Any particle that exists has mass (it may be too small to measure but its there)
as without mass its not actually made of anything
anything made of nothing is a nul
Nuls can not be real objects
That is wrong. Unless you don't count photons and gluons, which wouldn't surprise me, as you dont't actually seem to know anything about the subject and I keep wishing an old forum function back. *sigh*
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
But that's the point, they didn't know what it did, or what it was, it was an entirely hypothetical construct which was devised in order to solve some of the issues that arise when attempting to reconcile special relativity and quantum gravity. It was the most likely of the available hypotheses, but it was nowhere near certain until they built CERN and got this 5-sigma result. Now we can move forward, and begin to discover how it works, by which mechanisms it interacts with other subatomic particles, and how to use that knowledge for our own benefit.
And things were exactly the same in the wake of the initial confirmation of special relativity, of quantum electrodynamics, of every major discovery ever made. They've just broken ground on the foundations, but you're already deriding them because you can't ride the elevator to the top floor.
We're talking about the mechanism by which all matter in the universe derives mass; you genuinely can't see the potential of increasing our understanding of such a phenomena?
in order:
they have been using it as a black box addition to equations.
SR has equal footing with LR both have been confirmed to function and apply. the difference is speed limits that LR doesn't have (among other things).
as devils advocate here, as i have been (it can be fun) increasing knowledge, is something to be respected, at the cost however...that's what i have an issue with. it wasn't something that required immediate attention, life threatening, or would doom the entire planet if it wasn't discovered. get the angle i'm coming from? that's not to say there aren't other budgeted forms of stupidity in various forms throughout the world labeled 'research'.
CERN is just one of the biggest. it all sounds great...'discover the building blocks of the universe'. if they hadn't already known >.>
there's a certain point if everything fits, even if one of those factors is unconfirmed, as long as it functions as intended or required go with it. it's when things don't add up you need to search.
what could have been truly discovered if that money had been pumped into euro's space program? into fusion R&D? alternative viable energy sources?
instead they have confirmation of a particle...no more black box because we know it's there now...
Well, according to what I read recently - a scientist wanted to write a book or journal article about the Higgs Boson, and wanted to title it "The ******n Particle", because it was so difficult to find. The editor or publisher or what not apparantly didn't like swear words and changed it to "god particle", without asking for consent of the author. Now it has that silly name.
It doesn't have anything to do with god or mystical stuff or anything like that. It's only meaning is that a theory that tried to explain why some elemental particles have mass and some don't has made an accurate prediction and is thus more likely to be true - and overall pretty much is another important confirmation of our theory on elemental particles and elemental forces.
Yes, that's what I was talking about when I replied to sollvax last time. Thank you.
in order:
they have been using it as a black box addition to equations.
SR has equal footing with LR both have been confirmed to function and apply. the difference is speed limits that LR doesn't have (among other things).
as devils advocate here, as i have been (it can be fun) increasing knowledge, is something to be respected, at the cost however...that's what i have an issue with. it wasn't something that required immediate attention, life threatening, or would doom the entire planet if it wasn't discovered. get the angle i'm coming from? that's not to say there aren't other budgeted forms of stupidity in various forms throughout the world labeled 'research'.
CERN is just one of the biggest. it all sounds great...'discover the building blocks of the universe'. if they hadn't already known >.>
there's a certain point if everything fits, even if one of those factors is unconfirmed, as long as it functions as intended or required go with it. it's when things don't add up you need to search.
what could have been truly discovered if that money had been pumped into euro's space program? into fusion R&D? alternative viable energy sources?
instead they have confirmation of a particle...no more black box because we know it's there now...
I don't know... we never will know now, will we? :P
photon, gauge boson, and gluon. massless. before you insult others you should make sure you have a secure footing.
Actually, I think my science encyclopedia (may have spelled that wrong, sorry) gives them a mass of Something E-Something (I don't remember the exact numbers, and I trust you know what E stands for... right?).
Should I go fetch it and give the precise numbers?
Edit: Oops, forgot to wrap the second part of your sentence in
tags.
Infinite possibilities have implications that could not be completely understood if you turned this entire universe into a giant supercomputer.
Yes, that's what I was talking about when I replied to sollvax last time. Thank you.
Actually, I think my science encyclopedia (may have spelled that wrong, sorry) gives them a mass of Something E-Something (I don't remember the exact numbers, and I trust you know what E stands for... right?).
Should I go fetch it and give the precise numbers?
