This was fantastic! I love the breakdown of Matter as Mother and the symbolic analysis of our current world. Beautifully poetic and enlightening on many levels.
Pater & Mater. ❤❤ Just thoughts here. As a Christian, I cannot help but think of the Divine Conception-- Holy Spirit & Mary = DNA entangling in conception of 3rd person. A being both Human & Divine~ manifesting in a new form and type of human being which we can conciously engage.
I'd give you 1 million dollars if you could explain anything they are saying. None of this is scientific. They repeat terms from science and concepts but do not explain anything. Breaking down words and numbers meaning is useless mumbojumbo. Taking meaning to this verbal diarrhea from both of these idiots is like taking advice from an AI chatbot. Sounds like a real conversation but is just nonsense unless you apply your own personal meaning to it.
"All matter is a condensation of light into patterns moving back and forth at average speeds which are less than the speed of light. You could say that when we come to light we are coming to the fundamental activity in which existence has its ground, or at least coming close to it.’ -Bohm
@zabtej1645 the only time speed is used in my comment is the first sentence. I don't see anything there that needs defining. Speed is defined as distance over time. The distance covered in an interval of tlme.
@@zabtej1645 Incorrect. If light was not moving, how would light from the sun have ever reached Earth? Also, if something is not moving, it still has a speed of 0. Speed is just a rate.
I think the most important point being made in this discussion, inadvertently by the way, is the necessity of having precise language. And I think that observation would bear out the fact that the language needs to be much more precise then exists in conversation, which is why, ultimately, we lean on mathematics. "Unfortunately, nobody can be told what the matrix is; - They have to see it for themselves. " - Morpheous
@@TheRoadLessChosen Math in general is a natural reflection of physics. A precise reflection. The words we use can also reflect that connection, but words are nebulous and broad-beamed compared to the precise language of mathematics. Words can have the advantage of helping us in descriptive rendering before we render the ideas into math. The words can help to get us closer to the more precise mathematical description. We have to find the words first before we can find the math.
Except, the light isn't really frozen. You are traveling at the speed of light in some other universe. You're just having a solid experience because you're traveling at the same speed of the photons around you. You're not really frozen. You're just moving at the same speed.
@@antpoo The reason it's referred to as bound energy is because 99+% of all the mass in protons and really 100% of the mass of electrons ( their interaction with the Higgs Field forcing them to change direction back and forth along their paths ) is due to inertia... the forcing of these fundamental particles ( referring to quarks in the case of protons ) to change direction, as a result, binding them to a general area IS what gives them their mass. The idea of light being " frozen " gives the implication of absolute zero which is why I don't like it.
@@antpoo Yeah I know. It is a type of bridge to give some idea to anyone that doesn't spend a lot of time on the subject. I'll admit I also kind of cringe when the concept of the Higgs Field is made analogous to " molasses " lol Sometimes I just gotta take a step back and chill.
Agreed. Perhaps solid objects are just the result of something similar to surface tension, but with exponentially more strength to repel and happening consistently throughout an object.
@@geoffgjof The quantum world is pretty freaking weird no matter how you slice it. I mean think about resting your hands on a desk. The thing you feel as touch is the same electromagnetic force that you experience feeling a magnet repel a same charge side of another magnet, just much more greatly amplified. In the case of resting your hands on a desk, it's the repulsion of the valence electrons that make up the matter of your skin against the valence electrons of the atoms that make up the desk. And the strength of EM is so great compared to Gravity ( generally 10^36ish times greater ) that you can repel the entire force of the Earth's gravity by lifting up an apple with 2 fingers 🤣
@@kyzercube Yeah, it's pretty cool. I actually think it's all the same force, it just basically comes down to electron density along an exponential scale. Gravity is the force happening over a more distributed space, so the electron density is way less. Our brains think "earth big means more force" but if it's according to the density of electrons then it means solids repelling at the surface (and even liquids like water) are enough to overcome the more distributed force. However, once you get past any barrier that has more electron density then it is easier to move through it. This is why air is so easy to move through, while liquids have more resistance. The more evenly distributed the electrons are throughout the entire structure, the more solid an object is. And the closer the electrons are to each other the easier it is for energy to transfer through (that's how conductors work). Of of this follows the rules of entropy and thermo dynamics. It's just not based on linear thinking. And there are instances of density changes along the surfaces of objects that lead people astray. But I think we'll eventually find that gravity is just electromagnetism due to electron density. And when you have massive objects like planets, or stars, then the relative magnestism of any other smaller object is kind of irrelevant. I think once we finally measure earth's gravitational pull more precisely we'll see that it's not quite constant for every object. But the insanely miniscule amount of difference will essentially still be negligible and that's why our equations with the constant work.
Great interview - thanks. Rupert, firstly thank you for your pragmatic presentation, it is great to hear you touching on deeper issues beyond just the 'mechanics' of matter and mass. If I may paraphrase; around 3:50 in this video you intimated... "Mass of matter has two aspects: Inertial mass that binds it to a state of motion and a place, The Broglie equation tells us that the frequency of a masses vibration is proportional to the mass involved, the faster it vibrates i.e. the more mass it has then the more it is tied to its place. And the gravitational effect relating to mass where all matter is interconnected throughout the universe, so a particle of matter has to know where it is and how much of it there is so that it can react to the other masses appropriately. Its much much more mysterious than just little billiard balls trundling around" "...it has to know where it is..." Indeed. That is a fundamental issue with our current view of the 'subatomic' world. Researchers tell us that various particles behave in certain defined ways; electrons repel each other, but are attracted to protons etc etc. My base-line query is: how does an electron 'know' that it has to act that way? As an occasional builder of small robots, I can quickly appreciate the systems needed by the electron and all other particles. These include: a) a sense of 'self' and knowledge of the properties of itself. (I'm an electron and I have a negative charge and a mass of so many ev, a spin to the left and I fear I may have left a heater on in my bedroom!). b) a navigation system which tells it where it is, and its current position and velocity in relation to the universe. c) a sensor suite which is able to detect the position, velocity and identity of every other particle in the total actual universe - not just our 'observable universe' (all quite straightforward stuff, provided one has enough RAM). Indeed, since the influences on our electron can legitimately extend beyond any arbitrary boundaries of 'our' universe, the sensors need to detect 'everything there is', just 'everything', not just 'our universe'. d) a look up table which defines the properties of those particles near and far and provides instructions on how our electron must respond to the influences of those particles (another electron close by: move away at a certain acceleration and direction. A massive galaxy 50 megaparsecs away - say the local Great Attractor - then swing on by, etc). e) a calculating engine which can combine all the influences of every particle in the actual universe upon our electron to provide a singular direction and speed instruction, and to provide control outputs at a rate that is appropriate to the electrons' situation. A sub-Plank-Time control loop frequency would seem to be necessary to sustain an orbit around a nucleus with reasonable fidelity, and to avoid unfortunate collisions with other nearby particles. f) a means of propulsion which enables the electron to move in the required directions and velocities. g) an energy source to sustain the 'self'; to power the sensor suite and motion system; and to run the on-board compute required to operate the entire electron unit, in perpetuity, of course. I am perturbed when I hear researchers say that a particular particle or even a tangible mass like Newton's apple behaves in a certain way; my reflex question is always: how does it know that it should do that, and how does it do it? An electron-robot is a very complex and wonderful thing, with almost every necessary attribute as yet undiscovered. Thanks again. We would appreciate you comments!!
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:27 *🌌 Matter, historically, is viewed in different ways, now seen as vibratory processes in quantum theory.* 02:05 *🌀 Light energy can be trapped in matter, leading to the idea of matter being localized in place.* 03:26 *⚖️ Mass has two aspects: inertial mass (binding matter to a place or state of motion) and gravitational mass.* 05:10 *🔬 The Higgs boson particle is believed to link massive objects to an underlying field, explaining inertial mass.* 08:36 *💧 Matter exists in various states beyond solid, including liquid, gas, and plasma, each with different properties.* 10:27 *⚛️ Energy and fields are seen as underlying principles in physical reality, shaping matter in different forms.* 17:23 *🧱 Matter and form are interconnected in various levels, with form giving structure to the underlying matter.* 21:58 *🔢 Quantities have a historical and cultural context, with different ways of perceiving numbers and measurements.* 27:15 *❤️ Attraction and repulsion are fundamental in matter due to the interaction of protons and electrons, reflecting basic emotional patterns.* 29:26 *🔮 Materialism can be viewed as an unconscious cult of the "great mother," representing a rebellion against earlier mechanistic views.* 30:36 *🌌 Gravitational attraction can be seen as a final cause within matter, drawing everything together, reflecting a purposeful aspect of the universe.* 33:43 *🔭 Physics introduces the concept of dark matter, highlighting the mysterious and unknown aspects within the universe.* 37:32 *🤔 Matter remains more mysterious than we perceive, with ongoing changes in cosmology, panpsychism, and the understanding of the Big Bang origin story.* Made with HARPA AI
I’m going out of my way to try to communicate this concept to my young children as they learn. Anyone who claims to know all there is to know on any topic is highly suspect. The joy of learning, of existing, is found in the questions we pursue.
@@ColinPaddockThe more I learn the more I feel imposter syndrome. I look at the depth of things and recognize that, I have no place in making changes in these fields. I see the pure depth and complexity recognizing that to achieve one must dedicate one's entire life. I also see how difficult it is with informational paradoxes that exist in the Universe that everything might just always be a mystery. It blows my mind doubly so. I know my limitations. I'm not very intelligent since I can't apply my intelligence toward goals. I may have a high IQ but applying myself toward goals is the most difficult thing. As well I have an absolutely terrible memory, relatively slow mental processing speed, and almost zero ability to conjure images in my mind's eye. Yet somehow against all odds I'm above average! Just goes to show how meaningless IQ tests are if you can't apply it. I recognize patterns to a very large extent. That is it that isn't really applicable to intelligence in the real world. If anything it gives me disassociation and despair I'm overwhelmed by the sheer complexity of reality and feel as though all cultural norms have shattered no longer relating to anyone or anything I'm a robot around other people dead inside. Posting this comment was quite pointless indeed as well.
read the article, "Light is Heavy" by Nobel physicist Gerard 't Hooft and Martin van der Mark - matter is indeed light!! Great David Bohm quote. I've been corresponded with Bohm's collaborator Basil J. Hiley. Professor Hiley emphasizes noncommutativity as the secret of reality. I recommend you study noncommutativity. thanks
I'm sorry, but I couldn't find any information about an article titled "Light is Heavy" authored by Martin van de Mark and Gerard 't Hooft. It's possible that this article may be from a specialized or niche publication, or it may not be widely available online. If you have more context or details about this article, such as where it was published or when it was written.
@@0.618-0 It's on arxiv - which is the "preprint" for science academic articles (Unless your Nobel Physicist Brian Josephson who get rejected by arxiv - meaning arxiv is still closed-minded. hahaha). Physics > History and Philosophy of Physics [Submitted on 26 Aug 2015] Light is Heavy M.B. van der Mark, G.W. 't Hooft Einstein's relativity theory appears to be very accurate, but at times equally puzzling. On the one hand, electromagnetic radiation must have zero rest mass in order to propagate at the speed of light, but on the other hand, since it definitely carries momentum and energy, it has non-zero inertial mass. Hence, by the principle of equivalence, it must have non-zero gravitational mass, and so, light must be heavy. In this paper, no new results will be derived, but a possibly surprising perspective on the above paradox is given.
Wow. I've had a lot of these thoughts since childhood and generally alone with them, so it's nice to share them with you both. Thank you for an enlightening chat.
It sounds so beautiful, matter is frozen light, Goethe said music was frozen architecture if I remember it right. Rupert and Mark, you are obviously masters of the mind in many ways, but I cannot help wishing that I could see what the end of this century is going to look like.
@@marklmansfield GGGGGGreat to hear from you. I believe that is the quote I read from Geothe. Architecture is frozen music is how I recall it, but I've been wrong on quotes most of my life...
A deeper look into the equation E=MC² to begin, we will denote M as total mass and m1 dark m2 light as fractional representations of total mass M. This allows m1 and m2 to function as fractions of M and multiply as such. Space: Variations in spatial coordinates affect how 𝑐1 and 𝑐2 are perceived. For example, the distribution of mass or energy in space can change how these quantities are measured. Time: Time variations can affect 𝑐1 and 𝑐2 as the system evolves. For example, kinetic and potential energies change over time. In relativity, measurements of time and space depend on the observer’s frame of reference. This means that 𝑐1 and 𝑐2 can vary based on relative motion and gravitational effects. Dynamic Adjustment: c1(x,t) and c2(x,t) where x represents spatial coordinates and t represents time. Sum and Product Relationships: c1(x,t) + c2(x,t)=C c1(x,t) × c2(x,t)=C² Here, 𝐶 and C² are constants, while 𝑐1 and 𝑐2 vary with space and time. Kinetic and Potential Energy: In a system with varying spatial distribution, 𝑐1 and 𝑐2 represent different forms of energy. As the system evolves in time and space, these energies adjust while maintaining their sum and product relationships. Gravitational Effects: In a gravitational field, mass distribution affects the measurements of energy and can cause 𝑐1 and 𝑐2 to vary depending on location and time. Relativistic Variations: For different observers in relative motion, c1 and c2 might be perceived differently due to time dilation and length contraction. Despite these variations, the fundamental relationships 𝑐1+𝑐2=𝐶 and c1×𝑐2=C² hold true within each observer’s frame. Spacetime Interactions: Changes in spacetime curvature and metric can affect 𝑐1 and 𝑐2, but their interactions still reflect the underlying constants. Functions of Space and Time: Define c1(x,t) and c2 (x,t) such that: c1(x,t)+c2(x,t)=C c1(x,t)xc2(x,t)=C² Consistency: Ensure that as x and t vary, c1 and 𝑐2 adjust dynamically but satisfy these equations at every point. Observer Frames: For different frames of reference, adjust c1(x,t) and c2(x,t) based on the observer’s motion and gravitational field. The relationships c1+c2=C and c1×c2=C² remain consistent in each frame, reflecting how energy and mass interact in spacetime. Quadratic Relationship: The relationship between 𝑐1 and c2 can be framed as roots of a quadratic equation: x2−Cx+c2=0 where 𝑐1 and c2 are the roots. The dynamic nature means that for different values of t, 𝑐1 and 𝑐2 adjust accordingly but still satisfy the equation Consider a specific example where C and C² are given: Let C=5 and C²=6. The quadratic equation becomes: 𝑥2−5𝑥+6=0 factoring this, (x−2)(x−3)=0 so the roots are c1=2 and c2=3. Sum: c1 + c2 = 2 + 3=5 Product: c1 × c2 = 2 × 3=6 If 𝑐1 and 𝑐2 are dynamic functions of a parameter t, then they can adjust while maintaining the sum and product relationships. For example suppose 𝑐1(𝑡)=𝛼(𝑡) and 𝑐2(𝑡)=𝛽(𝑡) you could define, 𝛼(𝑡)+𝛽(𝑡)=𝐶 & α(t)×β(t)=C² as t changes α(t) and 𝛽(𝑡) adjust, but their sum and product still match the specified C and C².
This reminds me of the theory of “microvita” developed by P.R. Sarkar, the Renaissance spiritual teacher. Microvita are subtle matter that is smaller and more fundamental than quantum or string theory describes. There are lots of TH-cam videos about microvita.
The materialist empiricist paradigm has failed. You cannot get mind from non mind. So science denies that mind exists. But that’s obviously false because the one thing we know for sure is that we think, therefore we have minds. Surely the non physical nature of photons points to the mental nature of photons. But none of this examination is possible under the materialist paradigm. Instead, a backwards denial of the mind is undertaken and all instances of zero and infinity being solutions to quantum mechanical equations are airbrushed out of academia. Because zero and infinity are the numbers of the mind but we are forced to pretend that mind doesn’t exist.
Old crack potters vs. new un damaged vessels? Or just younger and still cracked? Like our species hasn't the hardware to observe the big picture? We re Like a dog learning algebra?
The magic of the 21st century is that thinking free willed minds can be fully convinced that they are not thinking free willed minds and instead mere robots.
The unfortunate thing about TH-cam is that some fart of a person can put his twopence worth in and call them ‘old crackpoters’. I tend to think that the vocabulary you have used belongs to a complete fart, perhaps more to that of an arsehole?
@@chuckcantillon4764We have mechanical eyes floating in heaven watching in invisible light the young eon of the cosmos. We replay the initial conditions mere instance after the birth of our universe. We are very far from dogs doing algebra. While it is hard to know something is true or not, it is very easy to know if it is false. So even if we are ignorent the true nature of existance, we can be confidence in our knowledge of what it is not.
I recall the idea of “crystallization” in understanding the images served on a “high definition” television screen for mass consumption. So this idea of “froze light” has connotations of hard or immobile: inanimate; yet it has somehow captured something of the animate spirit: light. I am reminded of Barfield’s essay The Harp & The Camera where he suggests the evolution from the premodern to modern modes of perception by metaphor. I am also reminded of George MacDonalds essays on the imagination in which he talks about the light within all incarnate nature & the Father of Lights.
@@laserhobbyist9751 I can’t call it. Where is freedom found? Perhaps it’s in the dynamic alternation between unity & multiplicity. Is incarnation an imprisonment to finitude? Maybe. Or maybe it’s some kind of freedom to individuate? I just have lots of questions.
Wind among many other contributions transfer the promiscuous energy into ocean water, when waves crash on the sand, you feel the energy escaping, body surfing or getting pinned to the bottom , the energy leaves the water, so the light energy is trapped in matter? Or temporarily being promiscuous as matter , until when?
Fine structure constant is a number with no units attached to it? Every other number seems to have units of time or distance. How is the FSC different?
One could say that as light is one manifestation of energy. Energy converts to matter (stored energy) and when heating up, matter returns to radiant energy again
Thank you! I’ve been exploring the concept of our ability to see and touch things may depend on how cold they are. A perfect temperature for physicality to occur. It was just a thought I had one day. This helped put some better words to this concept!
IMPORTANT ADDITION: In an non-naive idealistic worldview, matter is a relational expression between the (personal) observer and a transpersonal mentation (Φ in IIT). It's interaction resists and collapses into relata or matter. Matter is meaningful and subjective for each observer. It's seemingly objective qualities (it's quantities) are a consequence of the similarities between the observers... That's why most humans share a consensus meta reality. Matter is not objective out there it is experienced as objective because we are similar agents and have a similar relation to Φ.
I kinda feel like we took a wrong turn at the atom vs Leibniz's monad fork in the road, though we have learned a great deal traveling the atomic road. I feel like once we realized atoms were divisible then we should have gone back to the infinitely divisible monad (which, by the way, you brought up the soul atoms 😊 and philosophically the monad fits quite well that particle). What are your thoughts, on monads? I mean Leibniz was a pretty smart guy. We still use his calculus notations. I am referring to Leibniz's monad for this question, though i believe Plato's formulation is one in the same just more primitive.
How so? That was literally the basis of the statement. Philosophically atoms are indivisible. We haven't found one of those yet, afaik. They keep finding ways to divide them 😅 right? Do we have proof of indivisibles? I'm honestly asking. Or is it just a 'we're gonna stop here cause it's too small to test or mean anything?'
@@TruthQuestian78 Is that your argument? It is technically impossible to say definitively that "atoms" (indivisible units) exist, we might not be trying hard enough, therefore atoms does not exist and everything is infinitely divisible. You did not see any problem with this line of reasoning?
So what creates the blue print of what field goes where and why? What causes light to take a specific form for a specific purpose and what determines field type and location?
Glad to see someone else thinks this. Furthermore, I suspect that it's darkmatter that "freezes" it. That their respective existence is perceived by us simultaneously is why we've never been able to "find" darkmatter.
39:25 30 sec before he says light is first act. It seems to me that it should be obvious that sound is the first act. I could be wrong, but this is according to some science show I'll have to find again to properly cite.
@brentabel724 water could not be even its separate elements without wave function collapse. High enough frequency sound manifests. At a higher frequency, light manifests. If God said, "Let there be light, I lean toward the bible being an allegory," the meaning I get out of this is that sound is produced, and the sound energy is transformed into light. I forget what was said in the video, but if my memory is correct, this is what was said before my original post. Too lazy after 16 hr workday to double check.
Im no scientist but i can figure this about quantity; the more tightly we define the movement and action of something, the less potential that expression carries. Quantity seems an ingredient of thought, a weight our mind puts on the detail. What quantity is being quantified, if not uncertainty? Quality is a different thing altogether, we can discover and learn the nature of influences and significances playing important roles in our day to day. Matter is an idea that made motion easier to interpret. Materialism is now the obstacle of progress. We are energy reflecting on light and darkness. What any scientists miss peering into stuff, and how the intelligent world is misled is seeing information come from things. Information is created in connections, where observation meets features of consideration.
