Mass/Energy Equivalence
Matter is composed of particles. A particle is energy (electromagnetic energy) in a confined state.
At its most fundamental level, electromagnetic energy is a vibration of – or a disturbance in – the fabric of (Einsteinian) spacetime, propogating at the speed of light. But electromagnetic energy can alternatively be confined into a small space: this type of energy (energy in the confined state) is the underlying cause of what we think of as matter, i.e. a particle.
In consequence of this, Einstein was able to derive a relationship between matter and energy: that the amount of (electromagnetic) energy present at any point in spacetime is equal to the quantity of mass there present, multiplied by a universal constant (the square of the speed of light). This he expressed in the formula :
E = mc2
In other words, mass and energy are equivalent to one another; and we can convert between them.
A particle is theorised to be a imbalance in a field of energy (which he termed the spacetime field). He postulated that the universe is composed of a nearly infinite number of these fields, which form an inter-connected lattice. In other words, the spacetime field permeates the entire universe. A quark, electron, or other particle, is merely a quantum fluctuation in one of these fields. And electromagnetic energy is a vibration of the field (actually, a vibration of the lattice). This is the basis underlying quantum field theory.
A particle cannot move rapidly, due to its inertia: so much energy is confined that to move it (between adjacent fields) takes a short but measureable amount of time. We term this time lag inertia (and it is important to grasp the concept that it is solely about the duration of the transfer, not a resistance to the force initiating that transfer). Energy (i.e. electromagnetic energy) does not suffer from confinement, so does not experience inertia, so moves much more rapidly.
The time lag arises from the time it takes for the energy (comprising the particle) to be emitted and reabsorbed: one point in spacetime emits it (as vibration), and an adjacent point absorbs it, so that – from our point of view – the fluctuation has changed location. But it does so as a whole (not incrementally), and without dissipating.
One consequence of this (of the transfer being incapable of occuring incrementally) is the digital nature of quantum mechanics: the overriding principle of quantum physics that energy can only be transfered in discrete ‘packets’, each an integer multiple of a fundamental quantity; not in random quantities.
Note : When energy (an imbalance in the quantum field) stays in one place (is confined), we call it a particle. When it propagates (is free) (i.e. dissipates), we call it electromagnetic radiation.
The amount of energy in a particle is enormous, whereas the amount of energy in an electromagnetic wave (a photon) is tiny. This is because electromagnetic energy dissipates as an expanding sphere (of vibration), such that the vibration-motion at any one point on the surface of that sphere is tiny (although the energy of the sphere’s entire surface area is not); whereas in the case of a particle all of the energy which, in the case of radiation, is spread out across the entire surface area of the sphere is, in the particle’s case, concentrated at a single point.
Electromagnetic energy is due to some force imparting an impact-shock to the fabric of spacetime, which sets that fabric ringing like a bell: strictly, the energy is the force which initiates the wave (of vibration), rather than the wave itself. The wave represents the energy dissipating through expansion (seeking to restore the original state of equilibrium).
Mass varies with Velocity –
In Einstein’s theory, E equals M times C-squared, which is equivalent to saying that M equals E divided by C-squared.
If mass is equal to energy divided by the square of the speed of light, then mass must vary with energy, because C-squared is a constant. Thus because Einstein’s theory of relativity implies that everything is relative, logically the mass of a particle is relative to (i.e. dependent on) its velocity.
Mass is, in a sense, an illusion: a particle is said to possess mass, but Einstein’s theory (above) implies the particle is really only energy (namely, velocity) in a confined state: thus its mass is really merely a measure of how much velocity is trapped within the confinement effect.
Once established, the amount of confined energy never changes: a quark does not suddenly cease to be a quark, does not become (say) an electron, which has a different amount of confined energy. Scientists call this inherent mass the particle’s ‘rest’ mass. It never changes: it defines the type of particle.
The fact that the particle has also a velocity of motion within spacetime has no effect on the inherent mass that makes it, for example, a quark.
Terminology –
The spacetime structure (or lattice) is properly termed the spacetime “field”. Each individual point of the field can have any of several different states:
a. The vacuum field
A state of equilibrium, in which spacetime exhibits no fluctuation, where the matter/antimatter flux is in balance, with no surplus of positive or negative charge (i.e. no particle has formed).
b. The particle field
A state of imbalance, in which a fluctuation is present. The matter/antimatter flux is NOT in equilibrium: a surplus of either positive or negative charge exists, i.e. a particle.
c. The electromagnetic field
A state of the vacuum field, in which the field is modified by a rotating electric field, giving rise to a magnetic effect.
Note : The magnetic effect might be due to a vortex effect, because it depends on rapid rotation of the field.
Note : Being immaterial, the field is presumably composed of energy, which (unlike particles) our senses cannot perceive.
The positive and negative charges might be in balance because they are being absorbed in binding the field to each of the adjoining fields in the honeycombe (which might alternatively be an isohedral or dodecahedral structure).
Photons –
Electromagnetic radiation (e.g. gamma rays, x-rays, visible light, etc) possesses wave-like properties.
It can also mimic the behaviour of particles—see below. Such particles are termed “photons” (which term properly includes all frequencies of electromagnetic energy, not merely visible light).
This behaviour is termed “wave/particle duality”.
The energy (E) of a “photon” depends on its frequency (f):
E = hf = hc / l
E : energy of the photon (in joules)
h : the Plank constant (of energy) (6.63 x 10-^34 joules)
f : frequency in hertz (Hz) (cycles per second)
c : speed of light (in yards per second)
l : wavelength (in yards) (l = lamda)
Note : The term “hf” implies a very straightforward relationship, namely a constant multiplied by the number of items (i.e. the number of peaks per second).
Note : This seems to yield an invariant value for a photon. Can it be reconciled with the inverse-square law, whereby the intensity of the field strength reduces with increasing distance from the light-source?
The illusion of the photon: A photon is an illusion, for the reasons discussed below. The concept of the photon derives from classical physics, and is no longer considered valid.
The illusion of the discrete state –
When we measure electromagnetic energy, such as light, we are inevitably measuring the electromagnetic field at a specific point. This gives us what can naively seem to be a point value, as if the field was actually a particle existing discretely at that point (an individual point on the surface of expansion of the—spherical—wave).
This is a misunderstanding of the wave-like nature of electromagnetic energy. The energy exists not as an object in itself, but only as a vibration/fluctuation *induced* in the underlying fabric of spacetime by a shock (such as an oscillating electromagnetic source), and exists only as a motion (or vibration) of the spacetime fabric.
Note : Electromagnetic induction was demonstrated long ago, in the 19th Century, by moving a coil of wire, magnetised by a flowing current, within a second, slightly larger, coil.
Magnetic induction implies that the inertial field (or, rather, that field’s strength) is being twisted out of shape, perhaps into a spiral or a cone, by rapid rotation of the electric field. But it also implies that all the particles involved in the effect are in motion, since they are responding to changes in the direction of the inertial field: hence they must be moving through it.
Because electromagnetism is an effect which is a million times stronger than gravitation, any magnetic effect on the spacetime field will distort the inertial gradient established by the gravitational field, overriding it.
The reality is that the vacuum field itself has properties, and can transmit a vibration imparted to it, as proven by magnetic induction (which occurs without what we think of as physical contact).
Note : The existence of the entire topic of induction leads one to question whether Einstein really understood this subject at all, if he was capable of arbitrarily denying the existence of what he termed “spooky action-at-a-distance”.
Some physicists mistakenly treat light as though it is composed of individual quantum particles, instead of grasping that it is only (a state of) a static medium—given a transitory nudge to pass on.
In order to measure energy, it is necessary to make a measurement at a specific location. But because the measurement necessarily yields a value for that point in spacetime, there is a danger of mistaking that measurement: of being deceived by the illusion (that the value found is a discrete value of the point measured), and of overlooking the fact that what one has done is measure only one point on the surface of a spherical effect, where every point on that surface must yield an equal value; and thus of falling into the trap of mistaking the value of the wave (a shell of vibration, propagating spherically) for a value unique to the point measured.
This illusion of discreteness is most commonly encountered as the illusion of the photon. It disregards the fact that the electromagnetic energy is simultaneously illuminating the entire surface of a sphere, of a radius equidistant from the source with the point measured; and that the electromagnetic energy is emitted as a sphere (i.e. really as a wave), not as a particle.
It is a nonsense to describe energy in terms of a particle. Just as a wave in an ocean must have a momentum value (i.e. energy) at any specific point, yet that energy cannot be described as separate from the wave-motion of which it is a part, so it is with an electromagnetic wave.
Discrete quantum effects do exist: energy can only be found in discrete integer multiples of a specific fundamental value; but that integer multiple is the value possessed by every point on the surface of expansion (i.e. a common value, common to every point of the spherical wave-front). It is a property of the wave, not of each individual point which the wave is (simultaneously) exciting/disturbing.
A particle’s mass is determined by two factors:
1. The amount of energy confined within it; and
2. The inertia, or “drag”, caused by the coupling charge (gluon field) attaching the particle to the fabric of spacetime.
In effect, mass is a measurement of inertia, because almost all (i.e. 99%) of a particle’s mass is due to the coupling charge (or “glue”) by which the particle is attached to the fabric of spacetime (which is accordingly an attraction charge).
Note : Bear in mind that it’s an illusion. The particle is NOT coupled to the spacetime field, the particle is a ripple in that field. In effect, the particle is a property of the field (not a separate object attached to it).
Note : “Mass” is a measure of the amount of energy required to move the particle away from its current location on the spacetime grid, into the next such location: the amount of energy needed to displace the ripple in the field into an adjacent field.
In part, it’s also a measure of the time required to effect that movement.
Note : If a coupling charge exists, it’s probably due to (or generated by) the fabric of spacetime, not by the particle, given that it’s essentially a retarding force (a force that causes the particle’s tendancy to remain in one place unless acted on by an *external* force: in accordance with Newton’s laws of motion). Newton’s laws require this, and Einstein assumed their validity.
The property termed “mass” is theorised to be caused by the particle field interacting with the spacetime field (often, but unhelpfully, known as the “Higgs field”). But there is probably no logic in this, as it is illogical to treat the two fields as separate objects; most likely there is only one field, and ‘mass’ is simply a property of it, if a particle is simply the spacetime field in a particular state.
Note : The coupling charge may be an effect of the gluon field. A proton or neutron comprises 3 quarks (i.e. 3 charges), plus an associated gluon field, which the quarks sit within.
That field comprises about 99 times as much energy as is comprised in an individual quark, but this energy is in an exact balance of positive and negative charges. Only the energy which is not in an equilibrium balance is detectable, as the 3 surplus charges, i.e. the 3 quarks. The gluon field is the matter/antimatter flux in a state of imbalance: that imbalance is the “particle”.
The imbalance gives the field properties, i.e. a charged state, which we mistake for a particle (i.e. a quark).
Inertia is a *consequence* of the fact that a particle is only an imbalance in the state of charge of the spacetime field. The coupling charge creates inertia, not because it is a link between the particle and the spacetime field, but because it is the field itself. In a real sense, the gluon field is the matter/antimatter flux; any movement of the particle thus involves movement of that imbalance into an adjoining pocket/node of the spacetime lattice. Inertia represents the necessity to inject energy into the system to move the imbalance, and in a sense is a measure of the amount of energy required, but in another sense is a measure of the amount of time which elapses between the begining and the completion of that movement, i.e. of the time required to complete that movement.
Note : The idea that an object is inert—motionless—until it receives energy from an application of force is a tidy Classical solution. But does it have any credibility?
In a quantum field, motion is random and continuous, such that a quark might be anywhere, in accordance with Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. The notion that an object (quark) only moves if an external force is applied to it is completely at odds with the reality of quantum physics, which can’t even determin a particle’s position and momentum (the more precisely it pins down one of them, the greater is the uncertainty in the value of the other).
Is the particle really receiving any energy at all? Or is it charged with an invariant inherent energy, and is merely being manipulated—in its inevitable motion—by the existence of lower-energy pathways through spacetime, since it must always follow the path of least energy.
Note : Alternatively, it might be the presence of the positive charge on the quarks which causes inertia, in that the presence of the charge binds the quarks (which are simply charged gluons) to the spacetime field.
Perhaps it does not bind them to the field itself, if the gluons (collectively) *are* the field. The positive charge might still be binding to something, and thereby causing the drag (in the sense that the “drag” is simply the time taken by a positively charged gluon to un-bind from a negatively charged one).
This seems to imply the field must have a negative charge, because the charged gluons exhibit inertia, i.e. a tendency to adhere to the field. But it might be that because all the gluons are in a state of flux, they may be changing partners so rapidly that any “free” positive gluons become bound to (captured by) a negative one before they have time to escape from the atomic nucleus. The flux means it is impossible for the same three gluons to remain free: the identity of the three “free” gluons must be changing from moment to moment, binding each free gluon to a negative gluon after only the briefest of time in the “free” state.
This further implies that only a charged gluon (which is to say, a “free” or un-paired one, as they all have charge) can have motion, i.e. that only the “free” gluons are in motion, propelled by their charge, and that only they move from point to point within the spacetime field. The implication is that the rapid whirling rotation of the three unpaired gluons causes them to move across the “landscape” of spacetime like a tiny tornado, whereas paired gluons do not move at all, because one partner tries to move clockwise at the same time as the other tries to move counter-clockwise, and the result is a stalemate.
The apparant randomness of the quarks motion is an illusion. The rapidly rotating triplet is following the path of least energy, moving always in the direction which requires the lowest amount of energy. The rotation (spin) of the particle (nucleon) means it can potentially move in any direction, since it is spinning through the full 360 degrees. Which direction it actually moves in depends on which one offers the lowest (least) resistance to motion.
Note : The coupling charge might not be a charge, but a consequence of the nature of matter. If a particle is a fluctuation in the vacuum field, inertia might be a measurement of the energy requirement involved in moving that fluctuation from one point in the field to another (if we theorise that the vacuum field possesses a granular structure, and that each granule represents a potential point source of fluctuation: a fluctuation being the presence of a charge, arising out of the normally neutral balance of an underlying matter/antimatter flux).
The vacuum field is theorised as possessing a neutral balance, representing an equal number of positive and negative charges. In the Big Bang, there were created an unequal number of charges, and some points in spacetime have extra charges, e.g. have more positive than negative charges: this imbalance causes that point to be in a charged state, instead of a neutral state, and we term these (point sources of charge) “particles”.
Each point in the spacetime field comprises an unknown number of charged elements. We theorise that each point (“granule”) in spacetime represents a location in the spacetime field that is potentially capable of exhibiting a charged state, if an imbalance exists between the number of positively charged and negatively charged elements present.
[A gluon theoretically represents one charged element. A particle (quark) theoretically represents a location in spacetime where the field is exhibiting a charged state.]
[A particle is not a solid object, merely a small region of spacetime containing gluons: tiny sub-particles which clump together in groups, held together because some of them have positive charge and the others have negative charge. Charge presumably means merely a particular direction of spin.]
Theoretically, each charged element possesses either a positive or a negative charge: it seems logical to assume that an identical amount (quantum) of charge is present in either case, and that only the sign (positive or negative) is different.
We tentatively ascribe the difference to the direction of spin: positive charge representing a clockwise rotation, and negative charge representing an anti-clockwise rotation.
This theory implies that the amount of charge present on each charged element (gluon) represents the fundamental unit of charge upon which the entire universe is based.
We visualise each point in spacetime (“field”) as offering a small, fixed amount of resistance to a particle’s movement. It might be a consequence of the spacial separation (distance) between the cells/units/points (“fields”). Quantum tunnelling might be the mechanism by which a quark moves from one such “cell” or “field” to the next, and if so the process might take a short but definite time: this delay is perceived, by us, as inertia. We sometimes mistake mere delay in moving for a resistance to motion; but delay is more plausible—there is no obvious reason why the field would resist motion, but there is a very obvious reason why such motion would require time in which to occur.
Einstein’s equivalence principle (E=mc2) postulates that the energy (E) of a particle is equivalent to its mass (m) multiplied by the speed of light squared (c2). Accordingly, the mass of a particle is equivalent to the total energy of the system (i.e. of the particle and of the coupling charge) *divided* by the speed of light squared.
Note : This implies that the coupling charge is a form of energy, in other words that it too is a type of motion (since all energy seems to be merely a state of motion). And it further implies that the coupling charge is in motion at a particular velocity, i.e. the speed of light.
