Mordred

is there a guide for chemistry symbols? the standard math ones are working for me but never really tried drawing a chemical reaction under latex

Your looking at the harmonic oscillator via the spring inaccurately. I would like to properly show how the spring via Hookes law relates to the QM oscillator but will need to do so tonight. When I have time to properly answer the above. Its too important to cheapen the answer. However for now think of it this way. In the spring there is an equilibrium point in its range of motion. The equilibrium point being determined by the potential and kinetic energy. So when I have time later I will apply this to Hookes law then step it into QM

All field excitations (particles) are potential differences. The amplitude to some baseline. That includes every particle mentioned in the quoted section.

umm no it applies to all fields. Potential energy is ability to perform work due to position in a gradient potential. Kinetic energy ability to perform work due to the momentum term again influenced by observer under relativity. It is inpossible to determine some "absolute energy" as energy requires potential differences and is a consequence of potential differences. So energy does not get created. It is a property or relation denoting the ability to perform work. That is how the universe from nothing models work. The HUP is your source of potential differences initially.

Yes Tar e=mc^2 is involved but I am focussing on what energy is and how energy is a consequence or property. One cannot measure energy without measuring a potential difference between observer and emitter. So if you have a 100% uniform field energy=0 to all observers.

Heisenburg is definitely relevant. You are on the right track. Lets start with field energy=0. Does that truly mean zero. Or does it mean that it is the lowest possible energy density value or vacuum expectation value that can possibly be determined. (disregarding zero point energy with HUP for the moment)

Try answering the question as it will answer why energy doesn't need to be created. Start with three basic defintions. 1) energy 2) potential energy 3) kinetic energy. Go from there I have a specific reason why I asked these questions as they relate to "Observer effects". Has nothing to do with my beliefs but literally physics definitions. Please do not give me the argument this is philosophy not physics. Philosophy is pointless in metaphysics if it doesn't adhere to how physics defines a property. You want a thread beyond mere personal claims and blah blah blah defenseless assertions then apply some basis of science. After all isn't the title of this thread not. Philosophy, Science and reality? I see tons of posts applying very little science.

I would like to ask this related question. What does it mean to state the energy of a system is zero? (you can replace state with field if you so choose). This question is probably one of the more least understood aspects on how all universe from nothing models work... Secondly why is the observer aspect so important to consider in the first question? I'm curious as to the range of answers on those two questions. PS if you get the first answer correct the second questions answer will be automatic. These questions directly relate to the topic of what is observable or measurable take your pick. Little hint the answers to the above will be the same regardless if you use relativity, statistical mechanics, classical mechanics, or QFT. They will also demonstrate the difficulty involved in defining "real" Real as per some absolute value.

He is refferring to a particular model called holographic entangled spacetimes via the holographic principle using ADS/CFT theory. Numerous physicists support ADS/CFT others don't. ADS is Anti-Desitter. With CFT being conformal field theory. Which is a particular higher dimension treatment. The model is mathematically viable, with some support. Its one possibility but as of yet does not have any strong evidental support. This has similarities but is a bit different from particle entanglement. (Though similar mathematics has been shown that particle entanglement may also involve ADS/CFT.) in a similar manner. In essence [latex]\mathcal{H}=\mathcal{H}_{qubit}\otimes\mathcal{H}_{qubit}[/latex] You have three Hilbert spaces 2 which are disentangled summing to the entangled spacetime L.H.S of equal sign. the two [latex]\mathcal{H}[/latex] on the R.H.S follow the degrees of defined by the Hilbert spaces defined by [latex]\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|00\rangle+|11\rangle)[/latex] Which is your spin up spin down states. for spin 1/2 statistics. Hilbert space under QM. I wouldn't think of this as different spaces as in a hidden dimension etc. This actually describes degrees of freedom) when the spin up and spin down degrees of freedom are entangled you have the LHS state. CFT tries to connect the spin 1/2 states to geometry via the holographic principle. It is a fancy way to describe how states becomes correlated. Yes this does show a possible descriptive in regards to Bell's inequality vs hidden dimensions. (care must be taken on how dimension is defined). There is huge misleading confusions of what this model mathematically describes. Simply due to its complexity. How do you explain IR and UV cutoff, holonomy, bifarcations, tensor degrees of freedom etc to the public? Simply put these spaces are restricted to the quantum scale. At the quantum scale the bifarcations of Hilbert spaces can occur with the density matrix being defined by the correlation function in the short and long range cutoffs defined by the IR and UV divergences (infrared and ultraviolet) S matrix cutoffs. Where each bifarcation is a cauchy foliation on our Lorentzian spacetime. lol try to explain that last paragraph to the public. Add to that the cutoffs and correlation functions are probability functions. Might help if you associate each state as a phase. The Hilbert space being the map of influence strength of each individual phase/state. (yes were dealing with waveforms/excitations under Hilbert spaces). Hilbert spaces is an excellent tool to describe sinusoidal waveforms. As you can see this model treats particles as field excitations. As it must involve QFT. Each Hilbert space corresponds to a field phase state.

If some of the links didn't parse correct use my signature the links are on my site page. http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/

Lets see at [latex]10^{-43}[/latex] the temperature would be around [latex]10^{19} [/latex] The estimated number of particles using the Bose-Eistian Boltzmannn statistics is [latex] 10^{90}[/latex] particles. inflation then occurs solving the flatness problem and horizon problem. Giving us our uniform temperature distribution. Inflation causes a rapid supercooling due to the ideal gas laws. ( an increase in volume will lower temperature as the average density decreases). When inflation slow rolls to a stop there is a super reheating. This removes any further anistropy. When the temperature drops below 3000 kelvin atoms start to form giving us our CMB. So key evidence for BB. Uniform distribution via inflation, universe cooling= evidence of expansion. Correct predicted percentage of hydrogen, lithium etc= nucleosynthesis evidence. Hows that for a quick coverage to answer your questions above. If you want greater detail feel free to start a new thread in astronomy forum. The number of particles remain approximately the same but the types of particles and mixture changes. https://arxiv.org/abs/1304.4446 What we have leaned from Observational Cosmology." -A handy write up on observational cosmology in accordance with LCDM https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0409426 overview of Cosmology Julien Lesgourgues Here is some free articles on Cosmology

Yes and no using strictly mass. As matter collapses into large scale structures, it concentrates matter locally. This in turn reduces mass density globally so that the universe will in fact expand instead of collapsing as the global mass density decreases. What you need is another set of relations. This being potential energy vs kinetic energy. Every particle has an energy density to pressure relation. (matter being p=0) if the inherent kinetic energy of your particle contributors is greater than the potential energy of gravity the universe will expand. It will collapse if the average gravitational potential exceeds the inherent kinetic energy of your contributors.. Here is a link on equations of state (cosmology). Read the link first, then read the universe geometry article above. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state_(cosmology) The critical density formula gives the point where an expanding universe will start collapsing (at least prior to discovering DE). In essence it is the universe thermodynamic relations that dictate how our universe evolves. gravity is only a part of the equations.

Looks like that personal definition got busted. Ah well back to the drawing boards... Didn't think of that scenario lol +1 Goes to prove, when you try to define something to account for all possibilities.

