Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 06/29/20 in all areas

  1. If you have scientific evidence for a non-mainstream topic, and you think you can defend it reasonably, put it in Speculations. If it pertains to a field of personality studies you can defend using science, post in Psychiatry/Psychology. If it's something you feel might pertain to a specific philosophy or ethical approach, post in Philosophy. If it's just New Age mysticism that works because you say so and wave your hands a LOT, please don't post anything at all.
    2 points
  2. This proposal is a result of my noticing how often certain issues crop up and was prompted by the following posts, which come from different threads. Before offering a draft version I would like to ensure two things. Assurance from the moderators that this is in order and will not lead to being called out as a blog. The opportunity for interested other members to participate in the drafting; I do not pretend to have all the answers. Maybe you should make article and make it sticky what dimension means in physics.. so they won't confuse it with sci-fi vision o
    1 point
  3. Well let's put it this way. There are testable models for dark energy and matter already developed that involve QFT and the Higgs field. For example DM could be right hand neutrinos which the SM model predicts but has never observed. DR could be a result of the Higgs field itself. Example GUT theories http://arxiv.org/pdf/0904.1556.pdf The Algebra of Grand Unified Theories John Baez and John Huerta http://pdg.lbl.gov/2011/reviews/rpp2011-rev-guts.pdf http://pdg.lbl.gov/2011/reviews/rpp2011-rev-guts.pdf GRAND UNIFIED THEORIES DARK MATTER AS STERILE NEUTRINOS h
    1 point
  4. yes. but..it has been a bit late here and i had intented not to write until OP gives more contexts. ... have a good night.
    1 point
  5. I think you got it wrong: Gannets and barracuda fish better together Edit: x-posted with Mordred +1. Couldn't have given you better advise.
    1 point
  6. I'm not stating you require x amount amount of pages. I am stating you do require testable predictions which requires the applicable mathematics. You don't need to completely rewrite all of physics to develop a TOE. The only step missing is a working renormalizable theory of quantum gravity. The other three fields is already done. You simply need to study and apply QFT. However you chose a method that would require starting from literally scratch and rewriting every formula involved in particle physics. For example how does your parallel universes work with the standard mo
    1 point
  7. It's like trying to find your way out of a maze, or a forest. There is no roadmap, and if you've got one it's probably wrong. But understanding topology, reading clues, minor details, can help you a lot. Do you always need a map to find your bearings? In physics the map always comes later. Not very well known fact: Einstein spent one whole year without accepting Minkowski's concept of 4-dimensional space-time (I've heard this in a classroom.) He already had all that was needed, logical fact to logical fact. In the words of Steven Weinberg: "physicists are more like hou
    1 point
  8. So you are arguing that NO ONE can criticize your paper because YOU did not include a "working roadmap" or "outline"?
    1 point
  9. OP, I can't get my autism and anxiety meds without my psychiatrist. I would get suicidal without them. Without them, I'd probably have died already. Are you saying that you want to deprive me of the medicine that prevents me from killing myself by taking away my psychiatrist?
    1 point
  10. Surviving the acceleration is one of the problems, regardless of method. Limiting yourself to ~1g or so puts a limit on how quickly you can make a trip.
    1 point
  11. ! Moderator Note You seem to have come to a science forum by mistake
    1 point
  12. @ahmet I interpret the dot "." as end of a sentence. Reformatting the above using separate lines for each sentence: 0+0=0 0+1=1 1+1=2 That seems to be ok examples to illustrate the question asked? I do not see 0=2. Maybe I miss something.
    1 point
  13. I would just like to add in some words of caution here. Dimensions are often identified with degrees of freedom. Both have a (numerical) value. These concepts are not the same, although sometimes their values coincide. They are all too often confused with each other. Further it is important to identify the 'space' in which you are working - phase space, configuration space, geometric space and so on. The dimensions of these different spaces can (and often do) differ for the same 'system'.
    1 point
  14. Sigh it never fails to amaze me how many posters want to invoke other universes to develop a Toe when they cannot describe how our universe evolves. A TOE as I mentioned in your other thread requires the relevant mathematics. The few equations you have do not even begin to describe how particles interact. They do not describe particle generations. The Pauli exclusion principle or apply any of the conservation laws in particle physics which is a primary importance for a TOE. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything So how are you unifying these forces ? What
    1 point
  15. Here is a good article covering string theory https://arxiv.org/pdf/1107.3967.pdf He will provide some introductory into the various action theories and how they relate to Strings.
    1 point
  16. Well when String theory replaces point particles by strings, they are describing how the particular point particle would be described by its wavefunction so excitation would be one valid descriptive however that wavefunction is describing the action of the particle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_(physics) now an example of a Langrangian that describes the standard model would be Well when String theory replaces point particles by strings, they are describing how the particular point particle would be described by its wavefunction so excitation would be one valid descriptive h
    1 point
  17. Well let's start with the term dimension in physics. This includes string theory. Dimension is any independent variable or mathematical object that can change in value without changing any other value. The common example bring (t,x,y,z) each of these coordinates (spacetime) can change in value without affecting the other value. Now in particle physics including QFT and QM. The effective degrees of freedom from the various particles will often be described under a dimension basis. For example the SU(2) group is two dimensional. While the SU(3) group is three dimensional. In stri
    1 point
  18. I neither agree nor disagree at this point. But I see no reason why the theory of elasticity or fluid mechanics cannot be put under the umbrella of Hamiltonian mechanics. It's the non-conservative aspect that would make it different from the academic examples of pendula or the like, though. Your definition of chaos seems to be more general. Why would I rush to disagree with you at this point when I'm likely to learn something new?
    1 point
  19. 1 point
  20. They all seem accurate except: I don't think there is any evidence that this happens, even though it is a theoretical possibility. And, rather than "black holes contain an event horizon" I would say "black holes are an event horizon." But that's just a choice of words.
    1 point
  21. Newton (centuries ago) has 3 laws of Motion: LAWS - I say again: L A W S, which are incontrovertible. Darwin (more than a century ago) had a notion which is NOT a law of ANYTHING - meaning he was like my uncle who had a notion he could fly. Both of these dudes are DEAD! My uncle left a wife and four children. Darwin left confusion and hope amongst those who refute/doubt Creationism. Whether it was a God, gods, cottage cheese or a yield sign everything on Earth was created. The purpose: I have not the foggiest! Dogma? I give it little credibility as it is the creation of
    -1 points
  22. One MUST understand that although "science" states that the human body contains +-60% that not a drop of water exists (other than in the bladder). Proof? Stick yourself ANYWHERE with a sharp object and record the amount of water that issues forth: ZERO. Blood is a semi-liquid (there are also semi-solids and semi-gases) as is spit or any other bodily fluid. Blood is a Creation which cannot be duplicated in the laboratory or explained by "science". The so-called "expert", Balwin uses a snail "heart" for an example. Snails do not have hearts - nor blood.
    -1 points
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.