IS MASS AN ILLUSION

One of Einstein's laws prohibits any mass from attaining the speed of light.

General Realtivity and Einstein's Equivalency Principle are always interesting topics to discuss. There is much debate still to this day about what they REALLY mean. In fact, I am currently reading an interesting debate between Jack Sarfatti and Paul Zelinski on just this topic. To be precise, Einstein himself never said it was impossible to travel faster than the speed of light. Granted, his theory seems to imply its impossibility, but we must rememeber it is a theory. I believe the more precise way to categorize the implications has been described as "you might be able to exceed the speed of light, but no inertial observer would ever be able to see you do it." Thus, there would be no objective, visual evidence that it ever happened.

And to elaborate on E = mc2. This equation states that for a particle at rest, its mass is equal to its energy - period!.

Ahhhh, but therein lies the rub: Can you show me a particle that is completely at rest? Remember, you must consider vibrational energy as motion. And to my knowledge we have never been able to achieve absolute zero...the theoretical temperature at which all vibratory motion ceases.

The equation simply says that energy and mass are the same thing.

Uhhhh, well I think it says they are different FORMS of the same thing, yes... but they are obviously not identical, due to motion. As I say, it is difficult to separate motion out of anything in this universe... it's the whole "what is an inertial reference frame anyway?" question.

Certainly, discussing this stuff can really tweak the gourd the deeper one goes. In my own view, I tend to adhere to the belief that the speed of sound and the speed of light are fractally symmetric. We once theorized that it was impossible to trascend the speed of sound, and we have since done so, proving that we were not "thinking right" about the speed of sound. I have this sneaking suspicion that the same is true of our view of light speed.

An object traveling faster than the speed of sound creates a shock wave. That shock wave can be, and is, characterized as a large energy differential. Energy in the form of air pressure. There are some interesting parallels here to the speed of light and what Einstein told us about it. It leads to a concept of "light pressure" and that is what leads us to consider an etheric medium which light "flows" through.

RMT
 
<font color="blue">Further Musings To Clarify My Position [/COLOR]


Fundamental Particle:
A particle with no internal substructure. In the Standard Model, the quarks, leptons, photons, gluons ,W-boson and Z-bosons are fundamental. All other objects are made from these particles

Parts of the Standard Model are not yet well established. No one knows what causes the Fundamental Particles to have mass nor is there an explanation for gravity. They don't know because they are assuming that there is mass (when there isn't) and then looking for the mass to be the cause of gravity. It's like trying to saddle-up a unicorn.

Enter the Higgs Mechanism (originally discovered by the British physicist Peter Higgs),it is this mechanism that gives mass to all elementary particles in Particle Physics. It makes the W-boson different from the photon for example. It can be understood as an elementary case of Tachyon Condensation where the role of the tachyon is played by a scalar field called the Higgs Field. The massive quantum excitation of the Higgs Field is called the Higgs Boson.


Under this idea, all elementary particles (except the Higgs Boson itself) are supposedly massless and the symmetry is unbroken. However, the scalar field spontaneously slides from the point of maximum energy in a randomly chosen direction into a minimum. The claim is that the original symmetry is broken and elementary particles acquire nonzero masses. The origin of the masses can be interpreted as a result of the interactions of the other particles with the "Higgs Ocean".

Tachyon condensation is a process wherein a tachyonic field of a particle with zero mass acquires a vacuum expectation value and reaches the minimum of its potential energy. While the field is tachyonic near the original point (the maximum of the potential) it gets a non-negative mass near the minimum of its potential.

So in other words, the Fundamental Particle takes on the "mantle of mass" when it is at its lowest energy state. So, conversely it should shed its "mantle of mass" when it approaches its maximum potential. So mass, even in this theory, is a representation of the particle at its lowest vibratory state or frequency.

This brings to mind an interesting image.

All particles oscillate back and forth between maximum and minimum potential as they are "obtaining" and "releasing" their mass states in a periodic cycle. Therefore, all matter moves in and out of a "massful" state at this frequency, much higher than we can perceive - giving the ILLUSION of mass.

It also lends credence to all of the cosmological and theological conjectures that we (in this physical realm) are in our lowest state and that we should all strive for the light (which is a much higher state). The idea of "reaching a higher state" releases one from this illusory cycle and allows one to see the universe for what it really is - pure energy. How it expresses itself is just a function of what vibratory state or frequency that the observer is in.

