Mordred

It is negative mass COMPARED to the e(k) of the field strength. Which is a positive field strength. This is what I meant by look at the math itself.

Don't be fooled by what is verbally described, study the math and you will see that the quote by Migl is still correct

They set the baseline at [latex]e=\frac{1}{2}\hbar v^2[/latex] this is the zero point energy baseline which is a non zero value. The above is due to the Heisenburg uncertainty principle. They set this non zero baseline as a zero baseline then for the negative [latex] \hbar v [/latex] state this is a negative energy density. Which is compared to the non zero, zero point energy baseline (average of HUP). In essence it is still a positive energy density if you use a true zero baseline and not the zero point energy baseline. This also applies to baseline treatments ie "effective mass" in solid state physics. That is the mislead. When you look at field equations were interested in the vectors. All your groups and tensors use vectors and spinors. So you set the baseline as the average between two charge polarities for your symmetry relations such as the Lorentzian group SO(1.3) which details the Euclidean vectors under charge/vector symmetry. Your vectors for charge will be related to the field. You have different fields involved in the series of articles you posted with different fields involved. So apply this to each paper, however apply Dirac to the electromagnetic fields as well as the HUP. Think of it this way any average field value can be set as a zero point. We do this all the time. Your charge dynamics under vector charge symmetry ( ie a 180 degree change in direction or attraction/repulsion) will be applied to that effective baseline. Effective mass is "find the (e,k) relationships/compared to the electron mass." Here https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://folk.uio.no/ravi/cutn/semiphy/6.l7_intrinsic-extrinsic.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwishIawo4fWAhUn_4MKHdLyAPkQFggdMAA&usg=AFQjCNFqQ-eItHJWlELje1g4PGLv-8Flfw k is the dimensionless curvature constant

That last paper is extremely misleading in its first paragraph. The negative energy density is negative compared to a higher ground state density. specifically zero point energy Which does not oppose GR....

Lol excellent book I agree with that sentiment Another good book is Mathematical methods for Physicists by G. B. Arfken, H. J. Weber, and F. E. Harris.

lol that's why I usually spend that time answering physics posts lol.

The error correction messages are of more exacting detail than the previous software as well. Now the error messages provide a direction in the error string involved in more complex latex forms.

In the case of ADS/CFT the Schwartzchild metric. Gravity locally has Lorentzian symmetry relations the inherent in vector commutations. The SO(3.1) Lorentz group is often modelled as negative curvature. ADS/CFT applies this signature choice to the Lorentz group above. Here is a decent coverage of antiDesitter under group relations. https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/9805087&ved=0ahUKEwiYzpKB9bfVAhUJ4mMKHTI7CVsQFgg4MAQ&usg=AFQjCNGu1uY87efqxPD7YuCUaARv7VYwEQ Anti-Desitter actually originated in GR and the FLRW metric. ADS/CFT and the previous curvature symmetries under groups follow the same relations in terms of curvature relations being modelled. One has to be careful on what is the cause of curvature change ie there are differences between curvature of a commoving volume as opposed to a static metric. FLRW (LCDM) cosmology and GR applications respectively. All spacetime curvature metrics will determine curvature by the scalar modelling kinetic/potential relations or often energy/density vs pressure relations following its equations of state. [latex]w=\frac{\rho}{p}[/latex] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state_(cosmology) see last formula for the scalar modelling relations. Coincidently QFT uses that same precise formula. In the case of point mass Centre of mass systems the negative signature is used to identify a centre of mass vector field. This signature is also reflected under gaussian distributions of multi particle COM systems As this thread is about spacetime tomorrow I will add the curvature terms to the metric tensor. It will help better understand Lorentz symmetry groups SO(1,n) though it will also help in other groups such as SU(n)

Your last post will be extremely difficult to explain under the holographic principle and how CFT would treat the Kondo effect. I guess the only way is to first clear up what is meant by ADS/CFT ..anti_Desitter/conformal field theory. This very title has tremendous mathematical meaning and encompasses a range of models. Then in order to tie that in with Kondo cutoffs under conformal theory I need to explain the coordinate transformations for the holographic surface under the Penrose diagrams. All this before we can reasonably be on the same page...lol. Note hadn't gotten to entanglement yet.. OK lets start with Anti Desitter spacetimes. Well in essence an anti-Desitter spacetime is one where the curvature term is negative. Guage transformations anticommute rather than commute. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-de_Sitter_space this wiki covers enough of the basics but in essence its a negative curvature with a cosmological constant. Under ADS/CFT this is your boson fields. Now conformal is rather tricky to explain under the above. What is conformal well conformal is the transformations that leaves the size of the angles between corresponding curves unchanged. Which differs significantly to scalar transformations. Well lets just jump to conformal geometry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conformal_geometry lets stop here for a bit let me know if you have questions on this before we approach LSZ cutoffs as applied to your holographic surface. My apologies for taking this approach but I honestly cannot see how I can answer your last post as to how QFT handles Kondo effect as opposed to ADS/CFT treatment unless I know you understand how the two treats the geometry of spacetime. One needs to understand the guage groups, and differences in transformations and rotations. (Especially since Kondo effect uses path integrals under feyman rules. Not to mention the coordinate transforms under the differences in coordinate systems ie tortoise, Kruskal etc.. (PS. I takes a ton of preliminary work to even begin to comprehend ADS/CFT properly)

