Mordred

You are discussing 3d space vs 4d space. Yet ignore the literal meaning of dimension. If thats your idea of metaphysics ie no agreed upon definitions in any regard. You can keep it. As it becomes useless. Too bad you can't understand such a basic concept as agreed upon definitions instead of willy nilly its whatever I feel that terminology means. Lorentz ether is a mathematical model with zero measurable support. So how can you possibly discuss that model even in metaphysics without discussing the math behind it? You can't even use the definitions of key terminology within metaphysics. example presentism The majority of this thread has been an effort to get you to distinquish and clarify your terminology rather than the subject itself. So we can all work with identical meanings and cannotations. I've lost count on how many wasted pages of posts we've had to get you to use the proper terminology so any reader can join in without having to retranslate your personal definitions. yeesh Can you not google the terminology? All persons in any discussion to be meaningful must use the same definitions metaphysics or not. Did you not read the recent discussion Studiot and I had on virtual force as opposed to real force? Under time treatments? What is the key differences of a static matter (ether) that doesn't interact, to a static field ? Nothing except mathematical relations. A field is simply a collection of objects it doesn't matter what those objects are. It could be a collection of events, vectors, spinors etc. The objects can be mathematical or any everyday object such as a bag full of oranges. The key distinction is when you specify a matter field you are referring to a specific type of field. In the case of ether, one that doesn't behave in the same manner as any matter we observe it has no matching particle form under any SM particle. Matter particles being fermionic but ether matches statistics of a boson with spin zero characteristics (static, uncharged). Which quite frankly those characteristics is similar to the Higg's field which is not a fermionic matter field. This knowledge was after Einstein, Lorentz etc. They only knew about electrons and protons. They didn't have our current knowledge of SM particles. They didn't even know about the neutron. That wasn't discovered until 1932. The strong force wasn't even explained until after 1970. Before then we didn't even know how the nucleus held together in atoms. Let alone quarks/gluons etc. For that matter during Lorentz's time the only known fundamental particles were the electron,photon and proton. James Chadwick and E.S. Bieler didn't propose the strong force until 1921 Then why do they call it meta (physics). When physics is mathematical models describing reality? yet doesn't define reality Maybe they should rename it meta whatever I feel like

It will definetely help. Dirac notation is a handy tool. One example of dot product is the inner dot product of the Minkowskii metric. [latex]U\bullet V=V\bullet U [/latex] Which essentially gives the vector symmetry under change in sign

Any standard easily read font suffices. Simply look at arxiv papers for examples. The font isn't important as long as it isn't distracting.

Careful you don't go bald. Nothing replaces studying a subject of interest. Their is no easy way to fully understand QM, relativity, particle physics or cosmology. Take my word on that. I still study even after completing university

The magic disappears when you study QM correctly. Particularly if you properly study what a particle is in the first place.

There is no need. How would a hidden variable help? You would have to know what that hidden variable is. Secondly its been fairly conclusively shown by Bells inequality that local hidden variables cannot account for spooky action. Yet Through quantum correlation isn't needed. The experiment is cheap to setup. Both Swansont and I probably did the experiment ourselves. I know it was part of my studies. I've even considered repeating the experiment with a quantum dot detector and single photon emitter from Toshiba labs. http://www.toshiba.eu/eu/Cambridge-Research-Laboratory/Quantum-Information-Group/Quantum-Devices/ Though it was already performed by others. It didn't change any results. Particle entanglement diodes themselves have been developed. The point is we have spent the work learning QM. When you do you will find its not weird at all. Not as pop media articles portray QM. Or even entanglement.

Particle wave duality has already been photographed. This includes superposition. Roughly two years ago if memory serves me correctly. However seriously wouldn't you rather correctly understand the subject you have an interest in rather than simply thinking QM is weird? How often do you get such a simplified explanation on many of the QM subjects without being flooded by the math ?

And here I thought it meant " I'd rather have the weird " instead of the tools to understand QM

good post, covers the topic well. +1

Why bother you won't accept one of the key equations namely Schrodinger nor Dirac. However fundamentally when you entangle two particles you also encode a wavefunction that encoding occurs at the time the entanglement first takes place. They are quantum correlated. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_correlation However you don't know how the two are correlated until you measure one or the other. That coorelation has everything to do with conservation laws. For example conservation of spin. If one particle is spin up the other must be spin down. The total spin is zero. So prior to moving either particle a or b it already has a set spin value. You just don't know what it is till you measure it. There is no spooky action at a distance. Its simply indeterminate until one or the other is determined. In essence it is predetermined but you don't know which particle you have while in superposition. A macro example take two colored balls one red one yellow. Place them in two seperate boxes. Give one to Alice and one to Bob. When Bob opens his box he knows his ball is red. Alice ball must be yellow. However before either opens their box they each have an equal probability of their ball being either color. No communication between the two is needed. No FTL communication no action.

Your choice doesn't matter to the meaning of superposition.

There is nothing to solve in superposition. It is simply a statistical average of all possible states/positions/spin etc. The minute you measure you no longer have a statistical average as you have determined the state/particle position/spin etc. Take a macro example. A shopper buys 5 pounds of apples each day. Someone else can only guess how many apples it takes to make 5 pounds worth. So to someone else that bag of apples is in a superposition of probabilities he can only average the number of apples based on an average weight per apple.. Once he counts the apples he knows how many apples. Superposition is no longer applicable as he has determined the number of apples. Now apply this to the two slit experiment. You cannot determine the particles spin. Which determines its polarity you can only average the probabilities (superposition) Once you measure the particle you know its spin (decoherence). Now for waveforms. You cannot determine a particles position and momentum simultaneous (Heisenburg uncertainty) you can only average the particles probable location. (waveform) once you measure its true position you decohere its position but at the cost of a decrease in accuracy of its momentum.

Just to add one detail to Tim's post. You have three types of redshift. Doppler, gravitational redshift and cosmological redshift. Out of these three types gravitational redshift is directly related to time dilation while the other aren't. The first is directional movement, the second is gravitational potential differences. The third is an expanding contracting volume.

Ah so your questioning the OP formula usage not the De-Boglie wavelength. Thanks for clarifying. As far a frequency of the Earth, I don't see any simplified way to determine that except as an extremely rough estimate. The Earth being a multiparticle system and the nature of wave interferance can have both destructive or constructive interferance patterns. Though we do have a Shummann frequency which is the electromagnetic global ionosphere resonances. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schumann_resonances PS be careful on this topic there is tons of wacky ideas and articles on Schummann resonance involving the Human brain etc interacting with it.

It's usually good practice to state why you feel something is incorrect. Even if your right on your assertion showing the correct answer is a better approach.

No worries, on my time lol, I always keep an eye open for entry style articles on advanced topics. Not for myself but to assist others. The guidelines I use is to search similar styles to the introduction level textbooks which I lost count on how many textbooks I own Whether intro or advanced. The unfortunate truth however is particle physics style is usually intense on math level. Particularly if you aren't good at calculus, Lie algebra (gauge groups), and differential geometry. Which unfortunately 99% of the laypersons on forums simply aren't. So even if you give up before I find those good articles on the topic, others may find it useful. So if you happen to find articles that work for you please share. Others may find them useful.

It does but includes every possible dynamic at every size scale. The one were still having trouble with is quantum gravity. Ie being able to properly quantize gravity. Otherwise we would probably have a full blown GUT. Well we still need to explain DM and DE and determine if supersymmetry is valid. Then we still need a good theory on baryogenesis. There is hope for the above under SO (10) but not for quantum gravity just the other mentioned items. Needless to say physics has numerous unresolved problems yet to solve. In essence GUT unifies all four forces but also describes their interactions/interferance/decays etc.

