Mystery111

Sure and there are many more theories which have the three spatial and time dimensions as the left-over low energy dimensions. All the others curl up at low energies and disappear to below Planck scale. It is only at high energy ( Planck scale energy ) that these other dimensions , 10, 11, 26 or however many, manifest themselves.

 

Think of a two dimensional analogy of space; a rubber sheet with depressions where high mass-energu density is located. Move this sheet upwards at a rate of one second per second through the 'time dimension'. That is how time 'drags' us along as it moves in one direction only, towards the future. This is in effect an Einstein-Rosen embedding diagram moving in time. But keep in mind that the depressions in the sheet will grow and shrink depending on various time dilation effects.

You seem to be suggesting time moves.... what is time moving relative to exactly?

See the problem is, is that time does not flow through us. We move through time. The appearance that time is linear comes from our perception of time. This does not mean it actually flows however.

Really ???

 

"In a universe devoid of matter, where are your clocks so you can make measurements?"

 

Let's take it one step farther. In a universe devoid of matter, where are your yardsticks so you can measure the 3 spatial dimensions ? Or are you saying they are fictitious too ?

If you have no standard to measure them against, a meter might as well be 1000000 meters.

 

Time is not like the other dimensions through which we are free to move, rather we are carried along with time as it moves.

I laughed when I read this... you were making a mockery of what was being suggested, but you actually hit jackpot!

Three dimensions of space involve low energy physics and the emergence of this physics is called geometrogensis. There has been some revolutionary work on this, suggesting that the three dimensions of space is an emergent property of matter. Only when the universe cools down to allow synthesis of matter does the three dimesnions of space appear. Indeed, if you have no matter you have no clocks, but you also fail to describe geometry.

Also, time is very much like the spatial dimension under certain conditions. What do you mean, time is not like the other dimensions through which we are able to move exactly? We are able to move in time, just in a very restricted way. Ok, in space, we are able to move freely left to right, back and forward, whereas in time it appears atleast in theory to be a forward-like motion without recourse. There are laws of physics which can change this aspect. Time becomes spacelike if you have the right kind of distortions around you. The fact space can become timelike, and time spacelike only strengthens how alike these two aspects are. Time is simply an imaginary leg of the space triangle. Time in theory is almost certainly an imaginary space dimension.

I actually promised someone I would make a thread on time. If I find time the next couple of days, I will.

We hve currently have no way of detecting and measuring the Higg's Boson particle. But does that amount to absolute certainty that it does not exist?

 

Same principle if the universe was totally devoid of matter and energy.

 

What about space itself - it is supposed to not be empty. Perhaps it you looked close enough at the fabric of space you could discern events moving across the ruler of time even if there is no matter an energy.

Pfft... of course we have ways to view the Higgs. If it was there, it would have been found by the LHC.

And no that isn't the same principle I am afraid.

As for space, you are right - no small square measurement of space is devoid of matter... every tiny part of space is filled with vacuum energy. But I am sorry, you will need to rephrase the last bit, had trouble understanding it.

But I would like to add... Whilst the past is not happening right now, the past does have a now that is happening.

If the universe retainied its present size but all matter and energy vanished, then how could we say with certainty that time would cease to exist. Granted there is no easy way to discern events moving across the ruler of time with not matter and energy, but that does not necessarily mean that time is still not there.

 

The only way that time could disappear would surely be if the universe entered contraction back to a singularity.

Without two bits of matter, you have no acting clocks. In a universe devoid of matter, where are your clocks so you can make measurements?

It's all about relativity.

Yes, it may seem like an oxymoronic term.... nothing oxymoronic though, just an expansion of imagination required!

Eternal may be something which repeats itself, or something which extends into infinity. In theory, you can have an infinity of present moments all existing but not preceeding or proceeding any other moment... for instance, suppose we quantized time in such a way that all of existence was just frame after frame of tiny stops and starts which equalled the Planck Time. You'd have a fantastically large collection of present moments, an eternal collection of them perhaps.

Do all these moments exist simultaneously...? I don't think so. But just because a series of present moments do not exist simultaneously should not mean there is any easy chronological arrow which we can use.

Are all events simultaneous in an "eternal present"? If so, it isn't an eternity. If not, it isn't a present. Either way, I can't personally make sense of "eternal present".

An eternal present simply means, the present time is all that is ever in existence. The universe may end in the future, in which case obviously time is not as eternal as we might like to think...

The difference with the way I view the eternal present (the time which is asymototically experienced by any observer) to the way presentism believes the present time, is that presentism believes the past and future are happening ''right now''. I don't believe this is the case at all, or atleast it is greately misunderstood. In some sense, relativity would have to permit that the past was happening now, due to allowing time travel to be a possibility. If you could travel to the past, in this theory you would end up in the past (in it's present time sphere). But as far as anyone is concerned in the past, our future is yet to happen, and this is true.

There are some truths to presentism; Time may be viewed as one large timescape where only the present moment happens. This is as close to nature as we can test. It is true every moment we experience is simply the present time, no such distinction as a past or future really exist in physics. For a past to be happening ''now'' goes against the idea that a past does not exist alongside our own existence. I think the present moment is very much an issue of frame depency.

You are 14, and you want to know about neutrino's, or how they are applied in relativity? All due respect but you really are jumping in the deep end my friend first.

I don't see how it is not. http://en.wikipedia....osophy_of_time)

 

A word of caution: No one's right all the time and worse, certain members like to use their own definitions of whatever words and concepts they choose, without bothering to tell anyone that they're using their personal definitions. I don't think the accepted use of presentism includes that "the present is universal and identical for all observers".

 

As far as I know, presentism is not inherently incompatible with relativity.

 

However, I believe that an instantaneous universal "now" is incompatible with relativity.

Relativity of simultaneity implies that what is simultaneous for one won't be simultaneous for all.

Thus, anything simultaneous with a hypothetical "universal now" according to one observer will not be simultaneous for all observers.

If "now" includes events that aren't simultaneous, then it contradicts the "time is not extended" meaning of presentism.

I know this was directed at another poster... I'd like to say I agree. There can be no universal now... But keeping that aside, presentism is still very compatible with every other idea of relativity. And the incompatibility could not be on a worse subject. Time is frought with controversy, and relativity itself makes a lot of controversial claims itself on time, many of those statements are in complete agreement with presentism.

That is somewhat a matter of taste and definitions (in particular what is meant by "mass").

 

[math]E^2 = m^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2[/math],

 

applies with [math]m[/math] being rest mass ([math]m_0[/math]), which is currently in fashion.

 

 

[math]E = m c^2 [/math],

 

applies if m is taken to be relativistic mass ([math] \gamma m_0[/math]) and if the rest mass is non-zero. It is equivalent to [math]E^2 = m_0^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2[/math] in that case.

 

So for massive neutrinos [math]E = m c^2[/math] is fully accurate if properly interpreted

For a nuetrino at rest, and even at that it is missing some important details in describing neutrino's. In fact, some theories of neutrino's would not have a mass term in it under a Weyl Limit.

The mass does the same thing to coupling particles and antiparticles together as you would find from a majorana equation. Nuetrino's are spin 1/2 so they are fermions:

[math]-i(\alpha \hat{p})c\psi + \beta M c^2 \psi = i\hbar \partial_t \psi[/math]

This can be re-written as:

[math]i\hbar \frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t} = -ic\hbar \vec{\sigma} \cdot \nabla_{\phi} + M c^2 \phi'[/math]

[math]i\hbar \frac{\partial \chi}{\partial t} = -ic\hbar \vec{\sigma} \cdot \nabla_{\chi} + M c^2 \chi'[/math]

as two component equations, when this equation is under a Weyl representation

[math]i\hbar \frac{\partial \eta}{\partial t} = -ic\hbar \vec{\xi} \cdot \nabla \eta + M c^2 \xi[/math]

and

[math]i\hbar \frac{\partial \xi}{\partial t} = -ic\hbar \vec{\eta} \cdot \nabla \xi - M c^2 \eta[/math]

[math]\eta[/math] and [math]\xi[/math] are in fact coupled to a limit where [math]M[/math] is nonzero. 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. So in this case, the non-relativistic case [math]Mc^2[/math] will not suffice.

With the limit where [math]M=0[/math] reduces to the Weyl equation

[math]\frac{\partial \xi v'}{\partial} = -c\vec{\sigma} \cdot \nabla \xi v'[/math]

This only suits right solutions for antiparticles for nuetrinos [math]v'[/math].

[math]\frac{\partial \xi v'}{\partial} = -c\vec{\sigma} \cdot \nabla \xi v'[/math]

I think we established that it described antineutrinos.... The second equation in your coupled set up vanish because [math]\phi = \chi[/math] when [math]M=0[/math]. Now this is actually related to parity (you may understand parity under CPT-symmetry.) The Weyl equation is only permitted for right handed antineutrino's since a nuetrino is only ever left handed.

