Sharapovaphan Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 e = mc2 is not true at the quantum level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 e = mc2 is not true at the quantum level. How do you mean that? In terms of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharapovaphan Posted May 30, 2011 Author Share Posted May 30, 2011 How do you mean that? In terms of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle? Can you go into that a little? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 Can you go into that a little? I'm wondering what your basis is for saying that E=mc^2 is not true at the quantum level. Are you referring to the HUP or something else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharapovaphan Posted May 30, 2011 Author Share Posted May 30, 2011 Can you go into that a little? Are you referring to maximally entangling a particle with a quantum memory? I should have said were you referring to maximally entangling a particle with a quantum memory? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharapovaphan Posted May 31, 2011 Author Share Posted May 31, 2011 I'm wondering what your basis is for saying that E=mc^2 is not true at the quantum level. Are you referring to the HUP or something else? I'm sorry. Sometimes I'm a little slow, but yes, in terms of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (HUP). To be able to measure incompatible variables like position and momentum by using two particles to determine the status of one, however imprecise (infinitely more precise than previously predicted), seems to overcome Heisenberg at the quantum level... Think event horizon! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imatfaal Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 I thought the HUP was pretty sacrosanct - no matter how you try to get around it you will always run into another instance of it (ie its mathematically axiomatic). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mississippichem Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 I thought the HUP was pretty sacrosanct - no matter how you try to get around it you will always run into another instance of it (ie its mathematically axiomatic). It is. You are correct I'm sorry. Sometimes I'm a little slow, but yes, in terms of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (HUP). To be able to measure incompatible variables like position and momentum by using two particles to determine the status of one, however imprecise (infinitely more precise than previously predicted), seems to overcome Heisenberg at the quantum level... Think event horizon! Huh? No, the HUP is really only an issue at the quantum level. There is no way around it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrRocket Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 e = mc2 is not true at the quantum level. Boy, are the particle physicists and quantum field theory folks in for a surprise ! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharapovaphan Posted May 31, 2011 Author Share Posted May 31, 2011 Boy, are the particle physicists and quantum field theory folks in for a surprise ! Gravimotion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrRocket Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 Gravimotion. Rubbish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharapovaphan Posted May 31, 2011 Author Share Posted May 31, 2011 Rubbish LOL... What if they don't find Higgs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Light Storm Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 e = mc2 is not true at the quantum level. I think what above posters where eluding to... What is your reason for creating this statement? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrRocket Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 LOL... What if they don't find Higgs? Then some revision of the Standard Model will be required and "Gravimotion" will still be rubbish. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharapovaphan Posted June 13, 2011 Author Share Posted June 13, 2011 Then some revision of the Standard Model will be required and "Gravimotion" will still be rubbish. Actually, I couldn't agree more. I'll try to explain my statement in a more mainstream manor. I'm working on that as we speak! I think what above posters where eluding to... What is your reason for creating this statement? I'm currently working on a more mainstream explanation for my statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 e = mc2 is not true at the quantum level. I'm currently working on a more mainstream explanation for my statement. ! Moderator Note Thank you. Especially in Speculations, it"s important to explain a strong statement so people don't misinterpret the context. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharapovaphan Posted September 23, 2011 Author Share Posted September 23, 2011 (edited) How about pair production before falling through the center of a black hole with one particle ending up in a hologram, preserving the information in the event horizon. That particle would have to exceed light speed. And now this" http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/22/cern-light-speed_n_977014.html?ncid=webmail10 Tachyonic neutrinos? Edited September 23, 2011 by Sharapovaphan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pincho Paxton Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 (edited) There are probably better ways to work out E to be honest. I think you could get it quite exact at the Quantum Level. You are within the mass physics so you do need to account for E without mass. It should be something like... E = pi*(R+r-d)²*(d²+2dr-3r²+2dR+6rR-3R²)/(12d) Now remember that I can't do maths, so that's probably terrible. But I can describe it. E is the overlap of two particle areas. So above is the best I can do with my useless maths. And it probably doesn't even make sense.Anyway you couldn't get the particle sizes so its useless at the moment. Edited September 23, 2011 by Pincho Paxton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharapovaphan Posted September 27, 2011 Author Share Posted September 27, 2011 With pair production we have a particle and it's antiparticle (photon or neutral boson), with the antiparticle essentially being the mathematical equivalent of it's particle counterpart traveling back in time. Perhaps we are seeing this now as more than just a mathematical anomaly! If the tachyonic nature of this event is verified and the results stand, the standard model doesn't necessarily take a hit here at all. It simply means that things we thought impossible become possible. However, the very nature of quantum mechanics already lent itself to this principle, and should heretofore be considered self-evident. Every possible outcome does occur... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pincho Paxton Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 (edited) With pair production we have a particle and it's antiparticle (photon or neutral boson), with the antiparticle essentially being the mathematical equivalent of it's particle counterpart traveling back in time. Perhaps we are seeing this now as more than just a mathematical anomaly! If the tachyonic nature of this event is verified and the results stand, the standard model doesn't necessarily take a hit here at all. It simply means that things we thought impossible become possible. However, the very nature of quantum mechanics already lent itself to this principle, and should heretofore be considered self-evident. Every possible outcome does occur... I think that time travel is made up.. sci-fi. We travel through a substance, and that substance can squash to become thicker, then thinner, and that can affect light, and clocks. It is the change from thicker to thinner that gives an illusion that something odd is happening. But water expands into ice, then ice shrinks, and some substances switch around a few times. Also hot, can be forced to cold with lasers. There are switches in quantum physics, but time is just a switch of pressure, and flow. Being as clocks require energy to work, and electrons will also switch around under pressure, all you are seeing is the result of pressure around materials that create electrons. And you will see similar things happen to photons. Evidently Neutrinos switch from one flavour to another, they must be right on the edge of change, so their barriers are easier to get through. The speed of sound is 343.2 metres per second, so it is the same for us if we were already travelling at 343.1 metres per second. Edited September 27, 2011 by Pincho Paxton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharapovaphan Posted September 27, 2011 Author Share Posted September 27, 2011 I think that time travel is made up.. sci-fi. We travel through a substance, and that substance can squash to become thicker, then thinner, and that can affect light, and clocks. It is the change from thicker to thinner that gives an illusion that something odd is happening. But water expands into ice, then ice shrinks, and some substances switch around a few times. Also hot, can be forced to cold with lasers. There are switches in quantum physics, but time is just a switch of pressure, and flow. Being as clocks require energy to work, and electrons will also switch around under pressure, all you are seeing is the result of pressure around materials that create electrons. And you will see similar things happen to photons. Evidently Neutrinos switch from one flavour to another, they must be right on the edge of change, so their barriers are easier to get through. It would take infinite energy to accelerate infinite mass. If that were to occur clocks WOULD RUN BACKWARDS. Are you saying that this is a physical illusion? Because it sure isn't a mathematical illusion. How do you correlate the two? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pincho Paxton Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 (edited) It would take infinite energy to accelerate infinite mass. If that were to occur clocks WOULD RUN BACKWARDS. Are you saying that this is a physical illusion? Because it sure isn't a mathematical illusion. How do you correlate the two? You squash mass to negative mass. The barrier I was talking about. Edited September 27, 2011 by Pincho Paxton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharapovaphan Posted September 27, 2011 Author Share Posted September 27, 2011 A photon is never at rest therefore E=MC^2 does not apply. A neutrino does have mass therefore a rest frame. Negative mass wouldn't be a barrier at all (Lorentz transformation). Wouldn't quite the opposite be true? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pincho Paxton Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 (edited) A photon is never at rest therefore E=MC^2 does not apply. A neutrino does have mass therefore a rest frame. Negative mass wouldn't be a barrier at all (Lorentz transformation). Wouldn't quite the opposite be true? It's a particle transformation, to implode more or less to turn inside out. It's a barrier all right.Otherwise there would be visible anti-matter, and black holes all over the place. But luckily they are nicely tucked inside matter. Edited September 27, 2011 by Pincho Paxton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharapovaphan Posted September 28, 2011 Author Share Posted September 28, 2011 (edited) Remember that electrons in a medium absorb protons and then re-emit them. Photons unlike neutrinos, that have no charge, do not actually pass through. It seems to me that you are saying that the barrier should be the speed of light. Clocks are static at LS. Pass BEYOND that barrier with infinite energy, and clocks have no choice but to run backwards screwing up causality. I really don't see anyway around this. And Don't forget the Schwarzschild radius, and inward and outward trajectories. In a non-rotating black hole light can escape a photon sphere barrier. What is your concept of clocks running backwards? What is actually happening? You know at this point one can get real crazy and say that breaking the LS barrier bounces you into another universe and another timeline. After all, Hawking has used the infinite universes concept to explain information loss in black holes! But I won't go there! Wait! I just did! Edited September 28, 2011 by Sharapovaphan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now