Matter from Light

[Sriram]

Hi everyone,

Here is an article about the creation of matter from light as predicted by Breit and Wheeler in 1936. 

https://scitechdaily.com/scientists-generate-matter-directly-from-light-physics-phenomena-predicted-more-than-80-years-ago/

************

The primary finding is that pairs of electrons and positrons—particles of matter and antimatter—can be created directly by colliding very energetic photons, which are quantum “packets” of light. This conversion of energetic light into matter is a direct consequence of Einstein’s famous E=mc2 equation, which states that energy and matter (or mass) are interchangeable. Nuclear reactions in the sun and at nuclear power plants regularly convert matter into energy. Now scientists have converted light energy directly into matter in a single step.

“Our results provide clear evidence of direct, one-step creation of matter-antimatter pairs from collisions of light as originally predicted by Breit and Wheeler,” Brandenburg said.

************

It could be that Light came before matter. Interesting!

Cheers.

Sriram

[Sriram]

In many traditions God is seen as a form of Light.

[Stranger]

It could be that Light came before matter. Interesting!

In many traditions God is seen as a form of Light.

Light is (a very limited range of) electromagnetic radiation (photons) and photons (according to our best theories at the moment) wouldn't have been a separate thing until electroweak symmetry breaking about 10^-12s after the BB. Whether that was before 'matter' rather depends on how you want to define matter (which isn't consistently defined in physics).

This experiment has little bearing on what actually happened before then because we wouldn't even be dealing with the same set of particles until that time.

[Sriram]

'Let there be Light'

The bible says that Light was first.....   Makes sense!

[Stranger]

The bible says that Light was first.....

No, it doesn't.

"1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. 3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light." -- Genesis 1:1-3 (NIV)

Makes sense!

Only if you ignore science (see my previous post) and the bible and just make it up.   

[ProfessorDavey]

No, it doesn't.

"1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. 3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light." -- Genesis 1:1-3 (NIV)

Only if you ignore science (see my previous post) and the bible and just make it up.   

Indeed - so according to the bible matter came before light.

But also there is the perverse notion that the earth, including water, existed before the light-giving sun around which the earth rotates.

Also how on earth could water in liquid form exist without the sun, which is the source of heat as well as light.

But of course what is written in Genesis is complete nonsense as the writers had absolutely no understanding of the origins of the earth within the context of the universe.

[ProfessorDavey]

In many traditions God is seen as a form of Light.

Likely because humans are diurnal and therefore associate dark with danger and light the reverse.

I suspect had humans evolved as a nocturnal species we'd associate dark with god and light with danger/evil.

[Sriram]

During NDE's people see 'beings of light'.

[Outrider]

During NDE's people see 'beings of light'.

No. Following NDE's people report memories of having perceived 'beings of light' - whilst that's evidence that they may have seen something, it's not definitive for any number of reasons, and there are a number of explanations which do not rely on unverified ideas like 'spirit' and 'afterlife'.

O.

[Sriram]

No. Following NDE's people report memories of having perceived 'beings of light' - whilst that's evidence that they may have seen something, it's not definitive for any number of reasons, and there are a number of explanations which do not rely on unverified ideas like 'spirit' and 'afterlife'.

O.

You expect all aspects of life and human experience to be as precisely verifiable as matters relating to physics. That is the problem.

[ProfessorDavey]

You expect all aspects of life and human experience to be as precisely verifiable as matters relating to physics. That is the problem.

Nope - I think Outrider expects explanations for phenomena to be based on evidence. Sriram - you on the other hand seem to base your explanations for phenomena on what you wish to be true rather than on what the evidence suggests.

[Sriram]

NDE's are evidence...!

[ProfessorDavey]

NDE's are evidence...!

They are a phenomenon - what we were discussing was an explanation for that phenomenon and that explanation should be based on evidence.

[Sriram]

Precisely the point I was making in Message 9 above....

[ProfessorDavey]

Precisely the point I was making in Message 9 above....

What point - message 9 was you rather condescendingly dismissing Outrider's expectation for there to be evidence in support of an explanation for a phenomenon.

[Outrider]

You expect all aspects of life and human experience to be as precisely verifiable as matters relating to physics. That is the problem.

