Jump to content

Holographic Universe Hijack (from Quantum Entanglement ?)


Itoero
 Share

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, Handy andy said:

I personally find it interesting because it disagrees with what some people posted on another thread.

It might disagree with what you think they said ...

13 minutes ago, Handy andy said:

Theoretical Photons can turn into very low energy axioms, if I am reading it right.

The axions must have the same energy as the photons. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Handy andy said:

The eyewitnesses may have reported the event to scientists, the explosion was estimated 5 miles up, a lot of people far away could have seen it. Some eyewitnesses reported being blown of their feet, would they be close enough. LMGTFY https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunguska_event

None of that supports what you claimed — no slow-moving object, no "meteorological observations of very high level electrical activity" (it was sunny, according to the eyewitnesses), no actual observation of an explosion, since the event was too bright to look at.

33 minutes ago, Handy andy said:

 

I agree I am talented, but with misinformation and straw arguments posted all over the forum, what are we to think.

The following link may be interesting to interested and itoero ref particle creation in space, I personally find it interesting because it disagrees with what some people posted on another thread. Theoretical Photons can turn into very low energy axioms, if I am reading it right.

https://phys.org/news/2017-09-exchanges-identity-deep-space.html?utm_source=nwletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=daily-nwletter

 

Axions are hypothetical, and would be created from the conversion of the photons. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎7‎-‎9‎-‎2017 at 6:06 PM, swansont said:

Relativistic mass is unnecessary. It's not used in many of the physics equations that we have, and using it will give you the wrong answer. It's a hack developed by rearranging an equation and ignoring the assumptions that went into that equation, which is often a recipe for disaster, for both calculation and concept.

 

On ‎7‎-‎9‎-‎2017 at 6:14 PM, Strange said:

This is a good article on how the concept of "relativistic mass" came about, why it is used, why it can cause confusion and therefore why many people think it shouldn't be used: http://www.phys.ncku.edu.tw/mirrors/physicsfaq_old/Relativity/SR/mass.html

 

 

The concept of relativistic mass and “Einstein’s most famous equation E = mc2 " were quite common in old textbooks. So why should we challenge it? If such renowned experts in the field as Tolman, Born, and Fock in the past and Penrose and Rindler today find the concept of relativistic mass useful, why not to follow the motto “All true believers break their eggs at the convenient end” , instead of entering in an endless and arid dispute between Big-Endians and Little-Endians?

The answer is simple. Modern physics offers a picture of reality that is completely different from the classical Newtonian picture. It is impossible to master this kind of reality if you try to put it in a Procrustean bed of Newtonian concepts.

V. A. Fock once remarked that “physics is essentially a simple science. The main problem in it is to understand which symbol means what”. As we have seen above, the meaning of the symbol m in Newton’s ~F = m~a is more profound than the primary Newtonian “measure of inertia.” Unfortunately, modern education ignores the twentieth century’s achievements in deciphering this symbol and bases its exposition on classical Newtonian physics as it was understood at the end of the nineteenth century, with only fragmentary and eclectic inclusions from modern physics.

After all, relativistic mass, if properly used, can even offer interesting insights in hyperbolic geometry.

Contrary to popular belief, it seems Einstein himself never used E = mc2 in the context of the equivalence of energy and mass — only E0 = mc2, that is, equivalence of the rest energy and the invariant mass. It may seem tempting to use this fact as evidence against velocity-dependent relativistic mass. However, in our opinion, this fact is completely irrelevant in the context of the present article where we appeal not to Einstein’s authority but to the logic of special relativity.

General relativity provides another drastic change in our concept of mass, deserving its own story. It is true that the Newtonian concept of gravitational mass can be relativistically generalized in some simple situations. For example, if a heavy object with mass M moves at relativistic velocity past to a test particle initially at rest with a large enough impact parameter, it induces a change in the test particle’s transverse velocity corresponding to the gravitational mass of the moving body, γ(1+β2)M, not γM . Again, this fact should not be used as an argument against relativistic mass γM. Instead we should be aware of the dramatic changes that general relativity requires of our Newtonian intuition. It turns out that it is impossible to give a general definition of a system’s total mass in general relativity. Even for isolated systems, which produce asymptotically flat spacetimes, two reasonable definitions of the total mass can be envisaged, related to the Arnowitt-Deser-Misner and Bondi energy-momentum tensors at spatial infinity, respectively . We do not pursue these subtle matters here any further; again, the concept of mass in general relativity deserves its own story.

