Jump to content

THE HOLE’S “FOOT-PRINT”, GO BACK IN TIME! EXISTS ANY RELIABLE DETECTOR WATCHING THIS PHENOMENA?


Kramer
 Share

Recommended Posts

Conservation of energy/momentum, color,charge,Lepton number,baryon,flavor,isospin. These rules govern what reactions can occur and how particles decay into lower energy particles. Decays that don't follow these rules do not occur.

 

That's exactly reverse. Particles do what they are doing since ever. And we're creating theories that are describing their interactions. Including conservations.

If there is observed decay that we thought cannot occur, there is violation of conservation, and following consternation of scientific community..

Like with f.e. Lepton number conservation.

Edited by Sensei
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

That's exactly reverse. Particles do what they are doing since ever. And we're creating theories that are describing their interactions. Including conservations.

If there is observed decay that we thought cannot occur, there is violation of conservation, and following consternation of scientific community..

Like with f.e. Lepton number conservation.

 

Are you claiming that there are decays that violate these conservation laws?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Strange

Sorry, I have no idea what that means. Do you want to try again. What is popping up from nowhere? What is a "pra-dad"?

Sure you understand. And about popping up, that is a nothing----some kind of a universe, or hundred of them?

When a scientist wanted to write a popular book about the Higgs boson, he wanted to call it "The Goddamn Particle" because it was proving so had to find. His publisher thought that might offend people and changed it to "The God Particle". Which has to be one of the stupidest decisions of all time.
---- That’s goddamn publishers are always too greedy, but I think the authors not less.

It was first observed in the 19th century. Einstein provided the mathematical description in 1905 (and got the Nobel Prize for it).

Perhaps you should read Einstein's 1905 paper?

(I don't know what your first language is, but if it is German, then you could read the original.)
---- Thanks for your precision. But Sensei corrects both of us. A contest between two know ledged people and a lay-man. Now I am out of this contest of precision.

I haven’t read the Einstein paper and you have triggered my curiosity about his mathematical description. Is it about discovery that light has particular nature, that those particles of light he named "photons", that energy of those photons depends not by amplitude but by frequency? Or is about the structure of this particle Photon, and how
this structure may divided in two other particles called electron and positron, only when energy of photon is equal energy of particles created by there on? I don’t know what kind of math has in his paper Einstein except the final extract : h*f = 2*me*C^2.
If you know something more detailed please illuminate me. Because the discovery of Einstein is superb, but it opened a big gap for scientist to explain how this happens that energy transform in mass and vice versa.
And I think, this gap is not filled till now even though scientists managed to use His discovery with high success for creating arms and current energy.

I'm not sure what you mean by "in reality". Photons are small "packets" (quanta) of electromagnetic radiation with a specific frequency and energy. Electrons, well, they are electrons.

If you think that this is enough and excessive knowledge, let leave in steady where it is. But when scientist made statement that electron is a point without dimension, and I see the simulation of the electron from experimentations as three shine blots, who, do you think, I must believe?

 

Sensei
Nope. It's in 1887. That's in page in link I gave! You didn't read?

--- I admit, didn’t read. Because the important was not in precision of date of discovery, but if is an old or new one.

Of course.

If you have container with substance, and bring it close (or turn on device) radiate it with well know particles, and substance will be split. You know that it's result of radiation..

If you would have source of strong neutrinos turned on/off (like nuclear/fusion reactor) or with controllable direction of beam of neutrinos and split would be occurring after beam pass through substance, then you would have prove it's cause of neutrinos.

Well, it happens. That's how neutrinos detector works.

f.e.

Cl-37 + Ve + 0.814 MeV -> Ar-37 + e-

http://en.wikipedia....utrino_detector

Neutrino must have energy > 0.814 MeV otherwise detector is not working. It's quite a lot. The most of neutrinos from the Sun are in range 0... 0.42 MeV from proton-proton
Thanks for explanation. My question about doubt between the role of photons or neutrinos in disintegration or vice versa, short in reactions, was by my lack of knowledge that exists detectors, high perfected, for perceiving neutrinos in exact their energy.
Only for curiosity, if is not too complicated, how is Princip of work of detectors for anti neutrinos?

It's either measured, and calculated:
Thanks for information.

Creation of Deuterium:
p+ + p+ -> D+ + e+ + Ve + 0.42 MeV
938.272 MeV + 938.272 MeV = 1875.61 MeV + 0.510999 + 0.42 MeV

Split of Deuterium:
D+ + 2.22 MeV -> p+ + n0fusions.

One question about the above equation of creation of deuterium: We know that +p +p repel each either. So the left hand of equation lack something, any kind of energy that will force protons to mingle and to make work the process. But this put in doubt all the process even though equation is perfect about amounts of energies. Any answer?

Make experiments that will prove it.
You always suggest me for experiments. But I have not this possibility. I enjoy and trust experiment as facts in side of common sense.
In previous you displayed the experiment of attraction of drops of water by electrostatic field of stick. I wanted to ask: was water saline or desalinated (pureH2O)? As I know desalinated water is used in some kind of electric breakers as cooler and insulator. I was curious to know if drops of desalinated water react toward electrostatic field the same as saline .
As for spatial dimensions of “photon” I am sure, not I a lay man, but even an expert as you doubt to be able to find experimentally. Or I am wrong?

Swanson
Nobody trashes them? I can tell you don't actually read the literature. And whether they are "fantastic" or not is not measured by your understanding.

----- I don’t “sell measures” for others people, I let this honor for experts like you. But nobody has the right to put in doubt my rights to express my opinion about everybody and whatever, yes -- by my understanding.

So, if you are asking questions everything is OK, but if you are insisting that you have a new model and don't actually have a model or evidence, then you must quit the thread, or it will be done for you.
=== I asked and I read all the answers. I am more confused than before. What is ‘hole’? is it an electron, a proton, a positron, an anti proton ,absence of whatever of them? What is the meaning of moving back in time, is it about a real movement, or a mathematics’ one. Exist any detector instrument that detect in act, “the movement back in time”?
The answers were unclear, obfuscated, as always superficial, with for all known, scientific statements that now are nothing else but jargon. Nothing new.
The debate deviates in direction of specifics, particularities, about how and why. And this is okay, normal, even is linked with other issues. Are they are ‘answers’ or ‘questioners’, nobody wants them to be sheep, but debaters.
If you are eager to lock this thread go ahead.

Sensei
Please. Not again, Swansont. If you will be locking every thread he makes, he won't learn anything. That's counter productive. He just must start reading links we're giving him..
--- Why? I admit that I participate in the forum of speculation, to speculate with my controversial hypothesis, that have posted till now in whatever thread. About everything that I consider dubious, weird, irrational, transcendent, immaterial, mystified, I will try to find the opposite. I don’t complain that nobody support my idea.

Sensei don’t be my mediator.

mass.
Mordred

The Higgs was called the God particle because it was a critical piece of evidence to validate the standard model. As well as explaining much on how quarks and gluons gain
Is it like God, to solve problems?

To truly understand why certain terms are used, in particle physics and electrodynamics one has to study the math. There is numerous conservation rules that must be obeyed. Most people aren't aware of many of them.
I would like to know what conditions the existence of conservation rules. Why they appears. I don’t disregard their existence. But what cause them to be what they are.

Conservation of energy/momentum, color,charge,Lepton number,baryon,flavor,isospin. These rules govern what reactions can occur and how particles decay into lower energy particles. Decays that don't follow these rules do not occur.

--- See the post of Sensei below as a rebut. As for me, I have a lot of lack of knowledge about conservations laws. But with this a lot of questions, among which the main: what cause them to be conservation law. For example electric charges: Even when they do not exist, scientist would say -- no they exist because so says the conservation law: not exist is equal zero, but zero is equal +e + - e. Voila, from nothing we have something - two electric charges.
Mordred ----I think that each of your sentences in this post may be a particular thread. And we may discus a lot about each of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

That's exactly reverse. Particles do what they are doing since ever. And we're creating theories that are describing their interactions. Including conservations.

If there is observed decay that we thought cannot occur, there is violation of conservation, and following consternation of scientific community..

Like with f.e. Lepton number conservation.

Please post an example of Lepton number violation seeing as you specified that conservation rule.

To the OP. No the Higgs is not like God lol it was a pop media term that kind of stuck. Pop media is like that sometimes.

 

 

Thankfully now that the Higgs has been found its rarely referenced in those terms now.

