Conjurer

I have studied relativity independently, and most of the people that write books about it seem unaware of this easier proof that could be used to explain the theory to first year students. I plan to teach math sometime after I graduate within a year. It seemed like this type of proof could be used to teach them, and I wanted to know what people thought about it. I wasn't sure what people would think of my interpretation of the math by assuming that two separate reference frames can be assumed to be forming one single light triangle.

Then it appears that I have backed you into a corner, and you are willing to make up your own science to just make yourself sound correct to everyone else in a science forum. I really think it is a shame that online bullying is preventing any real work in modern science from being able to be done by this form of harassment. I think you are really missing the point, and I am NOT trying to use this example as a tool to discredit quantum theory. You may have encountered a lot of people like that before, but you need to learn to get over it. You are basically allowing me to bring this subject area into pseudoscience now by showing you how you are contradicting yourself and you not being able to identify an answer which assumes you were always correct.

You definitely sound like someone that believes this is true. It makes you difficult for me to trust as a source of information, because it just seems like a personal attack of you picking apart everything I say from me talking about things you don't know that much about. Then you will just take a position against me with sources of unreliable information, and you would prefer that instead my point that I am making. You still haven't addressed the question of how this allows random particle pairs to have been discovered in the first place by being able to be detected by some fashion. From what you have told me, I still got, OE=-0E+0E=0E. You have obviously been misinformed somewhere, and you are not willing to accept it. Some amount of energy would have had to have been detected at some point in order for it to have actually been seen to ever happen. Am I making up that this was actually ever a discovery that was ever made by detecting "something"?

So when the questions start getting difficult, science has to just come to a halt then? I considered what you guys said. Then it wasn't able to register into my brain correctly, since no one seemed to want to answer my questions from assuming you are correct. All I got was, undetectable particles annihilate into nothing. Then how did this even come to be a thing to begin with? How does this situation even contain energy which has to be conserved when nothing produces nothing?

The older solutions took a lot more steps. I am not even sure how they originally got to the correct solution, because it was too rigorous to be explained anywhere. This is the quickest solution to get to it in such few of steps. Then it requires a relativistic aether like Minkowski's spacetime in order to get to the solution in this few of steps. Since all distances are measured with the speed of light in relation to their dilated time, the Minkowski spacetime would have to actually warp to maintain the correct values like physical rubber bands all connected together. It is expressing it as a physical framework, instead as only an observational difference. How do you figure? The 2l would just cancel out. Where did you even get a 2 from? Working in Minkowski spacetime is essential to the work in most mainstream theories dealing with higher dimensions about the universe as a whole. It has proven to be just as accurate as any other type of relativistic theory. It is also the simplest way to define it.

I don't think it would in an ultimate theory of everything, because mathematics is fundamentally different than physics on the Plank Scale. It would take an infinite amount of energy in order to detect or even experience something happening below the Plank Scale, so then our physical reality doesn't obey the same principals as an infinitely divisible coordinate plane system. It could just be a happy coincidence that math tells us as much as it does about physics, and the Plank Scale is just too small to really have any real discernible effect on showing a difference between the math and our physical reality.

The momentary particle pairs really are not necessary in quantum field theory. They are not part of the collision produced in a particle accelerator. They are more like background noise, and they can be detected even when there is no collision going on, so there energy isn't even really considered as part of the reaction. Those momentary particles are the ones that are considered in Hawking Radiation. I think you guys are confusing that with virtual particles that are actually involved in the interaction of the collision. I just understood it as being a part of the quantum weirdness in quantum mechanics, and someone would have to accept that as such. No other classical physical law can apply to the quantum world, and I don't see why it is necessary to claim a classic law holds in this regime when there is evidence to the contrary. Who knows really? Light could just be leaking in or light could just be tunneling into the reactor after all... Everything a particle reactor detects is just an interpretation of the light produced in the collision. It is the only object we have technology for to interact with to show us that something is there. If it doesn't make light, then the particle detector will never see it. It would never have to be even considered.

That was taken completely out of context. Did you even bother reading my whole explanation? I am talking about the instance two charged particles pop into existence as a particle and antiparticle that then soon annihilate each other which is detectable as seen as a photon. One person just said that they cannot be detected directly from not lasting long enough, and another person just said that they cannot create a particle that can be detected. If I were to assume both of these statements are true, then they wouldn't be able to be detected by any means whatsoever. We should not even know they exist. How could both of these statements possibly be true? They would have had to have been detected in some sort of fashion. That would explain a lot about why you don't think talking about conservation is correct when dealing with these kinds of particles. If they can't be detected directly, then their existence would have just been assumed by using Funnymen Diagrams. They wouldn't just say that a photon just pops into existence by itself. I think it is questionable that they are even virtual particles, although; I have heard other people mention this in different forums. Then is conservation laws not violated, because two particles that don't exist that don't create anything was discovered somehow? How was that discovery made?

