Does E = mc2 imply Prime Matter and is Space Really Empty?

[utunumsint]

Hi All,

I have a few fun questions to ask for any physicists or philosophers out there.

Question 1:
If the matter of everything can theoretically be converted into energy, and energy can be similarly converted into any kind of matter (E = mc2), doesn’t that imply some kind of common principle that unites the two throughout the transformation from one form to another? And wouldn’t it make sense to call this common principle, prime matter?

Question 2:
Is the space between protons, neutrons, and elections really empty? Or is the electron really a field? And if an electron is a field, is there really ever anything like empty space anywhere in our universe? For example, is the electron field really what constitutes an Aether that binds everything together in the universe?

Paul Dirac Nobel laureate wrote in 1951

If one examines the question in light of present-day knowledge, one finds that the Aether is no longer rules out by relativity, and good reasons can now be advanced for postulating an Aether.

God bless,
Ut

 

[yppop]

Hi All,
Question 1:
If the matter of everything can theoretically be converted into energy, and energy can be similarly converted into any kind of matter (E = mc2), doesn’t that imply some kind of common principle that unites the two throughout the transformation from one form to another? And wouldn’t it make sense to call this common principle, prime matter?
Question 2:
Is the space between protons, neutrons, and elections really empty? Or is the electron really a field? And if an electron is a field, is there really ever anything like empty space anywhere in our universe? For example, is the electron field really what constitutes an Aether that binds everything together in the universe? Paul Dirac Nobel laureate wrote in 1951
Ut

Hi Ut
Eight years ago I started a thread entitled, “God Exists, But How?”. It introduced an extensive thesis based on the premise that the foundation of objective reality is discrete space. I contend that discrete of space is the foundation of matter and energy; it allows the hylomorphic presence of a spiritual component with which much of what remains a mystery for science can be explained. Here is OP:
Mar 20, 2009
*I present for discussion a thesis based on the premise: God exists. Given that premise, the question then becomes: How does God exist? The thesis will propose an answer. The answer describes how reality can have a dual nature — material and spiritual. The thesis is based on the idea that the space that gives dimensionality to the universe is discrete.

Discrete space, which has gaps between points, is permeated by the infinite nothingness that came before and exists beyond our finite universe. It is the infinite nothingness that provides a spiritual component to reality.

Discrete space provides the material component. The basic particle of matter is spatial, nothing more than a deformation in the otherwise homogeneous structure of discrete space. Since the basic particles are immersed in infinite nothingness, all matter has a spiritual component.

A reality grounded on discrete space allows us to describe reality as a unified whole. Also at the ground of reality, in addition to discrete space, I contend that the impetus that induces motion is information not energy, and reality will be described algorithmically not mathematically. This is the basic foundation of my thesis, which goes on to describe time, energy, life, mind, and soul in a coherently comprehensive way.

I know the ideas I plan to present are beyond the sphere in which science operates, many may consider me to be a member of the flat earth society, so I present a number of quotations by persons of greater stature than me to show that I am not alone in entertaining such ideas.

1. If physical space has at all a real existence it is not necessary for it to be continuous; many of its properties would remain the same even if it were discontinuous. And if we knew for certain that physical space was discontinuous there would be nothing to prevent us, in case we were so desired, from filling up its gaps, in thought, and thus making it continuous; this filling up would consist in a creation of new point-individuals and would have to be effected in accordance with the above principle. (of continuity) (Richard Dedekind - World of Mathematics, pg 530)
2. Nevertheless, there are some intriguing hints that this particular universe may in fact be a discrete digital universe, not a continuous analog universe the way most people would expect.
   In fact these ideas actually go back to Democritus, who argues that matter must be discrete, and to Zeno, who even had the audacity to suggest that continuous space and time were self-contradictory impossibilities.
   Through the years I’ve noticed many times, as an armchair physicist, places where physical calculations diverge to infinity at extremely small distances. Physicists are adept at not asking the wrong question, one that gives an infinite answer. But, I’m a mathematician, and each time I ’ wonder if Nature wasn’t really trying to tell us something, that the real numbers and continuity are a sham, and that infinitesimal small distances do not exist! – (Gregor Chaitin - Meta Math, The Quest For Omega – pg. 91)
3. Reality cannot be found except in One single source, because of the interconnection of all things with one another. (Leibniz, 1670)
4. We are a part of Nature as a whole whose order we follow. (Spinoza - Ethics, 1673)
5. …man’s general way of thinking of the totality, i.e. his general world view, is crucial for overall order of the human mind itself. If he thinks of the totality as constituted as independent fragments, then that is how his mind will tend to operate, but if he can include everything coherently and harmoniously in an overall whole that is undivided, unbroken and without border (for every border is a division or break) then his mind will tend to move in a similar way, and from this will flow an orderly action within the whole. (David Bohm - Wholeness and the Implicate Order, 1980)
6. “What we observe as material bodies and forces are nothing but shapes and variations in the structure of space. Particles are just appearances.” (Erwin Schroedinger - Life and Thought,1989)
7. “ But if the ultimate model for the universe is to be as simple as possible, then it seems much more plausible that both space and its contents should somehow be made of the same stuff—so that in a sense space becomes the only thing in the universe.” ( Stephen Wolfram - A new Kind of Science, pg. 474)

