Mystery111

.. sorry... accidently posted something when I copied and pasted

I haven't seen this expression before: [math]\frac{-iM\gamma}{\hbar^2k}[/math] Well I can immediately see that [math]\hbar k[/math] is the momentum. What is the gamma here acting coefficient on the imaginary mass? In fact, more generally, what is this expression describing? I am inclined to believe it is simply a momentum, but the gamma is knocking me off: source can be found in the first equation in this link: http://hitoshi.berkeley.edu/221B-S02/sol2.pdf

I know, next to nothing about tachyonic condensation. You're words triggered in my head though about it being ''unstable'' and reminded me of the tachyonic condensation which is heavily supported by string theory because string theory seems to permit their existences. Of course, I was a bit dubious when I heard this because we seem to have evidence of tachyonic superconducters... so perhaps I am making a very radical pressumption based on what I have been told so far by yourself, but is there is a case (let this be hypothetical with no direct mathematical reason yet) which may allow a tachyon to move at this speed, the vacuum destabilisation, you said that the system will tend towards a more stable state in which there are no tachyons. Now, is this meant to mean that a tachyon could exist, but not for long?

Yes... This seems to be the general explanations used, and i welcome such honesty. In the advent of violations of causlity recently led me back to Hawking's work on the Chronological Order of events. Macroscopic events cannot by his principle, be ever be allowed to cause violations. But this was formulated for macrosystems only. Perhaps a reforumation of Hawking's Chronologically-ordered principle should be investigated to allow a description for microsystems. Perhaps if one was to achieve this, we could also say that particle's are also subject to Chronological Protection. Tachyons are unstable in what sense, do you mean this because of tachyon condensation?

One were general relativity and quantum mechanics make sense of gravity as being a psuedoforce without a mediator and is analogue to the corriolis force. My reason for stating this is because I think physicists have given curvature (and the mediation of gravity via the graviton) as being erreneous from the start, simply because all matter is self-consistent when explaining the curvature of spacetime. A proton curved space around it, as much as any other elementary particle. Gravitational force exchange is a property of all matter through curvilinear distortions as they deform the metric. A graviton won't be needed, but this is a bit of a speculation, but it's not wholey without evidence. (I may have some people come down on me using this theory, but I am a sucker for a good quantum-gravitational relativistic debate. You were lost... my brain hurt trying to understand his sentance!

The title was a parody to swansons ''swans on tea.'' This is not a direct discussion of the nuetrino topic, so please do not merge. I am simply going to ask everyone to reply with a ''yes'' or ''no''. I am keen to hear peoples ''no-beating-around-the-bush'' answers. I believe ''yes'' there is atleast one generation of neutrino which could have tachyonic tendancies. Thank you for participating up front. If you want to give a reason, then please do. I won't as it would just be the same experimental evidence most of us are aware of independant of recent measurement results.

Hmmm nice. Made me think of it another way. Thanks!

Ok, I suspected that. I also thought another reason might be due to how the equations are derived, but thank you ajb!!!!

Only very light particles are given mass. Heavier particles like some dark matter proponents do not require the Higgs Mechanism, I forget the reason why off the top of my head, I'd need to check notes. Besides, when we speak about giving ''mass'' to particles, we usually mean we are giving massless particles a mass through the Higgs Mechanism. This means the likes of photons.

Right ... I understand that sure. But.... .... lol.. ... the RCW appears originally as [math]\frac{\lambda}{2\pi} = \frac{\hbar}{Mc^2}[/math] In some equations, this expression is flipped [math]\frac{Mc^2}{\hbar}[/math] Why is this? Thanks

Hi ajb, are you telling me it doesn't matter whether you write it as: hbar /Mc^2 and Mc^2/hbar... they produce the same results? I don't know if you understood my question... I wasn't exactly asking how much the Compton and reduced Compton wavelength varied. I meant the way the reduced Compton wavelength makes appearances in different equations in different forms. Thanks!

Gravity is the presence of matter. Curvature is also related to matter, but in relativity you don't need to have matter to have a non-zero curvature. The Higgs Boson gives about 1% of all matter mass.

Ok, so my question is an odd one, but it's something that I've wondered for a while now. Is there any physical meaning why the reduced compton wavelength appears as [math]\frac{\hbar}{Mc^2}[/math] in certain equations, for example, like the fine structure constant, but then it appears as the reciprocal in other equations [math]\frac{Mc^2}{\hbar}[/math] such as the Klein Gorden equation or even the Dirac Equation...?

