Answer : Yes :)
Saturday, October 27, 2012
Monday, October 15, 2012
Yeah, you know what, it is. Not the equation, necessarily, but the theory behind it, and quantum physics will eventually prove me right.
C=Light, and 2 is to square that.
This formula is fantastically accurate at predicting the amount of energy produced by destroying a specific amount of mass. This stunningly accurate math has been taken as proof that mass has been converted into energy. But what if it hasn't? What if the math is proving something else entirely?
Heresy I know, but hear me out for a minute. History is littered with great math seemingly proving bad ideas. They thought electricity was a fluid, for one. That heat was an element, and because the math proved useful, they believed the theory was right for decades.
A useful formula is not proof of a correct theory, it is only proof of a useful formula, and E=MC2 is wonderfully useful. I just don't think it proves mass is actually being destroyed.
Let me take a backward step, for a second.
Water is a wonderful example. If you put lots of energy into water, you can break down the molecule into hydrogen and oxygen. Those atoms 'seemingly' disappeared to a world that knew nothing of 'gasses'. Light a match, and you get most of that energy back (in a loud explosion) and most of that water returns.
Atoms are strange things to contemplate. I believe neutrons don't exist, as many of you know. Not that the idea of neutrons isn't useful, but it is also distracting, like calling Pluto a planet. Neutrons, if separated from the atom, quickly decompose into an electron and a proton after just a few minutes. This means that a neutron is, in actuality, a proton and an electron, not a separate and distinct particle of its own. And its 'neutral' charge doesn't exist either. It is equal parts positive (proton) and negative (electron) that are simply canceling each other out, giving it an illusion of neutrality. But why would I push to ban the use of neutrons? Because it keeps people thinking that there are three types of everything, one positive, one negative, and one neutral. But in reality all the neutral particles are is 'proof' that there's yet another smaller piece of this sub-atomic pie.
Back to E=MC2 and my hydrogen and oxygen example.
The energy released, the E, to me is like the neutron and Pluto argument all over again. The energy being released isn't in any doubt. It's the destruction of the Mass that I question. The energy could easily be released by a proton decomposing into its bundle of 'strings'. The 'strings', for lack of a better word, would not be detectable or measurable by anything we have today. So, to all measurements, the 'Mass' simply disappears, when in reality it doesn't.
Why does this matter?
It matters because, as we dig deeper into quantum physics, we're finding that matter is much harder to destroy than E=MC2 leads us to believe... but like neutrons, every time we dig deeper, dig smaller, we instinctively look for 'neutral' particles, when neutral simply means it can still be divided smaller. The destruction of matter isn't occurring, any more than water is destroyed when the gasses of oxygen and hydrogen are formed.
What does E=MC2 really mean?
It means that, if I'm right, forging protons and quarks and such from a mass of 'strings' requires far more energy than we previously believed. It would also mean that 'strings' don't bind as willingly as it seems, and could easily account for all this 'dark matter' that's left out of the universe. The energy is huge, C squared huge. That means that this extremely useful equation predicts the reluctance of 'strings' to form the kinds of structures that we call matter. This means that solo, free-floating 'strings' are much harder to detect than we would think, and are probably more abundant in the universe than even hydrogen is. A soup of unbound 'strings' could easily account for Dark Matter.
But this also brings up a deeper question.
Can 'strings' (assuming the ludicrous theory that strings are the smallest matter possible) be created out of energy? Or can they be destroyed? I still don't know. If E=MC2 is right, and I'm wrong, then strings can be destroyed. But I suspect they can't. I doubt they can be created either. But most importantly, I don't think E=MC2 has proven that matter can be destroyed... at least, not yet it hasn't.
Thursday, October 4, 2012
5-23-2003 I bought my beloved NEC Versa Daylite. It was an OverPriced laptop that, feature for feature, was inferior to everything on the market with its $999 pricetag. At a grand, most laptops came with DVD, twice the HD, twice the Memory, twice the CPU, bigger screens, and still came in hundreds under its 999.
But the NEC was the only one in the market that had a transreflective screen, and at 10.4" it was also the biggest of its kind. Transreflective. That's a mighty fancy nerd word that still doesn't mean anything to anyone. It wouldn't be until the Kindle, six years later, that the world would have a similar parallel.
Its overpriced transreflective screen is a Daylite screen. This means it can be seen in full daylight, just like with the Kindle E-ink models. But unlike the Kindle's E-ink, a transreflective is Full Color. In other words, you get the full motion, full color and screen size of an iPad, With the readability and ease on the eyes of the E-Ink of the Kindle, Nook, and Sony. Transreflective is the difference between reading something printed on paper and a bright computer screen.
Without this overpriced laptop, I'd never have been able to put in the hours and hours and hours that it took to write the nine novels I have.
You see, I'm one of those that gets painful headaches if I do more than an hour of reading from a traditional screen. I wrote my first book wearing dark sunglasses and eating aspirin like candy, before finding this laptop.
It was a life changer. But, they don't make this screen anymore.
Over the 9 years I've had it, the motherboard has smoked, literal smoke, 8 times. Yeah, it's had lots of problems, but I've kept repairing it because, like mentioned, the screen is irreplaceable. I've lost the Ctrl keys on the keyboard, yet I keep going. I put up with its slow processor and hampering limitations because of that beautiful, easy on the eyes, transreflective screen that has NO Backlight and give me No headaches or eye strain no matter how many hours I put in staring at it.
Today, I found out that, in a careless moment, some bug spray must have landed on it, and, over night, eaten into the thin layer of plastic on the screen. It now, and forever more, will look smudgy.
My irreplaceable. . . is now un-repairable.
This is a painful setback in my writing career.