PDA

View Full Version : Just one thing


John Marsh
18th Oct 2016, 17:19
Here's a brain-bender!

Imagine a particle, massless and thus able to travel faster than light. As fast as it wishes, in fact!

This is a busy particle indeed. It travels all over the place, incessantly. Everywhere in the Universe.

And it's travelling so fast that it can be anywhere and everywhere...at once! Cor!:)

So you see, the Universe is just this one particle, travelling so widely and rapidly that it appears next to itself, over and over again. This gives the impression of lots of particles, i.e. the Universe as we perceive it.

Just the one particle, producing it all.

Let's hope it never stops for a rest. Then again, if it did, would we know?

GearDown&Locked
18th Oct 2016, 17:33
You're describing a "cathode-ray tube" like Universe.

Not very logical, because for it to be 'everywhere' it does need to change position and direction, very difficult to attain for a massless particle.

Hempy
18th Oct 2016, 17:46
Actually, going by Einsteins e=mc2, if mass = zero then e=0xc2. That makes e=0.

PDR1
18th Oct 2016, 17:48
So how (from this model) do you explain the properties of mass and energy that we *can* observe. How does this theory predict the mass of the electron, the mass of the proton and the speed of light?

There is nothing inherently impossible in the concept of a massless particle, and there are arguments which would suggest that it would be capable of infinite velocities without relativistic constraints. But just suggesting it isn't enough; you have to suggest how it explains current observations and how the model would predict specific observations that we could look for.

FWIW - particles with *negative* mass have been suggested as one explanation for gravity, although the theory doesn't have that much support.

PDR

tony draper
18th Oct 2016, 18:00
Plagiarist!:= :rolleyes:
PPRuNe Forums - Search Results (http://www.pprune.org/search.php?searchid=4588694)

PDR1
18th Oct 2016, 18:05
Of course there WAS the photon that checked into a hotel, and when the girl at the desk asked if it had any luggage it said "No - I'm travelling light"...

PDR

llondel
18th Oct 2016, 20:24
Then Man invented religion and the entire Universe came to a shuddering halt because suddenly there was Mass.

tony draper
18th Oct 2016, 20:44
Tiz begining to look like the entire universe and all that in there dwells is nowt but a illusion anyway, it has no objective reality and exists only inside the goo in our noggins.
All them Quantum physicists are wandering about with worried looks on their faces touching and feeling everything that seems solid.
:E

Nervous SLF
18th Oct 2016, 21:08
Plagiarist!:= :rolleyes:
PPRuNe Forums - Search Results (http://www.pprune.org/search.php?searchid=4588694)


But I only get this message below after I click on that link :confused: :-.

PPRuNe Message
Sorry - no matches. Please try some different terms.



Forum Jump

tony draper
18th Oct 2016, 21:48
Hmmm, strange it were on before,obviously the powers that be dont want you folks to learn the truth..:rolleyes:
Anyway here is what I wrote thence,and damm the black helicopters.:hmm:

Of course one's own theory is that there is only one photon in the entire universe,because there is no time when it is tootling about at c it can be everywhere and everywhen simultaneously,we however our senses being locked into this particular spacetime continuum of with its thermodynamic arrow of time experience photons as many individuals, this helps explain the wave particle duality problem.
The other thing is, the Universe is not really there you see.

Loose rivets
18th Oct 2016, 22:07
A photon has zero rest mass but is born travelling at the speed of light. What I want to know is, how do you get it on the scales to weigh it?

There are certain things I think we shouldn't be told.

G-CPTN
18th Oct 2016, 22:36
Tiz begining to look like the entire universe and all that in there dwells is nowt but a illusion anyway, it has no objective reality and exists only inside the goo in our noggins.
I have long held the belief that all life is but a reaction in a Petri dish.

All the (complex) interactions (and sensations/feelings) are programmed into a sort of 'game' (of Life).

It is difficult to disprove the idea that it is all a figment of someone's imagination.

mgahan
18th Oct 2016, 23:07
Following on...

If you accept the concept of infinity, how many retired controllers are on PPRuNe forums in the universe discussing this topic from an atoll in the mid Pacific?

