a new energy-momentum equation can derive out GZK cut-off and Lorentz symmetry breaking

[hidebrain]

At first,we derive out energy-momentum equation,E=mc^2,from quantum mechanics.
That is,Special Relativity Theory can be derived out from quantum mechanics.
Special Relativity Theory is included in the quantum mechanics.
Start from the new thinking,we derive out a new energy-momentum equation.
In low energy region,the new energy-momentum equation can transition to E=mc^2.
E=mc^2 is only approximate of new energy-momentum equation.
The new energy-momentum equation can derive out GZK cut-off and Lorentz symmetry breaking.
The new energy-momentum equation take another result.Energy have maximum value.Momentum have maximum value. From this thinking,the scattering problems in quantum filed theory maybe solved. If so,Renormalization is no longer needed.
In the new energy-momentum equation,Lightspeed is no longer maximum speed value.
If you have interesting to this,please download attach pdf file to read details.
Welcome to discuss.

My english writing skills is very poor.Please bear.
My email is hidebrain@hotmail.com.
Thanks.

 

Please help me to distribute this paper to arxiv.org.My unique endorsement code is BFQMAO in arxiv.org. If you have this authority in arxiv.org,please recommend me in arxiv.org.If you can help,please click this url,

https://arxiv.org/auth/endorse?x=BFQMAO

Thank you very much.

lixiaolin1.pdf

[imatfaal]

"Will discover,take into equation (2.1),miracles happen."

 

 

 

Sorry - don't mean to mock but I could not resist.

[Mordred]

Sorry this paper is no where near ready for arxiv, there is far too many grammar errors for one thing, too many spelling errors is the next problem, no references is the third problem (even papers that discuss well known applications require references.) The last point is your momentum greater than light speed proposal will require some supporting material.

 

for example this line

 

"Because equation (2.7) is approximate only. Equation (2.7) is valid only in low energy region. " this line will require supportive papers. especially since its

 

E² =P² c² + m^_o2 c⁴ can you show a paper where this is not valid in the high energy regime?

 

"is the deviation between new energy and Special Relativity Theory"

 

new energy ? please explain

 

by the way I can't admit this to arxiv even if it was 100% accurate, (I don't have that ability)

however I can see numerous errors in its writing that needs to be improved.

 

(you might want to start with a spell checking program) example Microsoft office English version Its terribly hard to understand what your saying in most of this article

 

The other problem is your implying that there is a momentum faster than the speed of light without any supportive evidence, or supportive papers. (and you want this to be published in arxiv????) I'm sure if you have a physics degree you must know a few colleques who can review your paper without resorting to a forum

 

quite frankly if you have to come to a forum to get your paper published that makes me truly wonder about its validity

Edited June 12, 2014 by Mordred

[hidebrain]

Sorry this paper is no where near ready for arxiv, there is far too many grammar errors for one thing, too many spelling errors is the next problem, no references is the third problem (even papers that discuss well known applications require references.) The last point is your momentum greater than light speed proposal will require some supporting material.

 

for example this line

 

"Because equation (2.7) is approximate only. Equation (2.7) is valid only in low energy region. " this line will require supportive papers. especially since its

 

E² =P² c² + m^_o2 c⁴ can you show a paper where this is not valid in the high energy regime?

 

"is the deviation between new energy and Special Relativity Theory"

 

new energy ? please explain

 

by the way I can't admit this to arxiv even if it was 100% accurate, (I don't have that ability)

however I can see numerous errors in its writing that needs to be improved.

 

(you might want to start with a spell checking program) example Microsoft office English version Its terribly hard to understand what your saying in most of this article

 

The other problem is your implying that there is a momentum faster than the speed of light without any supportive evidence, or supportive papers. (and you want this to be published in arxiv????) I'm sure if you have a physics degree you must know a few colleques who can review your paper without resorting to a forum

 

quite frankly if you have to come to a forum to get your paper published that makes me truly wonder about its validity

Thank you for your suggestion.

English is not my native language.My english writing skills is very poor.My writing must rely on google translation.

I just want to express my discovery,my thinking,my idea.

I am not a career researchers.I am only a amateur on physics.Although I graduated from Physics Department,but my career as a programmer.

My theory is a theoretical prediction only.In the current,there not exist supporting material,that does not matter.Perhaps will discover supporting material in future.

To physics,propose theory at first,then discover supporting material.This is possible. Idea go ahead.

[Mordred]

well its too bad you didn't look into the GZK cutoff limit in more detail, there has been extensive research into this area. Including research that disproves your model.

 

research has shown that the GZK cutoff limit results in the photon-pion production so the extra energy is carried off by the pion.

 

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2013/04/26/the-cosmic-speed-limit/

 

Observation of the GZK Cutoff by the HiRes Experiment

http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0609403.pdf

http://www.physics.uu.se/teorfys/sites/fysast.uu.se.teorfys/files/files/Andres_de_Bustos_Molina_gzk.pdf

http://www.hep.shef.ac.uk/edaw/PHY206/Site/2012_course_files/phy206rlec5.pdf

 

of course any results are always subjective to debate, however from what I understand the general consensus is that the cutoff has been measured, If this is in fact the case your model will no longer work

 

mathematically your model is accurate, however as I stated before you need supportive research, in particular you need supportive research showing that the QZK limit does not exist or is false.

 

(by the way the proposal of faster than light in regards to high energy of the cosmic rays has already been proposed by others so this model isn't adding a new idea)

Not-So-Faster-Than-Light Particles and the GZK Cutoff: Philosophical Considerations of Wayward Travels

http://milliern.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/ftl-gzk-phil-paper-revised.pdf

 

the equations where you describe breaking through the GZK cutoff doesn't disprove the GZK cutoff, it only hypothesizes the possibility.

(in other words your going to need stronger proof, there are articles available that discuss the possibility that the GZK cutoff may or may not be correct, however this model will depend upon that research)

 

however I wouldn't place much hope in that.

 

Search for ultra high energy cosmic ray sources. FRI radio galaxy Centaurus A

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1212/1212.1402.pdf

 

Modern Tests of Lorentz Invariance

http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0502097v2.pdf

Edited June 12, 2014 by Mordred

[hidebrain]

well its too bad you didn't look into the GZK cutoff limit in more detail, there has been extensive research into this area. Including research that disproves your model.

 

research has shown that the GZK cutoff limit results in the photon-pion production so the extra energy is carried off by the pion.

 

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2013/04/26/the-cosmic-speed-limit/

 

Observation of the GZK Cutoff by the HiRes Experiment

http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0609403.pdf

http://www.physics.uu.se/teorfys/sites/fysast.uu.se.teorfys/files/files/Andres_de_Bustos_Molina_gzk.pdf

http://www.hep.shef.ac.uk/edaw/PHY206/Site/2012_course_files/phy206rlec5.pdf

 

of course any results are always subjective to debate, however from what I understand the general consensus is that the cutoff has been measured, If this is in fact the case your model will no longer work

 

mathematically your model is accurate, however as I stated before you need supportive research, in particular you need supportive research showing that the QZK limit does not exist or is false.

 

(by the way the proposal of faster than light in regards to high energy of the cosmic rays has already been proposed by others so this model isn't adding a new idea)

Not-So-Faster-Than-Light Particles and the GZK Cutoff: Philosophical Considerations of Wayward Travels

http://milliern.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/ftl-gzk-phil-paper-revised.pdf

 

the equations where you describe breaking through the GZK cutoff doesn't disprove the GZK cutoff, it only hypothesizes the possibility.

(in other words your going to need stronger proof, there are articles available that discuss the possibility that the GZK cutoff may or may not be correct, however this model will depend upon that research)

 

however I wouldn't place much hope in that.

 

Search for ultra high energy cosmic ray sources. FRI radio galaxy Centaurus A

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1212/1212.1402.pdf

 

Modern Tests of Lorentz Invariance

http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0502097v2.pdf

"research has shown that the GZK cutoff limit results in the photon-pion production so the extra energy is carried off by the pion.",This is one explanation to GZK cutoff.

Lorentz symmetry breaking is another explanation to GZK cutoff.

In fact,to GZK cutoff,there lack experiments data.Experiments data is too little.So there don't exist accurate conclusions.So there exist muilti different understanding to GZK cutoff.

My theory is only a mathematical model,a suppose,a idea.

I think that my idea is very interesting.It's another new explanation to GZK cutoff.So I express it openly.