Jump to content

joigus

Senior Members
  • Posts

    4422
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    49

Everything posted by joigus

  1. Hey, nice account. BTW, I recommend you Copenhagen, by Michael Frayn. It's about that (in)famous meeting, and offers a possible development that I can only conceive as happening with a many-world view.
  2. From what I know (and I know one case personally) it wasn't obvious during pre-pubescent stage and there were environmental factors that triggered it post-puberty. So what you say checks with my personal experience. That's why gene-based diagnosis is sure to become essential in the future.
  3. Only when a system is in thermal equilibrium, and provided it is ergodic, the time average of the kinetic energy coincides with the ensemble average at any one time. So you need the ensemble plus the fact that the system be in thermal equilibrium plus ergodicity. Very very special conditions indeed. And when it works, you've used the whole ensemble to define it... So it's not a property of the particle. It's a property of the ensemble! So no --I insist--, there is no temperature as a property of a singled-out particle of an ensemble in general. And when there is such a thing, it's only by stretching the concept so that what really is a property of the ensemble is decreed to be a property of any and every one of the members of the ensemble. I don't see how this definition does anything, really. And believe me, I would like nothing more than to be illuminated about anything physics.
  4. I didn't mean religious people --see my comments to Luc Turpin below. Apparently schizotypals were discovered as a consequence of behaviour scientists wondering: How come an illness as detrimental as schizophrenia is so significantly present in the gene pool? --In the ballpark of 1%. Wouldn't there be a milder but related version of the illness that could be proven as advantageous under certain circumstances? The parallel was sickle-cell anemia, which can kill you, but a milder version of which can protect you from malaria. So they found a high correlation of peculiar characters in relatives of people suffering from schizophrenia. I wouldn't dare to use the term "ill" for any of these people. AFAIK triggering of even serious form of schizophrenia only happens after environmental factors have made their appearance. But I'm very far from being an expert here and I'd gladly accept corrections by anyone who knows more about this. But not this one. Sorry, by "religious types" I didn't mean the followers of a religion. Rather, I meant the prophets, the visionaries, the people who hear voices, the people who see angels. You know, the founders of religions. The following of a religion is a completely different matter. Some people join because they feel comforted, others because they want to fit in, others because they are folklore-motivated, etc. Who knows. At least, I don't.
  5. It is a branch of math. https://www.britannica.com/science/geometry The branch is part of the tree, although the tree is not the branch.
  6. Schizotipical behaviour is not to do with mental stability. It's to do with delusional perception of experience (sensory or otherwise). Have you skimmed through the wikipedia article or references thereby? My emphasis in boldface in a sample from mentioned article: Etc.
  7. The very moment you posit that your theory is local. (emphasis mine) A theory is or is not local depending on a postulated interaction, or else by way of an ad hoc postulate or axiom. Yours is neither. It is neither non-local, nor is it local. It's only named "local" by you. And forgive me having overlooked this, but, what do you mean it overcomes Bell's inequalities? Quantum mechanics as is already overcomes Bell's inequalities, ie, it violates local realism. Bell's inequalities are a consequence of local realism. So again, what do you even mean?
  8. Protons are nothing like electrons. We do know as much. In what sense is this "holonomic"? "Holonomic" means integrable, exact, it goes back to itself after a loop. I don't see anything holonomic here. I can't fathom what's Bohmian about it, or local/non-local, as the case may be, as no mention of how position variables function in the "theory" can be spotted. Summarising, it very much sounds like word salad with no maths underpinning it. No calculation, no formal-mathematical justification. What description?
  9. Picture an inflating balloon. Now suppress the space around and inside the balloon, as there is no such thing as "inside" or outside the balloon. There would be only whatever stuff makes up the balloon. Now make the balloon itself 3-dimensional, with time providing for the "history" aspect of it. Spaces don't have to be embedded in higher-dimensional spaces. IOW, the only existing directions are those tangential to the balloon's rubber if you will.
  10. How about StPD at the root of many, if not all, of these reports? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizotypal_personality_disorder Religious types could, after all, be not much more than socially-accepted schizotipicals, that have somehow met the medium, and the way, to make their illness socially palatable.
  11. Indeed. I --and others, you among them-- have said it before elsewhere on the forums, actually. It's the energy-momentum that sources the gravitational field. I also agree with the absence, of necessity, of any causal connection between the Einstein tensor and the energy-momentum tensor.
  12. There is no such thing. Thermodynamics defines temperature based on thermal equilibrium. Statistical mechanics relates it to average kinetic energy per degree of freedom. For statistical mechanics to make the connection between both concepts through the partition function and the Maxwell distribution, we need approximations on really big numbers of molecules.
