Quote
Classically, 0K means no motion at all so no acceleration to further reduce, but this certainly isn't the correct description. In a proper quantum treatment, 0K means everything in its ground state, I don't see how magnetic fields could further reduce accelerations.
A ground state, it predicts that atoms are no longer as massive as a whole. Up above 0k atomic accelerations occur. The theory predicts these motions of atoms from energy, gives mass or force to the atoms, by accelerating the inner quantum motions. Similar to shaking a bowling ball in your hands, as if the bowling ball was an atom, and the inside 'atoms' were quantum material, as you shake it you increase the velocities that much closer to C, and you are met with the force of mass; momentum and inertia.
By putting the atoms to rest. You find a new state of matter. Matter that is less mass.
A magnetic field is predicted as relativistic space. By introducing the rest atoms with a magnetic field the quantum material would be placed in a possible expanded space. The atoms would not accelerate, thus the quantum fluctuations are in a enviroment that will force them to act different relative to another frame. This is that they will reduce inner energy, relative to us, by observing space expand in their own frame. Its a prediction of course, and a far stretched one. But logically the frames of the 0k should become potential space or energy once the magnetic field is let off, the quantum fluctuations will observe space contract, which relative to an observer of this 0k state, should cause it to become more energetic.
Quote
If you claim you would have removed all the body's rest energy, which "pure energy" would be left over?
I really haven't had the time to follow your algebra exactly but I noticed you seem to be using "E" for energy and also for electric field. I was wondering if you had been careful enough not to confuse these two but I couldn't say. Have you made sure of this?
I may have used E for electric field before but I WAS aware of that. I do not beleive I have used electric field in the recent equations.
However I did find an error in the following:
\frac {\left( \frac {\left(\frac{F}{a}\right)v} {\sqrt{1- \frac{v^2}{c^2}}}\right) }{dt} = \left({1 \over {\sqrt{1- \frac{u^2}{c^2}}}} \right) \left( \frac {E}{c^2}\right)
it should be
The left side is Total mass, the actions that create mass. The right side is the value of that mass and what forms that value.
It comes from this:
It repeditivly expands in this manner.
What the point of this expansion is to show is that the 'a', or the accerlation as a whole of a group of internal velocities(accelerations) affects eachother down the line. So the mass value of an object at rest, is a function of these actions on the left. if you create an accleration in the final 'a' (at the bottom) it affects all the other acelerations and forces down the line, which is met with relavistic changes, further down the line than up the line (down the line being the high energy areas of the atom.
Of course this is in respect to this theory, which I neither beleive or disbelieve. I am just expressing a prediction it forms, however I lack the mathatic ability and knowledge to show this in any other form.
Help
Join now
Sign in
Promote to Article
:lol:
relativistic effects, multiplied by the energy limit devided by the universal constant.
