Mordred

Action is a good example, we can describe all kinematic interactions via action. Does this make action real? We can measure,model and mathematically describe action. Yet we invented the model Your all familiar with Newtons Mechanics [latex]\overrightarrow{f}=m\overrightarrow{a}=m\ddot{\overrightarrow{r}}[/latex] Instead of looking at initial position and velocity, look at the initial position and final position and connect the with two paths. (Doesn't necessarily need to be straight lines) Assign those points [latex]\overrightarrow{r}(t_1),\overrightarrow{r}(t_2)[/latex] The path taken can be determined by action. Were just simplifying and using radius as a coordinate action =[latex]S=\int^{t_2}_{t_1}[/latex][latex](KE-PE)dt[/latex] You can find the details on the last equation at Feyman lectures. http://feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_19.html relativistic motion for an electromagnetic field for Newton potential ie a particle moving in a weak uniform gravitational field [latex]\mathcal{L}=-m_o c\sqrt{1-1-v^2/c^2}-q(\phi-v*A[/latex] For a particle moving in a vertical path in a gravity field then [latex]PE=1/2m\dot{x}^2[/latex] the kinetic term for a particle [latex]ke=1/2m\dot{x}[/latex] gives with the above situation\ [latex]\mathcal{L}=1/2\dot{x}^2+1/2m\dot{z}^2-mgz[/latex] However that is in weak gravity fields. Without going through all the solutions there is a sort of a master equation very close in some regards to a GUT for motion lol. [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] Quite handy in that we can describe all field and kinematic motion under action but does this mean Action is real?

lol I would say measurements are required. Unfortunately there is no way to measure Lorentz ether. So why believe it better represents reality.

Oh I imagine some do lol. Either way the only way to agree on reality is to agree on how to define reality. Which subsequently requires agreed on relations and definitions. Which invariently will require agreed upon measurements.

True but Tim is comparing mathematical models. Yet ignoring how those models define and use the term dimension. It is a mathematical convenience. How else does one describe or even define reality except via relations/interactions/quantites ? m

You still haven't defined reality Tim. Quite frankly nothing is solid, everything is nothing more than attractive/repulsive field excitations to field interactions and interferance. GR simply maps this under the umbrella spacetime. That is reality, nothing more than a collection of excitations and field interactions. Massless particles have no binding field interactions. Simple You keep looking for a medium but even matter is nothing more than the above. A medium is simply a macroscopic view of reality. At the quantum level this disappears. Tim what makes you think that arguments based on an understanding over a 100 years ago defines reality? Why are ignoring moderm physics? The particles known at their time period is the electron and proton. The Neutron wasn't even discovered. So naturally they thought the electromagnetic force could possibly account for gravity. You will probably declare the above off topic. Seems to be your pattern whenever physics or math is involved. However it us related as how one views reality depends on perspective. Please stop misquoting my posts by the way. You obviously refuse to see my arguments as you never address them. In particular adherence to basic math and definitions when discussing mathematical models such as Lorentz ether. Your agument is two faced. You refer to a math model of reality but at the same time call that very mathematical model off topic when the math itself is being addressed. Lorentz Ether is a mathematical model, discussing the implications of the math within that model is on topic Yet you place your faith in a mathematical model as being the best descriptive of reality. Yet ignore the physics and math behind it as "Off topic" How does that make any sense? Quite frankly I don't think of the universe in 3d or even 4d. It has far more inherent degrees of freedom. Yet these degrees of freedom can be described by action. Action correlates to vector paths (Worldlines) so I can further reduce these degrees of freedom to 4d. I cannot however reduce it to 3d, as the time component is independent (variable). Right back to GR. Not SR its too limitted.

