Ask any question you want about Physics

originally posted by: mbkennel



OK, then call it a field which is more specific, and what physicists use because it describes the structure of the apparently experimentally successful theory.

To be most pure. Most fundamental. Absolutely most simple and pure and fundamental. To understand the absolute truth most absolutely. I go to the primal source of facts. Something and nothing. I did not intend to discuss the detailed ways in which the something exists. For whatever I was discussing, it was only necessary to at that time, to make the reference between the fact that nothing is nothing, and something is something. If I say "field", that is not pure and absolute and simple, because there are many fields, if I say 'all fields' that is still not good. The term substance is fine and had been used since the greeks and everything to describe the fact that not nothing was what existed. And it was and is handy to have a tool, a word, that can invoke in the hearers mind, the fact that something is always something, and nothing is always nothing. To keep that always considered, is very important. And that is the beginning statement, I need to make, and we need to consider, from which all else follows. Once you understand that severely, that nothing is nothing is nothing is nothing; and something is something. And that all of reality can only be something interacting with something, 'within' 'surrounded by' or 'amidst' nothing space, then your intuition can be born. Then you understand how reality is causal, is reason itself, is logic itself, is physical, is something, something causing and effecting something, for physical reasons.

("substance (n.)
c.1300, "essential nature, real or essential part," from Old French sustance, substance "goods, possessions; nature, composition" (12c.), from Latin substantia "being, essence, material," from substans, present participle of substare "stand firm, stand or be under, be present," from sub "up to, under" (see sub-) + stare "to stand," from PIE root *sta- "to stand" (see stet). Latin substantia translates Greek ousia "that which is one's own, one's substance or property; the being, essence, or nature of anything." Meaning "any kind of corporeal matter" is first attested mid-14c. Sense of "the matter of a study, discourse, etc." first recorded late 14c."

No movement is not energy---one can compute energy as a function of movement.

Very interesting statement. Movement is not energy. Well, this appears to be a semantical problem.

Ok, so I will not assert anything yet, but will await your response to this question;

After you define 'energy';

If movement is not energy, what is it?

You proved nothing, just asserted.

Proof: Something exists. Something cannot be created or destroyed. Something has always existed. Something will always exist.

Try to take a crack at disproving that hotshot. Try to say one measly idea or statement, take lifetimes, send me libraries of data, anything please, please, try to pose an argument against that line of thinking.

a reply to: ImaFungi
Even when you push a wheelbarrow, field interactions result in the movement. Why are you ok with fields interacting at short distances but not at longer distances?

Richard Feynman explains why "action at a distance" isn't that much different than what we call "touch" Part 1


Part 2

a reply to: ImaFungi

For me, at least, the best way to conceptualize gravity is to consider it akin to a non-discriminatory magnetic field. One that doesn't just attract ferritic materials, in other words. And the Graviton, if it exists, is the force carrier for that field in the same sense that the Higgs Boson is responsible for mediation of the Higgs Field in giving mass to baryonic matter.
The field effect is intensified by a larger number of particles packed together, so the greater the mass, the stronger the gravitational distortion it generates. This, in turn, effects other gravitons and causes them to be attracted to the mass as well via the field distortion/intensification. An analogy I like to use to visualize this, although not perfectly accurate, is moths to a flame. The greater the gravitational force, the brighter the flame, so to speak. The brighter the flame, the further away the moths will be attracted to it. I know this isn't the most accurate description, but it is a visualization that works for me.
And the reason I compare all of this to the Higgs Field is because the effect of gravity is apparently infinite. Therefore it most probably has to be a universally pervasive field.

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: mbkennel


What specifically counts as "substance" and what does not?

Is there a word we can agree to use which turns our understanding of eternal reality into absolutely something, and absolutely nothing? Absolutely something being that which is absolutely opposite of nothing.

Too imprecise. You're still trying to process linguistically with all sorts of imprecise assumptions and you imagine, falsely, you're going to get somewhere. People have tried that for millenia, but with the development of modern philosophy educated humans know that doesn't work on its own.

Example: The number Boolean 1 is the absolute opposite of Boolean 0. In the Boolean group with the meaning of 'group' in the algebraic mathematical sense with the meaning of 'absolute opposite'

So, restricted to that scenario, one can equate "Boolean 1" as fulfilling your "Absolutely something" and "Boolean 0" as fulfilling your "absolutely nothing". Or I could have done the reverse.

Something cannot come from nothing.

Something cannot be turned into nothing.

For what definition of "come from" and for what definition of 'turned into"? What is the space of the 'come from' and 'turned into' operations? Notice also the passive voice. 'come from' and 'turned into' which of course linguistically evade the notion of any progenitor of the operation.

I refer to something, as substance.

The only kink in this discussion, is the nature of movement.

Which is real, but not 'a thing'. But an aspect of things.

A thing exists.

A thing that exists moves.

It is still the same thing entirely.

But there is a real difference.

And its real difference is not 'a thing'.

Movement is not a 'substance'. (unless it is... as I have not deeply considered the nature of movement enough to say)

A thing exists.

That thing which exists, when moving, is said to have more energy.

in physics:

Positive mass particles which are instantiations of the fundamental fields in standard model, when moving translationally through 3+1 dimensional space, have more energy when they have a higher velocity than lower velocity, relative to a particular inertial frame of reference.

Notice all the specific qualifications which need to be made? (And each of those are connected to a significant ontology and experimental set of phenomena).

The thing itself; the thing as it was before it started moving, is the same thing as it is while it is moving.

For particles which have a number conservation law which is generally upheld in typical experimental situations.

Then we must consider, how it might require a thing, to make a thing move.

But then we just get entirely into a rabbit hole.

So yes, I will stand by my claim;

Nothing equals nothing.

That which is not nothing.

Is something.

That's just defining that you mean linguistically nothing is the negation of something without defining what they apply to outside language or what the 'thing' is. True, but useless.

That which is something, can move.

Stop. You're trying to do everything with linguistic logic.

How does Boolean 1 'move'? Doesn't even make sense.

originally posted by: mbkennel


Too imprecise. You're still trying to process linguistically with all sorts of imprecise assumptions and you imagine, falsely, you're going to get somewhere. People have tried that for millenia, but with the development of modern philosophy educated humans know that doesn't work on its own.

Read my previous two responses to you, and answer the questions within. Either you know or you do not know. Your lack of answers hints in the direction of you not knowing.

What is the supposed mass of a graviton, and how many exist on average per square mile?

When the sun passes through an area of gravity field space; how are the gravitons which exist on average all through the gravity field space 'moved'?

How are gravitons connected to one another?

In a square foot of gravity field space; how many gravitons exist on average, and how much space is in between them on average (that last part is to ask, how much more dense theoretically could they be made in regards to one another)?

Does the network of gravitons react to the suns rotation? That is to ask; does the network of gravitons which are moved by the sun (the moving of which is the force of gravity) also move with the implied rotational momentum of the sun?

Are there the least amount of gravitons directly behind the sun (the suns tail), as there might be the least amount of water particle density directly behind a bowling ball (the bowling balls tail; that being, the exact opposite direction of its travel) that is moving through a large pool of water at 10,000 mph?


That is gravity.

On to light.


A photon is something.

A photon is something moving.

It is said a photon is something, which cannot not be moving.

Something cannot come from nothing.

The something that is the photon must come from somewhere.

Are there always an equal number of photons existing at any given time?

And they are just being passed back and forth, relatively lightning/genie trapped in bottles, and then passed on again?

I could work with that idea, that there is an exact finite amount of light substance which always travels at light speed, and different material conglomerations can play with this light and trap it and pass it on.

But the thing that I think hampers this idea, is what I was getting at a few pages ago, with the nature of how light is emitted, if it is emitted omni directional, or as a circle which expands (like stone dropped on pond).