When one becomes enlightened and behaves as a massless fundamental particle outside of the tachyon field then the illusions of matter, mass, gravity and the restrictions of speed of light travel as well as space and time cease to exist.
_______________________________________________________________________________



EntropySux:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And to elaborate on E = mc2. This equation states that for a particle at rest, its mass is equal to its energy - period!.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RainManTime Said:

Ahhhh, but therein lies the rub: Can you show me a particle that is completely at rest? Remember, you must consider vibrational energy as motion. And to my knowledge we have never been able to achieve absolute zero...the theoretical temperature at which all vibratory motion ceases.


At rest does not mean a no energy state - just the lowest. Einstein's special theory of relativity states that the total energy of a particle in a "massful state" is:



E = mc^2 / sqrt[1 - (v/c)^2]

Here, m is the rest mass, i.e. the mass of the particle when it is at rest. v is the velocity, and c is the speed of light. When we do a series expansion of the above equation, we get:

E = mc^2 + 1/2 mc^2 (v/c)^2 + ...

= mc^2 + 1/2 mv^2 + ...

What does this tell us? If v equals zero, the equation becomes E=mc^2 , which states that a particle at rest has a total energy equal to its mass times the speed of light squared. And this is the equation I stated above.

In the notation used by Einstein in his 1905 paper, "Does the Inertia of a Body Depend Upon Its Energy Content?" (Ist die Trägheit eines Körpers von seinem Energieinhalt abhängig?), L is the energy of the electromagnetic radiation (in this case, visible light) emitted by the idealized body under consideration and V is the speed of light. In modern notation, L becomes E and V becomes c, where E is the energy of the electromagnetic radiation emitted, and c is the speed of light. Einstein's derivation of the decrease in mass m can now be seen as M= E/c² = E/9 × 10^20.

Transposed, the result is the more familiar energy equation E = mc². Note well that Einstein's idealized thought experiment of 1905 derived the relativistic mass of a particle at rest in a closed or isolated (conservative) material system. Thus, contrary to modern practice, momentum is not a factor in the derivation of the equation.
 
E = mc^2 / sqrt[1 - (v/c)^2]

I can understand through working the formula out with V=0, that you end up with E=mc^2 / 1 which essentially would be presented as E=mc^2.

The trouble I have is being realistic in assigning V with a value of 0, since all things would have velocity, or if there is not any velocity, how would you establish that the particle does not have any velocity?
At rest would be extremely difficult to determine, since the question that comes to mind is...at rest compared to " what " ?

In looking for a simple definition of the word mass...

"""the property of a body that is a measure of its inertia and that is commonly taken as a measure of the amount of material it contains and causes it to have weight in a gravitational field"""

compared to the definition of the word density...

""" the distribution of a quantity (as mass, electricity, or energy) per unit usually of space (as length, area, or volume)"""

I don't see mass as an illusion, as when two objects of mass impact with each other, the results of their mass become apparent immediately following the impact.
However, if we were to consider there density , then that would have an effect on the outcome of the impact.

The chances of a full particle to particle impact becomes more unlikely due to the amount of space surrounding those particles.

I would see density as being more likely a candidate for being an illusion than mass. As a reasonable facsimile of a granite boulder, it may appear to have a large value of mass, and indeed it would have some value of mass, yet, if the boulder is made of foam, then its density is much less than real granite.

So, the mass still exists, but the density was an illusion. Thus, when the boulder of foam rolls down the hillside, the reaction of the individual in its path would be based on what that individual "thought" was coming their way. A real granite boulder or a equal size of foam?

Unless that individual realized that the object rolling down the hill was merely a puff of foam, they would assume it was granite and react to the illusion.

Now what would be interesting is to see how Density factors into those mathematical formulas.
 
I am enjoying watching everyone here masturbate with physics in respects to space time and mass, however mass in time travel, is regarded by distance only, with regards to importants.
 
OvrLrdLegion,

Keep in mind that this thread is discussing mass in terms of Special Relativity and not General Relativity. And we're not discussing it in terms of Quantum Theory.

You, Rainman and others have correctly pointed out that even at "rest" WRT to some observer frame a real particle still has internal "movement" - which is the bound kinetic energy.

