Thursday, June 13, 2013

Does Energy Convert Into Matter?

This question puzzled me for years. It is irrational and counter-intuitive to claim that energy, an abstract-dynamic concept, can change into matter, a physical object, even at the alleged subatomic level. Still scientists say they have evidence of particles spontaneously appearing and disappearing.  This calls for a reasonable explanation.  

Matter is implicit to the concept energy. Matter also precedes the concept energy. It takes the physical presence of an object as well as a light signaled from that object down a mediator to even understand and label energy. Thus energy cannot create matter, and energy does not convert into matter, ever, period. To say that energy converts into matter, even at the subatomic level really resolves to some matter converting into matter. 

This is one of the reasons why the quantum mechanics continue to make up discrete particles ad nauseam. At their rate we will have a thousand types of discrete subatomic particles by 2100. Another reason the quantum mechanics keep on inventing concepts is that they do not hold to nothingness. Their nothingness is something, but not God, so instead it gets replaced by multiverses, curvatures of spacetime, vacuum fluctuations, etc. They do not not understand, or seem to care, that the buck has to stop somewhere.

The word energy or even energy density cannot be used in a creation ex nihilo context. Never. Creation ex nihilo means something appears through no mediator. But energy implies a mediator as well as a source object connected to the mediator! To use the word energy in a creation ex nihilo context is contradictory. The saying: "energy converts into matter" resolves to some prior matter converting into matter. And similar with density. The word density implies a physical object. You cannot even think of the word density without a physical object. The word unit: energy density points to some prior matter. This energy density could not have come from spacetime. No way in hell! Space and time do not exist. They are concepts.

The apparent problem is solved once one understands that matter is an indissoluble network of atoms. The atoms are connected to all other atoms via physical EM mediators. These EM mediators intersect from all directions at countless locations in the conceptual nothing between the clusters of atoms (stars, gas, etc.). Real physical objects cross at these locations. At the intersections the EM mediators reconfigure into atoms and atoms reconfigure into intersections of EM mediators. Since we cannot see the actual physical mediators of light it appears as if atoms arrive from nothing and disappear to nothing. This is another way of explaining such phenomenon as beta decay and inverse beta decay.  And I credit Gaede for teaching me the correct principle.  It is easy to understand, once one understands that matter is a woven web of atoms.      

Particles are not constantly created and destroyed. There are no virtual particles or spacetime foam. Rather the indissoluble network of atoms is constantly changing at certain intersections of the physical EM mediators. This happens in space all the time since the space between stars and galaxies is chalk full of vibrating-rotating 3D EM mediators.

This following list of quotes is full of contradictions, misunderstandings and misnomers:

Paul Davies:

In the everyday world, energy is always unalterably fixed; the law of energy conservation is a cornerstone of classical physics. But in the quantum microworld, energy can appear and disappear out of nowhere in a spontaneous and unpredictable fashion. (1983, God and the New Physics, London: J. M. Dent & Sons. p. 162)

Contradiction. Why would the quantum micro-world be any different than the everyday world?

Paul Davies:


Even though we can't see them, we know that these virtual particles are "really there" in empty space because they leave a detectable trace of their activities. (1994, The Last Three Minutes, New York: BasicBooks, p. 32)

He puts "really there" in quotations. What the hell? Virtual particles is a misnomer.

Richard Morris:


In modern physics, there is no such thing as "nothing." Even in a perfect vacuum, pairs of virtual particles are constantly being created and destroyed. The existence of these particles is no mathematical fiction. (1990, The Edges of Science, 1990, New York: Prentice Hall, p. 25)

He first says there is no such thing as nothing but then he goes on to say that particles are constantly being destroyed, in other words annihilated! Contradiction.

Victor Stenger:


In general relativity, spacetime can be empty of matter or radiation and still contain energy stored in its curvature. Uncaused, random quantum fluctuations in a flat, empty, featureless spacetime can produce local regions with positive or negative curvature. This is called the "spacetime foam" and the regions are called "bubbles of false vacuum." Wherever the curvature is positive a bubble of false vacuum will, according to Einstein's equations, exponentially inflate. In 10^-42 seconds the bubble will expand to the size of a proton and the energy within will be sufficient to produce all the mass of the universe. 
The bubbles start out with no matter, radiation, or force fields and maximum entropy. They contain energy in their curvature, and so are a "false vacuum." As they expand, the energy within increases exponentially. This does not violate energy conservation since the false vacuum has a negative pressure (believe me, this is all follows from the equations that Einstein wrote down in 1916) so the expanding bubble does work on itself.
As the bubble universe expands, a kind of friction occurs in which energy is converted into particles. The temperature then drops and a series of spontaneous symmetry breaking processes occurs, as in a magnet cooled below the Curie point and a essentially random structure of the particles and forces appears. Inflation stops and we move into the more familiar big bang. 
The forces and particles that appear are more-or-less random, governed only by symmetry principles (like the conservation principles of energy and momentum) that are also not the product of design but exactly what one has in the absence of design.
The so-called "anthropic coincidences," in which the particles and forces of physics seem to be "fine-tuned" for the production of Carbon-based life are explained by the fact that the spacetime foam has an infinite number of universes popping off, each different. We just happen to be in the one where the forces and particles lent themselves to the generation of carbon and other atoms with the complexity necessary to evolve living and thinking organisms. (Inflation and Creation, 1996)

All the matter of the present day is stored up in a curvature of spacetime which foams and this has something to do with organisms?  The drugs are quick.  He references Einstein twice just to keep things sober.   General relativity is his idol. He elevated it beyond reason.

