Jump to content


Resident Experts
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Mordred

  1. DC is actually considered more dangerous. High DC amps can literally blow a hole through you. Also with AC you have a chance in letting go of a conductor not so much with DC. Either way it's the AMPS that kills
  2. Think of it this way Hoola, an entangled particle is entangled by a probability function. When one particle changes state it does not cause the other to change state. You can merely make predictions of state of the other particle by measuring the state of one of the pairs. Once a measurement is made the superposition wavefunction collapses. So you cannot measure prior to sending a particle into the Bh. It's also highly unlikely the particle will not lose its entangled state due to the interference from the BH accretion disk.
  3. BRST quantization aka Faadev Popoff Ghosts https://saalburg.aei.mpg.de/wp-content/uploads/sites/25/2017/03/henneaux.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/1407.7256.pdf appears to be the most common method of renormalization with regards to quantum gravity.
  4. First off you an start by describing what your dilemma actually is with SR. Describe that in detail. If you have a proposed solution you can post your ideas following the rules with the speculation forum. Note this will likely require some mathematics as testability of any theory is one of the requirements of a theory. here are the guidelines https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/86720-guidelines-for-participating-in-speculations-discussions/ https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/22442-so-youve-got-a-new-theory/ first 24 hour of posting has a 5 post limit, this is a site antispam measure. Once 24 hours have elapsed then there is no daily post limit. The reputation system is simply that, Its largely meaningless and simply gives an indication of trust in how a poster responds or generates posts. Its easily turned around from a low rep to a high rep without too much effort.
  5. SR is quite easy to fathom and grasp, as Swansont above pointed out.
  6. there is nothing incorrect regarding the light clock used to describe time dilation on signal rate change. When you get right down to it gravitational redshift is a direct example.
  7. Keep in mind you cannot simply declare your using this. These tensors contain critical details at each entry. How they are used in flat, curved, rotating, curved rotating vary depending on the system. The example I provided earlier is Minkowskii metric with zero rotation. (Weak field Newtonian metric) called specifically Newtonian approximation.
  8. Good way to start, you may note the math I posted earlier uses the same for the GR portion. Well technically including the QFT portion as well. It also greatly simplifies the math to set \( g=\hbar=c=1\) and work in normalized units. Keep the permutations with \(h_{\mu\nu}\) that's this tensors primary function.
  9. Let's put it way, we have a very good working effective quantum field theory of spacetimes aka gravity for any every day application. It's only the extreme mass density such as the GUT scale that we run into problems with unification.
  10. If you count tests done on atoms as macroscale which it typically is considered then yes. https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0006033.pdf Penning traps is one of the more common method used Its also been done with high precision spectrography.
  11. I have to agree Migl. The chances of finding a CPT violation is extremely difficult without being a macro system. To get a rather large summary of the CPT and Lorentz invariant datatables one of my favorite look up references for various relations etc is here "Data Tables for Lorentz and CPT Violation" https://arxiv.org/abs/0801.0287 It's a 146 pages of sheer useful datatables lol. It's also been updated this year.
  12. I can quarantee I won't solve baryogenesis. My research is simply studying where the research currently is on that issue. Lol too many people think the only job of a physicist is to invent new theories. Most of the work is research.
  13. I love challenges, why do you think I enjoy physics so much ? It's challenging. One can accurately model any system or state using the mathematics of physics and subsequently test those theories. There are plenty of non textbook physics theories that attempt to counter well established theories. The difference is they still apply actual physics and mathematics You keep ignoring just how important testability is.
  14. You might want to take another look at polarity and helicity relations of CPT with regards to that last statement.
  15. Lmao, you can trust one thing. I will stick to my university degrees and the methods that those degrees professional trained me in. You can also trust images and descriptions will never solve any physics related topic. Just a side note virtual particles are never stable...they have insufficient mass/ energy to be stable. That can be mathematically proved using Breit Weigner cross section with regards to decay rate and mean lifetime.
  16. They don't if anything a physicist would take one look and completely ignore it. Just as I did. So am I sounds like a good time to close the thread
  17. No you specifically described stable virtual particles falling up with unstable particles falling down to two layered zones. Where is the misrepresentation when you clearly show that in the image with the statements on the LHS . Obviously the image gives errors you never intended.. Get the point you wouldn't get that with actual math
  18. Let's see virtual particles falling back to consciousness hue . Incorrect that would describe a vector field not a scalar field regardless of what consciousness hue means. Cloud like layer where no layer walls would exist. Dark matter and dark energy in the same layers Nothing correctly described.
  19. A good example if one were to plot the probability function for the quantum uncertainty principle. One wouldn't get a bunch of wavy sinusoidal lines. It would look more like a probability cloud around a vacuum potential baseline One of the most common mistakes is people trying to draw a particle wavefunction is to draw a symmetric sinusoidal waveform. That looks nothing like what a detector would show for a particles wavefunction. Another highly inaccurate visual representation is spacetime drawings. They are never accurate. Hence pictures are useless they are never accurate. Accuracy comes from making plots of test results. Not random drawings.
  20. As I mentioned though you would need a better setup. One device used in testing for CPT is the J-PET detector. https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/9789811213984_0005 Using photons to detect CPT is tricky. As mentioned it would be tricky to separate normal photon interference from CPT effects.
  21. You don't need to be a physicist to understand physics. Nor do you have to be a mathematician. The major formulas aren't that complex. We have plenty of members that have a solid understanding physics without knowing beyond the basic equations. Those equations however are essential when modelling. Diagrams and verbal descriptions is not modelling.
  22. Diagrams are rather pointless, they don't do much good in physics. The exceptions being those directly related to mathematical representations, example Feymann diagrams this is all a diagram is good for. Concepts...... The mathematics is the steps needed to go from concept of imagination to testability with observational evidence. Mere concepts do not good. I always find the avoidance of the mathematics needed surprising in so many that try to do so. The very job of a physicist is to have the tools needed to make testable predictions of cause and effect. The mathematics performs that job. If you ever wish to truly develop your model, your going to need them. I recommend starting with the FLRW metric. Its a good stepping stone to modelling fields.
  23. Your point of view doesn't really account for much. Baryogenesis relates to the question " why is there more positive matter than antimatter in our universe " that is the unsolved question. The issue is we still do not know the reason. Dark matter and dark energy are place holder terms. Regardless of the name both have been confirmed through a wide range of observational tests. This is why your opinion on that is irrelevant.. Observational evidence takes precedence. It is clear you don't understand the major theories with regards to cosmology. Instead of trying to reinvent physics in regards to quantum gravity. Perhaps your time would be better spent through study of GR QM and cosmology. Here this might help better understand cosmology without being too math heavy. http://arxiv.org/abs/1304.4446 :"What we have leaned from Observational Cosmology." -A handy write up on observational cosmology in accordance with the LambdaCDM model.
  24. Sterile neutrinos = right hand =anti neutrinos. They are predicted by the standard model but we have yet to detect them. One of the reasons is they have a different cross section with the Higgs interaction via the seesaw mechanism it is predicted to be far more massive.
  • 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.