Tim descibe a particle. What is our reality. It certainly isn't our perspective. Here is a reality check for you. Every particle is a field excitation. There is no solid but simply field interactions of attraction and repulsive interactions and interferance. A massless field excitation (photons etc) have no binding field interactions. Massive particles do. Every interaction/interferance contribute to spacetime curvature fundamentally we are modelling the collection of all fields under the spacetime geometry via the stress/momentum tensor. Mass being resistance to inertia is simply a Newtonian descriptive but the rest mass is simply one contributor. The full blown contributor being the stress tensor as it tells spacetime how to curve. This is the shift many need to take. Particles are not solid little billiard balls but excitations that exhibit both wave-like and point-like characteristics. Field excitations. Photons travel at c simply because they don't have binding interactions in a vacuum. There is your cause. Every field excitation will take the path of least action (potential field and particles kinetic motion) We model this under freefall geodesics. Quite frankly Lorentz ether is utterly useless it doesn't interact, cannot be measured. 100 percent useless. Its very properties make it useless. A medium is simply fields, Lorentz ether is nothing more than a matter field. How can it supply momentum to keep a photon constant? It doesn't, a static field doesn't supply momentum. It causes resistance to inertia. So it doesn't cause a photon to travel at c. Quite frankly current science has gone far beyond Einstein, Lorentz , Minkowskii, etc. We have a far better understanding of the standard model than they did. This includes the symmetry group metrics.

Correct any measurable quantity is a physical quantity by nature. Definitions in physics are extremely important and supply key clues into the mathematics and descriptives in physics. (unfortunately many confuse physical with materialistic)

Time isn't made up of anything. It isn't a substance. One has to be careful on the word physical. For example color is a physical property. Yet color isn't made up of some substance. Just as physical length is a property. Time is also a physical property as your measuring rate of change of some state or object. This doesn't mean that time is some mythical substance/force etc. Time is simply a measurable rate of change or duration. nothing more

Your better thinking the full formula [latex]e^2=(pc)^2+(m_0 c^2)^2 [/latex] The reason being is this correlates the total energy of the particle not just the rest mass. The particles total energy also correlates to the sequence (roughly) that particles drop out of thermal equilibrium due to cooling via expansion. Keep in mind the sequence isn't completely dependant on total energy but it is one of the factors. Here you can get further details here http://arxiv.org/pdf/0904.1556.pdf The Algebra of Grand Unified Theories John Beaz http://pdg.lbl.gov/2011/reviews/rpp2011-rev-guts.pdf GRAND UNIFIED THEORIES Chapters 3 and 4 in this article though cover the key formulas (Bose-Einstein, Fermi-Dirac statistics) http://www.wiese.itp.unibe.ch/lectures/universe.pdf:" Particle Physics of the Early universe" by Uwe-Jens Wiese Thermodynamics, Big bang Nucleosynthesis

Fundamental particles aqcuire mass due to their binding energy with other fields.

measure. time doesn't cause.

Your welcome glad to help. It is a good forum.

Excellent and well thought out post Michel. In particular the acceleration inherent in Hubbles law in regards to seperation distance. +1

What is your point ? we were discussing Lorentz ether not being needed. A perfectly valid argument in a thread that has discussed ether. However as Einstein felt the ether was superfluos and not needed. Yet you seem to feel it is. Then you and Einstein disagree. Quite frankly though I'll stick to Einsteins opinion over yours any day

Yes this is essentially correct. As the temperature is increased due to decreased volume. Ie reverse expansion. The various particles reach a state of thermal equilibrium. They become in essence indistinguishable from a quark/gluon plasma state. Where all particles are massless. This is true of their associated fields. The Higgs field is one of the earliest bosons to drop out of thermal equilibrium. However prior to electroweak symmetry breaking was also in thermal equilibrium. Quarks wouldn't have mass prior to the Higg's.

better question What prevents the ball from going c? Mass/Spacetime curvature. Not much distinction on geodesics. Just mass vs massless. What causes the ball or photon to have sufficient kinetic energy can be numerous. PS what you call error is your opinion. I know no Lorentz ether is required to account for the geodesic relations of GR. Quite frankly a good study of field theory quage groups under GR is more than enough to describe the above

No energy is still a property. It is simply the ability to perform work. That requires some particle, object or field.

