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?

Xpand wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2011 at 11:22am:


I don't know, is the space-time distortion caused by objects with mass that causes the light to bend? Why make it harder than it needs to be?

Can't break the speed of light? They've clearly never seen me on the A41 armed with a Kawasaki

My pet theory is that when you exceed the speed of light, you cross the dimensional barrier and are no longer in this dimension. At least until you slow back down below the speed of light,

at which time you cross the barrier again, back into this dimension. The only question I have, is how many dimensions are there, and how to change places with myself in the one where

I am rich and good looking?

Club508, I glad to see you take an interest! (I'm really impressed) Backtrack a little, and read what I wrote again, begining to end, then read what you wrote.

Keep in mind two very important points:
1) I don't by any stretch of the imagination have all the answers. This is a very ROUGH theory, nothing more.

2)You have to let go a little, and stop accepting what Michio Kaku says as fact. Not to disrespect or discredit him in the least, but he is just like any other theoretical physicist, a master of assumptions and educated guesses. 

patchz wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2011 at 4:59pm:

I'm still looking for that one myself!

Xpand wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2011 at 5:34pm:

Because, without mass, what is there for gravity to "grab ahold" of? Anything that has mass, has gravity. Anythng that gravity can influence, has mass. It is just that simple. Two sides of the same coin. Gravity is proportional to mass. A rough idea of this concept is the Earth vs. the Moon. Moon= roughly 1/6th the mass of Earth, Moon = 1/6th the gravity of Earth.

Xpand wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2011 at 5:34pm:


They aren't traveling AT c, but faster, thus bypassing 3d space altogether, and because of this IDEA (and that's all it is, and idea) it's no longer subject to the governing laws of physics as we know it. In some respects, you need to forget conventional thought and what is generally accepted, and think outside the box. Look if there is any truth to any of this at all, the books are going to need a complete overhaul. Nearly all of physics has been based on theories that were based on other theories that may now be more flawed that we thought. That's one hell of a ripple to recover from.

Club508 wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2011 at 9:56pm:


The two points I made, weren't directed at you Club, it just looks that way because of the way I kept editing my post. Sorry for that confusion. "Science geek"? Hell I just go by nerd.

lso remember as you approach the speed of light the drag becomes phenomenal. Take it this way. A Bugatti Veyron needs only 250hp to get to 150 mph, But needs 1000 hp to get to 250 mph. light travels at 670,615,200 mph which is, Allot I might be doing my maths wrong though .
But anyway:
That drag and weight combined could be fatal. But what ever we do, We'll never escape a black hole . Eats even light  .
Plus time goes allot quicker (The faster you go,  the slower time flies). So if you're on that light exceeding body for a minute, About 20-30 years e.t.c may have passed .
So another way to do it is not to try to get from point A to point B, but to bring point B to point A. Therefore bending space which is kinda dangerous. But that would take up A HUGE amount of energy and the effects of the aftermath are unknown. And If it's successful and you do make the "jump" you never know where you will emerge. And I'll go on and on.
And another option that sounds similar but is quite different, is teleporting. Which is in short destroying your body and recreating it at another point.
But again Regardless of the risks, scientists will do it. They are only concerned if they CAN do it. Not if they SHOULD do it
Sorry. I'm one of the geekiest and Most made fun of boy in school .Edited:

Ooh, a discussion about quantum physics!
It's nice to know that there are some fellow nerds on SimV!

And I never imagined I would see an intelligent conversation here on SimV .
Guess I was wrong .
But good to see that you can even study here

Edited:

Club508 wrote on Sep 24^th, 2011 at 7:31pm:


A classic example non Intelligent is where we're going now .
I'm still yet to

Physics: Lots of it is theoretical, lots of it is assumed, but all it is relevant 


I've studied it at college for 3 years and I'm still amazed at how much they just guess and spoon-feed. If an old equation is in threat of being proved wrong, they usually invent a new subatomic particle (they're often undetectable!) or tell you that you've calculated it incorrectly 

Club508 wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2011 at 5:33pm:


Yes and that's how it is in almost everything. What you learn today might be false tomorrow. Conclusion...
School's irrelevant. .
But we never know how in 1000 years we will change. It's all guesses. 1000 years ago. The earth was flat and was at the center of the universe and everything rotates round it.

hyperpep111 wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2011 at 5:40pm:

Pythagoras disproved the flat earth theory 2600 years ago.

The Copernican heliocentric theory was proposed 500 years ago.

There wasn't much scientific discovery going on in 1011.

I discovered one of my missing socks under my bed, yesterday... ....!

Unfortunately, there wasn't anyone around at the time to verify it... ...!

Paul...I'm always discovering lost things... ...!

I remember getting into hot water at school when the psycho physics teacher (he actually had to leave after beating a girl unconcious with a lab stool) told us "Nothing is impossible!" and I asked him to demonstrate by nailing a jelly (jello for our American cousins) to a wall and striking a match on it He never really warmed to me after that......

Give me a nice hot cup of tea and I'll make something that will pass through every point  in the universe at the same time.... and anyway the answer is

42

.

Still haven't figured out the question yet ...... the Vogons are terminating the planet on the 21st of December next year so the white mice better hurry up and get this computer booted up properly before the Vogons get to us!!!!

Matt I'm completely honest and objective.... tis just I've got slightly less tact than a tourettes suffering soldier surrounded by the enemy
And Andy, I know where my towel is

eno wrote on Oct 5^th, 2011 at 2:39pm:

Most threads are destined to go that way. I'm surprised this one lasted this long . They mostly go off before the second page . It's always so much fun  . That's what keeps threads from going sour and why it never gets boring being here .
SimV...
Anything is possible

See what I mean