[QuantumClue]

W

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.

Well let us address this. This is not a special case. All matter can be made to reduce back to the photon energy which created them, which is part of the conservation of charge. Photons are just an energy, and it is this same energy all matter can be created. Those particles which are borne of photon energy still ''carry'' the information about the photon even in their material states, or photon energy could not be conserved.

Matter transmutating inton light, and light into matter shows a direct correlation. The material required to make matter is simply energy, and as current physics seems to be hinting at, a photon is simply required for such a transformation. Question yourself exactly how all matter can in fact be reduced to gamma energy? It is not a coincidence. It is because the photon(s) required to make the matter is in fact the energy used to create new types of particles, which under the shadow of it all, behave and act differently to photons. This is why it is not always immediate to think of matter being made from photon energy, but the fact of the matter is that this seems to be correct.

[QuantumClue]

You know, Dirac once modelled the electron against his own theory. The electron would found to contain a zitter motion due to negative charge interacting with it from the vacuum. He also found that the electron was really a photon, but appeared to move a lot slower because of this zig zag motion through space - I know this is a little different, but its very plausible to find some kind of motion given to a photon to give the appearance of another particle. This is in regards to the comment about it being a fundamental constituent of all matter.

[QuantumClue]

So are we in agreement. All matter can be reduced back to photon energy?

[peppercorn]

So are we in agreement. All matter can be reduced back to photon energy?

No.
To say 'reduced back' is misleading - and wrong.

Mass-energy_equivalence

'Equivalence' is an excellent mathematical description of what is really, physically observed.   Anything else is just word play on your part.

[QuantumClue]

So are we in agreement. All matter can be reduced back to photon energy?

No.
To say 'reduced back' is misleading - and wrong.

Mass-energy_equivalence

'Equivalence' is an excellent mathematical description of what is really, physically observed.   Anything else is just word play on your part.

Reduced back is not misleading. All material objects in the universe was borne of energy. Matter is but a concentrated energy, while energy is a diffused matter. Equivalence mearly states that they are fundamentally the same, that from matter you can get energy and energy from matter.

[QuantumClue]

Not to mention all matter can indeed be reduced back to photon energy in arrival with their antipartners. How else would one word this? I'd like to be taught.

[QuantumClue]

I did a little search on google. A result did come up.

This scientist does indeed proclaim all matter is made from light, and he says he explains why in his book. His name is Fred Alan Wolf

http://www.fredalanwolf.com/

''It will take us into the world of fundamental particles and how they are actually made from light. ''

Well, there is one scientist already. I have also linked to the page where scientists made matter from light, not light from matter, but is nothing but a consequence of E=Mc^2.

[peppercorn]

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....  (?)

[QuantumClue]

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....  (?)

If I am playing with words, then the scientist above is dabbing it with holy water.

[QuantumClue]

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.

[peppercorn]

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.

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.

[QuantumClue]

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.

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.

There remains a problem. There is no model to date in the standard model which suggests the universe appeared in a flood of photons. To say photon is fundamental is like saying a quark-gluon sea did not occur. It's tit for tat between the two ideas. Personally, I think there was certainly a phase transition from photons into matter post big bang. When is open to speculation.

[Ron Hughes]

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.

[peppercorn]

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.

That's exactly why millions is being spent on looking for the Higgs.

[QuantumClue]

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.

Yes.

[CPT ArkAngel (OP)]

Ron, about your now old question about how the collision of 2 photons would create a particle, it is just a matter of just the right amount of relative energy of the 2 photons colliding and about the symmetry of the collision of the charges. The best way is a frontal collision, if the 2 + or the 2 - charges collide and merge together, the other 2 opposite charges will merge automatically. For dark matter particles, the charges annihilate each other. For matter created shortly after the BigBang it is much more complicated. That is why the LHC is so important. But i guess they won't find the Higgs boson...

About black holes, dark matter and dark energy, i urge you to watch "Through the wormhole" with Morgan Freeman, specially "The Riddle of black holes" and "Beyond the darkness" episodes. You will see how my model answers so many questions... It is so well made and actual...

[peppercorn]

But I guess they won't find the Higgs boson..

Is your 'guess' based on anything?

[Geezer]

But I guess they won't find the Higgs boson..

Is your 'guess' based on anything?

Perhaps it's based on a desire to be able to say something like "See! I told you so."?

The question is, will we ever hear anything to the contrary if they do find it.

[CPT ArkAngel (OP)]

I am not this kind of person. []

I just think the photon is the sole elementary particle. According to this thinking, there is no Higgs field. The LHC still might produce heavy dark matter particles looking like Higgs bosons, but that would be a mislead. I found too many answers from this theory to think it is just a matter of chances... I don't say i am totally right... I need time to work on it.

"Unfortunately if you try and write down a theory of particles and their interactions then the simplest version requires all the masses of the particles to be zero. So on one hand we have a whole variety of masses and on the other a theory in which all masses should be zero. Such conundrums provide the excitement and the challenges of science. "

from: http://www.phy.uct.ac.za/courses/phy400w/particle/higgs2.htm

I understand why sometimes you have a bad perception of me and i will try to behave myself accordingly. We all need devil's advocates. I really don't hope or expect to get fame or anything glorious of it... But it would be nice to meet in person people who participate on this forum.

[Geezer]

I'll go one better than you. Personally, I believe that all matter is simply a manifestation of energy encapsulated in space/time. This might be the same as, or a variation of, String Theory.

However, as I'm in no position back up my opinion with anything other than anecdotal evidence, there is little point in me saying much about it.