A Little Tiny Point - Stephen Hawking's Universe

[Max™]

Electrons can be entangled and have (albeit small) rest masses.

Relativistic mass is from a body being in motion, Rest mass is the "proper" mass of a body.

[Profpat]

Electrons can be entangled and have (albeit small) rest masses.

Relativistic mass is from a body being in motion, Rest mass is the "proper" mass of a body.

Hi Max;

Isn't the electron's rest mass arbitrarily set at one, and from that you get the proton's at ~1836, and the neutron at ~ 1839

[Max™]

It can be using different units.

You can also take the Electron mass in comparison to Voltage and whatnot for 0.511 MeV.

[cosvis]

Hi Max, Pat and all,

I believe the quantum particle has no rest mass but it is measured as a constant unit of energy, the minimum possible, although it has both a particle and a wave dimension. According to Einstein, all mass particles including the electron, are constituted by a definite quantity of energy or quanta particles.

If the experiments done on the "non-locality" entanglement of quanta particles are correct, than I think, it places the quanta particles in a new and unique dimensional state which might be called the fifth dimension of physical reality, apart from the fourth dimensional state of Einstein's relativity relativity.

Yours Cosvis.

[RascalPuff]

The point subjected at the commencement of this thread ('A Little Tiny Point' - Stephen Hawking's Universe, 1997) is that Hawking's big bang theory has long since evolved in to an elaborate series of 'adjustments'; moreover, there's a, genre of proclamations that 'Hubble discovered the big bang theory', for example; whereas, what Silpher and Hubble discovered was the red shift expanding universe (from which the 'big bang' was derived).

There are also proclamations that 'Einstein predicted the big bang theory', whereas, what Einstein predicted (in 1919) was an expanding universe - about a dozen years before Silpher's spectroscopic findings and Hubble's red shift interpretation; about 35 years before the 'cosmic background radiation' was discovered, thence (from the early '60s) interpreted as the residual aftermath of a 'big bang beginning'.

The 'spontaneous creation of Hydrogen' awkwardly propping up the Steady State theory was at that point abandoned (by Bondi, Gold and Hoyle), and has been abandoned ever since, mainly because it contradicts the law of conservation of mass energy. As I have said before and reiterate in future portions of this revived thread, cosmic background radiation is not exclusively explained by any so called 'big bang beginning'. Whereas, CMBR may be the result of of any expanding universe outline, entailing a more dense universe in the past, the results of which are observed in the present.

The record will now splice in to a previous discussion (Einstein's 'biggest blunder' was right after all), which includes a skunk fight that culminates into a rosey conclusion and delivers the reader to an alternative explanation for the observed red shift expanding universe (besides that of the 'big bang'):
http://www.toequest.com/forum/toe-th...after-all.html - the url provided at the closing of this discussion accesses the reader to a dissertation entitled: TOTAL FIELD THEORY: The Reinstatement of Einstein's Presently Abandoned Unified Field & Steady State Theories; which accomodates an expanding universe as well as having predicted it to be accelerating - without the need for a 'big bang beginning', or the 'spontaneous creation of hydrogen'.

Best regards,
- RP