  13. The group of symmetry of electromagnetism is U(1) (complex numbers of length 1), and electrical charges are at the centre of it. From the POV of symmetries, conservation laws, and irreducible representations of groups (particle multiplets) QFT of electromagnetism and its brethren --weak interaction, strong interaction-- is more user-friendly by orders of magnitude. Things kinda "fall into boxes." GR is not like that. Not by a long shot. The group of symmetry of GR is basically just any differentiable transformation of the coordinates. Once there, after one picks a set of coordinates that locally make a lot of sense (they solve the equations easy, yay!), they could go terribly wrong globally, so that one must introduce singular coordinate maps to fix the blunder. Because the symmetry group of GR is this unholy mess, group theory doesn't help much, if at all. The equations are non-linear, so: Are there any solutions that might help clarify divergences, and so on, that we might have missed entirely? Who knows. In my opinion, the very fact that the set of coordinates that, locally, happens to be the most reasonable one could (and sometimes does) totally obscure the meaning of the coordinates far away from the local choice, and thereby their predictive power out there, makes the status of any parameters that the theory suggests (mass in particular) much less helpful than charge is in EM. Mass to GR is nowhere near anything like charge is to Yang-Mills theory (our paradigm of an honest-to-goodness QFT field theory).
  14. Yes! It's like a tinkertoy assembly for logically compressed inflexions[?]. Whatever I mean by that... For some reason, phonetics, syllables and their frequencies, it seems to be very friendly to the forming of composite words. The end result doesn't sound awkward.
  15. Is this (admittedly rough) understanding that I've acquired through the years correct?: The currency of red-ox reactions is electrons The currency of acid-base reactions is protons Now, in a manner of speaking, Both oxydisers and reductors can be understood in terms of "soaking up" and "giving off" electrons Both bases and acids can be understood in terms of "soaking up" and "giving off" protons That's the reason why so much of chemistry hinges around these two dual concepts Other cations, even the smallest ones, like Li+, are "monsters" in comparison to H+. Orders of magnitude so much so. So even though the mean free path of a proton is sizeably higher than that of an electron, it's bound to be gigantic as compared to that of even such a small thing as Li+. That would qualitatively account for an extraordinarily high mobility of protons, thereby the reactiveness of anything that either gives them off or soaks them up. That's the key to the concept of Lewis acids. Is it not? Then, for something to be a base, in its most general sense, it must be able to soak up protons. But for it to display this character, there must be some protons around to soak up. Wouldn't something like this be at the root of NH3 not "behaving as a base" just by itself, or in the presence of chemicals that cannot give off protons? Wouldn't it behave as a base in the absence of water, but in the presence of acids (neutralisation) like, NH3+A --->NH4++A- with A being any acid?
  16. German scientific terms are generally very precise. They feel no embarrassment in making long composite words tagging essential characteristics of the thing. Bremsstrahlung in Spanish is radiación de frenado, which is exactly 'braking radiation', but requires three words. Pronounced as in English, I assume.
  17. For a while I felt nervous about zitterbewegung and bremsstrahlung, but it grows on you.
  18. Spatially flat and space-time flat are often conflated in the literature. I would have to review the Riemann coefficients with 0t pairings of indices (a space cannot warp in just one dimension). I'm not sure nor do I have the time (nor the energy) now to review these notions. Maybe someone can do it for all of us. Most likely @Markus Hanke. I'm sure DS space-time is often characterised as having constant curvature*. We're kind of mixing it all together as if the scalar curvature were "the thing" that says whether a manifold is flat or nor. It's more involved. If just one Rijkl is non-zero, the manifold is just not flat. Calabi-Yau manifolds are another example which are Ricci-flat (R=0), but not flat. Yes. Thank you. Read my comments to @MigL on flat vs spatially flat, Ricci-flat, and so on. They're very much in the direction you're pointing. Right now I'm beat, but I promise to follow up on this. Yes, of course you're right. This theorem due to Birkhoff[?] that the external solution is unique as long as it's static and spherically symmetric. Schwarzschild's solution was just an unfortunate example. I know very little about exact solutions in GR. I just figure there must be solutions with not all curvatures zero with no clearly identifiable matter distribution giving rise to them. *
  19. Infinite at one point. Zero everywhere else. But you're right. It's not a good example. De Sitter is more what I was thinking about.
  20. It's a bit more subtle than this, I think. You can have vacuum solutions with curvature. If you think about it, the Schwarzschild solution is a vacuum solution. De Sitter and anti-De Sitter are too. OTOH, the Einstein field equations are nonlinear, so I wouldn't rule out other exotic vacuum solutions with curvature.
  21. Right. A scalar provides a particular type of covariance. Rank zero. L'(x')=L(x) That's what one must prove in this case.
  22. LOL forgot x106 didn't I? Coming from me lately, how could it be otherwise? fortunately more than 4000 and more than 6000 could also be more than 4.7x109 yo. Thanks
  23. Had the Moon disappeared more than 4000 4.109 ya it would have been much much worse. Most Earth scientists think it was essential in the appearance of life. Or SpaceX.
  24. Ok, so you're old school. I respect that. But mind you that coordinates could be misleading you in some respects while they're helping you in others. This observation should always be carried along. In flat coordinates, sure. In curvilinear coordinates, it's a bit more involved than that. That's called the Laplace-Beltrami operator and you have to write some metric tensors in between, and also some epsilons, if I remember correctly. I would need some time to remember all the machinery. If yours is a genuine question. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laplace–Beltrami_operator Also books like Gockeler-Schucker, etc. on differential-geometry methods for theoretical physics. Are you just asking or trying to catch me again? Yes. That's what Feynman did all the time. For some reason he didn't like the g's.
×
×
  • 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.