Matter could be made up of 'energy fragments'

[UM-Bot]

 

Physicists contemplating the nature of matter have come up with a new way of describing what it is made of.

https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/news/341835/matter-could-be-made-up-of-energy-fragments

[zep73]

Oh that is so cool!

[Kismit]

And you know , all though I am not religious,  this is how I have always thought of God. Not a being who thinks or cares about what we do, or a bearded man who meddles in the affairs of men. But as the energy that makes life possible. 

I really like this article. 

[trevor borocz johnson]

So it is still undefined what matter is made up of? that's what I take away from this article.

[+joc]

How does one measure a 'fragment' of energy?  What is a fragment of energy?  What is energy?  pfffft

[zep73]

1 hour ago, joc said:

How does one measure a 'fragment' of energy?  What is a fragment of energy?  What is energy?  pfffft

It's a conjecture. Purely mathematical. But it does rival General Relativity in its ability to explain the universe.

[XenoFish]

The universe is made of lego's.

[zep73]

The physics community is dumping the idea like yesterday's lunch, calling it a newly graduate crave for attention.

[Grim Reaper 6]

8 hours ago, UM-Bot said:

 

Physicists contemplating the nature of matter have come up with a new way of describing what it is made of.

https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/news/341835/matter-could-be-made-up-of-energy-fragments

It is certainly very interesting, but in reality their new theory does not prove Einstein's theories wrong, in fact they prove that Albert was correct. They gage their theory on a test based upon Alberts theory of both Special and General Relativity. However, in the article they do not discuss his theory of Special Relativity, although they allude to it throughout. I think if anything they have taken nothing away from Einstein's original theories, but it appears they have added to it, which is a great thing. I have always believed that Einstein's Theories of Special and General relativity were light years ahead of the time when Albert theorized them.

I have also been watching to see what would eventually come along that could break down his theories a little further and open them up to further expand upon them. Albert could only do so much in his life time, it has been pretty obvious that his theories were incomplete and never fully finished. So to me it is very exciting to see a new theory that has come along that not only agrees with Special and General Relativity but also supports it completely and uses it to verify that the new theory is another part in the jigsaw puzzle of Physics and our understanding of the Universe.

For the precession-of-Mercury problem, we modeled the Sun as an enormous stationary fragment of energy and Mercury as a smaller but still enormous slow-moving fragment of energy. For the bending-of-light problem, the Sun was modeled the same way, but the photon was modeled as a minuscule fragment of energy moving at the speed of light. In both problems, we calculated the trajectories of the moving fragments and got the same answers as those predicted by the theory of general relativity. We were stunned.

Thanks very much for sharing this UN-BOT

[Grim Reaper 6]

5 hours ago, trevor borocz johnson said:

So it is still undefined what matter is made up of? that's what I take away from this article.

Actually it is not really unknown, basically matter is a combination of like they say here energy particles or forms of energy based Plasma that are combined into forms that make up the build blocks of everything. Maybe some day those individual segments, or particles of energy based plasma will be broken down into their individual components or building blocks, but based upon our knowledge as it is today, there are many more important things we should focus on learning first.

JIMO

Take care my friend

[Grim Reaper 6]

7 hours ago, Kismit said:

And you know , all though I am not religious,  this is how I have always thought of God. Not a being who thinks or cares about what we do, or a bearded man who meddles in the affairs of men. But as the energy that makes life possible. 

I really like this article. 

Yes it was very very good and totally enlightening.

[+Razman]

Wasn't it always made up of cells or atoms or molecules?

[+Razman]

10 hours ago, Kismit said:

And you know , all though I am not religious,  this is how I have always thought of God. Not a being who thinks or cares about what we do, or a bearded man who meddles in the affairs of men. But as the energy that makes life possible. 

I really like this article. 

I am not religious either. I think of god in much the same way. Thus god has never intervened here in anything , but is the "energy of life" (the source). Perhaps we are created in his image(his image being a creator),and we are creating this world in real time. Everything . Ourselves i mean.

Edited December 14, 2020 by razman

[Kismit]

6 hours ago, zep73 said:

The physics community is dumping the idea like yesterday's lunch, calling it a newly graduate crave for attention.