That energy is not inconsequential. If released, say in a uranium atom, it is approximately 22 kt TNT per gram.

About the only way to get a true rest mass is to form a Bose-Einstein Condensate by cooling the mass to Absolute Zero (well - not quite Absolute Zero...you still have to contend with Uncertainty.
)
 
Dan,

You're correct. If "c" is set to unity, "1" with no units (no meters, no seconds) then mass, time and energy can be set to a single unit of measure.

For example:

Time can be set to length, mass can be set to length and energy can be set to length if the proper conversion is used.

Time is compared to the speed of light - meters (one second equals 300,000,000 meters)

Mass is set to meters based on the radius of a black hole of equal mass

Because energy equals mass - energy can be set to meters
 
OvrLrdLegion,

Now what would be interesting is to see how Density factors into those mathematical formulas.

Good job. Density plays a very important role. Here's your fourmula:

r_s = 2Gm/c^2

for a static black hole (Schwarzschild BH - the simple derivitive is a bit more complex because it is stated as a differential...but this formula suffices).
 
Darby said&gt;You're correct. If "c" is set to unity, "1" with no units (no meters, no seconds) then mass, time and energy can be set to a single unit of measure.

Creedo answers&gt;Unity is a myth, is M+, or stringed space, is changing density by the moving equation.

I have to stick with the equation of random cartage of number, where realms varies in density in sets.

Any set, due to how the universe moves, at any time can have any density.

So is unity a myth?

Darby' mass , time and meters, did cross my thinking here, however mass realms one starts to look at the actual size and movement of the universe itself.

The universe can wiggle, or flicker in movements of only a nanometer, or an Tran001 had eluded, be part of a giant sphere, which slightly in its own knowledge travels from place to place.

You begin to see where the track of some civilizations can be left behind in time mass travel.

These societies might be so old and austere, that they start to boggle the mind in how far they go back.
 
Dan,

So is unity a myth?

I wasn't refering to philosophical Unity (with a cap. "U"). I simply meant to set the speed of light to "1" and measure all other velocities as a decimal relative to "c=1".

That gets rid of all of the big numbers like 300,000,000^2 an gets rid of meters and seconds.

Math is so much easier when you deal with little numbers, like "1". /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
 
Creedo shakes his head at Darby, in amazement.

"He's either been getting some, is on some experimental kind of medication, or got his Christmas goose early"

Really been productive here Darb, keep up the good work!
 
From Tap-ten yahoo web site, still another rendition of M+ or stringged space

I found this a good interpretation.Notes I had refered to stringged space, as M+, rather than M-:
* Note, with thanks and courtesy of Tap-ten inc.

Creedo299



To: [email protected]"&gt;[email protected]&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href="mailto:[email protected]
From: "Hossein Javadi" &lt;[email protected]&gt;
Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 09:28:46 +0330
Subject: [tapten] M-theory &amp; CPH Theory


Hello all

Greetings;

In String Theory, the myriad of particle types is replaced by a single fundamental building block, a `string'. These strings can be closed, like loops, or open, like a hair. As the string moves through time it traces out a tube or a sheet, according to whether it is closed or open. Furthermore, the string is free to vibrate, and different vibrational modes of the string represent the different particle types, since different modes are seen as different masses or spins.
One of the most remarkable predictions of String Theory is that space-time has ten dimensions!
String theory is not able explain why the speed of light is constant, why the momentum is conserved, ...

In CPH Theory everything have formed of CPH that a CPH moves with constant amount of speed Vc so that gradVc=0
CPH theory is able explain why the speed of light is constant, why the momentum is conserved, ...
In CPH theory we not need ten dimensions (or 26 dimensions).
We can explain universe with 5 dimensions (or 6 dimensions) very well.
Followings are some parts of String Theory and CPH theory.
Please read following and do compare String Theory and CPH theory.
For see full CPH article see;
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cph_theory/files/Unified-CPH-Theory-New.pdf

Any your fresh opinion are most welcome.

Sincerely
Hossein Javadi

Definition of CPH
Suppose there is a particle with mass of m that is moving with speed Vc in an inertial frame. And Vc&gt;c and c is the speed of light. So, its linear momentum gives mVc. (Figure 1). It is Called CPH (Creation Particle Higgs).

