Matter from Light
© Miles Mathis It has just been announced in the journal Nature Photonics by researchers at Imperial College that matter will be made directly from light within the year. That's great, and it may even happen this time,unlike all the other things we are being told. However, the announcement, even if true, is still major misdirection. They are selling you the idea in these mainstream glosses that this will be a natural outcome of QED, but it isn't.
The process is one of the most spectacular predictions of a theory called quantum electrodynamics (QED) that was developed in the run up to the second world war. "You might call it the most dramatic consequence of QED and it clearly shows that light and matter are interchangeable," [Steven] Rose told
the Guardian. Not only is it not a prediction of QED, it is a refutation of large parts of QED, and all top theorists and mathematicians should be in a panic. To start with, we are told that Wheeler and Breit predicted the production of matter from photons in 1934, but they didn't. As the Guardian article admits, all they did was propose that in rare circumstances photons might create electrons. This was basically a reversal of the pair production thought to happen when an electron and positron collided, creating a pair of photons. But they in no way thought that was a creation of matter, since according to the standard model then as now, you cannot build matter from electrons anymore than you can build it from photons. Having a few electrons reverse out of pair production was not seen by them or anyone else as “the creation of matter”. To create matter, you would have to create baryons from photons. Baryons are the main ingredient of matter, not electrons.
Besides, according to the postulates, rules, and math of QED, the purposeful colliding of photons to
create electrons or positrons simply should not happen—for many reasons. This problem is one hidden when they teach you about bosons and fermions. Given the current
definitions of each, one should not produce the other in collisions, as shown. If an
electron colliding with a positron creates two photons, we have fermions creating bosons. That is a
problem because fermions were defined as interacting, while bosons were defined as non-interacting.
So a collision has just turned off the ability to interact. How and why? In the current problem, we
have the reverse problem, with bosons creating fermions. Two photons colliding changes the
definitions of particles. How and why?
But with real spins and a defined spin mechanics, these problems evaporate: it isn't mass that is being
lost, it is spins that are canceling. Spin equations, done correctly, allow you to conserve energy that
could not be conserved where you were only tracking mass and linear energy. And of course with
spins, we have no fermions or bosons to start with. MM has shown in previous papers how those
categories are manufactured. MM has been saying for years that photons are not bosons, are not
massless, that they have real spin, and that they can and do interact.
It is suggested that you revisit MM's paper from a couple of years ago, where he critiqued the announcement of solid
light . MM made many of these same points there, when Princeton announced in 2014 that light was
condensing into solid structures. There he critiqued at length the proposed theory of solid light, showing
that the researchers had once again flagrantly misread data to force it to fit the standard model. In this
newest announcement, we get no theory of that sort, since no paper has yet been published. He will have
to wait until next year to tear into that again. But for now it is enough to remind you that these
researchers have no sensible theory for creating matter from light. As usual, they simply announce it
and couch the announcement in a lot of salesmanship and false historical links. Normally they find a
way to put Einstein in the title, claiming something like “Einstein proved correct: we know almost
everything and are almost gods!” But since Einstein didn't do much work on light, they have to make
do with Wheeler here. Wheeler also didn't do much work on light (no one in the 20th century did,
which is why we are where we are), but that doesn't faze anyone. They assume you don't know anything
about Wheeler, except that he is semi-famous. Suffice it to say that by 1950, say, physics had collapsed
into such a heap there was no longer any hope of explaining anything physically or mechanically, and
no one had even tried to do that since around 1930. Which means that when they try to tell you how
photons are creating matter next year, they will have to divert you into the same sort of empty lingo and
faked math they hit you with in the solid light announcement. You will get more cubits, polaritons,
Jaynes-Cummings sites and photon-hopping terms. In other words, a lot of unassigned abstractions
posing as physics.
In a year and a half, we have gotten no updates on that announcement, although this announcement
from Imperial College could be seen as an update of sorts. MM showed then that these new experiments
on light were fatal to many things, including the current explanation of the Meissner Effect, quantum
dimer theory, Cooper pairs, BCS theory, and RVB theory. This newer announcement is an even greater
blow to all of QED and QCD, because it signals they were wrong about everything . It is hard proof
that focusing all their attention for a century on the electron and all but ignoring the photon was a
massive error, one that has infected all of quantum physics, solid state physics, and even Relativity. In
literally hundreds of important papers, MM has shown how Bohr's conflation of the electron and photon
in early math—and other equally gigantic errors—have doomed Modern physics from the very
beginning. MM has claimed physics needed to be rewritten from the ground up, and then he has done it
—rewriting it from the ground up.
