Grand Unification Theory or an Axiom

[Tom O'Neil]

1) 1st assertion is that on a Grand and Quantum scale Gt varies as mc2/e. This to say the greater the energy < time and low gravity threshold. Likewise with less energy >Gt!

 

2) 2nd assertion defies common logic regarding four known laws, but reduced them to 3 known laws(i.e. electromagnetism, strong nuclear and weak nuclear)!

1 Graviton ∝ 10 femto Joules

 

3) An assumption of mine is that light, energy and gravity share properties unknown yet to man on a quantum and grand scale.

 

G t ∝ mc²/e

 

[Ophiolite]

3) An assumption of mine is that light, energy and gravity share properties unknown yet to man on a quantum and grand scale.

An assumption of mine is that you would be better off if you were to avoid wild-assed speculations and get a proper education.

 

The difference between these two assumptions is that there is evidence to support mine.

 

(Membership and Lurkers: if you have not read the Voynitch manuscript thread you will not be aware the justification of my rather curt response to Tom.)

[Strange]

An assertion is not the same thing as an axiom. An axiom is a proposition that can be taken as self-evidently true. While an assertion is something that is stated without any supporting evidence or theory.

 

So you might want to ask the moderators to remove the word "axiom" from the thread title.

 

 

1) 1st assertion is that on a Grand and Quantum scale Gt varies as mc2/e.

 

What is Gt amd how, exactly, does it vary?

Do you realise that mc²/e = 1? So your saying that Gt varies as 1. That doesn't make any sense.

 

 

This to say the greater the energy < time and low gravity threshold. Likewise with less energy >Gt

 

That is incomprehensible.

 

 

3) An assumption of mine is that light, energy and gravity share properties unknown yet to man on a quantum and grand scale.

 

Just saying that there are unknown properties is not terribly useful. I think all scientists assume there are things we do not yet know.

[Tom O'Neil]

 

Strange>

This to say the greater the energy < time and low gravity threshold. Likewise with less energy >Gt

Then why is that time reduction occurs when you travel faster than the speed of light and you don't age as much as the person on earth?

 

 

 

mc²/e = 1 then perhaps gravity, light and energy share a common property!

[Strange]

Then why is that time reduction occurs when you travel faster than the speed of light and you don't age as much as the person on earth?

 

1. You cannot travel faster than light.

 

2. The change in the relative rate of time is explained by Einstein's theory of relativity. You may have missed this breakthrough, it only happened 110 years ago.

 

I second Ophiolite's suggestion that you learn a little basic physics.

 

 

mc²/e = 1 then perhaps gravity, light and energy share a common property!

 

They are indeed related in a number of ways, one of which is captured by the (partial) equation you have quoted (mangled). We also know that the energy of a photon is related to its wavelength. We also know that the momentum of a photon is related to its wavelength.

Hence the full form of the equation:

[latex]e = \sqrt{ (m_0 c^2)^2 + (pc)^2 }[/latex]

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

Thus far this is falling well short of what we expect from a discussion in speculations. If you don't step up your game, this will be closed. Don't waste the chance by responding to this modnote in the thread.

[Tom O'Neil]

 

1. You cannot travel faster than light.

 

2. The change in the relative rate of time is explained by Einstein's theory of relativity. You may have missed this breakthrough, it only happened 110 years ago.

 

I second Ophiolite's suggestion that you learn a little basic physics.

 

 

They are indeed related in a number of ways, one of which is captured by the (partial) equation you have quoted (mangled). We also know that the energy of a photon is related to its wavelength. We also know that the momentum of a photon is related to its wavelength.

Hence the full form of the equation:

[latex]e = \sqrt{ (m_0 c^2)^2 + (pc)^2 }[/latex]

For generations, physicists believed there is nothing faster than light moving through a vacuum — a speed of 186,000 miles per second.

But in an experiment in Princeton, N.J., physicists sent a pulse of laser light through cesium vapor so quickly that it left the chamber before it had even finished entering.

The pulse traveled 310 times the distance it would have covered if the chamber had contained a vacuum.

Researchers say it is the most convincing demonstration yet that the speed of light — supposedly an ironclad rule of nature — can be pushed beyond known boundaries, at least under certain laboratory circumstances.

“This effect cannot be used to send information back in time,” said Lijun Wang, a researcher with the private NEC Institute. “However, our experiment does show that the generally held misconception that ‘nothing can travel faster than the speed of light’ is wrong.”

