Physicists: Theory Topples Einstein's Spacetime it seems | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 824576 United States 11/25/2009 03:46 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 824576 United States 11/25/2009 03:50 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | "For instance, the electromagnetic force can be described quantum-mechanically by the motion of photons." No No No. Quantum -Mechanicaly? WTF is quantum mechanically? That is a made up word. Electro magnetic force is described as motion of electrons. Photons are mass less light particles.Photons have no mass. Come to the picnic, all are invited, the only requirement is that you at LEAST bring a picnic basket with you! |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 824576 United States 11/25/2009 03:53 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | "Physicists have struggled to marry quantum mechanics with gravity for decades." No they haven't, only quantum physicists have. Because it's quasi science. I have not struggled at all since Einstein showed that gravity was not a force,but, an effect. As a result of the space time continuum. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 824576 United States 11/25/2009 03:55 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Free Store
(OP) User ID: 149594 Canada 11/25/2009 03:58 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | "Physicists have struggled to marry quantum mechanics with gravity for decades." Quoting: Anonymous Coward 824576No they haven't, only quantum physicists have. Because it's quasi science. I have not struggled at all since Einstein showed that gravity was not a force,but, an effect. As a result of the space time continuum. I'm not disagreeing with you. Is a magnet's principal a force or an effect? |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 757124 United States 11/25/2009 04:03 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 826669 Croatia 11/25/2009 04:06 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | No they haven't, only quantum physicists have. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 824576Because it's quasi science. so, the quantum computing (based on quantum physic) is also a quasi thing...? I'm afraid you are the one who has to start to think, Einsteins theories are wrong and obsolete the universe is electric quantum field, get over it |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 824576 United States 11/25/2009 04:07 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Magnetics, as realized in experiments is force. Don't grab your dictionary. Yet. I believe it's effects can appear to be a force. But, think about it on your own. Is there a way to measure the force caused by a magnetic field when there is no counter force? For instance , take a magnet in the presence of a ferro magnetic substance like iron, now compare it to the magnetic force upon a neutral body in the presence of bismuth. Did the force dissapear? Did it become disjointed, deterred, refracted. Energy is energy right? So was it dissapated? Refracted(where did it go) energy is constant.Newton sats it will manifest itself in some way, somewhere, equal to what it always was. You cannot reduce or increade it. So, where does it manifest itself of apparent dissapation or refraction? In friction as exposed to copper? As heat? Light? or something else on a dimension unknown or at least not yet understood? |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 824576 United States 11/25/2009 04:17 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | No they haven't, only quantum physicists have. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 826669Because it's quasi science. so, the quantum computing (based on quantum physic) is also a quasi thing...? I'm afraid you are the one who has to start to think, Einsteins theories are wrong and obsolete the universe is electric quantum field, get over it Quantum physics exists , at least partially, because no one can yet explain the basis of the foundation of energy. Energy cannot be created from nothing. Einstein, nor anybody else has yet to explain how, knowing that, the universe exists. Thus the search goes on for the "creation particle/matter/spark/inspiration." Heaven forbid the mystical and inspiring phrase from the bible might simply just be true. God is, was, and always will be. From the beginning of time until time everlasting in a world without end. Amen. It has been offered as the explanation for at least 6000 years as long as men have written. Einstein could not find the source of the start of being, nor Newton, nor anyone else so far. Be the genius. Be the first in the history of mankind to do what the most intelligent minds we have yet to offer have been unable to do. Explain how matter was intially set into motion considering Newtons law. Good luck. |
Free Store
(OP) User ID: 149594 Canada 11/25/2009 04:25 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
DanfromtheHills
