Mystery111

Beleiving it is subjective is half the problem... there is the issue of unifying general relativity with quantum mechanics and both their descriptions of time differ greately. Where in GR a theory permits solutions to a timeless universe, in quantum mechanics, time is real, but is a succession of a generated set of beginnings and ends, it's not a smooth river as most often spectulate. So somehow the human is smack in the middle of these two theories - on one hand we have timelessness and the other is quantum mechanics which doesn't reflect our experience of time either. As far as time is concerned, believing it is objective leads to more problems than it does just assuming we add those details to the world. Time is very subjective in the sense we feel it pass, we also make the distinction between past and future; an inherent property itself of an arrow of time. But we are also told in quantum mechanics that the only ever real time is the present time, as Einstein once said, the past and the future are only an illusion.

Of course, you are entitled to your own opinion, but I can assure you science backs up what I tell you. You're quick disapproval of my post tells me you are set within your ways, but wholey unscientific because you are not willing to face the facts about time in General Relativity or what biological science has to say about the perception of time.

Well, to be honest, I think that depends on what time really is. I mean, General Relativity permits pure gravity solutions, where this model is called a timeless model, it is also reflected in the Wheeler de Witt equation. The idea that we live in a timeless universe goes in direct confrontation with our perception of time; so it may be that time is purely a subjective phenomena and as far as we can tell, is a definition itself of the psychological arrow of time. And if time is subjective, then it is also subjected to the effects of a gene called the Suprachiasmatic Nucleus. This gene regulates the speed at which our perception of time occurs at. This is why we may feel time moving faster than at other times. So we might owe our sense of time to a genetic part of our existence. And if so, then time can speed up or slow down. We might be just imposing our experience of the world to the world, simply assuming that time must exist objectively.

The reason why photons are deflected by gravity is because gravity is the resultant geometry of the curved space. To understand this, you need to learn about GR and how it treats wave equations in a curved region. For instance, let us now concentrate on a specific wave equation, quite a famous one: [math]\frac{\partial^2 \phi}{\partial t^2} = c^2\frac{\partial^2 \phi}{\partial x^2}[/math] This describes two kind of waves, one wave which moves to the left, another to the right. From now on, we will use natural units. To express this equation in three dimensions [math]\frac{\partial^2 \phi}{\partial t^2} = \frac{\partial^2 \phi}{\partial x^2} + \frac{\partial^2 \phi}{\partial y^2} + \frac{\partial^2 \phi}{\partial z^2}[/math] We can rewrite this as [math] \eta^{\mu \nu} \frac{\partial^2 \phi}{\partial X^{\mu} \partial X^{\nu}}=0[/math] You can derive the relationship for a curved spacetime using the Covariant Derivative. Thus: [math] \frac{\partial}{\partial x^{\mu}} g^{\mu \nu} \frac{\partial \phi}{\partial X^{\nu}}+ \Gamma_{\mu \alpha}^{\mu} g^{\nu \beta} \frac{\partial \phi}{\partial X^{\beta}}=0[/math] [math] \nabla g^{\mu \nu} \frac{\partial \phi}{\partial x^{\nu}}[/math] So to work out the Covariant Derivative is effectively involving Christoffel symbols, and this equation describes the parallel transport between two points as a curve on a manifold and this is the definition of why a wave form like a photon may travel along a certain geodesic - it is purely the curvilinear distortions of spacetime.

A method used in weak measurement? There is the zeno effect.

I'll take a look. I'm not a professional but I have done some Higgs math.

This makes much sense, thank you.

