| Adapted for the Internet from: Why God Doesn't Exist |
One attribute of objects that philosophers and researchers have speculated on is whether they have the ability to be
completely annihilated. By annihilate, I mean to make it completely vanish: to convert it into space. Of course, if space
is alleged to be another object, then we have a problem. According to current wisdom, you have merely converted your
object into another. If, on the other hand, we postulate that objects are ‘something’ and space is nothing, these two
notions stand in direct opposition to each other.This shows just how important it is in Physics to define these words
before offering a physical interpretation. Without a proper definition we end up talking in circles.
The Greeks and Romans are on record saying that matter is intuitively different than space. They referred to this space
as nothing and postulated that it was impossible to convert something into nothing (i.e., matter to space, annihilation,
disappearance) or vice versa:
- “ nothing comes into being from not-being…‘all things were together’ and the coming
into being of such and such a kind of thing is reduced to change of quality…things
come into being out of existent things, i.e. out of things already present, but
imperceptible to our senses because of the smallness of their bulk.” (Bk. I, Part 4) [1]
“ Substance is Eternal…Nothing from nothing ever yet was born…naught from nothing
can become…All nature, then, as self-sustained, consists of twain of things: of bodies
and of void… Body and void are still distinguished, since nature knows no wholly full
nor void.” (Bk. I) [2]
" we need to realize that body, taken in a general sense, is a substance and
hence it too can never perish." (p. 26 Meditation II) [3]
“ A particle – and in general any object – is defined as a conserved entity to which a
position can be ascribed and which can move.” (p. 998) [4]
- Lavoisier was perhaps the first person to experimentally confirm this ancient wisdom. He demonstrated in the lab that
matter cannot be created nor destroyed, a phenomenon known as conservation of energy.
- “ In a chemical reaction, the sum of the mass of the reactants equals the sum of the
mass of the products.” [5]
- From Lavoisier's work, researchers finally synthesized that matter cannot be created nor destroyed.
More recently, however, the bright mathematicians running the accelerators arrived at a diametrical conclusion. They
say that two particles that crash into each other may under certain circumstances vanish:
“ annihilation occurs when a particle meets its corresponding antiparticle, and both
disappear”[6]
“ We now know that every particle has an antiparticle, with which it can annihilate…
There could be whole antiworlds and antipeople made out of antiparticles. However,
if you meet your antiself, don’t shake hands! You would both vanish in a great flash
of light.” (p.68) [7]
“ The result is astonishing. It means that, in a very brief interval t of time, we cannot
be sure how much matter there is in a particular location, even in ‘empty space.’
During this brief moment, matter can spontaneously appear, then disappear.”
(p. 578). [8]
- Of course, these are irresponsible claims which editors allow to slide on purpose. Such fantastic statements fascinate
readers. The idea is to shock the incautious readers with a quantum of science. These gullible idiots then go and tell
everybody that scientists have proven that objects annihilate and turn into nothing. People by the millions thrive on
this nonsense and the establishment encourages it in every possible way it can.
However, when you read the fine print, the story changes completely. The claims are not as categorical as they first
sounded:
- “ High energy processes in nature can create antiparticles…If a particle and antiparticle
are in the appropriate quantum states, then they can annihilate each other and
produce other particles.” [9]
The key word annihilate in this physical interpretation misleads casual readers into believing that the particles turned
into nothing. However, when we look up the definition of the key word ‘annihilate,’ it doesn’t mean what normal human
beings understand by ‘annihilate.’ In the jargon of Mathematical Physics, annihilate means that a particle converts into
more particles:
- “ In physics, the word is used to denote the process that occurs when a subatomic
particle collides with its respective antiparticle. Since energy and momentum must
be conserved, the particles are not actually made into nothing, but rather into new
particles.” [10]
Well…not exactly. Annihilation means that the particles convert to other particles and some of it converts to a concept:
- “ If a particle and its antiparticle come into contact with each other, the two annihilate;
that is, they may both be converted into other particles with equal energy…In
antimatter-matter collisions resulting in photon emission, the entire rest mass of the
particles is converted to kinetic energy.” [11]
Other times the concept itself turns into a particle:
- “ It has been known for years that a highly energetic gamma ray (photon) can convert
its energy into pairs of particles and antiparticles” (p. 578) [12]
In other words, the physical interpretation that the idiots running the accelerators give this phenomenon is that two
particles collide. The result is two different particles plus energy in the form of light rays. What are light rays? More
particles! A particle collision results only in shards, crumbs, and debris. The mathematical morons are saying that if
you cut the cake many times, you end up with many pieces and some crumbs. In Mathematical Physics, the word
vacuum does not exist; there is no such thing in Mathematical Physics:
- “ space can never be perfectly empty. A perfect vacuum, known as ‘free space’, with a
gaseous pressure of absolute zero is a philosophical concept with no physical reality,
not least because quantum theory predicts that no volume of space is perfectly empty
in this way.”[13]
“ Pairs of every conceivable particle and antiparticle are constantly being created and
destroyed at every location across the universe…This phenomenon, known as the
Lamb shift, provides powerful support for the idea that every point in space, all across
the universe, is seething with virtual pairs of particles and antiparticles.” (p. 578) [14]
“ When you apply quantum mechanics and special relativity, empty space inevitably
has energy…we know empty space isn't empty, because it's full of these virtual
particles that pop in and out of existence, and we know that because if you try and
calculate the energy level in a hydrogen atom, and you don't include those virtual
particles, you get a wrong answer. ” [15]
- So then again, how can the idiots of Mathematics use words such as disappear, vanish, annihilate, vacuum, or space,
if there is nowhere in the universe that is not occupied by particles? What have we learned?
So I don’t want to bullshit around for hours with ambiguous answers based on a sneaky change of definitions. I will
ask you in a straight forward way so that you either give a straight answer or blink:
‘Does a particle lose length, width, and height when it annihilates?’
This is the only question the Nobel Prize idiots need to answer. The rest is merely a play on words!
What these arguments show is that we cannot rely on the destructible / indestructible criteria to define the word object.
Such misconceived notions result in a proof and not in a definition. The mathematical physicist is attempting to define
the word object through an experiment. It takes another object (an idiot known as a mathematician) to carry out an
experiment to verify whether an object was destroyed.
| Lavoisier says that an object is that which cannot be destroyed |
- Module main page: Is an object a bundle of properties?
1. Frege says that a variable is an object
2. Russell says that an object is that which is one
3. This page: Lavoisier says that an object is that which cannot be destroyed
4. Newton says that an object is that which has mass and occupies space
5. Plato says that an object is that which is ideal
6. Bohr says that an object is not an object without an observer
7. Elder says that an object is that which is made of parts
| Okay Bill, you win. You are definitely indestructible. I guess that makes you a physical object! |
- ________________________________________________________________________________________
- Copyright © by Nila Gaede 2008