Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Math Science

Are Fragments of Energy the Fundamental Building Blocks of the Universe? (theconversation.com) 99

Posted by EditorDavid from the speaking-relativity-ly dept.
hcs_$reboot shares a remarkable new theory from Larry M. Silverberg, an aerospace engineering professor at North Carolina State University (with colleague Jeffrey Eischen). They're proposing that matter is not made of particles (or even waves), as was long thought, but fragments of energy.

[W]hile the theories and math of waves and particles allow scientists to make incredibly accurate predictions about the universe, the rules break down at the largest and tiniest scales. Einstein proposed a remedy in his theory of general relativity. Using the mathematical tools available to him at the time, Einstein was able to better explain certain physical phenomena and also resolve a longstanding paradox relating to inertia and gravity. But instead of improving on particles or waves, he eliminated them as he proposed the warping of space and time.Using newer mathematical tools, my colleague and I have demonstrated a new theory that may accurately describe the universe... Instead of basing the theory on the warping of space and time, we considered that there could be a building block that is more fundamental than the particle and the wave....

Much to our surprise, we discovered that there were only a limited number of ways to describe a concentration of energy that flows. Of those, we found just one that works in accordance with our mathematical definition of flow. We named it a fragment of energy... Using the fragment of energy as a building block of matter, we then constructed the math necessary to solve physics problems... More than 100 [years] ago, Einstein had turned to two legendary problems in physics to validate general relativity: the ever-so-slight yearly shift — or precession — in Mercury's orbit, and the tiny bending of light as it passes the Sun... In both problems, we calculated the trajectories of the moving fragments and got the same answers as those predicted by the theory of general relativity. We were stunned.

Our initial work demonstrated how a new building block is capable of accurately modeling bodies from the enormous to the minuscule. Where particles and waves break down, the fragment of energy building block held strong. The fragment could be a single potentially universal building block from which to model reality mathematically — and update the way people think about the building blocks of the universe.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Are Fragments of Energy the Fundamental Building Blocks of the Universe? More

Are Fragments of Energy the Fundamental Building Blocks of the Universe?

Comments Filter:

  • Bill Hicks Knew This 30 Years Ago. (Score:5, Funny)

    by lobiusmoop ( 305328 ) on Sunday December 13, 2020 @04:17AM (#60824896) Homepage

    âoeToday a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves. Here's Tom with the Weather.â

  • There is more to general relativity than explaining the precession of mercury orbitals. Finding a mathematical model that explains just that is not going to be a serious challenge to the general theory of relativity. It should also be compatible with all measurements we have so far that involve relativistic effects: from the time shift of GPS satellites down to the emission line of heavy elements and up to gravitational waves and images of black holes.
    • Hmm, Oâ(TM)l Einstein said: e=mc^2 So, matter particles and energy are the same thing.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by msauve ( 701917 )
        If... she... weighs the same as a duck... she's made of wood... and therefore...
        (pause)
        A Witch!

    • Looking at the wikipedia page of the Physical Essays https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] it mentions it had an impact factor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] of 0.245 (2013) although it's old data and the metric can be questioned in itself, an average of less then one in four published paper gets cited once leads me to believe this isn't considered a serious publication (a paper published in Nature gets cited about 38 times on average).

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by gweihir ( 88907 )

      Pretty likely BS. As are all other current explanations. Unless and until a GUT is found, all this stuff is just speculation and the mathematical extremists have been running amok in the theoretical physics space for a long time now.

  • Here is the published article (Score:5, Informative)

    by divide overflow ( 599608 ) on Sunday December 13, 2020 @04:37AM (#60824940)
    You can find Silverberg and Eischen's journal article here [ncsu.edu]: https://www.mae.ncsu.edu/eisch... [ncsu.edu]

  • You mean quanta? (Score:4, Informative)

    by BAReFO0t ( 6240524 ) on Sunday December 13, 2020 @04:41AM (#60824948)

    Of energy?

    Sounds like what everybody thought for quite some time already, but could not put into concrete words, so they used "wave" or "particle" or, better, "wavefunction" to mean the same thing.

    Looks worthy of a read-through.

