0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Since particles and antiparticles are created in equal numbers and annihilate each other on contact, there should be no particles in the universe, as there are no antiparticles. My theory to explain this discrepancy is that the particles are moving forwards in time while the antiparticles are moving backwards. Since time only moves forward, we experience the particles which then annihilate with antiparticles when we are past them in time. So the past is continually annihilating while we continue to surf ahead, experiencing the future. This would explain why time only moves in one direction (there's no past to go back to).
God called: He wants his gap back.
This would explain why time only moves in one direction (there's no past to go back to).
Certainly if time stopped you wouldn't expect to see any of these things. And if nothing moved or changed or aged etc. you would expect that time had stopped. So it's logical to expect that time is moving and that we call that movement forward, unless we see any contrary measurement.
Einstein showed that spacetime is an entity. Even in an empty universe special relativity would apply.
I'll stick with Einstein (as long as he agrees with me :-))
Einstein also believed that the past, future, and present all existed at the same moment....(( BUNK !! )) he was a genius and exceptional thinker, but he "did not" understand or know everything.....
"time" does not move in any direction. Time is observation, based on the observer. it does not exist, as a "thing"..... time is the observation of -- expansion, progression, growth, aging, decay, movement, orbits, planetary spins, seasons, etc.etc.etc.
Quote from: Emc2 on 08/09/2012 05:46:40 Einstein also believed that the past, future, and present all existed at the same moment....(( BUNK !! )) he was a genius and exceptional thinker, but he "did not" understand or know everything.....As opposed to the forum writer who names himself after Einstein's famous theory? LOL a genius, but a genius that still had so much to learn....Quote from: Emc2 on 06/09/2012 11:06:46 "time" does not move in any direction. Time is observation, based on the observer. it does not exist, as a "thing"..... time is the observation of -- expansion, progression, growth, aging, decay, movement, orbits, planetary spins, seasons, etc.etc.etc.Emc2, I still find your definition of time frustrating and unhelpful. Whether it is a measureable quantity or an abstract concept, it is the title given to what pretty much everyone will agree is the changing of the past into the future. I personally believe it is a dimension of space perpendicular to the other main three, as I have stated in other posts. Yes, everyone says time means many things....and my definition is my belief..Quote from: grizelda on 02/09/2012 20:26:36 Since particles and antiparticles are created in equal numbers and annihilate each other on contact, there should be no particles in the universe, as there are no antiparticles. My theory to explain this discrepancy is that the particles are moving forwards in time while the antiparticles are moving backwards. Since time only moves forward, we experience the particles which then annihilate with antiparticles when we are past them in time. So the past is continually annihilating while we continue to surf ahead, experiencing the future. This would explain why time only moves in one direction (there's no past to go back to).This raises headache-inducing concepts. What happens to anti-matter particles that are created in a laboratory and exist for a finite amount of time? Does this then mean that some (non-anti) particles could actually slip back in time?
First I would respond: What is your definition of mass? mass : http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/dict_jp.html#mass [Links inactive - To make links active and clickable, login or click here to register]( A measure of the total amount of material in a body, defined either by the inertial properties of the body or by its gravitational influence on other bodies. )Secondly: Wave theory is a …theory. NO it is not.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%80%93particle_duality [Links inactive - To make links active and clickable, login or click here to register] ( This phenomenon has been verified not only for elementary particles, but also for compound particles like atoms and even molecules ) I may or may not have a “mass” as well I may or may not be a product of a “wave phenomenon. “ You HAVE mass, there is no may or may not..... I ain't even reading the rest, too long....but Mass exists, and you have it, Photons DO NOT ... Period..I will not engage you in a discussion of what mass is. We all have done our research and form our own conclusions about this quirky…concept. Suffice to say there are a variety of definitions of what mass is.. In my personal opining after considering THIS dilemma (not any less ambiguous than the understanding of the Higgs Field) and after sifting out all the lingo and interpretation’s. I do not ascribe to “mass theory.” I do not feel that there is any such thing as real mass or weight as opposed to those things considered as not having mass. You refer to the sub-Atomic level as having “miniscule mass”…I would say that you came to this conclusion because you or someone else simply “measured something.” and derived from that o measurement what you call “mass”. in reality all you discovered was a “force of resistance” relative to acceleration. You did not discover a “mass of resistance” nor a “mass of acceleration” but a “force of resistance”. Their in lies the contradiction. At what point in that experiment did you equate mass with energy or force? Rather. Mass IS energy that apparently is being acted upon by weaker or stronger .other energy. A mass is not a force rather may be acted upon by a force. A force is not a mass rather may be perceived as either greater or lesser in strength. Thus your experiment would more describe “mass” as a force or an acceleration of force verses any having of weight or acquiring more weight. Weight is not an appropriate concept relative to an understanding of a “measurement” of “a body.” Whether at rest or acted upon resulting in perceived acceleration. When