> The author offered no original thought. This is a very short summary of the themes and major plot points present in the book. This could have been written after reading a review online. This does not answer the prompt in any substantial fashion.
For my experience with the stack exchange network, this issue is quite unique to physics stack exchange (probably because my physics intuition is still not as good despite the undergrad courses I have taken in my uni result in errors and overlooking things):
Right now I am seeing the warning ban...
For my experience with the stack exchange network, this issue is quite unique to physics stack exchange (probably because my physics intuition is still not as good despite the undergrad courses I have taken in my uni result in errors and overlooking things):
Right now I am seeing the warning ban...
@ACuriousMind I'm inclined to try it, but I have a billion conflicting mods
> This person put in a lot of effort but did not stay on topic. They spent more time giving facts about their personal experiences than they did tying the book to those experiences and opinions.
@0celo7 @FenderLesPaul @TanMath @ACuriousMind: not working yet, just took Friday to look at some prospective houses to rent & then didn't need to go online on Sat & Sun since I'm not looking for a job anymore; spent time with the family instead
@KyleKanos how far are you moving? out of state? its a perm job? thought of this cartoon & you today while reading latest new yorker cartoon compilation (90th anniversary issue)... have always been looking for good excuse to share it :)
@KyleKanos have researched/ played with quant stuff for many yrs. looking fwd/ hope you can share some (general) observations... (ofc almost surely they will have you sign NDA)
@obe If my memory serves, currently one of the most fruitful application related to string theory are its mathematical analogous in condensed matter physics
@obe I've never heard of "scale relativity" before now (and note I'm actually paid to research relativity). Moreover, the Wikipedia article makes it clear that this is all the work of a single (very dedicated) crackpot. (You have to read between the lines, since they were obviously written by the guy himself.)
@0celo7 I've always found DJVU Libre to be good, but then DJVU format is very much a last resort. The books I have in DJVU format tend to be old ones that are out of print or never going to be released as an ebook.
user54412
@obe I mean, the guy thinks he has an answer to everything from dark matter to dark energy to the 2-point galaxy correlation to exoplanets to the electron mass to the fine structure constant to the strong force to superconductivity to embryo development to evolution. Note that most of these weren't even questions.
user54412
One of the hallmarks of being a crackpot is the belief that every complex phenomena one encounters can be explained by one's personal thesis in some way, never mind the fact that most everything in science is an emergent system that can't be described by a simple number or formula.
user54412
Actually, there are a number of these types who, with methods I can't figure out, get actual academic positions and put papers on arxiv promoting such nonsense. There's a whole cottage industry, for example, of people cross-posting to gr-qc and astro-ph purporting to "explain" everything from gamma ray bursts to neutron stars with their simple addition to the standard model.
@ChrisWhite Initially when I read that wikipedia link, knowing that many users point out to be controversial, I quickly look for a criticism like section. But when I actually scrolled there, the "criticism" section sounds more like a ancedote or testimonial, which set off the alarm that whatever that article is, it is written by the philosopher suggested by Kyle and I question about that guy's intention or openess to criticism
normally for any article in wikipedia that describe some kind of physics model, the criticism would give you an impression of broad, objectivity and neutrality. I don't find such thing in the scale relativity article
(In respond to the 2nd block of comment) Now I finally know why 2 years ago, I came across of so many magnetic monopole articles there that makes no sense
I was wondering if the following is a good way to think about intrinsic curvature in D+T (i.e. 2 dimensional) spacetime:
Imagine drawing a white grid on a piece of flexible cloth. Now everything more or less follow the grid lines.
If something is massive, it means you compress that section of the cloth, thus the cloth remains flat but the grid lines are now squished and looks as if drawn towards a point. Since all inertial motion follow geodesics, whatever object embed…
Lol, thanks for answering that question Slereah, cause I often go hyper drive whenever I saw a time travel question and possibly end up spewing half baked nonsense in the process
From the papers I have read so far (with the latest being the postselection model experiment proposal published somewhere in 2012), it seems even if we can somehow realise time travel, it is pretty likely to be CTCs, where you cannot change the past
The issue of uniqueness is first made aware to me 2 years ago when I browse this http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/time-travel-phys/ they go as far saying that as a rough analogy, anything can emerge through the cauchy horizon, as long the boundary conditions were met
=============
One thing that really annoys me is that both magnetic monopole (the dirac and GUT types, not the quasiparticle ones) and backward time travel have been consistently giving negative results, but there seemed to be few observational evidence that can rule them out entirely
(Apologies if I don't understand well, given my general relativity skills still need to sharpen up a lot more despite the one semester course I have taken (yes, they only realise this is a problem this year that a one semester GR course is not going to work))
I was thinking, is this blowup problem only occurs when you close the (what's the term?) path into a loop to form a CTC, or it will occur whenever the path directs from the future to the past?
=====================
I'd like to read about this more, any more in detailed literature on that topic I can read more about?
I made a silly mistake again! I forgot spacetime that allow CTCs have light cones get bend around back to the past https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del_metric Maybe I am still not qualified enough to deal with this stuff yet
#4 is a CTC #3 is an attempt to make an "almost CTC" in order to investigate the limiting behaviour when the ends are just about to join up
Because from my (limited) understanding of CTCs and the philosophical paradoxes of time travel (predestination paradox, grandfather paradox, ontological paradox). the logic is fine until the loop closes. So I am suspecting something discontinous had happened the moment when the loops joined up. Ever since then I have been trying to understand the limiting behaviour of these "almost loops" so to work out exactly when and where the paradox arises
================== I should read more about "imprisonment"
I will leave the original post for historical reference, but as mentioned in the Update below, all four bookmarks are located on this installation page. There are four bookmarks:
start ChatJax installs MathJax and starts a loop that renders $\LaTeX$ as needed.