If light is purely a substance which can only move at light speed. Then field theory isnt an explanation of reality, I keep having to remember scientists dont care about reality (only what toys they can make from it), because field theory implies an ultimate connected structure, connected at every point in space, which wouldnt be true. Its like imagine photons as apples. Right now in the universe there cannot be infinite amount of photons (there cannot be, by definition of obviousness, infinite quantity of things at a given time) so imagine photons are apples, for easier visualization, we dont imagine infinite apples in the universe then, but imagine the universe is full of apples, chains of apples all flowing about; there is no apple field where apple sauce exists at every planck length of space, with the potential of an apple to be created of it when an electron is waved near it.

What it comes down to it is, you cant have it both and all ways.

Either there is a network literally throughout the entire universe, intimately and perfectly connected, of material that has rest mass, that when an electron is accelerated near it (near it, being anywhere in space) this material that is perfectly connected, and has rest mass (similarly to the material that is perfectly connected and has rest mass, that when a mass is waved near it, it reacts...gravity) starts to wave at the speed of light. Like a still pool of water that exists, but when you touch a bowling ball to its surface, waves are created faster than it would be easy to use your energy to send the bowling ball in a direction.

Or, there is no connected network, field, for light. There is only at any given time a finite quantity of substance which cannot help but travel at the speed of light, and this substance does not exist at all points in space.

In both potential cases, the further problem remains, of comprehending how exactly this substance exists, and how exactly it propagates.

And it must have a rest mass. Just because it may be impossible for something to rest, does not mean that it does not have rest mass. Mass is a measurement of existence of substance. That which is not nothing is mass. Though now I see why there might be issues. But my examples contain the mystery I am attempting to unveil. I was going to say something like 'how much mass do these letters have'. Pretty much it breaks things down into another area; but it is similar to something I was attempting to go on about prior, which is how something interacts amidst nothing. The idea of a stencil. How the absence of something, can provide the basis for something else. Like how atoms that are not squeezed together so there is no space between them, has different effects and potentials, then atoms with a certain amount of space between them; what is added? 'nothing'. But what was really added, must be some sort of energy in some sense, but the use of energy results in the creation of selected distance.

Anyway;

There might be a similar situation going on with the nature of light. How peculiar it is that there exists (exists meaning; not nothing) substance, which cannot 'just exist as itself', that cannot just chill out, relax, be more still. That no thing can cause it, the it that it is, to remain as it is, without carrying on its way always.

So why is it said light does not have rest mass, simply because it can not be put to rest?

If we take a container, and try to contain a large amount of in coming light, lets consider this experiment occurring in very slow motion, so the materials of the container, their motions and interactions are mathematically equivalent but we slow the speed of reality down, to better understand what is going on.

The light is entering the container; ah, is it an object in motion stays in motion. The light, having been uncontrollably put into motion, travels through space. The material of the container is substance, apparently due to reasons, very different from the substance of light. The light enters the container and there is no thing that causes it to stop, it continues to travel in its direction, until there is some thing in its path of space, aha! and then what is it to do?

Well perhaps it is redirected towards a path of space which does not have a thing in the way, and perhaps this is all that always happens. But the nature of terminology like 'absorbs a photon', had me perturbed. So I suppose what occurs, is that an atom is a network of things, and if light happens to be traveling towards (lets say our container made of atoms) and there is no empty space left for it to continuously travel in, it travels into an atoms empty space?
Its pretty weird how matter is fundamentally different, pretty much what universal birth theories attempt to explain, how common eternal substance was shocked into its hardcore intrinsicalities.

originally posted by: mbkennel


Example: The number Boolean 1 is the absolute opposite of Boolean 0. In the Boolean group with the meaning of 'group' in the algebraic mathematical sense with the meaning of 'absolute opposite'

So, restricted to that scenario, one can equate "Boolean 1" as fulfilling your "Absolutely something" and "Boolean 0" as fulfilling your "absolutely nothing". Or I could have done the reverse.

Yes you can do that, and the infinite decimal places from 0 to the 1 are also not 0, but aspects of the 1?

Well, it may be easier to use Boolean 0 and Boolean infinity. If you want to represent the differences between nothing and something.

For what definition of "come from" and for what definition of 'turned into"? What is the space of the 'come from' and 'turned into' operations? Notice also the passive voice. 'come from' and 'turned into' which of course linguistically evade the notion of any progenitor of the operation.