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=120095&page=1

I'm working on it Evil Liar and I'm just building up to my main point Thankyou

[swansont]

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=120095&page=1

 

 

From the scant information in that article it sounds like other experiments that did pulse reshaping. The conceptual error here is that the pulse timing is measured from the peak of the pulse, so if the peak moves around, relative to the leading edge, you haven't done a proper measurement. IOW, if the pulse is 2 ns wide, then the leading edge enters 1 ns before the peak. Then you let it travel a meter, which should take 3 ns, and the first photon exits 2 ns after the peak enters, because it had a 1 ns head start. You have an eye-opening result even though nothing has traveled faster than c.

 

Of course, the crappy pop-sci article doesn't give a proper citation to the journal article, which makes it tough to find.

[Strange]

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=120095&page=1

 

 

1. You should learn some basic physics rather than relying on sloppy journalism.

 

2. I said "you" cannot travel faster than light. No massive body can travel at or more than the speed of light.

This is a better article, with a reference to the paper: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2000/jul/19/laser-smashes-light-speed-record

And this appears to be the paper: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v406/n6793/full/406277a0.html

Note that they very carefully use words like "appears" and explain why it does not contradict causality (i.e. that nothing can travel faster than light).

[Tom O'Neil]

If we are not sure of where the electron is in time on an xyz access to its precise location, and we are positive that light bends around matter; then the use of this detector may or may not validate the standard model of physics by witnessing the first experiment which would or would not weigh the neutrino. This experiment does not end for five years so I humbly ask that this thread remain open for speculation. If the neutrino breaks the standard model for this experiment. Then their maybe some valuable logic in this thread later on down the road. The electromagnetism nuts are like the conspiracy theorists of science and I guess I fit in with them for my assertions that Gravity is melded together with 3 forces.

 

Also if in the future we find out the neutrino does interact with electromagnetism then it may explain the photon in aspects never thought of before.

 

 

What does all this have to do with dark energy and dark matter?

Knowing the precise mass of neutrinos is not just relevant for particle physicists - the results may hold important information about the interactions between neutrinos and the recently confirmed Higgs-Boson. This is important to prove or disprove the validity of the current standard model of particle physics.

But the scientists also hope to get closer to answering two other mysteries of physics: Those of dark energy and of dark matter. Dark energy is supposedly behind the ongoing expansion of the universe.

Dark matter makes up about 95 percent of the universe but remains for scientists - just like neutrinos - hard to grasp.

http://www.dw.com/en/the-katrin-tritium-neutrino-experiment-a-giant-scale-for-the-tiniest-of-particles/a-36044018

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino

[swansont]

I don't see that you have done anything to tie your not-even-a-skeleton-of-an-assertion to the neutrino experiment.

[koti]

If we are not sure of where the electron is in time on an xyz access to its precise location, and we are positive that light bends around matter; then the use of this detector may or may not validate the standard model of physics by witnessing the first experiment which would or would not weigh the neutrino. This experiment does not end for five years so I humbly ask that this thread remain open for speculation. If the neutrino breaks the standard model for this experiment. Then their maybe some valuable logic in this thread later on down the road. The electromagnetism nuts are like the conspiracy theorists of science and I guess I fit in with them for my assertions that Gravity is melded together with 3 forces.

 

Also if in the future we find out the neutrino does interact with electromagnetism then it may explain the photon in aspects never thought of before.

 

 

Tom. Your gibberish contains some barely visible traces of physics but it's all mangled into a mix which breeds morons. Frankly I am afraid that some kid or someone with no or very little physics knowledge might read what you wrote in this thread and might mistake it for science.

Edited October 20, 2016 by koti

[Tom O'Neil]

I don't see that you have done anything to tie your not-even-a-skeleton-of-an-assertion to the neutrino experiment.

I guess you see little value here but I will attempt to correlate this with my assertions with greater logic

[swansont]

 

This is a better article, with a reference to the paper: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2000/jul/19/laser-smashes-light-speed-record

And this appears to be the paper: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v406/n6793/full/406277a0.html

Note that they very carefully use words like "appears" and explain why it does not contradict causality (i.e. that nothing can travel faster than light).

 

Thanks for the cites. The previous link implied that the result was from this year.

 

The pulse edges were advanced 62 ns, while the whole pulse is more than 6 microseconds wide. Nothing to indicate that any single photon exceeded c.

[Tom O'Neil]

 

Tom. Your gibberish contains some barely visible traces of physics but it's all mangled into a mix which breeds morons. Frankly I am afraid that some kid or someone with no or very little physics knowledge might read what you wrote in this thread and might mistake it for science.

I can reply to posts which do not insinuate insults as is seems some are sadly reduced too. So here I replied as a moron should

[Strange]

If we are not sure of where the electron is in time on an xyz access to its precise location, and we are positive that light bends around matter; then the use of this detector may or may not validate the standard model of physics by witnessing the first experiment which would or would not weigh the neutrino.

 

That is series of complete non-sequiturs.

 

 

This experiment does not end for five years so I humbly ask that this thread remain open for speculation.

 

You haven't said anything that seems relevant to the mass of neutrinos.

 

 

Then their maybe some valuable logic in this thread later on down the road.

 

There hasn't been any logic in this thread so far. Why should we expect that to change?

 

 

The electromagnetism nuts are like the conspiracy theorists of science

 

Who are the "electromagnetism nuts"? (And in what way are they like conspiracy theorists?)

 

 

Also if in the future we find out the neutrino does interact with electromagnetism then it may explain the photon in aspects never thought of before.

 

What aspects of the photon would this explain?

[Tom O'Neil]

 

Thanks for the cites. The previous link implied that the result was from this year.

 

The pulse edges were advanced 62 ns, while the whole pulse is more than 6 microseconds wide. Nothing to indicate that any single photon exceeded c.

Thankyou so appears the speed of light still holds the record vs the laser. Did they lack the timing for the trigger?

[koti]

I can reply to posts which do not insinuate insults as is seems some are sadly reduced too. So here I replied as a moron should

Tom. I have not insulted you in any way so far. You clearly have difficulties in understanding basic communication. Let me rephrase what I stated - I am afraid that the things you post are going to make morons of other people out there.

[Tom O'Neil]

 

Thanks for the cites. The previous link implied that the result was from this year.

 

The pulse edges were advanced 62 ns, while the whole pulse is more than 6 microseconds wide. Nothing to indicate that any single photon exceeded c.

Remarkably, the signal velocity⁴ of a light pulse, defined as the velocity at which the half point of the pulse front travels, also exceeds the speed of light in a vacuum, c

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v406/n6793/full/406277a0.html

I believe Evil Liar this may state otherwise for the half point.

[Mordred]

no, not once you read the actual paper not the pop media coverage. Course it would if help if you understand the paper you posted. Or note.

 

"light pulse propagation is not at odds with causality or special relativity"

 

Which is in the last paper

 

meaning not faster than c

Edited October 20, 2016 by Mordred

[Tom O'Neil]

no, not once you read the actual paper not the pop media coverage. Course it would if help if you understand the paper you posted. Or note.

 

"light pulse propagation is not at odds with causality or special relativity"

 

Which is in the last paper

 

meaning not faster than c

 

 

Remarkably, the signal velocity⁴ of a light pulse(i.e. laser) exceeded c at halfway point in conclusion!

[Mordred]

read the full paper and look at the math itself pertaining to group velocity index.

 

There is a big difference between group velocity index, phase velocity and speed of light c. Phase velocity can be superluminal. This doesn't violate SR once you understand what is meant by group velocity and phase velocity.

 

Start here on the section detailing Cherenkov radiation.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherenkov_radiation

Edited October 20, 2016 by Mordred

[Tom O'Neil]

read the full paper and look at the math itself pertaining to group velocity index.

 

There is a big difference between group velocity index, phase velocity and speed of light c. Group velocity and phase velocity can be superluminal. This doesn't violate SR once you understand what is meant by group velocity and phase velocity.

 

Start here on the section detailing Cherenkov radiation.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherenkov_radiation

Thanks Mordred,

 

I see this as the duality of light being wave and particle form; so concise measurements should show averages within the two methods for obtaining the rate to overcome c in one instance and another not. The recent experiment under different conditions failed to violate the speed of light, yet prior exceeded c. Trigger happy or not, maybe the o-scope was different. I'm now undecided if it was broken or if light still holds the record.

 

 

 

In recent experiments involving electromagnetically induced transparency (EIT)^{20, 21, 22}, the group-velocity index was greatly enhanced using the lossless normal dispersion region between two closely spaced absorption lines. Thus the group velocity of light was dramatically reduced to as slow as 8 m s^-1 (refs23,24,25). Conversely, between two closely spaced gain lines¹⁶, an anomalous dispersion region appears where vdn(v)/dv is negative and its magnitude can become large. In this situation, the group velocity of a light pulse can exceed c and can even become negative^{16, 17}.

Edited October 20, 2016 by Tom O'Neil

[Strange]

I see this as the duality of light being wave and particle form;

 

 

Well, it isn't. It is a purely classical thing and applies to anything propagating as waves.

[Mordred]

There is several proofs showing group and phase velocity not transferring information at greater than c. You really need to understand the math properly to get a proper grasp on it.

 

These superluminal group/phase velocities have been detected and around for quite some time. Plenty of professional scientists have seen these tests/papers.

 

Yet they agree no superluminal information exchange is violated and that there is proof that SR isn't violated in regards to group velocity/phase velocity.

 

However like I stated the detail is not easily explained outside the math.

Edited October 20, 2016 by Mordred