questionposter

Wait, one other thing. How can the conservation law be true when matter and energy are being created and destroyed all the time? You have those virtual particles that appear in vaccum space then destroy each other.

String theory isn't even science yet its accepted as an m-theory, so the limits for m-theories are philosophy? Otherwise how can they put limits possibilities when we still have no idea why everything is the way it is?

Since space has no observable boundary, but the fabric of space-time cannot occupy infinite space because it was created only a limited time ago and expands at a limited speed, doesn't that mean the universe is expanding into an infinite void since we can't find a boundary of where it stops?

What's the thing I'm talking about called on that website?

"If" you overlap waves like that, then they will cancel out, but how come photons don't already do that on their own when they already collide into each other? You "can" have that opposite wave thing, but I don't see it anywhere. Also if a photon was its own anti-counterpart, wouldn't it not exist? If I point two laser beams of the same frequency at each other, then the light doesn't disappear in the middle because the waves of light aren't overlapping in that way you described when they hit each other, so that means it "must" take an anti-photon itself to make a normal photon disappear because normal photons with normal photons won't overlap like that. Why don't they just create an anti-proton and then use a negative magnetic field? A single anti-proton would be the same as anti-hydrogen right? It's just that it would be ionized, but photons could still come from it.

Even before matter reaches the point of a black hole, the structure of an atom collapses in a Neutron Star, composed mostly of neutrons packed tightly together with electron fluid in between some layers. Instead of electrons orbiting around a positively charged nucleus, it's just dense amounts of electrons next to dense amounts of neutrons. After that, gravity is so strong that electrons and probably some sub-particles of neutrons are forced outward and we really don't know what makes up the matter of a black hole just before a singularity. My guess is the reason a singularity is the way it is, is because of some unknown sub-particle rather than the physics of the particles we already know, like adding extra-dimensions. Maybe there's just a greater output of the gravity Gauge Boson per square inch, or there's a ton of Higgs Bosons around it, or there's a bunch of gravitons warping space at a really small point which can't escape into other dimensions like they normally would because the gravity is too high.

Well, fish can sense electric fields in their brain, so I guess that could be a 6th sense. Otherwise, in order to be another sense, something has to tell your brain of the existence of other objects in a different way than we already know. Gravity is a sense of feeling. You feel like your being pulled down on. Intercepting thoughts is like radio waves, which we can't detect by ourselves, so if you could sense that in a way independent from any other organs such as your skin or eyes, then that would be another sense.

Yeh, ok, but what I'm actually asking about is how it works visually, or in reality. What's going on in reality that makes those mathematicaly statements true? What are physicists observing that makes velocity behave that way? So in reality, why do I never measure a speed going at greater than the speed of light even if I am something else going away from something else in the opposite direction while both of us are moving at .6 the speed of light? The separation speed would be 1.2C, but why wouldn't I measure the velocity to be that as well even though for numbers that add up to way below C, the addition equations work just how you'd expect?

Oh I get what your saying now, but I still don't see why you can add speeds same for everything except speeds that would add to be greater than C in reality. In reality, why wouldn't I measure the speed to be greater than C if I could measure speed the same way to get a speed that was less than C for other situations. If two rockets go left and right at 1mph, doesn't one of them measure the other to be going at 2mph? But why isn't this true for speeds greater than C?

Well why was ajb saying that it can appear that way? How would it appear that way? I don't get what he was referring to when he said that you could actually measure the separation speed at greater than C, making it appear an object appear to be going faster than C to the other object?

Isn't general relativity the thing that predicts a fabric of space-time and provides a diagram for black holes which wormholes were based off of? Isn't it that they are possible but they would collapse too fast?

But how do the photons know I'm moving away from them before they hit me? And, don't the photons still have a specific energy and if I could speed away at just any speed, wouldn't that make the photons to go into impossible measurable energy states that consist of decimals rather than intervals? Because if the photons actually did go into those "in between" energy levels mathematics predicts their wave functions would have too much interference and they wouldn't exist. I don't see why if a star super-novas and emmits a gamma rays , why in reality it would suddenly make it harmless just to move away fast. If a gamma ray hits me then it hits me, why would the speed I'm moving away form it matter? Not only that, but if that is actually how it worked in reality, wouldn't there be a delocalization problem? Because if the photon actually DID have a lower-wavelength, then that means it should spread out more, which means other sources would also detect it as a radio wave even though they aren't moving as fast because a radio-wave as that much more delocalized. Not only that, but we're sending particles around in a hadron colidder at nearly the speed of light, and to some frames of reference tons gamma rays should be hitting Earth since there's all sorts of other lower wavelength particles coming towards them as the particles are accelerating towards them, yet life on Earth isn't sterilized, and then to some gamma rays from gamma ray busts we detect in the sky, those should actually be radio-waves half the time since the particles in a hadron colidder are also accelerating away from those particles sometimes too.

Well gluons don't carry the same charge that other particles do, so how would they warp in the path of particles like quarks which carry their own set of color chargers, especially because of confinement? With confinement, wouldn't an anti-gluon always anihilate itself? And if so, why haven't they found particles that make up the gluons when the gluons annihilate themselves? Or Since they can somehow detect them with the same chargers of other particles, why can't they create a magnetic field to repel the anti-gluon away?

Doesn't Hawking think string theory is the m-theory? Or is that just Brian Green and Michio Kaku?

Well maybe not in "general" relativity, but what about "special" relativity where wormholes can actually occur? In special relativity there is in fact a fabric or medium for events that consists of 3 dimension space + the dimension of time which effects matter and our perception of time like with time dilation.

Quantum tunneling isn't traveling faster than light because a particle is not traveling distance over time (because if it did, that means it would accelerate and that means it would emit light, which doesn't happen in quantum tunneling). Instead, a particle "just appears" in another locations because it has a likeliness to be there at all. Or I guess because a particle's wave function extends indefinitely, a particle's existence itself technically extends indefinitely, but seems to be concentrated in specific regions, so when a particle does appear in another location instantaneously, its not moving, its just another part of its existence showing up.

Well, your bringing one point to the other then, as long as both are occupying the same point, it doesn't matter where that point that they meet is. It's not much different than bringing two corners of a piece of paper together. With time, your bringing two coordinates of time together at the same dimensional point, so two different coordinates of time I imagine would be dates like in march 21st, 1995 and today. Since its still the same fabric of time, both dates are just points in 4 dimensional space, there's nothing being created or destroyed.

A wormhole does not violate anything because it doesn't "create" anything, it simply brings two points of 3 dimension or 4 dimension space (or both) together at another singular point, which is why diagrams often describe it as a bending of the fabric of space. All your doing is moving the position of space and time. Time in special relativity is its own dimension that occupies all of space, it doesn't get created or destroyed, it simply moves or flows in its own 4 dimensional manners.

I think the problem with black holes is because they are both big and small at the same time, and we don't have a science that describes both, only one or the other. We have relativity which describes the big world and quantum physics which describes the small world, but whenever we try and use both at the same time, mathematics doesn't add up. A singularity is very small, but its effects are huge, so a black hole needs to be described by both the big and small at the same time, but whenever we try and describe gravity at the realm of the small, it doesn't work. Like with an atom, even through a proton has a gravitational pull, an electron doesn't just "fall" into the nucleus and remain there even with opposite charges pulling on the electron as well. I don't know how scientists know that a singularity is "infinitely" dense though because they can't really see inside a black hole.

Yes what?

So if there's a nuclear bomb, then to not die from the radiation, all I have to do is travel at nearly the speed of light away from the blast site just before it hits me and the gamma rays which are gamma rays to many other people will suddenly turn into radio waves which won't effect me at all and travel harmlessly through me since their wavelength will somehow be stretched out just because I'm moving away which the photon can't even know because they havn't hit me yet? Or are you trying to say what's measured isn't actually what a physical object is?

So for some random magical reason, just because my body "thinks" they are gamma rays, the radio waves magically destroy human tissue even if they are actually radio waves but the only thing that's changing is that I'm moving towards them? Not even quantum mechanics is as obscure as that. Furthermore, why wouldn't have scientists concluded that as evidence that all states of universe exist because of perception alone if the difference between dying from radiation poisoning and not dying from it is my point of view? That's like The Matrix basically, but so far, there is no scientific evidence to support that we can bend a spoon just by willing it to happen or that things happen because that's how our brains expect them to happen, so that description probably isn't right. Even with quantum mechanics its not because we expect things to happen, its because things have become detirmined, more like we are only viewing a snapshot out of an entire sequence. For some reason, that's how I've heard it described, although not by real physicists, but that doesn't seem to make any sense whatsoever.

That's true, but to some frame of reference, I could be going fast than I myself actually measure, so to that frame of reference, I HAVE to be putting more energy into a leg stroke in order to go at that greater speed, which means to that frame of reference I would be putting more than .1 calorie into every leg stroke. I'm trying to say that another frame of reference is wrong because to myself I know what is actually going on, but doesn't that mean that every frame of reference is actually wrong because to an object it has definite values that will never change no matter who is observing it from where? I guess with something like speed, an object HAS to compare that to something else, but what about something like energy, but then, doesn't a specific amount of energy have to make something go a specific kilometers per hour no matter who is observing it too? What about electrons in matter? Don't they have to have a specific amount of energy to be in the energy level they are in? Let's say I have a hydrogen atom with an electron in the ground state, but from a frame of reference, the object that it is a part of "looks" hotter than that in a way that there's no way a photon as delocalized as infrared light at that hot of a temperature couldn't possibly have missed that electron. How do you get over this problem? Because the electron is actually in a lower energy level, but that frame of reference is still saying that its not, so isn't that frame of reference just plain wrong? And if that frame is wrong, how can we be sure that any frame of reference is actually right?

Ok I noticed no one wants to take a shot at it because people don't understand it I guess. So you know the blue shift right? Well, it states that as I get closer to a source of frequencies, the frequency becomes greater, like with the doppler effect. But, since I can calculate the energy of a photon based on its wavelength, does that mean I could eventually accelerate towards a radio electron enough to turn it into a gamma-ray? Cause I mean, that doesn't seem right. I could eventually turn something that doesn't destroy human tissue into something that does just by eventually putting enough energy into moving towards it, but then again, I can calculate energy based on wavelength.

Ok, so I know there's kind of some experimental evidence, but is there like, proof? Like do photons actually come from a gluon in a quark gluon plasma so that we can say "hey, that's what a gluon looks like"? I can see it in the context of how we know black holes exist because we see these areas of gravitational fields where stars are sucked into something, but it seems like the only evidence for a gluon is that "there must be something holding the protons together". Or is there actual proof and its scientific fact that gluons exist? Cause there could be any number of other things holding protons together made out of forces we don't even know exist, and with the mathematical stuff, as far as I've heard, gluons occupy more than just the 4 dimensions we are familiar with. Like, did scientists observe some object which could only move in a manner that was a like, 5 dimensional object appearing in 3D space? What anomalies where there? And what about a quark gluon plasma anyway? How do they know that has gluons, which if it did, why wouldn't THAT be proof?