Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Physics Forum Mass & Velocity

Does it have something to do with believing that what we perceive as reality is actually real?

Points to Bill S :-)

Bill Gill still believes in a local reality.

You can define this belief as Body A affects body B locally when it either touches B or touches something else that touches B. Einstein called it cause and effect physics. This is often called solid world physics and scientists who follow it like Einstein accept QM experiments as they must but argue there is something we don't understand at work or Einsteins famous hidden variables.

You can define non local reality where Body A affects Body B even though it is not touching body B or anything that is touching B. Einstein called it spooky action at a distance when he saw it with entanglement.

Bell’s theorem proves the existence of an invisible non-local reality it is simple concise mathematics with simple clarity and it is not a conjecture it is a PROOF which is rare in science.

This means parts of the universe that aren't physically connected are instantaneously communicating with each other.

Wheelers delayed choice experiment shows even worse the fact you can change the past by what you decide in the future. In a solid local reality world this is completely ridiculous and even eliminates the idea of superluminal communication via hidden variables because events are being transposed backwards in time.

The only rational conclusion as much as we hate it and it irks us is that reality is a non local reality illusion ... there really is no other choice.

Anyone who has played good 3D computer games knows how easy it is to fool the human brain into seeing 3D where there is none.

No one is saying things aren't real just that world we learn as a baby is based upon experience of how we see and interpret the world and that is actually not how the actual reality works.

Everytime I see a rainbow my immediate thought is I wonder how long it took human civilisation to work out it is a illusion a fact we now take for granted and are taught. I often wonder if there are still native tribes that think a rainbow is real.

Lets put it in context I am not blindly attacking a belief system I am doing it intentionally when you start trolling and seeking to interrupt others discussion.

As I pointed out and you will note I am not attacking threads you start or where you are actually discussing logical points.

When you start with garbage like 8/0=8 expect to get flamed because you even stated yourself above division by zero is not possible yet you continued with that rubbish. THAT BY DEFINITION IS TROLLING TO SEEK TO INTERFERE WITH OTHERS DISCUSSION.




I don't dislike anyones opinion but TROLL and your beliefs will get flamed because our moderation is next to nil on this forum and it is rude to deliberately try and obstruct other peoples discussions .. call it me being rude back.

Far from hating it, or being irked by it, I welcome the idea of non-locality; it fits perfectly with my thoughts on another of your points of disagreement - infinity.

For a long time I had problems with the idea of past-directed actions in time, but I can square that with the same set of ideas, as long as the "time travel" is restricted to QM activity.

as I said earlier , in fact in the same post that you are
complaining about --- YOUR FORMULA IS INCORRECT ---

you used the total energy formula.




http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/252/energy_p_reln.html

assuming that a massless particle has no mass the result of
either of the above formulas will be 0

mc^2 = 0 (0 if the mass is massless)!

0 x c^2 = 0

1 - v^2/c^2 = is irrelevant because 0 x any number = 0

you end up with a formula that always gives a result of zero when used with a massless particle.

I agree with this totally. Does seem somewhat hypocritical coming from you though.

As far as the whole 8/0=0... Well, if you make the mass travel at 100% C, then, yeah, you will get a "blank"/0 equation.

For a mass to travel at C, it would need infinite energy, correct? Isn't something divided by 0 infinity?

So changing the speed of light to 2mps, then giving the mass a velocity of 2mps... The formula still holds true. You would get infinity. That's why the formula works, and why the theory holds merit.

You can be ignorant to laws, and commit a crime, but ignorance to the wrong doing will not necessarily hold up in court. It is usually implied that one should have an understanding of the laws that govern your particular society. Same seems to hold true for physics.


And as a slightly unrelated side note: If you 'lose' something, that's fine. But saying you 'loose' something, only works when you are releasing, or projecting something. Just a helpful hint.

Don't 'lose' it, and don't 'loose' your anger on me, just trying to help.

I believe that you cant divide by zero.
also dividing by zero isn't infinity its illegal.
you cant divide by zero.


you can infinitely divide a number by another number
but you cannot divide a number by zero.

that is the way I have always known it to be in reality.



only if you use math that is designed to cause a need for infinite energy.

I personally don't have faith in that type of math.

why do you think there would be a need for infinite energy?

is there some resistance that is occurring in the path of the
mass?

I can't figure what would cause a need for infinite energy
and the math I have seen certainly does not include any elements of resistance.

I can understand that in an accelerator there is resistance
in the path of a particle because of the contaminant
particles in the almost zero vacuum ,but when we consider
a vacuum in math there is nothing in the path of the particle.

Well, I would think it needs infinite energy based on the formula. Once velocity matches the speed of light, you get a number that needs to be divided by zero. So, whether you 'believe' in the math or not, the proof is in the pudding. You cannot divide by zero, because it would equal infinite.

Using your dollar bill example: If you divide the one bill by two, you get two halves of a bill. 1/2=0.5
So now, you take the original dollar bill, and divide it by zero (nothing, or nothing tangible anyways), it's still a dollar bill, whole and unscathed. Reason to believe, you can divide that bill by zero an infinite number of times, and still have a whole bill.

In that specific formula, if velocity equals C, it tells us it would be infinite.

