Jump to content


Resident Experts
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Mordred

  1. lol you have no idea how often I have stated this detail.
  2. lmao well if you think about it the Greens correlations is a good example with regards to creation and annihilation operators however I think you should instead refer to this for starters https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_function note the specifications of autocorrelation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autocorrelation
  3. The correlation function is determined at the preparedness of the entangled states and the experimental apparatus. Before I go further you do know how a correlation function applies is statistical math correct. ? Any two variables can be tested for a correlation those two variables can be 100% unrelated to the other. It could be the number of accidents in Japan vs population growth in the US if one value increases and so does the other then you a positive correlation. If one goes down while the other up then a negative correlation if one value changes while the other randomly goes up and down them no correlation. Regardless of the correlation results no communication hidden variable or cause and effect or in this case shared causality need exist. Here is a simple two possible analogy take a bag of apples and a bag of oranges. You have a statistical chance of getting either oranges or apples. Alice opens her bag she has determined she has apples the probability becomes zero as she determined the physical state (apples) Bob knowing Alice got apples will automatically know he has oranges. The states of what were in the bag were not changed to get the results. The same applies to particle entanglement measuring the (I will stress this the physical state) of one particle does not change the physical state of the other particle) the measurement only affects the probability states. Ignoring the quantum uncertainty when applied to observational interference for the moment
  4. Well quite frankly I never liked any metaphysical interpretation but block has always been one I found lacking. Yes there is a fundamental difference on time to space.
  5. Yes to all the above I really don't see where your coming from with this. You know as well as I do that temperature for example is part of the EM field a field itself requires space. I really don't see a purpose arguing validity of any form of state that does not involve space. If that state changes you obviously require time. Even if it doesn't can apply duration to that state
  6. No I'm not your still applying space via a point in space for temperature that literally equates to my statement on measurement doesn't it? even if you define a space its still involves space. Interesting thought but I rather doubt the conclusion by A. Zee but would have to read the analysis myself to truly understanding where he is coming from.
  7. Phase space equations applications to Bolztmann. \[q_i=ap_i\] commoving coordinate of particle as r^i. proper momenta as p_i \[P_i=\frac{m_a dx_i}{\sqrt{-ds^s}=(1-\psi}q_i\] particle density in canonical phase space distribution \[(f^a,P_j,\tau)\] \[dNa=f_a(r_i,P_j \tau)d^3 r_id^3P_j\] for every particle species and their polarizations (a) the energy momentum is given in the Newtonian gauge by the expression (first order) by \[T_{a\nu}^{\mu}=\int d^3 p_i \frac{p^\mu p_\nu}{p^0}f_a\] with \[p^0=-p^0=\sqrt{(q/a)^2+m_a^2}\] \[p^i=p_i=q_i/a\] obeys Boltzmann equation of the form \[\dot{f}+\dot{r}^i\frac{\partial f}{\partial r^i}+\dot{q}\frac{\partial f}{\partial q}+\frac{\partial f}{\partial \tau}_c\] Relativistic Wigner Function Approach to Neutrino Propagation in Matter. https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/9810347.pdf Signatures of Relativistic Neutrinos in CMB Anisotropy and Matter Clustering https://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0310198.pdf
  8. The question is more fundamental than that. its literally how can anything physically exist without taking up space. Physics describe physical processes and quantities
  9. how do you have existence of any form without space?
  10. No that's not what I'm stating I simply stated in order to measure something you require space. I did not state change requires measurement how would you ? you would have an effective range of interaction between the two particles ? The better question would be is how you can even have a particle without space for it to reside ? the point like characteristic however miniscule still resides in space.
  11. You also require a space to measure A definition I always apply to physical is any measurable property, quantity or state. edit I should add the caveat that a common QFT view is that measurable equates to real as per real vs virtual particles. Though its better described as field perturbations vs excitations.
  12. well any waveform changes so obviously you need time. You must have a space to take any measurement or to simply have some quantity to change of what it is to change. If you have absolutely nothing that changes then you certainly cannot apply time. You can simply state time exists for anything that has change.
  13. All particles have a range of field influence, Such as the Compton wavelength, harmonic oscillations etc. the point like characteristic is only one characteristic that defines a particle the wavelike characteristics do apply. \[E_{kinetic}\propto T \] the kinetic energy of the particle is proportional to its temperature contribution so it must have space to move correct me if I'm wrong lol how so ?
  14. I like your approach into the basis of relativity +1
  15. nope not really mind science has very little to do with physics. In particular it certainly doesn't validate some godly observer view point. We don't count spiritual astral projection like states in physics. Now do we count other mental like powers as being involved
  16. without gravity certainly however you can't really have something that changes if that something has no spatial dimension. Can any object or state exist without a spatial dimension of some form. Time isn't an entity unto itself, so under that in order to have time you must something that changes
  17. \[e^-+e^-\overbrace{\rightarrow }^{photon} e^-+e^-\] There is the Moeller scattering of two electrons fired at generating a scattering event of two electons. You will subsequently generate an off shell mediator photon. So you will be generating light, however assuming that you can generate sufficient mass density to have the mass below the Schwartzchild radius the photons would not escape. See Swansont's reply above However electrons will repel each other so simply firing them into a specific region will not be sufficient. I don't think a magnetic trap will suffice either as the EM field interactions will cause further scatterings and particle generation/ annihilation events. However lets assume you can generate a BH by some method of containment. The Hawking radiation will be fastest the smaller the BH. So the initial BH will want to decay extremely quickly however Hawking radiation only applies when the Blackbody temperature of the BH is higher than the Blackbody of the surrounding region... Not sure how that would work as your firing beams into the confined space.
  18. As time is a property that describes rate of change you must have the requirement of some state, object, field, space (as volume) that changes. as long as you can measure something then time is applicable. Obviously measurement isn't a requirement for time to be involved either as things change even without being measured. However you must have something that changes even if that something is another property.
  19. One thing I've always found annoying about how entanglement is described in numerous papers involving the various paradoxes and interpretations is that very few of the papers ever mention that the entangled particle pair had a causal past connection at the moment of entanglement. That causal connection also prepares the allowable states in accordance to the conservation laws. (charge,energy-momentum, flavor, color, isospin, lepton number ) etc. So lets examine that using the parametric down conversion of a monochrome light beam through the beam splitter common to the EPR experiment. As photons are used were dealing with polarity states (left and right circular polarity states). Ok so we don't know the which particle is which so naturally we have a superposition probability state that will be common to both wavefunctions as its fired to the detectors. (treat as one state shared by both) or treat as two identical states. (seems to me shouldn't matter which descriptive is used in this case. The probability is further increased by the detector alignment at detector A and B in so far as the angle is concerned. That gets factored into the correlation function. Now lets stop for a second and think about this. The state sent to each detector is a probability state. It is not the physical state. We do not know the physical state so we can only describe the probability state. Once you observe/measure (in QM measure is identical to observe), you have determined the physical state so naturally the probability state is no longer required. Applying the previous conservation laws the person at detector A will automatically know wheat state should be detected at detector B as being the opposite polarity. There is no cause or communication needed beyond the original preparedness of the entangled particle pair. The very act of generating an entangled particle pair in the first place requires a causal connection. (the two particles must interact in order to become entangled). the particles themselves do not communicate between each other nor change states as a result of the superposition wavefunction collapse. The communication that occurs is when you go to communicate the results of one detector to the other detector or for timing purposes. if for example observer at detector A does their measurement. detector B doesn't know the results until detector A informs them. Until detector B gets the results that detector will still treat the state as a superposition state. A probability state isn't a physical measured state. Any measured stated is a determined state. A key note you can have a superposition of waveforms that are physical (ie a collective of different frequencies in the same space) thats a bit different than the entangled superposition state which is a probability function.
  20. I don't see how you would get a string loop to represent charge.... In string theory itself charge is represented by where the endpoints lie on the graph/ brane. However string theory doesn't apply a single string either. Quite frankly having a single string represent all of the periodic table would be an impossibility.
  21. We have tested the weak equivalence principle on the moon and found it holds as \[m_i=m_g\] held on the moon test it follows that the time dilation aspects of GR will also hold
  22. on that I fully agree with you, I enjoy a good scientific discussion its natural and part of the scientific process to examine different view points for validity etc. A good discussion should include alternate views for examination
  23. I got rid of that neg rep you got above you didn't deserve it there even though rep is a trivial thing
  24. ok no offense taken and I had no intention of giving offense so My apologies on that by the way I dont feel you deserve that neg rep point so I'm going to remove it.
  25. my apologies but did you not correct how I verbally described the above ?
  • 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.