It depends on the system but you IMO have to calculate/measure relativistic mass to calculate the exact  total mass.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1103.6281.pdf

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is not clear what in the above you are quoting and what are you own words but...

23 minutes ago, Itoero said:

It depends on the system but you IMO have to calculate/measure relativistic mass to calculate the exact  total mass.

This is a circular argument: "you have to use relativistic mass if you want to calculate rest mass + inertial mass"

On the other hand, if you don't use relativistic mass, then there is only rest mass and so the above issue doesn't arise.

Edited by Strange
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎03‎/‎09‎/‎2017 at 0:02 PM, Handy andy said:

The expansion of space took with it all matter at a very high temperature, and as it cooled it formed into the heavier elements. This Coalesced due to gravity into what we have today, and space is still expanding between galaxies. (except things like the Andromeda galaxy, and a handful of others which appear to be coming this way)

 

 

On ‎03‎/‎09‎/‎2017 at 0:04 PM, Strange said:

Just a detail: only hydrogen and helium (and a little bit of lithium) were formed this way. All the heavier elements were formed later in stars.

Am I right in thinking the original matter in the universe, appeared out of an expanding space, then coalesced into stars and possibly black holes before exploding more dense material throughout the universe.?

The original matter which formed after the expansion of space was hydrogen and helium and a little bit of lithium this is all made up of subatomic particles, which would have been entangled pairs. These entangled pairs would consist of both virtual particles and real particles, quarks, fermions. The energy of these entangled pairs MAY have been greater than the none-entangled equivalent pair of particles. (Swanson)

Energy can not be destroyed, what happens to the additional energy of a entangled particle pair when entanglement is broken? Does this result in low energy photons or radiation.? theoretical axioms perhaps? what energy level do axioms have?

Virtual particles are known to behave more like real particles the longer they survive, can virtual particles in the stillness of space at or near 2.75K become real particles under any circumstance, perhaps through some Feynman type interaction.

Am I right in thinking a wormhole is more like the absence of space between two particles, and a black hole is a very dense object, which creates sufficient gravitational distortion to bend light back into it. ie a blackhole has nothing to do with quantum entanglement or theoretical wormholes.

Can entangled particles appear at the opposite side of the universe, or do they need to appear adjacent to each other.?

Edited by interested
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, interested said:

 

Am I right in thinking the original matter in the universe, appeared out of an expanding space, then coalesced into stars and possibly black holes before exploding more dense material throughout the universe.?

The original matter which formed after the expansion of space was hydrogen and helium and a little bit of lithium this is all made up of subatomic particles, which would have been entangled pairs. These entangled pairs would consist of both virtual particles and real particles, quarks, fermions. The energy of these entangled pairs MAY have been greater than the none-entangled equivalent pair of particles. (Swanson)

That to ME seems a fair summary, this link might interest you 

  •  
 
geordief

The Big Bang Theory, Expansion/Inflation plus "Explosion"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, interested said:


Am I right in thinking the original matter in the universe, appeared out of an expanding space, then coalesced into stars and possibly black holes before exploding more dense material throughout the universe.?

Pretty much. Depending how you define the word "matter" you could say it was always there in a different form (initially as a quark-gluon plasma).

And the implication that black holes explode (they don't - apart from really tiny ones, and there is no evidence that such things exist).

Quote

The original matter which formed after the expansion of space was hydrogen and helium and a little bit of lithium this is all made up of subatomic particles, which would have been entangled pairs.

Once they formed atoms, they would no longer be entangled.

1 hour ago, interested said:

Virtual particles are known to behave more like real particles the longer they survive, can virtual particles in the stillness of space at or near 2.75K become real particles under any circumstance, perhaps through some Feynman type interaction.

Not without the addition of energy from somewhere.

Quote

Am I right in thinking a wormhole is more like the absence of space between two particles, and a black hole is a very dense object, which creates sufficient gravitational distortion to bend light back into it. ie a blackhole has nothing to do with quantum entanglement or theoretical wormholes.

A wormhole is a theoretical prediction for certain types of black holes. The idea they might be connected with entanglement is purely speculative, at the moment. (Although fascinating.)

54 minutes ago, Handy andy said:

this link might interest you

Link doesn't seem to work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Strange said:

you could say it was always there in a different form (initially as a quark-gluon plasma).

Link doesn't seem to work.

Link fixed The Big Bang Theory, Expansion/Inflation plus "Explosion"

How does the initial quark gluon-plasma come into existence?

Could quarks and gluons appear out of an absence of space or perhaps with some interaction with quantum black holes ?

Can quarks and gluons form into hydrogen, if they are in close proximity to each other?

Helium is formed in the sun with heat by transforming Hydrogen into helium.

Do particle pairs need to appear adjacent to each other in three dimensional space, or could they be separated by a universe, but still be entangled, as asked by interested ? Space is expanding still, could the expansion of space between entangled particles drive them apart?

 

 

Edited by Handy andy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, interested said:

 The original matter which formed after the expansion of space was hydrogen and helium and a little bit of lithium this is all made up of subatomic particles, which would have been entangled pairs. These entangled pairs would consist of both virtual particles and real particles, quarks, fermions. The energy of these entangled pairs MAY have been greater than the none-entangled equivalent pair of particles. (Swanson)

You shouldn't take statements that apply to specific situations and try and apply them generally.

The correlation energy of entangled systems require they be part of a larger system of particles (e.g. a lattice). So not simply entangled pairs, and this likely does not apply to the early universe, where these larger systems didn't exist

1 hour ago, interested said:

 Can entangled particles appear at the opposite side of the universe, or do they need to appear adjacent to each other.?

You can't be able to distinguish between them with regard to the entangled property. So if where they appear is related to the entangled property, they must appear in the same place. For example, in parametric downconversion, the photons are emitted along the edge of a cone, and cones of the two photons are offset. It's only at the intersection that the photons are entangled, because at the other locations you could tell where the photon came from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Handy andy said:

Link fixed The Big Bang Theory, Expansion/Inflation plus "Explosion"

How does the initial quark gluon-plasma come into existence?

Could quarks and gluons appear out of an absence of space or perhaps with some interaction with quantum black holes ?

Can quarks and gluons form into hydrogen, if they are in close proximity to each other?

Helium is formed in the sun with heat by transforming Hydrogen into helium.

Do particle pairs need to appear adjacent to each other in three dimensional space, or could they be separated by a universe, but still be entangled, as asked by interested ? Space is expanding still, could the expansion of space between entangled particles drive them apart?

 

 

Answered my own question Yes quarks and gluons can form into protons and neutrons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark–gluon_plasma .

How does the initial quark gluon-plasma come into existence?

1 hour ago, Strange said:

 

 

Not without the addition of energy from somewhere.

Quantum mechanics allows, and indeed requires, temporary violations of conservation of energy, so one particle can become a pair of heavier particles (the so-called virtual particles), which quickly rejoin into the original particle as if they had never been there. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-virtual-particles-rea/ 

The Casimir effect apparently proves the existence of virtual particles.

Can temporary violations become permanent violations? Is that how the original quark gluon state of the universe happened before any bang?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Handy andy said:

How does the initial quark gluon-plasma come into existence?

We don't know. That is the earliest state that our current theories can take us. 

23 minutes ago, Handy andy said:

Can temporary violations become permanent violations?

Not without the addition of energy from somewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Strange said:

We don't know. That is the earliest state that our current theories can take us. 

Not without the addition of energy from somewhere.

What's this we pale face. :) When the information runs I find it difficult not to speculate or guess.

You say not without the addition of energy from somewhere. What would be the probability of multiple quantum particles appearing in space with different energy levels colliding and providing energy to make permanent particles over a very long time period, an eternity for example? 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Handy andy said:

You say not without the addition of energy from somewhere. What would be the probability of multiple quantum particles appearing in space with different energy levels colliding and providing energy to make permanent particles over a very long time period, an eternity for example? 

The average (or total) energy doesn't change. So, no.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Handy andy said:

What's this we pale face. :) When the information runs I find it difficult not to speculate or guess.

