Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Days Won


Everything posted by joigus

  1. This makes no sense. And in fact it's usually the other way: The theory determines what to measure. Einstein famously pointed it out. It is because we have a theory that we can tell deviations of rotational velocity of galaxies from expected behaviour betrays excess density (DM), and certain measurements on supernovas confirms accelerated expansion. Those are parameters in the theory. That's why we expect those patterns, and we find them. Only rarely an experimental discovery comes completely from out of the blue. Although it does happen from time to time. An example from physics is the neutrino. I really think at this point you should take some time out for reflection.
  2. Happens to many people who get involved in popular science. They're slowly but surely attracted to the whirlpool of fringe scientific ideas. 'Do we live in a simulation?' is one of them, IMO. How about, for example, one is a constant (it has to be) and the other clusters (it must). So they are very very different. In the quantum theory, one must correspond to the ground state of all the oscillators. The other must correspond to real states (non-virtual). Excited states of quantum field theory of something we don't know.
  3. I'll probably hang in somewhere else. I already had my aha moment, but in a different direction than what you suggest. One more tip: Lose the smugness.
  4. Not that it's essential in any way, but Dr Tyson is an astrophysicist, not a theoretical physicist.
  5. Then you should post in philosophy. Metaphysics is, only too obviously, not the concern of physics. The root "meta" gives us an unmistakable clue. The thing, either contingent or "in itself", what "is"... But is it? What's the essence? Is it one thing, two perhaps? Metaphysics, you know. That pesky thing that Kant disposed of. Physics is mathematically precise models, connection to measurements (operationalism). IOW: Concepts, maths, and the pursuit of measureness.
  6. The mechanisms of denial. Procrastination being but one aspect perhaps. In the end it's all one big shrugging gesture.
  7. As said by exchemist and myself, we do know where it is. Deviations of the velocities of galaxies and application of the virial theorem allows us to do so. A different question is what it's made of: black holes, neutrinos, other particles allowed by natural extensions of the standard model? Several members --and I'm one of them-- seem to be of the same opinion. Namely; that you don't know very well what it is that you want to talk about (is is BH's, DM, DE?); and that everything is the same "enigma" for you, your umbrella term for every unknown. You are either deluded or confused, or perhaps unwilling to understand the current status of the theory of cosmology. Pretty much everyone knows by now that you are, and it only remains to be seen whether or not you are willing to take some information in. If you are, some people here could be of much help.
  8. It's the "what" that's a problem, not the "where". And the equations don't suffer any essential modification. It's just another source term on the right-hand side of the Einstein field equations. Another matter (never mind pun intended) is what DM is. And we're drifting off topic.
  9. Apparently you can't be bothered to read other people's answers. Also, what on earth does DM have to do with BH?
  10. Maybe what the OP means is something like quantum mechanics overrules the law of cause and effect? But I concur with you and @StringJunky that the initial proposition wasn't a proper either/or setting.
  11. Adding and subtracting the same thing doesn't change the solutions. And they are divergence-free, namely: chargeless. You don't derive a Lagrangian. You either already know the problem well, and then the Lagrangian is pretty much prescribed, or you must postulate a Lagrangian based on symmetry principles (example: the standard-model Lagrangian when it was postulated) because you don't know the dynamics precisely. Your Lagrangian seems to suggest a singled out direction of space, so it could hardly be fundamental, as it violates rotation symmetry. Your Lagrangian, I'm afraid, cannot explain known properties of electrons, like interference, or the Bohm-Aharonov effect, or spin, or electron-electron scattering, electron-photon scattering etc. All of those can be accounted for by field theory. So why change? Just because it's intellectually pleasing to you? Your "theory" is one of many pet theories that lead nowhere useful, as far as it seems.
  12. 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!
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. 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,
  17. More info: 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.
  18. 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.
  19. 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, 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.
  20. 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.
  21. 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.
  22. Glad to see you gave speaking in riddles a rest. 👍 +1
  23. What distinguises x to pair up with t? Why does this x go from -infinity to +infinity while y and z are compact? No. But there's worse: What happens to weak interactions and strong force? Are they outside spacetime?
  • 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.