Figure 1


Principle of CPH


CPH is a particle with constant mass m and moves with constant speed Vc.

CPH has the momentum of Inertia I. In any interaction between CPH and other particles/forces, the amount of Vc does not change, so;


gradVc=0 in all inertial frames and any space

Explain

According to figure 1, a CPH carries linear momentum of P=mVc. So, CPH has inertia and also has Momentum Inertia I. When an external force is applied on a CPH, then a part of its Linear momentum (P=mVc) converts to angular momentum and CPH takes Spin, so that the amount speed of CPH does not change in any case. When CPH has Spin, it is called GRAVITON. (Figure 2)

Figure 2

When a graviton works on an object/particle, graviton does disappear and converts to energy. Because it is not acceptable that force acts and produces energy; and force does not have any effect on itself while producing energy. All efforts for finding a unified field theory had no success, because physicists do not consider the conversion of force and energy. Also, a graviton acts on another graviton and produces energy. See Figure 3.

Figure 3

The picture above shows two gravitons with the mass of m, speed of Vc and linear momentum of P=mVc, in distance of r feel each other. They absorb each other and “r” decreases. But CPH must move with the speed of Vc, so it loses a part of its linear speed and takes Spin.

A Photon is formed by a lot of CPH that they have spin and photon has spin too. So, when a photon is traveling with speed of c, CPH has linear speed of c and it has spin itself, and a speed equal to the speed of the photon (according to the structure of photon).

In a gravitational field, when a photon shifts to blue, gravitons convert to energy. And when the photon shifts to red, energy converts to graviton. And when energy decays, it produces Matter and Anti-Matter. See Figure 4. In fact ever thing formed of CPH.

Figure 4

CPH Theory propounded that force and energy is equivalent, so CPH theory may provide the answer. From one principle - that CPH moves with constant amount of speed Vc and gradVc=0 in all inertial frames in any space - CPH theory provides a single explanatory framework capable of encompassing all forces and all matter and anti-matter.

CPH theory proclaims, for instance, all observed particles/objects consist of CPH. They can come in forms of masses, energies, fundamental particles and fundamental forces. The strong and weak nuclear forces, electromagnetism, and gravity -- are reflections of various ways in which a CPH can move in the same structure of matter or photon. Just as photons or gravitons in empty space, light or gravity effects reach the earth from a very far star.

CPH is pure gravity force. CPH moves with speed of Vc in an inertial frame if no external force is applied on it. When an external force is applied on a CPH, it takes spin and is called graviton. So, Vc equals the speed of graviton (in an inertial frame), when it has no spin.

In fact a CPH is a sub-quanta of existence in nature. CPH has mass that is a manifest of matter; its movement is a manifest of energy. CPH has sub-quanta bounding gravity field around itself.

A CPH feels another CPH by this sub-quanta gravity field. Also, two CPH absorb each other by their sub-quanta fields. See Figure 5.

Photons (and all subatomic particles) are formed by many CPH that they have spin; and photon has spin too. So, when a photon is traveling with speed of c, CPH has a linear speed of c and it has itself spin and a speed equal to the speed of the photon (in the structure of photon or other subatomic particles).

Figure 5

So, quantum energy is formed by a lot of CPH. Also, CPH (gravitons) work on CPH and produces energy. In the other words, force and energy are equivalent. Force converts to energy and energy changes to force. Fore example; force converts to energy in blue-shift and energy converts to force in red-shift.
Two objects/particles (like the moon and the earth, or an electron and a proton in an atom) transfer CPH continuously.

Photo Electric and Compton Effect by CPH

According to CPH theory a photon contains n number of CPH that they are moving with the speed of c in the structure of photons. The given mass of a CPH is m, so its momentum is P=mc and the momentum of photon is P=nmc, see Figure 6.

Figure 6


When a photon collides to an electron, a number of CPH that exist in the photon enter the electron. See Figure 7.


Figure 7

In photoelectric effect all CPHs of photon enter the structure of the Electron. Consider that it will happen if the amount of the energy of the photon is sufficient.

In Compton Effect some CPH enter the structure of the photon and other CPHs do not enter.

In the picture above, k&gt;k1 and k2=k-k1 when CPH is joined with the electron.

