joigus

1 minute ago, Spring Theory said:

The same logic that you cannot have an electric field without a charge.

We've already told you there is no such logic. Take Maxwell's equations. Choose both the charge-density and current-density terms to be identically zero. You get to what's known as vacuum solutions of classical EM. Those are known as electromagnetic waves. They are vacuum solutions (correspond to zero charge).

You are blissfully ignorant of basic physics, and a conversation of any kind is impossible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell's_equations#Vacuum_equations,_electromagnetic_waves_and_speed_of_light

Vacuum = sourceless = no charge

Study harder!

24 minutes ago, Spring Theory said:

What I propose is the matter breaks down into its photon components to bend around the singularity ring.

To add to your "to do" list: How do you make spin 1/2 from a sum of spin 1 "components"? Are those infinite sums?

I'm still waiting for your explanation of charge from non-charge, which we don't seem to be getting any closer to.

Nonsense is that which makes no sense, which so far seems quite appropriate.

41 minutes ago, Genady said:

As I see it, time travel and time inversion are two different things. The former involves "time mixing", i.e., the traveler's body maintains its time while being transferred into a different time of its environment. Of course, the time travel into the future is very much possible - e.g., the SR twins.

Agreed. There are other differences that are relevant. Time inversion is a discrete transformation, like all inversions.  It bears the question: Could it be that certain solutions of GR continuously transform both time and space so that a continuous evolution brings local observers to a state in which the universe is everywhere the same (including the particular observer) except for a parity transformation? I don't know if that's been considered, but I'm sure it has.

I made my comment essentially because I don't think Einstein's theory can be claimed to be "more or less the true explanation of the universe". That's too strong a statement and I don't think there's any hope of that.

5 hours ago, Boltzmannbrain said:

Time travel is not logically possible if we assume Einstein's theory of relativity is more or less the true explanation of the universe.

OTOH, I wouldn't expect Einstein's theory as a standalone to be more or less the true explanation of the universe. In particular, and as concerns time, I would expect left-right asymmetry and charge conjugation asymmetry (time-inversion asymmetry) in the standard model (and how they play out in combination with gravity) to play a very deep role in it.

50 minutes ago, xStFtx said:

What does Sedenion-like Associative mean?

 

Sedenions are non-associative. They're also the first algebra you can build with the Cayley-Dickson construction that is not a division algebra. Ie, it has zero divisors. They're some kind of generalisation of complex numbers. @studiot can probably tell you more.

Meanwhile,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedenion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cayley–Dickson_construction

And a nice 30-min video by Michael Penn that I recommend,

More info:

Quote

Intuitive meaning[edit]

The discovery of quantum groups was quite unexpected since it was known for a long time that compact groups and semisimple Lie algebras are "rigid" objects, in other words, they cannot be "deformed". One of the ideas behind quantum groups is that if we consider a structure that is in a sense equivalent but larger, namely a group algebra or a universal enveloping algebra, then a group or enveloping algebra can be "deformed", although the deformation will no longer remain a group or enveloping algebra. More precisely, deformation can be accomplished within the category of Hopf algebras that are not required to be either commutative or cocommutative. One can think of the deformed object as an algebra of functions on a "noncommutative space", in the spirit of the noncommutative geometry of Alain Connes. This intuition, however, came after particular classes of quantum groups had already proved their usefulness in the study of the quantum Yang–Baxter equation and quantum inverse scattering method developed by the Leningrad School (Ludwig Faddeev, Leon Takhtajan, Evgeny Sklyanin, Nicolai Reshetikhin and Vladimir Korepin) and related work by the Japanese School.^[1] The intuition behind the second, bicrossproduct, class of quantum groups was different and came from the search for self-dual objects as an approach to quantum gravity.^[2]

From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_group

BTW, you didn't answer. What do you mean by "classical groups"? As in Hermann Weyl's "classical groups"?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_group

That's different from "classical" as opposed to "quantum" as used in physics.

In that sense, "classical groups" are "rigid" or "static", while quantum groups "flow" from one to another by varying the parameters.

And that's practically all I can tell you.

Quantum groups are deformations of Lie groups themselves in the space of parameters. They're of concern mainly to mathematicians or very mathematically-minded mathematical physicists. Related to algebraic topology.

I don't know what you mean by "classical groups". Finite groups? Lie groups? Groups relevant to classical mechanics only?

I don't know what you mean by "quantum algebra". Seems to be some kind of umbrella term for all the tinkering tools somehow related to quantum mechanics, quantum field theory, and the like.

For Hopf algebras I would recommend you more specialised forums, like Mathoverflow or MathStackExchange, after you're through with the obvious sources you can find on the internet.

ℵ₀ is obviously a symbol used in a definition. The definition involves a bijection. A bijection to the natural numbers. Any set for which a bijection can be constructed to the natural numbers is said to have the cardinality of the natural numbers. We call this cardinality ℵ₀. Mind you, we call this abstract concept ℵ₀.

The question,

On 12/26/2023 at 12:07 AM, phyti said:

what is the magic n in N which is infinite by definition, where the set becomes aleph0?

Proves that you do not understand the definition of ℵ₀. Repeat: You do not understand the definition of aleph naught. Nothing becomes anything. It is what it is. Your question is as meaningless as, eg,

What is the magic in the natural numbers that makes n(n-1)...2  become n! ? 

Cardinalities aren't numbers, although sometimes they can be. They are what they are, and what they are is what they are defined to be. They are defined via bijection, therefore no numbers necessarily, but abstract properties of relations between sets that are equivalence relations, and only sometimes happen to "become something" in the sense that you suggest.

2 hours ago, swansont said:

(t,x) isn’t even two-dimensional time unless we’re redefining what x stands for (without any explanation)

True. Last time I was thinking what on earth that (t,x) (y,z) even means, with no metric or interval, or anything else to tell them apart.

I suppose you could say 2D sphere could refer to S₂, which is the sphere that can be described with 2 parameters. IOW: The sphere that can be embedded in a flat 3-dimensional space. Mathematicians sometimes talk about:

S₁: The circle (the 1-sphere)

S₂: The ordinary sphere (the 2-sphere)

S₃: The glome or hypersphere (the 3-sphere):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3-sphere

Etc.

That as to the maths of it.

As to the physiscs of it, as @swansont has pointed out, this would be a strange physics with a 2-dimensional time and a 2-dimensional space in which inverse-square law wouldn't hold.

So it's a non-starter.

19 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Logic takes us to the most likely explanation from the available information; when it meets a paradox, it doesn't mean the paradox is real, it means the information is unavailable. Therefore logically, to draw the conclusion that logic is therefore illogical, is illogical...

Couldn't be bothered to read the rest.

 

Glad to see you gave speaking in riddles a rest.  👍 +1

What distinguises x to pair up with t? Why does this x go from -infinity to +infinity while y and z are compact?

9 minutes ago, NewScience said:

Can you see that this unifies gravity and electromagnetism into Spacetime?

No.

But there's worse: What happens to weak interactions and strong force? Are they outside spacetime?

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

I'm not sure, it is mildly entertaining. 

Meh. I'm not sure I'm sure.

On 12/11/2023 at 8:02 AM, Eise said:

Well, if Dim is OK with the reactions he got, we better, close the thread, before a herd of 'oobermenschen' invades it... Otherwise, silence is the answer.

On 12/28/2023 at 5:29 PM, Janus said:

The same set of lines, just viewed from different perspectives.  In the first image the red line is "taller" than the green, and in the bottom image the green line is "taller" than the red.  The point being that in Relativity, time and space are measured more like the "height" of the lines in the images and not by their absolute length.

Brilliant.

This is my favourite way of talking about discrepacies in measured lengths and times for different observers, and I love that you just used it. Moving is like taking an angle. In fact, that's exactly what it is: Being at an angle with respect to another "mover". Somewhere else I've explained this as just another kind of foreshortening. Consequences of foreshortening are real enough for anybody trying to --eg-- get a large object through a short door by tilting it.

Of course, if you change your state of motion, your previous tilting parameter (your velocity) is no longer the same. This is at the core of so many people trying to "point out" to everybody else that "something is wrong" with relativity.

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

Wow!! That was awesome!! 😃

Thanks for the reaction. Yeah, I found out about this guy a couple of days ago on the Rick Beato channel, and I was blown away. 

