Can a photon transfer mass to an object even though it is mass less. How does that work with out violating the laws of mathematical physics where the real mass of a photon is Zero? Is it better to talk in terms of potential energy transfer? Does the microscopic scale of mass increase? see the quagmire?
The photon has momentum, no mass, and travels at the speed of light. Yes, that is a "quagmire"
When a photon is absorbed by an atom, the mass of the atom increases by m = e/(c^2)
A photon carries momentum, p=E/c When it collides with an object, momentum is transferred.
One can never pin down the exact position and momentum of a photon.
Want to get really "quagmired"? Read about Wheeler-Feynman Absorber theory, and think of how a photon can "experience" time.
0 time at speed of light (undefined)
0 distance at speed of light (undefined)
0 mass, but has momentum
a particle, but has a wavelength
When a photon is absorbed by an atom, the mass of the atom increases by m = e/(c^2)
A photon carries momentum, p=E/c When it collides with an object, momentum is transferred.
One can never pin down the exact position and momentum of a photon.
Want to get really "quagmired"? Read about Wheeler-Feynman Absorber theory, and think of how a photon can "experience" time.
0 time at speed of light (undefined)
0 distance at speed of light (undefined)
0 mass, but has momentum
a particle, but has a wavelength
QUOTE (meBigGuy+Dec 23 2007, 08:42 AM)
The photon has momentum, no mass, and travels at the speed of light. Yes, that is a "quagmire"
When a photon is absorbed by an atom, the mass of the atom increases by m = e/(c^2)
A photon carries momentum, p=E/c When it collides with an object, momentum is transferred.
One can never pin down the exact position and momentum of a photon.
Want to get really "quagmired"? Read about Wheeler-Feynman Absorber theory, and think of how a photon can "experience" time.
0 time at speed of light (undefined)
0 distance at speed of light (undefined)
0 mass, but has momentum
a particle, but has a wavelength
I had a problem with this, until I realized that what is happening here is man's limited understanding of how to transfer the real world into the mathematical world and have consistency. The problem happens when we arrive at consistency in the mathematical world before we have the duality of consistency in both worlds together.
Here is part of how I understand a photon. It is a cloud of energy that is substance but is it not in the state of mass. It, by man's mathematical definition has 0% state of mass and 100% state of energy and can therefore travel at or close to the speed of the gravitational wave. Now that cloud of energy still has stored potential energy which can be absorbed.
Once absorbed, the photon of energy can transfer that stored potential energy to its host atom and the host atom has the ability to count this stored energy as stored mass because it has changed form and degree of freedom. The speed of light is the key to understand the state of energy vs. the state of mass. When a substance is in the state of mass it cannot travel along the originating, propagating gravitational wave(space). Only when substance is in the state of energy with 0% state of mass can it achieve the speed of light. The solution lies in the understanding how mass and energy are form changes with degrees of freedom with respect to the speed of light.
I believe that everything has a mechanism that the problems we face are understandable, and it is our inability to conceptualize first, then put into the language of predictable math second that is the heart of our ability to jump to the next level.
Sometimes the limits are the definitions that we place on the universe, and not the universe. So when logic prevails, change the definitions to fit the reality.
Look at our concept of time, it changes do to relative acceleration. How does that fit any definition? Well is there an underlying clock in the universe that creates time as the function of a wave, like sound because the only clue we have is that sound can also change do to relative acceleration. The answer is yes. The Universe has a clock. The answer lies in your ability to place the puzzle pieces together to understand the relative and absolute aspects of what time is and how time works and why, including the exact mechanism that makes time as we see it to be change. What is the ultimate change? and how does that govern relative and absolute time?
The answers are easy once you see the overall picture.
Here is another one and let me say the answer is the same. What is nothing, does it exist? If nothing does not exist, then what is empty space? Something or nothing? and if it is something what did we miss on detecting it?
Can time and space be two actions of a completely misunderstood process that at the heart explains why a photon has no mass and yet energy and momentum?
The answer is yes, again. You see, we have all the puzzle pieces but until the truth gets out as to what the overall picture is, and then it is recognized as such everyone will argue over individual pieces and what they mean instead of piecing the puzzle together. All of the questions relating to this great physics forum are really great. It is isolating seeing the big picture and not getting other people to see it as easily as they could. I don't know how to take off the blinders. I can say this. Time and space are wave functions of a propagating gravitational wave that exists at the electromagnetic field level as a decay process of all substance, including photons, into the gravitational wave. It is gravitational wave synchronization that creates time and space to be relative because the basis of time and space are wave functions of rate density and volume density of the creation of the gravitational wave field from all substance into it uses up all of its potential energy.
So I got a little off tract and preachy, sorry but maybe one person will catch on and remove the blinders and see the whole picture. Private Message me if you are interested in the whole picture of if you think you have something that can stump me because I have been a little of a devils advocate myself........
When a photon is absorbed by an atom, the mass of the atom increases by m = e/(c^2)
A photon carries momentum, p=E/c When it collides with an object, momentum is transferred.
One can never pin down the exact position and momentum of a photon.
Want to get really "quagmired"? Read about Wheeler-Feynman Absorber theory, and think of how a photon can "experience" time.
0 time at speed of light (undefined)
0 distance at speed of light (undefined)
0 mass, but has momentum
a particle, but has a wavelength
I had a problem with this, until I realized that what is happening here is man's limited understanding of how to transfer the real world into the mathematical world and have consistency. The problem happens when we arrive at consistency in the mathematical world before we have the duality of consistency in both worlds together.
Here is part of how I understand a photon. It is a cloud of energy that is substance but is it not in the state of mass. It, by man's mathematical definition has 0% state of mass and 100% state of energy and can therefore travel at or close to the speed of the gravitational wave. Now that cloud of energy still has stored potential energy which can be absorbed.
Once absorbed, the photon of energy can transfer that stored potential energy to its host atom and the host atom has the ability to count this stored energy as stored mass because it has changed form and degree of freedom. The speed of light is the key to understand the state of energy vs. the state of mass. When a substance is in the state of mass it cannot travel along the originating, propagating gravitational wave(space). Only when substance is in the state of energy with 0% state of mass can it achieve the speed of light. The solution lies in the understanding how mass and energy are form changes with degrees of freedom with respect to the speed of light.
I believe that everything has a mechanism that the problems we face are understandable, and it is our inability to conceptualize first, then put into the language of predictable math second that is the heart of our ability to jump to the next level.
Sometimes the limits are the definitions that we place on the universe, and not the universe. So when logic prevails, change the definitions to fit the reality.
Look at our concept of time, it changes do to relative acceleration. How does that fit any definition? Well is there an underlying clock in the universe that creates time as the function of a wave, like sound because the only clue we have is that sound can also change do to relative acceleration. The answer is yes. The Universe has a clock. The answer lies in your ability to place the puzzle pieces together to understand the relative and absolute aspects of what time is and how time works and why, including the exact mechanism that makes time as we see it to be change. What is the ultimate change? and how does that govern relative and absolute time?
The answers are easy once you see the overall picture.
Here is another one and let me say the answer is the same. What is nothing, does it exist? If nothing does not exist, then what is empty space? Something or nothing? and if it is something what did we miss on detecting it?
Can time and space be two actions of a completely misunderstood process that at the heart explains why a photon has no mass and yet energy and momentum?
The answer is yes, again. You see, we have all the puzzle pieces but until the truth gets out as to what the overall picture is, and then it is recognized as such everyone will argue over individual pieces and what they mean instead of piecing the puzzle together. All of the questions relating to this great physics forum are really great. It is isolating seeing the big picture and not getting other people to see it as easily as they could. I don't know how to take off the blinders. I can say this. Time and space are wave functions of a propagating gravitational wave that exists at the electromagnetic field level as a decay process of all substance, including photons, into the gravitational wave. It is gravitational wave synchronization that creates time and space to be relative because the basis of time and space are wave functions of rate density and volume density of the creation of the gravitational wave field from all substance into it uses up all of its potential energy.
So I got a little off tract and preachy, sorry but maybe one person will catch on and remove the blinders and see the whole picture. Private Message me if you are interested in the whole picture of if you think you have something that can stump me because I have been a little of a devils advocate myself........
insight,
>Private Message me if you are interested in the whole picture ....
Well it is a forum, So I don't see the need for privacy.
You started this thread and I presume that you want to discuss your take on this topic. It sounds to me that you may want someone to debate with you but, I can't do that. I will give it a read if you want to post more. If your like me just explaining something to someone else helps me to understand it myself better. Best I can do is toss you a question or two after reading what you have to say.
So go for it. I'm all eyes.
Read 'ya latter.
>Private Message me if you are interested in the whole picture ....
Well it is a forum, So I don't see the need for privacy.
You started this thread and I presume that you want to discuss your take on this topic. It sounds to me that you may want someone to debate with you but, I can't do that. I will give it a read if you want to post more. If your like me just explaining something to someone else helps me to understand it myself better. Best I can do is toss you a question or two after reading what you have to say.
So go for it. I'm all eyes.
Read 'ya latter.
@insight
I see now that this was a phony question designed to allow you to propagate your numerous misunderstandings. Your post is full of them. You may have some correct concepts in there somewhere, but nearly all your descriptions and assumptions are totally off base.
Dumb me for answering it accurately.
If you ever want to learn, feel free to ask sincere questions. Until then I'll just let you continue on with your twisted babble.
I see now that this was a phony question designed to allow you to propagate your numerous misunderstandings. Your post is full of them. You may have some correct concepts in there somewhere, but nearly all your descriptions and assumptions are totally off base.
Dumb me for answering it accurately.
If you ever want to learn, feel free to ask sincere questions. Until then I'll just let you continue on with your twisted babble.
QUOTE (meBigGuy+Dec 23 2007, 11:41 PM)
@insight
I see now that this was a phony question designed to allow you to propagate your numerous misunderstandings. Your post is full of them. You may have some correct concepts in there somewhere, but nearly all your descriptions and assumptions are totally off base.
Dumb me for answering it accurately.
If you ever want to learn, feel free to ask sincere questions. Until then I'll just let you continue on with your twisted babble.
Ouch! Now be nice or I will have to report you to yourself!
It is not a phony question but it is a question you, or anyone interested in seeing a different picture but one that grasps the real problems with our understanding of how everything works and relates. I may not speak in exactly the way you want me to conform to but I do know the reasons the Universe works.
The reason that you might think I am off base is really a total misunderstanding of the actual nature of matter by many people. Yes I do have to take on the current estab-oh be nice-lishment in order to get someone else to see the whole picture. Maybe 10 or so years ago I might have felt exactly the same way you express yourself now, hopefully I have matured.
So lets get to my point.
Everyone, I mean everyone, seems to have their own agenda which interferes with seeing the real picture. I doubt you would be involved with this forum if you also didn't have something to propose.
So let me suggest the following. So instead of putting you down and saying nothing of merit since you seem to be quite versed in that intellect, let me state the whole picture and then if you want each step of the way I will give examples.
The reason the Universe runs is because of the overlooked "mechanism of monopole wave synchronization"
A monopole wave is matter that escapes from other matter as a natural decay process, but cannot bind back. It is the lowest, least form of matter as far as potential energy, now I am not giving an exact anal definition but an introductory getting the feel definition.
I will live this now and get back latter but I will state this to think about.
The essence of time and space come from in all matter. The decay process, after the big bang is the process running the Universe. The gravitational wave and the way all matter release the wave and the wave the wave synchronizes actually creates the process of how the universe is evolving and changing. Space is the gravitational wave generated from all matter. Time is the rate of this process and time and space are wave density dependent.
I see now that this was a phony question designed to allow you to propagate your numerous misunderstandings. Your post is full of them. You may have some correct concepts in there somewhere, but nearly all your descriptions and assumptions are totally off base.
Dumb me for answering it accurately.
If you ever want to learn, feel free to ask sincere questions. Until then I'll just let you continue on with your twisted babble.
Ouch! Now be nice or I will have to report you to yourself!
It is not a phony question but it is a question you, or anyone interested in seeing a different picture but one that grasps the real problems with our understanding of how everything works and relates. I may not speak in exactly the way you want me to conform to but I do know the reasons the Universe works.
The reason that you might think I am off base is really a total misunderstanding of the actual nature of matter by many people. Yes I do have to take on the current estab-oh be nice-lishment in order to get someone else to see the whole picture. Maybe 10 or so years ago I might have felt exactly the same way you express yourself now, hopefully I have matured.
So lets get to my point.
Everyone, I mean everyone, seems to have their own agenda which interferes with seeing the real picture. I doubt you would be involved with this forum if you also didn't have something to propose.
So let me suggest the following. So instead of putting you down and saying nothing of merit since you seem to be quite versed in that intellect, let me state the whole picture and then if you want each step of the way I will give examples.
The reason the Universe runs is because of the overlooked "mechanism of monopole wave synchronization"
A monopole wave is matter that escapes from other matter as a natural decay process, but cannot bind back. It is the lowest, least form of matter as far as potential energy, now I am not giving an exact anal definition but an introductory getting the feel definition.
I will live this now and get back latter but I will state this to think about.
The essence of time and space come from in all matter. The decay process, after the big bang is the process running the Universe. The gravitational wave and the way all matter release the wave and the wave the wave synchronizes actually creates the process of how the universe is evolving and changing. Space is the gravitational wave generated from all matter. Time is the rate of this process and time and space are wave density dependent.
insight,
http://uplink.space.com/showthreaded.php?C...ew=&sb=&o=&vc=1
So does this link sum up what your saying or is this just you saying it somewhere else as 1111person.
http://uplink.space.com/showthreaded.php?C...ew=&sb=&o=&vc=1
So does this link sum up what your saying or is this just you saying it somewhere else as 1111person.
Hi insight, meBigGuy, paul h et al,
QUOTE (insight+)
Can a photon transfer mass to an object even though it is mass less. How does that work with out violating the laws of mathematical physics where the real mass of a photon is Zero? Is it better to talk in terms of potential energy transfer? Does the microscopic scale of mass increase? see the quagmire?
I'll "bite"... I will attempt to sort this out to the satisfaction of a few but probably not for most since it is a theory. The photon does not have mass because mass is not an intrinsic property of our universe... It is a property that has evolved from spacetime curvature. Where there is no "self" spacetime curvature (and I actually mean positive spacetime curvature) then there is no mass there at that "source" where we are trying to locate the photon. Recall spacetime curvature is the result of mass in Einsteins theory. The next point I would like to draw attention to is the velocity of light (which is the velocity of photons ... by definition) and the velocity of propagation of mass influence, we call that gravitation. Most experiments and current theory show these two propagation rates are the same and they obey the same laws of composition except that the property of mass is not bipolar as the source of electromagnetism seems to be.
A short aside... I personally do not think that the universe would create bipolar charges while at the same time not producing magnetic monopoles... All experiments have failed, for several decades, to find the elusive magnetic monopoles... So no magnetic monopoles and by symmetry no electric dipoles either, Maxwell's Laws are capable of formulation without sources and I think that is the way it should be. I tend to think that nature would not have two separate ways to produce electric fields... one produced by stretching the "fabric of inertial spacetime" in electromagnetic photons which have no charge sources and by having "charges" as a separate method of generating electric fields. I would also suggest that the laws of the Universe should be formulated in such a way that it forms the simplest answer that does not violate experiment... Experiment does not contradict this interpretation.
Since light and gravity propagate at the same speed it would be a miracle that both phenomena were not arising from the same basis.
Lost me here. Creation of an electron positrom pair. That is, a matter-anti matter pair.
So, the production of a huge electromagnetic field "breaks down" a vacuum and produces a matter anti-matter pair.
I think you distort the results slightly.
Lost me here. Creation of an electron positrom pair. That is, a matter-anti matter pair.
So, the production of a huge electromagnetic field "breaks down" a vacuum and produces a matter anti-matter pair.
I think you distort the results slightly.
A reasonable person may conclude that light creates mass and charge from its own "primary electromagnetic substance".
I think that is not reasonable.
This is where I stopped reading. Show me the experiment with no mass in the universe.
A short aside... I personally do not think that the universe would create bipolar charges while at the same time not producing magnetic monopoles... All experiments have failed, for several decades, to find the elusive magnetic monopoles... So no magnetic monopoles and by symmetry no electric dipoles either, Maxwell's Laws are capable of formulation without sources and I think that is the way it should be. I tend to think that nature would not have two separate ways to produce electric fields... one produced by stretching the "fabric of inertial spacetime" in electromagnetic photons which have no charge sources and by having "charges" as a separate method of generating electric fields. I would also suggest that the laws of the Universe should be formulated in such a way that it forms the simplest answer that does not violate experiment... Experiment does not contradict this interpretation.
