Light - For Those Who Are More Educated In This Field

[Ben Dhyan]

And this is known to be false. There are, in fact, spontaneous formations and annihilations of electron-positron pairs in a vacuum. This has been demonstrated by actual observation.

We have much more than just red shifts. They are a part of the evidence, but quite far from the only evidence. Also relevant are the light element distributions, the ages of stars andgalaxies, the CMBR and its specifics, the overall description of gravity (general relativity) which predicts exactly such an expansion, etc.

As you have said, 'nothing' does not exist. ALL we have is the universe. If it is finite (we don't know either way), then existence is finite. If it had a beginning, then existence had a beginning.

There is nothing before the universe because 'before the universe' does not exist.

Ok, we agree there was no before the universe.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

It didn't. Whenever there was time, there was also matter and energy.

Matter and energy are eternal.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

As far as we know, it is a fundamental particle. In other words, it isn't made from anything else.

What is the electron particle made of? What aspect of the particle is responsible for the property of electric energy?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You are assuming that there was a 'before'. No such 'before' existed. That is your logical mistake.

The SS universe has no beginning.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

We all participate in reality all the time. But we don't have full information about that reality because of the inaccuracy of our senses. This means we always have a slightly distorted view of reality. We modify our views by testing and observation and require predictability of new observations. That is the scientific method.

I am sure you had a mental state where you were convinced of the unity of the universe. I have as well. But I realized that such a state is a data point, not a conclusion. It is one piece of evidence and so needs to be evaluated and tested by observation.

I can easily enough 'let go' and simply not think deeply about these matters. And that, from what I can see, is what you are advocating: giving up on any real understanding so you can get an illusion of unity.

No, the apprehension of the unity of the universe came not from conceptualization, but from a realization. I appreciate that it may not make sense to you if you have never attained to the samadhi state of meditation, but fwiw, one's mind seems to merge with the 'universe'. I also appreciate that science is objective in nature and not subjective, meditation is subjective and not objective. Now we all have both subjective and objective experience, and nothing is wrong with that, so long as we are in sync and not talking at cross purposes due to the possible different state of perception of our mind.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You are still looking at this through the wrong end of the telescope. The evidence is that there was expansion from a hot dense state. What happened before we can't say with confidence because physics stops working at a certain point. But that does not throw our deductions about expansion into doubt, because everything points that way.

You are like a detective who denies that there has been a murder because the murder weapon is unknown and no motive has been established, even though the corpse is on the ground in front of him.

Ok, at least we both agree then that there was no beginning to the universe, no outside the universe, and no nothing in the universe.

 

[Polymath257]

So what is it of an electron that has the property of energy? What is the material of an electron made of?

As far as we know, electrons are fundamental: they are not made of anything more fundamental.

 

[Polymath257]

Ok, so no nothing, no beginning, no outside. I do not have a problem with that, you are describing a steady state eternal universe.

No, I am not. I am describing the BB model. That is not the SS model.

 

[Polymath257]

I am surprised you were not aware that in electron-positron annihilations, the result is not nothing, but gamma rays.

There is nothing before the universe because it never had a beginning.

The electron-positron pairs that are formed spontaneously do not emit gamma rays because to do so would violate conservation of energy in the long run.

The universe can have a beginning and it still be meaningless to talk about 'before the universe'.

 

[Polymath257]

Ok, at least we both agree then that there was no beginning to the universe, no outside the universe, and no nothing in the universe.

There is a beginning in the sense that time does not go infinitely into the past. The past is finite. The rest still holds.

 

[Polymath257]

Ok, we agree there was no before the universe.

yes. But I add that time is finite into the past as well.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

As far as we know, electrons are fundamental: they are not made of anything more fundamental.

That doesn't tell us much. So when a photon is created from an electron, is the photon a particle or light wave energy?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The electron-positron pairs that are formed spontaneously do not emit gamma rays because to do so would violate conservation of energy in the long run.

The universe can have a beginning and it still be meaningless to talk about 'before the universe'.

Ok then, what about the annihilation of the electron and positron at low energies when there is a creation of energetic photons. Photons are not nothing!

 

[Ben Dhyan]

There is a beginning in the sense that time does not go infinitely into the past. The past is finite. The rest still holds.

That is the BB theory, but it has not been proven.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

yes. But I add that time is finite into the past as well.

We shall see, it is still early days in human evolution. Humanity only began to enter into the space age around 60 years ago, lots of new discoveries on the way for humanity.

 

[ratiocinator]

The people who wrote that about the electron deal in electrical energy, if you think they are incorrect in their description of an electron as a particle of electric energy, write a letter to them or something, but for now eat humble pie.

Bit late now, but thought I'd add for completeness. I sent them an email. It took them some time but they did reply today. They said (among other things):

​

That being said, you are right to say that the text should state “negative charge” instead of “negative energy.” This mistake was caused by a wrong translation from French to English; the content is correct on the French webpage.​

 

[Polymath257]

That doesn't tell us much. So when a photon is created from an electron, is the photon a particle or light wave energy?

Quantum particles have both wave and particle properties. So the answer is yes.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Does anyone knows if light can have an elasticity component?

Can it be stretched or compressed? (So to speak)

I'm not formally educated but these people certainly are....

 

[Polymath257]

Ok then, what about the annihilation of the electron and positron at low energies when there is a creation of energetic photons. Photons are not nothing!

True. And that doesn't happen with virtual particles.

 

[Polymath257]

That doesn't tell us much. So when a photon is created from an electron, is the photon a particle or light wave energy?

I would also point out that a photon will not be created from a single electron alone.

So. You can get photon creation from an electron and a positive nucleus, or from two scattering elections, or from electron- position annihilation.

But because of energy and momentum conservation reasons, you can't have only a single electron emitting a photon.