomics as Wave-Functions while others were calling the sub-atomic levels Particles.

    In reality though I think that both were correct and both were false, Afterall if you pull an atom to pieces, placed an electron on it's own, it would eventually disperse, reacting a bit like a rapidly degrading signal from a radiostation lost in the noise of DIGITAL FM stations.

    Again you could take a Neutron and place that upon it's own again it's absorded into the universe into the Back ground zero-point energy.

    It's known of course though that electrons can behave like particles and are used in Particle accelerators such as that of CERN. As for the Neutron, it is known that a Neutron beam can be created, of course it's frequency would destable other matter.

    I have on the Topic of
    Parallels also discussed my understanding of the creation of a universe and a Steady State theory, where mass is transfered from a future position and re-essembled in a past position of time. This means that the universe grows in size as it gets older, and that you could end up with identical mass which has been reconfigured due to its transversement through timespace.

    As for our perceptions changing realities etc.

    Well Bohr mentioned of his explainations of Non-locality, so your thought processes which are just energy excersions of neurons on an sub-atomic could catalyse spacial changes depending on if you have met certain attributes correctly.

    (Again my piece on parallels will explain a bit of this, but through the short story explaining of the sickening feeling while you talk to the difference machine man)

    I hope this has given food to thought, As it certainly is a meal
    <HR>
    Stryderunknown
     
  19. Holy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    74
    Entropy and exergy, another thought.

    This post is based on the assumption that our laws for thermodynamics are correct.

    - Energy can not be created or consumed, it simply changes into another form.
    - Matter can not be created or consumed (the amount of electrons, protons and neutrons is constant in the universe).

    How come life has evolved on the earth when the law of entropy says that within any closed system the chaos of particles will increase until a total balance is achieved (meaning approximately all particles will blend until they are perfectly blended in a chaos).

    Well the earth is not a closed system, the sun of our solar system provides earth with directed energy, exergy (non-entropy).

    (Exergy is a measurement of how much work one can extract from an amount of energy)

    One could furthermore argue the same about our solar system, there is order in the solar system because it is not a closed system, it gets directed energy from the galaxy (or another external source).

    The galaxy is also ordered and so on.

    Has anyone proved that the "known" universe does not have an external energy source? We need to prove that the universe exist alone, without any external energy (or internal energy we cant find).

    But now I have lost even myself in my reasoning. I will leave it at that for now.

    Please give me your input on the subject.
     
  20. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,642
    Re: Entropy and exergy, another thought.

    You're right on the first point, but wrong on the second one. You can change matter into energy and vice-versa, via E=mc<sup>2</sup>. This happens all the time in stars and in radioactive decay.
    The Earth is not a closed system, as you said. Energy flows in constantly from the sun.
    The universe is, by definition, everything. There is no "outside the universe", and therefore no "external energy".
     
  21. machaon Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    733
    James R

    Excellent points James. Now I will be forced to modify my theory so that it will conform to the parameters offered by new input. This is how I grow. As it should be...Thank you.
     
  22. Holy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    74
    Thank you James

    Yes that is true, but Its occurring on such a small influence on earth, therefore I left it out of the equation.

    That is probably true, the universe is defined as everything. But if by some means someone should prove that our known universe is for instance contained in a bubble and outside this bubble there are millions of trillions of other bubbles, will the human world call everything the universe or will we redefine it so we can call it our universe and the outside universes?

    But that is not a valid question at all. The real question is:

    - Has anyone explained how the known universe is able to form order amongst its stars, solar systems and galaxies, when the law of entropy states that would require an external energy source or rather that if the universe is a closed system how was it made possible to gain order from the beginning? (Is it big bang?)
     
  23. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,642
    Order in the Universe

    The Big Bang was a source of very high energy and low entropy. The universe started off with lots of "useful" energy. This energy was and is being used to form stars and planets. The stars provide useful energy as their nuclear furnaces burn down, making life possible on Earth (and maybe elsewhere).

    It is true that the universe is a closed system. In the end, all the stars will have fused their elements to heavy elements and no further fusion processes will occur. After that, the stars will slowly cool down, and the average temperature of the universe will become uniform. Some matter will collapse to black holes, but even those will eventually evaporate all their useful energy away. The universe, if it keeps expanding, will become a dark place where everything gets colder and colder. This scenario is sometimes paradoxically called the "heat death" of the universe, since the will be no energy left in a useful form, all energy having been converted to heat and spread evenly through the cosmos.
     

Share This Page