0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
"Momentum charge" is the charge necessary for a particle to be able to carry momentum
The thing that allows particles to carry momentum is called "mass".
yet it must have something like mass.
"Momentum charge" is the charge necessary for a particle to be able to carry momentum.
yet it must have something like mass.
That "something" is called energy. E=mc2.
Please provide evidence that a "charge" is necessary in order for an object to carry momentum.
Energy is just a number.
momentum charge or mass charge
No, it's a quantity.
Inventing another phrase doesn't make things better.
You can't apply a force to a quantity. "Quantity" is abstract about something.
So it doesn't make sense to say a particle with quantity follows a curved path because it has quantity. It must have something tangible corresponding to the quantity.
What else are you going to call it: you can't call it "mass charge".
How are you defining "tangible"?
How about simply "mass"? Photons have relativistic mass.
You can't apply a force to a quantity.
A left out spacetime event on a circle in a Riemann Sphere. Thus related to a set with additional structure.
I just think it is paradoxical since one also calls a photon "massless".
First, before you invent a name for it, you have to demonstrate that it's actually real.
How are you defining"A left out spacetime event on a circle in a Riemann Sphere. Thus related to a set with additional structure."
Photons are uncharged, yet you seem happy to say they have a charge.
charge is a quantity.
They showed it is real with the experiment about bent starlight.
A circle and Riemann Sphere are defined in mathematics books.
"Quantity" is abstract about something.
For "left out spacetime node" I will say it is a hole in the circle in the Riemann Sphere.
This is equivalent to a set with additional structures.
I call all properties (not spin, position or velocity) "charges" since I code them using identical methods on a circle in a Riemann Sphere.
I define them as quantities with additional structures.
A left out spacetime event on a circle in a Riemann Sphere.
Yes, they showed that it has mass.
And they are abstract concepts with no physical reality.
How do you define "a set with additional structures."?
OK, so you deliberately choose to misuse a word,
That's not a definition; it is word salad.
Can you rephrase that in a way that the average person can understand?
I have proof they are real. Not objective proof.
A hole in a circle in a Riemann Sphere. A Riemann Sphere is the Complex plane rolled into a sphere such that the plane maps to the sphere by stereographic projection.
It can be interpreted that they showed it has momentum. E = pc.
The structures are a metric plus a map that maps physical space to a Riemann Sphere, presumably the edges and nodes of a graph too.
I've seen the term "mass charge" used
A hole in a circle in a Riemann Sphere.
just a description of a definition.
A circle and Riemann Sphere are defined in mathematics books. For "left out spacetime node" I will say it is a hole in the circle in the Riemann Sphere. This is equivalent to a set with additional structures.
In short, do you really know what your are talking about as opposed to just throwing fancy words around?
It is improper terminology to say ‘a set with additional structures’
A circle drawn on representation of a Riemann sphere will generally not look like a circle but will be ‘squashed’ in the direction of the ∞ pole.
Please explain what you intended to be understood by ‘a circle in the Riemann Sphere and how it fits into your explanation. Presumably, you meant ‘on’ and not ‘in’. There is no ‘in’ relative to a Riemann Sphere. It is all surface.
By describing a ‘left out spacetime node’ as a hole in the Riemann Sphere. It would appear that you mean some region of the Riemann Sphere cannot be the result of any calculation, that the coordinates interior to this region are forbidden in some fashion. Can you shed any light on what these coordinates might be and how you came to determine them? And how does the ‘circle’ come into play?
Also why are you representing spacetime as a Riemann Sphere? The time dimension requires the use of imaginary numbers. But you need three real dimensions to represent spatial coordinates. How do you map these three dimensions onto a Riemann Sphere?
And what features are you endowing to the complex (involving imaginary numbers) structure (set with features) of the Riemann Sphere that results in a ‘hole’?
Why did you think that would help?
Yes, but how do you define it in this context- in a way that actually helps to say what the thing actually is?
Do you understand how that rules out the idea that it is "real" in either the colloquial or the mathematical senses?
Please try harder.
Please show this proof.
That didn't help. At all.