Since light and gravity propagate at the same speed it would be a miracle that both phenomena were not arising from the same basis.
QUOTE
Regarding Photon and Matter Wave relationships this may be informative....
So matter charge and mass can convincingly be produced from only light which has no "native" mass... Matter from energy alone. So where did that mass come from? It has come from a symmetry operation. This is the CPT-Lorentz Symmetry where the charge, parity and time "cooperate" to form spin orthogonal particle couples that have sources of charge and all sources of charge seem to have mass even though in some cases it is an exceedingly small mass. A reasonable person may conclude that light creates mass and charge from its own "primary electromagnetic substance". So why does mass attract other mass? Answer: For the same reason that light is attracted to mass... and it is if it is allowed to "fall freely" near a massive body and was one of the first tests of Einstein Special and General Relativity. The experiment which has been done many times indicate that the attraction between matter and light exists "already"... even without any mass in the universe. what does this really mean? If photons attract mass with purely electromagnetic influences then why not photon on photon... Well this does happen too. All photons of the same wavelength on the same wavefront that are coherent (co-moving) attract each other with an "infinite influence" (in the transverse direction) and so all co-moving coherent photons all exist in the one inverse square law expanding boson state. Any such "attractive" influence acting on a "massless particle" will cause an infinite acceleration and very quickly any two separate photons will be one state and cohabiting the same space. Experiment support this fact and light obeys Bose-Einstein Statistics.
While matter particles attract each other they are limited in their attraction by their inertia (mass... which is their reluctance to move or to resist acceleration at an infinite rate). However why doesn't a photon accelerate toward another "particle with mass" with an infinite acceleration too? (it turns out it is the same acceleration that all "light particles" (photons) are attracted to a massive object). In a vacuum a rock a feather and a photon of light have the same acceleration toward a massive object, it is just their initial velocities that cause their obvious difference in properties.
Of course two massive objects have "mutual" influence on each other as well so this experiment can't be extended to all planets and stars because each particle of mass has mutual gravitational influences between their component resources. This influence between "mutual" masses is directly related to their individual curvature of spacetime that each one produces. Each mass source contributes to the overall mass of a "massive collection of particles" cumulatively. In the final analysis the mass is the measure of potential energy of a system. Two particles in a system can lower the overall potential energy by coalescing. This can only occur if the kinetic energy of the two systems remains zero. Usually this process will dissipate some kinetic energy.
Considering the internal and external relationship of a surface to it's space the external spacetime of any mass particle must be "positively curved" while the "internal spacetime" of the same particle could be considered as the internal surface which would be relatively negatively curved. If some relationship between these two surfaces exists as suggested above then Electromagnetism is a denizen of the two dimensional inner surface and Gravity is a denizen of the outer three dimensional space surface (ignoring time). It is clear that the two dimensional inner surface space of a "bubble" as a surface will not allow for the packing of three dimensional objects into it as does the external space of particles... or does it? The "conjecture is that the "apparent" two dimensional surface "appears" three dimensional to inhabitants of the surface, a kind of "flatland" as described by Abbott. The laws of packing in that surface are the laws of electromagnetism which relate to Bosons (Bose-Einstein Statistics) while the external spaces which are three dimensional relate to the laws of Fermions which obey a different packing relationship of Fermi-Dirac Statistics... The way billiard balls stack. This is the way we think our world "appears" to us... Three Dimensional with Time.
Now lets think of the Story ... Alice Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Carroll.
The Looking Glass House
It is possible to conceive that as Alice is in her world the looking glass is to another world that is related to our world but very "flat"... To Alice the looking Glass House would appear Flat but it obeys all the rules of our world (Universe) with one exception... it is all reversed... It is an Anti-World. The next point of difference is light does not obey the laws of physics that matter obeys... What if the anti-world in the mirror was not a world of light "waves" but a world of matter "waves"... de Broglie Matter Waves. That "image in the mirror" would then be the result of material matter and not simply visible light. If it were so then these would behave like "Condo Phantoms" of our world and could in principle partake in the same physics that matter in our world can. It has been noted that such phantoms can exist and partake in chemical reactions with matter from our Universe. This experiment can only be partially performed with Quantum Corrals... the mirror is a not an optical mirror but a ring of encircling atoms and an atom is placed at one focus of an ellipse ad the phantom "appears" at the other foci. Because the "corral" is not perfect... it is more like a fence around a a flat paddock... rather than an all encompassing ellipsoid of revolution the "image" is actually at a lowered "amplitude" to the source amplitude... however for all intents and purposes the particle's image has all the attributes of the original particle which could be an atom. This phantom atom has been subjected to chemical reactions and will enter into molecules that are half phantom and half real. These are matter wave replicas of the original.
Getting back to Alice and her Looking Glass House... A "perfect" matter wave mirror may be capable of not only recreating the entire external universe "up to a point" the image would be capable of independent physics because it is not just an optical image but a matter wave image. If Alice "could" squeeze into that world she may be able to exist in that two dimensional surface as if it was a world of higher dimensions as if it was a matter wave world rather than a bosonic world. The physics of "our" normal three dimensions would become the physics of the apparent two dimensions through projection or a rotation into/onto the surface (hypersurface). Movement in the additional dimensions would be possible with a change of scale "in" the surface. Alice may find another Alice in there and also find some differences in the Physics if the Looking Glass House was a matter wave reproduction of her former Universe (world) instead of an optical "copy"... Just like Condo Phantoms in Quantum Corrals.
... Click to enlarge...
Extending this conjecture further... the Looking Glass World to us appears as a simple optical surface if it were curved it would cause a deformation like in a lens... the suggestion is what is the geometry of of a Christmas Ball world...
... Click to enlarge...
This is Dali's reflection in a crystal ball.... Actually it is a reflection in a silvered surface ball like a Christmas ball. Now modify this "ball" to image matter waves as a reciprocal space in the same way that de Broglie waves are the reciprocal of normal waves. This would mean that large objects would be small and small objects would be large and the entire Universe (world) would "fit" into this mapping... I would like to take this one step further it should conform with a Fourier mapping of the external space into that internal space. This maps distances in our world into reciprocal distances and time into frequencies. This is what happens with an optical fourier processor such as this one...
... Click to enlarge...
This is a simple optical device that processes transparent two dimensional images into the transform plane where it can be "filtered" to remove an artifact using a spatial filter (a mask placed in the transform plane). The image is recovered filtered and all at the image plane.
So we have two different views of the same world. One world is the familiar one in which everything is three dimensional and matter seems to be very real. The other world is one where from our frame of reference "can't be real" since it exists in a surface and yet apparently obeys all the laws that our three dimensional world exhibits in a flatspace. From the perspective of "something" in that flatspace it would "see" everything as if it were three dimensional. The conjecture is our Universe is this kind of flatspace with Universes "above" and "below" in which physics is progressing as entangled phenomena relative to events executing in parallel worlds at all scales. Everything is then "matter wave optics".
From our "external" perspective the "reflections" in Looking Glass Ball Worlds are embedded in a flatspace and exhibit some kind of "surface phenomena" physics.. a physics of scalar inner product ... a projection of the physics and "optics" of our world... while in our world these "similar" phenomena exhibit mass and gravity. There is also the enigmatic (bosonic) electromagnetic phenomena that are also responding to cavity resonant states in the same space as the mass and gravity we are seeing around us. The conjecture is this electromagnetism is propagation on the inside of a dimensionally closed cavity... very similar to the externally seen "flatspace" of a Christmas bauble. In the very same space we also see "external" Gravity and Mass states which result in some apparent forces of gravitational attraction.
So what we have is a flatspace for "bosonic" electromagnetism that we see as standing waves filling a space inside a cavity Universe that appears as actually a flatspace to observers that are external to our universe. At the same time we are external observers of the gravity and mass of external spacetime curvature in our three dimensional fermionic universe around us. At a higher perspective these mass and gravity fields are seen as flatspace events not of gravity and mass but of bosonic phenomena.
A symmetry which has a bosonic shadow of a fermionic universe followed by a fermionic shadow of a bosonic universe in successive layers of a matter wave "bubble". The inside of a bubble is bosonic and allows the propagation of electromagnetism and the outside of the bubble ... all the way to "infinity" we have the rest of our three dimensional Universe sharing 4 dimensions with these "shells". At the same time out mostly empty universe not only has matter in it it also has light indicating the internal surface (...or a matching flatspace of something).
We interpret this as light spreading through the inner cavity of a huge "flatspace" as far as we are concerned (electromagnetic propagation). That EM propagation is simply a global "exchange force" in this bubble universe. Around us (including us) there are matter particles sparsely occupying the "bosonic" space (planets and galaxies) which are the outside connection between these matter particles. The force in this Universe is Gravity and this arises through "mass". There really is no direct connection between the Gravity and the electromagnetic forces since one has no property of mass and propagates on the inner surface of "sub atomic particles" and the other is a property of de Broglie waves on the "opposite surface" of the Universe. The two surfaces are connected "reciprocally" through a transform... the two realms are particle and wave and have different descriptions depending on which side of the manifold is being described. The transition from one domain to another results in a change in geometry from standard geometry of ordinary space to reciprocal space and reciprocal time (frequency).
For each and every boson here is a fermion and for each and every fermion there is a matching boson. The fermions are sub-atomic particles (with mass) and their matching mirror world bosons (without the mass) hybridize in place as space filling waves and this influence fills space with unseen standing boson waves At the same time the nucleus also form hybridized matter waves in space. Boson hybridization are the shells of atoms and house electrons and clumping of sub-atomic fermion particles are all the nuclei of the atoms.
So the original question above is the massless boson photons do transfer mass since the mass is a property "seen" on the opposite side (surface) of the spatial curvature of the sub-atomic particles "bubble".
I know that is going to cause some ruckus by all those who are self appointed guardians of the morality of Physicists but I ask you all to think about the results of physics and see that this matches our current range of experiments without any direct contradictions. This interpretation will not change Quantum Electrodynamics since it is an optical theory and quantum gravity is no longer a problem since we will not be quantizing space anymore at small scale but will treat it as a continuum of reciprocal entities where what is big in our world is small in the "sub-atomic" world and visa versa. More energy simply "probes" the sub-atomic mirrors at smaller scale. This is what we actually see. Small physical size in sub-atomic systems means higher energy and large size means low energy, The Universe when it is all considered is really composed of sub-atomic particles and that means that the behavior of the Universe is the behavior of these sub-atomic particles when they clump together. No Planck Limit.
Cheers
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Regarding Photon and Matter Wave relationships this may be informative.... REAL PHOTONS CREATE MATTER. Einstein's equation E=mc^2 formulates the idea that matter can be converted into light and vice versa. The vice-versa part, though, hasn't been so easy to bring about in the lab. But now physicists at SLAC have produced electron-positron pairs from the scattering of two "real" photons (as opposed to the "virtual" photons that mediate the electromagnetic scattering of charged particles). To begin, light from a terawatt laser is sent into SLAC's highly focused beam of 47-GeV electrons. Some of the laser photons are scattered backwards, and in so doing convert into high-energy gamma ray photons. Some of these, in turn, scatter from other laser photons, affording the first ever creation of matter from light-on- light scattering of real photons in a lab. (D.L. Burke et al., Physical Review Letters, 1 September 1997.) Indicating the possibility that de Broglie matter waves are simply related to internal photon waves. Recent studies have produced further results. |
So matter charge and mass can convincingly be produced from only light which has no "native" mass... Matter from energy alone. So where did that mass come from? It has come from a symmetry operation. This is the CPT-Lorentz Symmetry where the charge, parity and time "cooperate" to form spin orthogonal particle couples that have sources of charge and all sources of charge seem to have mass even though in some cases it is an exceedingly small mass. A reasonable person may conclude that light creates mass and charge from its own "primary electromagnetic substance". So why does mass attract other mass? Answer: For the same reason that light is attracted to mass... and it is if it is allowed to "fall freely" near a massive body and was one of the first tests of Einstein Special and General Relativity. The experiment which has been done many times indicate that the attraction between matter and light exists "already"... even without any mass in the universe. what does this really mean? If photons attract mass with purely electromagnetic influences then why not photon on photon... Well this does happen too. All photons of the same wavelength on the same wavefront that are coherent (co-moving) attract each other with an "infinite influence" (in the transverse direction) and so all co-moving coherent photons all exist in the one inverse square law expanding boson state. Any such "attractive" influence acting on a "massless particle" will cause an infinite acceleration and very quickly any two separate photons will be one state and cohabiting the same space. Experiment support this fact and light obeys Bose-Einstein Statistics.
While matter particles attract each other they are limited in their attraction by their inertia (mass... which is their reluctance to move or to resist acceleration at an infinite rate). However why doesn't a photon accelerate toward another "particle with mass" with an infinite acceleration too? (it turns out it is the same acceleration that all "light particles" (photons) are attracted to a massive object). In a vacuum a rock a feather and a photon of light have the same acceleration toward a massive object, it is just their initial velocities that cause their obvious difference in properties.
Of course two massive objects have "mutual" influence on each other as well so this experiment can't be extended to all planets and stars because each particle of mass has mutual gravitational influences between their component resources. This influence between "mutual" masses is directly related to their individual curvature of spacetime that each one produces. Each mass source contributes to the overall mass of a "massive collection of particles" cumulatively. In the final analysis the mass is the measure of potential energy of a system. Two particles in a system can lower the overall potential energy by coalescing. This can only occur if the kinetic energy of the two systems remains zero. Usually this process will dissipate some kinetic energy.
Considering the internal and external relationship of a surface to it's space the external spacetime of any mass particle must be "positively curved" while the "internal spacetime" of the same particle could be considered as the internal surface which would be relatively negatively curved. If some relationship between these two surfaces exists as suggested above then Electromagnetism is a denizen of the two dimensional inner surface and Gravity is a denizen of the outer three dimensional space surface (ignoring time). It is clear that the two dimensional inner surface space of a "bubble" as a surface will not allow for the packing of three dimensional objects into it as does the external space of particles... or does it? The "conjecture is that the "apparent" two dimensional surface "appears" three dimensional to inhabitants of the surface, a kind of "flatland" as described by Abbott. The laws of packing in that surface are the laws of electromagnetism which relate to Bosons (Bose-Einstein Statistics) while the external spaces which are three dimensional relate to the laws of Fermions which obey a different packing relationship of Fermi-Dirac Statistics... The way billiard balls stack. This is the way we think our world "appears" to us... Three Dimensional with Time.
Now lets think of the Story ... Alice Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Carroll.
The Looking Glass House
It is possible to conceive that as Alice is in her world the looking glass is to another world that is related to our world but very "flat"... To Alice the looking Glass House would appear Flat but it obeys all the rules of our world (Universe) with one exception... it is all reversed... It is an Anti-World. The next point of difference is light does not obey the laws of physics that matter obeys... What if the anti-world in the mirror was not a world of light "waves" but a world of matter "waves"... de Broglie Matter Waves. That "image in the mirror" would then be the result of material matter and not simply visible light. If it were so then these would behave like "Condo Phantoms" of our world and could in principle partake in the same physics that matter in our world can. It has been noted that such phantoms can exist and partake in chemical reactions with matter from our Universe. This experiment can only be partially performed with Quantum Corrals... the mirror is a not an optical mirror but a ring of encircling atoms and an atom is placed at one focus of an ellipse ad the phantom "appears" at the other foci. Because the "corral" is not perfect... it is more like a fence around a a flat paddock... rather than an all encompassing ellipsoid of revolution the "image" is actually at a lowered "amplitude" to the source amplitude... however for all intents and purposes the particle's image has all the attributes of the original particle which could be an atom. This phantom atom has been subjected to chemical reactions and will enter into molecules that are half phantom and half real. These are matter wave replicas of the original.
Getting back to Alice and her Looking Glass House... A "perfect" matter wave mirror may be capable of not only recreating the entire external universe "up to a point" the image would be capable of independent physics because it is not just an optical image but a matter wave image. If Alice "could" squeeze into that world she may be able to exist in that two dimensional surface as if it was a world of higher dimensions as if it was a matter wave world rather than a bosonic world. The physics of "our" normal three dimensions would become the physics of the apparent two dimensions through projection or a rotation into/onto the surface (hypersurface). Movement in the additional dimensions would be possible with a change of scale "in" the surface. Alice may find another Alice in there and also find some differences in the Physics if the Looking Glass House was a matter wave reproduction of her former Universe (world) instead of an optical "copy"... Just like Condo Phantoms in Quantum Corrals.
