grayson

+1 For helping me. Have people thought about laser focusing X rays to accelerate the particles? I thought it would be a good idea because X rays can be easily synthesized, and they are energetic.

I believe I have come up with a particle accelerator breakthrough, and I need your help so I can know if it is practical or not. Before I start to talk about this idea, I must inform you not to steal it, and if you do, I have proof of it being stolen right here and will get you in legal trouble. Now that that is over, I will tell you, my idea. Einstein got his well-deserved Nobel Prize in 1921 for his work on the photoelectric effect. Now, quantum mechanics has gone off the rails with quark-gluon-plasma, quantum fluctuations, particle accelerators and much more. What if I told you I came up with a way to combine the photoelectric effect and particle accelerators together. According to Electrodynamics, electrons have a certain force acting on them. Einstein thought that since photons had energy, they could help overcome this force, which ended up being the most accurate explanation for the photoelectric effect. I thought this idea a while ago, and I have not seen any other people thinking of this idea. What if the photoelectric effect could be used in particle accelerators. See, energy causes particles to accelerate, and my thought was if an electron absorbed a photon, it could accelerate and have the function of a normal particle accelerator. I thought this idea was good because it would take less energy transformations. Magnetic fields take a changing electric field, which takes energy (Unless it is permanent). And even if you have a magnetic field, you still need to change the direction of the poles, which takes more energy. After all of that, the magnetic force is still less energy efficient compared to other ways. In my Photon idea, all you have to do is make the electron absorb a photon, which happens naturally, and then it will accelerate. All I need to know is if this idea is practical, and if it would actually work. I also want to know if it already exists. Thank you for reading this, and do not patent it because I have proof right here that I created the idea (Unless somebody beat me).

Hey guys, I am back. I once heard a paradox where a finite universe loops on itself when you go near the speed of light due to length contraction. Unfortunately, I forgot the solution. All I know was it was on PBS space time. I heard from this video from kurzgesagt, that one possible model of the universe was a doughnut. Basically, you go in one direction, and it takes long to loop around, but in another direction, you get back quicker. My thought is what if you went at such a percentage of the speed of light, that the short loop of the doughnut loops around. Now, what would the other person see that goes around the long loop of the doughnut going at the same speed. One of the people would experience a little bit of length contraction (I am underexaggerating with that one, but you get the point), while the other one experiences an actual paradox, even though they go at the exact same speed. What would each person see in this paradox? Thank you for taking the time to read this, and have a good day.

I know about the Navier Stokes equation. I built this framework on top of it to help measure fluids better.

Before you say, "This goes in speculations!" I must tell you that this is not theoretical and is built upon well-known laws of physics such as the conservation of momentum (Mainly the conservation of momentum). So, now I will tell you what this is. Basically, it is a framework for finding the dynamics of fluids split into three laws and three equations. The first law states that the velocity of a particle (Like an atom or molecule) in a fluid is proportional to frictional forces and momentum. The second law states that a group is a group of particles that have the same properties of each other. A group is usually formed when particles of the same mass and properties are put together with no momentum or the same momentum. A group has distributed momentum, and each particle has the same velocity, so they travel in groups. If you apply a force to a certain number of particles in a group, those particles become different groups. The third law states that an entire bodies velocity is proportional to the momentum applied to it. Basically, if you combine these laws, you can accurately describe non-mixture fluids. The reason you cannot describe mixture fluids is because they have enormous amounts of groups. Now that I told you the laws, I will show you the equations: Where a stands for applied.

Well, you could have at least explained why we do not use kelvin. This is a good explanation for why we do not use frequency for heat. My thought is proven wrong. +1

This might seem like a crazy thread but hear my logic behind it. Heat/Temperature is measured in kelvin based on SI units. But I propose two different ways to measure heat. Number one, hertz. Hertz I think is my favorite way of measuring heat. The reason is that I love waves. Waves are an accurate way of measuring a lot of things, and you can even measure heat in it. From what I learned, heat, or thermodynamic energy, is just particles moving up and down a bunch of times (Or in other words, a simple harmonic oscillator). If heat is a S.H.O, then you should be able to measure its frequency. Moving on, we have joules. I am also a fan of energy and heat can be expressed as thermodynamic energy. So, if we can express heat as thermodynamic energy, we can measure it in joules. Also, before you say anything about Joules over Kelvin being a measurement of entropy, yes, I know about that, I just think we need a better way to measure thermodynamic energy. Anyways, that is my proposal for measuring thermodynamic energy.

I am in the middle of constructing a theory that is specifically focused on iterations. The symbol for iterations is uppercase phi. It is like a sum but instead of adding them together, you take iterations of the numbers. So, you use n in the equation, and if n is equal to let's say, 5000 you replace n with 5000 in the next iteration. But the beauty of this theory is that you do not have to take an infinite number of iterations. you just have to reason your way out of an iteration. Let me give you an example. Say we are taking an iteration of x to the power of n over n to the power of n. We can reason that n to the power of n will reach infinity, so we have something over infinity. Because n to the power of n will reach infinity, n will also reach infinity. If we take x to the power of n, we can see that it is infinity over infinity. In this theory, to avoid loopholes, we treat infinity as a number. What happens if that infinity over infinity is equal to one. So that iteration equation is equal to one. Another example is the square root of n over the cube root of n. Now, this is a trick question actually. See, what happens is that you might say it will be one because both of them reach zero and zero over zero is one. But no, it is actually infinity because cube root n will reach zero first thereby making it infinity. That is what I have so far. How can I improve this framework?

Normal quantum tunneling says that because of quantum superposition, there is a slight chance that a particle can just pass through a potential energy barrier. I realized that the reverse could happen too. Imagine that a particle, say an electron is shot through a single slit. Because of quantum superposition, there is a small chance that the particle could be blocked by the slit even though it appears as it is going straight through it. Is this possible? (For quantum tunneling) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_tunnelling

I put this in speculations because it is a developing theory. I call this theory the Vacuum energy-fluid theory. This is because what the theory states is that the vacuum energy is a fluid and does not have the same amount of energy everywhere, or energy density. For those who do not know what the vacuum energy is, I have a link below. Wikipedia page for vacuum energy Now that we have that over, we can get onto the theories. The mathematical equations state this: v = \frac{h}{m\cdot x} E = \frac{c^2h}{vx} (I do not know if LaTex works on this website, so if it does not show up, I will put a link for a latex editor that you can copy and paste instead of disecting it) The first equation describes the speed of the vacuum energy. It uses the Planck constant because my understanding is that it is the least amount of energy possible in a vacuum. I than derived a second equation that describes the energy of the vacuum at any point. It was derived from the last equation, but instead of using mass, I used E/c2. The v and x describe the velocity and displacement of the vacuum energy. Now, I have a couple theories to complement this. Number one: Gauge bosons are formed when a bit of energy causes a fluctuation in another field. Number 1.5: Gravitons are created from fluctuations in spacetime. Number 2: particles are created when a bunch of energy gets concentrated into one place. That is it for now, goodbye. LaTex editor: Online LaTeX Equation Editor (lagrida.com)

Yes, I know that the measurement will be the same but let me give a thought experiment. Imagine that you are sitting on earth. Suddenly, a massive celestial body, say Jupiter gets a bit too close to the planet. Obviously, you would die but saying none of that happens, the gravity of Jupiter would overwhelm you and you would feel as if you are being pulled away from earth. That is what I mean by relative.

All I am saying is that where spacetime warps inwards, at the end of this inwards warp, it would oppose another gravity and appear to be an outwards warp. It is all relative 😉

I realize I have a bad reputation on this site, and I can see why. I believe everyone deserves a fresh start and I would like to introduce myself. My name is Grayson, and I got on this forum to share my love of science. My favorite field of science right now is physics because I believe it explains the most about the universe around us. My favorite musical band is the Beatles. I like them because they give off a surreal feeling. My favorite song by them is in my life in the rubber soul album. Off of music, I like learning and shoving knowledge into my brain. I also like books in the non-fiction section about science. Now, I would like to dedicate this page to anyone who wants a fresh start at introducing themselves. What is your favorite musical band? What is your favorite food to eat? Have you ever been to Disneyland? If you have not introduced yourself yet, you can do it here. Happy holidays!

Sorry, I will explain it better. Basically, what I mean is that you can make the illusion of anti-gravity with normal gravity. It would work by surrounding the warp drive in massive objects that pull spacetime out away from the warp drive.

For those that do not know about the Alcubierre warp drive I have a Wikipedia link below to show you. Wikipedia page for the warp drive Now that we have that out of the way, we can move on to my variation. For the short story, it uses relativity of position to make an illusion of anti-gravity even though it is actually just gravity. Now for the long story. This warp drive is on a railroad, so it used massive spinning rings to warp spacetime around the drive and oppose the force at the front pushing it with gravity. So, I will show you a picture of the normal warp drive and how it works, and you can imagine this idea. So, as you can see, the front of the drive warps gravity inwards. The outside warps the spaceship outwards. Normally, this outwards warping would take negative mass or negative energy density, but my idea uses a railroad that just warps the gravity like normal but to the other direction. There are many advantages and disadvantages of this idea. The advantage is that it would not take as much energy to warp it outwards. Another advantage is that it can be built easily but only theoretically. A disadvantage is it would take a railroad that would take years to build, and we would have to boringly travel the universe slower than light. Tell me your opinions

So, when you take the second derivative of the tensor, what do you get exactly? Is it the length that it bent or is it the length of the curvature itself?

Hello, I am trying to understand the Einstein Field Equations, but the only problem is that I cannot figure out how the einstein tensor describes the curvature of spacetime. There seems to be no good references or nifty little pictures showing the components like the one shown below for the stress-energy tensor. I have seen one good thing that helps me understand some things, but it does not do much for explaining the components of the einstein tensor. (Pdf shown below) Pdf explaining the einstein field equations. Merry Christmas.

As a curious person, I like taking knowledge and shoving it into my brain as fast as possible. I also like quality knowledge. What are the most useful pdfs you have ever read? Can you share them with me? Thank you for your time reading this.

It means, does a frame of reference have to be allowed to be real to be real? And the answer is, I guess not? I do not think you understand reference frames @geordief. They are just frames of reference and don't have to apply to scenarios. You could be floating in the middle of nowhere and be a reference frame.

Well yes, we do not know what the momentum is because of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. Though from what I heard we do have an average of where it would be. Is this true?

But the Heisenberg uncertainty principle has its limits. There is a frame where its momentum would be zero to whatever the uncertainty is.

I mean all of the parts of the Einstein tensor. Like is there any diagrams to show me what they represent?

So, I have been trying to understand the Einstein field equations to better understand general relativity. I figured out the stress-energy tensor but the einstein tensor puzzles me. There are no fun little diagrams showing me what the different parts of the tensor represent. Another thing is I cannot find the value of the cosmological constant. Can anybody help me?

Thank you for that. But does a particles spin count towards its wavelength?

In the de-Broglie wave equation, the more momentum a particle has, the less wavelength it has. What happens if a particle is at rest. Can this even happen? Does its spin count towards the equation?