As I have watched physical science getting itself more and more convoluted, over the last 30 years or so, I have had the feeling that some very basic concept is wrong.

My current favourite is the idea of mass. We appear to have already demoted the electron from a little ball to a sphere of energy surrounding a nucleus, rather like a film of oil, albeit with a tendency to gather into little puddles on the surface of that sphere.

It seems to me that the same could be said of the 'particles' in the nucleus. Merely conglomerations of energy. I feel we only have this concept of mass because we are used to seeing things that, to all intents and purposes are solid.

We know this to be an illusion by the fact that our experiments show that the nucleus of an atom is only 1/10,000th of its diameter, that means around 300 billionths (ish) of its volume!! And everything is, of course, made of atoms. So everything is made of 99.999999999etc % nothing.

Could this remaining 0.000000000001 ish % be nothing solid also, just an intense (but minute) area of energy? When we fire one intense area of energy (IAoE) at another surely it would have the same reaction as Rutherfords little billiard balls. Even his own theory didn't suggest that they bounced off each other but were rather deflected without contact.

We surely only get the results we do because we are using IAoEs to measure IAoEs. Assuming this to be the case we have eliminated matter, dark or otherwise, and are only left with energy, dark or otherwise, and I find the idea of lots of energy being in, at present, undetectable forms rather more palatable than having invisible lumps of matter.

OK I've left myself wide open; shoot!

As I have watched physical science getting itself more and more convoluted, over the last 30 years or so, I have had the feeling that some very basic concept is wrong.

My current favourite is the idea of mass. We appear to have already demoted the electron from a little ball to a sphere of energy surrounding a nucleus, rather like a film of oil, albeit with a tendency to gather into little puddles on the surface of that sphere.

It seems to me that the same could be said of the 'particles' in the nucleus. Merely conglomerations of energy. I feel we only have this concept of mass because we are used to seeing things that, to all intents and purposes are solid.

We know this to be an illusion by the fact that our experiments show that the nucleus of an atom is only 1/10,000th of its diameter, that means around 300 billionths (ish) of its volume!! And everything is, of course, made of atoms. So everything is made of 99.999999999etc % nothing.

Could this remaining 0.000000000001 ish % be nothing solid also, just an intense (but minute) area of energy? When we fire one intense area of energy (IAoE) at another surely it would have the same reaction as Rutherfords little billiard balls. Even his own theory didn't suggest that they bounced off each other but were rather deflected without contact.

We surely only get the results we do because we are using IAoEs to measure IAoEs. Assuming this to be the case we have eliminated matter, dark or otherwise, and are only left with energy, dark or otherwise, and I find the idea of lots of energy being in, at present, undetectable forms rather more palatable than having invisible lumps of matter.

OK I've left myself wide open; shoot!
I don't see anything to take pot-shots at. :) It all seem logical to me.

We already know that energy can come in different "forms" and that matter and energy are interchangable. So I belive that in the final analysis it will eventually be concluded that matter is just another form of energy - and that the only "real" thing that exists simply IS energy, just in different states.

The current description of atoms assigns mass to the neutrons & protons which make up the nucleus. The discrepancy in total atomic weights is described as being due to binding energy.

It is the binding energy which is released or absorbed by fusion and fission reactions. Fusion of elements with atomic numbers less than iron produces energy. Fission of nuclei heavier than iron produces energy. I have never heard of a fission process involving the lighter elements. Fusion producing nuclei heavier than iron takes place at the end of the life of a star.

The above description of nuclear phenomena seems reasonable & consistent with experimental data and current theories. It strongly implies that there is matter and energy & that each can be converted into the other.

I see no reason to believe that viewing matter as a different form of energy (or vice versa) provides a better description of nuclear phenomena.

Rather than speculating about the issue raised by this thread, I would like an explanation of why fusion of the lighter elements produces energy while fusion of the heavier elements absorbs energy. This might answer the question of the fundamental relationship between matter and energy.

http://img267.imageshack.us/img267/12/mod333iu.th.jpg (http://img267.imageshack.us/my.php?image=mod333iu.jpg)
-MT

Itseemstome:

Sorry, your statements have so far been too ambiguous to give a target to shoot at.

Mosheh Thezion: Have you ever heard the term Verbal Diarrhea?