Edit: Oops, forgot to wrap the second part of your sentence in tags
here's a logic conundrum for you, if a particle has mass, then it's affected by SR as it approaches the speed of light, mass continues to increase...now, how much energy would be required for a photon to match the speed of light and what then would be it's resulting mass at that point? reminder, mass/energy is considered to infinitely increase as the object approaches c.
now there could be a flaw with SR where photons are exempt from the rule, so even if they have negligible mass it's doesn't matter. but i haven't noticed any reports that photons are exhibiting the mass/energy they should be expected to have traveling at light speed. a case if you start with something you can increase that (mass) if you start with nothing you cannot increase that.
SR requires an object to have mass to be affected by it's mass/energy increase as light speed is approached. if the object has no mass, there is no increase.
Dr. Patricia Tanis ~ "Bacon is for sycophants and products of incest."
Donate Brains, zombies in Washington DC are starving.
here's a logic conundrum for you, if a particle has mass, then it's affected by SR as it approaches the speed of light, mass continues to increase...now, how much energy would be required for a photon to match the speed of light and what then would be it's resulting mass at that point? reminder, mass/energy is considered to infinitely increase as the object approaches c.
now there could be a flaw with SR where photons are exempt from the rule, so even if they have negligible mass it's doesn't matter. but i haven't noticed any reports that photons are exhibiting the mass/energy they should be expected to have traveling at light speed. a case if you start with something you can increase that (mass) if you start with nothing you cannot increase that.
SR requires an object to have mass to be affected by it's mass/energy increase as light speed is approached. if the object has no mass, there is no increase.
I don't have a clue as to what SR is supposed to mean anyway. But I'm going to get that book after all.
*several minutes later* Funny, it wasn't there. I could have sworn it also displayed the mass of quarks, protons, and stuff, but it doesn't even display that.
Edit: Hold on, I just realized... SR = Special Relativity, am I right?
Infinite possibilities have implications that could not be completely understood if you turned this entire universe into a giant supercomputer.
I don't have a clue as to what SR is supposed to mean anyway. But I'm going to get that book after all.
*several minutes later* Funny, it wasn't there. I could have sworn it also displayed the mass of quarks, protons, and stuff, but it doesn't even display that.
Edit: Hold on, I just realized... SR = Special Relativity, am I right?
yep
+10 chars
Dr. Patricia Tanis ~ "Bacon is for sycophants and products of incest."
Donate Brains, zombies in Washington DC are starving.
Space-time is affected by gravity, which is what causes the apparent "bending" of light.
I believe this is still one area where we have no definitive model - quantum mechanics has gravitons, while relativity theory has it as curving space time. Models that attempt to unify both actually go so far an describe all forces (electro-weak, electro-strong, gravity and electro-magnetic force) as curving of space time, but it requires a 10-dimensional spacetime instead of a 4-dimensional - and so far these theories haven't really predicted anything we could test. (IIRC, even the Higgs Boson is insufficient here, it is just another confirmation of our models for elemental particles).
Anyway - you don't need mass to be affected by gravity. You just need mass to cause your own gravity field.
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
it requires a 10-dimensional spacetime instead of a 4-dimensional - and so far these theories haven't really predicted anything we could test.
String Theory took quite a blow last year. Someone finally thought of a way to test one of the more popular variants of it, and the test came back negative. I haven't heard too much about it since then.
Actually, I think my science encyclopedia (may have spelled that wrong, sorry) gives them a mass of Something E-Something (I don't remember the exact numbers, and I trust you know what E stands for... right?).
From what I recall, it's not true mass, but "relativistic mass" (aka effective momentum) based on the effect light has on semiconductors (how many electrons it moves).
And the theorys are all equally valid (and if you listen to some of the REALLY drunk Quantum boys may all be right depending on who is looking at the particle)
But the fact is that gravity is shown to effect photons
as is air , water , glass
they can be bent , slowed down and even stopped
in someways the standing wave theory of light holds more water than the particulate theory
but the thing is they are probably BOTH wrong
Some of the worlds finest nutcases (sorry scientists) debate this constantly and can't agree
We who are after all slightly more sober simply can't grasp the concepts as loosely
I have often suspected it would all make a lot more sense If I were REALLY REALLY DRUNK
And the theorys are all equally valid (and if you listen to some of the REALLY drunk Quantum boys may all be right depending on who is looking at the particle)
In science, not all theories are equally valid. In fact, some are outright invalid, because they make predictions that are false, e.g. you test the prediction and the predicted event/measurement does not occur.
Any scientific theory that "holds water" needs to make predictions that we can check via experiments and measurements. And for it to be interesting to be adopted, it also requires it to make new predictions - if it just does what another theory does, it's only equivalent.
That's for an example a problem for the string theory - so far, it doesn't make any new predictions that we could check.
But Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity have made many predictions, and so far all that were tested were found correct. Which is why physicist have a high confidence that QM and GR are solid and useful theories.
Still, there are areas where QM and GR are in conflict - which means they are probably not the complete picture yet, and scientists are looking for a unifying theory of both - which has the requirement that the predictions it makes still fit all the predictions QM and GR made correctly.
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
Einstein himself said "My Theory will probably be disproven eventually , I look forward to reading the equation that disproves it"
Refering to the General theory
sadly he died before it happened and as an athiest did not believe in anything beyond
(some people claim he was a believer but thats unproven )
Ok, now you're hitting one of my pet peeves. "Just theory"? You've said that several times, and it's time to lay down the theory.
I say lay down the theory, because theory is a higher level than law. Theory does not become law upon confirmation, theory requires law to already be confirmed. The laws of gravity predates the theory of gravity by centuries, Newton revolutionized laws that had been largely taken for granted since Galileo, but was unable to establish a theoretical framework for why the laws were consistent. Likewise Darwin's theory never became law because the laws behind his theory were established years earlier, most notably by Lamarck, who's theoretical framework for it was hilariously wrong but still established the law of modification by descent quite soundly.
While we're at it, photons do not require mass to be a thing. Nothing does. A thing requires energy to be a thing. If photons have a mass, even if that mass is energy equivalent to less than one quanta (and therefore zero), due to relativistic correction their inertial mass must be infinite.
All particles - massive and massless - obey relativity, a single set of equations. But if we assume massless have mass, we must establish two sets of equations governing different two classes of particles. And since they all have mass, the distinction between those two classes is completely arbitrary, there is no observable trait to separate them, and no theoretical framework for why they do not obey a single set of rules.
They do not need mass to exert pressure - pressure is the transfer of energy on contact. Pressure only requires energy, not mass, and photons are mass.
Chemical energy , potential energy etc are all produced by the action or interaction or destruction or transformation of matter
Gravity is a property of matter as well
And the "guidelines of Gravity" are not a law they are more a rule of thumb
There are a very few "laws" in the cosmos that are set in stone (another form of MATTER)
and these include
1 Any object with existance has mass
2 Any object with mass can effect any other object with mass even if not measurably so
3 any object without mass is nul or a projection of a real object
4 the cosmos can not be of infinate size as this is mathmatically impossible
5 there is exactly 1 universe
you can dispute any of these
but you will be wrong
Scientists look for questions to fit the answers and answers to fit the questions
A good scientist accepts he knows less than his grandfather and more than his grandsons because there is an endless supply of questions and a limited supply of answers
Einstein himself said "My Theory will probably be disproven eventually , I look forward to reading the equation that disproves it"
Refering to the General theory
He was referring to a unified theory that would model both quantum and classical systems. He was not referring to his theory being proven wrong, but being surplanted by a more complete model.
sadly he died before it happened and as an athiest did not believe in anything beyond
(some people claim he was a believer but thats unproven )
He did not believe in anything after because he was an Orthodox Jew, and Jewish belief in an afterlife is limited, and didn't come around until Einstein was an adult.
He wrote extensively about himself as a Jew, as well. "I consider this the greatest day of my life. Before, I have always found something to regret in the Jewish soul, and that is the forgetfulness of its own people. Today, I have been made happy by the sight of the Jewish people learning to recognize themselves and to make themselves recognized as a force in the world." (after returning from his trip to Palestine), "For me the most beautiful thing is to be in contact with a few fine Jews?a few millennia of a civilized past do mean something after all. In my whole life I have never felt so Jewish as now." (referring to the many brilliant Jews fleeting Germany that he met), "All my life I have dealt with objective matters, hence I lack both the natural aptitude and the experience to deal properly with people and to exercise official function. I am the more distressed over these circumstances because my relationship with the Jewish people became my strongest human tie once I achieved complete clarity about our precarious position among the nations of the world." (upon turning down the presidency of Israel for feeling he had not done enough to help other Jews).
1 Any object with existance has mass
2 Any object with mass can effect any other object with mass even if not measurably so
3 any object without mass is nul or a projection of a real object
4 the cosmos can not be of infinate size as this is mathmatically impossible
5 there is exactly 1 universe
I know that list. You shortened number 4 and left out 6 and 7, but this is Henry Morris's work. A hydraulic engineer who's not even good at what he is educated in who writes extensively about biology, geology, chemistry, astronomy, and physics as part of an organization that intentionally deludes people for financial and political reasons.
I thought I was dealing with somebody who had a grade school understanding of classical mechanics and was trying to talk real physics with educated people. But now that I know you're working out of the YEC cookbook, I can see that you never entered this thread intending to discuss from an intellectually honest position.
I confess my knowledge of the Abrahamistic faiths is limited
(Islam , Judaism , Christianity)
So im not entirely sure what the Jewish afterlife belief currently is.
I would like to meet Einstein in the life to come as I am quite interested in hearing his views on the intercosmic universe (a theory that appeared after his death) and the recursive universe (a theory that I have never fully understood)
As a mind he ranks up there with Xeno and Apellion so he would be interesting to talk with..
of course if the higgs particle exists there is no life to come for any of us which would be disappointing
I know that list. You shortened number 4 and left out 6 and 7, but this is Henry Morris's work. A hydraulic engineer who's not even good at what he is educated in who writes extensively about biology, geology, chemistry, astronomy, and physics as part of an organization that intentionally deludes people for financial and political reasons.
never heard of him
the list as given is based on Sir Henry Jordans work (early 20th century)
His work was based on that of older thinkers (mostly roman)
if henry morris is claiming it as his own then he is a total fraud
organisations which do this (scientologists , cern , greenworld trust) should not be trusted
only people who are decently DEAD can be relied upon not to have an angle
I thought I was dealing with somebody who had a grade school understanding of classical mechanics and was trying to talk real physics with educated people
where as you are talking to someone with more than one degree and who is at least as educated as you are (just from a different angle)
. But now that I know you're working out of the YEC cookbook, I can see that you never entered this thread intending to discuss from an intellectually honest position.
if you were intellectually honest you would not be claiming to be intellectual at all
Science is about ignorance and questions
a GOOD scientist knows he knows little or nothing and strives to learn
a poor one thinks he knows everything and tries to teach
im not a scientist
My area of expertise is actually Engineering (the blowing stuff up sort mostly)
my secondary area is classical history and mythology
My cosmic view is older than yours but equally valid
100% aggree with everything you've stated, this is not a discovery with immedite use (as is the way with most discoveries), but it is indeed a huge breakthough in our understanding of the very fabric of the universe. I'm really looked forward to the theories that come from this discovery and possable applications.
100% disaggree with everything you've stated, I can only think that you've gone so far off track in this topic because the media have called it 'The God particle' and because of that you've linked it to religion. Eitherway, I'm completely perplexed by your view of the world.
a particle that makes illusionary objects seem solid disproves the universe
so to me it means NOTHING would be real
Ergo there is no possibility it can be real
this has led to one person mistaking me for a (I just looked him up) Young earth american creationist
which is DEEPLY funny
the cosmos is VERY old (older than the 6000 years this guy believes in for a start)
older than the so called "big bang"
and older than the concept of time itself
because it must have always existed or there was no "here" for a big bang to occur in
Now maybe I merely misunderstand the insanity put forward by the people at cern
but if thats the case then they need to make it clear that this "particle" is matter , has mass and is part of the physical cosmos
this has led to one person mistaking me for a (I just looked him up) Young earth american creationist
You quoted his arguments against quantum mechanics and uncertainty, in the order he numbers them, minus the two nonsequiters that tie it to biological evolution. And in fact, in your last post, you start right off with his argument against particle duality in your ridiculous string of logic.
the cosmos is VERY old (older than the 6000 years this guy believes in for a start)
older than the so called "big bang"
and older than the concept of time itself
because it must have always existed or there was no "here" for a big bang to occur in
This is a fundamental misunderstanding. It's common. It's one of Henry Morris's arguments against deep time, in fact - that the universe must be infinite in age for there to be a place for it to begin. Your previous claim that the universe cannot be infinitely large also sounds like his - there is, in fact, no mathematical reason that the universe could not be infinite, but Morris has contrived one. I bring it up, though, because you've already pointed out that there can be nothing outside the universe. That's not completely true, but close enough that the distinction isn't worth making. But now, you're ignoring that fact and requiring there to be someplace outside the universe to provide the "here" where it formed. Both cannot be true.
Before I explain why both cannot be true, you have actually made so many of Morris's mistakes - every one of your gradeschool misconceptions of science is something he's pushed as the truth - that if the man wasn't dead I'd think he finally learned to use the internet.
The big bang was not an explosion into emptiness. It was not an explosion at all. It was not a center out of which the universe expanded into emptiness, it was a singularity. Time does not exist in the singularity, space does not exist in the singularity, no mass, no light, none of the four fundamental forces can exist in a singularity, only energy in its most elementary form. Even heat requires a space of nonzero size before it can exist.
There was only the singularity, no empty space around it. The universe had (and still has) no edge, there is nothing around it, less than nothing because there is nowhere around it for nothing to be. The singularity did not require a "here" to expand into, because it was the only here - emtiness expanding into itself, not something expanding into emptiness. It is finite, but like the surface of a sphere has no boundary - a straight path ignoring all forces or obstacles will eventually return to its origin. There may be something other than the universe, but a multiverse would be something truly other, outside the closed system and casually separate from it, irrelevant to any discussion of this one's origin or demise.
You quoted his arguments against quantum mechanics and uncertainty, in the order he numbers them, minus the two nonsequiters that tie it to biological evolution. And in fact, in your last post, you start right off with his argument against particle duality in your ridiculous string of logic.
no HE Quoted MY argument (which is older than him by a LONG way)
Quote:
the cosmos is VERY old (older than the 6000 years this guy believes in for a start)
older than the so called "big bang"
and older than the concept of time itself
because it must have always existed or there was no "here" for a big bang to occur in
This is a fundamental misunderstanding. It's common. It's one of Henry Morris's arguments against deep time, in fact - that the universe must be infinite in age for there to be a place for it to begin. Your previous claim that the universe cannot be infinitely large also sounds like his - there is, in fact, no mathematical reason that the universe could not be infinite, but Morris has contrived one.
infinite universe and Finite matter = vac and nul (basic maths) any mass divided by infinite space = nul
infinite matter = solid object (again basic maths)
both impossible
this morris guy is what we call a "FRAUD"
he is misusing older information to make money
You have actually made so many of his mistakes - every one of your gradeschool misconceptions of science is something he's pushed as the truth - that if the man wasn't dead I'd think he finally learned to use the internet.
Grades school = you are an american unused to dealing with an Alpha mind (someone whi does not kiss the backside of the latest trend)
The Alpha mind is hard to change and hard to break
The big bang was not an explosion into emptiness.
some say it was
It was not an explosion at all. It was not a center out of which the universe expanded into emptiness, it was a singularity.
A "mass point "
which would exist in a location
Time does not exist in the singularity, space does not exist in the singularity, no mass, no light, none of the four fundamental forces can exist in a singularity, only energy in its most elementary form. Even heat requires a space of nonzero size before it can exist.
so there is no such thing
a nul can not become a positive or a negative its a nul
Time is NOT a force it is a concept
There was only the singularity, no empty space around it.
there would have to be
it would be a point mass (smaller than the current solar system) ERGO its in a space
The universe had (and still has) no edge, there is nothing around it, less than nothing because there is nowhere around it for nothing to be.
i bet you also believe in the easter bunny and true love?
Of course it has an edge its just a long way out
The singularity did not require a "here" to expand into, because it was the only here - emtiness expanding into itself, not something expanding into emptiness.
religion ??
In the begining was the word and the word was god etc
It is finite, but like the surface of a sphere has no boundary
-
it does you know
a Sphere has a surface and an inside
you can not see the outside from the inside perhaps but its there (also a sphere is an unlikely choice a ovate is more likely)
a straight path ignoring all forces or obstacles will eventually return to its origin.
fire a bullet inside a balloon it hits the outside and leaves
There may be something other than the universe, but a multiverse would be something truly other, outside the closed system and casually separate from it, irrelevant to any discussion of this one's origin or demise.
you can by definition only have ONE universe
it may have "subverse" or "interverse" spaces but they are all inside the ONE universe
(more than one universe is like owning TWO unique items which are identical )
now please do not compare me with some sad Dead religious flimflam man who wanted "donations"
Because GODS do not need a space ship
or a credit card number
no HE Quoted MY argument (which is older than him by a LONG way)
infinite universe and Finite matter = vac and nul (basic maths) any mass divided by infinite space = nul
infinite matter = solid object (again basic maths)
both impossible
now please do not compare me with some sad Dead religious flimflam man who wanted "donations"
Quote from The Creation Flood, published decades before you made your argument:
An infinite universe with finite matter is a vacuum with null density. Any mass divided by infinite space yields zero density. Indeed, infinite mass divided by infinite space also gives zero density, yet infinite matter necessitates a solid object encompassing the entire infinite universe. Both of these possibilities fly in the face of the most basic observation.
Word for word, at least until he goes off the deep end right after and says, "The mathematics are complex, but any radius much exceeding seven thousand light years will always yield either impossibly high or impossibly low densities."
Only, of course, if you ignore something called cardinality. One infinity is not always equal to another infinity.
A universe of infinite size with finite mass localized in a finite space is consistent with deep-sky observation and only breaks down at the background radiation - this model would predict no background. This universe would have an average density of zero, but a localized finite nonzero density.
A universe of infinite size evenly populated with matter throughout is actually more consistent, as it actually predicts a background radiation, just not in the form we detect, it predicts a background through the entire spectrum. This universe would have infinite size, infinite mass, but finite nonzero density, because countably infinite/uncountably infinite can yield an answer in the form of a real number.
Comments
as without mass its not actually made of anything
anything made of nothing is a nul
Nuls can not be real objects
this is why it is effected by GRAVITY
I can see why you chose your name
you have a powerful mind but it runs on rails
ALL objects must have mass to exist
in order:
they have been using it as a black box addition to equations.