... Click to enlarge...
Extending this conjecture further... the Looking Glass World to us appears as a simple optical surface if it were curved it would cause a deformation like in a lens... the suggestion is what is the geometry of of a Christmas Ball world...
... Click to enlarge...
This is Dali's reflection in a crystal ball.... Actually it is a reflection in a silvered surface ball like a Christmas ball. Now modify this "ball" to image matter waves as a reciprocal space in the same way that de Broglie waves are the reciprocal of normal waves. This would mean that large objects would be small and small objects would be large and the entire Universe (world) would "fit" into this mapping... I would like to take this one step further it should conform with a Fourier mapping of the external space into that internal space. This maps distances in our world into reciprocal distances and time into frequencies. This is what happens with an optical fourier processor such as this one...
... Click to enlarge...
This is a simple optical device that processes transparent two dimensional images into the transform plane where it can be "filtered" to remove an artifact using a spatial filter (a mask placed in the transform plane). The image is recovered filtered and all at the image plane.
So we have two different views of the same world. One world is the familiar one in which everything is three dimensional and matter seems to be very real. The other world is one where from our frame of reference "can't be real" since it exists in a surface and yet apparently obeys all the laws that our three dimensional world exhibits in a flatspace. From the perspective of "something" in that flatspace it would "see" everything as if it were three dimensional. The conjecture is our Universe is this kind of flatspace with Universes "above" and "below" in which physics is progressing as entangled phenomena relative to events executing in parallel worlds at all scales. Everything is then "matter wave optics".
From our "external" perspective the "reflections" in Looking Glass Ball Worlds are embedded in a flatspace and exhibit some kind of "surface phenomena" physics.. a physics of scalar inner product ... a projection of the physics and "optics" of our world... while in our world these "similar" phenomena exhibit mass and gravity. There is also the enigmatic (bosonic) electromagnetic phenomena that are also responding to cavity resonant states in the same space as the mass and gravity we are seeing around us. The conjecture is this electromagnetism is propagation on the inside of a dimensionally closed cavity... very similar to the externally seen "flatspace" of a Christmas bauble. In the very same space we also see "external" Gravity and Mass states which result in some apparent forces of gravitational attraction.
So what we have is a flatspace for "bosonic" electromagnetism that we see as standing waves filling a space inside a cavity Universe that appears as actually a flatspace to observers that are external to our universe. At the same time we are external observers of the gravity and mass of external spacetime curvature in our three dimensional fermionic universe around us. At a higher perspective these mass and gravity fields are seen as flatspace events not of gravity and mass but of bosonic phenomena.
A symmetry which has a bosonic shadow of a fermionic universe followed by a fermionic shadow of a bosonic universe in successive layers of a matter wave "bubble". The inside of a bubble is bosonic and allows the propagation of electromagnetism and the outside of the bubble ... all the way to "infinity" we have the rest of our three dimensional Universe sharing 4 dimensions with these "shells". At the same time out mostly empty universe not only has matter in it it also has light indicating the internal surface (...or a matching flatspace of something).
We interpret this as light spreading through the inner cavity of a huge "flatspace" as far as we are concerned (electromagnetic propagation). That EM propagation is simply a global "exchange force" in this bubble universe. Around us (including us) there are matter particles sparsely occupying the "bosonic" space (planets and galaxies) which are the outside connection between these matter particles. The force in this Universe is Gravity and this arises through "mass". There really is no direct connection between the Gravity and the electromagnetic forces since one has no property of mass and propagates on the inner surface of "sub atomic particles" and the other is a property of de Broglie waves on the "opposite surface" of the Universe. The two surfaces are connected "reciprocally" through a transform... the two realms are particle and wave and have different descriptions depending on which side of the manifold is being described. The transition from one domain to another results in a change in geometry from standard geometry of ordinary space to reciprocal space and reciprocal time (frequency).
For each and every boson here is a fermion and for each and every fermion there is a matching boson. The fermions are sub-atomic particles (with mass) and their matching mirror world bosons (without the mass) hybridize in place as space filling waves and this influence fills space with unseen standing boson waves At the same time the nucleus also form hybridized matter waves in space. Boson hybridization are the shells of atoms and house electrons and clumping of sub-atomic fermion particles are all the nuclei of the atoms.
So the original question above is the massless boson photons do transfer mass since the mass is a property "seen" on the opposite side (surface) of the spatial curvature of the sub-atomic particles "bubble".
I know that is going to cause some ruckus by all those who are self appointed guardians of the morality of Physicists but I ask you all to think about the results of physics and see that this matches our current range of experiments without any direct contradictions. This interpretation will not change Quantum Electrodynamics since it is an optical theory and quantum gravity is no longer a problem since we will not be quantizing space anymore at small scale but will treat it as a continuum of reciprocal entities where what is big in our world is small in the "sub-atomic" world and visa versa. More energy simply "probes" the sub-atomic mirrors at smaller scale. This is what we actually see. Small physical size in sub-atomic systems means higher energy and large size means low energy, The Universe when it is all considered is really composed of sub-atomic particles and that means that the behavior of the Universe is the behavior of these sub-atomic particles when they clump together. No Planck Limit.
Cheers
QUOTE
So matter charge and mass can convincingly be produced from only light which has no "native" mass...
Lost me here. Creation of an electron positrom pair. That is, a matter-anti matter pair.
So, the production of a huge electromagnetic field "breaks down" a vacuum and produces a matter anti-matter pair.
I think you distort the results slightly.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| So matter charge and mass can convincingly be produced from only light which has no "native" mass... |
Lost me here. Creation of an electron positrom pair. That is, a matter-anti matter pair.
So, the production of a huge electromagnetic field "breaks down" a vacuum and produces a matter anti-matter pair.
I think you distort the results slightly.
A reasonable person may conclude that light creates mass and charge from its own "primary electromagnetic substance".
I think that is not reasonable.
QUOTE
The experiment which has been done many times indicate that the attraction between matter and light exists "already"... even without any mass in the universe.
This is where I stopped reading. Show me the experiment with no mass in the universe.
From what little I understand of "party line physics", Elf is not parting company with any legitimate lines of exploration. (But I cannot verify this in detail). They may be weird, but not crackpot.
Hi insight, meBigGuy,NoCleverName paul h et al,
QUOTE (meBigGuy+)
QUOTE (Good Elf+)
So matter charge and mass can convincingly be produced from only light which has no "native" mass...
Lost me here. Creation of an electron positrom pair. That is, a matter-anti matter pair.
So, the production of a huge electromagnetic field "breaks down" a vacuum and produces a matter anti-matter pair.
I think you distort the results slightly.
So, the production of a huge electromagnetic field "breaks down" a vacuum and produces a matter anti-matter pair.
I think you distort the results slightly.
Good questions... Of course I did say this was a theory (though one with plenty of experimental support).
QUOTE
Regarding Photon and Matter Wave relationships this may be informative....
OK... then where did the mass come from when there was no mass originally and where did charge come from since light contains no "charge"? My point is light (photons) do not contain any charge or mass. There is no such thing as "anti-mass" to my knowledge, all mass or matter produced in "creation events" still falls "down" and not "up". To simply say that the vacuum "breaks down" is like saying pixies created them out of nothing. It's not so bad when you can believe in pixies but we elves just don't trust them at all. You tell me a mechanism in which "breaking down" is a reasonable process. My point of view is that you (or anyone) have not proposed a basic method in which this "creation" produces something tangible (matter) from something intangible (light). I realize that you could call on "chance" to provide a mechanism. This is unsatisfactory to me for many reasons. The day you show me a meter that measures the chance an event is about to occur with is the day I will agree with you. There are no probability meters and probability is not an expression of underlying physics. I would point out that all "probability" calculations must refer to the basic underlying "mechanism" without which there would be no way to calculate. It is unfortunate that some of these hypothetical mechanisms can't be measured directly.
Attempts to show a mechanism by which particle creation can occur seems to fall to Bohmian Mechanics
Trajectories and Particle Creation and Annihilation in Quantum Field Theory: Detlef D¨urr, Sheldon Goldstein,Roderich Tumulka, and Nino Zanghi
...and it also has a great problem with a causative solution for the process. This is not to say that any other approach works at all... because they don't. Coming to grips with this is difficult if you have been taught to "believe" so strongly that it must always be right. It is also no wonder that conventional theory is unable to supply a mechanism by which "by chance" our Universe has ended up with all matter and very little anti-matter. An unanswered but very important question. What I am saying here is I do not trust conventional physics to simply solve any problem in which the event can be hidden in some state collapse. I also believe that alternative solutions to the problem are closer to the mark than merely accepting "miraculous intervention". I have discussed why conventional Quantum Theory has failed in the past and does not provide answers to some important questions. I am not alone in this matter there are many famous names that distrust the conventional approach to certain problems. However IMHO there are always alternatives...
The Cramer event driven Interpretation of Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory provides a mechanism behind this state change. You must admit that the particle creation-annihilation sequence is entirely "reversible". This means that it is not simply a "breakdown event" in which something is "dissipated" like an extra neutrino or two. It's very symmetry suggests that it is very special. The two photons come together and produce two particles (mirror images), then the same two particles can come together and produce two photons of exactly the same energy... no "bangs" or "booms" no dramatic phenomena (provided the initial photons were chosen accurately).
Note: However this diagram comes with a caution since it requires two photons to create two particles and visa versa.
This is because in theory there is no additional energy "left over" for "drama". It is very "clean". The real problem is to generate photons of the required energy with the right "alignment". I think the best description of this event so far is a relativistic mirror operation on the vacuum. The photons have the total initial spin requirement to perform the operation. Now this breakdown of the vacuum itself would actually need additional energy for this process to occur... right? Where is that energy? After the "breakdown" has occurred where is that energy now? Show me a "reaction" in which the breakdown of the vacuum can be initiated without the forming of particles and antiparticles. It is the creation of "bright matter solitons" from the photons through mutual scattering acting within CPT-Lorentz Symmetry.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Regarding Photon and Matter Wave relationships this may be informative.... REAL PHOTONS CREATE MATTER. Einstein's equation E=mc^2 formulates the idea that matter can be converted into light and vice versa. The vice-versa part, though, hasn't been so easy to bring about in the lab. But now physicists at SLAC have produced electron-positron pairs from the scattering of two "real" photons (as opposed to the "virtual" photons that mediate the electromagnetic scattering of charged particles). To begin, light from a terawatt laser is sent into SLAC's highly focused beam of 47-GeV electrons. Some of the laser photons are scattered backwards, and in so doing convert into high-energy gamma ray photons. Some of these, in turn, scatter from other laser photons, affording the first ever creation of matter from light-on- light scattering of real photons in a lab. (D.L. Burke et al., Physical Review Letters, 1 September 1997.) Indicating the possibility that de Broglie matter waves are simply related to internal photon waves. Recent studies have produced further results. |
OK... then where did the mass come from when there was no mass originally and where did charge come from since light contains no "charge"? My point is light (photons) do not contain any charge or mass. There is no such thing as "anti-mass" to my knowledge, all mass or matter produced in "creation events" still falls "down" and not "up". To simply say that the vacuum "breaks down" is like saying pixies created them out of nothing. It's not so bad when you can believe in pixies but we elves just don't trust them at all. You tell me a mechanism in which "breaking down" is a reasonable process. My point of view is that you (or anyone) have not proposed a basic method in which this "creation" produces something tangible (matter) from something intangible (light). I realize that you could call on "chance" to provide a mechanism. This is unsatisfactory to me for many reasons. The day you show me a meter that measures the chance an event is about to occur with is the day I will agree with you. There are no probability meters and probability is not an expression of underlying physics. I would point out that all "probability" calculations must refer to the basic underlying "mechanism" without which there would be no way to calculate. It is unfortunate that some of these hypothetical mechanisms can't be measured directly.
Attempts to show a mechanism by which particle creation can occur seems to fall to Bohmian Mechanics
Trajectories and Particle Creation and Annihilation in Quantum Field Theory: Detlef D¨urr, Sheldon Goldstein,Roderich Tumulka, and Nino Zanghi
...and it also has a great problem with a causative solution for the process. This is not to say that any other approach works at all... because they don't. Coming to grips with this is difficult if you have been taught to "believe" so strongly that it must always be right. It is also no wonder that conventional theory is unable to supply a mechanism by which "by chance" our Universe has ended up with all matter and very little anti-matter. An unanswered but very important question. What I am saying here is I do not trust conventional physics to simply solve any problem in which the event can be hidden in some state collapse. I also believe that alternative solutions to the problem are closer to the mark than merely accepting "miraculous intervention". I have discussed why conventional Quantum Theory has failed in the past and does not provide answers to some important questions. I am not alone in this matter there are many famous names that distrust the conventional approach to certain problems. However IMHO there are always alternatives...
The Cramer event driven Interpretation of Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory provides a mechanism behind this state change. You must admit that the particle creation-annihilation sequence is entirely "reversible". This means that it is not simply a "breakdown event" in which something is "dissipated" like an extra neutrino or two. It's very symmetry suggests that it is very special. The two photons come together and produce two particles (mirror images), then the same two particles can come together and produce two photons of exactly the same energy... no "bangs" or "booms" no dramatic phenomena (provided the initial photons were chosen accurately).
Note: However this diagram comes with a caution since it requires two photons to create two particles and visa versa.
This is because in theory there is no additional energy "left over" for "drama". It is very "clean". The real problem is to generate photons of the required energy with the right "alignment". I think the best description of this event so far is a relativistic mirror operation on the vacuum. The photons have the total initial spin requirement to perform the operation. Now this breakdown of the vacuum itself would actually need additional energy for this process to occur... right? Where is that energy? After the "breakdown" has occurred where is that energy now? Show me a "reaction" in which the breakdown of the vacuum can be initiated without the forming of particles and antiparticles. It is the creation of "bright matter solitons" from the photons through mutual scattering acting within CPT-Lorentz Symmetry.
QUOTE
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| A reasonable person may conclude that light creates mass and charge from its own "primary electromagnetic substance". I think that is not reasonable. |
Very cleaver reply but have you got a reason now for saying it other than you don't like it? It is very easy to criticize but not so easy to justify why you criticized... I would prefer to hear why!
QUOTE
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The experiment which has been done many times indicate that the attraction between matter and light exists "already"... even without any mass in the universe. This is where I stopped reading. Show me the experiment with no mass in the universe. |
Quite right that is a typo. I meant no mass in the system. Typical closed systems without initial mass are bright matter soliton creation and also a closed system such as the one described above. Another system would be one in which separate co-moving photons "bind" in single boson states. I have referred to closed compact dimensional spaces as something like a Universe when the Lagrangian is applied wholly within the boundary. I withdraw "Universe" and substitute "closed system". You stopped reading because of one typo... Hmmm you must hardly ever finish a book. I mean to say you have several typo's in what you have written here... Is that to mean that I am supposed to stop reading after your 8th word.
1. A positron is anti-matter.
2. Positron plus electron = no mass, no charge.
3. Falling has nothing to do with it. Light has no mass, and "falls" as you say. It seems matter, ant-matter and no-matter all follow the distortion of space caused by matter.
4. I don't simply say the vacuum breaks down, the physicists do.
To me, the more dramatic concept of this experiment is light-light interaction, "inelastic light-by-light scattering".
This is the first lab demonstration of the multiphoton Breit-Wheeler reaction.
There are calculated levels (quantum electrodynamic (QED) critical field strength) where a static electric field would spontaneously break down into electron-positron pairs. That is what is happening. That it is two photons is not even a requirement.
Again, I have no argument with the observed physics. Just a problem with the conclusions you are drawing. But, that could easily be my inability.
1. A positron is anti-matter.
2. Positron plus electron = no mass, no charge.
3. Falling has nothing to do with it. Light has no mass, and "falls" as you say. It seems matter, ant-matter and no-matter all follow the distortion of space caused by matter.
4. I don't simply say the vacuum breaks down, the physicists do.
To me, the more dramatic concept of this experiment is light-light interaction, "inelastic light-by-light scattering".
This is the first lab demonstration of the multiphoton Breit-Wheeler reaction.
There are calculated levels (quantum electrodynamic (QED) critical field strength) where a static electric field would spontaneously break down into electron-positron pairs. That is what is happening. That it is two photons is not even a requirement.