Theoretically, the coupling energy might be the motion of the other 97 percent of the gluons in the ‘gluon field’ (particle field?) which are in rapid motion, as they continuously form and re-form pair-bonds between the positively and negatively charged elements (whether that means with other gluons or with the spacetime lattice).
Note : Einstein’s equation implies that mass contains the speed of light, that each particle comprises an object capable of moving at the speed of light, and that energy (E) is merely that basic value (c2), a constant, multiplied by the number of particles present.
If mass is theorised to be no more than energy in a bound state, energy which normally possesses the speed of light, we can perhaps visualise a particle as a finite zone, within which there is energy, which is whizzing around at the speed of light, albeit that it is moving in (say) a circle, or a spiral, or a figure 8: spinning rapidly, hence going nowhere.
Yet that energy is present, and can be liberated (in, say, an atomic bomb). When it emerges, at enormous speed, it meets resistance from ordinary matter, and the friction caused by the inertia of normal spacetime converts the hyper-velocity into heat, such that the released energy of the bomb emerges as heat and light (and other types of electromagnetic energy), instead of as velocity.
It might be confined by a rotating electric or magnetic field. Perhaps that field is actually self-generated by the trapped energy, and arises from its own rapid motion within the finite zone (i.e. rapid rotation).
In Einstein’s theory, the energy of the coupling charge (the energy present in the gluon field, representing 99% of the energy of the particle) is attributed to the particle, and treated as mass (i.e. is treated as a property of the particle).
Note : The implication of this is that all the gluons are moving at the speed of light, including the three ‘free’ (un-paired) gluons which are the quarks. Either they are changing pair-bonds (forming and breaking them) at the speed of light, or they are rotating at the speed of light whilst changing pair-bonds.
For the gluons to exist as individual seperate objects, they must be internally cohesive—unless they genuinely represent the fundamental unit of matter, and their charge is the genuine fundamental charge from which all greater so-called fundamental units of charge derive.
The logic of the theory implies that it is the particle which is generating the coupling field. Inertia cannot be a consequence of the strong nuclear force, which couples quarks together in threes, since the coupling charge (which creates inertia) affects all particles, not just quarks, including those particles (e.g. the electron and the neutrino) which do *not* possess the strong nuclear force.
This makes it likely that Einstein is wrong, and the coupling energy is generated by the spacetime field, not by the particle. So ought that energy to be attributed to the particle, as part of its mass? Does it more truthfully represent energy (or a property of the spacetime field), rather than matter?
In a sense, it’s incorrect to describe a particle in spacetime as “having” a particular mass: that prejudges the issue, treating the energy of the coupling charge as a property of the particle when that is not proven. Is there any justification for doing so, if inertia is a property not generated *by* the particle? Isn’t it more truly a property of whatever is *doing* the generating? In other words, can it be a property of the particle, if it is being generated not by the particle but by the spacetime field? In a sense, the particle’s inertia is a property of the spacetime field.
Note : This is probably of no importance. There is a high degree of probability that there is, in practical terms, NO distinction between the particle and the spacetime field. They are merely two names for the same thing.
It may depend on what view is taken of the gluons, which are within the finite zone we define as being “the particle”, but are not part of the 3 quarks. The gluons are uncharged, neutral (when pair-bonded), yet they possess mass (i.e. the velocity of the speed of light), for they contribute 99% of the mass/energy traditionally attributed to the particle. And they move as part of the particle, so MUST be part of it.
But do they move as part of the particle? Actually, we cannot be sure: it may be that only the 3 charged quarks are in motion, and the gluon field is left behind. A new gluon field is presumably present in the next cell of spacetime, if the gluon field pervades the entire universe, so there is no logical reason why anything other than the 3 charge fluctuations (the quarks) should move.
Indeed, it makes more sense to suppose that the gluons do not move, since the next cell logically already hosts its own gluons if the gluon field is all-pervasive. We might visualise an exchange: the gluons of cell A move into cell B, displacing the gluons previously there, which flow out, and occupy cell A instead. But that seems unnecessarily complicated. Occam’s razor favours the simplest explanation: that only the three charged elements are in motion. The neutral elements, being neutral, do not possess the necessary charge that would enable them to be manipulated [i.e. to move]: being uncharged, they would logically be unaffected by the forces which propel the charged elements hither and thither.
If the neutral gluons are remaining behind, then they are genuinely part of the spacetime field, not part of the particle: so the mass which they contribute is wrongly attributed to the particle; it is more accurate to treate it as a property of the vacuum field.
Does this have any bearing on inertia? Does the “sea” of neutral gluons perhaps represent the “structure” through which the quarks move, when undergoing the process termed “quantum tunnelling”? This implies that the gluons are the mechanism we have elsewhere termed the matter/antimatter flux. Certainly they are charged elements, certainly they have two opposite states of charge, certainly they are pair-bonding hence rendering most of those charges neutral, and certainly they have a small surplus of un-bonded charges that are positive: these all are properties which logic implies the matter/antimatter flux would be expected to possess.
Perhaps we cannot make any progress in this area until we can determin whether mass (or rather, inertia) is being generated by the particle field or by the spacetime field? [No, the distinction is meaningless: the particle field is simply a particular state of the spacetime field.]
Note : Maybe we are near to a realisation that to attempt to distinguish between the particle’s field and the spacetime field *is* meaningless. It seems highly likely that the particle field is simply an excited state (or even merely a charged state) of the spacetime field. Hence the particle’s field is simply a property of the spacetime field.
If the particle’s existence arises out of the energy which forms the spacetime field [the gluons], inertia is probably a property of the spacetime field too: one that holds the charge in place, preventing it from moving with absolute freedom between adjoining points in the field; thus preventing it from moving at random, i.e. chaotically.
Maybe the expected quantum chaos is a property of the particle field, but limited to the field’s internal mechanics, so that the field’s internal structure is chaotic, but its external relations (with other fields) is not.
Note : No energy is lost by the particle where it follows a line of constant inertia. A particle loses velocity (energy) if it tries to escape gravity, i.e. move away from the source; and it gains velocity if it moves with gravity, i.e. toward the source; but it neither gains nor loses energy (velocity) if it simply maintains its distance from the source (i.e. orbits it, in a circular orbit, in an equlibrium orbit).
The orbit is circular *because* that path is energy-neutral, and *because* the orbiting particle or object naturally follows the path which is energy-neutral. Ordinarily, the orbiting object would not be accelerated by any process when it is in a stable orbit: when the orbit is in equilibrium the orbiting object should logically neither gain nor lose energy, so ought to follow a path requiring constant energy.
So quantum tunnelling is an energy-neutral process. The particle does not necessarily lose any energy in the process, i.e. where the particle is in an equilibrium orbit. And an orbiting object is just a group of particles.
Note : What is mass? Is it a measure of how energetic the particle is? Do the two “heavier” (more massive) forms of the electron, i.e. the muon and the tau, have more mass simply because they are a more *excited* state of the electron?
Do they require a greater amount of binding energy in order to supply enough inertia to hold them in place? That does not seem to arise logically from what (little) we understand about inertia.
A more hopeful line of thought is based on there being three “levels” of particles: all have a low-mass type, and have two heavier types: i.e. low, medium and heavy.
It may be that the “heavier” (more massive) forms are a more *charged* state: that perhaps a 1st level particle (electron, neutrino, up quark, and down quark) is the consequence of an imbalance by merely one unit of charge.
If so, the more massive forms of each particle could be the result of an imbalance by (respectively) two and three units of charge. This implies the existence of a fundamental quantity of charge, with the “heavier” forms possessing twice the charge and three times the charge (“energy”) of the “ordinary” form.
This seems to imply a more energetic version of the normal form. This presents difficulties: if the normal form of [say] the electron is in motion at the speed of light, it is difficult to explain the two more energetic forms, since (by definition) they cannot have twice and three times the velocity of light!
It seems to imply that the heavier forms of the electron involve two or three electrons bonding together. Given that they would each have the same charge, this too presents obstacles. The only obvious answer is that two positive electrons may be present alongside one anti-electron, so the opposite charge on the anti-electron holds the two normal electrons together, by sitting between them.
The absence of a 4th level of particles (not detected by CERN despite 5 years of searching since 2016) implies that beyond a certain limit, mass (i.e. energy or momentum) cannot be restrained by the inertial effect: that there is a limit above which a particle simply cannot form, because inertia can no longer hold a particle together against the momentum possessed by the more energetic particle. That threshold is, presumably, the defining difference between energy and matter: energy cannot be confined (into a “particle field”) where its momentum exceeds that value.
We already know that atoms cannot form beyond a mass limit (trans-uranic elements are all unstable, and their spontaneous disintegration is the principal cause of radioactivity).
We must discard the notion that the strong nuclear force is responsible, since the electron and neutrino do NOT possess it, yet they each form two heavier types.
Note : There seem to be two aspects to the concept of “mass”. On the one hand, mass is a property of a particle, a binding energy which exerts a form of suction, holding the particle stationary on spacetime’s 3-dimensional “grid” or lattice. On the other hand, “mass” is also the concept whereby a group of particles in motion have momentum.
Mass defines a particle, giving it weight when exposed to gravity (a tendancy to fall towards the gravity source) (when not in motion); but it also gives the particle momentum (when in motion), within a gravitational field (a tendancy to continue in the original direction).
It is uncertain, but possible, that a particle (because, unlike a spacecraft, it carries no fuel) can only move when exposed to gravity, and only because of being exposed to gravity: that all motion is induced by gravity, and due to the structural influence of gravity: i.e. the presence of a gradient (an inertial gradient). This might reflect the fact that inertia is reduced in the direction of a massive object, creating a path of least resistance (lowest energy).
Inertia seems to be the energy which restrains the particle from varying in velocity at random. By holding the particle to one point in the field, it’s a factor which imposes order on the underlying chaos of the vacuum field.
[We are much exercised to find factors which tend to promote order, and to impose it on the sub-atomic chaos implied by quantum theory. Inertia is a highly promising candidate.]
We don’t understand much about the electron, either.
Note : In some sense, a particle is an anomoly (a distortion) in (or an excited or charged state of) the spacetime field, which otherwise has a characteristically “flat” state (an average, or mean, state: one free from fluctuation).
The perturbation of the field causes it to exceed, locally, the average energy level or charge of spacetime as a whole. A particle looked at in these terms represents a localised excess of energy or charge, and inertia represents the tendency of the field to resist the propagation of that energy from one point (or focus) within the field to an adjacent point.
Note : The structure of the field may be matter and antimatter in *imbalance*, i.e. present in unequal quantities. Two opposite/opposed states of charge. When they exist in an imbalance, that imbalance is what we detect, and we call it a particle. The imbalance is theorised to be an excess of positive over negative charge (energy with a positive charge being matter, with a negative charge antimatter).
We don’t have a clear, unambiguous, definition of antimatter. An electron, for example, has negative charge but we do not categorise it as antimatter, although by some definition it plainly is.
It is not necessary to define the structure of spacetime, but the effect implies that spacetime must be comprised of energy, which is subdivided into a network or honeycombe of adjoining – but distinct – compartments (“fields”): a granular structure, with the adjoining granules linked to each other such as to permit energy (the confined energy comprising a particle) to move between them: hence it is a structure which is permeable to that energy, but which offers a specific (fixed) degree of resistance to the movement (propagation) of that energy, from one compartment to the next, causing the effect we observe as inertia (but which might be merely the time needed for the energy to move between adjoining compartments).
Depending on the amount of energy present in an individual compartment (field) (or, more likely, on the number of adjoining compartments which are charged), the quantity of energy present (quantum) causes an effect (a combination of properties) which we observe as a particular *type* of particle. Different particles thus correspond merely to different amounts of energy.
At present, the smallest known sub-atomic particles (those which combine to form atoms) are the quark and the electron. But an entire “zoo” of particles exists (and there is some evidence that the electron is composed of smaller particles in combination: as protons and neutrons were found to be) (there is clear evidence implying that the quarks, too, are composed of other particles, namely pairs of gluons).
The other known particles are theorised to carry forces, which – in some cases – may be responsible for binding the quarks together in triplets, or for attaching them to the spacetime field (although both effects might be a simple confinement effect caused by the spacetime field); but these “messenger” particles, being themselves composed of energy, each represent a capacity to transfer a particular amount of energy from one quark to another, and as it is reasonable to suppose that a quark’s (and hence any particle’s) mass and motion are affected by the amount of energy it contains, those properties must – logically – change as energy is gained or lost by the absorbtion or emission of these “messenger” particles. Really, they carry no “message”: what they carry is energy, being a simple transfer mechanism for moving packets of energy around (either charge/spin, or velocity/momentum/linear motion), within the field.
Note : Maybe the only thing which is being resisted is movement of the charged elements. Maybe only the charged elements move: the movement of the particle is an illusion, because only the elements which carry the charge are moving; maybe only the charge itself, not the elements on which it “lives”.
Particles, such as the neutrino, have particular properties, peculiar to the particular type of particle (a set of unique properties).
A distinction must be drawn between energy in the confined state (i.e. matter, a.k.a. particles) and energy in the unconfined (or “free”) state (i.e. electromagnetic waves).
There is a clear, and well recognised, distinction between waves (phenomena which propogate at the speed of light) and particles (phenomena which do not). That, essentially, is the definition of the two types.
A particle is energy in a confined state, whereas an electromagnetic wave is energy in an unconfined state. A particle consequently has a localised existence at a specific point in spacetime, whereas a wave does not. A particle exists only at a single point in spacetime, and it moves only in a single direction, whereas a wave exists at many points simultaneously and propogates in all directions simultaneously (as an expanding sphere).
A particle has inertia, whereas waves do not: a distinction which causes the difference in their respective speed of propagation, and which arises from the fundamental difference between them, namely that a particle is bound (by that inertia) to the spacetime field, whereas a wave is not.
There is a tendency in scientific circles to speak of electromagnetic energy in terms of particles (“photons”), rather than as waves. To do so is misleading: it implies, wrongly, that wave energy is a real object, when in fact it is only a state of motion in real objects.
Waves exist when a disturbance causes vibration to be transmitted through a medium: whether that medium be a solid (e.g. in an earthquake), a liquid (e.g. waves in an ocean), a gas (e.g. sound waves), or the spacetime field (e.g. an electromagnetic wave).
An electromagnetic wave, or a gravity wave, is a vibration in the structure of spacetime: it is a vibration of a real structure, but has no structure of its own: hence its ability to propogate in all directions simultaneously, as it expands outwards from its point of origin in its characteristic spherical pattern.
The structure is set vibrating, and the pattern which the vibration front – or wavefront – causes, being a coherent pattern, mimics that of a wave in an ocean (i.e. affecting many points in the medium simultaneously); and we observe the motion, even when we cannot detect the underlying structure that is vibrating – hence we can observe light (and other frequencies of electromagnetic waves), even though the fabric of the vibrating spacetime field is invisible to us (except where it is being excited by the vibrations).
A wave sets up a vibration in the spacetime fabric, typically vibrating it many times a second; and we classify them by that frequency.
A wave is a concerted motion, occuring in a volume of spacetime; it is the motion of the granules (fields), passed from one to another by the impact of one on another.
The vibration can be absorbed by a particle. The acceleration caused to particles by vibrating them spins them up to (maybe) a higher rotation rate (per second), causing the effect which we observe as temperature. The increase in their energy level is detectable, as they absorb the energy (i.e. motion) of an individual vibration.
Note : Never an individual motion, it is always in concert with all adjacent granules (“fields”).
Note : An event, usually occuring as a nuclear reaction within the core of a star, but nonetheless a single event, has multiple effects, because it causes a vibration to spread out spherically, thus affects (simultaneously) many points in spacetime – in a sense, therefore, one cause has many effects: it effects change simultaneously at more than one other point.
Quantum entanglement is a phenomenon whereby change appears to be occuring simultaneously at more than one point. But ordinary electromagnetic waves also in a sense cause related changes at more than one location simultaneously (potentially at millions of points, the entire spherical surface area of the expansion surface).
Note : Particles represent a different type of energy. Electro- magnetic waves are a type of kinetic energy of motion. But particles are a consequence of the existence of trapped – or stored – energy of motion (velocity), stored as matter and antimatter (two opposed states of charge, i.e. spin), held in confinement within the cellular structure of spacetime. Spin is a logical consequence of velocity being confined, since it offers an explanation for how the velocity can be confined in one place without ceasing to exist.
The kinetic energy is merely a transfer of (surplus) energy from point to point, by vibration alone. Particles represent true energy: how much energy they represent is hinted at by the energy released in nuclear fission and nuclear fusion. Kinetic energy is small beer in comparison to the stored energy held within the vacuum field (the energy from which the particle field is derived).