There's an adage in particle physics that which is not forbidden is mandated. Particles decay unless there's some rule that forbids it.

Reading this I see Sensei point. Didn't catch it at first read

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Are you claiming that there are decays that violate these conservation laws?

 

Experiments dictates what theories we make, not theories dictates what particles do.

We make conservation rules basing on observations how particles behave.

Please post an example of Lepton number violation seeing as you specified that conservation rule.

Google "lepton number conservation violation"

https://www.google.pl/#q=lepton+number+conservation+violation

Isn't double beta decay neutrinoless example of violation of Lepton number?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_beta_decay#Neutrinoless_double_beta_decay

IMHO it is.

On the left of equation we have L=0 for unstable isotope prior decay, on the right of equation we have 2 electrons, thus L=+2, and 0 anti-neutrinos carrying -2 L..

Edited by Sensei
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I already agreed with your first. However I'm still curious which specific example of the Lepton violation.

 

Let's do as you say Google it I'll post the first article. Non wiki that I see.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.4097

 

This article doesn't state the conservation of Lepton number is invalid. It states our current standard model of particle physics cannot explain how to maintain Lepton conservation, implying the need for further mediator particles.

 

In these cases violations means we are missing an interaction to maintain the conservation of Lepton number.

 

so what's your point in that example. We already suspect our standard model isn't complete. That doesn't mean the conservation of Lepton rules is invalid.

 

can you post an example that invalidates the conservation of Lepton numbers?

 

As stated I agree with your first statement.

 

However I'm not going to pour over the internet looking for the violation your spefically thinking of.

 

In most cases its simply indicating there is something missing to fully explain the decay.

 

 

This is also one of the reasons Higgs research is so important as it may hold the clue in double beta decay

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9901215v1

http://arxiv.org/abs/1302.0672v2

Edited by Mordred
Link to comment
Share on other sites

--- I admit, didnt read. Because the important was not in precision of date of discovery, but if is an old or new one.

We're giving links with material to read them by you..

Not to ignore them.

 

One question about the above equation of creation of deuterium: We know that +p +p repel each either. So the left hand of equation lack something, any kind of energy that will force protons to mingle and to make work the process. But this put in doubt all the process even though equation is perfect about amounts of energies. Any answer?

That's why neutral clouds of Hydrogen doesn't fuse.

They need pressure and temperature (energy).

First to ionize, second to accelerate to overcome Coulomb's barrier.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulomb_barrier

IIRC it's couple keV for Hydrogen.

 

You always suggest me for experiments. But I have not this possibility. I enjoy and trust experiment as facts in side of common sense.

These kind of experiments with photons are cheap. Few hundred dollars.

Anyone can make your own laser, not to mention buy it, or remove from old not used CD/DVD recorder..

 

To experiment with f.e. spectral lines, there is needed source of high voltage f.e. Cockcroft-Walton generator ($30 for 40 kV)

Cost of spectrum tube/piece $17

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Hydrogen-Spectrum-Tube-Spectral-Lines-Analysis-Physics-Spectrology-Optics-/330997834410

(not to mention anyone can make by yourself filling glass tube with gas you want)

 

Please don't tell me you don't have $50..

(I know what would be the next question after running discharge tubes - why they change color after bringing to them magnets.. :) )

 

In previous you displayed the experiment of attraction of drops of water by electrostatic field of stick. I wanted to ask: was water saline or desalinated (pureH2O)? As I know desalinated water is used in some kind of electric breakers as cooler and insulator. I was curious to know if drops of desalinated water react toward electrostatic field the same as saline .

As for spatial dimensions of photon I am sure, not I a lay man, but even an expert as you doubt to be able to find experimentally. Or I am wrong?

Buy bottle of distilled water,

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Distilled-Water-1-Litre-1000ml-/140875936814(7 ukp)

or Graham condenser, conical flask and silicon pipes

post-100882-0-23750200-1422857047.jpeg

and distill water by yourself.

Make hole in bottle, fill by distilled water, let water flow freely.

Charge stick, and bring close to water drops.

Repeat with salt water, and tap water.

Record everything on video (on tripod, to be able to estimate bending of water) for later review and comparison between them.

And that would be your first science experiment.

 

ps. Distilled water is used in these devices because tap/salt water would damage them with time (see limescale in pots in kitchen)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure you understand. And about popping up, that is a nothing----some kind of a universe, or hundred of them?

