joigus

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

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.

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.

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.

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. 😢

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.

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.

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.

Normalisation should come first. What is so suspicious about the motivation that you need an "actual motivation"? Isn't the fact that physical parameters should be expected to depend on the length/energy scale at which you observe them enough motivation?

No. It's based on amplitudes. Probability comes from amplitudes. Amplitudes cannot be explained in terms of probabilities.

I hope you also notice that English doesn't identify a particular sequence of letters with a sound. Eg, (my emphasis) the "th" sound in "rather" is very different from "th" sound in "with."

Sorry, because I was guilty of it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scale_invariance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universality_(dynamical_systems) Universality is frequently mentioned in association to scale invariance, not because it always happens, but because it seems to always happen in connection to critical phenomena.

It rings a bell, yes: https://www.scienceforums.net/search/?q=Alcubierre&quick=1&type=forums_topic&nodes=29 Neither am I. Perhaps translation invariance @grayson? Agreed.

It's a mathematical pattern rather than a process. I'm sure something like that is the reason behind @exchemist's excellent question. Take. eg, principles of extremal time, action, length, etc. They appear everywhere in physics. It's more about a recurring mathematical theme than actually a particular process.

Keywords to look up: Scale invariance and critical phenomena Universality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scale_invariance It seems to be the case that when changes in structure formation are about to happen, a transitory stage characterised by scale invariance happens. An example is a gas about to make the transition to a liquid. But, as noted, you could have some cases of self-similarity (synonym of scale invariance) when or where no phase transition is involved. Examples: biological tissue patterns, the shape of the coastline, etc. Another kind of self-similarity seems to be in evolution itself, but not like a spatial pattern. Rather, as a pattern of embedded behaviour: A thing trying to pass on as good as possible a copy of its identity, with little things inside trying to pass on as good as possible copies of their identity,... up to a final level (chuncks of nucleic acid) of little things trying to pass on as good as possible a partial copy of their identity. And so on, which seem to be relevant words here.

You are probably correct. Amen. (Sorry for using Hebrew.) And +1 to both.

Being a little fast and loose with your logic allows you to detect people who aren't. Welcome to the forums, if I didn't say it before.

This sound more like the dynamical law is invariant under time inversions, which is quite different from saying that the direction of time doesn't apply. Not even that is true, since electroweak interactions violate CP (charge conjugation + parity conjugation). Parity conjugation being the corresponding generalisation to quantum mechanics of mirror reflection. As we have very good reason to believe the world is CPT-invariant (the combination of the 3 relevant inversions in QFT), it follows that T must be violated. As Genady said, Physicists sometimes like to play with metaphors, and conceptual hell breaks loose. When the metaphor constitutes the argument, you can rest assured the argument cannot be trusted.

Can you provide a quote?

In 4D, if special relativity is correct, yes. What @Schindelbeck is talking about though is a bit different. Every particle would be moving in 5D and --for photons in particular-- only the 4D projections of their 5D trajectories would appear to go at speed c. That, of course, if I understood correctly and pending me getting back to it and seeing if I can make sense of any of it any further, which is by no means a certainty.

Thank you. Yes, that's right. I was trying to recall ways in which the different pieces of the Einstein tensor might have some kind of meaning easy to visualise.

The Ricci scalar is also of special interest because its integral to the whole manifold gives you the genus of your manifold (number of holes). So yes, physical information is coded in it. What not so clear to me is how to visualise the tensor itself. For some reason, people keep talking about "seeing" tensors.

You mean a scalar multiple of it? "Essentially". I forgot to say "essentially". It's essentially the only tensor... You can introduce a scalar that can be gauged away in virtually every theory we have. So...