To the best of my knowledge, General Relativity considers Momentum to be as fundamental a thing as Energy. However, in day-to-day descriptions of Things in Physics, Momentum always seems to be dependent upon something else (such as Mass in motion). It seems to me that if Momentum was truly a...
Regarding the math-trick thing, consider the use of imaginary numbers in electromagnetic engineering.
It is a handy way to keep magnetic-field data separated from electric-field data; nobody considers the
data to actually have an imaginary component. So, because I knew such tricks do get used...
No, I wasn't the one who mentioned the Bondi paper, although I think it was the first of the lot (about negative mass).
Note I did happen to mention Dr. Robert L. Forward as someone who added something to the field --example:
http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/3.23219?journalCode=jpp
A few...
I'm aware that this Topic is generally considered hypothetical, but at least I'm not talking about
something that someone can say, "hey, that's your personal theory". A decent number of
respected physicists have published papers on one aspect of the subject, or another.
There is a...
Then all I can say is that comologists have always been using confusing terminology and analogies.
Their math may be precise, but their English descriptions of the fundamental concepts have
not been adequately clear (in the sense of "means exactly one thing").
I've never considered "Time" to be a geometric Dimension.
Tell me, if cosmologists happen to someday discover that
the large-scale structure of Space has a curvature,
exactly how do you plan on explaining it using Time instead
of a 4th geometric (yes, I've been using that word as a
synonym...
I can agree that if one is "inside/part-of the line" that constitutes the edge of a circle, then one only experiences one Dimension. And if one is "inside/part-of the surface-area" of a sphere, then one only experiences two Dimensions. (As phind pointed out, Fredrick and Simon Bridge were not...
What I explained about a hypersphere was my personal understanding of
what I've read about the expansion of the universe. That is, if a 3D balloon
expands, its surface stretches; if a 4D hypersphere expands, its surface
stretches. And since the surface of a hypersphere really is a volume of...
A number of years before the Internet was born,
I read an article in which the author claimed that,
at the site where the Big Bang happened,
a "naked singularity" should exist.
Like the Big Bang itself, which brought the Observed
Physical Universe into existence, a naked singularity...
Well, I did have one idea, described in messages #8 and #10 of this Thread. So long as I don't know that others have already studied the notion and shown it to be inadequate, I remain hopeful.
Not quite. First, we want a larger-than usual pellet, and second, we don't want to implode it so much that that alone would cause fusions. We want the beam of muons to cause the fusions. So, with a larger pellet and a lesser compression, the time it is compressed should be a lot longer than...
OK, I did not know that; I was confusing the force of attraction with the binding energy. Thank you.
Let me now get back to something mentioned in the original post here. I asked about the possibility of the D+D->4He, with the muon acquiring considerable energy. Well, the book that PAllen...
The binding energy between helium and a muon is only about twice that of the binding energy between hydrogen and a muon. Only two protons in a helium nucleus are doing the attracting, and the muon's electric charge is unchanged.
Yes, the book that PAllen recommended clearly explains how muon...
I'm seeing something in my first post that may have been misinterpreted. "think about adding muons when the pellet has been compressed by a factor of only 7 or 8" --I forgot to indicate that that was supposed to be something like the maximum amount of compression. I did not mean to imply that...
To PAllen: Thank you, and WOW! That book is expensive!
Ah, the fun begins! While I didn't mention this in the first message, it is known that because a muon is 206 times as massive as an electron, when it goes into orbit around a nucleus it orbits 206 times closer than an electron. The the...