For that purpose you may introduce a transformation [math]\alpha \rightarrow -\alpha[/math]. Anticommutator relations are preserved in the Dirac Equation which would describe the neutrino. The transformation also effects [math]\sigma \rightarrow -\sigma[/math] so the Weyl equation becomes

[math]\frac{\partial \xi v}{\partial} = c\vec{\sigma} \cdot \nabla \xi v[/math]

For a nuetrino. Simply a neutrino must have a mass at a specific limit which allows us to make these valid transformations. The non-relativistic case of [math]Mc^2[/math] also fails to descrive fermions correctly. As you will surely know, the correct energy condition has both a positive and negative solution [math]E= \pm Mc^2[/math]. So you will also deal with

[math]\psi^1 = \begin{pmatrix} 1 \\ 0 \\ 0 \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} e^{\frac{iMc^2 t}{\hbar}}[/math]

[math]\psi^2 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 1 \\ 0 \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} e^{\frac{iMc^2 t}{\hbar}}[/math]

Are your two positive energy solutions with opposite spin states

[math]\psi^3 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} e^{\frac{+iMc^2 t}{\hbar}}[/math]

[math]\psi^4 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} e^{\frac{+iMc^2 t}{\hbar}}[/math]

Are your two negative energy states with opposite spin

Hmm. That surprises me, given the widespread support for presentism. I would have thought it was consistent with the data.

 

 

 

 

I wasn't so surprised to read Dr Rockets analysis on the situation. When I first came here, I began to teach time in accordance to (but not fully) presentism. I don't support all the views held by it, but what I did understand was there could only be an eternal present. This is true to physics and what is a relative fact is that past and future ceased to exist. Time as we knew it began to vanish from the theory and did completely vanish when taken to scales of the universe - this is the way it is because of a known constraint of the universe Hamiltonian called the Wheeler de Witt equation. It succesfully describes a non-changing universe, where time no longer can describe moving clocks.

Dr. Rocket said ''utter nonsense'' in response, and I said to him he was entitled to his own opinion on the subject, but it wasn't taken any further. So as much as you were surprised, I knew he didn't like presentism or an eternal present at all.

Okay, so I understand that they come from energy so would that be from kinetic or friction?

And please could you give me very basic version of the principal because quantum mechanics isn't really my thing.

Thanks

Kinetic.

you want a basic version of what sir? String Theory?

Well, that was never my intent and I apologize for any offense. I can only judge someone's proficiency in a subject by the content of their posts. If I were asking physics questions, I certainly hope that someone would talk down to my more basic level of understanding and would not consider it condescending. The OP seemed stuck on the supposed significance of summing digits and even referenced Vedic mathematics, of all things, so I was actually trying to lightly chide our illustrious Dr. Rocket for perhaps posting over the OP's head.

Oh but I do. I talk to people on a level they can understand but equally without making them feel degraded in anyway.

You're either a bad teacher, or a bad liar.

Another question would be how many strings exist in a vacuum? In deep space, where you have around 10 atoms per cubic meter, is it still considered to have a separate string for each Planck length?

I will get to the OP soon. To answer your question, there maybe up to 10^80 strings in a single vacuum. This is the least amount of strings required.

Okay, I have a basic understanding of string theory but not lots so:

 

Please could someone explain it.

What are the strings made of?

And if what makes up and element are millions of tiny strings vibrating in different frequencies, then why are there not trillions of different elements or I (imaginary number) due to the amount of possible combinations of frequencies together as each string is around 10^-35 meters?

Strings are made of energy. They are vibrating strings of energy, with that energy conneted to the frequency of each vibration.

We have the elements we have due to what is called the Pauli Exclusion Principle. This Principle is enough and all that is required to explain why we have the elements we have.

I agree completely!

 

Unfortunately, the intended audience for this proof would not understand why you chose 10, that funny triple-equals symbol, or a 1. They might not even understood QED!

I use symbols like that all the time you condescending prick. I am a physics student.

Can you suggest a link for further reading?

 

I am trying to comprehend how it can be that there is no arrow of time but failing.

http://www.motionmountain.net/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.''

Are you referring to the effect of a cosmological constant?

No. I am referring to Gravitational Waves. Gravitational waves are massless yet they cause curvature and propogate at lightspeed. To have no mass, this indiates the right hand side of

[math]\nabla_{\mu} R^{\mu \nu} = \frac{1}{2} \nabla_{\mu}g^{\mu \nu} R[/math]

But does the absence of matter imply zero curvature for a metric? The answer is inexorably no.

Gravitational waves are not trivial, where the Ricci tensor is zero everywhere, but the Reimann tensor is not so it's not always the case you can deal with a massless universe and no curvature.

Give me friggin break swansont!

 

I remembered the statement because it flew in the face of common sense from my non physics point of view. But I am not that great with retaining names at the best of times.

 

I seriously doubt that he is the only phycist that has and does postulate such a scenario and I don't think anyone in here, including you, would contend that it is the flight of fancy of a crackpot within the physics community.

 

So I really don't think that watching the video all over again so I can post his name in here is going to add anything significant to the discussion.

 

 

 

What about causality?

 

Consider throwing a stone into a pond such that ripples eminated out from the entry point of the stone into the water.

 

If there is no arrow of time then causality goes out the window. Theoretically ripples could eminate out from a point before the stone enters the water.

