Mordred

Hadn't seen ya in a while glad to see your visiting. Even though I'm quite knowledgeable in physics I find I still learn things here. That also includes certain discussions in physics.

No I hadn't looked at that one yet thanks it looks well done another search parameter to assist is charge conjugation as charge conjugation ties into CPT. http://www.personal.soton.ac.uk/ab1u06/teaching/phys3002/course/20_PCCP.pdf https://courses.washington.edu/partsym/15Spr/ch06.pdf These two references contain much of the essential mathematics involved in particle physics so will be helpful though not directly on CPT it will assist in understanding the essential mathematics. http://arxiv.org/abs/0810.3328 A Simple Introduction to Particle Physics http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.1395 No problem it does take a bit to learn QFT formalism one of the simpler treatments to learn from is Quantum Field theory Demystified. The author does a decent job of keeping QFT simplified

I forgot to ask if your familiar with QFT mathematics or the gauge groups with regards to the standard model. I have no idea what skill level your at so if what I post is beyond you feel free to let me know and I will try to find simpler treatments. As I find half decent articles outside of textbooks in regards to textbooks one of the better ones covering CPT I found is Gauge theories in particle physics volume 1 by Ian J.R. Aitchison and Anthony J.G. Hey. I am still looking for good outside textbook literature. I may end up just posting the essentials here myself using my copy of the above book but I will see what else I can dig up.

Well for one thing his job is a science popularizer. That is what earns him his paycheque. In that aspect he does do an excellent job in many cases he is following a script. That in an of itself doesn't require expertise in the topics he is discussing. That doesn't mean he didn't retain his skills in his field of expertise. For one thing galactic mass distributions isn't a popular topic in pop media. Secondly his audience is assumed to have next to zero understanding of physics in general so anything he states is essentially dummied down and that in and of itself can lead to inaccuracies. (Trust me on that, the effort to dummy down difficult physics topics is one of my greatest challenges when I reply to posts here on this forum) those replies can oft get misrepresented as a result. I have little doubt that if Neil had to work on a research project in his expertise he would excel at that. Pop media isn't a reliable method to judge a physicist skill set a far more reliable way is to study his research papers and not pop media. Lol there was a lot of statements Hawkings said in some pop media that had my head shaking but there was little doubt he was a physicist.

He does have the formal credentials it doesn't matter how much material one publishes or how long ago. For the record simply having a Ph.D in physics doesn't automatically entail knowing every aspect of physics. For example my formal training in Cosmology didn't necessarily involve say String theory. Knowing String theory isn't necessary to understand and have expertise in the field of Cosmology. That was a field I chose to study on my own outside of my formal training. If I recall Neil is an astrophysicist so his formal training has different requirements than those of my field of study. Which when you get down to it is no different than the skill set between Swansont and myself as we both took different physics branches in our formal training so we both have different expertise in physics. I read his dissertation years ago he is quite knowledgeable in that particular topic although I haven't a copy today "A Study of the Abundance Distributions Along the Minor Axis of the Galactic Bulge"

So would I actually there are plenty of physicist jobs that have little to do with publishing papers such as teaching

Sure I will dig up some literature though to be honest any decent introductory particle physics textbook will contain those details. Currently at work so this afternoon will list the recommended textbooks and whatever good literature I have or can find for you.

My earliest wishing well posted earlier uses it and it's still in good shape. If that's any indication on it UV and water protection. You can get it in spray can form for projects with tons of nooks and crannies. (First wishing well post ) though my outdoor stuff gets the timber oil though different stains.

I'm a member on a few forums and I've noticed over the years that every forum I visit (though this is my main forum as I prefer this one over the others) are all experiencing significant drop in activity in the last few years. It's not science forums either example Plctalk.net/qanda which is an excellent site for those with electrical engineering interests has also been affected.