Again, I have no argument with the observed physics. Just a problem with the conclusions you are drawing. But, that could easily be my inability.
stopped reading because of one typo
Hardly a typo, rather a serious blunder. Accidental, I understand, but it reduced the sentence to nonsense for me. I didn't happen to guess what you really meant. I was also pretty much done because of issues with the preceeding, as I have mentioned.
I do have a tendency to only read up to where I seriously disagree, so taking things in small steps usually works better for me. In your last post I went about 1.5 paragraphs then started skimming. I see no need to get into Wheeler-Feynman yet (which I love). You've lost me WAY before that.
QUOTE (NoCleverName+)
From what little I understand of "party line physics", Elf is not parting company with any legitimate lines of exploration. (But I cannot verify this in detail). They may be weird, but not crackpot.
I think this theory sounds weird because it is not how the subject is being taught in Schools and University. In order to gain a quick appreciation of various topics it is almost necessary to gloss over many points with the "shutup and calculate" imperative. It is most necessary to challenge fondly held beliefs since that is all they really are in order to get to the bottom of some of the issues to be found there. The mathematical techniques learned are very effective in solving certain problems but not all problems and little regard is given to explorations into the underlying ideas that lie beneath the glossy superficial class presentation. We can be awed by these demonstrations of technical adequacy and we are not informed that some of these techniques took decades to work out so they are not as "trivial" as the lecturer is attempting to demonstrate. The professors jealously guard this area for their own "pleasures" since these issues are indeed pleasurable. The "joy" of physics has been purged by the relentless efforts of the application of abstract mathematical physics. Quite often the underlying physics has been submerged by layers of abstraction in which there is no principle there at all. Of course the mathematical physicist will always say that really there are no principles to be found beneath quantum physics that it is pure random phenomena but if you believe that then there is really nothing new in the world... As a direct counter argument are the experimental physics where a lot of new things are actually being discovered and the mathematical physicists are struggling to catch up with some extraordinary stuff that even children could theoretically understand... take for instance all the recent developments in photonics. None of that was predicted by the theoretical physicists, they are mostly the outpourings of the experimental physics and some less complex analysis by physicists who are close to the experimental workbench. It remains to be seen that a purely mathematical approach without the underlying understanding is the correct approach in the final analysis.... Not just for Physics but for the Physicists.
Cheers
Cheers
QUOTE
OK... then where did the mass come from when there was no mass originally and where did charge come from since light contains no "charge"? My point is light (photons) do not contain any charge or mass. There is no such thing as "anti-mass" to my knowledge, all mass or matter produced in "creation events" still falls "down" and not "up". To simply say that the vacuum "breaks down" is like saying pixies created them out of nothing.
1. A positron is anti-matter.
2. Positron plus electron = no mass, no charge.
3. Falling has nothing to do with it. Light has no mass, and "falls" as you say. It seems matter, ant-matter and no-matter all follow the distortion of space caused by matter.
4. I don't simply say the vacuum breaks down, the physicists do.
To me, the more dramatic concept of this experiment is light-light interaction, "inelastic light-by-light scattering".
This is the first lab demonstration of the multiphoton Breit-Wheeler reaction.
There are calculated levels (quantum electrodynamic (QED) critical field strength) where a static electric field would spontaneously break down into electron-positron pairs. That is what is happening. That it is two photons is not even a requirement.
Again, I have no argument with the observed physics. Just a problem with the conclusions you are drawing. But, that could easily be my inability.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| OK... then where did the mass come from when there was no mass originally and where did charge come from since light contains no "charge"? My point is light (photons) do not contain any charge or mass. There is no such thing as "anti-mass" to my knowledge, all mass or matter produced in "creation events" still falls "down" and not "up". To simply say that the vacuum "breaks down" is like saying pixies created them out of nothing. |
1. A positron is anti-matter.
2. Positron plus electron = no mass, no charge.
3. Falling has nothing to do with it. Light has no mass, and "falls" as you say. It seems matter, ant-matter and no-matter all follow the distortion of space caused by matter.
4. I don't simply say the vacuum breaks down, the physicists do.
To me, the more dramatic concept of this experiment is light-light interaction, "inelastic light-by-light scattering".
This is the first lab demonstration of the multiphoton Breit-Wheeler reaction.
There are calculated levels (quantum electrodynamic (QED) critical field strength) where a static electric field would spontaneously break down into electron-positron pairs. That is what is happening. That it is two photons is not even a requirement.
Again, I have no argument with the observed physics. Just a problem with the conclusions you are drawing. But, that could easily be my inability.
stopped reading because of one typo
Hardly a typo, rather a serious blunder. Accidental, I understand, but it reduced the sentence to nonsense for me. I didn't happen to guess what you really meant. I was also pretty much done because of issues with the preceeding, as I have mentioned.
I do have a tendency to only read up to where I seriously disagree, so taking things in small steps usually works better for me. In your last post I went about 1.5 paragraphs then started skimming. I see no need to get into Wheeler-Feynman yet (which I love). You've lost me WAY before that.
Hi insight, meBigGuy,NoCleverName paul h et al,
I do have a tendency to only read up to where I seriously disagree, so taking things in small steps usually works better for me. In your last post I went about 1.5 paragraphs then started skimming. I see no need to get into Wheeler-Feynman yet (which I love). You've lost me WAY before that.
...Then you will miss out on a lot of good physics, even great people make typo's (no claims being made here only what I say must stand on the results of experiment alone)...
...Then you will miss out on a lot of good physics, even great people make typo's (no claims being made here only what I say must stand on the results of experiment alone)...
There are calculated levels (quantum electrodynamic (QED) critical field strength) where a static electric field would spontaneously break down into electron-positron pairs. That is what is happening. That it is two photons is not even a requirement.
Here is another place where you are missing a very good point ... Feynman based QED on his Absorber Theory... Agreed that many people disagree with Feynman on this point but he has been right on very many other things. It is true that he stripped out the time symmetry from QED theory but Quantum Theory in general is still time symmetric nonetheless.
As to creation of matter from photons the absolute minimum you will need to produce solitons from them is indeed two and they must be at different energy. You can't get particle pair creation from just one photon.
1. A positron is anti-matter. It is the opposite symmetry but the "matter" is the same "stuff" and obeys all the same laws... it is not so different really... It has been said that the positron is simply an electron traveling backwards in time from the point in time when the electron and positron are both "annihilated". Does that "time travel" interpretation disturb you?
2. Positron plus electron = no mass, no charge.Thats easy you get your "deposit" back... that is the constituent photons... what about photon plus photon producing two particles one traveling forward in time and the same particle traveling back in time to meet itself through a temporal mirror?.Clearly a case for Cramer's Interpretation of Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory... what if our entire Universe is simply the result of forward moving time rather than backward moving particles in time. At the Big Bang half of every particle may have been traveling back in time when our Universe cane into being meaning that some place where "all this" has come from has been filled "retrospectively" with so called anti-matter. This long after the Big Bang perhaps the particles have nowhere to go now but pop back out of our Universe back to where that "one particle" originally came from. Wheeler -Feynman Absorber Theory has merit and could be used to solve some interesting asymmetry problems.
3. Falling has nothing to do with it. Light has no mass, and "falls" as you say. It seems matter, ant-matter and no-matter all follow the distortion of space caused by matter.What that means is they are all the same "stuff"... there really is nothing "anti" about it after all
4. I don't simply say the vacuum breaks down, the physicists do.No points for echoing other peoples ideas especially when they make no real sense... Doesn't that "bother you"?
Maybe we can all "weed out some bugs" in this idea...
Cheers
Imagine that the Universe is made of only one substance and that substance goes through a process, a life. First, exploding into a hot liquid, second transitioning, expanding, cooling into a fluid Mosaic of solid (Mass and radiation) and this substance continues transitioning into a third, evaporate or decay stage of this substance still transitioning from potential to genetic energy.
Imagine that all mass is tr aped radiation and that all radiation, trapped or free, bound or unbound, decays into the gravitational wave/field and that this third overlooked process is the actual nature of space and time. And that space and times are actions of this process, and that there is a third action, constructive wave interference. Imagine that all matter creates its own time and space as it decays into the final transition from potential to kinetic energy, the monopole gravitational wave. Yet the gravitational wave has potential energy in relation to itself and creates constructive wave interference as its path of least resistance to its final end, the elongated and flattened universe.
Imagine a system of measurement that depends upon the amount of potential energy in a substance measured as the transfer of potential energy to kinetic energy. Also imagine that radiation of all light waves still has potential energy built in because the new definitions basis is gravitational attraction.
In this imaginary universe time and space are wave functions of the natural decay process of all matter (substance) and it is constructive wave interference that creates gravity. In this universe there is no such thing as space time because time and space are not warped by matter but created by matter. From 1111 person St. -insight
You are accusing me of not reading past typos. That is your false characterization. There is a difference between a typo, a huge blunder, and a statement that doesn't jive with what I understand. I have not yet noticed any typos in your posts.
And, I am not saying what I understand is always correct, either. it is just what i understand.
Statements like
You are accusing me of not reading past typos. That is your false characterization. There is a difference between a typo, a huge blunder, and a statement that doesn't jive with what I understand. I have not yet noticed any typos in your posts.
And, I am not saying what I understand is always correct, either. it is just what i understand.
Statements like
There is no such thing as "anti-mass" to my knowledge, all mass or matter produced in "creation events" still falls "down" and not "up".
Set me on edge because "falling" is independent of mass of that which falls. The sentence is, to my mind, broken.
I have to run, but I will return to comment further. here is the paper on the SLAC experiment.
http://www.hep.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/e14..._79_1626_97.pdf
QUOTE
I do have a tendency to only read up to where I seriously disagree, so taking things in small steps usually works better for me. In your last post I went about 1.5 paragraphs then started skimming. I see no need to get into Wheeler-Feynman yet (which I love). You've lost me WAY before that.
...Then you will miss out on a lot of good physics, even great people make typo's (no claims being made here only what I say must stand on the results of experiment alone)...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
I do have a tendency to only read up to where I seriously disagree, so taking things in small steps usually works better for me. In your last post I went about 1.5 paragraphs then started skimming. I see no need to get into Wheeler-Feynman yet (which I love). You've lost me WAY before that. |
...Then you will miss out on a lot of good physics, even great people make typo's (no claims being made here only what I say must stand on the results of experiment alone)...
There are calculated levels (quantum electrodynamic (QED) critical field strength) where a static electric field would spontaneously break down into electron-positron pairs. That is what is happening. That it is two photons is not even a requirement.
Here is another place where you are missing a very good point ... Feynman based QED on his Absorber Theory... Agreed that many people disagree with Feynman on this point but he has been right on very many other things. It is true that he stripped out the time symmetry from QED theory but Quantum Theory in general is still time symmetric nonetheless.
As to creation of matter from photons the absolute minimum you will need to produce solitons from them is indeed two and they must be at different energy. You can't get particle pair creation from just one photon.
1. A positron is anti-matter. It is the opposite symmetry but the "matter" is the same "stuff" and obeys all the same laws... it is not so different really... It has been said that the positron is simply an electron traveling backwards in time from the point in time when the electron and positron are both "annihilated". Does that "time travel" interpretation disturb you?
2. Positron plus electron = no mass, no charge.Thats easy you get your "deposit" back... that is the constituent photons... what about photon plus photon producing two particles one traveling forward in time and the same particle traveling back in time to meet itself through a temporal mirror?.Clearly a case for Cramer's Interpretation of Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory... what if our entire Universe is simply the result of forward moving time rather than backward moving particles in time. At the Big Bang half of every particle may have been traveling back in time when our Universe cane into being meaning that some place where "all this" has come from has been filled "retrospectively" with so called anti-matter. This long after the Big Bang perhaps the particles have nowhere to go now but pop back out of our Universe back to where that "one particle" originally came from. Wheeler -Feynman Absorber Theory has merit and could be used to solve some interesting asymmetry problems.
3. Falling has nothing to do with it. Light has no mass, and "falls" as you say. It seems matter, ant-matter and no-matter all follow the distortion of space caused by matter.What that means is they are all the same "stuff"... there really is nothing "anti" about it after all
4. I don't simply say the vacuum breaks down, the physicists do.No points for echoing other peoples ideas especially when they make no real sense... Doesn't that "bother you"?
Maybe we can all "weed out some bugs" in this idea...
Cheers
QUOTE (paul h+Dec 24 2007, 04:16 PM)
insight,
http://uplink.space.com/showthreaded.php?C...ew=&sb=&o=&vc=1
So does this link sum up what your saying or is this just you saying it somewhere else as 1111person.
yes, yes and I am at 1111person. and by the way, that post got me kicked off that web forum.
http://uplink.space.com/showthreaded.php?C...ew=&sb=&o=&vc=1
So does this link sum up what your saying or is this just you saying it somewhere else as 1111person.
yes, yes and I am at 1111person. and by the way, that post got me kicked off that web forum.
Imagine that the Universe is made of only one substance and that substance goes through a process, a life. First, exploding into a hot liquid, second transitioning, expanding, cooling into a fluid Mosaic of solid (Mass and radiation) and this substance continues transitioning into a third, evaporate or decay stage of this substance still transitioning from potential to genetic energy.
Imagine that all mass is tr aped radiation and that all radiation, trapped or free, bound or unbound, decays into the gravitational wave/field and that this third overlooked process is the actual nature of space and time. And that space and times are actions of this process, and that there is a third action, constructive wave interference. Imagine that all matter creates its own time and space as it decays into the final transition from potential to kinetic energy, the monopole gravitational wave. Yet the gravitational wave has potential energy in relation to itself and creates constructive wave interference as its path of least resistance to its final end, the elongated and flattened universe.
Imagine a system of measurement that depends upon the amount of potential energy in a substance measured as the transfer of potential energy to kinetic energy. Also imagine that radiation of all light waves still has potential energy built in because the new definitions basis is gravitational attraction.
In this imaginary universe time and space are wave functions of the natural decay process of all matter (substance) and it is constructive wave interference that creates gravity. In this universe there is no such thing as space time because time and space are not warped by matter but created by matter. From 1111 person St. -insight
insight,
>Imagine that the Universe is made of only one substance and that substance goes through a process,...
We would know this as the BB.
>Imagine that all mass is traped radiation and that all radiation, trapped or free, bound or unbound, decays into the gravitational wave/field...
Didn't gravity exist before Separation of the Strong Force?
Or are you saying that matter decay came before gravity? If this is the case then what replaces BB?
>Imagine that the Universe is made of only one substance and that substance goes through a process,...
We would know this as the BB.
>Imagine that all mass is traped radiation and that all radiation, trapped or free, bound or unbound, decays into the gravitational wave/field...
Didn't gravity exist before Separation of the Strong Force?
Or are you saying that matter decay came before gravity? If this is the case then what replaces BB?
QUOTE (paul h+Dec 27 2007, 09:49 PM)
insight,
>Imagine that the Universe is made of only one substance and that substance goes through a process,...
We would know this as the BB.
>Imagine that all mass is tr aped radiation and that all radiation, trapped or free, bound or unbound, decays into the gravitational wave/field...
Didn't gravity exist before Separation of the Strong Force?
Or are you saying that matter decay came before gravity? If this is the case then what replaces BB?
No I am Not disagreeing with the big bang. I am saying that in what today is considered 10 to the -37Th second after the big bang that time itself didn't start. There was a transition ( hyper inflation ) immediately at the big bang and I am stating a possible out of the box and different look. I am saying that time as we measure it didn't start, that the 10 to the -37Th second second didn't exist.
I am not stating which came first the chicken or the egg. I am saying that we measure time by the nature of the gravitational wave density decay from all matter and we don't even realize that yet. I am then hinting that time itself is a by-product of the other forces ( hint on which came first). I am concluding ( big jump here) that gravity does not pull! It synchronizes, so then gravity as I understand it did not hold the BB together. I do not have any idea what started the BB or how carbon and oxygen and hydrogen were formed with the exact bonds to create you and me to have this conversation, but I do see evidence of a story with a beginning, middle, and end, almost like the blink of an eye.
Now what I do see is that time and space are functions of generated wave densities
Time is the rate and space is the length ( I am going very basic here) I see why gravity works, I see why the measure of time and space change between objects moving with different densities. I see why, with gravitational wave synchronization, that the universe is acceleration at an increased rate and flattening too. If gravity doesn't pull but synchronizes then there is no reason for dark matter, or energy because space density fields also explain the quagmire with galaxies. I also see why black hole shrink (lose mass) when they run out of mass to consume because they are decaying into space itself.