Entropy.... causality..... non-deterministic universes whhere the past is defined... Can I concentrate first on the latter here. What is meant by a defined past? As for the much-abused ''arrow of time'' and ''Entropy'' used as it's core arguement, I will provide you to a bit of reading material: http://www.motionmou...t/download.html "Time is a concept introduced specially to describe the flow of events around us; it does not itself flow, it describes flow. Time does not advance. Time is neither linear nor cyclic. The idea that time flows is as hindering to understanding nature as is the idea that mirrors Page 71 exchange right and left. The misleading use of the expression 'flow of time', propagated first by some flawed Ref. 36 Greek thinkers and then again by Newton, continues. Aristotle (384/3–322 bce), careful to think logically, pointed out its misconception, and many did so after him. Nevertheless, expressions such as 'time reversal', the 'irreversibility of time', and the much-abused 'time's arrow' are still common. Just read a popular science magazine chosen at random. Interesting no? Before personally I came across this material, I realized long before this that an arrow simply cannot exist. What is an arrow but an abstraction pointing from some point in the past to some occurring point in the future? It would be like drawing a dot on a peice of paper, then drawing a line from that point linearly towards another point, the point of the future cone. This is all really bad physics though, because there is no such thing as the center of the universe!!!! Well.... actually there is a center to the universe, so long as you are willing to make every point on the spacetime map the center of the universe, an infinite amount of points. The past in this sense, when an arrow of time is involved, actually points in every direction of space, not a single one pointing from the past extending into the future. This is the first fundamental flaw of believing that an arrow exists. The second rolls from the first Assuming that one cannot draw a line extended from some point in our past as an abstract arrow defining what we niavely call an arrow of time, there is also the problem with the fact we sense time flow as being part of an ordered set of casual events which makes sense to our understanding of why things happen in orderly fashions.... Well events are not orderly when we are concerned in relativity. In relativity, two observers can quite clearly come to contradict when events actually happen - take also the fact that we sense ''time flow'' and that is part of the ordered set of events which we have come to attribute to entropy in a series of causal physical events, time does not flow, we are being told by physics http://www.fqxi.org/..._contest__E.pdf . If time is not really a river which flows without recourse from past to future, then this places some serious limits on why we are even thinking along the lines of causal events in spacetime defining a directionality to time. This is a very serious arguement. Since the stuff of ''flow'', ''past'' extending to ''future'' are all subjective phenomena, then the arrow of time must be by default also subjective. Not to mention an arrow of time takes seriously a past state exists, along with a future state as well. We have already ascertained here in this thread general relativity (and those who take quantum mechanics seriously ''Einstein'') does not exist. If there is only the present frame in which things exist, then what we really have is an eternal present. The stuff of past and future begin to be unveiled as products of a recording mind, which makes sense of the present by cataloguing the past and expecting a future to occur. Niether of which the past and future however physically exist.

That I assume however depends on whether FTL particles can oscillate in time. This reminds me of the Chronological Protection Conjecture which may need to be reformulated to make sense of particles as well.

from your qoutes: '' According to Presentism this is impossible because there is only one present moment that is instantaneous and encompasses the entire universe.'' This is what I have came to understand time as. Also, I don't think my view of time contradicts Einstein's at all. I wasn't quite sure why you said this. qouted "The Block universe gives a deeply inadequate view of time. It fails to account for the passage of time, the pre-eminence of the present, the directedness of time and the difference between the future and the past" ''Passage'' implies a directionality and flow. Since this is not a true physical state, it remains that a by-product of what we call the psychological arrow. This accounts for the subjective experience of the a directionality to time. There is also something called the Time Problem in General Relativity and QM... I will find you the papers relevant - it has been argued that if one can solve this problem, it will pave a better understanding how to unify the General theory with the quantum theory. In fact, I have found a real gem for you.... references to the lack of time as a river flowing from past to future, but as there are many papers here, the one I want you to read is http://www.fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Markopoulou_SpaceDNE.pdf source http://www.fqxi.org/community/essay/winners/2008.1 Enjoy!

