Got your stake in the sugar cube?

[Bob_Crowley]

Recently I’ve been trying to make heads or tails of quantum physics (I have a pet theory that God intends to drive us off the planet, and we’ll use quantum teleporting to do so, but that’s an aside).

But a recent Toastmaster’s speech by someone else got me to realise just how much space there is even within matter.

Apparently if we could remove all the space between the nucleus and electrons, so that they nestled up cheek by jowl with each other, the entire human race would take up less room than a sugar cube.

From - quantumaniac.tumblr.com/post/11659485626/all-the-matter-that-makes-up-the-human-race-could

All the matter that makes up the human race could fit in a sugar cube

Despite what our intuition about atoms may be, they are 99.9999999999999% empty space. As Tom Stoppard put it: “Make a fist, and if your fist is as big as the nucleus of an atom, then the atom is as big as St Paul’s, and if it happens to be a hydrogen atom, then it has a single electron flitting about like a moth in an empty cathedral, now by the dome, now by the altar.”

If you were to force all of the matter together, thus removing all of the empty space within and between them, a block the size of a single sugar cube would weigh an incredible five billion tons! (To put this into perspective, this is about ten times the weight of all humans currently living.)

So when the arch-atheists, Richard Dawkins et al, insist that there’s no God, they’re putting their faith in the sugar cube. Just think - all the creativity, all the character, all the personalities, all the human history, all the tyrants, all the saints - amount to nothing more than a sugar cube in actual matter.

It reminds me of the vision of Mother Julian of Norwich way back circa 1373, in which she was given a vision of just how little creation adds up to -

And in this he showed me a little thing, the quantity of a hazelnut, lying in the palm of my hand, it seemed, and it was as round as any ball. I looked thereupon with the eye of my understanding, and I thought, ‘What may this be?’ And it was answered generally thus: ‘It is all that is made.’ I wondered how it could last, for I thought it might suddenly fall to nothing for little cause. And I was answered in my understanding: ‘It lasts and ever shall, for God loves it; and so everything has its beginning by the love of God.’ In this little thing I saw three properties; the first is that God made it; the second is that God loves it; and the third is that God keeps it.

Or the sum zero energy universe, lifted from -

astrosociety.org/publications/a-universe-from-nothing/

In the inflationary theory, matter, antimatter, and photons were produced by the energy of the false vacuum, which was released following the phase transition. All of these particles consist of positive energy. This energy, however, is exactly balanced by the negative gravitational energy of everything pulling on everything else. In other words, the total energy of the universe is zero! It is remarkable that the universe consists of essentially nothing, but (fortunately for us) in positive and negative parts. You can easily see that gravity is associated with negative energy: If you drop a ball from rest (defined to be a state of zero energy), it gains energy of motion (kinetic energy) as it falls. But this gain is exactly balanced by a larger negative gravitational energy as it comes closer to Earth’s center, so the sum of the two energies remains zero.

I think I’ll stick to the intelligent designer. He’s done a lot starting with nothing, and He keeps it that way.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

This leads me on to another point - if there’s so much space, not only the visible space which makes up so much of the near vacuum of space, and the invisible space within matter, then why can’t we see the spiritual world, since we exist side by side?

I presume it has to do with the space-time continuum, which, when bent, forces entire galaxies to move along defined paths.

I think it’s also a barrier we can’t break through to perceive the spiritual world. But the spiritual world is under no such hindrance.

Anyway that’s my two bob’s worth.

 

[mikekle]

Im interested in topics like this too, although I really dont understand the quantum world, however I do know the main idea behind it is, something can exist in 2 places at one time, but it may not be the same in both places.

I think once our experts get a grasp on this idea, our world will change drastically, things once thought impossible will become the norm.It will be a major turning point in our history imo. Plus I often wonder what the next thing will be after the quantum world is tackled? Geez, I cant even imagine what that could be, but Im sure it will be interesting!

 

[GEddie]

This leads me on to another point - if there’s so much space, not only the visible space which makes up so much of the near vacuum of space, and the invisible space within matter, then why can’t we see the spiritual world, since we exist side by side?

I presume it has to do with the space-time continuum, which, when bent, forces entire galaxies to move along defined paths.

I think it’s also a barrier we can’t break through to perceive the spiritual world. But the spiritual world is under no such hindrance.

Anyway that’s my two bob’s worth.

Because to see something requires bouncing light off it, and light requires time. You cannot see Eternity by bouncing natural light into human eyes, you need “new eyes, a new body, a ‘spiritual body’” (Peter Kreeft).

ICXC NIKA.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

Because to see something requires bouncing light off it, and light requires time. You cannot see Eternity by bouncing natural light into human eyes, you need “new eyes, a new body, a ‘spiritual body’” (Peter Kreeft).

ICXC NIKA.

I’ve said many times the night my father died, he appeared in my room. I believe I saw his soul or spirit. We even talked, and his voice had all the timbre and quality of his normal human voice.

Then there are the Biblical accounts of people seeing angels, Mary seeing Gabriel, Moses seeing God, etc.

If they could see them (and I could see my “spiritual” father), but while they themselves were still restricted by earthly bodies, then why would you need “spiritual eyes” to see spiritual beings?

I think it’s more likely a barrier has been pulled aside for the time being. In any case, we already have a spiritual component.

 

[GEddie]

I’ve said many times the night my father died, he appeared in my room. I believe I saw his soul or spirit. We even talked, and his voice had all the timbre and quality of his normal human voice.

Then there are the Biblical accounts of people seeing angels, Mary seeing Gabriel, Moses seeing God, etc.

If they could see them (and I could see my “spiritual” father), but while they themselves were still restricted by earthly bodies, then why would you need “spiritual eyes” to see spiritual beings?

I think it’s more likely a barrier has been pulled aside for the time being. In any case, we already have a spiritual component.

Spiritual beings can make themselves visible, and so somehow bounce light into our eyes; but we do not see them at will, as we see our own solid bodies, or those of others.

ICXC NIKA.

 

[Oreoracle]

I have a few criticisms of this perspective. Firstly, size is a relative concept. If you’ve only ever seen a single instance of some class of object, then you can’t judge whether it’s “small” or “large” in any meaningful sense. If an object is unique, then such relative terms aren’t even well-defined. For example, someone who’s only seen one dog can hardly judge whether a particular dog is large. And you can’t say the universe is “small” because there are no larger universes we know of with which to compare it.

Secondly, you’ve deliberately chosen a metric that would make the universe analogous to something small (a sugar cube) relative to the everyday objects we experience. But why choose that metric? Why not measure the amount of energy that is contained in that sugar cube, or its density, or the number of atoms, etc.?

My attitude toward this is similar to how I feel when someone says that “life is short”. Well no, it isn’t short. It’s actually the longest thing anyone ever does. We would have to adopt a broader perspective just to give it the appearance of being short, and anything could be made to appear small if you adopt such a perspective.

 

[GEddie]

I have a few criticisms of this perspective. Firstly, size is a relative concept. If you’ve only ever seen a single instance of some class of object, then you can’t judge whether it’s “small” or “large” in any meaningful sense. If an object is unique, then such relative terms aren’t even well-defined. For example, someone who’s only seen one dog can hardly judge whether a particular dog is large. And you can’t say the universe is “small” because there are no larger universes we know of with which to compare it.

Secondly, you’ve deliberately chosen a metric that would make the universe analogous to something small (a sugar cube) relative to the everyday objects we experience. But why choose that metric? Why not measure the amount of energy that is contained in that sugar cube, or its density, or the number of atoms, etc.?

My attitude toward this is similar to how I feel when someone says that “life is short”. Well no, it isn’t short. It’s actually the longest thing anyone ever does. We would have to adopt a broader perspective just to give it the appearance of being short, and anything could be made to appear small if you adopt such a perspective.

Life **is **short when a) compared to the length of historical time in the European countries, or the vast sweep of geological time, etc.; or more to the point, b) when near their end, nearly all human beings wish it were longer.

ICXC NIKA.

 

[Oreoracle]

Life **is **short when a) compared to the length of historical time in the European countries…

Yes, as I said, you can make anything appear small by comparing it to something sufficiently large. The problem with saying “X is short” is that you aren’t specifying what you’re comparing X’s size to. The case of the universe is especially problematic, since we have only ever experienced one universe so we can’t make any fair comparison at all. You would have to invent a hypothetical, larger universe just to have an object comparable to our universe.

b) when near their end, nearly all human beings wish it were longer.

Most rich people want more money too. That doesn’t mean their supply is short.

 

[yppop]

This leads me on to another point - if there’s so much space, not only the visible space which makes up so much of the near vacuum of space, and the invisible space within matter, then why can’t we see the spiritual world, since we exist side by side?

I presume it has to do with the space-time continuum, which, when bent, forces entire galaxies to move along defined paths.

I think it’s also a barrier we can’t break through to perceive the spiritual world. But the spiritual world is under no such hindrance.

Anyway that’s my two bob’s worth.

Bob,
Nearly four years ago (Oct, 2011) I posted the following on JDaniel’s thread entitled “Space”.

*The space that permeates the “empty” places (in between physical and material stuff, in between protons and neutrons, in between electrons and nuclei) is the spiritual component of reality. Teilhard called such “space” the “within” of things — as opposed to the “without” of things, the stuff we observe (or experience) as matter and energy. I once attempted to describe how this duality can be explained in a reasonable way in my one and only thread, “God exists, but how?” (now on page ?). My approach is to postulate that actuality consists of two kinds of space: continuous and discrete. I argue that all matter (fermions) and all forces (bosons) are nothing more than configurations of “discrete” space that are immersed in and permeated by continuous space. Thus discrete space becomes the substance that forms objective reality and continuous space is the spiritual substance in which it is immersed. This duality can be explained mathematically based on Cantor’s set theory of transfinite numbers. It is argued that matter is nothing but space when we consider that the atom is made up of electrons (“point” particles) and a nucleus; the nucleus consists of protons and neutrons; and protons and neutrons are made up of quarks, which are also “point particles”. Consequently, matter is made up of nothing but “points”. I envision the universe as a single whole configuration of discrete points that define what we call objective reality immersed in a background of continuous space of infinite extent, a spiritual substance, the Mind of God. *

If you think deeply about the implications of a reality based on the concept that discrete/continuous space = material/spiritual, you might realize that you see the spiritual every time you open your eyes, in fact, that is all you see, the qualia associated with the spiritual element that fills the spaces within matter.

As far as the condensation of the human race into a sugar cube, that is nothing compared to the condensation of the universe into a singularity of an infinitely smaller size than the sugar cube. The human mind can only scratch the surface of the amazing phenomenon that is God.

Yppop