Back to Essays
Several years ago, when I was still in high school, I gave some thought to the fundamental make-up of the universe, trying to understand how matter and energy were the same thing. In one of my many failed attempts at starting a journal, I wrote it all down. Re-reading it now, I very much doubt that it's true, and my attitude at the time smacks of arrogance and anti-intellectualism, but at least it was imaginative.
Dec. 9, 1995
...I have been giving some thought to the general make-up of the universe. Scientists talk of matter & energy, with kinetic and potential energy, & how all these things are the same. Well, I don't buy it. Through my thinking, I am coming up with my own theory of the universe, one that makes sense. Perhaps I am too stupid to truly understand the universe, and the scientists are right. But then again, I am not wrong until experimental evidence proves me wrong. So, here is my theory-
Everything is made up of tiny particles in constant motion. The particles are the stuff that makes up the universe, while the nature of their movement is what defines the characteristics of the universe. First, since this is what I have given the most thought to, I will describe kinetic energy (KE) and potential energy (PE). PE does not really exist. It is only KE. Think of EMR. It is energy, it is a photon (a particle) in motion. Electrons are particles. They are also in motion. Chemical bonding involves electrons. When a compound or a molecule has PE stored in its bonds, it is really electrons moving faster. This means the electrons have more KE, so there is no increase in PE.
One might point out nuclear reactions, or Einstein's equation E=mC^2. This says that when matter is lost from the universe, it is converted into energy. Also, energy can be converted back into matter. Well, my thought concerns the tiny particles making up the universe. They are moving, perhaps in an orbit. These particles moving in their orbits make up subatomic particles, and these make up protons, neutrons, & electrons. Since they are moving more, they take up more space, and therefore make a bigger imprint in space-time. This imprint is what determines mass. So, the more energy the particle has, the more it moves, the bigger imprint it has, and the more mass it has. This shows how mass and energy are related, and practically the same thing. In a nuclear reaction, these particles will bump into other particles, transferring their energy to them, and in doing so lose some of their own energy. According to what was discussed above, this would account for the lack in energy. Excited atoms will release a photon of light. The atoms are excited because they have an extra particle, or are moving faster. So they will release that particle, and it will act as a photon when we see it. Or, an extremely low energy particle that is wandering in the universe will bump into the excited particles. When particles are low in energy (They're moving slow), they leave little imprint in space-time, so we do not detect them. We do not detect them until they bump into another particle, gain some of its energy, and become a photon.
...This theory is not very complete. There are many things in the universe that must be addressed for this theory to be complete. First- what is space-time and what is it made of? Next- if atoms are made up of small particles which are really tiny particles, let's call them grains, of the universe in motion, and the forms of energy we see, like heat and EMR are these grains with energy, what about their motion distinguishes matter and energy. Also, forces must be addressed- magnetism, gravity, and electric forces. What is it that makes up these forces? If they are some type of warp in space-time, how would that cause attraction or repulsion. Many scientists use the analogy of stretched rubber as signifying space-time, and different objects on the rubber as matter. These objects sink into the rubber, or if they are underneath pushing up, make the rubber stick up and so change the shape of the rubber. A marble representing other matter, will be attracted into the pits in the rubber, and repulsed from the hills. That's okay, but they [the objects in the rubber analogy] rely on gravity to do this. If space-time is like the rubber, then there must be some central force driving the universe. Is it gravity in the fourth dimension? Is it God? I thinkg it is neither. The universe can be explained with three dimensions, and I do not like to think of God [using his powers] in such a way. Thinking of space-time as rubber is a flawed analogy. Space-time must be explained in some other way, as well as the forces...
Dec. 10, 1995
...It gave me time to think about my theory. I didn't come up with much, except this- If absolute zero is the lowest temperature you can get, and "atom" is supposed to be the smallest possible particle, why not call these tiny particles of the universe absolute atoms. These absolute atoms are what make up true matter, while what we observe is called observed matter. I've also heard that matter can be formed spontaneously from energy- this goes against my theory. Can it be that accounted for? Is it false? Also, what is antimatter?...