A tweek to Einsteins theory

Welcome to ScienceForums.Net!

Welcome to ScienceForums.Net! We welcome science discussion at all levels — from beginners to researchers, covering topics from biology to computer science, and much more. Registration is fast and free, and allows you to post on the forums, so register now and join the discussions!

After you've registered, come in and introduce yourself, or visit the forum index. If you need any help registering, posting, or if you just have some questions about our site, please feel free to contact us at staff at scienceforums dot net.

Start new topics and reply to others
Subscribe to topics and forums to get automatic updates
Create a ScienceForums.Net Blog!

2 Pages
1
2
→

You cannot start a new topic
You cannot reply to this topic

A tweek to Einsteins theory Does this work out? Rate Topic: 2 Votes

#1 6 November 2011 - 03:29 PM morgsboi

Atom

S=Speed
C=3 x 10⁸ ms^-1(speed of light)
If S>C then E=M(C+(S-C)^2

This post has been edited by morgsboi: 6 November 2011 - 05:35 PM

Posts: 246 | Joined: 14-October 11
Back to top of the page up there ^
MultiQuote
Reply

#2 6 November 2011 - 03:38 PM timo

Primate

Obviously, in this form the number of opening and closing parentheses in your relation between the letters E, M, C, and S does not match, which makes it very dubious. But the more fundamental issue here is: what is your point?

Forum madness is no excuse for forum rudeness (after H.J. Farnsworth)

Posts: 2,862 | Joined: 02-May 04
Back to top of the page up there ^
MultiQuote
Reply

#3 6 November 2011 - 03:42 PM swansont

Shaken, not Stirred

Can you derive this equation from some underlying principles?

Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum

Stop failing the Turing test!

My SFN blog: Swans on Tea

To release the hounds, click the [+] sign ->

Posts: 19,643 | Joined: 04-October 03
Back to top of the page up there ^
MultiQuote
Reply

#4 6 November 2011 - 04:05 PM morgsboi

Atom

swansont, on 6 November 2011 - 03:42 PM, said:

Can you derive this equation from some underlying principles?

It's only something I've just though of while thinking about the Opera (Oscillation Project with Emulsion-tRacking Apparatus) experiment, which broke the speed of light and how the amount of energy would be measured but would breaking the speed of light change the mass of the particles?

Posts: 246 | Joined: 14-October 11
Back to top of the page up there ^
MultiQuote
Reply

#5 6 November 2011 - 04:57 PM swansont

Shaken, not Stirred

morgsboi, on 6 November 2011 - 04:05 PM, said:

It's only something I've just though of while thinking about the Opera (Oscillation Project with Emulsion-tRacking Apparatus) experiment, which broke the speed of light

Well, that's not yet been confirmed. But science abhors ad-hoc-ery. You need to justify the equation.

Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum

Stop failing the Turing test!

My SFN blog: Swans on Tea

To release the hounds, click the [+] sign ->

Posts: 19,643 | Joined: 04-October 03
Back to top of the page up there ^
MultiQuote
Reply

#6 6 November 2011 - 05:34 PM morgsboi

Atom

swansont, on 6 November 2011 - 04:57 PM, said:

Well, that's not yet been confirmed. But science abhors ad-hoc-ery. You need to justify the equation.

Yes, I know it's not confirmed but if light speed was broken (doesn't matter what experiment) then would this work? And I don't understand how it could be justified as it's in it's simplest form.

morgsboi, on 6 November 2011 - 05:27 PM, said:

Yes, I know it's not confirmed but if light speed was broken (doesn't matter what experiment) then would this work? And I don't understand how it could be justified as it's in it's simplest form.

Actually I've noticed a flaw, sorry. The equation should be if S=>C then E=M(C+(S-C)^2 which I will change in the forum. And as a word equation it would simply be: If the speed is greater than the speed of light then Energy is equal to the speed of light plus the sum of the speed minus the speed of light.
Make sense??

Posts: 246 | Joined: 14-October 11
Back to top of the page up there ^
MultiQuote
Reply

#7 6 November 2011 - 06:15 PM insane_alien

Genius

by justify i'm fairly sure swansont meant: why should that be the equation used? how did you come to that equation?

equations don't just pop out of nowhere.

also, as this is most definitely considering motion why have you used E=mc^2 (the simplification for zero momentum) rather than the full equation?

Tired of waiting around for a reply on the forums? Use IRC, 'I don't know how' is no longer an excuse.

"Special" Relativity, stupid ideas seem smarter when they come at you really fast.

