Johnny5

Pretty much mmm hmm yep.

LOL OK' date=' how?[/quote'] Well anyone who uses the Kolmogorov axioms already has them as true, so don't change that. The axioms are for 'events.' But what is an event? I treated that term as undefined. So I can apply the true Kolmogorov axioms to statements, and think about the meaning of statements of the following form: The probability that statement X is true is equal to Z. Where Z is greater than or equal to zero, but less than or equal to one (since the Kolmogorov axioms have been stipulated to be true). So... Suppose that fractional truth values are possible. Consider the following statements: The probability that I am alive is 1/3. The probability the Lorentz contraction formula is a true statement about length is .99 The probability I exist is .99999999998 The point is, the very notion of a statement with a fractional probability of being true is absurd, to any reasoning agent who uses binary logic to reason. Binary logic permits one of only two truth values, for any statement to take on, and at any moment in time any given statement must have one of these two truth values (true, false), which leads to the extension of the Kolmogorov axioms, which I was speaking about: Let P(X) denote the probability that statement X is true. Since any statement is either true or false, it follows that either P(X)=1, in which case statement X is true, or P(X)=0, in which case statement X is false. There are no other possible assignments. Let X denote the current moment in time. Suppose there are six possible next moments in time. Y1,Y2,Y3,Y4,Y5,Y6 ... all different (each Yn represents a different configuration of material in the universe) By one of the Kolmogorov axioms, the sum of all possibilities is one. That means this: P(X before y1)+ P(X before Y2) + P(X before Y3) + P(X before Y4) + P(X before y5) + P(X before Y6) = 1 By the extension of the Kolmogorov axioms to statements (instead of events) it follows that each of the probabilities above must either be equal to zero, or equal to one, from which it follows that one and only one of them is equal to 1, and the rest are equal to zero, which means that there cannot be six possible next moments in time. There can only be one. QED

I extended the kolmogorov axioms to statements, so that I could reason about the probability a statement is true, and then operationally defined the binary relation 'before' on the set of moments in time, and then focused on statements of the form X before Y, using the extension. So that I had something like this... let X denote the current moment in time. Suppose that W, Y,Z are possible next moments in time, and that not (Y=Z), and not (Y=W), and not (W=Z) P(X before W) + P(X before Y) + P(X before Z) = 1 And then I just reasoned properly, using the extension of the Kolmogorov axioms to statements (instead of events). By the way the only way I can be wrong, is if there are multiple current moments in time.

Tom you may have me beat in QED (which needs SR so probably not), and you do have me beat in GR, but as for binary logic... I already know that the universe is deterministic.

I can't answer that, I don't know GR.

Is there any chance that you are wrong?

Isn't there only one superforce S of nature, that can be attractive or repulsive, depending on the situation?

Yeah, what then?

You can do quantum mechanics using a partial differential equation, shown by Erwin to be equivalent to the matrix approach. When you make something too abstract, you get yourself confused. And you can get a fourth quantum number, if you use a different Laplacian operator on the wavefunction.

That's a nice way of putting it. Certainly if there were no matter in the universe' date=' space is three dimensional Euclidean. Why do you call it historical?

Perfectly answered Tom, thank you.

I already proved it, and there's no nobel prize in my past, how do you explain that one? Regards

No swansont, that is totally false, although your responses in every other instance have been impeccable, here you have made some kind of error. I think that your response is facetious, but if not... Without doing much thinking, I would just say that in order for the universe to not have a center of mass, the total amount of matter would have to be infinite. Many times I have asked whether or not the universe has a center of mass, and every time I get totally unsatisfactory answers. A related question is, is it knowable whether or not the universe has a center of mass, and if it is knowable, is the knowledge necessarily deducible, or must that knowledge come from statements whose truth value can only be known through experiment. I would say the latter, though I don't off hand know how to design an experiment to locate the center of mass. But I am convinced that the total amount of matter is finite, whence I assert that the universe does have a center of mass. Locating it is empirical. If you can use a torsion balance to figure out that there is a mountain on your left, I don't see why in principle you cannot use one to determine the direction the center of the universe is, in relation to your current position in the universe. In some thread I saw someone use the phrase, "preferred location in space." That is what I would call the center of mass of the universe. As for anyone who asserts otherwise, how would you prove that the universe doesn't have a center of mass. Miles of equations would not provide a convincing deductive argument. Regards

I have problems with the mathematics on which the uncertainty principle is based, namely the mathematical theory of probability. More specifically it's the Born Interpretation that I have problems with. If the discussion goes in that direction, we will stray from "what are virtual photons?" But perhaps this is where the discussion should go. The Born Interpretation, applied to a single hydrogen atom, leads to the conclusion that there are multiple possible places that an electron can be at the next moment in time, and that is false. In any given reference frame, there is only one possible location that an electron can be at the very next moment in time. The universe is deterministic, and this fact is deducible. Uncertainty Principle: [math] \Delta P \Delta X > \frac{\hbar}{2} [/math] Greater than or equal to, but I don't know how to make > in Latex. Delta P is the uncertainty in particle momentum, Delta X is uncertainty in position of particle center of inertia in IRF. If you use energy/time uncertainty relation, I ask that you derive it. Regards

Wholly inadequate. What would Feynman say?

Do virtual particles obey conservation of energy?

This started off in another thread, but was inappropriate there, so I will post it here. The question began from considering that the inertial mass of an object is due to some electromagnetic interaction of the object with the quantum vacuum. Haish, Rueda, Puthoff ZPF Theory So the question is, what is a virtual photon? The question originated from a paper with this in the abstract: Two Scientists Alfonso Rueda and Bernard Haisch have worked on a paper titled; Gravity and The Quantum Vacuum Inertia Hypothesis, where they suggest that virtual photons, there as a result of Heisenberg’s, uncertainty principle, are turned into real particles by an accelerating object. The pressure caused by the particles hitting the object (and the resonance) causes inertia.

I am having a look at 2.2.2 and 2.2.3 right now. I don't fully understand Rovelli's explanation of how Einstein resolved the problem of what rotation is relative to. I understand Newton's bucket idea just fine. We start out with a bucket full of water which is not spinning in a frame which is at rest on the surface of the earth. The bucket is hanging from a string, which was twisted a hundred times or so, so that if you are holding the bucket still, your hands can feel a slight torque because the string wants to unravel. You then let go of the bucket , and the bucket starts rotating in this frame. The axis of rotation points towards the center of inertia of the earth. Now here is the important observation. At first, the bucket rotates in this frame, but the water remains at rest in the frame. Then, because of friction of the water molecules with the interior walls of the bucket, the water begins to spin with the bucket, and you can tell it is spinning, because the surface of the water is no longer flat, it is concave. He then immediately proceeds to his ? argument that inertial mass and gravitational mass are equivalent.

What is a virtual photon?

The universe has a center of mass.