Mordred

lol The important detail is you don't necessarily require a grounded reference. One simple electronic example is measuring voltage across two resistors. You only require some form of reliable reference. The reason I mentioned N-body and quantum information theory. Is that both provide excellent examples and methodology in programming extremely complex many particle systems. As programming is your expertise I figured you may find those techniques useful.

ah gotcha, Have you ever looked into N-body codes and quantum information theory. Both provide techniques to model something as varied as our universe and provide numerous process time saving techniques.

well much of that is beyond this particular thread. I tend to prefer LCDM but LQC has its appeals. For GUT based I'm starting to lean toward superstring theory simply as it saves computation time.. Quite frankly I'm not familiar with the model you just described.

A different view of the electromagnetic field won't give a TOE or GUT as your only covering SO(3)×SO(2)×U(1) but not detailing the strong and weak interactions under those gauge groups. You would also need the Higgs field on top of the four main forces gauge groups, which invariently will also include Pati-Salam for helicity. What you have thus far is the U(1) group under SO(1.3) rotations. The only thing were missing from a full blown TOE is literally gravity itself and our inability to quantize gravity. edit I should clarify we still need research to validate Higgs metastability and if the SO (10) can account for DM and DE. Not really relevant at this stage. Far too much to include to even consider at this point lol. Not faulting the work you've put in though. Just simple truth. Back to Your thread Anti-matter and matter fall under those groups using charge. In vector treatment the opposite charges are treated equivalent to change in electromagnetic charge. So they fall under the U(1) guage. SO(3) is your kinematics including relativity. However this also where Pati-Salam subgroups kick in when it comes to helicity involving charges. (including matter/antimatter). We can use strain or interfometers to measure gravitational waves. In fact we have recently done so. Let me put something together to fix your missing pieces in understanding how this relates to the superposition of the two waves. From that you will have the clues to understanding how energy is treated in this case. PS edits you made are better.

Thats what I figured from previous threads you had. I figured it was simply an error in posting. PS I'm glad to see your spoiler message on TOE. I don't see anything else above that is out of place or misconstrued/misunderstood at the moment. Though further detail and proper definenement will be needed in your QM section on hidden variables, observers, superposition etc. I'll withhold comment till you post the next section. Since section 3 is particularly relevant to section 1 and 2.

lol and on top of this you have Penroses zig and zag model chuckle. Agreed it would have been easier. Nature likes doing that to us. I've been so focussed on Higg's for the past couple of years I've lost touch with some of this lol.

Not in the farfield, To borrow a quote from Wiki. Apparently its a common misconception. "a more correct description is that a time-change in one type of field is proportional to a space-change in the other" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation In the farfield the e and b fields are polarized.

Your not describing the first image correctly. The first image is not two electromagnetic fields. It is one electromagnetic field with two components. The vertical axis wave is the electric [latex]\overrightarrow{e}[/latex] and the x axis plane wave is the magnetic. [latex]\overrightarrow{B}[/latex]. You probably intended to describe such but you wrote two electromagnetic fields above. Did you want the formulas describing the two field interactions? Ie Maxwell equations. The 1/r^3 follows from the two combined dipole moments. Dipole is 1/r^2 Each electric and magnetic both being dipolar. If so let me know Griffiths "Introductory to electromagnetism" gives a good lesson on the above.

Ok lets try a simple example. The unit velocity is metres per second. This defines velocity. The unit for distance is metres this defines distance. The unit for time is seconds. This defines time. If we required motion to describe every object in how it changes we may as well just use velocity units. We wouldn't need time units would we. Metres/sec should work in EVERY CASE. But it doesnt. I sat on the couch for 0 metres/4hours. That's a garbage unit. Definition of any quantity in physics has dimensional units inherent in its definition. The unit for time is seconds. This is not a unit of distance or motion. It is not because our everyday existence we describe objects that are not moving. My wife yelled at me for hours being an example. This is superfluous just because you can describe something with motion does not mean you need to use motion to describe it. I don't need motion to describe how long it takes my coffee to cool down so I can drink it.

No motion is simply one of many ways to measure time. It isn't the only way. Not all ways to measure time involve motion. You don't define something based on this definition work sometimes but not others. Those lights will change color every hour. Do I need distance in this case to describe the duration? Of course not. I just need the number of seconds. When you assign a quantity in physics you also units to that quantity. It makes no sense to describe the light in this example as The light took 0 metres/3060 seconds to change color.

Simply as time can measure other classical changes that has nothing to do with motion. example. I had to wait 1 hour in the Doctors office. did I eventually leave the office? of course but while I was there I didn't travel anywhere. Or it took that apple 1 week to rot. Your modelling how long it took the apple to decay but the apple didn't need to go anywhere to rot. One of the details often avoided is that time also measures change or duration of a state. A system state itself has no motion example. This boiler will take 24 hours to cool down. The system state is the boiler. It doesn't travel to cool down. Even if cooling is loss of kinetic energy of the particles inside the tank. Were not decsribing those molecules. We are describing the tanks temperature.

