derek w

I am not implying that photons have mass,but if I drop a cannon ball it falls to earth,and if I fired a photon horizontal to the earth's surface,in the initial instance they would both accelerate towards the earth at the same rate.

Well if you are going to argue that all particles are in reality waves then there is no point in trying. I think - mostly from reading thread here - that the consensus is that wave nature and particle nature are both observable in quantum entities and trying to say that these entities are particles behaving as waves or waves that can manifest as particles is missing the point. They are quantum entities that behave and follow the rules of quantum mechanics - when you look for a particular nature you can find it, and when you seek wave-like characteristics you also find them.

True,Apart from going along with the consensus,that's not necessarily a good thing.

Well - you can show diffraction patterns with particles upto the size of buckyballs . These are most definitely particles (60 atoms of carbon) - yet they can be shown to behave like waves.

 

http://www.univie.ac.at/qfp/research/matterwave/c60/index.html

But does this disprove my point,I can still argue that atoms are wave functions that look like particles.The electron in an atom is not a particle in orbit,and the nucleus could be confined waves,that look like a particle.

I can think of atoms as waves oscillating about a point of equilibrium.

I can argue that buckyballs can behave like waves,because their component parts are waves that look like particles.

question?Is it a case that it's possible to design an experiment and make a wave look like a particle,but it's not possible to make a particle look like a wave?

Because the energy of a wave can collapse to a single point.

The energy of a photon is a product of plank's constant (h) x frequency.Scattering is when a photon gains or loses energy by an increase or decrease of it's frequency via an interaction with other particles.

A cold body absorbing photons will gain mass,and visa versa a hot body emitting photons will lose mass.

Space is nothingness,nothingness does not have dimensions,it would be the interactions between sub-atomic particles that creates dimensions?

The universe didn't start with a 3D space that was then filled.

The sub-atomic particles create a distorted space.

Sam, a dimension is direction of possible movement. Forward-back, up-down, left-right, are the three known spatial dimensions.

Movement of what?

 

All magnetic fields are ones that occur because an electrical field is moving. If you're thinking of something like a bar magnet, then the motion is the spin of the electrons contained therein, all aligned in the same direction.

Does a moving electrical field also cause the spin of the electrons to align in the same direction?

In the LHC if particles were going backward in time they would hit the detectors before the collisions took place?

How can you have stability in the present moment of time,if particles can go back in time and interfere with the past position of particles?

There has to be conservation of energy,within the 4 dimensions that we know of.

Dark matter is just a name of an unknown phenomenon.

There is no evidence of a medium.

Is the unifying force the one that preceded the four at BB time and they evolved from it?

Is it to do with temperature?

Question is my understanding of a unified theory correct,that it's an attempt to unify the forces into 1 force.So that all the forces strong,weak-electro magnetic and gravity would all be different manifestations of 1 force(gravity)?

I was watching Dara O'briain's science club on BBC-tv.

And they done the cheese on toast experiment,it occurred to me that you can do it with a bit of corrugated cardboard.

You simply wipe the surface of the corrugated cardboard with a damp cloth.

Take the rotating wheel mechanism out of the micro-wave oven,place 4 wooden/plastic blocks in each corner of the micro-wave and place the cardboard on the blocks,turn on the micro-wave for a few seconds.

The corrugated cardboard starts to dry out in patches.

On the back of my micro-wave it tells you the frequency is 2450Mhz.

The speed of light divided by 2450Mhz gives approx 12.2cm.

And that's how my cardboard was drying out in patches approx 12.2 cm apart.

So my question,is this because there is a greater probability of photon's popping in to existence in these patches?

It's a big platform.

yeh,one spring attached to your 1kg mass,and ten springs attached to your 10kg mass.

But you can't travel faster than the speed of light,so there is something wrong with this interpretation of the probability function?

Okay then, if space, on an extremely microscopic scale, does not behave like nothingness, then how can it help in transmitting energy through EM waves? How would the topology of space interact with EM waves on this extremely microscopic scale?

quote from "universe-review":-

In classical physics(applicable to macroscopic phenomena),empty space-time is called the vacuum.The classical vacuum is featureless.However,in quantum mechanics(applicable to microscopic phenomena),the vacuum is a much more complex entity.It is far from featureless and far from empty.The quantum vacuum is just one particular state of a quantum field(corresponding to some particles).It is the quantum mechanical state in which no field quanta are excited,that is,no particles are present.hence,it is the "ground state" of the quantum field,the state of minimum energy.

I don't think there are anti-gluons,like photons gluons are their own anti-particle.

i heard that any object above absolute zero should radiate some form of energy. so, can't a particle's position be pointed at any instant if i place very sensitive radiation detectors all around its path? can't i pinpoint the paritcle's position and velocity at any given instant like this? the detectors are not physically interacting with the particle and therefore can't be responsible for any change in its velocity or position. can anyone please clear my doubt on this topic.

It depends on your definition of an object,if your object is a red hot piece of steel then yes it will radiate energy.

I am not sure that I understand the thinking behind the michelson-morley experiment?

If all sub-atomic particles display wave/particle duality in the double slit experiment,why would light be assumed to be travelling across space or an aether differently to any thing else?

Sort of. Have a look at the 3rd diagram on the link below. Beware to understand the first ones also.

http://www.phy.syr.e...warzschild.html

In the first diagram the arrow of time is pointing in the direction in which the event horizon is travelling,and light has zero velocity in 3 dimensional space at the event horizon,so T=C?

The event horizon is travelling along the T-axis at the speed of light?

It does not matter if you zoom in or zoom out,the speed of light will be the same.