Mass / energy in the qm view
Background / context
Most students learn that scholars once thought that all things were made of combinations of Earth, air, fire, and water. This seems far-fetched today, but historical evidence shows that intelligent people
Over the centuries, microscopes and other technologies were developed that allowed matter to be investigated more carefully. This eventually led to an awareness that many different kinds of elements existed in nature and that they could combine in many ways. Each element was comprised of atoms having a particular combination of protons and neutrons in their nuclei, and electrons moving in circular orbits around the nuclei. This theory of matter was taught to students, including millions of people alive today. Today we are aware that this theory of matter, like its predecessors, was a great oversimplification of the composition of matter.
Today's generally accepted theory of matter is much more complex. It includes the Standard Model of particle physics, which specifies many new kinds of particles that comprise the mass/energy of the universe. Some of the particles are stable in our environments around Earth, and some decay into other particles.
What reasons are there for believing that our early-21st-century Standard Model of the mass/energy of the universe is correct? Certainly, agreement between a theory's mathematics and the experimental evidence is an important reason. But we know from obsolete scientific theories that agreement between a theory's mathematics and the experimental evidence can make the theory very useful and apparently correct, but at the same time cause major misunderstandings of nature (Ptolemy's geocentric universe theory being an easily understood example). Could our current Standard Model be such a theory that is useful but also conveys an incorrect picture of nature? The history of theories of matter indicates that human awareness of mass/energy will continue to change substantially. Other reasons also exist for suspecting that today's theories of matter are far from being correct representations of nature. What are some of these reasons?
Unanswered questions of the orthodox, particle theory of mass/energy
Is it not safe to assume that these questions have answers and that the inability of orthodox physics theory to reveal the answers shows that the theory is missing important information or contains some incorrect information? The quantum medium view
According to the qm view, the energy is stored in the form of oscillations in a quantum
For example, in the qm view, a large mass/energy system
The qm view of mass/energy is not now very specific because it is not known why certain kinds of oscillations and systems of oscillations in the qm are stable and others are not. It is not known how fields are created around some systems of oscillations or how the systems interact with one another. The reason for being confident that all mass/energy is comprised of oscillations of the qm is that the logical consequences of this assumption explain a large body of experimental evidence and a wide variety of phenomena that cannot now be explained by orthodox physics theory. We will now consider some of this evidence.
Evidence supporting the qm view of mass/energy
The table below shows a wide range of mass/energies in terms of three units of mass/energy: kilograms, joules, and hertz. The range covers 50 orders of magnitude or powers of 10, from about 1 Hz to 1E50 Hz. The kilogram and joule units are man-made units that depend on a physical, standard kilogram mass kept in a controlled environment near Paris, France. On the other hand, the hertz unit depends on the second, which is a natural unit defined in terms of the natural oscillation frequency of the cesium-133 atom. Specifically, the second is currently defined as the time duration for 9,192,631,770 oscillations of cesium-133, which is independent of a man-made physical standard.
However, the qm view shows why the seconds kept by a standard atomic clock are virtual seconds that are constantly changing time durations due to the clock's constantly changing absolute velocity, va, through the qm, and constantly changing locations relative to massive bodies due to Earth's rotation and revolution. For example, the cosmic microwave background radiation dipole indicates that the rate of a precision, standard, atomic clock on Earth varies by
But the virtual, physical standards of time, distance, and mass can be converted into approximate absolute standards by allowing for the physical changes in the standards caused by their velocities through the qm and their locations relative to massive systems. Observers in different inertial reference frames can agree on these approximate absolute seconds, absolute meters, and absolute hertz (or kg) units (based on the maximum oscillation rate of Cs-133). They can then agree on when and where events occur and the masses involved. This agreement is impossible with orthodox physics theory, which assumes that the standards of time, distance, and mass in any particular inertial reference frame are no better or worse than the standards in any other.
The smallest mass/energy in the table is a 1.3E0 Hz photon having a wavelength over half the Earth-moon distance. This extremely small mass/energy is equal to the kinetic energy of a helium atom moving with a velocity of half a millimeter per second relative to the observer, as noted in the lower-right table cell. (A helium atom has a mass of 6.6E−27 kg, which is 50 times less than a gold atom, which in turn is several billion times less massive than an E. coli bacterium, which is a billion times less massive than a mosquito.)
At the top of the list of masses is one liter of water having an internal energy of 1 kg or 1.3E50 Hz. This is enough energy to lift the 46,000 cubic kilometers (11,000 cubic miles) of water in Lake Baikal plus the Great Lakes upward a distance of .2 meters (8 inches). It is the energy contained in 20 million large lightning bolts. The table could be extended upward another 50 orders of magnitude to about 1E50 kg or 1E100 Hz, where the mass/energy approaches that of our visible universe. Along the way up the m/e scale would be the following familiar systems.
