Mordred

So where is the problem? If I use a set of formulas developed after decades of research and study am I not utilizing the experience, studies and efforts of a collective body of scientists ? This is how physics advance through collective efforts, it is why research papers are readily available through sites such as arxiv. Every single formula and math equation has involved years of research study and community agreed upon axioms, definitions and syntax etc. When you get right down to it the mathematical arguments require a community effort far more than a logic argument. Hence why it takes so many years of study just to properly apply the equations and produce a good working mathematical proof. A logic argument has no such priori on research, community gained knowledge etc, anyone can produce a good logic argument though knowledge of the topic helps strengthen the argument. It isn't a requirement.

Its interesting work, I will have to take time to examine your arxiv in greater detail to add any comments. However thank you for sharing on our forum and welcome aboard or rather welcome back after 7 years. Its nice to see a continuation of a thread years later showing a produced result. I happened upon your thesis paper on extended MERW. Going to take a bit of time studying your paper above. I probably will have questions involving SU(n) and SO(n) symmetry aspects. However I need to do some familaritation with the algorithms involved.

I am well aware of the differences between logical vs mathematical approaches. However soneone that truly wants to understand sonething will not exclude one or the other but encompass both into his/her understanding. However far too often people refuse to accept the math simply because they don't like it or they don't wish to take the time to understand it. This ia a self limitation plain and simple. I honestly hope your not limitting yourself. Quite frankly it is virtually impossible to understand Bell's inequality properly without understanding the mathematics. Any heuristic descriptive of what is going on is usually misleading. A prime example is the confusion surrounding locality and non locality. Any attempts to explain this is doomed to fail without applying math into the descriptives. here is a prime example. [latex]p(ab|xy)=\int_a d\lambda q(\lambda)p(a|x,\lambda)p(b|y,\lambda)[/latex] this expression is what defines locality in Bells experiment. How does one describe this without the required math??? You cannot explain the above equation without referring to the math. how do you explain that x and y can be freely chosen to be independent of [latex]\lambda[/latex] ? that [latex]q,(\lambda|x,y)=q(\lambda)[/latex] PS [latex]\lambda[/latex] is an arbitrary variable denoting the joint causal influence upon A and B at the time of entanglement. Far too often I see attempts to describe locality however those attempts are not correctly describing the correct definition of locality under bells inequality. Far too often they tend to think local to the particle and global being the background. However this isn't how locality is defined in Bells experiments. In Bells experiment it is directly related to causality. ( there is no causal connection if the two are spatially separated.) That part stems from action at a distance. Which if one understands entanglement and the past causal connection to superposition with regards to the conservation laws when the entangled pair is first created, one realizes no action is involved. That the problem becomes simply probablistic ( the very term superposition originates from statistical mechanics). Hence no hidden action is needed.

In the case of ADS/CFT the Schwartzchild metric. Gravity locally has Lorentzian symmetry relations the inherent in vector commutations. The SO(3.1) Lorentz group is often modelled as negative curvature. ADS/CFT applies this signature choice to the Lorentz group above. Here is a decent coverage of antiDesitter under group relations. https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/9805087&ved=0ahUKEwiYzpKB9bfVAhUJ4mMKHTI7CVsQFgg4MAQ&usg=AFQjCNGu1uY87efqxPD7YuCUaARv7VYwEQ Anti-Desitter actually originated in GR and the FLRW metric. ADS/CFT and the previous curvature symmetries under groups follow the same relations in terms of curvature relations being modelled. One has to be careful on what is the cause of curvature change ie there are differences between curvature of a commoving volume as opposed to a static metric. FLRW (LCDM) cosmology and GR applications respectively. All spacetime curvature metrics will determine curvature by the scalar modelling kinetic/potential relations or often energy/density vs pressure relations following its equations of state. [latex]w=\frac{\rho}{p}[/latex] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state_(cosmology) see last formula for the scalar modelling relations. Coincidently QFT uses that same precise formula. In the case of point mass Centre of mass systems the negative signature is used to identify a centre of mass vector field. This signature is also reflected under gaussian distributions of multi particle COM systems As this thread is about spacetime tomorrow I will add the curvature terms to the metric tensor. It will help better understand Lorentz symmetry groups SO(1,n) though it will also help in other groups such as SU(n)

You keep mentioning algebra vs calculus and tensors. You are missing the inherent versatility of tensors, they provide us a means to organize all the algebraic expressions in complex systems. Particularly in how they apply vectors and vector algebra. This is what symmetry translations is all about, simplifying numerous vector rotations and translations. For every given coordinate.