You say not without the addition of energy from somewhere. What would be the probability of multiple quantum particles appearing in space with different energy levels colliding and providing energy to make permanent particles over a very long time period, an eternity for example? 

 

 

When looking across an ocean of waves, occasionally waves interact producing momentary large stationery waves seemingly at random. When looking at the universe it is full of lots of hydrogen made up of quarks. The only sensible answer is to suggest that the quarks making up the hydrogen appeared from the vacuum, and combined with virtual particles are causing the expansion of space. 

Is it feasible the original matter came out of the vacuum (white hole) driven by a black hole and a worm hole, or is that completely barking mad.

  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎9‎-‎9‎-‎2017 at 4:09 PM, Strange said:

It is not clear what in the above you are quoting and what are you own words but...

This is a circular argument: "you have to use relativistic mass if you want to calculate rest mass + inertial mass"

On the other hand, if you don't use relativistic mass, then there is only rest mass and so the above issue doesn't arise.

Only the last sentence is mine, the only thing you reacted on...You have to measure relativistic mass because it's there. Do you know how difficult it is to measure the precise mass of certain systems? You should have a look to what GR says about mass...

-The wave particle duality is about Heisenberg's Uncertainty...so is invariant and relativistic mass. A wave has relativistic mass, if you measure it then you get invariant mass.

-The speedlimit of (rest)massless particles like a photon makes more sense if you understand relativistic mass. The kinetic energy of a photon is (relativistic) mass which  prevents photons from going faster then c. The mass of a photon is kinetic energy which prevents light from slowing down but also limits the speed.

-In the photoelectric effect, you transmit relativistic mass from photons to electrons.

-If you accelerate a mass then you increase the speed which increases the rest mass with relativistic mass. This increases total mass which increases the force you need to apply for the acceleration. F=m.a 

-Mass distorts space time. So a better understanding of the relation energy-mass is IMO necessary to find evidence for a quantum-gravity model.

It doesn't make sense not to use relativistic mass.

 

Edited by Itoero
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Itoero said:

-The wave particle duality is about Heisenberg's Uncertainty...so is invariant and relativistic mass. A wave has relativistic mass, if you measure it the you get invariant mass.

Citation needed. This sounds like made-up nonsense, but I'm sure you can provide a reference to prove me wrong.

Quote

The speedlimit of (rest)massless particles like a photon makes more sense if you understand relativistic mass. The kinetic energy of a photon is (relativistic) mass which  prevents photons from going faster then c. 

I can't see the logic of that. Please show this is appropriate mathematical detail.

Quote

-In the photoelectric effect, you transmit relativistic mass from photons to electrons.

No. The photons pass energy to the electrons. Of course, you can call all energy "relativistic mass" as a way of saying that you need the concept of relativistic mass. But that is, as I said, a circular argument. If you call it every, instead, then there is no need for relativistic mass.

8 minutes ago, Itoero said:

If you accelerate a mass then you increase the speed which increases the rest mass with relativistic mass. This increases total mass which increases the force you need to apply for the acceleration. F=m.a

This can be explained without relativistic mass though, just using the relativistic formula for acceleration.

11 minutes ago, Itoero said:

Mass distorts space time. So a better understanding of the relation energy-mass is IMO necessary to find evidence for a quantum-gravity model.

This is one area where the use of relativistic mass can cause confusion. (Rather like the question whether an object moving fast enough will turn into a black hole because its "mass" increases.) The gravitational effect of a moving object cannot be simply calculated from the relativistic mass because there are other terms in the stress-energy tensor which that doesn't account for.

And I can't see any connection to quantum gravity.

14 minutes ago, Itoero said:

It doesn't make sense not to use relativistic mass.

Many people find it helpful. Many people find it confusing. I have seen enough confusion to agree it should be avoided.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
On ‎12‎-‎9‎-‎2017 at 6:02 PM, Strange said:

Citation needed. This sounds like made-up nonsense, but I'm sure you can provide a reference to prove me wrong.

I don't make things up. This paper shows how wave-particle duality is quantum uncertainty. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1403.4687.pdf

 

On ‎12‎-‎9‎-‎2017 at 6:02 PM, Strange said:

I can't see the logic of that. Please show this is appropriate mathematical detail.