You said you were not familiar with the experiment, so i cited some papers and an extra report on the subject. I'd like it known, that the authors don't actually believe that there experiment predicts antiphotons, but they are quick to surmize that all of the evidence points to the existence of antiphotons. But their work probably would not touch on this in their paper most likely, as they are reported saying ''our results are proposterous''. The Economist did report them saying however their experiments predicted an antiphoton, the exact evidence for that isn't tied in the papers as far as I know. I think it is very possible though the editor of the Economist has played down some technical terms (as they always do) - terminology like ''photons was actually less than zero'' is somewhat dubious.

http://www.physorg.c...s155386974.html http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0104062 http://arxiv.org/PS_...4/0104062v1.pdf

There is only one experiment I know of which may prove that the idea that some particles are their own antiparticles are false. ''What the several researchers found was that there were more photons in some places than there should have been and fewer in others. The stunning result, though, was that in some places the number of photons was actually less than zero. Fewer than zero particles being present usually means that you have antiparticles instead. But there is no such thing as an antiphoton (photons are their own antiparticles, and are pure energy in any case), so that cannot apply here.'' http://www.photonicquantum.info/Research/press/Economist.pdf It's absolutely bizarre, but their tests seem to indicate the existence of antiphotons. So perhaps not all particles have antiparticles they can annihilate with? It is only in light of the evidence above I made that speculation. It would be interesting to see more thoughts on this matter.

I am not meaning to replace the aether specifically with an electromagnetic field. I will refine what I meant. Relative only to that fields distortion (the photon) the photon experiences an aether-like medium which we call it's respective field. But of course, there are more than just one quantum field. Only those fields which have their quanta propogate as wave like forms can that field be relative to them propogating in the medium of that field. Is it not analogous to saying that a photon in the original aether assumption was a particle which rippled in some asbolute frame of reference? I suppose it couldn't be right, because an electromagnetic field, indeed any field don't act as absolute references in respect to their quanta, but why wouldn't it?

Apparently a growing number of scientists have been reported recently admitting that the standard model seems more likely now not to have the Higgs Mechanism. Has anyone read this? I have a link if wanted. ajb You said ''Particles have a field nature and fields have a particle nature.'' I was wondering if you agreed that initially the aether field could have been attributed to the former example here. Yet in a sense, the aether is replaced by the quantum field where the wave nature of particle is a distortion as a propogation of the field - the momentum of the field described by a wave. When a detector fires, some kind of collapse in the wave function [math]\int |\psi|^2[/math], there is by experimentation the appearance of a single particle form. So the idea of the wave form as a momentum of the field propogating as a wave was initially mistaken as some kind of... ''homogeneous'' physical medium. But I ask, what is a quantum field but a medium itself for a distortion of that field? What is the physical difference? I don't believe there is one. Would you agree?

That is actually a very modest answer and I respect it. I hope this thread is not construded as something to cause conflict. It was purely educational on the idea of what a classical theory is. I am enjoying being here already, I can see there are many educated minds here.

Timo, hi, You all answer so quickly here, I took one last look before heading out, saw your reply and I needed to respond My post there was specifically to Klaynos, he was asking me about the Langrangian and the Thermal physics, how they fit into a subforum without the classical subforum. Anyway, yes I agree. Not all classical physics are well-described with Newtonian physics, which is why certain classical physics may apply to certain non-classical subforums, depending on their nature. This is not always the case, but it may be the case specifically. Anything involving a Langrangian is classical, but I was asked by Klaynos to catagorize I think. Anyway, my point may not be so much catagorizing and renaming the subforum. This would be a lot of work, and a lot for posters to just adapt to. In theory, though, my arguement consists that I should be able to post for instance, a relativistic thread in the classical subforum, even though there is a classical subforum present. Would I be a rebel in doing so? I don't class relativity as a subject of purely classical, physical or relativistic. It has all these descriptions anyway. So why not merge all physics, all relativistic and classical subforums together?

