gre

A proton, and an anti-proton will collide to release both of their mass-energies, and c^2 is just considered a conversion factor. But is it possible c^2 represents something, why not? For example, a velocity of an object (like a quark) times the velocity of something else (i.e. electron), or the centripetal acceleration (m/s^2) of something times a distance (m). Is it possible to break c^2 down into something else? How is it described in special relativity?

This is interesting, but exactly what you're asking about. http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=fCXZF3NiPIk and http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Zkox6niJ1Wc

I would say mass and gravity are proportional around planet (for example), but not time and gravity. Gravity might affect the 'rate of time', but I doubt at the center of the earth where there is no or very low gravity time doesn't exist. I think light travels through space/time not gravity/time. Are you staying gravity/time is space? Mass does form from hight energy photon collisions, but using words like "frozen clump" and "effect of time/gravity" isn't really standard, and probably requires lots and lots of math to make physicists understand what you are trying to say. You're a little too confident in this theory... I think you should start asking some questions before assuming you know answers.

I would think the mass density (+ space density) of the moving object increases in its reference frame, and the observer's mass density (+ space density) decreases from the moving objects perspective. The observer would just see a small dense object flying by, I think.

How fundamental is the Lorentz force? It it just considered a 'side effect' of electro-magnetic interaction or is it the other way around?

It might have something to do with the fractional hall effect and a filling factor of 1/2 (ratio of electrons to magnetic flux quanta). .. I'm still thinking about this. What are some atoms with no nuclear dipole moment?

Why can't space and time just be considered properties of matter (just like mass, gravity, etc.) If matter can't exist without time and 3D space, I'd bet time can't exist without matter or 3D space either.... If true, this seems to spell out that matter is the source for all time and visible space as well. Maybe time is a collective property (like gravity) that spreads out from the extreme density of black holes, and maybe time is just a "density" of space. For example, when an object accelerates towards the speed of light, doesn't the objects density increase from an observers prospective (+ time slows down)? But the "space" of the object contracts .. Isn't that how it works?

I think it might. Using the Bohr radius 5.29e-11 m , and 2.18e6 (m/s) as the ground state electron velocity, with the Lorentz force equation the ground state Lorentz force in hydrogen is right around 1.65e-7 N and (n=2) is half of that (unless I made a mistake)

Is it possible the Lorentz force regulates a the ground state in hydrogen.. If no, why not? Using the Bohr magneton it seems some atoms actually have pretty strong magnetic fields, which could have enough force to be a "ground state" energy source/regulator.

The SI units for electrical resistance are s^3 * A^2 / m^2 * kg and conductance has the exact opposite units (dimensions). Same with capacitance and elastance. What would you call the opposite of acceleration, s^2 / m .. This doesn't represent deceleration, but does it represent anything? Or Joules (energy) .. s^2 / kg * ms^2 .. I like the idea that nothing can exist without an opposite (inverse) , but I'm not sure if there is an opposite to Joules, etc.

Thanks.

I got a little off topic. But how does "V" in the Lorentz force apply to the hydrogen atom.... ? Don't magnetic fields accelerate or decelerate particles as they pass through?

When you apply F = q(v x B) to say the hydrogen atom.. What is the V, Since electrons don't actually fly around the proton?

Well, how is an electron, proton, or hydrogen atom's charge measured?

How is it known the proton and electron have equal charge magnitudes?

What about 'positive potentials' (i think it would be called or electro-negativity?) ... or positive charges, and magnetic fields from the atoms in the conductor.. This might just be part of having 'free' valance electrons. Does the color of the wire have anything to do with it? I always thought the more reflective a metal was the more free electrons it had (and the higher the conductivity), but Nichrome wire is about as reflective as silver, but the resistance is high. Thanks.

What factors contribute to electrical resistance and conductivity at the atomic level?

Spin just contributes to magnetic fields?

In a nutshell, I was just wondering how point particles such as electrons get their 3 dimensions in space, and if their "spin" had anything to do with it. What would an electron look like without spin?

Are electrons considered to be 2 dimensional within a single frame (i.e. their time was frozen) .. Also can an object in 2 spatial dimensions have mass? Thanks.

If you have a rocket ship (with unlimited power) that is composed of a specific material how fast would it have to accelerate to lose electrons (energy)? Could this be the same as the unruh effect?

Any thoughts on the above experiments?

How do physicists categorize forces such as coulombs, gravity, etc. that accumulate as the "group" of atoms increases (or density increases). Or is this just standard behavior of all forces (including strong, weak). Any thoughts? I guess it comes down to can strong and weak force exist outside of an atom's electron shell (edit: or proton, rather). Any ideas?

I like the idea that mass could be state of 'light' just like we have different states of matter (liquid, solid, gas). Where: Hadrons (quarks) are the most condensed state of energy (solid, 3D) Leptons (i.e. electrons) are considered the (liquid state, 2D) of energy/mass Bosons (i.e. photons) are the most energetic (gas state, 1D)

That makes more sense.