Sciencemadness Discussion Board - matter

matter

aeacfm - 10-3-2012 at 09:11

do all forms of matter are solidified light ???

what i know is matter is composed of elementary particles then form atoms , then molecules and so on !!!

i read that here :
http://books.google.com.eg/books?id=oAmhK9V4gHUC&pg=PA55...

bfesser - 10-3-2012 at 09:12

No.

aeacfm - 10-3-2012 at 09:14

thanks

neptunium - 10-3-2012 at 13:22

particles can be seen as "solidified energy" or light . the periodic table gives us the basic bricks of chemistry . outside of that the universe seems to be made of other particles not yet isolated in the lab (accelerators) .
dark matter and dark energy together makes up to 85% of the universe .
so no.
Your answer would be a complicated one.
However the laws of physics (and chemistry) are valid here and on the other side of the universe, now and 10 billion years ago.

Thats what makes science so powerful

aeacfm - 10-3-2012 at 14:41

Quote: Originally posted by neptunium

particles can be seen as "solidified energy" or light .

Thats what makes science so powerful

may be ure right

but i am talking if this real , not to suppose.

zoombafu - 10-3-2012 at 14:49

Matter is energy, light is energy, light has mass (depending on who you talk to).

aeacfm - 10-3-2012 at 15:03

Quote: Originally posted by zoombafu

Matter is energy, light is energy, light has mass (depending on who you talk to).

this makes more confused

matter converted to energy........ correct

but atom is solidified light .... not for conversion but for real is this right ???

atoms don't have electromagnetic forces only , binding forces , present

Endimion17 - 10-3-2012 at 16:19

Matter is not energy, for god sake. Matter is matter. Energy is energy.
Matter is not solidified light because light is made up from photons, and you can not solidify photons.

I recommend reading highschool physics first. One of the last chapters is always dedicated to nuclear energy and quantum mechanics. After that, entry level faculty nuclear physics.

AJKOER - 13-3-2012 at 09:40

A recall hearing that light does not always flow in a straight line in the presence of a large magnetic field. Attraction to a magnetic field is a property of matter, but this is not to imply that light is matter.

I would suggest you post your question on the Physics Forum, which has many scientific disciplines including Astrophysics and pure Physics.

AndersHoveland - 13-3-2012 at 10:11

Matter, at least normal matter by itself (not anti-matter), is not merely just energy. Matter seems to show a fundamental assymetry. Protons and electrons (by themselves) cannot be converted into electromagnetic radiation. And similarly, it is not possible to convert electromagnetic energy into protons without simultaneously creating anti-protons, or electrons without simultaneously creating positrons. (actually it is more complicated, but I will avoid discussing pions and neutrinos for simplicity)

Trying to create only matter from energy has not yet been observed. Attempts to try to do so are termed Baryogenesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baryogenesis

I has been experimentally observed that extremely high energy gamma rays contain the equivalent of a quark structure composition, in accordance with accepted theory, but these quarks would always be in quark-antiquark pairs.

But consider this:
The positive pion, π+, contains an up quark and an anti-down quark. It decays into a muon neutrino and a positively chargen muon, which then decays into a positron, electron neutrino, and anti-muon neutrino.

A proton contains two up quarks and one down quark, while a neutron contains two down quarks and one up quark.

So essentially, in terms of quark composition, 2 positive pions + 1 negetive pion is the equivalent of 2 protons + 1 antiproton. So one would think that baryogenesis should be possible. In other words it should be possible to make a proton from a positron and electron neutrino, with plenty of added energy of course. But this has never been observed.

The particle physics of the formation of matter from energy seems to display a fundamental matter-antimatter symmetry.

[Edited on 13-3-2012 by AndersHoveland]

neptunium - 13-3-2012 at 10:34

since nobody is going to say it then i will

does E=MC2 ring a bell to anyone?

how is it not matter is energy and vice versa?

everyday in the spectrogamma lab i can see a peak at 511Kev when ever 1.02Mev radiations are present.

that means that gamma ray above a certain energy can adn do transmute themselves into a pair of electron positron.
Anders is correct (without getting into the details)
AEACFM yes its is real ! we see it everyday !

in a particle accelerator when the protons reach (closed to) the speed of light ,any additionnal ENERGY added to them will not make them go any faster but they will gather MASS.

For the same reason they cannot get to 100% of the speed of light.
light is pure energy.

Then when the protons collide with eachither some of the energy is converted into mass and we observe new, heavier particles.

when a nuclear weapon is detonated ,a small amount of its mass has turned into pure energy mass and energy are two aspect of the same thing thats not a new thing,

AndersHoveland - 13-3-2012 at 12:55

Quote: Originally posted by neptunium

in a particle accelerator when the protons reach (closed to) the speed of light ,any additionnal ENERGY added to them will not make them go any faster but they will gather MASS.

For the same reason they cannot get to 100% of the speed of light.
light is pure energy.

It is not yet known whether this is a generalisation, or a truely fundamental property. The properties of mass may potentially be caused by interaction with background energy (the quantum vacuum). Certainly the currently accepted theory holds that the quantum vacuum is essential to the explanation of the strong, weak, and electromagnetic forces, through the spontaneous transient existence of various bosons. In other words, potentially under certain conditions, the commonly accepted formula might not apply. This has not really been observed, except possibly for those neutrions going faster than light experiments, which are still not entirely conclusive.

It is rather ambiguous to say that "light is pure energy". What does this mean? Everything- electromagnetic radiation, matter, and even "empty" time-space are forms of energy. Some of these forms of energy are only potential energy, and are not really manifest outside of interraction relative to separate bodies. For example, two massive bodies and gravity falling together, or two opposite electric charges.

http://particleadventure.org/fermibos.html

[Edited on 13-3-2012 by AndersHoveland]

neptunium - 13-3-2012 at 12:58

it is indeed a work in progress the search for the Higgs is also taking more time than expected...
but generally ( and i thought it was his question) in everyday life yes E=MC2 applies fully and unarguably

short answer NO .
longer one. yes , only in everyday experiences

[Edited on 13-3-2012 by neptunium]

bfesser - 13-3-2012 at 13:00

Did any of you even bother to look at the content of the book he's reading (link in OP)!? It's incredibly annoying when every member jumps in with her/his own two-cent opinion(s) and explanation(s) in an attempt to appear intelligent or increase post counts—without reading everything that was previously written or referenced within the thread. In the context from which the original question was asked, the answer is simply NO.

aeacfm, if you want to learn anything about physics (or reality, for that matter), throw out that new age metaphysical philosophical book you're reading, and pick up a secular scientific introductory particle or quantum physics text. What you are reading is not science. Perhaps one of these fine gentlemen would like to suggest a better book for you...as I'm sure they won't be able to resist increasing their post counts.

To the rest of you, I suggest you read the <a href="viewthread.php?tid=19143">forum guidelines</a>, specifically numbers 3, 5, 6, and 8.

The concise version of my thoughts to you:
Don't read? Don't post!

To moderators:
Don't you think this thread belongs in Miscellaneous, and not Chemistry in General?

[Edited on 3/13/12 by bfesser]

neptunium - 13-3-2012 at 13:13

and post count means what?

watson.fawkes - 13-3-2012 at 13:22

Quote: Originally posted by neptunium

does E=MC2 ring a bell to anyone?

how is it not matter is energy and vice versa?

The reason is that the actual relationship is ΔE = Δmc2. This is actually the relationship that Einstein proved, albeit with older notation. This is not a kind of absolute equivalence, the term usually used, but rather partial inter-convertibility. Whether there's a complete equivalence is, to my mind, an open question. The reference to baryogenesis is exactly relevant here. Yet the observation of baryogenesis itself wouldn't be sufficient to conclude full equivalence; we'd also have to observe it's inverse process, what we might call baryothanasia.

neptunium - 13-3-2012 at 13:38

forgive me for not being smart enough to find the delta sign on this old keyboard .i think everyone understood though.
should i mention the theoretical aspect of baryogenesis?
supersymetry is a powerfull theory that has been verified . i am just playing it safe here.
this takes us back to the begining of the universe and the baryon asymmetry problem,
a more general theory is obviously needed.

watson.fawkes - 13-3-2012 at 14:07

Quote: Originally posted by neptunium

supersymetry is a powerfull theory that has been verified

I wasn't aware of any such verification, in fact my understanding was the opposite. See, for example, a recent blog post by Peter Woit: http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=4437.

neptunium - 13-3-2012 at 14:12

wow! looks like i need to update my books and publications!
maybe i took it further than it actually was (wishfull thinking ?)

Vogelzang - 14-3-2012 at 05:33

Einstein plagiarized that equation.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=depre...

http://www.cartesio-episteme.net/quest.htm

Vogelzang - 14-3-2012 at 05:36

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?hl=en&gbv=2...

watson.fawkes - 14-3-2012 at 10:11

Quote: Originally posted by Vogelzang

Einstein plagiarized that equation.

As usual, you are not only overstating the actual claim, but relying on tenuous sources. There's exactly one person that's has actually brought a novel argument about De Pretto, and that's Umberto Bartocci. Every other thing asserting this claim is simply parroting him, including you. Bartocci does not, in fact, prove that Einstein plagiarized the formula. Bartocci does find it possible that Einstein did, but there's no confirmation.

Bartocci's thesis can hardly be called definitive. It seems to have been largely ignored in the academic world, with no publications I could locate defending it.

What is certain, however, is that Einstein did not parrot De Pretto's argument. De Pretto's argument relied on the aether; Einstein's on special relatively. The full structure of the idea incorporates both a mental model and reasoning that employs it; the equation that pops out at the end, however significant, is something of an epiphenomenon of the ideas behind it. In this light, De Pretto developed very little of scientific import; that credit is fully due to Einstein.

neptunium - 14-3-2012 at 13:00

Little proof or questionnable ones have no place here .Not only it demeans the famous man but it takes away from his ground breaking work on all his achievement, and lower the standart of sciencemadness.
as a scientific forum ,one should always bring valuable data before advancing fantastic claims and frivolus conspiracy theory.
wise up

[Edited on 14-3-2012 by neptunium]

Vogelzang - 16-3-2012 at 01:46

See what Richard Moody has to say.

http://www.aulis.com/albert_einstein.htm

http://home.comcast.net/~xtxinc/prioritymyth.htm

http://einstein52.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderf...

http://www.real-debt-elimination.com/real_freedom/Propaganda...

http://sciliterature.50webs.com/RelativityDebates.htm

http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm

watson.fawkes - 16-3-2012 at 05:00

Quote: Originally posted by Vogelzang

See what Richard Moody has to say.

