imatfaal

The sender Alice locks the box with her padlock Alpha and sends it to Bob. Bob locks the box with his padlock Beta as well as leaving padlock Alpha in place (he has no key to Alpha) and returns box to Alice. Alice undoes her padlock Alpha and leaves Bob's padlock Beta (which she has no key to) on the box - she returns that to Bob. Bob unlocks his padlock Beta and gets contents of box.

Commutative algorithms allow Alice to do the unlocking of her encryption whilst Bobs is still viable and without disrupting it.

 

But it is accepted that it has zero mass? Or is there a consensus for an infinitesimal small mass?

Consensus is that theory says zero mass and experimental evidence does not contradict zero mass.

Well... In reality massless particles shouldn't exist so I still think that photons have some form of mass albeit unmeasurably small, however you might as well say they are massless. Question is is there any way to prove photons have a miniscule amount of mass, Perhaps a stream of condensed photons that impacts a silicon wafer nanometers across in a magnetic bowl (Antimatter trap)? If it moves more than a control object being put through the same experiment without the stream of photons then it would be provable through thousands of more tests that photons have miniscule amounts of mass? I personally think they do have a miniscule amount of mass as something without mass shouldn't really exist. However I could be wrong...

The way I understand it (and this is really beyond my comfort zone) is that some parts of physics might work with an absolutely tiny mass (ie within the bounds I posted above) but others just would not. Quantum electrodynamics is incredibly accurate, underlies much of our present ideas, and just does not work if mass is non-zero. The presence of zero mass allows certain things to be also set to zero - but any non-zero amount for the mass of the photon means that these parts of the calculation boom up to infinities. So it is not that some theories loses a tiny bit of accuracy - it is that one of our most accurate and predictive theories cannot work if mass is non-zero . I think the same is true for quantum chromodynamics (as the gluon must also be massless), and clearly any of the unifications between the strong, the electromagnetic and the weak.

No physicist would be categorical that there is no possibility of a non-zero value because empirical data rules everything and you cannot prove a zero in these terms. But claiming a non-zero mass is a positive statement - and it is a huge claim - thus some evidence other than a a feeling of unease at the idea of masslessness and a misunderstanding of high school equations must be given to back that claim up

I am no physicist at all, and I know nothing about the deep fundamental theorems aimed at in this thread. But I've understood that indeed, waves are massless. Is that consensus? Or has it truly been proven that photons are massless?

It is next to impossible to prove experimentally that anything is zero. We have shown in a lab that the mass is less that 10^-13eV/c^2 and via observations of galatic magnetic fields that the mass should be less than 10-27 eV/c^2. But you cannot prove a zero - because there are always experimental imprecisions and errors; this will lead to error bars and your figure could lurk in the error bars.

Theoretically big portions of modern physics would fail - quantum chromo/electro-dynamics would fall over and no longer be re-normalisable and thus no longer give the astonishingly accurate results that it does.

...

 

What makes you think otherwise?

...

Because we know and understand the physics.

I haven’t confirmed the Prime number part, but the triangles are drawn correctly. The only change is that triangle EDC is a right triangle and for triangle ABE to be similar another 4.789 chord must be drawn at a 30 degree angle from CD. So this new angle is similar. Similar to triangle ABE

 

4.789 comes from the fact that CE equals [the remainder of (N / Pi ) ] * 85

 

All of the equilateral sides of the main triangle = N = 85

 

 

I have a drawing but it is from AutoCAD 14 and an AutoCad 14 dxf file. I am working to convert.

 

 

Also there are 2 more similar triangles.

 

Triangle BED is similar to triangle AEC

 

The problem is I can’t find out if triangle BED is also similar to triangle CEF

 

We know s = CE and triangle syx is similar to triangle AFC

 

Anyways I am now confused from looking at hundreds of angles. I need help to find if I have enough information to solve triangle AFC.

 

Please help!

 

My drawing is ready. I just have to fight to get it into readable format. This is more difficult than I thought: 32 and 64 bit; AutoCad 14 ; dxf; dwg; So now you will have to believe me that the values work. It really isn't that impressive. Especially unimpressive if I can still not solve for triangle syx as I originally intended to do.

https://1drv.ms/f/s!Ao7PhUWlkaBtgQd7IjIjxkBjv3wz

 

 

 

Here is a link if you can open AutoCad 14 drawings.

The only change is that triangle EDC is a right triangle and for triangle ABE to be similar another 4.789 chord must be drawn at a 30 degree angle from CD. So this new angle is similar. Similar to triangle ABE

If EDC is right triangle with Angle EDC (per your autocad) as 90degs then triangle ABE can never be similar. Angle ABE is 60 degrees, Angle BAE is less than 60, and Angle AEB is the same as Angle CED (and cannot be 90 degrees) . To summarise EDC is a right triangle and ABE cannot have right angle. Therefore not similar

Triangle BED is similar to triangle AEC

It is not. Angle AEC is same as Angle BED. Angles EAC and DBE are less than 60 degrees. Angle ACE is 60 degrees thus for triangles to be similar then EDB must be 60 degrees and it is clearly not.

