Notices
Results 1 to 33 of 33

Thread: Energy being converted into matter?

  1. #1 Energy being converted into matter? 
    New Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    2
    Noob here, with a quick question regarding mass-energy equivalence (e=mc2) and matter creation.

    Knowing that there are many concete visual examples of matter turning into energy using Einstein's formula, how do you use energy to create matter? If I'm not mistaken, I beleive electron-positron pairs are created using gamma rays, but how does one use energy to create protons and neutrons? What are the "energy ingredients" for these particles and have they been ever created in a lab, or seen in outerspace? Thanks!


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Masters Degree SuperNatendo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nashville, TN USA
    Posts
    505
    The only time I have heard of energy being made into matter by man comes out of experiments performed in particle accelerators. The amount of energy produced by matter is the same as the amount of energy needed to produce the same type of matter.


    "It's no wonder that truth is stranger than fiction. Fiction has to make sense." - Mark Twain
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3 Re: Energy being converted into matter? 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Dalian ,China
    Posts
    85
    Quote Originally Posted by trewsx7
    Noob here, with a quick question regarding mass-energy equivalence (e=mc2) and matter creation.

    Knowing that there are many concete visual examples of matter turning into energy using Einstein's formula, how do you use energy to create matter? If I'm not mistaken, I beleive electron-positron pairs are created using gamma rays, but how does one use energy to create protons and neutrons? What are the "energy ingredients" for these particles and have they been ever created in a lab, or seen in outerspace? Thanks!
    Your question elicits a fundamental prolem baffled public and scientists for centuries .
    To explore the answer , you should widen your sight , shift your focus
    on overall picture of the universe and follow a road map guided by two beacons.

    Beacon One
    Mass Law
    --- Quantitative Description of Mass Formation
    Mass of an object is equal to sum of energies fed back from all other
    objects of the universe , divided by square of speed of light .

    that is : m(⊙) = ∑E(i , ⊙) / c^2

    by this law , an object would disintegrate entirely , should all other
    objects of the universe move to infinite from it . Most of physicists believe
    there exist gravitatioal radiation between two objects and have been trying to detect it but failed . Now we realize that this sort of radiation does exist and its function is to contribute itself in mass formation of an
    object .

    This law has been well demonstrated theoretically and by observation.

    See more detailed about Mass Law at :

    http://www.universefedback.com/popularized_e/c6.htm

    http://www.universefedback.com/popularized_e/c5.htm


    Becond Two
    Informaiton Materialized Principle --- Physical Mechanism of Mass Formation .
    1 , The universe constantly produces information that make everything
    happened in reality ;
    2 , That Information interacts with vacuum emerge event and the event
    is condensed simmultaneously into mass ;
    3 , Total masses of the universe at preset were condensed from all events
    happened in the past of the universe .

    All these arguments are well proved in both theory and observations .
    See them at :

    http://www.universefedback.com/popularized_e/c14.htm

    http://www.universefedback.com/popularized_e/c16.htm

    http://www.universefedback.com/popularized_e/c13.htm
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4 Re: Energy being converted into matter? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by trewsx7
    Noob here, with a quick question regarding mass-energy equivalence (e=mc2) and matter creation.

    Knowing that there are many concete visual examples of matter turning into energy using Einstein's formula, how do you use energy to create matter? If I'm not mistaken, I beleive electron-positron pairs are created using gamma rays, but how does one use energy to create protons and neutrons? What are the "energy ingredients" for these particles and have they been ever created in a lab, or seen in outerspace? Thanks!

    Everything is electrons. Even the spheres we call protons or a hydrogen atom. Hydrogen is just a sphere of electrons. Other atoms have many spheres of electrons.
    Everything is electricity even matter. That was Benjamin Franklin's claim to fame. He showed that even matter could repel matter, a single piece of foil, could repel itself. If charged differently then the surrounding air the experiment was done in. Just like electricity.

    At the edges of the universe it is speculated that free electrons in a giant dead pool. Do re-form into a proton/hydrogen atom, and move back into the Universe. There really is no energy. Or inertia.
    However it is just a change in shape, not really energy. Newton was way ahead of his time about all things having an equal and opposite reaction. But he was speaking on a Universal scale.
    There is velocity. And with velocity electrons can penetrate into places, and then either be accelerated, and become almost undetectable. Or they can slow further like in a bomb and you know they are rather detectable.

    They are indestructible little levers with infinite power. Each and every electron.

    Atoms and the structures they from can also have velocity, and these can appear to have energy. However they are just being held in place by repulsion and the time it takes to reverse the velocity.

    Have you ever seen those science fiction space battles when a super giant battle cruiser is rammed by another giant ship. And it looks like only part of the ship is effected. Well on a subatomic scale that is how atoms that are also massless weightless objects create the illusion of mass. They absorb with space and time impacts that would shatter the whole structure without these principles.

    Look at super cold objects, those objects have less then normal space between the atoms. If you drop them they shatter. Because they no longer have that time and space to eat up velocity. No more spring. No real large change in mass takes place in a super cold object. Yet an amazing difference in absorption capability.

    I am doing some Benjamin Franklin like experiments, except, I am using an Oscilloscope. He would have loved it. I have found that static electricity is almost the same thing as magnetic fields. I will compile some information and make some movies.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5 Re: Energy being converted into matter? 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Dalian ,China
    Posts
    85
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Quote Originally Posted by trewsx7
    Noob here, with a quick question regarding mass-energy equivalence (e=mc2) and matter creation.