I see that as all matter decays into the gravitational wave, that space becomes bigger because the fabric of space comes from matter itself. I see that matter doesn't warp time and space but it creates time and space as a point of origin, potential to kinetic energy transfer into the gravitational wave which means that the definition of mass and energy should include the synchronization of gravitational waves, (Effected by gravity), therefore photons should have an ability to have mass that mathematically works!
>Imagine that the Universe is made of only one substance and that substance goes through a process,...
We would know this as the BB.
>Imagine that all mass is tr aped radiation and that all radiation, trapped or free, bound or unbound, decays into the gravitational wave/field...
Didn't gravity exist before Separation of the Strong Force?
Or are you saying that matter decay came before gravity? If this is the case then what replaces BB?
No I am Not disagreeing with the big bang. I am saying that in what today is considered 10 to the -37Th second after the big bang that time itself didn't start. There was a transition ( hyper inflation ) immediately at the big bang and I am stating a possible out of the box and different look. I am saying that time as we measure it didn't start, that the 10 to the -37Th second second didn't exist.
I am not stating which came first the chicken or the egg. I am saying that we measure time by the nature of the gravitational wave density decay from all matter and we don't even realize that yet. I am then hinting that time itself is a by-product of the other forces ( hint on which came first). I am concluding ( big jump here) that gravity does not pull! It synchronizes, so then gravity as I understand it did not hold the BB together. I do not have any idea what started the BB or how carbon and oxygen and hydrogen were formed with the exact bonds to create you and me to have this conversation, but I do see evidence of a story with a beginning, middle, and end, almost like the blink of an eye.
Now what I do see is that time and space are functions of generated wave densities
Time is the rate and space is the length ( I am going very basic here) I see why gravity works, I see why the measure of time and space change between objects moving with different densities. I see why, with gravitational wave synchronization, that the universe is acceleration at an increased rate and flattening too. If gravity doesn't pull but synchronizes then there is no reason for dark matter, or energy because space density fields also explain the quagmire with galaxies. I also see why black hole shrink (lose mass) when they run out of mass to consume because they are decaying into space itself.
I see that as all matter decays into the gravitational wave, that space becomes bigger because the fabric of space comes from matter itself. I see that matter doesn't warp time and space but it creates time and space as a point of origin, potential to kinetic energy transfer into the gravitational wave which means that the definition of mass and energy should include the synchronization of gravitational waves, (Effected by gravity), therefore photons should have an ability to have mass that mathematically works!
insight,
Hey I'm all for out of the box, in the box, beside the box, under the box, I don't care, but if you ideas are sound you should be able to explain them to we laymen. So let me ask a few questions.
>I am not stating which came first the chicken or the egg.
I sounded to me that you were saying that gravity came after mass decayed into waves. It seemed to me that gravity existed from planch time 10^-43 and that it wasn't until well after Separation of the Strong Force at 10^-36 before the makings of mass could have came into being, let alone decay into a wave.
>I am saying that we measure time by the nature of the gravitational wave density decay from all matter...
So time started when? after wave density decay? I don't understand how the wave propagated into something established enough to decay without being able to put a time on it?
Hey I'm all for out of the box, in the box, beside the box, under the box, I don't care, but if you ideas are sound you should be able to explain them to we laymen. So let me ask a few questions.
>I am not stating which came first the chicken or the egg.
I sounded to me that you were saying that gravity came after mass decayed into waves. It seemed to me that gravity existed from planch time 10^-43 and that it wasn't until well after Separation of the Strong Force at 10^-36 before the makings of mass could have came into being, let alone decay into a wave.
>I am saying that we measure time by the nature of the gravitational wave density decay from all matter...
So time started when? after wave density decay? I don't understand how the wave propagated into something established enough to decay without being able to put a time on it?
QUOTE
Then you will miss out on a lot of good physics, even great people make typo's
You are accusing me of not reading past typos. That is your false characterization. There is a difference between a typo, a huge blunder, and a statement that doesn't jive with what I understand. I have not yet noticed any typos in your posts.
And, I am not saying what I understand is always correct, either. it is just what i understand.
Statements like
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Then you will miss out on a lot of good physics, even great people make typo's |
You are accusing me of not reading past typos. That is your false characterization. There is a difference between a typo, a huge blunder, and a statement that doesn't jive with what I understand. I have not yet noticed any typos in your posts.
And, I am not saying what I understand is always correct, either. it is just what i understand.
Statements like
There is no such thing as "anti-mass" to my knowledge, all mass or matter produced in "creation events" still falls "down" and not "up".
Set me on edge because "falling" is independent of mass of that which falls. The sentence is, to my mind, broken.
I have to run, but I will return to comment further. here is the paper on the SLAC experiment.
http://www.hep.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/e14..._79_1626_97.pdf
Hi meBigGuy,
I feel that I must reply...
I feel that I must reply...
QUOTE (meBigGuy+)
QUOTE (Good Elf+)
Then you will miss out on a lot of good physics, even great people make typo's
You are accusing me of not reading past typos. That is your false characterization. There is a difference between a typo, a huge blunder, and a statement that doesn't jive with what I understand. I have not yet noticed any typos in your posts.
I make many typos... I don't always mean "spelling mistakes" though I make them too. After an hour you can't change these posts and there are many things I would have liked to express in a different way but can't anymore. I write on the fly and it is not proof read by anyone and they are generally pretty complex ideas.
Alright... what was originally in my mind was a region of compact dimensional space in which the space is closed under a Lagrangian. Such an artificial "void" could be devoid of other matter but still contain a photon (... or two). The assumption is fermion particles like electrons could be like this. Normally this provides a "Hilbert Space" in which nothing is reachable outside of that unseen dimensional boundary... a very "simple" kind of "Universe" (as I defined it)... it was wrong... I redefined that... as I see it a typo. Maybe a "blunder" but this is not a Physics Journal and you are no peer reviewer just someone who feels personally persecuted.
Alright... what was originally in my mind was a region of compact dimensional space in which the space is closed under a Lagrangian. Such an artificial "void" could be devoid of other matter but still contain a photon (... or two). The assumption is fermion particles like electrons could be like this. Normally this provides a "Hilbert Space" in which nothing is reachable outside of that unseen dimensional boundary... a very "simple" kind of "Universe" (as I defined it)... it was wrong... I redefined that... as I see it a typo. Maybe a "blunder" but this is not a Physics Journal and you are no peer reviewer just someone who feels personally persecuted.
QUOTE (meBigGuy+)
You are accusing me of not reading past typos
No... you said that once you reached my typo you did not read any further... So are you saying that what I am writing here is of no worth to you (and presumably everyone) because it does not "please" you? I am sorry about that... disappointed as well. I occasionally get pretty turfed off by people who can't or won't spell of find expressing themselves quite difficult too but I do not normally race off accusing them of "blundering" around. I try to understand the difficulties of expressing Physics in this format. Lets get this on record... I am not "accusing" you of anything, I see myself saying that "anyone" even good scientists will make typos... the statement was not about you making typo's it was about my typo.
You are also saying that you are feeling threatened by "accusations" from me. I really do not see that in my statements. I am the one being put on a block here since it is my statements you are having problems with.
You are also saying that you are feeling threatened by "accusations" from me. I really do not see that in my statements. I am the one being put on a block here since it is my statements you are having problems with.
QUOTE (meBigGuy+)
QUOTE (Good Elf+)
There is no such thing as "anti-mass" to my knowledge, all mass or matter produced in "creation events" still falls "down" and not "up".
Mis-characterized. I have found it generally not useful to read much past things that don't make sense. Specially on these forums. Stop and ask questions, then continue. You said there were experiments that made your point. Could you post a link for me?
Mis-characterized. I have found it generally not useful to read much past things that don't make sense. Specially on these forums. Stop and ask questions, then continue. You said there were experiments that made your point. Could you post a link for me?
It is clear that you do not naturally have an open mind otherwise you would understand there are "other interpretations" to "antimatter" and these interpretations have existed for as long as "antimatter" has been around.
I have an extremely open mind, and am aware of alternative ideas regarding anti-matter. It seems to me that even "anti-mass" would follow the distortion of space caused by matter, even if "anti-mass" distorted it differently. It seemed to me that you were tossing a concept that was unrelated to my original point, that a particle of matter and anti-matter were created.
Did I say threatened? Again your interpretation. You falsely accused me of not reading past typos. Why would I find that anything more than just wrong?
Did I say threatened? Again your interpretation. You falsely accused me of not reading past typos. Why would I find that anything more than just wrong?
No... you said that once you reached my typo you did not read any further...
No I didn't. I said I could not for the life of me resolve your blunder and stopped reading at that point.
Have to comment on this again: You are the only one that feels persecuted. I merely feel you are wrong about some things. You may even be right about them, but playing the martyr isn't going to resolve any issues.
So, in a serious attempt to resolve what you say with what I understand, you attack my character and methodology, distort what I say, put words in my mouth, make false assumptions about what I feel, and make out to be a victim.
I pursue ideas aggressively. If you can't handle it, don't respond. And, stop with the personal attacks.
Set me on edge because "falling" is independent of mass of that which falls. The sentence is, to my mind, broken.
Once again this is not something to start your blood pressure rising "setting you on edge"... It is a signal to "put your thinking cap on". It is not possible to say everything here and now. I "hope" that others understand the limitations because my posts are almost universally too long already (like this post). It is clear that you do not naturally have an open mind otherwise you would understand there are "other interpretations" to "antimatter" and these interpretations have existed for as long as "antimatter" has been around. It is a historical fact that needs to be addressed (and it is actually critical to my argument), I am sorry that you are taking such an emotional response to simple "science".
One of the interpretations is that antimatter is gravitationally repulsed by normal matter and this is "probably false" but is an interpretation (that would make it truly "anti") and under such conditions a particle would not fall along a null geodesic toward a common low point in potential energy and would fall along a totally separate solution where matter and anti-matter would curve spacetime in opposite directions leading to saddle solutions to spacetime with a mix of matter and antimatter (loosely interpreted here as "falling up"). You probably don't know about that or that you are "very upset" by suggestions to that effect. I was simply taking care of that point and I agree completely... I was reinforcing the "normalness" (if there is such a word) of "antimatter", there are additional reasons why I "must" interpret this phenomenon in this way. In science you are not supposed to get "emotionally involved" with simple ideas so please don't take some of my ideas "personally".
One idea "I need" is time reversal as the explanation for "antimatter"... this means that so called antimatter is actually just ordinary matter traveling back in time. If it is "ordinary matter" it will still "fall down" while it is undergoing time travel. I guess I was expecting too much there to pick that point up.
In future it would be appreciated if you give a thought to other people who are human (or elves) capable of errors or capable of not quite expressing in terms that everyone is able to agree with... It is going to happen and it is going to happen again... and again... and again. When I am "picked up" I will agree with you... I think that other than being a little wordy I am doing a pretty good job explaining some topics that nobody I know (living or dead) has ever done before and other than direct quotes I am doing in very simple terms that neither normal Physicists or Mathematicians ever attempt in such a small and limited format as is this Forum. If this is not good enough then you can just ignore it... It is a free world.
I appreciate your constructive input... I really do! On a very positive note I thank you for a reference to that paper. That was interesting and thoughtful of you.
http://www.hep.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/e14..._79_1626_97.pdf
Cheers from a very "Little Guy"
One of the interpretations is that antimatter is gravitationally repulsed by normal matter and this is "probably false" but is an interpretation (that would make it truly "anti") and under such conditions a particle would not fall along a null geodesic toward a common low point in potential energy and would fall along a totally separate solution where matter and anti-matter would curve spacetime in opposite directions leading to saddle solutions to spacetime with a mix of matter and antimatter (loosely interpreted here as "falling up"). You probably don't know about that or that you are "very upset" by suggestions to that effect. I was simply taking care of that point and I agree completely... I was reinforcing the "normalness" (if there is such a word) of "antimatter", there are additional reasons why I "must" interpret this phenomenon in this way. In science you are not supposed to get "emotionally involved" with simple ideas so please don't take some of my ideas "personally".
One idea "I need" is time reversal as the explanation for "antimatter"... this means that so called antimatter is actually just ordinary matter traveling back in time. If it is "ordinary matter" it will still "fall down" while it is undergoing time travel. I guess I was expecting too much there to pick that point up.
In future it would be appreciated if you give a thought to other people who are human (or elves) capable of errors or capable of not quite expressing in terms that everyone is able to agree with... It is going to happen and it is going to happen again... and again... and again. When I am "picked up" I will agree with you... I think that other than being a little wordy I am doing a pretty good job explaining some topics that nobody I know (living or dead) has ever done before and other than direct quotes I am doing in very simple terms that neither normal Physicists or Mathematicians ever attempt in such a small and limited format as is this Forum. If this is not good enough then you can just ignore it... It is a free world.
I appreciate your constructive input... I really do! On a very positive note I thank you for a reference to that paper. That was interesting and thoughtful of you.
http://www.hep.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/e14..._79_1626_97.pdf
Cheers from a very "Little Guy"
QUOTE (paul h+Dec 27 2007, 11:33 PM)
insight,
Hey I'm all for out of the box, in the box, beside the box, under the box, I don't care, but if you ideas are sound you should be able to explain them to we laymen. So let me ask a few questions.
>I am not stating which came first the chicken or the egg.
I sounded to me that you were saying that gravity came after mass decayed into waves. It seemed to me that gravity existed from planch time 10^-43 and that it wasn't until well after Separation of the Strong Force at 10^-36 before the makings of mass could have came into being, let alone decay into a wave.
>I am saying that we measure time by the nature of the gravitational wave density decay from all matter...
So time started when? after wave density decay? I don't understand how the wave propagated into something established enough to decay without being able to put a time on it?
the big bang was a partial expulsion, a gravitation bomb a build up of monopole wave until, boom! It is still the gravity bomb but now it is taking the slow more stable way. The universe is transitioning from 100% bound matter to 100% free wave. The is the basis of entropy and the driving force for all the laws of nature, a natural flow from potential to kinetic energy. I am proposing that we measure time by the slow decay process because that is how we experience it.
Hey I'm all for out of the box, in the box, beside the box, under the box, I don't care, but if you ideas are sound you should be able to explain them to we laymen. So let me ask a few questions.
>I am not stating which came first the chicken or the egg.
I sounded to me that you were saying that gravity came after mass decayed into waves. It seemed to me that gravity existed from planch time 10^-43 and that it wasn't until well after Separation of the Strong Force at 10^-36 before the makings of mass could have came into being, let alone decay into a wave.
>I am saying that we measure time by the nature of the gravitational wave density decay from all matter...
So time started when? after wave density decay? I don't understand how the wave propagated into something established enough to decay without being able to put a time on it?
the big bang was a partial expulsion, a gravitation bomb a build up of monopole wave until, boom! It is still the gravity bomb but now it is taking the slow more stable way. The universe is transitioning from 100% bound matter to 100% free wave. The is the basis of entropy and the driving force for all the laws of nature, a natural flow from potential to kinetic energy. I am proposing that we measure time by the slow decay process because that is how we experience it.
QUOTE
no peer reviewer just someone who feels personally persecuted.
Mis-characterized. I have found it generally not useful to read much past things that don't make sense. Specially on these forums. Stop and ask questions, then continue. You said there were experiments that made your point. Could you post a link for me?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| no peer reviewer just someone who feels personally persecuted. |
Mis-characterized. I have found it generally not useful to read much past things that don't make sense. Specially on these forums. Stop and ask questions, then continue. You said there were experiments that made your point. Could you post a link for me?
It is clear that you do not naturally have an open mind otherwise you would understand there are "other interpretations" to "antimatter" and these interpretations have existed for as long as "antimatter" has been around.
I have an extremely open mind, and am aware of alternative ideas regarding anti-matter. It seems to me that even "anti-mass" would follow the distortion of space caused by matter, even if "anti-mass" distorted it differently. It seemed to me that you were tossing a concept that was unrelated to my original point, that a particle of matter and anti-matter were created.
QUOTE
You are also saying that you are feeling threatened by "accusations" from me. I
Did I say threatened? Again your interpretation. You falsely accused me of not reading past typos. Why would I find that anything more than just wrong?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You are also saying that you are feeling threatened by "accusations" from me. I |
Did I say threatened? Again your interpretation. You falsely accused me of not reading past typos. Why would I find that anything more than just wrong?
No... you said that once you reached my typo you did not read any further...
No I didn't. I said I could not for the life of me resolve your blunder and stopped reading at that point.