In the qm view, the universe has a combined total frequency of all oscillations that may be steadily increasing if the universe is expanding, as orthodox theory indicates, and if this causes less concentration of the universe's mass/energy (which slows all processes near the concentrations). On the other hand, the concentration of mass/energy in galactic clusters could be reducing the total oscillations more than the gain from universe expansion. The qm view has many implications for the evolution of the mass/energy in our universe, but this has hardly been investigated due to time limitations.
The most compelling evidence supporting the view that all mass/energy is the result of the oscillations of energy quanta in a qm is the fact that this view explains clearly the physical causes of a wide variety of important phenomena. The phenomena include the inertia of bodies and gravity, in addition to phenomena that have no other plausible explanation (e.g. constant light speed, c, Doppler shifts of electromagnetic radiation, and the huge internal energies of small masses). It explains the paradoxes of relativity theory. It results in absolute, universal units of time, distance, and mass, on which all observers can agree. It shows that time marches on at a steady pace everywhere in the universe, even though clocks everywhere run at different rates due to their different locations and speeds through the qm.
Experiments supporting the qm view
Other experimental observations are made daily in science labs and other locales around the world that fit perfectly with the qm view and do not fit with orthodox physics theory. A simple example is the centrifugal forces that students feel in their arms if they stand on a rotating turntable or otherwise spin around in place. Why do arms move outward away from the body? Newton observed that masses resist changes in their velocities, and spinning around changes the directions of the velocities of the mass/energy in the arms. But why does the mass/energy resist this change? Orthodox theory does not reveal why. It cannot account for the centrifugal forces and says that a centrifugal force is a "pseudo force," not a real force. The qm view shows it is a real internal force that is a direct result of the oscillations of the qm that comprise the arms' mass/energy. Changing an arm's motion requires changing slightly the frequencies and pattern of the oscillations comprising the great amount of energy in the arm, and this requires a force and work. This is explained in the Rotation to detect the quantum medium video.
Experiments to measure the speed of light are constantly being conducted in school labs, and students learn that the speed of light arriving at a light detector is independent of the detector's motion toward or away from the approaching photons, and independent of the direction from which the light is coming. Orthodox theory cannot explain how this constant light speed is possible. The Constant light speed, c, in the qm view video explains the various causes of constant light speed, c. If you understand these causes according to the qm view, and see that they always combine to produce an observed light speed, c, you may find this remarkable and conclude that these theoretical causes are probably the actual causes of the strange, constant speed of light, c.
Finally, Doppler shifts of light frequencies are constantly being measured in science, industry, and in our daily lives (e.g. weather radar and traffic-control radar). The qm view explains the causes of the Doppler frequency shifts of light and related radiation. If the speed of the radiation is always the same relative to the sources and observers of the radiation, and if the radiation is not propagated through a medium, as orthodox theory assumes, then how can Doppler shifts occur? Orthodox theory cannot explain how. This is explained in detail at the Doppler effects and their physical causes page.
Therefore, many experiments or measurements are constantly occurring that fit perfectly with the qm view and that cannot be explained by orthodox physics theory. Is this not strong evidence that the qm view is correct or at least far more plausible than orthodox theory based on light speed, c? And is it not important that science is based on evidence rather than on tradition? It has been pointed out that contemporary orthodox physics theory has "stood the test of time." This thought probably keeps some people from considering new thinking that is unfamiliar. Certainly, people can find many reasons for not considering thinking that is contrary to what they already believe. Good science based on evidence seems to be the best tool for overcoming this intellectual inertia (not only in science but in life in general).
Is the qm view of mass/energy plausible?
The cost of incorrect knowledge can be great. This has been true throughout history. The qm view shows why the law of light speed, c, is incorrect knowledge, which caused misleading theory that makes it impossible for observers moving relative to one another to agree on times, distances, and masses. It shows why this lack of agreement is unnecessary. It shows that the complex spacetime system can be avoided without losing the advantages that relativity theory engendered, but eliminating the disadvantages caused by its misleading light speed, c, postulate and conclusions (e.g. all inertial frames have equally good units of time, distance, and mass). The qm view shows that physics theory can be greatly simplified and based on logical physical causes rather than being based on constant light speed, c, which is a virtual speed and a complex illusion.
Although the qm view is not simple and cannot be understood quickly (because its two simple premises have many complex consequences), the mathematics and concepts are relatively simple. The theory is not difficult to understand for those who enjoy physics and mental challenges; who realize that orthodox physics theory is far from explaining time, distance, and mass/energy; and who are interested in finding better understandings of nature.