A small leap of faith

[jag]

The machanics of creation is to analyze the action of ether attaining mass. Where does the mass come from? Maybe this is the beginning of the illusion.

It takes a small leap of faith to believe in a movement that is part of a set of ordered momvements, or thoughts, that go from 0 mass to a thing. That thing being the building block of our physical existance.

Whether this thing is a graviton or something else I don't know. But the point I'm trying to make is that collapsing clouds of these smallest particles join together in different ways to become larger particles. Fusion. At first not much energy will be released because of the pressure of the vortex and the the growing mass.

The power of the vortex is the key to understanding how our local universe is evolving and being created.

[austintorn@aol.com]

The ether could ravel about itself, eventually forming the 'solid' particles that we see now having mass and spin. No other option seems available to the ether but for oppositely moving streams of it to pass and create a vortex or whirlpool. See Fluid Energy Theory (FET) thread under Your Toe by Jimbo.

[Play_Dough]

The machanics of creation is to analyze the action of ether attaining mass. Where does the mass come from? Maybe this is the beginning of the illusion.

In 2007 a researcher, now at Harvard, conducted an experiement that transformed light into matter and then the matter so created was transformed back into light.
links:
http://www.google.com/search?client=...utf-8&oe=utf-8

To me, this seemed like the first experiment conducted that demonstrated that matter could be created.

Perhaps 'light' has an 'operating parameter' and if (when?) light can be slowed down (contra Einstein) that it experiences a 'change of state' into mass/matter.

We know that we can transform mass into energy (E=MC squared) and the experiment, referenced above, did the opposite.
Perhaps Einstein's E=MC squared may provide a fleeting insight where (transposed) E divided by C squared = M but this inversion of Einstein's equation does not account for thermal variances (?).

The press coverage for this event does not shed much light on the overall process and the Harvard article (link)
http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/...08/99-hau.html seems to understate the significance and implications of the experiment.

Here is a quote from the Harvard article:
"A weird thing happens to the light as it enters the cold atomic cloud, called a Bose-Einstein condensate. It becomes squeezed into a space 50 million times smaller. Imagine a light beam 3,200 feet (one kilometer) long, loaded with information, that now is only a hair width in length but still encodes as much information." (end quote)

Einstein would counter (I believe) that the experiment did not 'slow the speed of light' but, rather, warped space (compressed distance) and produced the illusion of slowing the speed of light.

Nevertheless, the experiment has mind-boggling implications. It is as though we can close our eyes and then blink once and have the brief image 'frozen' into a fixed (mass) configuration.

I often analyze this quantum stuff by leaving the mid-ranges and going to the extremes.... in other words, a 'blackhole' could be thought of as a massive accumulation of light that is so tightly compressed that it forms into infinite mass(?) as the velocity of light is brought to a standstill and time, as we know it, stops. Further analysis (mine) produces a 'chicken/egg' scenario that has not, as yet, provided any deeper insight. In other words, what event has to occur (initially) that causes light speed to decelerate? (again, contra Einstein).

The (most probable) answer is a radical decrease in temperature (460 degrees below zero Fahrenheit).
link:
http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000...hat_is_it.html
This link (above) provides a graphic with a slider bar that enables you to watch atoms (activity) as temperature declines (Bose-Einstein condensate). The main problem that I see, in associating 'atoms' (Bose-Einstein condensate) and 'light' is that 'light' is thought to be massless (photons not atoms). Perhaps decreased temperature stops atoms from emitting photons? (Atom-photon entanglement).

As for myself, I only have the most primitive understanding of these processes and 'knowledge' about these matters should not be inferred by my use of big words like "Bose-Einstein condensate".

None of this explains how to get light into matter, in a stable form and independent of temperature, but it does indicate that matter/energy transformations can be a 'two-way street'.

.

[austintorn@aol.com]

Energy 'matters' when spinning densely.

[jag]

The ether could ravel about itself, eventually forming the 'solid' particles that we see now having mass and spin. No other option seems available to the ether but for oppositely moving streams of it to pass and create a vortex or whirlpool. See Fluid Energy Theory (FET) thread under Your Toe by Jimbo.

Thanks for contemplating voryexes
jag

[jag]

In 2007 a researcher, now at Harvard, conducted an experiement that transformed light into matter and then the matter so created was transformed back into light.
links:
http://www.google.com/search?client=...utf-8&oe=utf-8

To me, this seemed like the first experiment conducted that demonstrated that matter could be created.

Perhaps 'light' has an 'operating parameter' and if (when?) light can be slowed down (contra Einstein) that it experiences a 'change of state' into mass/matter.

We know that we can transform mass into energy (E=MC squared) and the experiment, referenced above, did the opposite.
Perhaps Einstein's E=MC squared may provide a fleeting insight where (transposed) E divided by C squared = M but this inversion of Einstein's equation does not account for thermal variances (?).

The press coverage for this event does not shed much light on the overall process and the Harvard article (link)
http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/...08/99-hau.html seems to understate the significance and implications of the experiment.

Here is a quote from the Harvard article:
"A weird thing happens to the light as it enters the cold atomic cloud, called a Bose-Einstein condensate. It becomes squeezed into a space 50 million times smaller. Imagine a light beam 3,200 feet (one kilometer) long, loaded with information, that now is only a hair width in length but still encodes as much information." (end quote)

Einstein would counter (I believe) that the experiment did not 'slow the speed of light' but, rather, warped space (compressed distance) and produced the illusion of slowing the speed of light.

Nevertheless, the experiment has mind-boggling implications. It is as though we can close our eyes and then blink once and have the brief image 'frozen' into a fixed (mass) configuration.

I often analyze this quantum stuff by leaving the mid-ranges and going to the extremes.... in other words, a 'blackhole' could be thought of as a massive accumulation of light that is so tightly compressed that it forms into infinite mass(?) as the velocity of light is brought to a standstill and time, as we know it, stops. Further analysis (mine) produces a 'chicken/egg' scenario that has not, as yet, provided any deeper insight. In other words, what event has to occur (initially) that causes light speed to decelerate? (again, contra Einstein).

The (most probable) answer is a radical decrease in temperature (460 degrees below zero Fahrenheit).
link:
http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000...hat_is_it.html
This link (above) provides a graphic with a slider bar that enables you to watch atoms (activity) as temperature declines (Bose-Einstein condensate). The main problem that I see, in associating 'atoms' (Bose-Einstein condensate) and 'light' is that 'light' is thought to be massless (photons not atoms). Perhaps decreased temperature stops atoms from emitting photons? (Atom-photon entanglement).

As for myself, I only have the most primitive understanding of these processes and 'knowledge' about these matters should not be inferred by my use of big words like "Bose-Einstein condensate".

None of this explains how to get light into matter, in a stable form and independent of temperature, but it does indicate that matter/energy transformations can be a 'two-way street'.

.

Thanks for the comments and links. Dr. Hau's experiment is interesting but I wouldn't be to quick to dismiss Einstein. jag

[G_burnett]

I posted the stopping of light experiment in another thread and was very excited to read the light to matter to light again experiment, TY.

The idea that the proton is matter is one that I subscribe to so hearing that light was turned into matter was not so hard to believe as it is just a matter of understanding the fluid transitional state that a proton is in.

What really has my mind going is the way an experiment posted by another in the TOE here has shown that an individual electron has had its spin reversed.

I think this may go a long way to the thought that electrons are a form of anti matter and the positron is a form of matter ... do all electrons have the same spin? How would a reversed electron spin effect the attraction to a nucleus? The first thought was to look at the planets of our solar system to see some are in reverse spin but with the same orbit direction as all have the same orbit if I remember right except Venus going the other way around the sun. ...

but getting back to the vortical swirl I looked at the ocean again with fluid mass creating the vortex ... the reverse spin would effect the event and I must revise my vector rule one to include the possibility more as it can intensify the event of vortical spin or hamper it ... very interesting all of it and will generate an ongoing ponder with me. ~ regards graham