Silvestru

You will find everything and more in the link below: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe I know you are expecting a philosophical entertaining explanation but you posted in the physics section.

This isn't a counseling forum ImMeaningless. I'm sorry if you think that way but that's a selfish approach from your side. I don't know you but just the fact that you have access to the internet puts you on the upper half of the worlds population when it comes to opportunity. If you want to have a productive conversation me and others on this forum will be more than happy to join but this will not be counseling.

Well what makes you get out of bed in the morning if you really think it's all meaningless? And it's the same as knowing that you will one day die. It doesn't mean you shouldn't live life to the fullest until then. I don't know what idea you have about what the universe is and how you think it will end but nothing just dis-appears.

Hello and welcome to the Science Forum. By everything ends I want to understand what you mean so we know which direction we should sway the conversation in. Do you mean life of the individual? Humanity? or the actual Universe? Sounds like a Rustin Cohle quote: "It's like in this universe we process time linearly forward. But outside of our space time from what would be a fourth dimensional perspective time wouldn't exist. And from that vantage could we attain it? We see our space time would look flattened. Like a single sculpture of matter and super-position of every place it ever occupied. Our sentience is just cycling through our lives like carts on a track. See everything outside our dimension that's eternity. Eternity looking down on us. Now to us its a sphere but to them its a circle."

Thank you Strange. That's exactly what I needed. An interesting article to wrap my mind around for an hour or so.

Hello Josef-Nam and welcome to the Science Forum. While everyone will agree and encourage you to read, study and be passionate about science as it is in my opinion the most relevant and important field in understanding the world we live in, personally I would not encourage you to follow a career in Physics for example especially if the country you originate from is not so motivated on funding it. Depends what specific science and what job opportunities that education offers you. But always remember you can be up to date in a particular field without necessarily working in it.

Hello, I also noticed that the Unread Content tab always gets stuck after the first selection. If I select search for Content I posted and the switch to All Content or Content I started, nothing happens and I have to refresh the whole page and select the same steps. Not a big problem but felt I should mention it.

I am very interested in the subject of virtual particles and I have opened many threads in which you guys helped me understand related subjects. After some initial reading I came to the understanding that there is no "actual" difference between a virtual particle and a "real" one as all particles will eventually decay or be destroyed through one process or another. So lifespan of said particles was the only distinction that I came across. But "real" particles are independent and self sustaining. Different quantum fields exist and spread all through space. In any of these quantum fields there are/can be transient ripples (virtual particles). If this ripple absorbs energy or momentum it can form a self-sustaining wave pattern that become "real" particles. Can we determine that a virtual particle becomes a "real" one when it absorbs the right amount of energy as long as conservation of energy and momentum laws are obeyed? This is not my speculation, I just want to see if this is a proper understanding of how virtual particles work.

I actually had to go to the original thread to get an opinion on this... The first post you make is: Of course, no one even bothered to reply to your assertions. Then you go on to use pretentious terms to say nothing. This kind of talk reminds me of talk-shows from TLC or other channels for oxygen thieves. No one was targeting you. This is not a political sheeple rally. People will actually look into your claims before believing them.

Also not true https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave–particle_duality http://photonterrace.net/en/photon/duality/

Well we already have these classes called Bosons and matter particles called Fermions (quarks, and leptons). This is a bit confusing because while photons and gluons have 0 mass, the Z and W bosons have mass.

The photon can behave as a particle the same way you behave like like a demanding teenager. You have to explain what your actual question is not to claim Einsteins theory was wrong and then asking people to explain why it's wrong for you.

+momentum+spin angular momentum+magic

Ovi, I found a good explanation for what I think you might be asking in the works of Einstein. "In 1905, Einstein published 3 works on different areas (One about the 'Photoelectric Effect', other about the 'Brownian Motion' and the other was the famous 'Special Relativity' - actually these are not the true titles of his works, but it gives you a rough idea). In one of them, about the Photoelectric Effect, Einstein recovered the old idea that light was composed of 'tiny' particles, and this relationship emerged due to the failure of the classical wave description of light to explain some experimental results. The experiment was, in a condensed form, as follows: Imagine a certain piece of metal that, when you put ultraviolet light on it, you can measure the energy of some electrons 'escaping' from the the metal. From the very basical wave mechanics, one would expect that if you increased the 'intensity' of the light you would see more energetic electrons pulling off from it (picture a little paper boat in a lake where you make some waves - the more 'intense' you make them, the more the boat will jump up with greater velocities). Well, actually experimental results tell you that this does NOT happens. When you increase the intensity of the wave, only the NUMBER of electrons emitted from the metal will increase - not its ENERGY. The observed result is that only when you increase the FREQUENCY of the light you are applying, then the energy of the electrons will be greater. That sounds really strange for the wave nature of light. Looking at these results, Einstein proposed that light, 'when interacting with matter', interacts as a particle. Well, if it interacts like that, as a particle, you might think that it needs a certain mass. Not exactly. Using the Theory of Relativity, Einstein proposed that the particle of light, the so-called 'photon', had a ZERO 'rest mass'. It had only the relativistic mass (caused by its motion). Using as a 'glue' the work of Max Planck about the Black Body Radiation, Einstein suggested that the energy of the photon was related to the frequency of the wave by the equation: E=hf, where 'E' is the energy of the photon, 'h' is the so-called 'Planck's constant' and 'f' is the frequency. "

What do you mean before the photon was set in motion? Also any number of bosons can occupy the same quantum state. The photon does not "occupy volume" but it still interacts with matter, as it couples to electric charges. Sorry, I realize I am just posting random information about photons but I really don't understand where OP is going with this post.

Hmm It would be helpful if you could guide the conversation in a certain direction. Is there any question you want to ask or anything particular you want to discuss. To me it looks like you should post this in the Science News section if you just want us to read these info.

A photon really does have zero mass. I think about it as a particle of "pure energy", a photon has energy but no mass.

Well that's the actual definition of "matter", something that has mass and takes up space by having volume.

By that "theory" these parallel universes would be very tiny. Not really Universes but more patches of different reality I guess. *I say "tiny" compared to the actual Universe.

As a matter of fact it did. It made a solid impression to my adulterated state of mind.

Today I learned that it is possible for water to boil and freeze at the same time.

Hello forum, I found this interesting so I wanted to share last year's paper about the possibility for some form of life to exist on brown dwarfs. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1611.09074v1.pdf

You are not diverting at all. This is really interesting. I wish I had a more scientific understanding of such things because as you said , twice the magnetic field has not affected us significantly. I have to read more on this subject.

Someone beat you to it J.C.MacSwell. http://www.weownthesun.com/ (amazing actually) "In tough economic times, we realize that good investments can be hard to find. Real estate has consistently been a very satisfying way to realize long term investment gains. We are prepared to offer you the finest in real estate opportunities located in sunny... um.. on the sun. That's correct, we have laid claim to the sun and are now offering property on a first come first serve basis."