joigus

Part of it is geographic isolation, there are also environmental pressures conditioned by different circumstances in the different "cells of isolation", but there's a very important factor which is genetic drift: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift

This is actually a bit more complicated than I first thought, but my intuition seemed to be correct. The monopolar field would go like 1/r2. The force between two magnetic dipoles goes like 1/r4. At larger separations, the monopolar term would dominate, as I said first. You can find more details here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_between_magnets In any case, the placing of the circuits is unstable, and be in no doubt that it would radiate.

My prediction: Both circuits would keep at a certain (varying distance) due to the monopolar term, which dominates at larger shorter separations, but oscillating because of the unstable 2-dipolar (in total quadrupolar) flipping effect, going like a higher inverse power of the distance, and thereby radiating. How come your photons radiate? Your graph is incorrect. But even if you were right, the attractive branch would have to go upside-down, and the graph that you're showing is that of an unstable equilibrium. Very well put. +1

Well, we've got thermodynamics, SR, GR, algorithms, and QM, off to a good start. Pending some clarification on algorithms. This looks promising.

Well, yes. But (gathering more arguments from above) there would be a monopolar electrostatic term which would be attractive going like 1/r2, and then the attraction/repulsion (depending on the flip) which would go like 1/r and we could assume to oscillate chaotically, because the motion would be unstable, as Swansont pointed out. And it's still by no means clear to me why you can't make higher multipoles of these things.

Exactly, they would surely flip. The whole thing is unstable.

You're quite right. The force would have to be non-local, nonetheless. Plus photons don't have anything that corresponds to a proper length. Edit: And I still can't see why they wouldn't flip.

So, what did you mean when you said, ? Why they don't separate is a key question for me.

As Swansont and Studiot have implied, but in my own re-phrasing: If the charges are separated, you need a non-local interaction to account for them being separated rigidly with no possibility of pulling or pushing one against the other. This exotic force would have to be repulsive and non-local, exactly compensating the mutual attraction between your positrin and negatrin. Charges polarize the space around them, so charged particles always have mass. How does that mass not appear in your photons? I hope it doesn't, as photons are massless. As Ghideon and MigL are implying too, how do you recover known laws of physics? Other examples: Do your photons go through each other at low energies, while scatter at very high energies, which is a known fact of QED? Do they behave as they must when they scatter electrons? Do they contribute to mass and charge renormalization of the electron? Why aren't there 0-spin photons? Why can't they flip? Your model seems to allow for it. Are you considering selection or superselection rules? If so, which are those? Why aren't there multipolar states of those? More selection rules? How do you account for the transversality of photons? The radiating EM field is always perpendicular to the direction of propagation. How do you account for circular, linear, and elliptically polarised photons? More coming. It's 100 years of photonics.

Ah, I think I know what you mean with the Cartan dual. It has g tensors in the definition, doesn't it? Don't worry, I'll take a closer look, ASAP.

LOL. That's a good one. Or two. +1 Sorry, is it meant to be Input = Output + Accumulation or Output = Input + Accumulation?

That reminds me of Matrix. One of those drives you could download all your knowledge from. Even practical knowledge. Tensor calculus in 5 seconds. Helicopter piloting in 3. That would be nice. Thanks. I knew you would appreciate it. Let's see if people can provide some good ideas. Let's see if it arouses some interest. I hope so.

We're all familiar with how certain concepts in science are difficult to grasp, or perhaps to remember. Mottos are these pieces of wisdom that try to capture an idea and make it easier to grasp yourself, or to get across to others through an intuitive verbal formulation. Some of them can be quite unfortunate. They shall not be mentioned here, if possible. So my suggestion is: Let's all share those brief phrasings that have helped us remember an idea, understand it better, keep it closer to our hearts and brains. They can be our own creation or found elsewhere and treasured ever since. One example could be (these are my own): "Velocity is the parameter which tells you what time and space directions you're looking at when you're moving" (special relativity) Or: "A tensor is a product of projections of physical quantities; different observers see different projections; but if they knew the rules of rotation, they would all relate their data and say: 'Oh, we're all seeing the same thing!'" (general relativity, tensor calculus) I invite you all to share brief formulas like these that you've found useful to capture an idea, whether you've devised them yourselves or you've found them somewhere else and retained them as useful conceptual tools. Keep in mind that the more rigorous you try to be, the less memorable the motto. If you don't like mine, feel free to tell me. All science areas welcome.

No. The whole point of relativity, both special and general, is that you can't tell whether you're moving or standing still (special relativity), and whether you're in free space or falling in a gravitational field (general relativity, except tidal forces). So you can never tell by looking at things in terms of your own references. It's other observers (moving differently --SR-- or with different values of the gravitational field --GR--) that see those funny slowing downs, contractions, and the like. In common scientific parlance, those effects are observer-dependent.

Nobody said that.

I understand what you mean. That's a possible avenue. It's been said that in physics there are conservative revolutionaries and revolutionary conservatives (something like that). I personally prefer to go back to things we think we know very well and think as deeply about them as I can, in search for hidden assumptions or unnoticed connections. So I suppose I would be a revolutionary conservative. Clearing up the landscape, if you know what I mean, rather than looking for new landscapes. But several strategies are possible as long as you firmly attach yourself to what's been gained already. I would like to think more about this. I'm making this comment among other things because I would like to keep this conversation on the front burner.

Everything is a thing. Sorry. Jokes aside. I mean, those are not very implausible hybrids, are they? Horses and donkeys diverged, what, tens of thousands of years ago?

And what conclusion do you draw from your perennial questioning?

Maybe even question your own assumptions, or would that just be too much questioning?

It doesn't have to "fall" in any hands. It could be sent to the right hands tomorrow. Several publications allow you to register as an author for free. They've got templates in LaTeX with their format on them. Write an abstract as brief and clear as possible, presenting your results and conclusions, as well as your references. Go through the peer-reviewing process and you may get lucky, who knows. Maybe you are "the one". PD.: Try to avoid presenting yourself as an "schizophrenic out of the box".

There is a "no space inversion symmetry" property of sorts, if you think about it. Because CPT is the robust ST-inversion symmetry of Nature, this suggests that CP are twin properties of T. That all these properties go together in building up one entity. The hard question about these symmetries is (IMO) that they do not allow you to think about them in terms of active transformations (actually changing anything in a system), but as passive transformations (re-labelling of everything). Thanks for bringing these animations to our attention. +1

It's not the same. You would have to change physics completely to have U(1) charge violation. But violation of baryon and lepton number could be easily accommodated. I think everybody is aware of that. I'm having difficulties understanding this paragraph. Could you break it down into simpler sentences? Which is "misunderstand as the same way it disprove nuclear fusion"? What is misunderstood, and what disproves what the same way as what? ------ The thing about taking any excess radiance of stellar objects as a watertight proof that baryon number violation (or CP violation, which combined would account for baryo/lepto genesis) is going on there is that you would have to have a clean prediction of what such spectrum would look like in neutron stars (or BHs, for that matter) to compare against. Do you know of any such clean prediction? That's what I meant when I said "difficult to prove", rather than being a question of incredulity or neglect. I find it very difficult to believe it's just a matter of neglect.

Please, don't bring up diabetes. That would further complicate the problem.

I don't think you have, necessarily. But much of the difficulty is that the status of the "theory" is heavily laden with guesswork. People who work on this area frequently talk about a "dictionary": A set of rules to translate from the language of the gauge theory to the language of gravity. It is by no means clear what time is in the Chern-Simons theory, for example, which is a favourite gauge-theory choice for 1+2 gravity, and you must make assumptions to get to known physics. Consider a sphere divided into many conducting lands, insulated from each other, and each charged to some different electrical potential. The Field within the sphere can be determined from a knowledge of the position and potentials of the surface lands alone. Interesting problem, but quite complicated, and I'm not sure it can be related to the gravity-gauge duality. I would start with two symmetric lands, one positive and one negative (for simplicity). I would also assume the metric to be trivial. You can solve for a half-sphere of charge with the help of the superposition principle and by assuming the negative potential function for a negative hemi-sphere of charge being the symmetric (in charge & space) of a positive hemi-sphere of charge. If, as Markus suggests, you assume permeability and permitivity, you're throwing in two more (scalar) degrees of freedom: You've got two more scalar fields. You need dielectrics to insulate the conductors. Properties of matter are additional DOFs, the same as metric properties of ST. The simple argument we were talking about has to do with fields in the vacuum, and nothing but gravity inside. If you throw in matter, it's much more complicated. I haven't thought very seriously about this problem really. 1,000,000 light seconds is a distance. Do you mean 1,000,000 seconds? Or a distance radius of 1,000,000 light seconds? Something like 9/11 attack I don't think would be well (or easily) described by smooth fields... The AdS/CFT duality assumes pure gravity inside and I'm sure analyticity of the fields is playing a role in all of it. Mixing everything inside and outside doesn't let one (me, at least) think clearly of what we're talking about.

Job description of the guy with the hockey stick? "My job is to try very hard to piss off a robot"