The positive and negative (i.e. opposite) states of charge (energy) in each cell (or field) of spacetime largely cancel, yet remain confined, leaving only the imbalance (if any): a small surplus of positive charge (a particle), capable of interacting with external particles, i.e. with adjacent fields.
The vacuum field has a state of charge: positive, negative, or (where the opposed charges are equal) neutral. This results from dynamic processes within the field, whereby the opposed states of charge meet and neutralise each other: wholly or in part.
Logically, the vacuum field contains equal quantities of these opposed charges: it is neutralisation which creates the vacuum state. Without that neutralisation, the vacuum state is replaced by the charged state, which we detect as a particle (i.e. as some member of the “particle zoo”, depending on how much surplus energy remains un-neutralised). [A particle might be a single charged field, but more likely is a group of them.]
Logically, all fields are equal. Quantisation implies this, but so does logic: any imbalance would presumably even itself out, by spreading out throughout all of spacetime until balance – an equal quantity in every field everywhere – was achieved.
What we term quantisation is based upon these fields: the amount of energy that exists in the universe is a multiple of the fundamental charge, that being the charge in a single one of these fields.
Logic suggests that if a fundamental unit of energy exists, the different particles we observe must represent (a) a difference in the number of cells which combine together to form a particle, or (b) a difference in the extent of the imbalance within a single cell (perhaps a surplus of 2% of matter over antimatter is a neutrino, say, while a surplus of 98% is a quark).
Note : Quantisation implies that it must be the former, i.e. each cell (field) contains an identical amount of energy, and the different particles are the result of different numbers of such cells combining together.
Note : The latter would imply that what determins that a field represents a particular particle is its state of charge: the concept that a field can have any state, from 100% positive to 100% negative, with the neutral state being 50% positive and 50% negative.
If so, this implies a field’s state of charge can be altered, since not every field in the universe has the same state (as the universe is not uniform).
Presumably, the initial state of charge in each field of spacetime was pre-set in the Big Bang. And as spacetime expands, the mechanism of expansion generates more units of spacetime along the boundary/frontier of expansion (the expansion surface).
Some so-called particles, such as the photon, are really waves: that is, they are fundamentally different from (say) a quark, and from particles composed of quarks, in that they do not have a fixed existance at one specific point on the spacetime lattice. Waves (of energy) – which are characterised by propogating at the speed of light – represent a pure transfer of energy: the (wave of) energy moves through spacetime in the same manner that energy is transfered through the water of an ocean, by one unit bumping against a neighbour and thereby transfering the energy of motion, but without a significant shift in the location of the unit: motion is passed on from one to the next by the collision, then to the next, and to the next, ad infinitum, but the units themselves (once having passed on the motion) will not have actually moved any significant distance: it is the motion which travels, usually as an expanding sphere (or ‘bubble’).
The “confined” energy locked up within a particle is a consequence of the particle being composed of matter and anti-matter. One possibility is that, because like charges repel each other, the velocity is a consequence of that repulsion. This is one of three possibilities –
The energy confined inside the particle might be an energy wave going round and round in a circle or loop, at the speed of light; or it might be energy coiled up like a spring; or it might be due to the interaction of matter with anti-matter.
The latter seems more likely, if we place our trust in Occam’s razor, and opt for the simplest possibility: for it would not depend then on the existence of a tiny perpetual-motion machine, nor of the even more improbable notion that energy, a nebulous and intangible entity, can be coiled up like a steel spring.
The notion is quite an attractive one, in its simplicity: that a particle exists because of an imbalance between the amount of anti-matter and the amount of matter present in the vacuum field; and that in an atomic explosion some of the confinement is lost, when the imbalance increases, causing a release of energy.
Note : In some sense, “confinement” is a misnomer. The energy which comprises all matter is not precisely in a confined state.
In one sense only is it confined: it is not ordinarily capable of escaping from the quark, save in the explosion which results from a release of the energy in nuclear fission (or nuclear fusion), or in a matter/antimatter annihilation.
But it is free to move around, in that particles are capable of overcoming the inertia which holds them in place, and of moving around in space over a period of time.
If we take a closer look at the concept of inertia, we find that it arises because the particle is formed by the arising, in a specific spacetime location, of an imbalance in the vacuum field: there arises locally an excess of positive over negative energy, i.e. charge; positive charge being defined arbitrarily as “matter”, and negative charge as “antimatter”.
[That imbalance is most stable in the particle we term a quark. This particle has an impressive degree of stability, with a lifetime greater than the current age of the universe.
There must, therefore, be something special about a quark. Apart from the electron, no other particle seems to have the same degree of stability. Some particles are very unstable, so ephemeral in duration that they have a lifetime of only a fraction of a second.
The implication is that a probability of close to 100% should be assigned to the quark’s existence. This might mean that the entire field-charge, all 100% of it, has become positive: that the particle has stability because there is no negative charge remaining at that location.]
[For there to be *any* possibility of a quark ceasing to exist, its existence must have a probability of less than 100%. So the probability of the quantity of positive charge falling to below the required threshold value for the existence of a quark must be extremely small, given that – by definition – all quarks currently in existence have a lifespan greater than the current age of the universe, if we assume that all quarks were formed in the Big Bang.]
Since a particle represents an imbalance in the charge, it depends upon a specific spacetime location having more positive charge than negative. Inertia, therefore, logically represents the energy required to move that imbalance from one point in spacetime to another. Inertia exists because energy (i.e. additional energy) is required to effect such a movement (although it is possible that inertia is merely a measurement of the time required for that movement).
Inertia gives the “particle” mass (meaning only, its propensity to remain in its current location). The “particle” is only a difference in the balance of the charges at that location.
[This is only another way of saying that the imbalance can only exist in one location: that its mere existence does not cause a similar imbalance in adjacent locations: that only the injection of extra energy can displace the imbalance from one location to an adjacent location.]
The “mass” of the particle is really only a measurement of the amount of (additional) energy required to move it (displace it) to an adjacent point in spacetime.
So a particle does not so much “stick” to spacetime, like a marble in a patch of glue: rather, it depends for its very existence upon the conditions prevailing at that point in spacetime. It shifts location, if at all, only because the conditions which bring it into existence shift to a new location. Which is to say, because those conditions are *shifted* to a new location, by an injection of energy.
The original location must, logically, return to a state of balance, in which the amount of positive charge present falls to 50%, such that it thereafter has 50% positive and 50% negative charge: the vacuum state, in which the charges balance exactly, such that to an observer the location appears to be a void, since it has no detectable level of charge, hence does not interact with external objects.
[If a nucleon is actually a “sea” of energy, positive and negative, with a charge imbalance such that only three quarks can attain corporeal existance at any one moment, then what may actually be happening is more complex: the imbalance in the vacuum field is such as to bring into existence three quarks, rather than a single quark. This carries the interesting implication that a proton or neutron may after all be the fundamental particle which each was originally conceived to be, if, after all, it is impossible for quarks to exist in any separate form: the notion that quarks have each an independant existence, but come together in threes in obedience to some mechanism, is swept away, and replaced by a concept in which individual quarks are incapable of forming, since they can only form as groups of three.]
[The nucleon contains, overall, sufficient energy to form one hundred quarks. But the balance of positive versus negative energy (“matter vs antimatter”) is such that there is only a small imbalance, i.e. only a small surplus of positive energy, sufficient to form three quarks only.]
[There is an implication here that each quark forms as an individual structure or “particle”, within a larger structure which contains all those (three) quarks which do in fact form. Thus, it is implied, a quark must have a corporeal existence within a small but definite volume of spacetime, and must sit inside a larger volume of spacetime which contains all three quarks. All that can safely be said of the larger “container” volume is that it must be large enough to contain three quarks. Yet it must be tiny compared to the total volume of space occupied by an individual nucleon, since it holds the quarks together at the very centre of the nucleon.
The implication is that the “container” volume cannot be a single cell of spacetime, since it must hold three quarks, i.e. three structures even smaller than itself.
The container in fact contains all the energy for building one hundred quarks, even though that energy is locked forever into a pattern (balance) that can only build three.
Even the concept that a *quark* is a single cell of spacetime seems hugely improbable, since that would mean a quark could not possess any internal structure. It is hard to see how the quark could possess properties, such as electric charge or the strong nuclear force, if it has no internal structure. Even the simplest property, the ability to spin, would seem to be impossible if the quark is a non-dimensional point without structure.]
[If a nucleon is a “sea” of quarks, holding 100 times the energy which a single quark represents, then the nucleon has an explosive potential far greater than that which is implied by the study of an individual quark. This implies that the energy in an annihilation reaction of matter/antimatter is many times greater than would appear from simply counting the number of nucleons and multiplying the total by three.]
=================================================================
Mass as Inertia
Mass is that property of a sub-atomic particle which gives the particle weight when exposed to a gravitational field (the property which causes the particle to move toward the source of that field).
As gravitational attraction is a *mutual* attraction between two particles, in which the strength of the attraction is a function of the combined mass of both particles and of the separation (i.e. distance) between them, weight is a wholly artificial concept.
In a sense, mass is a measurement of the energy holding the particle in place, and opposes the tendency of particles to move toward each other (i.e. opposes their mutual gravitational attraction). Separation distance is the key element: for any given mass, beyond a critical distance inertia will always prevail. This is the (sole) factor that prevents the universe from undergoing instantaneous gravitational collapse.
It is more accurate to describe “mass” as that property of a particle which gives it inertia. Mass (or, more properly, inertia) is thus a measurement of energy: the amount of energy required to accelerate or decelerate the particle, or to deflect it from its course (at its most fundamental, the amount required to move it).
Mass is, accordingly, a synonym for inertia: mass and inertia are interchangable terms – they express the same concept.
Note : If a particle is the presence of an imbalance in the state of charge, logic implies that the existence of gravity (the attraction of one particle for another) is evidence of two charges – both positive – attracting one another. This is improbable, since like charges repel each other.
Even so, this could be explainable on the basis that the mutual gravitational attraction has effect at long range only, whilst the mutual repulsion of the positive charges occurs only at extremely short range (only at distances on a sub-atomic scale).
Alternatively, this could be explainable on the basis that the mutual attraction is not based on the particles’ charge, but only on the effect which each particle has on local structure, in modifying the local strength of inertia. In practice, this is the prefered explanation.
=================================================================
Matter and its Properties
The properties of matter include: the strong nuclear force; the weak nuclear force; electromagnetism; and gravity/inertia.
All of these properties can be seen as forces: a force being an influence, exerted over another particle, at a distance. For example, gravity attracts other matter. So, under some conditions, does magnetism.
All these properties might be derived from the particles’ mass stressing (i.e. compressing) an underlying structure.
An alternative is that the individual particles might couple to the underlying structure of space/time, with some form of coupling bond, giving rise to both mass and inertia. [The particles might be given existence by a charge imbalance in the underlying structure.]
The strong nuclear force is the bond most easily comprehended as a bond: the quarks found to comprise protons and neutrons are always present only in groupings of three, with two having one charge (either positive or negative) and the third having the opposite charge, in extremely close proximity. Clearly, this is not some random effect: all nucleons (protons and neutrons) in the universe conform to this description.
Note : Perhaps nucleons can only form from groups of three quarks because there is, universally, an imbalance of 3 percent (among gluons) of positive charge, thus wherever matter is present it exhibits this imbalance characteristic, which was caused by the Big Bang, hence all quarks were formed in an environment that can only generate quarks in groups of three.
It is not clear that gluons can pair-bond in groups of two: a large number of the gluons (seemingly, two-thirds of them) are theorised to possess double the charge of the other third: all the positive quarks (gluons) have a charge of +2/3rds, whereas all the negative ones have a charge of -1/3rd. This presents an obvious difficulty: you cannot have a neutral bond resulting from a combination of only two such gluons, if we continue to assume that they must have opposite charges.
It is not clear that gluons can pair-bond in groups of two: one quark in the nucleon has negative charge, so there are not 3 quarks left over (in the gluon field) having a surplus of positive charge (when the other 97% of gluons form neutral bonds by pair-bonding: if each pair is 1 positive and 1 negative gluon, each pair has no surplus charge left over).
It’s unclear why 97% of gluons would pair-bond successfully, given that this does not happen for two of the three remaining gluons. If pair-bonding was an inevitable process, we would reasonably expect that of the remaining 3 gluons, two of them would pair-bond as well.
The fact that they do not do so implies all sorts of things: they are “pair-bonding” as a group of 3, to form a neutral neutron, so perhaps all the other gluons are NOT truly pair- bonding, but are instead bonding in triplet groups, to form the neutral bonds which the detection of only 3 quarks within each “nucleon” (gluon field) implies.
Even so, that does not explain why in about half of the cases the result is not a neutral particle but, rather, a positively charged proton. Logic implies that ought to happen in about half of the other 97% of cases too, but from observation and experiment it is proven that no other charge arises.
Note : If “quark” is just a synonym for “gluon”, the existence of cosmic rays might be evidence that gluons are capable of pair bonding. Cosmic rays comprise two quarks, one positive and one negative. However, the evidence is ambiguous, as that pair is a quark and an anti-quark.
If a particle was at rest, relative to the underlying structure, it would make more sense to speak of a coupling bond between them. This might imply that the underlying structure, like the moving particle in question, is itself in motion.
If the underlying field (the background) is being generated by the presence of the matter, it makes sense to think of it as dynamic: changing to reflect changes in the configuration of the matter which generates it. There is thus good reason to suppose the background is as dynamic and fluid as the matter which creates it. That both are in motion.
There is undoubtedly a gradient effect. The distance, between each point (on whatever scale one measures the field’s strength), grows less as the amount of matter present increases: as matter’s density increases, the gradient becomes steeper.
This gradient modifies inertia. The closer together the fields are (compressed by the presence of mass), hence the shorter the distance between them, the less the inertia (i.e. resistance is less where the distance to travel is less). Thus it becomes easier to move toward the mass whilst simultaneously becoming harder to move away from it. Thus particles in motion in local space have a tendancy to move toward the mass, because that represents a lower energy route than moving away, and a particle will always follow the lowest energy route.
It is logical that if the fields are compressed, forcing them closer together, it will require less energy to transition (i.e. “tunnel”) between adjacent fields: thus inertia is reduced, being a measurement of the amount of energy required to overcome the particle’s tendency to remain motionless (or of the time taken to do so).
=================================================================
What is an Energy Field?
It is a field generated by the underlying structure of spacetime (where spacetime is assumed to be a regular 3-dimensional lattice formed by the attraction of one positive field [matter] for the adjoining negative field [antimatter]: a linked structure in which the key elements are the links themselves, comprising the bonds between the adjacent unlike charges).
Note : These bonds might be a standing wave, whereby the two fields exchange energy (gluons?). The wave’s reinforcement would have to be constructive. Where the distance between the fields shrinks, logically the reinforcement would become destructive. What implications might that have for the energy bond?
The dense and irregular structure of matter interferes with the smooth underlying structure of spacetime. Perhaps a standing wave is set up, comprising interference patterns. These disturbances are caused by stressing spacetime, i.e. by compression, due to the presence of areas of density that we term “mass”.
Mass is a property of spacetime. So is energy. But spacetime is also a property of mass and energy. (Which came first, the chicken or the egg?)
Matter and energy are related: matter was created by the binding together of energy quanta, in the Big Bang, into quarks and other sub-atomic particles.
Energy created from matter is the result of chemical, or nuclear, processes: generating vibrations (ripples?) in an underlying structure that is otherwise uniform, by a release of energy. It represents a breaking of the bonds that were formed in the Big Bang, releasing some of the energy out of which matter was created. It is the transmission of those ripples, or vibrations, across space.
Note : Entropy is a measure of the extent of the breaking of those bonds. On the assumption that the bonds cannot be re-formed/re-created without another Big Bang, every breaking of a bond is in a sense irrevocable: an irrevocable loss of mass by its reconversion into energy. Thus entropy must win in the end, by breaking all the bonds formed in the beginning. [But see also ‘pair production’]
We typically describe radiant energy in terms of its wavelength. Much of our terminology implies a belief that energy is a wave-form, similar to a wave in an ocean: that it has a definite distance between peaks (measured in angstrom units) and frequency (measured in cycles per second); and an amplitude.
Energy : The Temperature of Matter
Energy in one form is a vibration of, or disturbance in, matter. It is a motion of a particle, measured by us as a property of matter that we term “temperature”.
Matter actually exists; but energy (kinetic energy at least) is simply a movement (or excitation) of the molecules, atoms or quarks of which matter is composed; it is the effect of some force imparted to matter.