8.“The world of explicate structures and sequential processes in time, which has been studied by science over the last centuries, now turns out to be a manifestation of a deeper, enfolded order that constantly sustains them.” (David Peat - Synchronicity, pg. 185)*
Yppop

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Question 1:
If the matter of everything can theoretically be converted into energy, and energy can be similarly converted into any kind of matter (E = mc2), doesn’t that imply some kind of common principle that unites the two throughout the transformation from one form to another? And wouldn’t it make sense to call this common principle, prime matter?

That has always been the case. Why would you not think that energy is an even less determinate state than matter (ie closer to prime matter than physical matter).

Of course “force” is even less determinant than energy and even closer still to “prime matter”.

Question 2:
Is the space between protons, neutrons, and elections really empty?

Well, now you have to define what you mean by empty before we can answer that.
Above you seem to define energy as a form of non emptiness.

Can there be energy without any matter at all? Probably not. Therefore if there is no matter between fundamental particles there is no energy, so emptiness is possible.

However where do you place “force”. I place force where there is no matter.
Therefore there can be no such thing as emptiness as there is always “lines” of force that can be discerned.

Or is the electron really a field?

That’s ridiculous. Electrons have mass and charge. Therefore a charge field is a property of the electron but is not the substance of the electron.

And if an electron is a field, is there really ever anything like empty space anywhere in our universe? For example, is the electron field really what constitutes an Aether that binds everything together in the universe?

Nah, go for the Higgs Field instead.
It is everywhere, but is itself non-existent insofar as it is a field of some sort even less determinant than “force”.
Forces impart motion to matter - but the Higgs field imparts not motion but mass.

Very strange.

 

[Bradski]

Ah, the interweb and good ol’ Google. Now we are all well read in any subject in less time than it takes to drink a beer.

Two beers and we’re experts.

 

[utunumsint]

I glory in my ignorance! It is my special power.

(So long as I don’t take myself to seriously. )

God bless,
Ut

 

[utunumsint]

That has always been the case. Why would you not think that energy is an even less determinate state than matter (ie closer to prime matter than physical matter).

Of course “force” is even less determinant than energy and even closer still to “prime matter”.

Agreed!

Well, now you have to define what you mean by empty before we can answer that.
Above you seem to define energy as a form of non emptiness.

Can there be energy without any matter at all? Probably not. Therefore if there is no matter between fundamental particles there is no energy, so emptiness is possible.

However where do you place “force”. I place force where there is no matter.
Therefore there can be no such thing as emptiness as there is always “lines” of force that can be discerned.

Yes. I think that is what I was getting at with my talk of fields. All space seems to be filled up by such force fields. It certainly isn’t “nothing” in the philosophical sense anyway.

That’s ridiculous. Electrons have mass and charge. Therefore a charge field is a property of the electron but is not the substance of the electron.

LOL - Thanks for clarifying.

Nah, go for the Higgs Field instead.
It is everywhere, but is itself non-existent insofar as it is a field of some sort even less determinant than “force”.
Forces impart motion to matter - but the Higgs field imparts not motion but mass.

