TrappedLight

There are many factors which creates heat, even the core of the Earth generates a back-reaction of heat from the molten core. But mostly, we capture most of the heat during the day from the sun. Has been like this for centuries and more. Some argue it is getting hotter because of greenhouse gases; we say gases because there is more than one we are most familiar with ie. CO2, but there are as far as I know, 6 different greenhouse gases.

sorry read that wrong.

Very unlikely. The reason is that it doesn't match the time-scale required for genetic engineering of an advanced subject as this.

That maybe open for interpretation. We can actually make pseudo-negative pressure, a very miniscule amount of negative energy in the Casimir effect.

Well, physical mediator, the graviton for example. If a graviton is found, then gravity is not a pseudo force.

You mean microscopic. We have wavefunction, but their wavelengths are too small to be detected. Because of decoherence, an object will continuously stay in a stable state. A cat is a body made up of entangled particles, the nature of the wave function isn't the same for a macroscopic body.

And em.... where is she getting signal, pre-mobile phones of course.. surely no masts available

Well, I do know one important difference and that is gravity does not have a physical mediator. If it did have one, it wouldn't be a pseudo force.

I think gravity is actually a pseudoforce

Agreed, you can discuss it here http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/78687-the-nature-of-the-electron/

Krauss kind of makes an argument that there is no such thing as nothing, in his book ''A Universe from Nothing.'' However, I do know that some models exist which describe successfully a universe from nothing. It just involves potentials and statistical probabilities. Hawking for instance, has even proposed that perhaps the creation of one spontaneous creation of a universe is actually one of many spontaneous universes which come into existence, all, if somewhat, mysteriously entangled with our global wave function. (A feature found in the Parallel Universe theory). I also know that it is possible that our universe might behave like a timelike loop. Somehow its beginning and end were inextricably connected as a linked loop in time. It would be analogous to the continuous big bang, big crunch scenario related to Penrose's cyclic universe theory, with the only difference that time vanishes from his universe because it has expanded with not enough gravitational collapse to stop. Then, his universe appears again from an eventual singularity, (which if I understand his theory correctly) makes entropy time-symmetric. The Ekpyrotic theory describes our universe like you might find a universe in string theory. It exists as a brane, floating about in a multidimensional sea. (Note thsi is not true for all cases of string theory). But its origin describes a story saying that this universe was once in a frozen state for many many eons. It wasn't until another universe in a high energy state collided with our own, did our universe ''spring into action.'' It is very speculative.

What sources says it isn't reputable? And I am ok with the standard interpretation of spin, that it is an intrinsic property. The property of spin also arises intrinsically from the paper cited. I have also done some work on it myself. Most scientists I have posited the paper to, usually don't have a problem with the paper as such. Most scientists I have spoken to have pointed out however, that the paper never took off. Usually this comes down to a number of things which I am sure you are aware of.

Yes it is reputable - they have also published another paper, a decade later. Their work is actually well-known throughout academia. Many scientists are aware of the paper. ''The Louis de Broglie Foundation is a French foundation for basic research in physics with its seat in the Academy of Sciences and its offices in n o 23 Marsoulan street in the 12 th district of Paris . It was created at the National Conservatory of Arts and Crafts in 1973 by Louis de Broglie on the occasion of the fiftieth anniversary of his discovery of the wave-particle duality . Louis de Broglie bequeathed to the foundation gained the amount of its property Nobel Prize in Physics . Legally, the Louis de Broglie Foundation has an open account within the Foundation of France . The foundation is defined as "a place of meeting and discussion at the forefront of contemporary science for all physicists wishing to expose and confront the results and perspectives in mind humanist openness and tolerance Louis de Broglie " . She has published in 1975 the journal Annals of the Fondation Louis de Broglie .''

Your statement isn't without a sense of irony since time is not even an observable. Therefore, time itself is untestable. It may turn out there is no such thing as time, only change. In fact, Julian Barbour has done a significant amount of work on this. Especially concepts like the wheeler de witt equation which dictates we live in a timeless universe.

