0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
You mean the thread you were quoting ajay sharma? Or the one using Fredd Wolf? Or the UFOs? etc. Yes - I am pedantic; because an elision of detail and boundaries is dangerous. And portraying a thesis that has borderline support or is in its infancy as accepted learning is a misrepresentation. You know enough to understand where the divide between established knowledge and cutting-edge supposition lies; but many of the readers of the this site do not.
Anyway, yes, you are right about one thing. It was mentioned in the thread I mentioned Sharma. http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=36489.0 and again, I recieved the usual dogmatic approach by posters. Understandable, no one wants to ever admit a theory that they have denied all a long.
You can make an electron from any particle you want, let us call this particle, particle X... but you cannot annihilate every fundamental particle with their antipartners and expect to get particle X as the by-product, which was identical to our discussion before JP!! Have you forgotten this?This is a very important factor, an indication that all matter can and was made at some point from a large enough concentration of photon particles, possibly arose from some form of quantum gas.
What terminology do I use which is misleading, if we both agree matter is made from a fundamental energy, most associated to photons..?
Quote from: QuantumClue on 14/01/2011 17:43:03Anyway, yes, you are right about one thing. It was mentioned in the thread I mentioned Sharma. http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=36489.0 and again, I recieved the usual dogmatic approach by posters. Understandable, no one wants to ever admit a theory that they have denied all a long. Back to the topic at hand, you get a lot of flack when you say that everything is made of photon energy because the simple fact is that everything is made of energy. I can make an electron from any particle I want, so long as I have enough energy and satisfy certain conservation laws. This could be photons, protons, gluons, W/Z bosons, etc. (Some of these particles would take multiple steps to satisfy all the right conservation laws.) Saying that everything is made of photon energy is misleading and confusing to people who don't know enough physics to realize what that properly means. In addition, a lot of posters have used similar phrases to aggressively push very fringe models where particles are literally made from photons--an electron in this model would be made of photons zipping around, which is clearly well outside the mainstream. Regarrding the theory itself, was the Penrose argument one of continued expansion, in which everything expands so far that there isn't enough energy in any one place to form more complex, massive particles?