Bounce Light off Light?

No. Ben didn't say that. Read what he said. If your comprehension skills are this poor, how do you possibly keep your job?!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Have you been reading things by Farsight?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

A lot of physicists would disagree, but not about the cosmological principle being out of 122 magnitudes of order.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The Dirac sea was corrected about 70 years ago. So no, they don't agree.

How would you know anyway, you don't read lecture notes or text books.

 

I don't know about these corrections, however, the Dirac Model of the Sea of electrons fits perfectly into the model of a single electron moving through spacetime. If there is a mistake, then please, show me. I know that the Dirac Model describes a relativistic electron. If there is no relativistic electron, then there is no sea, and if there is no sea, then relativity does not hold for a single electron.

 

And there is a 2000-odd year old model of the Dirac Sea which Fred Alan Wolf used. If it wasn't in operation, he would never had used it.

 

A good synopsis of the "Dirac Sea", and the correction to it, is found at Wikipedia.

 

Thanks for answering my question.:bugeye:

 

When did I say all fundamental strings were photons?

 

Please, someone tell me, about these so-called corrections, without me having to look into those antiquated relics.

 

The Dirac sea came from the interpretation of scalar field theory in spinor field theory. Dirac initially interpreted the matter/antimatter nature of spinor fields using the ideas he'd come up with in scalar field theory, but he then realised that is wrong.

Why don't you learn some quantum mechanics?

 

If fundamental strings are the fundamental entity of physical reality, and the universe eventually expands into a state of only photons, then it is reasonable to conclude that all fundamental strings are photons. Why is this wrong?

 

Why not tell me something i don't know?

 

I thought he was doing exactly that?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=83914

PDE stands for 'partial differential equation'. You claim to know vector calculus yet you don't know what 'PDE' stands for?! :shrug:

 

I don't really know any string theory tbh, but if I was asked that question, I'd say: "because the universe still contains particles that are not photons".

Although any of these quanta have an equivalent (in photon or energy terms, as Einstein tells us). Equivalent energy isn't the same as equivalent mass (or stringiness), it's only equivalent.

 

Nonsense. PDE stands for "pickled dessicated elephant."

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Firstly, think about the gap in logic. The only thing that your first statement implies is that there are only photons in the universe.

secondly, who said there would only be photons left?

 

It is possible to collide photons and create new matter.

 

What do you mean by new matter?