Monday, October 15, 2012

E=MC2 is wrong!!

What if Einstein's E=MC2 was wrong?

Yeah, you know what, it is. Not the equation, necessarily, but the theory behind it, and quantum physics will eventually prove me right.

C=Light, and 2 is to square that.

This formula is fantastically accurate at predicting the amount of energy produced by destroying a specific amount of mass. This stunningly accurate math has been taken as proof that mass has been converted into energy. But what if it hasn't? What if the math is proving something else entirely?

Heresy I know, but hear me out for a minute. History is littered with great math seemingly proving bad ideas. They thought electricity was a fluid, for one. That heat was an element, and because the math proved useful, they believed the theory was right for decades.

A useful formula is not proof of a correct theory, it is only proof of a useful formula, and E=MC2 is wonderfully useful. I just don't think it proves mass is actually being destroyed.

Let me take a backward step, for a second.

Water is a wonderful example. If you put lots of energy into water, you can break down the molecule into hydrogen and oxygen. Those atoms 'seemingly' disappeared to a world that knew nothing of 'gasses'. Light a match, and you get most of that energy back (in a loud explosion) and most of that water returns.

Atoms are strange things to contemplate. I believe neutrons don't exist, as many of you know. Not that the idea of neutrons isn't useful, but it is also distracting, like calling Pluto a planet. Neutrons, if separated from the atom, quickly decompose into an electron and a proton after just a few minutes. This means that a neutron is, in actuality, a proton and an electron, not a separate and distinct particle of its own. And its 'neutral' charge doesn't exist either. It is equal parts positive (proton) and negative (electron) that are simply canceling each other out, giving it an illusion of neutrality. But why would I push to ban the use of neutrons? Because it keeps people thinking that there are three types of everything, one positive, one negative, and one neutral. But in reality all the neutral particles are is 'proof' that there's yet another smaller piece of this sub-atomic pie.

Back to E=MC2 and my hydrogen and oxygen example.

The energy released, the E, to me is like the neutron and Pluto argument all over again. The energy being released isn't in any doubt. It's the destruction of the Mass that I question. The energy could easily be released by a proton decomposing into its bundle of 'strings'. The 'strings', for lack of a better word, would not be detectable or measurable by anything we have today. So, to all measurements, the 'Mass' simply disappears, when in reality it doesn't.

Why does this matter?

It matters because, as we dig deeper into quantum physics, we're finding that matter is much harder to destroy than E=MC2 leads us to believe... but like neutrons, every time we dig deeper, dig smaller, we instinctively look for 'neutral' particles, when neutral simply means it can still be divided smaller. The destruction of matter isn't occurring, any more than water is destroyed when the gasses of oxygen and hydrogen are formed.

What does E=MC2 really mean?

It means that, if I'm right, forging protons and quarks and such from a mass of 'strings' requires far more energy than we previously believed. It would also mean that 'strings' don't bind as willingly as it seems, and could easily account for all this 'dark matter' that's left out of the universe. The energy is huge, C squared huge. That means that this extremely useful equation predicts the reluctance of 'strings' to form the kinds of structures that we call matter. This means that solo, free-floating 'strings' are much harder to detect than we would think, and are probably more abundant in the universe than even hydrogen is. A soup of unbound 'strings' could easily account for Dark Matter.

But this also brings up a deeper question.

Can 'strings' (assuming the ludicrous theory that strings are the smallest matter possible) be created out of energy? Or can they be destroyed? I still don't know. If E=MC2 is right, and I'm wrong, then strings can be destroyed. But I suspect they can't. I doubt they can be created either. But most importantly, I don't think E=MC2 has proven that matter can be destroyed... at least, not yet it hasn't.

1 comment: