# Aethelwulf

Senior Members

395

1. ## Gravity and light

Light follows what are called geodesics. Light couples to the distortions of spacetime. But yes, gravity effects the spacetime, causing curvature, causing the geometry in which massless radiation follows, called geodesics. I'd write maths but I think an explanation without it suffices.
2. ## Determining wavelengths of macroscopic objects?

you're welcome.
3. ## Understanding Size & Energy & Matter

That's only partially true. In physics, we have something called a Planck Particle, whose Compton wavelength and Schwarzschild radius are equal, and is roughly the size of a planck length. So theoretically speaking, we can have particles which may be equal to a planck length.
4. ## Requirements to become a New Dimension

I find it hard to imagine living in an electron, if they are truly pointlike. This means they have no dimensions... though... some theories out there treat it with a classical radius... if it had one, this would not be a new dimension, it would just be made up of your normal radial dimensions.
5. ## Determining wavelengths of macroscopic objects?

That's right. Even you have a wavelength, but it is very small. So it still exists... very technically speaking, you have a wave function which extends way past the milkyway. All macroscopic objects have wave functions, but as I said, they are too small to be visible.
6. ## A forgotten theory of mass

I'll be honest. I don't know because I have not studied these equations for it. If I come across one, which I am looking into as we speak, I will be sure to tell you of one. Are you aware of any technique in which the Larmor equation accounts for the mass of any particle? As far as my memory recollects, the Larmor equation is $\omega = \gamma B_0$ Or do you speak of Larmors formula even? That would make more sense because it has been spoken about in the work, very early on? (I called it Larmor's equation, but it can be a bit confusing as different authors call it by different names.)
7. ## Determining wavelengths of macroscopic objects?

Compton's wavelength? You can derive it by dividing through $Mc^2$ into $\hbar c = GM^2$. Photon's can never be at rest , however, as I understand the wavelnegth the energy of a photon can be low enough to have it's wavelength match any particle who is at rest near rest. So the wavelength may be seen perhaps, as the energy of the wave of a particle at near rest which may fit the energy of a photon whose energy is small enough.
8. ## Forces and Energy

The forces get their energy from the fields which describe them. Gravitational fields for instance, is due to a gravitational energy. Electromagnetic fields store energy as well, as much as the weak and strong nuclear forces. The energy source then is the fields, in which quanta move in.
9. ## Requirements to become a New Dimension

If you have dimensions, X,Y and Z, it does not matter how much you cut these up to make a meter, a yard ect - they still belong to the known dimensions of space. If you where speaking about a dimesnions which was unseen because it was curled up so small, then you'd have a theory akin to string theory, but from what I am reading, this is not what you are saying.

13. ## Requirements to become a New Dimension

Yes. But I will add, if there really are an infinite amount of universes (which I don't believe there is any isomorphic to our own), then you can expect even the most radical of universes existing with many dimensions. Theories like string theory, might be purporting to existences outside our own universe.
14. ## Requirements to become a New Dimension

A pre-requisite to have another dimension, would be a degree of freedom. If you have the necessary space, volume, or whatever you choose, you can create a dimension from it. As far as I am aware, no other requirement is needed.
15. ## Why can't scientists link Einsteins theory of relativity with quantum theory?

Good to point out, that being incapable of unifying two theories may not necessarily mean they inherently incompatible. It may be a point of how people are attempting to unify the theories. Every attempt so far has proven difficult - but on the whole does not mean the two theories cannot be unified. It's quite an unrealistic approach however. Don't get me wrong, many scientists like Leonard Susskind would bet their life that the world is made of strings... the theory can't convince many however that there really does exist as many dimensions it purports to. Start proving these dimensions exist, all several more of them, and I'm in... otherwise, string theory seems far-fetched.
×