What makes you feel a logic argument cannot be described by mathematics? Or that mathematics regardless of if its statistical or not cannot be used to describe a logic argument? Anyways back to your previous reply correlation functions are based upon statistical averages. In Bells inequalities the averages is based upon polarity alignments between two detectors in particular their statistical averages. https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0407041&ved=0ahUKEwiM1JXU3rfVAhVDKGMKHWu8AIsQFggiMAA&usg=AFQjCNH7TmY-HRkpaCt9zUhfoz9z5m2gQQ Here is a good arxiv. As far as your mathematical issues are concerned, I always consider those arguments a form of self limitation. Its far too common to see people refusing to understand something in physics simply because they don't like the nature of math or simply type of math used. Personally I feel thats their personal self limitation. Lol a side note its often frustrating to always having to look for the simplist, or most heuristic explanation when helping others.I come across these sort of math adversities all the time. lol

Lol I like that answer

just a side note, the error messages for the new format on latex errors is far far more helpful, it actually identifies which portion and type of error

did you even understand this as per the scalar modelling formula under the first link? If you double the kinetic energy your universe would expand far too fast... You want a way to connect the conservation laws under GR ?? then study the energy/momentum four vectors. http://oyc.yale.edu/sites/default/files/relativtity_notes_2006_8.pdf this paper discusses the conservation laws under the four vector... it will help get you started... here is the four momentum conservation https://www.physics.mcmaster.ca/~yavin/courses/PHYS4E03/02Mar2015.pdf this link is of better quality http://www.phys.ufl.edu/~acosta/phy2061/lectures/Relativity4.pdf it will tie in your e=mc^2 relations with KE under relativity. One line of interest is this statement "As we have learned, mass is a form of potential energy. It can be converted into energy, or energy can be converted into mass. Because of this, mass does not have to be conserved in reactions. If you throw two balls at each other and they stick together (an inelastic collision), the resulting mass is not necessarily the sum of the individual masses of the two balls" The article discusses this but as I mentioned KE isn't conserved in inelastic collisions... Another key note..mass changes with velocity via equation [latex]m=\frac{m_0}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}}[/latex] a consequence of SR is that mass changes with velocity so momentum also changes... see why you need conservation of four momentum?