QUOTE
you are no peer reviewer just someone who feels personally persecuted.
Have to comment on this again: You are the only one that feels persecuted. I merely feel you are wrong about some things. You may even be right about them, but playing the martyr isn't going to resolve any issues.
So, in a serious attempt to resolve what you say with what I understand, you attack my character and methodology, distort what I say, put words in my mouth, make false assumptions about what I feel, and make out to be a victim.
I pursue ideas aggressively. If you can't handle it, don't respond. And, stop with the personal attacks.
Hi meBigGuy,
Sorry that I have mis-characterized you. Probably a misunderstanding on my part. As I have said before I am not attacking you or your character... I am only trying to interpret you intent. Lets say that this Forum has become very confrontational lately and I have no idea what people want from me other than to leave. Lets stop this rubbish... I think you are not trying to boot me off the forum and we have simply had a poor "first encounter".
Truce?
I will need to be very careful in the way I respond to questions since my answers are causing some problems.
Cheers
Sorry that I have mis-characterized you. Probably a misunderstanding on my part. As I have said before I am not attacking you or your character... I am only trying to interpret you intent. Lets say that this Forum has become very confrontational lately and I have no idea what people want from me other than to leave. Lets stop this rubbish... I think you are not trying to boot me off the forum and we have simply had a poor "first encounter".
Truce?I will need to be very careful in the way I respond to questions since my answers are causing some problems.
Cheers
OK by me truce --- and I'll try to tread lighter.
I'm having a hard time separating what you saying that is supported by experiment, and what are associations/conclusions that you are making intuitively. For the moment I'll assume you are trying to summarize "nearly mainstream" concepts since you have done quite a bit of that so far.
So, I'll try to read carefully and ask quesions when I have them
What does the infinite rate mean. Take that out and I'm OK
What does the infinite rate mean. Take that out and I'm OK
However why doesn't a photon accelerate toward another "particle with mass" with an infinite acceleration too?
Lost me totally
What difference in properties is that? Not sure what initial velocities has to do with it, or how that produces different properties.
What difference in properties is that? Not sure what initial velocities has to do with it, or how that produces different properties.
In the final analysis the mass is the measure of potential energy of a system. Two particles in a system can lower the overall potential energy by coalescing. This can only occur if the kinetic energy of the two systems remains zero. Usually this process will dissipate some kinetic energy.
Nope --- got a problem here. Two actually. Mass may be the source of some of the potential energy of a system. And, maybe the last two sentences need rewording. I'm not exactly sure what you are getting at here.
Lost me here totally.
Here's to moving forward, but I warn you, it may be slow at first.
I'm having a hard time separating what you saying that is supported by experiment, and what are associations/conclusions that you are making intuitively. For the moment I'll assume you are trying to summarize "nearly mainstream" concepts since you have done quite a bit of that so far.
So, I'll try to read carefully and ask quesions when I have them
QUOTE
mass... which is their reluctance to move or to resist acceleration at an infinite rate
What does the infinite rate mean. Take that out and I'm OK
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| mass... which is their reluctance to move or to resist acceleration at an infinite rate |
What does the infinite rate mean. Take that out and I'm OK
However why doesn't a photon accelerate toward another "particle with mass" with an infinite acceleration too?
Lost me totally
QUOTE
In a vacuum a rock a feather and a photon of light have the same acceleration toward a massive object, it is just their initial velocities that cause their obvious difference in properties.
What difference in properties is that? Not sure what initial velocities has to do with it, or how that produces different properties.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| In a vacuum a rock a feather and a photon of light have the same acceleration toward a massive object, it is just their initial velocities that cause their obvious difference in properties. |
What difference in properties is that? Not sure what initial velocities has to do with it, or how that produces different properties.
In the final analysis the mass is the measure of potential energy of a system. Two particles in a system can lower the overall potential energy by coalescing. This can only occur if the kinetic energy of the two systems remains zero. Usually this process will dissipate some kinetic energy.
Nope --- got a problem here. Two actually. Mass may be the source of some of the potential energy of a system. And, maybe the last two sentences need rewording. I'm not exactly sure what you are getting at here.
QUOTE
Considering the internal and external relationship of a surface to it's space the external spacetime of any mass particle must be "positively curved" while the "internal spacetime" of the same particle could be considered as the internal surface which would be relatively negatively curved.
Lost me here totally.
Here's to moving forward, but I warn you, it may be slow at first.
Hi meBigGuy,
I will take this slowly and more carefully because I can see that you are not going to easily accept this as gospel... it most certainly is not. It is also "definitely not entirely mainstream" and there is some content that you will not find in books (though I believe it should be)...
I will take this slowly and more carefully because I can see that you are not going to easily accept this as gospel... it most certainly is not. It is also "definitely not entirely mainstream" and there is some content that you will not find in books (though I believe it should be)...
QUOTE (meBigGuy+)
QUOTE (Good Elf+)
mass... which is their reluctance to move or to resist acceleration at an infinite rate
What does the infinite rate mean. Take that out and I'm OK
I meant infinite rate of acceleration. Mass is simply a measure of a particle's reluctance to acceleration. It (Mass) is not a measure of it's energy content otherwise photons would have rest mass. It is the equivalent of Lenz's Law of Induction in electromagnetic theory and is probably closely related to it where a magnet is freely moving at constant velocity inside an infinitely long active solenoid and moves unopposed at a constant velocity until acted on by an accelerating or retarding force... at that point it will experience a reaction in the opposite direction which is an exact analog of mass. Of course this is a one dimensional analog but it is "no coincidence". I can easily back that up with Einstein's own statements on this matter.
QUOTE (Einstein+)
In a 1948 letter to Lincoln Barnett Einstein wrote
"It is not good to introduce the concept of the mass M = m/(1-v2/c2)1/2 of a body for which no clear definition can be given. It is better to introduce no other mass than 'the rest mass' m. Instead of introducing M, it is better to mention the expression for the momentum and energy of a body in motion."
"It is not good to introduce the concept of the mass M = m/(1-v2/c2)1/2 of a body for which no clear definition can be given. It is better to introduce no other mass than 'the rest mass' m. Instead of introducing M, it is better to mention the expression for the momentum and energy of a body in motion."
The reason that "no clear definition can be given" rests on the idea that all systems of energy are relative to some "arbitrary" level ... energy does not have an absolute value and contains an arbitrary constant of integration. Energy is not a material substance it is capacity for doing work. That "constant" can be chosen to be related to another system such that there is a potential difference between the systems (or a difference in kinetic energy or both) where "work" may be done, that is all energy is. Remember that is "potential" to do work. The velocity of a particle does not change the "mass" of any system (I mean "ponderable mass" being rest mass the mass experienced in the rest frame of a system) since you need to stipulate which system that the "moving particle" is referenced to and there may be many particles in motion in the Universe and to discuss the energy of a particle you must stipulate the system parameters.
Unless "something" actually interacts with a specific system it's total mass is "indeterminate" though rest mass remains an observable in each and every rest frame and motion therefore does not automatically cause any "spacetime curvature" as is implicit in many statements made which say that as v -> C m -> ∞. The only way that mass can be understood as some measurable phenomena is through its rest mass and that is what is causing spacetime curvature everywhere. This does not detract from the fact that binding energy is rest mass because it is an integral part of the system and is released only when the system is "split". Radioactivity is a complex phenomenon and I will not try and justify that point here. This "curvature" is arguably related to the de Broglie standing waves in space which as I have indicated are quasi-stationary due to our inability to measure any advanced potentials. This sinc function is related only to the spatial retarded waves. They are entirely "frozen" in space. The best model of a particle as a quasi-stationary wave is to ignore the idea of particle and to accept that the matter wave itself is the one and only expression of the mass. While the particle is not being "probed" at high energy it occupies as much space as it can through de Broglie's relationship.
... Click to enlarge...
This relationship does not need further verification since it is an experimental fact. Notice that a particle wavelength is inversely proportional to velocity. Particle theories want to quantize spacetime, IMHO this is not advisable, in this theory gravity and mass are continuum theories and to the limits of current theory and experiment there is no contrary data. A close examination of this relationship indicates that measurements of this system is a relationship between orthogonal parameters which are primarily not related to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Relationship but related to the more fundamental concept that underlies it of "conjugate measurables". A quick check back will show that the particle uncertainty was "derived" from fourier properties of conjugates and not a fundamental postulate of quantum theory as supposed by many.
Now looking at the equation for de Broglie's Matter Wavelength we can see that it relates strongly to Special Relativity. In fact it describes the wavelength of particles as v -> 0 and as v -> C. More obviously the dynamics of particles with mass as v -> 0 is the low velocity limit of Special Relativity and as you can see λ -> ∞ as v -> 0. This phenomenon can be seen in BEC's which is a unique window on the interaction of matter and Bose Einstein Statistics in confined spaces.
Regarding the situation where m -> 0 and is subject to any force the acceleration will initially approach infinity. Simply an extension of the equations which relate the mass to the acceleration. Naturally as soon as this action occurs the wavelength of any particle that was initially at rest will shrink to approach zero. In the limit of course these events will happen. This behavior is one reason responsible for photons never moving at less than the speed of light. In he case of light the velocity will reach C but the wavelength will not reach 0 because E = hf.... Where for light f =C/λ. The conjugacy property described above "prevents" λ -> 0 by a factor h.
The next point to note about de Broglie's relationship is it's reciprocal property. To illustrate this point consider a particle bobbing up and down on the surface of a pond the wavelength of the ripples emanating from it are a function of velocity. The higher the velocity of the particle through the water the longer the wavelength. This is the reciprocal property relative to such "normal" particles. In regard to mass particles and their associated matter waves the motion of the particle relates to a shortening of the wavelength and proportional to reciprocal dimensions of the oscillating property. The reason is this is a conjugate property well known to those who use Fourier Theory or Spherical Harmonics or other theories of "resonant behavior" such as the "electron shells" in atoms. The oscillator is oscillating in a "reciprocal Hilbert space" where space is replaced with reciprocal space and time is replaced by reciprocal time ... frequency and this explains this matter wave property without any additional presumptions. This fact is supported by experimental researchers such as Carver Mead (a former associate of Richard Feynman). If this source itself is not probed the wavelength of the Matter Wave expands to fill any and all cavities at the speed of light.
In Fourier Theory the fundamental "action" is the impulse... in spacial terms the particle and the transform, the conjugate, is the sinc function in all compact dimensions. This is what is "seen" when it is probed at various energies is the "particle". If left alone and not probed these sinc waves fill space and can be seen and demonstrated by Holograms as quasi-stationary standing waves, the same property that can be seen in particle diffraction. They are the spatial equivalent of Bragg Planes extending away from the apparent "matter wave sources" into all space ... even out to the edge of the universe as "universal gravitation". Now the point about this is what is a "matter wave source"?... The answer is there is none... the waves themselves are the only expression of the matter wave sources from a gravitation point of view and their wavelengths and central tendency as sinc functions is the actual source of gravity itself. This tallies with Einstein's Theories where spacetime curvature is rest mass and not just a "pointer" to mass and the gross effect of these stationary sinc wavelets is positive spacetime curvature (the area under the curve all the way out to infinity) being a measure of the rest mass as potential energy.
I will not say any more at this stage since this is enough for a start. Do you agree or disagree? These issues are part of modern experimental procedure and theory appears to be developing along totally different lines often independently of these established principles. Don't ask me why.
Cheers
Unless "something" actually interacts with a specific system it's total mass is "indeterminate" though rest mass remains an observable in each and every rest frame and motion therefore does not automatically cause any "spacetime curvature" as is implicit in many statements made which say that as v -> C m -> ∞. The only way that mass can be understood as some measurable phenomena is through its rest mass and that is what is causing spacetime curvature everywhere. This does not detract from the fact that binding energy is rest mass because it is an integral part of the system and is released only when the system is "split". Radioactivity is a complex phenomenon and I will not try and justify that point here. This "curvature" is arguably related to the de Broglie standing waves in space which as I have indicated are quasi-stationary due to our inability to measure any advanced potentials. This sinc function is related only to the spatial retarded waves. They are entirely "frozen" in space. The best model of a particle as a quasi-stationary wave is to ignore the idea of particle and to accept that the matter wave itself is the one and only expression of the mass. While the particle is not being "probed" at high energy it occupies as much space as it can through de Broglie's relationship.
... Click to enlarge...
This relationship does not need further verification since it is an experimental fact. Notice that a particle wavelength is inversely proportional to velocity. Particle theories want to quantize spacetime, IMHO this is not advisable, in this theory gravity and mass are continuum theories and to the limits of current theory and experiment there is no contrary data. A close examination of this relationship indicates that measurements of this system is a relationship between orthogonal parameters which are primarily not related to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Relationship but related to the more fundamental concept that underlies it of "conjugate measurables". A quick check back will show that the particle uncertainty was "derived" from fourier properties of conjugates and not a fundamental postulate of quantum theory as supposed by many.
QUOTE
Fourier_Transforms_and_Uncertainty.
...In other words, the probability amplitude distributions of two conjugate variables are simply the (suitably scaled) Fourier transforms of each other. We saw previously that the dispersions (variances) of two density distributions that comprise a Fourier transform pair satisfy the inequality (2), so the variances of the probability amplitude distributions of conjugate observables in quantum mechanics satisfy such an inequality. Thus Heisenberg's uncertainty principle for conjugate pairs of observables follows directly from the fact that those observables are essentially the Fourier transforms of each other.
Of course, this attribute of Fourier transform pairs is purely mathematical, and has no a priori applicability to pairs of observables such as position and momentum, or time and energy. The physical content of quantum mechanics is based on the two relations
E =h-bar * w p = h-bar K
where E is energy, p is momentum (in one dimension), h-bar is Planck's (reduced) constant, w is the frequency with units second^-1, and k is the wave number with units meter^-1. These relations were introduced in the early 1900's by Planck, Einstein, and deBroglie to account for non-classical phenomena such as cavity radiation and the photo-electric effect, both of which depend on the particle-like behavior of entities that had previously been modeled as waves, as well as phenomena involving wave-like behavior of material particles. These are the relations that associate the familiar observables of energy, momentum, space, and time, with the frequency domain. Indeed in terms of the characteristic time t = 1/w and distance D = 1/k the above relations can be written as
tE = Dp = h-bar
which already clearly reveals the conjugacy of time and energy, and of distance and momentum. In view of this, it isn't surprising to find that the product of the dispersions of two conjugate observables (such as position and momentum) cannot be less than one quanta of action, represented by h-bar .
In a sense, there is also a conjugacy between space and time - two observable that had been regarded as disjoint and independent prior to the early 1900s. In special relativity the inertial space and time intervals dx and dt between two events are components of a single invariant spacetime interval ds between those events. These intervals are related according to the Minkowski metric, which can be written in the form
{dx/dt + ds/dt}{dx/dt -ds/dt} = 1/c^2
This can be regarded as an "uncertainty relation" for space and time. In general, physics was based, prior to 1900, on the premise that h-bar and 1/c^2 were both zero. With the advent of quantum mechanics and special relativity, it was realized that they both have non-zero values, although they are extremely small in terms of ordinary units.
http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath488/kmath488.htm
Please note that the reference is to h-bar (reduced Planck's Constant) not to Planck Length or other units that have become very popular recently... that is an aside....In other words, the probability amplitude distributions of two conjugate variables are simply the (suitably scaled) Fourier transforms of each other. We saw previously that the dispersions (variances) of two density distributions that comprise a Fourier transform pair satisfy the inequality (2), so the variances of the probability amplitude distributions of conjugate observables in quantum mechanics satisfy such an inequality. Thus Heisenberg's uncertainty principle for conjugate pairs of observables follows directly from the fact that those observables are essentially the Fourier transforms of each other.
Of course, this attribute of Fourier transform pairs is purely mathematical, and has no a priori applicability to pairs of observables such as position and momentum, or time and energy. The physical content of quantum mechanics is based on the two relations
E =h-bar * w p = h-bar K
where E is energy, p is momentum (in one dimension), h-bar is Planck's (reduced) constant, w is the frequency with units second^-1, and k is the wave number with units meter^-1. These relations were introduced in the early 1900's by Planck, Einstein, and deBroglie to account for non-classical phenomena such as cavity radiation and the photo-electric effect, both of which depend on the particle-like behavior of entities that had previously been modeled as waves, as well as phenomena involving wave-like behavior of material particles. These are the relations that associate the familiar observables of energy, momentum, space, and time, with the frequency domain. Indeed in terms of the characteristic time t = 1/w and distance D = 1/k the above relations can be written as
tE = Dp = h-bar
which already clearly reveals the conjugacy of time and energy, and of distance and momentum. In view of this, it isn't surprising to find that the product of the dispersions of two conjugate observables (such as position and momentum) cannot be less than one quanta of action, represented by h-bar .
