Jump to content

Mordred

Resident Experts
  • Content Count

    7591
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    20

Mordred last won the day on January 2

Mordred had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1292 Glorious Leader

5 Followers

About Mordred

  • Rank
    Resident Expert

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.Cosmology101.wikidot.com

Profile Information

  • College Major/Degree
    University of the Caribou
  • Favorite Area of Science
    cosmology and particle physics

Recent Profile Visitors

27982 profile views
  1. Just in case your not already aware ( the equations are primarily covariant in your image which could be intentionally chosen)and also for other readers. You should identify your indices according to the Einstein summation convention for your indices. This will also apply to the Kronecker delta relations for symmetric antisymmetric and mixed terms. More of an informative side note under gauge group theory. The SO (3.1) Poincare group (spacetime under four vector etc) is a double cover [math]SU (2)\otimes SU(2)/\mathbb{Z}^2[/math]. This will correspond to Fock space and the Hamilton. The [math]\mathbb{Z}[/math] is the helicity or parity operator. This will correspond to the right hand rules which the creation and annihilation operators follow as well. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fock_space How this applies to Bells test is somewhat covered in the next link here is a relevant quote (page 16) " But it has been proved by Bell, that if one tries to attach random variables behind each observable and try to find (complicated) rules that explain the princi- ples of quantum mechanics, then this reaches an impossibility. Indeed, taking the spin of a particle in three well-choosen directions, one obtains three Bernoulli vari- ables, but their correlations cannot be obtained by any triplet of classical Bernoulli variables. " https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://math.univ-lyon1.fr/~attal/Mescours/fock.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjnhJXuzNnnAhXRtp4KHUyvBOAQFjAAegQIARAB&usg=AOvVaw1Dx4vdZCiDWHQC4sGKL2vo The article specifically covers Fock space and the hermiteans. Hope that helps.
  2. If your going to agree with Einstein then you must agree with the proper definition of energy and the proper definition of mass in terms of kinematics. Mass isn't a substance either it is the property of resistance to acceleration determined via couplings to a field for particles.
  3. It's too bad you evidently don't understand what is truly going on with nonlinear Compton scattering. This article does not support your theory that matter is light. The details are in the paper did you miss the part where the virtual electrons are made real by the photon interaction. In essence you are delivering momentum to the virtual particle pair. It is not suggesting that electrons are photons.
  4. Don't think of energy as some separate entity. Energy is simply the ability to perform work. It is a property not some substance in different forms. There is numerous errors above concerning the differences between photons and electrons. I would suggest some further study. Particularly in how particle decays occur. However you haven't listened to many of the previous comments thus far. At least as far as to incorporating mainstream physics to see where your model is essentially invalidated by mainstream physics.
  5. What makes the question even more complex is the tachyon wavefunctions must be subliminal. There is a particular rule for this though I would have to dig for it as I can't recall the name atm. If I recall correctly Beaz mentions it in one his tachyon articles. Edit I was right it's Paley Weiner theorem http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/tachyons.html
  6. Mordred

    The Observer

    Another important detail is there is no validity to an observer outside the universe. Nor is there any observer outside causality. In order to have any observer you must be within causal range. This obviously includes any form of interaction or measurement.
  7. Your missing way too many essential details and steps in the above. Mainly you need to work initially from the Langrangian and get the appropriate creation and annihilation operators. Then use those operators in Fock space for particle number density for your Boltzmann distributions. The amplitudes are essential to identify the meson nucleon scattering etc. As this is far too lengthy to cover in a forum post here is an article covering the above. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/tong/qft/qft.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjqtujBgdnnAhUPvZ4KHVFQBmoQFjAAegQIAxAB&usg=AOvVaw3If2f9yyPR8GqX4UsWySMr This should get you started into how the field propogators propogate the operators. AZ well as how the operators operate on the propogators. With what you have above I wouldn't be able to identify which vertex legs would arise to answer the question mark in the above image. Also make sure you have the necessary causality of the amplitudes in the x and y plane for the commutations. Detailed in the above article.
  8. The constancy of c is extremely well tested by the experiments above. There is a swath of two way light speed tests that were performed to incredibly high accuracy. They didn't just test for the eather they also tested the constancy of c.
  9. A lot of the images you see are not what you see through a telescope. For instance you wouldn't see the bow shock of Betelgeuse through a telescope. You have to apply filtration etc. In some images you will also have artist rendering. (Though not in this particular case as it uses the Sphere telescope. That telescope uses polarization filters to filter out the brightness etc. The bow shock of Betelgeuse is approximately 11 light years across, it will vary as the interstellar medium itself varies. You also must factor in that Betelgeuse has been dimming which is also part of what the image is showing. Ie different convection cells at different temperatures.
  10. GW events don't need a flash to accompany them. One of the difficulties in determining where a GW event originates is that you often have to triangulate from several detectors. This is aided somewhat by the cross polarizations and polarization angles however it is still a difficult process unless you can readily identify the source via other means such as a telescope or other signals. By the way that image is showing the bow shock of Betelgeuse movement. Somewhere roughly 30 km/sec.
  11. The hidden variable conjecture that Bell type experiments test for has little to do with symmetric or assymmetry. They are certainly involved but that isn't the issue. For example photons are symmetric while fermions are not. The Bell experiment can be performed using either fermions or bosons. The hidden information involves whether or not an entangled particle contains the spin information of its particle pair in such a manner that when the superposition wavefunction collapses via measurement with a detector alignment whether or not there is information exchange between the entangled particles. This would necessarily require instantaneous superluminal signaling. Bells test essentially shows us no hidden variables are involved so no superluminal signaling occurs. There is still contestation of this conclusion which quite frankly is good science. Virtual particles in Feymann diagrams are represented by the internal lines in essence the propogators. QFT doesn't particularly use the particle view such as in Bohm theory. In QFT all particles are field excitations. The pointlike attributes in wave particle duality can be explained by wavefunctions such as the DeBroglie and Compton wavelength.
  12. That link describes the situation accurately with each methodology used. Excellent link.
  13. Were considerably more relaxed than physicsforum. The rules are posted for our Speculation forum above and we do have lengthy threads that are not locked even though they are modelling outside of mainstream concordance physics. In your case your applying mathematical rigor which is one of the more lacking detail in other threads. In that sense I find your threads refreshing. Do I feel anything I can state will change any viewpoint you have. Likely not but that doesn't prevent an intelligent discussion.
  14. Well quite frankly the view that the only causal interaction between particles A and B is that which occurs at the entanglement event itself. The superposition wavefunction state does not require or need to carry any hidden variables. The act of measurement does not cause any signaling between the two particles. No signaling occurs This quite frankly in my books makes far more logical sense than invoking hidden variables hidden reference frames of absolute time or any physics that relies more on metaphysical argument than with empirical evidence of being able to validate through detection. Quite frankly I never invoke any metaphysical based argument to make decisions of how physics works. The only thing that works for me is those models that can provide hard experimental data. Entanglement does not require hidden fields or variables to account for its measurements
  15. Ok I have a question according to the above paper you have a Lorentz style eather that is non interacting with regular matter fields. This eather frame according to your paper allows for FTL. So how does it mediate entangled particles to allow supposed FTL signaling between entangled particles in violation of Einstein causality ? Without considering that a form of interaction ? Is there some arbitrary mediator boson as per regular matter fields ? Secondly what property of this eather allows FTL when massless non coupling particles propogate at c in regards to our observable matter and force fields ? Ie via {ct}.
×
×
  • 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.