Time - the Real Zero-Point Energy, Not Virtual Particles!

page: 2
8
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 09:27 AM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


reply to post by poet1b
 


I've checked my model yesterday. I determined that any particles EXACTLY parallel to the time direction would have an infinite mass. And I discovered my model also explains entanglement. It's awesome.

Entanglement signal is EXACTLY parallel to space direction, thus it has no time value. That gives the entanglement signal the possibility to cross all of the Universe's space in, literally, no time. Which means, any particles could communicate with each other, as long as they are on the same state of resonance with the signal.
edit on 21-2-2013 by swan001 because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 09:59 AM
link   
I would agree that time does not exist. It's merely a cognitive construct that our brains use so that everything does not happen at once. It's like blue light. That is to say, there is no light which is actually "blue", only light that we sense at that wavelength and so our brains tell us that it is "blue".

There is no energy or field for time. And therefore, no mass either.



posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by swan001
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


reply to post by poet1b
 


I've checked my model yesterday. I determined that any particles EXACTLY parallel to the time direction would have an infinite mass. And I discovered my model also explains entanglement. It's awesome.

Entanglement signal is EXACTLY parallel to space direction, thus it has no time value. That gives the entanglement signal the possibility to cross all of the Universe's space in, literally, no time. Which means, any particles could communicate with each other, as long as they are on the same state of resonance with the signal.
edit on 21-2-2013 by swan001 because: (no reason given)


what does exactly parallel to the time direction mean? What is the time direction? What particles have infinite mass?



posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by swan001

Originally posted by moebius
The W-boson is an intermediate particle with a very short lifetime in this decay, a virtual particle. It decays pretty much immediately to the electron and antineutrino.

So.. because W- boson only lives a short period of time, its mass can be discarded as unimportant?


The reason the W boson is a part of the model is because according to observation, the W boson is an event in which the neutron decays into a proton. a neutron has more mass then a proton, so the extra mass is ejected as first a ball of mass (known as a W boson) and that ball immediately separates itself into an electron and antineutrino.



posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 04:29 PM
link   
the W mass in decay keeps it localized, the mass of the W and Z do figure into these events and is exactly the reason why weak interactions are short range (but longer range than strong ones) if it didnt exist or say happened without this mechanism, ie with no virtual particles, then things like beta decay would occur, and the appearance of the decay product would not be localized. A neutron would decay, and a proton, electron and neutrino would appear randomly somewhere else in the universe completely at random.

As far as we know, particles have not been observed to teleport via the beta decay mechanism.

That is unless I missed this subtlety to what was being explained.

The free neutron decay can also be explained by energetics as has already been explained.



posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by MisfitToy
 


Without time you can't have light, or else for instance EM frequencies (which relies on time) would always be equal to 0.



posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
what does exactly parallel to the time direction mean? What is the time direction? What particles have infinite mass?

If someone could answer these two questions, they would be in heavy business.


All I know is my model both predicts the existence of entanglement but also infinite mass. Now entanglement has been observed. But infinite mass? Maybe some of it resides in black holes, but black holes are not particles.
edit on 21-2-2013 by swan001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by swan001

Originally posted by ImaFungi
what does exactly parallel to the time direction mean? What is the time direction? What particles have infinite mass?

If someone could answer these two questions, they would be in heavy business.


All I know is my model both predicts the existence of entanglement but also infinite mass. Now entanglement has been observed. But infinite mass? Maybe some of it resides in black holes, but black holes are not particles.
edit on 21-2-2013 by swan001 because: (no reason given)


Dont mean to be pedantic but... that is only One question. Also infinite mass as far as been observed, does not exist. Black holes are not infinite in mass. If they were then nothing would exist, an infinite mass would produce infinite gravity, no light would escape it and everything would eventually end up in the middle in a great big infinite mess.



posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by ErosA433

an infinite mass would produce infinite gravity, no light would escape it and everything would eventually end up in the middle in a great big infinite mess.

Isn't that the definition of a singularity, inside the black hole's event horizon?



posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by swan001

Originally posted by moebius
The W-boson is an intermediate particle with a very short lifetime in this decay, a virtual particle. It decays pretty much immediately to the electron and antineutrino.

So.. because W- boson only lives a short period of time, its mass can be discarded as unimportant?


Yes,, this is how virtual particles work, due to the uncertainty principle.

DE . Dt >= hbar

This means that, when the neutron decays, you can produce a W (matter energy) but only for a small amount of time. This W can also travel during this time, though is obviously constricted by the time it is allowed to exist for, (i think) though if you work it out... it is so small we would not have a hope in seeing one... tiny tiny.(please someone correct that if im wrong, its late here lol)



posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by swan001

Originally posted by ErosA433

an infinite mass would produce infinite gravity, no light would escape it and everything would eventually end up in the middle in a great big infinite mess.

Isn't that the definition of a singularity, inside the black hole's event horizon?


No it isnt, a black hole does not have infinite mass, nor does it have infinite gravity. It has enough gravity such that once inside the 'event horizon' the escape velocity is faster than the speed of light. That does not equal having infinite mass or gravity.