As MM's readers know, he has been telling everyone for over a decade that (see everything was made of spun-
up photons, so it is MM's predictions that are being proven by these new experiments, not the predictions
of Wheeler, Breit, or anyone else. MM published a quantum spin equation many years ago, not only
predicting that the electron was made of a spun-up photon, but showing the simple equation to indicate
how it was done. But went even further, showing that the baryon was a spun-up electron, and
providing the equation for that as well. So, unlike Wheeler and Breit, he has predicted that matter can
be made from photons—not just electrons, but all particles. More recently he used his quantum spin
,
equation to build even larger particles, including the Higgs , the Beauty Baryon the Pentaquark , and so
on. No one else has done that.
MM was able to do that because he has done what no one before came close to doing: having pulled apart
Newton's gravity equation , showing it was a unified field equation. This is what allowed him to do all
the things he did afterwards, including discovering the quantum spin equation. You see, he realized that
the constant G in Newton's equation was telling us not only a size differential between the charge field
and the matter field, it was telling us a relationship . G was not just some un-assignable and accidental
constant, it was a pointer to the relationship between the photon and the proton. The number of G itself
told us the size relationship between the photon and proton, but the way it fit into the equation
suggested it was far more than that. he could see it was an indicator of unification .
As he pursued this idea, he could see that unification of this sort wasn't just indicating a unification of the
charge equations with the gravity equations, it was indicating a unification of all the particles involved
in both fields. In other words, he could soon see that baryonic matter wasn't just unified with and
influenced by charge, it was a function of charge, so much so that matter could just be seen as a larger
charge structure. That is what these new experiments are really telling us: matter is a charge structure
itself. Matter is simply a larger architecture of charge.
So when these researchers do create leptons from photon collisions, they will not be the first to do so.
Nature has been doing it from the beginning. MM said years ago that the galactic core probably creates
matter directly from photons, just as they will be doing at Imperial College. The only difference is, the
galactic core is not limited to creating leptons. It can also create baryons. Is is possible larger stars can
do this as well. All matter was created this way. This is how it is done.
In previous papers, we have seen other mysteries of the mainstream solved by similar spin-ups and
spin-downs. MM has shown it is probable electrons are created in our own ionosphere, when X-rays are
spun-up directly into electrons. It is even more likely this is happening in the Solar Corona . MM has
shown how these spin-ups and spin-downs create a wide variety of phenomena, including the Rayleigh
,
Effect , magnetic reconnection, comet tails opposition surge , and so on.
And this is why the new announcements must be fatal to all mainstream theory. MM has shown that
every sub-field in physics has had to be massively fudged due to this very ignorance of the quantum
spin equation. In hundreds of specific cases, he has shown that the current answer is wrong, the correct
answer being some variation of real photon spin in the real charge field. More recently, he showed this
,
,
was the correct answer to the Hall Effect Anderson Localization Diode Theory Solar Cycles , and so
,
on. MM has rewritten large parts of solid-state theory, celestial mechanics, light theory, atomic theory,
molecular bonding theory, and much more, and it was all made possible by understanding that photons
spin, and how they do so . Since these new experiments must prove me right, they must prove the
mainstream wrong.
Why must they prove me right? Because these photons can only be creating leptons by being spun up,
in the manner and in the amount described by MM's quantum spin equations. One thing they will
discover pretty fast is that these electrons don't have to be created in pairs with positrons, since the
whole pair production thing is beside the point. Yes, in some circumstances pairs of photons are
produced, but that was just a byproduct of that specific collision. Depending on the actual collision,
just about anything can be produced. For instance, we are told that in this new experiment in London,
they first create high-energy photons. But they don't seem to understand why that is necessary, beyond
a matter of energy levels. It is necessary because they need to create photons that are only one spin-
level below the electron. When this photon stacks on another spin, it becomes what we call an
electron. The photon becomes the electron. The only question at that point is, “What was the thing it
collided with to stack on that spin, and what did that thing become?” Yes, if the photon collided with
an anti-photon just like itself coming from the opposite direction, a positron can be produced. But that
will happen only 50% of the time. The other 50%, the photons won't add spins, they will cancel, and
the X-rays will be stripped down to smaller photons. And the high-energy photons can be spun-up by
other particles than themselves. For instance, an X-ray can collide with an electron. If they both spin
eachother up, the X-ray becomes an electron, and electron becomes a meson. If they both spin
eachother down, the electron becomes an X-ray and the X-ray becomes ultraviolet.
We saw this previously in MM's paper on beta decay , where a free neutron was hit by a positron. Both
their spins were affected, showing that spins do not have to be equal [in energy or angular momentum]
to affect one another. He proposed there that the neutron probably had to be hit by several positrons to
reverse its outer spin and become a proton, but that is beside the point here. The point is that spins are
real, and spin energy can be transferred between any particles that can collide with eachother on-edge
—which would be most particles.
This must disprove most parts of the standard model, because if most electromagnetic phenomena are
correctly explained by real spins of real particles with real radii, then QED collapses into a giant heap.
All the fudged solutions fall, all the fudged math falls, and all the fudged theories fall. In fact, it is
happening as we speak. If you put your ear to the wall, you can hear all of Modern physics turning to
dust.
The establishment will say that MM's spin theory cannot conserve energy either, since if both particles gain spin energy
in the collision, energy hasn't been conserved. But notice what he said above about the odds being only
50% that would happen. Because these spin transfers are caused by edge hits between real particles,
the opposite effect is always equally likely. Conservation of energy is only true in a system; it is never
true applied to a single event. A single event cannot conserve energy, by definition of “conserve”.
Think about it.
But because in any given event of this sort, the odds of a spin-up exactly equal a spin-down, energy
must be conserved. Yes, energy can be increased in a given locality, and that locality can be any size,
but if it does, an equal amount of energy must be lost from adjoining localities. The conservation of
energy law doesn't say that energy levels must remain flat. They can and must have peaks and valleys.
All the conservation of energy law says is that the peaks and valleys must sum to zero.
The establishment will say that MM's spin equations and diagrams don't follow Newton's Third Law. If both particles
are being spun up, for instance, there is no equal and opposite reaction. The equal and opposite
reaction to a spin up is a spin down. But that is simply to misunderstand the Third Law. The Third
Law does not imply that energy cannot increase in a given event or a given locality. The Third Law
simply says that in any and all events there is an equal and opposite reaction. In all MM's spin transfers,
the Law is upheld. The opposite reaction to a spin-up is not a spin-down, as you see if you actually
draw the spinning particles with their arrows. For instance, if a left-spin meets a right spin head-on,
they cancel. In that cancellation, the left spin loses an equal amount to the right spin, confirming the
Third Law. And yet they were both spun down.
That said, MM admits that spins are tricky to follow. It takes a lot of visualization to track them, especially
once you start stacking them. Even a computer can't do it for you if you don't feed the right
information into it. Someone has to visualize the effect first, then feed the visualization into the
computer. Only after that can the computer do it. A computer can extrapolate from given information,
but it cannot create initial input like this sort of visualization. This is probably why spin mechanics has
been avoided for so long. It required advanced visualization skills that physicists of the time simply
did not have. When these skills were most needed in the early years of the 20th century, they were least
to be found. MM has reminded his readers that Bohr, Heisenberg, and the rest of those fellows were
possibly the least artistic physicists who ever lived. They were so averse to visualization they ended
up forbidding it, which has hamstrung physics since then.
This is how the problem was left for Miles Mathis to solve. Many haven't understood how he could see something
decades of geniuses could not see, but this is the reason. They didn't have the right kind of genius.
Physics is after all supposed to be physical , so it shouldn't be too surprising that the abilities of an artist
might turn out to be useful. The logical thing would have been for these physicists to consult with
artists, but again many things conspired against that. The 20th century was an inartistic century from
the beginning, with classical art collapsing (or, more precisely, being destroyed) due to many factors at
precisely the same time Modern physics was being born. Artists of the old sort were driven out of the
field, and the new artists—with their deconstructing theories and minimalist art—would not have been
much use to physicists had they been consulted. Of course they were not consulted, and we have to
imagine that even had Leonardo been around he would not have been consulted, either. The physicists
of the 20th century were not the sort to share the spotlight with anyone, even for a moment. Physics,
like everything else in the 20th century, was not a field of cooperation but of predation. Physics didn't
wish to co-exist with astronomy's or chemistry or mathematics; it wished to co-opt them and take their
funding. Someone like Feynman only sniffed at astronomy or mathematics or philosophy, taking what
he wished from them and damning the rest. For art he had no use. It was beneath notice.
Which is why MM has had to beat the door down by main force. Not invited to the party, he has
nonetheless crashed it, knocking the bouncer senseless before driving into the ballroom on the loudest
Harley he could find. Given the state of things, this was the only thing MM could do, as even his enemies
must realize. Sitting outside and throwing pebbles against the ballroom windows was not going to get
anyone's attention, over the loud music within. The people feebly crouching inside, drunk on punch,
have long deserved a hail of bricks, or worse, so MM does not apologize for anything. He could only wish for
more bricks and more arms to throw them.
Please note that this paper is a simplification by me of a paper or papers written and copyrighted by Miles Mathis on his site. I have replaced "I" and "MM's" with "MM" to show that he is talking. All links within the papers, not yet simplified, are linked directly to the Miles Mathis site and will appear in another tab. (It will be clear which of these are Miles Mathis originals because they will be still contain "I" and "MM's".) The original papers on his site are the ultimate and correct source. All contributions to his papers and ordering of his books should be made on his site.
(This paper incorporates Miles Mathis' limat paper.)
You see, in MM's theory, you cannot “create” matter from photons, simply because there is no creation
going on. Matter is not being created, it is simply changing forms, from photon to electron to baryon.
Since charge and light are already material, no matter is being created. Matter is simply being spun-up
into larger and more complex structures.