I do agree that it is really an increase in energy not mass, not the kind of mass that we usually have in mind. The particles with higher velocities and energies correspodingly live longer principally because of the Lorentz contraction. A particles starts decaying because the electromagnetic...
What experiment do you have in mind? I can assure you, that at the end it will come to changes in particles' mass and energy and thus their life times, - and these do not have to be explained by using relativistic concepts. They can be very well explained in much more simplistic terms as I have...
Simultaneity
Refer to the diagram on this page, - http://www.bun.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~suchii/Einstein/rel.TS.html
Since the train is in motion, its length will contract just by the right amount so that M' will move L = L_o(sqrt(1-v^2/c^2))/2 to the left just the right amount for it to coincide...
I have arrived at the conclusion that relativity is by no means the only explanation for the so called 'relativistic effects'. I shall go through the following phenomena that a currently accepted as a proof that SR is correct and show that they can be given an explanation in terms of absolute...
A force in itself has no particular meaning but is rather defined by its effects. Thus what is usually meant by the magnitude of a force is really a rate, a change of momentum with time (or a derivative of momentum with respect to time). Hence, it is irrelevant whether particle-wave's position...
Here is a purely theoretical argument that all energy no matter its boundary conditions should come in discrete amounts:
Let us consider the energy of a free electron, suppose that energy is continuus, or that J is a real number E in continuum. Since J = kg(m/sec)^2, and if kg, m and sec are...
The graphs that you have shown above are not much diffrent from the example I cited myself in that that they appear to our human eye to be continuus but this is by no means a verification or a proof that it is so. Refer to my previous reply. They might be suggestive enough to a human eye just...
I do understand the uncertainty principle quite well and agree with you on the fact that it is impossible to determine whether a variable is quantazed or continuus by means of a direct measurement. However, the photoelectric effect can only be explained with energy quantized. Now, how is it...
Experiments? No experiment can ever show that allowed values for a free electron form a continuum. The Uncertainty Principle will make it impossible for an error to me as small as desired thus resulting in error intervals and that makes it impossible to verify a continuum of a variable. Again...
Space and time do not have to be continuus. And how can energy be either continuus or discrete under different conditions?The conditions are defined by the units of mass, distance and time and if one of them is allowed to be continuus, then it should be possible to have continuus energy values...
Since energy units are J = kg (m/sec)^2, and this quantaty is discrete, if one of the units is continious, then it can be either irrational or rational number and could make J any irrational or rational number as well. In other words for every real number n of a unit in continuum there is a...
I've approached my original problem differently and now have an equation of the type Acos x = Bcos((pi)x/C)). I have a problem expanding it however. Is there an identity that expands cos(ax) into cos x + f(x) or (cos x)f(x) ?
I came upon an equation similar to 0 = (cos x)^2 - x^2 or even 0 = cos x - x and i don't have a clue how to solve it analytically. I tried taking inverse cosine function on both sides but that still doesn't isolate the x. How would you do it?
Is there such thing as discrete calculus? Or are there general rules to find derivatives and integrals of functions whose domains are restricted to integers or some other discrete values?