Those are good points.

I said something cannot come from nothing; what I meant by that was;

Nothing.

Something, cannot come from that.


If only nothing exists.


Something cannot come out of that, something cannot create itself out of only absolutely nothing. Nothing is the absence of something. Only something exists. Something is what exists. Nothing is nothing.

For; Turned into;

The opposite.

Something exists. We have recognized and defined, something as being that which is not nothing.

Because we cannot have only nothing, and turn only nothing into something;

We cannot have something, and turn it into nothing.

Because that would imply that something was made of only nothing.

in physics:

Positive mass particles which are instantiations of the fundamental fields in standard model, when moving translationally through 3+1 dimensional space, have more energy when they have a higher velocity than lower velocity, relative to a particular inertial frame of reference.

Notice all the specific qualifications which need to be made? (And each of those are connected to a significant ontology and experimental set of phenomena).

I am familiar with the common notions and understandings of science, I do not refute science, the power of math and theory and mind and simulation and computation. I am not an enemy of humanity and what is good and possible. I am only attempting to battle the ignorance and mystery that exists. There are problems in science, that is what I am concerned with. You are in the castle of science feeling like it is being attacked, I am just a janitor attempting to tidy up what I possibly can.

Can I ask you; Physically, why does a mass moving with greater velocity have greater energy? Its almost, or maybe is, unexplainable, it might just be obvious and intuitive, that the harder you stub your toe the more it will hurt.

But I almost want to think it has to do with the bonds of the material in motion having to do more work to remain together...or something. Would you agree that it requires 'something' to move something? We kind of head to the infinite regression, chicken and the egg sort of thing...but its crazy regardless. Physical stuff, something, has to exist, might it also always have been moving, if it was at all points perfectly still for 10000 years, what could possibly cause it to move (mail in your random fluctuation symmetry breaking theories here).

So we might just be most truthful in admitting that there has always been something, obviously with the potential to move,

(the nature of potential is very interesting, in regards to the meaning again of 'what exists', there are these heady ways in which 'things' exist, without existing, such as 'nothing space' having effect on matter; and movement, not being a thing, but being a real description of a thing, that has physical value, and again potential, if you hold an acorn, it is only an acorn, but when you see a tree, of course it is not only an acorn (all the things an acorn needs to become a tree) but when you hold an acorn, the potential for it to become a tree is real potential, even though that future does not currently exist),

but also potentially just always having been moving, it does seem with what I know to be at least the quantity of the universe, that I can imagine it would be much easier for it all at all points to have some movement, than for even a second for all something points of the universe to be absolutely perfectly still.

"The thing itself; the thing as it was before it started moving, is the same thing as it is while it is moving." - imafungi

For particles which have a number conservation law which is generally upheld in typical experimental situations.

You implied conditions in which my statement may not be true; can you provide a general example of such one?

That's just defining that you mean linguistically nothing is the negation of something without defining what they apply to outside language or what the 'thing' is. True, but useless.

Its not useless when people fail to consider the significance of that truth, which leads to hairbrain theories which contradic that truth, which leads me to feel that stating that truth, to people who believe hairbrain theories, may not be useless.

"That which is something, can move." - imafungi


Stop. You're trying to do everything with linguistic logic.

How does Boolean 1 'move'? Doesn't even make sense.

Can you provide an example or perhaps you have evidence, hypothetical or theoretical, statement or statements, that suggest there is something which exists or can exist, in which it would be impossible for that something to move? I am willing to admit my statement was false, if you can give me some type of even far reaching potential truth, which would make me feel confident in agreeing.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
What is the supposed mass of a graviton, and how many exist on average per square mile?

Gravitons are hypothetical. We didn't know the mass of the Higgs boson until we confirmed it experimentally. I think the original hypothesis said they would likely be massless if they exist. However you could try to form an alternate hypothesis that if they have some non-zero mass, it might have something to do with our dark matter observations. We don't know if they even exist and they would be difficult to detect, even more difficult than neutrinos.

Are there always an equal number of photons existing at any given time?

