Chapter 7

MATTER

"Yet it moves."

Galileo Galilei,
astronomer and physicist; a reference to the earth in an attributed remark supposedly whispered just after his coerced recantation (to the
Inquisition at Rome in 1633) of his belief in the Copernican astronomical system (MacMillan 34; Funk).

PROLOGUE

    This discussion of “matter” presents one of the easiest and simplest proofs in this book.  The proof is neither long nor complicated, and much of
it is simply background material.  The arguments presented are imperative, and the plain logic seems to be irrefutable.  But despite these
characteristics, the discussion will likely pose formidable conceptual difficulties.  This discussion is a good test of the reader's ability to accept
reason and logic in lieu of previous (mis)conceptions.  Like other discussions in this book, this discussion’s goal is to convince the reader to alter
present conceptions regarding the nature of reality.
   And understanding has its rewards.  For example, the reader knows that objects cannot travel faster than "the speed of light.”  The reader knows
that as a fact, but (even if the relativity mathematics have been studied) likely cannot visualize why that special speed is a speed limit for objects.  
This discussion will help the reader visualize the reason for that limit.
   What is the true nature of "matter"?  This discussion is intended to give the reader an understanding of the answer to that question.  The
explanation leading to that understanding is also intended, without the use of mathematics, to give the reader the ability to visualize the construction
of matter.

ASSERTIONS

    It is asserted that ...
•        matter, as commonly conceived, does not exist,
•        the construction of what is known as matter is based on internal motion,
•        matter does not convert into energy nor energy into matter and
•        matter is a special case of electromagnetic propagation, such as light: it is radiation chasing its tail.

This discussion justifies these assertions by ...
•        providing background information on the present state of knowledge,
•        revealing the inconsistencies in the present conception, and
•        describing a model for the construction of matter that is self-consistent.

SCOPE AND ASSUMPTIONS

    The primary focus here is the nature of matter.  The initial assumptions are the commonly recognized laws of physics.  Except for the
presentation of a new model for matter, this discussion and proof of the assertions are based on well-known information.
   The secondary focus here is the motion of objects.  We will discuss the motion of objects and why there is an upper speed limit to the motion of
objects.  Although there will be considerable discussion of radiation, we will not address the question of why radiation travels only at one special
speed: the speed of light.
   It is assumed that (kinetic and/or potential) energy is a characteristic associated with the stuff that makes up the universe, but is not a separate
type of stuff.  (Technically, a full proof of this assumption should be given.  For the sake of brevity, a full proof will not be given here.)
   Though this discussion does not rely on mathematics, Appendix A, Mathematical Description, buttresses both the assertions and the
assumptions with a compatible mathematical treatment of "charges," motion, and related subjects.

BACKGROUND

The Stuff of the Universe

   Humans ordinarily directly sense just two types of stuff: matter and electromagnetism.
   Matter is everything that you can see, you can touch, has weight (or, more precisely, mass) and occupies space.  This book is made of matter.  
The eyes that see these words are made of matter.  The brain that interprets these words is made of matter.  Whatever the reader is sitting, laying,
or standing on is made of matter.  The entire earth is made of matter, and so also, are the stars.  Centuries ago Roman philosophers debated
whether air was matter.  One argument used was that air surely must be matter, since it could knock down trees and buildings in storms.  Yes, air
and water too are made of matter.  All of this matter is sensed with both sight and feeling, including touch and the experience of weight.
   Our sense of touch is a reassuringly direct detection of matter.  We can handle physical objects, turn them over, and feel their degree of rigidity --
they are definitely real.  We can feel liquids, even though they cannot be handled like solid objects.  Gases, such as air, can also be felt, even
though accepting their reality takes some maturity on our part.
   The other type of stuff, electromagnetism, is sensed differently.  This stuff includes radiation, electromagnetic waves and fields.  One way
humans directly sense radiation is through the skin; strong radiation gives a burning sensation; indeed (for most people) the skin can be
sunburned due to radiation from the sun especially during the summer.  Although the skin can crudely sense strong levels of radiation, the eyes are
the only sensors our bodies have that are capable of sensing radiation with precision and sensitivity.  The eyes are sensitive only to the visible
portion of the spectrum, that is, they are sensitive to certain light frequencies that correspond to what we call the colors red, blue, orange, etc.  Of
course, the sensing of radiation by the eyes is usually interpreted by the brain as "seeing" the matter around us.
   Unlike sensing matter in the form of nearby macroscopic objects, where all these objects are almost always subject to our sight and touch, the
eyes only sense a small portion of the radiation flying past us.  The remaining radiation spectrum and other electromagnetic phenomena are
sensed indirectly (if at all).  For example, radios and televisions are used to detect electromagnetic waves.  When we turn off the television in a
room, we can no longer tell that the television signal is still passing through the room.  Similar indirect sensing of fields is often accomplished by
observing the force they cause; a magnet picking up nails is an example.
   Light, such as that now entering the reader's eyes, and electromagnetic waves and fields are presently considered to be quite distinct from
matter.  This school of thought is natural, since these "things" are somewhat ethereal.  So, in conclusion, our consideration of the stuff of the
universe continues to leave us with the conception that the universe includes real matter and ethereal electromagnetism.