 

So this is about the crazy idea you have made up that the universe appeared from nothing? Do you have any evidence for that?

 

(I still don't know what a "pra-dad" is though...)

 

---- Thanks for your precision. But Sensei corrects both of us. A contest between two know ledged people and a lay-man.

 

We both agreed. Sensei just gave the exact date.

 

 

I haven’t read the Einstein paper and you have triggered my curiosity about his mathematical description. Is it about discovery that light has particular nature, that those particles of light he named "photons", that energy of those photons depends not by amplitude but by frequency? Or is about the structure of this particle Photon,

 

It is about how the photoelectric shows that light must consist of "quanta" (the name photon was invented much later). There is no structure to photons.

 

If you think that this is enough and excessive knowledge, let leave in steady where it is. But when scientist made statement that electron is a point without dimension, and I see the simulation of the electron from experimentations as three shine blots, who, do you think, I must believe?

 

You can "believe" whatever you want. On the other hand, you could study and learn what the scientists mean by that.

 

 

 

 

=== I asked and I read all the answers. I am more confused than before. What is ‘hole’? is it an electron, a proton, a positron, an anti proton ,absence of whatever of them?

 

A hole is the absence of an electron in a crystal lattice.

 

What is the meaning of moving back in time, is it about a real movement, or a mathematics’ one. Exist any detector instrument that detect in act, “the movement back in time”?

 

It is just a description of a symmetry; like saying that a left glove is a reflection of a right glove. No one thinks that a left glove is really a reflection and no one thinks anti-particles really go back in time.

 

I would like to know what conditions the existence of conservation rules. Why they appears. I don’t disregard their existence. But what cause them to be what they are.

 

They are all a result of symmetries. Every conservation law is a related to a specific symmetry. We are back to that again - it seems that symmetry is a really fundamental aspect of reality.

 

For example, the fact that physical systems behave the same at all times and in all places leads to the conservation of energy and momentum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I havent read the Einstein paper and you have triggered my curiosity about his mathematical description. Is it about discovery that light has particular nature, that those particles of light he named "photons", that energy of those photons depends not by amplitude but by frequency? Or is about the structure of this particle Photon, and how

this structure may divided in two other particles called electron and positron, only when energy of photon is equal energy of particles created by there on? I dont know what kind of math has in his paper Einstein except the final extract : h*f = 2*me*C^2.

You're mixing Photoelectric effect, with Pair production and Compton Effect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton_scattering

 

Comparison of various photon-atom interactions:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Experiments dictates what theories we make, not theories dictates what particles do.

We make conservation rules basing on observations how particles behave.

 

Obviously. You seemed to be saying that those theories we wrong though. I guess I don't understand what you are saying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Mordred

To the OP. No the Higgs is not like God lol it was a pop media term that kind of stuck. Pop media is like that sometimes.
---- Okay.


Thankfully now that the Higgs has been found its rarely referenced in those terms now.
---- Are you sure the main problem of Standard is solved? Are you sure the Higgs is able to create all the mass, hence gravity? Isn’t strange that a particle of field create particle of mass, when we see in every day experience, that it is mass that create field of gravity, it is electric charge that create all kind of electric and magnetic fields.
What about a statement that for solving problem of creation of mass, needs an accelerator with immense dimension?

Sensei
We're giving links with material to read them by you..
Not to ignore them.

---- Now from the role of mediator, this is a role of teacher, mentor? Thanks for the links, but what I read is my will.

That's why neutral clouds of Hydrogen doesn't fuse.
They need pressure and temperature (energy).
First to ionize, second to accelerate to overcome Coulomb's barrier.
http://en.wikipedia....Coulomb_barrier
IIRC it's couple keV for Hydrogen.

----- When I posted my doubt about the validity of your equation, I make it to attire your attention that, I think, it is not so simple. I think (let nobody care about) that reactions where have transformation of energy with mass, and vice versa in nucleons, participate another kind of carriers of energy too: neutrinos. Disregarding the role of this kind of carriers, bring the need for invention of surrogate kind of actors.

These kind of experiments with photons are cheap. Few hundred dollars.
--- Don’t try to persuade me in this direction. I can’t.
Strange

It is about how the photoelectric shows that light must consist of "quanta" (the name photon was invented much later). There is no structure to photons.

