David Jackson

Ok for the record I am a Chartered civil engineer, and I am convinced, but I do have many more questions which I will put to you guys at later dates as I am now going to bed. best regards

Thanks again It seems that the idea that particles could be spinning at C within the atom is impossible because the composite velocity of the particle inside the atom and the movement of the atom itself would violate C invariance and also it would contradict the mathematics of the standard model. Now although my maths is pretty good (I can calculate the forces and strains on complex structures without much trouble) I do not have the depth of mathematical knowledge to comment on the standard model. My problem is still the same how do we know C invariance is a universal and fundamental posit and not just the standard speed of energy in its medium in this case a vacuum? I am also sorry if my terminology is not correct (I'm an engineer after all) but I still don't see any way of propelling anything faster than C without having a means to accelerate it beyond that point. If you had a particle accelerator spinning particles at close to the speed of light in a circle and you put that inside an aircraft that is travelling sufficiently fast to create a vector speed of greater than C relative to the earth What happens ? This is a real life problem at slow speed for helicopter pilots trying to keep vector speed below mach 1. Given that we cannot see inside the atom and the standard model gives no recognisable structure, So for me the answer to my original question is that it probably can't happen but it would not be impossible. It does have the compelling attraction that it would allow both absolute time and SR. It would however have the distinct disadvantage of violating GR. I would post the complete idea if I could work out how to get to the speculation area

I think I understand the answers but you have not quite killed the question I am not suggesting that C isn't invariant or absolute outside the sanctity of the atom except for entanglement which if information isn't being sent what is the connection doing? Einstein obviously thought the connection was pre-ordained but from what I have read Bell pretty much disproved that. What I was suggesting was a reason why it is invariant. Local suggests to me outside of the atom. I am definitely not denying SR merely trying to understand why. I can easily understand absolute zero temperature or the minimum of anything but the maximum of any other feature space ,mass, temperature doesn't exist except where constrained by other factors such as centrifugal force restricting size. So why is velocity confined absolutely between two limits? Any way thanks guys for your answers I am really enjoying this being a bit of a devil's advocat

Thank you again so If I understand it. Zero dimensions occur because of mathematical necessity and confirmed because they are at least too small to measure. As for the absolute speed of light is it absolute? or is it only absolute because we have no means of propelling any thing faster. There seems to me to be a strange situation whereby it is perfectly possible to propel a tiny particle at 99'9% of C and yet at C its mass becomes infinite. If I asked Usain Bolt to push a buggy as fast as he could go he would never be able to push it quite as fast as he could run without the buggy. Friction aside the buggy doesn't get infinitely heavy its speed is determined by how fast the pusher can go. As we must use energy in the form of the electromagnetic spectrum to propel anything it surely must follow this could be the reason we cannot go faster than light. I will post in the speculators forum if I can figure it out if only to give you a laugh.

thank you for your reply. I am aware of the accepted interpretation that particles can have dimensions that are zero. This is one of the 'facts' I have so much trouble with. How do we know? measuring dimensions at sub atomic level seems pretty impossible. Is this a mathematical calculation from the standard model? As for your second point I don't quite understand. I was not suggesting a linear relationship between velocities. I was suggesting a three dimensional vector relationship between velocities. My point is that the posit that C is absolute could be wrong. Entanglement certainly seems to suggest so. I have taken this idea a lot further if anyone is interested I will post as an attachment

I am a retired engineer studying physics as a retirement project and my question concerns special relativity. Einstein was able to produce his time dilation and mass/energy equivalence equations entirely from the posit that C is invariant. The maths is not hard and experimental evidence confirms time dilation occurs of the order of the calculations. Now it occurs to me that if the particles in the atom are spinning with a tangential velocity of C then the vector velocity of the particle is the combination of the spinning motion within the atom and any motion of the atom itself, This velocity would be always be greater than C whatever the direction of motion of the atom. If all the particles have the same age, time would become absolute and be applied to the particles and then it would be the velocity that changed and time dilation would occur exactly as Einstein calculated. Interestingly C would still be invariant but effect not cause. Further if these particles are spinning at C then the kinetic energy of the particles is the sum of mass times C squared /2. If this is the energy trying to get out then it follows that the energy holding the atom together must be equal to this. If you add these energies together you get Einstein's equation E=MC squared. Now I am aware that this would mean that general relativity would be entirely different, space would not curve and an explanation would be needed for gravitational lensing. Further development of the idea seems to satisfy gravitational lensing and the standard model and even maybe explains entanglement. So my feeling is I cant be the only one to have thought of this it must have been considered and rejected. My question is why?