Well, Langrangian dynamics is almost undisputably classical in origin. The Langrangian however, also plays it's part in relativity - the relativistic Langrangian derived from [math]-mc^2\frac{d \tau}{dt}= -mc^2 \sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2t}{c^2}}[/math] would almost certainly fit within the regime of the relativity subforum. If it is generally simply the Langrangian [math]L = T - V[/math] in of course, it's most simplest form without any relativistic or field density relationship, then it is strictly a mathematical statement, which should be kept in the mathematical subforum. Of course, as just noted, there is the field density langrangian found in field theories, [math]S = \int Ldt[/math] then this should be presented in a physics subforum. They are all classical, but catagorizing your type of Langrangian in easy, depending on the nature of the langrangian you are positing. You also have a Newtonian Langrangian, so no guesses where that should lie Thermal physics, is of course classical as well. But it is harder to catagorize. If I be so bold, I would allow it to sit in the catagory of the physical sciences. But I don't want to be a nazi. Obviously some conversations made in physics, will require a discussion of relativity, so it should be acceptable to present a relativistic langrangian in a physics subforum, if your arguement requires it. Obviously this means a little leniency, not too much moderation on behalf of certain posts. p.s. sorry I haven't wrote out the relativistic langrangian in it's full form, i'm in a bit of a rush -- not because I am lazy.

Then perhaps a more fitting name for the subforum here would be Newtonian Mechanics, to destinguish it from the classical nature itself - which is inherent in describing theories like relativity, which are clearly not quantum.

I suppose this is a question on terminology. I see we have a page dedicated to relativity, but we seem to have a page dedicated to classical physics. Relativity is part of physics, it is a physical theory in itself. But it is also a classical theory, in that it does not take into account the Uncertainty Principle. So what is this subforum dedicated to mostly... Newtonian Mechanics perhaps?

An electron won't reach a nulceus because this is forbidden by the Uncertainty Principle. I would pressuppose it would take more energy in the visible universe to make an electron settle into the nuclei of atoms. Also stable orbits are obtained using a wave function of matter, so it's redundant to think that atoms can drastically deplete in energy.

I don't know of any cases of a gravitational collapse without matter.

Right ok, you seem to be saying that the forces are exchanged by bosons specifically, obviously those being the gluon for the strong, photon for the EM, W and Z bosons for the weak force, and of course the graviton for the gravitational force. Ok... your question would have been a bit clearer if you had said: ''If we assert that fundamental matter particles are always fermions and that forces are always mediated by fundamental bosons'' That way it wouldn't have looked as though you were setting the term fundamental specifically to any one family. My fault though. I should have been more vigilant.

The fact light cannot escape from a black hole, has little bearing on the mathematics which dictates a black hole having a charge. A black hole can have a net charge, meaning the existence of an electric charge - if it rotates it will posses a magnetic charge. Static black holes in theory, do not contain magnetic charges. If one looks at the ''no hair'' theorem, you can see that all black holes will have atleast three properties, (or observables) those being mass, angular momentum and charge. It has been shown however, that all black holes will have a poloidal and toroidal magnetic field, so this adds a new observable to a rotating black hole.

Yes we have measured the gravitational collapse of a star mathematically. Is this what you mean? Some of your questions are incoherent though, like: ''If this gravitatinal energy is dense enough, can it collapse to form a black hole even though no actual matter mass has collapsed ?'' If you mean measured by observation, then no, we are yet to directly observed the collapse a superdense object, or an object with sufficient mass into that of a black hole.

You can't assert this. Fundamental particles are not just fermionic, they can be bosonic. You can't divide a photon any more than you can divide a quark. Also, if forces where only explainable in terms of fermion fields, then how does one explain the photon carrying the electromagnetic interaction? Higgs is a particle which carries the mass charge to other particles. The charges are the coefficients of the Lie algebra of the locally gauged group. The fact the Higgs is a boson, does not get tied to just one being part of a field or a force carrier. There are forces inherent in all fields, as they contain momentum. A higgs boson though also is part of the higgs field - it's field permeates all space and time. Interestingly though, it only couples to a very small amount of matter in our universe, either a little over or just a little less than just 1% of all matter in the universe.

Oops my bad thank you!

Well, actually more than just a ''hi'' Does this place use latex systems?