It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: moebius
But what about matter. GR says that "matter tells spacetime how to curve, and curved spacetime tells matter how to move". This does not feel right to me. Imho matter is a property of space too (a matter field). And as such the curvature of spacetime is "matter". They are not separate objects.
The fact that we can create/destroy matter(antimatter) is another sign of matter being a property of spacetime.
I would go as far as to say that what we call particles are simply disturbances in the spacetime. And these disturbances are observed by us as force fields (gravity, em, etc).
That's fairly standard thinking. In this talk, Harry Cliff gives an excellent overview of the history of particle physics for the layperson and just before 11 minutes he says something similar, that it's not particles which are fundamental, but fields. I certainly agree with that and your similar statement, but I don't conclude from that "there is no matter", rather that fields are more fundamental.
originally posted by: moebius
I would go as far as to say that what we call particles are simply disturbances in the spacetime. And these disturbances are observed by us as force fields (gravity, em, etc).
originally posted by: moebius
Have been playing Kerbal Space Program a bit again and it made me think about gravity, relativity, fields and particles.
The way Sun "knows" where the Earth is, to pull towards and vice versa, despite being more than 8 light-minutes apart, shows to me clearly that gravity is a property of spacetime (as are other force fields).
But what about matter. GR says that "matter tells spacetime how to curve, and curved spacetime tells matter how to move". This does not feel right to me. Imho matter is a property of space too (a matter field). And as such the curvature of spacetime is "matter". They are not separate objects.
The fact that we can create/destroy matter(antimatter) is another sign of matter being a property of spacetime. I would go as far as to say that what we call particles are simply disturbances in the spacetime. And these disturbances are observed by us as force fields (gravity, em, etc).
a reply to: moebius
There is no matter,only fields
there is space.. a physical thing
and there is time.. a concept
time is counting and space is comparison
originally posted by: Bandu
unfortunately there is no such thing as space-time
there is space.. a physical thing
and there is time.. a concept
time is counting and space is comparison
originally posted by: Arbitrageur
That's fairly standard thinking. In this talk, Harry Cliff gives an excellent overview of the history of particle physics for the layperson and just before 11 minutes he says something similar, that it's not particles which are fundamental, but fields. I certainly agree with that and your similar statement, but I don't conclude from that "there is no matter", rather that fields are more fundamental.
originally posted by: moebius
I would go as far as to say that what we call particles are simply disturbances in the spacetime. And these disturbances are observed by us as force fields (gravity, em, etc).
Beyond the Higgs What's Next for the LHC - with Harry Cliff.mp4
There is still matter but the distinction between matter and energy in modern physics is more blurred than it was historically, but it's not so blurred that we can't differentiate between energy on the left and matter on the right of the equation E=mc², in the context of say operating a nuclear reactor, where we convert matter to energy.
What the #$*! Do We (K)now!?
A fictional photographer's quest to spiritually rediscover herself is interspersed with documentary footage of scientists and theologians discussing the philosophical aspects of quantum physics.
No it's not a great docu-movie, it's a terrible docu-movie. Ignorance of science is already so profound in western culture that it doesn't need to be made even worse with things like the non-scientific nonsense portrayed as "documentary" in that pile of crap. Sure there's some science in there somewhere, but the problem is, the average person has no idea where the science ends and the pseudoscience totally fictional crap begins, and it's all mixed together without pointing out which is which.
originally posted by: Havick007
Speaking of waves of potentiality and great docu-movie is What the bleep do we know
What the #$*! Do We (K)now!?
Are you an innocent dupe? If so, it probably changed your life for the worse, unless you're more interested in fantasy and fiction than truth. This article quotes Richard Dawkins and Simon Singh referring to people who say things like that as innocent dupes:
Changed my life!
This film is even more pretentious than it is boring. And it is stupefyingly boring - unless, of course, you are fooled by its New Age fakery, in which case it might indeed be - as many innocent dupes have stated - "life-changing"...