Numbers and theories can be tricky though. I mean, for example:
1/3=0.333333333333333333333 etc...
2/3=0.666666666666666666666 etc...
3/3=0.999999999999999999999 etc... Wait a minute....

Notice my use of 'believe'. I don't think religion and science are so different. Faith, and theory seem interchangeable. Faith with proof to back it up, is the same as theory with proof to back it up. They both work, at least for now. Time, and knowledge, or enlightenment, can and will change all. (The pope even condones evolutionary study, as it is the "ongoing creation of gods master works", both man and universe).

My bic lighter is sorcery to people from 2000 years ago I'm sure. Of course, nowadays, we know that's not the case. But until you can prove without a shadow of a doubt what is going on, all you can do is conjure theories, or have faith, and try to back it up.

Regardless, the formula used, seems to work, but is still a theory, and may well be for many more centuries, until we learn something more. You CAN divide by zero, but only in theory (see: faith).

Plus, Futurama says scientists will increase the speed of light, in order to build faster ships. So what's the worry?

As slightly edited quote of your post.


A sub quote from your post.

That is my argument. I don't understand how this can be. The fact that it happens doesn't mean we understand it. The fact that it falls out of QM doesn't really give us an understanding of it. I am ready to accept it, it has been well demonstrated, so I can't argue with it. But I can say that there must be more to it than "see, there it is".

I have been watching the discussions of the Higgs particle. For a long time people didn't understand how massive particles got that way. Then the Higgs particle was postulated. Now it seems that we have found it. So we have something to point to as to how it works. We still don't have anything to point to for how non-local interactions work. I am still waiting for that before I start jumping up and down and crying "Eureka".

Bill Gill

Gentle readers, you see Paul refuses to accept the fact that the math not only supports the need for infinite energy, but that experiments also support the math. He doesn't need any proof to support his beliefs, but expects us to accept them in the face of proof that all of science is wrong.

Bill Gill

I have asked this on several occasions here on sagg , not
once has it been answered.

Please point to an experiment that supports the math.

but there's no pudding.



its impossible to divide by zero , thats why you cannot divide by zero.

you must divide something by something or you never do make the first division.

if you cannot make even 1 division then infinite division
is also not possible.



I agree.

so , this says that the theory can be proven using
theoretical math , but not actual math.

all we have to do next is to scientifically define zero as
an infinite number that only has a value in theoretical math.

Agreed.



Sounds reasonable in the circumstances.

You need to be consistent, though.



Only in theoretical maths. I challenge anyone to produce an actual example.

I just used my calculator and began dividing 1 by 2

after several minutes this is the result

1.7859177988785546597121617942271e-102

at some point in time the number will
look something like this
1.7859177988785546597121617942271e-17859177988785546597121617942271

if the calculator can do that.

if it cant then the problem is that it cant do it.

theres still something left that can be divided in half.

and its not theoretical , the time that you would have to
do the division would be the kicker , you couldn't live long enough to make all the division's.

but someone else could take over and continue dividing for his entire life , and then leave it to his heirs.

etc...etc...etc...

I don't have a theoretical calculator either it's the standard windows calculator in scientific mode that is.

And so it would go on, one generation after another.

Do you really think one of your descendants would reach a point where he/she would be able to say "I have now divided this an infinite number of times?

In theory? Perhaps.

In practice? Absolutely not.

The challenge is still on.

And thats the point the formula MATCHES classic physics which says a particle without mass has no energy.

QM knows why massless particles have energy but that is not possible under classic physics.

Personally I don't care what you make of it, it is what I said a conversion that will hold to match classic physics and if you followed your own link down to the bit about photons (http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/252/energy_p_reln.html) it will tell you the same thing



So the formula correctly works as required to MATCH old theories.

There is no error in what I have said or the formula you are not reading what I said.

What is catching your out is there are two sorts of mass getting interchanged in this discussion rest mass and relativistic mass perhaps we need to change the symbol m to be m_rel or m_rest so people don't get confused.

In all the above and in your link we are talking about a REST MASS of zero and it does indeed have zero energy even when travelling at the speed of light.

No , I dont.

that's why it's infinite!

it would never end , which equates to infinite.



then you will have to redefine the word "infinite".

that satisfies my opposition.

zero energy = zero kinetic energy.

zero kinetic energy @ c = zero mass

there must be something else , perhaps something similar to a
shockwave that travels in front of a massless particle.

Thats not true QM is quite loud and clear on how it works the mechanism is embedded in the theory and why we knew to do things like wheelers delayed choice experiment.

The problem QM faces is the same as Higgs mechanism we need to get QM to a point where there literally no other choices and scientists are deligently working towards that.

So now I will challenge you to the problem that QM solves in this situation.

So a zero mass particle has zero energy so light must have zero energy by that defininition?????

Yet we know from standing in the sun and seeing things get hot that light must have energy.

See the problem here we have a contradiction ... so lets see how your physics solves it.

Explain the contradiction.

BTW your link does the usual explaination we give to students it LIES to them to avoid talking about QM I love the line

"Light is in fact composed of “photons”—particles having zero “rest mass”, as we shall discuss later. The “rest mass” of a photon is meaningless, since they’re never at rest—the energy of a photon"

I particually like the we shall discuss it later, somehow travelling at the speed of light is special, I had a few teachers like that :-)