Jump to content

joigus

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    813
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    8

joigus last won the day on July 28

joigus had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

135 Excellent

2 Followers

About joigus

  • Rank
    Protist
  • Birthday 05/04/1965

Profile Information

  • Location
    (0,0,0)
  • Interests
    Biology, Chemistry, Physics
  • College Major/Degree
    Physics
  • Favorite Area of Science
    Theoretical Physics
  • Biography
    I was born, then I started learning. I'm still learning.
  • Occupation
    teacher

Recent Profile Visitors

4209 profile views
  1. OK, punch a hole in the universe and go somewhere else. Good luck.
  2. You cannot reach speed of light. Requires infinite energy for massive bodies. Period.
  3. First main reason is this: There are more.
  4. Thanks for the visual help.
  5. I think "fall through" are the key words.
  6. I can't see how this could be wrong. +1. Eggs were around long before anything chicken-like was around. Whenever you decide a mature organism merits the definition of chicken, there must have been something before that already merits the definition of egg. I think it's check mate.
  7. Wrong paragraph, wrong book. Nothing about categories there; nothing makes much sense there either in today's context. You still sound cathartic.
  8. Yes, you can cut off your non-local couplings at a certain distance. An interesting idea could be assuming non-locality but cutting off at microscopic range. Somewhere in the junkyard of my mind I remember that idea. I must have read it somewhere. You would have unblemished Einstein locality and causality, but small violations for very small distances. You can play with the idea with some freedom. Take the non-local term that I gave you, \[f\left(x,t\right)=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}daf\left(a\right)F\left(x-a,t\right)\] and make the range of f(a) as small as you want.
  9. OK. I've been racking my brain about this for a while. You mean the Unruh effect, or the Rindler coordinates for flat space-time. Those are accelerated observers. The bare vacuum (non-interacting theory) is invariant under Lorentz transformations, and the dressed vacuum (dressed with interactions) I think also is, if I remember correctly. \[U\left(\Lambda\right)\left|0\right\rangle =\left|0\right\rangle\] \[U\left(\Lambda\right)\left|\Omega\right\rangle =\left|\Omega\right\rangle\] (you can also assume a phase á la Wigner) Mind you, temperature in GR is something that still has to be understood, I hope you agree. I also think there must be a deep connection between GR and QFT that requires understanding entropy in GR and accelerated observers in QFT more thoroughly. It seems that some people in the scientific community share your worries: http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Unruh_effect#Persisting_controversies Count me in. Multiple universes makes me very unhappy too. But that's in the area of interpretation of the theory. There's ground for reasonable disagreement, I surmise. I do too.
  10. Yes, you're right. Don't take me seriously. What I was saying there was in the spirit of parametrizing a problem, see if I can understand it better in terms of parameters. That's all. I have no idea if there could be a meaningful way to talk about something "happening" in that context. It would be very, very iffy. Just a "what if".
  11. That's what many people say and I understand how they can say that, because it's a formidable conceptual mirage. The violation of Bell's theorem cannot be put into question. But this only means that it is totally impossible to even think consistently about Sx, Sz and S45º at the same time. That's the extremely subtle point that I have no hope of getting across ever, because everybody seems to be more willing to believe in magic than to seriously sit and think about the assumptions. I know full well I will never hear the end of it. It's been 20 years for me personally, and counting. The truth is even John Bell was very cautious about making big statements concerning the implications of his theorem. Feynman was too. However weird the correlations are (and they certainly are), they were there when the singlet state was prepared, they were there a Plank's time worth of time after, and they will still be there when the particles are received seconds later. And they will keep there for as long as the overall U(1) symmetry of the state is not broken by interactions. They are initial correlations. Strange, puzzling correlations, yes; but initial, and generated locally when the system cooled down to a singlet. I know I have a strong opinion about this. But it's a reasoned opinion and at no point contradicts what's experimentally known. It's a matter of what it is that you read into the data.
  12. No, sorry. I don't. It's not the structure that's behaving differently; the observers are. What that has to do with the vacuum goes through my mind like neutrinos through a paper sheet. You had a very interesting observation (IMO) about macroscopic observers being deprived of completely reconstructing their own past world-lines (the way I understood your argument). I thought so and I still do. Debatable perhaps, but made sense to me. But then you went farther and farther afield into a dark territory I know nothing of, nor do I have any intuition of what you mean. I've never been there. Sounds to me like you're trying to build a nuclear power station with tinker-toy assembly pieces and you forgot the plutonium.
  13. I don't see the connection. Observations are observer-dependent ==> There is no underlying structure in the vacuum ??? But this was about time, wasn't it?
  14. I don't know. They must be in PS format when they come out, so LaTeX compilation no longer works on them. That's my guess.
×
×
  • 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.