The effect is typically a change in the energy state of an atom, causing a speeding up of the orbiting electrons, or of the spin of the quarks. Momentum of the atom increases: a measure of its (fixed) inertia and its (variable) velocity.
Note : When energy is absorbed by a particle, it raises the temperature of the particle (really, it increases its energy state). We describe this as the object’s “temperature” – or simply as “heat”.
But when the energy is travelling across space, between the star which generated it and the particle which absorbs it, we call it electromagnetic radiation. Light is that type of radiation, at a specific frequency. Hence EM radiation is essentially just heat by any other name.
Einstein theorised that mass is simply a measurement of inertia and velocity, therefore an increase in velocity also means an increase in mass. Einstein says that if matter was to attain the speed of light this would result in its mass becoming infinite, and that (because such a state is impossible) this is a proof of why such a velocity is impossible.
One reason why energy (as EM radiation) has no mass is that it is not a particle (i.e. thus is not bound to spacetime), but an excitation (of the structure of Einsteinian spacetime). What is observed is a vibration imparted to that structure.
Energy stored within matter (measured as temperature) will be considered further – below.
Energy : Absolute Zero
Absolute zero is that state or condition of matter where all intra-atomic motion has ceased.
Temperature is a measurement of the motion of, or the state of excitation of, the sub-atomic particles. Matter has temperature due to such motion. But at absolute zero, matter does not break down into energy, or else an atomic explosion would be triggered merely by reducing the temperaure – i.e. motion – of an atom to absolute zero. So energy cannot be just motion, since particles are stable at absolute zero.
Matter is thought to be energy in a confined (or “bound”) state: energy is somehow confined within a very small volume of space, unable under normal conditions to escape that confinement. It does escape, under special conditions, inside a nuclear reactor or a nuclear weapon: these demonstrate the amount of energy confined within even a very modest quantity of matter.
Note : See above, for the theory that particles are formed by an unequal balance of matter and antimatter in the subspace layer: that their existence depends on an imbalance of positive over negative charge in the vacuum fields out of which the structure of spacetime is formed.
Energy : The Nature of Radiated Energy
Energy (as radiant energy) exists as a vibration of, or disturbance in, the structure of spacetime.
When energy is in the free state, as radiating energy, termed “radiation”, it propogates along the structure of spacetime (as a vibration in that structure), where it is traditionally described as a wave: hence is measured by its frequency, amplitude, and intensity.
Free (radiated) energy is measured across a band, based on the number of “cycles per second”: a measurement of the number of occurances per second. This embodies the concept of frequency: how frequently the energy flow peaks, per second. This matches the number of oscillations per second in the source.
Theoretically, the source (typically, incandescent matter) is oscillating: exerting a pressure on the surrounding structure of spacetime, that rises then falls, at a given rate of cycles, or oscillations, per second; the rate is determined by the temperature (i.e. motion) of the source.
The source, being a point source, disturbs the adjacent Hilbert space (a.k.a. Plank-space) (sometimes termed the vacuum field). The way the ocillation propogates is by agitating or disturbing that adjacent space. Spacetime is best thought of as a honeycombe of tiny boxes (fields), each incapable of further sub-division or of growth, but with a certain degree of elasticity in the links between adjoining “boxes”.
Since the source is agitating all the fields in immediate contact with it, a shell (or sphere) of these, surrounding the source, is being disturbed simultaneously: thus the rising pressure on the sides of each such field constrains the direction in which it can expand: the pressure simultaneously rises behind it (i.e. on the side which has contact with the source), and to its left and right (in the other fields in immediate contact with the source): the only direction in which its own rising pressure can be released is in a direction opposite to the source, the only direction in which the pressure is NOT rising.
As each field is disturbed, it in turn disturbs the fields which it adjoins, but only in the direction of lowest pressure: thus does the disturbance propagate (“radiate”) outward from the source.
This propagation takes on the same pattern as in matter (where energy is transmitted by atoms and molecules in a liquid or gas colliding one with another, thereby forming a wave-front: a compression boundary along which collisions are occuring between disturbed and undisturbed molecules). In the free state, energy is propogated by, in effect, one spacetime field colliding with its neighbour, forcing that neighbour to collide in turn with another; and so starting a chain of collisions which propagates endlessly through the vacuum of space.
The key point is Newton’s law of motion: a body (i.e. particle) set in motion shall continue to move unless acted on by another force (“conservation of momentum”). This applies equally to energy: in a vacuum, there is no force in the path of the energy to impede or retard its progress, so it will potentially continue to propagate through spacetime forever.
Only if it interacts with matter, whether that be a gas molecule in free space or a planet, will it be absorbed: it then heats up the matter in question, by the absorbtion of its motion (the atom which absorbs it is thereby speeded up slightly: one of its components is accelerated by the additional motion). But if it encounters only empty space, it will never cease to propogate.
Propogation raises the “pressure” in an encountered field; and the pressure then falls back to normal (a notional level, termed zero), when the pressure is released by its dissipation into an adjoining field; until the next disturbance arrives, whereupon the field is agitated again.
This disturbance typically happens many times a second, matching the pattern of oscillations in the source.
Low-energy sources undergo a few hundred cycles (disturbances) per second. High-energy sources undergo thousands of cycles per second. Each cycle comprises a fixed quantity of energy; so the more cycles per second the source undergoes, the greater the energy per second that it emits.
Another way of measuring this free energy is in terms of wave-length: the distance between adjacent peaks. Given the nominal velocity of propagation as the speed of light (186,000 miles per second), an emission rate of 1 cycle per second implies a distance between peaks (the wave’s length) of 186,000 miles. A rate of a thousand cycles per second implies a wave-length of one-thousandth of that (186,000 / 1,000), or 186 miles.
Where the energy is emitted by a point source, each time the source pulsates it throws off a shell of energy, best thought of as a vibration. This shell propogates outward as a sphere, whose centre is the point source, with the radius of the sphere (the distance from the wave-front to the source) increasing by 186,000 miles each second.
Many further “shells” (or spheres) of vibration will typically be given off each second, one for each oscillation (or “pulsation”) of the source.
Note : The exact mechanism is obscure; but, in stars, nuclear reactions produce all the radiant energy emitted, and the release of energy in those reactions is a transfer of the motion within the individual atoms to the fabric of spacetime.
Some hypothetical models imply that within an atom energy is stored in the motion – or, to be exact, the spin – of the particles. Other models imply that an atom is wound up like a coiled spring, and that the energy used to coil it up is, in part, released as the “spring” uncoils.
Where the source is highly energetic, emitting thousands of such shells each second, the “shells” (or peaks) pass a hypothetical observer only a few milliseconds apart, or in other words only a few inches apart.
The wave-length is expressed as being those few inches, while the frequency is expressed as so many cycles per second. Naturally, as the wavelength reduces the frequency increases, reflecting the fact that more cycles are occuring per second (in the source).
Intensity is a measure of distance: it depends, in part, on the absolute temperature of the energy source, but also on the distance from that source to the observer. It’s thus (in part) a measurement of attenuation, based on the attenuation rate: which is a constant termed (by Newton) “the inverse-square law”.
That rate obeys a long-established principle of geometry, that the surface area of a sphere has a precise mathematical relationship to the radius of the sphere. In the case of a shell of energy, its spherical nature makes the application of this principle straightforward: doubling the radius will exactly quadruple the sphere’s surface area, so that the energy (per square foot) falls to a quarter, because the surface area has quadrupelled. The same total amount of energy has been spread out evenly across an area 4 times as great.
The inverse-square law does not tell you the absolute value of the energy as a temperature: rather, it expresses a relationship that tells you the rate at which the energy (per unit of area) will reduce with increased distance from the source.
The fact that the relationship exactly obeys the geometric rule for a sphere is what tells us that the energy radiated by a point source is emitted as a sphere, i.e. as a shell, rather than as individual particles or “rays”.
Matter cannot travel at even a small fraction of the speed of light, because electromagnetic energy (including light) comprises nothing material at all: it involves structures in spacetime vibrating, and conducting vibration, in the bumping against one another of adjacent structures; not a movement of particles.
Particles are retarded in their motion by inertia, due to their coupling to spacetime, so cannot move rapidly. Energy is a vibration of the Einsteinian structure of spacetime itself: a vibration of the very field (the vacuum field) that creates the inertia which retards the velocity of matter.
In effect, the Hilbert-spaces are set vibrating: they knock against each other, and, initially at least, the presence of a following vibration forces the effect to propogate forwards; and the effect thereafter depends critically on the fact that, once begun, no opposing force is present to bring the motion to a stop.
Consider the temperature gain imparted by the wavefront when it encounters molecules of matter in free space: the energy, being a vibration (a motion), must be imparting motion, probably spin, to a quark or electron within the molecule. Such particles must, therefore, store the energy in the form of motion; and they are known to gain in temperature (i.e. motion, or “excitation”) through absorbing energy from sources including sunlight.
Furthermore, quarks seem to have discrete energy levels, i.e. digital energy levels. They do not respond by increasing the amount of stored energy in a continuous or undivided manner: they store it only in precise multiples of a particular value, since their energy states exist only in such multiples. This implies something about the quark as a particle: its spin may be discontinuous, in the sense of jumping from one state to the next, with no intermediate values.
We observe that electrons show this behaviour: they have discrete energy levels, represented by differing orbits surrounding the nucleus (each at a different distance from it), and as they jump between the different energy levels this reflects the atom absorbing or emitting energy.
Where an electron loses velocity (e.g. when that velocity is transfered from the electron to another electron, perhaps one in another atom), it cannot maintain its orbit, because orbital equilibrium is dependent on velocity: so it falls to a lower orbit, one closer to the nucleus. We term this a lower-energy state.
Consider a quark: it is thought to have spin, so the energy of, say, starlight ought to be sufficient to propel the quark from one spin state to another; thus, as they have discrete energy states, adding energy (i.e. motion) will move them from one state to the next-higher state.
But that does not in itself imply that energy can only exist in such discrete packets: it only implies that quarks have discrete energy states, and can only store energy in discrete, and exact, quantities: it does not imply that energy itself can exist only in those quantities.
If energy is truly a vibration, propogating across a three-dimensional lattice of Hilbert-spaces, there may be a spin component in the motion; otherwise it is difficult to understand how free energy can interact with particles.
In other words, because particles store energy as a spin motion of the quarks and electrons within an individual atom, when an atom emits energy it is actually releasing some of that spin-motion: the atom spins-down, i.e. spins slower, as a consequence of that release; but the motion being released is clearly a spinning, rotating, motion. It is logical to conclude that this rotating motion is transfered to some structure of Einsteinian spacetime, causing that structure to spin-up, i.e. rotate.
When energy is absorbed from its free state back into an atom, logically it ought to present to the quarks within that atom in a spinning, rotating, form: this would explain why the atom stores such energy as rotation, or “spin”.
Given that electromagnetic energy is transmitted as a vibration, that vibration ought to have a rotating component.
If free energy has no rotational motion, it is difficult to understand how such energy is stored by an atom in the form of rotation. And difficult to understand how a non-rotating force is translated into a rotating force (and vice versa when the atom subsequently re-emits the energy).
Temperature begins at absolute zero: a condition of matter in which there is no motion whatever. The electrons do not orbit, the quarks do not spin: all motion of every type has ceased. This occurs at zero degrees Kelvin.
As temperature rises above the state of absolute zero, motion begins. It is self evident that temperature is a measurement of the amount of intra-atomic motion: it is dependent upon the rate (i.e. velocity) at which the quarks and electrons spin or orbit. In a gas, or a liquid, it also may reflect the momentum (velocity) with which individual atoms collide with each other.
Note : It is unclear whether an electron has spin, as well as orbiting the nucleus; and it is unclear whether, within the nucleons, quarks, which are thought to have spin, also orbit each other. Within the nucleus, it is unclear whether the neutrons and protons are rigidly bound to each other, or whether they orbit each other.
In a solid, the intra-atomic motion stresses the binding lattice (of, presumably, chemical bonds) which holds the atoms in a rigid, or semi-rigid, structure. When the stress (motion) becomes great enough, the solid melts: the motion of the atoms (perceived by us as temperature) exceeds the strength of the restraining bonds.
The Nature of Matter : Quarks
Quarks are theorised to be a dimensionless point, strongly bonded to each other in groups of three, but surrounded by a vast amount of empty space.
Space is thought to be a three dimensional honeycombe, composed of irriducibly tiny compartments having a width, depth and height of 1 plank-length each; i.e. a volume of 1 cubic plank-length.
Note : This volume (field) is usually termed the vacuum field.
It is not clear whether a quark is an individual plank-space; nor whether each is separated from the others – within their groups of three – by empty intervening plank-spaces.
If they are dimensionless points, it is not clear in what sense they are rotating, or “spinning”. How can a dimensionless point be rotating (a concept that relates to a sphere or globe), if it is truly dimensionless? Possibly the group of three are rotating about their common centre of mass.
It is thought that mass is a measure of inertia: that some bond (an inertial-bond) couples each quark to plank-space, preventing the quark from having genuine freedom of movement (it amounts to a resistance, or “drag”, that must be overcome in order to move a quark from one Hilbert field to the next adjoining one), such that part at least of what we are measuring when we measure what we term “mass” is the strength of that coupling bond.
The nature of the bond which holds quarks together in groups of three is not understood. We think in terms of two of the quarks having a positive charge and the third having a negative charge (because opposite charges attract, so one opposite charge is in principle needed to hold together two quarks having like charges; but why, in that case, they don’t simply bond in pairs is obscure). But we don’t really understand what mechanism is involved that leads to the quarks having what we term “charge”.
Note : It simplifies matters considerably if we assume that the mechanism which bonds the quarks together also gives them charge. If so, most likely it is due to their having charge that they bond together.
It seems that like charges repel (two positive charges repel each other, as do two negative charges), and unlike charges attract (one positive charge and one negative charge attract each other).
Charge may be an effect of rotation, or “spin”: a clockwise spin might be responsible for what we arbitrarily label “positive” charge, and a counter-clockwise spin (i.e. opposite spin) for what we label “negative” charge.
But, if so, there are difficulties. It is unclear why rotation occurs only in a two dimensional plane. If rotation were a 3-dimensional effect, it is highly unlikely that quarks would always have an exactly opposed rotation (which appears to be a logical necessity if we are to explain why one quark is negative while another is positive). If they are not restrained into a flat, 2-dimensional plane of rotation, at zero degrees inclination to each other, their rotation might be inclined at any angle, and would rarely be exactly opposite: we would expect to see 180 states of charge, from -90 to +90, instead of the states -1 and +1 which we actually see.
A bond between two atoms in a molecule arises from their sharing a common electron. Perhaps quarks are bonded to each other by a similar form of sharing. There are theoretical intermediate particles termed “gluons”: it may be that quarks of opposed charges share a common gluon.
Note : When we examine quarks in their ruin, in an atom-smasher at CERN, we are seeing them at only a specific instant, so we cannot tell how dynamic the nucleon truly is. It may be so dynamic that an exchange of gluons causes the two quarks involved to change state, from positive to negative or vice versa: but we see only their latest state. The gluons might even be carrying the charge which we detect. Thus the three quarks might be flipping their state of charge (from 2+/1- to 2-/1+) a million or more times a second.
A clue lies in the fact that quarks are always bound into groups of three. Logically each quark has two receptors: since it must bind to two other quarks, because all quarks do, it should logically have two, and only two, receptors or “binding points”. If it had more, or fewer, we would not find quarks grouped in threes.
There is, as ever, a difficulty. These “binding points” must bind to a quark of opposite charge. But if each quark binds to both of the others, two would have to bind to a quark of like charge (since always two are positive or two are negative), which is not possible.
Therefore it seems probable that the one quark of opposite charge (for example, the negative quark in a group of 2 positive and 1 negative) sits between the other two, which couple only to it, never to each other. So we have a chain: positive-negative-positive or negative-positive-negative.
It seems more plausible to envisage that scenario, in which two quarks of like charge never bind to one another, but always bind only to a quark of unlike charge. It does not explain why quarks are not everywhere found in groups of two; but it would explain why one quark in each triplet has opposite charge to the others, even though it tells us nothing about the binding mechanism.
Note : It doesn’t make sense. A chain of positive-negative-positive means the negative quark is binding to two others, but both of the positive quarks are only binding to one other. They both have one binding point free: logically, that ought to cause them to bind to a further (negative) quark, most likely forming a ring of 4 quarks: a pos-neg-pos-neg chain, in which the two at the ends then link to each other. But we know that never happens; so this scenario is a bust.