Ok I will not fault you for following and supporting the holographic principle via ADS/CFT. It is a viable possibility however I would like to spend some time after work showing you how ADS/CFT works in cosmology applucations which your last post doesn't particularly apply. Hopefully once I detail ads/cft after work you will see why,

is there a guide for chemistry symbols? the standard math ones are working for me but never really tried drawing a chemical reaction under latex

Your looking at the harmonic oscillator via the spring inaccurately. I would like to properly show how the spring via Hookes law relates to the QM oscillator but will need to do so tonight. When I have time to properly answer the above. Its too important to cheapen the answer. However for now think of it this way. In the spring there is an equilibrium point in its range of motion. The equilibrium point being determined by the potential and kinetic energy. So when I have time later I will apply this to Hookes law then step it into QM

All field excitations (particles) are potential differences. The amplitude to some baseline. That includes every particle mentioned in the quoted section.

umm no it applies to all fields. Potential energy is ability to perform work due to position in a gradient potential. Kinetic energy ability to perform work due to the momentum term again influenced by observer under relativity. It is inpossible to determine some "absolute energy" as energy requires potential differences and is a consequence of potential differences. So energy does not get created. It is a property or relation denoting the ability to perform work. That is how the universe from nothing models work. The HUP is your source of potential differences initially.

Yes Tar e=mc^2 is involved but I am focussing on what energy is and how energy is a consequence or property. One cannot measure energy without measuring a potential difference between observer and emitter. So if you have a 100% uniform field energy=0 to all observers.

Heisenburg is definitely relevant. You are on the right track. Lets start with field energy=0. Does that truly mean zero. Or does it mean that it is the lowest possible energy density value or vacuum expectation value that can possibly be determined. (disregarding zero point energy with HUP for the moment)

Try answering the question as it will answer why energy doesn't need to be created. Start with three basic defintions. 1) energy 2) potential energy 3) kinetic energy. Go from there I have a specific reason why I asked these questions as they relate to "Observer effects". Has nothing to do with my beliefs but literally physics definitions. Please do not give me the argument this is philosophy not physics. Philosophy is pointless in metaphysics if it doesn't adhere to how physics defines a property. You want a thread beyond mere personal claims and blah blah blah defenseless assertions then apply some basis of science. After all isn't the title of this thread not. Philosophy, Science and reality? I see tons of posts applying very little science.

I would like to ask this related question. What does it mean to state the energy of a system is zero? (you can replace state with field if you so choose). This question is probably one of the more least understood aspects on how all universe from nothing models work... Secondly why is the observer aspect so important to consider in the first question? I'm curious as to the range of answers on those two questions. PS if you get the first answer correct the second questions answer will be automatic. These questions directly relate to the topic of what is observable or measurable take your pick. Little hint the answers to the above will be the same regardless if you use relativity, statistical mechanics, classical mechanics, or QFT. They will also demonstrate the difficulty involved in defining "real" Real as per some absolute value.