User ID: 671176 United States 11/25/2009 04:27 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | "For instance, the electromagnetic force can be described quantum-mechanically by the motion of photons." Quoting: Anonymous Coward 824576No No No. Quantum -Mechanicaly? WTF is quantum mechanically? That is a made up word. Electro magnetic force is described as motion of electrons. Photons are mass less light particles.Photons have no mass. Come to the picnic, all are invited, the only requirement is that you at LEAST bring a picnic basket with you! Ok, let me first agree that this article has some curious points. It seems that you have some grasp of science, so lets proceed to it and not get personal. "Quantum-Mechanically", I assume will be those things which are governed by probabilistic equations. Sometimes the language barrier interferes... Electromagnetic force is something generally ascribed to two bodies having a voltage difference between them. Such as a cloud bank and the Earth. Motion of electrons is defined as being measured in Amperes. As far as I know photons have no mass. It seems to me that Zeeya Merali is implying that the rules that govern things are tiered. This separation of rules is based on frequencies. As it is a preliminary work, it is open to interpretation. Does anyone know of any peer-reviews on the topic? "Nothing to see here, go back to sheep..." --- AC 1251379 |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 824576 United States 11/25/2009 04:28 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | No they haven't, only quantum physicists have. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 826669Because it's quasi science. so, the quantum computing (based on quantum physic) is also a quasi thing...? I'm afraid you are the one who has to start to think, Einsteins theories are wrong and obsolete the universe is electric quantum field, get over it You are defining quantum computation based on quantum physics which itself is a fallacy. You cannot logically define the existence of something on the theoretical existence of something else and pretend it's a fact. How did come up with "the universe is a quantum field"? WTF does that mean? Explain the universe(I really don't know where to begin here) based on that ridiculously generalized statement. How about we take that statement you made and relate it somehow to the movement of matter under velocity and it's effect on mass> you up for that? For starters? |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 824576 United States 11/25/2009 04:30 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Free Store
(OP) User ID: 149594 Canada 11/25/2009 04:31 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
DanfromtheHills
User ID: 671176 United States 11/25/2009 04:34 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | "Hořava’s theory, however, is far from perfect. Diego Blas, a quantum gravity researcher at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (EPFL) in Lausanne has found a “hidden sickness” in the theory when double-checking calculations for the solar system. Most physicists examined ideal cases, assuming, for instance, that Earth and the sun are spheres, Blas explains: “We checked the more realistic case, where the sun is almost a sphere, but not quite.” General relativity pretty much gives the same answer in both the scenarios. But in Hořava gravity, the realistic case gives a wildly different result." Again intriguing. The best part about the theory so far, why does it give such a divergent result? True science in the making even if the original premise proves to be completely erroneous. "Nothing to see here, go back to sheep..." --- AC 1251379 |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 824576 United States 11/25/2009 04:36 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | "For instance, the electromagnetic force can be described quantum-mechanically by the motion of photons." Quoting: DanfromtheHillsNo No No. Quantum -Mechanicaly? WTF is quantum mechanically? That is a made up word. Electro magnetic force is described as motion of electrons. Photons are mass less light particles.Photons have no mass. Come to the picnic, all are invited, the only requirement is that you at LEAST bring a picnic basket with you! Ok, let me first agree that this article has some curious points. It seems that you have some grasp of science, so lets proceed to it and not get personal. "Quantum-Mechanically", I assume will be those things which are governed by probabilistic equations. Sometimes the language barrier interferes... Electromagnetic force is something generally ascribed to two bodies having a voltage difference between them. Such as a cloud bank and the Earth. Motion of electrons is defined as being measured in Amperes. As far as I know photons have no mass. It seems to me that Zeeya Merali is implying that the rules that govern things are tiered. This separation of rules is based on frequencies. As it is a preliminary work, it is open to interpretation. Does anyone know of any peer-reviews on the topic? It is a fact that photons have no mass. That is why nothing that has maSS can ever exceed the speed of light. Because it would take an infinite amount of energy to achieve it. Get it? The "rules that govern *things* are tiered? "The separation of rules is based on frequency*= have you thought about this statement? It is a preliminary work?/??? It is not a preliminary work- no offense intended. You are thinking. Great.Please do not let theorhetical thinking bleed onto the matte. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 824576 United States 11/25/2009 04:41 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | from page 2 of the article... Quoting: DanfromtheHills"Hořava’s theory, however, is far from perfect. Diego Blas, a quantum gravity researcher at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (EPFL) in Lausanne has found a “hidden sickness” in the theory when double-checking calculations for the solar system. Most physicists examined ideal cases, assuming, for instance, that Earth and the sun are spheres, Blas explains: “We checked the more realistic case, where the sun is almost a sphere, but not quite.” General relativity pretty much gives the same answer in both the scenarios. But in Hořava gravity, the realistic case gives a wildly different result." Again intriguing. The best part about the theory so far, why does it give such a divergent result? True science in the making even if the original premise proves to be completely erroneous. A work in progress. Einstein in his theory of general relativity has already been proven to be true. If someone has has something better offer, then it it remains only a question until it can A) prove itself to be true B) Prove Einstein to be incorrect Neither has happened yet.. However, Copernicus was proven to be incorrect and so Newton, but, it took several hundred years to do so. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 826684 Slovakia 11/25/2009 04:47 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 824576 United States 11/25/2009 04:50 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Further, since photons have no mass. How does e=mc2 apply? The answer will make you think, because it cannot apply to massless particles. By definition. There is separate equation to measure light which as a wavelength or frequency which someone here earlier posted in a confusing manner. Is it possible that light (photons) always exists and manifests itself as we rudimentarily interpret and register it as waves? Or frequency? Is it possible that we are still in the "stone age" as far as understanding this goes. I do believe so. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 824576 United States 11/25/2009 04:51 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 814550 United States 11/25/2009 05:04 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | OK good luck to you..Treat gravity particles as you do light particles Quoting: Anonymous Coward 824576WTF is a "gravity particle?" It doesn't appear that our science has examined this aspect of a magnetic field thoroughly. I'm unable to find any name that defines the smallest magnetic unit. The obvious name would be "magnetron", such as "electron" in electricity. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 826698 United Kingdom 11/25/2009 05:24 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 671176 United States 11/25/2009 05:33 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | It is a fact that photons have no mass. That is why nothing that has maSS can ever exceed the speed of light. Because it would take an infinite amount of energy to achieve it. Get it? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 824576The "rules that govern *things* are tiered? "The separation of rules is based on frequency*= have you thought about this statement? It is a preliminary work?/??? It is not a preliminary work- no offense intended. You are thinking. Great.Please do not let theorhetical thinking bleed onto the matte. You know, I was gonna give ya break kiddo, because I like the fact that young folks are interested in science and math, and that gives me a bright rosy feeling about the future. This bit of personal folly having been set duly aside, I consider it upon my honor to destroy the THING the you have just left on my favorite forum. I am not sure what that thing is yet, as I am trying do decide whether it is English, or some former pilgrimish script. But, at last, I think I have the language in which you converse converted, and, please feel free to correct me if I am wrong. I think it best to offer a line item veto of your diatribe, and let the chips fall where they may... "It is a fact that photons have no mass." Photons around black holes acquire equivalent mass, that is the reason why light does not escape a black hole. The "fact" that photons have no mass holds true for most of the known universe, just not all of it. "That is why nothing that has maSS can ever exceed the speed of light." [link to www.khouse.org] "Some scientists now claim they have broken the ultimate speed barrier: the speed of light.1 Particle physicists at the NEC Research Institute at Princeton apparently have indicated that light pulses can be accelerated to up to 300 times their normal velocity of 186,282 miles per second." At least YOU think that. "The "rules that govern *things* are tiered? "The separation of rules is based on frequency*= have you thought about this statement?" Yes actually I have. It's a hermetic philosophy, As Above, So Below. I'm not sure of it's exact meaning, and I'm not sure anyone else does either. But, it does conjure up some powerful imagery that everyone should be exposed to... The universe is an ever expansive thing. Filled with the tendrils of unknown stuffs which the human race calls dark matter. Currently, we can only guess as to the size, shape, and elastic nature of the cosmos we inhabit. These veins of matter connect every cell and membrane of the universe we can see. Every Galaxy, every nebula. The gravitational influences from these massive interstellar bodies transmit themselves without remit of time instantaneously across the chronoclastic infundibulum. Across these galaxies exist a multitude of stars, on some of which, planets orbit in the right proximity to sustain and evolve life. This life would have originated from the interactions of the those constituent components called proteins and amino acids that are not far along the list of the most common compounds in the universe, water being the first. The components that make these first cells are in essence the blocks that formed the first atoms, entangled from the first cause. Is it not plain to see that things operate on scales? "It is a preliminary work?/???" As far as I know it is. If you know peer reviews or other things associated with this topic, please feel free to post them. This is the first I've heard of it. "It is not a preliminary work- no offense intended. You are thinking. Great.Please do not let theorhetical thinking bleed onto the matte." Skoal, and I tip my whiskey to ya! |
VestanPance
User ID: 820446 United Kingdom 11/25/2009 05:50 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | As with standard ideas about the universe, all these theories share one thing in common....they all have fudge factors...made up stuff such as Dark Matter, which allows a theory to fit. Last Edited by VestanPance on 11/25/2009 05:50 AM Cheers. ----------------------------- "Shit, if this is gonna be that kind of party, I'm going to stick my dick in the mashed potatoes." "The gene pool is stagnant and I am the minister of chlorine" "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence" |
DanfromtheHills
User ID: 671176 United States 11/25/2009 05:51 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | As with standard ideas about the universe, all these theories share one thing in common....they all have fudge factors...made up stuff such as Dark Matter, which allows a theory to fit. Quoting: VestanPanceYep "Nothing to see here, go back to sheep..." --- AC 1251379 |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 826719 New Zealand 11/25/2009 06:00 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 826694 Australia 11/25/2009 06:01 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Magnetics, as realized in experiments is force. Don't grab your dictionary. Yet. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 824576I believe it's effects can appear to be a force. But, think about it on your own. Is there a way to measure the force caused by a magnetic field when there is no counter force? For instance , take a magnet in the presence of a ferro magnetic substance like iron, now compare it to the magnetic force upon a neutral body in the presence of bismuth. Did the force dissapear? Did it become disjointed, deterred, refracted. Energy is energy right? So was it dissapated? Refracted(where did it go) energy is constant.Newton sats it will manifest itself in some way, somewhere, equal to what it always was. You cannot reduce or increade it. So, where does it manifest itself of apparent dissapation or refraction? In friction as exposed to copper? As heat? Light? or something else on a dimension unknown or at least not yet understood? I'm never studied physics, and I only know as much as I've learned from reading various articles and watching NOVA docos (mainly around the 'String Theory' stage - The Elegant Universe & Einstein's Equation of Life & Death) so I'm probably out of the loop on most of this nowadays. But I remember seeing a doco years ago (possibly on M-Theory) which posed the possibility that gravitons were 'escaping' into another dimension; and another one more recently which hypothesised that the reason we can't 'see' much of the Universe we know is there (dark matter) is because it is just not capable of measuring from 3-d perspective. I was reminded of it recently by that "Imagining the 10th dimension" vid someone posted here: [link to www.youtube.com] Sorry if i'm getting off track here, just seemed relevant. OK good luck to you..Treat gravity particles as you do light particles Quoting: Anonymous Coward 824576WTF is a "gravity particle?" I think he means a 'graviton' [link to en.wikipedia.org] |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 826694 Australia 11/25/2009 06:04 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Free Store
(OP) User ID: 149594 Canada 11/25/2009 06:23 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 826705 United Kingdom 11/25/2009 06:23 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | As with standard ideas about the universe, all these theories share one thing in common....they all have fudge factors...made up stuff such as Dark Matter, which allows a theory to fit. Quoting: DanfromtheHillsYep Indeed, sounds like global warming. If you can't make your sums add up, then just make something else up to help you on your way. I'm no physicist, but Dark Matter just sounds like BS to commonsense ears. |