The reason you gave me as to why energy is conserved was, "Energy conservation is not violated because the mass lost by the black holes is the same as the energy radiated away." I am not trying to say there is a lack of conservation of energy in Hawking Radiation. I am saying there is a lack of conservation from random particle pairs, and there is a lack of conservation for black holes. Then you put them together in the Hawking Radiation theory, and it shows that there is conservation between these two separate instances for the universe as whole. Then the law of conservation was saved by putting these two things together into one theory and the total system, of everything in the universe, then obeyed conservation laws. Then there is no reason why anyone should think that conservation is violated on the surface of a black hole, because he took these two things that didn't add up right to show it in order to keep conservation as a law of physics which remains true even in quantum physics. The black holes allowed a situation for it to be possible. Then vice versa if you separate these two concepts and they are not a part of the same system, then that system will "violate conservation". Then you would only be working with half the system of the total energy involved. Then they should have never been detected, and we shouldn't be here talking about them. Virtual particles just have different values for their mass, and they are theorized particles used to explain interactions that can't be observed with other interactions. They still can form "real particles". It just means that it is part of the explanation as to why they see the behavior in other particles that are detected. Yes, it would be conserved after their creation, but the two particles come from nothing, nowhere, period. Those particles coming from nothing and it has nothing to do with the development of the theories on black holes. These particles coming out of nowhere was completely discovered by particle accelerators. Basically, you just said something similar to having two coins pop into existence out of nowhere, then conservation laws hold true, because they obey the laws of physics perfectly after that event occurs. A quantum fluctuation is a loose term to describe random particle pair creation. It is the only thing discovered in physics where stuff comes from nowhere, so people tried to pin it on starting the Big Bang. In order for the Big Bang to start, something would have had to have popped out of nowhere into existence.

That is just saying that it is conserved, because Hawking discovered that conservation could exist in this instance by combining these two principals. Then there are not any black holes at the LHC! Then this is not even saying that there is conservation in the lab with the absence of black holes. Random particle pairs were discovered in particle accelerators, not black holes. It sounded a lot like what swonsont said, and I was surprised actuall surprised to read that. That is a newer book, and apparently viewpoints have changed on this topic. Random particle pairs use to be one of the leading candidates for the start of the Big Bang. Then it didn't explain how they account for the energy that would be created from the newly generated photon which allowed them to detect it in the first place in the lab. Then I still don't understand that part, as to why there is conservation without black holes or Hawking Radiation. Right, because people like Stephen Hawking develop theories to show how it is always conserved, and it allows a mathematical framework to relate different principals from it being a part of the same value. Then Hawking retracted his theory to the Holographic Principal, and the Holographic Principal doesn't even involve random particle pairs. Then conservation was found for black holes in a different way, but that doesn't explain how conservation with random particle pairs is made anymore.

I tried to look it up, but the local library took out all of its books it use to have on quantum mechanics. In the book, the Hidden Reality (Brian Greene) in the section Hawking Radiation, it says that energy is conserved, because it would be impossible to even identify the particles from them not being in existence long enough. Then every particle and antiparticle pair would emit a photon, and that would be one more photon that you had before. Then space wouldn't even be able to be considered a scaler if it lost energy due to this process, because it would change its energy level. Then how does the mathematics say that there is conservation with photons with no source that didn't exist before popping up? How does any type of reasoning say this? I am really not clear on how/why you believe there is\has to be conservation here. I don't know the official reason why it should. If you can't bother to look up to show me anything either on the contrary. You could at least give me a better description than that. I have no other bases as to why you identify this as an outlandish claim other than we really think conservation should apply to everything we hear.

You could go into a library, and close your eyes. Then turn around several times with your finger pointing out, and then come to a stop in the isle that has books written about physics. You can then go to the index and look up either random particle pairs or Hawking Radiation. Then every "pop" science book will tell you the exact same thing. They are all in agreement with each other. Then I end up hearing a much different story in online forums, so it really makes me wonder which one is "pop" science. The cool kids seem to be handing out in the forums these days and not the library. Then I guess I will rephrase what I have said then to make it sound more accurate. No one has yet proven by experiment or mathematically that random particle pairs obey conservation laws. Since the Holographic Universe has replaced Hawking Radiation, the leading theory in this department no longer shows conservation of random particle pairs. Then the Holographic Universe leaves it open as a possibility, since no one was ever able to do it.