The Bongo Song

Author: Safri Duo

Drum cover: El Estepario Siberiano

Last 1.5 min are promotional material

21 hours ago, studiot said:

I don't agree.

Neither do I. There are the vacuum solutions that you point out and they correspond to we all know what.

There are also interesting possibilities in the so-called topological vacuum solutions which would not be related to source charges.

I'm still trying to absorb the impact of "the spirals would be geodesics", or something equally daft.  

3 hours ago, William.Walker39 said:

and no theory based on a logical falicy can be correct no matter how many experiments claim to prove it.

Your physics is wrong for several reasons that have been pointed out. But here's another one: Logical fallacy implies a bad use of the rules of arguing in order to prove a point; it says nothing about being right or wrong regarding that point. 

Thus, even a theory based on false assumptions could be correct in the sense that it provides you with the right mathematical model. Ironically, that's what happened with Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism. He pictured mechanical tensions on a medium, which totally was the wrong idea, as later found out. But it gave the right equations, which in turn led to the right ideas that unfurl the amazing generalisation which is relativity, which you don't seem to understand.

For a less intuitive but more encompassing understanding of energy --if somewhat abstract-- one can't do better than this:

https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_04.html

Or, perhaps, one can. We have Emmy Noether to thank:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether's_theorem#Example_1:_Conservation_of_energy

When the mathematical dust has settled, the idea is: Energy is an abstract property of systems which they must have if 1) They can be described by a principle of least action, and 2) Physical laws cannot include time explicitly.

As we know both to be the case almost universally (cosmology being perhaps a case when things should be discussed more carefully), physical systems must have an energy.

28 minutes ago, Spring Theory said:

When the photon collapses, the charge source is the dipole that is created. I stipulate that every electric field implies a charge source.

That's not consistent with Maxwell's equations, only too obviously.

And I don't know what you mean by "the photon collapses".

A localised dipole produces a field that is zero-divergent everywhere. The total charge of a dipole is q-q=0. Any monopolar term cannot be accounted by the photon.

5 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

If you think the phonetics of English are complicated, you should try German  Or one of the many tonal languages, such as Thai, or Chinese…

I tried with both German and Chinese. I had to give up on both, but I would recommend studying challenging languages if only to get an idea of the different ways in which information is organised in them. Chinese really was the biggest challenge in the sense that I realised I'd probably never become any fluent in it no matter how hard I tried taking it up that late in my life. 😢

25 minutes ago, studiot said:

A better example would be lather (voiced) and lath (unvoiced) and lathe (voiced)

Yes. Now is this difference enough to justify a different symbol? I'm not saying it is.

The phonetics of English is very complicated indeed. It's almost as if every word constituted a case study (that's obviously an overstatement, as there are regularities, obviously). But there are clearly many many irregularities, which must have to do with history.

I won't pretend I'm an expert on this, of course. I just like to think about these things. And English has taken a lot of my thinking and observing.

10 hours ago, Tristan L said:

Since when? The "th" in "rather" and the "th" in "with" are both pronounced exactly like the "th" in "the": as the voiced dental fricative. So "with the shovel" is pronounced with a long /ð/.

The vocal cords are vibrating when you pronounce "rather" while they're not when you pronounce "with" resulting in two very different sounds. Try it, and you'll see.

So, in answer to your question: Since the moment you pronounce them. Exactly as in "them" and "bath" (different).

I don't care what funny words any linguist uses to describe them. I've done an experiment, and in my book that is sacred.

26 minutes ago, Spring Theory said:

I'm proposing an underlying structure to charge that does not conflict with Maxwell's equations.

You could in principle make mass from non-mass. Charge doesn't work that way. For the reasons Swansont is telling you about. You need a divergence. IOW, source field lines to source out of a point.

Also, models based on ribbons with kinks and antikinks, and breathers, and many other topological properties have been done to death.

I don't see why it's deterministic (Planck's constant is zero?) Probabilities are kicked out of the picture?

I don't see how Lorentz's dilation equation could be made more precise either. More precise in what parameter?

What does it mean to do an autopsy on an elementary particle?

I cannot make sense of anything you say.