Very strange.

Interesting.

Thanks for responding.

God bless,
Ut

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Ah, the interweb and good ol’ Google. Now we are all well read in any subject in less time than it takes to drink a beer.

Two beers and we’re experts.

Aw com’on, dont be like that. Maybe three beers.
And you’ve started sillier reflections than this .

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Agreed!

Yes. I think that is what I was getting at with my talk of fields. All space seems to be filled up by such force fields. It certainly isn’t “nothing” in the philosophical sense anyway.

LOL - Thanks for clarifying.

Interesting.

Thanks for responding.

God bless,
Ut

Forgot to add…
I have gone full circle and believe Aristotle was right about the elements, especially earth.
It intrinsically seeks itself and will not rest until all earth coallesces (downwards).
So lines of force is what you get when earth is pulled apart creating emptiness.
This force is the earth trying to close off the emptiness. Nature abhors a vaccuum and all that. Separated matter is unnatural.

 

[ProVobis]

Hi All,

I have a few fun questions to ask for any physicists or philosophers out there.

I’m a physics major and I questioned if E = mc2 works at high speeds. After all m varies.

m = m0 / (1 - (v/c)) ^ .5

I’ve read the relationship would be better expressed in terms of momentum, not mass

 

[utunumsint]

Forgot to add…
I have gone full circle and believe Aristotle was right about the elements, especially earth.
It intrinsically seeks itself and will not rest until all earth coallesces (downwards).
So lines of force is what you get when earth is pulled apart creating emptiness.
This force is the earth trying to close off the emptiness. Nature abhors a vaccuum and all that. Separated matter is unnatural.

Wow! That is a full circle for you. What else do you accept from Aquinas and Aristotle?

God bless,
Ut

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Wow! That is a full circle for you. What else do you accept from Aquinas and Aristotle?

God bless,
Ut

Its always a work in progress .

Still trying to reconcile the earth thing with Newton’s laws, esp momentum.

Energy transfer is the key.
Aristotle and Aquinas had no real idea of energy as a concept (nor momentum, nor acceleration as qualitatively different from speed).

The reason a non accelerating lump in space keeps moving/stationary forever is because there is no energy transfer. For a line of force to cause motion in matter there by definition must be an energy transfer to make it shift its constant speed state to another constant speed state.

Energy is not required to stay in constant motion, only to change the state of constant motion from one constant speed to another. And if there is no possibility of energy transfer there can be no effectively acting line of force (even if it exists), no change of speed and no cause/effect links.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I’m a physics major and I questioned if E = mc2 works at high speeds. After all m varies.

m = m0 / (1 - (v/c)) ^ .5

I’ve read the relationship would be better expressed in terms of momentum, not mass

There are different types of mass.
In E=mc2 I believe we speak of invariant mass.

How was your formula derived btw?

Do you mean: m= m0/(1- v^2/c^2)^0.5

 

[utunumsint]

Going back to my question of empty space, I was reading a book call Aquinas and Modern Science: A New Synthesis of Faith and Reason by Gerard M. Verschuuren, that said that

• the human body contains 10 to the power of 28 atoms
• In any given atom, the nucleus contains 99.9 percent of the mass of the entire atom
• The nucleus’ diameter is only 1/100,000 of the surrounding electron cloud.
• Given the size of the atom is determined by the orbit of the outermost electron, the atom is thus 99.999999999999 percent open space.

But is open space the best way to characterize the atom? Contemporary physical theory seems to state that electromagnetic interactions between electrons seem to be in effect throughout the whole atom at various intensities and moments, indicating that between the nucleus and its electrons there is some “intangible thing” that fills the intervening empty space which is the cause of any observed fluctuations and changes.

I think this is where the concept of “Lines of Force” comes in. They don’t just fill empty space, they **are **empty space. Electricity is a field like gravitation is a field.

Which leads me to think, in the material universe, there is no such thing as “nothing” or “empty space” in the philosophical sense. We exist in a medium, through and through.

The corollary to this, is that human beings are primarily made up of electromagnetic fields as well.

Is this nuts? It sounds interesting to me, who am admittedly, a layman when it comes to this stuff.

