All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Past hour
  2. Theorizing Factors Behind Quantum Field Phenomena

    ........................"Did you read any of the materials I already provided? some of this information is contained in the Simple introduction to Particle physics articles. Think of interference of wavefunctions, after all every quantum number has a wavefunction probability function."..................... My question is entirely different. I am still searching for the accurate words to explain myself. I wil raise more practical questions in the future. If I describe myself, then time slows down when particles start moving at speeds closer to the speed of light. Can we use this 'time dilation' feature in Leptons, Bosons, etc. to explain their physical structures, and how their physical structures relate to the speicfic properties or behaviors noted during lab experiments? If anyone makes such an attempt, then where he should go to share his basic mathematical work? Which will be the right group of people to approach for sharing the thoughts.
  3. Today
  4. By being implemented in the hardware of the brain. If this does not satisfy you, let's rephrase your question to the terrain of computers: If you move away from the silicon physics perspective I've been treating as both central and foundational to this issue, then by what specific alternative mechanism can software itself have the type of causal impact on the actual world around us you're mentioning above? Nobody denies that computers are based on sound physical principles. Nobody denies that the pattern of pixels on the screen are caused by the program running on the computer. The problem you still have is that behind your question lies a presupposition: that consciousness is somehow separate from the brain. It isn't, just as the running software is not separate from the processes in the computer. There is just one system, seen from different stances.
  5. A perfect example of the caricatural (re)presentation of the double slit experiment is given in https://youtu.be/A9tKncAdlHQ To his defense I must point out that Jim Al Khalili, whose reputation as a scientist and a popularizer of science is deservedly beyond reproach, is here only presenting a universally accepted interpretation of the phenomenon.
  6. Wormhole Metric...... How is this screwed up.

    Let's see if this is still a polymorphic code. Polymorphic L2ghost QE = L1ghost QE All values equal 2 or 1, besides constants. ∇2'(x,y,z,t,ωs,ωp,M,I,k,φ,S,X,Z,μ,Y,q,a,β) = (((ħ2 /(2Erest/C2)) ∑3a =1 (d2/d((C2/Erest)∑Ni = 1 MiRi)2) + (1/2)∑3a,β = 1 μaβ(Pa - Πa)(Pβ - Πβ) + U - (ħ2/2)∑3N-6s=1(d2/dq2) + V)((|(Log(DgDaDψDφ-W)(((2ħGC2))Rs - (1/4)FaμvFaμv + i(ψ-bar)γμ(((Lghost QE - gfabc(δμ (c-bar)a)Aμbcc) / (c-bar)aδμca) + ig(1/2)τWμ + ig'(1/2)YBμ)ψi +(ψ-bar)iLVijφψjr + (aji) - (μ2((φ-Dagger)φ) + λ((φ-Dagger)φ)2)/-(((Lghost QE - gfabc(δμ (c-bar)a)Aμbcc) / (c-bar)aδμca) + ig(1/2)τWμ + ig'(1/2)YBμ)2)|)-e2S(r,t)/h)) - ((Erest/C2)ωs(((8πGTab' + Λgab - Rab) * gab-1))1/2 + (S/ (((3G(Erest/C2))/2C2Rs3)(RpVp) + (GIs/C2Rs3)((3Rp/Rs2)(ωp Rp) -ωp ))))Rs2/2))) / (ħ2/2(Erest/C2))))1/2(((1-(((2(Erest/C2)G / Rs) - (Isωs(((8πGTab' + Λgab - Rab) * gab-1))1/2 + (S/(((3G(Erest/C2))/2C2Rs3)(RpVp) + (GIs/C2Rs3)((3Rp/Rs2)(ωp Rp) -ωp )))))/2(Erest/C2))+ (((8πG/3)((g/(2π)3)∫(((Erelativistic2 - Erest2 / C2) + ((Ar(X) + (ENucleon binding SNF ε0 μ0 /mu) - Ar(XZ±)/Z) / mu)2)(1/2)(1/e((ERelativistic - μchemical)/TMatter)±1)(ħωs + ħωs) - ((ksC2)/ Rs2) + (((8πGTab' + Λgab - Rab) * gab-1))1/2(ΔKiloparsec)))2/(C2)))1/2) ∇1'(x,y,z,t,ωs,ωp,M,I,k,φ,S,X,Z,μ,Y,q,a,β) = (((ħ2 /(2Erest/C2)) ∑3a =1 (d2/d((C2/Erest)∑Ni = 1 MiRi)2) + (1/2)∑3a,β = 1 μaβ(Pa - Πa)(Pβ - Πβ) + U - (ħ2/2)∑3N-6s=1(d2/dq2) + V)((|(Log(DgDaDψDφ-W)(((2ħGC2))Rs - (1/4)FaμvFaμv + i(ψ-bar)γμ(((Lghost QE - gfabc(δμ (c-bar)a)Aμbcc) / (c-bar)aδμca) + ig(1/2)τWμ + ig'(1/2)YBμ)ψi +(ψ-bar)iLVijφψjr + (aji) - (μ2((φ-Dagger)φ) + λ((φ-Dagger)φ)2)/-(((Lghost QE - gfabc(δμ (c-bar)a)Aμbcc) / (c-bar)aδμca) + ig(1/2)τWμ + ig'(1/2)YBμ)2)|)-e2S(r,t)/h)) - ((Erest/C2)ωs(((8πGTab' + Λgab - Rab) * gab-1))1/2 + (S/ (((3G(Erest/C2))/2C2Rs3)(RpVp) + (GIs/C2Rs3)((3Rp/Rs2)(ωp Rp) -ωp ))))Rs2/2))) / (ħ2/2(Erest/C2))))1/2(((1-(((2(Erest/C2)G / Rs) - (Isωs(((8πGTab' + Λgab - Rab) * gab-1))1/2 + (S/(((3G(Erest/C2))/2C2Rs3)(RpVp) + (GIs/C2Rs3)((3Rp/Rs2)(ωp Rp) -ωp )))))/2(Erest/C2))+ (((8πG/3)((g/(2π)3)∫(((Erelativistic2 - Erest2 / C2) + ((Ar(X) + (ENucleon binding SNF ε0 μ0 /mu) - Ar(XZ±)/Z) / mu)2)(1/2)(1/e((ERelativistic - μchemical)/TMatter)±1)(ħωs + ħωs) - ((ksC2)/ Rs2) + (((8πGTab' + Λgab - Rab) * gab-1))1/2(ΔKiloparsec)))2/(C2)))1/2) which it is.
  7. Time Does Not Exist

    How about radioactive decay of unstable particles.. ? There is nothing moving much. Nucleus remain in pretty much the same frame of reference. f.e. solid piece of Uranium. U-235 half-life is 704 mln years, and U-238 half-life is 4468 mln years. Did you hear about radiometric dating of stones (Rubidium-87 radioactive isotope), or radiometric dating of organic remains (mostly archaeological organics remains up to ~50,000 years) using Carbon-14 radioactive isotope?
  8. Time Does Not Exist

    And yet movement and velocity themselves are undefined without time. How can one exist, but not the other?
  9. Wormhole Metric...... How is this screwed up.

    Every expression you have above can be solved with Calculus of variations. How is that for a hint, Tensors allow us to organize them under group symmetries. Here Calculus of variations for shortest path. http://www-users.math.umn.edu/~olver/ln_/cv.pdf Here example article that is jumping ahead a great deal but it will prove my last statement "Lie Groups and Differential Equations" http://www.physics.drexel.edu/~bob/LieGroups/LG_16.pdf
  10. Wormhole Metric...... How is this screwed up.

    well, I didn't know you could transfer ab to uv, So, it will stay like this until I can solve that mess to transfer between them. ∇'(x,y,z,t,ωs,ωp,M,I,k,φ,S,X,Z,μ,Y,q,a,β) = (((ħ2 /(2Erest/C2)) ∑3a =1 (d2/d((C2/Erest)∑Ni = 1 MiRi)2) + (1/2)∑3a,β = 1 μaβ(Pa - Πa)(Pβ - Πβ) + U - (ħ2/2)∑3N-6s=1(d2/dq2) + V)((|(Log(DgDaDψDφ-W)(((2ħGC2))Rs - (1/4)FaμvFaμv + i(ψ-bar)γμ(((Lghost QE - gfabc(δμ (c-bar)a)Aμbcc) / (c-bar)aδμca) + ig(1/2)τWμ + ig'(1/2)YBμ)ψi +(ψ-bar)iLVijφψjr + (aji) - (μ2((φ-Dagger)φ) + λ((φ-Dagger)φ)2)/-(((Lghost QE - gfabc(δμ (c-bar)a)Aμbcc) / (c-bar)aδμca) + ig(1/2)τWμ + ig'(1/2)YBμ)2)|)-e2S(r,t)/h)) - ((Erest/C2)ωs(((8πGTab' + Λgab - Rab) * gab-1))1/2 + (S/ (((3G(Erest/C2))/2C2Rs3)(RpVp) + (GIs/C2Rs3)((3Rp/Rs2)(ωp Rp) -ωp ))))Rs2/2))) / (ħ2/2(Erest/C2))))1/2(((1-(((2(Erest/C2)G / Rs) - (Isωs(((8πGTab' + Λgab - Rab) * gab-1))1/2 + (S/(((3G(Erest/C2))/2C2Rs3)(RpVp) + (GIs/C2Rs3)((3Rp/Rs2)(ωp Rp) -ωp )))))/2(Erest/C2))+ (((8πG/3)((g/(2π)3)∫(((Erelativistic2 - Erest2 / C2) + ((Ar(X) + (ENucleon binding SNF ε0 μ0 /mu) - Ar(XZ±)/Z) / mu)2)(1/2)(1/e((ERelativistic - μchemical)/TMatter)±1)(ħωs + ħωs) - ((ksC2)/ Rs2) + (((8πGTab' + Λgab - Rab) * gab-1))1/2(ΔKiloparsec)))2/(C2)))1/2) Ya, ab doesn't properly define it in free space is why it could not be used, This defines it all in non free space currently.
  11. Time Does Not Exist

    ! Moderator Note Well, try to be a bit clearer here at SFN. Chances are you inadequately supported an argument against the mainstream definition of spacetime, and that's going to put you in hot water with physicists who need a temporal dimension so the math works out right. When people get meaner and meaner, don't assume it's just them. You're trying to redefine something that already has specific meanings and applications, so don't be so surprised that you get pushback. I removed the link from the title since that looks like advertising, and I moved the thread from Science News to Classical Physics until you establish a discussion. If you get your mainstream explanations, it can stay here, but if you decide to paddle off mainstream science, we'll move it to Speculations. Enjoy and welcome. Personally, I'm put off by Barbour's first cheap, pop-sci argument, that since you can't hold time in your hands it must not exist. Can you hold any of the spatial dimensions in your hand? I'll finish the article but it doesn't make a good first impression.
  12. Time Does Not Exist

    https://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-09/book-excerpt-there-no-such-thing-time I was kicked out of a physics forum for saying what this Popular Science article says. I said time does not exist, only the human act of timing. All that exists are matter and energy moving faster or slower relative to one another. The moderator argued with me and got meaner and meaner and finally kicked me out.
  13. Wormhole Metric...... How is this screwed up.

    should give you a new understanding of groups and tensors. As well as how to use them.
  14. Wormhole Metric...... How is this screwed up.

    Oh, I realize what you did now okay got it. So, your saying I need to solve for u,v from a,b doing a reverse chain rule or just a chain rule in the opposite direction as that.
  15. This is not the end, it is the beginning of the beginning of the end... Fermi's paradox starts with the whimpering of stupid people who just can't figure out why combining religion and politics will not work. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely... When you are so delusional and ignorant you don't understand why god's people are lying sacks of steaming monkey shit that doesn't taste like chocolate the way religious conservatives said it would if you only had enough faith and too stupid to stop eating the monkey shit because faith and belief is the most powerful things in the universe because the people feeding you the monkey shit said they were... That's Amore'
  16. Wormhole Metric...... How is this screwed up.

    Well its required to understand how tensors work. For example Kronecker Delta (parallel transport of two vectors)(equivalence Principle. Levi_Cevita loss of parallel transport of two vectors (tidal forces due to geometry curvature). Kronecker linear coordinates Calculus 1. Levi_Cevita is more applied under calculus 2. curvilinear coordinates [math]\partial_i,j[/math] Kronecker [math\partial_{i,j,k}[/latex] Levi inner product of two vectors returns a scalar cross product of two vectors a vector outer product is the product of two coordinate tensors ie kronecker and will return a tensor product as such
  17. The double slit experiment and Superposition The double slit experiment takes a special position in physics in that it is used as a "crucial experiment" both by classical and quantum Physics. While the first, classical physics, shows an understandable historical preference for light, quantum Physicists, also very understandably, very often use electrons to get their point across. When electrons or photons are ejected in the direction of the two slits, some strange things happen: 1) with one slit open we see the expected pattern of a single agglomerate of bright points on the screen at a location facing the slit. 2) when both slits are open we get the interference pattern discovered by Young in the 19th century. The same pattern is created whether we shoot electrons/photons continuously, or one by one. This has always been interpreted as the duality of the nature of light and matter. Instead of waves or particles, physicists prefer to speak of wave-like and particle-like properties of light or electrons. Still, the strangeness really starts when we want to know through which slit electrons go through each time. This is the point where myths are created. Apparently, observing the precise trajectory of electrons destroys the interference pattern. When we do that, when we can indicate through which slit an electron (or photon) has gone, it appears unambiguously that the electron has taken either one or the other slit on its way to the screen. The trouble is that, when unobserved, electrons seem to go through both slits at the same time. Since the only factor that has been changed is the fact or absence of observation, it seems logical to conclude that electrons/photons behave differently depending on whether an observer is present or not. I present here an explanation which is I think much more down to earth. This experiment has often, for obvious pedagogical reasons, been presented with diagrams or video images that, almost without exception, ignore the factual dimensions of the phenomena concerned. For instance, observation becomes a camera placed between the slits and the screen, and directed at one of the slits to catch the moment where an electron goes through it, without taking into account that such a camera could not possibly exist, for now, or find a place in the minuscule space taken by the experiment. When we know the dimensions of an electron we quickly realize that such a setup must be understood as an allegory without any real signification. I will therefore use a much more realistic model to explain the role of observation in double slit experiments. Instead of a camera, a vapor chamber is usually used, through which electrons can leave a clear path showing where they started and where they ended, eliminating any ambiguity as to which slit they went through. The known results of such a setting have always been interpreted as the confirmation of the mystery: the use of a vapor chamber as observation instrument destroys the interference pattern, which comes back with a vengeance as soon as only a screen is used to welcome the impacting electrons. What happens then when an electron goes through a slit? Obviously, in the case where there is only one slit, the question is trivial. The electron will either bounce off the separating wall, or it will go through the slit. leaving its mark through the vapor chamber. The question that needs now to be answered is why the interference pattern disappears when "observed", meaning when there is a device in place that can record through which slit the electrons have gone through. Here again we must take leave of the pedagogical caricatures of the double slit experiment, and look at how it can effectively be performed. To record the movement of the electrons, we will use again a vapor chamber. The results will be as can be expected from classical physics: each electron will go through one slit and one only. There can be no ambiguity over so called superposition. The tracks left by the electrons are clear enough. The great mystery is how we can get a simple distributed pattern with two distinct groups of spots each representing the slit through the electrons went, while when we are not using the vapor chamber, and therefore not observing the electrons, the same interference pattern reappears. My answer will seem rather unorthodox: the simple pattern is in all cases an extrapolation of the tracks left in the vapor chamber. It never really appears on the screen as such, simply because a vapor chamber is itself the screen, and offers no place for an external screen placed as in other experiments. The myth of the double slit experiment is therefore in many aspects the result of the modes of presentation of the experiment. We have either the interference pattern as it appears on a screen standing directly in the path of the electrons. Or a simple classic pattern showing the paths taken by each electron. When these patterns are extrapolated to another image, we get the classic pattern all the videos and diagrams are so fond of. You could look a long time for a video showing in real time the creation of the classical pattern, while the real images of photons or electrons creating the interference pattern can be seen overall.
  18. Wormhole Metric...... How is this screwed up.

    See, but I get Multi-variable calculus, ya Simple chain rule makes no sense but the one of multi-variables perfect, oh wait, that wasn't the chain rule, I was thinking of there is another one. Product and Quotient rule, whatever that is caused from. Wait ya, I am pretty sure that is there as (i,j,k) I hated calculus I in general. Where ∇'(x',y',z') = ∇(1-(((2MbG / Rs) - (Isωs2/2Mb))2/C2))1/2 is like saying, d/dx(1-(((2MbG / Rs) - (Isωs2/2Mb))2/C2))1/2 + d/dy(1-(((2MbG / Rs) - (Isωs2/2Mb))2/C2))1/2 + d/dz((1-(((2MbG / Rs) - (Isωs2/2Mb))2/C2))1/2) Where dx,dy,dz or whatever is that equation.
  19. Wormhole Metric...... How is this screwed up.

    yeah variational Calculus can be a pain in the arse but no matter what direction your particle changes path at each infinitisimal this provides the required derivitaves. Your indice values give the entry required at each coordinate. This is where the term locality becomes important. As not the entire field affects the above at once due to speed of information exchange. Only the local portion of the field does at each coordinate. Local range defined by speed of information exchange from field to particle at each time dependent coordinate. I have really bad news for you Every Symmetry group uses the chain rule, so does every tensor. ODE and PDE is part of the chain rule under Taylor expansions. So does all Langrene's and Hamilton's once you understand them properly prime example Feyman path integrals http://wwwf.imperial.ac.uk/~jdg/AECHAIN.PDF the second link is the ODE as per QM QFT. http://www1.phys.vt.edu/~ersharpe/6455/ch1.pdf all these examples are detailed under MULTI-Variational calculus ie two or more variables at each coordinate.
  20. Wormhole Metric...... How is this screwed up.

    See, this is probably why I don't understand this Welcome to the parts of Calculus I, that I hated. you said the magic word "Chain Rule" No I don't understand. If you follow that by product rule along with quotient rule, I will literally just leave the part for GR blank as not worth it.
  21. Wormhole Metric...... How is this screwed up.

    NO you follow the chain rule at each infinitisimal when curve fitting via the tangent vector at each coordinate of particle travel through spacetime. That is the curve fitting under GR [latex]\frac{dx^\alpha}{dy^{\mu}}=\frac{dx^\beta}{dy^{\nu}}=\begin{pmatrix}\frac{dx^0}{dy^0}&\frac{dx^1}{dy^0}&\frac{dx^2}{dy^0}&\frac{dx^3}{dy^0}\\\frac{dx^0}{dy^1}&\frac{dx^1}{dy^1}&\frac{dx^2}{dy^1}&\frac{dx^3}{dy^1}\\\frac{dx^0}{dy^2}&\frac{dx^1}{dy^2}&\frac{dx^2}{dy^2}&\frac{dx^3}{dy^2}\\\frac{dx^0}{dy^3}&\frac{dx^1}{dy^3}&\frac{dx^2}{dy^3}&\frac{dx^3}{dy^3}\end{pmatrix}[/latex]
  22. Wormhole Metric...... How is this screwed up.

    Yes, but it is in that ds solved form being Laplace prime, XYZ being Laplace that you see.
  23. Wormhole Metric...... How is this screwed up.

    So is your equation valid when [latex]g_{\mu\nu}=g_{\alpha\beta}=\frac{dx^{\alpha}}{dy^{\mu}}\frac{dx^{\beta}}{dy^{\nu}}[/latex] Metric tensor [latex]dx^2=(dx^0)^2+(dx^1)^2+(dx^3)^2[/latex] [latex]G_{\mu\nu}=\begin{pmatrix}g_{0,0}&g_{0,1}&g_{0,2}&g_{0,3}\\g_{1,0}&g_{1,1}&g_{1,2}&g_{1,3}\\g_{2,0}&g_{2,1}&g_{2,2}&g_{2,3}\\g_{3,0}&g_{3,1}&g_{3,2}&g_{3,3}\end{pmatrix}=\begin{pmatrix}-1&0&0&0\\0&1&0&0\\0&0&1&0\\0&0&0&1\end{pmatrix}[/latex] Which corresponds to [latex]\frac{dx^\alpha}{dy^{\mu}}=\frac{dx^\beta}{dy^{\nu}}=\begin{pmatrix}\frac{dx^0}{dy^0}&\frac{dx^1}{dy^0}&\frac{dx^2}{dy^0}&\frac{dx^3}{dy^0}\\\frac{dx^0}{dy^1}&\frac{dx^1}{dy^1}&\frac{dx^2}{dy^1}&\frac{dx^3}{dy^1}\\\frac{dx^0}{dy^2}&\frac{dx^1}{dy^2}&\frac{dx^2}{dy^2}&\frac{dx^3}{dy^2}\\\frac{dx^0}{dy^3}&\frac{dx^1}{dy^3}&\frac{dx^2}{dy^3}&\frac{dx^3}{dy^3}\end{pmatrix}[/latex] The simplest transform is the Minkowskii metric, Euclidean space or flat space. This is denoted by [latex]\eta[[/latex] Flat space [latex]\mathbb{R}^4 [/latex] with Coordinates (t,x,y,z) or alternatively (ct,x,y,z) flat space is done in Cartesian coordinates. In this metric space time is defined as [latex] ds^2=-c^2dt^2+dx^2+dy^2+dz^2=\eta_{\mu\nu}dx^{\mu}dx^{\nu}[/latex] [latex]\eta=\begin{pmatrix}-c^2&0&0&0\\0&1&0&0\\0&0&1&0\\0&0&0&1\end{pmatrix}[/latex] do you see where the (c^2 1 1 1) diagonal terms comes from ? in the diagonal components yet?
  24. Wormhole Metric...... How is this screwed up.

    Yes, it is co-variant my curvature is co-variant why does this matter Co-variant ks2 = K = (1/2)R Co-variant
  25. Wormhole Metric...... How is this screwed up.

    Then identify the central potential Gaussian under Newtons laws then do this under the Newton limit under GR
  26. Wormhole Metric...... How is this screwed up.

    Ya, Contravariant and covariant are no different, from everything I have looked at.
  27. Why doesn't truth matter & middle ground

    Just look for the question marks. Is the a measurement more powerful than actual votes Politician depend on? I actually haven't seen a single post on this forum from a single member here in the U.S. indicated they wish they could take their vote back. That in itself speaks volumes in my opinion.
  1. Load more activity