-Richard Dawkins
Over-use of the word "paradigm" is a pretty good litmus for inclusion in the scientific equivalent of Pseud's Corner, and the film's "expert" talking heads score highly. Perhaps the leading one is "Ramtha", a dead warrior from Atlantis who addresses us (in a fake accent) through his "channeler", a woman called JZ (Judy) Knight, founder of the Ramtha Cult which sponsored the film. Thirty-five thousand years in the grave have not dulled Ramtha's business sense: he charges $1,000 per counselling session. Poor JZ has her work cut out.The authors seem undecided whether their theme is quantum theory or consciousness. Both are indeed mysterious, and their genuine mystery needs none of the hype with which this film relentlessly and noisily belabours us. Not surprisingly, we get no enlightenment on either topic, nor on the alleged connection between them.
-Richard Dawkins
I have spent my entire working life either doing science or conveying its meaning and beauty to the public. Consequently, I despise What the Bleep Do We Know!?, because it distorts science to fit its own agenda, it is full of half-truths and misleading analogies, and some of its so-called scientific claims are downright lies. Worse still, having achieved cult status in America, this film has already duped millions into mistaking pure claptrap for something of cosmic importance. For example, WTB explains how quantum physics implies a crucial role for the observer in any experiment - so far, so good, except it requires several years of study to appreciate the subtlety and true significance of this statement. However, WTB is not too bothered about the truth. The water experiment is junk pseudo- science of the worst kind and has never been replicated by a mainstream scientist. Nevertheless, WTB carries down its illogical path by suggesting that if observing water changes its molecular structure, and if we are 90% water, then by observing ourselves we can change at a fundamental level via the laws of quantum physics. Thanks to WTB, this kind of ridiculous balderdash is being peddled by the likes of Drew Barrymore on the David Letterman Show.And if you are still considering going to see this film, then please bear in mind the credibility and motives of the interviewees in the film. John Hagelin, one of the PhD physicists, is from the Maharishi University of Management. Take my advice and do not see this film. I repeat, do not see this film. I repeat again, do not see this film. If you do, then you will leave the cinema misinformed, £8 poorer and having wasted two hours of your life.
-Simon Singh
You apparently don't know the definition of c, so see the first line of the wiki entry:
originally posted by: Bandu
a reply to: dragonridr
now... undefined is unknown times mathematical equations constant. nice !
Let me ask you something... If C, the speed of light is a constant, you surely mean it is constant in vacuum, right ?
Just because people don't write "in a vacuum" every time they say speed of light is a constant doesn't mean it's not implied in that context, since of course it's well known it's not the same speed in other media. c doesn't refer to the speed of light in other media, but in a vacuum. For example, the refractive index of water is 1.333 which is c/v where c is the speed of light in a vacuum and v is the speed of light in water, so the constant c is used even to calculate the refractive index of water.
The speed of electro magnetic waves propagation is not a constant, and now, everybody is saying the speed of light is a constant. It is not !
It has some meaning in a limited case, but it's not really the full, correct equation as explained in my thread which has the full correct equation:
I still insist that E=mc2 has no meaning at all.
It's the same observer measures light going c in a vacuum before it hits the glass, slower in the glass, then back to c after it leaves the glass. So I don't think we can call it an observer effect or an illusion.
originally posted by: Havick007
a reply to: Arbitrageur
Even if light travels through a medium, it doesn't slow. That's an illusion. The time it takes relative to an observer is what slows down. Or it also scatters and bends etc.
Even some "experts" get the explanation wrong of how/why light travels more slowly in media like water or glass, but here's an expert who gets it right and explains why the wrong explanations are wrong. But his version is still somewhat simplified from the more complicated explanation, which would be way over most people's heads so he doesn't go into those quantum mechanics details about phonons, etc., but just uses a simplified wave explanation.
That seems right to me but I'm not an expert my any means.
It shouldn't slow though.