Tom Vose

And all matter is but a different form of light. I thought this part would be obvious. Many many sicentists know this fact now. In fact, a scientist here called BenTheMan made a thread on sciforums recently, (embarrasingly to say the least) - where he challenged how matter could not be made up of light. Mysteriously, he retracted his statement, and apologized to two users there, saying ''yes, matter can be made of light.'' You will take his word for it surely, since, he is a user here, with some crudentials? I speak the truth. I will not prance about here making wild claims if they are not backed up by some kind of truth. So here it is, matter can be made out of photons, and not only that, most matter we have experimented with is made of photons, as they can be manipulated back to that form. The form of E=Mc^2 allows this to happen, so yes, you are right. Also, ask yourself what is more fundamental, the energy or matter? Obviously the energy is, for energy makes the forms of matter you and i observe, but it also means that if we have matter converting back to energy, then we have our proof that matter is but forms of trapped energy. It's so obvious, why can no one see this just on the words i speak?

Oh for Crizo's, i sware, this is relativity at its finest. Once Einstein said, ''Before relativity, we thought that if you removed all of the matter and energy from the vacuum, spacetime would reside. We now know, that spacetime would also follow.'' I have no need to make this up. I am probably a more serious scientist of these facts than anyone here, if they don't know it already.

That is the most trivial thing ever, for, a relativistic mass system does not have mass. This much must be clear that i was not talking about a pure energy system. Again, i repeat, a system that moves has more mass than a stationary system. And no, one does not speak of a non-mass system here, for how can one? Super trivial.

Wow, didn't know that.

Blue we can concieve these dimensions, or otherwise, they would not exist within our math and imaginations. However, there is no experimental way to test these theories, which is a different matter all together.

Not everyone knows this, but spacetime is a physical fabric, in fact, if you removed all the matter and energy from the observable vacuum, the vacuum itself would dissappear. This means that spacetime is matter is energy! I speak the truth, this is why the spacetime fabric itself is more dense with matter, or dense itself because it has a desnity of energy, as where we might see spacetime void of matter, but not energy. Spacetime cannot exist without energy, and with enough large concentration of energy, means that there is an inverse relationship with the density of the vacuum.

Actually, annihilation is also a type of decay.

Explain then, because as far as i was taught, a stationary object has less mass than a moving object.

So, i devise this mathematical theory on the theory of Relativity. I would appreciate constructive comments. [math]I=M[/math] Which is what Einstein derived under the relations of relativity. [math]pM=I_t[/math] Is how i calculate the total inertia. It works well with concept. [math]FI=M^2a[/math] [math]EI=c^2M^2[/math] [math]EI+FI=M^2a+c^2M^2[/math] Since [math](Fvt)=E[/math], then, [math](Fvt)I=c^2M^2[/math] [math]pM\sqrt{c^2}=EI[/math] Which leads me to suggest this important relationship [math]\sqrt{I^2c^2}=p[/math] which relates directly that the momentum is indeed a product of the inertia or mass of a system multiplied by the speed of light squared. I am now applying these equations to the zero inertial system of energy particles.

I never said light had inertia. I said that if light [[had]] a mass.. And by the way, a moving object has more mass than a stationary object, so yes, mass does change with speed. I am not a crackpot. I take science very seriously, and i know all the units before you make any conjectures on my ability to talk about science. It just so happens i missed it out, nothing more nothing less.

Secondly, you cannot destinguish actual occurances in spacetime, where something does not experience present time. EVERYTHING occurs in present time (apart from photons and tachyons). That is what makes this time the present. An electron, a camera and even a car all experiences present time, even if we never get a section of a present time that we want, anything that we process through, thought, action or changes all occur in present time. It's the only REAL time ever in existence. So get it right mate.

Thank you. It's the only source i have however, but i know a lot of the subject.

From the University of Rochester ''OUT OF PURE LIGHT, PHYSICISTS CREATE PARTICLES OF MATTER September 16, 1997 A team of 20 physicists from four institutions has literally made something from nothing, creating particles of matter from ordinary light for the first time. The experiment was carried out at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC) by scientists and students from the University of Rochester, Princeton University, the University of Tennessee, and Stanford. The team reported the work in the Sept. 1 issue of Physical Review Letters. Scientists have long been able to convert matter to energy; the most spectacular example is a nuclear explosion, where a small amount of matter creates tremendous energy. Now physicists have succeeded in doing the opposite: converting energy in the form of light into matter -- in this experiment, electrons and their anti-matter equivalent, positrons. Converting energy into matter isn't completely new to physicists. When they smash together particles like protons and anti-protons in high-energy accelerator experiments, the initial particles are destroyed and release a fleeting burst of energy. Sometimes this energy burst contains very short-lived packets of light known as "virtual photons" which go on to form new particles. In this experiment scientists observed for the first time the creation of particles from real photons, packets of light that scientists can observe directly in the laboratory. Physicists accomplished the feat by dumping an incredible amount of power -- nearly as much as it takes to run the entire nation but lasting only for a tiny fraction of a second -- into an area less than one billionth of a square centimeter, which is far smaller than the period at the end of this sentence. They used high-energy electrons traveling near the speed of light, produced by SLAC's two-mile-long accelerator, and photons from a powerful, "tabletop terawatt" glass laser developed at Rochester's Laboratory for Laser Energetics. The laser unleashed a tiny but powerful sliver of light lasting about one trillionth of a second (one picosecond) -- just half a millimeter long. Packed into this sliver were more than two billion billion photons. The team synchronized the two beams and sent the electrons head-on into the photons. Occasionally an electron barreled into a photon with immense energy, "like a speeding Mack truck colliding with a ping pong ball," says physicist Adrian Melissinos of the University of Rochester. That knocked the photon backward with such tremendous energy that it collided with several of the densely packed photons behind it and combined with them, creating an electron and a positron. In a series of experiments lasting several months the team studied thousands of collisions, leading to the production of more than 100 positrons. The energy-to-matter conversion was made possible by the incredibly strong electromagnetic fields that the photon-photon collisions produced. Similar conditions are found only rarely in the universe; neutron stars, for instance, have incredibly strong magnetic fields, and some scientists believe that their surfaces are home to the same kind of light-to-matter interactions the team observed. This experiment marks the first time scientists have been able to create such strong fields using laser beams. By conducting experiments like this scientists test the principles of quantum electrodynamics (QED) in fields so strong that the vacuum "boils" into pairs of electrons and positrons. The scientists say the work could also have applications in designing new particle accelerators. Spokesmen for the experiment, funded by the U.S. Department of Energy, are Kirk McDonald, professor of physics at Princeton, and Melissinos, professor of physics at Rochester. Also taking part in the experiment were William Bugg, Steve Berridge, Konstantin Shmakov and Achim Weidemann at Tennessee; David Burke, Clive Field, Glenn Horton-Smith, James Spencer and Dieter Walz at SLAC; Christian Bula and Eric Prebys at Princeton; and seven other physicists from Rochester, including Associate Professor David Meyerhofer; graduate students Thomas Koffas, David Reis, Stephen Boege, and Theofilos Kotseroglou; research associate Charles Bamber; and engineer Wolfram Ragg.'' As you can see from this work i qoute, that particles have been made from the photon energy. We also see, that this must happen very frequently in high energy collisions in spacetime. In fact, this is why we are left with two photons when a positron and an electron come together, other than them evading destruction back to photon energy creating a positronium (If i have the name right). Bottom line is, is that ordinary inertial mass can be made from photon energy, which would suggest all particles in the universe do revert back to the photon energy they fluxed from.

Was my objection here noted? By the way, a camera always captures present time.

Well actually, all forms of matter have been proven to be differential forms of trapped light. This means that photon energy makes up all matter in the universe. This would mean that the photon is very fundamental, if not primal.

There is no correction to what i said.

You little shit. Oh and DH, you want me to reply, don't worry. You want me define, a subject which seems so carelessly defined as it is... What units? These units by any chance..? W=gm... Which would be m=w/g? As for the rest, for what i have read... ''yes''. Oh right... the units... i missed them concerning the lower mass of the photon... , here, what units do you think they have? (Just out of interest).. I DEFINE it as grams

Whatever. I am glad to see this in speculations. Not a shred of mathematics to back it up. Electromagnetic theory is a major mathematical theory, if not the best in the world.

The weight of a photon, or the mass rather, lies between 10^50 and 10^51. If it has a mass that is. It might have a mass, and if it does, it will have a weight, and if it has a weight, one of Einsteins propositions will be shown wrong.

I have to object. How is this not speculations, compared to a recent thread of mine that was sent to psuedoscience?

Yes i don't worry about any standard interpretation however, but if i had to choose, it would be the Copenhagen Interpretation.

And thus the pain persists! Quantum theory is a very successful theory, if nor the most successful theory of all time… But we struggle to bring together a unified theory, and we also struggle with our interpretations. Some scientists don’t worry about the interpretation of physics… Other’s find the interpretation pivotal to our understanding of Quantum Physics. The problem with quantum theory isn't just that it is incomplete, but that there are also countless problems - and here we shall quickly summarize a few of them through their vague interpretations... The Copenhagen Interpretation: Developed in 1920's by the 'father and mother' of physics called Niels Bohr. He named his work after his own town, in Denmark. This interpretation on fundamental behaviour became 'textbook' knowledge, and became the most accepted quantum interpretation ever devised. Though, despite this fact, as you may know, many have long abandoned this interpretation. With all of reality due to a collapse postulate, the observer and the observed play intrinsic roles. However, this world is shadowed by ignorism, and that the interpretation states that not everything can ever be known... that is, if it something isn't measurable or experimental, why bother contemplating such a fact? Another problem was the infinitesimal world of fundamental coherency. Somehow - just somehow... particles merge together and create entire systems, despite being made up of quantum wave functions. The question is, without any particular collapse on the fundamental level, how do these statistics create whole entire systems? How does reality make sense, of what should be totally senseless? This paradox is most associated with the Schrödinger cat experiment. The Copenhagen interpretation is [vague] about this ''leap'' from the fundamental to the everyday objects we envision and perceive. For instance, it states that ''everyday objects are far too big to show any weird behaviour.'' Howsoever, this isn't enough for certain scientists, and it isn't really difficult to understand why. More was needed in physics... new science was just around the quantum corner... The De Broglie-Bohm Interpretation: First proposed by the 'quantum pioneer', Louis de Broglie, who believed that all quantum interaction and weirdness was all put down to ''pilot waves''. His idea was put down into theoretical development by the American physicist, David Bohm, who inexorably seeked for the clarity in the obvious vagueness of the standard interpretation by using 'hard law physics'. A quantum system is run by definite properties, even when not being observed, by virtue of a 'pilot wave' accompanying every particle. However, all of this comes with the so-called, ''quantum potential;'' this is an all-spacetime filling field that is supposed to inform particles about their environment. It is this supposed field that ''tells'' particles how to behave when a certain apparatus is used to observe them... More importantly, the quantum potential is able to do all this at superluminal speeds. It was this that really brought the theory to a halt in the 1950's... however, it became revived in the 80's when the ''Aspect Experiment,'' which proved entanglement, had shown such instantaneous effects to be intrinsic within any good quantum theory. The Existential Interpretation: In the 1980's, a growing number of smartly-minded scientists and theoretical astrophysicists began to study the interactional coherency between quantum systems and their surrounding in a more investigated research. The Existential Interpretation worked with, what is called, 'quantum decoherence,' which showed that fundamental laws are inconsistent when compared with everyday macroscopic quantum systems. In the 1990's, Wojciech Zurek of the Los Alamos National Laboratory, New Mexico, believes wholeheartedly that quantum decoherence does not cause the ''collapse'' of all but one of the possible conditions of a quantum system, but just affects some quantum states more than others. It is inexorably the value of things we observe everyday. Dr. Zureks interpretation involves the Copenhagen interpretation - but eradicates the theory of the so-called 'collapse', and instead opts for the multiverse interpretation. However, as you might know, the Existential Model states the existence of 'decoherence,' which is a bona-fide fact of physics, as it is known to exist. So far, this interpretation cannot be disproved. The Alternate Universe Interpretation Also known as 'Multiverse Theory,' 'Many worlds Theory,' or 'Parallel Universe Theory'. Created by Hugh Everett the III, it was a way of explaining the estranged wavelike and particlelike properties by a constant merging and splitting off of universes. These universes come into existence due to the wave function, and no collapse occurs in this interpretation. Instead, the wave function represents our universe, splitting off into as many possibilities the wave function ascribes. The problem with this theory is that we have never observed another universe. Also, the theory itself is problematic, as it has a high improbability as being the correct interpretation that fits nature. This is because the idea of the constant splitting and merging brings out that little voice in the back of your head saying, 'something just isn't right.' The idea of the universe, 'playing it safe,' like this, could explain why uncertainty appears in our reality - because every possible outcome is shared among every universe, paradoxically sharing the same space. The point of all this? Well, it seems that the Copenhagen Interpretation is the most accepted. When you ask what interpretation is more right, you end up explaining it as, ''they are all right.''

Time is a dimension. It's actually a spatial dimension, that seems to be very temporal. This is why we call it the imaginary space dimension. Now, we can have speed and changes in Eigenstates (in a physical system) where people like to equate change (and acceleration, which is a change in speed) to the time dimension, but this is erreneous. Time does not equal speed, nor does it equal a change in physical systems, but they can be related to time, such as a distortion in the fabric, like contraction of space and distortion of time.

There is no up or down in spacetime. Direction is omnipresent in spacetime because everything is relative.

North, you're not Bishadi are you by any chance?