While I understand that the Uncertainty Principle is a fundamental fact of nature in QM, I was merely referring to what Richard Feynman noted in one of his footnotes which I'm quoting below. Please read the following and see where I might have misunderstood.
Page 55-56 of QED: footnote 3...
I've recently read QED by Richard Feynman and was utterly shocked by how strange the "reality" is. Although I took Physics courses while in college (some 20 years ago -- ancient in Physics terms), I'm willing to bet that not many of today's college graduates (non-Physics majors) are even aware...
Since Mass and Energy are different manifestation of the same thing, yet Mass and Gravity are inter-related, I guess the better question would be "What is Mass?" Given that Mass, however small, is bound by speed of light and does contribute to Gravity while its altered-ego (Energy) does not...
Well, that is more or less how inertia behaves, but I was asking a more fundamental question of why it behaves that way. For example, we know that light bends under the influence of gravity (takes geodesic path), so we can explain such behavior. Now, inertia dictates that an object in motion...
I wish it were that simple. Really, because the concept of gravity has been pulled, stretched, meshed and torn to pieces by various disciplines of physics. Each new theory that comes along seems to deliver different message, so a layperson like myself is bound to get confused.
Having said...
That really explains quite a bit in layman's terms (perfect for guys like me). Thanks.
With all due respect, I think the modern-day science, particularly physics, has taken a turn which makes it nearly impossible for layperson to understand. We all know that reality can be stranger than...
First of all, I’m not well versed in Calculus or other tools required to fully grasp the latest understandings of QM or Relativity, so please take my question with a grain of salt.
My question is simple. Do Gravitons exist?
My intuition impels me to think of Graviton and Gravity in terms...
Thaks, Sir_Deenicus. I'll be sure to catch up on reading the links you provided. To tell you the truth, I wasn't even aware that there was any controversy associated with the origin of inertia.
LOL. Lots of beer? Some might argue that I've consumed too much alcohol to even suggest this type of notion. If you think this is fascinating or crazy, then read the following thread I started on the QM board. It sort of is a continuation of this concept, but related more to QM...
Oh, no. Another thread on Particle/Wave Duality?
Forgive me for starting yet another thread on this topic, but I was just wondering if anyone had a different take on explaining this strange behavior. While I understand that light can behave in both modes, isn't it the observational...
LOL. At least I got a response to this very mundane question.
Okay. Here's my take on it followed by another related question. If I'm off by a lot, then someone please stop and correct me. If I were to take an educated guess at the reason for Inertia, I suppose it has to do with conservation...
When dealing with the concept of Inertia (Newton's First Law of motion), is there an explanation of why this is so or do we accept it for what it is based on observations and experiments? While realizing that asking for more and more underlying reasons can be recursive and has to stop...
As a layman's definition, would it be sufficient to define CM and QM differences as follows?
CM: Macroscopic observations (theories) closely resembling the more accurate results that can be derived through QM.
QM: Probability-based observations (theory) that more accurately describe the...
Interesting. I did further research and reading into the concept of "Singularity" and found your description to be accurate. I suppose that this infinite density concept is relative to the outsider's frame of reference, so is it possible that within the Event Horizon, everything is proceeding...