Thanks it worked out rather well, used premium cedar as it's typically less warped I've had to build a few of them the mats cost 150.00 Canadian so I've sold 2 for 300.00 each. People seem to love them for outdoor storage boxes. The ones I see I usually recommend outdoor timber oil https://www.rona.ca/en/product/cabot-australian-timber-oil-378-l-neutral-translucent-wood-stain-87005064?viewStore=66190&cq_src=google_ads&cq_cmp=19597975671&cq_con=&cq_term=&cq_med=pla&cq_plac=&cq_net=x&cq_pos=&cq_plt=gp&&cm_mmc=paid_search-_-google-_-aw_pmax_generic_Paint-_-&gad_source=1&gclid=CjwKCAjw3624BhBAEiwAkxgTOs2auPSZxKCSuMkYb0MVlVlfdF-bGlxnNFlFRBe9F_XEPshPG80-vRoCQTgQAvD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds Apologies for advert. Couldn't find a link with just the product.

Yes I have a couple of Brad nail guns that cedar box is also rabbit and groove jointed with glue along with the nails.

Freshly carved from a log I found might be elm. Used air di-grinder , (as you can also use router bits with one, has sufficient RMP and correct size shaft. A dremel for fine detail. For fast removal used an oscillator tool. Chisels of course where needed Last image is on a cedar box I built earlier this year. This is my second carving attempt last one already sold.

as a further assist I will latex over the other two equations best viewed in latex form. Your example on page 5 can be viewed well without needing latex. \[fx=\sum^{+\infty}_{k=-\infty}\hat{f}_ke^{ik\frac{2\pi}{t}x}\] \[\phi(l)=A\phi(0)\] hopefully that helps... Please step us through the equations I ported over from your article

Ok perhaps you can better explain the following. in scenario 1 where neither observer or event has any velocity you state use equation 1. \[\psi(t=dt)=A\psi(t)\] You use L and prime L for each IFR fine no issue there as its just an identifier. You then state. It can be noted that equation 1 alone is not enough for the causality principle. Let's say we know the state of the system in some inertial frame of reference (IFR). Let's denote this IFR 𝐿. Is it possible on the basis of this to find the state of the system in another IFR, 𝐿 ′ , moving at a non-zero speed relative to 𝐿? If this is not possible, then events in different IFR cannot be linked to each other. However, the practice of applying the principle of causality in modern theories of physics implies that, knowing the state of a system in one IFR, it is possible to obtain the state of a system in another IFR. Thus, in order to fulfill the principle of causality, the following equation must also be fulfilled, for each 𝜑𝑖 ′ and 𝑡𝑖 ′ , for an arbitrary 𝐿 ′ : and then give equation 2. \[\begin{cases}\acute{\psi}_i(\acute{L})=B_{\psi i}\psi(L)\\\acute{t}_i(\acute{L})=B_t t_i(L)\end{cases}\] where \(\psi_i\) is one set of states in its IFR. I will let you fill in the other details as quite frankly it is unclear to me what you are doing there prior to equation 3. \[\psi(t+dt,L)=A_\psi(t,L)\] is your equation 3. I simply do not get what you are describing as different time point in the same IFR ????????? "The operator 𝐴, accordingly, translates the state of the system between different time points in the same IFR " huh come again???? this is your equation 4 which you state is required to fulfill the principle of causality and you state you must simultaneously apply equation 2 and 3. \[\begin{cases}\psi(t+dt,L)=A_\psi(t,L)\\\acute{\psi_i}(\acute{L}=B_{\psi i}\psi(L)\\\acute{t}_i(\acute{L})=B_tt_i(L)\end{cases}\] "Equation 1 allows us to describe the principle of causality when we do not consider in detail the properties of transformations between IFR. Equation 4 is needed for a more detailed analysis of how the causality principle and transformations between IFR are related." Now I did the work for you on porting your key equations here for everyone's interest without requiring them to use your article. Simply due to noticing your attempt to understand the latex format for this site. I will let you describe how those equations work with regards to your IFR's as I certainly do not understand what you are doing above. It almost sounds like your treating each state as being somehow quantum entangled.