Explain why turning on a flashlight wouldn't prove that false. What is the form of energy stored in the batteries before you turn the flashlight on?

If light is purely a substance which can only move at light speed. Then field theory isnt an explanation of reality, I keep having to remember scientists dont care about reality (only what toys they can make from it), because field theory implies an ultimate connected structure, connected at every point in space, which wouldnt be true.

So far no unified field theory has passed scientific scrutiny; this is well known.

So why is it said light does not have rest mass, simply because it can not be put to rest?

Read the papers on how we have established upper limits on the mass of photons, through observation. They don't actually prove the prove the mass is zero, any more than a fly landing on your bathroom scale not registering proves the fly is massless. But we have means of detection far more accurate than a bathroom scale and even using those we can't detect any photon mass.

math.ucr.edu...

It is almost certainly impossible to do any experiment that would establish the photon rest mass to be exactly zero. The best we can hope to do is place limits on it. A non-zero rest mass would introduce a small damping factor in the inverse square Coulomb law of electrostatic forces. That means the electrostatic force would be weaker over very large distances.

Likewise, the behavior of static magnetic fields would be modified. An upper limit to the photon mass can be inferred through satellite measurements of planetary magnetic fields. The Charge Composition Explorer spacecraft was used to derive an upper limit of 6 × 10^−16 eV with high certainty. This was slightly improved in 1998 by Roderic Lakes in a laboratory experiment that looked for anomalous forces on a Cavendish balance. The new limit is 7 × 10^−17 eV....

There is ongoing research with even tighter limits if you search for it, and that research describes the mass detection methods in detail.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
Yes you can do that, and the infinite decimal places from 0 to the 1 are also not 0, but aspects of the 1?

Well, it may be easier to use Boolean 0 and Boolean infinity. If you want to represent the differences between nothing and something.

Boolean infinity? Never heard of it. You're talking nonsense and you seem to have completely missed the point. You've spent enough time looking into physics that you should be able to describe things better in the language that scientists use, but it seems you're not even trying when you make up a term like "Boolean infinity".

mbkennel

in physics:

Positive mass particles which are instantiations of the fundamental fields in standard model, when moving translationally through 3+1 dimensional space, have more energy when they have a higher velocity than lower velocity, relative to a particular inertial frame of reference.

Notice all the specific qualifications which need to be made? (And each of those are connected to a significant ontology and experimental set of phenomena).

ImaFungi:

I am familiar with the common notions and understandings of science

You don't demonstrate this.

I am only attempting to battle the ignorance and mystery that exists.

Scientists admit their ignorance, the limitations of their theories, and the limitations of the scientific method. It seems that only people unfamiliar with science argue the contrary. Further, the way to battle ignorance is with knowledge, not with even greater ignorance that ignores the science learned in the last century (or two).

Can I ask you; Physically, why does a mass moving with greater velocity have greater energy? Its almost, or maybe is, unexplainable, it might just be obvious and intuitive, that the harder you stub your toe the more it will hurt.

If it was true that you are "familiar with the common notions and understandings of science" then you would already understand why mbkennel made the qualification "relative to a particular inertial frame of reference". If you are in the same inertial frame of reference as the moving mass then you don't observe energy related to the motion of that mass.

If that mass was the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs, it would have looked like the Earth was moving toward you right before you were vaporized by the impact.

But I almost want to think it has to do with the bonds of the material in motion having to do more work to remain together...or something. Would you agree that it requires 'something' to move something?

Relativity explains why the an observer on the Earth sees the asteroid moving toward it and why an observer on the asteroid sees the Earth moving toward it. The different reference frames affect what each observer observes in very interesting and non-trivial ways, but I can't think of any of those ways having anything to do with bonds having to do more work. Again this is just more evidence that contradicts your claim that "I am familiar with the common notions and understandings of science".

Once the asteroid collided with Earth and formed what is now known as Chicxulub crater, the energy released was enough to cause a mass extinction. But this had nothing to do with the bonds in either the asteroid or the Earth working harder than the other before the impact.

