matter and energy

[veritasamat]

Hello all,

I came across this statement in a book I am reading: "Physicists have agreed that matter and energy are essentially the same thing."

I'm sure this is an elementary question, but I was wondering if one of you who is more scientifically minded could tell me if this is true, and include a brief explanation. Although physics and astronomy were a fascination for me in school, it's been a while since I've read any science, and I'm afraid I don't remember much about this particular topic.

Thanks for your time.

veritasamat

 

[iBrian]

Quite true - matter is viewed as nothing more than "condensed energy".

In fact, it is the relationship between mass and energy that is postulated in the most famous equation of all:

E=mC2

In this equation, the actual energy stored in any mass is plainly given, where C represents the velocity of light. C is a pretty huge number, and is obviously even bigger squared. That in itself should give you an inkling of the massive amounts of energy stored in matter.


EDIT: Hm, I can't seem to use superscript here - but hopefully the equation is familar enough, even if it is technically incorrectly written in this post.

 

[Susma Rio Sep]

Matter and mind

Quite true - matter is viewed as nothing more than "condensed energy".

In fact, it is the relationship between mass and energy that is postulated in the most famous equation of all:

[/size]
In this equation, the actual energy stored in any mass is plainly given, where C represents the velocity of light. C is a pretty huge number, and is obviously even bigger squared. That in itself should give you an inkling of the massive amounts of energy stored in matter.


EDIT: Hm, I can't seem to use superscript here - but hopefully the equation is familar enough, even if it is technically incorrectly written in this post.

I am dumbfounded, Brian, you are that knowledgeable in physics and math. Applause.


Veritas says: I came across this statement in a book I am reading: "Physicists have agreed that matter and energy are essentially the same thing."

From my acquaintance with Christian philosophy, matter is opposed to mind; conversely mind is distinct from matter. So when physicists tell us that matter and energy are essentially the same thing; then on that basis -- and correct me if I am wrong, religious people should have no trouble agreeing with physicists that matter and energy are the same thing essentially, both of them are matter in the language of Christian philosophy; both matter and energy are nothing of the mind.

On the other hand, I am wondering how some Christian thinkers can talk about energy, that aspect of matter that is investigated by physicists, as becoming so subtle that it verges into the realm of the mind. And they do this to prove the existence of the soul and God.

In which case, they are proving more than they bargain for, by in the process turning soul and God into subtle energy forms, which energy forms are also aspects of matter as understood by physicists.

Gone thereby is the distinction in Christian philosophy that matter is in no way anything of the realm of mind, abolished by Christian thinkers who would bring in energy to explain the existence of the soul and God.

So, no more distinction between the material world and the spiritual world, millennially insisted on in Christian theology and philosophy. And God is matter also.

More probably I got everything all mixed up... committing all kinds of illegal transits?

Susma Rio Sep

 

[Iacchus]

So what is spirit versus energy then, if in fact they're not one and the same? Could it be that spirit is a more subtle form of energy or, does it transcend the realm of energy entirely? It would seem to me that if energy was not immaterial and spirit was, then is this the only option we have available. However, if we understand that spirit does exist, then there must be a means by which it can interact with energy and everything else. In which case I would be inclined to say it was a more subtle form of energy.

 

[Zazen]

hear no evil, see no evil..

"So what is spirit versus energy then, if in fact they're not one and the same? Could it be that spirit is a more subtle form of energy or, does it transcend the realm of energy entirely? It would seem to me that if energy was not immaterial and spirit was, then is this the only option we have available. However, if we understand that spirit does exist, then there must be a means by which it can interact with energy and everything else. In which case I would be inclined to say it was a more subtle form of energy."

think about the above comments in relation to whichever spiritual tradition you follow

then try and understand that, although there is a supramundane existence transcendental of this one, they are still one in the same in that they are not seperate, but only we experience different aspects of the same entity through our own works

amitabha

 

[gluadys]

I am dumbfounded, Brian, you are that knowledgeable in physics and math. Applause.


Veritas says: I came across this statement in a book I am reading: "Physicists have agreed that matter and energy are essentially the same thing."

From my acquaintance with Christian philosophy, matter is opposed to mind; conversely mind is distinct from matter.

I would not be so quick to say that position is the Christian position. There is more than one variety of Christian philosophy and some are open to an intertwining of mind/spirit/energy/matter.

It's a long time ago, but I remember my enthusiasm when I first discovered the ideas of Teilhard de Chardin and his concept that all material things are an outward expression of a spiritual interiority, which in human terms would be the soul. Such a concept does not permit opposing mind to matter.