If each quark has two binding points, but each can only bind to a quark of opposite charge, this implies that quarks would bind to each other in an *endless* chain: positive to negative to positive to negative: and so on into infinity (not in threes only).
Alternatively, it implies that quarks would group together in fours: they might thereby form a circle, by linking positive #1 to negative #1, negative #1 to positive #2, postive #2 to negative #2, then finally negative #2 links back to positive #1.
But quarks do not form infinitely long chains, nor do they form in groups of four; so the whole scenario is a bust.
Theoretically, a quark might not be a point of no dimensions. Maybe it is a string, of almost no dimensions, but not quite. That is, instead of being perfectly circular, with no obvious binding points, it’s a string, with two ends. This immediately suggests a reason for there to be only two types of charge: one for each end of the string.
Note : It does not explain how three quarks can combine by one being negative and two being positive. What the bar-magnet theory implies is that each quark is both positive and negative (having one positive end, with the opposite end being negative); but observation and experiment suggest that an individual quark can only be either entirely positive or entirely negative. So that idea, too, is a non-runner.
It implies that a quark resembles a very small magnet, with one positive pole and one negative pole. Given that magnetics is one property of particles, it is not unreasonable to suppose that the parts of which particles are built might behave in the same manner as the particles themselves.
It implies that each end of the “string” [the quark] is different: that there are two types of end: that one end is a “hook”, and the other end is a “socket” or “hoop” which the hook latches onto.
This does not explain how the two ends of the quark avoid latching to each other. It is believed they exist in threes, not singly. If a quark is shaped like a string, and can attach its positive pole to its negative pole, a quark would look like a small circle, or loop; but then quarks would not cluster together in threes: each would have used up the gluing mechanism on itself.
We might therefore conjecture that a quark, if resembling a small string, is too inflexible for its two ends ever to meet.
Alternatively, we might conjecture that a positive quark would have only a [positive] hook on both ends, and a negative quark would have only a [negative] hoop on both ends, so that the two ends of a single quark can’t latch on to each other. If both ends are male, or both ends are female, the two ends of a single quark can never link together. This is more logical, but it destroys the premise that the arrangement is based on a similar principle to magnetism, with each quark having two unlike poles.
Note : Given that quarks of positive charge have a charge of +2 whereas quarks of negative charge have a charge of -1, it is logical that a positive quark has twice the charge of a negative one.
This might imply that a positive quark has two binding points, and a negative quark has only one.
A neutral charge [neutron] would result from 1 positive quark (2 binding points) linking to 2 negative quarks [1 binding point each]. The neutral charge is thus a result of all the binding points being occupied: none are free to bind to another particle.
Whereas if two positive quarks bind to one negative quark, there would be 2 binding points left over, not used in the connections, so those free points could bind to an external particle: i.e. the unused binding points represent the charge on the proton. [This is surely impossible, because if a negative quark has only one binding point it can only link to one other quark, so can’t link to two positive quarks.]
This does not seem consistent. The proton would have 2 free binding points: a charge of +2 would be the logical outcome. But that’s exactly wrong: it would be acceptable, logically, if there was 1 left free (for a charge of +1) or if 3 were left free (each representing 1/3rd of a charge, that together total +1).
But having 2 left free makes no sense, given the accepted theory that a proton, with its charge of +1, comprises 3 quarks, two with a charge of +2/3 and one of -1/3. This implies that the two positive quarks each have two binding points, but the negative quark has only one: that would make it impossible for the three to link together, as the negative quark could only link to one positive quark, not to both of them.
Accordingly, considered from every angle, the theory that quarks possess “binding points” is a non-runner. It doesn’t fit the facts.
Reality is more consistent with the concept of charge being a consequence of spin, since a particle cannot be spinning in more than one direction at a time.
In which case, perhaps it’s a measurement of equilibrium: a nucleon (e.g. a neutron) might store motion within itself – and hence store energy – by having all 3 of its constituent quarks rotating simultaneously, but without the nucleon itself having a rotation (at least without having a rotation that can affect the adjoining nucleons), if two of the quarks (both negatively charged, say) are spinning clockwise, but the third (positively charged, say) is spinning counter-clockwise twice as fast.
As the total spin adds up to zero, the nucleon contributes nothing in the way of motion to adjacent particles, yet can, in principle, store a vast amount of motion within itself.
This would explain the observed fact that quarks of different type have different masses, i.e. that some types are more massive than others: we know that mass is in part a measurement of velocity (or, strictly, momentum), so we would expect a quark to be of greater mass if it has greater velocity. That velocity might be being stored as spin.
If the answer lies in rotation (i.e. spin), the solution may be that two protons repel each other because both are spinning (perhaps because both are spinning in the same direction), so can’t approach each other without spinning apart: their combined motion is greater than the strength of the bond (the strong nuclear force). [This doesn’t take us any nearer to understanding the nature of the bond though.]
Maybe only by coupling to a non-spinning neutron can a proton form a bond: with only one of the two nucleons rotating, their combined motion is less than the strength of the bond (the strong nuclear force) holding them together, so the bond is able to form.
A neutron, and a proton, although in motion internally, in the sense that the quarks are rotating, are both counter-rotating: the opposed directions of the spin of their seperate parts (quarks) – because they both contain two like but one unlike charges, rotating in opposite directions – cancels out the stresses caused by the rotation, which is why nucleons are so stable.
Even in a proton, where the charges are not in complete balance, and some charge is uncancelled, the combined motion of the parts (quarks), forcing them apart by aggregating their motion (momentum) such that it stresses the bond between them, is not enough to overcome that bond, so that even a proton is stable.
Energy in the macroscopic world demonstrates that attraction requires no physical contact.
One example is electro-static attraction, by which tiny insects cling to walls and ceilings, just through the “surface tension” of a static electric field.
Another example is the magnetic field generated by a bar magnet, which draws iron filings sprinkled on a sheet of paper into patterns which reveal the invisible magnetic field lines generated by the two poles of the magnet.
Another example is gravity: a small object falls towards the Earth if knocked off a tall building, without any physical contact between the object and the Earth.
Therefore it is possible that quarks are attracted one to another without any physical contact between them; even the coupling mechanism itself (termed the “strong nuclear force”) may be an immaterial force, not a physical link.
Lightning is another example of energy stored as static electricity, i.e. electricity which does not flow between a positive and a negative pole.
Electrical storms occur where hot air rises rapidly, creating turbulence, which causes friction between the air molecules.
The friction causes the molecules – mostly nitrogen and oxygen atoms – to become electrically charged. This is a result of electrons being stripped off them (probably due to energetic collision between the molecules, as a result of the air being rapidly heated), so that they lose their normal condition of being electrically neutral, and instead become positively charged: their negative charge is carried away by the lost electrons.
Those electrons are left in a dissociated, free state, and are charged with negative electric charge. The molecules in the hot gas – which, being a gas, are also in a free state – are also charged.
The two sets of electric charges are held in suspension in the air, until the quantity of charge reaches a critical level, whereupon it discharges to the ground, or from a positively charged part of the gas to a negatively charged part, in order to restore the air to an electrically neutral state.
What we see – the light emitted by the air – is the subatomic particles being heated to an incandescent state, along the path by which the stored electricity discharges itself to neutral.
The phenomenon of “ball lightning” may imply that positively charged particles are attracted to each other: forming into a sphere.
Despite the fact that the laws of physics supposedly prohibit attraction between two positively-charged sources, this might occur where the charge is static (i.e. where it is impossible for a current to flow).
Note : Perhaps static electricity occurs wherever electrically charged particles exist in a state containing only positive charges or only negative charges. That’s to say, a situation in which current cannot flow (as there is not both a positive and a negative pole/terminal).
Alternatively, it might be that the positively charged nucleons in the superheated gas are attracted to the negatively charged electrons in that gas, and that this is what draws the heated gasses into a sphere, without being sufficiently attracted for the electrons to re-combine with the nucleons: this might occur if the gas is in a superheated state, with the particles colliding with too much force/momentum for recombination to occur.
It implies that, for reasons which are obscure, the charged particles are more concentrated than is usual in magnetic storms. Typically, sheet lightning is the result of a discharge from one part of the atmosphere to another. Only where the positive and negative particles are within a critical distance of each other does the force of attraction bring them together into a sphere, and thus roll the sheet lightning up into a ball.
This gas will be heavily ionised. Perhaps entirely stripped of all its electrons.
It may be that the degree of ionisation is a factor: ball lightning may displace sheet lightning where the ionisation removes all the electrons instead of merely some of them; and it may be that the critical distance within which the ionisation must occur for ball lightning to happen varies, and is dependent upon the degree of ionisation.
An ionisation state must exist inside stars under certain conditions of stellar formation: a state of matter heated to a level where electrons cannot combine with nucleons, although below the temperature at which protons and neutrons become unable to bond with each other.
Although an enlightening clue to the nature of electrical attraction, ball lightning cannot explain any of the other types of static electricity, because those others occur in conditions where the environment is not superheated.
Normal static electricity occurs at or below body temperature. It is a state in which negatively-charged electrons are stripped off atoms, leaving them with a positive charge; but the percentage of atoms affected is low, hence the resulting electrical field is weak.
Probably, the simple presence of sunlight can strip out the electrons from 5% or so of the atoms in the surface layer of a brick wall, simply by excitation: the impacting energy speeds up the motion of the electrons in the surface layer, and a small percentage of the accelerated electrons escape from their host atoms due to their greater velocity.
Note : This is a process observed with thin metal foil, where the mere exposure of the foil to visible light causes electrons to be ejected from the surface of the foil, because they become too energetic to remind bonded to the atoms comprising the surface layer.
The wall is thereby left with a slight electrical charge, or “field”: a positive charge, because the lost electrons have carried away some of the affected atoms’ negative electric charge.
The field is not an electric “current”: there is no flow of electric charge; it is stationary, and there is no positive or negative electrode (or “pole”).
Spacetime : The Nature of the Spacetime Field
The British theoretical physicist Paul Dirac proposed, in the 1920s, that vacuum is a combination of matter and anti-matter (particles and anti-particles), the density of which is substantial, but which we cannot perceive because their observable effects entirely cancel each other out.
[https://m.phys.org/news/2010-12-theoretical-physics-breakthrough-antimatter-vacuum.html]
Spacetime : The Nature of Matter
Underlying spacetime there is a field of energy, termed the vacuum field, a field that was created in the Big Bang explosion (13.8 billion years ago) which energised spacetime and thereby created the universe.
Note : This is the implication of vacuum energy, or ‘zero point energy’, i.e. the potential for apparently empty space (“vacuum”) to spontaneously create new particles, seemingly out of “nothing”.
A particle (for example, a quark) is a localised fluctuation in that otherwise uniform energy field: hence a particle is composed of energy (i.e. is not a solid object).
Note : This is the implication of the fact that quarks can decay by the process termed “weak decay”; and of the fact that the particles in the ‘particle zoo’ can merge with one another; and that the energy injected into a quark pair, to split them, spontaneously forms into two new quarks, each of which pairs off with one of the original quarks (resulting in two pairs, where originally there was one pair).
The concept that all matter is energy originates in Einstein’s energy-equivalence principle, which equates energy to mass multiplied by the square of the speed of light (E=mc˛), and mass to energy divided by the square of the speed of light (m=E/c˛).
This only makes sense if we understand that what we think of as mass is actually a quantity (or “quantum”) of energy, vibrating or spinning at the speed of light (i.e. the speed of all electromagnetic energy).
Note : The quantum world of the sub-atomic/microscopic is a world in which all the objects are composed of energy, moving uniformly at the speed of light. Only at the macroscopic level do objects have a slower speed – much slower. This is the fundamental distinction between the quantum world and the macroscopic world.
Its cause is the inertia of particles. Once the quantum energy is confined within a particle field, it acquires inertia: a change of location now requires a short but definite period of time. The particle is not only creating order out of the quantum chaos, it is also slowing the motion, such that propogation at the speed of light is impossible.
The reason why particles of a certain class (e.g. a quark) appear to be solid objects is that they generate a repulsion field (termed “Pauli’s exclusion principle”), which (except where temperature and pressure are extreme, such as inside a black hole) keeps other particles at a distance.
Compared to a quark’s actual volume, which is tiny, its repulsion field (also known as an “exclusion” field, after Pauli’s principle) keeps other particles (including other quarks) at a vast distance: on the order of billions of times the actual diameter of the quark.
Three quarks combine as a triple-particle. Depending on the types of quark present, their combination forms either a proton (having a positive electric charge) or a neutron (having a neutral electric charge).
Note : This might imply that the repulsion field of a single quark is not strong enough to keep other particles away: that only a combination of three such fields is sufficiently strong.
Alternatively, it might imply that a proton or neutron is comprised of far more than just 3 quarks. The implication is that there are perhaps as many as one hundred times that number of particles (gluons) within each proton or neutron (nucleon): in theory, all but three percent of the gluons neutralise with each other (in pairs, that have opposite charges), so that we detect only the three percent (i.e. three gluons) that don’t cancel out, as the gluons collectively possess a slight surplus of positive charges.
Dirac’s theory implies that the gluons are the reality of what we term matter and anti-matter: about half of them possess positive charge, while about half possess negative charge. By combining in pairs, one positive and one negative, they present a neutral charge to the external universe outside their particular nucleon. For all but a small percentage of the gluons, their charge only has an effect within the nucleon, in neutralising a gluon possessing the opposite charge.
The presence of so many gluons, dynamically recombining with each other continuously, whilst moving at the speed of light, would go a long way to explain why the three quarks – i.e. the three charged gluons we can detect – appear to be surrounded by a vast empty space: that volume of space is not empty, it merely seems to be, because we can’t detect the ‘sea’ of gluons that don’t possess detectable charge. They sweep that volume clear of all other particles, by occupying it themselves, possessing energy plus the speed of light, i.e. momentum; so creating an illusion of ‘vacuum’ or ’empty’ space.
There is a logical probability that this also explains not merely Dirac’s observations, but also Pauli’s exclusion principle. These highly energetic gluons, possessed of significant mass/energy and momentum, are excluding all other particles – including other nucleons – from approaching their ‘home’ nucleon.
They must be short-lived: a logical implication of the fact that they only travel a short distance before ceasing to exist: this would explain why they are only found within a small volume surrounding the charged quarks at the center of the effect. They must be continuously forming and re-forming: forming, pairing-up, dissolving, over and over.
The 3 percent surplus of positive charge means the nucleon will always have positive charge (can never manifest as antimatter). The nucleon will thus be stable, for longer than the current age of the universe, but the quarks and other gluons within it have each an existance of only a fraction of a second.
This is a mechanism for converting the chaos of the quantum level – the gluons – into the stability of the macro-world – the nucleons.
Another excluded particle is the electron: these orbit the quark-triplet, in substantial numbers, but do so only at a distance, so can never collide with the host quarks, because they are subject to the exclusion field (which excludes everything from approaching closer than half a “fentometer”).
One implication is that all particles, so-called, are quantities of energy. What we term as a particular type of particle (say a quark, electron, or meson) is a specific quantity of energy, perhaps of a particular frequency.
This energy is confined: it is trapped within a tiny volume of space, where it typically has a lifespan (as a particle) greater than the current age of the universe; hence it has been confined ever since it was trapped by the forces which existed inside the Big Bang (presumably confinement is a consequence of the enormous temperature and pressure which existed during that event).
A quark, like any particle, is capable of dividing into two parts, and these parts are different particles (one will usually be a quark, of lower mass; but the other usually won’t be a quark): adding energy to (or subtracting energy from) a quark will turn it into a different type of quark (because energy is equivalent to mass, so by losing or gaining energy it also loses or gains mass); six types of quark have been identified, each with a mass different from the other five.
Thus a quark can emit energy, thereby losing mass (i.e. losing mass equivalent to the energy emitted), so becoming a different type of quark (a lower mass quark); although a quark of the lowest mass type must cease to be a quark, since it already has the lowest mass possible for a quark. Meanwhile, the emitted energy goes on its way, as a particular type of particle.
It seems to be the case that all types of particle other than the (six types of) quark or the (three types of) electron are emitted by (i.e. are contained within) a quark or electron. Those two can be considered containers, within which sub-particles exist.
At CERN, the principal purpose of the accelerator is to smash open quarks and examine what exists inside them.
One possibility is that a quark emits sub-particles (gluons?) continuously, in a never-ending exchange with the other two quarks in the triplet, and it is this exchange which binds them together as a triplet.