I see it all as harmonic frequencies and their inverted reflections anchored to the one and only now node.. matter is made up of the crossing waves at their harmonic nodes that show up as stationary "matter" .. between the nodes bound in the wave and its reflection we have been calling all that Planck's playground.. The frozen light part fits well into the wave/particle idea. Thx!
I think I have learnt that matters mass is only in actual quarks within a proton or neutron. The majority is in the fields interacting between the quarks?
I appreciate that you keep the name labels up on the screen. It’s not as big a deal here, with two talking heads, but I’ve seen some documentaries where they introduce each of about 30 speakers, once, and then flip between them with no further introduction. I’m autistic enough that differentiating between multiple mild-looking middle aged guys in suits can be a real challenge.
Its been such a long time but i had a philosophy class and i cant recall but it was bishop barkley or grosseteste who said matter was points where light gathered together and soldified. He said light was the prime building bloc and that light keeps reflecting over and over again and eventually will gain solid properties at the locations where a certain number of reflections take place.... i do remember walking out of class absolutely amazed
My question would be what caused the "light", or energy to be "frozen" or bond into the forms around us? Is there an underlying organized system controlling this process? Sometimes symbolized by Mathematics?
The mass of an atom is in the nucleus but its attraction and bond depends heavily upon how the valences mesh. Energy and other excitation methods create the frequency of vibrations. And like I mentioned if a particle can be observed it can infinitely be divided. If you reduce the distance between atoms by half every time , they will never touch.
When EM fields or light comes to a rest or is measured it converts into an elementary particle. When the EM field of two distant sources collide in the vacuum of space they convert into a pair of charged particles, one positive and the other negative. This was proposed in the Pair Production theory back in the 60's. Energy can't be destroyed, so when it comes to a rest instead of winking out of existence it converts into elementary particles, m=E/c². In particle accelerators physicists discovered 1.22 MeV of kinetic energy is produced when a pair of protons collide. Then the opposite is true. When the EM field's energy equivalence of 1.22 MeV comes to a rest in the vacuum of space it would produce a pair of hot, charged particles. I suspect that elementary particles are indeed bundles of light.
There are issue with this line of interpretation. Why is light fundamental and not the electron positron pair. Why is light (photons) the true form of "light". Put enough energy in to a region of space and particles will form no matter the method used. So why it is light that is fundamental and not say energy.
@@edgfwevwefedvreafv4974 light is an EM wave. Before an electron becomes an electron or a light particle emerges it is a wave of multiple possibilities. It doesn't become a light particle until it is measured, strikes and object or reflects or absorbed. Have you ever seen the sun produce plasma along it's EM fields and then rain down on the sun? The plasma emerges along the EM field lines. The plasma doesn't originate as particles radiating off the surface. The plasma is produced along the EM field lines due to the sun's strong EM fields colliding with weak EM fields produced by bodies elsewhere in the universe. Research plasma rain on the sun in TH-cam. It's spectacular. The plasma is not spewed into the EM bubbles from the sun but are produced along the outside of the large bubbles. It's an excellent example of pair production theory.
@ronaldkemp3952 As for your first paragraph, I kinda agree. Only kinda since the wave function (your "wave of multiple possibilities") explicitly assumes a particle. The wave function is a complex value function which accept the position of the particle and return the probability density of finding it there (technically you need to perform another mathematical operation before you get the PD). But between the moments of measurement, the particle state are undefined and who to say that it remain a particle. We have no reason to think it stop being a particle though. The rest I have no idea how it is relevant. I have seen what you described but have never heard it refered as plasma rain. Your explaination for the production of plasma is wrong. The plasma exist because the sun is really hot not because of field lines colliding (also field lines do not really collide, they are not physical things in the same sense as the field itself) Also it have no relation to pair production. EDIT: I saw the plasma coming from the sun, don't know what you saw.
@@edgfwevwefedvreafv4974 Energy cannot be destroyed. According to particle accelerator experiments 1.22 MeV of energy results when a pair of particles collide E=mc². Thus the opposite would be true per the pair production theory, a pair of like particles will emerge from the vacuum of space when a minimum of 1.22 MeV of energy "light" comes to a rest relative to the speed of light, m=E/c². It's also referred to as virtual particles popping into and out of existence, one positive the other negative.
@@ronaldkemp3952 Ok, I think you do not know the point of contention here. To create new particles of matter, you just need to dump energy into a region of space, it need not be through light. There no reason to think of light as anything more fundamental than energy. To my knowledge there is no minimum energy required for virtual pair production so I would like for you to cite your source on 1.22 MeV. And virtual particles are not real, they are a mathematical fiction. They are useful when dealing with quantum electrodynamics, but when you start dealing with quantum chromodynamics their fictitious nature become really apparent.
Misleading title. The thing is energy, which can take various forms including matter particles. The real mystery is gravity, in particular how it connects everything in the universe. It's the only force that can do that, so it's not a variation of the other three.
Wisdom is knowing what you know and knowing what you don't know. ~Confucious.... I wish they had discussed the trillions of cells in the human body. It's amazing this life. I don't mind that some knowledge is beyond me at present. I like the gravity and attraction idea. Thank you for the video.
Does the localization have a connection with the speed of the light trapped in the forms of matter? Is the speed of light slowed down into the forms? Did Einstein say something related to this--like matter being forms of slowed down energy or light?
Yes, matter/mass is energy, and almost entirely spatially confined energy rather than anything instilled by the Higgs field. These people are oddly ignoring this now basic science and replacing energy with 'frozen light"... because they think it sounds more mysterious and cool? There's no knowledge being offered here, there's just semantic games that degrade our actual understanding of reality.
Actually, in. The beginning was the heavens and earth. Then, sometime later, there was light. That suggests to me that light is carried on a field that initially was not there.
Isaiah 45.7 says “I form Light and create darkness. that suggests to me that light is carried on a field, which can be switched off. It was in ancient Egypt
Hmmm... if what you suggest is true, this would suggest that it's all a question of 'mind over matter'... In other words: "I don't mind... and you don't matter!" (Just kidding!) 😉
@theseustoo kind of, consider consciousness being an external force that binds our reality. So, truly, if in mass people do not mind than a thing will not become matter.
@@byronschroedel432 Well... you're accepting the 'pan-psychism' hypothesis as if it were a 'proven' reality... but it's not. It's still merely speculation. But you're also taking what was admittedly just a joke far too seriously... and frankly I doubt your conclusion, even though it would seem to largely agree with the suggestion in my joke. Seems like a non-sequitur to me.
@@theseustoo tbf this kind of synthetic sentence could have been pronounced by several schools of philosophy ; german romantics for instance. It is no surprise that it resonates with modern times.
Light is quantized as photons. Electrons are found orbiting atoms, being shared by them, often changing its energy signature and producing a photon as a byproduct. Matter, made up of atoms, can be described as energy, in terms of the amount of energy it represents. The problem with the argument, so far is in the extrapolation of the immutability of energy. There is nothing either scientific or intuitive to support that as true.
Yes, without conscious reasoning it may not seem the immutability of energy is conserved. We can't know this intuitively (instinctively). Reason is needed to understand this must be true. Where would that energy go? It must be absorbed to lower a systems entropy & enthalpy effect. It's entropic influence (to create time: change & motion) depends on it. Enthalpy is the sum of a thermodynamic system's internal energy, and the product of its pressure and volume. Frozen light? No. Bounded energy influencing itself! What is energy? Q-bits in motion! We're not a photograph or holographic imprint. We can change! That is total chaos! There can be no order that way! Only a predictable pattern!
@@alphaomega1089 Entropy is misleading. Nothing goes away. Every instant carries forward all the energy of the previous instant. There is change, not actual creation or destruction.
@@CPHSDC You are talking about time, not entropy. Let me break it down for you: pressure cooker; enthalpy is that valve closed, and entropy is that valve open releasing pressure and able to do work externally. This motion (collision with another system) is entropy.
@@alphaomega1089 Thank you for the clarification and making my point. You are talking about an experiment, a phenomenon. I am familiar (oh the pain) with the Laws of Thermodynamics from both a physical and chemical framework. I am referring to the totality of space time. Energy is conserved. Yesterday's entropy is available for todays' collisions. No loss, no gain.
I’ve come to view each moment in time as a potential observation that could cause wave function collapse in quantum mechanics. I see humans, through their continuous perception of time and reality, as the observers in this process. I liken humans to complex apparatuses that interpret signals from the environment, and I consider this interpretation as a form of observation in the quantum mechanical sense. I’ve also started to view consciousness as this signal interpretation process, drawing parallels between human consciousness and the operation of a scientific apparatus.
@@Cincy32 lol.. no And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day. (Genesis 1:3-5 ESV) try again
@@bastiaan7777777 So you don't believe that God is able to create Himself or elements of Himself? Was man not made in his image & likeness? Why cannot God - who Scriptures tell us is literally light - create more light? 1 John 1:5 This is the message which we have heard from Him and declare to you, that God is light and in Him is no darkness at all. John 8:12 Then Jesus spoke to them again, saying, "I am the light of the world. He who follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but have the light of life."
The mass of an atom is in the nucleus but its attraction and bond depends heavily upon how the valences mesh. Energy and other excitation methods create the frequency of vibrations. And like I mentioned if a particle can be observed it can infinitely be divided. If you reduce the distance between atoms by half every time , they will never touch.i think your point was about the fabric of the universe being the field
They cool electric wires to near zero resistance to current flow. Is there a connection to cold temp at paranormal sightings where they are popping in and out of dimensions effortlessly thereby the cold is a bi-product of zero resistance to the flow.
Frozen light is not the most apt anology. The waves are still waving but the energy they embody is trapped within a 'form'. The theory of solitons, a wide spread natural phenomena, demonstrates how this happens and points the way ahead. A smoke ring is an everday macro example of a soliton. Solitons also provide a relatively simple explanation for many otherwise arcane natural phenomena, ranging from tidal waves, through ball lightning to photons. It is quite likely many other quantum phenomena can be fairly easily explained in this way. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soliton
Furthermore... What do you mean by frozen light? A standing light wave in a laser chamber sure looks like it's not moving to me. Then there's experiments where light can be slowed down extremely slow in very cold atomic gasses.