God bless,
Ut

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Going back to my question of empty space, I was reading a book call Aquinas and Modern Science: A New Synthesis of Faith and Reason by Gerard M. Verschuuren, that said that

• the human body contains 10 to the power of 28 atoms
• In any given atom, the nucleus contains 99.9 percent of the mass of the entire atom
• The nucleus’ diameter is only 1/100,000 of the surrounding electron cloud.
• Given the size of the atom is determined by the orbit of the outermost electron, the atom is thus 99.999999999999 percent open space.

But is open space the best way to characterize the atom? Contemporary physical theory seems to state that electromagnetic interactions between electrons seem to be in effect throughout the whole atom at various intensities and moments, indicating that between the nucleus and its electrons there is some “intangible thing” that fills the intervening empty space which is the cause of any observed fluctuations and changes.

I think this is where the concept of “Lines of Force” comes in. They don’t just fill empty space, they **are **empty space. Electricity is a field like gravitation is a field.

Which leads me to think, in the material universe, there is no such thing as “nothing” or “empty space” in the philosophical sense. We exist in a medium, through and through.

The corollary to this, is that human beings are primarily made up of electromagnetic fields as well.

Is this nuts? It sounds interesting to me, who am admittedly, a layman when it comes to this stuff.

God bless,
Ut

Of course.
Even Aquinas and Aristotle agreed that the first “accident” (ie sensible property) of a substance is its “extension”.

But what exactly is extension?
Its what we can fit a ruler to, even if a very small one.

And ruler’s in the end don’t “touch” matter. They only stop when opposing forces make them.

So it could be quite possible that the world of 3D “extension” actually has infinitely small mathematical points with fixed force fields (there are 5 types I believe including gravity magnetics and charge) that interact and solid matter is itself a myth.

However what is it that is infinitely small and makes the invisible “substance” at the centre of a force field? Who knows.

But we used to call them electrons, neutrons and protons.

Now they are considered much smaller, more uniform, and stranger. They are called fermions, and there are only 6 different types. And treating them as solid “matter” is only a convention to help us intuitively understand how they act. But increasingly such an analogy with gross human sensible perceptions doesn’t actually help.
They begin to be more unlike gross “matter” than like.

 

[Aloysium]

Neither a philosopher nor a physicist, but finding this fun :twocents::

Question 1:

My understanding is that houses are made of bricks, which are made of molecules, made of atoms, which in turn are made of fundamental particles (fermions and bosons), with the “particular” properties that define them. Now, over 99.9% of the physical universe is in a plasma state, what happens at the heart of a sun, which is just one small step from that which was created in the first picosecond of the universe in the Planck era, and before the Quark era.

This is how I imagine what a “pure” energy would be - white hot brilliance, coming into being. In that state, I imagine, ontologically the material and the spiritual are one, the physical ground from which, shaped by the Word, everything created has its substance, here and now, as it came to be in the first “days” of the cosmos. Since energy and mass (the amount of matter) are equivalent, this could also describe prime matter. It would include the potential to become other substances, which do not exist in isolation but interact. Substances are actions in other words, and the primary action would be a coming into being. We may think of forces as that which gives shape to everything that happens in the material world. There are two described forces acting within the atom, the weak and the strong. In addition there are electromagnetic and gravitational forces. The behaviour is inseparable from the thing itself. Prime matter would be synonymous with energy in that it includes the potential to become all other substance.

That potential would be executed by the Word with the creation of more complex physical entities, as we ourselves would build our home from previously created bricks and mortar, molecules, fundamental particles . . .

Question 2:

I don’t understand the concept of emptiness other than as a relative term. A vacuum is empty of air, for example.

I think the idea of an ether is rather superfluous; space-time doesn’t need to be filled with anything other than what it is in order to allow for the interaction of electrons, protons etc. Neither electron or Higg’s (mentioned by another poster) fields fit with the concept of an aether which binds everything together, they are too specific to the behaviour of the particles with which they are associated to be the universal ground of matter.