 

[kkawohl]

As Einstein said, "Although it is true that it is the goal of science to discover (the) rules which permit the association and foretelling of facts, this is not its only aim. It also seeks to reduce the connections discovered to the smallest possible number of mutually independent conceptual elements. It is in this striving after the rational unification of the manifold that it encounters its greatest successes, even though it is precisely this attempt which causes it to run the greatest risk of falling a prey to illusion. But whoever has undergone the intense experience of successful advances made in this domain, is moved by the profound reverence for the rationality made manifest in existence. By way of the understanding he achieves a far reaching emancipation from the shackles of personal hopes and desires, and thereby attains that humble attitude of mind toward the grandeur of reason, incarnate in existence, and which, in its profoundest depths, is inaccessible to man. This attitude, however, appears to me to be religious in the highest sense of the word. And so it seems to me that science not only purifies the religious impulse of the dross of its anthropomorphism but also contributes to a religious spiritualisation of our understanding of life."

IMHO Einstein’s statement “And so it seems to me that science not only purifies the religious impulse of the dross of its anthropomorphism but also contributes to a religious spiritualisation of our understanding of life" refutes a personal God, which logic and rationality supports.
Einstein also said that "God" may very well be the "energy" that is in all matter and energy, that cannot be separated from matter/energy. I submit that God is the pure energy and spiritual intellect of the spiritual existence. Physical contact with the spiritual existence is an impossibility.

Logic to the point where it is accepted as being logical to the one who accepts its logic is arrived at through the deductive reasoning process by the one who desires to have his logic be accepted as being logical. The question arises: If a person believes that his spirit has received evidence of a spiritual existence, logic would preclude that this is possible, but if a spiritual existence exists can it be logical or is it only logical to the one who has experienced it and therefore believes it to be so?

My stance is that any interpretation of ANY PHYSICAL contact with the spiritual is a misinterpretation. Our spirit is the only one capable of interacting with the spiritual realm or dimension. This spiritual experience is often indecipherable by the human mind which also often misinterprets its meaning, hence we have various religions and beliefs.

The physical plane is 3 dimensional. Space and time is often considered the fourth dimension, this IMHO is where the spiritual existence is a reality. To speak of space as containing in itself a quality which we humans cognize as intelligence, consciousness, love, or hate is to speak with accuracy, for all these qualities do exist.

Human fallibility and misconceptions have labeled God for the past several millennia as one who interferes with the natural forces and free will of people by threatening punishment to those who disobey his bidding. The spiritual existence of this deity, if one decides to accept this premise, could not have changed with the times but the perception of who or what this deity is should change as societies eliminate their superstitious beliefs. Logically this God could not possibly be encumbered by human attributes and needs or desires to be worshiped, prayed to, exalted, venerated, deified, or anything else that mankind has to offer. It is also the human characteristics and attributes that exercise upon others: power, control, dominance, destruction, punishment, revenge, and judgment.

Kurt

 

[gluadys]

IMHO Einstein’s statement “And so it seems to me that science not only purifies the religious impulse of the dross of its anthropomorphism but also contributes to a religious spiritualisation of our understanding of life" refutes a personal God, which logic and rationality supports.

That was Einstein's position. He was a religious person but did not believe in a personal God. More of a pantheist.

Einstein also said that "God" may very well be the "energy" that is in all matter and energy, that cannot be separated from matter/energy. I submit that God is the pure energy and spiritual intellect of the spiritual existence. Physical contact with the spiritual existence is an impossibility.

Sounds to me like you are disagreeing with Einstein on this point. Other scientists with spiritual leanings as well. Those I have read (e.g. Chardin, Capra, Polkinghorne) all seem to connect physical and spiritual as two sides of one coin, with the spiritual immanent in the material and interpenetrating it at all levels.

Christianity, of course, fully affirms the union of material and spiritual being via the doctrine of Incarnation. But there were those who objected in the early days. The force of their argument was the same as yours: that physical contact with spiritual existence is an impossibility. Hence God cannot be incarnate, or if so, there must be a sharp separation between the human and the divine nature. Many so inclined taught adoptionism and/or docetism. (i.e. that Jesus was not born as the incarnate God, but was "adopted" by the Christ spirit at his baptism or that he only appeared to be human.)

Our spirit is the only one capable of interacting with the spiritual realm or dimension.