@@kayakMike1000 A standing light wave, also known as a stationary light wave, is a wave that oscillates in time but does not move in space. The speed of light trough all mediums is c/N, where N is the index of refraction of the medium - if not completely absorbed or completely reflected. Light is an electromagnetic wave. The wave waves even if it's relatively static in spacial coordinates. All electromagnetic waves have spectra of oscillation. As you should know, everything oscillates unless at absolute zero kelvin. In an absolute zero system, no em waves are possible, and neither is matter.
Adorable theory, but matter isn't frozen light, it's the electron moving so fast within that particular matter that it creates the illusion of a physical object... Hold a vibrator in your hand, and you notice as the vibrator is on, it becomes bigger and harder to hold on to as it vibrates. There is only one electron in the entire universe creating the illusion of all electrons, protons, neutrons, and all matter. It's called the single electron universe theory. ~ John Wheeler and Richard Feynman. If that example doesn't help, turn a fan on and put your hand inside and see if the fan hits you even if it's in constant motion, and looks invisible. The same principal applies to the electron which creates the illusion of matter. It's just that the matter is moving so fast, not frozen... this is the opposite of frozen, which is when molecules are more like still(although still moving slightly). Everything is in constant motion until (theoretically) it reaches absolute zero, which is when (theoretically) the black hole or anti-matter might be formed. Ask yourself this; is the fan really a ghost, or does it just seem that way because it's moving so fast?
I'm sure that one electron thing is a joke between the two. The one electron thing have a pretty major prediction, since the electron path must form a close loop, there must be an equal number of positrons and electrons at any time and at a finite time in the future, all positrons and electrons will annihinate and no more electrons and positrons will ever come into existance after that. This is obviously not our universe.
You sound confident care to explain why. Maybe then you will be remembered as the first person in the long long history of philosophy to have done it and have your name eternalized.
@edgfwevwefedvreafv4974 ha ha ha. Clearly, you're not well read , if you were, you would have known , this is not new . It is an age-old Eastern world philosophy. And more so panpsychist , Plato and Aristotle had panpsychist beliefs as did the stoics... There's absolutely nothing new under the sun . It's like saying humans have created electricity , whereas humans have "discovered " electricity, electricity has always been there, you see... I take it that you believe that universe came into existence out of nothing? What a lazy and absurd idea, an unproven one for that matter. You can not lift your arm without first thinking about it , you can not write or create anything without first thinking about it. Children first learn to speak coherently before they start speaking vocabulary. These ideas and concepts obviously came from consciousness. Don't you know that absolutely nothing can exist if there's no driving force behind it ? Like an idea construction....
love the metaphor 'matter is frozen light ' Connective/fascial tissue has similar properties. resulting in restriction/viscosity of blood flow into nooks and cranny's. manual therapy like Osteopathy releases this 'frozenlight'
@@RJ-cs9gz I'd say, "good point", but...... remember when they used to teach that the earth was flat, and that the sun revolved around the earth, and that sickness was caused by ill-humors, and that kings were annointed by god, and countless other childish imbecilisms that we laugh at today? Don't get me wrong, I want my butler to have an English accent, just not my palm-reader.
Naw, this American knows quacks. His accent is a non issue. He doesn't even warrant a foil hat. It's too bs. What people like is supernatural sunshine from people with credentials who are not even using said credentials. Anyone with a degree talking supernatural isn't using anything resembling education. Like the guy who commented above. He sounds like he will listen to anyone with a degree. Degrees don't mean anything in spiritual or supernatural matters. Some dude has a Degree in Islamic studies. Does that mean we sit and listen to them? Hmmm. How thoughtless. Mental discrimination is not in use in their head. Anyway, you said, "Americans." That means you don't like Americans and I don't blame you. But that part of your comment went logical fallacy. I would say, "ignorant people from anywhere on the planet." I would not pick a country and blanket it that way. That went off the rails. Rupert is quack.
You really need to study Basil J. Hiley - he debunks Richard Feynman. Study Professor Jean Bricmont - he debunks quantum field theory. Physics has a lot of errors - standard physics.
Sunlight can also be broken down into what we call colours but in essence it’s just the carrier frequency that changes and therefore there are tremendous variations of photon waves and everything in between, above and below what we know.
Do fields exist beyond the universe - if so, how far beyond? Or are fields infinite, intrinsic? Because, according to Mark/Rupert, fields are required for the transmission of light. So, can light travel beyond the universe if there are no fields, or does the universe project fields - and does this projection expand at the speed of light? Do fields require/consume energy, if not, how do they come into being? At the edge of the universe what are fields expanding into? How does this work? What is the evidence for your response. Thank you kindly for your response, Charles.
Lovely. That is the first time I've heard anyone espouse the idea that direction is somehow fundamentally embedded in matter. I had the notion that direction might be embedded in the spacetime field or whatever it is that planets and stars float about in, but I prefer Rupert's approach.
Matter is condensed energy right and photons are energy with no mass so condensation is with no process right? So are tachyons and or Hawking radiation maybe a sprinkleof Unruh radiation just forms of evaporated matter?
have you thought that maybe that you are a crackpot. We have a very good understanding of light and matter. Our theory make excellent predictions. If your "theory" can compete with that then you are worth listening
It this suggesting that matter is a waveform of a sufficiently high natural frequency? Natural frequency is a function of mass and stiffness. Stiffness of what?
Interesting conversation but if there are equations to explain this or an experiment then it helps. The nearest explanation I know if is pair production where high radiation energy strikes an electron producing a positron and an electron but they cancel each other out. Is there a way where a positron and an electron can remain separate? If this can be explored then maybe there is a way in proving what is discussed.
4:30 afaik gravity spreads out (deforms spacetime) like a ripple effect going the speed of light. So the mass can be at a different place and the other mass still gets the effect of the mass at the old position. An example is that if the sun would disappear suddenly, earth would still Orbit it for the 8 minutes it takes the effect of gravity to travel. Only then the earth would travel in a streight line.
Thats always an interesting thought experiment 🙂. What do you think of this: imagine an electricity cable from sun to earth, the sun delivering the energy for a light to be lit on earth. What happens when the sun disappears. Will the circuit be broken instantly hence no energy will travel down the cable, or will the light on earth stil be lit for another 8 minutes?
@@taaskeprins the speed of light is misleading. Any massless particle will travel at C, so calling it the speed of light put more focus on light than it ought to receive. C is the speed of causality. There can be no signal, no effect, nor information that can propagate faster than it otherwise causality will be broken. On earth, the circuit will function as normal until 8 minutes pass, only after which any observation can be observed.
Some think light isn’t important but Light does Matter
Light only matters because of the darkness. Now let us pray 🙏 for mo. Mo mo light. Mo no mo.
MO!!!!
Thanks 😊
@@quantumpotential7639 Darkness is formless, nothing at all.. and its existence is acknowledged solely because of Light.... Give thanks, nyctophile
@@quantumpotential7639-
You can't have light without dark.☯
Black Light Matters
Lol nice pun
This was fantastic! I love the breakdown of Matter as Mother and the symbolic analysis of our current world. Beautifully poetic and enlightening on many levels.
Also interesting to think about the connection between 'pattern' (as in archetype or ideal form) and 'pater' - father.
Pater & Mater. ❤❤
Just thoughts here. As a Christian, I cannot help but think of the Divine Conception--
Holy Spirit & Mary = DNA entangling in conception of 3rd person. A being both Human & Divine~
manifesting in a new form and type of human being which we can conciously engage.
Immortality
@@lynnhall9957an eternal golden braid.
I'd give you 1 million dollars if you could explain anything they are saying. None of this is scientific. They repeat terms from science and concepts but do not explain anything. Breaking down words and numbers meaning is useless mumbojumbo. Taking meaning to this verbal diarrhea from both of these idiots is like taking advice from an AI chatbot. Sounds like a real conversation but is just nonsense unless you apply your own personal meaning to it.
"All matter is a condensation of light into patterns moving back and forth at average speeds which are less than the speed of light. You could say that when we come to light we are coming to the fundamental activity in which existence has its ground, or at least coming close to it.’
-Bohm
If you could define "speed" without the particle nonsense, it would be amazing, thank you! Speed of WHAT?
@zabtej1645 the only time speed is used in my comment is the first sentence. I don't see anything there that needs defining.
Speed is defined as distance over time. The distance covered in an interval of tlme.
@@zabtej1645 There is no "particle nonsense" in the quote
@@SolidSiren Something that is NOT MOVING cannot have a speed. Light is NOT MOVING from A to B.
@@zabtej1645 Incorrect. If light was not moving, how would light from the sun have ever reached Earth? Also, if something is not moving, it still has a speed of 0. Speed is just a rate.
I think the most important point being made in this discussion, inadvertently by the way, is the necessity of having precise language. And I think that observation would bear out the fact that the language needs to be much more precise then exists in conversation, which is why, ultimately, we lean on mathematics. "Unfortunately, nobody can be told what the matrix is; - They have to see it for themselves. " - Morpheous
Whence the o
Calculus was created to explain physics.
@@TheRoadLessChosen Math in general is a natural reflection of physics. A precise reflection. The words we use can also reflect that connection, but words are nebulous and broad-beamed compared to the precise language of mathematics.
Words can have the advantage of helping us in descriptive rendering before we render the ideas into math. The words can help to get us closer to the more precise mathematical description. We have to find the words first before we can find the math.
Math is based on poetry.
Words are interpretations that are open to interpretations....not all that precise at all
Very Particular.
What a conversation for the Age.
Appropriate and Timely.
Brilliant.🎉
Well said!🙂
Lol cute
Next time my wife tells me to get up and do something, I'm going to tell her I'm frozen light. What a brilliant discussion. Thank you.
A 'brilliant discussion' for those with light instead of cerebrums in their skulls.
Good luck with that.
I am composed of frozen light, what a beautiful thought!
Except, the light isn't really frozen. You are traveling at the speed of light in some other universe. You're just having a solid experience because you're traveling at the same speed of the photons around you. You're not really frozen. You're just moving at the same speed.
No. You are just energy. 100% energy
We are beings of light and pure consciousness.
Luminifarous beings are we.....think about it next time you verbally abuse someone who cuts you off😊 i am a benevolent light😉
"stardust"
I think the term " frozen light " is misleading. A more appropriate term would be " bound energy ".
@@antpoo The reason it's referred to as bound energy is because 99+% of all the mass in protons and really 100% of the mass of electrons ( their interaction with the Higgs Field forcing them to change direction back and forth along their paths ) is due to inertia...
the forcing of these fundamental particles ( referring to quarks in the case of protons ) to change direction, as a result, binding them to a general area IS what gives them their mass. The idea of light being " frozen " gives the implication of absolute zero which is why I don't like it.
@@antpoo Yeah I know. It is a type of bridge to give some idea to anyone that doesn't spend a lot of time on the subject. I'll admit I also kind of cringe when the concept of the Higgs Field is made analogous to " molasses " lol
Sometimes I just gotta take a step back and chill.
Agreed. Perhaps solid objects are just the result of something similar to surface tension, but with exponentially more strength to repel and happening consistently throughout an object.
@@geoffgjof The quantum world is pretty freaking weird no matter how you slice it. I mean think about resting your hands on a desk. The thing you feel as touch is the same electromagnetic force that you experience feeling a magnet repel a same charge side of another magnet, just much more greatly amplified.
In the case of resting your hands on a desk, it's the repulsion of the valence electrons that make up the matter of your skin against the valence electrons of the atoms that make up the desk. And the strength of EM is so great compared to Gravity ( generally 10^36ish times greater ) that you can repel the entire force of the Earth's gravity by lifting up an apple with 2 fingers 🤣
@@kyzercube Yeah, it's pretty cool.
I actually think it's all the same force, it just basically comes down to electron density along an exponential scale. Gravity is the force happening over a more distributed space, so the electron density is way less. Our brains think "earth big means more force" but if it's according to the density of electrons then it means solids repelling at the surface (and even liquids like water) are enough to overcome the more distributed force.
However, once you get past any barrier that has more electron density then it is easier to move through it. This is why air is so easy to move through, while liquids have more resistance. The more evenly distributed the electrons are throughout the entire structure, the more solid an object is. And the closer the electrons are to each other the easier it is for energy to transfer through (that's how conductors work). Of of this follows the rules of entropy and thermo dynamics. It's just not based on linear thinking. And there are instances of density changes along the surfaces of objects that lead people astray. But I think we'll eventually find that gravity is just electromagnetism due to electron density. And when you have massive objects like planets, or stars, then the relative magnestism of any other smaller object is kind of irrelevant. I think once we finally measure earth's gravitational pull more precisely we'll see that it's not quite constant for every object. But the insanely miniscule amount of difference will essentially still be negligible and that's why our equations with the constant work.
Absolutely intriguing content. I have never heard it called in such a manner. Frozen light! It is beautiful in its simplicity.
I absolutely love this conversation. Beautiful. Both of you, your ideas, and how you present them so gracefully.
Finally... Good job fellas😊
Great interview - thanks.
Rupert, firstly thank you for your pragmatic presentation, it is great to hear you touching on deeper issues beyond just the 'mechanics' of matter and mass.
If I may paraphrase; around 3:50 in this video you intimated... "Mass of matter has two aspects: Inertial mass that binds it to a state of motion and a place, The Broglie equation tells us that the frequency of a masses vibration is proportional to the mass involved, the faster it vibrates i.e. the more mass it has then the more it is tied to its place. And the gravitational effect relating to mass where all matter is interconnected throughout the universe, so a particle of matter has to know where it is and how much of it there is so that it can react to the other masses appropriately.
Its much much more mysterious than just little billiard balls trundling around"
"...it has to know where it is..." Indeed. That is a fundamental issue with our current view of the 'subatomic' world. Researchers tell us that various particles behave in certain defined ways; electrons repel each other, but are attracted to protons etc etc. My base-line query is: how does an electron 'know' that it has to act that way? As an occasional builder of small robots, I can quickly appreciate the systems needed by the electron and all other particles. These include:
a) a sense of 'self' and knowledge of the properties of itself. (I'm an electron and I have a negative charge and a mass of so many ev, a spin to the left and I fear I may have left a heater on in my bedroom!).
b) a navigation system which tells it where it is, and its current position and velocity in relation to the universe.
c) a sensor suite which is able to detect the position, velocity and identity of every other particle in the total actual universe - not just our 'observable universe' (all quite straightforward stuff, provided one has enough RAM). Indeed, since the influences on our electron can legitimately extend beyond any arbitrary boundaries of 'our' universe, the sensors need to detect 'everything there is', just 'everything', not just 'our universe'.
d) a look up table which defines the properties of those particles near and far and provides instructions on how our electron must respond to the influences of those particles (another electron close by: move away at a certain acceleration and direction. A massive galaxy 50 megaparsecs away - say the local Great Attractor - then swing on by, etc).
e) a calculating engine which can combine all the influences of every particle in the actual universe upon our electron to provide a singular direction and speed instruction, and to provide control outputs at a rate that is appropriate to the electrons' situation. A sub-Plank-Time control loop frequency would seem to be necessary to sustain an orbit around a nucleus with reasonable fidelity, and to avoid unfortunate collisions with other nearby particles.
f) a means of propulsion which enables the electron to move in the required directions and velocities.
g) an energy source to sustain the 'self'; to power the sensor suite and motion system; and to run the on-board compute required to operate the entire electron unit, in perpetuity, of course.
I am perturbed when I hear researchers say that a particular particle or even a tangible mass like Newton's apple behaves in a certain way; my reflex question is always: how does it know that it should do that, and how does it do it? An electron-robot is a very complex and wonderful thing, with almost every necessary attribute as yet undiscovered.
Thanks again. We would appreciate you comments!!
Rupert and Mark are amongst the best scientific educators and popularisers of our time. Well done gentlemen and keep up the great work
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
00:27 *🌌 Matter, historically, is viewed in different ways, now seen as vibratory processes in quantum theory.*
02:05 *🌀 Light energy can be trapped in matter, leading to the idea of matter being localized in place.*
03:26 *⚖️ Mass has two aspects: inertial mass (binding matter to a place or state of motion) and gravitational mass.*
05:10 *🔬 The Higgs boson particle is believed to link massive objects to an underlying field, explaining inertial mass.*
08:36 *💧 Matter exists in various states beyond solid, including liquid, gas, and plasma, each with different properties.*
10:27 *⚛️ Energy and fields are seen as underlying principles in physical reality, shaping matter in different forms.*
17:23 *🧱 Matter and form are interconnected in various levels, with form giving structure to the underlying matter.*
21:58 *🔢 Quantities have a historical and cultural context, with different ways of perceiving numbers and measurements.*
27:15 *❤️ Attraction and repulsion are fundamental in matter due to the interaction of protons and electrons, reflecting basic emotional patterns.*
29:26 *🔮 Materialism can be viewed as an unconscious cult of the "great mother," representing a rebellion against earlier mechanistic views.*
30:36 *🌌 Gravitational attraction can be seen as a final cause within matter, drawing everything together, reflecting a purposeful aspect of the universe.*
33:43 *🔭 Physics introduces the concept of dark matter, highlighting the mysterious and unknown aspects within the universe.*
37:32 *🤔 Matter remains more mysterious than we perceive, with ongoing changes in cosmology, panpsychism, and the understanding of the Big Bang origin story.*
Made with HARPA AI
This is the best interview I've ever heard
Yuri Bezmenov interview is pretty good too.
Wow, I did not except this convo to ebb and flow like this. Perfect for a long late night drive home on my own!
4:28 4:32 😅
You know you're listening to a very smart person, when he says "there's so much we still don't know".
I’m not smart, but as I’ve been educated I’ve made that observation. The more you know, the more you’re aware of how much you don’t know.
I’m going out of my way to try to communicate this concept to my young children as they learn. Anyone who claims to know all there is to know on any topic is highly suspect. The joy of learning, of existing, is found in the questions we pursue.
Not really, you have to be pretty dumb to think otherwise.
@@ColinPaddockThe more I learn the more I feel imposter syndrome. I look at the depth of things and recognize that, I have no place in making changes in these fields. I see the pure depth and complexity recognizing that to achieve one must dedicate one's entire life. I also see how difficult it is with informational paradoxes that exist in the Universe that everything might just always be a mystery. It blows my mind doubly so. I know my limitations. I'm not very intelligent since I can't apply my intelligence toward goals. I may have a high IQ but applying myself toward goals is the most difficult thing. As well I have an absolutely terrible memory, relatively slow mental processing speed, and almost zero ability to conjure images in my mind's eye. Yet somehow against all odds I'm above average! Just goes to show how meaningless IQ tests are if you can't apply it. I recognize patterns to a very large extent. That is it that isn't really applicable to intelligence in the real world. If anything it gives me disassociation and despair I'm overwhelmed by the sheer complexity of reality and feel as though all cultural norms have shattered no longer relating to anyone or anything I'm a robot around other people dead inside. Posting this comment was quite pointless indeed as well.
Excellent presentation on a fascinating subject: thanks!
read the article, "Light is Heavy" by Nobel physicist Gerard 't Hooft and Martin van der Mark - matter is indeed light!! Great David Bohm quote. I've been corresponded with Bohm's collaborator Basil J. Hiley. Professor Hiley emphasizes noncommutativity as the secret of reality. I recommend you study noncommutativity. thanks
I'm sorry, but I couldn't find any information about an article titled "Light is Heavy" authored by Martin van de Mark and Gerard 't Hooft. It's possible that this article may be from a specialized or niche publication, or it may not be widely available online.
If you have more context or details about this article, such as where it was published or when it was written.
@@0.618-0 It's on arxiv - which is the "preprint" for science academic articles (Unless your Nobel Physicist Brian Josephson who get rejected by arxiv - meaning arxiv is still closed-minded. hahaha).
Physics > History and Philosophy of Physics
[Submitted on 26 Aug 2015]
Light is Heavy
M.B. van der Mark, G.W. 't Hooft
Einstein's relativity theory appears to be very accurate, but at times equally puzzling. On the one hand, electromagnetic radiation must have zero rest mass in order to propagate at the speed of light, but on the other hand, since it definitely carries momentum and energy, it has non-zero inertial mass. Hence, by the principle of equivalence, it must have non-zero gravitational mass, and so, light must be heavy. In this paper, no new results will be derived, but a possibly surprising perspective on the above paradox is given.
@@0.618-0i did a quick search and first result came from arxiv. You didnt search right. Copy this and google.... "gerard hooft light heavy"
Google again bc it was the first thing that pops up when you search "light is heavy" it's by mb van der mark and GW t hooft
@@0.618-0 no response after four days for link to article. Did the light escape him?
Wow. I've had a lot of these thoughts since childhood and generally alone with them, so it's nice to share them with you both. Thank you for an enlightening chat.