Combination of both. Your three spatial dimensions are always included but under the global geometry. String theory under groups adds mathematical dimensions to separately define smaller volumes under transformations for different overlapping fields. In essence different embedded geometries each describing a different field dynamic. The key is symmetry transformations. For example Kaluzu-Klien has you relativity degrees of freedom. (ct,x,y,z) Now Kaluzu adds electromagnetic charge to the above. Making the above 5D. If you add the strong force you need a minimal 3 degrees of freedom to define the interactions of the quark family. So now we have 8. Now add the weak force for another 3. 11 dimensions. Under groups the above is SO(3)×SU(2)×U(1). This is the majority of the dimensions in String theory but not all

The above not exact isn't inaccurate enough to correct. Heuristically describing fields as creating space is commonly written in literature just keep in mind space is just the volume. As for the Entanglement information isn't exchanged faster than c. That is a pop media misnomer that I would prefer to help you understand under a new thread in QM forum as its a bit off topic on this thread. Yes string theory has 13 dimensions. (effective degrees of freedom), There is also embedded mathematical geometry states (local etc)

A little scattered, but one or two good questions in this. Don't think of one creating the other. In expansion the fields can affect volume change. You don't create space, as space has no substance that needs creating. By this referring to universe from nothing models describing the quantum process in the expansion of our universe from BB. Other than the caveat above (I never liked the term "space created" too misleading) for the reasons above. Ok this is s very important question. In physics a dimension is an independant value. By this I mean this variable etc can change without changing any other values. This is also called a "degree of freedom" Now in mathematical treatments it is preferable to reduce a system to the minimal number of degrees of freedom as possible. An example is "Hilbert space" which reduces the degrees of freedom to 2 dimensions. It does so in essence by charge vectors and symmetry groups. So for string theory ext the higher dimensions correspond to effective independant degrees of freedom a system has. Here is a classic example. A robot arm that only move up and down has 1 degree of freedom. It cannot move up without affecting the distance from the bottom. Now if that arm can move up/down and left/right. We have an additional degree of freedom. Now we can also spin that arm without affecting the other ranges of motion. So now spin is a degree of freedom that requires 2 dimensions to mathematically define. (angular momentum)

Whenever I sit down to write any article including the two in my signature I end up learning 😁. Site Articles (Articles written by PF and Site members) http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/redshift-and-expansion http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/universe-geometry The top article is my first attempt at writing site articles. Took me 6 months to finally complete. The second one went smoother only 2 and I find its better written. The trick is removing ambiguous sentences etc. Its amazing how simple it is to miss imply. (last one has a page two link at bottom of page) Edit: Lol though there was a huge debate on the Cosmological redshift and gravitational redshift on the viability of being treated one and the same. Listening to numerous Ph.D's arguing the pros cons was definetely a learning experience. Took P. Allen and I some effort to reword the article to allow the possibility of both. P.Allen and I took on sections of the first paper then blended in the two different writing styles. I learned a lot since writing the first so have been considering rewriting the first article.

That would be a useful project for me to help others. I may just do that

terms like empty or nothing doesn't really exist in physics. You have a volume, you can assign coordinates or events with a value even if the value is zero. So now it has a field within that volume. A common term used being vacuum. Which quite frankly is falling out of favor to the term "potential " Vacuum causes to much misunderstandings.

Thanks glad to help. The reason I can do that is that I spent years understanding field treatments. Prior to attempting to simplify it for others. For example I am still trying to improve my understanding of this 1 article after 5 years reading it over and over again and of course applying the mathematics "Fields" - A free lengthy technical training manual on classical and quantum fields https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9912205

I knew you did but the opportunity to define local and global fields was presented. So I took advantage of it for other readers.

I have a personal definition of reality. Some may not agree with it but it works for me. Real can be defined as any measurable quantity or object that all observers can agree on. Invariant quantities. Variant quantities being examples of observer effects due to location etc. That is about as far as I ever go to define reality. I leave the more abstract arguments to others 😎

I misapplied that last statement you must have volume or area to have a geometry descibed as a field. Thanks for the catch Didn't realize I mistyped that last sentence. Bells locality to nonlocality is certainly defined under fields however. In order to understand those two terms you have to examine how local is defined as a field. (local) is always a boundary confined field. Local fields can be embedded onto our arbitrary global fields.

excellent

Simply put you cannot have a field if you have no volume. Or technically volume or area for 2d fields