 

Surely causality demands that there is an arrow of time despite the possibility that the past, present and future exist simultanously some where in space time.

 

Einteins theory dictates that you can only travel forward in time, i.e. when your time slows down due to light speed.

 

That indicates an arrow of time surely?

No I don't believe it does. There is no arrow.

In General Relativity, the ''connection'' is due to what is called the Christoffel Symbol [math]\Gamma[/math]. It is what is called an ''affine connection'' which defines the ability to have parallel transport i.e, curved spacetime.

The real truth is that space doesn't naturally curve unless there is something to bend it.

Also this isn't true. The Einstein Field equations allows you to have a zero-mass but non-zero curvature.

The real truth is that space doesn't naturally curve unless there is something to bend it. That's why in relatively not curved space, the angles in a triangle add up to exactly 180 degrees rather than more or less, because of space was curved negatively, then the angles in a triangle would appear to be less than 180 degrees, and if it was curved positively, the angles in a triangle would appear to be more than 180 degrees in the absence of a lot of mass to distort space a lot.

 

However, this flat space could go on infinitely, no one knows, we definitely don't know a lot about the whole universe, all we know as what we can measure.

We will begin with a standard wave equation:

[math]\frac{\partial^2 \phi}{\partial t^2} = c^2\frac{\partial^2 \phi}{\partial x^{2}}[/math]

This is a wave equation. Using natural units and expressing this wave 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 x^2}[/math]

To make it into a tensorial equation, we can take [math]\eta^{\mu \nu}[/math] to be [math]g^{\mu \nu}[/math] so that [math]g^{\mu \nu} \frac{\partial \phi}{\partial X^{\nu}[/math] and differentiate as:

[math]\nabla_{\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]

To work out the covariant derivative involves Christoffel Symbols by definition. This equation will describe the path of a photon for instance in a curved spacetime geodesic. They are models of parallel transport.

Sorry, typo.

I pasted and copied too.

It is true though, it is not a continuous analogue of the prime numbers. You must however question when it happens.

Ah bugger it, for queen and country. And for the loudmouths.

I found that the [math]3^{3}[/math] table contains a very important pattern that could be pivotal to calculating the connection between primes.

18

27

36

45

54

63

72

81

Which when each individual number is subtracted gives

1-8 = 7

2-7 = 5

3-6 = 3

4-5 = 1

5-4 = 1

6-3 = 3

7-2 = 5

8-1 = 7

Instead of the pattern occuring at the exact value of [math]3^{3}[/math] it is deterred until the second appearance. This seems like a mathematical analogue of the prime number pattern. It may be applied to the mathematical foundation of the OP, which I will be testing soon. I am likely to spend many hours on this. I enjoy puzzles.

I'm far too tired to have this discussion right now.

Wow... I was awash with negative vibes reading this.

Okay I have to ask, where on earth did you make the leap between "not divisible by 3" and "probably a prime"?

 

If we pick a couple of numbers, we can run them through any amount of divisibility tests.

 

Try 1921 and 2311 for utterly contrived examples.

 

• The last digit in both cases is odd.
  They've failed the divisibility test for 2 - does that make them both prime?
• The sum of all digits in both cases is not divisible by 3.
  They've failed the (your?) divisibility test for 3 - does that make them both prime?
• The last digit in both cases is not 0 or 5.
  They've failed the divisibility test for 5 - does that make them both prime?
• The last digit, subtracted from the rest of the number, is not divisible by 7 in either case.
  They've failed the divisibility test for 7 - does that make them both prime?
• The sum of every second digit minus the sum of the remaining digits, is not divisible by 11.
  They've failed the divisibility test for 11 - does that make them both prime?

 

As it happens, one is prime and one is not, but they both ran through the same filters with the same results. While all these divisibility tests are plenty neat, none of them give results which are a sufficient condition for a number to be prime.

I don't know what you're talking about. Do you actually understand what I am doing in the OP?

There are other ways to view the potential mathematically. You can have

[math]V= \frac{-\mu^2}{2} + \frac{\lambda \phi^4}{4}[/math]

Differentiation gives

[math]V= -\mu^2 + \lambda \phi^3[/math]

Rearranging gives

[math]\phi^2 = \frac{\mu^2}{\lambda}[/math]

then if this is simply the ground state then this is just [math]f^2[/math] which has dimensions of mass

[math]f^2 = \frac{\mu^2}{\lambda}[/math]

which raises a problem in my conjecture above. It was the same problem that the Higgs Boson faced. [math]f^2[/math] was a very small number in theory, it would only account for some of the observable mass and energy in the universe, because [math]f^2[/math] may be just a small portion of what we deal with. The theory was that this mass term could be represented in much more massive terms, this would be the unseen stuff we speculate permeating spacetime.