''String theory includes fermionic degrees of freedom as well as bosonic ones from the start. So I don't quite follow what you are saying here. '' I am not a string theorist, but when I talked to one a few years back, they asked me why I didn't like the theory. I said there is problem because strings are dimensionally extended objects, while the standard model deals with particles as pointlike systems. They said it had something to do with rescaling the particles. I don't know the full details now. ''Don't confuse intrinsic angular momentum (spin) with standard orbital angular momentum. Extending quantum field theory to curved space-times is technical and difficult.'' I don't intend to confuse the two; however, mathematically-speaking, the transition from classical spin to modern intrinsic spin is very little. We only talk about the electron spin being intrinsic because of how they behave in collision experiments. However, ... as I said. There is another school of thought where you can actually rescale the electrons energy. What happens when you do this, is that the electron will always appear to be pointlike under a threshold. This means we cannot actually 100% rule out that the electron is semi-classical and has a classical spin. This wouldn't change theory drastically. ''Can I have some references here?'' Sure. The really important paper which attempts to describe this is http://www.cybsoc.org/electron.pdf Not only does it outline why there are problems with pointlike systems in the math, but it uses math to explain why particles like an electron are detected pointlike.

It might be argued, that because spin/torsion is part of the full Poincare group, that you probably would expect it in nature. I know some people don't believe that torsion exists. I bet it does though! Extending it to particles is a little bit more difficult, because the current thought is that particles like an electron, don't actually spin. There is however another school of thought that particles only appear pointlike to a certain threshold. You can solve the problem by rescaling the energy. So if particles actually do spin, like a spinning top, in high energy physics, particles might have noticeable torsional effects. That is a bit speculative, but the rescaling energy part is no more speculative than how string theory deals with the problem. It has a scaling factor as well for the 1-dimensionally extended objects of the theory.

Very true. In fact, the full Poincare group associates spin, in general relativity, it arises as torsion. For instance, the torsional energy of a particle is [math]- \frac{1}{2}\hbar \cdot \Omega[/math]

We may find out we cannot deal with the forces as we know it below the Planck Scale. In fact, as I understand it, physics generally breaks down at scales below the Planck origin. With that said however, [math]\frac{c^4}{G}[/math] is an important scale as the origin of the classical upper limit.

The Planck Force may be attributed to all the field strengths since we assume that all quantum fields where actually unified - equal in their magnitude. When we speak of the quantity [math]\frac{c^4}{G}[/math], we are talking about the origin of the Planck Scale; this should include the Planck energy. Indeed, it should cover as you spoke about, all Planck parameters.

This article explains it better. http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Strong_gravitational_constant it's important because Planck physics ruled the beginning of the universe. Therefore, you can expect the upper/classical limit to be an important quantity when asking why forces exist. Swansont argued it wasn't a limit but a scale. But it is actually also a limit.

It is a limit and it is a lot deeper than what that article gets into.

The Planck forces, or rather Planck force is the upper field strength of the gravitational and electromagnetic fields. The origin of the Planck scale may be attributed to as [math]\frac{c^4}{G}[/math] It is the classical or upper limit of both the gravitational and electromagnetic force, it is the grand unified force of black hole physics. [math]F_P = \frac{c^4}{G} = 1.21027 \times 10^{44} N[/math]

That limit is theorized in unified field theories of gravity. It is the origin of the Planck forces and of black hole physics. As for, ''then you have to explain why c and G have their values'' this is true. The origin of the forces can be given by the quantity I gave, but the question you raise is like asking why the fine structure constant has the value it has. We don't know why these field strengths exist, but we may actually already know their origin.

That may be open to interpretation.. for instance, it is believed that the origin of the Planck forces are given as a fundamental upper limit [math]\frac{c^4}{G}[/math].