Ok well I am not going to give a dozen examples to determine which system you want to describe kinetic energy and the conservation laws under you want a center of mass frame your automatically dealing with a multi-particle system. This alone complicates the math so you need to define the conservation of momentum and conservation of energy under a center of mass frame and account for all particles. Your math isn't looking at the conservation laws directly kinetic energy isn't always a conserved quantity. It is in perfect elastic collisions but not in inelastic collisions. Well here is a pdf to save us some time https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/aeronautics-and-astronautics/16-07-dynamics-fall-2009/lecture-notes/MIT16_07F09_Lec11.pdf you can see from this the subject gets complex depending on the system state..(also the effective degrees of freedom ) You don't seem to have any problem with the simple examples of kinetic energy so the pdf will help you get into multiparticle systems. The thing is conservation of momentum and conservation of energy has two distinct definitions and as such has two distinct values. conservation of energy being a scalar quantity conservation of momentum being a vector quantity. kinetic energy is a scalar quantity so you need to add the directional components in your examination to get the conservation of momentum. This is where your vis visa arguments come into play... though quite frankly energy regardless of type is simply the ability to perform work, a particle with momentum naturally has the ability to perform work. What you need to do is examine how the conservation laws applies to the amount of work performed within your system. That is not strictly energy but a combination of mass and energy. It is also not strictly based on kinetic energy as you need the potential energy as well. This is where your problem is in seeing the connection, from what I can tell from your posts and mathematics. lol side note it will take a huge understanding to show that the stress tensor in GR is wrong when it comes to the dark energy as per your opening post and article. You are nowhere even close to having the required details...in order to even begin to understand the stress energy/momentum tensor you will need to fully understand multiparticle system modelling. None of your math even comes close to describing a multiparticle system under conservation laws for an adiabatic expansion. You need to apply the ideal gas laws and how the three not two conservation laws apply. lets show conservation of energy under the stress tensor used by GR just to demonstrate. [latex]T_{\mu\nu}=(\rho+p)U_\mu U_\nu+Pg_{\mu\nu}[/latex] where [latex]U_\mu=(1,0,0,0)[/latex] is the 4 velocity in a comoving frame conservation of energy using the covariant derivative is therefore [latex]\Delta T_0^{\mu}=0[/latex] gives [latex]\frac{\dot{\rho}}{\rho}=-3(1+w)\frac{\dot{a}}{a}=-3(1+wH)[/latex] see what I mean by tons of study needed to describe conservation of energy I just described? That is assuming conservation of energy even applies in Cosmology ( there is an ongoing debate on that). In order to understand what I just posted you need to learn Gauss divergence theorem, the 4 momentum and 4 velocity under GR, the field equations under Noethers theorem as well as multi particle/field modelling as well as the ideal gas laws which these all use Trust me your just getting started.....for example the 1/r potential conservation equation for the FLRW metric from the Einstein field equation above is [latex](\frac{\dot{a}}{a})^2=H^2=\frac{8\pi G}{3}\rho-\frac{k}{a^2}[/latex] f-ma for a 1/r^2 force field is [latex]\frac{\ddot{a}}{a}=-\frac{4\pi G}{3}(\rho+3P)[/latex] so if your goal is to solve dark energy by looking for a fault in kinetic energy and conservation laws as to how they are applied. Well then you really have your work cut out for you...... edit I should explain the 1/r potential this is a scalar field. 1/r^2 is a point charge ie center of mass (ie gravity)

What you need to do is understand the work energy theorem to understand why 1/2mv^2. Here is a simple derivitave for you https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/35987/why-there-is-a-1-2-in-kinetic-energy-formula I changed my previous post as I forgot your examining vis viva which has its own treatments (also its own formula) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vis-viva_equation Though you will see vis viva aka living force is more commonly shown as mv^2. I had forgotten about the vis visa and kinetic energy debate

If you were trying to derive the kinetic energy formula starting with f=ma then average velocity is part of the solution. However that would lead to ke=1/2mv^2 ie from rest to final velocity.

oh my the blooming SI unit for velocity is m/s the blooming SI unit for KE is kg*m^2*s^-2. Learn how to do a simple dimensional analysis on your equations. You cannot take a formula that passes dimensional anslysis [latex]ke=1/2mv^2[/latex] then add any random variable without changing the left hand side of the equation to keep it balanced I posted the fricken units for the formula you provided. you had ke=mass times velocity ×velocity×acceleration. All I did was convert that to units. Even if you have [latex] ke=m×v×va[/latex] as written this is mass ×velocity ×velocity×accelerationthe proper form to write average velocity is v_a or [latex]v_a[/latex] Though I have absolutely no idea why you think average velocity is needed

Lets try a basic equation [latex] 1 metre *1 metre=(unit?)[/latex] now keep this basic example in mind does [latex] kg*m/s*m/s*m/s^2=ke?[/latex] joule is[latex] kg*m^2*s{-2}[/latex] I don't know about you but I would find such a mistake extremely embarassing

please show how the equation I quoted from your paper passes a simple dimensional analysis. Your units on the LHS do not match the units on the right hand side of the equal sign. Your first equation fails dimensional analysis. This makes the equation invalid. After work If you want I will show how COM and COE is applied correctly with KE and PE. Its a basic high school lesson

I see so because you don't understand how Coe and Com works with the potential and kinetic energy relations to maintain the conservation laws. You assume they are wrong due to not knowing how to do the math correctly. Got it. [latex]ke=m×v*v*a[/latex] this is a garbage formula that doesn't even match your descriptive you give your formula.

