pittsburghjoe Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 How did we overlook this? A particle in energy wave form becomes matter with observation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elite Engineer Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 The double slit experiment was done to show an example of quantum mechanics (i.e. particle-wave duality). E=mc2 is a relationship between mass and energy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pittsburghjoe Posted January 6, 2017 Author Share Posted January 6, 2017 Well, SURPRISE! look what else is shows us Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 Well, SURPRISE! look what else is shows us Not what you think it does. Nothing about wave particle duality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pittsburghjoe Posted January 6, 2017 Author Share Posted January 6, 2017 You are saying an unobserved particle is not in wave form? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 You are saying an unobserved particle is not in wave form? No. I'm saying you need to learn something about the physics you're trying to discuss. At the moment you appear to be randomly clutching at straws, if you understood a bit more you would be able to have far more meaningful conversation and not make statements which are completely off base. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pittsburghjoe Posted January 6, 2017 Author Share Posted January 6, 2017 I know learning new things can be scary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 I know learning new things can be scary. If you're claiming I don't understand the implications of E=mc2 then we're first going to have to discuss how you don't realise that that equation is only for particles at rest and what you should be using is this: E2=(pc)2 + m2c4 Then we can move on to talk about the implications, none of which are related to wave particle duality in they way you seem to be suggesting. Although really your post lacks any really content to properly discuss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pittsburghjoe Posted January 6, 2017 Author Share Posted January 6, 2017 What does the "p" stand for? I appreciate the new equation, but my main point remains. Energy is transforming to matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 What does the "p" stand for? I appreciate the new equation, but my main point remains. Energy is transforming to matter. Energy is a property not a thing. The equation implies mass is a form of energy. Mass is also a property. Saying matter instead of mass is wrong. Sorry, p is momentum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pittsburghjoe Posted January 6, 2017 Author Share Posted January 6, 2017 (edited) I treat mass and matter as the same thing. What if these things were not just properties? What if mass and energy are two intermixed layers to our reality? Edited January 6, 2017 by pittsburghjoe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 I treat mass and matter as the same thing. What if these things were not just properties? What if mass and energy are two intermixed layers to our reality? You're free to make up whatever you want. But that's just the the language of science, that's not what physicists mean when they say matter of mass. If they weren't just properties then they wouldn't be mass and energy but something else as the definitions of energy and mass are well known and understood by phycisists. Your next sentence is basically meaningless. Can you detail the mathematical model for a intermixed layer to our reality? It looks like meaningless word salad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pittsburghjoe Posted January 6, 2017 Author Share Posted January 6, 2017 (edited) I'm in the process of flipping half of what phycisists know on there heads. It has occurred to me that Energy is its own seperate thing. I currently don't know if I should call it its own dimension or force. Transferring energy out of it and turning into mass appears to be what is occurring in the observed double slit. Edited January 6, 2017 by pittsburghjoe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 I'm in the process of flipping half of what phycisists know on there heads. To put it bluntly, how would you know, you don't even know what physicists know as shown by your completely lack of knowing the relativistic total energy equation above. You're doing the equivalent of starting your own motor mechanic's garage and when someone comes in to get their oil changed your painting the windows pink and saying that's what you call an oil change. It has occurred to me that Energy is its own seperate thing. The universe is under no obligation to care what occurs to an ape descended on a small blue green planet orbiting a pretty boring star. Thinking it doesn't make it true, it doesn't even make you the first or special. I currently don't know if I should call it its own dimension or force. Both of those things have very specific, mathematical descriptions. Energy does not fall into either of them. Transferring energy out of it and turning into mass appears to be what is occurring in the observed double slit. No it doesn't. There is no mass energy change. Wishing it to be so doesn't change the observations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pittsburghjoe Posted January 6, 2017 Author Share Posted January 6, 2017 To put it bluntly, how would you know, you don't even know what physicists know as shown by your completely lack of knowing the relativistic total energy equation above. You're doing the equivalent of starting your own motor mechanic's garage and when someone comes in to get their oil changed your painting the windows pink and saying that's what you call an oil change. No it doesn't. There is no mass energy change. Wishing it to be so doesn't change the observations.how can you say this? we know a free particle is in wave form. If something is in wave form, it is also most likely in a form of energy. An EM wave doest have a packet until it is measured. I call that packet mass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 how can you say this? we know a free particle is in wave form. If something is in wave form, it is also most likely in a form of energy. An EM wave doest have a packet until it is measured. I call that packet mass. Because we have very accurate models. Because a electron is a wave doesn't mean it is energy, energy is a property. It will have energy (kinetic and potential are the simplest to talk about in this context). Em waves are massless even when measured, photons are massless. You're calling a photon mass is just a bit silly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pittsburghjoe Posted January 6, 2017 Author Share Posted January 6, 2017 (edited) I should say it goes from a massless state to one of mass ..even though it doesn't have any. You are saying even unmeasured em waves are not in a form of energy? Edited January 6, 2017 by pittsburghjoe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 They have energy, they are not "in the form energy". To be massive you need mass, photons are massless, no matter what you want to say that's what the evidence is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 I'm in the process of flipping half of what phycisists know on there heads. ! Moderator Note If you are going to do that here you must follow the rules. If you have a new idea, post it in speculations and follow the guidelines for posting there (i.e. you'd better have a model or some kind of evidence to back up what you claim). If you post in a science section, as you did here, you don't get to push your pet theory. You asked a question and it was answered: the double slit is not a demonstration of E=mc^2. If you have other questions ask them, but if you assert any more non-mainstream physics, this will be locked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 (edited) You are saying an unobserved particle is not in wave form? We can't say anything about an unobserved particle. When we observe a particle we can observe both wave-like properties (e.g. wavelength) and particle-like properties (e.g. indivisibility). But the particle always has these properties (when observed). It doesn't flip between them in different conditions, or sometimes have them and sometimes not. The wavelength is related to energy and momentum. In the case of a particle with mass (e.g. not a photon) it is also related to the mass. I'm in the process of flipping half of what phycisists know on there heads. Seems unlikely. It has occurred to me that Energy is its own seperate thing. I currently don't know if I should call it its own dimension or force. That is, presumably, because you don't know what "energy", "dimension" or "force" mean. Transferring energy out of it and turning into mass appears to be what is occurring in the observed double slit. Nope. It is just the interference of waves. Edited January 6, 2017 by Strange Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fuzzwood Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 I'm in the process of flipping half of what phycisists know on there heads. It has occurred to me that Energy is its own seperate thing. I currently don't know if I should call it its own dimension or force. Transferring energy out of it and turning into mass appears to be what is occurring in the observed double slit. Then you first have to understand exactly what the physicists are talking about in the first place. I know, learning is scary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pittsburghjoe Posted January 6, 2017 Author Share Posted January 6, 2017 Sick burns you guys! I assure you I cried a little. They have energy, they are not "in the form energy". You can't know that for sure. To be massive you need mass, photons are massless, no matter what you want to say that's what the evidence is. I see mass the same way as a 3D modeling program does. A measured neutrino or electron has a single set of x,y,z (a vertex). Anything bigger being brought over from Energy will have depth (more x,y,z's assigned to the object). We can't say anything about an unobserved particle. So there is a chance it is in the form of energy. It doesn't flip between them in different conditions, or sometimes have them and sometimes not. You don't know that. The wavelength is related to energy and momentum. In the case of a particle with mass (e.g. not a photon) it is also related to the mass. It's great that mass has a wavelength after its converted from energy. Nope. It is just the interference of waves. You are overlooking something revolutionary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 Sick burns you guys! I assure you I cried a little. It's not worth getting upset, it's more productive putting your energies into learning. You can't know that for sure. Sure I can add "in the form energy" is meaningless. I see mass the same way as a 3D modeling program does. A measured neutrino or electron has a single set of x,y,z (a vertex). Anything bigger being brought over from Energy will have depth (more x,y,z's assigned to the object). It's fine seeing it like that, but that's not what our measurementmass of the universe tell us so it's not science. So there is a chance it is in the form of energy. Still meaningless. You don't know that. Learn the physics. It's great that mass has a wavelength after its converted from energy. That's not what strange said. You are overlooking something revolutionary. You're over looking everything we know about the universe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pittsburghjoe Posted January 6, 2017 Author Share Posted January 6, 2017 Let me give it some meaning. Energy is the top tier shell of this force/dimension. EM/quantum waves are within/below this tier. If I can solve Mass Gap and Quantum weirdness with this way of thinking ..would you take it seriously? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 You don't know that. Well, it is what the science says. So I haven't just made it up. Unlike your random posts. I see mass the same way as a 3D modeling program does. A measured neutrino or electron has a single set of x,y,z (a vertex). Anything bigger being brought over from Energy will have depth (more x,y,z's assigned to the object). Wibble. Colourless green sheep dream furiously. (Your sentences have equally little semantic content.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts