pittsburghjoe

https://youtu.be/sGZG_JBr7uQ?t=8s

physical mass isn't present during superposition

I say it can, you don't have proof that says it can't. The large hadron collider can't get particles to the speed of light because they are observed particles.

Did someone take me seriously for once?! or is this a cruel joke.

No physical mass for anything in superposition is just the tip of the iceberg. Anything in a superposition event can move at the speed of light or faster. Nothing is able to move at the speed of light unless it is capable of going into a superposition state. Anything in a superposition event can move at the speed of light or greater as mostly EM waves along its probability density map. The areas of the density map that are denser are the areas that the bulk of the object (EM waves) travel past the most. I call them ghosts.

 

I'm willing to pay for someone to write this into a formula.

 

I think a buckyball is good test subject.

Has someone tested the travel time of particles in the delayed choice experiment? I realize that timing an unobserved object isn't going to be easy, but could we, at least, get an average time?

Entangle two particles, put one deep underground and inside a faraday cage. See what happens when you observe one of them.

Hey guys! Did you enjoy your vacation while I was being punished?

 

To add to my argument and to further enrage you, I realized that quantum tunneling shows mass bypassing a solid barrier. You still want to defend physical mass in superposition?

 

I purpose a buckyball be fired at a single slit that has a width smaller than the buckyball and see if it passes through it. OR put it into a box that has a divider with a single slit (width smaller than the buckball) and see how often buckyball makes it to the other side.

 

 

But we can model how massive and massless particles behave and compare that to the measurements. Those two agree to very high precision. If you disagree with this you need an equally accurate model of the observations else you're just talking crap.

 

The hidden variable can satisfy your equations without being physically there. I'm not saying a particle disappears when in superposition ..just that it turns mostly into EM waves.

 

Here is what upsets me. It is individuals, such as yourself, who believe they are being open-minded, elegant and perceptive by asking questions. (There are however good questions and dumb questions.) And you make this ignorant implication: we never question what we are told.

 

There are the words of someone whose education was either devoid of science training, or whose science training was grossly inadequate, or who completely ignored the science training. One is trained to question . . . . everything. You are aware, are you not, that scientists conduct experiments. Even in the very first year of science class in school, one conducts experiments. Are you unaware that an experiment is a question?

 

Ignorance of this fact is forgivable. Continued ignorance, beyond this point where you have been educated, is not. Committed ignorance, in the face of contrary information, is delusional, foolish and requires one to question the sanity, intelligence or character of the perpetrator.

 

Any questions?

 

Well aren't you a gem. It's almost comical that you're willing to question everything EXCEPT for what I'm pointing at.

Your experiments didn't involve proving what a particle is during superposition.

I'm asking you to question what you are told. Would it really be that awful if QM needed updated a bit?

So the answer is "don't make me think about it"

Sorry if I made you uncomfortable.

I'm willing to believe energy goes through both slits as waves, but not mass.

Let me give it some meaning. Energy is the top tier shell of this force/dimension. EM/quantum waves are within/below this tier. If I can solve Mass Gap and Quantum weirdness with this way of thinking ..would you take it seriously?

Sick burns you guys! I assure you I cried a little.

 

They have energy, they are not "in the form energy".

 

You can't know that for sure.

 

 

To be massive you need mass, photons are massless, no matter what you want to say that's what the evidence is.

 

 

I see mass the same way as a 3D modeling program does. A measured neutrino or electron has a single set of x,y,z (a vertex). Anything bigger being brought over from Energy will have depth (more x,y,z's assigned to the object).

 

 

 

We can't say anything about an unobserved particle.

 

So there is a chance it is in the form of energy.

 

 

It doesn't flip between them in different conditions, or sometimes have them and sometimes not.

 

You don't know that.

The wavelength is related to energy and momentum. In the case of a particle with mass (e.g. not a photon) it is also related to the mass.

 

 

It's great that mass has a wavelength after its converted from energy.

 

Nope. It is just the interference of waves.

 

 

You are overlooking something revolutionary.

I should say it goes from a massless state to one of mass ..even though it doesn't have any. You are saying even unmeasured em waves are not in a form of energy?

To put it bluntly, how would you know, you don't even know what physicists know as shown by your completely lack of knowing the relativistic total energy equation above.

 

You're doing the equivalent of starting your own motor mechanic's garage and when someone comes in to get their oil changed your painting the windows pink and saying that's what you call an oil change.

 

No it doesn't. There is no mass energy change. Wishing it to be so doesn't change the observations.

how can you say this? we know a free particle is in wave form. If something is in wave form, it is also most likely in a form of energy. An EM wave doest have a packet until it is measured. I call that packet mass.

I'm in the process of flipping half of what phycisists know on there heads. It has occurred to me that Energy is its own seperate thing. I currently don't know if I should call it its own dimension or force. Transferring energy out of it and turning into mass appears to be what is occurring in the observed double slit.

I treat mass and matter as the same thing. What if these things were not just properties? What if mass and energy are two intermixed layers to our reality?

What does the "p" stand for? I appreciate the new equation, but my main point remains. Energy is transforming to matter.

I know learning new things can be scary.

You are saying an unobserved particle is not in wave form?

Well, SURPRISE! look what else is shows us

How did we overlook this? A particle in energy wave form becomes matter with observation.

Energy is a dimension just as much as Time.

 

In this dimension everything travels as energy in waveform.

 

The entire EM Spectrum is a subset to this dimension (until it is measured).

 

All quantum weirdness events takes place in this dimension (superposition).

 

The double slit experiment finally makes sense. The particle is an energy wave until it is measured and becomes mass.

 

Dimensions of Mass = xyz

​Dimension of Energy = quantum waves

Dimension of Time = t

 

 

 

 

 

 

This revelation will be closed down by the mods, but will soon become the most viewed threads in the history of the site.