MJG
In the office in Tarawa taking a break to check PPRuNe and then getting back to work.

Nervous SLF
19th Oct 2016, 01:29
I have long held the belief that all life is but a reaction in a Petri dish.

All the (complex) interactions (and sensations/feelings) are programmed into a sort of 'game' (of Life).

It is difficult to disprove the idea that it is all a figment of someone's imagination.


Many many years ago in a Sci-Fi comic there was a story of a planet upon which lived someone who said their world
would end very soon.They were laughed at and no-one believed them until a worldwide flood destroyed everything.

The next picture showed a lab technician washing out a Petri dish with a bubble saying "Oh well that experiment failed
as I couldn't detect any life even microbes" or words to that effect. :ooh:

GearDown&Locked
19th Oct 2016, 11:01
The other thing is, the Universe is not really there you see.


So, so you think you can tell Heaven from Hell, blue skies from pain...


(how's that for plagiarism)

John Marsh
19th Oct 2016, 11:05
GD&L:
You're describing a "cathode-ray tube" like Universe.

Not very logical, because for it to be 'everywhere' it does need to change position and direction, very difficult to attain for a massless particle.
Hmmm... I hadn't thought of that. Maybe we need to allow ourselves some 'persistence of vision'? So that the minute 'blanks' caused by the particle's delay do not trouble us.

What if the particle has infinite speed? Delay would be infinitely small...:8

Hempy:
Actually, going by Einsteins e=mc2, if mass = zero then e=0xc2. That makes e=0.Of course, this equation may be limited to our current perceptual creation of reality.

PDR1:
So how (from this model) do you explain the properties of mass and energy that we *can* observe. How does this theory predict the mass of the electron, the mass of the proton and the speed of light?I'm not sure it has to predict the mass of the electron, etc. I think it's quite possible that we are the ultimate creators of mass, via our perception. In this, we create the apparent and experiential solidity of things from a vast Universe of energetic information. Some call it a hologram.

Acting thusly, our scientists would affect experiments which seem to show that electrons etc have mass.

Dr Draper: Bang to rights am I! Although I did get the idea from elsewhere: the singular Darryl Anka (http://www.torontosun.com/2011/11/11/ankas-cousin-has-odd-career).

Source video (https://archive.org/download/BasharPlanetaryMidwifeVideo/Bashar-Fundamentals.flv).

Loose rivets:
There are certain things I think we shouldn't be told.Absolutely right! How much can our minds assimilate, per day or per generation?:confused:

GearDown&Locked
19th Oct 2016, 11:34
John Marsh,

You're not considering the fact that, much like the CRT scenario, that particle had to move to/be at anywhere based not only on massive amounts of energy but, more importantly, based on a matrix of precise and detailed information on where it has to be at any given time.

Otherwise the perceived Universe would be just white noise.
An intelligent particle (of the Creator)?

ExRAFRadar
19th Oct 2016, 20:30
Imagine a particle, massless and thus able to travel faster than light. As fast as it wishes, in fact!

OP Tell you what, you put the equations that prove a massless particle can travel faster than light and you will have a Nobel Prize in your hands.

These things come up on here a fair amount of time. Trouble is saying something is easy. Mathematically/Scientifically proving it is a completely different thing

ExRAFRadar
20th Oct 2016, 10:58
Relativistic equations show that the particle has momentum despite the fact it has no mass.

p=mv and that would indicate that if you have no mass you have no momentum

But things take a very different direction from that simple formula when you bring Relativity into play.

I am not trying to be a di*k about this but there is a reason no lesser a mind than Einstein grappled with the subject for years before coming to an understanding.

And a round of applause for Maxwell and Plank as well while I am here.

PDR1
20th Oct 2016, 11:04
A photon has zero rest mass but is born travelling at the speed of light. What I want to know is, how do you get it on the scales to weigh it?


Nepotsim


There are certain things I think we shouldn't be told.

You want the truth?

YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!!

PDR

PDR1
20th Oct 2016, 11:06
So, so you think you can tell Heaven from Hell, blue skies from pain...


(how's that for plagiarism)

Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail? That's the question

THE PUBLIC HAS A RIGHT TO KNOW!

PDR

PDR1
20th Oct 2016, 11:12
So you see, the Universe is just this one particle, travelling so widely and rapidly that it appears next to itself, over and over again.

So this one particle has both a charge and a magnetic moment (well it would, and the latter is the relativistic consequence of the former) which produce electric and magnetic fields. The interaction of the electric and magnetic fields are the things which cause matter - they cause atomic structures and energy exchanges.

But if there's only the one particle its fields must be interacting with ITSELF; it must be influenced by its own field when it was in a different position. So what is your explanation for the persistence of the fields - what is the mechanism?

PDR

ExRAFRadar
20th Oct 2016, 11:13
Didn't Hempy point out that a massless particle requires no energy to accellerate it?

Sorry to double post but I just realised I did not reply to the above.
E=MC2 does not explain the whole thing. See here
energy - Does $E = mc^2$ apply to photons? - Physics Stack Exchange (http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6202/does-e-mc2-apply-to-photons)
E/M = C2 (E divided by M = C squared) if you rearrange the equation, dividing by the mass on both sides
So if mass is zero you are dividing by zero.
So now we are rewriting Number Theory as well as General Relativity. :-)

GearDown&Locked
20th Oct 2016, 12:32
But if there's only the one particle its fields must be interacting with ITSELF; it must be influenced by its own field when it was in a different position. So what is your explanation for the persistence of the fields - what is the mechanism?

Even if you could produce a reasonable explanation about this mechanism, it still wouldn’t answer the question about why we observe innumerous interlocked systems, from DNA to Constellations, instead of just random noise.

So this particle doesn’t go anywhere it fancies, it’s not free, it has some sort of constraints and limitations -- in itself at least.

PDR1
20th Oct 2016, 13:10
So this particle doesn’t go anywhere it fancies, it’s not free, it has some sort of constraints and limitations

That's true at the moment, but after Brexit it will be free to make its OWN rules. Michael Gove assured me of that, so it must be true...

PDR

John Marsh
20th Oct 2016, 13:35
GD&L:
An intelligent particle (of the Creator)?Precisely. A euphemism for how all is created. Not was created, but is. The Mind which permeates all; which maintains all in existence. The Mind which is all.

I think.:confused:

PDR1:
So this one particle has both a charge and a magnetic moment (well it would, and the latter is the relativistic consequence of the former) which produce electric and magnetic fields. The interaction of the electric and magnetic fields are the things which cause matter - they cause atomic structures and energy exchanges.

But if there's only the one particle its fields must be interacting with ITSELF; it must be influenced by its own field when it was in a different position. So what is your explanation for the persistence of the fields - what is the mechanism?Er...I dunno.:} Except to offer that this is a model for how Creation is. Whilst Einstein and all other illustrious figures are clearly within said Creation, I would not necessarily state that they have offered perfect or all-encompassing formulae. Yet.

Ancient Observer
20th Oct 2016, 14:31
Oh, FFS!!!

Have you lot not heard of the Hyper Improbability Drive?

And, (more literature), a word means exactly what I want it to mean, no more and no less.

GearDown&Locked
20th Oct 2016, 15:21
Oh, FFS!!!

Have you lot not heard of the Hyper Improbability Drive?


There's nothing wrong with a little bit -- read particle -- of self-indulgence. :E

Romeo Charlie
20th Oct 2016, 22:58
This is all very well, but will the 'plane take off or not?

boguing
21st Oct 2016, 00:11
But if the particle is everything then it isn't actually going anywhere, because the only reference to 'place' it has is itself.

G-CPTN
21st Oct 2016, 01:34
This is all very well, but will the 'plane take off or not?
Is this particle on a conveyor belt?

ExRAFRadar
21st Oct 2016, 10:26
But if a plane moves out of the plane is it still a plane?

Rosevidney1
21st Oct 2016, 21:29
It ought to be plain to see!

Loose rivets
21st Oct 2016, 23:38
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v703/walnaze/Pprune%20New/0%20Pprune%20Chapman_zpszfvubccy.jpg (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/walnaze/media/Pprune%20New/0%20Pprune%20Chapman_zpszfvubccy.jpg.html)