    Knowing that there are many concete visual examples of matter turning into energy using Einstein's formula, how do you use energy to create matter? If I'm not mistaken, I beleive electron-positron pairs are created using gamma rays, but how does one use energy to create protons and neutrons? What are the "energy ingredients" for these particles and have they been ever created in a lab, or seen in outerspace? Thanks!

    Everything is electrons. Even the spheres we call protons or a hydrogen atom. Hydrogen is just a sphere of electrons. Other atoms have many spheres of electrons.
    Everything is electricity even matter. That was Benjamin Franklin's claim to fame. He showed that even matter could repel matter, a single piece of foil, could repel itself. If charged differently then the surrounding air the experiment was done in. Just like electricity.

    At the edges of the universe it is speculated that free electrons in a giant dead pool. Do re-form into a proton/hydrogen atom, and move back into the Universe. There really is no energy. Or inertia.
    However it is just a change in shape, not really energy. Newton was way ahead of his time about all things having an equal and opposite reaction. But he was speaking on a Universal scale.
    There is velocity. And with velocity electrons can penetrate into places, and then either be accelerated, and become almost undetectable. Or they can slow further like in a bomb and you know they are rather detectable.

    They are indestructible little levers with infinite power. Each and every electron.

    Atoms and the structures they from can also have velocity, and these can appear to have energy. However they are just being held in place by repulsion and the time it takes to reverse the velocity.

    Have you ever seen those science fiction space battles when a super giant battle cruiser is rammed by another giant ship. And it looks like only part of the ship is effected. Well on a subatomic scale that is how atoms that are also massless weightless objects create the illusion of mass. They absorb with space and time impacts that would shatter the whole structure without these principles.

    Look at super cold objects, those objects have less then normal space between the atoms. If you drop them they shatter. Because they no longer have that time and space to eat up velocity. No more spring. No real large change in mass takes place in a super cold object. Yet an amazing difference in absorption capability.

    I am doing some Benjamin Franklin like experiments, except, I am using an Oscilloscope. He would have loved it. I have found that static electricity is almost the same thing as magnetic fields. I will compile some information and make some movies.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick

    Everything is infromation being materialized by vacuum of the universe.

    All thing (universal events) happened in the past of the universe appears
    themselvies in form of matter (all masses of the universe )at present ,
    all these matter are just a result of an information entity interacting with
    vacuum . This infromation entity contains information of all events happened in the past of the universe . it is ultimate root of what now the universe looks like .

    More expounded in an article entitled " Spirit of the Universe and the Materialized Universe" .
    linked at :http://www.universefedback.com/en/10web.htm

    Preview of abstract of the article

    Abstract Based on essentially upgraded physical concepts ---Space time configuration and Space time value of all physical units , all calculation results from Feeding Back Theory of the Universe (FBTU) are
    tracking down an information entity existing in the universe which contain
    information of all events happened in the past of the universe . Physical properties of this information entity are well described and calculated ,
    some of which have been directly observed by human so far . When this
    information entity interacts with vacuum , it yields the substantiated and
    materialized universe we live accompanied by its general physical
    property values having been calculated , being well matched with
    observations commonly recognized .

    Key word Mass law , G gauge , Space time configuration , Space
    time value , 5 dimensional space , 5 dimensional time , 10 dimensional space time of the universe , STC analysistechnique , G bubble , Information modulus of the universe , Information equation of the universe , General physical property equation , Mirror equation , Information and event principle , past world , Information entity , spirit of
    the universe .











    All calculation results
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Oh crap! Now we have two individuals spreading their own ideas about physics.

    In order to create matter from energy, you will always get particles and their anti-particles as soon as you have photons with energies surpassing the equivalence of the masses of the two particles. They are then produced with a certain probability, like everything in quantum physics. However, the photon energy should be higher than the combined mass-equivalence, because you need some additional energy that is transformed into kinetic energy giving the particles some velocity to separate them from each other. Otherwise they will attract each other very easily and annihilate quickly.

    This means, it is much easier to produce lighter particles like electrons/positrons than the much heavier nucleons. It happens during collider experiments. In nature, there are also the so-called virtual particles. They are particle/antiparticle couples that can be formed with some small probability even though they briefly violate the energy conservation law, because normally they annihilate each other instantly. But the infamous Hawking radiation is believed to consist of virtual particles built on the event horizon of a black hole becoming real, because on of the two is drawn in, while the other can escape.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Oh crap! Now we have two individuals spreading their own ideas about physics.
    Indeed! This is quickly becoming thepseudoscienceforum.com when it comes to physics. The physics section of this forum is no longer a place which I can recommend to people for a place to discuss concepts of physics in order to understand physics better.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8 Re: Energy being converted into matter? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    grail search
    Posts
    811
    Quote Originally Posted by trewsx7
    Noob here, with a quick question regarding mass-energy equivalence (e=mc2) and matter creation.

    Knowing that there are many concete visual examples of matter turning into energy using Einstein's formula, how do you use energy to create matter? If I'm not mistaken, I beleive electron-positron pairs are created using gamma rays, but how does one use energy to create protons and neutrons? What are the "energy ingredients" for these particles and have they been ever created in a lab, or seen in outerspace? Thanks!