    • This exactly. The concept was proposed by Planck and Einstein 120 years ago. What interests me (without RTFA) if this is an attempt at reconciliation of GR and QM.
    • I was thinking the same thing.
      My semi-educated prediction is that someone will eventually show that Silverberg and Eischen's system is mathematically equivalent to General Relativity.

  • Is this theory any closer to a proving a unified theory? Is it able to factor the state, position or decay of an individual particle in an entangled system, or is the devil still dealing the cards?

    • To answer thar, we would first have to find out if it gives the correct results for all those experiments we did to check the theories of relarivity and quantum field theory.

      Which would take quite some time.
      And to be frank, given how the community is somehow surprisingly much like an old boys club for being supposedly scientists, and this not exactly being the luckiest of ways of becoming know to them (This The Conversation article reads like pseudoscience and has numerous obvious esoterics in the comments)

    • Is this theory any closer to a proving a unified theory? Is it able to factor the state, position or decay of an individual particle in an entangled system, or is the devil still dealing the cards?

      No, and for the following reason.

      The proposed theory (and QM and relativity) assumes that space and all vector fields are "smooth", in the mathematical sense. This means that measurements can be accurate to any degree, which implies that differentiation and integration will be valid in that explanation.

      When measurements are real numbers (as opposed to quantized values represented by rational numbers) then any calculations on these measurements becomes non-computable - in essence, the results of any experime

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by gweihir ( 88907 )

      Well, in a sense yes, because it makes thinking outside the box a bit more acceptable. But by its contents? Not that I can see. Still, this is Science at work and even wild speculation deserves some consideration when the solution to a problem has eluded the best minds for a long, long time.

      There is still the possibility that a GUT does not exist and that Physics is actually far less impartial about how it gets looked at than the current model says. We still have to see quantum-effects meaningfully scale up

  • This has been around for a while (Score:5, Interesting)

    by 278MorkandMindy ( 922498 ) on Sunday December 13, 2020 @05:07AM (#60824992)

    The idea that particles are "simply" functions of energy, has been proposed many times before. This is not new. What could be new (but who reads TFA anyway??) is there is a way to prove it.

    Or to put it more simply, matter does not exist on any scale, it just appears to do so due to energy interactions. This is not a difficult concept to understand, as most matter is empty space even with the current understanding. Each particle is a collection of even smaller particles, so there is no reason to disbelieve that the smallest particles are not physical at all, just energy.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by swell ( 195815 )

      I have believed this since 1957 (I was 12). Matter is an illusion.

      I have been frustrated all my life because I believe that if physicists would accept this view, we would be far more advanced in understanding and using energy. So many have been so wrong for so long that one wonders if the physics community isn't in a quagmire.

      • I have believed this since 1957 (I was 12). Matter is an illusion.

        You are sort of right and sort of "not even wrong".

        You are right in the fundamental message of E=mc^2. Any matter can be converted to energy. There are theories that even the most fundamental particles can simply decay [wikipedia.org]. You are also right that physics is stuck in a quagmire

        You are "not even wrong"(look it up) in the sense that I have no real idea what more you mean and I don't think you really do either. If what you said was true then what difference would it make to the world and the way it behaves? T

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by FabioA ( 1978348 )
      I wonder: isn't this the same concept that the Star Trek holodeck uses to "make matter" out of thin air?

  • The introduction makes a vague claim that matter and energy are one and the same... we already know that. The real guts of the theory are behind a $140 paywall.

    • Re: Paywall / Low Content Intro (Score:5, Informative)

      by BAReFO0t ( 6240524 ) on Sunday December 13, 2020 @06:20AM (#60825108)

      Bullshit!

      It's a $25 paywall.

      And here's the direct link:
      https://www.mae.ncsu.edu/eisch... [ncsu.edu]
      From his homepage at https://www.mae.ncsu.edu/eisch... [ncsu.edu]

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by dfm3 ( 830843 )
      For future reference: try emailing the author of a journal article directly, tell them you are interested in the article but can't get access to a copy, they'll sometimes send you a pdf. Essentially zero of that money ever gets to the authors anyway, so there's no financial loss except for the middleman publishing companies. Worst that happens is they just don't respond.

  • Surely that is already a solved problem ? I don't get why something so practical could help test their theory ? And why it was suprsing that it worked out ?

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by The Evil Atheist ( 2484676 )
      In general, if you have a new theory, you have to prove that it still predicts what the old theory successfully predicted. The problem with these guys is they're trying to paint it like because it supposedly explains the two most famous successes of Einstein, it is therefore a good replacement. They don't understand that the theory has made many more predictions beyond those observations that have also been proven.

      In short, the tactic of choosing those two things to reprove is basically PR because of the

      • I also suspected PR.

        So will Slashdot now take down this nonsense ?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by CODiNE ( 27417 )

        the Electric Universe

        That's ridiculous, the Universe is made of orgone.

      • In addition, generally when proposing a vast new theory, you should also be demonstrating that the theory accounts for existing unexplained observations. Alternatively, it should make verifiable observational predictions that other theories can't.

        I won't say it's easy, but there are many theories that have been proposed that account for a limited number of observations. The successful ones account for all relevant observations, and predict new ones.

        As I recall general relativity's first major success was in

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Megol ( 3135005 )

        Yes but expecting it to be delivered as a solution fully covering all cases is ridiculous.

        • They're the ones who set up the expectation with their extraordinary claims. If you are proposing a new formulation to be MORE fundamental, then by DEFINITION it has to cover all existing verified cases. Theoretical physics has come under increasing fire for precisely this phenomenon of proposing partial solutions to partial problems and then hoping to get PR to, at best, get other physicists working to plug the leaks, and at worst, sell books and other media based on the promise that beautiful maths is eno

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by cusco ( 717999 )

        If they've tested 500 different scenarios do you really want to read a list of all of them? They listed two of the more famous and generally understandable examples, I seriously doubt that they stopped there.

        • Look at their field - they're engineers, aerospace. It's highly likely they did not test beyond the two. The may be very good in their own respective fields. But they're not in their own field with this hypothesis.

  • A selection of articles from the "journal" (Score:5, Informative)

    by As_I_Please ( 471684 ) on Sunday December 13, 2020 @05:48AM (#60825062)

    Here's a selection of abstracts of other articles from the journal Physics Essays (I am not paying $25 to read each full article). Scores come from John Baez's Crackpot Index [ucr.edu].

    Relative simultaneity does not exist

    Relative simultaneity predicted by special relativity is shown to be false. This is done by demonstrating inconsistency arising from this prediction. The well-known train-embankment thought experiment fails to demonstrate the phenomenon and global simultaneity as exists in the Global Positioning System invalidates the prediction

    Then how does one explain our experimental evidence that clocks run at different rates in various relative velocities and gravities? Crackpot Score: +2

    Refutation of Einstein’s relativity on the basis of the incorrect derivation of the inertial mass increase violating the principle of energy conservation. A paradigm shift in physics

    An airplane flying in the sky cannot have a higher inertial mass just because a person on the ground is watching the airplane, as well as it cannot have different inertial masses, if observed from car drivers moving on the ground with different velocities. Einstein’s relativistic physics that postulates that one can influence the inertial mass of matter or the speed of physical processes (“time”) by observing another inertial frame is actually not understandable. Because the relativistic mathematical approach enables us to get usefully and numerally precise results of nature observable phenomena, relativistic physics is nevertheless generally accepted today. This can only be explained in such a way that most physicists subordinate their logical reasoning to their mathematical formalism. The author explains the constancy of the speed of light, as well as the slowing down of physical processes (time) and the increase in the inertial mass, which are caused by motion, cogently by the principle of energy conservation. Nonrelativistic explanations of the equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass and for the mass-energy equivalence are presented. It is demonstrated that the explanation of the inertial mass increase by Einstein’s relativity violates the principle of energy conservation. As relativity has therefore been refuted by nature, a paradigm shift is imperative.

    Apparently, this author is not aware that physicists stoppped using the concept of "relativistic mass" many decades ago (Einstein himself said it was a bad concept). Crackpot Score: +29 (Impressive for just an abstract!)

    This journal seems to be a crackpot magnet.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Entrope ( 68843 )

      What's really funny about the first is that it claims GPS disapproves the relativity of simultaneity. In actuality, GPS and similar systems rely on it.

      The clocks on each satellite are synchronized, even advancing with a slight adjustment for relativity due to their orbital speeds. Each satellite broadcasts a signal that contains high-resolution time information (plus orbit and other information). Receivers see signals offset to each other in time due to the travel time of light, and determine their posit

    • Apparently, this author is not aware that physicists stoppped using the concept of "relativistic mass" many decades ago
      I'm not aware either. Care to explain?
      As my school is about 30 years ago and my diploma in physics about 20.

      • In short, it's because "relativistic mass" already has a better name: energy. The relativistic mass of a particle is equal to the total energy of the particle (kinetic + potential + mass (E = mc^2)) divided by c^2. For more details, read this and other blog posts by Prof. Matt Strassler [profmattstrassler.com]. He has an entire series of basic explanations of modern high-energy particle physics.

        • So there is one single physicist who doe it different?
          Since 7 years?
          And you say: since decades?

          Hm ....

          • It is not good to introduce the concept of the mass M = m/sqrt{1 - v^2/c^2} of a moving body for which no clear definition can be given. It is better to introduce no other mass concept than the ’rest mass’ m. Instead of introducing M it is better to mention the expression for the momentum and energy of a body in motion.

                    —Albert Einstein in letter to Lincoln Barnett, 19 June 1948

        • Not a bad article, not sure if he is on point or not. But linguistics have obviously an influence how our mind ticks.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dargaud ( 518470 )

      global simultaneity as exists in the Global Positioning System invalidates the prediction

      Crackpot Score: +2

      Only +2 ? I've worked with GPS software and we do indeed consider special relativity in the computations, so his whole point is moot.

  • Direct link to the paper: [free] (Score:4, Informative)

    by BAReFO0t ( 6240524 ) on Sunday December 13, 2020 @06:18AM (#60825102)

    https://www.mae.ncsu.edu/eisch... [ncsu.edu]

    To save you the $25 and the awful text at "The Conversation".

  • yes, Fragments of energy are the fundamental bulding blocks of the universe

    next question...

  • "Hmm. On one hand I'm tempted to say 'no' as usual because you have just made an alternate formula that satisfies Mercury's precession prediction in General Relativity and haven't answered the actual question.

    "On the other hand, I'm tempted to say 'yes' as we already thought this was the case and used different words, like 'quanta' and 'packet'.

    "Which to choose... ibble obble..."

  • The litmus test for any new theory is whether it makes any verifiable predictions or is able to model physical phenomena that so far didn't fit within any existing theory or for which differing otherwise successful theories disagreed.

    The notions of physical objects, time and space as fundamental properties in the universe is easily challenged [slashdot.org]. Just note for instance that it is impossible to demonstrate that a particle exists without interacting with it. Consider the double slit experiment: it's hard to ma

  • I recall a toy model where you have a point mass with a newtonian gravitational field. Then similar to electromagnetism you take the energy density of the gravitational field (all newtonian) , and through the equivalence of energy and mass, let this graviational field affect the effective mass at a distance R
    So the effective mass at each distance now becomes variable. This toy model predicts the deflection of light as well as the existence of black holes.
    The authors offered the model as a valid chal

  • Forgive me (Score:5, Informative)

    by burtosis ( 1124179 ) on Sunday December 13, 2020 @09:43AM (#60825450)
    I broke the unwritten rule of slashdot and actually read the paper. Conservation of energy is nothing new and considered a founding principle of physics even though there is debate on exactly how this applies on the largest scales of the universe and we all ignore the elephant in the room of why all the energy in the universe was concentrated to a singularity at the beginning of time. The paper just recreates the math underlying physics by literally copying the formulas and positing that these “energy fragments” all travel along 4D vectors that never cross and remain continuous. The energy fragments (no idea why they aren’t called quanta) have a magnitude and basically have their influence drop off by a distance function that they later define as a squared function. It says nothing about the quantum events we know don’t work in a continuous way and provides no insight or even framework for modeling them. It has no insight as to why the process is randomized and nowhere in the paper do they even address probability amplitudes. Rather they just essentially re-derive the framework for general relativity and show quite a bit how the vector paths remain continuous and how the result yields the same answer as general relativity when they use the same mathematical framework.

