Ned

On 9/11/2022 at 12:43 PM, mistermack said:

A lot of European countries seem to be considering freezing energy prices below market prices, and to use government money to pay for the difference. The UK has already announced a two year freeze plan. (possibly costing taxpayers £150 billion)

I'm not sure it's a good option. I'm not against intervention and support for domestic bill payers, but I have my doubts if this is the best way, or the right scale. 

The obvious problem with it is the cost, which is absolutely huge. Someone will have to pay it, and that someone is tax payers. No matter how you smoothe it out, the tax payer will pay. If you do nothing, the users pay for what they use. Which is the general rule for most things. If I go for a drink, I pay for it. If I put fuel in my car, I pay for it. In fact, I pay tax on top. So this is the reverse. If I use electricity or gas, instead of me paying the price, the tax payer pays a chunk of it.

The main problem with that, is that if you freeze the price, you reduce the incentive to economise. If the price of diesel shot up, I might decide to drive less, and use the bus more. Or use pedal power. The money saved would make economising more attractive and worthwhile. 

That's how inflation is normally kept in check. If sellers raise prices, buyers look for economies and cheaper alternatives. The balance of supply/demand controls inflation. You are losing that, if you subsidise the price.

I would favour direct money grants to bill payers rather than price freezes. That way, there is still a big incentive to use less, and more chance of market prices coming down. 

Of course, there is a downside to that as well. Some people will just blow the grant money on something else and still find that they can't pay their fuel bills. But there might be ways around that, like a delay in paying the grant, and using it on fuel bills, if people are in arrears.

Anyway, I'm not decided myself, I just wondered what others would think.

Electricity , gas , fuel , food etc should be expensive . Televisions , beds , cookers ,housing  etc, should be cheap . I have never known such a backwards planet ! 

On 6/12/2022 at 9:53 PM, iNow said:

I’ve been hearing a lot lately about strategic use of ketamine with seriously good results, but that’s clearly pharmaceutical. 

Similar positive results are being had with psilocybin (of the magic mushrooms variety) under guided conditions. 

All the energy for depression that’s otherwise resistant to standard treatment, however, appears to be with ketamine according to my various neuroscience feeds. 

The human neurological reference frame (the mind) endures circumstances and these circumstances are what causes the most common depression , namely neurological circumstance depression !  Although pharmaceuticals or ''mild'' drugs can temporary help us forget we are depressed , they will  never be a cure . 

The only way to illiinate neurological circumstance depression is to change the circumstance . However , some circumstances can't be changed ! 

Death of loved ones for example is something that can't be changed . 

3 hours ago, iNow said:

Why?

Because of this ! 

8 hours ago, joigus said:

  

I did. And this is the reason:

Fabricate: to invent false information in order to trick people

Then, you didn't address any of my concerns.

I do yours though:

What do I mean by "fixed"?

The same as "number 3 is fixed." Or do you think number 3 expands too? Eigenstates do not expand.

So far, you haven't made a smidgen of sense.

No, we can't start there, because you don't understand even the first thing about quantum mechanics. All the elements of a Hilbert space that have physical meaning have a measure of 1, because they are interpreted as probability amplitudes, not points in a topological space.

You don't understand anything, can't be bothered to ask, and don't answer to any objection.

I'm out too.

 

 

I am sad you are out because I also give a value of 1 

, a conserved constant,  for each point of topological space ! 

1 hour ago, Ghideon said:

What is the vertical grey curve that goes through "X"? 

The curve is the edge of the space-time reference frame , I couldn't draw a sphere . x is the radius from the observer (ourselves) to the edge of space-time . You can consider the diagram in being 3d . I have quickly drew it for you from a different viewpoint . 

32 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

 

Is absolute space in your idea the same as a preferred frame or privileged frame? Or something else?

 

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preferred_frame, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_space_and_time)

I think absolute space in my idea could be viewed as a preferred frame where the physics differs slightly from the relative reference frame (space-time) . However , there is some properties that remain the same , xyz for example . The only major difference to Newtons absolute space compared to my presentation , is that the absolute space does not have an absolute time . The reason for this is because there is no energy or matter in that region of space to age , it is timeless ! Added- I forgot to mention that my version of absolute space has several properties and my main interest is the conservation of energy property . My thoughts on this consider Diracs thoughts on particles popping into and out of existence . The difference in my version is that the particles pop into existence and are conserved rather than annihilating.

18 minutes ago, exchemist said:

There have been attempts, for instance the "tired light" hypothesis, but nothing that fits all the observations. 

I personally cannot see how something that is receding away from an observer can have a red-shift of light when light passing through space is transparent . It makes no sense to me that we are detecting 750nm?  from distant bodies . Perhaps the red-shift is just simply a congestion of photons , the ''telescope end'' . 

13 minutes ago, studiot said:

 

The 'expansion' of space is an interpretation of an emperical (observational) fact, due to Hubble.

 

 

 

I agree that the observation of a Hubble red-shift is fact but could we interpret this information in any other way than ''expansion'' ? 

40 minutes ago, joigus said:

No, the inner dot product in the Hilbert space is not a fixed reference. It can change with time. It's the eigenstate that doesn't change. "Eigenstate" means "proper state" or "characteristic state" in German. It is a fundamental ingredient of quantum mechanics.

Eigenvalues ("proper values" or "characteristic values") don't change either. Let alone "expand."

The Higgs field has nothing to do with curvature. It's a quantum field defined on a flat space-time introduced to explain mass (rest energy) in the standard model of elementary particles. A field is more like an arrow rotating in an abstract space, and sitting on a geometric space. A quantum field is a similar thing, but jumps up and down between different levels that tell you the number of quanta.

Einstein never knew anything about the Higgs field. Neither did Newton, of course, because both were dead when it was introduced.

Field variables don't have curvature. They're not even "numeric" things. They're non-commuting things.

Eigenstates don't fluctuate, though they are defined up to a global phase (a fixed complex number of length 1.)

Eigenvalues are not conserved quantities in general. E (eigenvalue of the energy operator) corresponds to a conserved quantity in some contexts. X (eigenvalue of the x-position operator in quantum mechanics) never --repeat, never-- does.

I'm sorry, but you're not making any sense in the context of standard physics.

What do you mean by fixed ? I mean stationary 

I mentioned earlier that I call my diagram a Quantum Mainframe . A Quantum mainframe is a volume of spatial conserved energy that is relatively stationary (fixed) . The conserved energy bounded to space and having inertia . 

Quote

but you're not making any sense in the context of standard physics.

Simultainety ! Perhaps how I view and interpret standard physics is different than you interpret it . 

Can we start here ? ''A Hilbert space is a vector space equipped with an inner product which defines a distance function for which it is a complete metric space.''

In my diagram I drew a vector x , which is a vector space with an inner product and a distance function . Is my understanding of Hilbert space incorrect ? (x1,x2,....xn)

If you can't draw it then you don't understand it ! 

45 minutes ago, joigus said:

 

I'm sorry, but you're not making any sense in the context of standard physics.

I have broke the diagram into sections for you to understand . We can assume that the Hilbert space is filled with a Higgs field . 

4 hours ago, joigus said:

Eigenstates are fixed references in the Hilbert space. They'd better not change... at all.

I think you mean something else.

Yes , the inner ''dot product'' is a fixed reference that would be consistant with a  conserved constant Eigen value . This conserved Eigen value I consider is bounded with space (space and time) . I believe Einstein tried to explain space and time as being''fused'' together , agreeing with what I am saying . 

A volume of ''dot product'' (Hilbert space) could be viewed as a Higgs field , an energy field that occupies all of observable space , a space-time ''fabric'' . 

This ''fabric'' of space would be consistant with Einsteins space-time curvature , the Higgs field  curving relative to flat space . 

The Michael Morley experiment demonstrated that the speed of light was constant in all directions , again this is consistant with a constant Eigen value of space-time . If space-time did not have a constant conserved Eigen value , then all wave-function collapses because the energy would be conserved by space and become bounded with space . 

The Eigenstate fixed reference fluctuates in value as unbounded energy passes through the fixed reference but the Eigen value constant always remains the same ,E0,u0 . Absolute space having a value of E1,u1, in regards to permitivity and permeability . 

2 hours ago, AbstractDreamer said:

How would you test for constant time?

You seem very confused on the subject of time and what is time ! 

Time only exists as a measure and to help you with your confusion , I have provided a diagram . 

On 8/24/2022 at 12:31 PM, AbstractDreamer said:

Whether Time is linear or cyclical or something else, is the speed of time constant?

What basis do we have to extrapolate time back to t=0 (or very close to 0) and assume it's speed is the same as it today?

I read descriptions of the early universe describing things like "A few millionths of a second (after the big bang), quarks aggregated to produce protons and neutrons"

https://home.cern/science/physics/early-universe

How would an observer in the early universe measure time when there are only quarks, protons and neutrons?

Is it possible the speed of time is variable?  Could 1 millionth of a second in the early universe be equivalent to a few million years today, relative to that early universe?

If time is accelerating universally, would this not affect any empirical evidence of any experiments performed to date, unless we can time travel?

If time is accelerating, could that explain dark energy and space expansion?

Your question is nonesense because speed is distance over time d/t ! Your question reads , what is the d/t of time which makes no sense ! 

Perhaps you mean , what is the rate of time ? 

Our present measured rate of time is 1 second of history per 1 second passed measure ! 

52 minutes ago, joigus said:

I can't make heads or tails of your diagram really. What's eigenstate expansion to you?

To me an eigenstate expansion is any systems ability to increase in volume as a cause of internal energy increase that differs from the conserved state . A simple example of this is the expansion of metal when heated ! 

 ΔV∝Δu where V is volume and u is internal energy 

8 hours ago, joigus said:

You do sound like a bot, but thanks for the clarification. How can two incompatible notions of space be both correct?

 

What appearance? What does a Hilbert space look like? And a Higgs field? Space-time is a background, while the Hilbert space of a particle is the space of all possible states of that particle that take values on that background. How could they be indistinguishable? They're very different things.

No. A Hilbert space does not expand. It had better not, as you get probabilities from it. Neither does the Higgs field. It had better not, for good reasons too.

Why do you say these things (and more) that don't make any sense? I'm sorry for trying to test your human nature, but you made very loose connections, and sounded to me like a bot. Also, personal opinions don't play any role in mainstream science.

 

I will try to answer your questions with a single diagram . I have made it as complete as I can , note that almost everything in the diagram is present mainstream science . I will explain that all unbounded energy within the paramaters of space-time eventually makes it way to the edge of space-time , where the wave-function collapses and the energy joins the edge of space-time , expanding the measure of what I call a Quantum Mainframe . 

6 hours ago, joigus said:

1)

重點是什麼？

2)

Who died cuatro days ago?

You answer those two, then we talk about the universe.

Sorry for turning all Voight-Kampff on you. Indulge me.  

Arrr man , you think I'm some sort of bot ? 

The point is we haven't a clue how old the Universe is , the same as we don't know how big space is . The point is there is no proof that distance visible sources were once located where the Earth is . Ya know who passed away days ago as do we all , our m'aam will be sadly missed . Ahhh , see I am not a bot ! 

Also , which clown gave me a neg rating , for what ? 

I don't think your reply was in anyway fair to the topic and is disruptive ! 

1 hour ago, Endy0816 said:

Think this explains it better than I can:

https://www.cs.mcgill.ca/~rwest/wikispeedia/wpcd/wp/m/Metric_expansion_of_space.htm

My attempt...

Where gravity is really really really weak(well outside any galaxy) you can end up with spacial expansion.

Distance between what could be considered otherwise stationary points on a graph, ends up growing.

Photons of light take longer to reach us from these areas and well have traveled further as a result.

I do not know who wrote the link you provided but it is very contradictory and does not seem an accurate account . 

Our understanding of the "fabric of the universe" ( spacetime) 

From my understanding space-time is any mathematical model that uses the 4 dimensions of xyzt . Space-time having nothing to do with a ''fabric'' ? 

In the metric expansion of space, rather than objects in a fixed "space" moving apart into "emptiness", it is the space that contains the objects which is itself changing.

Can anyone provide evidence that the underlying space can in anyway change other than hearsay ? 

Can anyone explain why somebody has fabricated a  variation version of expansion without proof that doesn't conform to conventional expansion physics ? 

A Hilbert space or perhaps a Higgs field could expand or grow but I can't see how an underlying  space that isn't matter or energy could do anything . It is my personal opinion that Newton was correct about absolute space and the immovable nature of space but I also think that Einstein was correct too . If we consider that a Hilbert space or a Higgs field in being ''fused'' with space and indistinguishable from space in appearance, then this allows for space-time curvature and expansion . However , it isn't the underlying space that curves or expands but rather instead , it is the substance that is ''fused'' with space . The problem is though , any of the mentioned could be viewed as an aether which we are unable to detect presently ! Additionally in considering any sort of spatial ''fabric'' , we'd have to consider the laws of conservation of space , asking the question does space have the potential to conserve an amount of energy. 

51 minutes ago, iNow said:

I presume you mean the observable universe, which is 93 Billion light years in diameter, as the spatial size of the entire universe is unknown

Isn't 93 billion light years just a length between visible sources ? 

You say the spacial size of the entire Universe is unknown , which I think I will have to agree with . Is there any specific math that can describe the unknown size of the Universe ? 

7 minutes ago, Endy0816 said:

Yeah we're essentially waiting for the light itself to reach us, so can only see out so far.

With spacial expansion though this value is a bit more than c*t might strictly suggest.

What do you mean by spacial expansion ? Do you mean the diameter between visible sources is increasing that expands the measure of space between points or do you mean something else ? 

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Which one?

What do you mean by which one ? The universe is all of space and the contents , there is only one universe I know of . 

Hi, how big is the Universe ?