    As a biology student, you cAN REST ON the gal you chose to use as your "best effort" of sexual endurance, yes?

    Of course, you have no idea what I am talking about.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    28
    Is it me or does this feel like a topic filled with semi-religous beliefs. The "Information Theory" is not widely accepted, and nor will it be until it can be proven. I personally put more faith in Will's concept because he can prove it, and he is actively working on the theory.

    This is still doing exactly as the Physics forum (I believe) was intended, but the focus on stable theories has been lost.
    Just to be clear - I'm a student in IT. I am not a scientist, or trained philosopher, I'm just trying to portray my ideas.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Masters Degree SuperNatendo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nashville, TN USA
    Posts
    505
    So when the matter is created from energy, both the matter and antimatter components are created, and unless you separate them using a magnetic field, they will collide and annihilate each other?
    "It's no wonder that truth is stranger than fiction. Fiction has to make sense." - Mark Twain
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by SuperNatendo
    So when the matter is created from energy, both the matter and antimatter components are created, and unless you separate them using a magnetic field, they will collide and annihilate each other?
    Exactly. Or they have enough velocity from the excess photon energy that is transformed into kinetic energy which allows them both to separate.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Dalian ,China
    Posts
    85
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Oh crap! Now we have two individuals spreading their own ideas about physics.
    Indeed! This is quickly becoming thepseudoscienceforum.com when it comes to physics. The physics section of this forum is no longer a place which I can recommend to people for a place to discuss concepts of physics in order to understand physics better.
    Following is quoted from your webpage as saying :
    I am an online physics instructor. I have a masters in physics from the University of Utah. I lost interest in pure research and found myself more interested in physics education and software so I abandoned my PHD project to spend all my time on this simulator and some teaching.

    Well , I have created some new concepts in phsics , and had no response
    form academic society so far . Would you please share your comments
    about these new concepts in physics ?

    1 , space time configuration of physical unit
    Every physical unit has its own space time structure objectively ,
    is universally consists of multidimensional space time . and can be identically expressed in formula as :
    dimA =Bm^a s^-b
    here,B is an cofficient ,B≥|G|=6.67259e-11.
    a ,b =5,4,3,2,1 ,0 ,-1,-2,-3,-4,-5
    m represents one dimensional space ,
    s represents one dimensional time .

    called such expression as space time configuration (abbr.STC) .
    e.g.
    STC(N) = |G| m^4 s^-4 ,
    that is , Netow is consists of 4 dimensional space
    and mimus 4 dimensional time and an coefficient of |G|.
    STC(kg) = |G| m^3 s^-2
    that is , kilogram is consists of 3 dimensional space
    and mimus 2 dimensional time and an coefficient of |G|.
    STC(J) = |G| m^5 s^-4
    that is , Joule is consists of 5 dimensional space
    and mimus 4 dimensional time and an coefficient of |G|.
    STC(W) = |G| m^5 s^-5
    that is , Watt is consists of 5 dimensional space
    and mimus 5 dimensional time and an coefficient of |G|.
    STC(P) = |G| m^4 s^-3
    that is , One unit of momentum is consists of 4 dimensional space
    and mimus 3 dimensional time and an coefficient of |G|.
    STC(Wb) = √|G| m^2 s^-1
    that is , Weber is consists of 2 dimensional space
    and mimus 1 dimensional time and an coefficient of√|G| .

    See more detailed at : http://www.universefedback.com/popularized_e/c2.htm

    2 , space time value of physical unit
    Every physical unit has its value , called as space time value(abbr. STV)
    and can be expresses as:
    STV(dimA) = STV [ Bm^a s^-b ]
    e.g. :
    STV(m)=2.4686279637116245…e+34 (one dimensional space)
    STV(s)=0.7400760451286427…e+43 (one dimensional time)
    STV(kg)=1.8327730013788420…e+7 (kilogram)
    STV(K)=2.8154860927690915…e-33 (Kelvin)
    See more at :
    http://www.universefedback.com/popularized_e/c2.htm

    3 , G gauge of physical unit

    For every physical unit , there exists an objective entity called it as
    G gauge of the physical unit , whose value is constantly equal to 1 .

    This is theoretical basis from which all conclusions are derived , called
    it as Axiom of Physics
    See more at :
    http://www.universefedback.com/popularized_e/c1.htm

    Are these new concepts in physics enough for your appetite ?
    Do these new stuff have enough might to call you back ?
    Hopefully , you are intrigued from them once more .

    Tell you in advance , by these new concepts , we have calculated out
    most of physical properties of thr universe , well matched with observations made by human so far.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Oh crap! Now we have two individuals spreading their own ideas about physics.

    In order to create matter from energy, you will always get particles and their anti-particles as soon as you have photons with energies surpassing the equivalence of the masses of the two particles. They are then produced with a certain probability, like everything in quantum physics. However, the photon energy should be higher than the combined mass-equivalence, because you need some additional energy that is transformed into kinetic energy giving the particles some velocity to separate them from each other. Otherwise they will attract each other very easily and annihilate quickly.