This is intended for use in chat, ...
" Before beginning, we introduce some notation (but not too much, because ambiguities are useful for hiding factors of √2 [8] that we haven't checked yet). A ∧ is used to indicate a wedge product of differential forms [9] (for example, dxμ∧dxν $μν is a W2-form). Unless explicitly otherwise, we use index-free notation (i.e., we just leave all the indices off our equations). As a result, the Einstein summation convention is unnecessary (especially since nobody knows how to sum Einsteins anyway). Contravariant vectors are then distinguished from sandanistavariant vectors by context. ``-1'' is …
Index humor seems to be pretty big in theoretical physics
"We now study the nonperturbative effects. These are actually easier to study than the perturbative effects because they cannot be calculated and thus we can wave our hands a lot more. "
That last 9 words pretty much sums up some physicist complain about the theoretical deppartment keep coming up with different types o dark matter without checkign whether they follow experiment results
I rmb I once discussed abut this "one particle per day" phenomenon with my theoretcial general relativity professor, and she said it is actually more common than you thought
@skull patrol : I'm not an active member of PhysicsOverflow. I happened to see an answer I made here imported there and registered to see what was going on, but I havent't used it.
@Slereah I might be a glutton of punishment, but when I saw questions of that type I have a tendency to ask for clarification on whatever I can make sense of, rather than simply say it is nonsense striaght away
might be because I am so used to see weird things in science that my response to stuff like these have gone dull...
I still remember my excitement back in 2009 when they said they have found the monopole, only to realise by reading in depth that they are not the dirac monoepole everyone is looking for
but those quasiparticles are interesting notheless
nah, the first such monopole quasiparticles made in te condensed matter monopole timeline are dirac string like systems in spin ice like Dyposium titanate
more recently in 2012 or 2013, they have monopole like system that involve skymyrions
monopoles are one of the topics that I read outside class in depth This is because I am trying to make a scifi story and monopole will play a significant role But I also want the suspension of disbelief to be as strong as possible, thus I start reading papers.
That was the year 2011
At that time, my electromagnetism is still in its infancy thus a lot of the stuff I don't quite understand
But because of digging through the magnetic monopole bibliography, I end up being made a lot more aware about monopoles
@Secret : CTCs don't allow for time travel because you don't actually move along a world line. It represents your motion through space over time. In similar vein you don't move around a closed timelike curve. See this answer. Wheeler conflated a circle with a cycle.
@Secret : I'm afraid time travel is science fiction. Talking of which, an electron doesn't have an electric field, it has an electromagnetic field,. So electric charge is something of a misnomer, and there's a big issue with the idea of "magnetic charge".
I'm no crank. I give good clear answers with robust references to Einstein / Minkowski / Maxwell / contemporary authors and papers and the hard scientific evidence.
===begin transmission=== Encrypted message: ...you guys are gonna give me a challenge huh... /end encrypted message ===end transmission===
Speaking about monopoles, I once chat with my electromagnetism professor about them. Given that monopoles often act like topological defects as shown in spin ice and as pairs of skymyrions, and that they can never leave the material they are in (because they are quasiparticles), I asked her for what reason we cannot have such defects in vacuum and what disallowed them. As our discussion goes, we end up with not really sure on what kind of observation wi…
Time travel is impossible because there's no motion through spacetime, as per Ben Crowell's answer here, and no motion theough time either. There is no way you can move such that everything not just moves back to where it was, but never moved at all.
As far as I can make out, the quantum part of the Chronology Protection Conjecture hinges on the fact that in curved space, in the semiclassical approximation, the stress energy tensor contains a term
\begin{equation}
\lim_{x\rightarrow y}\sum_{\gamma \neq \gamma_0} \frac{\sqrt{\Delta_\gamma (x...
Tsk. I've just seen this at the top of the page: "Well the best evidence for CTCs not being possible is probably the whole vacuum explosion thing. If you have a quantum theory in curved spacetime, the propagator will have a term..." This is just smoke-and-mirrors handwaving.
@Slereah : I wouldn't get torn to shreds. I give crystal clear answers with solid references to bona-fide authors and hard-scientific evidence. Nobody tears that to shreds. They say thngs like hush Duffield or nah nah Einstein was wrong and I'm not listening because they can't. It's the old green-eyed goddess, but hey, such is life.
I want experiment a power of chanting of mantra . What should I have to learn for experiment a mantra . Would any one mentioned me a lesson an some of experimental assects ?
"John Iadfkgnsdfjbnd and Tom Hkjsdfbkjnsdjknvbkjnv, Another theorem on the dfvbdjhbvdh group in wkfjgndf of djfhbs rings and the Louisville transformation, in New results in 5-theory (Obscure Publishing, Louisville, 1842) p. 1596."
@ChrisWhite I can't hear him, but sometimes I wake up in the middle of the night, and a lightning flash outside shows me triangles scribbled on the walls in red color.
The company emailed me on Thursday to apply for the job (done online) & apparently the Job ID they gave me was associated with a different job than the one I'd be getting.
So now I have to quickly apply to get the official offer
As far as I can make out, the quantum part of the Chronology Protection Conjecture hinges on the fact that in curved space, in the semiclassical approximation, the stress energy tensor contains a term
\begin{equation}
\lim_{x\rightarrow y}\sum_{\gamma \neq \gamma_0} \frac{\sqrt{\Delta_\gamma (x...
I want experiment a power of chanting of mantra . What should I have to learn for experiment a mantra . Would any one mentioned me a lesson an some of experimental assects ?