Posts: 10,045 | Joined: 27-May 05
Back to top of the page up there ^
MultiQuote
Reply

#8 6 November 2011 - 06:49 PM swansont

Shaken, not Stirred

morgsboi, on 6 November 2011 - 05:34 PM, said:

Yes, I know it's not confirmed but if light speed was broken (doesn't matter what experiment) then would this work? And I don't understand how it could be justified as it's in it's simplest form.

How was it derived, or otherwise arrived at?

Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum

Stop failing the Turing test!

My SFN blog: Swans on Tea

To release the hounds, click the [+] sign ->

Posts: 19,643 | Joined: 04-October 03
Back to top of the page up there ^
MultiQuote
Reply

#9 6 November 2011 - 07:12 PM morgsboi

Atom

swansont, on 6 November 2011 - 06:49 PM, said:

How was it derived, or otherwise arrived at?

As I said, I was thinking about if something went faster than the speed of light then what would happen to Einstein's theory, so I developed a simple and quick tweak.

insane_alien, on 6 November 2011 - 06:15 PM, said:

I've explained it a couple of posts below and also I am only 14 and I come on here to learn more about my thoughts and theories that I have so I'm not a big expert in science but I am hoping to be.

Posts: 246 | Joined: 14-October 11
Back to top of the page up there ^
MultiQuote
Reply

#10 6 November 2011 - 07:25 PM Cap'n Refsmmat

Mr. Wizard

The full form of the equation for particles in motion is $E^2 = m^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2$ , where p is momentum. Your equation will need to reduce to this when $v<c$ .

Cap'n Refsmmat
SFN Administrator

Get in the chatroom!

Posts: 11,435 | Joined: 04-January 04
Back to top of the page up there ^
MultiQuote
Reply

#11 6 November 2011 - 07:58 PM DrRocket

Primate

Cap, on 6 November 2011 - 07:25 PM, said:

The full form of the equation for particles in motion is $E^2 = m^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2$ , where p is momentum. Your equation will need to reduce to this when $v<c$ .

That is somewhat a matter of taste and definitions (in particular what is meant by "mass").

$E^2 = m^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2$ ,

applies with $m$ being rest mass ( $m_0$ ), which is currently in fashion.

$E = m c^2$ ,

applies if m is taken to be relativistic mass ( $\gamma m_0$ ) and if the rest mass is non-zero. It is equivalent to $E^2 = m_0^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2$ in that case.

So for massive neutrinos $E = m c^2$ is fully accurate if properly interpreted

You can know the name of a bird in all the languages of the world, but when you're finished, you'll know absolutely nothing whatever about the bird... -- Richard P. Feynman

Posts: 1,571 | Joined: 09-February 11
Back to top of the page up there ^
MultiQuote
Reply

#12 6 November 2011 - 08:20 PM Cap'n Refsmmat

Mr. Wizard

I suppose so; I must've been taught by fashionable physicists.

There's still the issue of units. If the equation is $E=m(c+(s-c)^2)$ , then there are two parts:

$E=mc + m(s-c)^2$

The left term does not have units of energy, while the right term does, so the equation doesn't work out.

One could interpret the missing parenthesis differently, as $E=m(c+(s-c))^2$ , but that's just algebraically equivalent to $E=m(s)^2$ .

morgsboi, which version of the equation did you mean?

Cap'n Refsmmat
SFN Administrator

Get in the chatroom!

Posts: 11,435 | Joined: 04-January 04
Back to top of the page up there ^
MultiQuote
Reply

#13 6 November 2011 - 09:32 PM morgsboi

Atom

Cap, on 6 November 2011 - 07:25 PM, said:

The full form of the equation for particles in motion is $E^2 = m^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2$ , where p is momentum. Your equation will need to reduce to this when $v<c$ .

Okay, thanks. So what is V?

Cap, on 6 November 2011 - 08:20 PM, said:

Yes, the right hand version is a lot better.

Posts: 246 | Joined: 14-October 11
Back to top of the page up there ^
MultiQuote
Reply

#14 6 November 2011 - 09:32 PM Fuzzwood

Formerly known as Fswd

velocity.

Posts: 575 | Joined: 13-June 07
Back to top of the page up there ^
MultiQuote
Reply

#15 6 November 2011 - 09:49 PM DrRocket

Primate

morgsboi, on 6 November 2011 - 09:32 PM, said:

Okay, thanks. So what is V?

Yes, the right hand version is a lot better.

