So, I studied biology...not physics. I did my homework on relativistic and quantum physics, but I don't consider myself an expert on high energy physics and cosmology.
I'm writing a novel, and one of my characters is a physics student. I'd like to confirm that what he says is accurate under the consensus of modern understanding.
One of the statements that my character makes is: "Matter and energy are the same thing, they are merely in different states of motion."
I feel confident that my character is making an accurate statement given current understanding.
I understand that--without drowning someone in a lagoon of mathematics--in the context of relativistic physics, that mass, a measure of matter, can be expressed in electron volts, etc. I also understand that, because of the equivalence principle, that matter and energy are the same 'thing'. (Whatever the heck that 'thing' is...but that's another story.)
A Hicks quote states that matter is "energy condensed to a slow vibration." Although, this is a quote that makes a comment about psychedelic drugs, so one must clearly take this with a grain of salt.
This clearly ties into the roots of Big Bang and relativity, which I am inexpert in.
I believe in Big Bang...recognize the universe as a thermodynamic system guided by the second law...etc.
Assuming that the universe is an isolated system, I want my character to say: "The universe is cooling and slowing as time progresses." Is that an accurate statement given current understanding?
Any feedback about the accuracy of these statements would be appreciated.
Thanks!