    While I think it’s interesting to formulate an approach using continuous 4D vectors and energy conservation, they need to show why this approach makes any inroads or insight over the standard model whatsoever or show why fundamentally it is a better approach from a closed form solution approach or something to this effect. Worth reading the first bit, and glancing over how they derived the formulas but unless something else gets added I wouldn’t hold my breath it goes anywhere.
    • Thank you sir or madam.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dargaud ( 518470 )
      Many (*) physicists who think they 'improved' either quantum mechanics or general relativity actually just derive them from other axioms or use other math methods and the end result is purely equivalent. Not to say it's useless as sometimes concepts are easier to grasp with one method than the other. Case in point, the 'information theory reformulation' of quantum physics is much clearer on many paradoxes than the usual approach. But those don't provide actual 'new' physics.
      (*) But for 5 of those there ar

      • Many (*) physicists who think they 'improved' either quantum mechanics or general relativity actually just derive them from other axioms or use other math methods and the end result is purely equivalent. Not to say it's useless as sometimes concepts are easier to grasp with one method than the other. Case in point, the 'information theory reformulation' of quantum physics is much clearer on many paradoxes than the usual approach. But those don't provide actual 'new' physics. (*) But for 5 of those there are 500 crackpots.

        Very true. When I first learned of how information theory actually works it blew my mind. Not because it added anything new, per se, but it provided another way to view the same thing that sure adds to the flavor of being a key to understanding what a better plausible theory might look like.

        A different reformulation that totally blew my mind when I first heard it was the concept of exergy and how it can simplify problems with energy transfer. I had always wondered what the energy of a compressed air s

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by mburns ( 246458 )

      So they have apparently used the Bianchi identities as a substitute for the usual Einstein equation. This works best with coordinates that are orthogonal, homogeneous and covariant.

  • So, what did they expect? That this lump of energy somehow does not obey the rules of general relativity?

    • This. This. There's nothing new in that paper, except some /extremely/ questionable numerical integrations.

  • Please stop highlighting crackpots (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Yes, this guy is a crackpot.

    Is his paper on the arXiv? No.

    Is his paper in a reputable journal? No.

    Does he provide anything to back up his wishy-washy assertions? No.

    It's published in a pay-to-view crackpot journal. It is not readily available for verification by scientists. He might as well be the time cube guy at this point.

    • For once, AC is right. Look up the co-authors on Google Scholar. The one barely has any citations, and neither have highly-cited papers on an even remotely related topic. Trash journalism.
  • Why is this published in "Physics Essays"? I have never heard of this journal, and I have over two decades in the field. If this were for real, it would have been submitted to critical review by actual experts with PhDs in Physics in a high-profile journal; it would be in PRL or maybe Phys Rev D. These guys aren't even physicists. I won't hold my breath, and neither should you.

  • ...and you wind up describing matter as a form of energy, I think our previous nomenclature has become meaningless.

  • As a physicist, this looks like a simple algebraic rendition of relativity. It doesn't look like there's anything here that can't be found in an undergraduate relativity textbook.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by PPH ( 736903 )

      As an engineer, this looks like the paper costs $25.00. I'm not clickin' that ....

  • Iâ(TM)m no expert on this stuff, just an interested layman. I have no idea how to assess the claims of this paper and so I depend on feedback from more qualified people. I am however wondering what are the qualifications of people responding here, given that pretty everyone is rebutting the claims.

  • Eh (Score:2)

    by TRRosen ( 720617 )

    Not exactly a radical new theory. Itâ(TM)s been my basic theory for a long time. And letâ(TM)s face it if you can reduce everything down to one building block it really doesnâ(TM)t matter what you call it whether you call it energy or particles or waves the distinction is really meaningless once you get down to one item.

Slashdot Top Deals

Bus error -- please leave by the rear door.

Close