Strange

An object with infinite mass would exert infinite gravitational force because the force is proportional to the mass: [math] F = G\frac{m_1 m_2}{r^2} [/math] Whether it is moving or not makes no difference. Luckily, nothing can have infinite mass.

! Moderator Note That was the edited version? Moved to Trash

! Moderator Note You can ask that in the Physics forum. (No, they are the same size as all other fundamental particles)

! Moderator Note Moved to Speculations. Your posts would be readable if you used Latex rather than posting giant images.

Annihilation generates photons, not dark matter. The energy is exactly equivalent to the mass. What is "virtual mass"? All mass and energy affects space-time. There is no evidence for a "beginning of time". Therefore we are not sure of the conditions. Particle meets antiparticle. The energy of the photons is exactly equivalent to the mass of the particles. So no. (And if it was unobservable then, effectively, it doesn't exist.) Fusion involves atoms of matter. And there is no dark matter produced by annihilation. You are just making stuff up. There is no science here.

It may just be that the lab doing the analysis doesn't have a sample from whatever species the hair came from (wether dog, pig, human or something else). Wouldn't they say "no DNA found" in that case?

Why? It would just be seen as a particle that moves very fast. ("with our eyes"? We can't see single points, even if they are stationary. I am assuming you are talking about making measurements with appropriate tools.)

There is some pretty complex math involved. I can just about stagger around the foothills and look admiringly at those climbing into the swirling mists around the peaks (this relates to a great extended metaphor I read once). There is a great site from Prof. Matt Strassler which has good articles on lots of topics in quantum theory. Including an introduction to the math: https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/fields-and-their-particles-with-math/ Nd the Feynman lectures: http://www.vega.org.uk/video/subseries/8

Unless it is infinitely fast, it will still appear to be a particle moving between two points, and not two particles present at each point. And any such mathematics will have no basis in, or relation to, reality. So I'm not sure what the point is.

I think the discussion of plane and spherical wave fronts only applies to the classical view (where light is a continuous wave). I don't think you can interpret the (quantum) wave function in that way. If you want to get an understanding of how the quantum view reproduces classical results, I recommend the Feyman lectures on QED (to a lay audience) - available online as videos (from the Vega Trust) or, for the old codgers among us, as a book.

Still doesn't change everything else that is wrong in your claims.

Note that Mordred did not say polarising "filter". I assumed he was referring to parametric down conversion. This produces two photons with half the frequency (not wavelength).

The key word there is "nearly". Neutrinos also move at nearly the speed of light. They do not move at the speed of light. Nothing with mass can. Did you use google translate for that? I'm afraid the meaning didn't come across at all. If an object moves at (or nearly at) the speed of light, we still see it moving between A and B (at the speed of light). So it will never be seen as two different objects. It will be observed as one object moving between A and B at the speed of light. You need to explain what that diagram means. None of the words make any sense by themselves.

You cannot know that. The only reference you have to compare your memory to is your memory. With no objective evidence (photos, doctors reports, etc) there is no way you, or anyone else can know if your memory is accurate or not. By definition, the impossible is not possible. I don't know what you are looking for here. Your claim that a dream caused your injuries is clearly not the case. Therefore it must have been a physical object. If you are not going to accept reasonable responses, then this discussion is pointless. (It also appears to be off topic, as you are not providing any useful information about the subject of the thread.) But infinitely more likely than the impossible.

Several problems with this. 1. Objects with mass cannot move at the sped of light. 2. Even if we allowed it to travel at the speed of light, it would not be seen as two fixed points; it would appear as an object moving at the speed of light between those two points. It would be at point A and then at a non-zero time later, it would be at point B. The time between it being at A and B would depend on how far apart they are. 3. The mass would never be at different places at the same time, so I don't think the phrase "distribute the mass in several separate places" really means anything. The mass is no more "distributed in several separate places" than my mass is when I drive to work and back. (That is the practical aspect. Can't help with the math, as I don't understand what you are trying to do.)

Another article on the topic (which covers more of the background): https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/11/19/the-strong-cp-problem-is-the-most-underrated-puzzle-in-all-of-physics/ (I linked to the in an unrelated thread, the other day.)

The problem is that your ideas are entirely based on half-remembered stories and feelings. And ignoring the science.

! Moderator Note Moved to Speculations. Please note the special rules for this section of the forum: you need to provide mathematics and/or evidence to support your ideas. This is a Science forum so vague unsupported assertions will not do.

Pretty much every single medical website. For example: https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/scars/

Although it is possible to make measurements of the photon and hence "collapse the wave function" without destroying it (without interacting with it at all). Typically by using an entangled partner.

I think so (not sure what you mean by "scaler"?). For example, some photons are emitted by electrons going from a higher to a lower energy level in an atom. In that case the difference in energy between those levels defines the energy, and hence the frequency, of the photon.

I hope that given the level of understanding shown by the OP my informal use would be acceptable.

Ah, good question. That is the bit I left out! The momentum and energy of a photon are related to its frequency (or, equivalently, wavelength). So the momentum is [math]p = \frac{h\nu}{c} = \frac{h}{\lambda}[/math] (where [math]\nu[/math] is the frequency and [math]\lambda[/math] the wavelength). And energy is [math]E = p c[/math] So gamma rays have more energy and more momentum because they are higher frequency (shorter wavelength).

Relativistic mass is just another way of describing energy (by relating the energy to mass using E=mc2). In the case of photons, the momentum is an intrinsic property unrelated to mass. That is why the full mass-energy equation has two terms: one for mass and one for momentum: [math]E = \sqrt{ (m_0 c^2)^2 + (pc)^2 }[/math] (where m0 is the rest mass and p is the momentum).

Yes, light or photons will exert a force, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_sail This is because light has momentum, even if it doesn't have mass.