The old director of Fermilab (Leon Lederman; God Particle) and every other book written by someone affiliated with Fermilab or quantum physics in America would say otherwise. Did you learn quantum physics in another country? Some countries don't allow certain types of media from other countries and fit the facts to suite their needs. Was the LHC in Europe unable to confirm this? Do you have any official reference of this being discovered? It is believed that space is a scaler, and it has a low energy level. Then particle pairs were never confirmed to lower this energy level in the lab, since they result in a photon after the collision (which is how they are detected). I never heard any news of this discovery being changed at some point in time. To me, it just sounds like that you guys have just gone out on your own to determine that certain aspect of the theory is incorrect and needs to be changed. Then your viewpoint of the original theory has become distorted by the concept of energy having the potential to generate the same amount of mass. You can't just assume that one aspect of the theory is wrong and adapt every other aspect of the theory to fit it so that everything about it fits into your viewpoint of the laws of physics, unless you write a paper or something to prove it to science. I don't know of any papers written that have changed all these aspects of the theory. I would have to ask if you had any proof in any of this, because for a couple of mods, you guys seem way off track in all of this stuff. It is like you guys have been making into a completely different theory, since; 1) you don't accept particle pairs violating conservation laws, 2) you don't accept that antiparticles will lower the mass of the black hole by converting the matter in it to energy. I don't even really accept the Theory of Hawking Radiation, but I do accept the Holographic Principle. These two theories are in conflict with each other, so you cannot accept them both. But, I do accept both the number 1 and 2 things I just mentioned, and those are not the reasons why I don't prefer Hawking Radiation instead. It does make think that it could be possible that Hawking Radiation is false, because the energy would most likely be converted into electrons where the mass would actually remain the same since the average density of a supper-massive black hole is one, and maybe it is wrong because of that. A sea of electrons would have that approximate density.

That someone was Dr. Michio Kaku, one of the founders of string theory. If it is of any consolation, he never ended up publishing it in any of his books. Often times, he just went on and on about how no one knows what exactly it is in his own writings. Then I don't have a reference for it.

Herman Minkowski was one of Einsteins professors at the university where he graduated from. After Einstein developed his special theory of relativity, Herman Minkowski proposed a new idea to him in order to describe spacetime, since the time dilation equation received a lot of attention in his paper On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies. He proposed a rather simple idea about how to create a framework of a coordinate plane which could obey the rules of relativity, and it would have to replace a normal coordinate plane in which time dilation wouldn't show up. He started out by saying that all distances in the coordinate plane should be calculated by multiplying the speed of light, times time. Where the speed of light is "c" and time is represented by "t". Then a distance (d) would be equal to the speed of light, times time, d=ct. This brought about a problem called the light clock example, where they tried to solve for time dilation in this new coordinate plane. A problem started where the only solution anyone could obtain for the problem was t'=t/sqrt(1-(v^2)/(c^2)). This started to become a problem, because this was not the same equation that Einstein developed in his paper On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies, which was t'=t sqrt(1-(v^2)/(c^2)). No one was able to solve this problem for over 100 years, since the theory came out. It then became commonly accepted to use both equations, since they both ended up coming out with approximately the same answer when the light clock equation was considered to be the change in time, and the equation from the original paper was considered to be the proper time. Then I have come up with the correct solution or proof that the proper time can be obtained in Minkowski Space, so a mathematical framework can exist which considers spacetime as a type of aether in a mathematical construct. The problem with the light clock proof when applying to Minkowski Spacetime is that the time variables were not assigned correctly. Then the equation doesn't need to be considered as being in Hertz of a tick of a clock. By doing this, the proof could then be calculated using Pythagorean's Theorem, even though the two objects are not connected bodies forming a right triangle. (ct')^2+(vt)^2=(ct)^2 c^2t'^2+v^2t^2=c^2t^2 c^2t'^2=c^2t^2-v^2t^2 c^2t'^2=c^2t^2(1-(v^2)/(c^2)) t'^2=t^2(1-(v^2)/(c^2)) t'=t sqrt(1-(v^2)/(c^2)) Then the value for the equation comes out to the accurate equation that has been shown to be the correct answer which has been found in repeated experiments. Then relativistic problems can be done mathematically assuming that there is an aether or fabric of spacetime which obeys the rules of the Special Theory of Relativity. Spacetime would have to be an actual physical object in this instance, because it assumes that there is a physical mechanism which allows two completely independent objects to be related to each other via Pythagorean's Theorem, which is the same as a physical limitation put on triangles that have sides which must always make physical contact with each other in way that is governed by this rule. It assumes there is also a lattice in a higher dimension, because they are related by a square. Then squaring an equation puts it into more dimensions. This dimension is not seen by the observer in the light clock example. In the same way there are a number of squares on each side of a triangle that add up to the number of squares on the hypotenuse, it is assuming that there is a lattice with a number of squares in a higher dimension that adds up to the other sides of an unconnected object through the speed of light limitation. This lattice then connects all observers, so that no other object can travel at a different relative speed to that of light. Then the speed of light remains constant to all observers.

