- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12466
29 Jul 11
Originally posted by PalynkaAnd then, the question becomes: rest-massless or relativistic-massless? If you're writing a new theory of gravity, the distinction becomes rather important. And shock, horror, they're both called "mass"!
Massless particles would kill this theory, I imagine. Of course, he'll say that they are not really massless but just the mass is so low that we can't tell the difference.
Richard
31 Jul 11
His alternative explanation brings up many questions that his link does not answer.
How does the closed volume in the nucleus happen? Even spheres like ball bearings have spaces in between, so how can he make the claim those spaces are cut off from empty space.
How can he make a credible claim that there is some sort of pressure in the vacuum of space? Does he believe in the ether? Pressure is the result of gravity here on earth. How can there be pressure in the vacuum of space?
At first it seemed like an interesting theory, but after a little thought it was clear that his theory has more holes in it than swiss cheese. It is as if he decided to float a weak theory in the hope that someone smarter than him would improve on it for him.
31 Jul 11
Originally posted by Thequ1ckSure. The first mistake is that it is assumed that the "volume of an atom" depends on orbitals. Well, that depends on what you're looking at. Atoms in a lattice tend to have a certain displacement with respect to each other, and thus one can associate an average volume with each atom. This hardly means that this is the "real" volume of the atom. The "real" properties are hidden in the wavefunction, which does not have a well-defined "edge" (and indeed the full quantum-mechanical description requires treating all particles in a closed system with a single wavefunction).
I'm no physicist but this layman's explanation of an alternative
to the mysterious Higgs particle makes really good sense.
http://www.higgs-boson.org/
Anyone with a more serious understanding of Physics care to
poke holes in it?
Also, in general relativity, energy also curves spacetime, not just mass. A massless particle like a photon also curves spacetime.
Didn't bother reading beyond that.
01 Aug 11
Originally posted by Metal BrainHow does general relativity explain it? It is my understanding that in general relativity, space-time is curved by mass. Take away the mass and the space-time bounces back to flat. Surly that too implies some sort of pressure pushing the space-time back to a flat plane?
How can he make a credible claim that there is some sort of pressure in the vacuum of space?
01 Aug 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadYes, space/time is warped by collective matter. Bounce? I can't think of a bounce unless the matter is destroyed, like by antimatter.
How does general relativity explain it? It is my understanding that in general relativity, space-time is curved by mass. Take away the mass and the space-time bounces back to flat. Surly that too implies some sort of pressure pushing the space-time back to a flat plane?
From what I was taught, gravity is caused by matter taking the path of least resistance in time. The planet is causing a deficit in time. Time passes slower here than in space away from earth's gravity well. It is very slight and cannot be noticed though. Only an atomic clock can detect the difference.
That gravity does result in pressure of matter, but it is supposed to be the matter causing the warp in space/time.
The author of the theory is claiming that pressure is caused by the space around matter by comparing it to fluid. That sounds like ether theory to me. As some have said, "if light (in a vacuum) is a wave, what is waving? That was the argument for claiming the existence of the ether, but experiments to confirm an ether have failed.
My personal theory is that electromagnetic waves are disruptions (ripples) of space/time itself. After all, if there is no ether the space/time must be the ether like medium that allows light to travel. I cannot prove this though. Just a theory.
01 Aug 11
Originally posted by Metal BrainI see light as photons ie particles. The whole wave part is a result of uncertainty regarding its location.
My personal theory is that electromagnetic waves are disruptions (ripples) of space/time itself. After all, if there is no ether the space/time must be the ether like medium that allows light to travel. I cannot prove this though. Just a theory.
01 Aug 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadThey are both particles and waves. In regards to uncertainty of location, do you have a link that can show me that is the case?
I see light as photons ie particles. The whole wave part is a result of uncertainty regarding its location.
02 Aug 11
1 edit
Originally posted by Metal BrainI don't believe they are waves at all. I believe their behaviour is 'wave like' but that that is entirely a result of the uncertainty principle and its consequences.
They are both particles and waves.
In regards to uncertainty of location, do you have a link that can show me that is the case?
Nothing more than you can get off Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%80%93particle_duality
....while alternative interpretations explain the duality as an emergent, second-order consequence of various limitations of the observer.
I also take the uncertainty principle a step further than you may be used to. The consequence of the uncertainty principle is that the past is not known. Therefore I take all possible pasts to be true. In the two slit experiment one can either say 'the photon had a probability of going either way' or 'the photon went both ways'. But it is the two possible pasts interfering with each other that creates the wave like pattern, and not the photon itself.
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12466
02 Aug 11
Originally posted by Metal BrainNeither particles nor waves, surely? Rather, they are something else which, under certain circumstances, can remind us macroscopic observers of a macroscopic particle, of a macroscopic wave, or at times of nothing which we know in the over-world.
They are both particles and waves.
Richard
02 Aug 11
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI have done just that.
Perhaps you ought to study some basic quantum mechanics.
The observer is more than just an observer. He is creating an interaction of particles so that he/she may observe. This is a flaw in the experiment that few physicists acknowledge as much as they should. The nerve of some people to assume an experiment is flawless when there is much more going on than simply observing.
I admit my theories are just those, but I think I deserve more credit than is being given for speaking out about them than simply playing it safe like so many other non creative minds. My theories are based on the assumption that electromagnetic waves are ripples of space/time itself. If you don't accept that theory you will always think I am ignoring quantum mechanics. I am not, I simply think many quantum experiments are flawed by using subatomic particles with wave properties to observe other particles with wave properties. Why any self respecting physicist would accept such a flawed (so called) observation is beyond me. I guess some people accept what they are told as golden fact or something. What happened to critical thinking physicists?
Do you think it is a mere coincidence that particles that show wave properties all travel near the speed of light? Do you believe in the ether? If not, what is waving in the vacuum of space?
02 Aug 11
Originally posted by Shallow BlueRichard,
Neither particles nor waves, surely? Rather, they are something else which, under certain circumstances, can remind us macroscopic observers of a macroscopic particle, of a macroscopic wave, or at times of nothing which we know in the over-world.
Richard
I am not sure, but it sounds to me that you think it may be possible that Hugh Everett III was right all along. Is that the case?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Everett
02 Aug 11
Originally posted by Metal BrainAn "observer" in quantum mechanics does not require a person, nor an experiment. In any case, check out Bell's inequality.
I have done just that.
The observer is more than just an observer. He is creating an interaction of particles so that he/she may observe. This is a flaw in the experiment that few physicists acknowledge as much as they should. The nerve of some people to assume an experiment is flawless when there is much more going on than simply observing.
I admit ...[text shortened]... the speed of light? Do you believe in the ether? If not, what is waving in the vacuum of space?
I guess the main reason physicists tend to accept quantum mechanics is that it is very accurate.
All particles, regardless of the speed at which they travel, exhibit both wave-like and particle-like properties. The "wave" and the "particle" can both be seen as limiting cases of real particles; particles are never a "pure" wave (sine) or a "pure" particle (delta peak).