The TPU uncovered? (A PROBABLE technique.)

[pauldude000]

@aleks

You made some interesting observations. However, some things need adressed.

"In my opinion, "momentum" cannot exist with particles or bodies having no internal structure."

Photons and other electromagnetic phenomena have been demonstrated to have momentum. Momentum is based upon a moving mass. Notice I didn't say moving "matter".

I make this distinction as E=MC^2/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) works. Ask yourself what possible relationship exists that causes electromagnetic constants and transformations to be applicable in any form to mass..........

I did a post previously in this thread, I think a page back which covers this in much more depth. It may well clear up some confusion.

To spoil it somewhat, mass is not a property of matter ONLY. Read the post to find out why.

Truthfully, I am starting to lean in the direction that matter itself has no real internal structure, at below sub-particle level.  Basically I agree with Einstein on this. Matter IS TRULY energy.


Paul Andrulis

[aleks]

Photons and other electromagnetic phenomena have been demonstrated to have momentum.
Momentum is based upon a moving mass. Notice I didn't say moving "matter".

Well, photons are waves, and are definitely massless. They of course have a momentum, but it is very strictly defined via E=hv * direction vector (or something else in that manner), so it's kind of "momentum of energy", not tied to mass (e.g. impact wave that propagates in air also carries a kind of momentum which will show force upon impact with any physical object).

I myself make a differentiation between particles and EM waves. Electro-magnetic waves may well be the same thing as acoustic waves, but propagating in a complex-numbered medium (vacuum or gaseous/crystalline-structured aether). Acoustic waves are strictly real-valued and thus have no polarization, but do have negative frequencies that accompany any acoustical vibration. I think anybody claiming EM waves as being transverse is giving an errorneous understanding in a hope to justify EM waves polarization. In complex-numbered space you do not need to "invent" transverse waves to model EM waves polarization: you just need to extend your vision and "see" complex-numbered reality (I'm finding it hard to visualize, but I'll try more), and understand the fact that longitudinal waves may carry polarization in such reality.

There should be ways to "convert" between particles and EM waves, but this probably is done at high energy densities and involves "time looping" I was mentioning already. Note that electron's electrostatic field may also be a complex-valued field with a "picture" that may unite all separate facts about electron.

And Einstein was dealing with subatomic bond energies. I find it pretty funny to see somebody mentions Einstein in relation to understanding of subparticle reality. His theories do not cover this. He helped promote atomic bomb that releases subatomic bond potential energy. It's like atomic chemistry - nothing more than that.

Today, "Electron->EM wave-> electron" conversions is a pseudoscience, nobody will be buying it for real.

[pauldude000]

@aleks

You really need to share the punchline, as a joke must be understood to be funny.

The truth is, I am trying to understand your post, but it really doesn't make much sense upon close examination.

I can define many things using various formula myself, yet the formula I choose does not limit the application of other equally valid formula.

An impact wave of air is a MASS of air impacting a MASS of a physical object. It DOES tie in with the concept of a momentum of energy, which can also be defined with the formula from my last post on E=MC^2. E= quite literally means "pure energy is.......", and not "mass energy is.......", nor is it "EM energy is.....", or a number of other variations. I also would guarantee that the "apparent mass" of a photon, when plugged into E=MC^2/sqrt(1-V^2/c^2) is equal to hf...... (use the value of the speed of light in atmosphere to avoid the "undefined aspect of MC^2/0 = infinity garbage.)

I could go over everything, but I will be brief.

Concerning E=MC^2.......

Since

1. The concept of E=MC^2 was published in the neighborhood of 20-25 years before the Manhattan Project. The Manhattan Project was initiated BECAUSE of E=MC^2, not vice-versa. (The Manhattan Project was invention of the first nuclear weapon.)

2. E=MC^2 is derived using electromagnetic formula and constants. (You know, the ones governing EM waves.)

3. Photons have "apparent" demonstrable and demonstrated mass..... (Notice I emphasized "apparent", as there is nothing which is truly "unreal", "apparent", or "virtual" about anything.)

4. E=MC^2 by no means dealt with "ONLY" subatomic bonds. Where did you come up with this? If so, then the formula would have been misused and misapplied to determine the increase of mass with speed. (The very formula determinate that the photon itself cannot have mass and then travel at C itself. )

5. E=E or the term "pure energy" which is the base definition of E in both E=MC^2, E=hf, etc.., is worthless and a figment since there would be no valid definition FOR E.

6. The mass of particles and sub-particles, are equally governed by the relationship of E=MC^2... (It is valid in BOTH the micro and macro scales.)

As far as it being funny. Kewl. Go for it. More power to ya! I just personally do not see what is so funny. Could be a simple difference of sense of humor. I like puns myself.

Paul Andrulis

[aleks]

As far as it being funny. Kewl. Go for it. More power to ya! I just personally do not see what is so funny. Could be a simple difference of sense of humor. I like puns myself.

What was funny is attributing things Einstein didn't invent or even thought about. He's not some Almighty creator.

I insist that E=MC^2 basically works with subatomic bond energies ONLY. Yep, you may believe that when you "crack" an electron you'll get that much energy (MC^2), but until this is done and proven, it's a belief - not a reality. EM waves have no mass - and so I have no clue why you are trying to equate EM wave to particle mass. Until EM wave is converted into particle, it's a belief as well.

Formulas have their "field of application" - it's a fact. E=MC^2 simply tells you how much energy you can get after cracking a heavy atom into two lighter atoms (IF you can crack it). So, it basically shows how much BOND energy you can hope to acquire. There's nothing more about this formula.

Also, you probably know about "defect of mass" which makes E=MC^2 a little more complicated to use in practice.

[aleks]

"Mass defect" is used to calculate "binding energy" I was referring to - this is what is being released in fission/fusion reactions. In this sense E=MC^2 covers binding energies only - it's not usable for particle creation/destruction. Well, of course you can (as physics does) split any particle into subparticles - but you'll probably have to do it infinitely until your particles are zero in size. The mechanism of particle (like quark or lepton) construction is undefined, and there is no accepted mechanics of this exist to my knowledge. At the moment physics is solely based on discovered particles.

Also do not forget that "energy" is never a separate phenomenon - it is whether kinetic/potential energy tied to a system of objects, or EM wave energy. Mass on the other hand is not a substance (matter). In many cases I read as someone trying to use "substance=energy" semantics while this is totally wrong. Mass is an attribute of substance, it is not a substance itself.

So, semantically, an intermix of particles changes mass AND defines binding energies. So, E=MC^2 basically equates mass to binding energies of a splittable structure.