----Well. I think that there is.

You can "believe" whatever you want. On the other hand, you could study and learn what the scientists mean by that.
----The experimenters, aren’t they in rang of scientist? Aren’t valid simulations?

A hole is the absence of an electron in a crystal lattice.
--- If this is so simple I borrow some electrons to fill the holes if there is a deficit of them.

It is just a description of a symmetry; like saying that a left glove is a reflection of a right glove. No one thinks that a left glove is really a reflection and no one thinks anti-particles really go back in time.
---- All right then.

They are all a result of symmetries. Every conservation law is a related to a specific symmetry. We are back to that again - it seems that symmetry is a really fundamental aspect of reality.
---- Only refused to be in main reality: -Sqrt(G) with + Sqrt(G). That’s strange.

 

For example, the fact that physical systems behave the same at all times and in all places leads to the conservation of energy and momentum.

---- Only not in moment of creation. We go from zero to…… zero?

Sensei


You're mixing Photoelectric effect, with Pair production and Compton Effect.


Comparison of various photon-atom interactions:

----- I don’t mix things. I know what is photoelectric, Pair production, and Compton effect. They have all a main actor: electromagnetic wave. What I can’t find is: how they
having the same nature, act differently, and how this interaction happens in fact.
Example: moment before is E.M.W., moment after is electron –positron. Isn’t it strange?
If you know how and why happens between moments, please give me the clue. Let the clue be a speculation.
If not, I have the right for own speculation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Higgs isn't responsible for all mass. It is responsible for mass in

fundamental particles such as elementary fermions (including electrons and quarks) and the massive W and Z gauge bosons.

 

You should really look over the links and materials were providing.

Will the Higgs finalize the standard model. Probably not, were continuously discovering new questions and in some cases new particles. It's a step in our understanding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Mordred
The Higgs isn't responsible for all mass. It is responsible for mass in
fundamental particles such as elementary fermions (including electrons and quarks) and the massive W and Z gauge bosons.

---- Aren’t electrons and protons-neutrons the main factors of overall mass? Which other?
If you say that W and Z gauge bosons, are factor of mass, I would prefer more reliable their products of disintegration, --- the same I may say for Higgs boson.
You should really look over the links and materials were providing.
Will the Higgs finalize the standard model. Probably not, were continuously discovering new questions and in some cases new particles. It's a step in our understanding.

---- Sure no. Because the “finalize”, I think (who care?), is far – far away, near Plank area of energies. If scientist will continue to try this futile creation of bosons till extreme, even I am sure it is impossible, theoretically they may find boson of “unique particle”, this structure of two “unique sub particles”.
----------------------------------
Opening this thread I hoppened that may find any clue, about my idea of intertwines of solid matter particles with solid antimatter particles, in this weirdness of “holes”. I don’t say -- it is a delusion. I continue ( who care?) to be hesitant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok let's look at a proton.

 

Proton has mass

 

1.67262178 × 10^-27 kilograms

or 938.272 MEV/c^2

 

Made up of 2 up and 1 Down quark.

 

Up quark mass roughly 2.3 Mev/c^2

Down quark mass roughly 4.8 Mev/c^2

 

Add those up 9.4 Mev/c^2

 

9.4/938*100=1%.

 

The majority of the mass of the proton is the strong nuclear force.

 

Not it's constituent components.

 

http://www.fnal.gov/pub/today/archive/archive_2012/today12-01-13_NutshellMassReadMore.html

The strong nuclear force is mediated by gluons. Experiments have limitted gluons to mass less than 0.0002 eV/c^2.

The above is rest mass, that same proton can gain inertial mass via e=mc^2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Mordred
Ok let's look at a proton.

Proton has mass

1.67262178 × 10^-27 kilograms

----- Right.

or 938.272 MEV/c^2
----- No or! “If”-- transformed in photon.

Made up of 2 up and 1 Down quark.

Up quark mass roughly 2.3 Mev/c^2
Down quark mass roughly 4.8 Mev/c^2

----- Disputable. Now I am sure this will anger staff of the site. But if you want to discus in the equal term, I have reason to rebut:

-- Why “quarks”, as particle (if) of pure “mass”, are evaluated in MeV/C^2, and not in Kg. Please don’t tell me that it is made for to put those in the same unity. This if you want to make balance of matter (mass --- energy) via Einstein.use both kind of unities.

