Speed of Light and Energy...?

[hackenslash]

In science, questions are almost always the best contribution.

[mistermack]

In science, questions are almost always the best contribution.

I like that, hackenslash. I should adopt it. My motto is never be afraid to open your mouth, even dumb questions have a value. If I know the answer, I'm happy to share it with anyone.

[newolder]

Hi newolder, thanks for the links, I'll have a look. And thanks for the promotion, I didn't know I had a theory. My technique for learning is just to poke and prod at things that look odd. I don't have any wisdom to share, I'm afraid. That's why my contribution is just questions, not answers.

I got promoted to a mathematician once - it soon wore off.

I don't consider myself wise - I just think I might be getting towards being near to the point where I may be in a position to... Ahhh! So it goes.



Have you heard alpinekat's LHC rap, yet?

[oddmanout]

Have you heard alpinekat's LHC rap, yet?

Geek rap at its finest!

[colubridae]

I found this on

http://www.physforum.com/index.php?show ... ntry444900

You just Googled for knot theory, didn't you? Topological quantum field theory is different from what they are talking about in your link.

No doubt you're posting this because you claim in your as yet unpublished (other than self published), non-peer reviewed, unrecognised by the Nobel Prize committee, work where you claim the electron is a photon in a twisted closed loop. Yes, they have managed to make a photon travel in such a closed loop but with an important difference, the loop did not spontaneously gain electromagnetic charge akin to an electron's. If photons going through a twisted closed loop looked like electrons then why didn't the experiment gain electric charge when turned on?

I would say that you have just provided experimental evidence your work is wrong. Well done Farsight.

Dude what is wrong with you. You don’t do science by ignoring the results of experiments that prove your theory wrong. Then tout around until you find someone who will agree with you blindly…

One further question.
If the photon executes a hubius helix any translational movement is bound to push it above c at some point on the helix?
(my first question was going to be where’s the charge… but the quote above fucks you up on that score).

What’s really bad is trying to teach JD395 science that’s fucked up.




“earth, fire”

[colubridae]

In addition to the above post...

Even if every single member of rationlaia said 'Christ hyperopia! you are right on the button with this amazing theory". It won't count diddley-squat. It would mean nothing (other than winning the nobel stinky cheese prize.)

[mistermack]

I agree it's a big jump to say that an elecron is a diverted photon, or vice versa, but it's not such a big jump to suggest that particles are somthing along those lines.
I don't see the logic about pushing the velocity over c. If a train always runs at sixty mph, and you divert it, why would it speed up?
And now for my next dumb question, which I'm sure has been answered many times over.
What happens to e = mc squared, in relation to a massless particle?

[colubridae]

I agree it's a big jump to say that an elecron is a diverted photon, or vice versa, but it's not such a big jump to suggest that particles are somthing along those lines.
I don't see the logic about pushing the velocity over c. If a train always runs at sixty mph, and you divert it, why would it speed up?
And now for my next dumb question, which I'm sure has been answered many times over.
What happens to e = mc squared, in relation to a massless particle?

Not sure what you mean...

Are you querying my post about pushing the photon over c.

The point I was making is that the train is on a circular track. Now the whole track circle moves in a particular direction. At some point the photon will be pushed over c.

Or its gaining/losing energy at a regular frequency.

[mistermack]

No, I have to disagree with that. Time slows when the track moves, so the train still moves at C.
The train will always move at c, the alteration in time ensures it.
edit : or to put it another way, it's the fixed nature of c that will force time to slow.

[colubridae]

Nipple.

[hackenslash]

Good work!

[Tigger]

Why did I find that funny?

[Farsight]

The emphasis isn't on me at all farsight. The paper which you cited, along with the various wikipedia links you quoted contain good science, none of which are supporting a word you say.

The title of the first paper is Is the electron a photon with a toroidal topology? That supports what i say.

