Mordred

If you ignore the poor descriptives in the article and look strictly at the math. The geometry of the global metric is static. What is flowing is the assigned inertial frames. ie assign for every value of velocity a Euclidean (Minkowskii) 3d inertial frame. The volume of space itself isn't flowing what is flowing is the field values. Specifically the values that make up a Rheimannian 3 manifold. A manifold is often referred to as a space. However each manifold is its own space regardless if they overlap other metric spaces over an identical volume. The above is described as embedded spaces and is fundamentally a differential geometry technique. The particle is following a geodesic ( curved spacetime path) Here http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/physics/140-physics/the-theory-of-relativity/general-relativity/1059-if-gravity-isn-t-a-force-how-does-it-accelerate-objects-advanced A couple of key notes mass doesn't matter in freefall. There is no force in freefall and a geodesic plots freefall motion. The article covers these notes in greater detail without getting too technical.

If you ignore the poor descriptives in the article and look strictly at the math. The geometry of the global metric is static. What is flowing is the assigned inertial frames. ie assign for every value of velocity a Euclidean (Minkowskii) 3d inertial frame. The volume of space itself isn't flowing what is flowing is the field values. The math clarifies that.

edit

+1 on taking the time to learn the correct physics. That of the flow of charge not of electrons.

As far as escape velocity is concerned. There isn't any difference. Photons use null geodesics while massive particles spacelike paths. However the escape velocity itself at a particular radius is the same value. Probably the easiest way to understand it is when the escape velocity equals c. The escape path is a null geodesic. There is no spacelike path that a massive particle can take to escape a BH. Only massless particles can use null paths. As only massless particles can reach c. For any value less than c the path is a spacelike path. The required escape velocity doesn't change just the type of geodesic.

surface of last screaming. I think your spell checker entered the wrong word lol. Though it is something every crack pot model tends to scream about lol

Excellent summary very accurate +1 very complete

correct but includes planets, stars, but also CMB. (part of baryon acoustic oscillations.) In essence it correlates rate of collapse via thereby providing a kinetic term. The sound waves is a mathematical descriptive for the hydrodynamics according to the thermodynamic laws as well as GR.

If you want the kinetic energy term for your calcs you can apply the Jeans instability equations. ( though I would have to brush up on em. myself) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeans_instability This intro applies to stars but there are calcs using Jeans for planetary formation. https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.ast.cam.ac.uk/~pettini/STARS/Lecture11.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwjzmbyDu4zUAhWHwlQKHbJQC0sQFgghMAA&usg=AFQjCNFrLXQx4ECJTFxu04SQxOSiaYojwg&sig2=CNmMlSp6pL7JanBLLQv4BQ section 13.2 next link. https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://web.mit.edu/12.004/TheLastHandout/PastHandouts/Chap13.Formation.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwjzmbyDu4zUAhWHwlQKHbJQC0sQFggsMAM&usg=AFQjCNH4gpQbkxF5dCKQQB9SKLHjif1Hfw&sig2=433mmPSGncTS_nfvO_e7Pg

the most reliable way to judge mainstream is what is taught in the textbooks. So no I wouldn't judge any social media as mainstream physics. Its not based on a popularity contest but on what the evidence shows and the strongest model. Most robust to describe it. We have far too many satellites in space to even consider the Earth as being flat. A little study into how forces work with matter shows that the most energy efficient configuration is round. Its extremely basic physics that you can literally test yourself at home. If you like I'll post you the math later on. Granted you will have to believe in the 3 laws of inertia.

change show that to prove that In essence yes.

Instead of storing the data why not just have a listing of good links and take advantage of storage already in place? As long as you regularly check the links are still valid wouldn't this accomplish the same purpose?

My three rules. 1) treat others as I wish to be treated. 2) be a better person today than yesterday.. 3) Always find the positive aspects within yourself and others

Yes your getting much closer remember now your working in R^3. Your goal is to show the compatibility theorem between l_2 and l_z. Which is the first part of a) in your question. So take your L^2 equation in your first post. then break out your cartesian components with the following in mind. [latex][\hat{L}^2\hat{L}_x]=[\hat{L}^2\hat{L}_y]=[\hat{L}^2,\hat{L}_z]=0[/latex] The hint I was trying to give you from the Hamilton was to remind you of the system your working in. Was also hoping you would have picked up the R^3 elements. You had the right idea to start with the equations you did but couldn't go from there so I was trying to remind you of the angular momentum components that are involved in your L^2 equation. write down you operator expressions for [latex]\hat{L}_x,\hat{L}_y[/latex] if that helps. ie the spherical harmonics you mentioned above.( You already posted two of the 4.) l-z and L^2 the square of the angular momentum. Remember you are working with a central potential system. ie center of mass equivalent. ( the instructor is asking for the proof in the first part. The second part is an application of that proof)