It would be easier to understand entanglement if one understands what occurs when two particles are entangled. To get a better handle study quantum correlation. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_correlation Essentially when two particles become entangled they are quantum correlated. No further is really needed. We don't know the state of either particle until we perform a measurement. Once we measure one particle by its quantum correlation we know the state of the other. There is no hidden action at a distance, Here this should help. http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=3&ved=0ahUKEwi48Z6T7fbQAhVX5mMKHRTsD-8QFgglMAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theory.caltech.edu%2Fpeople%2Fpreskill%2Fph229%2Fnotes%2Fchap4.pdf&usg=AFQjCNH9C5y14C8VrFVmbmpbIQfb3GIXXg&sig2=4j6T_aO6yNjzzbY2pDAUrQ Everyone has probably heard me stress the importance of terminology. Here is an excellent example. "Action at a distance " now what is the physics definition of action ? If you think about how action is defined there is no action between the entangled pairs when measurement takes place. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_(physics) None is needed as they are already correlated pairs.

No prob. One of the hardest aspects of QM is the need to stop thinking of particles as balls. As the link explains they are essentially "excitations". Quantum numbers such as spin, charge, etc have wavefunctions. Properties of a real particle are identical for every particle of the same type. They are identifiers in much the same way as a finger print. Those quantum numbers have a unique combined wavefunction. While in superposition this combined wavefunction is the probability function of all possible states. Once measurements occur you have determined which spin wavefunction etc is correct. Thats your decoherence. At the same time the particle will also exhibit ball like (pointlike) characteristics. These pointlike qualities are more readily described in kinematic motion. (collisions etc,). Now here is an important aspect of the Pauli exclusion principle with the above. No two fermions can occupy the same space with identical combined quantum wavefunctions. A virtual particle however may only have 1 or more of the same characteristics, however isn't required to have all of the same characteristics.(key note they can only exhibit characteristics of the real particle) In particular mean liftetime is shorter than that of the real particle. It takes a bit to get a handle on the above. It does take a new way of viewing particles from the ball image. PS Swansont may justifiably correct or restate the above. I am oversimplifying key aspects lol.

Well proof is in the pudding. The majority of particle physics was predicted prior to measurement. Power of QM being extremely fundamental to making those predictions. Lets see 90% + percent of the particles we later discovered. Wavefunction characteristics of the quantum numbers. Higg's boson including the metastability relations. The list goes on. The point being is the supposed lack of understanding doesn't follow the above. If we didn't have a good grasp we would not have been able to make those predictions. The various formulas, symmetry relations, conservation laws (charge,lepton,spin,isospin,parity,momentum/energy,flavor,color) These above conservation laws define what reactions can take place, how particles can decay, etc. All the above isn't merely guess work but a consequence of understanding the key relations and interactions. Mostly via mathematical predictions. So call it what you will based on your feelings and random guesswork rather than understanding and using the complicated math. Myself I will stick with the success story and the methodology that led to its success.

Probably one of the simplist yet most accurate explanation can be found here. https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/virtual-particles-what-are-they/ Essentially they are disturbances in a field or between two particles. Many refer to virtual particles being "off shell" of the real particle. Though this is accurate its still misleading in some sense. Wiki alludes to this but the Profmattstrassler site does a far better job for laymen

lol

Yeah he flat out ignored my triangulation post as well. Geocentrism seems to fall in the same category as flat liners " The Earth is flat not round" In both cases the believers ignore observational evidence. No matter how much evidence you present. Of course they usually have no idea of the mathematical modelling either.

Simple truth, SR has nothing to do with geocentrism would you like me to lie to you instead? In other words support your argument in regards to SR in this comment.

That tactic is to show you SR has nothing to do with geocetrism. Isn't even involved under the SR transformation. You kept implying it does so I asked you to show that.