I wouldn't say that no. Energy is just the ability to perform work. Which isn't the same thing as causes work. Lets take an everyday example. A circuit supplied by batteries has energy. Yet no work will be performed until you have a potential difference (circuit load) to cause current. ie You plug the batteries in So although energy is present no work is being done. In this case the load causes the work but the energy performs the work. Now you can have potential difference in the following (energy, mass, charge, pressure,temperature,action). Now everything mentioned above can be described under the principle of least action. Including motion. https://www.google.ca/url?q=http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/db275/LeastAction.pdf&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwjnqdrCw-jQAhVU-WMKHcmnDqgQFggaMAA&usg=AFQjCNEqeyfTuBnAGL29pWeJQgjg2vXjQQ This paper shows Newtons laws under Principle of least action. By the way it correlates potential and kinetic energy relations to each other. Action being the difference in potential and kinetic energy.

Well the Op was pretty clear in his belief time causes motion. I had quoted that above a few posts ago. look 6 posts back

nicely put +1

It would certainly help program wavefunctions in an animation. Ss well as reconstruct it. As far as finding something like this. Its in your more advanced math textbooks. Its also part of the curriculum for electronics. Numerous electronic books will go into some detail of Fourier transforms. Though you will also find something similar Laplace transforms. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laplace_transform Little hint ( although QM and relativity seems complicated. That complication usually stems from the unfamiliarity in its terminology) Yet that terminology stems from everyday mathematics.

The question is what causes motion from a state of rest. The correct answer isn't time. Simply because there is sufficient time for a process. This does not mean time causes the process. Time never causes anything. Its simply a measurement of rate of change or duration it is not causative. Lol this forum is swamped literally with posters trying to apply time as a cause. Time causes curvature, time causes motion time causes.... Everyone wants to find mysterious descriptions of time. Some want to apply materialistic properties to it. Yet time is never a cause, its simply a rate of change or duration. The faster people get over this hurdle the better off they will be in understanding spacetime isn't some mysterious fabric. Which these misconceptions usually stem from.

Didn't I quote the relevant section. Why yes I did. Can you explain how you can have kinetic energy but not describe it as the ability to perform work ? If thats not your intention then this section is poorly worded and implies kinetic energy does not mean the ability to perform work. We can chalk it up to simply being poorly worded if you agree energy is the ability to perform work. The Op is literally stating time causes motion. Motion involves energy. To cause motion (ie from a state of rest) you must perform work. Which time cannot perform

Did you read this? Its pretty clear

Under GR the connection Studiot is referring to is called the Levi-Civitta connection. The patches Studiot mentioned is tangent bundles. Which is rather tricky to define in curved space. Tangent bundles is a type of fibre bundle but once again these terms are difficult to describe on a forum. Other key terms involved is tangent space, and tangent map.

yes Fourier transform is a function derived from a given function and representing it by a series of sinusoidal functions. Its handy on any waveform http://www.thefouriertransform.com/m/index.php

I don't you understand the sheer difficulty. The force of Earths gravity at sea level on an electron is roughly [latex]8.9*10^{-31}[/latex] Newtons. Have fun detecting that.

You can determine intrinsic geometry with the Einstein elevator. If you drop two objects they will only drop on parallel paths in flat geometry. If your geometry is curved ie over a larger seperation distance over say the curvature of the Earth. The freefall path of the two objects will converge. (google GR tidal effect) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_general_relativity This principle of freefall path and parallel transport can be used to detect any type of spacetime curvature.

A good portion of the terminology describes the math relationships. Understanding the terminology and adhering to it is critical to understanding the math. This is particularly true in physics for example.

So we ignore basic elementary and highschool physics and the laws of inertia? You know as well as I do the very definition of energy is the ability to perform work. So how can you have energy without the ability to perform work and vise versa. You cannot have one quantity without the other. Not when the quantity energy is defined as the ability to perform work. I love how everyone ignores the definitions of the quantities they argue against. Regardless of whether it is potential or kinetic energy. Energy is still the ability to perform work. Your belief is irrelevant and incorrect. As the very definition of energy means the ability to perform work. By the way one should never answer threads by others based on personal belief/misconceptions or personal theories. That just leads to thread hijacking. If you wish to discuss your personal theories open a seperate thread. eg energy not being the ability to perform work. Put it into a new thread. " The standardized definition of energy " is the ability to perform work"

Who says science ever considers definite reality? What does that have to do with whether or not a process is deterministic or indeterminate? Its amazing people try to describe reality but don't spend time understanding the meaning of the terminology they are trying to describe as real. Determinant vs indeterminate is a prime example. Which Studiot is trying to properly explain to you. If you cannot get the exact same answer everytime then its not a deterministic process. Getting the same answer sometimes but not always is indeterministic. Pretty straightforward.