But $E=ms^2$ would imply that $E \rightarrow 0$ as $s \rightarrow 0$ which we know is grossly wrong (or nuclear weapons and nuclear power plants would not work). This also flies in the face of Einstein's recognition of the equivalence of mass and energy, so it is a long way from a mere tweak -- it is just plain wrong.

And THAT is why swansont's challenge to you to derive your equation from some set of basic principles is important. You don't revise a theory that is supported by a mountain of empirical data and developed logically from simple principles by simply pulling an equation out of ................ the air perhaps.

You can know the name of a bird in all the languages of the world, but when you're finished, you'll know absolutely nothing whatever about the bird... -- Richard P. Feynman

Posts: 1,571 | Joined: 09-February 11
Back to top of the page up there ^
MultiQuote
Reply

#16 6 November 2011 - 09:54 PM morgsboi

Atom

DrRocket, on 6 November 2011 - 09:49 PM, said:

Yes, it was "out of the air" and I put it on here to get help with it.

Posts: 246 | Joined: 14-October 11
Back to top of the page up there ^
MultiQuote
Reply

#17 6 November 2011 - 10:05 PM Mystery111

Atom

DrRocket, on 6 November 2011 - 07:58 PM, said:

For a nuetrino at rest, and even at that it is missing some important details in describing neutrino's. In fact, some theories of neutrino's would not have a mass term in it under a Weyl Limit.

The mass does the same thing to coupling particles and antiparticles together as you would find from a majorana equation. Nuetrino's are spin 1/2 so they are fermions:

$-i(\alpha \hat{p})c\psi + \beta M c^2 \psi = i\hbar \partial_t \psi$

This can be re-written as:

$i\hbar \frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t} = -ic\hbar \vec{\sigma} \cdot \nabla_{\phi} + M c^2 \phi'$

$i\hbar \frac{\partial \chi}{\partial t} = -ic\hbar \vec{\sigma} \cdot \nabla_{\chi} + M c^2 \chi'$

as two component equations, when this equation is under a Weyl representation

$i\hbar \frac{\partial \eta}{\partial t} = -ic\hbar \vec{\xi} \cdot \nabla \eta + M c^2 \xi$

and

$i\hbar \frac{\partial \xi}{\partial t} = -ic\hbar \vec{\eta} \cdot \nabla \xi - M c^2 \eta$

$\eta$ and $\xi$ are in fact coupled to a limit where $M$ is nonzero. Under mathematcial strutiny, the fact that the Nuetrino has such a ridiculously small mass incorporates the similar contention that the nuetrino could act more or less like a particle with no mass. So in this case, the non-relativistic case $Mc^2$ will not suffice.

With the limit where $M=0$ reduces to the Weyl equation

$\frac{\partial \xi v'}{\partial} = -c\vec{\sigma} \cdot \nabla \xi v'$

This only suits right solutions for antiparticles for nuetrinos $v'$ .

$\frac{\partial \xi v'}{\partial} = -c\vec{\sigma} \cdot \nabla \xi v'$

I think we established that it described antineutrinos.... The second equation in your coupled set up vanish because $\phi = \chi$ when $M=0$ . Now this is actually related to parity (you may understand parity under CPT-symmetry.) The Weyl equation is only permitted for right handed antineutrino's since a nuetrino is only ever left handed.

For that purpose you may introduce a transformation $\alpha \rightarrow -\alpha$ . Anticommutator relations are preserved in the Dirac Equation which would describe the neutrino. The transformation also effects $\sigma \rightarrow -\sigma$ so the Weyl equation becomes

$\frac{\partial \xi v}{\partial} = c\vec{\sigma} \cdot \nabla \xi v$

For a nuetrino. Simply a neutrino must have a mass at a specific limit which allows us to make these valid transformations. The non-relativistic case of $Mc^2$ also fails to descrive fermions correctly. As you will surely know, the correct energy condition has both a positive and negative solution $E= \pm Mc^2$ . So you will also deal with

$\psi^1 = \begin{pmatrix} 1 \\ 0 \\ 0 \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} e^{\frac{iMc^2 t}{\hbar}}$

$\psi^2 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 1 \\ 0 \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} e^{\frac{iMc^2 t}{\hbar}}$

Are your two positive energy solutions with opposite spin states

$\psi^3 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} e^{\frac{+iMc^2 t}{\hbar}}$

$\psi^4 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} e^{\frac{+iMc^2 t}{\hbar}}$

Are your two negative energy states with opposite spin

This post has been edited by Mystery111: 6 November 2011 - 10:07 PM

Posts: 349 | Joined: 29-August 11
Back to top of the page up there ^
MultiQuote
Reply

#18 6 November 2011 - 11:19 PM swansont

Shaken, not Stirred

morgsboi, on 6 November 2011 - 07:12 PM, said:

As I said, I was thinking about if something went faster than the speed of light then what would happen to Einstein's theory, so I developed a simple and quick tweak.

That's not how science is done. You can get relationships by matching the pattern of some data, but mainly you start with some physical principle and derive the equation.

Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum

Stop failing the Turing test!

My SFN blog: Swans on Tea

To release the hounds, click the [+] sign ->

Posts: 19,643 | Joined: 04-October 03
Back to top of the page up there ^
MultiQuote
Reply

#19 6 November 2011 - 11:36 PM morgsboi

Atom

swansont, on 6 November 2011 - 11:19 PM, said:

That's not how science is done. You can get relationships by matching the pattern of some data, but mainly you start with some physical principle and derive the equation.

Yes, but as I also said, I put it on here to get information to learn about it. I am only 14 so I haven't exactly been able to get a PHD with years of studying. But I am hoping too.

Posts: 246 | Joined: 14-October 11
Back to top of the page up there ^
MultiQuote
Reply

#20 6 November 2011 - 11:49 PM Mystery111

Atom

You are 14, and you want to know about neutrino's, or how they are applied in relativity? All due respect but you really are jumping in the deep end my friend first.

LaTeX Code

Science Forums: A tweek to Einsteins theory - Science Forums

Welcome to ScienceForums.Net!

A tweek to Einsteins theory Does this work out? Rate Topic: 2 Votes

#1 6 November 2011 - 03:29 PM morgsboi

#2 6 November 2011 - 03:38 PM timo

#3 6 November 2011 - 03:42 PM swansont

#4 6 November 2011 - 04:05 PM morgsboi

#5 6 November 2011 - 04:57 PM swansont

#6 6 November 2011 - 05:34 PM morgsboi

#7 6 November 2011 - 06:15 PM insane_alien

#8 6 November 2011 - 06:49 PM swansont

#9 6 November 2011 - 07:12 PM morgsboi

#10 6 November 2011 - 07:25 PM Cap'n Refsmmat

#11 6 November 2011 - 07:58 PM DrRocket

#12 6 November 2011 - 08:20 PM Cap'n Refsmmat

#13 6 November 2011 - 09:32 PM morgsboi

#14 6 November 2011 - 09:32 PM Fuzzwood

#15 6 November 2011 - 09:49 PM DrRocket

#16 6 November 2011 - 09:54 PM morgsboi

#17 6 November 2011 - 10:05 PM Mystery111

#18 6 November 2011 - 11:19 PM swansont

#19 6 November 2011 - 11:36 PM morgsboi

#20 6 November 2011 - 11:49 PM Mystery111

Share this topic:

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users

Delete Post

Skin and Language

Execution Stats

LaTeX Code

Science Forums: A tweek to Einsteins theory - Science Forums

Welcome to ScienceForums.Net!

#1 6 November 2011 - 03:29 PM morgsboi

#2 6 November 2011 - 03:38 PM timo

#3 6 November 2011 - 03:42 PM swansont

#4 6 November 2011 - 04:05 PM morgsboi

#5 6 November 2011 - 04:57 PM swansont

#6 6 November 2011 - 05:34 PM morgsboi

#7 6 November 2011 - 06:15 PM insane_alien

#8 6 November 2011 - 06:49 PM swansont

#9 6 November 2011 - 07:12 PM morgsboi

#10 6 November 2011 - 07:25 PM Cap'n Refsmmat

#11 6 November 2011 - 07:58 PM DrRocket

#12 6 November 2011 - 08:20 PM Cap'n Refsmmat

#13 6 November 2011 - 09:32 PM morgsboi

#14 6 November 2011 - 09:32 PM Fuzzwood

#15 6 November 2011 - 09:49 PM DrRocket

#16 6 November 2011 - 09:54 PM morgsboi

#17 6 November 2011 - 10:05 PM Mystery111

#18 6 November 2011 - 11:19 PM swansont

#19 6 November 2011 - 11:36 PM morgsboi

#20 6 November 2011 - 11:49 PM Mystery111

Share this topic:

1 User(s) are reading this topic 0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users

Delete Post

Skin and Language

Execution Stats

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users