Is the absolute center of a spinning object moving or stationary?

[Hans Blaster]

Because all matter came from electromagnetic waves in the first place.

To whit:

“Mass-energy equivalence is the famous concept in physics represented mathematically by , which states that mass and energy are one and the same.[2][3] This idea was not actually put forth by Einstein, but he was the first to describe an accurate relationship for it in his theory of special relativity, where he first wrote down this famous equation. The term is a tremendously large quantity, so this means that a small amount of mass corresponds to a large amount of energy. This equation is only representative of an object at rest, so this energy is called the "rest energy" of an object. The full equation Einstein wrote down includes the energy of a moving object, but the simplified version is still profound.[2]

The implications of such an idea are overwhelming. Mass can be created out of energy, it just takes a lot of energy to do this. In fact, the entire universe was born in the Big Bang when a whole lot of energy was turned into mass.”

Source: Mass-energy equivalence - Energy Education

Thus all matter is comprised of frozen energy which of course can be converted back into energy: E=MC2, and why energy can be turned into matter: M=E/C2.

Particles in atoms are a collapsed electromagnetic wave, that has collapsed into a point.

Ergo, atoms began as electromagnetic wave energy.

It’s like water and ice. Ice is frozen water that can be converted back into water, but water existed first.

Matter is frozen energy that can be converted back to energy, but the energy existed first, per the BB.

No.

 

[sjastro]

Because all matter came from electromagnetic waves in the first place.

To whit:

“Mass-energy equivalence is the famous concept in physics represented mathematically by , which states that mass and energy are one and the same.[2][3] This idea was not actually put forth by Einstein, but he was the first to describe an accurate relationship for it in his theory of special relativity, where he first wrote down this famous equation. The term is a tremendously large quantity, so this means that a small amount of mass corresponds to a large amount of energy. This equation is only representative of an object at rest, so this energy is called the "rest energy" of an object. The full equation Einstein wrote down includes the energy of a moving object, but the simplified version is still profound.[2]

The implications of such an idea are overwhelming. Mass can be created out of energy, it just takes a lot of energy to do this. In fact, the entire universe was born in the Big Bang when a whole lot of energy was turned into mass.”

Source: Mass-energy equivalence - Energy Education

Thus all matter is comprised of frozen energy which of course can be converted back into energy: E=MC2, and why energy can be turned into matter: M=E/C2.

Particles in atoms are a collapsed electromagnetic wave, that has collapsed into a point.

Ergo, atoms began as electromagnetic wave energy.

It’s like water and ice. Ice is frozen water that can be converted back into water, but water existed first.

Matter is frozen energy that can be converted back to energy, but the energy existed first, per the BB.

Atoms did not begin as electromagnetic waves as pointed by @essentialsaltes.
At a more elementary level photons γ can produce positron (e⁺)/electron (e⁻) pairs according to the reaction.

γ → e⁺ + e⁻

There is a slight problem here in order for the reaction to occur both energy and momentum need to be conserved which is only possible for existing mass in the form of atoms (Z) to take some of the momentum from the electron/positron pair as recoil.

The very early universe did not have the luxury of atoms as all particles were massless.
Using your water/ice analogy water, ice and water vapour are examples of phase transitions.
As the universe cooled forces separated out as phase transitions but the mechanism is far more complicated involving spontaneous symmetry breaking and the Higgs mechanism which lead to the creation of particles with mass.

The universe gained mass during the electroweak epoch when the electromagnetic and weak forces were still unified.
This is supported by particle accelerator experiments.
By 1983 particle accelerators became sufficiently powerful to reunify the electromagnetic and weak forces to produce W and Z bosons which have mass.
The discovery of the Higgs boson in 2012 confirmed the Higgs mechanism.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I showed the equation. M=E/C2

Mass equals energy divided by the speed of light squared.

Matter is solidified energy that can be converted back into energy. E=MC2

Energy can be turned into matter. M=E/C2

Energy is an abstraction, and 'indirectly observed quantity', a term for an equivalence relation between different states of fields and forces. E = mc² says that the excitations of fermion fields can be converted to an equivalent amount of excitations of other fields. When an object high in a gravitational field falls, its gravitational potential energy is converted to kinetic energy; there is no 'energy stuff' transferred, it's just a way of saying the potential of its position in the field can be converted to an equivalent amount of motion - and when it hits, that motion can be converted into an equivalent amount of thermal and acoustic vibration, etc.