Thanks for the opportunity to organize my thoughts.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Neither a philosopher nor a physicist, but finding this fun :twocents::

Question 1:

My understanding is that houses are made of bricks, which are made of molecules, made of atoms, which in turn are made of fundamental particles (fermions and bosons), with the “particular” properties that define them. Now, over 99.9% of the physical universe is in a plasma state, what happens at the heart of a sun, which is just one small step from that which was created in the first picosecond of the universe in the Planck era, and before the Quark era.

This is how I imagine what a “pure” energy would be - white hot brilliance, coming into being. In that state, I imagine, ontologically the material and the spiritual are one, the physical ground from which, shaped by the Word, everything created has its substance, here and now, as it came to be in the first “days” of the cosmos. Since energy and mass (the amount of matter) are equivalent, this could also describe prime matter. It would include the potential to become other substances, which do not exist in isolation but interact. Substances are actions in other words, and the primary action would be a coming into being. We may think of forces as that which gives shape to everything that happens in the material world. There are two described forces acting within the atom, the weak and the strong. In addition there are electromagnetic and gravitational forces. The behaviour is inseparable from the thing itself. Prime matter would be synonymous with energy in that it includes the potential to become all other substance.

That potential would be executed by the Word with the creation of more complex physical entities, as we ourselves would build our home from previously created bricks and mortar, molecules, fundamental particles . . .

Question 2:

I don’t understand the concept of emptiness other than as a relative term. A vacuum is empty of air, for example.

I think the idea of an ether is rather superfluous; space-time doesn’t need to be filled with anything other than what it is in order to allow for the interaction of electrons, protons etc. Neither electron or Higg’s (mentioned by another poster) fields fit with the concept of an aether which binds everything together, they are too specific to the behaviour of the particles with which they are associated to be the universal ground of matter.

Thanks for the opportunity to organize my thoughts.

For someone who isnt a Physicist there is a lot of physics here!
In philosophy Prime Matter PM is not really the pre-existing basic building block of all stuff.
It is a component principle which has no existence by itself…yet we may infer its pervading presence and existence in all things by the things that do exist in the way they exist.

So I am not sure if it could be identified with “energy” and I am not sure what that means.
Energy seems to be an accident (think Aristotle) of matter.
Possibly we could say that matter is an accident of energy…but as energy is not tangible or stable it is probably better to consider matter as the abiding substance with energy being the changeable accident.
Also, force, extension and mass (other accidents) seem to inhere in matter rather than in energy so thats another reason to say energy is an accident of matter.

So if energy is an accident of matter then it does not exist in itself but always exists as a modification of something else existing in itself. Such an accident would not seem to fully qualify for the title of prime matter. PM is the underlying substantial co-component of all things which allows change of substantial form without itself changing. Form is its copartner in the crime of existing.

I think the higgs boson would come closer than energy to being prime matter than energy.
But even this fails. First of all it exists in its own right. Second, while it give mass and possibly energy to all matter it does not give substance to all matter. Matter already seems to exist without needing higgs…even if that matter has no mass or energy.

But then we start quibbling about existence.
Can massless, energy less, forceless matter be said to exist?
Is it even a substance if it is no longer apparent to the senses.

Or if it still exists is this what the ancients meant by spiritual substances?
Higgless Jesus could be standing right next to me and I would never know. Or an angel.

Is this Higgless matter what we mean by “immaterial”. Is this where the angels, heaven and hell may abide…which before medieval times was thought to be on the edge of physical outer space. They were wrong, perhaps that “place” is still a physical place but not sensible to the senses?

 

[yppop]

Blue
Ut
Al
Just curious!. What is it about my Post 2 that didn’t seem like an answer to the basic question, namely, (and I am rephrasing it) which of the four basic elements of objective reality(space, time, energy, or matter) is prime?

I don’t care if you ignore my thoughts but I provided 8 citations from persons with far better credentials than mine that makes it obvious that the foundation of reality is space and it couldn’t possibly be “empty”.

Yppop

 

[IWantGod]

Blue
Ut
Al
Just curious!. What is it about my Post 2 that didn’t seem like an answer to the basic question, namely, (and I am rephrasing it) which of the four basic elements of objective reality(space, time, energy, or matter) is prime?

I don’t care if you ignore my thoughts but I provided 8 citations from persons with far better credentials than mine that makes it obvious that the foundation of reality is space and it couldn’t possibly be “empty”.

Yppop

Where is space? If space began expanding with the Bigbang then i can presume that Its finite and is actually a “thing” in and of itself. Which then raises the question “what is space expanding into?”.

If space isn’t expanding into something then this would imply that Space is everywhere and at the same time “nowhere”.

Am i freaking you out yet?

 

[Aloysium]

. . . . What is it about my Post 2 that didn’t seem like an answer to the basic question, namely, (and I am rephrasing it) which of the four basic elements of objective reality (space, time, energy, or matter) is prime?

I don’t care if you ignore my thoughts but I provided 8 citations from persons with far better credentials than mine that makes it obvious that the foundation of reality is space and it couldn’t possibly be “empty”. . .

The OP asked:

. . . If the matter of everything can theoretically be converted into energy, and energy can be similarly converted into any kind of matter (E = mc2), doesn’t that imply some kind of common principle that unites the two throughout the transformation from one form to another? And wouldn’t it make sense to call this common principle, prime matter?

Is the space between protons, neutrons, and elections really empty? Or is the electron really a field? And if an electron is a field, is there really ever anything like empty space anywhere in our universe? For example, is the electron field really what constitutes an Aether that binds everything together in the universe? . . .

Your rephrasing of the OP’s question is not what I understand it to ask.
I don’t care about the credentials. What is important to me is understanding what is being said, if it holds together and if it helps illuminate bit of the world…

You responded:

. . . The thesis is based on the idea that the space that gives dimensionality to the universe is discrete . . . has gaps between points . . . permeated by the infinite nothingness that came before and exists beyond our finite universe. . . that provides a spiritual component to reality.

Discrete space provides the material component. The basic particle of matter is spatial, nothing more than a deformation in the otherwise homogeneous structure of discrete space. Since the basic particles are immersed in infinite nothingness, all matter has a spiritual component.

. . . reality as a unified whole. Also at the ground of reality, in addition to discrete space, I contend that the impetus that induces motion is information not energy, and reality will be described algorithmically not mathematically. . .

I found the first part a bit confusing. What I got from it is:

• the universe has three dimensions
• space is discrete (individually separate?)
• space has gaps (?)
• infinite nothingness (as opposed to finite nothingness?) (no-thing-ness? = emptiness?)
• spirit is not a thing

The second paragraph does not make things any clearer for me. Some of my thoughts are:

• space is the basis of all matter
• matter is a deformation (?) in space (space would be the fundamental reality of matter, shaped by?)
• “homogeneous structure of discrete space” sounds contradictory; I don’t understand it
• basic particles, which would be sort of nodes in the fabric of space are supposedly immersed again in “infinite nothingness”

In the third, you say that:

• reality is a unified whole, supposedly including discrete space (the meaning of which I don’t understand)
• the impetus that induces motion is information (you need to define this)
• forces induce motion and give energy to the mass, as in the case of a ball falling and gaining kinetic energy
• I don’t know much about computers but, “algorithmically” to me has to do with establishing a set of rules that may govern for example how to do some sort of mathematical computation, but they can go beyond mathematics, as in logic. You can see where I am confused as to what you mean and its significance.

I think you may have something here, but there’s too much static for me to hear.

 

[utunumsint]

Blue
Ut
Al
Just curious!. What is it about my Post 2 that didn’t seem like an answer to the basic question, namely, (and I am rephrasing it) which of the four basic elements of objective reality(space, time, energy, or matter) is prime?

I don’t care if you ignore my thoughts but I provided 8 citations from persons with far better credentials than mine that makes it obvious that the foundation of reality is space and it couldn’t possibly be “empty”.

Yppop

Sorry yppop! I meant no offense. I did read your post and got stuck on some of the terminology (for example, how is nothingness spiritual).

Also, I was approaching prime matter from the Aristotelian point of view, which is essentially that, although prime matter is a real unifying principle of things, it never stands on its own. There is no such thing as prime matter on its own because prime matter never exists without a form. It only explains the continuity of a thing as it sheds one form and takes on another. It only exists on its own as an abstraction in the intellect.

I’ll take a close look at the post next.

God bless!
Ut