What you are suggesting doesn't bridge the gaps at all, what it does is to fall into some fundamental errors over some of the most basic concepts behind SR. You can't build grand ideas of faulty premises. If the building blocks don't work, the rest won't either.

What I'm saying is rock solid, supported by experimental evidence, refereed papers, and Einstein. You should read http://www.amazon.co.uk/World-Without-T ... 0713993871 re time. Then you'll know where I got it from.

I started contributing to this thread to help someone out who was trying to understand special relativity, and you started half- agreeing with my explanation in order to entertain a debate, but it has become abundantly clear that you are simply trying to push your pet theory as if I should somehow validate it with you through argument. Your problem is that you don't have a credible argument at all, which is probably why you are left touting it on anonymous bulletin boards to strangers instead of having your work published and winning adulation for unifying quantum theory with relativity.

I'm answering questions on a public forum, correctly.

I'm not seeking to be groundbreaking at all in my explanations, just to explain widely accepted theory at nothing more than a first year undergraduate level. The mistakes you are making over concepts like time dilation are not even at that level, I'm sorry to say. Pasting in slabs of text surrounded by arguments unrelated to their content isn't helping your cause.

I'm not making any mistakes. That's how it is. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilat ... e_velocity.

Allow me to treat what you say with some credibility after it has been backed up by rigorous experimental data, and published in a peer reviewed journal. After which I look forward to hearing about how you redefined the laws of physics on primetime news. Until then, I'll stick to helping people out in small ways by explaining things according to the conventional wisdom, against which my understanding has been validated by a Masters degree in physics, in which, coincidentally, my specialist areas included Quantum theory, Particle physics and Nuclear Physics. Special relativity was taught as a first year course. I have nothing to prove to you whatsoever.

You're jealous.

[Farsight]

So if a massless photon was forced into rotation at the speed of light around a tiny radius, it's not that ridiculous to suggest that it might display the property of mass? Maybe not the same mass as an electron, but some nevertheless? I'm not ashamed to speculate, when most of science at this level seems to be speculation, some more backed up by evidence, some less.

The evidence is there, mistermack, in pair production and annihilation and electron angular momentum and magnetic dipole moment. For some reason some people seem unwilling to see this evidence because it's contrary to what they've been taught.

When I first looked at relativity, I just couldn't accept that space was nothing, that no ' medium' was involved. But everything I read said that this was unequivocally proved. Now people are talking about space being anything but empty. So I am very 'sceptical' when people try to portray the accepted wisdom as unchallengeable.

You should be sceptical. People will blithely tell you things which flatly contradict Einstein. See for example Einstein's 1920 Leyden address at http://www.zionism-israel.com/Albert_Ei ... tivity.htm where he says this:

"According to this theory the metrical qualities of the continuum of space-time differ in the environment of different points of space-time, and are partly conditioned by the matter existing outside of the territory under consideration. This space-time variability of the reciprocal relations of the standards of space and time, or, perhaps, the recognition of the fact that “empty space” in its physical relation is neither homogeneous nor isotropic, compelling us to describe its state by ten functions (the gravitation potentials gμν), has, I think, finally disposed of the view that space is physically empty."

The title of that address is Aether and the Theory of Relativity. And yet people are taught that relativity dispensed with aether. It just isn't true.

[Farsight]

For the property mass, wiki is okay: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_mechanism Mass is attained by those who interact with Higgs quanta. Massless bosons (and possibly supersymmetric fermions) e.g. photons do not feel that interaction whilst things like electrons and quarks do.

Newolder, I recommend you read Zeptospace Odyssey: A Journey into the Physics of the LHC by Gian Francesco Giudice where on page 174 he says "It is sometimes said that the discovery of the Higgs boson will explain the mystery of the origina of mass. This statement requires a good deal of qualification". He then goes on to say that the Higgs mechanism is responsible for 1% of a proton's mass. He's a bona-fide guy, quite high up at CERN.