In a sense, there is also a conjugacy between space and time - two observable that had been regarded as disjoint and independent prior to the early 1900s. In special relativity the inertial space and time intervals dx and dt between two events are components of a single invariant spacetime interval ds between those events. These intervals are related according to the Minkowski metric, which can be written in the form
{dx/dt + ds/dt}{dx/dt -ds/dt} = 1/c^2
This can be regarded as an "uncertainty relation" for space and time. In general, physics was based, prior to 1900, on the premise that h-bar and 1/c^2 were both zero. With the advent of quantum mechanics and special relativity, it was realized that they both have non-zero values, although they are extremely small in terms of ordinary units.
http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath488/kmath488.htm
Now looking at the equation for de Broglie's Matter Wavelength we can see that it relates strongly to Special Relativity. In fact it describes the wavelength of particles as v -> 0 and as v -> C. More obviously the dynamics of particles with mass as v -> 0 is the low velocity limit of Special Relativity and as you can see λ -> ∞ as v -> 0. This phenomenon can be seen in BEC's which is a unique window on the interaction of matter and Bose Einstein Statistics in confined spaces.
Regarding the situation where m -> 0 and is subject to any force the acceleration will initially approach infinity. Simply an extension of the equations which relate the mass to the acceleration. Naturally as soon as this action occurs the wavelength of any particle that was initially at rest will shrink to approach zero. In the limit of course these events will happen. This behavior is one reason responsible for photons never moving at less than the speed of light. In he case of light the velocity will reach C but the wavelength will not reach 0 because E = hf.... Where for light f =C/λ. The conjugacy property described above "prevents" λ -> 0 by a factor h.
The next point to note about de Broglie's relationship is it's reciprocal property. To illustrate this point consider a particle bobbing up and down on the surface of a pond the wavelength of the ripples emanating from it are a function of velocity. The higher the velocity of the particle through the water the longer the wavelength. This is the reciprocal property relative to such "normal" particles. In regard to mass particles and their associated matter waves the motion of the particle relates to a shortening of the wavelength and proportional to reciprocal dimensions of the oscillating property. The reason is this is a conjugate property well known to those who use Fourier Theory or Spherical Harmonics or other theories of "resonant behavior" such as the "electron shells" in atoms. The oscillator is oscillating in a "reciprocal Hilbert space" where space is replaced with reciprocal space and time is replaced by reciprocal time ... frequency and this explains this matter wave property without any additional presumptions. This fact is supported by experimental researchers such as Carver Mead (a former associate of Richard Feynman). If this source itself is not probed the wavelength of the Matter Wave expands to fill any and all cavities at the speed of light.
In Fourier Theory the fundamental "action" is the impulse... in spacial terms the particle and the transform, the conjugate, is the sinc function in all compact dimensions. This is what is "seen" when it is probed at various energies is the "particle". If left alone and not probed these sinc waves fill space and can be seen and demonstrated by Holograms as quasi-stationary standing waves, the same property that can be seen in particle diffraction. They are the spatial equivalent of Bragg Planes extending away from the apparent "matter wave sources" into all space ... even out to the edge of the universe as "universal gravitation". Now the point about this is what is a "matter wave source"?... The answer is there is none... the waves themselves are the only expression of the matter wave sources from a gravitation point of view and their wavelengths and central tendency as sinc functions is the actual source of gravity itself. This tallies with Einstein's Theories where spacetime curvature is rest mass and not just a "pointer" to mass and the gross effect of these stationary sinc wavelets is positive spacetime curvature (the area under the curve all the way out to infinity) being a measure of the rest mass as potential energy.
I will not say any more at this stage since this is enough for a start. Do you agree or disagree? These issues are part of modern experimental procedure and theory appears to be developing along totally different lines often independently of these established principles. Don't ask me why.
Cheers
Hi meBigGuy,
Oops... another "typo"...
I was happier before you said it was a "typo". I am having a problem with expanding wavelength vs. an expanding matter wave.
I was happier before you said it was a "typo". I am having a problem with expanding wavelength vs. an expanding matter wave.
mass... which is their reluctance to move or to resist acceleration at an infinite rate
I'm still a bit confused about "infinite rate". I see the mass as resistance to acceleration at any rate. Why do you specifically say infinite?
New one on me. Reading the article, it seems rational, but I'm not skilled eneough in probability to know whether this is bulletproof. How widely accepted is this view? It seems that if the math is OK, that it is fundamental, and provides a new hook for visualization.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_p...iple#Derivation
New one on me. Reading the article, it seems rational, but I'm not skilled eneough in probability to know whether this is bulletproof. How widely accepted is this view? It seems that if the math is OK, that it is fundamental, and provides a new hook for visualization.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_p...iple#Derivation
The next point to note about de Broglie's relationship is it's reciprocal property. To illustrate this point consider a particle bobbing up and down on the surface of a pond the wavelength of the ripples emanating from it are a function of velocity.
I managed to follow you up to here. Not that I really get it, but I see how it might hang together. At this point I missed something about your particle in a pond analogy. Bobbing up and down and velocity. Maybe you are refering to the distance the particle travels during 1 "bob cycle"? I can't put that together with reciprocal relationship in DeBroglie. I see in DeBroglie that if v goes up, wavelength goes down. I'm missing something in between.
Needless to say, this is straining my brain.
Oops... another "typo"...
QUOTE (Good Elf+)
If this source itself is not probed the wavelength of the Matter Wave expands to fill any and all cavities at the speed of light.
I meant "instantly" since this entanglement property and collapse of the state is "instantaneous".
All constructive comments and suggestions appreciated (from all).
Cheers
All constructive comments and suggestions appreciated (from all).
Cheers
QUOTE
If this source itself is not probed the wavelength of the Matter Wave expands to fill any and all cavities at the speed of light.
I was happier before you said it was a "typo". I am having a problem with expanding wavelength vs. an expanding matter wave.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| If this source itself is not probed the wavelength of the Matter Wave expands to fill any and all cavities at the speed of light. |
I was happier before you said it was a "typo". I am having a problem with expanding wavelength vs. an expanding matter wave.
mass... which is their reluctance to move or to resist acceleration at an infinite rate
I'm still a bit confused about "infinite rate". I see the mass as resistance to acceleration at any rate. Why do you specifically say infinite?
QUOTE
Fourier_Transforms_and_Uncertainty.
New one on me. Reading the article, it seems rational, but I'm not skilled eneough in probability to know whether this is bulletproof. How widely accepted is this view? It seems that if the math is OK, that it is fundamental, and provides a new hook for visualization.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_p...iple#Derivation
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Fourier_Transforms_and_Uncertainty. |
New one on me. Reading the article, it seems rational, but I'm not skilled eneough in probability to know whether this is bulletproof. How widely accepted is this view? It seems that if the math is OK, that it is fundamental, and provides a new hook for visualization.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_p...iple#Derivation
The next point to note about de Broglie's relationship is it's reciprocal property. To illustrate this point consider a particle bobbing up and down on the surface of a pond the wavelength of the ripples emanating from it are a function of velocity.
I managed to follow you up to here. Not that I really get it, but I see how it might hang together. At this point I missed something about your particle in a pond analogy. Bobbing up and down and velocity. Maybe you are refering to the distance the particle travels during 1 "bob cycle"? I can't put that together with reciprocal relationship in DeBroglie. I see in DeBroglie that if v goes up, wavelength goes down. I'm missing something in between.
Needless to say, this is straining my brain.
Hi meBigGuy.
QUOTE (meBigGuy+)
QUOTE (Good Elf+)
If this source itself is not probed the wavelength of the Matter Wave expands to fill any and all cavities at the speed of light.
I was happier before you said it was a "typo". I am having a problem with expanding wavelength vs. an expanding matter wave.
I quite understand.. Naturally this expansion for photons is only in the phase space... transverse to "directions of propagation". If you accept that wave functions collapse "instantly" then in the transverse direction they also expand "instantly" across the wavefront ... along the wall of the lightcone. The coherence is only among co-moving wavelets of light the photons. In the case of the matter waves of most of the particles ere usually around since the Big Bang so their influence has "always been here" and the wavelets as standing waves are not moving in space or propagating around as some might think, they are quasi-stationary... yet they are still a superposition of states of all the matter waves the same as for the photons which are also a superposition of states, one obeying Fermi-Dirac Statistics and the other obeying Bose-Einstein statistics. A sudden acceleration of a single matter wave distributed source will result in it being suddenly localized as a higher frequency rapidly moving "particle". This would be instantaneously communicated throughout the wave packet way out to infinity which is actually in the "near field" (evanescent region) of the source via superpositions. This is because the matter wave is connected with its superpositions and this is a superluminal event. There are experiments that have measured these superluminal phenomena within the near field of the source, they are real measurable processes. Of course this influence falls off rapidly with distance but it never really becomes exactly zero ... obviously there is a practical distance... a cutoff. In the case of QED it is difficult to measure influences beyond the range of a single atomic particle with it's interconnected "cavities". It is beyond current theory to show how a linear theory can be renormalized over a number of interconnected "spatial cavities" to a final sink. Though this is possible using "non-linear methods" to solve a simpler problem in propagation using such methods as "Teaching Feynman’s sum-over-paths quantum theory" by Edwin F. Taylor, Stamatis Vokos, John M. O’Mearac, Nora S. Thornberd.
http://qu-bit.narod.ru/texts/feynman.pdf
A photon moving from one point to another "locally" over a short distance is subject to all those Fermi-Dirac Statistical Interferences and these are a superposition or hybridization of all those wavelets in space and the photon will go to the appropriate sink regardless or because of some influences from exceedingly distant parts of the Universe (Mach's Principle). Recall the experiment I have drawn above
Explanation Of Time Passage, time does not exist... Good Elf
The interferences through the space in which light propagates "feel" all the distant regions through those matter wave interferences. The upshot is light moves with the propagation speed of light but "feels" way out to infinity the interference contributions of all the Matter Waves in the Universe "instantly". This is both for light and for Gravity and the speed of energy transfer of the photon and its properties from one point to another is at that "speed". In the same "process" entanglement is also instantaneous as well as that collapse of state.... with the proviso as to where these influences actually end up in a wider arena of "events and sub-events".
http://qu-bit.narod.ru/texts/feynman.pdf
A photon moving from one point to another "locally" over a short distance is subject to all those Fermi-Dirac Statistical Interferences and these are a superposition or hybridization of all those wavelets in space and the photon will go to the appropriate sink regardless or because of some influences from exceedingly distant parts of the Universe (Mach's Principle). Recall the experiment I have drawn above
Explanation Of Time Passage, time does not exist... Good Elf
The interferences through the space in which light propagates "feel" all the distant regions through those matter wave interferences. The upshot is light moves with the propagation speed of light but "feels" way out to infinity the interference contributions of all the Matter Waves in the Universe "instantly". This is both for light and for Gravity and the speed of energy transfer of the photon and its properties from one point to another is at that "speed". In the same "process" entanglement is also instantaneous as well as that collapse of state.... with the proviso as to where these influences actually end up in a wider arena of "events and sub-events".
QUOTE (meBigGuy+)
QUOTE (Good Elf+)
mass... which is their reluctance to move or to resist acceleration at an infinite rate
I'm still a bit confused about "infinite rate". I see the mass as resistance to acceleration at any rate. Why do you specifically say infinite?
Pick up on the "typo" in not fully explaining this point it means at t = 0 the packet is subject to an infinite rate of acceleration. There are other issues related to bosons as well but I am keeping the focus on this attribute. No packet of light travels at any other speed other than the local speed of light. The emphasis is an initial response to an impulse of any magnitude (E=hf) of a "massless packet" in it's own frame of reference (no rest mass) will be that the packet will "almost" instantly reach the speed of light if acted on by any force (in this case the photon has momentum and it has energy equal to hf but no rest mass)... On creation it will travel at the speed of light... if travel is a word that can be used here.
F = ma where F is an impulse and m = 0.
F = ma where F is an impulse and m = 0.
QUOTE (meBigGuy+)
QUOTE
Fourier_Transforms_and_Uncertainty.
New one on me. Reading the article, it seems rational, but I'm not skilled eneough in probability to know whether this is bulletproof. How widely accepted is this view? It seems that if the math is OK, that it is fundamental, and provides a new hook for visualization.I fully understand... This relationship should have been introduced in Physics 101 and its connection in history fully explained... The "probability" was introduced later to provide a solution for the "Measurement Problem". Quantum Probability does not lead to "measurables" even though measurables is what is actually sought. What probability provides is not even events but only "outcomes" based on a "Monte Carlo" simulation which supposed to invoke all possible ways in which things might happen. This "simulation" works very well biut can make no predictions since it is without "history" and there are no world lines in this treatment. This is missing data.
The orthogonality is a property of Fourier Theory that has existed for a lot longer than Quantum Theory and is not fundamentally a theory of probability and provides a relationship between two measurables. The initial requirement to provide "outcomes" was to match the output of the instrumentation of the time and largely the instrumentation of our time as well... except of thick photographic fine grained emulsions there are few ways to show these results. Initially when Einstein predicted coherent radiation and to the existence of Holograms it was laughed at as being a very foolish concept. At first simple holograms were resisted as being some kind of fakery by the optical fraternity. The appearance of perfectly aligned stationary wavelets actually deposed the wave propagation of light and Richard Feynman knew it. His Quantum Electrodynamics (which followed on from his Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory) and his unique insight into Antimatter (Feynman-Stueckelberg Interpretation) has been relegated to a backwater along with some other theories by eminent personages through Science History... other theories that solve many of the problems that current theory cannot manage. To me it is an open secret but it is a well kept one since nobody seems able or willing to stand up and be counted on this one (other than a couple of elves and people like Carver Mead, Richard Feynman, David Bohm, Roger Penrose... ). These individuals have to some extent passed on and the remaining voices are "growing dimmer". Carver Mead is particularly tough on Niels Bohr for ramming home a particularly difficult interpretation of Quantum Theory. The interferences is where everything comes together...
The orthogonality is a property of Fourier Theory that has existed for a lot longer than Quantum Theory and is not fundamentally a theory of probability and provides a relationship between two measurables. The initial requirement to provide "outcomes" was to match the output of the instrumentation of the time and largely the instrumentation of our time as well... except of thick photographic fine grained emulsions there are few ways to show these results. Initially when Einstein predicted coherent radiation and to the existence of Holograms it was laughed at as being a very foolish concept. At first simple holograms were resisted as being some kind of fakery by the optical fraternity. The appearance of perfectly aligned stationary wavelets actually deposed the wave propagation of light and Richard Feynman knew it. His Quantum Electrodynamics (which followed on from his Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory) and his unique insight into Antimatter (Feynman-Stueckelberg Interpretation) has been relegated to a backwater along with some other theories by eminent personages through Science History... other theories that solve many of the problems that current theory cannot manage. To me it is an open secret but it is a well kept one since nobody seems able or willing to stand up and be counted on this one (other than a couple of elves and people like Carver Mead, Richard Feynman, David Bohm, Roger Penrose... ). These individuals have to some extent passed on and the remaining voices are "growing dimmer". Carver Mead is particularly tough on Niels Bohr for ramming home a particularly difficult interpretation of Quantum Theory. The interferences is where everything comes together...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Fourier_Transforms_and_Uncertainty. |
New one on me. Reading the article, it seems rational, but I'm not skilled eneough in probability to know whether this is bulletproof. How widely accepted is this view? It seems that if the math is OK, that it is fundamental, and provides a new hook for visualization.
I fully understand... This relationship should have been introduced in Physics 101 and its connection in history fully explained... The "probability" was introduced later to provide a solution for the "Measurement Problem". Quantum Probability does not lead to "measurables" even though measurables is what is actually sought. What probability provides is not even events but only "outcomes" based on a "Monte Carlo" simulation which supposed to invoke all possible ways in which things might happen. This "simulation" works very well biut can make no predictions since it is without "history" and there are no world lines in this treatment. This is missing data.
