Amazingly, even at my very young age, I've been enjoying getting into quantum physics/mechanics lately along with space and time, and actually thought up of something about two days ago that MIGHT have proven E=MC squared wrong, if you don't mind me rambling and want to know, let me know.

I'm no longer surprised when scientists reverse themselves, especially when it involves something that we did not have the technology to actually test or prove at the time of the original statement.

After all, they use to think the world was flat.

Club508 wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2011 at 8:42pm:


E=MC^2 is just a very small part of Einstein's overall theory of relativity...

H wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2011 at 8:44pm:



Missed that post somehow 

Matt

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you (the scientist) are the easiest person to fool." - Richard Feynman

Its pointless, if its not going to get me to my local Supermarket any quicker on my trusty Motor-bike, to take advantage of that "special offer"...... ....

Paul... ... ... ...!

I've said it before in a thread on this very site. It isn't that hard to understand really...

1) Light has mass.

Gravity can only pull on things that have mass. Gravity can pull and bend light...ergo light must have mass. But here's the problem I have with that. Force equals mass times accelleration, and that SHOULD cause an issue. I'll give you an example...You go home to a dark house late at night, turn on the lights in your living room...and you still have a living room.  Regardless of how small the amount of mass light may have, it's travelling at 186,000 miles per second, and therefore should destroy anything it comes in contact with. Why doesn't it? Back burner that thought for a minute...

2) Light behaves as both a particle and a wave.

Achems razor tells us that "The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct." Light behaves as both a particle and a wave, because it IS both a particle and a wave. Simple enough, and not a new idea, just worth keeping in mind.

3) Time dilation.

Tough one to cover. Just the basics for now. The faster an object goes, the slower time passes for it, relative to the rest of the 3d universe. Part of Albert Einstein's theory of relativity. Atomic clocks are extremely accurate clocks that can measure tiny amounts of time—billionths of a second. In 1971, scientists used these clocks to test Einstein's ideas. One atomic clock was set up on the ground, while another was sent around the world on a jet traveling at 600 mph. At the start, both clocks showed exactly the same time. What happened when the clock flown around the world returned to the spot where the other clock was? As Einstein had predicted in a general way, the clocks no longer showed the same time—the clock on the jet was behind by a few billionths of a second. So "Einie" was right about that at least. It should be noted, that the time difference is proportional to the speed. The faster you go, the greater the effect. Right up to that magical speed of 186,000 mps, at which time would/should stop.

4) Special relativity.

Hopefully, all we need to take from this is that according to  Einstein, as an object approaches the speed of light, it becomes more massive. So much so, that an infinite amount of energy would be required to propel it faster. As smart as he was, he was still human, and able to make mistakes. I think he may have been looking so hard at the problem, that he couldn't see the answer that was right in front of him the whole time.

Here's what I mean:
If we go back to number 3) for a minute, we can begin to understand that as an object's speed increases, time as it relates to that object begins to decrease.  Speed is a calculation of distance traveled (through space) in a given amount of time. Time and space are linked. If you begin to remove one from the equation, so to must you remove the other. This is where I feel he made his mistake. The object isn't getting more massive... space around it is getting smaller. Similar to the way a shockwave builds up in front of an aircraft as it approaches the speed of sound, a sort of shockwave begins to encompass an object as it closes in on 186,000 mps, in the form of a time/space bubble that begins to collapse around it. Same amount of mass, just less space to occupy.


So let's recap...

Light has mass, but if that mass were to exist in 3d space, it would be the source of "great discomfort" to everything around it. So if light's mass isn't in 3d space where is it? Just OUTSIDE of 3d space. How can it be there? By traveling faster than 186,000 miles per second, that's how.

A mental visual:

You are a fish under the surface of a smooth pond, looking up. The surface of this pond represents the boundry between space/time and whatever is just beyond. A boat on the surface, that represents the mass of light, which we'll pretend we can't see. Hey you're a fish, what's in that other realm doesn't concern you anyway. (Fishermen not withstanding, but I digress) As the boat moves across the pond, it creates a wake that we can see. Waves... see the cause and effect? In this theory of mine, the light waves we see, are the result of light mass travelling beyond, or more accurately, around, 3d space.

SO... What could all this mean?

A) Gravity is not exclusive to 3d space. It's grasp also must reach to whatever/where ever/when ever lies just beyond. This is where I suggest light's mass resides, so gravity must also be present there in order to affect it.

B) Light itself breaks Einstein's own theory that nothing can travel faster than 186,000 mps.

C) Light may be travelling through time? If time stops at 186,000 mps, what happens if something does go faster? Backward through time? Hard to imagine traveling without the bounds of time...or space for that matter.

D) Maybe the most important part of this whole idea. If you were able to slow light mass down, and introduce it into 3d space... how much energy potential would be present?