Recent content by BertMorrien

I don't have problems with the link, but the content may depend on your particular browser. SA's way of advertising is a bit anoying. Try to get rid of ads by clicking on the X.

The name "virtual particle" suggests that there is something like "real particle", but we know that the name "particle" in quantum physics means something else than a classical particle. In this sense a virtual particle is as real as a 'real' particle, but it cannot be observed directly...

This is not accordingly to what I understand from special relativity. When matter gains speed, it's mass increases, so it is always equal to ##mc^2##. This is the reason why the speed cannot become c, the energy would become infinite. The energy is never greater than ##mc^2##. What you mean is...

I was not immediately aware of that, but this blog was still open. Sorry for my reference, at least I was explicitely talking about untested ideas. FYI there are several articles on the same subject available at arXiv. The article I was referring to was probably about an idea that was ruled out...

The next link may be appropriate. http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2010/nov/19/information-converted-to-energy This relation is intuitively more challenging than e=m, because a photon can be thought of as pure kinetic energy while an electron in rest as pure kinetic energy in the form of...

e=mc2 Divide left and right by c2, we get e/c2=m Choose another unit for e by multiplying it by c2 so we get e=m I think the equivalence is as profound as it looks. This is not all. There is just such an equivalence between energy and information.

Since there are by definition no obervations of what's behind the event horizon, a black hole can only be described in terms of phenomena that are observed. Maybe matter that falls in a black hole experience only a gravity gradient and maybe this gradient can become strong enough to tear protons...

bapowell,Like I said before, don't take this too seriously. I think there really was a Big Bang, and I think the CMB is really a remnant of it. I suspect that I am not the only one who is confused by trying to get a mental image of the universe. You have to take into account that the further...

bapowell, Thanks for your response. I am not trying to be humble, that is not productive. I wrote: "Since we cannot say anything definitive about what is beyond either horizon, we can speculate freely about it." Your response: "Not too freely. We shouldn't speculate that beyond either horizon...

bapowell, Me thinks that if we can observe the CMB, we do not observe the unobservable universe here. But feel free to try again.

[The CMB background temperature is 2.72K which is equivalent to that of a subsolar mass Schwarzschild black hole.] I understand that, but only if you assume that the UU itself is a black hole (BH); this is not what I assumed, I assumed that our OU is a BH for a hypothetical observer in the UU...

Why? The reason is imho very simple. Since we cannot say anything definitive about what is beyond either horizon, we can speculate freely about it. Because our universe has no boundary, the 'shape' of the observable universe (OU) is topologically equivalent to the 'shape' of the unobservable...

It struck me that there should be an equivalence between the event horizon of a black hole and the 'horizon' of the observable universe. Googling brought me at this blog, so apparently other people have been thinking along the same line of reasoning. There should be even the equivalence of...

The ear responds in a non linear way, so that's where modulation must occur. I am familiar with both superhet's and piano tuning. See also http://www.indiana.edu/~audres/Publications/humes/papers/18_Humes.pdf

In http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.4897v2 an alternative analysis of the previous data is mentioned. Quote from page 23: " An alternative method to extract the value of delta-t consists in building the likelihood function by associating each neutrino interaction to its waveform instead of...