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

If you have scientific evidence for a nonmainstream 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

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 scifi vision of other dimensions.. So I am suggesting two main areas for inclusion 1) Dimensions and degrees af freedom. 2) The Relations of Constitution and the Conditions of Compatibility and their implications for any proposed Theory of Everything (TOE). Please have you say here so that the final post can be transposed to the locked sticky.1 point

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/rpp2011revguts.pdf http://pdg.lbl.gov/2011/reviews/rpp2011revguts.pdf GRAND UNIFIED THEORIES DARK MATTER AS STERILE NEUTRINOS http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.4119 http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.2301 http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.4954 Higg's inflation possible dark energy http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.3738 http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.3755 http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.2801 A theory of Quantum gravity would be solved if we discovered the Graviton. This would solve the singularity problem and revitalization. What is missing isn't viable models. What is missing is the confirmation evidence. In order for any viable model to be confirmed you must have some means to test the viability of said model. These articles will give you some direction. This article will familiarise you with cosmology //www.wiese.itp.unibe.ch/lectures/universe.pdf:" Particle Physics of the Early universe" by UweJens Wiese Thermodynamics, Big bang Nucleosynthesis1 point

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

I think you got it wrong: Gannets and barracuda fish better together Edit: xposted with Mordred +1. Couldn't have given you better advise.1 point

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 model of particles1 point

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 4dimensional spacetime (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 hounds than hawks" Dreams of a Final Theory1 point

So you are arguing that NO ONE can criticize your paper because YOU did not include a "working roadmap" or "outline"?1 point

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

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

1 point

@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

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

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 temperature do they reach thermal equilibrium and become indistinct from each other ? What temperature would the weak field or the strong field separate from the unified field ? How does the symmetry breaking of the force fields affect expansion of our universe ? For example electroweak symmetry breaking is one of more commonly theorized causes of inflation. Ie the Higgs inflation as one example. We can already unify three of the four forces. However we cannot keep gravity normalized. How do you mathematically address this ? Let's compare this author tries to deal with quantum gravity though he argues that trying to normalize gravity is the wrong approach. ( quite frankly QM and QFT requires a field to be recognizable) however he presents 428 pages of mathematics. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://arxiv.org/pdf/grqc/9910036&ved=2ahUKEwiwzaiJpqbqAhWHtJ4KHQR1AwcQFjAAegQIAhAB&usg=AOvVaw2G2qIgljw2zsC9XHKzW55 In my opinion he still hasn't dealt with developing a proper TOE though he claims to have done so. (Peer reviewed articles don't necessarily mean its correct. Only that it meets the criteria of being on topic and the authors own work) Now how does your 8 page article compare ?1 point

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

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 however that wavefunction is describing the action of the particle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_(physics) now an example for the standard model Langrangian is. latex] \mathcal{L}=\underbrace{\mathbb{R}}_{GR}\overbrace{\underbrace{\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu}}_{YangMills}}^{Maxwell}+\underbrace{i\overline{\psi}\gamma^\mu D_\mu \psi}_{Dirac}+\underbrace{D_\mu h^2V(h)}_{Higgs}+\underbrace{h\overline{\psi}\psi}_{Yukawa}[/latex] more details here https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/117992thelagrangianequation/ The gauge groups for the SM model of particles being [math]\mathcal{G}=SU(3)_c\otimes SU(2)_L\otimes U(1)_Y[/math] (the U(1) group is often referred to the circle group. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_group note the reference to the complex numbers. all these groups reside in the SO(3.1) Poisson group which describes spacetime. (Though the actual space will vary) more often than not its infinitismal spaces. The String length would be of the order of roughly [math]10^{32}[/math] cm. You replace the Feymann diagrams with surfaces and the World line of the particle by a world sheet. Now under string theory to describe all the Bosons would require 26 dimensions. To include fermions there you need more dimensions depending on the string theory variation. Such examples being Hetoric SO(32) and [math]E_8\otimes E_8[/math]. These employ Super symmetry. Now in order to describe the entire standard model of particles plus their supersymmetric partners. One needs 10 spacetime dimensions (keep in mind the definition I gave above). You have the usual 4 dimensions of GR plus 6 others. The other six are considered extremely small ie the value at the beginning of this thread. They would be used to describe rotations etc such as particle spin. (do not think of a particle as a ball) The spin angular momentum term is describing an instrinsic spin that involves magnetic moments. For example it takes a spin 1/2 particle takes 720 degrees to return to its original state. However a beach ball only requires 360 degrees. Now each wavefunction can be described under a space however infinitisimal. I prime example is Hilbert or phase space. Each of these spaces can be described as a field. A field is simply a set of values (or other mathematical objects) under a coordinate basis. So physicists needs a way to describe numerous different fields in the same volume of spacetime. Fields or world sheets (string theory) can reside in the precise same locations but be treated seperately. Some worldsheets or fields can affect other world sheets or fields. So you can have connections between them. Others have no affect upon other fields and remain disconnected. However regardless of whether your using Strings, worldsheets, Fields etc. These are all abstract mathematical objects. They are descriptive's we use to explain the math the verbal descriptive's we assign to the relations we are describing. They are not fundamental objects. The term dimension is also an abstract mathematical term. Hope this helps1 point

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 string theory they describe a point particle as a string. This describes its Langragian ie how the particle will behave. It isn't some fundamental component on its own but rather a method to describe its wavefunctions. There is no separate parallel universes involved in the use of the term dimension. The 11 dimensions of string theory is referring to independent mathematical objects. Phase space or configuration or parameter space is simply a means of representing different types of graphs. Ie one can graph the relations between different parameters and how the evolve. The space does not necessarily entail a physical volume.1 point

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 nonconservative 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

1 point

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

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 man1 points

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 semiliquid (there are also semisolids and semigases) as is spit or any other bodily fluid. Blood is a Creation which cannot be duplicated in the laboratory or explained by "science". The socalled "expert", Balwin uses a snail "heart" for an example. Snails do not have hearts  nor blood.1 points