SR has equal footing with LR both have been confirmed to function and apply. the difference is speed limits that LR doesn't have (among other things).
as devils advocate here, as i have been (it can be fun) increasing knowledge, is something to be respected, at the cost however...that's what i have an issue with. it wasn't something that required immediate attention, life threatening, or would doom the entire planet if it wasn't discovered. get the angle i'm coming from? that's not to say there aren't other budgeted forms of stupidity in various forms throughout the world labeled 'research'.
CERN is just one of the biggest. it all sounds great...'discover the building blocks of the universe'. if they hadn't already known >.>
there's a certain point if everything fits, even if one of those factors is unconfirmed, as long as it functions as intended or required go with it. it's when things don't add up you need to search.
what could have been truly discovered if that money had been pumped into euro's space program? into fusion R&D? alternative viable energy sources?
instead they have confirmation of a particle...no more black box because we know it's there now...
photon, gauge boson, and gluon. massless. before you insult others you should make sure you have a secure footing.
Donate Brains, zombies in Washington DC are starving.
Yes, that's what I was talking about when I replied to sollvax last time. Thank you.
I don't know... we never will know now, will we? :P
Actually, I think my science encyclopedia (may have spelled that wrong, sorry) gives them a mass of Something E-Something (I don't remember the exact numbers, and I trust you know what E stands for... right?).
Should I go fetch it and give the precise numbers?
Edit: Oops, forgot to wrap the second part of your sentence in
Infinite possibilities have implications that could not be completely understood if you turned this entire universe into a giant supercomputer.
Photons are not affected by gravity.
Space-time is affected by gravity, which is what causes the apparent "bending" of light.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC] "I weary of the chase. Wait for me. I shall be merciful and quick."
here's a logic conundrum for you, if a particle has mass, then it's affected by SR as it approaches the speed of light, mass continues to increase...now, how much energy would be required for a photon to match the speed of light and what then would be it's resulting mass at that point? reminder, mass/energy is considered to infinitely increase as the object approaches c.
now there could be a flaw with SR where photons are exempt from the rule, so even if they have negligible mass it's doesn't matter. but i haven't noticed any reports that photons are exhibiting the mass/energy they should be expected to have traveling at light speed. a case if you start with something you can increase that (mass) if you start with nothing you cannot increase that.
SR requires an object to have mass to be affected by it's mass/energy increase as light speed is approached. if the object has no mass, there is no increase.
Donate Brains, zombies in Washington DC are starving.
I don't have a clue as to what SR is supposed to mean anyway. But I'm going to get that book after all.
*several minutes later* Funny, it wasn't there. I could have sworn it also displayed the mass of quarks, protons, and stuff, but it doesn't even display that.
Edit: Hold on, I just realized... SR = Special Relativity, am I right?
Infinite possibilities have implications that could not be completely understood if you turned this entire universe into a giant supercomputer.
yep
+10 chars
Donate Brains, zombies in Washington DC are starving.
Anyway - you don't need mass to be affected by gravity. You just need mass to cause your own gravity field.
String Theory took quite a blow last year. Someone finally thought of a way to test one of the more popular variants of it, and the test came back negative. I haven't heard too much about it since then.
Sliders will never be the same now.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
HAVE mass and are particles
you can stream photons
you can also measure them
Ergo they are physical objects
From what I recall, it's not true mass, but "relativistic mass" (aka effective momentum) based on the effect light has on semiconductors (how many electrons it moves).
- - - -
Some "light" reading:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/photon_mass.html
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC] "I weary of the chase. Wait for me. I shall be merciful and quick."
And the theorys are all equally valid (and if you listen to some of the REALLY drunk Quantum boys may all be right depending on who is looking at the particle)
But the fact is that gravity is shown to effect photons
as is air , water , glass
they can be bent , slowed down and even stopped
in someways the standing wave theory of light holds more water than the particulate theory
but the thing is they are probably BOTH wrong
Some of the worlds finest nutcases (sorry scientists) debate this constantly and can't agree
We who are after all slightly more sober simply can't grasp the concepts as loosely
I have often suspected it would all make a lot more sense If I were REALLY REALLY DRUNK
Any scientific theory that "holds water" needs to make predictions that we can check via experiments and measurements. And for it to be interesting to be adopted, it also requires it to make new predictions - if it just does what another theory does, it's only equivalent.
That's for an example a problem for the string theory - so far, it doesn't make any new predictions that we could check.
But Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity have made many predictions, and so far all that were tested were found correct. Which is why physicist have a high confidence that QM and GR are solid and useful theories.
Still, there are areas where QM and GR are in conflict - which means they are probably not the complete picture yet, and scientists are looking for a unifying theory of both - which has the requirement that the predictions it makes still fit all the predictions QM and GR made correctly.
