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