    This means, it is much easier to produce lighter particles like electrons/positrons than the much heavier nucleons. It happens during collider experiments. In nature, there are also the so-called virtual particles. They are particle/antiparticle couples that can be formed with some small probability even though they briefly violate the energy conservation law, because normally they annihilate each other instantly. But the infamous Hawking radiation is believed to consist of virtual particles built on the event horizon of a black hole becoming real, because on of the two is drawn in, while the other can escape.
    There are no anti-particles. I never saw even a slight proof of there existence.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by zhang zhi qiang
    Well , I have created some new concepts in phsics ,
    Why?


    Quote Originally Posted by zhang zhi qiang
    and had no response form academic society so far .
    Could it be like inventing your own language and no one is interested in speaking it?


    Quote Originally Posted by zhang zhi qiang
    Every physical unit has its own space time structure objectively ,
    is universally consists of multidimensional space time . and can be identically expressed in formula as :
    dimA =Bm^a s^-b
    here,B is an cofficient ,B≥|G|=6.67259e-11.
    a ,b =5,4,3,2,1 ,0 ,-1,-2,-3,-4,-5
    m represents one dimensional space ,
    s represents one dimensional time .
    Why should there be a numerical constant in front?


    Quote Originally Posted by zhang zhi qiang
    STC(N) = |G| m^4 s^-4 ,
    that is , Netow is consists of 4 dimensional space
    and mimus 4 dimensional time and an coefficient of |G|.
    STC(kg) = |G| m^3 s^-2
    that is , kilogram is consists of 3 dimensional space
    and mimus 2 dimensional time and an coefficient of |G|.
    STC(J) = |G| m^5 s^-4
    that is , Joule is consists of 5 dimensional space
    and mimus 4 dimensional time and an coefficient of |G|.
    STC(W) = |G| m^5 s^-5
    that is , Watt is consists of 5 dimensional space
    and mimus 5 dimensional time and an coefficient of |G|.
    STC(P) = |G| m^4 s^-3
    that is , One unit of momentum is consists of 4 dimensional space
    and mimus 3 dimensional time and an coefficient of |G|.
    I can see that this part is consistent.


    Quote Originally Posted by zhang zhi qiang
    2 , space time value of physical unit
    Every physical unit has its value , called as space time value(abbr. STV)
    and can be expresses as:
    STV(dimA) = STV [ Bm^a s^-b ]
    e.g. :
    STV(m)=2.4686279637116245…e+34 (one dimensional space)
    STV(s)=0.7400760451286427…e+43 (one dimensional time)
    STV(kg)=1.8327730013788420…e+7 (kilogram)
    STV(K)=2.8154860927690915…e-33 (Kelvin)
    Why do this?


    Quote Originally Posted by zhang zhi qiang
    3 , G gauge of physical unit

    For every physical unit , there exists an objective entity called it as
    G gauge of the physical unit , whose value is constantly equal to 1 .

    This is theoretical basis from which all conclusions are derived , called
    it as Axiom of Physics
    Like what conclusion for example?


    Quote Originally Posted by zhang zhi qiang
    Are these new concepts in physics enough for your appetite ?
    Do these new stuff have enough might to call you back ?
    Hopefully , you are intrigued from them once more .
    No. You have yet to offer anything to spark any interest of any kind. How old are you?


    Quote Originally Posted by zhang zhi qiang
    Tell you in advance , by these new concepts , we have calculated out
    most of physical properties of thr universe , well matched with observations made by human so far.
    Like what for example?
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Dalian ,China
    Posts
    85
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Quote Originally Posted by zhang zhi qiang
    Well , I have created some new concepts in phsics ,
    Why?

    Answer
    Because by calculation I found that most of elementary constants
    in physics are all equal and equal to 1 in their general values .
    e.g. STV(G) = STV(G) = STV(h) =STV(c) =STV(kB) ... =1 , this
    calculating results reveal space time configuration of physical units,
    an intrinsic nature of them , I just defined them in line with this sort of
    nature .
    Please refer to :
    http://www.universefedback.com/popularized_e/c3.htm


    Quote Originally Posted by zhang zhi qiang
    and had no response form academic society so far .
    Could it be like inventing your own language and no one is interested in speaking it?

    Answer
    Not sure .
    But my freinds on line who is just a college student can understand
    my theory .

    Quote Originally Posted by zhang zhi qiang
    Every physical unit has its own space time structure objectively ,
    is universally consists of multidimensional space time . and can be identically expressed in formula as :
    dimA =Bm^a s^-b
    here,B is an cofficient ,B≥|G|=6.67259e-11.
    a ,b =5,4,3,2,1 ,0 ,-1,-2,-3,-4,-5
    m represents one dimensional space ,
    s represents one dimensional time .
    Why should there be a numerical constant in front?

    Answer
    it is a result of calculation , just like why modulus of gravitational
    constant G has value of |G|=6.67259e-11 , it was specific nature of them.


    Quote Originally Posted by zhang zhi qiang
    STC(N) = |G| m^4 s^-4 ,
    that is , Netow is consists of 4 dimensional space
    and mimus 4 dimensional time and an coefficient of |G|.
    STC(kg) = |G| m^3 s^-2
    that is , kilogram is consists of 3 dimensional space
    and mimus 2 dimensional time and an coefficient of |G|.
    STC(J) = |G| m^5 s^-4
    that is , Joule is consists of 5 dimensional space
    and mimus 4 dimensional time and an coefficient of |G|.
    STC(W) = |G| m^5 s^-5
    that is , Watt is consists of 5 dimensional space
    and mimus 5 dimensional time and an coefficient of |G|.
    STC(P) = |G| m^4 s^-3
    that is , One unit of momentum is consists of 4 dimensional space
    and mimus 3 dimensional time and an coefficient of |G|.
    I can see that this part is consistent.