The math is way beyond me. Is there any link to information from the physics community countering this?

[Tom1200]

Don't get too excited by this idea.  It's not actually new; it does not make any testable predictions, nor explain anything that hasn't already been understood (for over 100 years).  The OP links to a summary in the_conversation but the full article is published in physics_essays.  I haven't read this paper, as I'm unwilling to pay the $25 fee and I'm unlikely to follow all their complex maths and 'logic'.  However I can still make these general observations:

Dr Silverberg is an expert in 'Dynamics. System modeling and algorithm development for autonomy and exploration.'  His published papers cover a wide range of topics including two on the best way to score in basketball.  He has degrees and a Ph.D. in Engineering Mechanics.  There is no suggestion on his website lmsilver that he has any experience or expertise in theoretical physics. ( I'm not disparaging the learned professor, just questioning his capability and credibility in these specific matters.)

The most recent edition of Physics Essays provides links to 16 articles, half of which are arguing that Einstein got it wrong, and offering various improvements.  (Again, I have not accessed any of these to critique specific theories.)  This certainly suggests that this is a journal that is more receptive to fringe ideas than more mainstream academia.

Here is their abstract (with my highlights):

This article introduces a new field theory formulation. The new field theory formulation recognizes vector continuity as a general principle and begins with a field that satisfies vector continuity equations. Next, independent of the new formulation, this article introduces a new space-time adjustment. Then, we solve the one-body gravitational problem by applying the space-time adjustment to the new field theory formulation. With the space-time adjustment, the new formulation predicts precisely the same precession of Mercury and the same bending of light as general relativity. The reader will find the validating calculations to be simple. The equations of motion that govern the orbital equations are in terms of Cartesian coordinates and time. An undergraduate college student, with direction, can perform the validations.

In my (limited) experience, any theory that introduces a new, inexplicable, 'fudge-factor' is likely to be wrong.  Einstein himself learned that the hard way, when he invented the cosmological constant to overcome the inevitable collapse of his relativistic universe.  (He later described it as the 'biggest blunder' of his life; it actually stopped him from predicting the Big Bang and the expansion of the Universe a decade before Hubble's discoveries.)¹  It would seem that the authors have introduced their own space-time adjustment to make their theory match observations, but that is a false approach and does nothing to explain the reality of nature.  I could invent a coherent theory based on custard cream biscuits, so long as you accept my axioms and a handful of credibility adjustments!

 

¹ And as we are now beginning to realise he probably wasn't wrong after all...  space.com

[zep73]

7 hours ago, Kismit said:

The math is way beyond me. Is there any link to information from the physics community countering this?

This comes from scienceforums.net:

Quote

I have serious doubts about the plausibility of an idea like this. Trying not to insist on previous points, with which I very much agree:

1st of all, similar ideas have been tried for centuries: anything that satisfies local conservation will spread following an inverse square law when expressed in the right variables

2nd, energy is not even an invariant or covariant concept, in GR it's not even well defined in general

3rd, energy is a very derived concept, constructed in each case from many different variables that do not relate to each other (charge, spin, non-linear terms in the Einstein tensor in the case of gravitational waves).

4rth, how does it relate to gauge charge, which is invariant?

5th, energy is bosonic, not fermionic, how does it build up fermionic states?

6th, reports of a new ToE candidate coming from the blackboards of young science professionals trying to draw attention to their speculations are ten a penny lately; the press is partly to blame for this noise effect

And so on, and so on.

If they can explain the Aharonov-Bohm effect with "just energy", I will eat my words, I promise.

I know they can't.

But no one has peer reviewed the actual paper yet, AFAIK.

Edited December 14, 2020 by zep73

[pbarosso]

a theory of everything.

[pallidin]

Well, Duuuuhhhhh !!!

Electrons, Neutrons and the composite quarks of Protons ARE pure energy.

That is what "matter" is composed of.

[Buzz_Light_Year]

On 12/13/2020 at 5:07 PM, XenoFish said:

The universe is made of lego's.

And a supernova is when God steps on one.