Add those up 9.4 Mev/c^2

9.4/938*100=1%.

---- So mass is only 1% and 99% is:


The majority of the mass of the proton is the strong nuclear force.

---- Mass --- equal force?? Because is it strong? What when is it weak?

Not it's constituent components.
---- Hem…. Seems that constituents are “the smallest cog of the wheel”.

http://www.fnal.gov/...ssReadMore.html
The strong nuclear force is mediated by gluons. Experiments have limitted gluons to mass less than 0.0002 eV/c^2.
The above is rest mass, that same proton can gain inertial mass via e=mc^2

---- Very clouded. Gluons with mass less 0.0002eV/C^2 ! What kind of beast is gluon? Is a particle of mass? is a particle of energy? Or both---like mesons? If they interact between quarks, in what way? With electromagnetic action, gravity action, or ??? Is it firm between quarks, or move around them? With what velocity? In what distance? Hold apart quarks, or attract them?
----- And: quarks, of all kind, gluons, and other particles, have they been identified experimentally as entity, (in the real meaning of particle), or are they invented mathematically, and identified, (as ridiculed them an humorist) as “a hump” in any kind of ….gram.
And plus those, there must be added particle (or particles) of Higgs.
--- Don’t you see, a little complicated this painting?

If you wish to change the rules, you must first understand the rules.
----The road of understanding a rule, begin with doubt about validity of rule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

-- Why quarks, as particle (if) of pure mass, are evaluated in MeV/C^2, and not in Kg.

[math]\frac{MeV}{c^2}[/math] is simply kg multiplied by two physical constants...

 

What is equation for power?

 

P = I * U

 

1 W = 1 A * 1 V

 

What is equation for I?

 

I = Q/t

 

so

 

P = Q/t * U

 

so

 

P*t = Q*U

 

so

 

E = Q*U

 

1 J = 1 C * 1 V

 

Then apply knowledge about elementary charge e = 1.602*10^-19 C

 

1.602*10^-19 J = 1.602*10^-19 C * 1 V

 

And you have definition of electron volt.

 

MeV is 1 million electron volts.

 

938.272046 * 10^6 * 1.602*10^-19 / 299792458^2 = 1.6726*10^-27 kg

Edited by Sensei
Link to comment
Share on other sites

or 938.272 MEV/c^2

----- No or! “If”-- transformed in photon.

 

-- Why “quarks”, as particle (if) of pure “mass”, are evaluated in MeV/C^2, and not in Kg. Please don’t tell me that it is made for to put those in the same unity. This if you want to make balance of matter (mass --- energy) via Einstein

 

This has nothing to do with mass-energy equivalence (well, only indirectly).

 

You can measure mass (of anything) in kg, pounds, eV/c2 (often abbreviated to eV) or any other appropriate unit. For example, I weigh about 3x1037 eV/c2 (and I am not a photon).

 

Really, when you are this lacking in basic knowledge it makes it very hard to explain even quite simple concepts. You really need to make an effort to learn the basics before casting doubt on things that you don't yet understand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You might want to study basic physics a bit better. Your questions above indicate the need for review.

 

This might help

 

 

http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/

 

Several free textbooks there

Please don't take offense , we simply cannot teach you an entire course in physics and the questions above indicate numerous gaps in your understanding. Far too many to cover properly by questions and answers as per a forum basis.

 

One of your questions above indicates that you don't understand the relationship between force and energy.

 

As such I highly recommend reading the feyman lectures materials. It will greatly increase your understanding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Sensei. Strange. Mordred.

Your triple bounce show me that:

or you are fooled by my post about unity of mass and energy,

or you have found a cause to offend me and to show your scientific megalomania, with very cheap demonstration.
You know very well that I have quite enough knowledge in physic to push you in corner, with my simple questions, even though only with logic, only with elementary knowledge in physic.
You know very well that my question was not about equivalence of all kind of standard of measures, which I am sure know better than you.

My question was to show that change of systems of measures, doesn’t change concept of physic. Only made them more flexible to operate….. and fool people about the importance of physics concepts : mass ?, energy? , particles? fields?, Dimocrites? Plato?
But if you, with this trick of equivalence, put in the ‘pen sheep’ together with sheep , goats, and want to fool me that has not importance because they are the same, I will answer: you have cataract in your eyes.
Who of you boasters know the mechanism of transformation of mass mater in mass-less matter, and vice verse? What made you think that this has not importance?
My question was about importance that modern science of physic gave toward electromagnetic phenomena, and in this manner downgraded the importance of gravity in modern physic. It is about “incompleteness” of quanta.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

or you have found a cause to offend me and to show your scientific megalomania, with very cheap demonstration.

 

No one is trying to offend you. But if you really don't understand the units that can be used to measure mass, then you do need to learn some basic physics.

 

You know very well that my question was not about equivalence of all kind of standard of measures, which I am sure know better than you.

My question was to show that change of systems of measures, doesn’t change concept of physic.

 

Of course changing the units of measurement doesn't change the underlying physics. No one thinks it does.

 

My question was about importance that modern science of physic gave toward electromagnetic phenomena, and in this manner downgraded the importance of gravity in modern physic.

 

I don't know why you think that electromagnetic phenomena are considered to be more important than gravity. Many of the big unanswered questions are related to general relativity (i.e. gravity).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Strange
No one is trying to offend you. But if you really don't understand the units that can be used to measure mass, then you do need to learn some basic physics.

----- When you say that your “weigh is about 3x1037 eV/c2 (and I am not a photon)”. you made me laugh, and don’t take this as an offense: too skinny for a male, but too elegant for a female.

That you are not a photon, for this I am sure: you don’t bounce a meter up the earth not to gets high with C velocity. Because in used from you, your weight by the means of energy in “eV/c^2”, you are trying to say that mass and gravity are secondary, they may exist and “created “ only via energy. This is a trying to patch the quantum.


Of course changing the units of measurement doesn't change the underlying physics. No one thinks it does.
---- I am not sure if this is your conviction, or mainstream’s.

I don't know why you think that electromagnetic phenomena are considered to be more important than gravity. Many of the big unanswered questions are related to general relativity (i.e. gravity).
---- Don’t take for offence, but I think you are too naïve, or play naivety. If it is my first supposition, I will not be amazed if you will tell me that your weight is (h*7.254*10^51Hz) /c^2. ---- If is the second supposition, you play with me for fun, and I with you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because in used from you, your weight by the means of energy in “eV/c^2”, you are trying to say that mass and gravity are secondary, they may exist and “created “ only via energy. This is a trying to patch the quantum.

 

What are you talking about. I am not saying anything about mass or gravity being secondary, I am not saying anything about energy. I am not saying anything about "quantum". I am just showing that you can express mass in any appropriate units, with no change in meaning.

 

Of course changing the units of measurement doesn't change the underlying physics. No one thinks it does.

---- I am not sure if this is your conviction, or mainstream’s.

 

It is just blindingly obvious to anyone with a basic education.

 

Physics didn't change because people stopped using feet and pounds and moved to centimetres and grams (CGS). And then it didn't change again when they moved to metres and kilograms (MKS).

 

If it is my first supposition, I will not be amazed if you will tell me that your weight is (h*7.254*10^51Hz) /c^2.

 

You could express my weight or mass that way as well. Or pounds. Or stones. Or fothers. Or tons. Or grams. Or fotmals. Or hundredweight. Or Troy ounces. Or grains. Or sacks. Or slugs. Or ...

 

It doesn't change the meaning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

----- When you say that your weigh is about 3x1037 eV/c2 (and I am not a photon). you made me laugh, and dont take this as an offense: too skinny for a male, but too elegant for a female.

That you are not a photon, for this I am sure: you dont bounce a meter up the earth not to gets high with C velocity. Because in used from you, your weight by the means of energy in eV/c^2, you are trying to say that mass and gravity are secondary, they may exist and created only via energy. This is a trying to patch the quantum.

OMG..

 

eV/c^2 is UNIT OF MASS.

Equivalent to 1.78*10^-36 kg

 

Of course changing the units of measurement doesn't change the underlying physics. No one thinks it does.

---- I am not sure if this is your conviction, or mainstreams.

It's basic that anybody learn in primary school..

 

1.5 km is 1 mile, isn't?

 

One can express speed of light in miles/s, other one can in km/s, third can in m/s, forth can in km/h and so on so on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 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.