    Answer
    Through calculation , I found that dimensional numbers of space or time
    of all physical units we have defined and proved are less than or equal to
    5 , there is no exceptional case . as long as the situation remain same ,
    that would be an conclusion convincible :
    The universe is consists of 5 dimensional space and 5 dimensional time ,
    in other word , the universe has 10 dimensional space time .
    Since the universe is composed of nothing but various physical
    quantities (physical units)


    Quote Originally Posted by zhang zhi qiang
    2 , space time value of physical unit
    Every physical unit has its value , called as space time value(abbr. STV)
    and can be expresses as:
    STV(dimA) = STV [ Bm^a s^-b ]
    e.g. :
    STV(m)=2.4686279637116245…e+34 (one dimensional space)
    STV(s)=0.7400760451286427…e+43 (one dimensional time)
    STV(kg)=1.8327730013788420…e+7 (kilogram)
    STV(K)=2.8154860927690915…e-33 (Kelvin)
    Why do this?


    Answer
    This are results directly coming from G gauge assumption .
    In calculating all physical properties of the universe , they played an
    important role . While these claculation results are well in line with
    observation , in turn , I was convinced these values of physical units
    to be true , to be objective.



    Quote Originally Posted by zhang zhi qiang
    3 , G gauge of physical unit

    For every physical unit , there exists an objective entity called it as
    G gauge of the physical unit , whose value is constantly equal to 1 .

    This is theoretical basis from which all conclusions are derived , called
    it as Axiom of Physics
    Like what conclusion for example?


    Answer
    Basic G gauge can be modified from Planck Dimensions
    e.g.
    Length gauge :
    L(G) = [Gh / c^3]^1/2 =0.4050833153880067.…e-34 m =1

    Time gauge :
    t(G) = [Gh / c^5]^1/2 =1.3512124957728855…e-43 s =1

    Mass Gauge :
    M(G) = [ch / G]^1/2 =0.5456213067563055…e-7 kg =1

    Temperature gauge :
    T(G) = [c^5h / G k(B)^2]^1/2 =0.3551784548210921…e+33 K =1



    Quote Originally Posted by zhang zhi qiang
    Are these new concepts in physics enough for your appetite ?
    Do these new stuff have enough might to call you back ?
    Hopefully , you are intrigued from them once more .
    No. You have yet to offer anything to spark any interest of any kind. How old are you?


    Answer
    Sorry , I have not convinced you yet .


    Quote Originally Posted by zhang zhi qiang
    Tell you in advance , by these new concepts , we have calculated out
    most of physical properties of thr universe , well matched with observations made by human so far.
    Like what for example?

    Answer
    e.g.
    I calculated 21 items in total for general physical properties of the
    universe( calculated from a single formula , called General Physical
    Propertiy Euqation of the Universe), and found those calculating results
    of total mass , radius , age and average mass comply with our observations , despite these observed datum are not exactly assured .
    e.g.
    Observation datum for these four physical properties of the universe :

    Total mass (observed mass) : 1.986e+51 kg ~ 1.986e+52 kg ?
    (Observed data )

    Radius : e+10 pc =3.0857e+26m ?
    Observed data)

    Age : e+10 years --- 2e+10 years ?
    Estimated result in cosmological theories)

    Average mass density : e-27 kg/m^3 ?
    (Observed data and theoretical result combined)

    Calculating results by the theory as :

    Total mass (including dark matter) :
    4.2315167338906745…e+53 kg

    Radiu :
    3.1381767999999997…e+26 m

    Age :
    3.3170311178758666…e+10 years.

    Average mass density :
    3.2687013208516523…e-27 kg / m^3

    Specific calculating process and calculating results for other physical
    properties of the universe can be seen at :
    http://www.universefedback.com/popularized_e/c10.htm









    density of the universe
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Port Saint Lucie, Florida
    Posts
    135
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Quote Originally Posted by zhang zhi qiang
    Well , I have created some new concepts in phsics ,
    Why?
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Oh crap! Now we have two individuals spreading their own ideas about physics.
    I was always under the assumption that this is how science progressed. Regular forum readers have grown increasingly misanthropic as of late =)

    Whether the theory is fundamentally right or wrong, at the very least I'm seeing concepts with some logic and math behind them. I'd also add that no current scientific theory, regardless of how widely accepted, is completely immune from being falsified and corrected through present and future experimentation. Personally I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if most of the standard model were proven inaccurate.

    If theres a debate about the validity or acceptance of a claim, move the thread to pseudoscience, but don't discourage original science or unique thought =)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    I agree that there must be room for discussion about the validity of commonly accepted physics (or general science) or alternative concepts. Therefore, I support your suggestion to put this into a suitable environment or an individual thread for discussion. I am just concerned about people trying to sell their ideas as fact and equally valid theories. I consider this inappropriate in a thread trying to discuss a certain problem that needs solving. A naive and unexperienced reader/poster might not be able to distinguish between these two. At the very least, I would expect to label diverging ideas accordingly.

