Do you know somthing called water?

Not accusation, that was a joke.

Sorry bro, again i assumed you knew what i was referencing. In scientology, mastery of "MatterEnergySpaceTime" (always delivered like that, with no spaces, commas or conjunctions) or the acronym MEST is the ultimate goal of auditing and "the bridge" once a scientologist achieves "Mest", they move beyond the "Operating Thetan" level and cross "the Bridge" to join L.Ron Hubbard and become godlike superbeings (no joke). Not that theres anything wrong with that. I believe in the freedom of Science Fiction.

Again im not arguing that quantum theory and it's adherents are wrong, nor that newton's mechanical universe is absolutely correct, I'm not arguing anything, except possibly, that the "magnetized quantum water machine" is bullshit. I have never been able to grasp the concepts laid out by quantum theorists, because it seems contradictory.

Electrons do have mass, when at rest, (yet nothing is ever at rest, due to gravity acceleration, and big bang inertia) or when they are a part of the electron shell
However...
Electrons not at rest have no mass (which would seem to include all electrons at all times), yet still retain inertia , the power to exert force on matter and still react to gravity.

These are to my understanding mutually exclusive statements.

I have as much trouble understanding how this can all be true, as i do accepting the premise of an all powerful benevolent god who demands faith, and sacrifices, but is for some reason unwilling to reveal himself to anyone who is not either 2000 years dead, insane, or a televangelist. In fact, reading the various laymens guides to Kip Thorne's theories, I was left with even more questions.

If gravity draws everything (including light, and electromagnetic energy) towards it's source, then to every outside observer, the space would appear warped. But alteration of perception and measurement does not, necessarily, mean alteration of the phenomenon itself. The perceived warping of space could just as logically be a warping of our perception of space, while the area in question is actually unaffected. Since space is generally considered empty of matter, there is nothing in empty space to warp. introducing matter or energy to the space to measure it, would by definition measure only the energy or matter introduced, not the space itself. thus anything measured in a gravity field would be effected by the field, and thus the measurement would be altered.

example: A boat at sea moves closer to the shore.

without fixed frames of reference we cannot say what has happened.

did the boat move through the relativistically motionless water towards the stationary shore?
did the boat remain relativistically motionless, but the ocean it sits in moved closer to the stationary shore?
did the boat and water remain relativistically motionless, while the shore moved closer to the boat?
did some or all of the actors move just a little bit?

quantum theory seems to take an all of the above but none of the above Zen Buddhist approach to the matter of matter energy space and time.

I must disagree with one point emphatically, time does exist. only human perception of time changes. in your doctor's office example, 5 real minutes in a waiting room may seem like 7 hours, but when you get home, your clocks all still agree about the time. In the famous space traveling twin example of relativistic time dilation, one twin experiences more time than the other, but the old twin's time is the same as the rest of the relativistically matched universe. If i miss 15 minutes of Matlock fixing a flat tire, the episode continued to run while i was delayed. It didnt stop existing because i wasnt watching.

thats why im asking. You may not get my jokes, but i'm not trying to rustle your jimmies. im just askin questions.

mindphuk said:

Who is saying this is incorrect? Certainly not quantum mechanics. Electrons are leptons and are part of an atom and thus are considered matter. They also have a nonzero rest mass

"The electron rest mass (symbol: m[SUB]e[/SUB]) is the mass of a stationary electron. It is one of the fundamental constants of physics, and is also very important in chemistry because of its relation to the Avogadro constant. It has a value of about 9.11×10[SUP]−31[/SUP] kilograms or about 5.486×10[SUP]−4[/SUP] atomic mass units, equivalent to an energy of about 8.19×10[SUP]−14[/SUP] joules or about 0.511 megaelectronvolts.[SUP][1][/SUP]"

Click to expand...

9.11×10[SUP]−31[/SUP] kilograms... i think i just tore something in my brain



My math isnt up to understanding things that small. is it ok if i call it "tiny but present"?

This however raises the question, when does an electron with a mass become a massless electron in motion (photon)? Or are photons no longer considered free electrons in linear motion?

See now you make me wanna take my crippled ass back to school. I dont want no damned student loans!! I heard these things are gettin expensive.

I'm mortified. I didn't know that about scientology. See all the good words are taken.

The arrow of entropy rules, no doubt. I'm not trying to make a transcendent point. I'm suggesting, as Matter and Energy are unified as E = MC2 (why the speed of light squared????) Space and Time are unified in that durations are needed to cross Space and Space itself is defined by the Time it takes to "cross" it. These are just more question circles. One defines the other, just like the mass question circle.

Then a logical conjecture would be Space unifies it all, especially when the max velocity possible for crossing space is the constant for unifying Energy and Matter. Beside all that, the arrow of entropy is defined as bound causality pairs in Quantum String Theory. We only see it one direction because of this binding, it can be said. There are questions beyond questions, bro, I agree. I'm glad you are helping think about it, sometimes the truly break through ideas come from laymen. I'm salting the salad for the young bucks with no career limitations yet, but big brains. Better than Cold Fusion. Suskind was a plumber before he got hooked.

ESMT
TESM
SMTE, etc

Dr Kynes said:

9.11×10[SUP]−31[/SUP] kilograms... i think i just tore something in my brain

View attachment 2163358

My math isnt up to understanding things that small. is it ok if i call it "tiny but present"?

This however raises the question, when does an electron with a mass become a massless electron in motion (photon)? Or are photons no longer considered free electrons in linear motion?

See now you make me wanna take my crippled ass back to school. I dont want no damned student loans!! I heard these things are gettin expensive.

Click to expand...

Dude, I love it. I've been trying to convenience mindphuck that photons are free electrons. Electrons have mass in the Bohr models because the macro chemisty of molecular weights and Avagodro math works really well, at that scale. There is no such thing as an electron at rest. It is either bound in the atom where it participates in mass chemistry and the passing of electricity but has no certainty of position, vector and velocity at the same time; or it is freed by adding energy, has no mass, no measurable acceleration but instant max velocity, and vector, except it still exhibits uncertainty of position.

I don't think he buys it.

Doer said:

Dude, I love it. I've been trying to convenience Mindphuck that photons are free electrons. Electrons have mass in the Bohr models because the macro chemisty of molecular weights and Avagodro math works really well, at that scale. There is no such thing as an electron at rest. It is either bound in the atom where it participates in mass chemistry and the passing of electricity but has no certainty of position, vector and velocity at the same time; or it is freed by adding energy, has no mass, no measurable acceleration but instant max velocity, and vector, except it still exhibits uncertainty of position.

I don't think he buys it.

Click to expand...

When i was in school electrons in linear motion is what they taught us a photon was. Not "might be" or "similar to" but, thats simply what photons were. I seem to recall one class where the instructor exlained an experiment where exposure to photons ionized a thin sheet of metal (i think it was gold), thus "proving" that photons were electrons, by trapping them in the metal's valence field where they became electrons, and the material became negatively ionized. Course i did smoke a lot of weed back then.

as to no acceleration and instant maximum velocity, i dunno. again, phenomenon so small as to be fundamentally impossible to measure could easily exist, even if we cant find em. My old hunting rifle can move a 14 gram bullet from relativistic rest to 1060 meters per second in a couple miliseconds. with a small enough mass and a big enough energy source, i cant say how fast a single electron could be accelerated to 300 million meters per second. They do seem to stop moving in fairly short order though...

If force = mass x velocity, velocity / mass should = force initiating acceleration. Or am i having a stroke? either way i cant even do that math. My sliderule is too short (if i could even find it)

Well, the reason is one of those question circles. When the electron becomes un-bound from one un-certainty into the other, it drops the mass and therefore requires no force and no acceleration. Without mass, the photon speed of light is instantaneous. What's up with that?

Doer said:

Well, the reason is one of those question circles. When the electron becomes un-bound from one un-certainty into the other, it drops the mass and therefore requires no force and no acceleration. Without mass, the photon speed of light is instantaneous. What's up with that?

Click to expand...

Then where does the mass go???????????? If an ionized particle gains mass then when it de-ionizes, where does the mass go?? Do the atoms just sweat it out like a fat man on a treadmill? Maybe we should get Jenny Craig in on this shit...

Yo Doer... if we figure this shit out, we can go halfsies sellin quantum weight loss frozen meals. They could be ruinously expensive! We'll make a packet!