! Moderator Note The paper linked in this OP, 'http://physicsworld....rons-in-a-twist http://phys.org/news182957628.html external ref. The origin of the Planck scale may be attributed to as [math]\frac{c^4}{G}[/math] It is the classical or upper limit of both the gravitational and electromagnetic force, it is the grand unified force of black hole physics. [math]F_P = \frac{c^4}{G} = 1.21027 \times 10^{44} N[/math] http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Strong_gravitational_constant I also noticed, that if one wants full analogies of equations in Gaussian units, it changes the definition of the classical gravielectric fields. I have noticed in my work, we have some gravitional analogue of electromagnetic laws appearing from the equations. I gave some of these examples in the OP. There are more and they help us define some new fields. We will be working in Gaussian units for this part of the work and notice that under this system, the elementary charge is related to the gravitational charge as simply 1. [math]e = \sqrt{G}m[/math] We know that the electric field is defined as 2. [math]\mathbf{E} = \frac{F}{e}[/math] The gravitational analogue of this is 3. [math]\mathbf{G} = \frac{F}{\sqrt{G}m}[/math] where [math]\mathbf{G}[/math] plays a role of the classical gravielectric field. It isn't the gravitational constant, it is a new quantity I define for this work. The Gravitational field of a stationary charge of [math]\sqrt{G}m[/math] is 4. [math]\mathbf{G} = \frac{\sqrt{G}m}{r^2}\hat{\mathbf{r}}[/math] We find an argument from this case by rewriting Newton's force law as5. 5. [math]F = \frac{\sqrt{G}m_1 \sqrt{G}m_2}{r^2}[/math] and note that if one defines the gravitational charge as [math]\sqrt{G}m[/math] then one can say the charge is the source of a gravitational field 6. [math]\frac{\sqrt{G}m}{r^2}[/math] Motz http://www.gravityresearchfoundation.org/pdf/awarded/1971/motz.pdf You can also find a relationship of a type of gravimagnetic coupling by setting the coriolis field equal with the Lorentz force 7. [math]e(v \times \mathbf{B}) = 2m(\omega \times v)[/math] where [math]\omega[/math] is the angular velocity, the quantity [math](\omega \times v)[/math] is the coriolis acceleration, it is in fact a determinant. Dividing the gravitational charge on both sides yield 8. [math]v \times \mathbf{B} = \frac{2(\omega \times v)}{\sqrt{G}}[/math] Likewise, in Gaussian units, the Lorentz force associated with a gravitational charge would be 9. [math]F = \sqrt{G}m(v \times \mathbf{B})[/math] You can combine this equation with the coupling of the charge with the gravimagnetic fields 10. [math]F = \sqrt{G}m(\frac{2(\omega \times v)}{\sqrt{G}})[/math] Because there is a strong gravity assumed throughout this work, there might be a real coupling of gravitational and magnetic fields - a so-called frame-dragging is such a field. This means we are considering the full poincare group (involving torsion [math]\Omega[/math]) for quantum systems where there is a presence of a strong gravitational coupling. Actually the torsion [math]\Omega[/math] appears in the theory taking the role of the angular velocity component [math]\omega[/math]. Usually this would appear as 11. [math]F = M(v \times \Omega)[/math] The mechanical energy of a system with a spin in a torsion field is 12. [math]E = \frac{1}{2} \hbar \cdot \Omega[/math] http://serg.fedosin.ru/tgpen.htm I have changed the definition of [math]\mathbf{G}[/math] if anyone noticed. Normally the gravielectric field is given as [math]\mathbf{G} = \frac{F}{m}[/math] However, the quantity which we define is [math]\mathbf{G} = \frac{F}{\sqrt{G}m}[/math] As a full analogue of [math]\frac{F}{e}[/math] in Gaussian units. This means in Gaussian units, the full analogue allowing [math]e = \sqrt{G}m[/math] treats [math]\mathbf{G}[/math] not as a gravitational acceleration. Instead, it looks more like a gravimagnetic field than anything else with units of [math](v \times \mathbf{B})[/math]. The gravitational four force can be given as [math]F_{\mu} = \Gamma^{\lambda}_{\mu \nu} u^{\mu} p^{\nu}[/math] where [math]\Gamma[/math] is playing the role of the Christoffel symbols which play the role of the gravitational field. The quantity on the right [math]\Gamma^{\lambda}_{\mu \nu} u^{\mu} p^{\nu}[/math] has units of energy over a length. The upper limit of the force is calculated as [math]F = \frac{Mc^2}{(\frac{Gm}{c^2})} = \frac{c^4}{G}[/math] I actually speak about this quantity in the next paper, as the origin of the Planck scales and is an important quantity for the special case of the theorem. If the numerator describes the gravitational self-energy, this would have an order [math]\frac{\hbar c}{(\frac{\hbar}{Mc})} = Mc^2[/math]