Mordred

Oh my no I definitely wouldn't trust this article. Especially since we detected G waves that matched the spin 2 prediction while the electromagnetic is spin 1. Which a detailed analysis is completely missing in the above paper. This paper simply doesn't have enough weight even mathematically to counter all the tests of relativity even in terms of gravitational redshift. Strange already mentioned other key details. Thankfully not all peer reviewed papers are necessarily correct. This paper for one doesn't even recognize curved spacetime so its analysis of photons requiring inertial mass is incorrect.

Lets take an everyday tested example. The LHC, in order to increase a proton to the speeds it reaches the energy requirements to accelerate the proton matches those predicted by relativity due to inertial mass increase. Or top quarks at the LHC In fact relativity is tested daily with the LHC, CERN etc. That is precisely how CERN created the Higgs boson whose rest mass exceeds the combined mass of both protons. Or top quarks at the LHC.

Your welcome

That really depends on the metric. The equation f=ma is valid. Though under GR there is no acceleration in freefall motion. As the metric of GR describes this as spacetime curvature that follows a geodesic equation. End result until you have relativistic factors ie time dilation the two are equivalent to extremely good approximation. Don't be fooled though Newtons laws apply even in GR though it may not be obvious as its shrouded in the mathematical treatment. A better way to think of it, is Newtons laws f=ma is valid until one must factor in [latex]\gamma [/latex]. All equations are to a reasonable approximation. Whatever one considers reasonable. For everyday situations f=ma is incredibly close. Close enough to cover any non relativistic kinematic motion. There is no need to use complex GR to describe a thrown baseball. Though one can use GR to describe such, one can also use action from the "Principle of least action" These different treatments don't invalid one another. They simply help define the limitations in accuracy

I should add if you wish to test your new layout one can fairly easily reprogram each key function using the keys interupt 21 address function. If you know each keys adress one can easily write a Basic program to run tests with. I haven't done this in years but have done so in the past. One can get the details from the 8086 instruction set which is downloadable on the web

I don't know if this has been mentioned. However years ago (rather not get into hiw many lol) I recall one thing my typing instructor mentioned. One of the reasons for the current layout of letters themselves is that certain letters are more frequently used than others. Those letters such as vowels were placed in more easily used locations. This was reason given as to why the letters were not in alphabetical order.

Good catch on the wording Sensei. I missed the destroy part lol

There is a class of model this has striking similarity to. That being the zero energy universe model. This is in essence a universe from nothing model that has been proposed numerous times by professional Ph.D's As far as Blackholes being able to suck up a universe however isn't viable once you understand the 1/r^2 decrease in gravity strength vs the sheer size of our universe. So surprisingly enough your speculation isn't particularly outrageous. Nice to see for a refreshing change as your asking a valid question as opposed to this is the way it is. Here is a coverage of the zero energy universe complete with the proper math. http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwiRoK-kj9DRAhVK4WMKHc2pCbwQFggaMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fciteseerx.ist.psu.edu%2Fviewdoc%2Fdownload%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.340.6115%26rep%3Drep1%26type%3Dpdf&usg=AFQjCNG68ilLLrWBbWZDNtGievrmlSyUJA&sig2=Cfh_i5Wn88olA17tlypV7w It has often been referred to as the "Ultimate free lunch. Keep in mind this is just one of numerous possibilities as the LCDM big bang model doesn't in and of itself describe how the universe began as we still have insufficient evidence to support any valid universe creation model over another. The BB model described by LCDM starts at [latex]10^{-43} seconds forward. The other debate is whether or not energy is conserved or not on a global universe scale.

http://structuretech1.com/a-primer-on-s-traps/ This site mentions Minnesota. I don't know the regulations in the States though. I glanced through the Canadian plumbing code and didn't see a specific regulation against though my copy is out of date lol. I could ask my oldest son though as he's a journeyman

Do you have a pdf converter try pdf995 if not its free. Site has no problems with pdf copy/paste. New personal theories belong in speculations forum. This forum is for recognized mainstream models etc. Ie taught in school or peer reviewed.

One of the biggest confusions in QM is its use "Observer" as Strange correctly mentioned its any measurement device. Only a quanta or above is measurable. That final bit has nothing to do with measurement equipment capability. As it takes a quanta to perform interferance etc via "Action" You can google the physics definition of action.

Exactly you have two states that can be determined+1 superimposed state that is indetermined. Total of three. Your getting incredibly close to understanding Dirac notation So close in fact I'm trying figure out the final ingredient to give you that final Ah ha moment. I believe this may be the symmetry relations between these different states themself. I had asked in another thread whether or not you have worked with matrices and tensors, which you replied no. However it may be more revealing to show a brief example of Dirac with matrices and revisit vector associations. As I'm more used to relativity applications of Dirac I think I will use an example from SR. Not to confuse you but to give a different angle of approach. That final Ah ha moment might be just knowing Dirac is used in all branches of physics not just QM. This example here is inner space products [latex] |\uparrow_z \rangle = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} |\uparrow_x \rangle - \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} |\downarrow_x \rangle [/latex] A different notation to represent the above being the eugenvalues can represented by base vectors [latex]|+\rangle=\dbinom{1}{0}[/latex] and [latex]|-\rangle=\dbinom{0}{1}[/latex] expanding on the above we can introduce the following matrices for the base vectors [latex]|n_1\rangle=\begin{pmatrix}1\\0\\0\\0\end{pmatrix}|n_2\rangle=\begin{pmatrix}0\\1\\0\\0\end{pmatrix}|n_3\rangle= [\begin{pmatrix}0\\0\\1\\0\end{pmatrix}...|n_m\rangle\begin{pmatrix}0\\0\\0\\0\\.\\.\\.\\.\\n\end{pmatrix}[/latex] your Ket notation forms your column base vectors. your Bra notation [latex]\langle n^m|[/latex] fills the row base vectors in a similar manner above. Your [latex]|n^m|[/latex] being absolute value Keep in mind for simplicity above I used normalized units [latex]c=g=\hbar=1 [/latex] Now apply the above to say for example [latex]N_{ij}[/latex] the first character in your subscript being the row. N can be anything from a single value, a matrix, a tensor or even a spinor,manifolds, Euclidean space,Pauli matrices,Hilbert space etc Does that help? side note there is 1 other Golden rule to remember (well several) but in terms of subscripts vs superscripts if I have [latex]N^m[/latex] m becomes [latex]\frac{1}{m}[/latex] so for example I have a matrix A the inverse of this matrix is [latex]A^{-1}[/latex] so [latex]|x\rangle=A^{-1}|\acute{x}\rangle[/latex] lets see how that works I will use matrix [latex]g_{ij}=\begin{pmatrix}1&0&0\\0&r^2&0\\0&0&r^2 sin^2\theta\end{pmatrix}[/latex] clockwise rotation [latex]g^{ij}=\begin{pmatrix}1&0&0\\0&\frac{1}{r^2}&0\\0&0&\frac{1}{r^2sin^2\theta}\end{pmatrix}[/latex] anticlockwise rotation I will stop there before I start to confuse you What I posted is to help you understand the notation itself. Hopefully it will help you understand the two equations in your OP. The proofs behind those two equations I will leave to you though you already answered your own question

No worries it was simply coincidence the two was related So much attention on this thread has been the local hidden variable aspect. That everyone has been missing one of the key reasons the statistical averaging in the Bell results showed a difference between local hidden variables theory and QM. That being the Heisenburg uncertianty principle itself. I was certainly able to explain entanglement by a classical means. 1) conservation laws (which Einstein certainly was aware of. 2) the term Superposition which he was also aware of from statical mechanics (the term was around before QM. I mentioned that before) I'll let everyone think about that Hence why I asked this previously. Then think back to this Dr Chinese paper posted previously http://www.drchinese.com/Bells_Theorem Now EPR stated Reality -the measurable quantity must have a definite value before the measurement takes place. Locality -the physical quantities within reality would not influence each other at a large distance. Please review the EPR paradox https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox This was the argument Bell's experiment was testing for. Just to get this lengthy thread back on track

lol

Do add to this, there is also lots of ways to decohere the entangled particles as well. You require the right equipment setup.

No the energy/mass equivalence is applicable in any case where mass is being used. Its also applicable to any field or particle. Perhaps you should study GR in more detail. incorrect on the first, correct on the second but that doesn't make something with mass become massless. As long as your medium has any form of energy it will have an energy/mass equivalence at that point. Fields can have this equivalence just as a Gravity wave can have this equivalence via the Field equations. The second part of that statement in your quote shows you are applying that equivalence. So why the first part? Do you not see the conflict in these two lines? Change flow of electrons to simply flow of energy whatever its form

You know there is a very easy way to show this theory as completely wrong. Start with any scalar field of uniform mass distribution. the use the formula [latex]F=\nabla\theta[/latex] where [latex]\nabla[/latex]is the gradient [latex]\theta[/latex] some scalar potential doesn't matter what. the reason for the minus sign is to denote a conservative force then from Stokes theorem we have for gravitational and electrostatic forces [latex]V=C\frac{\hat{r}}{r^2}=C\frac{\hat{r}}{r^3}[/latex] to the immediate right of the first equal sign is gravitational the immediate right of the second equal sign is electrostatic. C is a constant for gravity [latex]C=-Gm_1M_2[/latex] for electrostatic we use the coulombs law of electrostatics. [latex]C=q_1q_2 4\pi\epsilon_o[/latex] V=force taking [latex]F_g=-\frac{Gm_1m_2\hat{r}}{r^2}=\frac{k\hat{r^2}}{r^2}[/latex] starting from infinity [latex]\theta_g r-\theta_G\infty=-\int^\infty_r F_g*dr[/latex] The above requires applications of Stokes theorem I am skipping over the cartesian coordinate expansions. However the simple consequence of these formulas is that the force is radial from a Centre of effective mass. <<<THIS IS OBVIOUS AS PLANETS ARE ROUND>>> due to conservation of energy. Just as water droplets form round shapes. the work done by the coulombs force and conservation of energy itself shows that the force is radially inward. if gravity was not radially outward from a center of mass then stars and planets would not be in the conserved shape they are in. Neither would water droplets which the same fomulas above can be used for. Key wording Orbit, if the force was not radial outward from a Center of mass objects would have a different orbit. So lets sit down and list OBSERVATION EVIDENCE YOUR THEORY IS WRONG 1) Shape of planets and Stars 2) path of Orbits 3) shape of galaxies 4) shape of water droplets 5) shape of any falling liquid with some cohesive force 6) pendulum tests to show the Earth isn't Flat That isn't enough to convince you then you best step up your math because your formulas thus far are garbage. However lets show gravity of a Planet and Star under GR shall we... In the presence of matter or when matter is not too distant physical distances between two points change. For example an approximately static distribution of matter in region D. Can be replaced by tve equivalent mass [latex]M=\int_Dd^3x\rho(\overrightarrow{x})[/latex] concentrated at a point [latex]\overrightarrow{x}_0=M^{-1}\int_Dd^3x\overrightarrow{x}\rho(\overrightarrow{x})[/latex] Which we can choose to be at the origin [latex]\overrightarrow{x}=\overrightarrow{0}[/latex] Sources outside region D the following Newton potential at [latex]\overrightarrow{x}[/latex] [latex]\phi_N(\overrightarrow{x})=-G_N\frac{M}{r}[/latex] Where [latex] G_n=6.673*10^{-11}m^3/KG s^2[/latex] and [latex]r\equiv||\overrightarrow{x}||[/latex] According to Einsteins theory the physical distance of objects in the gravitational field of this mass distribution is described by the line element. [latex]ds^2=c^2(1+\frac{2\phi_N}{c^2})-\frac{dr^2}{1+2\phi_N/c^2}-r^2d\Omega^2[/latex] Where [latex]d\Omega^2=d\theta^2+sin^2(\theta)d\varphi^2[/latex] denotes the volume element of a 2d sphere [latex]\theta\in(0,\pi)[/latex] and [latex]\varphi\in(0,\pi)[/latex] are the two angles fully covering the sphere. The general relativistic form is. [latex]ds^2=g_{\mu\nu}(x)dx^\mu x^\nu[/latex] By comparing the last two equations we can find the static mass distribution in spherical coordinates. [latex](r,\theta\varphi)[/latex] [latex]G_{\mu\nu}=\begin{pmatrix}1+2\phi_N/c^2&0&0&0\\0&-(1+2\phi_N/c^2)^{-1}&0&0\\0&0&-r^2&0\\0&0&0&-r^2sin^2(\theta)\end{pmatrix}[/latex] Now that we have defined our static multi particle field. Our next step is to define the geodesic to include the principle of equivalence. Followed by General Covariance. Ok so now the Principle of Equivalence. You can google that term for more detail but in the same format as above [latex]m_i=m_g...m_i\frac{d^2\overrightarrow{x}}{dt^2}=m_g\overrightarrow{g}[/latex] [latex]\overrightarrow{g}-\bigtriangledown\phi_N[/latex] Denotes the gravitational field above. Now General Covariance. Which use the ds^2 line elements above and the Einstein tensor it follows that the line element above is invariant under general coordinate transformation(diffeomorphism) [latex]x\mu\rightarrow\tilde{x}^\mu(x)[/latex] Provided ds^2 is invariant [latex]ds^2=d\tilde{s}^2[/latex] an infinitesimal coordinate transformation [latex]d\tilde{x}^\mu=\frac{\partial\tilde{x}^\mu}{\partial x^\alpha}dx^\alpha[/latex] With the line element invariance [latex]\tilde{g}_{\mu\nu}(\tilde{x})=\frac{\partial\tilde{x}^\mu \partial\tilde{x}^\nu}{\partial x^\alpha\partial x^\beta} g_{\alpha\beta}x[/latex] The inverse of the metric tensor transforms as [latex]\tilde{g}^{\mu\nu}(\tilde{x})=\frac{\partial\tilde{x}^\mu \partial\tilde{x}^\nu}{\partial x^\alpha\partial x^\beta} g^{\alpha\beta}x[/latex] In GR one introduces the notion of covariant vectors [latex]A_\mu[/latex] and contravariant [latex]A^\mu[/latex] which is related as [latex]A_\mu=G_{\mu\nu} A^\nu[/latex] conversely the inverse is [latex]A^\mu=G^{\mu\nu} A_\nu[/latex] the metric tensor can be defined as [latex]g^{\mu\rho}g_{\rho\nu}=\delta^\mu_\mu[/latex] where [latex]\delta^\mu_nu[/latex]=diag(1,1,1,1) which denotes the Kronecker delta. Finally we can start to look at geodesics. Let us consider a free falling observer. O who erects a special coordinate system such that particles move along trajectories [latex]\xi^\mu=\xi^\mu (t)=(\xi^0,x^i)[/latex] Specified by a non accelerated motion. Described as [latex]\frac{d^2\xi^\mu}{ds^2}[/latex] Where the line element ds=cdt such that [latex]ds^2=c^2dt^2=\eta_{\mu\nu}d\xi^\mu d\xi^\nu[/latex] Now assunme that the motion of O changes in such a way that it can be described by a coordinate transformation. [latex]d\xi^\mu=\frac{\partial\xi^\mu}{\partial x^\alpha}dx^\alpha, x^\mu=(ct,x^0)[/latex] This and the previous non accelerated equation imply that the observer O, will percieve an accelerated motion of particles governed by the Geodesic equation. [latex]\frac{d^2x^\mu}{ds^2}+\Gamma^\mu_{\alpha\beta}(x)\frac{dx^\alpha}{ds}\frac{dx^\beta}{ds}=0[/latex] Where the new line element is given by [latex]ds^2=g_{\mu\nu}(x)dx^\mu dx^\nu[/latex] and [latex] g_{\mu\nu}=\frac{\partial\xi^\alpha}{\partial\xi x^\mu}\frac{\partial\xi^\beta}{\partial x^\nu}\eta_{\alpha\beta}[/latex] and [latex]\Gamma^\mu_{\alpha\beta}=\frac{\partial x^\mu}{\partial\eta^\nu}\frac{\partial^2\xi^\nu}{\partial x^\alpha\partial x^\beta}[/latex] Denote the metric tensor and the affine Levi-Civita connection respectively

I'm certainly biased on "show me real science". If I don't see that I will certainly comment. Though I don't care what theory one chooses to believe in if its based on real science. Nothing wrong with model development if done properly.

hehe

I hadn't heard of this particular model but can certainly take some time researching it. I will see what I can find out about it. If the OP has a particular reference it would certainly help. Ok a bit into Horava gravity, so the Graphene example above makes a bit more sense. What is being described is the renormalization aspects of gravity in that under GR, gravity isn't renormalizable in QFT treatment as it leads to a negative value under typical QFT treatments. Horava tempts to address this, the graphene example is probably a heuristic example describing renormalization of a superconductor though without seeing the paper the OP is referring to that is a guess. Edit its referring to the Lifshitz Point in superconductors is the transition point between a feromagnet and a paramagnet. (recall seeing hovering superconductors ?) the Lifchitz point is involved. Horaz is applying a similar point at value z=3. from Condensed matter theory. http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=3&ved=0ahUKEwifguX_2srRAhUO0GMKHWPqD4AQFggpMAI&url=https%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fabs%2F0901.3775&usg=AFQjCNFETtByzSZ7FVIwMZnJWn_uKqhtWA&sig2=CaFIAkp7JHbuNs_y06UYXA Hope that helps brief review of this model is that it leads to a preferred reference frame. Just a side note. If you have further questions I can certainly help step you through it. My apologies though I had started studying this model when you first posted but got distracted by RL and forgot to get back to it.

Lol we can model the system using Anti-DeSitter/conformal fluid theory complete with manifolds.Bring new meaning to M (mouth) theory and string theory.Though we definetely have to plsce it under CANonical treatment. Probably leads to runaway inflation. Yeah we had better stop this could end up endless Particularly under these conditions. Talk about Hubble bubble conditions

lol we better stop before we hijack this thread 😅 Though it certainly establishes an event horizon. Though I'm not sure you want to get free energy from this one P. One last comment simply too amusing It would certainly explain information loss, no one wants to find it

Hawking_burpandstool, definetely sounds thermodynamic to me certainly involves quantum tunnelling . No offense intended to Berkenstein just goofing around lol Roflmao good one

Oh cool a new dimension with wormhole path (mouth/throat) to Bh (stomach) that can't process all the intake leading to two accretion jets ( can you guess them lol)

No the correlation function is established when the entanglement pair is first formed. It is not a communication channel that allows FTL. You really have to look in detail on the math itself. Look I realize this is a very advanced topic but nothing in either of these papers are violating bells inequality. In all honesty I wish I could show you mathematically how it works. It would be pointless if you don't understand how the creation/annihilators of QFT work or advanced topics such as embedded manifolds. Don't feel bad this can be confusing even among physicists. For now just think of the very term "Inequality" ie Bell's inequality. What does he specifically mean by this term ? The last paper you posted is explaining the causal formation of entangled pairs from what I've read via Hawking Berkenstein radiation. It is exploring different regions that can be on causal connection to allow the formation of HB radiatiom. I may just skip to the classical mathematics of this radiation to show the disctinction. Might help you better understand At least your argument is getting stronger so I will give you +1 on that. Here think about everything I said then reread https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement Until I get into describing this under Bell's inequality. We really don't need these advanced models when simply understanding Bells inequality is enough.