Yeah I see his argument under QFT energy is quantized as well. All observables are so you instantly transition between quanta states. There being no in between state. At least not measurable. In essence he is arguing that inbetween states would be too spread out in the field to be measurable or cause action (nonlocal). Which under observables makes sense. Lets try a simple example take an excitation of 1 quanta. It will a specific wavelength. If you increase the wave length the wavelength amplitude will reduce. Your photon in essence no longer exists as a real particle. Its much the same way photons can form for every quanta value. However when described as an excitation its pointlike properties is confined by the Compton wavelength. Increase the wavelength your photon dissapears. However to maintain the conservation laws the energy is spread out into the field but too diffuse to measure. PS (The compton wavelength is the breaking point where you can define the pointlike characteristic of a particle.)

That was in response Birds post time was not slower in the past Time dilation requires a non uniform mass distribution.

I will have to reread the Hobson paper this eve to see what context he describes as instantaneous but it never truly is.

no

Fairly accurate I don't see any mistakes in that descriptive.

Action is your coordinate displacement. In essence any interaction you can describe by a set of coordinates can be described by action. "In physics, action is an attribute of the dynamics of a physical system from which the equations of motion of the system can be derived. It is a mathematical functional which takes the trajectory, also called path or history, of the system as its argument and has a real number as its result" Energy is simply the ability to perform work. It doesn't exist on its own but simply a property much like mass is the property resistance to inertia change. The nice thing about action is it has the dimensions energy times time or momentum times length. So in several regards its a time saver in calculations as you've already factored in the f=ma relations. This allows us additional flexibility in designing symmetry relations. Particularly under field treatments. As a side note the relations between kinetic energy and potential energy in the action principle is incredibly useful and even when your not working under action is used in cosmology for example. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state_(cosmology)The scalar field equation applies these relations to describe the energy density and pressure. The numerator being pressure the denominator the energy density. Even GR applies these relations for geodesic motion. (principle of least action) so its not restricted to QFT but also in classical fields. Spin foam in Loop quantum gravity also uses action. When you adopt the field philosophy to describe any and all interactions action is incredibly flexible and versatile but it is just a function. It is a mathematical methodoly not an entity. Under coordinate changes its incredibly useful or kinematic motion particularly since all interactions are describable via differential geometry. Just a side note I used to worry about what is fundamental. After years of study the only thing I could name was "change" Everything else energy,mass,time,pressure, fields, etc etc are all devices to describe change. Beyond that well I simply don't have that answer.

yes but I'm hoping to provide you a clue on how to arrive at your eugenvalues without giving away the answer. The L_2 and L_z are part of the separation of all variables procedure from the Hamilton coupled with the Schrodinger equation. The missing relation you need is the coulomb potential. to get your eugenvalues. recall there are is 3 main constituents to the hydrogen atom. the proton, electron and coulomb potential.. The Hamilton includes all 3 Hint [latex]a_0[/latex] is the Bohr radius Next hint what does the energy eugenfuction depend on ?

QFT lectures are a bit tricky to find but here is a series of lectures with notes posted on arxiv. https://www.physics.harvard.edu/events/videos/Phys253 54 lectures if I recall. Sydney R Coleman with Harvard University. though unfortunately poor video quality. is the Here is the course notes. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1110.5013.pdf there is also this series https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/mathematics/18-238-geometry-and-quantum-field-theory-fall-2002/lecture-notes/ A Simple Introduction to Particle Physics Part I - Foundations and the Standard Model https://arxiv.org/pdf/0810.3328.pdf David Tong: Lectures on Quantum Field Theory http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/tong/qft.html PS past posters have usually enjoyed David Tongs series

Today I learned 3 and 5 year olds have far too much energy. If I could harness it in a humane fashion I would solve the energy crisis. Especially when you add sugar to the equations

Bad wording meet the quanta of action requirement

correct little side note in QFT all operators fulfill the quanta of action. If you have a wavefunction or fluctuation/VP these use Propogators. So when studying the mathemstics bear this in mind. Now connect that with Studiots comment regarding Normalized units. c=g=h=1. Then look at a Feynman diagram. The external legs are operators. Your internal squiggly line propogators. PS I have a lesson I plan on writing on how Feyman diagrams work on S matrix. I have all the details I need. Just need to simplify it