# What is the Matter with Einstein?

by purrcy
Tags: einstein, matter
 Sci Advisor PF Gold P: 2,226 Unfortuantely, I'm a very imp[atient person and so I didn't read all of your post, but allow me to point out one thing. Ok, so you don't like the idea that most of the matter in the universe is 'invisible' (but why should we expect it to be of the sort that can be easily observered anyway?), but why pick on the theory of relativty or quantum mechanics? To do claculations on a galactic level we use plain old Newtonian physics, so clearly Newtonian physics must be wrong as well as it also predicts the existance of drak matter (though I could point out this idea is at least worth invetsigation which is why MOND was formulated, but the evidnece seems to come out in favour of cold dark matter theories).
HW Helper
P: 6,505
 Quote by purrcy .To think that 96% of the matter in the universe is invisible, right in front of our eyes and we can't see it except for its interaction with matter is a very unsettling thought.
I was wondering, do neutrinos unsettle you? Recent data establishes that neutrinos have rest mass. Since they have mass and do not interact with EM phenomena, they contribute to the dark matter in the universe. This has little to do with relativity.

 Einstein based his theory on the fact that light has the same speed for all observers. He didn't bother to determine why it is so, just that the Lorentz transformation must be a result of its fact.
Of course he determined why it is so. It follows from the principle of relativity: that all inertial observers agree on the laws of physics. Since the speed of light is determined by electromagnetic constants, $\epsilon_0 , \mu_0$ if they are the same for all inertial observers, the speed of light will be the same for all inertial observers.

 Since then, nobody has bothered to determine just why light travels at the speed that it does, and no other!
I just gave you the reason: Maxwell's equations provide that $c = 1/\sqrt{\epsilon_0 \mu_0}$.

 Einstein did not bother to include the multidimensional state of matter, nor the possibility that time might be multidimensional even though he required the use of the square root of minus one in his equations.
Where exactly does SR require imaginary numbers?

 We should have known that their must be something wrong with Relativity when it disagreed with Quantum Mechanics, and when it predicted that it takes an infinite amount of energy to force a particle of mass to reach the speed of light! It is amazing that no one has determined why!
I don't think it is correct to say that relativity disagrees with QM. The reason it takes an infinite amount of energy to reach the speed of light because a particle with rest mass cannot reach the speed of light. It cannot reach the speed of light because light will always move away from a particle with rest mass - at the speed of light.

 Ever since I was a graduate student I have been bothered that a particles mass must increase with its speed. That was the point when it became apparent to me that particles don't reach the speed of light, waves do; and, in particular, matter waves do.
What matter waves reach the speed of light? Not de Broglie waves.

 Relativity indicates that the wave travels in imaginary time and that the particle is stationary during real time.
What part of relativity says this?

AM

 Related Discussions Astrophysics 4 High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics 2 Astrophysics 0 Medical Sciences 5 General Physics 4