Search of the Ultimate Particle
The search for comprehension of the 'Theory' has led many into a maze of misunderstanding & misconceptions;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation which has been accepted as the authority on the atomos => cosmos.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave-particle_duality In physics and chemistry, wave–particle duality is the concept that all matter exhibits both wave-like and particle-like properties. A central concept of quantum mechanics, duality addresses the inadequacy of classical concepts like "particle" and "wave" in fully describing the behavior of objects. Various interpretations of quantum mechanics attempt to explain this ostensible paradox.
The idea of duality is rooted in a debate over the nature of light and matter dating back to the 1600s, when competing theories of light were proposed by Christiaan Huygens and Isaac Newton. Through the work of Albert Einstein, Louis de Broglie and many others, current scientific theory holds that all particles also have a wave nature.[1] This phenomenon has been verified not only for elementary particles, but also for compound particles like atoms and even molecules. In fact, according to traditional formulations of non-relativistic quantum mechanics, wave–particle duality applies to all objects, even macroscopic ones; the reason we can't detect wave properties of macroscopic objects is their small wavelength.[2]
I tend toward the 'Thomas side' having doubts till disproved or shown some viable set (conceptions) which arise in relationship to our natural or normal forms & mathematical relationships based on more direct observations (measurable quantities / of distinct qualities).
de Broglie's hypothesis
Main article: de Broglie hypothesis
In 1924, Louis-Victor de Broglie formulated the de Broglie hypothesis, claiming that all matter,[4][5] not just light, has a wave-like nature; he related wavelength (denoted as λ
, and momentum (denoted as p):
h x λ = p
This is a generalization of Einstein's equation above, since the momentum of a photon is given by p=E/c and the wavelength by λ=c/f, where c is the speed of light in vacuum.
De Broglie's formula was confirmed three years later for electrons (which differ from photons in having a rest mass) with the observation of electron diffraction in two independent experiments. At the University of Aberdeen, George Paget Thomson passed a beam of electrons through a thin metal film and observed the predicted interference patterns. At Bell Labs Clinton Joseph Davisson and Lester Halbert Germer guided their beam through a crystalline grid.
De Broglie was awarded the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1929 for his hypothesis. Thomson and Davisson shared the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1937 for their experimental work.
Although the general consensus defines particles in Relativistic manner, I tend toward an inertial model.
The historical aspect of the atmos extended into sets of relationships (Laws of Physics) based upon distinct particle & specific actions (changes in potential [positional] energy or the changes in energy) relative to that system. Which gives continuity to the various conceptionalizations relating to these (math) functions
ie. => Particles in Motion => the action/reaction nature of the Duality (mass/energy).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Special_relativity Edgerck, your comments are irrelevant as we are talking about the "rest" mass here. Your version of the article suggest that energy is not conserved. The total energy of an isolated system in it's own rest frame is, by definition equal to it's mass. That's how mass (a.k.a. rest mass or invariant mass) is defined. Count Iblis 23:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
CI: This means that you want to make that extensive change just because you think that the statement 'any mass can be converted to energy' should have "rest mass" instead of "mass"?
On another topic, the HTML mark up comment that I added to the text is just visible to editors, to prevent editors falling into common traps. Do you have a question about the mark up? Thanks. Edgerck 00:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
The other items in the list also have clarifications, so why not this one? Many people don't understand the meaning of E = m c^2, they think that it says that mass can be converted into energy where "conversion" is meant in the literal sense, i.e. they wrongly think that you have a decrease in mass and an increase in energy. We need to emphasize that total energy is conserved. This can be done by giving an example of a reaction involving particles in which the sum of the masses of the particles changes.
field fuctuations ie. => mass-less particles being the product of other levels of interaction or results of particle behaviour.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Formulation_of_Maxwell%27s_equations_i
n_special_relativity Four-vector notation
I was trying to figure out the notation, like for starters, what are the superscripts a and b? So I went to four-vector, where it is explained "for a = 0, 1, 2, 3". Now what the heck does that mean? Do these four small integers have some special significance that someone could just tell us please? Dicklyon 20:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
The superscripts are a shorthand labelling convention. So, for example, Ua (a=0,1,2,3) means that if you put a=0, you get U0, a=1, you get U1 etc.... In more detail: (Ua) = (U0,U1,U2,U3)
The 'four-vector' business, just means, roughly, that the Ua thingy is a vector with 4 components - U0 is the 0th component, U1 is the 1st component etc.... Hope that helps. MP (talk) 20:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
OK, but then the symbol with superscript can be either a whole 4-vector, or a component, depending on context or what? Seems awkward. Dicklyon 06:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Ua for (a=0,1,2,3) is a 4-vector, and U0,U1,U2,U3 are it's components. Each component has a single scalar value while the vector contains all four scalar values (see Einstein notation). In relativity, (0,1,2,3) are typically taken to be (t,x,y,z). Because time and space as we know them from day-to-day experience are only a special case in relativity, numerical indices are used for generality. Also, "for (a=t,x,y,z)" just looks rediculous.
~~~~ Clay Turtle
My Posts
72yrs • M • 