He is refferring to a particular model called holographic entangled spacetimes via the holographic principle using ADS/CFT theory. Numerous physicists support ADS/CFT others don't. ADS is Anti-Desitter. With CFT being conformal field theory. Which is a particular higher dimension treatment. The model is mathematically viable, with some support. Its one possibility but as of yet does not have any strong evidental support. This has similarities but is a bit different from particle entanglement. (Though similar mathematics has been shown that particle entanglement may also involve ADS/CFT.) in a similar manner. In essence [latex]\mathcal{H}=\mathcal{H}_{qubit}\otimes\mathcal{H}_{qubit}[/latex] You have three Hilbert spaces 2 which are disentangled summing to the entangled spacetime L.H.S of equal sign. the two [latex]\mathcal{H}[/latex] on the R.H.S follow the degrees of defined by the Hilbert spaces defined by [latex]\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|00\rangle+|11\rangle)[/latex] Which is your spin up spin down states. for spin 1/2 statistics. Hilbert space under QM. I wouldn't think of this as different spaces as in a hidden dimension etc. This actually describes degrees of freedom) when the spin up and spin down degrees of freedom are entangled you have the LHS state. CFT tries to connect the spin 1/2 states to geometry via the holographic principle. It is a fancy way to describe how states becomes correlated. Yes this does show a possible descriptive in regards to Bell's inequality vs hidden dimensions. (care must be taken on how dimension is defined). There is huge misleading confusions of what this model mathematically describes. Simply due to its complexity. How do you explain IR and UV cutoff, holonomy, bifarcations, tensor degrees of freedom etc to the public? Simply put these spaces are restricted to the quantum scale. At the quantum scale the bifarcations of Hilbert spaces can occur with the density matrix being defined by the correlation function in the short and long range cutoffs defined by the IR and UV divergences (infrared and ultraviolet) S matrix cutoffs. Where each bifarcation is a cauchy foliation on our Lorentzian spacetime. lol try to explain that last paragraph to the public. Add to that the cutoffs and correlation functions are probability functions. Might help if you associate each state as a phase. The Hilbert space being the map of influence strength of each individual phase/state. (yes were dealing with waveforms/excitations under Hilbert spaces). Hilbert spaces is an excellent tool to describe sinusoidal waveforms. As you can see this model treats particles as field excitations. As it must involve QFT. Each Hilbert space corresponds to a field phase state.

If some of the links didn't parse correct use my signature the links are on my site page. http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/

Lets see at [latex]10^{-43}[/latex] the temperature would be around [latex]10^{19} [/latex] The estimated number of particles using the Bose-Eistian Boltzmannn statistics is [latex] 10^{90}[/latex] particles. inflation then occurs solving the flatness problem and horizon problem. Giving us our uniform temperature distribution. Inflation causes a rapid supercooling due to the ideal gas laws. ( an increase in volume will lower temperature as the average density decreases). When inflation slow rolls to a stop there is a super reheating. This removes any further anistropy. When the temperature drops below 3000 kelvin atoms start to form giving us our CMB. So key evidence for BB. Uniform distribution via inflation, universe cooling= evidence of expansion. Correct predicted percentage of hydrogen, lithium etc= nucleosynthesis evidence. Hows that for a quick coverage to answer your questions above. If you want greater detail feel free to start a new thread in astronomy forum. The number of particles remain approximately the same but the types of particles and mixture changes. https://arxiv.org/abs/1304.4446 What we have leaned from Observational Cosmology." -A handy write up on observational cosmology in accordance with LCDM https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0409426 overview of Cosmology Julien Lesgourgues Here is some free articles on Cosmology

Yes and no using strictly mass. As matter collapses into large scale structures, it concentrates matter locally. This in turn reduces mass density globally so that the universe will in fact expand instead of collapsing as the global mass density decreases. What you need is another set of relations. This being potential energy vs kinetic energy. Every particle has an energy density to pressure relation. (matter being p=0) if the inherent kinetic energy of your particle contributors is greater than the potential energy of gravity the universe will expand. It will collapse if the average gravitational potential exceeds the inherent kinetic energy of your contributors.. Here is a link on equations of state (cosmology). Read the link first, then read the universe geometry article above. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state_(cosmology) The critical density formula gives the point where an expanding universe will start collapsing (at least prior to discovering DE). In essence it is the universe thermodynamic relations that dictate how our universe evolves. gravity is only a part of the equations.

Looks like that personal definition got busted. Ah well back to the drawing boards... Didn't think of that scenario lol +1 Goes to prove, when you try to define something to account for all possibilities.

Combination of both. Your three spatial dimensions are always included but under the global geometry. String theory under groups adds mathematical dimensions to separately define smaller volumes under transformations for different overlapping fields. In essence different embedded geometries each describing a different field dynamic. The key is symmetry transformations. For example Kaluzu-Klien has you relativity degrees of freedom. (ct,x,y,z) Now Kaluzu adds electromagnetic charge to the above. Making the above 5D. If you add the strong force you need a minimal 3 degrees of freedom to define the interactions of the quark family. So now we have 8. Now add the weak force for another 3. 11 dimensions. Under groups the above is SO(3)×SU(2)×U(1). This is the majority of the dimensions in String theory but not all

The above not exact isn't inaccurate enough to correct. Heuristically describing fields as creating space is commonly written in literature just keep in mind space is just the volume. As for the Entanglement information isn't exchanged faster than c. That is a pop media misnomer that I would prefer to help you understand under a new thread in QM forum as its a bit off topic on this thread. Yes string theory has 13 dimensions. (effective degrees of freedom), There is also embedded mathematical geometry states (local etc)