He says absolutely nothing about De Pretto that he didn't crib from Bartocci. He doesn't mention Bartocci at all in this narrative, though he does mention De Pretto. The only reference to Bartocci at all is in the middle of a huge block of link spam. I don't think you're bolstering your argument very well by citing an author who parrots, who doesn't acknowledge their own debts, and who certainly has added nothing novel to the understanding of the field.

neptunium - 16-3-2012 at 05:35

all of this is irrelevant to the topic .I am not interested in debating history and well known and documented facts.
Supersymetry is indeed a theory and a good one .however Watson is right .
it hasnt been fully tested and proven yet.
My papers are not up to date, but as far as can read the Higg's boson is still a fruitless quest so far...
Where do we go from here?
The mystery of the few milliseconds after the big bang and the unbalance between matter and anti matter is still starving for explaination.
but at that time all form of matter was "solidified" light.
today in the universe ,there is other type of matter and energy that resist explainnation ,and thats why research must continue .

Vogelzang - 18-3-2012 at 05:15

In a collection of Einsteins quotes is the shocking confession "The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources."

http://rescomp.stanford.edu/~cheshire/EinsteinQuotes.html

------------------------------------------------------------------------

There's a lot of errors in Einstein's math. If he knew the answer already, did he get it from someone else and then fake the calculations?

http://discovermagazine.com/2008/sep/01-einstein.s-23-bigges...

1905 Mistake in clock synchronization procedure on which Einstein based special relativity
1905 Failure to consider Michelson-Morley experiment
1905 Mistake in transverse mass of high-speed particles
1905 Multiple mistakes in the mathematics and physics used in calculation of viscosity of liquids, from which Einstein deduced size of molecules
1905 Mistakes in the relationship between thermal radiation and quanta of light
1905 Mistake in the first proof of E = mc2
1906 Mistakes in the second, third, and fourth proofs of E = mc2
1907 Mistake in the synchronization procedure for accelerated clocks
1907 Mistakes in the Principle of Equivalence of gravitation and acceleration
1911 Mistake in the first calculation of the bending of light
1913 Mistake in the first attempt at a theory of general relativity
1914 Mistake in the fifth proof of E = mc2
1915 Mistake in the Einstein-de Haas experiment
1915 Mistakes in several attempts at theories of general relativity
1916 Mistake in the interpretation of Mach’s principle
1917 Mistake in the introduction of the cosmological constant (the “biggest blunder”)
1919 Mistakes in two attempts to modify general relativity
1925 Mistakes and more mistakes in the attempts to formulate a unified theory
1927 Mistakes in discussions with Bohr on quantum uncertainties
1933 Mistakes in interpretation of quantum mechanics (Does God play dice?)
1934 Mistake in the sixth proof of E = mc2
1939 Mistake in the interpretation of the Schwarzschild singularity and gravitational collapse (the “black hole”)
1946 Mistake in the seventh proof of E = mc2

http://www.deism.com/einstein.htm

Major Paper Repeats Bogus Einstein Bee Quote
http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/einst...

[Edited on 18-3-2012 by Vogelzang]

White Yeti - 18-3-2012 at 08:28

Quote: Originally posted by watson.fawkes

The reason is that the actual relationship is ΔE = Δmc2.

Actually...

∆E=∆m2c4+p2c2

Vogelzang - 18-3-2012 at 13:53

Quote:

He rigged the equations of general relativity to explain why the cosmos was standing still when it wasn’t.

http://discovermagazine.com/2004/sep/the-masters-mistakes/

Its interesting to note there's some things in the literature where authors state the belief that measuring the velocity of the earth relative to the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) gives an absolute velocity and compare it to aether drift experiments. Smoot's book is one example.

http://www.amazon.com/Wrinkles-Time-G-Smoot/dp/B000HWYNQS/re...

Another strange thing is that in Dayton C. Miller's experiments where he repeated the Michelson Morley experiment numerous times throughout the year gave a result that showed the earth was heading toward the constellation Durado. This is a true aether drift experiment. The CMBR experiments show the earth is moving relative to the CMBR in a different direction (toward Hercules?). This must mean our big bang universe isn't in the same frame of reference as the aether, ie. it shows that our big bang universe is moving through the aether and gives evidence that space and aether exist outside of our universe and may even be infinite.

watson.fawkes - 19-3-2012 at 07:34

Quote: Originally posted by White Yeti

∆E=∆m2c4+p2c2

Yet if you read Einstein's paper he worked in a reference frame where p=0.