0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Some quotes from the article:"Now physicists have succeeded in doing the opposite: converting energy in the form of light into matter""Converting energy into matter isn't completely new to physicists.""The energy-to-matter conversion was made possible by the incredibly strong electromagnetic fields that the photon-photon collisions produced."I guess you could say energy in the form of photons can be turned into matter in some special cases, but saying matter is made from light is misleading given what "made from" is usually taken to mean that if you zoom in with a microscope you'll see photons zipping around inside of any particle of matter.
So are we in agreement. All matter can be reduced back to photon energy?
Mass-energy_equivalence
Quote from: QuantumClue on 22/11/2010 12:01:26So are we in agreement. All matter can be reduced back to photon energy?No.To say 'reduced back' is misleading - and wrong.Quote from: peppercorn on 17/11/2010 15:07:56Mass-energy_equivalence'Equivalence' is an excellent mathematical description of what is really, physically observed. Anything else is just word play on your part.
Yet another circular thread, I see. That's why I was pointing out your playing with words.What, beyond what mainstream fund. physics already describes (including Equivalence), are you trying to claimed is not yet explained? I can't see the ultimate point of all your arguments.... (?)
My point is however, scientists are catching on to the idea that matter is made of light. I am not playing with words here - that was a job of the OP when talking about ''fundamentals'' - my statement is clear, all matter when it comes into contact with antimatter turn into light, or reduce back into light, suggesting at one point all this matter was, was but energy. This is not a trick. A clown or Hawking is not going to jump out from behing the couch. I am deadly serious when I say this is what science is progressing towards. And HAS progressed to.Radiation from light is a lot more complicated than E=Mc^2. In fact the equation is trivial in the sense you take into account all of matter - and how they can be made to reduce back to photons. These little bits of matter never started their lifetimes as matter. At one point somewhere there was enough concentration of energy which gave life to particles. Just so happens like a symmetry in nature antiparticles are created alongside normal particles, and every particle no matter what kind, subjected to their antipartner will reduce to photons.
Quote from: QuantumClue on 23/11/2010 11:44:48My point is however, scientists are catching on to the idea that matter is made of light. I am not playing with words here - that was a job of the OP when talking about ''fundamentals'' - my statement is clear, all matter when it comes into contact with antimatter turn into light, or reduce back into light, suggesting at one point all this matter was, was but energy. This is not a trick. A clown or Hawking is not going to jump out from behing the couch. I am deadly serious when I say this is what science is progressing towards. And HAS progressed to.Radiation from light is a lot more complicated than E=Mc^2. In fact the equation is trivial in the sense you take into account all of matter - and how they can be made to reduce back to photons. These little bits of matter never started their lifetimes as matter. At one point somewhere there was enough concentration of energy which gave life to particles. Just so happens like a symmetry in nature antiparticles are created alongside normal particles, and every particle no matter what kind, subjected to their antipartner will reduce to photons.I apologise for inadvertently 'throwing-you-into-the-same-boat' as the OP (which I kind'a did) - I see that you are looking at this with a rational eye. I would say, however, that you have (in places) given the impression that mainstream science has still to accept that the most likely form of the very early universe was one of a sea of energy, but by my understanding, this is by far the preferred view in the astrophysics community.I am uncertain what extra development of these theories you are proposing we should consider - This is, afterall, the 'New Theories' board.
Doesn't that assume the standard model is the only answer? It seems to me there must be a possibility that it is entirely wrong if it must depend on the existence of the graviton, Higgs and virtual particles.
But I guess they won't find the Higgs boson..
Quote from: CPT ArkAngel on 24/11/2010 03:06:34But I guess they won't find the Higgs boson..Is your 'guess' based on anything?