Yes I understand that, that isn't the point of my question I am well aware how causality applies under SR. My question directly pertains to your hypothesis itself. How do you have an inertial frame of reference without having any velocity term in your transforms ? There is a significant difference between coordinate references, inertial and non inertial reference frames. Obviously we have a difference in understanding what the Principle of Causality entails if you don't understand why I am asking these questions of your hypothesis. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality_(physics)#:~:text=Consequently%2C the relativistic principle of,the future of its cause. Are you applying causality as per the inertial frame treatment, See link as you already stated your paper doesn't involve determinism ( see link) Or are you specifying causal structure (see link)

Repeating the same thing isn't addressing the answer is it. The question directly relates to can you verify your theory conforms to causality despite not having any limitation to signal delay as taught in the distinction between Galilean and SR. I do not see any vectors being applied with regards to a speed limit of information exchange. Your transformations only apply to the coordinates they do not include any vectors. Without vectors describing constant velocity an inertial frame of reference serves absolutely zero purpose. You may as well just refer to your IFRs as nothing more than different coordinates.

There we go a decent argument +1. Let's work with that. So I ask "is sentient a requirement for evolution or development of emotion and biological systems" ? Why would sentience be a requirement for the above ? For the record physics wouldn't help in this case wrong field of science in regards to how biological systems develop or the origin of life and emotion. However the question remains is sentience a requirement to cause life to come into being ? Why couldn't random chance given enough time do the same with the universe only role to supply the ingredients? I would hate to see the universe having a temper tantrum (sorry couldn't get that visual out of my head )

Anyways I haven't seen any valid science being applied nor any decent logic argument so I'm done with this thread. Mayhap if a more substantial debate is added I may change my mind but I don't have any hope of seeing that happening. Good luck

Yeah I have several sizes I regularly build. The small ones sell faster and help restock supplies. I also don't charge much I typically just double the material price rather than base it on labour hours as it's simply a hobby.

Well truthfully nothing you have added has any practical application. There is no Spirtuality in physics. The universe is not a sentient being with awareness and physics and mathematics is all that is required to describe how the universe evolves from a hot dense state regardless of your opinion. How that is possible involves taking the time to learn the physics before judging it. Physics does not involve religion or spirituality for very practical reasons. That reason being lack of any method of testability. You don't require religion or spirituality to build an airplane as one example.

I regularly make these for sale out of cedar. They sell fairly well.

Let's put it bluntly show how your transformations can be incorporated into the transformation rules of SR. What mathematics would be required to start from your transforms to arrive at the SR transformations. Can you do that? If you cannot then there is no way to confirm your hypothesis does in fact have compatibility compliance with SR. I never believe anything described verbally when it comes to physics. If it's not in the mathematics then it's not proven mathematically. It's that simple I don't take anyone's word regardless if it's from another PH.D in a professional peer review article of any declaration not shown in the math. For example what limit is in your article for speed of information exchange between two states ? You have never answered that question when I asked it on page 1. If you don't think that's important to your article then you must undoubtedly have a different definition of the causality principle from mainstream physics. An inertial frame of reference includes vectors in regards constant velocity that is also missing in your article. So declaring your applying IFRs without applying vectors for velocity is rather pointless

Sounds like according to you only your logic applies regardless of any evidence otherwise. Good luck with that. That isn't what logic or science is about. Myself and others prefer a more rigid approach to a good discussion involving science. So does our forum rules. That last post has literally zero practicality in either philosophy or physics in its argument but amounts to strictly a personal belief. Aristotle on the other hand his philosophy looked at the evidence he had available in his arguments.

Why c is invariant is one of those questions that has no answer. We know that c is invariant. That has been confirmed to extremely high precision but the closest answer afiak is that All massless (uncoupled) particles travel at c and this is reflected in the permittivity and permeability relation of the vacuum. \[c^2=\frac{1}{\mu_0\epsilon_0}\] So one could argue it is due to the permittivity and permeability of the vacuum along with the nature of an observers lightcone. Edit just noticed the person I was replying to is now banned.

A good forum where their members are willing to help those who truly wish to learn can often be underrated. This forum has numerous members with excellent skill levels that when someone wants to learn there is plenty of members willing to help out.