Dr Kynes said:

This however raises the question, when does an electron with a mass become a massless electron in motion (photon)? Or are photons no longer considered free electrons in linear motion?

See now you make me wanna take my crippled ass back to school. I dont want no damned student loans!! I heard these things are gettin expensive.

Click to expand...

I have never heard of an electron being the same as a photon except from Doer.
An electron is a lepton, it has mass and a spin of 1/2. Muons and neutrinos are leptons. Electrons also have a charge, equal and opposite to the charge of a proton. Leptons are of a particle type called a fermion.

A photon is a boson. Bosons are very different from fermions. Bosons are usually force carriers vs. fermions which are usually associated with matter. Bosons have an integer spin, while fermions are always half-integer spin. Bosons behave very different than fermions. Bosons follow Bose-Einstein statistics while fermions follow Fermi-Dirac statistics.

Everything I just said can be confirmed experimentally. Either your recall is incorrect or your textbooks were written by idiots, I suspect the former.

Well, true this is the standard model. And I hope we can speak frankly without the verbal zingers. So, granted within the model this is how it works and can be verified within the model. It is the tech of matter, and Bose-Einstein condensates are a newly proven form of matter. But, no Higgs as yet. Predicted to be a boson. So, no explaination at all, for mass And so none for gravity.

Then, we must say the standard model does not hold up completely in all cases. Thus the debate.The Theory is not Unified and so not Grand.

In the standard model what is the explanation for the release of a massless particle at the speed of light, from matter? Just so we are on the same page.

A photon is a boson, not usually associated with matter....and the photon comes from what? In the standard model, no electron is lost, of course, the muon glue still adds up. The energy state change in the electron probability cloud releases a quanta boson instantaneously at light speed?

You seem like someone who would know. I don't.

mindphuk said:

Everything I just said can be confirmed experimentally. Either your recall is incorrect or your textbooks were written by idiots, I suspect the former.

Click to expand...

Coudnt it be both? As i said i used to smoke a lot of weed, and the books professors and teachers were from the age of disco...

So youre sayin i spent 35 years thinkin photons was electrons when in fact they are soemthin else entirely. Well, shit. That's just BALLS!

But doesnt photon exposure ionize certain metals? If so how, and if not then im still puzzled. Know any good books i can read to get my head turned right way round?

Dr Kynes said:

Coudnt it be both? As i said i used to smoke a lot of weed, and the books professors and teachers were from the age of disco...

So youre sayin i spent 35 years thinkin photons was electrons when in fact they are soemthin else entirely. Well, shit. That's just BALLS!

But doesnt photon exposure ionize certain metals? If so how, and if not then im still puzzled. Know any good books i can read to get my head turned right way round?

Click to expand...

High frequency photons like x-rays and gamma rays are in the ionizing range. Ionizing only means stripping off an electrons from an atom creating a net charge. Many particles can ionize, it depends on their energy. Alpha and beta particles can ionize too. Remember, all particles, whether they have mass or not act like particles and waves depending on the circumstance. For example, it appears photosynthesis uses quantum mechanics by letting the energy of the photon it captures to be used in more than one place at the same time, just like we see electrons act. http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2010/feb/04/quantum-mechanics-boosts-photosynthesis
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2011/12/08/further-evidence-that-photosynthesis-involves-quantum-mechanics/

Wow, that photosynthesis article is very interesting.

About emission of light in general, I found this.
http://www.andor.com/learning/light/?docid=332
"Light can also be produced by the acceleration of a free charged particle, such as an electron. The light emission is known as Bremsstrahlung or 'braking radiation'. The emission is characteristically seen in X-ray emission tubes which work by accelerating electrons with a high voltage and then by decelerating them very fast by directing them onto a metal target. A special variety of particle accelerators known as Synchrotrons can be used to generate a wide range of light frequencies of very high power for use in the study of matter. A related effect is Cherenkov radiation which occurs when charged particles move through a medium faster than the speed of light. This produces the characteristic blue light seen in water ponds containing nuclear fuel."

I think they mean faster than light in a medium where light speed is slower than vacuum.

I still can't find much on the emission of light at the atomic particle level. The standard model is this;

A body at a given temperature also emits a characteristic spectrum of light called black body radiation. Consider an electric filament as current is applied to it. As the electric current supplies energy to the filament and it heats up, it starts to glow red, and as it gets hotter it then turns orange and then white. The process underlying this is well understood for a theoretical body known as a ‘black body’. Our filament will approximate a black body and as the filament gains energy from the electrical power it tries to equalize its energy with its surroundings by radiating its excess energy. It does this by emitting light starting first in the infrared and as the filament gets hotter or has more energy the radiation moves more into the visible spectrum. The spectral radiance emittance M in Wm-2 nm-1 sr-1 of a black body of Temperature T in Kelvin is given by Planck’s Law below:
Where c is the speed of light, h= Planck’s constant and K = Boltzmann constant.

But, again it is a question circle. The energy is absorbed in quanta of "photonic energy" and emitted as quanta of photonic radiation. All radiation is photonic except Alpha and Beta.

I still can't find where the boson comes from or how a boson is emitted. I'm assuming that a photon is indeed a boson. Add energy to matter, get light? The absolute velocity of light in vacuum is the unifying constant for matter and energy?

I say then, you add LIGHT to Space and get Matter. Dark matter and visble matter. Visible matter is just a bit more condensed. All there is. Space. The final frontier.

I'm sure there's a question in there somewhere.

Seriously, photons are produced when electrons drop to a lower energy shell within an atom.

http://www.ehow.com/video_4951194_photon-produced_.html

BTW, there are other forms of ionizing radiation besides alpha, beta and EM, or as you say, photonic. Free neutons can ionize, single protons like cosmic rays, and even heavier particles as long as they have been given enough energy via velocity, can also be ionizing. Theoretically, I could accelerate a carbon atom with 6 protons and 6 neutrons to a level that makes it ionizing. However, as you know the heavier the object, the greater the energy required to do so, which is why we have limited types of particle radiation.

This is the most enjoyable conversation I have followed on RIU, despite not understanding any of it

mindphuk said:

I'm sure there's a question in there somewhere.

Seriously, photons are produced when electrons drop to a lower energy shell within an atom.

http://www.ehow.com/video_4951194_photon-produced_.html

BTW, there are other forms of ionizing radiation besides alpha, beta and EM, or as you say, photonic. Free neutons can ionize, single protons like cosmic rays, and even heavier particles as long as they have been given enough energy via velocity, can also be ionizing. Theoretically, I could accelerate a carbon atom with 6 protons and 6 neutrons to a level that makes it ionizing. However, as you know the heavier the object, the greater the energy required to do so, which is why we have limited types of particle radiation.

Click to expand...

I guess the question is, how much Space Density does it take so the knot of Spacetime can't be twisted any more, in a black hole? All the matter and energy, all forces have been absorbed, say equal to the energy budget of the Universe to crush space beyond motion even. Aboslute Zero for spacetime. Somethings gotta Bang, big. And there was Light. Super high energy Lght into super dense Space, creates Matter?

And I'm thinking about how to unify or actually, how to dissociate electrons from photons in Unification Theory. Ponder more about gravity as, only an effect, of the 3 fundamental forces. Then I would just need understand the implications of photoelectomagnitism, instead of wondering about electogravity. I'm as puzzled about gravitational lensing as gravity waves.

I'm thinking the lensing has to do with space density rather than gravity bending the massless photons ray paths.

Doer said:

I guess the question is, how much Space Density does it take so the knot of Spacetime can't be twisted any more, in a black hole? All the matter and energy, all forces have been absorbed, say equal to the energy budget of the Universe to crush space beyond motion even. Aboslute Zero for spacetime. Somethings gotta Bang, big. And there was Light. Super high energy Lght into super dense Space, creates Matter?

And I'm thinking about how to unify or actually, how to dissociate electrons from photons in Unification Theory. Ponder more about gravity as, only an effect, of the 3 fundamental forces. Then I would just need understand the implications of photoelectomagnitism, instead of wondering about electogravity. I'm as puzzled about gravitational lensing as gravity waves.

I'm thinking the lensing has to do with space density rather than gravity bending the massless photons ray paths.

Click to expand...

Electromagnetism has already been unified. EM radiation force carrier particles are photons. The electron is not a force carrier particle of electricity, the photon is. We have unified the EM with the weak interaction already so we have electroweak unification. We only need to unify the strong with the electroweak to have a grand unified theory. We might not be able to reach the required energy for unifying gravity (if such a theory of everything involves the symmetry breaking that has been hypothesized) with earthbound accelerators.

Why would you hypothesize a different reason for lensing when it was predicted with good precision even before it was observable? Your 'space density' would have to behave exactly like Einsteinian gravity and would have to explain why warped spacetime would NOT lens like we predicted otherwise you would have lensing on top of your explanation and everything can be already accounted for by lensing.

So, right. There is the link between photons and electrons. I knew it was there somewhere. EM is photonic radiation when the force carrier is free, and EM is the electron energy when it is bound in atomic structures. But, that really doesn't say where to boson comes from, to emit as a photon. Matter is absorbing EM energy, as bosons? Then it can emit bosons as EM? How do the absorbed bosons interact with the electron cloud?

Do electrons absorb and emit bosons?

Well, yes, lensing is predicted, though I don't know how, if photons are massless. Do you know how they predicted it? How does light get trapped in a black hole if it is massless? In Space Density, it simply can't get out, physically, it's stuck in twisted, dense thickness. It's only ray path is following the twist.

The Space Density hypnosis is brought to us by RyantheRhino. I abandoned for the moment, my ideas of displacement, to explore this concept. Compression is more inline with Eisenstein's 4D dimpled sheet of spacetime. Compression is what is postulated for Black Holes and Gravity Waves.

RtR, presented the wonderful idea that we are looking at various light speeds from much denser, though, still transparent, Space. This could account for a lot of things in my mind. Especially since my thought puzzles have already lend me to consider gravity as an effect of matter, in motion, in spacetime. And not a fundamental force, at all. The idea is fleshed in the Math thread. I added a cooled still center of smooth space. Where we are. Where space is un-laxed for the most part.

So, SD is "gravity." The more massive an object, the more space is compressed around it. The compression forms a gradient, in local space. that follows predictable force/distance rules. A feature of the gradient is frame drag. As the object rotations it stirs the density and a time lag can be measured.

Lensing is light following ray paths of the gradient, not being "pulled" by gravity. Why do we need new explanations? The standard models do not cover all the cases. The standard model predicted lensing, but can't say what gravity waves are. The standard model says we have been blown outward from the Big Bang, but doesn't account, imo, for a lot of what we observe. Occam's blade is still sharp. We discussed this in other threads. And there is a big difference in the Quantum Models and the Bohr models. There is that pesky breakdown in Newtonian math.

Everything we understand about gravity, seems to me, can be accounted for more easily if/when space compression is proven and measured. That measure may lead to a Space Compressibility function for the Math that could prove the idea that we are in the middle of a compressed sphere of space and it is the un-laxing inner surface, we see as the micro-wave background. So, in short, I'm attempting to reconcil your atomic particle approach with SD concepts. You seem very well versed in particle physics.

I'm puzzling the creation of matter via light, at an un-dreamed of intensity into Space at an un-dreamed of density. I'm just waiting for the SD factor to be demonstrated and the I think we can redo the model to leave out gravity as a force.

We don't have to accept the standard explanations, necessarily. As I have said, without the Higgs, the field is still wide open.

I've just been watching and reading, and touching myself in an impure manner.

This whole thread makes me very happy.

Doer said:

So, right. There is the link between photons and electrons. I knew it was there somewhere. EM is photonic radiation when the force carrier is free, and EM is the electron energy when it is bound in atomic structures. But, that really doesn't say where to boson comes from, to emit as a photon. Matter is absorbing EM energy, as bosons? Then it can emit bosons as EM? How do the absorbed bosons interact with the electron cloud?

Do electrons absorb and emit bosons?

Click to expand...

I'm not following anything you are saying here, especially the bolded. Photons are the result of an EM field. When an atom absorbs a photon it excites it, increasing the electron to a higher energy level, further away from the nucleus. When the atom looses energy, it emits it in the form of a photon

Well, yes, lensing is predicted, though I don't know how, if photons are massless. Do you know how they predicted it? How does light get trapped in a black hole if it is massless? In Space Density, it simply can't get out, physically, it's stuck in twisted, dense thickness. It's only ray path is following the twist.

Click to expand...

They predicted it because Einstein's equations give us the ability to calculate the curvature of space based on the how much mass is present and thus the expected deviation. This is the basis for the famous Eddington eclipse experiment. Light gets trapped in black holes for exactly the reason you seem to be saying is a new concept, the path of the light is still following a straight line in higher dimension spacetime but from our perspective it is following a curved path spiraling in toward the singularity.

The Space Density hypnosis is brought to us by RyantheRhino. I abandoned for the moment, my ideas of displacement, to explore this concept. Compression is more inline with Eisenstein's 4D dimpled sheet of spacetime. Compression is what is postulated for Black Holes and Gravity Waves.

Click to expand...

Without seeing the math, I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to say.

RtR, presented the wonderful idea that we are looking at various light speeds from much denser, though, still transparent, Space. This could account for a lot of things in my mind. Especially since my thought puzzles have already lend me to consider gravity as an effect of matter, in motion, in spacetime. And not a fundamental force, at all. The idea is fleshed in the Math thread. I added a cooled still center of smooth space. Where we are. Where space is un-laxed for the most part.

Click to expand...

I've brought this up before but gravity can indeed be looked at as a fictitious force like centrifugal force. Fictitious forces arise when an observer is in a non-inertial reference frame. Even Feynman conceded this was possible. What you are proposing is not exactly a new idea.

Lensing is light following ray paths of the gradient, not being "pulled" by gravity. Why do we need new explanations?

Click to expand...

Lensing is light following the path of spacetime curvature. Nothing is pulled by gravity, ever. The gravity we feel is actually spacetime pushing on us.

The standard models do not cover all the cases. The standard model predicted lensing, but can't say what gravity waves are. The standard model says we have been blown outward from the Big Bang, but doesn't account, imo, for a lot of what we observe. Occam's blade is still sharp. We discussed this in other threads. And there is a big difference in the Quantum Models and the Bohr models. There is that pesky breakdown in Newtonian math.

Click to expand...

Please stop using specific terms for something else, you are confusing me. The standard model refers only to the model of particle physics. It has nothing to do with gravity which is described by relativity. The standard model does not predict lensing, relativity does. Gravity waves are predicted and explained but have never been observed. Nothing you are saying is making any sense. Sorry, I just can't follow the random stoner meanderings that you have in your head.

Everything we understand about gravity, seems to me, can be accounted for more easily if/when space compression is proven and measured. That measure may lead to a Space Compressibility function for the Math that could prove the idea that we are in the middle of a compressed sphere of space and it is the un-laxing inner surface, we see as the micro-wave background. So, in short, I'm attempting to reconcil your atomic particle approach with SD concepts. You seem very well versed in particle physics.

Click to expand...

There is no sphere or inner surface. MW radiation is pervasive and everywhere, it does not describe a faraway limit.

I'm puzzling the creation of matter via light, at an un-dreamed of intensity into Space at an un-dreamed of density. I'm just waiting for the SD factor to be demonstrated and the I think we can redo the model to leave out gravity as a force.

We don't have to accept the standard explanations, necessarily. As I have said, without the Higgs, the field is still wide open.

Click to expand...

Most of the standard explanations have been verified by experiement. I don't think you realize that curved spacetime does create different densities, ripples, gravity waves, etc. Space can and is compressed already under the model of relativity. You seem to think you are creating a new idea but you haven't brought any math to the table and your ponderings don't seem coherent so it's hard to figure out where you are just explaining our current models using different language and when you have a new idea.

I vote mindphuk for Tech Science moderator. He knows his stuff. What he is speaking of is modern day physics and goes with the best evidence we have to support it for now.

Doer, I really wish you would brush up on the technicalities of what your always talking about instead of being a master of none. Every time I read your posts you continually mesh theories with other theories and talk about the problems you believe in both and then combine another theory just for fun with the two then ask a random unanswerable question that never makes much sense and has absolutely no conversational value about the subject your trying to put us on instead of clarifying why your text is generally false each time..... Why cant you stay on topic? For what its worth.......