When you say "our spirit" who are you speaking of? Are you excluding the possibility that some animals, especially those of higher intelligence and emotive capacity can be open to spiritual experience?


What of the traditional indigenous beliefs that ALL things have spirit and can be occasions of spiritual experience?

The physical plane is 3 dimensional. Space and time is often considered the fourth dimension, this IMHO is where the spiritual existence is a reality. To speak of space as containing in itself a quality which we humans cognize as intelligence, consciousness, love, or hate is to speak with accuracy, for all these qualities do exist.

3-dimensional space was the Newtonian conception. And it is still true that we are cognizant of only 3 macro-dimensions. But science is speculating that space may actually have 10 or more dimensions, with those above the three being so small that we do not perceive them with our senses.

If space itself contains the qualities you name (and I agree with that concept) does that not contradict your previous statement that there is no physical/spiritual contact? For space, after all, is physical.

Human fallibility and misconceptions have labeled God for the past several millennia as one who interferes with the natural forces and free will of people by threatening punishment to those who disobey his bidding. The spiritual existence of this deity, if one decides to accept this premise, could not have changed with the times but the perception of who or what this deity is should change as societies eliminate their superstitious beliefs. Logically this God could not possibly be encumbered by human attributes and needs or desires to be worshiped, prayed to, exalted, venerated, deified, or anything else that mankind has to offer. It is also the human characteristics and attributes that exercise upon others: power, control, dominance, destruction, punishment, revenge, and judgment.

Kurt

Yes, we have failed to educate the mass of people in spiritual maturity, so we still have nearly half of the US population envisaging deity in the same was as desert nomads did 4000 years ago. God as monarch commanding the forces of nature made sense when humans had no understanding of the physical laws that ensure the regularity of such events as sunrise, eclipses, climate changes, and every so often earthquakes, volcanoes and such.

But this primitive conception of God is long past its usefulness and only hinders us today. Knowledgeable theologians have been aware of this for millennia, but the Church has signally failed (or deliberately not tried) to communicate more mature understandings to its rank and file membership.

 

[neoxenos]

Mind, energy, and matter are the same thing. They are different condensations of MIND.

The Universe is nothing more than the condensed mind of the Cosmo-Architects.

For example, if we want to post a reply, we first construct this reply in the mental world, and then we reconstruct it in the physical world. So, matter is just like that, condensed mind.

 

[Vajradhara]

Mind, energy, and matter are the same thing. They are different condensations of MIND.

The Universe is nothing more than the condensed mind of the Cosmo-Architects.

For example, if we want to post a reply, we first construct this reply in the mental world, and then we reconstruct it in the physical world. So, matter is just like that, condensed mind.

As this is the science section of the site, neoxenos, i hope you won't mind a few queries...

can you state what "mind" is?

can you provide evidence that shows that the universe is nothing more than condensed mind of the "cosmo-architects"?

whilst that's fine to have as a belief, to state it as fact will require some proof and evidence to back the claim.

the problem with making a positive claim for the nature of the universe is that it cannot be backed with experimental evidence and thus becomes another untestable hypothesis, which isn't a problem one way or the other... however, it's not a positive claim. {actually, this isn't correct.... but i decided to leave it since i said it orginally... i've thought a little more and this is wrong thinking on my part here}

i think that the best that can be said, at this point, is that we simply do not know how the universe came into being, from what, or why, though we have some elegant theories to provide those answers... from theology to cosmology.. someone always has an answer for the unanswerable.. strange how that is....

 

[neoxenos]

As this is the science section of the site, neoxenos, i hope you won't mind a few queries...

can you state what "mind" is?

can you provide evidence that shows that the universe is nothing more than condensed mind of the "cosmo-architects"?

whilst that's fine to have as a belief, to state it as fact will require some proof and evidence to back the claim.

Mind is a form of crystalized energy, it is matter. A convolution of mind is emotion, and a further one is physical matter. When someone wishes to build a house, it is first done in the mind and then replicated in the physical sense.

As for evidence, I know the following is true: "As above, so below." However if one does not believe in that Hermetic axiom, there is nothing more to be said, I believe. I now understand if my post is out of place, I am sorry about that.

 

[kkawohl]

Yes, we have failed to educate the mass of people in spiritual maturity, so we still have nearly half of the US population envisaging deity in the same was as desert nomads did 4000 years ago. God as monarch commanding the forces of nature made sense when humans had no understanding of the physical laws that ensure the regularity of such events as sunrise, eclipses, climate changes, and every so often earthquakes, volcanoes and such.