The problem is I can’t find out if triangle BED is also similar to triangle CEF

Think not. Cannot be bothered to prove

When I calculate neutron decay,

into proton & electron

using momentum

& starting (both) with light speed c

instead of (the neutron's) 0 m/s,

then I get a mass deficit

of 2 electron masses

instead 3/2=1.5 electrons,

e.g. what you call an anti_neutrino.

Any calculation with a massive particle (ie proton or electron in this question - or neutron in the first) which has a speed of c is based on a false premise and can have no sound conclusion. One of your initial propositions is false - ie the massive particle travelling through space at light speed - anything that follows is unsound and of no worth.

You are correct in saying an anti-neutrino is produced in beta-decay - but what you have is also not what exactly we call an anti-neutrino it would be far too massive.

An anti-neutrino is almost exactly the same as a neutrino (there is obviously no change in charge) except for a flip of lepton number and the fact that anti-neutrinos have a right-handed helicity and neutrinos have a left-handed. In a Majorana analysis the neutrino and anti-neutrino are the same particle but just have different chirality. The mass of either particle / both chiralities is miniscule compared to electron or proton/neutron - much less than one eV/c^2

 

That is cool. Is this the same phenomenon as the perihelion shift of Mercury, or something totally different?

I think the major change in the orbit is basically what we would expect from a GR calc/model rather than a Newtonian.

 

 

I imagine largely the same, but the multi-body dynamics are probably a lot more complex in this case. (Plus there is always the hope that it might show some unexpected errors in GR...)

I know they run those calcs for binaries - I think you need to be able to work out the masses involved both via observation and by orbit (to compare gravitational mass and inertial). But then the fiendish ways experimentalist get around problems occuring light years away regularly baffles me

5% of interstellar dust is in the higher mass region of >10e-11 grams. But even these dust grains at the larger end at .1c have little energy (about a joule). However when they impact they will give off radiation - which could be very hi-energy gamma rays. You can see how much mass will be cleared by a spaceship in my calc in above post - multiply by 86000 to give 10 light years worth of interstellar dust. Still not much

However going through a dust cloud raises the density of the particulate matter by over ten thousand fold. I cannot see a breakdown by size of particles in a dust cloud but I assume that the number of high mass particles will be greater (they aggregate). A grain of about a microgram has the same kinetic energy as a family hatchback at the motorway speed limit. This is the danger. You only need one - in your journey of a hundred years...

 

Could quantum entanglement be explained by something along the lines off, all points in space can be or were connected by a time independent spatial dimension, which can only transmit a very limited amount of information. Once the entanglement is broken between (packets of energy, waves)particles or photons of light it is broken for good. After the entanglement is broken between particles the usual forces are the only ones that come into play....

There are lots of ways to explain quantum mechanics - all equally unsatisfying; they are called interpretations. All the interpretations have the same amount of evidence - ie none! As soon as someone figures out an experiment which would evidence one interpretation or disprove the others then qm will change.

Science isn't interested in what I believe? Lol science isn't interested in what other science believes. That's a dumb statement. That's why there are hundreds of theories and actually few "facts". Should I be saying I "hypothesis" instead? Does that make it more scientific? This is a forum not a seminar or thesis paper. I'm quite sure this is not considered a place to quote from or site in a thesis. Please, take yourselves a little less seriously. It's a discussion board, we are having a discussion. If you can't express opinion on a forum then really where else can you? Lol. You really need to take yourselves a little less serious.

Belief is the acceptance of an argument without evidence - there really is no place for that in science. We don't "believe" in quantum mechanical phenomena - we measure, we experiment, and we model; quantum mechanics is the best model we have which explains all the measurements, has not yet been shown to be invalid by experiment, and fits in with other parts of our theory of nature.

There are an almost endless supply of theories - but there is an endless and ever-varying supply of fact. And the facts will all fit together with the correct model - but there is no guarantee than the theories will.

You are correct this is a forum and not a seminar - but incorrect in thinking that this fact gives us licence to be sloppy. We strive to adopt a scientific approach and eschew pop-science and pseudoscience; we know that we will not reach the rigor of a university seminar but that is no reason not to try.

I have quoted from here in academic papers.

Take ourselves less seriously - right. I should change my views, Phi should alter his perspective , and all the other members with hundreds of thousands of posts between them should reconsider because a member with 8 posts says so - right. We like science, we post here because of that shared interest; if we wanted to just chew the fat we would post elsewhere (and many of us do)

1. dust in the intersteller medium (just over 1% of mass) --> rho = 2e-26 g/cm^3

2. an hour at .5c is 5.4e11m S = 5.4e13cm

3. estimated frontal area of space craft --> 10m x 10m --> 1000cm x 1000 cm --> A =10e6 cm^2

4. volume cleared of intersteller space by ship cruising at .5c for an hour --> V = A x S = 5e19 cm^3

5. mass of dust impacting space ship per hour --> V x rho = 10e-6 g/h = 1 microgram per hour

friendlytoast57 requested to have her/his account deactivated - we obliged

Ok so it looks like my triangle theory has failed. But it doesn’t matter. If an idea does not work it is just a dud.

 

Here is why I designed the triangle the way I did. S = r * theta. In radians of course, but for the problem I converted it to degrees since my triangle is equilateral. I was looking for a triangle whose sides are proportional to the vector that with resultant of N, where N is the product of 2 Primes.

 

I theorized that Pi radians or 180 degrees would divide into N and leave the remained of N/Pi (converted to degrees). And from this remainder N – the remainder; and CE = remained of N/Pi = s (on the unknown triangle) would solve the proportions of x and y, where x * y = N.

 

We agreed that triangle syx was similar to triangle ACE. But I believe that triangle ECD is similar to triangle EBA. Of course, I have not proved it yet, but if true the triangle diagram would be useful.

 

I began to think about drawing an accurate diagram. I am in the process I just wanted to run the idea by the message board. CE is much smaller part of N than my drawing shows. I am not claiming the triangles are similar, but I am going to do the work to find out.

 

If this message is hard to understand, give it some leeway. I have not had a class in trig in 20 years. Also, it is difficult to explain why I choose to draw the diagram as I did.

 

Over the next few weeks I will post the end. Right or wrong. Most likely wrong because of the difficulty of the problem. Even if this idea is a dud, I stand behind my previously posted equations. There is a pattern shown by the equations. It is just unfortunate that it is complex. But my next step will be to simplify the equations. My patterns come out of very simple patterns in multiplication. I want to post the patterns on my website to show how simple they are. I know that N = x *y is supposed to be a one-way function because there are 2 unknowns. However, I don’t believe in one-way functions. Yes, I know I’ve wasted a lot of time on an impossible problem, but it was geometry that gave me a lead. The problem is that no one believes your problem until you can prove it.

 

So, in a few weeks, I will conclude my work on this ever-confusing drawing and post an improved diagram.

I was looking for a triangle whose sides are proportional to the vector that with resultant of N, where N is the product of 2 Primes.

This is initial problem - take any two numbers greater than two and multiply them together and the product will ALWAYS be greater than the sum. BUT for a triangle the length of two shorter sides must SUM to greater than the third. This is an internal and irresolvable contradiction.

The long side is the product of the two shorter and thus will be greater than the sum of the two shorter sides BUT AT THE SAME TIME for it to be a properly formed triangle it must also be less than the sum of the two shorter sides. If you get a contradiction like this you know you must restart with new propositions.

I theorized that Pi radians or 180 degrees would divide into N and leave the remained of N/Pi (converted to degrees). And from this remainder N – the remainder; and CE = remained of N/Pi = s (on the unknown triangle) would solve the proportions of x and y, where x * y = N.

The problem with introducing pi like this is that pi is an irrational number (it is actually transcendental). An integer multiplied or divided by an irrational will lead to another irrational. I think - but have not checked - that your construction will have sides all of which will be irrational lengths. All primes are integers - no primes are irrational

We agreed that triangle syx was similar to triangle ACE. But I believe that triangle ECD is similar to triangle EBA. Of course, I have not proved it yet, but if true the triangle diagram would be useful.

Triangle ECD would be similar to EBA for only one version (ie one possible prime if the idea worked) and that would be when angle ABE equalled angle EDC with both being 60 degrees or 2pi/6. Angles AEB and CED are equal. But that is the limit of similarity in the general case

So, in a few weeks, I will conclude my work on this ever-confusing drawing and post an improved diagram.

First things first. Explain how you will construct triangle - you have three sides explain the relationship between them and your primes. And let's check you can actually construct a triangle within those parameters. Remember if the angles are all 60 degrees then you must have equal side lengths - non-negotiable; and vice versa. Also remember three side lengths uniquely determine a triangle - so that is a good starting point.

 

 

Ah yes. Well spotted. (Or you proof-reading and fact-checking all my posts today ...)

 

today?

I realised it must look like that - but I couldn't see where the discrepancy was so had to dig till it came to light and then I couldn't stay schtum

 

 

And I have run out of time to edit it!

Aaargh!

I don't know what the time limit is - but if I did I would have waited till it was up

 

Hard to say, as you don't show how you calculate anything!

 

But the numbers look way to big to me. Let's see:

 

Surface area of moon = 38 million m²

Total energy falling on moon per second = 1/2 x 38x10⁶ m² x 1426 J/s (watts) = 27x10⁹ joules/s

Total mass falling on moon per second (from e=mc²) = 27x10⁹ / c² = 3x10^-7 kg/s

 

Not sure how to equate that to the total mass between the Earth and Moon, but maybe multiplying by light travel time (1.3s) would be about right.

 

So we are talking about a total mass of about half a milligram. As you say, not really significant.

 

More significant could be the mass of the Moon directly above.

"Surface area of moon = 38 million m²" that should be km^2 - so that final figure needs to be lifted by x10^6

...

Because that is how steichen works.

...

with respect this is how steichen worked

But great post otherwise and a strange Strange autocorrect.