Refering to the General theory
sadly he died before it happened and as an athiest did not believe in anything beyond
(some people claim he was a believer but thats unproven )
I say lay down the theory, because theory is a higher level than law. Theory does not become law upon confirmation, theory requires law to already be confirmed. The laws of gravity predates the theory of gravity by centuries, Newton revolutionized laws that had been largely taken for granted since Galileo, but was unable to establish a theoretical framework for why the laws were consistent. Likewise Darwin's theory never became law because the laws behind his theory were established years earlier, most notably by Lamarck, who's theoretical framework for it was hilariously wrong but still established the law of modification by descent quite soundly.
While we're at it, photons do not require mass to be a thing. Nothing does. A thing requires energy to be a thing. If photons have a mass, even if that mass is energy equivalent to less than one quanta (and therefore zero), due to relativistic correction their inertial mass must be infinite.
All particles - massive and massless - obey relativity, a single set of equations. But if we assume massless have mass, we must establish two sets of equations governing different two classes of particles. And since they all have mass, the distinction between those two classes is completely arbitrary, there is no observable trait to separate them, and no theoretical framework for why they do not obey a single set of rules.
They do not need mass to exert pressure - pressure is the transfer of energy on contact. Pressure only requires energy, not mass, and photons are mass.
it does not exist without matter
Chemical energy , potential energy etc are all produced by the action or interaction or destruction or transformation of matter
Gravity is a property of matter as well
And the "guidelines of Gravity" are not a law they are more a rule of thumb
There are a very few "laws" in the cosmos that are set in stone (another form of MATTER)
and these include
1 Any object with existance has mass
2 Any object with mass can effect any other object with mass even if not measurably so
3 any object without mass is nul or a projection of a real object
4 the cosmos can not be of infinate size as this is mathmatically impossible
5 there is exactly 1 universe
you can dispute any of these
but you will be wrong
Scientists look for questions to fit the answers and answers to fit the questions
A good scientist accepts he knows less than his grandfather and more than his grandsons because there is an endless supply of questions and a limited supply of answers
He was referring to a unified theory that would model both quantum and classical systems. He was not referring to his theory being proven wrong, but being surplanted by a more complete model.
He did not believe in anything after because he was an Orthodox Jew, and Jewish belief in an afterlife is limited, and didn't come around until Einstein was an adult.
He wrote extensively about himself as a Jew, as well. "I consider this the greatest day of my life. Before, I have always found something to regret in the Jewish soul, and that is the forgetfulness of its own people. Today, I have been made happy by the sight of the Jewish people learning to recognize themselves and to make themselves recognized as a force in the world." (after returning from his trip to Palestine), "For me the most beautiful thing is to be in contact with a few fine Jews?a few millennia of a civilized past do mean something after all. In my whole life I have never felt so Jewish as now." (referring to the many brilliant Jews fleeting Germany that he met), "All my life I have dealt with objective matters, hence I lack both the natural aptitude and the experience to deal properly with people and to exercise official function. I am the more distressed over these circumstances because my relationship with the Jewish people became my strongest human tie once I achieved complete clarity about our precarious position among the nations of the world." (upon turning down the presidency of Israel for feeling he had not done enough to help other Jews).
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
I know that list. You shortened number 4 and left out 6 and 7, but this is Henry Morris's work. A hydraulic engineer who's not even good at what he is educated in who writes extensively about biology, geology, chemistry, astronomy, and physics as part of an organization that intentionally deludes people for financial and political reasons.
I thought I was dealing with somebody who had a grade school understanding of classical mechanics and was trying to talk real physics with educated people. But now that I know you're working out of the YEC cookbook, I can see that you never entered this thread intending to discuss from an intellectually honest position.
(Islam , Judaism , Christianity)
So im not entirely sure what the Jewish afterlife belief currently is.
I would like to meet Einstein in the life to come as I am quite interested in hearing his views on the intercosmic universe (a theory that appeared after his death) and the recursive universe (a theory that I have never fully understood)
As a mind he ranks up there with Xeno and Apellion so he would be interesting to talk with..
of course if the higgs particle exists there is no life to come for any of us which would be disappointing
if you were intellectually honest you would not be claiming to be intellectual at all
Science is about ignorance and questions
a GOOD scientist knows he knows little or nothing and strives to learn
a poor one thinks he knows everything and tries to teach
im not a scientist
My area of expertise is actually Engineering (the blowing stuff up sort mostly)
my secondary area is classical history and mythology
My cosmic view is older than yours but equally valid
100% aggree with everything you've stated, this is not a discovery with immedite use (as is the way with most discoveries), but it is indeed a huge breakthough in our understanding of the very fabric of the universe. I'm really looked forward to the theories that come from this discovery and possable applications.