we say it is getting more or less mass (weight) we are really saying it is getting more or less energy or force or acceleration. The concept of weight or mass as defined nowadays is superfluous. So-called mass is a… magnitude …measured relative to the energy side. If this were true then the real and greater mass would be found on the greater resistance or greater acceleration side verses a mass that is obviously less capable of resisting or acceleration if the force isn’t there. Thus it is the force of resistance or acceleration that describes the side where the energy dwells and as subsequently acting upon the other lesser energy form (mass). This seems to be describing E=mc2. However I think we could rewrite this equation to read EI2=EF-R(EF)=EIC..where the squaring of light speed (reflection of light) occurs before the right side comes into existence. And that: The right side existing is contingent upon the squaring of light. Where the left side exists independently and at the constant speed of light. And where the right side begins to exist when the left side decides to square itself (reflect itself..in part) at that particular point. (Where I=Infinite; and where F=finite of infinite; and where R=reflect; and where E=energy; and where C= constant speed of light; and where 2 = the Higgs field illusion of the squaring of the speed of light) Light speed squared. Represents the HIGGS FIELD. What do I mean when I describe the Higgs field as producing the relativity between the infinite energy and the finite energy? First I am saying that neither side has or acquires any real weight. But both sides have volume of force (resistance) as opposed to the force of the other side. As well both sides can be relatively observed as either accelerating this force or not. Such “measuring” ideology or conclusions I think are erroneous. Rather each side is a force that can either be perceived as yielding to (consistent with) or perceived as resisting (contrary to the direction) the perceived acceleration of the other side. I am speaking of energy (on both sides) as being entropic! Where “acceleration” =progressing one direction verses another direction as opposed to the direction of another.Here I am saying that though both sides may be traveling at the same speed they can choose which direction to go at that speed. They can choose to go toward each other or away from each other in any and all possible directions. If they are traveling the same direction and same speed then a relative observer would perceive no relative accelerations or decelerations. If they are moving away from each other then acceleration will appear to be more or less. The exact direction (angle or degree) of one as opposed to the exact direction of the other will determine how a relative observer will perceive the speed of one relative to the other. The Higgs Field allows this entropic energy exchange. Thus the Higgs Field is neither a particle nor a wave; it is neither EI nor EF. The Higgs field is that medium that creates the relativity of both sides to each other. The Higgs field could be stated as being the reflective scenario..allowing all energies to reflect each other. Remove the Higgs field and no relativity reflecting exists. No relativity exists between the Infinite energy (reflector) side and the finite (of infinite) energy side. (Reflectee)I would condense this postulate and simply say that the Higgs field is the very reflective plane or aether that exists in the universe that results in the relativity of energy to what we call mass. The EI side reflects to this field and thus its energy source is represented upon the plane and produces copies of its energy and quality to the screen. This would represent a qualifying of the “Holographic scenario“ proposed by Verlinde. Here I am referring to holography as expressing the relationship between real energy and reflected energy. Or ..for for the sake of not totally invalidating your desire to cling to “mass thinking”: The relationship between the bulk mass of all that is and the plane mass that is derived from the bulk mass.As in my former post illustrations ( as well responses to other threads) I will continue to broaden the ball mirror(s) analogy to now show where the Higgs field fits in. The ball = EI. The mirror(s)=Higgs Field. The objects in mirror=EF. And where: Objects in mirror may be closer than they appear.Or: E2=HG(mc)xmc=E2..divided by HG=ECWhere E= Energy source of all “other” energies.Where the =(equal sign) expresses the relativity of E to mc.Where HG= causes the relativity of the left side to the right side. (Reflection)Where 2= the reflection of E to a reflective plane ( the Higgs field) Where mc= the speed of the reflected image ( 186,000) (a form of light that travels the same as and the same speed as the speed of light.)Where E2= EC x EC(C2 via higgs field) =m(constant speed of light….. reflected)x EC(Constant speed of light=E@Does a mass have mass BEFORE it is influenced by the Higggs Field? What is it about the higgs field that causes the mass to acquire its mass? What is the mass before it acquires its mass? Mass is energy. Energy is mass. Thus mass” is energy before it intersects with the Higgs field. Energy is mass when it intersects with the Higgs field. Thus the Higgs field is that which converts one form of energy to another form of energy. The Higgs field is that which converts one form of mass (gigantic: comprising all that is) to other forms of mass (miniscule in comparison the whole of which it is part.)In this scenario both sides are energy. Both sides are mass. It is the Higgs field that allows the invisible mass/ energy of the left side to be represented on the right side as visible geometric representations. If we want to know the quality and infiniteness of the left side all we have to do is observe the invisible side by seeing what it looks like when it is made visible ( due to the Higgs field) . We can do this by looking around us everywhere and realizing the infinite reflections of the left side. By so doing we can come to understand the infinite beauty, elegance, intelligence, shape, quality, purpose and entropic choices that describe the left side. We may ..in such observations see evidence of how visible the left side really is.