The illusion of Matter...

Is matter an illusion? Is the universe floating on a vast sea of
> light, whose invisible power provides the resistance that gives to
> matter its feeling of solidity? Astrophysicist Bernhard Haisch and
> his colleagues have followed the equations to some compelling --
and
> provocative -- conclusions.
>
> "God said, 'Let there be light,' and there was light."
>
> It is certainly a beautiful poetic statement. But does it contain
any
> science? A few years ago I would have dismissed that possibility.
As
> an astrophysicist, I knew all too well the blatant contradictions
> between the sequence of events in Genesis and the physics of the
> Universe. Even after substituting eons for days, the order of
events
> was obviously wrong. It made no sense to have light come first,
and
> then to claim that the Sun, the moon and the stars - the obvious
> sources of light in the night sky of the ancient world - were
created
> only subsequently, be it days or eons later. One could, of course,
> generalize light to mean simply energy, and thus claim a reference
to
> the Big Bang, but that would, to me, be more of a stretch than a
> revelation.
>
> My first inkling that the deceptively simple "Let there be light"
> might actually contain a profound cosmological truth came in early
> July 1992. I was trying to wrap things up in my office in Palo
Alto
> so that I could spend the rest of the summer doing research on the
X-
> ray emission of stars at the Max Planck Institute in Garching,
> Germany. I came in one morning just before my departure and found
a
> rather peculiar message on my answering machine; it had been left
at
> 3 a.m.by a usually sober-minded colleague, Alfonso Rueda, a
professor
> at California State University in Long Beach. He was so excited by
> the results of a horrifically-long mathematical analysis he had
been
> grinding through that he just had to tell me about it, knowing
full
> well I was not there to share the thrill.
>
> What he had succeeded in doing was to derive the equation: F=ma.
> Details would follow in Germany.
>
> Most people will take this in stride with a "so what?" or "what
does
> that mean?" After all what are F, m and a, and what is so
noteworthy
> about a scientist deriving a simple equation? Isn't this what
> scientists do for a living? But a physicist will have an
incredulous
> reaction because you are not supposed to be able to derive the
> equation F=ma. That equation was postulated by Newton in his
> Principia, the foundation stone of physics, in 1687. A postulate
is a
> law that you assume to be true, and from which other things
follow:
> such as much of physics, for example, from that particular
postulate.
> You cannot derive postulates. How do you prove that one plus one
> equals two? The answer is, you don't. You assume that abstract
> numbers work that way, and then derive other properties of
addition
> from that basic assumption.
>
> But indeed, as I discovered when I began to write up a research
paper
> based on what Rueda soon sent to Garching, he had indeed derived
> Newton's fundamental "equation of motion." And the concept
underlying
> this analysis was the existence of a background sea of light known
as
> the electromagnetic zero-point field of the quantum vacuum.
>
> To understand this zero-point field (for short), consider an old-
> fashioned grandfather clock with its pendulum swinging back and
> forth. If you don't wind the clock , friction will sooner or later
> bring the pendulum to a halt. Now imagine a pendulum that gets
> smaller and smaller, so small that it ultimately becomes atomic in
> size and subject to the laws of quantum physics. There is a rule
in
> quantum physics called the Heisenberg uncertainty principle that
> states (with certainty, as it happens) that no quantum object,
such
> as a microscopic pendulum, can ever be brought completely to rest.
> Any microscopic object will always possess a residual random
jiggle
> thanks to quantum fluctuations.
>
> Radio, television and cellular phones all operate by transmitting
or
> receiving electromagnetic waves. Visible light is the same thing;
it
> is just a higher frequency form of electromagnetic waves. At even
> higher frequencies, beyond the visible spectrum, you find
ultraviolet
> light, X-rays and gamma-rays. All are electromagnetic waves which
are
> really just different frequencies of light.
>
> It is standard in quantum theory to apply the Heisenberg
uncertainty
> principle to electromagnetic waves, since electric and magnetic
> fields flowing through space oscillate like a pendulum. At every
> possible frequency there will always be a tiny bit of
electromagnetic
> jiggling going on. And if you add up all these ceaseless
> fluctuations, what you get is a background sea of light whose
total
> energy is enormous: the zero-point field. The "zero-point" refers
to
> the fact that even though this energy is huge, it is the lowest
> possible energy state. All other energy is over and above the zero-
> point state.
>
> Take any volume of space and take away everything else - in other
> words, create a vacuum - and what you are left with is the zero-
point
> field. We can imagine a true vacuum, devoid of everything, but the
> real-world quantum vacuum is permeated by the zero-point field
with
> its ceaseless electromagnetic waves.
>
> The fact that the zero-point field is the lowest energy state
makes
> it unobservable. We see things by way of contrast. The eye works
by
> letting light fall on the otherwise dark retina. But if the eye
were
> filled with light, there would be no darkness to afford a
contrast.
> The zero-point field is such a blinding light. Since it is
> everywhere, inside and outside of us, permeating every atom in our
> bodies, we are effectively blind to it. It blinds us to its
presence.
> The world of light that we do see is all the rest of the light
that
> is over and above the zero-point field.
