One-stop shop to make India 20 times richer

Yes, certain forms of energy ALMOST CERTAINLY travel faster than the speed of light

On 3 June 2010 I asked: Why does energy “travel” in “circles” inside an atom? And later elaborated that matter is an energy trap

Basically I've suggested that there is a form of super-high frequency energy that that travels at speeds far greater than the speed of light, and this super-energy BENDS space so extensively (makes it "circular", so to speak) that it gains the properties of matter.

There is NO MATTER in this universe. Only energy. That is my basic point.

Today, it has been confirmed that

 An international team of scientists says it has recorded sub-atomic particles travelling faster than light – a finding that could overturn one of Albert Einstein's long-accepted fundamental laws of the universe. [Source]

This is the first serious evidence I've seen that my hypothesis is likely to be correct.

In my view these "sub-atomic particles" will be found, upon further analysis, to be composed of HIGH FREQUENCY AND HIGH SPEED ENERGY. It might be impossible to "break" into the final sub-atomic particle, though, for the energy required to break that particle will exceed anything that can be created by man.

 

Anyone has any thoughts on this? 

Addendum

Think of this as breaking the light speed barrier, a phase change. At the initiation of the Big Bang the energy was so intense that its "force" must have radiated out at a range of speeds, including those greater than the speed of light. All energy – not necessarily a single photon; could be a small bundle of energy – that was so thrust at speeds greater than light "converted" into matter (sub-atomic). The stuff that remained at speeds equal to that of light became heat and light.

View more posts from this author
19 thoughts on “Yes, certain forms of energy ALMOST CERTAINLY travel faster than the speed of light
  1. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    My comment on junkscience, for my record:

     

    I have a hypothesis (speculative) that all matter is pure energy. It “appears” to that energy “inside” the sub-atomic particle that it is travelling faster than light, in a straight line. The reason why it is mass and not another obvious form of energy is because once you cross the speed of light, space bends so dramatically you can seemingly travel in a straight line for eternity at that super-fast speed but still only be occupying space that is the “width” of that sub-atomic particle.

    Think of this as breaking the light speed barrier, a phase change. At the initiation of the Big Bang the energy was so intense that its “force” must have radiated out at a range of speeds, including those greater than the speed of light. All energy – not necessarily a single photon; could be a small bundle of energy – that was so thrust at speeds greater than light “converted” into matter (sub-atomic). The stuff that remained at speeds equal to that of light became heat and light.

    So far there seems to be no explanation of what’s “inside” matter. I know what I’m suggesting it very simplistic but I’m unable to intuitively imagine what IS matter. This hypothesis “explains” pretty well, although it has no maths or physics behind it.

     
  2. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    My comment here:

     

    I’m merely speculating that there could be a particular frequency (and likely speed) of a super-photon (not photon, which is constrained by the speed of light), when the concept of “straight” becomes a VERY tiny circle/sphere. At that point the energy doesn’t travel “anywhere” in particular, just goes round and round for eternity. That’s when that tiny sphere becomes a “sub-atomic particle”.

    I’m unable to think of any other way by which energy “converts” into matter. The conversion has not been explained. This is not about photons, but about the constitution of matter.

     
  3. Sandeep S

     
    Sanjeev,
     
    //There is NO MATTER in this universe. Only energy. That is my basic point.
     
    This point is already been proved right.. by Einstein via E = mc2.
     
    This was one of Einstein's great insights to realize that matter and energy are just different forms and matter can be turned into energy, and energy into matter.Later it was theoritically proved by hydrogen bombs which are basically composed of sub-atomic particle single proton.
     
    So if one is able to find particles travelling faster than speed of light, then you can't explain it using E = mc2 as C being the speed of light and may have to look for new equations.

     
  4. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    Not quite, Sandeep.

    I’ve got a BSc in Physics, although a bit outdated, but I’m perfectly familiar with the above equation.

    That’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying something different. I’m saying there is NO matter, ONLY energy.

    I’m not saying that these two are convertible into each other. I’m saying there is ONLY one, i.e. energy.

    As you dig deeper and deeper into “matter” (sub-atomic particles) you’ll NEVER find ANY matter. That’s the point.

    And yet matter does “exist”. So how does it come into shape?

    That’s what I’m talking about.

     
  5. Sandeep S

     
     
     
      

    Sanjeev,


    Ok…I understood your point and agree with you. This is a link to wonderful talk from Richard Dawkins,


    http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_dawkins_on_our_queer_universe.html


    If I am right, he talks about all the objects being largely made up of just empty spaces.So matter could be just a perception because humans evolved to live in, which he calls ”middle world”.He says thats this is the reason rock looks impenetrable to us where as actually its made up of just empty spaces.So a “bat” may perceive same matter in a different way from humans.So evolution of our senses could be the reason which makes us perceive energy and space in certain way i.e matter.


    There's one more interesting documentary from BBC “Illusion of Reality”…which starts with the line “Our reality is just an illusion” or maya :)


    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1406370011028154810

     
  6. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    Thanks, Sandeep

    In the model that I have in mind, there is no matter, hence ONLY empty space. It is not a matter of the world being “largely” composed of empty space. There IS only empty space. Energy doesn’t occupy “space”, being a quantum (point sized “blob”) that can be found instantaneously at any point its “path” (which would appear to be a straight line from certain perspectives). It is the distortion of space by energy that creates the sensation of “force” or “attraction” hence gives the appearance of mass.

    True, at some level it is related to perception. We are “designed” to perceive mass. If we had sharper “eyes”, we would only see energy.

    Anyway, much of this stuff is speculative. I don’t think anyone has yet broken down the smallest sub-atomic particles into component energy.

    S

     
  7. ramesh

     
    Dear Sabhlok,
    Suppose you and modern science discover what this matter is made up of after some time, still there will be immediate questions viz.
    1.  What this energy is made up of?
    2.  What this space is made up of or how does it come into being?
    3.  How can there be a thing like infinite in r/o space, energy or mass, time etc?
    4.  Where did this energy or mass for the first big bang or similar to that thing come from?
    5.  Can there be any end to such questions like above? Definitely no even after millions of years the way you want.
    I am proud that these questions which baffle the Modern mankind have been solved long ago Quite satisfactorily by Vedanta and it just a matter of understanding.
    You and modern science always talk of Proofs, critical reasoning and at the same time fail to understand the limitations this very ‘Proofs’ and make a mockery of critical reasoning.
    “Maya” or “Mithya” is all that accounts for the above questions. This concept doesn’t state that ‘universe’ is false or ‘methods of modern science or its achievements etc’ are false or useless etc as is widely understood.
    This concept of ‘Maya’ actually promotes the development of Modern Science and is non-existant without hard-rock critical reasoning.
    It simply means that all this matter is LIKE dream and not that IT IS ACTUALLY DREAM as is wrongly mistaken by the critics of the ‘Vedanta’. Just as the dream cannot be elaborated upon so is the thing with the universe and matter. It only means that man should always experiment but not to reveal something ab initio (as it can’t happen) but just because he is part of it and he enjoys it.
    Hope you find the relevancy of the Vedanta here. 

     
  8. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    Dear Ramesh

    It has long been shown that neither time nor space existed in our universe before the Big Bang. However, it is also now being shown that energy exists even in vacuum, and can lead to sub-atomic events (including dark matter) on its own volition, as if from nothing. The sum total of the energy still remains zero, in vacuum.

    Indeed, the the sum total of the energy in the entire universe (including those outside our own) is likely to be found to be zero.

    There is also a possibility (indeed a distinct one) that energy has existed from before time (as we see it) and will continue to exist ever after (although once again, time doesn’t have meaning in the sense we think of it.

    This would “validate” the Buddhist worldview of a timeless “universe”, but also lend some credence to the Vedantic view on the ground that the total amount of energy in the universe is always zero, and that time and space has no existence except in the context of particular universes (e.g. our own).

    The idea that there is NO time, no energy, no space in the universe, except in particular contexts, indicates the existence of laws of spontaneous creation. The question is why some spontaneous creations are so large (Big Bang) and others so small (sub-atomic/dark matter).

    Spontaneous creation, however, doesn’t imply a consciousness. It can occur without such consciousness.

    Buddha and Vedanta have two different models of the consciousness, and these can’t be tested, just as the current speculations about what’s “inside” a sub-atomic particle can’t be tested. But note that even if matter were a dream, it would need a testable explanation of the entire dream process.

     
  9. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    Just reminded by reading something else: Imaginary numbers don’t “exist” in the sense we know (i.e. we count things, either positive or negative), but imaginary numbers do exist in a real sense. Similarly energy can presumably be balanced mathematically by another form of energy so the sum total is zero. These things could simply be the laws of mathematics.

    Anyway, I’m getting super-speculative at this point, and should perhaps pull back a bit!

     
  10. ramesh

     
    Dear Sabhlok,
     
    How is that the tiniest space for big bang come into existence if there was no space and time before big bang?
     
    Re: However, it is also now being shown that energy exists even in vacuum, and can lead to sub-atomic events (including dark matter) on its own volition, as if from nothing.
     
    This is like magic and can compare well with mythological stories where things are created from nothing. In this sense this concept is that of ‘Maya’. If your this above concept and that of ‘spontaneous creations’ are still different from ‘Maya’ concept then your concept violets basic principle ‘energy can’t be created nor can be destroyed’ for an isolated system of vacuum etc. This violation should never happen or else everything will be in shambles.
     
    Does the science or you know what this consciousness is? No. How is that then you can call it to be different from ‘spontaneous creation’ or otherwise etc?
     
    Now question of ‘testing’ or Proofs:
     
    Things are tested or proved only after assuming or defining some basic things like mass, time, space etc. Here we are talking about these very basics for which still basic concepts or elements finer and subtler than these items (m,d, t) are required and which we don’t have. In such a situation talking of proof and test in the sense you want is mockery of critical thinking. Why not? You have left this question unanswered many times in the past!
     
    Vedanta defines ‘consciousness’ as ‘Sat Chit Anand’. It means ‘it exists, it is infinite’ [Sat and Anand} and never contradicts the energy i.e. Maya’ [Chit].
     
    I wonder if something is left unanswered by this!!! One gets answers to infinite number of questions posed by you and me like in above comments from this. Man is trying to understand it since the time immemorial and it finds it hard!
     
    Hope you pose critical questions so that better understanding happens!

     
  11. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    Dear Ramesh

    Shortcuts don’t interest me. I don’t like explanations like “there is conciousness” or “there is god”. This is not an explanation but begs the question: where from this conciousness/god? You can’t interest me in Vedantic shortcuts. You can only interest me on this question once you explain EVERYTHING systematically.

    In other words, show me how this “maya” works, show me how this “dream” works. Then we can talk.

    As you’ll notice, I’m interested in physics and science, not in metaphysics. You are welcome to feel “satisfied” with your convenient shortcuts. When you start talking my language – of DETAILED explanation of things – then we can discuss further. Till then please let’s agree to disagree. Your style of thinking simply doesn’t work for me.

    Please debate with me only on ACTUAL observable events. Or even if not observable, then what might actually be the physics of the unobservable (e.g. string theory has an unobservable theory). Simply saying that “it exists, it is infinite” is just not my kind of thinking. I’d encourage you to start asking more detailed questions.

    S

     
  12. ramesh

     
    Dear Sabhlok,
     
    I agree with you.
     
    E=mc2 is proved provided E, m and C are defined. Then in order to define these one must define space and time. The entities which constitute space, mass and time are undefined in the sense that they are defined only on Human observations within the limits of his perceptions. Now when we talk what constitutes mass, time and space is it provable? If provable in which terms it would be proved? It can't be again proved in terms of mass, time and space etc since it is exactly what we seek. i.e. you ask proofs but fail to clarify the accompanying question in my earlier comment despite of repeated poking. Things which stand defined are not supposed to be proved. This is exactly what you/science miss. Answer it and you would know instantly how 'Maya' works!
     
    The essence is: Within the universe everything is physics and science is just permutations and combinations of the knowledge that could be available within the law 'energy cannot be created nor can be destroyed' and all that human perceives. And all that else is metaphysics which tries to account for the elements of which these permutations and combinations are carried out. This is Vedanta.
     
    I think whenever you post such blogs it is more about speculations and least of physics (since it is generally devoid of proofs). In other words everything is METAPHYSICS till the issue is proved.
     
    Re: Anyway, I’m getting super-speculative at this point, and should perhaps pull back a bit!
    Not only at this point but everywhere (society, economic, politics etc) everybody is speculative. Nothing stands proved since they are all relative. Only efficiency has to be picked up and promoted. That's all. What physics one talks of? Mass, time, space are they proved? They are defined and so is the entire scientific achievement. Our issue is to prove them. That can only be speculation. This is vedanta.
     

     
  13. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    Dear Ramesh

    Everything is linked in a chain of causality. Everything. Therefore by unveiling the causes of “matter” (physics) and hence the universe we are better able to explain other things (chemistry, and finally biology). Without physics everything else is a relatively incomplete exercise.

    The question of causality of time, space and energy is also well within the scope of quantum physics and string theory to explain. Stephen Hawking believes that these are spontaneous properties and hence don’t need any further explanation.

    If we can explain how life (and consciousness) spontaneously forms from underlying chemicals, and time, space and energy form spontaneously from nothing, we are done. No further investigation is likely to be needed. In his mind Hawking believes that already. I’m not so sure yet.

    And no, what I’m proposing is not metaphysics, but physics – based (at least in my mind) on some of the latest findings of science. I’m not pulling out my “ideas” from thin air. Most of them are based on some form or shape in current scientific thought. True, it is a bit speculative, but scientific hypotheses are not metaphysics: they are hypotheses.

     
  14. ramesh

     
     
     
    Dear Sabhlok,
     
    I wonder how you differ from that of Vedanta given your above view.
     
    Re: If we can explain how life (and consciousness) spontaneously forms from underlying chemicals, and time, space and energy form spontaneously from nothing, we are done.
     
    The basic law of the science is ‘Nothing can be created nor can be destroyed in a closed system’.
     
    It is only in Vedanta that something is created from nothing and is called ‘Maya’. Ma-exists not; Ya- A thing (energy or matter). Still Maya is real and exists and stands created from nothing.
     
    "Calling a thing (energy) a spontaneous product and still involve it in a chain of causality" is contradiction in itself. There exists only one thing which satisfies this law and is called 'Maya' in Vedanta.
     
    I wonder how you or Stephen Hawking differ from Vedic concept of Maya by proposing to create something from nothing in a given closed system in sharp contrast to the observable physical principles.
     
    If mass, space and time are to be spontaneous properties, but of what? Any clue? The dim possibility of answer is as wonderful and as speculative as the concept of Maya appears to be.
     
    May you or Stephen Hawking say few words of how you differ from that of concept of Maya by proposing to create something from nothing? OR where I misunderstood you?
     
    My clue: In placebo effect something stands created from nothing that is why effect of placebo is proved. So the creation of energy is explained from nothing. Placebo is nothing but Vedantic Maya. Working mode of Maya is similar to that of Placebo.
     
    May you know how your idea differ from Maya by proposing to create something from nothing?

     
  15. ramesh

     
    Re: Everything is linked in a chain of causality. Everything.
     
    Then how a ‘spontaneous property’ can be exception to the rule of ‘causality? Isn’t it built in contradiction? Isn’t it equivalent to accept a ‘magic’ as reality?

     
  16. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    Dear Ramesh
    All very good, but as I said I need the detailed steps from point 1 to point 2. Let’s explore all properties – of time/space/energy, let’s fully explain our universe using critical thinking, and then we can look at other issues. As I said metaphysics doesn’t interest me. Physics does.
    S

     
  17. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    “Imaginary” numbers are mathematical properties. Seemingly spontaneous creation is probably a mathematical property of energy. Don’t know. You should read the physics and then discuss.

     

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.