It sounds so beautiful, matter is frozen light, Goethe said music was frozen architecture if I remember it right. Rupert and Mark, you are obviously masters of the mind in many ways, but I cannot help wishing that I could see what the end of this century is going to look like.
architecture was frozen music❔❔
@@marklmansfield GGGGGGreat to hear from you. I believe that is the quote I read from Geothe. Architecture is frozen music is how I recall it, but I've been wrong on quotes most of my life...
At the end of a concert everyone in the audience disappears! I'm not convinced, I think they actually just go home !
@@alanevery215 😄
A deeper look into the equation E=MC² to begin, we will denote M as total mass and m1 dark m2 light as fractional representations of total mass M. This allows m1 and m2 to function as fractions of M and multiply as such.
Space: Variations in spatial coordinates affect how 𝑐1 and 𝑐2 are perceived. For example, the distribution of mass or energy in space can change how these quantities are measured.
Time: Time variations can affect 𝑐1 and 𝑐2 as the system evolves. For example, kinetic and potential energies change over time.
In relativity, measurements of time and space depend on the observer’s frame of reference. This means that 𝑐1 and 𝑐2 can vary based on relative motion and gravitational effects. Dynamic Adjustment: c1(x,t) and c2(x,t) where x represents spatial coordinates and t represents time.
Sum and Product Relationships:
c1(x,t) + c2(x,t)=C
c1(x,t) × c2(x,t)=C²
Here,
𝐶 and C² are constants, while 𝑐1 and 𝑐2 vary with space and time.
Kinetic and Potential Energy: In a system with varying spatial distribution, 𝑐1 and 𝑐2 represent different forms of energy. As the system evolves in time and space, these energies adjust while maintaining their sum and product relationships.
Gravitational Effects: In a gravitational field, mass distribution affects the measurements of energy and can cause 𝑐1 and 𝑐2 to vary depending on location and time.
Relativistic Variations: For different observers in relative motion, c1 and c2 might be perceived differently due to time dilation and length contraction. Despite these variations, the fundamental relationships 𝑐1+𝑐2=𝐶 and c1×𝑐2=C² hold true within each observer’s frame. Spacetime Interactions: Changes in spacetime curvature and metric can affect 𝑐1 and 𝑐2, but their interactions still reflect the underlying constants.
Functions of Space and Time: Define c1(x,t) and c2 (x,t) such that:
c1(x,t)+c2(x,t)=C
c1(x,t)xc2(x,t)=C²
Consistency: Ensure that as x and t vary, c1 and 𝑐2 adjust dynamically but satisfy these equations at every point.
Observer Frames: For different frames of reference, adjust c1(x,t) and c2(x,t) based on the observer’s motion and gravitational field. The relationships c1+c2=C and c1×c2=C² remain consistent in each frame, reflecting how energy and mass interact in spacetime.
Quadratic Relationship: The relationship between 𝑐1 and c2 can be framed as roots of a quadratic equation: x2−Cx+c2=0 where 𝑐1 and c2 are the roots. The dynamic nature means that for different values of t, 𝑐1 and 𝑐2 adjust accordingly but still satisfy the equation
Consider a specific example where C and C² are given: Let C=5 and C²=6. The quadratic equation becomes: 𝑥2−5𝑥+6=0 factoring this, (x−2)(x−3)=0 so the roots are c1=2 and c2=3.
Sum: c1 + c2 = 2 + 3=5
Product: c1 × c2 = 2 × 3=6
If 𝑐1 and 𝑐2 are dynamic functions of a parameter t, then they can adjust while maintaining the sum and product relationships. For example suppose 𝑐1(𝑡)=𝛼(𝑡) and 𝑐2(𝑡)=𝛽(𝑡) you could define, 𝛼(𝑡)+𝛽(𝑡)=𝐶 & α(t)×β(t)=C² as t changes α(t) and 𝛽(𝑡) adjust, but their sum and product still match the specified C and C².
This reminds me of the theory of “microvita” developed by P.R. Sarkar, the Renaissance spiritual teacher. Microvita are subtle matter that is smaller and more fundamental than quantum or string theory describes. There are lots of TH-cam videos about microvita.
Remember Vitavitavegamin? What a great health product. 💪
Thank you very much. I really appreciated the originality and wisdom in the questions and answers. And a legendary guest! ✨🦋
The magic of TH-cam is that even a pair of old crackpoters can spread out in the internet.
The materialist empiricist paradigm has failed. You cannot get mind from non mind. So science denies that mind exists. But that’s obviously false because the one thing we know for sure is that we think, therefore we have minds. Surely the non physical nature of photons points to the mental nature of photons. But none of this examination is possible under the materialist paradigm. Instead, a backwards denial of the mind is undertaken and all instances of zero and infinity being solutions to quantum mechanical equations are airbrushed out of academia. Because zero and infinity are the numbers of the mind but we are forced to pretend that mind doesn’t exist.
Old crack potters vs. new un damaged vessels? Or just younger and still cracked? Like our species hasn't the hardware to observe the big picture? We re Like a dog learning algebra?
The magic of the 21st century is that thinking free willed minds can be fully convinced that they are not thinking free willed minds and instead mere robots.
The unfortunate thing about TH-cam is that some fart of a person can put his twopence worth in and call them ‘old crackpoters’. I tend to think that the vocabulary you have used belongs to a complete fart, perhaps more to that of an arsehole?
@@chuckcantillon4764We have mechanical eyes floating in heaven watching in invisible light the young eon of the cosmos. We replay the initial conditions mere instance after the birth of our universe. We are very far from dogs doing algebra.
While it is hard to know something is true or not, it is very easy to know if it is false. So even if we are ignorent the true nature of existance, we can be confidence in our knowledge of what it is not.
The arguments are convincing. Thank you. ❤
A light conversation that matters.
Excellent lively discussion. Thank you.
If matter is frozen light, then a black hole is frozen time. Jolly good show.
The plane of resting. Infinite potential
There is no such thing as a black hole. NASA is lying to you.
Frozen time. I like that
And when you go beyond light and matter, it's all just a thought form emination from the One Mind.
Black holes are mathematical fabrications
Profoundly insightful and meaningful perspective on the dynamics of reality. 🙏🏼
I recall the idea of “crystallization” in understanding the images served on a “high definition” television screen for mass consumption.
So this idea of “froze light” has connotations of hard or immobile: inanimate; yet it has somehow captured something of the animate spirit: light.
I am reminded of Barfield’s essay The Harp & The Camera where he suggests the evolution from the premodern to modern modes of perception by metaphor.
I am also reminded of George MacDonalds essays on the imagination in which he talks about the light within all incarnate nature & the Father of Lights.
@@laserhobbyist9751 I can’t call it. Where is freedom found? Perhaps it’s in the dynamic alternation between unity & multiplicity. Is incarnation an imprisonment to finitude? Maybe. Or maybe it’s some kind of freedom to individuate? I just have lots of questions.
Wind among many other contributions transfer the promiscuous energy into ocean water, when waves crash on the sand, you feel the energy escaping, body surfing or getting pinned to the bottom , the energy leaves the water, so the light energy is trapped in matter? Or temporarily being promiscuous as matter , until when?
Fine structure constant is a number with no units attached to it? Every other number seems to have units of time or distance. How is the FSC different?
God is the tiny spark of energy in everything, quantum God? , that works
This is fascinating. Like a magic carpet ride!
One could say that as light is one manifestation of energy. Energy converts to matter (stored energy) and when heating up, matter returns to radiant energy again
Thank you! I’ve been exploring the concept of our ability to see and touch things may depend on how cold they are. A perfect temperature for physicality to occur. It was just a thought I had one day. This helped put some better words to this concept!
IMPORTANT ADDITION: In an non-naive idealistic worldview, matter is a relational expression between the (personal) observer and a transpersonal mentation (Φ in IIT). It's interaction resists and collapses into relata or matter. Matter is meaningful and subjective for each observer. It's seemingly objective qualities (it's quantities) are a consequence of the similarities between the observers... That's why most humans share a consensus meta reality. Matter is not objective out there it is experienced as objective because we are similar agents and have a similar relation to Φ.
None of this is true, sounds like an abstraction of what is the Spiritual Realm
@DianaS42 a tree itself is an observer (self organizing in time and space and phenomenal conscious of it's environment)
What a load of quackery
What you do is wordplay. It's dialectic. it's worthless. That's why physics uses maths and not poetry.
@@TheOneAndOnlySame It is sad that you think wordplay has no place into knowledge. Sad and quite false too.
@PlatosPodcasts the answer to your question is matter is frozen magnetic polarity. Light is the neurological synapse
I kinda feel like we took a wrong turn at the atom vs Leibniz's monad fork in the road, though we have learned a great deal traveling the atomic road. I feel like once we realized atoms were divisible then we should have gone back to the infinitely divisible monad (which, by the way, you brought up the soul atoms 😊 and philosophically the monad fits quite well that particle).
What are your thoughts, on monads? I mean Leibniz was a pretty smart guy. We still use his calculus notations. I am referring to Leibniz's monad for this question, though i believe Plato's formulation is one in the same just more primitive.
You seem to have forgoten the existance of elementary particles which match the philosophical idea of atoms much better.
How so? That was literally the basis of the statement. Philosophically atoms are indivisible. We haven't found one of those yet, afaik. They keep finding ways to divide them 😅 right? Do we have proof of indivisibles? I'm honestly asking. Or is it just a 'we're gonna stop here cause it's too small to test or mean anything?'
@@TruthQuestian78 Is that your argument? It is technically impossible to say definitively that "atoms" (indivisible units) exist, we might not be trying hard enough, therefore atoms does not exist and everything is infinitely divisible.
You did not see any problem with this line of reasoning?
What is the rest of the frozen electromagnetic spectra (e.g. radio, UV, infrared, etc. ...)?
Everyone keeps asking what is matter but nobody asks about how is matter?
Also, why is matter, when is matter, and where is matter?
So what creates the blue print of what field goes where and why? What causes light to take a specific form for a specific purpose and what determines field type and location?
If you have a question, you ought not to ask here. From what I can tell, everything in this comment section is woo woo.
Glad to see someone else thinks this. Furthermore, I suspect that it's darkmatter that "freezes" it. That their respective existence is perceived by us simultaneously is why we've never been able to "find" darkmatter.
Dark matter is a mathematical fudge factor to cover up broken pseudoscience
Dark matter is bogus. Einstein and his ilk deceived and destroyed Physics for more than 100 years as predicted
39:25 30 sec before he says light is first act. It seems to me that it should be obvious that sound is the first act. I could be wrong, but this is according to some science show I'll have to find again to properly cite.