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 06:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by ErosA433
It has enough gravity such that once inside the 'event horizon' the escape velocity is faster than the speed of light. That does not equal having infinite mass or gravity.


Hm, you should tell that to NASA guys.


Actually at the center of a black hole spacetime has infinite curvature and matter is crushed to infinite density under the pull of infinite gravity. At a singularity, space and time cease to exist as we know them.

Source: imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov...

As you know, mass is defined as the amount of matter inside given space. So, in a sense, black holes do have an infinite amount of mass.
edit on 22-2-2013 by swan001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 08:48 AM
link   
Sure sure, but what you see there is a way of trying to conceptualize it, and they do it technically wrong or at least it is an attempt to describe something that is not well understood, and only described by using abstract descriptions.

It also depend upon which model of black hole you want to look at

just take a look at the list of models at the bottom of this page... it is enormous
en.wikipedia.org...

so go and take your pick.

My point is, what i said is not technically wrong, and what the two people who work for NASA said is also not technically wrong... because we dont actually know what a blackhole is on the inside... rumour has it they are a little difficult/impossible to probe.


My point is that without some kind of space folding boundary that negates mass in someway, an infinite mass would produce an infinite gravitational field. Just because something has a very large gravitational field that is so large that the escape velocity inside a virtual line barrier (Event Horizon) is faster than the speed of light, does not mean that it has infinite mass. It would violate conservation of energy.

You will also see some scientists (also from NASA) no doubt telling you that blackholes could be used as wormholes, well, yes they could, but if you then look at the assumptions, there are a massive number of things that need to be assumed to be correct in order for it to work... one of these includes anti-mass. Anti-mass is something that has definitely not been proven to exist, sure would be awesome if it was but based on the evidence... doesn't exist.

My point is basically that science is a very wide field, and theory is even wider. Not all theories are borne equal, and not all theories match the evidence. The ones that do fit evidence closely are critically scrutinized at every level possible and modified to fit (if they possibly can be without fundamentally breaking the model). Objects like black holes are so interesting and intriguing and are the basis of as many theories as anyone cares to count.
edit on 22-2-2013 by ErosA433 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by ErosA433
the W mass in decay keeps it localized, the mass of the W and Z do figure into these events and is exactly the reason why weak interactions are short range (but longer range than strong ones) if it didnt exist or say happened without this mechanism, ie with no virtual particles, then things like beta decay would occur, and the appearance of the decay product would not be localized. A neutron would decay, and a proton, electron and neutrino would appear randomly somewhere else in the universe completely at random.

As far as we know, particles have not been observed to teleport via the beta decay mechanism.

That is unless I missed this subtlety to what was being explained.

The free neutron decay can also be explained by energetics as has already been explained.


I dont get why they would be somewhere else in the universe...

Why cant a neutron decay into a proton, and as this is happening and how this is happening is that the extra mass from this conversion turns into an electron and neutrino at the junction of decay?

Is the W boson a way to explain how a neutron "seemingly" contained an electron and neutrino, or how the extra energy of the reaction is "floating" in space and then because of the circumstances it transforms into an electron and neutrino.



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by ErosA433
My point is basically that science is a very wide field, and theory is even wider.

I agree.


Anyway, I am more interested by the entanglement part. According to my model, entanglement is a space-only phenomenon - the only signal which doesn't have a time dimension value. This is interesting.
edit on 22-2-2013 by swan001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by ErosA433
the W mass in decay keeps it localized, the mass of the W and Z do figure into these events and is exactly the reason why weak interactions are short range (but longer range than strong ones) if it didnt exist or say happened without this mechanism, ie with no virtual particles, then things like beta decay would occur, and the appearance of the decay product would not be localized. A neutron would decay, and a proton, electron and neutrino would appear randomly somewhere else in the universe completely at random.

As far as we know, particles have not been observed to teleport via the beta decay mechanism.

That is unless I missed this subtlety to what was being explained.

The free neutron decay can also be explained by energetics as has already been explained.


I dont get why they would be somewhere else in the universe...

Why cant a neutron decay into a proton, and as this is happening and how this is happening is that the extra mass from this conversion turns into an electron and neutrino at the junction of decay?

Is the W boson a way to explain how a neutron "seemingly" contained an electron and neutrino, or how the extra energy of the reaction is "floating" in space and then because of the circumstances it transforms into an electron and neutrino.


Well maybe think of it like this, if there was no system to bind this 'virtual' particle to that point in space, and if the event occurs and is stationary in time, then the range of the virtual particle is infinite or its lifetime would be infinite (remember entanglement? the issue with entanglement is that it appears to allow instant communication) Imagine that the uncertainty principle was not true, did not exist or play no role in a beta decay. So you could get a neutron decay, and its decay products spontaneously appear somewhere else. The uncertainty principle is an elegant way of controlling this behaviour, keeping the range over which the decay interaction occurs very very very small.

It essentially retrains it to within the nuclei itself (i think)

Well the issue is that, you have to produce two particles from the conversion of one. What happens at that point is unknown. does every proton contain these particles? No it would seem not because it is possible to do say for example, inverse beta decay. So there has to be something else happening. How, for example the neutron know that it has to produce the neutrino and the electron at the same time? we have a 3 body problem, and somehow the information has to transfer, while conserving energy and momentum.

