MajinVegeta

Massless particles? Does that mean that a particle is just made up of energy?

Truth Behold! You're right! we can 'see' 4d objects. But see, in what sense?

I read about the Lorenz trans. and I didn't quite study them as much as I would have liked. How do you apply it to particles and the sort? fafalone: I was discussing E=mc^2 on another forum, and my interpretation of mass turning into energy when traveling at c^2 was correct. Do you have a different answer?

Well, my reasoning (which excluded Chrenkov radiation) was on the premise that when a particle travels faster than light, it...well E=mc2; it turns into energy. What I was forgetting was that it looses energy and as it looses more energy, it goes faster. That's the key; the particle would emit Chrenkov radiation, which I believe is blue shifted(?). ??? no comprehendo.

Time is a spacial demension, so we don't see 4D objects, such as a 4 demensional cup. Well, when something moves, it is creating an event, thus moving through time. Time is the forth demension and is spacial. Further, it is defined as the increase of entropy. And it has coordinates that tell when a something existed. What do you mean by law ?

The most important point, Radical Edward, is that if electrons did travel at c+, then, we wouldn't be able to detect them in the first place.

that is not possible because if the "outside" was all antimatter, the the particles that make up the universe will collide with the antimatter, and would basically blow up the universe. Even then, it is still not possible because antimatter is such a general term. Antimatter just describes matter that collides, and annihaltes other particles. Example: the antimatter of a photon is a fermion. If they are put togther in an encampased area, they will collide and annihilate each other. A fermion possibly won't even collide and annihalte a hydrogen particle.

That would not make sense. For one, electrons are classified as leptons. Leptons only travel at c. I could say more, but it would be pointless as the aforementioned is sufficient.

Just because the universe is flat does not mean that the universe is flat. In fact, a flat universe would, I believe (IOW, help fafalone!), allow c+ travel which is a highly paradoxical issue. Science specifies our perception of the universe. Or, more philosophically, the behavior of reality but not reality itself (as someone dilligently pointed out on another forum). Your physical perception of the universe is essentially the same as anyone elses. The only way you can make people view the universe differently is by creating a new, logical way of describing the universe, that was missed by other scientists. Furthermore, "in the eyes of the beholder" is usually used to describe beauty and beauty is undefined. Basically, "in the eyes of the beholder" doesn't generally apply to the universe. That is, although people will view the universe differently from others, our basic perception of the behavior of reality, of the universe is the same. Have you personally experienced experimentation with atoms? Assuming your answer is no, you immediately create a paradox. Seeing is not believing in this case, but not in the case of theoretical physics? (rhetorical)

Yes, they have infinitely small mass. Are you having trouble comprehending infinity? I could explain it quite conceptually (with a hint of math) if you like. What's the difference between a "regular" black hole, and a schwartzchild black hole? Don't they all emit schwartzchild radiation?

Yeah, like in Zeno's paradox?

No, there is nothing at all that actually can travel faster than light. Black holes are an example: their escape velocity is c+(from the event horizon, that is) and there aren't particles that come straight out of the EH. could particles travel faster than light at a quantum level? that is, at Planck's Length?

Are you sure the math presented to you implied that new universes would be created? That would mean there is an "outside" to this universe, and that this universe is really not infinite in size, but has an infinite boundary. Maybe what you may have misconstrued was actually talking about open time loops? this is very interesting, none the less.

What is an operator? What is its purpose? Is the Hamiltonian operator one of many operators? What makes it different?

The computer, should it have a sense of logic? It would only formulate POSSIBLE functions, right? It certainly wouldn't predict someone 'building' a wormhole out of a finger nail or something ludicrous.

Hi! *waves* I don't understand the use of the hamiltonian constant. is "p" poise or momentum?

What causes them to collide? Do the alpha particles they emit classify them as nuclear particles?

That would violate the first law of thermodynamics. Each time you go to the past, you create a new history, so you can't quite "gather" yourself. and going back in time is paradoxical.

Why do antiparticles annihilate each other?

Ahh, very interesting. So virtual particles are high energy particles, right? They do need a lot of energy to travel at near superluminal speeds. What exactly is a virtual particle though? Someone on another forum said that they did not exist.

it would have been considered ONE of the ultimate speeds.

Really??!! cool! tell me more, if you can!

I said that to avoid saying "how do virtual particles escape the escape velocity of a black hole?" But, there is a slight descrepency with the question, as you can see. Vitrual particles only appear to escape the escape velocity (is there a synnonym for "escape"??) of a black hole. So is there a particular point were the particles can escape?

Because, up to now, traveling faster than light is paradoxical. See the first post on this thread. Also, you should consider the fact that everything is relative.

I have an idea it will involve vector coordinates, division of some sort, and major time coordinate things. Maybe fafalone might know?