William Kaufmann:

Where did all the matter and radiation in the universe come from in the first place? Recent intriguing theoretical research by physicists such as Steven Weinberg of Harvard and Ya B. Zel'dovich in Moscow suggest that the universe began as a perfect vacuum and that all the particles of the material world were created from the expansion of space...
Think about the universe immediately after the Big Bang. Space is violently expanding with explosive vigor. Yet, as we have seen, all space is seething with virtual pairs of particles and antiparticles. Normally, a particle and anti-particle have no trouble getting back together in a time interval ... short enough so that the conservation of mass is satisfied under the uncertainty principle. During the Big Bang, however, space was expanding so fast that particles were rapidly pulled away from their corresponding antiparticles. Deprived of the opportunity to recombine, these virtual particles had to become real particles in the real world. Where did the energy come from to achieve this materialization? (Universe, 1985, p. 529-532)

All I can say is wow. Particles are platonic until the nothing otherwise known as space violently expands and triggers them into the real world?

Martin Bojowald:

Vilenkin's tunneling condition relies on another effect of quantum mechanics, again a consequence of properties of the wave function. A wave function can often penetrate barriers with its tails, even if those would be too high for a corresponding classical particle...Vilenkin proposed in 1983 that the universe itself might have emerged by such a tunneling process. Our universe would be the tail of a pioneering wave function that had once penetrated the barrier of the big bang and its singularity. But from where did the universe tunnel, and from where came the bulk of the wave function, whose tail our universe is supposed to be, before the tunneling process? Vilenkin's answer, obvious only at first sight: From nothing ... 
One can hardly attribute physical meaning to tunneling from nothing in a literal sense. Regardless, Vilenkin's postulate does have sense with regard to the wave function of the universe, endowed by the tunneling condition with certain initial values at vanishing volume. (Once Before Time, 2010: 222)
"Our universe would be the tail of a pioneering wave function that had once penetrated the barrier of the big-bang and its singularity." This is breathtaking. The tail of a mathematical non-entity (wave-function) penetrates the barrier of another non-entity (Big-Bang) and the 0D mathematical non entity which belongs to it (the singularity). No physical meaning, no literal sense. This is all poetry. And it is certainly not physics. He is stuck in a conceptual world.

The above quotes are fantasies. A single complete whole network of atoms appeared at the event called creation ex nihilo. All atoms are physically bound to all atoms via physical EM mediators. At the most fundamental level the EM mediators even weave the atoms at the perimeters of the atomic shells. So Gaede sometimes call his theory the Thread Theory. He came up with a rational way of explaining the mediators as inherent to the atoms. The mediators are an indissoluble physical quality attached to the atoms. Gazillions of threads weave together the atoms in a singular complex. God sent His gift woven together.

Particles are not constantly created and destroyed. There are no virtual particles or spacetime foam or whatever the quantum mechanics can dream up. Rather the indissoluble network of atoms is constantly changing at certain intersections of the physical EM mediators. This happens in space all the time since the space between stars and galaxies is chalk full of physical 3D EM mediators connecting all atoms. One type of physical object that is an intersection of EM mediators, changes into another type of physical object that is an atom. They simply reconfigure.  We have trace of the one since the atom generates friction at the perimeter of its shell. We have no trace of the other since, alone, the EM mediators pass through one another conveying light down to all the atoms.  

God created a network of atoms 'ex nihilo'. Ex nihilo implies no conceptual, physical, or spiritual mediator. God did not use energy or energy density, or spacetime, or spacetime foam, or a wave-function tunneling or any other non-entity or even entity whatsoever. "From nothing" is not to be taken so literal as to imply a concept. God delivered matter at once, at will. Matter came suddenly as a single complete whole network of atoms. All the atoms came inseparable from their mediators connecting them all, since the mediators physically weave the atoms themselves. Today, when particles seem to spontaneously appear and disappear matter is simply reconfigured: from criss-crossing EM mediators to atoms and back. One basic material object converts into another basic material object. Each has distinct qualities.  It is amazing and all, but it is not fantastical.

I am done with the Big-Bang, and the Big-Bang rants. There may have been a time when it was fashionable for Roman Catholics to hold to the Big-Bang model as a creation model.  If I am to live by faith and reason, the Big-Bang model is not the way because it is blatantly absurd. I cannot hold to it without being intellectually dishonest. That is all here on the Big-Bang.  

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.