If sound and light are but waves... then the water was first, the water was uncreated.. there was only a separation of the water
@brentabel724 water could not be even its separate elements without wave function collapse. High enough frequency sound manifests. At a higher frequency, light manifests. If God said, "Let there be light, I lean toward the bible being an allegory," the meaning I get out of this is that sound is produced, and the sound energy is transformed into light. I forget what was said in the video, but if my memory is correct, this is what was said before my original post. Too lazy after 16 hr workday to double check.
Im no scientist but i can figure this about quantity; the more tightly we define the movement and action of something, the less potential that expression carries.
Quantity seems an ingredient of thought, a weight our mind puts on the detail.
What quantity is being quantified, if not uncertainty?
Quality is a different thing altogether, we can discover and learn the nature of influences and significances playing important roles in our day to day.
Matter is an idea that made motion easier to interpret. Materialism is now the obstacle of progress. We are energy reflecting on light and darkness.
What any scientists miss peering into stuff, and how the intelligent world is misled is seeing information come from things. Information is created in connections, where observation meets features of consideration.
😊
light... or lack thereof?
Thought is matter. Even light needs a thought to exist.
This title grabbed my attention. Because of course it is.
I see it all as harmonic frequencies and their inverted reflections anchored to the one and only now node.. matter is made up of the crossing waves at their harmonic nodes that show up as stationary "matter" .. between the nodes bound in the wave and its reflection we have been calling all that Planck's playground.. The frozen light part fits well into the wave/particle idea. Thx!
Spot on
I think I have learnt that matters mass is only in actual quarks within a proton or neutron. The majority is in the fields interacting between the quarks?
I appreciate that you keep the name labels up on the screen. It’s not as big a deal here, with two talking heads, but I’ve seen some documentaries where they introduce each of about 30 speakers, once, and then flip between them with no further introduction. I’m autistic enough that differentiating between multiple mild-looking middle aged guys in suits can be a real challenge.
Its been such a long time but i had a philosophy class and i cant recall but it was bishop barkley or grosseteste who said matter was points where light gathered together and soldified. He said light was the prime building bloc and that light keeps reflecting over and over again and eventually will gain solid properties at the locations where a certain number of reflections take place.... i do remember walking out of class absolutely amazed
Thank you for stretching my mind!
My question would be what caused the "light", or energy to be "frozen" or bond into the forms around us? Is there an underlying organized system controlling this process? Sometimes symbolized by Mathematics?
What is perplexing is the many different levels of energy as the many different wavelengths of “light” (EMF).
The mass of an atom is in the nucleus but its attraction and bond depends heavily upon how the valences mesh. Energy and other excitation methods create the frequency of vibrations. And like I mentioned if a particle can be observed it can infinitely be divided. If you reduce the distance between atoms by half every time , they will never touch.
When EM fields or light comes to a rest or is measured it converts into an elementary particle. When the EM field of two distant sources collide in the vacuum of space they convert into a pair of charged particles, one positive and the other negative. This was proposed in the Pair Production theory back in the 60's. Energy can't be destroyed, so when it comes to a rest instead of winking out of existence it converts into elementary particles, m=E/c².
In particle accelerators physicists discovered 1.22 MeV of kinetic energy is produced when a pair of protons collide. Then the opposite is true. When the EM field's energy equivalence of 1.22 MeV comes to a rest in the vacuum of space it would produce a pair of hot, charged particles.
I suspect that elementary particles are indeed bundles of light.
There are issue with this line of interpretation. Why is light fundamental and not the electron positron pair. Why is light (photons) the true form of "light". Put enough energy in to a region of space and particles will form no matter the method used. So why it is light that is fundamental and not say energy.
@@edgfwevwefedvreafv4974 light is an EM wave. Before an electron becomes an electron or a light particle emerges it is a wave of multiple possibilities. It doesn't become a light particle until it is measured, strikes and object or reflects or absorbed.
Have you ever seen the sun produce plasma along it's EM fields and then rain down on the sun? The plasma emerges along the EM field lines. The plasma doesn't originate as particles radiating off the surface. The plasma is produced along the EM field lines due to the sun's strong EM fields colliding with weak EM fields produced by bodies elsewhere in the universe.
Research plasma rain on the sun in TH-cam. It's spectacular. The plasma is not spewed into the EM bubbles from the sun but are produced along the outside of the large bubbles.
It's an excellent example of pair production theory.
@ronaldkemp3952 As for your first paragraph, I kinda agree. Only kinda since the wave function (your "wave of multiple possibilities") explicitly assumes a particle. The wave function is a complex value function which accept the position of the particle and return the probability density of finding it there (technically you need to perform another mathematical operation before you get the PD). But between the moments of measurement, the particle state are undefined and who to say that it remain a particle. We have no reason to think it stop being a particle though.
The rest I have no idea how it is relevant. I have seen what you described but have never heard it refered as plasma rain.
Your explaination for the production of plasma is wrong. The plasma exist because the sun is really hot not because of field lines colliding (also field lines do not really collide, they are not physical things in the same sense as the field itself)
Also it have no relation to pair production.
EDIT: I saw the plasma coming from the sun, don't know what you saw.
@@edgfwevwefedvreafv4974 Energy cannot be destroyed. According to particle accelerator experiments 1.22 MeV of energy results when a pair of particles collide E=mc². Thus the opposite would be true per the pair production theory, a pair of like particles will emerge from the vacuum of space when a minimum of 1.22 MeV of energy "light" comes to a rest relative to the speed of light, m=E/c². It's also referred to as virtual particles popping into and out of existence, one positive the other negative.
@@ronaldkemp3952 Ok, I think you do not know the point of contention here. To create new particles of matter, you just need to dump energy into a region of space, it need not be through light. There no reason to think of light as anything more fundamental than energy.
To my knowledge there is no minimum energy required for virtual pair production so I would like for you to cite your source on 1.22 MeV.
And virtual particles are not real, they are a mathematical fiction. They are useful when dealing with quantum electrodynamics, but when you start dealing with quantum chromodynamics their fictitious nature become really apparent.
What causes an Eddy in a flowing River, and considering this Eddy as "frozen" flow how can we apply this to our universe.
Misleading title. The thing is energy, which can take various forms including matter particles. The real mystery is gravity, in particular how it connects everything in the universe. It's the only force that can do that, so it's not a variation of the other three.
Isaiah 40:26. ...dynamic energy. 🕊
Wisdom is knowing what you know and knowing what you don't know. ~Confucious.... I wish they had discussed the trillions of cells in the human body. It's amazing this life. I don't mind that some knowledge is beyond me at present. I like the gravity and attraction idea. Thank you for the video.
Black light matters
Nah
😂
Bad joke
The movement was a big scam
Light supremicists rule, OK!
Does the localization have a connection with the speed of the light trapped in the forms of matter? Is the speed of light slowed down into the forms? Did Einstein say something related to this--like matter being forms of slowed down energy or light?
Yes, matter/mass is energy, and almost entirely spatially confined energy rather than anything instilled by the Higgs field. These people are oddly ignoring this now basic science and replacing energy with 'frozen light"... because they think it sounds more mysterious and cool? There's no knowledge being offered here, there's just semantic games that degrade our actual understanding of reality.
In the beginning, there was light.
You sure it wasn't darkness? ( Yes that is a Legend pun ) 😆
Actually, in. The beginning was the heavens and earth. Then, sometime later, there was light. That suggests to me that light is carried on a field that initially was not there.
Isaiah 45.7 says “I form Light and create darkness. that suggests to me that light is carried on a field, which can be switched off. It was in ancient Egypt
@@mspapworth1 This is where the concept of time can be misinterpreted, philosophically ofc. There is eternal, and then there is the beginning 😛
There is no "beginning".
So if i can thaw some stones I can use them as headlights on my car? Or am I missing something😊
"Are our everyday assumptions wrong? Should we be experiencing the universe differently?"
Great questions!
Yes!!!
What controls the patterns in fractals and why are their patterns so prevalent?
Intention shapes the flow of matter.
Which is to say standing waves in quantum foam or whatever multidimensional medium in which transitory waves are observed as photons.
Wow..
Consciousness is light, and permeates all
That is the sum of it,
Hmmm... if what you suggest is true, this would suggest that it's all a question of 'mind over matter'... In other words: "I don't mind... and you don't matter!"
(Just kidding!) 😉
@theseustoo kind of, consider consciousness being an external force that binds our reality. So, truly, if in mass people do not mind than a thing will not become matter.
@@byronschroedel432 Well... you're accepting the 'pan-psychism' hypothesis as if it were a 'proven' reality... but it's not. It's still merely speculation. But you're also taking what was admittedly just a joke far too seriously... and frankly I doubt your conclusion, even though it would seem to largely agree with the suggestion in my joke. Seems like a non-sequitur to me.
@@theseustoo tbf this kind of synthetic sentence could have been pronounced by several schools of philosophy ; german romantics for instance. It is no surprise that it resonates with modern times.
Is spirit the frozen delight or vitron when matter is frozen light ?
Light is quantized as photons. Electrons are found orbiting atoms, being shared by them, often changing its energy signature and producing a photon as a byproduct. Matter, made up of atoms, can be described as energy, in terms of the amount of energy it represents. The problem with the argument, so far is in the extrapolation of the immutability of energy. There is nothing either scientific or intuitive to support that as true.
👍
Yes, without conscious reasoning it may not seem the immutability of energy is conserved. We can't know this intuitively (instinctively). Reason is needed to understand this must be true. Where would that energy go? It must be absorbed to lower a systems entropy & enthalpy effect. It's entropic influence (to create time: change & motion) depends on it.
Enthalpy is the sum of a thermodynamic system's internal energy, and the product of its pressure and volume. Frozen light? No. Bounded energy influencing itself!
What is energy? Q-bits in motion! We're not a photograph or holographic imprint. We can change! That is total chaos! There can be no order that way! Only a predictable pattern!
@@alphaomega1089 Entropy is misleading. Nothing goes away. Every instant carries forward all the energy of the previous instant. There is change, not actual creation or destruction.
@@CPHSDC You are talking about time, not entropy. Let me break it down for you: pressure cooker; enthalpy is that valve closed, and entropy is that valve open releasing pressure and able to do work externally. This motion (collision with another system) is entropy.
@@alphaomega1089 Thank you for the clarification and making my point. You are talking about an experiment, a phenomenon. I am familiar (oh the pain) with the Laws of Thermodynamics from both a physical and chemical framework. I am referring to the totality of space time. Energy is conserved. Yesterday's entropy is available for todays' collisions. No loss, no gain.
