Light and Matter (Origins)

by David Turell , Monday, May 26, 2014, 20:33 (3628 days ago) @ dhw


> dhw: Earlier you wrote: "Technically one can call each particle a matter particle; each particle being a tiny bit of matter. The confusion is that one thinks of them as pure energy, and they are pretty close to that." And my question remains: is there such a thing as pure energy? "Pretty close to" does not = pure. As a non-scientist, I fully acknowledge my confusion, but I'm beginning to think that the confusion is not just the result of my ignorance.-It comes from the problem of definition. the research has shown that everything started with pure plasma energy. When one wants to start calling it matter is by human definition. Mine, which has always been been after the development of the particle phase, may not be ocrrect by some standards. Makes no difference to the overall concept. All matter is energy in a more solid form.
> 
> DAVID: Again: matter is energy on the 'outside' but really matter is pure energy on the inside. difficult to be interchangeable, but interchangeable all the same.
> 
> So far you have mentioned plasma, photons and electrons as examples of "pure energy", but there is clearly no consensus on any of them. I can only repeat my questions, with special emphasis on the last one: why is this experiment so important?-It proved a theoretical proposition from many years earlier.
> 
> dhw: All of this has a bearing on the whole concept of your God as "pure energy". Would you describe him as intelligent plasma?
> DAVID: Yes, and I don't know how that works.
> 
> dhw: This is a neat transition to the panpsychism theme, but let me first ask you directly whether, in view of all the above, you yourself do or do not find the so-called interchangeability of energy and matter confusing.-Not at all.