I'll explain it in a different way. F=m.a.  Acceleration(a) increases the speed and speed increases speed-dependent/relativistic mass(m) which increases the (F)force necessary.  The (F)force decides the speedlimit.(like c) The speedlimit depends on the invariant mass. c is the speedlimit for particles without rest mass or rest energy.

 

On ‎12‎-‎9‎-‎2017 at 6:02 PM, Strange said:

No. The photons pass energy to the electrons. Of course, you can call all energy "relativistic mass" as a way of saying that you need the concept of relativistic mass. But that is, as I said, a circular argument. If you call it every, instead, then there is no need for relativistic mass.

On ‎12‎-‎9‎-‎2017 at 5:47 PM, Itoero said:

If you accelerate a mass then you increase the speed which increases the rest mass with relativistic mass. This increases total mass which increases the force you need to apply for the acceleration. F=m.a

This can be explained without relativistic mass though, just using the relativistic formula for acceleration.

Yes, Energy is proportional to mass(E=mc²) but why would you not use 'relativistic mass'? It increases your understanding. The devaluation of 'relativistic mass' concerns a downgrade in physical knowledge.

 

On ‎12‎-‎9‎-‎2017 at 6:02 PM, Strange said:

Many people find it helpful. Many people find it confusing. I have seen enough confusion to agree it should be avoided.

Confusion....really??? Those masses in general relativity are a lot more complex. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_in_general_relativity#Types_of_mass_in_general_relativityBut you don't think they should be used because it confuses people? It's to complicated????

You can't measure the exact mass of open systems without relativistic mass.

Edited by Itoero
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Itoero said:

I don't make things up. This paper shows how wave-particle duality is quantum uncertainty. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1403.4687.pdf

Thank you.

But note that it doesn't say that wave-particle duality is related to uncertainty. It is wave-particle duality relations that are equivalent to uncertainty; for example, the relationship between interference viability and path distinguishability. Although, I was not aware of this, it isn't too surprising.

Quote

I'll explain it in a different way. F=m.a.  Acceleration(a) increases the speed and speed increases speed-dependent/relativistic mass(m) which increases the (F)force necessary.  The (F)force decides the speedlimit.(like c) The speedlimit depends on the invariant mass. c is the speedlimit for particles without rest mass or rest energy.

As you were talking about photons, I'm not sure how this is relevant.

(Incidentally, you can describe the above using only rest mass by using the relativistic equation for acceleration.)

Quote

Yes, Energy is proportional to mass(E=mc²) but why would you not use 'relativistic mass'? It increases your understanding. The devaluation of 'relativistic mass' concerns a downgrade in physical knowledge.

Many professional physicists and educators disagree. But many also find it helpful. It is certainly not a "downgrade of knowledge" as it is just a different way of describing the same thing.

Quote

Confusion....really??? Those masses in general relativity are a lot more complex. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_in_general_relativity#Types_of_mass_in_general_relativityBut you don't think they should be used because it confuses people? It's to complicated????

Confusing is not the same as complicated.

Quote

You can't measure the exact mass of open systems without relativistic mass.

Only if you define "exact mass" as including relativistic mass, so this is a circular argument.

Edited by Strange
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎27‎-‎9‎-‎2017 at 7:29 PM, Strange said:

Thank you.

But note that it doesn't say that wave-particle duality is related to uncertainty. It is wave-particle duality relations that are equivalent to uncertainty; for example, the relationship between interference viability and path distinguishability. Although, I was not aware of this, it isn't too surprising.

True but quantum non locality, second law of thermodynamics and quantum error correction are also linked with uncertainty. It seems that uncertainty induces non locality. It seems logic that quantum uncertainty is all over quantum mechanics..

This is a ' continuation' on that paper on wave particle duality:https://arxiv.org/pdf/1512.09081.pdf

quantum error correction:https://arxiv.org/pdf/1605.01420.pdf

quantum nonlocality: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1312.0080.pdf    https://arxiv.org/pdf/1004.2507.pdf

second law of thermodynamics: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1205.6894.pdf

 "It's possible to write equations that capture how much can be learned about pairs of properties that are affected by the uncertainty principle. Coles, Kaniewski and Wehner are experts in a form of such equations known as 'entropic uncertainty relations', and they discovered that all the maths previously used to describe wave-particle duality could be reformulated in terms of these relations."https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/12/141219085153.htm

On ‎27‎-‎9‎-‎2017 at 7:29 PM, Strange said:

As you were talking about photons, I'm not sure how this is relevant.

(Incidentally, you can describe the above using only rest mass by using the relativistic equation for acceleration.)

It doesn't matter which particle, you just greatly increase your understanding of F=m.a. The fact that massless particles have a speedlimit (c) makes sense if you understand the relation 'relativistic mass' <=> 'F=m.a'.

What is really the rest mass? It is impossible to "weigh" a stationary electron, and so all practical measurements must be carried out on moving electrons. The same is true with any other sub-atomic particle. For particles like photons or gluons the situation is even more problematic since the very concept of a stationary or "at rest" massless particle lacks meaning...you can't detect massless particles.

On ‎27‎-‎9‎-‎2017 at 7:29 PM, Strange said:

Many professional physicists and educators disagree. But many also find it helpful. It is certainly not a "downgrade of knowledge" as it is just a different way of describing the same thing.

Not really. Without relativistic mass, waves have no mass... you can't describe all properties of a wave without relativistic mass. The reason for this devaluation is because there is no red line in physics.

On ‎27‎-‎9‎-‎2017 at 7:29 PM, Strange said:

Confusing is not the same as complicated.

Then how does it confuse people? The fact that it can cause confusion should not be a valid argument.

 

On ‎27‎-‎9‎-‎2017 at 7:29 PM, Strange said:

Only if you define "exact mass" as including relativistic mass, so this is a circular argument.

No. Like I said before, you measure the mass of a particle through motion. Every mass you measure is in a sense relativistic. This implies an uncertainty. They created a multidimensional entangled state of a single photon and a trillion hot rubidium atoms....such entangled states are necessary for quantum computing. Yet if you don't calculate the relativistic mass then you can't calculate the mass of that system...

 

Edited by Itoero
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Itoero said:

Then how does it confuse people?

Well, I guess the obvious one is "if an object travels fast enough, will it run into black hole because its mass increases"

Quote

Yet if you don't calculate the relativistic mass then you can't calculate the mass of that system...

Nonsense. Don't confuse the fact that you like the concept of relativistic mass with its necessity. (See, I would it could confuse people.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Strange said:

Well, I guess the obvious one is "if an object travels fast enough, will it run into black hole because its mass increases"

You are kidding right? So basically, E=mc² is not correct?

20 hours ago, Strange said:

Nonsense. Don't confuse the fact that you like the concept of relativistic mass with its necessity. (See, I would it could confuse people.)

You deny scientific 'facts' and invent your own science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Itoero said:

You are kidding right? So basically, E=mc² is not correct?

That is such a strange non sequitur it barely even counts as a straw man?

why would you think such a thing?

But are you saying you think a fast moving object would turn into a black hole?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, swansont said:

It's being misapplied.

Why do you people never react on things that matter?

" It is impossible to "weigh" a stationary electron, and so all practical measurements must be carried out on moving electrons. The same is true with any other sub-atomic particle. For particles like photons or gluons the situation is even more problematic since the very concept of a stationary or "at rest" massless particle lacks meaning...you can't detect massless particles. " =>Do you deny this?

" A wave has relativistic mass, if you measure it the you get invariant mass." =>Do you deny this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Itoero said:

Why do you people never react on things that matter?

" It is impossible to "weigh" a stationary electron, and so all practical measurements must be carried out on moving electrons. The same is true with any other sub-atomic particle. For particles like photons or gluons the situation is even more problematic since the very concept of a stationary or "at rest" massless particle lacks meaning...you can't detect massless particles. " =>Do you deny this?

I can detect photons, which are massless, so yes, I deny this. 

When people put an electron in a Penning trap to find its mass, they can either do it in a regime where relativistic corrections can be ignored (too small to affect the answer) or use relativistic calculations.

18 minutes ago, Itoero said:

" A wave has relativistic mass, if you measure it the you get invariant mass." =>Do you deny this?

The second phrase of the sentence doesn't make sense.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.