>
> We cannot eliminate the zero-point field from our eyes, but it is
> possible to eliminate a little bit of it from the region between
two
> metal plates. (Technically, this has to do with conditions the
> electromagnetic waves must satisfy on the plate boundaries.) A
Dutch
> physicist, Hendrik Casimir, predicted in 1948 exactly how much of
the
> zero-point field would end up being excluded in the gap between
the
> plates, and how this would generates a force, since there is then
an
> overpressure on the outside of the plates. Casimir predicted the
> relation between the gap and the force very precisely.
>
> You can, however, only exclude a tiny fraction of the zero-point
> field from the gap between the plates in this way.
> Counterintuitively, the closer the plates come together, the more
of
> the zero-point field gets excluded, but there is a limit to this
> process because plates are made up of atoms and you cannot make
the
> gap between the plates smaller than the atoms that constitute the
> plates. This Casimir force has now been physically measured, and
the
> results agree very well with his prediction.
>
> The discovery that my colleague first made in 1992 also has to do
> with a force that the zero-point field generates, which takes us
back
> to F=ma, Newton's famous equation of motion. Newton - and all
> physicists since - have assumed that all matter possesses an
innate
> mass, the m in Newton's equation. The mass of an object is a
measure
> of its inertia, its resistance to acceleration, the a.
>
> The equation of motion, known as Newton's second law, states that
if
> you apply a force, F, to an object you will get an acceleration,
a -
> but the more mass, m, the object possesses, the less acceleration
you
> will get for a given force. In other words, the force it takes to
> accelerate a hockey puck to a high speed will barely budge a car.
For
> any given force, F, if m goes up, a goes down, and vice versa.
>
> Why is this? What gave matter this property of possessing inertial
> mass? Physicists sometimes talk about a concept known as "Mach's
> Principle" but all that does is to establish a certain
relationship
> between gravity and inertia. It doesn't really say how all
material
> objects acquire mass. In fact, the work that Rueda, I and another
> colleague, Hal Puthoff, have since done indicate that mass is, in
> effect, an illusion. Matter resists acceleration not because it
> possesses some innate thing called mass, but because the zero-
point
> field exerts a force whenever acceleration takes place. To put it
in
> somewhat metaphysical terms, there exists a background sea of
quantum
> light filling the universe, and that light generates a force that
> opposes acceleration when you push on any material object. That is
> why matter seems to be the solid, stable stuff that we and our
world
> are made of.
>
> Saying this is one thing. Proving it scientifically is another. It
> took a year and a half of calculating and writing and thinking,
over
> and over again, to refine both the ideas themselves and the
> presentation to the point of publication in a professional
research
> journal. On an academic timescale this was actually pretty quick,
and
> we were able to publish in what is widely regarded as the world's
> leading physics journal, the Physical Review, in February 1994. To
> top it off, Science and Scientific American ran stories on our new
> inertia hypothesis. We waited for some reaction. Would other
> scientists prove us right or prove us wrong? Neither happened.
>
> At that point in my career I was already a fairly well-established
> scientist, being a principal investigator on NASA research grants,
> serving as an associate editor of the Astrophysical Journal, and
> having many dozens of publications in the parallel field of
> astrophysics. In retrospect, my experience should have warned me
that
> we had ventured into dangerous theoretical waters, that we were
going
> to be left on our own to sink or swim. Indeed, I would probably
have
> taken the same wait-and-see attitude myself had I been on the
outside
> looking in.
>
> An alternative to having other scientists replicate your work and
> prove that you are right is to get the same result yourself using
a
> completely different approach. I wrote a research proposal to NASA
> and Alfonso buried himself in new calculations. We got funding and
we
> got results. In 1998, we published two new papers that again
showed
> that the inertia of matter could be traced back to the zero-point
> field. And not only was the approach in those papers completely
> different than in the 1994 paper, but the mathematics was simpler
> while the physics was more complete: a most desireable
combination.
> What's more, the original analysis had used Newtonian classical
> physics; the new analysis used Einsteinian relativistic physics.
>
> As encouraged as I am, it is still too early to say whether
history
> will prove us right or wrong. But if we are right, then "Let there
be
> light" is indeed a very profound statement, as one might expect of
> its purported author. The solid, stable world of matter appears to
be
> sustained at every instant by an underlying sea of quantum light.
> But let's take this even one step further. If it is the underlying
> realm of light that is the fundamental reality propping up our
> physical universe, let us ask ourselves how the universe of space
and
> time would appear from the perspective of a beam of light. The
laws
> of relativity are clear on this point.
>
> If you could ride a beam of light as an observer, all of space
would
> shrink to a point, and all of time would collapse to an instant.
In
> the reference frame of light, there is no space and time. If we
look
> up at the Andromeda galaxy in the night sky, we see light that
from
> our point of view took 2 million years to traverse that vast
distance
> of space. But to a beam of light radiating from some star in the
> Andromeda galaxy, the transmission from its point of origin to our
> eye was instantaneous.
>
> There must be a deeper meaning in these physical facts, a deeper
> truth about the simultaneous interconnection of all things. It
> beckons us forward in our search for a better, truer understanding
of
> the nature of the universe, of the origins of space and time -
> those "illusions" that yet feel so real to us.
>
> Bernhard Haisch, staff physicist at the Lockheed Martin Solar &
> Astrophysics Laboratory in Palo Alto, California, is a scientific
> editor of The Astrophysical Journal and editor-in-chief of the
> Journal of Scientific Exploration
>