But this primitive conception of God is long past its usefulness and only hinders us today. Knowledgeable theologians have been aware of this for millennia, but the Church has signally failed (or deliberately not tried) to communicate more mature understandings to its rank and file membership.

I agree.
The destruction of civilizations, most sufferings and premature deaths are due to human frailties, stupidity or imperfections and are not God's doings. The true “God” is a Spiritual Unity that exists in a spiritual realm and never has and never will interfere with anything on earth or in the universe. God is interested in and is involved in humanity, but does not interfere in any way in our physical lives. God guides the development of the universe and everything thereon like a Master Planner. Our relationship and interaction of our spirit with the Spirit of God is for our, not God's benefit.

Namaste,
Kurt

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste neoxenos,

thank you for the post.

Mind is a form of crystalized energy, it is matter.

however... this says nothing. you stated that mind is energy and energy is matter... here, you are stating that again. however, that is not telling me what "MIND" is. how is "MIND" distingushed from other forms of energy or matter, for that matter LOL (just laughing at myself... nothing to see here... move along )

A convolution of mind is emotion, and a further one is physical matter. When someone wishes to build a house, it is first done in the mind and then replicated in the physical sense.

hmm...

here's a great link to a psychological classic, though things have changed a bit since 1880's

http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/James/emotion.htm

now.. it seems that you are suggesting a Copenhagen Interpetation of Quantum Mechanics with this idea, do you agree with this view?

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-copenhagen/

As for evidence, I know the following is true: "As above, so below." However if one does not believe in that Hermetic axiom, there is nothing more to be said, I believe. I now understand if my post is out of place, I am sorry about that.

it's not a matter of belief, in the science section, at any rate.. it's about evidence and proof, testable and ultimately falsifyable hypothesis and all that sort of thing. the evidence listed "as above, so below" is problematic at best, but you appear to see that

 

[Avinash]

Namaskar,

According to the philosophy of P.R.Sarkar microvita are the subtle link between Consciousness (Spirit) and matter. One atom is supposedly made up of billions of a subtler kind of microvita. The discovery of microvita will (all according to Sarkar) radically change science such as medicine, physics, chemistry, biology (plus origin and cause of life), psychology etc.

Things like astrology will again become a science and the (sometimes sudden) change of mass psychology and things like telepathy and clairvoyancy will become better understood. It will also be finally understood exactly how the evolution of species takes place and why homeopathy works.

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, all!

Not wishing to seem disrespectful in any way whatsoever, I am puzzled.

How is "as above, so below" any different from Buddhist Karma or Christian Judgement? That is, none of these things are provable scientifically, yet all are basis of philosophies.

As for things being created first in the mind as thoughts, there is nothing I have seen to indicate anything profound in the act of imagination or rational consideration of a problem, such as constructing a house. If we are composed of matter because we are the creation of a grand being's dream, then when we create we are a dream dreaming a dream within a dream...it doesn't make sense to me. This seems to place a lot of power and ability into the sphere of dreams, which is frightening in the case of nightmares! While I cannot speak for others, the vast majority of my own dreams are nonsense, and I have long considered the act of dreaming the mind's way of disposing the trash, of dumping the excess daily nonsense, of freeing up random memory space (to use a computer term). Without freeing up this space, the mind would quickly overload, and I presume this overload of nonsense would quickly lead to insanity. At least, that is what I came away with from psych 101.

My two cents.

 

[Vajradhara]

How is "as above, so below" any different from Buddhist Karma or Christian Judgement? That is, none of these things are provable scientifically, yet all are basis of philosophies.

Namaste juan,

thank you for the post.

hmm... well.. natually, to my mind this is very clear.

what is "above"? can't that also be "below"?

those terms are subjective terms and corrolate to nothing in the natural universe. in fact, those terms convey absolutely no information to me at all... besides which... it is my view that hermetic magik is misguided

hopefully, in our exchanges, i've been able to make it clear that karma is not judgement and why this is so. i recognize the difficulties that we've had in exchanging information, especially when it comes to philosophies that are radically different than those we encoutner on a regular basis.

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Vajradhara!

what is "above"? can't that also be "below"?

I had not considered this aspect, but yes indeed.

those terms are subjective terms and corrolate to nothing in the natural universe. in fact, those terms convey absolutely no information to me at all... besides which... it is my view that hermetic magik is misguided

hopefully, in our exchanges, i've been able to make it clear that karma is not judgement and why this is so. i recognize the difficulties that we've had in exchanging information, especially when it comes to philosophies that are radically different than those we encoutner on a regular basis.

Again, I wish no disrespect. I always enjoy our dialogues. And I believe I understand your position concerning Karma as compared with judgement via our previous discussions. My point was regarding non-scientific basis of philosophical belief systems. It strikes me as curious how grand and noble philosophies can be extracted from seemingly incredulous foundations.

I am sincerely not casting any form of personal judgement in any direction, merely making an observation. Especially since I have no understanding of Hermetic magik. And with due respect to neoxenos, his position of "if one does not believe in that Hermetic axiom, there is nothing more to be said" leaves me rather bewildered. Am I to understand that I must believe because I am told?
Dogmatic steamrollers raise my alarms. (I appreciate very much that you, Vaj, are no dogmatic steamroller!)

If I do not understand, and the one presenting makes such a dogmatic proclamation, then I can make one of two presumptions. The more logical presumption is to dismiss the presentation (though not necessarily the presenter). The alternative being to mindlessly adopt without question, something I seem, thankfully, incapable of doing.

What I was attempting to do is draw out what was intended, if in fact it can be rationally supported. And then let the chips fall where they may...

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste juan,

thank you for the post.

Kindest Regards, Vajradhara!I had not considered this aspect, but yes indeed.

more and more Einstein is demonstrably correct... we do live in a relative universe

Again, I wish no disrespect. I always enjoy our dialogues. And I believe I understand your position concerning Karma as compared with judgement via our previous discussions.

oh, none taken i wanted to touch on that again as i recall we spent some time discussing it and it wasn't until futher in our conversation that i was able to make clear what i was trying to say i'm presuming my communication ability is imparied, not your comprehending ability

My point was regarding non-scientific basis of philosophical belief systems. It strikes me as curious how grand and noble philosophies can be extracted from seemingly incredulous foundations.

agreed!

I am sincerely not casting any form of personal judgement in any direction, merely making an observation. Especially since I have no understanding of Hermetic magik. And with due respect to neoxenos, his position of "if one does not believe in that Hermetic axiom, there is nothing more to be said" leaves me rather bewildered. Am I to understand that I must believe because I am told?

i don't presume to speak for neoxenos, however, this is familiar to me.. perhaps you as well.. though in a different form. this is analogous to the Christian admonition not to throw "pearls before swine..", if i understand correctly...a form of spiritual blindness, so to speak. to be honest with you, it's been decades since i've explored the western hermetic tradition.. so i cannot say for certain one way or the other in this case.

Dogmatic steamrollers raise my alarms. (I appreciate very much that you, Vaj, are no dogmatic steamroller!)

thank you, juan that's very kind of you to say... right back at ya

If I do not understand, and the one presenting makes such a dogmatic proclamation, then I can make one of two presumptions. The more logical presumption is to dismiss the presentation (though not necessarily the presenter). The alternative being to mindlessly adopt without question, something I seem, thankfully, incapable of doing.

What I was attempting to do is draw out what was intended, if in fact it can be rationally supported. And then let the chips fall where they may...

ah.. i see where you're heading with this... though we'd probably be better off in the New Age section regarding these aspects of the hermetic tradition.. though, i'm glossing that alot as there are many different schools of thought in this tradition as well.

as an aside... it occurs to me on occassion that i can speak no words that convey any meaning to anyone... unless we've already agreed on what the sounds mean... and i'm struck by this quite forcefully. communicating mind to mind seems the way to go... you know... like when the quarterback is reading the play and the reciever is reading the defense and both people know, of the three options on the play, post, in or curl, to run the post. it's communication that takes place without words..... and it seems to be the least likely to be confused... which is confusing in and of itself!

 

[neoxenos]

And with due respect to neoxenos, his position of "if one does not believe in that Hermetic axiom, there is nothing more to be said" leaves me rather bewildered. Am I to understand that I must believe because I am told?

I'm sorry for the confusion. My inital post here was misplaced, as this a forum looking for scientific evidence, and I cannot provide anything within the world of modern science to affirm it. So, what else can be said?

This is what I meant.

"As above, so below," simply is implying, "On Earth as it is in Heaven," in a way. For example, if we create a child through a sexual means, then God creates the universe through a sexual means as well.

Once again, sorry the confusion! I do not mean to appear hostile.

 

[iBrian]

No hostility seen.

I think Vaj was pushing for deeper discussion.