    I'd like to add that many of these ideas are so apparently wrong and lack even the minimal standards of being a theory (in the scientific sense of the meaning). I must admit that some alternative concepts are so different from what I learned at the university and often even very complex and complicated that I either don't have the time to follow them up or I just don't understand them.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Frenchi
    I was always under the assumption that this is how science progressed. Regular forum readers have grown increasingly misanthropic as of late =)
    I'm pretty sure there will not be any scientific breakthroughs unveiled here on The Science Forum.

    If theres a debate about the validity or acceptance of a claim, move the thread to pseudoscience, but don't discourage original science or unique thought =)
    I'd go along with that, but I doubt the aforementioned kooks would like it much. Maybe we could give them a new forum sandbox to play in. Call it Nonstandard or Unorthodox Theories.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by Frenchi
    Personally I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if most of the standard model were proven inaccurate.

    If theres a debate about the validity or acceptance of a claim, move the thread to pseudoscience, but don't discourage original science or unique thought =)
    This is interesting. I do not know exactly what you mean by original science.

    What Newton observed is still almost impervious to any current claim. The way others interpreted what he said or had proven, is often my beef with science.

    The same is true of Benjamin Franklin. The none experimenter fights Benjamin Franklin tooth and nail. Someone with a lot of hands on, says wow, during violent times, with little or no science, Benjamin Franklin somehow stayed the course and figured it out. He determined that matter was electricity in another form.

    And an invisible fluid ran between the solid electricity/matter. Others have thrown this away for the dual fluid theory of electricity. Which was wrong. There is only one type of electricity, and one type of matter.

    Benjamin Franklin put is hand to the Cathode rays. So he was not wanting for the cathode ray tube.

    So to me, that is some heavy old science that does not conflict with my understanding of science as was taught to me, by the last of the Universal Scientists.
    Universal Scientists that did not believe in neutrons. Or photon particles, other then electrons. In my day, at that time the ruling party in science was still claiming that there were only electron subatomic particles. And that a photon (an effect of light) was created by electrons.

    At that time Universal Scientists would tear any young Chadwick like scientist apart, trying to introduce yet another phony particle. They for what ever reason could not battle away the neutron particle. Because they were on record stating that the neutron, was a particle in matter.

    But they meant of course that the fluid in matter as Benjamin Franklin found, was in matter. Even within atoms larger then hydrogen. And this fluid would tend to equalize things. Or neutralize electron potential.

    It was just electrons in the ambient radiation racing through matter.

    But that was not the time travel and super space bending apparatus the young scientists wanted more then anything.

    I guess my question is what is old science to you and what is new science to you?

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Dalian ,China
    Posts
    85
    [quote="Frenchi"]
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Quote Originally Posted by zhang zhi qiang
    Well , I have created some new concepts in phsics ,
    Why?
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Oh crap! Now we have two individuals spreading their own ideas about physics.
    I
    was always under the assumption that this is how science progressed. Regular forum readers have grown increasingly misanthropic as of late =)

    Whether the theory is fundamentally right or wrong, at the very least I'm seeing concepts with some logic and math behind them. I'd also add that no current scientific theory, regardless of how widely accepted, is completely immune from being falsified and corrected through present and future experimentation. Personally I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if most of the standard model were proven inaccurate.
    All kinds of physical units are basis of various theories in physics ,
    people are used to them and never have any doubts about them .
    All of sudden , we find that these physical units originally possess their
    space time structure and space time value , this challenges traditional
    thinking . People may argue how to prove it , does physical unit does has
    space time structure and value ? Is it objective ?

    To varify any newly self-clained scientific concept , axiom , law , theorem
    priciple , usually three standards should be met :
    1 , the theory to be varified must be self-explained logically.
    2 , It does not contradicts with well-established arch priciples in physics.
    3 , Conclusions it yielded shoud comply with observations abailable , and predict those other theories can not explain .

    Well , let's look how have concepts of space time configuration and space
    time value been proven .
    These new concepts expounded in papers at my webpage titled
    Feeding Back Theory of the Universe
    http://www.universefedback.com

    1 , consistency logically
    This theory start off from an assumption of G gauge , called as Axiom
    of Physics , this is an extremely simple ones and it says :
    For every physical unit there exists an corresponding objective entity
    whose value is contantly equal to 1 ,
    then space time configuration , space time value of all physical units ,
    informaion modulus of the universe , G bubble , information unit , event,
    information materialized priciple , general physical propertiy equation of
    the universe , mirror equation , information equation of the universe , reciprocal modulus theorem , default theorem , ... are cascading out of
    this axiom . All these conclusions are totally contained in one logical frame
    well self-explained .
    2 , Compatibility downward
    All these conclusions are fully compatible downward with fundamental
    physical priciples well-established , while they can not derive inversely
    from these principles .
    3 , Observation match up
    By general physical property and mirror equation of the universe , all
    general physical properties of the universe can be calculated , and fully
    comply with observation datum in astronomy and cosmology and
    experimental datum in physics . e.g.
    Calculation results fully comply with those obsrved datum of total mass ,
    radius , age , avarage mass density of the universe ;
    Calculated out physical costants , both completable ones and default
    ones, which can only be obtained through observation and experiment
    before , and fully match up with those constants observed .