M-theory, the theory formerly known as Strings
The Standard Model
In the standard model of particle physics, particles are considered to be points moving through space, tracing out a line called the World Line. To take into account the different interactions observed in Nature one has to provide particles with more degrees of freedom than only their position and velocity, such as mass, electric charge, color (which is the "charge" associated with the strong interaction) or spin.
The standard model was designed within a framework known as Quantum Field Theory (QFT), which gives us the tools to build theories consistent both with quantum mechanics and the special theory of relativity. With these tools, theories were built which describe with great success three of the four known interactions in Nature: Electromagnetism, and the Strong and Weak nuclear forces. Furthermore, a very successful unification between Electromagnetism and the Weak force was achieved (Electroweak Theory), and promising ideas put forward to try to include the Strong force. But unfortunately the fourth interaction, gravity, beautifully described by Einstein's General Relativity (GR), does not seem to fit into this scheme. Whenever one tries to apply the rules of QFT to GR one gets results which make no sense. For instance, the force between two gravitons (the particles that mediate gravitational interactions), becomes infinite and we do not know how to get rid of these infinities to get physically sensible results.


String Theory
In String Theory, the myriad of particle types is replaced by a single fundamental building block, a `string'. These strings can be closed, like loops, or open, like a hair. As the string moves through time it traces out a tube or a sheet, according to whether it is closed or open. Furthermore, the string is free to vibrate, and different vibrational modes of the string represent the different particle types, since different modes are seen as different masses or spins.
One mode of vibration, or `note', makes the string appear as an electron, another as a photon. There is even a mode describing the graviton, the particle carrying the force of gravity, which is an important reason why String Theory has received so much attention. The point is that we can make sense of the interaction of two gravitons in String theory in a way we could not in QFT. There are no infinities! And gravity is not something we put in by hand. It has to be there in a theory of strings. So, the first great achievement of String Theory was to give a consistent theory of quantum gravity, which resembles GR at macroscopic distances. Moreover String Theory also possesses the necessary degrees of freedom to describe the other interactions! At this point a great hope was created that String Theory would be able to unify all the known forces and particles together into a single `Theory of Everything'.


From Strings to Superstrings
The particles known in nature are classified according to their spin into bosons (integer spin) or fermions (odd half integer spin). The former are the ones that carry forces, for example, the photon, which carries electromagnetic force, the gluon, which carries the strong nuclear force, and the graviton, which carries gravitational force. The latter make up the matter we are made of, like the electron or the quark. The original String Theory only described particles that were bosons, hence Bosonic String Theory. It did not describe Fermions. So quarks and electrons, for instance, were not included in Bosonic String Theory.
By introducing Supersymmetry to Bosonic String Theory, we can obtain a new theory that describes both the forces and the matter which make up the Universe. This is the theory of superstrings. There are three different superstring theories which make sense, i.e. display no mathematical inconsistencies. In two of them the fundamental object is a closed string, while in the third, open strings are the building blocks. Furthermore, mixing the best features of the bosonic string and the superstring, we can create two other consistent theories of strings, Heterotic String Theories.

However, this abundance of theories of strings was a puzzle: If we are searching for the theory of everything, to have five of them is an embarrassment of riches! Fortunately, M-theory came to save us.

Extra dimensions...
One of the most remarkable predictions of String Theory is that space-time has ten dimensions! At first sight, this may be seen as a reason to dismiss the theory altogether, as we obviously have only three dimensions of space and one of time. However, if we assume that six of these dimensions are curled up very tightly, then we may never be aware of their existence. Furthermore, having these so-called compact dimensions is very beneficial if String Theory is to describe a Theory of Everything. The idea is that degrees of freedom like the electric charge of an electron will then arise simply as motion in the extra compact directions! The principle that compact dimensions may lead to unifying theories is not new, but dates from the 1920's, since the theory of Kaluza and Klein. In a sense, String Theory is the ultimate Kaluza-Klein theory.
For simplicity, it is usually assumed that the extra dimensions are wrapped up on six circles. For realistic results they are treated as being wrapped up on mathematical elaborations known as Calabi-Yau Manifolds and Orbifolds.

