Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

What Qm Might Say About Sr

Quantum mechanics Special relativity

  • Please log in to reply
106 replies to this topic

#103 JulianM

JulianM

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 51 posts

Posted 10 February 2018 - 04:10 AM

Math is not experimental evidence because it can either be evidence of kinetic energy from zero mass which goes against first principles of physics or it can be mathematical evidence that a photon actually does have mass, the latter being more likely because it causes less problems.


I don't disagree with this statement, and math is only useful when based on correct assumptions, but it is necessary to go beyond "more likely".

This is off The original topic, but if you have something more than "it could be either" then I am happy to listen.

#104 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • 1828 posts

Posted 10 February 2018 - 04:54 AM

I don't disagree with this statement, and math is only useful when based on correct assumptions, but it is necessary to go beyond "more likely".

This is off The original topic, but if you have something more than "it could be either" then I am happy to listen.

The formula I quoted has been found experimentally to work. I have shown how the limiting case for zero mass  results in Planck's relation, which is verified every day in countless experiments. And the same goes for the zero momentum case.  

 

So this not just a mathematical argument. It is (mathematical) statement of a scientific theory, i.e. a theory that successfully predicts how the world behaves.



#105 JulianM

JulianM

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 51 posts

Posted 10 February 2018 - 10:30 AM

The formula I quoted has been found experimentally to work. I have shown how the limiting case for zero mass  results in Planck's relation, which is verified every day in countless experiments. And the same goes for the zero momentum case.  
 
So this not just a mathematical argument. It is (mathematical) statement of a scientific theory, i.e. a theory that successfully predicts how the world behaves.


Yes, I agree. I was really just asking Super Polymath to elaborate on what he is trying to say.

#106 Super Polymath

Super Polymath

    Creating

  • Members
  • 1195 posts

Posted 10 February 2018 - 11:15 AM



Yes, I agree. I was really just asking Super Polymath to elaborate on what he is trying to say.

I'm saying it's not something like magnetism or reflective thermal heating resulting in the energy production, it can't be if the gravity of a black hole effects it. Unlike other stellar objects black holes don't have any notable magnetic forces around them, in fact you only hear people say the gravity is so strong nothing can escape it. That's the key word here. We know light slows down as it passes through a dense interatomic medium like water or even air, or even the electromagnetic field of the earth, but that can be explained by other forces perplexing it's trajectory most notably how charge forces influence the wave function, it doesn't have anything to do with the photon's mass being effected by the gravity of atomic objects. But in the case of a black hole it does. 

 

This literally shows why it's more likely that the equation Exchemist showed should be evidence that photons actually do have mass, as opposed to evidence that they can produce kinetic energy without mass as Exchemist interprets. 


Edited by Super Polymath, 10 February 2018 - 11:18 AM.


#107 Super Polymath

Super Polymath

    Creating

  • Members
  • 1195 posts

Posted 10 February 2018 - 12:08 PM

The idea that something can have zero mass is just like the idea that there exists a perfect vacuum somewhere, that space-time is irreducible from a planck length, that time has a beginning, or that there can momentarily exist at ever-changing total lagrange points perfectly between every moving mass in the universe as I argued at one point. It's just a theory, we've yet to prove any of these absolute zeroes even exist or are possible My theory says they aren't possible, such a zero would be like a focal point of oblivion, a point where reality ceases to exist anywhere, & in my theory this doesn't even happen with the quantum eraser, instead space-time just temporarily goes into ADS via volumetric flow it doesn't ever really cease to exist. 

 

It's illogical to fathom that somethingness & nothingness can co-exist, reality either is or it isn't. 


Edited by Super Polymath, 10 February 2018 - 12:11 PM.