    At last , this theory discover an information entity which contains
    information of all events happened in the past of the universe , also
    as it interacts with vacuum , it generates materialized and substantiated
    universe we live. This argument can be proved by calculations either .
    One of primary physical characteristic of this information entity is CMB
    radiation , also strictly proved by calculation. ......

    I have no choice but convinced in front of these conclusions , after all ,
    people in scientific domain can only believe nothing but facts---
    calculation results matched up with observations and experiment datum .

    If you varify all these claims , please click below link to read :
    http://www.universefedback.com/popularized_e.htm
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Port Saint Lucie, Florida
    Posts
    135
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    This is interesting. I do not know exactly what you mean by original science.
    I simply mean that there are those with authentic interest in understanding reality who are disillusioned by 'common wisdom' or popular theories in the scientific community, and who have alternative theories. It is entirely possible that the standard model is, while an accurate predictor of the effects of underlying physical laws, an incorrect collection of assumptions. For example, planetary epicycles were, as I understand it, accurate at explaining and predicting the behavior of the planets in relation to ourselves, but were later replaced by a theory more accurately detailing the phenomenon involved.

    At the same time, it's also possible (however unlikely it may be), that the Standard Model is 100% correct and just needs further experimentation with more complex tools to further the model, though I shelf this possibility right up there with the second coming of the Christian Jesus =)

    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Universal Scientists that did not believe in...
    Interesting. I would inquire further about the points you raise here if I weren't certain it would send the thread terribly off topic. Perhaps another time.


    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    I guess my question is what is old science to you and what is new science to you?
    Don't let me give the impression that I'm any kind of authority on scientific debate, I'm just an open-minded college kid. To me, the only difference between old science and new science is that old science has weathered more experimentation and survived scrutiny longer.

    There certainly seems to be a correllation between new 'Fringe Science' and old discarded science. I tend to be attracted to certain fringe theories over standard theories, probably because I'm young and impressionable, and don't have a career of personal scientific exploration to solidify my beliefs; however, one must be careful to accept fringe science for what it is and not simply take it at face value because it is 'different'. For example, I believe in a non-particulate aether and that the electron is a wave and the basis of all matter, but I am open to being wrong, and I definitely have a lot to learn. When I discuss my fringe notions, I do it from the position of an inquisitive student and not from the position of a scientist who knows he's right and the rest of the world is wrong and conspiring against him. I see Science like I see Art: there is always more to learn, and you can never learn it all.

    To divulge a bit, there are cases where its easy to see that a forum post belongs in Pseudoscience, but since Science itself is a malleable entity; there must be occasions where a radical idea may hold some merit, or where an accepted theory may be wrong. This is not in reference to any particular theories posted here, but merely general conjecture.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by Frenchi
    At the same time, it's also possible (however unlikely it may be), that the Standard Model is 100% correct and just needs further experimentation with more complex tools to further the model, though I shelf this possibility right up there with the second coming of the Christian Jesus =)
    Before you right that off. I am a Christian Lutheran, and I do believe that Jesus was about what he was. He was a carpenter that saw it all. From the poor the filthy rich and realized that all were so afraid of losing what little they had. That they by their greed destroyed each other, and themselves.

    To me Jesus just spoke the truth in the face of being nailed up on a cross. Pun intended.

    I would hope a lot more Jesus's come and have a lot more success, and no more crosses to bear.

    I liked what you said about conspiracy nut scientists though. Ha-ha. I think you are right.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    I'm pretty sure there will not be any scientific breakthroughs unveiled here on The Science Forum.

    I'd go along with that, but I doubt the aforementioned kooks would like it much. Maybe we could give them a new forum sandbox to play in. Call it Nonstandard or Unorthodox Theories.
    I admit that all the basics of science were not only finished but demonstrated seventy five years ago. And that warfare was turned into a joke that could never happen with legitimacy, unless fools with no knowledge and understanding of science were left at the wheel.

    But that is still a pessimistic thing to say about the Science Forum. I believe that neck wrenching use of the scientific method will show that current standards strayed from real standards, little understood. However proven standards none the less. Demonstrated and proven to 99.99 percent accuracy.

    And I believe that the Science Forum could be a place to show some basics in science, and get science back to a real practice again.

    Before I would attack unorthodox principles I would have an explanation of attraction ready. Because it was never done. No one could explain attraction of particles or atoms. Ever. Never.

    Yet all electron Universal Scientists that believe electron particles bombard the entire Universe, even inside molecules. And that this requires no attraction whatsoever. Are attacked for unorthodox principles.

    The ether wave thing was just a misunderstanding to hide science and the power of ambient radiation.

    Most current "scientists" are more like a cult member then a real scientist.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Yet all electron Universal Scientists that believe electron particles bombard the entire Universe, even inside molecules. And that this requires no attraction whatsoever. Are attacked for unorthodox principles.
    Can you please name one electron Universal Scientist? I think it is a figment of your imagination.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Yet all electron Universal Scientists that believe electron particles bombard the entire Universe, even inside molecules. And that this requires no attraction whatsoever. Are attacked for unorthodox principles.
    Can you please name one electron Universal Scientist? I think it is a figment of your imagination.
    No, and the ones that I learned from, I never remembered their names.

    There were only 17 of them at the time I was in school.