Energy

   So, the stuff the universe is made of includes matter and electromagnetism.  But, where does energy fit into this picture?  Energy is associated
with the movement of matter.  Energy moves air molecules, for example, and the ear senses this motion while the brain interprets it as sound.  
Should energy be considered a third type of stuff that inhabits the universe, one that humans can readily sense?  That could lead to a long
philosophical discussion that I will bypass by declaring (as discussed in the assumptions earlier in the chapter) energy to be a characteristic
associated with the dynamics of the stuff that the universe is made of, not a separate type of stuff.  Indeed, many nonscientists are reluctant to even
consider electromagnetism as part of the stuff that makes up the universe.  (Note: The scientific literature states that energy exists in two forms:
kinetic and potential.  I will ignore the concept of potential energy for now.)

Light, Radiation, Electromagnetic Waves and Fields

   It is important that the reader has a clear conceptualization of the following terms: light, radiation, electromagnetic waves and electromagnetic
fields.  Generally the distinction between these is one of degree, not kind.  Light is visible radiation.  Radiation and electromagnetic waves are
similar, with both traveling at the speed of light.  They differ in that radiation is considered to have a higher frequency and shorter wavelength than
electromagnetic waves.  An example of an electromagnetic wave is a radio (or radio frequency) wave.  Physicists normally talk of atoms emitting
radiation while engineers talk about radio towers emitting electromagnetic waves.  Bear in mind, however, that this distinction is subjective and one
of degree.  An electromagnetic wave can be characterized as voltages flying through space; it follows that light too can be characterized by its
voltages (based on its intensity), however strange that sounds.
   So, the terms light, radiation, and electromagnetic waves should be considered equivalent except that each term usually refers to a particular
(sometimes overlapping) portion of the electromagnetic spectrum.  Because physics literature concerned with the nature of matter (especially at the
atomic and subatomic level) generally uses the term "radiation" rather than "electromagnetism," the following will often follow that convention.  And
because one of the fundamental constants of physics is known as "the speed of light" rather than "the speed of radiation" the following text will often
use the word "light" for "radiation" even though it may not be in the visible spectrum.  

   What about electromagnetic fields?  The difference between electromagnetic waves, on the one hand, and electric or magnetic fields, on the
other, is somewhat arbitrary.  A "field" can be thought of as something stationary.  The best example is a magnet: it has an associated stationary
field.  Although fields can be thought of as something stationary, engineers sometimes talk of "collapsing fields" or "growing fields."  Anyway,
although on the one hand fields can truly be thought of as something stationary, on the other hand it is a more accurate visualization to think of them
as trapped continuous radiation.  In that more subtle view, radiation, which travels at the speed of light, is what fields are made of.  As stated above,
humans can directly sense radiation but cannot directly sense a stationary field; they can use their mind to indirectly detect the presence of a field
by, for example, using a magnet to pick up nails.

Interim Summary

   To summarize, we have considered three things: matter, electromagnetism (radiation, waves and fields) and energy.  Matter is real.  
Electromagnetism is real, "sort of."  Energy does not seem to be part of the stuff of the universe but instead is associated with the dynamics of the
other two.  Matter and electromagnetism are the only types of stuff the human body can sense directly, and now seem to be the only type of stuff
there is.  Our search for understanding is beginning to narrow.

Atomic Matter

   Ancient Greek philosophers addressed the question of the nature of matter.  Based on theoretical considerations, some concluded that matter
must consist of indivisible particles that formed the constituents of each substance of matter.  These "smallest possible pieces" of a substance of
matter were called atoms.  In this they were correct (at least for matter classified as elements).  In recent times it has been shown that the atom is
divisible, but that truth does not violate the ancient Greek view because the subatomic particles that make up an atom can no longer be considered
the same substance.
   In the last decade of the nineteenth century, J. J. Thompson experimentally discovered electrons, a subatomic particle.  Ernest Rutherford,
considering additional experimental data, developed a model of the atom that resembled a small solar system.  In 1913 Niels Bohr attempted to
describe a more sophisticated model of the structure of the atom.  Quantization was a key aspect of his model.  Quantization defines parameters
as specific values as opposed to defining them on the parameter continuum we are used to in our macroscopic world.  For example, the atoms of a
specific type (and energy level) all have the same size.  This model improved the understanding of the periodic system of the elements -- the
elements of chemistry.  Subsequently Dirac, Heisenberg and Schrodinger more fully developed quantum mechanics.

Definitions

   What is matter really?  Webster’s dictionary defines matter as "that of which any physical object is composed."  What is radiation really?  Webster’
s dictionary defines radiation as "the process by which energy is emitted from molecules and atoms owing to internal changes" and "that which is
radiated, namely radiant energy."  Most people are comfortable with these definitions, which support the conception that matter can be converted
into energy.  However these definitions for radiation are not quite consistent with the clarifications given earlier in this discussion, when it was
pointed out that radiation is essentially the same as electromagnetic waves.  Therefore, further discussions to clarify the association of radiation
with energy are appropriate.
   It is quite common for scientific literature to make no distinction between radiation and energy.  The dictionary definition of radiation is an example
of that.  The "conversion of matter to energy" and "the emission of radiation from matter" are treated as equivalent statements.  On a deeper
philosophical level, radiation and energy may be equivalent, but, for purposes of this discussion, the reader should firmly keep the conception that
energy is the (relative) motion of something.  The kinetic energy of an object is proportional to the square of the speed of that object.  However,
since, in free space, radiation always moves at one special speed, namely the speed of light, it is quite understandable why the distinction between
what is moving and the energy of that motion has become blurred.
   Webster’s dictionary defines waves as "a continuously propagated motion to and fro, in any fluid or elastic medium, with no permanent
translation of the particles themselves."  The most common experience people have with waves is waves on the ocean or on other large bodies of
water.  Intersecting waves create patterns of reinforcement and cancellation.  These patterns are stationary, and hence quite evident, if the
intersecting waves are continuous and from a common source.  These are called diffraction patterns.  Diffraction patterns are a clear sign of
waves.  Light (radiation) can be made to exhibit diffraction patterns and so, for this and other well-known reasons, light must be a wave.  However,
since light can transit empty space, there is no vibrating medium, unlike a water wave.

Experimental Evidence

   At the beginning of the twentieth century, Planck and Einstein showed that light consisted of photons.  Photons have a position, speed, and
momentum.  These three characteristics are a clear sign of physical objects.  Therefore, light behaves like particles under certain conditions.
   In 1924 deBroglie suggested that particles themselves would exhibit wavelike properties under some conditions.  Indeed in 1927 Davisson and
Germer conducted an experiment in which electrons were diffracted.  Since then there have been numerous similar experiments, including those
showing wavelike properties of entire molecules.  The wave nature of matter has been shown for quite some time.
   Einstein's theoretical studies also predicted that gravitational fields would bend radiation.  This theory has been tested (e.g., by Hill and Shapiro)
using optical telescopes and radio telescopes to measure the deflection of radiation from stars or planets that passes close to the surface of the
sun.  (The light that passed close to the sun was bent, and they measured that change in direction.)  Although the measurements are difficult to
accomplish with great accuracy, the data support the theory.  This discussion assumes that radiation is subject to gravity, just as matter is subject
to gravity.  However, theory -- the theory that is essential to the thesis of this discussion -- says that light will only be pulled by gravity toward the body
causing the gravitational field if the light is traveling (at least partly) perpendicular to the line of sight of that body.  This force will change the direction
of the light, but not its speed.  Light traveling directly toward or away from the body will not change velocity.  In other words, the force of gravity can
pull light to the side, but it can never make light speed up or slow down.
   Despite all these experimental results, scientific literature treats matter and electromagnetism as two distinct things.  It likewise treats
gravitational and electromagnetic forces as two distinct things.  And there is indeed a reason for such a distinction.  However, the reason is not
valid, as will now be discussed.  The universe is not made of two types of "stuff," there is only one type of "stuff."

PRINCIPAL ARGUMENTS

    The following summarizes the present state of knowledge by listing five pairs of matter and radiation characteristics.

    (1A) Matter is made of minimum size particles.
    (1B) Radiation exhibits minimum sizes (called photons).
    (2A) Matter is (particles are) wavelike.
    (2B) Radiation is wavelike.
    (3A) Matter is subject to gravity.
    (3B) Radiation is subject to gravity.
    (4A) Moving matter exhibits (kinetic) energy (or more
     precisely, the motion of matter is energy).
    (4B) Radiation exhibits energy.
    (5A) Moving matter exhibits momentum.
    (5B) Photons (radiation) exhibit momentum.

   The reader, after reviewing these five pairs of characteristics, should address this critical question: why should matter be considered to be
different or distinct from radiation?  Based on these five pairs of characteristics, there is no distinction.  Still, there is indeed a reason why matter
and radiation should be considered distinct.  A sixth pair of characteristics, which happen to conflict, need to be added to the above five pairs of
characteristics:

    (6A) Matter can travel at any speed less than the speed of
            light, and indeed can even be stationary.
    (6B) Radiation travels only at the speed of light.

   Speed, this is the only difference between matter and radiation.  There is no other plausible reason to consider matter and radiation to be
distinct.  With this foundation set, the argument’s coup de grace can now be administered.
   The principle is: if two things act, react, and appear the same, then they are the same.  A rose by any other name is still a rose.  The summary
shows that matter and radiation act, react, and appear the same, except for the finite speed of matter.  Once an explanation for that exception is
accepted, logic requires that this discussion’s evidence (summarized in the five pairs of characteristics just listed) be considered a proof that
matter does not exist as a distinct stuff of the universe.
   I will present a model that explains the matter-radiation speed exception.  This model should be viewed not as part of the proof, but in the context
of the progression of ever clearer models, starting with the ancient Greek concept of atom, continuing with Rutheford's structure, then Bohr's
quantized structure, and ever progressing models.
   The reader needs only two subtle additional images.  These images are the only part of this discussion that may be considered new information
leading to the new conception of matter.  Image one deals with the transition between radiation and matter; this image clarifies what you may
previously have thought of as the conversion of energy into matter.  Incoming radiation, when it undergoes the transition, does not stop or change
form, it just changes from linear (approximately straight line) motion to motion in a loop.  Image two deals with the "steady-state" form of that
radiation.  The radiation definitely has not stopped; it continues to go around and around the loop at approximately the speed of light, thereby
appearing as stable "matter."  Matter is radiation traveling in a loop!  See Figure 7-1.  Outgoing radiation is simply the breaking of the loop, so that
the radiation again flies off in a linear-flight path.  These loops can be quite complex, reflecting the diversity of substances in chemistry.  But all
matter is, is internal motion: radiation going around and around these loops, like a kitten chasing its tail.
   Radiation (generally) travels in straight lines at the speed of light.  Matter is radiation going around loops at the speed of light.
   Matter is not converted into radiation, matter already is radiation; it is radiation traveling in (extremely tiny) closed paths.  If one does not make the
distinction between energy and radiation, then it is not correct to state, "matter is converted to energy"; rather it is correct to state, "matter is energy."  
What has been considered to be matter converted into energy is actually simply the breaking of the looping path of the traveling radiation so that it
flies off in an approximately straight line, but still traveling at approximately the same speed it had while following the looping path.
   The position of such a closed looping path can be stationary or move at any speed less than the speed of light, while the radiation going around
such a looping path is always moving at approximately the speed of light.
   All of existence is made up of just electromagnetic fields.  What is considered matter is simply a special, albeit common, case of electromagnetic
waves.  Matter may appear real, and radiation may seem ethereal, nevertheless, radiation is the sole reality of the universe.

ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION REGARDING MOTION

Conservation

   Conservation of momentum is a principle of physics.  Conservation of angular momentum is a special case of the principle of momentum
applied to rotating or turning objects.  And the conservation of mass-energy is considered to be a principle of physics.  From this discussion, the
reader can now see that because matter is really radiation going in loops, the principles of conservation of angular momentum and conservation of
mass-energy are the same principle!  The momentum and kinetic energy in these loops are conserved (whether or not the particle holds together).

Speed Limit

   Radiation always travels at the speed of light.  That is true even in these looping paths.  Radiation following one of these looping paths
constitutes what is known as matter.  These loops are matter.  The loops themselves, that is the nominal positions of these loops, can have any
arbitrary speed, including zero -- the loops can even be stationary.  Appendix A, Mathematical Description, describes the relationship between net
motion and the motion of the constituent parts.  What follows here is a nonmathematical description of those motion-related issues.  This is
another conceptual challenge for the reader.  It is important -- and rewarding -- to grasp it.  The following text is intended to give the reader a new
mental image of the motion of "matter."  The reader is undoubtedly aware of the rule that no object can travel faster than the speed of light.  Well,
this new mental image will allow the reader to conceptualize why that is a speed limit.  No longer will the reader consider that speed limit to be a
capricious law of physics.
   This explanation is based on the above description of matter being closed loops of radiation.  When an object is stationary, the net motion of the
internal radiation loops is nil: the object's internal radiation is symmetric.  When the object's internal radiation motion is asymmetric, that means the
object is moving.  That is, the internal radiation is spending a higher percentage of time moving in the direction the whole object is moving, than it is
in other directions.  (Figure A1-2, in Appendix A, gives a visual example.)  For every speed of an object, there is a corresponding percentage of
radiation asymmetry.  This asymmetry can vary from zero to one hundred percent.  Zero corresponds to a stationary object.  One hundred percent
corresponds to an object moving at the speed of light.  Since one hundred percent is the maximum asymmetry possible, an object can travel at no
more than one hundred percent of the speed of the radiation that it is made of: the speed of light.  This you can visualize.
   In other words, the reason no object can go faster than the speed of light is that at that speed the internal radiation (as far as the observer is
concerned) is already virtually completely traveling in the direction of motion of the whole object.  In still other words, motion distorts these looping
paths such that the distorted loop has more of its path aligned with the direction of motion of the nominal position of the loop than it does in other
directions; when the object is moving near the speed of light, the "doubling-back" portion of the looping path is nearly insignificant in comparison
with the "forward" portion of the complete loop.
   Furthermore, the apparent distortion of these loops by relative motion has other consequences.  Conventional literature says that no object can
be pushed faster than the speed of light because it will become too massive.  However, as has just been explained, there is no such thing as
“mass."  (Matter and mass are almost synonymous terms.)  Appendix A shows that it is impossible to push (or pull) on something in the direction of
motion if the speed of the object equals the speed of light.  That is because an electromagnetic force (and that is all there is to do the pushing) can
only be applied to the internal radiation components traveling perpendicular to the "line of sight."  When an object is moving at the speed of light,
there are no perpendicular components, since, as stated, the loop has been distorted such that one hundred percent of the components are
traveling in the direction of the whole object.  Therefore nothing can push the object any faster.

   It is expected, as a result of this discussion, that the reader holds the mental image of the construction of what has been known as matter as
whirling internal motion.  This discussion has also described the apparent distortion from symmetry when matter is moving.  With some more
reflection the reader may start to visualize the apparent internal distortions of objects when they move.  However, try as hard as he or she might, the
reader cannot visualize the resulting shape of the internal construction if the speed of the object exceeded the speed of light.  That is because the
laws of physics are logically consistent.
   Objects cannot exceed the speed of light because they are made of light.

ADDITIONAL ARGUMENTS

    So far this discussion presented (1) reasoned arguments that prove that matter does not exist and (2) a model that shows how it is quite
possible for radiation to act like what is known as "matter."  Given such a model, additional arguments can now be given that further justifies the
primary assertion.

Gyroscopic Forces

   Gyroscopic forces (e.g., the force that keeps a moving bicycle from falling over) have been difficult to analyze.  This model should assist such
analyses.  It allows such phenomena to be analyzed with electromagnetic theory.

Absolute Distance

   The present conceptions of matter and electricity require that absolute distances be known to make certain engineering and scientific
calculations (e.g., force calculations).  The model of matter as looping paths of radiation is radically different: it allows all calculations to be made, of
any configuration, without requiring the person making the calculation to know what the absolute distance dimension scale (i.e., the distance units)
is.  Engineers and scientists, in different parts of the world, who use different distance units (e.g., feet versus meters), can be taught to correctly use
identical equations.  That is because all dimensions between interacting objects are proportional to the diameters of these looping paths.  This
elegant conclusion, though it may require some reflection for its full significance to sink in, by itself is sufficient to justify the primary assertion that
matter, as commonly conceived, does not exist.  It is also a concept that further illustrates the beauty of the inter workings of our universe.  [See
Chapter 6, Electricity, and Chapter 13, Gravity, for more on this subject.]

Atomic Weight

   Chemistry students have long been told that the atomic weight of the elements and the compounds could not be precisely determined simply by
adding the weights of the individual subatomic constituents (e.g., electrons, protons).  This has perplexed many students.  Knowing that matter can
be converted into energy helps, but does not really answer the "But why?" question.  The model of matter as looping paths of radiation, however,
makes the phenomena seem quite natural: combining simple loops makes more complex loops.  The size and shape of the loops determine the
"mass."  In principle, that simple answer is all there is to it, though the looping details are complicated.  [See Chapter 13, Gravity, for more on this
subject.]

EXPERIMENTAL VALIDATION

    Some say that no theory should be accepted unless it can be validated with an experiment that previous or other theories cannot adequately
explain.  For example, Einstein's theories were validated by observations that showed that starlight was bent when it passed close to the sun.  
Although such a validation acceptance policy is not endorsed here, nevertheless, it is pointed out that Appendix 1 shows that an object, moving at
relativistic speeds, will accelerate in response to a force at a rate slightly different than present theories predict.

POTENTIAL REBUTTALS

    Some may object to this discussion’s model of matter because matter has the properties of inertia and momentum that, in usual human
experience, are variable (i.e., non quantized), and that do not correspond to the single speed of radiation.  However, this discussion’s model is
really a circuit -- a quite complicated one for many of the "heavier" elements.  Idealized linear circuits consist of three types of things: resistors,
capacitors and inductors (with the properties of resistance, capacitance, and inductance respectively).  Resistors consume energy.  Capacitors
tend to pass changes.  Inductors tend to oppose changes.  In our circuit model for matter, the inertia objects exhibit is really the result of inductance.
   Some may pose the question, “Why does matter seem so real, and light so ethereal?”  This question is best answered with another question, “If
matter is so real, why can radio and TV signals pass through most walls?”
   The reader may object that there still is a difference between matter and radiation fields.  As Niels Bohr pointed out, the subatomic particles are
characterized by quantization.  Electromagnetic waves, however, can have any wavelength.  Cannot the definition of matter be “that which is
quantized”?  That may be a good, albeit somewhat artificial, definition.  But note that Bohr made his statement in the context of the wavelike nature
of the subatomic particles.  There has to be an integer number of wavelengths around the looping path.  That is, the end of the path has to match
the beginning of the path, so there really is no end or beginning.  As to why certain subatomic particles have certain wavelengths, this discussion
offers no answer.  That is, the model of matter as looping paths of radiation requires matter be quantized, but does not explain why objects have a
particular quantization value.  (Though it can be proven that there must be a set of distinct quantization values or the universe could not exist.)  The
seeming contradiction between the matter quantization and the continuum of wavelength possibilities is not significant for this discussion,
however, because anyone claiming that matter is real, distinct from the radiation model, also has to answer why particles come in distinct quanta
sizes.
   In other words, it is unfair to criticize the quantization of the internal radiation of this discussion’s model unless one first explains why the
fundamental particles of what is known as matter come in certain special sizes and weights.

CONCLUSION

    The difference between matter and radiation is one of form, not substance or even type.  Matter is not solid, it is light.  And, to paraphrase Galileo,
yet it moves internally.

END
Shattering Illusions
The Exciting Search for Reality
Start your search for reality today...