As I've said before, it's similar to financial value - the financial value of your work is converted to the financial value of numbers in a bank account which can be converted into the financial value of cars, houses, TVs, cash, gold, etc. Financial value doesn't exist in its own right, it's an abstraction relating equivalencies between different kinds of things. The difference in physics is that energy is conserved, whereas your house is usually worth much less as a pile of bricks; this means it's much easier to talk of energy being transferred rather than exactly what is being converted to what.

Photons in fact are right in the middle between energy and matter, which is why they can be both an electromagnetic wave, and a particle - and why particle accelerators have made both matter and antimatter out of photons - which goes right back to the BB event.

Photons are quantum phenomena, i.e. fundamentally waves (wave-packets). They appear particle-like when their interactions are observed.

If you check out the BB, the theory is that energy turned into protons, electrons, and photons, then into hydrogen, which became all other forms of matter, and according to string theory, particles are vibrating strings of energy, and according to quantum mechanics, a particle is a collapsed electromagnetic wave, (that has collapsed into a point).

The energy that turned into particles was the excitation of a unified force that split up into the fundamental forces we know and produced excitations in the quantum fields that are the particles.

If matter came from energy, then matter IS energy that’s vibrating at a very high frequency, per string theory.

Depending on your point of view, strings are either mathematical abstractions or fundamental 'stuff'. They have energy in their vibrations and other properties (mass, charge, spin); they're not made of anything, they are what everything else is made of.

I can show you a dozen of the type of following statements on science and physics websites:

I know - it's such a convenient abstraction it's been reified. It works very well, but it's a simplification.

 

[chad kincham]

Where you really erred before is in saying that atoms are made "of electromagnetic energy". They aren't. They are made of protons and neutrons and electrons. All particles that have rest masses that have nothing to do with electromagnetism.

Which came from where? Energy - after the BB - youre missing some facts by just focusing on quantum mechanics, I’d say.
First was radiation - energy - then after sufficient cooling, matter decoupled from the energy and became protons, electrons, and photons - which became hydrogen.
Thus it’s inescapable that energy became matter, and matter is solidified energy.

 

[chad kincham]

Atoms did not begin as electromagnetic waves as pointed by @essentialsaltes.
At a more elementary level photons γ can produce positron (e⁺)/electron (e⁻) pairs according to the reaction.

γ → e⁺ + e⁻

There is a slight problem here in order for the reaction to occur both energy and momentum need to be conserved which is only possible for existing mass in the form of atoms (Z) to take some of the momentum from the electron/positron pair as recoil.

The very early universe did not have the luxury of atoms as all particles were massless.
Using your water/ice analogy water, ice and water vapour are examples of phase transitions.
As the universe cooled forces separated out as phase transitions but the mechanism is far more complicated involving spontaneous symmetry breaking and the Higgs mechanism which lead to the creation of particles with mass.

The universe gained mass during the electroweak epoch when the electromagnetic and weak forces were still unified.
This is supported by particle accelerator experiments.
By 1983 particle accelerators became sufficiently powerful to reunify the electromagnetic and weak forces to produce W and Z bosons which have mass.
The discovery of the Higgs boson in 2012 confirmed the Higgs mechanism.

From Harvard website:

The "inflationary universe."
The leading idea is called the "inflationary universe" model. The key assumption of this model is that just before the Big Bang, space was filled with an unstable form of energy, whose nature is not yet known. At some instant, this energy was transformed into the fundamental particles from which arose all the matter we observe today. That instant marks what we call the Big Bang.

A remarkable consequence of this model is that, if even a pinpoint of space contained this primordial form of energy, then the pinpoint of space would expand extremely rapidly and would bring into existence more of the same kind of energy. In fact, all the matter in the universe could have arisen from a bit of primordial energy weighing no more than a pea. This amazing scenario is a consequence of applying Einstein's theory of gravity to the inflationary universe model. Thus the known laws of nature can in principle explain where the matter and energy in the universe came from, provided there was at least a tiny seed of energy to begin with.

Source: --Universe Forum--Big Bang--What powered it?

Matter arose from energy in the BB scenario.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

First was radiation - energy - then after sufficient cooling, matter decoupled from the energy and became protons, electrons, and photons - which became hydrogen.

Radiation is photons (electromagnetic waves) and/or particles. Their energy is proportional to their frequency and velocity respectively.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

From Harvard website:

The "inflationary universe."
The leading idea is called the "inflationary universe" model. The key assumption of this model is that just before the Big Bang, space was filled with an unstable form of energy, whose nature is not yet known. At some instant, this energy was transformed into the fundamental particles from which arose all the matter we observe today. That instant marks what we call the Big Bang.

A remarkable consequence of this model is that, if even a pinpoint of space contained this primordial form of energy, then the pinpoint of space would expand extremely rapidly and would bring into existence more of the same kind of energy. In fact, all the matter in the universe could have arisen from a bit of primordial energy weighing no more than a pea. This amazing scenario is a consequence of applying Einstein's theory of gravity to the inflationary universe model. Thus the known laws of nature can in principle explain where the matter and energy in the universe came from, provided there was at least a tiny seed of energy to begin with.

Source: --Universe Forum--Big Bang--What powered it?

Matter arose from energy in the BB scenario.

As already mentioned, the energy was the excitation of a quantum field or fields. It's just simpler to reify it.

 

[sjastro]

From Harvard website:

The "inflationary universe."
The leading idea is called the "inflationary universe" model. The key assumption of this model is that just before the Big Bang, space was filled with an unstable form of energy, whose nature is not yet known. At some instant, this energy was transformed into the fundamental particles from which arose all the matter we observe today. That instant marks what we call the Big Bang.

A remarkable consequence of this model is that, if even a pinpoint of space contained this primordial form of energy, then the pinpoint of space would expand extremely rapidly and would bring into existence more of the same kind of energy. In fact, all the matter in the universe could have arisen from a bit of primordial energy weighing no more than a pea. This amazing scenario is a consequence of applying Einstein's theory of gravity to the inflationary universe model. Thus the known laws of nature can in principle explain where the matter and energy in the universe came from, provided there was at least a tiny seed of energy to begin with.

Source: --Universe Forum--Big Bang--What powered it?

Matter arose from energy in the BB scenario.

Try reading your first emboldened statement objectively, does it state these fundamental particles had mass?
No it doesn't you assume they have mass because it's your confirmation bias out of control again.
What's even more puzzling you are using an "inflationary universe" model to support your argument when in another thread you opposed it as being contrary to creationism!

It's no coincidence the very early history of universe is known as the radiation era.
Before the breaking of the electroweak symmetry when temperatures exceeded 10¹⁵K, everything that is known to exist in the Universe today was massless, and moved at the speed of light. Once the Higgs symmetry breaks, it gives mass to the quarks and leptons of the Universe, the W and Z bosons, and the Higgs boson itself.
This is cosmology 101 supported by particle physics.

​

​

 

[sjastro]

Here is a simplified explanation of the connection between electroweak theory and how massless particles can obtain mass.
The presenter has an in your face attitude, screams a lot and and is repetitious but makes a reasonable presentation for a subject that is quite complicated.

On a quieter note the Higgs field is an example of a vacuum which is a quantum field in the lowest energy state.
Unlike other types of vacuums such as the QED vacuum based on electromagnetic forces which has a zero expectation or average value and its presence is revealed through quantum fluctuations, the Higgs field has a very high value and therefore permeates every nook and cranny in the universe.

The very early universe was extremely hot and its energy density was higher than the energy associated with the vacuum expectation value of the Higgs field. As a result, the symmetries of the Standard Model were unbroken, allowing particles such as the W and Z bosons to be massless. As the universe started to cool down, the energy density dropped, until it fell below that of the Higgs field. This resulted in the symmetries being broken and certain particles gained mass.

 

[chad kincham]

It's no coincidence the very early history of universe is known as the radiation era.
Before the breaking of the electroweak symmetry when temperatures exceeded 10¹⁵K, everything that is known to exist in the Universe today was massless, and moved at the speed of light. Once the Higgs symmetry breaks, it gives mass to the quarks and leptons of the Universe, the W and Z bosons, and the Higgs boson itself.
This is cosmology 101 supported by particle physics.

Exactly. Mass developed from energy- just as I’ve stated multiple times.

 

[sjastro]

Exactly. Mass developed from energy- just as I’ve stated multiple times.

Yeah sure.
You don't seem to understand you cannot have particles with mass produced directly after the BB without going through an initial massless phase; its like arguing that blocks of ice can be produced in a blast furnace.
The Higgs field was zero immediately after the BB resulting in massless particles but as the temperature fell the field grew spontaneously so that any particle interacting with it acquired a mass. The more a particle interacts with this field, the heavier it is. Particles like the photon that do not interact with it are are massless.

This has nothing to with the application of E = mc² which is the wrong equation incidentally when applied to massless particles such as photons.
The correct equation is E= √[(pc)²+(mc²)²].
Since a photon's rest mass is m = 0 the equation reduces to E = pc where p is the photon momentum.
Massless particles in the very early universe behaved as photons where E = pc is the relevant equation.

 

[HARK!]

The absolutely center of a spinning object
Would be the absolute center of 1 atom
At the absolute center of the object.
Go look at what's in the absolute center of 1 atom
And I think you'll have your answer

The mass of a proton is 1836 times greater than that of an electron.

The size of a proton is about 1~2 Å, compared to the overall size of the atom. For perspective, the nucleus is about the size of a raindrop in a playground. A nucleus’ volume is only 10^14 that of the atom. Empty space takes up most of the space occupied by an atom.

Now considering the millions upon millions of atoms that make up most objects, and the fact that most of those atoms are usually part of more complex molecules, and the fact that it is extremely unlikely that any object would be perfectly, concentrically balanced, with an equal number of like atoms or molecules; why would you assume that there would be anything but empty space at the center of a spinning object?

 

[Petros2015]

why would you assume that there would be anything but empty space at the center of a spinning object?

I don't.
I do find it a little disconcerting that I don't seem to be actually made of anything when I look closely at myself though.

 

[HARK!]

I don't.
I do find it a little disconcerting that I don't seem to be actually made of anything when I look closely at myself though.

Nice one! I came to this realization back in the late '70's. It's nice to see that someone took it from imagination, to visual expression. I never found coming to this understanding to be disconcerting. I found it to be awesomely enlightening. It reinforced my faith, in coming to the understanding that what I had believed to be rock solid reality, was by far, primarily my perspective of reality. I wondered, and I continue to wonder, if seeing past this perspective, and believing beyond this perspective, explains how Yahshua passed into a locked room. It broadened my zeal to see things from YHWH's perspective, and not to be inhibited by what the world told me to believe.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Nice one! I came to this realization back in the late '70's. It's nice to see that someone took it from imagination, to visual expression. I never found coming to this understanding to be disconcerting. I found it to be awesomely enlightening. It reinforced my faith, in coming to the understanding that what I had believed to be rock solid reality, was by far, primarily my perspective of reality. I wondered, and I continue to wonder, if seeing past this perspective, and believing beyond this perspective, explains how Yahshua passed into a locked room. It broadened my zeal to see things from YHWH's perspective, and not to be inhibited by what the world told me to believe.

It's a descriptive visualisation of how the world is constructed at various scales. How could 'seeing past' it change how the world is constructed (and so behaves) at any particular scale?

 

[HARK!]

It's a descriptive visualisation of how the world is constructed at various scales. How could 'seeing past' it change how the world is constructed (and so behaves) at any particular scale?

How does ones see the world on a scale outside of one's perception, without 'seeing past' the scale of one's perception? Why would you believe that the world, outside of your perception, is necessarily constructed in a way that conforms to your limited scale of perception?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Why would you believe that the world, outside of your perception, is necessarily constructed in a way that conforms to your limited scale of perception?

I don't - the evidence clearly show that it isn't. But knowing this doesn't make it possible to walk through walls and closed doors at human scales.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I don't - the evidence clearly show that it isn't. But knowing this doesn't make it possible to walk through walls and closed doors at human scales.

Blame electromagnetism for that skill you do not have. (Also for allowing yourself to have structure in the first place.)

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Blame electromagnetism for that skill you do not have. (Also for allowing yourself to have structure in the first place.)

I also blame the Pauli Exclusion principle