In string theory, a photon isn't a particle; it is a string. It takes into account the world-line of photons. Then it is considering things in a different reference frame. Then theoretical physicist are able to look at the universe as a whole and describe it as being on a membrane in a greater multiverse. Then it isn't surprising at all that it went to string theory to describe a frame of reference that describes a projection of the entire universe. It may just be more easily applied to mathematics that way, because string theory already does that. I don't find it contradictory to what I was saying at all, and I am not surprised by it saying that. I heard someone say it on television once. You or I could probably search the darkest depths of string theory and never find an answer to that. It took me years from reading about it, just to find out that much about it. That is why I thought it is a fun fact that people should know. I don't think it should be forgotten, but I don't think I would be able to provide a reference for that. Most of the stuff we are talking about deals with theoretical physics that is beyond the available information on the internet. I don't think I need to start plagiarizing books, just so I can have a conversation. That basically sounds like what this is coming down to.

The lowest and simplest mode of a string in string theory is a photon. Essentially, a string in string theory is a photon.

In the Holographic Universe, the rest of the universe can be seen as a projection from the surface of a black hole. It looks at the universe from a frame of reference that is completely dilated, so everything else in the universe is seen as more like a projection from that surface. That is why they say that everything is an illusion in the theory. From that frame of reference, everything would have to be some sort of illusion, because we do not actually perceive ourselves as living on the surface of a black hole or anywhere close to it. It takes making a project from that surface to be able to discern anything that is happening from that frame of reference. Then you just don't accept the science behind the Holographic Principal. He discovered this by eliminating the other variables involved, and he only used the time variable in order to see what was happening as something fell into a black hole. This was a completely different approach to what people have tried doing in order to determine this before. That, in itself, is a new claim that Leonard Susskind is making to be a discovery. It is part of more recent work done in black hole physics which also considers thermal temperatures of particles falling into them using quantum physics. Then your reasoning seems to be out of date. It is like the same method I was trying to use to show the speed of light barrier. It would be a lot like the barrier created on the surface of a black hole in the Holographic Principal, because it uses the same basic idea of only considering time dilation when the event happens.

I think that is very debatable, since the violation of any law of physics is met with a lot of controversy. It is like trying to convince someone that a aspect of quantum mechanics breaks the light speed barrier. People will say it is wrong, even if they haven't looked into it from the people that discovered it. I know that a lot of particle physicist in America that work at the accelerator in Chicago believe that it may. It is thought that they violate conservation laws, because they remove something from a system that can no longer be retrieved. Then something is lost from a system, and that system can no longer have the same values it use to have. Then Hawking Radiation allows for stuff to be put back into that system and "escape" the black hole. Then the net gain and loss of the system remains the same, even though it is still not the same stuff. Then that is how the conservation of the system outside of the black hole is conserved.

I would say that the advice of a professional in the field that is actually able to be working on the theory is a proper source. It seems appropriate for me, considering this is a discussion forum, and this isn't actually a tool real scientist use to collaborate to work on a project to make actual discoveries. It actually says both in the video. The entire basis of theory is that an object would become time dilated so much at the surface of a black hole, that it would end up losing its forward momentum, because it would no longer experience time to continue moving forward. Then it considers the frame of reference of the observer falling in, and that makes it look like everything is on the surface of the black hole because it observes everything else to be contracted in the same way. Then the entire universe is seen as being on the surface of the black hole from the frame of reference of the person falling into it.

Okay, this is it from another horses mouth...

Ya, it doesn't violate conservation laws, because Stephan Hawking developed his theory about Hawking Radiation to prove that both of these instances actually don't violate it when combined together. The loss of information was considered to be a violation of the conservation laws in of itself.

You can just google Leonard Susskind on YouTube to see it. That was the developer of the theory. It can be hard to find, since that is also a popular term for non-physics theories.

I heard it straight from the horses mouth...

I am theoretical physics buff, and I like to read books from professors in theoretical physics targeted to laymen. I have a degree in electronics, and I am currently a math major. (Didn't have enough money to go to an expensive school to learn about much of anything else) The description of this effect in every one of those books describes the particle pairs as being the same particle pairs that randomly appear and annihilate each other all throughout space. There is no explanation as to where they come from, and they seem to violate conservation of energy due to popping into existence out of nothing. These particles would be no different than any other particle and anti particle, so basically it is like you are saying that antiparticles just have negative energy, now, but they can add to the total mass, which makes zero sense. Hawking Radiation was intended to use this aspect of quantum mechanics, which seems to violate conservation of energy, and black holes, which violate conservation of energy, in order to show that there is still conservation of energy. It is a law of nature that it used to develop physics theories, because it acts like a balance that can't be broken. I am sorry to say, but you guys seemed to be misinformed about things from the internet.