Gravity as a force is too weak to have any influence on individual particles or atoms. This does not mean gravity or spacetime curvature does not exist nor that gravity isn't present in the atom. It is present but its effects is negligible within the atom. Gravity has a fundamental difference between the electromagnetic force and itself. That being positive charge only. I seriously hope your not suggesting gravity does not exist. If you are then this thread belongs in Speculations forum and not maimstream. Orbits of stars and planets are different than orbits in an atom. The differences is numerous such as charge, In an atom the individual electrons do not attract each other, yet individual planets do. Under mass as a charge (positive) those like charges attract not repel as per the electromagnetic force. That alone tells us were dealing with a different force than the electromagnetic. (No repulsive force).

If Kinetic energy is of a two times value and you apply the scslar modelling formula in cosmology. Your universe would blow up long before the first stars could possibly form. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state_(cosmology) So you don't need to take my word for this, https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://arxiv.org/pdf/1309.4188&ved=0ahUKEwijquKl7q7VAhXJhFQKHTKRCCMQFggiMAE&usg=AFQjCNGmyIRwg87z0Dg-lQUBqV_uhS7exQ apply your kinetic energy as 2 times to equations 1 thru 9 of the last link, which you will notice equation 9 reflects the kinetic energy term. Not to mention conservation of energy momentum violations. Your pdf paper needs some serious work...I will leave it at that....

Guess that makes me CEO. Oh hey look I'm your boss...lol interesting story Imatsfaal. Life and and times on a forum

I Volunteer to be the mudslinger

my wifes screams tells me she shared the same delusion. Here is the trick, if our universe is a simulation then a multiverse must exist. Secondly the simulation is our reality.

spacetime curvature is a relationship involving time dependancy and mass density. It doesn't alter the radius of the volume, you need to be careful between differences in coirdinate length via ct and proper length. Remember tge light path can change without a change in volume.

Your thinking of entropy autocorrelation. Any two statistical averages can be correlated. One does not need to even have anything to do with the prior. Ie population of humans vs number of grains of sand on a beach. See Pearson correlation function (tons of online calcs for this lol) however that formula is linear. To equate how this applies to Bells inequality relates to the observers Rob above has described. Observers also include detectors.

Your last post will be extremely difficult to explain under the holographic principle and how CFT would treat the Kondo effect. I guess the only way is to first clear up what is meant by ADS/CFT ..anti_Desitter/conformal field theory. This very title has tremendous mathematical meaning and encompasses a range of models. Then in order to tie that in with Kondo cutoffs under conformal theory I need to explain the coordinate transformations for the holographic surface under the Penrose diagrams. All this before we can reasonably be on the same page...lol. Note hadn't gotten to entanglement yet.. OK lets start with Anti Desitter spacetimes. Well in essence an anti-Desitter spacetime is one where the curvature term is negative. Guage transformations anticommute rather than commute. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-de_Sitter_space this wiki covers enough of the basics but in essence its a negative curvature with a cosmological constant. Under ADS/CFT this is your boson fields. Now conformal is rather tricky to explain under the above. What is conformal well conformal is the transformations that leaves the size of the angles between corresponding curves unchanged. Which differs significantly to scalar transformations. Well lets just jump to conformal geometry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conformal_geometry lets stop here for a bit let me know if you have questions on this before we approach LSZ cutoffs as applied to your holographic surface. My apologies for taking this approach but I honestly cannot see how I can answer your last post as to how QFT handles Kondo effect as opposed to ADS/CFT treatment unless I know you understand how the two treats the geometry of spacetime. One needs to understand the guage groups, and differences in transformations and rotations. (Especially since Kondo effect uses path integrals under feyman rules. Not to mention the coordinate transforms under the differences in coordinate systems ie tortoise, Kruskal etc.. (PS. I takes a ton of preliminary work to even begin to comprehend ADS/CFT properly)

The light escaping a BH isn't a recessive velocity. A recessive velocity maps a commoving volume ie changes in radius (expansion) The FLRW is a commoving coordinate metric. A BH the radius is static and the coordinate Scwartzchild metric is also static. In this case we are dealing with gravitational redshift as per the event horizon escape velocity. Where as commoving coordinates involve cosmological redshift. Observers do affect both but in a different manner one is a change in volume while the a variation in density distribution.