    You have to understand I had Grumman Aero Space. We could go anywhere. No limits. The Universal Scientists were good and thorough and very interesting. But I already knew what he was saying like the back of my hand. So it was just very refreshing to hear it from another source.

    But I felt that hands on training would be much better for me. So although I liked the Universal Scientist. I wanted to get out there and build real stuff. So I just assumed that he would be around later and I would hear from him through is successful work, and I would probably meet him later along the road of life. So I never remembered his name.

    Or the names of the other Universal Scientists.



    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    No, and the ones that I learned from, I never remembered their names.

    There were only 17 of them at the time I was in school.

    You have to understand I had Grumman Aero Space. We could go anywhere. No limits. The Universal Scientists were good and thorough and very interesting. But I already knew what he was saying like the back of my hand. So it was just very refreshing to hear it from another source.
    Are you saying there were 17 in your school or 17 in the whole world at the time? Who is "he" and who was the "other source"? Did you learn from the universal scientist when you were in school or did you learn it at Grumman?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Several of the replies to the opening question about mass-energy equivalence have been so far out of the norm of fundamental science that I have moved the thread to pseudoscience.
    My apologies for this, but I do not wish casual readers forming the impression that some of the ideas put forward have a solid evidential basis.

    Ophiolite

    Edited one of the increasing numbers of typos I have been committing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    No, and the ones that I learned from, I never remembered their names.

    There were only 17 of them at the time I was in school.

    You have to understand I had Grumman Aero Space. We could go anywhere. No limits. The Universal Scientists were good and thorough and very interesting. But I already knew what he was saying like the back of my hand. So it was just very refreshing to hear it from another source.
    Are you saying there were 17 in your school or 17 in the whole world at the time? Who is "he" and who was the "other source"? Did you learn from the universal scientist when you were in school or did you learn it at Grumman?
    I was saying that there were 17 Universal scientists on the face of the earth. And they were Universal Scientists becuase they did so many experiments.
    That they could cross reference reactions and phenomena. And figure out anything that came their way. And then demonstrate it in the name of science.

    Grumman at the time was under the same impression. They used electrons to bend metal in the magneforming process.

    Just pressed metal up against cold molds with electrical/magnetic energy. No destruction of apparatus.


    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Well, maybe 17 that you knew of . There could be a lot more hidden out there among the other 6 billion people.

    -----------------------


    My take on sub-atomic particles is that they go all the way down to infinity small, but certain discreet sizes and types of object are more likely to form out of them because of the way the forces interact. In fact, the probabilities are incredibly strong.

    I'm just taking what I see in astronomy and applying it to the sub-atomic world. Meeting certain thresholds of size for an inter-planetary object causes near-discreet formations to evolve.

    For instance, it has been observed that the black hole at the center of every galaxy accounts for approximately 5% of the mass. It's a cosmic coincidence that always occurs.

    Believing this, of course, requires us to remember that a process which takes billions of years on the macro-scale, would probably take less than a pico-second on the sub-atomic scale. If inconsistencies ever happen on the sub-atomic level, they are probably resolved in an amount of time we could never measure, just as inconsistencies on the macro scale are resolved over billions of years.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    My take on sub-atomic particles is that they go all the way down to infinity small, ...
    You cannot form particles of a discrete size from infinitely small ones. Infinitely small + infinitely small gives ... infinitely small.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    I was saying that there were 17 Universal scientists on the face of the earth. And they were Universal Scientists becuase they did so many experiments.
    That they could cross reference reactions and phenomena. And figure out anything that came their way. And then demonstrate it in the name of science.

    Grumman at the time was under the same impression. They used electrons to bend metal in the magneforming process.

    Just pressed metal up against cold molds with electrical/magnetic energy. No destruction of apparatus.
    So there were 17 universal electron scientists, but you don't know any of their names, even the one or ones who taught you. Did you have a universal electron scientist as a physics teacher in school? I'm still trying to find out where you learned your physics. It sounds like a fascinating story.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32 electron Universal scientists. 
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    963
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Yet all electron Universal Scientists that believe electron particles bombard the entire Universe, even inside molecules. And that this requires no attraction whatsoever. Are attacked for unorthodox principles.
    Can you please name one electron Universal Scientist? I think it is a figment of your imagination.
    No, and the ones that I learned from, I never remembered their names.

    There were only 17 of them at the time I was in school.

    You have to understand I had Grumman Aero Space. We could go anywhere. No limits. The Universal Scientists were good and thorough and very interesting. But I already knew what he was saying like the back of my hand. So it was just very refreshing to hear it from another source.

    But I felt that hands on training would be much better for me. So although I liked the Universal Scientist. I wanted to get out there and build real stuff. So I just assumed that he would be around later and I would hear from him through is successful work, and I would probably meet him later along the road of life. So I never remembered his name.

    Or the names of the other Universal Scientists.



    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    I think there are several,of these individuals, contributing posts to this forum.
    Harold-I do not include you in their number!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Ph.D. Steve Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Magdeburg, Saxony-Anhalt, Germany
    Posts
    782
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:Hawking radiation (partly underlined by myself)

    It is yet unknown how gravity can be incorporated into quantum mechanics, but nevertheless far from the black hole the gravitational effects can be weak enough that calculations can be reliably performed in the framework of quantum field theory in curved spacetime.
    This excerpt was conclusive I think.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •