Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Antonioctd

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Favorite Area of Science
  1. I'll take this chance to clarify something... First I'll say that I'm a musician! I just curious about the world and reading about physics gives me some answers. So, if my question is stupid... well... forgive me! My question: Mathematics is an exact science. Some say that it is the language of the universe. I don't know much math but I can see that, if I know from math that 2+2=4, I don´t ever need to experiment and actually put together 4 objects and count them. My point is, If it works in math it should work in the real world. Right? If it doesn't work, all the math must be wrong! As if the math was saying 2+2=5 and then I do the experiment and actually put 2 objects next to other 2 and count 4! In that case is the math that is wrong. Not my theory!
  2. I don't know much about it but don't they have maths to back it up? Of course math alone doesn't prove any thing. But, at least, makes it stronger than a simple philosophical hypothesis...
  3. It was an exaggeration... Supposed to be a bit of a joke yes... But the main propose was to point out, once more, that there is no evidence that "stuff" is going away. In this subject maybe we should be discussing if the universe is a closed or open system. I strongly believe it is closed. I don't have any evidence of it but it just feels that way. This is why I have a hard time considering stuff going out of it. Any way, I din't know supernovas were so rare... Just learned something! I though almost all the stars would eventually go supernova More research to do...
  4. All of them. Every thing in the universe, including us, is made of star dust... The explosion is called a "Super nova" and is also used to measure big distances in the universe.
  5. Why would black holes go in to another universe? Aren't there theories about them being short cuts inside our own universe? In that case stuff that goes in a black hole would just get out from the other end somewhere else in our universe. But I'll leave that alone. Nobody understands black holes yet... There is evidence that the universe is, in fact, expanding. But I don't see anything suggesting matter is going away... Am I missing something? What appears to be true is that dark energy is a property of space it self, and it grows with it. So, as space and dark energy expands, there's less density of stuff. Not because there is less stuff but because there is more space. More space = More dark energy. So, Same amount of stuff but more empty space and energy. But now appears that "empty space" is not empty any more... Oh well... I'll give up reading about this stuff! Or I'll end up in a mental institution
  6. Well... I just assumed it had to have something to do with kinetic energy because it involves moving particles being slowed down by a force. In my layman mind, with very limited knowledge, movement means that it has something to do with kinetic energy... Yap! Just that... lol But you ended up making me think a lot more about the statement I've naively made... If particles would be traveling at the speed of light in the absence of the higgs field something has to cause that. And, more important for my line of thought, alpha2cen as written some equations that I've been trying to understand involving this king of stuff. I don't know enough mathematics to fully understand his equations and I've been trying a lot! LOL But it gave me an idea. What about taking the famous E=mc^2 and replace "m" for something that has to do with interactions with the higgs and the energy involved in the supposedly slowing down of the particles (maybe the kinetic energy has place here...) Maybe that's exactly what apha2cen has made there... But I fail to understand. Anyway, if we can get it right with E=(higgs and particles slowing down formula replacing "m") c^2 Maybe we can use E=mc^2 to also calculate the reaction of the Higgs field and see if it has something to do with gravity. Yes! I know that the line of thought just got blurred, twisted and bad... Any chance some of you would help out? HELP! lol So, calculating r=(1-(v/c)^2)^-1/2 when v=c is easy and the result is obviously 0. It makes perfect sense because "c" is constant regardless of frame of reference. I looked up Lorentz transformations in Wikipedia and I think my last statement is correct... or is it not? But, when calculating del E= mc2 - 1/2 r m c2 (v/c)2 when v=c I end up with del E = - r/2 and I sure I got wrong! Also, can I assume del E = 0 in the case a particle moves at v=c and therefore doesn't interact with the higgs field? that would give me 0 = - r/2 or r=0 and not r=2 Thanks
  7. Oh... It came from an explanation of the higgs field "mechanics" I saw some were... The explanation was that, without mass all particles would be moving at the speed of light. But they have this drag created by the higgs field that slows them down and gives the illusion of mass. In my mind I've tried to picture this has an object traveling in water... But is very hard to imagine a mass-less object that travels through water and interacts with it and so is showed down by it Then I've started to imagine the effects this interaction would have on the field it self. I mean, if a bullet is slowed down by water it has to move water out of it's way at the same time. If a field is composed by particles (water is a lot of H2O as the Higgs is a lot of Higgs Bosons) it should have at least similar behaviors... I know that there must be a lot of properties and laws that I don't know about. I'm basically here to learn and if people start to point out how ridiculous my ideas are and telling me why I will learn a lot! Alpha2cen: Can you please translate from mathematical to English? I know it's not possible to exactly translate. I would be happy if you just say what "r" stands for. I think understand the rest....
  8. So this Higgs field is supposed to give mass to particles by interacting with them. The way I see it (I'm a layman!) this implies that mass is very similar to kinetic energy. And this, in turn, implies that all particles are moving relative to the higgs field at constant speed. Am I saying something super wrong until now? LOL So, what if gravity is just a distortion on the higgs field caused by particles passing trough it? Like air. Exactly in the way that you put to sheets of paper parallel to each other and by blowing in the middle you reduce the air pressure between the sheets of paper and cause them to appear attracted together, two particles moving trough the higgs field parallel to each other would cause the "higgs pressure" to be less between the particles and the higgs field would push the particles together creating gravity. Is this totally ridiculous?
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.