M-theory
Apart from the fact that instead of one there are five different, healthy theories of strings (three superstrings and two heterotic strings) there was another difficulty in studying these theories: we did not have tools to explore the theory over all possible values of the parameters in the theory. Each theory was like a large planet of which we only knew a small island somewhere on the planet. But over the last four years, techniques were developed to explore the theories more thoroughly, in other words, to travel around the seas in each of those planets and find new islands. And only then it was realized that those five string theories are actually islands on the same planet, not different ones! Thus there is an underlying theory of which all string theories are only different aspects. This was called M-theory. The M might stand for Mother of all theories or Mystery, because the planet we call M-theory is still largely unexplored.


There is still a third possibility for the M in M-theory. One of the islands that was found on the M-theory planet corresponds to a theory that lives not in 10 but in 11 dimensions. This seems to be telling us that M-theory should be viewed as an 11 dimensional theory that looks 10 dimensional at some points in its space of parameters. Such a theory could have as a fundamental object a Membrane, as opposed to a string. Like a drinking straw seen at a distance, the membranes would look like strings when we curl the 11th dimension into a small circle.

*Note diagrams not imported, Creedo299

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/qg_ss.html
 
Note, with reference to now at TTI known stringed space.
How does the new factors of stringed space, affect said supposed time travel?

Astrophysicist said, which is similar to NASA's shuttle tile problems, say, "Rather than hire dedicated theorist to take on the problem, we'll get a super computer to figure it out"?

Will a supercomputer one day tie your shoes for you, or make you morning breakfast....?
 
Note on relevance to current timeframe, this timeline:

Creedo, you're a bit behind the times. Don't you know string theory is on the ropes since the re-discovery of Dark Energy? You really should start paying attention to the work of Jack Sarfatti and Ken Shoulders.

RMT
 
RMT said;Creedo, you're a bit behind the times. Don't you know string theory is on the ropes since the re-discovery of Dark Energy? You really should start paying attention to the work of Jack Sarfatti and Ken Shoulders.

Creedo answers;Dark energy or convoluted matter, is only relevant in our dimension, when we have to deal with it.

I never promoted stringed space, as nuevo anything.

It is only now that certain communities are starting to deal with stringed space in macro and micro realms.
 
Dan,

Creedo answers&gt;Unity is a myth, is M+, or stringed space, is changing density by the moving equation.

I have to stick with the equation of random cartage of number, where realms varies in density in sets.

Any set, due to how the universe moves, at any time can have any density.

You never cease to amaze me. Some folks simply look at what you write and see gibberish. But there are times when your code makes some sense - at least to me.

It seems that you speak differential calculus (moving equations) and ket notation (sets).
 
Note well that Einstein's idealized thought experiment of 1905 derived the relativistic mass of a particle at rest in a closed or isolated (conservative) material system .

If you ask me, this issue (in bold) is at the very heart of how we perceive, and also how we choose to define certain aspects of science. Given your choice of usernames, I'd say you already understand the limitations inherent in an "assumption" that any system at all can truly be considered "closed". In fact, I find this the biggest fantasy of all! Everything in the universe is connected to everything else. There is really no physical means that we know of where we could actually create an isolated, closed system.

In fact, if superluminal speeds are possible, that would permit a means of energy transferrence that we would NOT be able to perceive with our limited human senses. Such a capability would essentially destroy any sort of science that is based on the assumption of a "closed system far from thermal equilibrium". The very fact that we really don't know what goes on at scales below the Planck Length is yet another possible "hole" where energy can enter/exit what we perceive to be our universe.

Don't get me wrong...I love what my engineering education has permitted me to do in my career, but that does not mean I look upon it as complete. It is a tool, and just like any tool, it has its limitations. And I seriously think the assumption behind the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a bit too much to swallow, especially as we continue to understand just how interconnected everything in the universe actually is!

RMT
 
About the only way to get a true rest mass is to form a Bose-Einstein Condensate by cooling the mass to Absolute Zero (well - not quite Absolute Zero...you still have to contend with Uncertainty. )

Thank-You for the formula that you provided regarding the role of density. Now, I need to catch up on the theory of "special relativity". My mathematical abilities are somewhat rusty, but give it some time. I also engage in a little chess now and then to aid in bringing up the mathematical skills.

As far as having mass to be completely at rest, even if it was cooled to Absolute Zero, ( excepting uncertainty /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif), how would you determine the particle is at rest? There still would be motion relative to something.

