"Is All Matter Made of Light?"

by Ted Huntington

The most popular interpretation of the universe is that there is Space, Time (sometimes put together as space-time), Matter, and Energy. For most people these 4 ideas represent all that is in the universe.

Space is what matter fills and moves through, there is much more empty space than matter filled space, or else we might live in a galaxy of space surrounded by a universe of matter.

Time is perhaps the most difficult idea for people to explain. Represented with the variable "t" and counted in units of seconds, time measures the constant change in location of matter moving in space. Albert Einstein is credited with thinking of space and time as 1 continuous structure he called "space-time".

Matter is easier to explain. Matter is electrons, protons, Hydrogen, Carbon, Planets, Suns, Galaxies.

Energy is a somewhat abstract label. Particles of light called "photons" are labeled "energy", and not thought to be matter. A piece of matter is thought to possess "potential energy", for example a ball on an inclined plane. When a ball rolls down an inclined plane, the ball is said to have "kinetic energy". Einstein proved that matter and energy are equivalent (but different) with the famous equation e=mc2.

But what if photons are actually matter? What if people are wrong in using the word "energy", as they were wrong in using the word "ether" or "phlogiston"? Currently, most people think that photons are "massless", and have nothing to do with matter. This brings me to a question that exhibits a clear branch in two schools of thought: "When a person lights a match, are the particles of light made at that time, or were they always there?". In other words, is the mass of the match and oxygen converted to particles of light when the match is lit, or were the particles of light part of the atoms in the match and air to begin with?

If the most popular current view is incorrect, the view that the mass (atoms of oxygen) is converted to energy (particles of light), that would mean that the photons were orbiting in the atoms of the match and oxygen. Particles of light orbiting in atoms? How could that be?

Most people recognize that the speed of light is a constant, measured with great effort by a number of people, the most remembered being Albert Michelson to be near 300,000 km/s. If a particle of light always has the same velocity, how could particles of light orbit in an atom when the light is moving so fast?

Particles of light change direction. You can see this by looking in a mirror, for example. Particles of light are emitted from a light bulb, they bounce off of your body, change direction going back to the mirror, bounce off the mirror, then some bounce into your eye, and continue on to some other part of the vast universe. But how can a photon change direction in the empty space of an atom? There is no mirror or body there to bounce off of!

One of the interesting experiments of the past was done by Arthur Eddington. Eddington measured the bending of light around the sun during an eclipse. The apparent position from earth of a distant star was different from the actual position, because light from that distant star changed direction, attracted by the enormous amount of matter that is the sun.

So here, particles of light can change direction simply because of the gravitation influence of matter. Some people may argue, that this alone, is proof that particles of light exhibit the gravitational property of all matter.

The amount of matter in a star like our sun is millions of times more than the amount of matter in an atom. How can light be bent into a circular orbit in such a tiny, empty place as an atom?

The inverse distance squared attraction of gravity is true using either a Newton or an Einstein interpretation. This "force" (according to Newton) or "bending of space-time" (according to Einstein) explains that the closer two pieces of matter are, the stronger is the attraction between the two. So, if two particles of light are brought very close together, the force of attraction may change the direction of each photon, possibly even enough to make two photons orbit each other! Remember, that two or more photons can still maintain a constant velocity near 300,000 km/s, and move in a circle, ellipse, or some other shape because of the attraction they have on each other.

As far as I know, no experiment has ever been done that produced a larger piece of matter, even something as small as an electron from two beams of light. Putting together atoms from particles of light has never been done. What has been done is separating atoms into those particles of light. For example changing atoms of uranium (through fission), and atoms of hydrogen (through combustion) into the original particles of light that were atoms.

To understand this view, a person can see that, in "fusion" where 2 atoms of Hydrogen form 1 atom of Helium, the only source of photons (or radiation) can be from mass or photons that are lost from the original matter. In reactions of matter and so-called "anti-matter" (for example protons and antiprotons), the "radiation" that results from collision, may actually be the particles of light that were moving in the form of protons and antiprotons.

So, in conclusion, I think that side by side with "String" and "Super Symmetry" Grand Unified theories (or GUTs) could be the harmless idea that all the matter (even the so-called "anti-matter") in the universe, and even we humans, are made of particles of light.

Rejected by Nature Magazine 11/11/2003:
November 11, 2003

The Editor thanks you for your communication but regrets that he is unable to publish it. He regrets also that he cannot enter into further correspondence on this matter.
Nature Administration

Rejected by Science Magazine 11/14/2003:

14 November 2003

Dr. Ted Huntington
1408 Stanford Street
Irvine CA 92612

Ref: 1093678 and 1093680

Dear Dr. Huntington:

Thank you for sending your papers entitled "Light Moves in a Sine Wave and has Amplitude?" and "Is All Matter Made of Light?" I regret to say that it is not the sort of work we publish.

We appreciate your interest in Science.


Phillip D. Szuromi, Ph.D.
Supervisory Senior Editor