Light and Matter (Origins)

by David Turell @, Sunday, May 25, 2014, 16:06 (3595 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: 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."-You have cherry-picked an outlying theory. He might be correct, but as I read the article, even as he presented it in 2008, he had a strong objection from his audience. And (see below) in 2013 Strassler disagress with him, indicating that he has not made much of a dent with mainstream science theory.
>
> 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... 
> dhw: 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:
> 
> David: "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."
> 
> dhw: 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.-I've tried to preserve much of your discussion to make my point. As I said before. much of your confusion is a problem of definition. Where do we define the appearance of 'matter' as it arises from pure energy. Please remember that the story of the universe is that thre was an energy plama first. Then particles containing that energy formed. (see the Strassler zoo) Those particles coalesced into larger particles which then made atoms and elements. When your definition of the moment matter appeared is not the way physicists look at it. The atom smashers have allowed the physicists to create this history. The article that started this discussion has chosen to define electrons as the beginning of matter. For historical reasons from the smashing of matter, I don't view the electrons running through the wire from my room's wall to my computer as matter, but as pure energy. Commonsensically, my computer is matter running controlled energy.-Again: matter is energy on the 'outside' but really matter is pure energy on the inside. difficult to be interchangeable, but interchangeable all the same.-> dhw: All of this has a bearing on the whole concept of your God as "pure energy". Would you describe him as intelligent plasma?-Yes, and I don't know how that works


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum