Is Matter Simply a Form of Energy?

[ZapperZ]

what i meant by saying 'seeing' was that its position couldn't be determined accurately .Now is that ok?

How accurately do you want this? I can make it hit a CCD and have its position determined more accurately than what you can with your eyes when you see a tennis ball whiz past you. Yet, you don't make such a statement about tennis balls.

Zz.

 

[anantchowdhary]

ok the act of SEEING is finding about the nature of the object we are refferring to.Not the nature such as charge and stuff.But the determining its position momentum shape size etc...Not accurately

Also,if u try to see an electron it changes its position as u hit it with a photon.So in my opinion and from my learning when we tried to see the electron we see it just like a hazy cloud.Now am I wrong?

 

[ZapperZ]

ok the act of SEEING is finding about the nature of the object we are refferring to.Not the nature such as charge and stuff.But the determining its position momentum shape size etc...Not accurately

Also,if u try to see an electron it changes its position as u hit it with a photon.So in my opinion and from my learning when we tried to see the electron we see it just like a hazy cloud.Now am I wrong?

Yes, you are wrong. The "hazy" cloud that you are referring to is the "wavefunction" of the electron before a measurement. If I make a measurement of its position, let's say, then the accuracy of that measurement depends entirely on the accuracy of my instrumentation. This has nothing to do with the uncertainty principle! I can make an electron pass through as small of a hole as I can make. In fact, in quantum dots, I can confine an electron extremely well and know it's position better than how well you know the location of your own fingers!

I think this is now verging on another of the misunderstanding about the HUP. You may want to browse through PF and see what has been discussed about this already.

Zz.

 

[energy]

Firstly, I hope this post isn’t violating any guidelines.

I respect Admin's decision to delete my last post about the gravitational constant, even though I feel it was pertinent to this discussion; I concede that it would be difficult to see where I was going with that line of reasoning. I’d like to invite anyone who wants to discuss this subject further to contact me via private message. This is probably my last addition to this thread, as I'd prefer to travel the path of least resistance.

Interestingly, I’ve already had a number of messages since this thread started. Seems that there are a few out there wanting to say yes to the original question: matter = E ?, but preferring to avoid the onslaught of public criticism for their beliefs.

Thanks to all for an informative discussion.

 

[ZapperZ]

Seems that there are a few out there wanting to say yes to the original question: matter = E ?, but preferring to avoid the onslaught of public criticism for their beliefs.

And that's what it had to be: beliefs, because that's the only way that one can ignore the violation of the conservation of spin and charge and other mess that comes with that.

If you only care about finding those that agree with your "beliefs" regardless of the physical inconsistencies, I can point out to you several other forums that deal with such crackpottery where you can find even more fans.

Since you are now having sufficient and, presumably, a more accommodating, dialog via PM, this thread is done.

Zz.