Conjurer

There are two camps to this problem, and I don't think there has been a consensus made about it. It depends if you believe that time dilation is based on a distortion of spacetime itself, or if you believe that it is simply a difference in the receiving times of information, like in the popular explanation of the relativity of simultaneity. Relativity of simultaneity explanation wouldn't agree that the tree actually ages faster or slower. I found it to be more popular among users on the internet. In Minkowski spacetime, it is an actual affect that makes it actually age more slowly. You seem to belong to that camp from talking about the 4th dimension, but the 4th dimension is just an extra coordinate to denote the time an object was at a specific location. It is kind of like our relative speed determines how much we travel in the 4th dimension or time. The faster you go, the less you move through time or the 4th dimension.

It is determined by their wavelengths which is an inherent property. It determines what wavelength of light they emmit. Then they would actually look a different color which makes it distinguishable visually. Then then they don't look identical.

Electrons are not all identical. They can travel at different orbitals around atoms and appear to be different colors.

From the wiki it sounded like hyperreals would only be the inverse of irrational numbers, and irrational numbers are a subset of the real numbers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperreal_number Such numbers are infinite, and their reciprocals are infinitesimals. The term "hyper-real" was introduced by Edwin Hewitt in 1948.[1]

Is the Z boson fundamental? As in it cannot break down into any other smaller particle?

It seems like that being the only situation where geometric angles come into play in QFT, it would be the best place to start in trying to unify gravity with the theory, since GR itself is based on the observation of light in a similar situation. It seems like it would be difficult to describe the Higgs Boson as a force carrier, since it doesn't arrive until after a collision and being more massive than the other particles in the nucleus. It could just be a result of our lack of understanding the description of the mathematics, and it is practically already solved. I was under the impression that the photon didn't have an antiparticle. It couldn't be an ordinary antiparticle, since you couldn't have a normal particle antiparticle collision with photons.

I was in a different forum around the time the Higgs Boson was discovered, and a guy named smarterthaneinstien suggested it. Then he was banned shortly afterwards, because of his username. It said to use a literal triangle test. Then I literally put it into the Pythagorean Theorem with the values they gave for those particles, and a web calculator that converts GeV gave me the mass of the Higgs Boson in GeV. Then I didn't mention it further, because no one else cared to actually try the calculation. I didn't want to get banned. I guess they have found a better way to achieve this since then? It makes it seem like the mass of the w and z might have to do more with the Higgs Boson itself, rather than the Higgs Field. If they can explain the Higgs Boson mass, then it seems like the Higgs Boson could describe their masses and vice versa...

I heard that you can do a triangle test with the z and w to get the mass of a Higgs Boson in GeV. I got the same answer, but after the mass was already found. Then they seem to be directly related to the Higgs Boson in it's symmetry breaking. I just remembered that they planned to build a new accelerator to look into this further that smashes these bosons or something. Do you know if they still plan on doing this?

Doesn't the laws of physics change at that point? I haven't heard of that method ever being successful. What good is unification if you are left with different laws of physics? What particles does the Higgs Field even leave out with it's description of gravity? Just the guage bosons? They are not even supposed to have mass, so it would make it seem like unification is no longer even necessary. Part of the hype of the discovery of the Higgs Boson was to accomplish this goal.

It seems like it would make unification that much more complicated when there is already a proven theory that does a half ass job of describing gravity. I would guess the present situation on unification would just be waiting for that issue to resolve.

Is the Higgs Field still a work in progress? When the discovery of the Higgs Boson was made, a lot of different people were saying that the Higgs Field gives mass to all other particles by moving through it.

If someone wanted to answer this, could it be moved to speculations? I was really wanting to know the answer to these questions. I have been wondering about it for a while now. Wouldn't be better to attempt to unify QFT by considering GR to be the Higgs Field, instead of a graviton, since the Higgs Boson was discovered and the graviton never was? I thought there was heavy debate if the graviton was actually even a particle that exist, as a real particle or not. Isn't the Higgs Field a scaler similar to spacetime in GR? Einstein did prove that the number of gravitons would be infinite, so I never bought into the graviton theory because of that.

I guess I hit a button by asking these questions? I thought they were legitimate questions. I really don't know why these methods are not considered to solve unification problems. I don't know why I wouldn't want to pursue it in the future.

I meant the integral could be taken, and it could remove the infinity. Then the derivative could be taken after that to renormalize the equation back to the original. Although, it would mean that you would be missing variables, but one of the goals of unification is to have a short equation which can describe anything. Why is QFT not a function? Couldn't GR be considered as an area of higher dimensional spacetime? Then GR could have the infinities taken out of it? Couldn't you consider the area of the hyperspace around a black hole to to remove the infinities while it is even a stand alone theory?

Why is that? A function can have an infinite value in it, but the area under the curve of that function isn't always infinite. Then it could potentially provide real numbers to deal with instead of infinities, which represent the same function. I really don't know why that method has not been attempted or mentioned publicly. It is really the only well known way to get rid of infinities...

It really makes me wonder why they can't just take the limit and find the derivative of QFT to find the area under the curve of the theory to get rid of all the infinities... Did they just fail at calculus or something?

It is measured by gravitational lensing existing where there are no gravitational bodies to account for it.

I would guess that a hyperreal infinity would end up just being infinity if you took the limit of it. Then you could treat it as a normal infinity after finding the limit of it.

I think he is still in charge of the physics and science department at Caltech, so if you get any new users rambling on about their universal model, it would be good to point out that they shouldn't even bother if it predicts too many Boltzmann Brains. I know you guys get a lot of those. It seemed like it would be a lot simpler for them to say they are just not accepting any universal models that involve time travel or time loops. It could cause a discrepancy in the times of the evolution of thermodynamic principals they would be weighing it against, like the emergence of Boltzmann Brains.

That form of BB would be more unlikely to occur, considering that the glacial continent at the north pole never existed. Maxwell's Demon could just be any ordinary observer. For example, the staff and moderators of the forums are similar to Maxwell's Demon. They pick and choose what threads are available and what users can chat on them. Then the forums do not follow a natural state of entropy that would be in concurrence with the laws of thermodynamics. You could choose to arrange things in a high or low state of entropy. Then Maxwell's Demon could be any observer that is close to a gravitational well in the early universe. Then he would interact with the universe in a time-like direction. It could mean that Maxwell's Demon didn't make vacuum energy from creating pocket universes until about halfway into the lifetime of the universe or about 7 billion years after the Big Bang. I would predict that would be how old the first ordinary observers reached a technological civilization, since the only number large enough to account for vacuum energy would be the potential number of pocket universes. Then they would have to be artificial pocket universes that could not occur naturally. Then evidence shows that the vacuum energy has increased more dramatically, since we achieved a technological civilization.

I don't believe his paper is correct, because it doesn't consider the possibility that Maxwell's Demon could interact with the universe as an ordinary observer in a time-like direction, or that any particle could interact with another particle in a time-like direction. If that occurred, it could increase the amount of time the universe had to change it's entropy, no matter how long the universe lived. A time-like loop could increase the amount of time thermodynamic operations have to change states indefinitely in almost any type of universe. Then it would limit them to only considering universal models where time-like loops do not exist, negligible, or not considered directly. There are many particle interactions that influence it's previous behavior based on acts of observations. Each time it does this, it changes its current state or location instantly. If this was done multiple times, then the current "present" state of the universe could be a total of how ever many times this interaction occurred and the length of time involved. The change of state of the universe could go through many alterations which add up a lifetime larger than the overall age of a small closed universe that collapses on itself, even. Then even a small closed short lived universe could be heavily dominated by BB's.

I think you may be right. I must have mis-remembered that part. I noticed one of the sources of the wiki is Sean Carroll, and it says it was Arthur Eddington. He is supposed to be the expert on that sort of thing these days. http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2008/12/29/richard-feynman-on-boltzmann-brains/ I found his paper on it. https://arxiv.org/abs/1702.00850

Okay, that is nothing like the equations I was referring to on the Boltzmann equation page of the wiki. This was independent work he did himself, and you are referring to the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_equation Then a link at the top of that page takes you to a different page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell–Boltzmann_distribution It appears that they are two different things. They have different equations with different descriptions and mathematics on them. Boltzmann worked with people like Maxwell and Einstein, and his work with them was generally accepted. Although, his independent work was not widely accepted, since they had no way to verify it. It didn't help him when he came up with the idea of Boltzmann Brains, because it seemed so far fetched that the general public made fun of him about it. It was around the same time they had the radio scare of an alien invasion. It is the reason why they made a lot of the hoop-la in science fiction about invaders from the fifth dimension. But, his work is currently being used and analyzed in higher end theoretical physics.

I think you are getting it confused with the Boltzmann entropy formula, or variations on it he worked on with Maxwell. I think they are two separate beast. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann's_entropy_formula

They say that it means that a voltage goes across a line at the speed of light due to this, but it does not. It has a change in frequency that is less than c. Then a voltage across a line is not related to a magnetic field in most setups. It put a end in the search, in a traditional sense, as a regular quantum theory of particles. It caused the search for it to branch off into other areas like symmetry in extra dimensions and quantum gravity. Then none of the new theories have been successful. If they cannot be successful starting in a new direction, then it implies that they may be taking the wrong direction with it. Probably so, it has been a while since I have studied it. It seems like there is a big gap in our understanding of it if it just means that it can be solved just by saying that there is an interaction at the speed of light, because that is the fastest that anything could have an interaction at. It seems like there should be a lot more to it than that, if anyone ever wishes to have any type of intuition with working on it. I thought I may have, but it went out the window when I got to this part of QED.