If you have no verification for your claim, you have nothing. Your (presumed) explanation of an afterlife is exactly as valid as Doctor Who's suggestion of the cyberman versions of parallel universe copies of our relatives being the source of such visions - which is to say of no validity at all.

No-one is questioning, so far as I'm aware, the fact that people are reporting these experience, they're just giving better evidenced explanations for the source of those experiences. It's not definitive, but it's a more likely explanation than 'magic, but with a culturally significant historical origin' which is all that differentiates your claims of explanations for 'beings of light. from those of Tolkien.

O.

[Sriram]

There is no 'magic' in an after-life. It is just a fact of life.  Everything is not physics that one can find measurable evidence.

[ProfessorDavey]

There is no 'magic' in an after-life.

Really - how else do you explain it.

It is just a fact of life.

Really - new definition of 'fact' which is think is something proven to be true, which will therefore require evidence.

[Outrider]

There is no 'magic' in an after-life.

Given that neither you nor anyone else appears capable of demonstrating what is in it, 'magic' as a catch-all term for supernatural woo seems justified.

It is just a fact of life.

No. It's not any sort of fact at all, it's an assertion at best, and fairy tale nonsense at worst.

Everything is not physics that one can find measurable evidence.

I'm not sure exactly what this means, so if I've misinterpreted I apologise, but it appears that you were going for a sort of 'there is more in heaven and Earth than is dreamt of in your philosophy' claim that there is more to reality than just what can be scientifically demonstrated.

That's entirely possible, yes. It's not confirmed, though, it's not even vaguely supported by anything other than baseless claims. The problem isn't that there might be things that currently aren't, or even potentially can't, be demonstrated by scientific enquiry.

The problem for your claims is that you don't have anything else. Not that you don't have something better, or only equally as valid, you have nothing at all. You have no methodology by which your claims could be even slightly supported or validated, you just have claims fired off like fireworks to flash into nothing a few seconds after they've been launched.

In theory you don't need a material explanation, and you don't need material evidence, but you do need some explanation, and you do need some methodology to support that explanation.

O.

[Sriram]

Given that neither you nor anyone else appears capable of demonstrating what is in it, 'magic' as a catch-all term for supernatural woo seems justified.

No. It's not any sort of fact at all, it's an assertion at best, and fairy tale nonsense at worst.

I'm not sure exactly what this means, so if I've misinterpreted I apologise, but it appears that you were going for a sort of 'there is more in heaven and Earth than is dreamt of in your philosophy' claim that there is more to reality than just what can be scientifically demonstrated.

That's entirely possible, yes. It's not confirmed, though, it's not even vaguely supported by anything other than baseless claims. The problem isn't that there might be things that currently aren't, or even potentially can't, be demonstrated by scientific enquiry.

The problem for your claims is that you don't have anything else. Not that you don't have something better, or only equally as valid, you have nothing at all. You have no methodology by which your claims could be even slightly supported or validated, you just have claims fired off like fireworks to flash into nothing a few seconds after they've been launched.

In theory you don't need a material explanation, and you don't need material evidence, but you do need some explanation, and you do need some methodology to support that explanation.

O.

You are right about what I meant.

Humans do not always need additional corroborative evidence for what they have experienced. More so when thousands of others have similar experiences under similar circumstances. Much more so when critical care doctors have confirmed the death and resuscitation of the patient and confirm activities  in the hospital that the patient has seen.

Scientism is a real phenomenon that needs to be avoided at all cost.

[ProfessorDavey]

Humans do not always need additional corroborative evidence for what they have experienced. More so when thousands of others have similar experiences under similar circumstances.

But there is a difference between a perceived experience and understanding what causes that experience. That millions of people have the same experience doesn't mean they understand what causes that experience, and it very common for people to get the explanation completely wrong.