GUT involves every field, force, thermodynamics, kinematic motion and interaction, interferance and also details which particles decay into which particles. A full blown GUT (or closest we have) is [latex]SO(10)\otimes SO(5)\otimes SO (3)\otimes SO(2) \otimes U(1)[/latex] these gauge groups describe every particle interaction/interferance/decay etc. However it is most certainly not a single master equation. No danger of that if you understood what a GUT theory entails. Just as quantum weirdness isn't weird if you understand QM and relativity. There is nothing weird about superposition, cutoffs or even entanglement. Not if you fully understand how the probability functions of a waveform works. Maybe a bit of study into GUT theories will help. http://arxiv.org/pdf/0904.1556.pdf The Algebra of Grand Unified Theories John Baez and John Huerta http://pdg.lbl.gov/2011/reviews/rpp2011-rev-guts.pdf GRAND UNIFIED THEORIES

Sorry you need QM to formulate a GUT. For example just in the kinematic motion in terms of action. A fairly encompassing GUT style metric can be presented as follows [latex]\stackrel{Action}{\overbrace{\mathcal{L}}} \sim \stackrel{relativity}{\overbrace{\mathbb{R}}}- \stackrel{Maxwell}{\overbrace{1/4F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu}}}+\stackrel{Dirac}{\overbrace{i \overline{\psi}\gamma_\mu\psi}}+\stackrel{Higg's}{\overbrace{\mid D_\mu h\mid-V\mid h\mid}} +\stackrel{Yugawa-coupling}{\overbrace{h\overline{\psi}\psi}}[/latex] However this doesn't necessarily include all the needed details. Yet its close to a GUT I wouldn't count it as such except in terms of action. Yet one can use this equation to plot all field interactions and multiparticle motion.

I'm afraid your missing too many key details on what can constitute a GUT. Far too many. As far as quantum weirdness a good understanding of QM and relativity certainty helps remove those weird seeming aspects. However is there truly quantum weirdness or simply not fully understanding the phenomena.

I believe he is referring to simply freedom of choice. Not everyone likes the same things. Some men or woman simply do not like opposite sex intercourse or prefer to be with the same sex. Has nothing to do with genetics or availability.

Unfortunately there is a lot of preliminaries to fully understand Yukawa couplings. Probably the best direction is to fill in the missing pieces. Unfortunately that will require study. This article will help fill in the gaps as well as cover Yukawa coupling. http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=7&ved=0ahUKEwiRo-vEpYHRAhUN1WMKHZvdDDoQFggsMAY&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.damtp.cam.ac.uk%2Fuser%2Ftong%2Fqft%2Fqft.pdf&usg=AFQjCNHHFlwG-paMpV6erDOOQglsYtw9pw&sig2=I3P5-LzrV1mCs71LhABWdQ A more basic site though related but directly on Yukawa potential is https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/the-higgs-particle/the-higgs-faq-2-0/ Make sure you study each hyperlink in particular "What is a particle" and its wavefunction relations. I'll try to dig up simpler approaches outside of textbooks (Quarks and Leptons) being a good one.

Excellent

Why would it be unification?

Yes virtual Displacement is handy, its usually a first order aporoximation of infinitesimals. Though if you maintain your constraints can become a second order approximation. Its too bad a lot of people don't recognize how truly useful virtual displacement is. Particularly in simplifying complex problems. However your right in that a displacement does not necessarily need to be real under virtual displacements. Certainly relates to the difference between Lorentz and GR. I know you understand what I am stating by that but I doubt other readers will. Well that gets complex considering quantum mechanics show that Newtonian physics, the Lorentz transformations and even GR are merely approximations. That merely reflect our perception of reality. When you get right down to it every model discussed in this thread revolves around reality yet none accurately describe reality. This would include the ether itself. On a macro level assuming one could measure it. It may appear as a matter field. Yet under a quantum level class of observers would appear completely different. When you get right down to it particles themselves let alone waveforms are abstractions. We model reality under a class of observers. That doesn't define reality. Physical existance ie physical properties also involve class of observers. Any measurable property exists to that observer.