You have an admirable curiosity, but it's unfortunate you choose to not satisfy it by reading the free Feynman lectures.

a reply to: ImaFungi

Nobody is sure about gravitons because there isn't any experimentally verified (remember that phrase) and fully accepted theory of quantum gravity.

A photon is something.

This says nothign other than a hint about what YOU think is the meaning of 'something'.

A photon is something moving.

Take out the needless 'something'.

It is said a photon is something, which cannot not be moving.

Something cannot come from nothing.

Meaningless nonsense.

The something that is the photon must come from somewhere.

Again, meaningless nonsense.

How physics works: there is a matrix operator for transition from "before state" (state of quantum fields of the universe) to "after state which includes one extra photon" which has a non-zero expectation value. The identity of fields and the operator for interactions is given by accepted Standard Model.

Then there is a probability for such a transition to occur and if this happens a photon is created.

Are there always an equal number of photons existing at any given time?

Ah, finally an question which can be answered by experimentally verifiable physics and its theory.

Answer is "no".

This is different from matter which form atoms. There are conservation laws for lepton number and other similar particles which are not true for photons. This cannot be derived by 'thinking' or linguistic rationalizations, it is an empirical fact of Nature which appears to be universal and constant.

This means that the matrix operator which do not conserve lepton number from before to after states have expectation value zero.

Since the rest mass of even an electron is high compared to regular non-nuclear interactions, it means that in almost all circumstances encountered by humans day-to-day, electrons are not created or destroyed. Same thing is true with nuclei & quarks.

Not true with photons.

In practical day to day experience, i.e mechanics and chemistry and not nuclear physics, this distinction means that photons, electromagnetism in particular is very very wave-like (until x-rays and higher-frequency photons), and electrons & nuclei are very very particle-like. In truth, we have discovered that both have both natures at their core, namely they behave as quantum mechanical objects.

originally posted by: dragonridr



Got it backwards if a mass the size of the sun popped into out atmosphere the earth would immediately disapear inside of it quicker than we could even describe.

Right.
After 1 second a neutron star would be pulling Earth at ~7 trillion meters per second. Wouldn't even get to the end of 1 sec anyways.

a reply to: ImaFungi

A photon is something.

something, but nothing real, just a variable, a meaning for something needed in mathematical language.
Like word "one". You know what it is->represents, but it does not exist as such. There is no thing like "one"

A photon is something moving.

it has a velocity as property, but nothing physical moves->changes distance in respect to other mass.

It is said a photon is something, which cannot not be moving.

it is something, something that has properties, it travels, it acts, it reacts....
but only on paper, in equations and minds whom write them

Something cannot come from nothing.

NO. it can not !!!
but the human mind is something, and all the talk comes from that

The something that is the photon must come from somewhere.

told you... bugs in the brain

Are there always an equal number of photons existing at any given time?

absolutely not !!!

a reply to: mbkennel

In practical day to day experience, i.e mechanics and chemistry and not nuclear physics, this distinction means that photons, electromagnetism in particular is very very wave-like (until x-rays and higher-frequency photons), and electrons & nuclei are very very particle-like. In truth, we have discovered that both have both natures at their core, namely they behave as quantum mechanical objects.

duality is not what they are, duality is what we see interacting with them.
Ever seen an EM wave or a photon ?

Depends how you describe seeing I ques,,,

I got a crazy question.

Can a atom nucleus function like a non linear medium?

a reply to: BASSPLYR

Nonlinear interactions---sure the quarks are tremendously bound and mutually interacting.

Nonlinear medium in the sense of optics? Not easily, in optics you get that when the wavelength of your light is much bigger than an atom in size, so the effect of atoms is collective, i.e. the usual dielectric (linear medium) or more fancy nonlinear behavior (lasers, etc).

The closest situation might be neutron diffraction experiments, but to first order I think they're analyzed linearly (i.e. assuming superposition).

a reply to: mbkennel

So it could theoretically be possible to set up a quark phase conjugation scenario in the nucleus of a atom if done just right? And if you had the equipment to do such a thing?


