Nah, that's cool. We side tracked a little bit, but it's all worth it.
I enjoy your posts. They are eye opening and challenging.
I think when you're talking about 'bent space" , you're talking about bent "space time" 'cos space can't be bent without bending the time according to
general relativity, right? There's no absolute time separated from space in general relativistic view of the world(if we're talking about bent or distorted space), so we can't getaway without having time as the added dimension? When black holes or large masses like stars bend space, they end up bending(or distorting) time as well, don't they?
I believe that scientists may have turned energy into mass, but in minuscule scale as you mentioned above. I was referring more or less in the macro world, which I know a big ask. We would need huge amounts of energy to create a piece of matter that a human eye can see, and even with that we don't have the anywhere near technology to harness or control such a massive amount of energy. Ironically, we have no problem doing the other way around thanks to nukes we invented long time ago.
I don't think I understand your interpretation of the double slit experiment.
But, I think, even you may end up scratching your head if you start thinking about the double slit experiment results in a certain way.
I mean it's gota be bizarre to witness a pattern of bands disappear the moment they try to measure individual electrons(the observer effect).
It's been said to "observe" an electron we have to install an "interfering" device to measure the position of the electron and hence distracts the wave
function. But, nobody's able to explain how the interaction turn a wave behavior into a particle behavior.
My view of the behavior is that it may have something to do with our "particle" view of the matter. We started dividing matter into smaller pieces until we came up with the model of the atom and then sub atomic particles. It was successful at explaining many of the natural phenomena since we built math to support the theories. But, since the emergence of quantum physics we realized particle theory has lot of issues with it 'cos in nature lot of those so called real particles do behave like waves, either in vast numbers or even individually. We now know even large molecules that are not too far from the size of smallest biological life from we know of(viruses) also behave the way as in the double slit experiment. This is why I think we may need dump the particle view of the material world and step into energy & multidimensional view of the physical world. The problem is that we don't have elegant branches of new kinda math to deal with such view of physical world, so we are stuck with particles and waves and the probabilistic math of quantum physics for the time being. For how long? I wouldn't know. We may produce another Einstein to deal with in near future, or we may not.
I prefer Einstein's deterministic world, but more than half of the modern physicists are happy with Neils Bohr's probabilistic world.
I personally prefer Einstein's picture of the physical world. But, I can't see how we can picture such a deterministic world with modern version of particle physics. We may have to dump all or most of particles we now "believe" in that exists in nature, and replace that with some kinda energy or string energy kinda theory. In other words, the difference that we've introduced to the physical world via our vision, namely the matter and energy, may not be two different things after all. Matter may be a concentrated form of energy after all, and that may be the reason we can transform one to the other, 'cos it's essentially the same thing, that we, the physical world, everything around us is "energy". We simply sense or picture the dense energy as matter in our brain's interpretation of it. It's a lot of "may be", which I do understand, but it's not too far from string theories.