If the particle was frozen on Earth, the rotation of the planet and any other movement would still keep the particle in motion. If frozen to Absolute Zero in deep space, there would be no way to determine if it was truly at rest.

Your knowledge is far greater than mine on this subject, so perhaps there is some sort of theory as to complete rest in relation to everything else.

Or does the principle of any and all types of motion become a non-sequitor when the particle is cooled to Absolute Zero?
 
Re: The nature of the universe itself:

Overl' On density within the equation'

One can not go on in this field, unless the factoring the entirety of the universe itself.

There are three sources for this say.

One is by our own Tansient001 in his statement, that universes, which hold multiversities themselves, are spheroid shaped.

The second is Euclidian and Newtonian deductions, that the entire overall shape of the universe would again have to be a sphere.

The third is from the book, The Pleiadean Mission by Randolph Winters, in the showing by the Pleiadeans themselves, that the universe is a sphere.

There are security and political considerations to what the Pleiadeans have said, due to the known Pleiadean leader Ptaah, not taking a divisional stance.This was when asked the question, what are the differences between the Antarctic based Pleiadeans and the ones who landed at Heinwel Switzerland.

Ptaah, Semjase's father, never took a definitive stance when asked this question through and intercessor, either way.

The second question is how the Pleiadeans took a graphical stance on the shape of the universe, as said photoed by a flying saucer?

The fact that the image of the universe was taken by a saucer at all, starts to loose value when one starts to examine the velocities and the distances traveled, once outside of the shell of the universe itself.

The graphical representation shows the universe as a spheroid.

However and this is were the inherent danger risk of onboard insanity starts to occur, as you the viewer, really start to realize both the distances, as well as the velocities involved here?

There is a slight risk of insanity, due to the massive mathical equations that start to stem out of a said equal distance traveled from the universe itself.

My caution is that humans for the most part, were not meant to realize how dumbfoundingly gigantic this one universe that we exist in, is.

The second series of equations start to come about, is the density if M- (M+) or stringed space traveled by the observation saucer alone, act as dense material or null space would here within the confines of this universe.

When you talk the shape of the universe, as per criteria from what has been offered within this post, you start to push the level of believability that the universe is not only finite within its parameters, however that this could be other universes out there in the void as well?

I will address the actions of the universe in a private post and stop this discussion here.

Mass density realms' or other places in time, are only a very small component of the overall equation of the univse itself.

Thank you
 
OvrLrdLegion,

As far as having mass to be completely at rest, even if it was cooled to Absolute Zero, ( excepting uncertainty ), how would you determine the particle is at rest? There still would be motion relative to something.

Excellent! There is no preferred rest frame. In my example the rest frame is relative to the observer. Another observer in a accelerated frame would not observe a BEC.
 
OvrLrdLegion Said:
The trouble I have is being realistic in assigning V with a value of 0, since all things would have velocity, or if there is not any velocity, how would you establish that the particle does not have any velocity? At rest would be extremely difficult to determine, since the question that comes to mind is...at rest compared to " what " ?

Since a comparison needs to be satisfied in both directions - How about "not at rest compared to what" ? /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Seriously, every particle has a wavelength equal to Planck's constant divided by its momentum (L=P/v). Since wavelegnth is the inverse of frequency consider the following:

A particle at frequency zero would would have an infinite wavelength. Using L=P/v and making L=infinity then v would have to be zero (dividing by zero equals infinity) to make the equation balanced. Therefore with an infinite wavelenght (zero frequency) there would be no velocity - hence a particle at rest.

Now you may ask, what is an example of a particle at rest? I propose "SPACE" as an example (not outer space - but the "fabric" of the universe). Let me explain.

One jiffy before the creation of time all things were at rest. All there was was space. No partcles had frequency, movement, velocity etc... Then an event occured (what the "event" was is a whole other thread) that disturbed this steady state and imparted frequency to this "space". Suddenly, these particles expressed themselves in various ways. Some bumped up just a bit and became the "denser" (lower frequency) particles that we see as "matter" , some bumped up a little more to encompass the electro-magnetic spectrum and still others bumped up higher and became photons (light), and others even higher, expressing themselves in frequencies higher than we can perceive or comprehend.

Now from this perspective it would seem that the "natural" state is for things to be at rest and that what the universe as we experience is, is simply a disturbance. More and more I am begining to think that reality only presents itself to us here in the material world as a result of a "disturbance" in the natural order of things.



RainManTime Said:

Yes. I think the key is the Planck Length. The measure of physical length at which quantum effects take over. This is the level at which the "linear" world that we PERCEIVE around us changes into a highly non-linear energy field. That energy field can be exploited when we learn to manipulate energy below the Planck Length scale. It is the length at which we will come to understand that the dimension we call Space is far from "empty". What we perceive as "empty space" between planets and galaxies is actually a teaming ocean of life.

Yes, the quantum universe is a strange place - but it is the "real of reals" or the "truth of truths". I am not talking about all of our manmade theories about it - but the actualities. Space is the primordial particle at zero frquency - at rest until exited - with no mass, no charge, no movement, nothing except potential.

And we can already manipulate it and everything it spawned; observations and measurements collapse wave forms into particles for example - as a matter of fact the universe would not exist (express itself) if it wasn't observed. Perhaps observation coupled with intent could be used to affect changes with a desirable outcome. Then, perhaps we could all see past the "mantle of mass"* to the wonderous workings behind the screen.

It would be akin to suddenly getting up after watching years of tv and going behind it,removing the cover and knowing immediately how each of the little black boxes and wires and such work together to create the image on the screen.


_____________________________________________________________________
*Note:
I have coined the phrase "mantle of mass" a few times in attempting to come up with a term that explains my position on mass - I think it works. The definitions for mantle below give an inkling:

WordNet Dictionary

Definition:
[n] a sleeveless garment like a cloak but shorter
[n] hanging cloth used as a blind
[n] (zoology) a protective layer of epidermis in mollusks or brachiopods that secretes a substance forming the shell
[n] anything that covers; "there was a blanket of snow"
[n] the layer of the earth between the crust and the core
[v] spread over a surface; "The ivy mantles the building"

_______________________________________________________________________


To discover the truth behind all of this would be a transcedental moment. Peeling back the mantle is to look into the face of God, but it also is the end of your existence in this plane. Things are, but they are not. Every-thing is no-thing and no-thing is every-thing. It is eating from the Tree of The Knowledge of Duality.

But that mantle can only be an approximation of mass/matter because the particles that it consists of cannot be defined by both position and velocity/momentum at the same time. All of the particles exist in a state of infinite possibilities until they are in their current state. Reality only exists because it is observed.

Using the Uncertainty Principle, the product of the uncertainty of position and of momentum is greater than a small constant. So if you had a particle at rest, the uncertainty in its momentum would be zero, and hence the uncertainty of its position would be infinite. It could be anywhere in the universe (or everywhere - the God particle?).

Along those lines here is something to ponder (I am not pushing a specific religious viewpoint in the following - think of it as using an ancient text of knowledge as an allegory for modern physics):

The creator God is at rest. He said so in Genesis. The story says he just "said" things and they were.

OT Genesis:

<font color="blue">In the beginning God created the heaven (Hbr-shamayim-the universe) and the earth (Hbr - 'erets - land).

And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit (Hbr - ruwach - wind, breath) of God moved upon the face of the waters ( Hbr - Mayim - transitory things). [/COLOR]


And we all know what a wind across the water creates - waves. A ripple of waveforms were propogated by the breath that continue to this day. These were of lower frequencies which present themselves as matter when they interact with space.

<font color="blue">And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. [/COLOR]

Now the voice is used instead of the breath. Higher frequency waveforms were created that interacted with space (the zero frequency particles) and through resonance stimulated these particles into becoming light.


<font color="blue">And God saw the light, that [it was] good: and God divided the light from the darkness. [/COLOR]

Acting as the first Quantum Physicist, God observed and measured. In seeing the light He observed and and by dividing the light He measured. And we all know what happens in the quantum universe when things are measured or observed (waveforms collapse, uncertainty principal etc).

<font color="blue">Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. [/COLOR]

The work was done, everything that is, now is. As for God, no more momentum - zero frequency (no more breath or voice) therefore HE was again everywhere, just as the fundamental particle is when at rest.


Final note: I have been writing this on and off for a few days in between work and things and is a response to statements made earlier. I am still catching up and want to give each post a good read and thinking over. Thanks for the contributions to this thread...it is making me dust off the cobwebs... /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
 
Back
Top