100% disaggree with everything you've stated, I can only think that you've gone so far off track in this topic because the media have called it 'The God particle' and because of that you've linked it to religion. Eitherway, I'm completely perplexed by your view of the world.
so to me it means NOTHING would be real
Ergo there is no possibility it can be real
this has led to one person mistaking me for a (I just looked him up) Young earth american creationist
which is DEEPLY funny
the cosmos is VERY old (older than the 6000 years this guy believes in for a start)
older than the so called "big bang"
and older than the concept of time itself
because it must have always existed or there was no "here" for a big bang to occur in
Now maybe I merely misunderstand the insanity put forward by the people at cern
but if thats the case then they need to make it clear that this "particle" is matter , has mass and is part of the physical cosmos
in which case they need to stop poking it
You quoted his arguments against quantum mechanics and uncertainty, in the order he numbers them, minus the two nonsequiters that tie it to biological evolution. And in fact, in your last post, you start right off with his argument against particle duality in your ridiculous string of logic.
This is a fundamental misunderstanding. It's common. It's one of Henry Morris's arguments against deep time, in fact - that the universe must be infinite in age for there to be a place for it to begin. Your previous claim that the universe cannot be infinitely large also sounds like his - there is, in fact, no mathematical reason that the universe could not be infinite, but Morris has contrived one. I bring it up, though, because you've already pointed out that there can be nothing outside the universe. That's not completely true, but close enough that the distinction isn't worth making. But now, you're ignoring that fact and requiring there to be someplace outside the universe to provide the "here" where it formed. Both cannot be true.
Before I explain why both cannot be true, you have actually made so many of Morris's mistakes - every one of your gradeschool misconceptions of science is something he's pushed as the truth - that if the man wasn't dead I'd think he finally learned to use the internet.
The big bang was not an explosion into emptiness. It was not an explosion at all. It was not a center out of which the universe expanded into emptiness, it was a singularity. Time does not exist in the singularity, space does not exist in the singularity, no mass, no light, none of the four fundamental forces can exist in a singularity, only energy in its most elementary form. Even heat requires a space of nonzero size before it can exist.
There was only the singularity, no empty space around it. The universe had (and still has) no edge, there is nothing around it, less than nothing because there is nowhere around it for nothing to be. The singularity did not require a "here" to expand into, because it was the only here - emtiness expanding into itself, not something expanding into emptiness. It is finite, but like the surface of a sphere has no boundary - a straight path ignoring all forces or obstacles will eventually return to its origin. There may be something other than the universe, but a multiverse would be something truly other, outside the closed system and casually separate from it, irrelevant to any discussion of this one's origin or demise.
that god damn particle
no HE Quoted MY argument (which is older than him by a LONG way)
infinite universe and Finite matter = vac and nul (basic maths) any mass divided by infinite space = nul
infinite matter = solid object (again basic maths)
both impossible
this morris guy is what we call a "FRAUD"
he is misusing older information to make money
Grades school = you are an american unused to dealing with an Alpha mind (someone whi does not kiss the backside of the latest trend)
The Alpha mind is hard to change and hard to break
some say it was
A "mass point "
which would exist in a location
so there is no such thing
a nul can not become a positive or a negative its a nul
Time is NOT a force it is a concept
there would have to be
it would be a point mass (smaller than the current solar system) ERGO its in a space
i bet you also believe in the easter bunny and true love?
Of course it has an edge its just a long way out
religion ??
In the begining was the word and the word was god etc
-
it does you know
a Sphere has a surface and an inside
you can not see the outside from the inside perhaps but its there (also a sphere is an unlikely choice a ovate is more likely)
fire a bullet inside a balloon it hits the outside and leaves
you can by definition only have ONE universe
it may have "subverse" or "interverse" spaces but they are all inside the ONE universe
(more than one universe is like owning TWO unique items which are identical )
now please do not compare me with some sad Dead religious flimflam man who wanted "donations"
Because GODS do not need a space ship
or a credit card number
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Quote from The Creation Flood, published decades before you made your argument:
Word for word, at least until he goes off the deep end right after and says, "The mathematics are complex, but any radius much exceeding seven thousand light years will always yield either impossibly high or impossibly low densities."
Only, of course, if you ignore something called cardinality. One infinity is not always equal to another infinity.
A universe of infinite size with finite mass localized in a finite space is consistent with deep-sky observation and only breaks down at the background radiation - this model would predict no background. This universe would have an average density of zero, but a localized finite nonzero density.
A universe of infinite size evenly populated with matter throughout is actually more consistent, as it actually predicts a background radiation, just not in the form we detect, it predicts a background through the entire spectrum. This universe would have infinite size, infinite mass, but finite nonzero density, because countably infinite/uncountably infinite can yield an answer in the form of a real number.