Mass-energy equivalence, the famous E = mc², shows the fundamental link between energy and mass. However up until pretty much now it has been considered that when matter absorbs light, i.e. ‘pure energy’, this energy is converted to the kinetic energy of matter, not to ‘true mass’, or invariant/rest mass. The sum of the energy of the particle is called relativistic mass. To some extent the relativistic mass isn’t considered as ‘true’ as the rest mass, as the system has to be at rest to be weighed.
However, what the closed loop model of string theory says is that relativistic mass is the only true mass. What this means is that is a particle is to cool/slow down, it will literally lose some of its mass. This isn’t some abstract concept, but a necessity. Increasing the temperature of a particle means that it the velocity of the rotation of the supramolecular shell where it resides is increased. Without extra mass, the supramolecular shell does not rotate. Adding mass, the extra dots (i.e. Planck spheres), add to the overall length of the string making up the supramolecular shell. Through a rather convoluted process, the extra string is expressed as rotational speed of the supramolecular orbital. This means that the tangential component of each dot is diminished, but the sum of the components is always the speed of light.
So, could we knot light in the lab to generate knotted loops: i.e. matter? Only momentarily. In this experiment researchers collided gold atoms together, causing the photons (really supraphotons) associated with them to collide and form an electron-positron pair. As I’ve noted before, the only difference between an electron and a positron is the direction of their spinning. What happens when they collide is an annihilation event, releasing energy (supraphotons). So, this sort of mass creation is very transient.
However, the creation of permanent mass requires conditions where the generates mass forms stable supramolecular orbitals. This sentence might sound a bit like gibberish, but what I mean is that a single knotted orbital appears to be too unstable not to unravel in a collision with another knotted orbital rotating in the opposite direction. What happens when two supramolecular orbitals collide against each other is the ‘sacrificial’ release of electrons and positrons in these collisions. However, these generated positrons are not observed directly, but rather in the black body radiation that I’ve discussed in a previous post.
Here we come to the age-old question of why there is more matter than antimatter? Or more specifically, why is there something rather than nothing? By the current logic, there should have been an equal amount of matter and antimatter created in the big bang, However, if we consider antimatter to be ‘regular’ matter, just spinning in the opposite direction, we realize that in the conditions where light is converted to matter, the pressure/temperature is too high for the oppositely rotating particles (electrons and positrons at first) to annihilate.
But if we consider the electrons and positrons initially forming a Waterman cluster of 19 spinning double-spherical orbitals, there are 15 aligned orbitals and 4 non-aligned orbitals. If 8 of the aligned orbitals are electrons, 7 are positrons and the remaining four are probably electron neutrinos, as they do not spin.
It appears inevitable that these electron-positron-electron neutrino Waterman clusters would fractally aggregate to form ever-larger clusters of electrons, positrons and electron neutrino, with an increasingly smaller proportion of electron neutrinos and an increasingly smaller difference in the electron-positron ratio.
Very much like with the formation of the supramolecular shell, the outer crust of the fractally aggregated cluster of electrons, positrons and electron neutrinos will form an analogue shell. However, this shell is not a supramolecular shell, but most probably a shell comprised of linked electron neutrinos. The reason why I assume the linking not to be from electrons or positrons is that the knotted loops cannot rotate if they are to be linked into a larger crust.
Once this electron neutrino shell has formed, there is no conceivable way to break it. What I speculate is that rather like a supramolecular shell of hydrogen, this much smaller shell can absorb supraphotons created in the annihilation reactions in the “electron-positron-electron neutrino soup”. However, unlike the supramolecular shell of hydrogen, the orbitals of this “proto-shell” can expand, converting the non-rotating (zero charged) electron neutrinos into non-rotating hydrogen atoms. It is conceivable that this process of the expansion of the shell takes place only after the conditions that caused the shells to form have seized. Or more specifically, once these proto-shells are no longer filled with the electron-positron-electron neutrino soup.
I’m still trying to figure whether this concept holds water and if it does, how would these proto-shells expand to supramolecular shells of hydrogen. If anything, that I’m toying with is even remotely true, all of this occurred within the first microsecond after the big bang. That is, if the current model of the big bang is correct. The Wikipedia article states that after on microsecond “The temperature was no longer high enough to create either new proton–antiproton or neutron–antineutron pairs. A mass annihilation immediately followed, leaving just one in 10 000 000 of the original matter particles and none of their antiparticles.”
What I’m not trying to do is to counter any of the experimental observations in particle accelerators or to try to give an alternative explanation to how matter was generated. I’m more interested in the earliest phases of the Big Bang, as they “are subject to much speculation, since astronomical data about them are not available.”
I also don’t wish to enter the crackpot territory, which I grant is quite hard when talking about the big bang with a background in chemistry and not physics. But if there are only dots moving at the speed of light and nothing more than that, even the big bang can make at least some common sense. Of course, the details, or even the bigger picture can be off, as I have such a limited grasp of the whole.
Not trying to sound too convincing, this is more of an exercise of logic applying the literal interpretation of E = mc² to the problem of how ‘pure energy’ is converted into mass. Don’t take what I’ve said too literally, but don’t dismiss it either. I might have some grain of truth embedded in these ponderings.
コメント