Is there some physical quantity similar to temperature or some operator applied to temperature that can quantify the phenomenological experience of how warm something feels? For example, a measure that could differentiate between the warmth of two hands in the same bowl of water, one of which had previously been in hotter water and the other of which had previously been in colder water?

How warm something feels is gonna involve both the heat and coldness receptors in your body, as well as how they are processed

So not quite something physical

Famously drinking alcohol makes you feel warmer without actually warming you, which I'm not sure will be involved in a physical operator

"In the context of both STR and GTR, it has been shown [3,6,7,10,11] that only the gravitational equation-of-motion field is geodesic and hence corresponds to a group or G-structure on spacetime, namely, the projective structure of spacetime. The other known equation-of-motion fields (see Eq. (23)), those corresponding to electromagnetic charge-to-mass ratios Q/m, are all non-polynomial in the 3-velocity variables, and hence cannot correspond to G-structures"

whaaa

It’s very difficult to foresee how the Schwinger effect could be tested in its pure form, but thanks to the extreme properties of graphene, including its ability to withstand spectacularly large electric fields and currents, it arose for the very first time in any form: in this particular quantum system.

why do "pure form" and "any form" above mean?

I need some robotic assistants

@Bohemianrelativist The Schwinger effect is the production of electron-positron pairs from a vacuum by an electric field. This paper describes the creation of electron-hole pairs from the valence band of graphene by an electric field. So it is not reporting an observation of the Schwinger effect - just of an effect analogous to the Schwinger effect.

So the pure form means the production of electron-positron pairs in a vacuum.

Calling the production of electron-hole pairs in graphene the Schwinger effect is stretching things a bit, but the process in graphene is described by a similar mathematical model to the Schwinger effect so I suppose they can get away with it.

I'm getting really tired of people with personal theories who do nothing but subscribe to the principle of Occam's Beard Hair Growth Tonic

(removed hair)

Occam's razor is a heuristic, it is not a fundamental principle of epistemology

Is pragmatism a fundamental principle?

Also not

I'm afraid when it comes to metaphysics, there is no fundamental principle

if i combined 3 phase to 1 phase, is the proper equation for voltage vl=sqrt(3)*(v1+v2+v3)/3

asuuming they are spaced 120° apart and it is slightly unbalanced

$V_l=\sqrt(3)*\frac{(V_1+V_2+V_3)},{3}$

@Slereah true. But if there's no testable difference between their theory and accepted science, Imma stick with the latter. Heuristic or no

@Jim If your problem with such theories is that they have no difference, then you haven't seen a lot of bad personal theories :p

@Slereah I have, but felt those didn't merit mention

Also on a more sinister note

The actual mainstream theories are full of unnecessary objects in them

there's a fine line between unnecessary and unexplained

Why do you need something explained, are you in search of the METAPHYSICAL TRUTH

lol

God's own ordained physical laws

The SU(3) symmetry represents the Holy Trinity

depends on how you phrase it :P

"You're a crackpot and here's proof" is borderline insulting, something like "Take a step back and perhaps consider how you're coming across to other people; here's a list of things that generally discourage physicists from taking you seriously" less necessarily so

nice, how about I post here what I want to type. You tell me if it's acceptable. I think I'm in between those two

Check out this link and calculate your score based on what you've written here. From what you said in the comments, I calculate your theory has a score of about 25 (certainly not the worst I've seen. I recently saw one with a score of 155). Please note that we on this site only like to talk about theories that have negative scores.

I mean, it's not exactly site policy to apply Baez' scale

it's just fairly well-correlated with what we consider non-mainstream

true but all stuff we like has a negative score. Correlation of 1

Here is my theory

see, that theory rates at least a 45

I mean...that's not a theory, you just drew a bunch of circles and wrote profound-sounding stuff into them :P

@ACuriousMind that was considered good enough in the first century

sure

one of the first theories about the world recorded in Greece was "everything is water"

It ran into some difficulty when something that wasn't water was discovered

There is something inherently silly in having a theory where the whole world is the same substance and then using a specific example as that substance

If everything is made of the same stuff, you might as well say that everything is cake

to be fair a lot of these mystic theories make a lot more intuitive "sense" than what actually appears to be going on :P

by the transitive property

The extended Lagrangian method is described in Dmitriy M. Gitman, Igor V. Tyutin - Quantization of fields with constraints

Yeah, that's at the end of the answer in the link

a good choice

I enjoyed that book

I haven't ever heard of this in Classical Mechanics

It is unfortunate

But it's not really necessary, really

It's more of a pedagogical tool

the $v$ variable can be integrated out

A lot of things are not necessary, indeed

But CM is just fun and I like having something new to think about

There just one CM book I have to look up, though

Moretti's book might have it

He wrote a wonderful book about Analytical Mechanics for those who don't know

It seems the answer is negative