So on another thread you are talking about Galileo - well in the past there would have been millions of people who had exactly the same experience every day - seeing the sun rise over the horizon, travel overhead and disappear below the other horizon. While they all had that experience for centuries people got the explanation completely wrong - they inferred that the earth was static and the sun rotated around the earth. They were of course completely wrong as we now understand that this phenomenon (and people's experiences of it) is caused firstly by the earth rotating on its axis and secondly by the earth rotating around the sun. So millions of people having an experience and even inferring a cause doesn't mean that the cause is correct. What gets us from the earlier (wrong) explanation to the later (correct) explanation is evidence. And so it is with so-called near death experiences - an incorrect name as the same phenomena occur in situation with similar physiological stress but no proximity to death.

Much more so when critical care doctors have confirmed the death and resuscitation of the patient and confirm activities  in the hospital that the patient has seen.

Again misrepresenting the reality - these aren't situations where a person dies and comes back to life - they are situations where a person comes close to death but retains critical physiological activities, most notably brain activity. And as mentioned above other circumstances that produce the same physiological stress, but aren't associated with proximity to death, produce the same phenomena.

[Outrider]

Humans do not always need additional corroborative evidence for what they have experienced.

Some humans, I'd say. Some people will accept explanations that feel comfortable, regardless of whether they can sufficiently justify them. I'm not one of those people, and there are an increasing number like me. We do need corroboration, because without some way to validate claims you end up with competing opinions and no way to determine between them.

More so when thousands of others have similar experiences under similar circumstances.

Again, no-one is doubting the experiences, they're just manifestly aware that human senses are fallible, and human interpretation of sensory experience is fallible, and human neurology in the absence of sensory input is also fallible, and so someone's claim of what they believe they saw is not an automatic guarantee that the event they are claiming actually happened. They don't need to be lying in order to be wrong.

Much more so when critical care doctors have confirmed the death and resuscitation of the patient and confirm activities in the hospital that the patient has seen.

Notwithstanding that particular interpretation of 'died' is not universal... if the entirely awake doctors in the area can confirm that physical phenomena have been observed, which is the more likely explanation; that the patient retained some degree of sensory function, or that their spirit went walkabout?

Scientism is a real phenomenon that needs to be avoided at all cost.

Scientism is the presumption that science is the only possible avenue of exploration, and that's not what's happening here. What's happening here is that you're shouting 'scientism' in an attempt to equate baseless claims with well-evidenced scientific enquiry. Science may not be the only path, but - again - you don't just get to put unsupported assertions up against on that basis, you need an alternate, reliable, demonstrable methodology. 'Lots of people believe' is not a methodology, it's a logical fallacy (argumentum ad populum). 'A scientist believes...' is not a methodology, it's a logical fallacy (argument from authority). 'Ancient practices tell us...' is not a methodology, it's a logical fallacy (argumentum ad antiquitatem). 'Scientism is wrong...' is not a methodology, it's an informal fallacy (tu quoque).

O.

O.

[jeremyp]

You are right about what I meant.

Humans do not always need additional corroborative evidence for what they have experienced. More so when thousands of others have similar experiences under similar circumstances. Much more so when critical care doctors have confirmed the death and resuscitation of the patient and confirm activities  in the hospital that the patient has seen.

People don't come back from death. If they were resuscitated, they weren't dead. If they weren't dead, then maybe they were, in some sense, aware of what was going on around them.

Anyway, that doesn't really matter. These are near death experiences. They are experiences that happen just before you die and there is no evidence that they continue to happen the same after your brain ceases activity.

Scientism is a real phenomenon that needs to be avoided at all cost.

The trouble you've got is that there is no known way of finding out about the World without doing science (which really just means testing your ideas to see if they are true). Turning scientism into an insult is, at best, dishonest.

[Sriram]

What 'scientific' method do you people suggest to verify whether the patients have actually witnessed an after-life?

[ProfessorDavey]

What 'scientific' method do you people suggest to verify whether the patients have actually witnessed an after-life?

You are the one making the claim so the onus is on you to determine the methods to use to verify your assertion. And they will need to be credible, objective, reliable and reproducible (i.e. scientific) if anyone is going take your claim seriously.

Meanwhile, the rest of us will use robust, credible, objective, reliable and reproducible methods to demonstrate neuronal activities associated with the experience of such phenomenon and demonstrate that they are linked to certain types of physiological stress which may, or may not, be linked to a near death state, thereby decoupling the experience of phenomena and the associated neurological activity from the process of dying.