I am now going to take us back to the Tsao-Dirac Equation for fermions with a negative-mass sqaured which has been modified for the proper mass [1][2]. [math]-i(\alpha k)c\psi + \beta_s M_s c^2 \psi = i\hbar \partial_t \psi[/math] Where [math]M_s[/math] is the proper mass. Eq 1 can be re-written as a pair two-component equations: [math]i\hbar \frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t} = -ic\hbar \vec{\sigma} \cdot \nabla_{\chi'} + M_s c^2 \chi'[/math] and [math]i\hbar \frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t} = -ic\hbar \vec{\sigma} \cdot \nabla_{\chi'} - M_s c^2 \chi'[/math] Slight differences will be seen when this equation is under a Weyl representation [math]i\hbar \frac{\partial \eta}{\partial t} = -ic\hbar \vec{\xi} \cdot \nabla \eta + M_s c^2 \xi[/math] and [math]i\hbar \frac{\partial \xi}{\partial t} = -ic\hbar \vec{\eta} \cdot \nabla \xi - M_s c^2 \eta[/math] [math]\eta[/math] and [math]\xi[/math] are in fact coupled to a limit where [math]M_s[/math] is zero. Under mathematcial strutiny, the fact that the Nuetrino has such a ridiculously small mass incorporates the similar contention that the nuetrino could act more or less like a particle with no mass. With the limit where [math]M_s=0[/math] reduces to the Weyl equation [math]\frac{\partial \xi v'}{\partial} = -c\vec{\sigma} \cdot \nabla \xi v'[/math] This is because [math]\phi = \chi'[/math] when [math]M_s = 0[/math]. It turns out that the Weyl representation of his equation only satisfies antineutrino description [math]v'[/math]. This places some understanding in how in treating the Hamiltonian of the Dirac Equation Hamilonian in the Lippmann-Scwinger proceedure and whether it satisfies a neurtino or an antinuetrino. The way to do this, is by changing the sign of momentum part of the Tsao-Dirac equation. A negative representation of the momentum part will refer to antinuetrino's, while a positive representation of the momentum plays the role of neutrinos. [1] http://www.mendeley....article/#page-1 [2]http://arxiv.org/PS_...1/0011087v4.pdf Now, this would suggest that the full equation taking into the Tsao-Dirac Equation in the Lippman-Schwinger proceedure is then: [math]\psi^{\pm} = \phi + \frac{1}{E- ((\alpha \cdot \hat{p})c + \beta M_sc^2) + i(\chi_R + \chi_D)} e\phi'\psi^{\pm}[/math] And this would then, under the same principles of the Weyl equation would only satisfy an antiparticle solution since the hat-Hamilton has a negative description, making the momentum part as negative.

The dynamics which have had me spending great deal of effort over the last couple of days is a way to treat the squared negative mass of a nuetrino under the dirac formalism where we are going to treat the part of [math]-i\hat{\mathcal{H}}[/math] in the schrodinger equation as being the same as the denominator description of [math]\hat{\mathcal{H}_D} + i\epsilon[/math] in the equation [math]\psi^{\pm} = \phi + \frac{1}{E- \hat{\mathcal{H}_D} \pm i\epsilon} e\phi'\psi^{\pm}[/math] since [math]\hat{\mathcal{H}}_D = \mathcal{H} + i\chi[/math] from breaking the complex part into two descriptions as shown before, will allow us to treat the Lippmann-Schwinger as having two solutions as well for the imaginary part of the hat-Hamiltonian. Knowing that [math]\chi = \chi_R + \chi_D[/math] Then [math]\hat{\mathcal{H}_D} = \mathcal{H} + i(\chi_R + \chi_D)[/math] [math]\psi^{\pm} = \phi + \frac{1}{E- \hat{\mathcal{H}_D}+i(\chi_R + \chi_D)} e\phi'\psi^{\pm}[/math] Since in the most mathematical formal definition of quantum waves desribed under a time-symmetric analysis of the wave function in the Transactional Interpretation, the deformed wave function [math]\psi^{\pm}[/math] when under integration has the solution of a wave function for the in-phase and out-phase both extending to the infinite past and infinite future. These are analgous to understanding wave functions where one half retarded and one half advanced wave propogate into the past and the other into the future. This means that the equation [math]\psi^{\pm} = \phi + \frac{1}{E- \hat{\mathcal{H}}_D + i(\chi_R + \chi_D)} e\phi'\psi^{\pm}[/math] can be decoupled to make to solution for the advanced and retarded wave solutions of [math]F_1 = e^{[i(kr - \omega t)]}[/math] and [math]G_1 = e^{[-i(kr - \omega t)]}[/math] If I have done this right so far, which is what I am hoping on of the revered scientists around here could help clarify for me, then I will begin to attempt to formulate this properly in terms of the Transactional interpretation. (the two solutions should not be F_1 = but should be F_1 ~ but I am unsure how to write the latter notation in latex)

Ok, is this ok... let us take the Schrodinger equation as [math]\hbar \frac{\partial}{\partial t}|\psi> = -i\hat{\mathcal{H}}|\psi>[/math] Then [math]\hat{\mathcal{H}}= \mathcal{H} + i \chi[/math] It can be said that the imaginary part [math]i \chi[/math] of [math]\hat{\mathcal{H}}[/math] can be divided into two parts, which are traditionally called the relaxational part and the diffusive part. [math]\chi = \chi_R + \chi_D[/math] A time evolution operator is given as [math]\frac{\partial}{\partial t} \hat{V}(t) = -i\hat{\mathcal{H}}\hat{V}(t)[/math] - this can satisfy the Heisenberg equation [math]\frac{\partial}{\partial t}A(t) = i[\hat{\mathcal{H}}, A(t)][/math] for dissipative systems. Imaginary Hamiltonian's means a non-unitary dissipation. Is this right?

There are many reasons why a Higgs and a graviton are not equivalent. Originally in our search for a gauge invariant theory, we had equations which did not permit symmetries which we sought for: [math]\partial \phi' = [\partial \phi + i \phi \frac{\partial \theta}{\partial x}]e^{i \theta}[/math] [math]\partial \phi' = [\partial \phi + i \phi* \frac{\partial \theta}{\partial x}]e^{i \theta}[/math] multiplying the two we get [math]= \partial \phi \partial \phi* + i (\phi \partial \phi* - \phi* \partial \phi) \frac{\partial \theta}{\partial x}+ \phi* \phi (\frac{\partial \theta}{\partial x})^2[/math] which has no symmetry whatsoever! plus it is horrid to look at. Nevertheless, this was not good, so we had to add an extra four-field to our system, namely the four-vector potential [math]A_{\mu}[/math]. Added with our covariant derivative, which we have seen so far has the form: [math]D_{\mu}\phi = \partial_{\mu}\phi + iA_{\mu}\phi[/math] [math]D_{\mu}\phi* = \partial_{\mu}\phi* - iA_{\mu}\phi*[/math] simply has an addition to our field which has an appearance of [math]\partial \rightarrow \partial - iA[/math]. This allowed us to have a nice symmetry in the making - interesting though how we had to mould the equations a few times, a bit of nip and tuck if you will. Now the graviton is much more different than the presence of a spontaneous symmetry breaking. The above calculations simply state that the photon is a massless particle. The graviton equally, does not have a mass, and yet the Higgs particle does because the higgs gobbles up a goldstone boson, which is basically a photon on the minimum energy - which is the minimal energy required to move around the base of a potential well. There is that, if one wants to recite a major difference between the massless particle graviton and the particle higgs which gives mass to all matter and even itself! And it goes to say, that a graviton simply cannot have a mass, if it is supposed to send gravitational signals at vast lengths .. [math]\Box h_{\mu \nu}=0[/math] [math]\Box = \partial_{t}^{2} - c^2 \partial^{2}_{x}[/math] which is the same as saying [math]\partial^{2}_{t} - c^2 \Delta h_{\mu \nu}=0[/math] Which means it moves at the speed of light. Interestingly, I've seen posters ask this question many times...

Yes... I was almost positive that was the link you were referring to... It's been circulating for a while now Yes. Spin would have been a better arguement.

Did we even talk about neutrino's... Ok since you asked so politely ... Nuetrino's are a very light, alloof and elusive subatomic particle which has three generations of existence due to possessing a very small small. They were once thought to have no mass at all, but this idea ran into difficulties. A nuetrino is a fermion which means it follows the same spin statistics as electrons protons and neutrons. Meaning they have a spin 1/2. Is there a common feature of all observers? Like, can only something that consists of a type of particle, or being in a certain state, make an observer? To allow a particle to be an observer, it needs to observe common observables of other particles. For instance, spin, energy, mass are all observables of a quantum system. A particle may not have a well defined spin on it's own until another particle gets real close and begins to define it's properties. This is how decoherence in principle works.

Hmmm yes.. I think I know which information you are talking about... Would it be this by any chance? http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1997/09/970918045841.htm

! Moderator Note Split from the "is everything just photons" thread Actually matter can be made from light. Using the mass example can be overcome. Other examples such as charge can also be overcome. Some scientists have suggested all matter is made from light, and there being experimental evidence when a particle and an antiparticle of the same family comes together ''somehow'' knocks the photons out of what ever substructure they create. It certainly is not a stupid question to ask. Obviously not many physicists believe in the idea, but it is still a valid question. “Is the electron a photon with toroidal topology?”, p.9, Annales de la Fondation Louis de Broglie, Volume 22, no.2, 133 (1997). http://members.chello.nl/~n.benschop/electron.pdf

(Oh there might have been some confusion) why I choose an electric potential when the nuetron is electrically nuetral by theory. Well the nuetron hasa mass and a non-zero magnetic moment so it has been suggested it could possess a small charge as well.