If so, there may be similar exchanges going on between sub-particles (gluons) inside each quark, exchanges which bind the quark together as an individual, distinct particle.
Alternatively, the mechanism which binds quarks together in threes might be radically different.
A nucleon (a proton or neutron) typically contains the energy (and equivalent mass) of one hundred quarks; yet, at any given instant, only three stable quarks exist; and the matter and antimatter comprising the vacuum field is continuously annihilating, such that 97 percent of the energy in the nucleon is always in an unconfined (but neutral) state, permitting only 3 percent of the energy to be confined as quarks.
In each vacuum field, a ‘sea’ of gluons form. Some mechanism determines whether each is matter or antimatter. Each has a 3 per cent greater probability of being matter, rather than antimatter; thus of the 100 gluons present, all but 3 will annihilate with each other (matter and antimatter in contact annihilates, dissolving back into energy). Or they might be pairing off with each other, one positive to one negative charge. Only in three cases will the gluon stabilise into a quark, i.e. a gluon that has an actual (positive) charge detectable by us.
This process continuously repeats, because the matter and antimatter is not in perfect equilibrium (i.e. is not exactly equal in amount).
In a volume of spacetime which contains an exactly equal amount of matter and antimatter, no particles form: we call this ‘vacuum’. If there is more matter present than antimatter, then a particle will form: a particle of matter. If there is more antimatter present than matter, then too a particle will form; but this will be a particle of antimatter: it will be very short-lived, because in our universe matter predominates everywhere, so the antimatter particle will annihilate with an adjacent particle of matter within a very brief period.
This implies not that matter has a greater quantity in the universe, but merely that matter got here first (i.e. formed first), such that (historically) whenever a particle of antimatter formed it found matter already present and annihilated with it.
=================================================================
The Nature of a Quark
A quark is (perhaps) a tiny perpetual motion machine, with the vibration or energy trapped within it racing round in a closed loop forever (unless the particle is disrupted by an external event, such as a collision in a star or a particle accelerator).
Alternatively, it might be a fluctuation in a matter/antimatter flux, in which there is a 3 percent excess of positive charge: 97 percent of the charges present are continuously annihilating as equal quantities of matter and antimatter [probably gluons] meet and neutralise one another, leaving only 3 percent un-neutralised and hence capable of forming into quarks.
=================================================================
How can Waves have energy WITHOUT having mass?
This is a question arising from Einstein’s equation, E=mc˛, which states that energy is mass and vice versa.
In a real sense, an electromagnetic wave *is* energy. Where a particle emits energy, it does so by emiting it in the form of electromagnetic waves. The more energy it emits, per second, the greater the frequency of the wave (the more peaks in the waveform per second) and the shorter its wavelength (the distance between those peaks).
Since *only* particles couple/bind to the fabric of spacetime (as Einstein termed it), only particles have mass. Energy does *not* couple to spacetime. It is the coupling-bond which gives a particle inertia (and thus mass) [this ‘coupling’ actually arises from the quarks being part of the field, not discrete objects with an existence separate from it]. As energy does not have a coupling bond, it has no inertia, which is what permits it to move at the speed of light; but, equally, it also has no mass.
In technical terms, a particle interacts with the Higgs field (vacuum field), thereby acquiring inertia (hence “mass”, as the terms are synonyms). A wave does not interact with that field, so has no inertia (hence no mass). It is the Higgs field which gives an object inertia (thus mass). In a sense, mass is only a measure of the *strength* of the coupling charge by which the particle adheres to the Higgs field.
If an object (i.e. a particle) couples to spacetime, a certain amount of energy must be applied to break the coupling bond, and we term that quantum of energy “mass”, a particle’s mass being equivalent to the amount of energy required to break the bond which is holding it in place. But all we are really saying (from Newton) is that a particle will only move if acted upon by an outside force. Energy does not obey Newton’s laws of motion, in the sense that electromagnetic energy (waves) move although no outside force is acting on them.
Hence an object which obeys Newton’s laws of motion, we define as a particle. And an object which does not, we define as energy. Energy has no mass by definition, since mass implies inertia: a waveform has no inertia (when did you last stand in the sunlight and experience being knocked to the ground by it?)
It is, perhaps, wrong to say that waves *have* energy. It is probably less inacurate to say that waves *are* energy. Mass has energy, too: Einstein theorised that energy equals mass multiplied by the square of the speed of light. Mass is energy in a confined state. But *free* energy is free in the sense of being unconfined, and that degree of freedom comes from *not* having mass, which is merely another term for inertia.
Note : Einstein’s formula is a definition of how much energy is locked up within matter (i.e. within a particle). It is not a statement that defines what energy is: rather, it’s a statement that defines what matter is (i.e. that matter is energy in a confined state).
It implies that energy and mass are equivalents, and gives a formula for converting between them. It does not explain *why* they are equivalent: it is merely a bald statement that this is so.
[http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/321013/how-come-waves-can-have-energy-without-having-mass/321101#321101]
=================================================================
Matter
A proton (or neutron) [the particles which form matter] is actually three quarks ‘confined’ – bound together – by a binding (or coupling) force: the Strong Nuclear Force. Quarks cannot exist separately.
Each individual quark is actually a point source, not a particle as such, and is properly thought of as a confined quantity of energy. This is a consequence of E=mc˛, the principle that, on the most fundamental level, mass is equivalent to energy.
As a quark has no genuine physical substance, but is merely a packet of energy, it can lose or gain energy (by a process called the weak interaction); it is not a particle, i.e. an indivisible body, merely an aglomoration of energy quanta.
The force which binds together the energy quanta that comprise an individual quark is termed the Weak Nuclear Force.
A quark can lose or gain energy (actually, it can only lose or gain negative charge) by the weak interaction, transforming the quark trio from a proton into a neutron, or vice versa:
– Where a neutron loses negative charge (from one of its quarks), it becomes positively charged: it is now a proton.
Note : Losing negative charge (weak decay) involves a quark emitting a “particle” (actually, a packet of energy) which immediately decays into an electron and a meson.
– Where a proton gains negative charge (absorbed by a quark), it becomes electrically neutral: it is now a neutron.
Note : There is a theoretical possibility of a proton gaining so much negative charge that it *becomes* negatively charged, i.e. becomes anti-matter.
(The fact that antimatter exists is proof that a proton with negative charge can exist.)
This change can only occur within strict limits. A neutron can lose negative charge, to become a proton; but a proton can’t lose negative charge (which might imply that it has none).
On the other hand, a proton can gain negative charge, becoming a neutron; but a neutron can also gain negative charge, becoming antimatter (an anti-proton).
Note : Theoretically, it may be a matter of spin. A right-handed spin constitutes a proton, whereas a left-handed spin constitutes an anti-proton.
[If the ‘particle’ (quark) is only confined energy, then logically that energy must be in motion, because Einstein tells us energy must possess the speed of light. Again logically, if the motion is confined it must be present as spin, since by definition it can’t go anywhere.]
A neutron has neutral spin: I do not say it has no spin, I suggest it may possess two states of spin, which are contra-rotating: i.e. two standing waves (of energy), rotating in opposite directions, such that the effective spin is nil as it’s spinning both ways at once.
This would explain everything: a nucleon can change its direction of spin, but there can only be two states as there are only two possible directions. The third state is logically to spin both ways at once, so go nowhere. It can’t, by definition, change its rate of spin, which must always and inevitably be the speed of light; thus the three possible states are all that there can be.
Strong Nuclear Force
The strong nuclear force (also called the colour force) is one of four fundamental interactions: the others being electromagnetism, the weak interaction, and gravity.
Effective only at a distance of a femtometre (10^-15 yards), the strong nuclear force is approximately 100 times stronger than electromagnetism, a million times stronger than the weak force, and many orders of magnitude stronger than gravitation at that range.
It ensures the stability of matter, as it confines quarks into particles such as the proton and neutron, the components of matter.
Most of the mass of a proton or neutron is in the form of the strong force’s field energy (the energy binding them to the vacuum field); the individual quarks provide only about 1% of the mass.
Note : This suggestion by Wikipedia may be a misunderstanding, as it seems to adhere to the mistaken notion that the nucleons are objects separate from the vacuum field, rather than being a state or property of that field.
The strong nuclear force binds protons and neutrons (nucleons) together, to form the nucleus of an atom. It also binds quarks together to form protons, neutrons and other particles.
Colour charge is analogous to electric charge (for instance, each has positive and negative charges), but colour charge comes in three types rather than one (+/- red, +/- green, +/- blue), resulting in three different types of force, with different rules of behaviour. These rules are detailed in the theory of quantum chromodynamics (QCD), which is a theory of quark-gluon interactions.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_interaction]
=================================================================
Energy is a statistical average
Energy is a derivative of amplitude, but only in a statistical sense, i.e. it’s an average of many photons per second, since the uncertainty principle makes measuring a single photon problematic.
Its electric and magnetic field values are only a statistical average; individual photons may deviate widely from that average. Equations derived from these group averages are likewise valid only for the group, not for individual photons.
[http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/47105/amplitude-of-an-electromagnetic-wave-containing-a-single-photon?newsletter=1&nlcode=90181%7c9b8b]
=================================================================
Vibration
Because a point source of energy, such as a star, gives off energy in all directions, illuminating all surrounding space equally, one possibility is that the number of photons (i.e. particles) emitted is so vast that statistics take over: the illumination is equal in all directions – or approximately so – because, given the huge number of nuclear reactions occuring per second, the average number of photons emitted is approximately the same in every direction.
That requires an assumption that energy is emitted in the form of discrete particles (termed “photons”).
An alternative possibility is that energy is a type of vibration, rather than a discrete particle.
This requires the assumption that energy is a wave, or vibration, that disrupts the fabric of spacetime in much the same fashion as a wave does to the water in an ocean: movement (i.e. energy) is transmitted through a dense medium, without any corresponding movement of the medium itself.
In an ocean, a wave is transmitted rapidly through the water as one water molecule collides with the next, which in turn collides with the next, and so on; the wave propogates without a corresponding movement of the molecules themselves, passing as an energy-front, and travelling rapidly; but the water molecules themselves each move only a few microns, and typically return to their starting position (since action and reaction are equal and opposite).
The wave’s energy is determined by the rate of collisions, i.e. the number per second.
Note : It may be the wave’s speed, not its energy, which is determined by the rate of collisions. The energy may be a measure of the amplitude (height) of the wave: the number of water molecules being affected simultaneously.
In a less fluid analogy, consider a string (made of cotton), ten feet in length, held reasonably taught. If a wave is initiated in it by moving it transversely at one end, the wave will travel along the string to the other end, but the molecules in the string do not move toward the other end at all.
The wave’s energy is determined by the extent of the transverse motion initiating it.
If energy is a vibration, a point source of light is explained: it illuminates equally in all directions because each single vibration generates a spherical distortion in spacetime, which propogates outward in the form of a shell: i.e. expands as a sphere.
No longer are we forced to envisage billions of photon-particles, propogating approximately equally in all directions, according to statistics or the law of averages. Instead, we envisage a single wave/vibration propogating outwards, after the fashion of a ripple in a pond when a stone is dropped into it (in a calm pond, it causes a circluar ripple to expand from the point of impact, which is a point source); but in space it propogates in 3-dimensions, as a shell, not merely in 2-dimensions as a circle, as in the case of the pond. If we could see under the surface, we would actually see that the wave is expanding in 3 dimensions, not just in the 2 dimensions we observe from watching the pond’s surface.
What we have is, in miniature, the equivalent of a nova or supernova explosion in a star: the energy emitted by a point source of light resembles, in concept, the spherical shells of gas cast off by a star undergoing a stellar explosion.
If we apply Occam’s razor – the idea that where there are two competing theories, the simplest is to be preferred – we are inevitably forced to the conclusion that we can greatly simplify our picture of the universe by positing that energy is a vibration (of spacetime), rather than a force carried by a particle.
Note : It is only a short step from this to the realisation that gravitation waves behave in the same manner, for essentially the same reason. They, too, ripple through spacetime like a wave on a pond, expanding from a point source.
Energy dissipates in accordance with the inverse-square law: the strength of light (or any other electro-magnetic energy) reduces to one-quarter if the distance from the source is doubled.
If energy is a vibration, this is easily comprehended: as the distance from the point source (the radius of the sphere) increases, so the circumference of the sphere (i.e. the wave-front) also increases. The total amount of energy is unchanged, if totalled over the entire surface area of the sphere; but, at any individual position on that surface, the amount of energy per square foot falls as the distance from the point source increases. The energy is spread increasingly thin: as the volume of the sphere – and thus its surface area – increases, the rate of fall-off in energy per square foot accords with the inverse-square law.
Note : This supports the principle that you cannot get something for nothing. The surface area of the sphere expands, but always represents the quantity of energy originally creating the sphere, so when the surface area doubles the amount of energy per square foot halves.
In fact, every time the radius doubles (not the surface area, but the distance from the point of origin), the surface area quadruples: hence the inverse-square law, that the energy’s strength falls to a quarter if the radius is doubled.
The inverse-square law applies to light (i.e. electromagnetic radiation), to magnetism (another electromagnetic effect), and to gravity. In all these cases, we are measuring a field, which possesses a field strength.
The question naturally arises: if this is a vibration, rather than a particle, what is the underlying medium in which the vibration is occuring? In our ocean analogy, the medium was the water; and in our string analogy, the medium was the cotton.
Einstein suggests that the medium is spacetime: a matrix composed of the inter-acting gravitational forces which bind the stars into galaxies, and bind the galaxies into the universe.
The concept of a single vibration creating a sphere or ‘shell’ of energy, that propogates as a single 3-dimensional wave-front, and falls in intensity at every point on that surface as it spreads out to fill a greater volume of spacetime, gives a more coherent picture of what we observe (in terms of the consistency in its rate of fall-off) than the alternative notion that electromagnetic energy exists as billions of unrelated individual particles which – by some unknown mechanism – chance to always obey the inverse-square law. Chance seems an unlikely mechanism to underlie a universe which is observed to behave with a strict mathematical precision.
=================================================================
Matter and Energy
Energy is a disturbance of matter (particles). It is motion; measured by us as a property of particles that we term “temperature”.
Particles actually exist; but energy is simply a movement (or excitation) of the molecules, atoms or quarks of which matter is composed; it is the effect of some force imparted to matter.
The effect is typically a change in the energy state of an atom, causing a speeding up of it, perhaps of the orbiting electrons, or perhaps of the motion of the quarks (not their rate of spin, which must always be the speed of light, but perhaps the rate at which they orbit each other). Momentum of the atom increases: a measure of its (fixed) inertia multiplied by its velocity.
Note : One point so far unconsidered is why Einstein says mass is equivalent to the speed of light squared, rather than simply to the speed of light. What factor(s) induced him to believe that it is necessary to square that value?
Theory suggests that mass is simply a measurement of inertia and velocity: therefore an increase in velocity also means an increase in mass. Einstein theorised that if matter (particles) attain the speed of light, it would result in their mass becoming infinite, and that this is a proof of why such a velocity is impossible.
One reason why energy has no mass is that it is not a particle, but an excitation: either an excitation of a particle (i.e. a sub-atomic particle), as temperature; or an excitation of the structure of Einsteinian spacetime, as electromagnetic radiation. What is observed is a vibration imparted to the structure being excited.
Energy is measured as temperature when it is stored within matter. This will be considered further, below.
Energy is also a vibration of, or disturbance in, the structure of spacetime.
When energy is in the free state, as radiating energy, termed “radiation”, it propogates along the structure of spacetime, where it is traditionally considered to be a wave: measured by its frequency, amplitude, and intensity.
Free energy is measured across a band, based on the number of “cycles per second”: a measurement of the number of occurances per second. This embodies the concept of frequency: how frequently the energy flow peaks, per second. This matches the number of oscillations per second in the source.
Theoretically, the source (typically, incandescent matter) is oscillating: exerting a pressure on the surrounding structure of space/time that rises then falls, at a given rate of cycles, or oscillations, per second; the rate is determined by the temperature (i.e. motion) of the source.
The source, being a point source, disturbs the adjacent Hilbert space (also termed Plank-space); the way the ocillation propogates is by agitating or disturbing that adjacent space: Hilbert space is best thought of as a honeycombe of tiny boxes, each incapable of further sub-division or of growth, but with a certain degree of elasticity in the boundary between adjoining ‘boxes’.
Since the source is agitating all the Hilbert-spaces (“boxes”) in immediate contact with it, a shell (or sphere) of these “boxes”, surrounding the source, is being disturbed simultaneously: thus the rising pressure on the sides of each such “box” constrains the direction in which it can expand: the pressure simultaneously rises behind it (i.e. on the side which has contact with the source), and to its left and right (in the other ‘boxes’ in immediate contact with the source): the only direction in which its own rising pressure can be released is in a direction opposite to the source, the only direction in which the pressure is NOT rising.
As each “box” of Hilbert-space is disturbed, it in turn disturbs the Hilbert-space(s) which it adjoins, but only in the direction of lowest pressure: thus does the disturbance propogate (“radiate”) outward from the source.
This propagation takes on the same pattern as a wave in matter (a wave in an ocean) (where “energy” is merely atoms and molecules, in quantity, colliding one with another, thereby forming a wave-front: a boundary along which collisions are occuring between disturbed and undisturbed molecules). In the free state, energy is propogated by, in effect, one Hilbert-space colliding with its neighbour, forcing that neighbour to collide in turn with another; and so starting a chain of collisions which propogates endlessly through spacetime.
The key point is Newton’s law of motion: a body set in motion shall continue to move unless acted on by another force. This applies equally to energy: in space, as there is no force in the path of the energy to impede or retard its progress, it will potentially continue to propogate through space forever.
Only if it interacts with matter, whether that be a gas molecule in free space or a planet, will it be absorbed: it then heats up the matter in question, by the absorbtion of its motion (the atom which absorbs it is thereby speeded up slightly: one of its components is accelerated by the additional motion). But if it encounters only empty space it will never cease to propogate.
Propogation raises the “pressure” in an encountered Hilbert-space; and the pressure then falls back to normal (a notional level, termed zero), when the pressure is released by its dissipation into an adjoining Hilbert-space; until the next disturbance arrives, whereupon the Hilbert-space is agitated again.
This disturbance typically happens many times a second, matching the pattern of oscillations in the source.
Low-energy sources undergo a few hundred cycles (disturbances) per second. High-energy sources undergo thousands of cycles per second. Each cycle comprises a fixed quantity of energy; so the more cycles per second the source undergoes, the greater the energy per second it emits.
One implication is that the energy of which electromagnetic waves are comprised is always the same in amount because it always has the same cause: a single mechanism by which the energetic stellar source imparts vibration – or disturbance – to the surrounding environment. And this inevitably means the energy of a wave varies in proportion to its frequency, as there is a simple mathematical relationship between that constant value and the number of oscillations each second.
Another way of measuring free energy is by its wave-length: the distance between adjacent peaks. Given the nominal velocity of propogation as the speed of light (186,000 miles per second), an emission rate of 1 cycle per second implies a distance between peaks (the wave’s length) of 186,000 miles. A rate of a thousand cycles per second implies a wave-length of one-thousandth of that (186,000 / 1,000), or 186 miles.
Where the energy is emitted by a point source, as the source pulsates it throws off a shell of energy, best thought of as a vibration. This shell propogates outwards as a sphere, whose centre is the point source, with the radius of the sphere (the distance from the wave-front to the source) increasing by 186,000 miles each second.
Many further “shells” (or spheres) of vibration will typically be given off each second, one for each oscillation (or “pulsation”) of the source.
Note : The mechanism is obscure; but, in stars, nuclear reactions produce all the radiant energy emitted, and the release of energy in those reactions is a transfer of the motion within the individual atoms to the fabric of spacetime.
Some hypothetical models imply that within an atom energy is stored in the motion – the spin – of the particles.
Other models (string theory?) imply that an atom is wound up like a coiled spring, and that the energy used to coil it up is, in part, released as the “spring” uncoils.
Where the source is highly energetic, emitting thousands of such shells each second, the “shells” (or peaks) will pass a hypothetical observer only a few milliseconds apart, or in other words only a few inches apart.
The wave-length is expressed as being those few inches, while the frequency is expressed as so many cycles per second. Naturally, as the wavelength reduces the frequency increases, reflecting the fact that more cycles are occuring per second (in the source).
Intensity is a measure of distance: it depends, in part, on the absolute temperature of the energy source, but also on the distance from that source to the observer. It’s thus a measurement of attenuation, based on the attenuation rate, which is a constant termed “the inverse-square law”.
That rate obeys a long-established principle of geometry, that the surface area of a sphere has a precise mathematical relationship to the radius of the sphere. In the case of a shell of energy, its spherical nature makes the application of this principle straightforward: doubling the radius will exactly quadruple the sphere’s surface area, so the energy (per square foot) falls to a quarter, because the surface area has quadrupelled. The same total amount of energy has been spread out evenly across an area 4 times as great.
The inverse-square law does not tell you the absolute value of the energy as a temperature: rather, it expresses a relationship that tells you the rate at which the energy (per unit of area) will reduce with increased distance from the source.
The fact that the relationship exactly obeys the geometric rule for a sphere is what tells us that the energy radiated by a point source is emitted as a sphere, i.e. as a shell, rather than as individual particles or energy “rays”.
Matter cannot travel at even a small fraction of the speed of light, because energy, so-called, comprises nothing material at all: it involves the structure of spacetime vibrating, and conducting that vibration; a bumping against each other of adjacent structures; not a movement of particles.
Particles are retarded in their motion by inertia, due to their coupling to spacetime, so cannot move rapidly. Energy is a vibration in the Einsteinian structure of space itself: a vibration in the very field that creates the inertia which retards the velocity of particles.
In effect, the Hilbert-spaces are set vibrating: they knock against each other, and, initially at least, the presence of a following vibration forces the effect to propogate forwards; and the effect thereafter depends critically upon the fact that, once begun, no opposing force is present to bring the motion to a stop.
Consider the temperature gain imparted by the wavefront when it encounters molecules of matter in free space: the energy, being a vibration or motion, must be imparting motion, or spin, to a quark or electron within the molecule. Such particles must, therefore, store the energy in the form of motion; and they are known to gain in temperature (i.e. motion or ‘excitation’) through absorbing energy from sources including sunlight.
Furthermore, quarks seem to have discrete energy levels, i.e. digital energy levels. They do not respond by increasing the amount of stored energy in a continuous or undivided manner: they appear to store it only in precise multiples of a particular value (i.e. a constant), since their energy states exist only in such multiples. This implies something about the quark as a particle: its spin may also be discontinuous, in the sense of jumping from one state to the next, with no intermediate values.
We know that electrons show this behaviour: they have discrete energy levels, represented by differing orbits around the nucleus, and as they jump between different energy levels this reflects the atom absorbing or emiting energy (it is one way in which the atom stores energy).
Where an electron loses velocity (e.g. when that velocity is transfered from the electron to another electron, perhaps one in another atom), it cannot maintain its orbit, because orbital equilibrium is dependent on velocity: so it falls to a lower orbit, one closer to the nucleus. We term this a lower-energy state.
Consider a quark: it is thought to have spin, so the energy of, say, starlight ought to be sufficient to propel the quark from one spin state to another; thus, as they have discrete energy states, adding energy (i.e. motion) will move them from one state to the next-higher state.
But that does not in itself imply that energy can only exist in such discrete packets: it only implies that quarks have discrete energy states, and can only store energy in discrete, and exact, quantities: it does not imply that energy itself exists only in those quantities.
If energy is truly a vibration, propogating across a three-dimensional lattice of Hilbert-spaces, there may be a spin component of the motion; otherwise it is difficult to understand how free energy can interact with matter.
In other words, because matter stores energy as a spin motion of the quarks and electrons within an individual atom, when an atom emits energy it is actually releasing some of that spin-motion: the atom spins-down, i.e. spins slower, as a consequence of that release; but the motion being released is clearly a spinning, rotating, motion. It is logical to conclude that this rotating motion is transfered to some structure of Hilbert-space (or Einsteinian space/time), causing that structure to spin-up, or rotate.
When energy is transfered from its free state back to an atom, logically it presents to the quarks within that atom in a spinning, rotating, form: and this is why the atom stores such energy as rotation, or “spin”.
Given that energy seems to be a vibration, it is this vibration that has a rotating component.
If free energy has no rotational motion, it is difficult to envisage why such energy is stored by the atom in the form of rotation. And difficult to understand how a non-rotating force is translated into a rotating force (and vice versa, when the atom subsequently re-emits the energy).
Temperature begins at absolute zero: a condition of matter in which there is no motion whatever. The electrons do not orbit, the quarks do not spin: all motion of every type has ceased. This is zero degrees Kelvin.
As temperature rises above the state of absolute zero, motion begins. It is self evident that temperature is a measurement of the amount of intra-atomic motion: it is dependent upon the rate (i.e. velocity) at which the quarks and electrons spin or orbit. In a gas, or a liquid, it also may reflect the velocity at which individual atoms collide with each other.
Note : It is unclear whether an electron has spin, as well as orbiting the nucleus; and it is unclear whether, within the nucleons, quarks, which are thought to have spin, also orbit around each other. Within the nucleus, it is unclear whether the neutrons and protons are rigidly bound to each other, or whether they orbit each other.
In a solid, the intra-atomic motion stresses the binding lattice (of, presumably, chemical bonds) which holds the atoms in a rigid, or semi-rigid, structure. When the motion becomes great enough, the solid melts: the motion of the atoms exceeds the strength of the restraining force.
The nature of Matter
Quarks are thought to be a dimensionless point, strongly bonded to each other in groups of three, but surrounded by a vast amount of empty space.
Space is thought to be a three dimensional honeycombe, composed of irriducibly tiny compartments having a width, depth and height of 1 plank-length each; i.e. a volume of 1 cubic plank-length.
It is not clear whether a quark entirely fills an individual plank-space; nor whether each is separated from the others – within their groups of three – by empty intervening plank-spaces.
If they are dimensionless points, it is not clear in what sense they are rotating, or “spinning”. How can a dimensionless point be rotating (a concept that relates to a sphere or globe), if it is truly dimensionless? Possibly the group of three are rotating about their common centre of mass: that might be some sort of explanation for why they are only found in twos or threes, never singly.
It is thought that mass is a measure of inertia: that some bond (an inertial-bond) couples each quark to plank-space, preventing the quark from having genuine freedom of movement (it amounts to a resistance, or “drag”, that must be overcome in order to move a quark from one Hilbert ‘box’ to the next adjoining one), such that part at least of what we are measuring when we measure what we term “mass” is the strength of that coupling bond.
The nature of the force which binds quarks together in groups of three is not properly understood. We think in terms of two of the quarks having a positive charge and the third having a negative charge (because we understand the principle that opposite charges attract, so one opposite charge is in principle needed to hold together two quarks having alike charges: although why, in that case, they do not simply bond in pairs is obscure). But we don’t truly understand what mechanism is involved that leads to the quarks having what we term opposite “charges”.
It seems to be the case that these charges both repel (two positive charges repel each other, as do two negative charges), and attract (one positive charge and one negative charge attract each other).
It may be an effect of rotation, or “spin”: a clockwise spin may be responsible for what we arbitrarily label “positive” charge, and a counter-clockwise spin (i.e. opposite spin) for what we label ‘negative’ charge.
But, if so, there are difficulties. It is unclear why rotation occurs only in a two dimensional plane. If rotation were a 3-dimensional effect, it is highly unlikely that quarks would always have an exactly opposed rotation (which appears to be a logical necessity if we are to explain why one quark is negative while another is positive). If they are not restrained into a flat, 2-dimensional plane of rotation, at zero degrees inclination to each other, their rotation might be inclined at any angle, and would rarely be exactly opposite: we would expect to see 180 states of charge, from -90 to +90, instead of the states -1 and +1 which we actually see.
A bond between two atoms in a molecule arises from their sharing a common electron. Perhaps quarks are bonded to each other by a sharing of some similar type. There is much loose talk of intermediate particles termed ‘gluons’: it may be that quarks share a common gluon.
A clue lies in the fact that quarks are always bound into groups of three. Each quark has, perhaps, two receptors: it must bind to two other quarks, because all quarks do, so it must logically have two, and only two, receptors, or “binding points”. If it had more, or fewer, we would not find quarks grouped in threes.
There is, as always, a difficulty. These ‘binding points’ must bind to a quark of opposite charge. But if each quark binds to two others, one will typically have the same charge as it: as there are always two positive and one negative quarks – or vice versa.
Therefore it seems more likely that the one quark of opposite charge (for example, the negative quark in a group of 2 positive and 1 negative) stands in between the other two, which couple only to it, never to each other. So we have a chain: positive-negative-positive or negative-positive-negative.
It seems more plausible to envisage such a scenario, in which two positive or two negative quarks never bind to one another, but always bind only to a quark of opposite charge. This still does not explain why quarks are not everywhere found in groups of two; but it does explain why individual quarks can have opposite charges, even if it tells us nothing about the binding mechanism itself.
It seems as though each quark might have two binding points, after all; but each binding “post” can only bind to a quark of opposite charge. Yet this would seem to imply that quarks would bind to each other in an endless chain: positive to negative to positive to negative: and so on into infinity.
At the very least, it implies that quarks ought to group together in fours: they might form a circle, by linking positive #1 to negative #1, negative #1 to positive #2, postive #2 to negative #2, then finally negative #2 links back to positive #1. But quarks appear to group in threes, not fours.
What if a quark is not a point of no dimensions? What if it is a string, of almost no dimensions, but not quite. That is to say, what if, instead of being perfectly circular, with no obvious binding points, it is instead a string, with two ends. This immediately suggests a reason for there to be only two types of charge: one for each end of the string.
It implies that a quark resembles a very small magnet, with one positive pole and one negative pole. Given that magnetics is one property of matter, it is not unreasonable to conclude that the basic constituents of matter might function in the same manner that we know larger clusters of matter behave in.
It implies that each end of the “string” [the quark] is different: that there are two types of end: that one end is a “hook”, and the other end is a “socket” or “hoop” which the hook latches onto.
This does not explain how the two ends of the quark could avoid latching to each other. It is believed they exist in threes, not singly. If a quark is shaped like a string, and can attach its positive pole to its negative pole, a quark would look like a small circle, or loop; but then quarks would not cluster together in threes: each would have used up the glueing mechanism on itself.
We are therefore forced to conclude that a quark, if resembling a small string, is too inflexible for its two ends ever to meet.
This does not explain how three quarks can combine by one being negative and two being positive. What the bar-magnet similie implies is that each quark is both positive and negative (having one positive end, with the opposite end being negative); but our observations imply that an individual quark can only be either entirely positive or entirely negative.
This is more consistent with the concept of charge being a consequence of spin, since a particle cannot be spinning in more than one direction at a time.
In which case, perhaps it is a measurement of equilibrium: a nucleon (say, a neutron) might store motion within itself, and hence store energy, by having all 3 of its constituent quarks rotating simultaneously, but without the nucleon itself having a rotation (at any event, without having a rotation that can affect the adjoining nucleons), if two of the quarks (both negatively charged, say) are spinning clockwise, but the third (positively charged, say) is spinning counter-clockwise twice as fast.
As the total spin adds up to zero, the nucleon contributes nothing in the way of motion to adjacent particles, yet can, in principle, store a vast amount of motion within itself.
This would explain the observed fact that one type of quark is more massive than the other: we already know that mass is in part a measurement of velocity, so we would expect a quark to be of greater mass if it has greater velocity.
If the answer lies in rotation, the solution may be that two protons repel each other because both are spinning (and perhaps also because both are spinning in the same direction), so cannot approach each other without spinning apart: their combined motion is greater than the strength of the available bond (termed the “strong nuclear force”). Only by coupling to a non-spinning (in effect) neutron can a proton form a bond: with only one of the two nucleons rotating, the combined motion is less than the strength of the bond, so a bond can form.
Energy in the macroscopic world demonstrates that attraction requires no physical contact.
One example is electro-static attraction, by which tiny insects cling to walls and ceilings, just through the “surface tension” of a static electric field.
Another example is the magnetic field generated by a bar magnet, which draws iron filings sprinkled on a sheet of paper into patterns which reveal the invisible magnetic field lines generated by the two poles of the magnet.
Another example is gravity: a small object falls towards the Earth if knocked off a tall building, without any physical contact between the object and the Earth.
Therefore it is possible that quarks are attracted one to another without any physical contact between them; even the coupling mechanism itself (termed the “strong nuclear force”) might be an immaterial force, not a physical link.
Lightning is another example of energy stored as static electricity, i.e. electricity which does not flow between a positive and a negative pole.
Electrical storms occur where hot air rises rapidly, creating turbulence, which causes friction between the air molecules. The friction causes the molecules – mostly nitrogen and oxygen atoms – to become electrically charged. This is a result of electrons being stripped off them (probably due to energetic collision between the molecules, as a result of the air being rapidly heated), so that they lose their normal condition of being electrically neutral, and instead become positively charged: their negative charge is carried away by the lost electrons.
Note : Heating the gas [i.e. the air] may be enough in itself, without needing actual collisions, to give the electrons (or some at least) the additional energy they need in order to escape from the gas atoms.
Those electrons are left in a dissociated, free state, and are charged with negative electric charge. The molecules in the hot gas – which, being a gas, are also in a free state – are also charged.
The two sets of electric charges are held in suspension in the air, until the quantity of charge reaches a critical level, whereupon it discharges to the ground, or from a positively charged part of the gas to a negatively charged part, in order to restore the air to an electrically neutral state.
What we see – the light emitted by the air – is the subatomic particles being heated to an incandscent state, along the path by which the stored electricity discharges itself to neutral.
The phenomenon of “ball lightning” may imply that positively charged particles are attracted to each other: forming into a sphere. Despite the fact that the laws of physics supposedly prohibit attraction between two positively-charged sources.
But it might be that the positively charged nucleons in the superheated gas are attracted to the negatively charged electrons in that gas, and that this is what draws the heated gasses into a sphere, without being sufficiently attracted for the electrons to re-combine with the nucleons: this might occur if the gas is in a superheated state, with the particles colliding with too much force for recombination to occur.
It implies that, for reasons which are obscure, the charged particles are more concentrated than is usual in magnetic storms. Typically, sheet lightning is the result of a discharge from one part of the atmosphere to another. Only where the positive and negative particles are within a critical distance of each other does the force of attraction bring them together into a sphere, and thus roll the sheet lightning up into a ball.
This gas will be heavily ionised. Perhaps entirely stripped of all its electrons.
It may be that the degree of ionisation is a factor: ball lightning may displace sheet lightning where the ionisation removes all the electrons instead of merely some of them; and it may be that the critical distance within which the ionisation must occur for ball lightning to happen varies, and is dependent upon the degree of ionisation.
An ionisation state must exist inside stars under certain conditions of stellar formation: a state of matter heated to a level where electrons cannot combine with nucleons, although below the temperature at which protons and neutrons become unable to bond with each other.
Although an enlightening clue to the nature of electrical attraction, ball lightning cannot explain any of the other types of static electricity, because those others occur in conditions where the environment is not superheated.
Normal static electricity occurs at or below body temperature. It is a state in which negatively-charged electrons are stripped off atoms, leaving them with a positive charge; but the percentage of atoms affected is low, hence the resulting electrical field is extremely weak.
Probably, the simple presence of sunlight can strip out the electrons from 5 percent or so of the atoms in the surface layer of a brick wall, simply by excitation: the impacting energy speeds up the motion of the electrons in the surface layer, and a small percentage of the accelerated electrons escape from their host atoms due to their increased velocity.
The wall is thereby left with a slight electrical charge, or “field”: a positive charge, because the lost electrons have carried away some of the affected atoms’ negative electric charge.
The field is not an electric ‘current’: there is no flow of electric charge. It is stationary (i.e. static), and (possibly *because*) there is no positive or negative electrode/pole.
The nature of Energy
Energy is measured by temperature: the two concepts are indistinguishable. The only basis on which we can measure the energy level of a particle, or a combination of particles, is by a measurement of its temperature.
Temperature is therefore a measurement of the energy state of the particles: of how energetic they are. This means, in one respect, how reactive they are: for instance, particles of any given (single) element will have a specific melting point (at which their solid and liquid states meet) and boiling point (at which their liquid and gaseous states meet).
But what is energy? In the sense of the energy of a particle, it must be due to the motion of the particle. Theory implies that a single particle cannot have a temperature in any meaningful sense, since – for instance – only in combination with other particles can a particle genuinely possess an ability to melt (which implies the formation or dissolution of a bond between two or more particles).
What is the mechanism by which the motion of a particle is released as heat? Heat is an electromagnetic wave, emitted by a heated particle, and is the basis of our concept of temperature: we do not measure the temperature of the particle, what we measure is the temperature of the electromagnetic radiation emitted by it.
Temperature is therefore only an indirect measurement, hence it might mislead us. For example, if we measure it and find it to exist only in terms of a fundamental unit (because, say, it is emitted only in multiples of a specific value), we could not tell whether our measurement was telling us something about the particle itself, or whether it was only telling us something about the properties of the electromagnetic wave. We might be misled into believing that the particle’s energy state can only exist in quantum packets, i.e. as multiples of some fundamental quantity, when in fact it was only the electromagnetic wave – not the particle – which had an energy state that obeyed this principle.
We theorise that temperature, as a measurement of energy, arises from the interaction of two or more particles: therefore it may be a by-product of some type of friction occuring between those particles. If this is so, it reinforces the theory that it is meaningless to talk about the temperature of a single particle: if it is a by-product of some form of friction (or inter-action) of two or more particles, it can only occur where there is more than one particle present.
It might be a consequence of the electrical state of the particles involved. If they are in a charged state, rather than a neutral state, they can interact to retard the motion of each other. That retardation, i.e. slowing, of a particle’s motion might reasonably be expected to manifest itself as heat: i.e. the energy lost from the particle’s motion emerges from the reaction (or interaction) in the form of heat (electromagnetic radiation at infra-red wavelengths).
One implication, then, is that when we detect that a particle has temperature, the electro-magnetic energy we are detecting (i.e. the heat given off) is present because the particle is losing energy. We could have deduced this from first principles: that any particle which is emitting energy is thereby losing energy. Thus the very fact that we can detect the particle by its radiation means it has lost some energy (which loss is what enables us to detect it).
Einstein’s principle of e=mc˛ tells us that a particle contains an enormous amount of energy. But, being locked inside the particle, probably none of it has contributed to the particle’s motion, or vibration.
=================================================================
Vibrations
Energy is a vibration in space/time.
“… the way we first traced the crystal: by its vibrations through time and space.” [‘Planet of the Spiders’]
=================================================================
Pair Production
Energy can be converted into matter, an aspect of matter/energy equivalence.
An example of this is “pair production”, whereby a high energy electromagnetic wave (e.g. a gamma ray, sometimes misleadingly termed a gamma photon) produces a particle and its antiparticle.
In the case of a gamma ray, the energy spontaneously undergoes confinement (presumably due to a containment mechanism of the vacuum field), becoming an electron and a positron.
[http://physicsnet.co.uk/a-level-physics-as-a2/particles- radiation/particles-antiparticles-photons/]
=================================================================
Exothermic Chemical Reactions
Conservation of Mass and Energy in chemistry –
In combustion, the chemical reaction is:
CH4 + 2xO2 = 2xH2O + CO2 + Energy
CH4 + Oxygen -> Water + Carbon Dioxide + Energy
Energy is released, thus some mass should have been converted to energy. Why is the equation reflecting a balance in mass?
I thought the answer was as follows, but it seems to be wrong:
“It is not the energy locked-up inside the atoms themselves which is being released, but (part of) the energy which binds one atom to another.
There is no conversion of mass into energy occuring: the mass (i.e. the particles) survive unchanged, but they are now bound together in a new way, one that requires less binding energy, and the released heat of combustion represents the surplus binding energy.”
Energy equivalence implies that binding energy (in the chemical bonds) has an equivalent mass, although (because it is such a small amount of energy, compared with nuclear energy) the amount of mass it represents is tiny:
“All the energy comes from a reconfiguration of chemical bonds, but this is equivalent to a change in mass, so it is also true (in a sense) that all the energy comes from the mass.”
In other words, where the reconfigured chemical bonds are in a lower-energy state following the combustion, they contribute a lesser amount of energy, hence a lesser amount of mass, to the molecules resulting from the combustion.
Some users state that the foregoing is only part of the answer, that there is a difference (a reduction) in the particle mass, albeit only very slight. User F16Falcon expresses it thus:
“Energy is also present in chemical bonds. When some higher energy (less stable) bonds are broken to form lower energy (more stable) ones (i.e. exothermic reactions), the energy difference can be released as energy.
Almost all of the released energy is thus due to energy being released from the bonds, not from the mass.
There *will* be a small (negligible) change in mass, hence most (rather than all) of the energy is from the bonds.”
Luaan says –
“The mass of two atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen is greater than the mass of a molecule of water. The difference is released as (mostly) heat when you react hydrogen and oxygen to form water.
In the same way, the mass of a hydrogen atom is less than the mass of an isolated electron plus an isolated proton.”
The answer seems to be somewhat anti-intuitive: that binding particles together in combination reduces the overall quantity of mass present, even though some energy is added (the chemical energy of the bond between the particles), which ought logically to show up as a small increase in mass.
The explanation might be that a chemical bond is formed by two adjacent atoms sharing a common electron. This implies that the system requires one electron fewer, overall. If the (chemical) reaction is causing one electron to be ejected from the system, this would explain the reduction in mass.
Alternative Explanation –
The mass/energy equivalence principle tells us mass is really inertia, a drag-effect imposed on the particle by its bond to the vacuum field.
That bond is modified when an atom is on its own, compared to when it is part of a molecule (i.e. when several atoms are in a close—chemical—association).
Note : This is also so when a particle (a proton or electron) is alone, compared to when it is part of an atom (i.e. when several particles are in close association).
The bond represents the energy holding the quarks in place, and measurements imply the amount of energy in the bond is different (greater) when the atom is not in a shared molecular bond (a chemical bond) with others.
A quark gets part of its mass from the energy which is its bond with the vacuum field. That energy has a mass equivalence. So if the coupling energy is differing, the mass equivalence (of the particle) is differing too.
Less coupling energy is required when two (coupled) particles are also bonded to each other: this implies that doubling the bond with the vacuum field holds the particles more securely than does a single bond, in consequence of the two particles being also bound to each other, such that each bond with the field affects them both.
Perhaps with part of its energy absorbed in linking to another particle, each particle has less motion with which to resist the bonding to the vacuum field, hence the reciprocal bonding force emitted by the field is reduced: this reduction of the energies involved means a consequent reduction in mass equivalence.
What seems reasonably certain is that when we observe mass to be reduced, as a consequence of two atoms (or particles) bonding, we are most likely observing a change in the energy-bond (perhaps the bond between the atoms, perhaps between the particles and spacetime), *not* a variation in the intrinsic mass of the particles.
In other words, the small change in mass is most likely due to a change in the mass equivalence of the energy-bonds present.
The fact that the mass change is insignigicant supports it being due to a change in the energy bonds, since they represent only tiny quantities of mass.
=================================================================
Negative Mass
Physicists have created a fluid with “negative mass”, which accelerates towards you when pushed.
In the everyday world, when an object is pushed, it accelerates in the same direction as the force applied to it; this relationship is described by Isaac Newton’s Second Law of Motion. But, in theory, matter can have negative mass in the same sense that an electric charge can be positive or negative. The phenomenon is described in Physical Review Letters Journal.
Prof Peter Engels, from Washington State University (WSU), cooled rubidium atoms to just above the temperature of absolute zero (close to -273°C), creating what’s known as a Bose-Einstein condensate. In this state, particles move extremely slowly, and follow behaviour predicted by quantum mechanics, acting like waves. They also synchronise and move together in what’s known as a superfluid, which flows without losing energy.
To create the conditions for negative mass, the researchers used lasers to trap the rubidium atoms and to kick them back and forth, changing the way they spin. When the atoms were released from the laser trap, they expanded, with some displaying negative mass.
“With negative mass, if you push something, it accelerates toward you,” said co-author Michael Forbes, assistant professor of physics at WSU. He added: “It looks like the rubidium hits an invisible wall.”
The technique could be used to better understand the phenomenon, say the researchers.
“What’s a first here is the exquisite control we have over the nature of this negative mass, without any other complications,” said Dr Forbes.
[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-39642992]
=================================================================
The Law of Conservation of Mass
Q: Since the law of conservation of mass states matter cannot be created or destroyed, how does the Sun generate energy?
A: The modern interpretation of Newton’s law of conservation of energy was defined by Einstein, and, simply put, is the principle of E = mc˛ which expresses the concept that energy can be converted into mass and vice versa.
Energy is thus conserved in that any equation in the realm of particle physics can be stood on its head: in principle, any physical process is reversible, in that whatever is input, whether particles or energy, an equivalent quantity of particles and energy will emerge as the output; and if the output products are recombined, the end result will put you back where you started, with none of the energy missing.
Physics today operates on the logical inference that if you perform a particle experiment, and can account for all the input particles and energy, in the output products, you necessarily have a true understanding of the particles and processes involved, since nothing has gone missing.
Nuclear fusion in a star – or in a hydrogen bomb – is simply the combination of hydrogen atoms in a high temperature environment, to produce helium atoms plus some energy. The mass/energy equivalence term tells us how much energy is locked-up in the initial hydrogen atoms, and how much less is locked up in the resulting helium atoms; and the difference is the amount of energy set free by the fusion reaction, whether as solar energy or as a thermo-nuclear explosion. The energy is, though, released, rather than generated (which implies it is magically produced from nowhere).
[https://www.quora.com/Since-the-law-of-conservation-of-mass-states-matter-cannot-be-created-or-destroyed-then-how-does-the-Sun-continue-to-generate-energy/answer/Ed-English-12?prompt_topic_bio=1]
=================================================================
The Distinction Between Matter And Energy
The distinction between matter and energy is a dubious one. The release of energy in an atomic bomb is produced by the splitting of an unstable form of uranium, the splitting of an atom of which results in two new atoms (of other elements) that together weigh slightly less than the atom of uranium did, plus the release of an amount of energy.
The energy released from the splitting (or “fission”) of a single atom of uranium is quite low; but the millions of atoms in even a small atomic bomb, taken together, release a vast amount of energy.
Note : A star releases energy from matter by fusing light elements together, whereas an atomic bomb releases energy from matter by splitting heavy elements apart. Both fusion and fission, when they occur naturally, tend towards the production of iron: a completely stable atom that can’t release energy by either method, since it requires more energy to fuse it or split it than results from that process.
This suggests the amount of energy inside an atom is very large. What is released in the fission of uranium is the binding energy which was holding the atom’s nucleus together (“nuclear” energy): the binding energy of the strong nuclear force. The process does not appear to lose any of the protons and neutrons which were part of the original atom, as these all become part of the two smaller atoms that result; but some weight is lost, along with some of the binding energy that held the uranium atom together.
Splitting stable elements is not worthwhile, for it requires more energy to do so than is produced by the process. Only unstable isotopes, such as uranium 238 and plutonium, produce energy in the process of “decaying” into stable elements.
Einstein established that E (i.e. energy) equals MC squared (i.e. matter times the square of the speed of light). This indicates that the amount of energy contained in matter is equal to the amount of matter present multiplied by the speed of light squared.
An ounce of matter thus contains thirty four thousand million times that much energy (1 times 186,000 squared).
The point is that matter contains a vast amount of energy.
[Source: Some notes on Science extracted from my 2012 file “Notes & Quotes, etc”]
=================================================================
Q: What would happen if an object would reach the speed of light?
A: The ability of our mathematics to describe it would break down.
Einstein’s equations of general relativity appear to show that if a particle is accelerated, it gains in mass, on the principle of equivalence between mass and energy. The logical conclusion of Einstein’s equations is that the mass of the particle becomes infinite under those conditions.
Clearly, that is impossible. Even Einstein recognised that this was so. Modern physics tries to differentiate between rest mass and the velocity-related component of mass, but not entirely convincingly.
[https://www.quora.com/What-would-happen-if-an-object-would- reach-the-speed-of-light/answer/Ed-English-12]
=================================================================
Q: Do photons travel through objects (such as a wall) by going through the empty space in the atoms?
A: No, they are usually absorbed (a photon is a wave), then re-emitted as different photons of lower wavelength.
Although high energy waves, such as X-Rays, do manage to travel through matter the way you infer, some still get absorbed, but not as many as with low energy waves. So not all high energy waves make it through.
You have to be more specific as to what type of matter you refer to, and what wavelength of photons you refer to.
A: There is no empty space inside an atom.
An atom fills its volume with fields. The space between atoms is filled with bonds, which are also fields. Thus all the space in a solid is filled with fields.
Photons are waves. As a wave, a photon can interact with matter, or rather that matter can affect the photon.
Thus the notion of a photon bouncing through the voids in a solid is incorrect. The photon affects the solid and the solid affects the photon. As long as the solid doesn’t absorb the photon, it can continue on its way through the solid.
[https://www.quora.com/Do-photons-travel-through-objects-like-a-wall-by-going-through-the-empty-space-in-the-atoms]