Does atomic weight matter in such a situation if it were doable in regards to the output? Ie the heavier the atom the heavier the potential quarks or larger particle variety inducible as an output? Furthermore, in phase conjugation I understand if you put EM (light or microwaves) in you get the same out just phase conjugated. Can you theoretically, pump quarks or some other type of particle (muons? I dunno how big those are) into the atomic nucleus and due to the phase conjugation get a different quark (mass or weight) or particle signal output as the product of the two pump beams, the bragg condition and the probe beam? Like some sorta particle phase conjugation alchemy?

Another question. I know you can slow light by super cooling it. Stop it out right and freeze it practically. Could a similar condition be set up with other particles other than light?

If all of the above questions were sorta feasible, even if just theoretically, and you did super cool the non linear medium to delay the formation of the signal beam (which if my understanding is correct, the probe and signal beams would have to form simultaneously) the particles would have to be supplied via the quantum vacuum and be virtual particles forming the initiation of the signal beam? So, could this all lead to the creation of virtual particles? Or a quantum vacuum phase conjugation virtual particle creator phenomena maker doohickey (or whatever you would want to call it) ?

Honestly, I would love to see tachyons discovered. But were they, is there any possible way to even try and manipulate them? They reach their greatest energy as they slow toward C, so not only would we have to contain a +C particle, but also a particle of extreme energy levels, which if I recall, should be exponentially larger than any particle we have so far created or encountered. Any thoughts?

a reply to: pfishy

I'm thinking more along the lines of this. Quantum vacuum is in flux. There is the potential for any particle being formed every spilt second or moment. Is there any way to trigger a particle or cascade of particles to be created from the vacuum flux? not tachyons per se.

I feel we can trigger light and maybe electrons to be triggered from the vacuum using phase conjugation and super cooled non optical linear medium to create virtual particles. pondering if there is a way to do it with other types of particles.

a reply to: BASSPLYR

Well, I understand what you're saying, and no, that couldn't produce an inherently superluminal particle anyway. In theory, supercooling a tachyon, thus lowering it's energy level, would accelerate it well beyond C. But I'm wondering specifically about the theoretical Tachyon.

double post

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
a reply to: pfishy

I'm saying super cool the non linear medium so the probe beam is slowed down forcing the vacuum to create a virtual particle to fill the void during the delay of the signal beam manifestation. Not tachyons. Actual particles. Say if I were to do this with light I'm expecting virtual photons to be created momentarily. real usable photons created from the vacuum to maintain the needed mathematical symmetry. What if there is a way to do this with other particles. Not super luminal. More like cheating the system by fudging with the temporal symmetry during phase conjugation phenomena via holding the conjugate's feet to the mathematical coals.

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
a reply to: mbkennel

So it could theoretically be possible to set up a quark phase conjugation scenario in the nucleus of a atom if done just right? And if you had the equipment to do such a thing?

No. You need a deBroglie wavelength of quark to be much much longer than atomic spatial differences and that really doesn't happen.

There's a reason there's a great big field of interesting nonlinear optics interacting with crystals and their atoms.

Does atomic weight matter in such a situation if it were doable in regards to the output? Ie the heavier the atom the heavier the potential quarks or larger particle variety inducible as an output? Furthermore, in phase conjugation I understand if you put EM (light or microwaves) in you get the same out just phase conjugated. Can you theoretically, pump quarks or some other type of particle (muons? I dunno how big those are) into the atomic nucleus and due to the phase conjugation get a different quark (mass or weight) or particle signal output as the product of the two pump beams, the bragg condition and the probe beam? Like some sorta particle phase conjugation alchemy?

I think there's a big difference practically between masseless bosons with large wavelengths vs massive fermions with very small wavelengths.

Another question. I know you can slow light by super cooling it. Stop it out right and freeze it practically. Could a similar condition be set up with other particles other than light?

Again, you need some interesting material you can manipulate & engineer at a scale smaller than wavelengths. Only other experimentally known situation that happens is neutron diffraction---and that's because neutrons are uncharged, and because you can cool them. I haven't heard of nonlinear 'neutron-optics' but I wouldn't know the field anyway.