This is the whole reason why in the theory we have this boson, that acts as a mediator to the decay. Something that carries the properties of the interaction.



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by ErosA433


Well maybe think of it like this, if there was no system to bind this 'virtual' particle to that point in space, and if the event occurs and is stationary in time, then the range of the virtual particle is infinite or its lifetime would be infinite


I dont think this is true. I dont think the virtual particle has an existence on its own. I think it is only a result of the neutron decaying that that virtual particle can temporarily exist, and it doesn't even exist in any way, other then a point in space and time with a finite amount of mass/energy in which shortly after the neutron decays into a proton an electron and neutrino also pop out. Its because if the neutron were to decay into a proton at this junction of decay, there would be the left over mass/energy sitting in space-time where and when the neutron decayed and this mass energy then turns into a electron and neutrino, I dont know why the need to have the w boson, other then to say, well how the heck did this electron and neutrino both pop out of this point in space-time where there was a little ball of left over mass from this neutron decay. This is my interpretation at least.. I will accept the fact that I may be wrong, but what then is the W bosons individual nature besides this (or another) decay event... This to me just seems like the time it takes for nature to register what just occurred. In other words the W boson is said to exist, because an electron and neutrino cant just pop out of a neutron as it decays,, they have to decay out of the "cloud of mass" left behind the neutron decay.

And yes I read the rest of your reply and agree with you, especially what you said at the end, that it is just the theory to describe the event that is occurring. I guess it is necessary to label every unique interaction of energy that exists, but im just confused because im not sure if they are all really their own independent particles. I also dont know too much about the theory/model and how the universe operates on that scale, but it seems weird that there are a relatively small amount of stable fundamental particles that make up everything we know and see, and then we smash these together at different speeds in different ways and believe that when we take images of these collisions we are witnessing hundreds of more particles of energy.



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 11:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
but it seems weird that there are a relatively small amount of stable fundamental particles that make up everything we know and see, and then we smash these together at different speeds in different ways and believe that when we take images of these collisions we are witnessing hundreds of more particles of energy.


They are smashing particles at near speed of light under assumption that the particle is still as original
without any chande whatsoever, at the collision speeds



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 10:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection

Originally posted by ImaFungi
but it seems weird that there are a relatively small amount of stable fundamental particles that make up everything we know and see, and then we smash these together at different speeds in different ways and believe that when we take images of these collisions we are witnessing hundreds of more particles of energy.


They are smashing particles at near speed of light under assumption that the particle is still as original
without any chande whatsoever, at the collision speeds


Well ImaFungi I too have thought about this, but it is interesting, there are 2 species of quark in each of the generations, and 3 generations. So really it is only 1/3 of them that are stable. I have always pondered about 4th and 5th generations of quarks and leptons, is there anything that says they cannot exist?

Well, the discovery of the higher generations was something that was predicted when particle accelerators became bigger and physicists were trying to understand the data. Back at the time when we had up down and strange, there was something that puzzled people. That was (i will look it up to see if i can find it) pion decay should allow for a particular decay channel. The 3 quark model at the time didn't seem to work, but by adding another quark, this allowed decay channel would become suppressed because of quark mixing. Charm was created in two different labs within about a week, a few years later. Now from what we have observed at the high end of the scale (3rd generation, top and bottom) we have not seen this kind of behavour. Every decay channel and branch is about as we expect, there is no enormous holes when it comes to decay. Decay occurs via the W+- and Z0 and the weak decay is something that has been studied at great depth. W+- and Z have also been created in the lab as we can also predict how such a boson will decay.

It brings everything into a nice symmetric 6 lepons 6 quarks, and i wonder what the fundamental reason is behind this is.


And the statement above by Angelic Resurrection is not completely correct. While we model them as remaining as the same species, they become relativistic and essentially have an effective mass far greater than at rest. Do you suggest that they fundamentally change? If so by what mechanism and how? Because this change has to be smooth, if it is abrupt, particle accelerators would not work.
edit on 23-2-2013 by ErosA433 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 10:57 PM
link   
sorry double post but i thought id add something

We actually know a great deal about the stable particles we all know and love. We understand that the ups an downs in protons and neutrons can be put into excited state configurations, which behave very much like electron energy levels, and follow very similar de-ecitation rules. We have used these along with what we know of radioactive decay and nuclear binding energy to allow us to model the nucleus of many many atoms. The issue is that as the atoms become larger and larger the computational power required to produce predictions of stability and decay rates gets harder and harder.

Where this comes in for example is in double beta decay. This is when an atom is energetically forbidden to decay via a single beta because the decay daughter is higher in energy. Thus the only way it can decay is to do two simultaneous beta decays.

The theoretical prediction of what the expected rate this occurs is one such area where our nuclear models are used. Physics is also looking out for Neutrinoless double beta decay which can occur if and only if the neutrino is a Majorana particle meaning that it is its own anti-particle. This process has yet to be conclusively observed, but some big experiments are searching for it.





top topics
 
8
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join