The orthogonality is a property of Fourier Theory that has existed for a lot longer than Quantum Theory and is not fundamentally a theory of probability and provides a relationship between two measurables. The initial requirement to provide "outcomes" was to match the output of the instrumentation of the time and largely the instrumentation of our time as well... except of thick photographic fine grained emulsions there are few ways to show these results. Initially when Einstein predicted coherent radiation and to the existence of Holograms it was laughed at as being a very foolish concept. At first simple holograms were resisted as being some kind of fakery by the optical fraternity. The appearance of perfectly aligned stationary wavelets actually deposed the wave propagation of light and Richard Feynman knew it. His Quantum Electrodynamics (which followed on from his Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory) and his unique insight into Antimatter (Feynman-Stueckelberg Interpretation) has been relegated to a backwater along with some other theories by eminent personages through Science History... other theories that solve many of the problems that current theory cannot manage. To me it is an open secret but it is a well kept one since nobody seems able or willing to stand up and be counted on this one (other than a couple of elves and people like Carver Mead, Richard Feynman, David Bohm, Roger Penrose... ). These individuals have to some extent passed on and the remaining voices are "growing dimmer". Carver Mead is particularly tough on Niels Bohr for ramming home a particularly difficult interpretation of Quantum Theory. The interferences is where everything comes together...
"The shell game that we play ... is technically called 'renormalization'. But no matter how clever the word, it is still what I would call a dippy process! Having to resort to such hocus-pocus has prevented us from proving that the theory of quantum electrodynamics is mathematically self-consistent. It's surprising that the theory still hasn't been proved self-consistent one way or the other by now; I suspect that renormalization is not mathematically legitimate."
- Richard Feynman, Nobel laureate 1965
The orthogonality is a property of Fourier Theory that has existed for a lot longer than Quantum Theory and is not fundamentally a theory of probability and provides a relationship between two measurables. The initial requirement to provide "outcomes" was to match the output of the instrumentation of the time and largely the instrumentation of our time as well... except of thick photographic fine grained emulsions there are few ways to show these results. Initially when Einstein predicted coherent radiation and to the existence of Holograms it was laughed at as being a very foolish concept. At first simple holograms were resisted as being some kind of fakery by the optical fraternity. The appearance of perfectly aligned stationary wavelets actually deposed the wave propagation of light and Richard Feynman knew it. His Quantum Electrodynamics (which followed on from his Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory) and his unique insight into Antimatter (Feynman-Stueckelberg Interpretation) has been relegated to a backwater along with some other theories by eminent personages through Science History... other theories that solve many of the problems that current theory cannot manage. To me it is an open secret but it is a well kept one since nobody seems able or willing to stand up and be counted on this one (other than a couple of elves and people like Carver Mead, Richard Feynman, David Bohm, Roger Penrose... ). These individuals have to some extent passed on and the remaining voices are "growing dimmer". Carver Mead is particularly tough on Niels Bohr for ramming home a particularly difficult interpretation of Quantum Theory. The interferences is where everything comes together...
"The shell game that we play ... is technically called 'renormalization'. But no matter how clever the word, it is still what I would call a dippy process! Having to resort to such hocus-pocus has prevented us from proving that the theory of quantum electrodynamics is mathematically self-consistent. It's surprising that the theory still hasn't been proved self-consistent one way or the other by now; I suspect that renormalization is not mathematically legitimate."
- Richard Feynman, Nobel laureate 1965
To this day renormalization is necessary because of the conjugate nature of the measurables involved. This is because QED is a linear theory and not a theory of "resonance" like Fourier Theory.
QUOTE (Paul Dirac+)
"[Renormalization is] just a stop-gap procedure. There must be some fundamental change in our ideas, probably a change just as fundamental as the passage from Bohr's orbit theory to quantum mechanics. When you get a number turning out to be infinite which ought to be finite, you should admit that there is something wrong with your equations, and not hope that you can get a good theory just by doctoring up that number."
- Paul Dirac, Nobel laureate 1933
Reciprocal space and the reciprocal lattice
This is the electron wave analogy but it is valid for photons as well. Reciprocal Space is derived from Fourier Theory where a "closed dimensional space" is harmonic such as the shells in an atom or cavity excitations... Spherical Harmonics...
In the case of interconnected cavities there is a conversion between normal space into reciprocal space from one cavity to another and then from reciprocal space back to normal space when progressing to another cavity. Using Feynman's Ideas on QED it is simple (almost) to see that this instrument (Optical Fourier Analyzer) represents not "ray spaces" as is used in normal analysis but reciprocal spaces...
... Click to enlarge...
This is the optical equivalent of the Fast Fourier Image Analysis Method.. The two dimensional spatial image is placed in the input plane which is illuminated by plane coherent and diverged light. This is converted to a plane in the conjugate domain of frequency (the reciprocal of space) in the complex transform plane. At this point it could be subjected to a mask or some other spatial filter. This reciprocal space image is passed back through into another "cavity" where it is reconverted back into the original spatial image (less or more of some information contained in the spatial filter). This is the analogy of how matter waves in our Universe actually operate at all scales in all dimensions with this non-linear method which happens to be "perfect" unlike linear methods which is subject to a requirement for renormalization and this operation can be performed over and over without any "approximations". The only limitations is the way the system is band limited leading to a cut off at the high frequency end. In reciprocal space this is the "size" of the limiting aperture. This is the related to the value of Planck's Constant as noted above for photons.
I hope this answers some points...
Cheers
- Paul Dirac, Nobel laureate 1933
QUOTE
I managed to follow you up to here. Not that I really get it, but I see how it might hang together. At this point I missed something about your particle in a pond analogy. Bobbing up and down and velocity. Maybe you are refering to the distance the particle travels during 1 "bob cycle"? I can't put that together with reciprocal relationship in DeBroglie. I see in DeBroglie that if v goes up, wavelength goes down. I'm missing something in between.
Needless to say, this is straining my brain.
Sorry about that (brain strain) but you are right. The relationship is reciprocal and you can see it in the de Broglie equation/relationship but the analogy is related to moving at a constant velocity in water relative to an observer and "bobbing up and down" at the same time. It is just an artifice to allow you to understand it the "bobbing up and down" (harmonic process) was occurring in a reciprocal space that movement in this compact space through an externally connected spacetime will result in those reciprocal processes of de Broglie, the higher the velocity the shorter the wavelength (higher the frequency of the internal matter wave).. Now all this must be viewed in the context of Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory so this is a spatial frequency not a temporal frequency.Needless to say, this is straining my brain.
Reciprocal space and the reciprocal lattice
This is the electron wave analogy but it is valid for photons as well. Reciprocal Space is derived from Fourier Theory where a "closed dimensional space" is harmonic such as the shells in an atom or cavity excitations... Spherical Harmonics...
In the case of interconnected cavities there is a conversion between normal space into reciprocal space from one cavity to another and then from reciprocal space back to normal space when progressing to another cavity. Using Feynman's Ideas on QED it is simple (almost) to see that this instrument (Optical Fourier Analyzer) represents not "ray spaces" as is used in normal analysis but reciprocal spaces...
... Click to enlarge...
This is the optical equivalent of the Fast Fourier Image Analysis Method.. The two dimensional spatial image is placed in the input plane which is illuminated by plane coherent and diverged light. This is converted to a plane in the conjugate domain of frequency (the reciprocal of space) in the complex transform plane. At this point it could be subjected to a mask or some other spatial filter. This reciprocal space image is passed back through into another "cavity" where it is reconverted back into the original spatial image (less or more of some information contained in the spatial filter). This is the analogy of how matter waves in our Universe actually operate at all scales in all dimensions with this non-linear method which happens to be "perfect" unlike linear methods which is subject to a requirement for renormalization and this operation can be performed over and over without any "approximations". The only limitations is the way the system is band limited leading to a cut off at the high frequency end. In reciprocal space this is the "size" of the limiting aperture. This is the related to the value of Planck's Constant as noted above for photons.
I hope this answers some points...
Cheers
QUOTE (paul h+Dec 27 2007, 11:33 PM)
insight,
Hey I'm all for out of the box, in the box, beside the box, under the box, I don't care, but if you ideas are sound you should be able to explain them to we laymen. So let me ask a few questions.
>I am not stating which came first the chicken or the egg.
I sounded to me that you were saying that gravity came after mass decayed into waves. It seemed to me that gravity existed from planch time 10^-43 and that it wasn't until well after Separation of the Strong Force at 10^-36 before the makings of mass could have came into being, let alone decay into a wave.
>I am saying that we measure time by the nature of the gravitational wave density decay from all matter...
So time started when? after wave density decay? I don't understand how the wave propagated into something established enough to decay without being able to put a time on it?
Don't you just hate it when you type a responce and then spell check blinks out and your words are gone. ERROR!
How do we measure time, what is the nature of change. Well, I think the nature of change is the decay of all matter into space itself via the breakdown of electromagnetic fields. But that wasn't so initially. Initially we don't know the shape of the make-up of the singulartiy, but we can deduce a ghostly event horizion. Before the inflation, a mixture of processes, hyperspace, happened. A super hot fluid mosic liquid ball of pre-space and pre-time, a seperating, a mixing and condensing, and stabolizing of the forces. At the end of inflation, slow decay, via a by-product of electromagnetic fields, the gravitational wave,space as we know it. Since I believe our time, the way we measure it, is a by-product of all matter decaying into space itself, then I see before inflation as hyper time where the same rules of slow decay didn't apply. This concept does not say the cart is before or after the horse but it does say that the horse and cart now have an effecient process going on. ps no spell check this time.
Hey I'm all for out of the box, in the box, beside the box, under the box, I don't care, but if you ideas are sound you should be able to explain them to we laymen. So let me ask a few questions.
>I am not stating which came first the chicken or the egg.
I sounded to me that you were saying that gravity came after mass decayed into waves. It seemed to me that gravity existed from planch time 10^-43 and that it wasn't until well after Separation of the Strong Force at 10^-36 before the makings of mass could have came into being, let alone decay into a wave.
>I am saying that we measure time by the nature of the gravitational wave density decay from all matter...
So time started when? after wave density decay? I don't understand how the wave propagated into something established enough to decay without being able to put a time on it?
Don't you just hate it when you type a responce and then spell check blinks out and your words are gone. ERROR!
How do we measure time, what is the nature of change. Well, I think the nature of change is the decay of all matter into space itself via the breakdown of electromagnetic fields. But that wasn't so initially. Initially we don't know the shape of the make-up of the singulartiy, but we can deduce a ghostly event horizion. Before the inflation, a mixture of processes, hyperspace, happened. A super hot fluid mosic liquid ball of pre-space and pre-time, a seperating, a mixing and condensing, and stabolizing of the forces. At the end of inflation, slow decay, via a by-product of electromagnetic fields, the gravitational wave,space as we know it. Since I believe our time, the way we measure it, is a by-product of all matter decaying into space itself, then I see before inflation as hyper time where the same rules of slow decay didn't apply. This concept does not say the cart is before or after the horse but it does say that the horse and cart now have an effecient process going on. ps no spell check this time.
If the Universe would continue to expand infinitely, the dilution of mass concentration per volume of space could result in atoms defusing into subatomic particle then into super-positional energy fluctuations popping in and out of existence within the infinite vacuum. Somewhat like the opposite to pre big bang when there was no space because time didn't exist as we understand it. At the infinite dilution of the Universal Space time would be ticking so much faster relative to now it would be happening all at once all at the same time.
Hi momentito, meBigGuy, insight et al,
QUOTE (momentito+)
If the Universe would continue to expand infinitely, the dilution of mass concentration per volume of space could result in atoms defusing into subatomic particle then into super-positional energy fluctuations popping in and out of existence within the infinite vacuum. Somewhat like the opposite to pre big bang when there was no space because time didn't exist as we understand it. At the infinite dilution of the Universal Space time would be ticking so much faster relative to now it would be happening all at once all at the same time.
Good point... Recall that in Special Relativity in the one frame of "rest"... an "observer frame"... no changes in the rate of time could be appreciated. Let's just conjecture that the rate of events "are" related to the rate of passage of time. Let's say in one particularly sparse portion of the universe one such event is executing every one millionth of a second. If after one minute of time passing this rate suddenly dropped to 1 event per second it would not be possible for local observers to notice this "change in rate" because this rate "IS" the actual measure of time used by all of our clocks and indeed even our life processes . This would mean that all of our timekeeping and even our biological clocks would suddenly (without any warning) slow down by a million times. But so would everything else in the universe around us. Everything would be affected in the same way and remain in step so that the value of "gee" would be relatively reduced and the velocity of light will be relatively reduced and every process mitigated by photon exchange forces. So when I said that the event rate "slowed down" this supposes I (as some kind of "external being" not subject to the passage of time) had a way to compare the before and after situation. This is not the case... I am not able to notice this phenomenon and neither would anything else be able to notice it either (at least a local application of it).
If this "universal slowing down in the rate of events" was to be only of a purely local nature there would be a small violation in the Theory of Special Relativity when we observed the distant Universe relative to the local Universe. In the case that events were executing more frequently (or there were more events per second "occurring out there in space than here") in the distant reaches relative to the closer regions ... first we need to allow for the propagation velocity of light to signal these changes locally so as time increases (in the case of a sudden boundary where there was a sudden reduction in this rate) a wave of relative acceleration would "sweep" outwards from our point in space into the distant regions in which events would appear to be progressing relatively faster "out there" than they are here and now (all other factors being equal). This may cause some interesting effects ... it may reduce the Doppler (Hubble) Red Shift by a small fraction and may appear to cause an acceleration in the more distant places in the Universe away from us over and above the rate that we would expect and the slight lowering in Hubble red shift would indicate that the Universe was "younger" than it actually was. In fact we could account for "dark energy" if we wanted to with such mechanisms by prudent choices in various parameters... However I do not suggest that this is what is actually happening... It is just an illustration of what might be seen only if the effect was not uniform through all visible space. Recall that looking out into space is actually looking back into time (which means that the rate of time should be relatively faster there) so if the rate of events were a measure of the rate of time then peeing into the distance could indicate "dark energy" accelerating universal expansion relative to us. The whole point of Special Relativity is these features in a Uniform Universe would not be discernible by internal observers. The fact that we may be able to see something happening out there indicates a differential rate in the passage of time which is linked to the rate of events slowing (or accelerating) as history increases. Time could be "hopping along" in small uneven jumps driven by quantum photon "exchange forces" and we would not know it if the overall rate was the same everywhere so it it is not then you are observing an additional "time dilation" not accounted for by other theories. That is actually what "Special Relativity" actually means.
Luckily I am no cosmologist so I leave that to you momentito
Cheers
If this "universal slowing down in the rate of events" was to be only of a purely local nature there would be a small violation in the Theory of Special Relativity when we observed the distant Universe relative to the local Universe. In the case that events were executing more frequently (or there were more events per second "occurring out there in space than here") in the distant reaches relative to the closer regions ... first we need to allow for the propagation velocity of light to signal these changes locally so as time increases (in the case of a sudden boundary where there was a sudden reduction in this rate) a wave of relative acceleration would "sweep" outwards from our point in space into the distant regions in which events would appear to be progressing relatively faster "out there" than they are here and now (all other factors being equal). This may cause some interesting effects ... it may reduce the Doppler (Hubble) Red Shift by a small fraction and may appear to cause an acceleration in the more distant places in the Universe away from us over and above the rate that we would expect and the slight lowering in Hubble red shift would indicate that the Universe was "younger" than it actually was. In fact we could account for "dark energy" if we wanted to with such mechanisms by prudent choices in various parameters... However I do not suggest that this is what is actually happening... It is just an illustration of what might be seen only if the effect was not uniform through all visible space. Recall that looking out into space is actually looking back into time (which means that the rate of time should be relatively faster there) so if the rate of events were a measure of the rate of time then peeing into the distance could indicate "dark energy" accelerating universal expansion relative to us. The whole point of Special Relativity is these features in a Uniform Universe would not be discernible by internal observers. The fact that we may be able to see something happening out there indicates a differential rate in the passage of time which is linked to the rate of events slowing (or accelerating) as history increases. Time could be "hopping along" in small uneven jumps driven by quantum photon "exchange forces" and we would not know it if the overall rate was the same everywhere so it it is not then you are observing an additional "time dilation" not accounted for by other theories. That is actually what "Special Relativity" actually means.
Luckily I am no cosmologist so I leave that to you momentito
Cheers
There was the option of writing G*D as G'D, with an o under the apostrophe would have spelt oo : GOOD. God is an aspiration of mankind confirmed by observation of what's terms Non-locality, Quantum Entanglement at not only topographical geographically but optical physical resolution of Potential Positions Theory.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.