I’ve come to view each moment in time as a potential observation that could cause wave function collapse in quantum mechanics. I see humans, through their continuous perception of time and reality, as the observers in this process. I liken humans to complex apparatuses that interpret signals from the environment, and I consider this interpretation as a form of observation in the quantum mechanical sense. I’ve also started to view consciousness as this signal interpretation process, drawing parallels between human consciousness and the operation of a scientific apparatus.
"Everything exposed by the light becomes visible, for everything that becomes visible is light."
Ephesians 5:13-14
And before god created light?
@@bastiaan7777777 God is light.
@@Cincy32 lol.. no
And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day. (Genesis 1:3-5 ESV)
try again
@@bastiaan7777777 So you don't believe that God is able to create Himself or elements of Himself? Was man not made in his image & likeness? Why cannot God - who Scriptures tell us is literally light - create more light?
1 John 1:5
This is the message which we have heard from Him and declare to you, that God is light and in Him is no darkness at all.
John 8:12
Then Jesus spoke to them again, saying, "I am the light of the world. He who follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but have the light of life."
@@Cincy32 Correct. You worship a false god.
The mass of an atom is in the nucleus but its attraction and bond depends heavily upon how the valences mesh. Energy and other excitation methods create the frequency of vibrations. And like I mentioned if a particle can be observed it can infinitely be divided. If you reduce the distance between atoms by half every time , they will never touch.i think your point was about the fabric of the universe being the field
Due to the radiative properties of matter, id say it would be more prudent to say light is "liberated matter" rather than matter being frozen light.
They cool electric wires to near zero resistance to current flow. Is there a connection to cold temp at paranormal sightings where they are popping in and out of dimensions effortlessly thereby the cold is a bi-product of zero resistance to the flow.
Frozen light is not the most apt anology.
The waves are still waving but the energy they embody is trapped within a 'form'.
The theory of solitons, a wide spread natural phenomena, demonstrates how this happens and points the way ahead.
A smoke ring is an everday macro example of a soliton. Solitons also provide a relatively simple explanation for many otherwise arcane natural phenomena, ranging from tidal waves, through ball lightning to photons.
It is quite likely many other quantum phenomena can be fairly easily explained in this way.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soliton
It's wrong though. Even in matter-antimater collisions, you run possibilities of free quarks, neutrinos, etc etc...
Furthermore... What do you mean by frozen light? A standing light wave in a laser chamber sure looks like it's not moving to me.
Then there's experiments where light can be slowed down extremely slow in very cold atomic gasses.
@@kayakMike1000 A standing light wave, also known as a stationary light wave, is a wave that oscillates in time but does not move in space. The speed of light trough all mediums is c/N, where N is the index of refraction of the medium - if not completely absorbed or completely reflected.
Light is an electromagnetic wave. The wave waves even if it's relatively static in spacial coordinates. All electromagnetic waves have spectra of oscillation.
As you should know, everything oscillates unless at absolute zero kelvin. In an absolute zero system, no em waves are possible, and neither is matter.
Saying the waves are waving is saying a wave is a noun and a verb. A wave is not a thing, it's what a thing does
Photon's don't exist either, not a shred of evidence for them
Rather than frozen light, I view matter as energized space. What evidence is there for matter as light?
Adorable theory, but matter isn't frozen light, it's the electron moving so fast within that particular matter that it creates the illusion of a physical object...
Hold a vibrator in your hand, and you notice as the vibrator is on, it becomes bigger and harder to hold on to as it vibrates.
There is only one electron in the entire universe creating the illusion of all electrons, protons, neutrons, and all matter.
It's called the single electron universe theory. ~ John Wheeler and Richard Feynman.
If that example doesn't help, turn a fan on and put your hand inside and see if the fan hits you even if it's in constant motion, and looks invisible.
The same principal applies to the electron which creates the illusion of matter. It's just that the matter is moving so fast, not frozen... this is the opposite of frozen, which is when molecules are more like still(although still moving slightly). Everything is in constant motion until (theoretically) it reaches absolute zero, which is when (theoretically) the black hole or anti-matter might be formed. Ask yourself this; is the fan really a ghost, or does it just seem that way because it's moving so fast?
I'm sure that one electron thing is a joke between the two. The one electron thing have a pretty major prediction, since the electron path must form a close loop, there must be an equal number of positrons and electrons at any time and at a finite time in the future, all positrons and electrons will annihinate and no more electrons and positrons will ever come into existance after that.
This is obviously not our universe.
I wonder if Rupert Sheldrake knows there is a song that references him:
Rupert Sheldrakes Favorite Girl, by Tree by Leaf.
...consciousness creates mater and not the other way round . Period . Realising this is only around the corner.
You sound confident care to explain why. Maybe then you will be remembered as the first person in the long long history of philosophy to have done it and have your name eternalized.
@edgfwevwefedvreafv4974 ha ha ha. Clearly, you're not well read , if you were, you would have known , this is not new . It is an age-old Eastern world philosophy. And more so panpsychist , Plato and Aristotle had panpsychist beliefs as did the stoics... There's absolutely nothing new under the sun . It's like saying humans have created electricity , whereas humans have "discovered " electricity, electricity has always been there, you see... I take it that you believe that universe came into existence out of nothing? What a lazy and absurd idea, an unproven one for that matter. You can not lift your arm without first thinking about it , you can not write or create anything without first thinking about it. Children first learn to speak coherently before they start speaking vocabulary. These ideas and concepts obviously came from consciousness. Don't you know that absolutely nothing can exist if there's no driving force behind it ? Like an idea construction....
love the metaphor 'matter is frozen light ' Connective/fascial tissue has similar properties. resulting in restriction/viscosity of blood flow into nooks and cranny's. manual therapy like Osteopathy releases this 'frozenlight'
Osteopathy? Have you seen the light?
Put a guy with an English accent on the tube, and Americans think a genious is speaking, when really it's just a teabag in a sweater.
Good try but he's a PhD and teaching fellow from Cambridge but that, amongst other facts, has eluded you
@@RJ-cs9gz I'd say, "good point", but...... remember when they used to teach that the earth was flat, and that the sun revolved around the earth, and that sickness was caused by ill-humors, and that kings were annointed by god, and countless other childish imbecilisms that we laugh at today? Don't get me wrong, I want my butler to have an English accent, just not my palm-reader.
Naw, this American knows quacks. His accent is a non issue. He doesn't even warrant a foil hat. It's too bs. What people like is supernatural sunshine from people with credentials who are not even using said credentials. Anyone with a degree talking supernatural isn't using anything resembling education. Like the guy who commented above. He sounds like he will listen to anyone with a degree. Degrees don't mean anything in spiritual or supernatural matters. Some dude has a Degree in Islamic studies. Does that mean we sit and listen to them? Hmmm. How thoughtless. Mental discrimination is not in use in their head.
Anyway, you said, "Americans." That means you don't like Americans and I don't blame you. But that part of your comment went logical fallacy. I would say, "ignorant people from anywhere on the planet." I would not pick a country and blanket it that way. That went off the rails.
Rupert is quack.
Well worth the watch ❤
You really need to study Basil J. Hiley - he debunks Richard Feynman. Study Professor Jean Bricmont - he debunks quantum field theory. Physics has a lot of errors - standard physics.
Sunlight can also be broken down into what we call colours but in essence it’s just the carrier frequency that changes and therefore there are tremendous variations of photon waves and everything in between, above and below what we know.
Particle or wave?
what about bud light ?
brilliant talk. subscribing. greeting from Chile
Do fields exist beyond the universe - if so, how far beyond? Or are fields infinite, intrinsic? Because, according to Mark/Rupert, fields are required for the transmission of light. So, can light travel beyond the universe if there are no fields, or does the universe project fields - and does this projection expand at the speed of light? Do fields require/consume energy, if not, how do they come into being? At the edge of the universe what are fields expanding into? How does this work? What is the evidence for your response. Thank you kindly for your response, Charles.
love this conversation! you’re expanding my mind 💚
Lovely. That is the first time I've heard anyone espouse the idea that direction is somehow fundamentally embedded in matter. I had the notion that direction might be embedded in the spacetime field or whatever it is that planets and stars float about in, but I prefer Rupert's approach.
Space has no properties
@@WildLifePrimesure it does
Matter is condensed energy right and photons are energy with no mass so condensation is with no process right? So are tachyons and or Hawking radiation maybe a sprinkleof Unruh radiation just forms of evaporated matter?
Paused light?
Could it be energy is rest and light is the unrest of it?
I keep telling people that light and quantum are the direction of "outward" from our 4-space, but I don't know if they understand or listen.
have you thought that maybe that you are a crackpot. We have a very good understanding of light and matter. Our theory make excellent predictions. If your "theory" can compete with that then you are worth listening
High & low pressures. On a micro to macro scale...what causes it?
My previous comment was not meant for your comment! I was responding to something else! Lol
It this suggesting that matter is a waveform of a sufficiently high natural frequency? Natural frequency is a function of mass and stiffness. Stiffness of what?
Interesting conversation but if there are equations to explain this or an experiment then it helps. The nearest explanation I know if is pair production where high radiation energy strikes an electron producing a positron and an electron but they cancel each other out. Is there a way where a positron and an electron can remain separate? If this can be explored then maybe there is a way in proving what is discussed.
4:30 afaik gravity spreads out (deforms spacetime) like a ripple effect going the speed of light.
So the mass can be at a different place and the other mass still gets the effect of the mass at the old position. An example is that if the sun would disappear suddenly, earth would still Orbit it for the 8 minutes it takes the effect of gravity to travel. Only then the earth would travel in a streight line.
Thats always an interesting thought experiment 🙂. What do you think of this: imagine an electricity cable from sun to earth, the sun delivering the energy for a light to be lit on earth. What happens when the sun disappears. Will the circuit be broken instantly hence no energy will travel down the cable, or will the light on earth stil be lit for another 8 minutes?
@@taaskeprins the speed of light is misleading. Any massless particle will travel at C, so calling it the speed of light put more focus on light than it ought to receive.
C is the speed of causality. There can be no signal, no effect, nor information that can propagate faster than it otherwise causality will be broken.
On earth, the circuit will function as normal until 8 minutes pass, only after which any observation can be observed.
"Matter is frozen light," the absolute truth.
Absolute? It moves and it doesn't move. Is that absolute?
how about when light collides with other light and the perfect angle?