Light and Matter (Origins)

by dhw, Sunday, May 25, 2014, 15:01 (3833 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: You will have to forgive my ignorance, but I don't suppose I'm the only one who is confused by the statements that matter and energy are interchangeable, ..... Can we say that it's [Hiroshima] an example of a colossal amount of matter being released from a small amount of energy?-DAVID: No you can't. The bomb released a colossal number of energy containing particles from matter.-That, of course, was my point. You used Hiroshima to prove that matter and energy are interchangeable, but it appears they are not. The bomb only proves that energy comes from matter, not the other way round.
 
dhw: The scientists whose forthcoming experiment was the starting point of this discussion used the terms light and energy as if they were synonymous, and the experiment will set out to prove that matter can be formed from "pure light". Do we know of any form of light that does not need a material source? By extension, do we know of any form of energy that does not need a material source? (This is a genuine question, not an argument.) If we do, why is this experiment so important?
DAVID: The material source you are proposing is the energy contained in matter.-I'd appreciate a more direct answer to these questions, if possible. We all know that energy is contained in matter, and that it can be released from matter, but that is far from saying that energy CREATES matter (as they're hoping to prove), or that matter and energy are interchangeable. -DAVID: Photons are massless particles of light energy-But do photons exist independently of matter? Is there such a thing as "pure" light/energy? It would seem that even the idea that photons are massless is controversial. I've found the following ... far too difficult for me to follow, but its basic statement is unequivocal:-•	Photon Energy, Mass, Velocity And Wavelength - The Living Universe
http://www.living-universe.com/home/7-Photon-Energy.html-The Nature of the Photon
The photon is the basic form of mass in the Living Universe-QUOTE: "All measurements show that the photon has mass. The metaphysical assumption of a massless photon is completely without any experimental verification. Experimental physics has measured the photon in nearly every way possible and technology has exploited the nature of the photon to a remarkable extent. Collectively these measurements all measure the nature of the photon's mass. Each idea of a massless photon is someone's concept of the photon that makes it possible to ignore certain aspects of photon measurements."-Dhw: No wonder I find all this confusing. How can "pure energy" be the most abundant form of matter in the Universe?
DAVID: Please read the following article by Strassler which explains the various particle families and their mass/energy values -http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/the-known-appar...-Again, it's too difficult for me to follow in detail, but both you and Strassler are clearly breaking matter down into its most basic particles, and you show that matter CONTAINS energy, not that matter is created by energy. Your end summary seems to imply this:
 
"By combining the most basic elementary energy particles one gets other 'larger' particles that can be considered 'real' matter. So the real problem is where does the definition of 'real' matter begin? Because it all starts with tiny energy particles combining into bigger particles and finally fusing into elements."-The question has to be whether what you call "tiny energy particles" are in fact tiny particles of matter that CONTAIN energy, and if I've understood the various arguments, it would seem that this is still a matter of conjecture.
 
It would also seem that matter and energy are not interchangeable at all (see above), and that so far as we know, there is no such thing as "pure energy". You wrote: "You will note that the particles combine to make other particles and this zoo of particles combine to make the matter we observe. Technically one can call each particle a matter particle; each particle being a tiny bit of matter. The confusion is that one thinks of them as pure energy, and they are pretty close to that. I think of pure energy as the plasma state when particles are not formed." -'Pretty close to' is not 'pure', any more than the 'nothing' you describe under "Cosmology; a universe from nothing?" can be called 'nothing'.
All of this has a bearing on the whole concept of your God as "pure energy". Would you describe him as intelligent plasma?