questionposter

What about those particles that are literally like electrons in every way except they are a little more massive? Why do those form? Why can't those ever form from decay or from gamma-ray interactions with matter?

What about skipping the speed of light entirely? What about going at 99.9999% the speed of light, and then instead of reaching 100%, you just jump to 101% without having to go at the speed of light at all? Also, why aren't photons subject to all this time dilation stuff? Why don't photons contract infinitely?

So scientists still have no idea why those heavy particles form?

Well if your outside of time how can you be traveling distance over time?

Because if its not your own choice, then your not actually becoming better, your not actually transcending your instincts, and if you just continued along that path for everything, not much would get done. Some times you have to be tough in order to get things done anyway.

If you did hypothetically travel at the speed of light, for some reason people think time would stop, but if time stopped, wouldn't you not be traveling distance over time and therefore not be traveling at the speed of light? In fact, wouldn't you be traveling distance in 0 time making your speed actually instantaneous?

Wait, I think I found a contradiction with quark matter. In the wikipedia article you provided http://en.wikipedia....ki/Quark_matter it says "billions of times higher than could be produced in laboratories", but then in THIS article it says quark gluon plasma as already been made http://en.wikipedia....rk-gluon_plasma and that they heat material up to 4 trillion degrees. Otherwise, it seems the extent of what I'm talking about it seems to be particle colliders and electron capturing with our current knowledge. Although, I can't find the article, but there was some article I read sometime that said one possible explanation for fusion in the sun is a kind of quantum teleportation, where the protons are forced so close to each other that their boundaries of their wave functions exceed each other and so they combine to form a bigger nucleus. Is it possible that electrons can do the same in order to make those exotic "heavy" electrons? I mean there is a difference between this and a high-energy particle collide, because if you collide two protons, they don't always form a nucleus, they can also spray out into a bunch of smaller particles.

Actually carbon nano-tubes seem to remind me of those other materials like that tough synthetic material (I think Kevlar) and spider-silk, since all of those have better tensile strength than steel and are still flexible and strong. But nano-tubes seem to also have potential as an enzyme or at least carrier for other ions when I look at all the surface area they have, like how hemoglobin carries oxygen and how all those proteins in DNA wrap up in small spaces and still produce all these chemicals. It seems like all the newest chemicals being created are more and more like natural chemicals and processes, but they aren't quite as efficient by themselves. It's honestly very efficient to have a battery you can just charge and release and still retain all the molecules for and hook up the same way every time (ATP) and it even allows energy to be stored over time. This is something that's harder for even the latest technology in electric cars. If they had a large supply of a chemical that could just absorb some sunlight and retain that higher energy level, then just add something like water as a catalyst to release that energy it took form the sun but over time, it would solve it. I think carbon nano-tubes are along those lines of taking us into the future. In fact I think they are already being used for electronics since silicon switches can't be too close to each other because of the uncertainty principal with electrons which will cause them to leak out, so they are trying to make conductors of electricity with more surface area without bringing them closer together.

So I can literally say "never ending amount instantaneously which cannot be matched in counting speed 0 times is 0"? I guess that would make sense, but infinity itself isn't a number, so wouldn't multiplying by a number not work because the 0 can't eliminate all of the numbers since they keep counting forever and count at a greater speed than multiplying a number can effect them? How can you eliminate something that goes on forever? It's like saying I can reach the end of a never ending path, or that I can destroy the universe even though it has no boundaries (as far as we know). In most cases I don't think you actually count at the speed of infinity.

What about what's happening when matter is being forced into a density past the point of a neutron star into a black hole? Do the electrons ever get "forced" in, or is there some unknown thing that prevents that and instead forces them outward? It seems strange that a particle accelerator could do this but the force of a neutron star isn't. But I guess if it doesn't happen in a neutron star or beyond, then electron capture I guess is the limit of the answer, but even if it is, it's still strange a particle accellerater could do it and not a forming black hole. w/e ajb summarized in a couple sentences what took you like 10 posts, so you tell me.

Infinity isn't the number though, it is the existence of counting without end and instantaneously reaching the "without end". It goes on forever. But it's undefined because you can't define how many times it happens. It doesn't have a specific answer because there is nothing determining the answer because it can be literally any number, so since nothing is determining the answer, it's just undefined, not infinitely.

ajb gave 1 link to what he thinks I might be talking about, which still doesn't answer it, because I'm talking about forcing an electron into the nucleus, the amount of force it takes to push an electron into the nucleus, not making room for it. I'm questioning not swan's "knowledge" of physics, but what he is actually doing here on this topic, which to this point isn't helping much. I say "1+1=2 right?", and then swan says "no, Let's say N. N is the smallest set satisfying these postulates: 1 is in N. If x is in N, then its "successor" x' is in N. There is no x such that x' = 1. If x isn't 1, then there is a y in N such that y' = x. If S is a subset of N, 1 is in S, and the implication (x in S => x' in S) holds, then S = N.Then you have to define addition recursively: Def: Let a and b be in N. If b = 1, then define a + b = a' (using P1 and P2). If b isn't 1, then let c' = b, with c in N (using P4), and define a + b = (a + c)'.Then you have to define 2: Def: 2 = 1'2 is in N by P1, P2, and the definition of 2.Theorem: 1 + 1 = 2Proof: Use the first part of the definition of + with a = b = 1. Then 1 + 1 = 1' = 2 Q.E.D."

But if it's that simple of a question, why can't he answer it or just say he doesn't know? He's the one who's calling himself an expert, he should be able to answer questions clearly. It's not my fault he took all that physics and told everyone he's an expert on the physics forums and told everyone he can answer questions. If it's high-school physics he should be able to answer it clearly, otherwise I don't see an excuse why a masters or Ph. D. can't answer a "high-school" level question. That's like I said before, like saying Isaac Newton couldn't do 15+7. Yeah, he invented calculus an all sorts of crazy math, but that doesn't impair his ability to do the basic things. Gravity is preventing me from floating up right now. So what? All that does is just support that the mathematics of QM are based upon the concepts and measurements. We say that particles acted like waves, so we looked into using sine waves to describe them, and it worked.

Well if people don't know then people like Swan should just say "we can't answer that with our current knowledge" instead of sending me on this wild goose-chase for an answer. I'm not going to all-of-a sudden think Swan is stupid or doesn't have any credibility just because he can't answer a question that we don't have the technology to answer right now.

x/0=undefined; x>0 Undefined= indefinite form or value. Because zero is zero or the absence of value (and all this other number theory crap), it can go into any non zero number as many times as it can, but because of the fact that it "can" go into a non-zero number any amount of times, however many times it actually goes into something is undefined or cannot be kept track of. Opinion: If something doesn't define how many times 0 goes into a non-zero number, it simply does it infinite or at least indefinite times, which explains why mass in 0 volume = infinite density, because math wise it would be x/0; x>0. And then, what if you do in fact define it? Say I have a value of 0 and I want to put it into another value because putting the value of 0 into another number will do something (like I program "when divide by x, do this; x=0", since 0 doesn't use up any material, I can do it however many times I want without using up anything, but in that instance, don't I define how many times it goes into 0 and therefore give an answer to the problem x/0, like if I want to do it 10 times, wouldn't x/0=10? There's also that unit circle thing where at 90 degrees, tan=infinity or undefined, but what's occurring is 1/0, so couldn't I say the cause of infinity is 1/0 because literally any length "can" satisfy that scenario and make a triangle as long as it's greater than 1? More like speculation: Dividing 0/0 0/0=1? 0^1/0^1=0^0=1? Perhaps 0/0 does in fact equal 1, but we haven't found where it occurs in nature or where we can perceive it. Maybe there's some kind of quantum mechanical thing that it happens with where something of 0 size somehow has some kind of wave function and you divide nothingness by a boundary of 0 and get something that spreads out infinitely through space or something. Exploring rule of dividing by 0: In that unit circle thing I mentioned early, tanA=sinA/cosA, but at 90 degrees or where the sin=1 divided by cos=0, there are infinite possible side lengths of which you can make a triangle, BUT, if you use a length to make the other leg which is less than 1 at 90 degrees, even though the other leg is basically a point (or seems to be), it still needs to be a triangle, and the only way to have a triangle is with 3 sides, but the only side lengths that will satisfy making a triangle in that situation when sin=1 and cos=0 are any number above 1 but including 1, which leads me to think that the rule for dividing by 0 is x/0=x+R R=all real numbers, I probably did the equation wrong, but what I was trying to say is that x/0 equals every number, x and above to infinity, not less than x. Although if you do -1 divided by 0, I don't know. By the way, R includes 0 right?

That's actually what I was asking, and then I was also asking the details, such as how gravity itself conserves that energy. If your a physics major how can't you answer physics 101 questions? That's like saying Isaac Newton could't do 15+7.

I can see the higher dimensions thing, but backwards in time? The only time stuff goes backwards in time is with mass going at or faster than light. Is information equivalent to mass or energy in some way? Also, is it possible that just because particles have a probability which extends indefinitely through space that that's the mechanism for acting over such great distance? Perhaps particles themselves can act over infinite distance, but it's just the forces that are limited.

No, I don't think it's quite that. Since I"m asking so many questions, they should assume that I don't know as much as them, so why do you think they would continue to use knowledge that they know they can only learn at the level of physics they are at? Beats me, although for some reason I think that's more true for Swansont than ajb. But also, what "force" is preventing two attractive forces from not running into each other? What actual "force" is there keeping an electron from forming a neutron with a proton? Don't you think a neutron star contains a little tiny bit more force pulling everything together than a missing decayed neutron? Does getting rid of a neutron "make room" for the electron? I'm not asking so much for the mathematical concept, that's latter, I'm talking about the concepts that all that math is based on. Like how many quantum mechanics are based on the concept of wave-particle duality.

Well, that's news to me. Perhaps what I was thinking of was some kind of comparison like "watching TV is like only using 10% of your brain" or something like that. In either case, most people at least don't consciously think as much as they should anyway, especially when you come home from work and turn on the TV/computer, you don't want to think a lot since your tired. No wait, I think I found it. The amount of "parts" of your brain you use is a lot like 60+%, as in you use 40/60 parts, but the actual brain "function" is 10%, or how much those parts are wholly used. Now that I think about it 10% is pretty low, but then again it's a measurement based on the maximum possible capacities.

Dude, is math your first language and English your second? Just look at it. "Not even" is pretty easy to understand, no wonder I ask so many questions, you really did learn math first. "not even" emphasizes that even in the presence of an understood circumstance, the expected does not happen. I don't completely understand it or why, but it seems like when a neutron decays, for some random energy reason the electron falls into the nucleus into a proton, but why is it so easy for an electron to fall into the nucleus there and not when there's a gravitational pull of like -(10^5x^2)? So what if there's a slight energy difference?

So going into a lower gravity potential gives a photon more potential energy even though matter going into a lower gravitational potential has less potential energy? Also, are you saying energy can distort the fabric of space itself? And wait, wtf, did you not think that I thought normal matter absorbs light even though it can reflect it and not absorb it as well? And did you also think I didn't know the event horizon is where the gravitational well becomes so steep that light cannot escape it? Otherwise idk why you commented on those.

How do the electrons not even get forced into the nucleus and combine to form neutrons and neutrinos even at the point of a neutron star? Isn't their position a lot more localized? Or what does it take to force an electron into the nucleus so that it reacts with a proton to make other particles?

So then how does a photon actually get energy by going into a high gravitational potential?

But if energy can be transferred through a gravitational field, does that mean that the photon actually is taking energy form the object when blue-shifted just as orbit of the moon siphons out Earth's kinetic energy through gravity? I'm kind of not getting any direct answers from you.