geordief

I have just googled "false vacuum" . Does anyone want to buy an unused nuclear fallout shelter? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_vacuum "we might underestimate the chances of being destroyed by vacuum decay because any information about this event would reach us only at the instant when we too were destroyed."

What happens when two fields interact? Can they be said to "touch" at points in the field? Is it possible to say that they do not "touch" ? Are there points in space and time where two field meet so that where there were two fields there now is one (a combination) ? At that point can we say that the distance between (an element of ) the two original fields is actually zero? Are these two fields mathematical objects or physical objects? (or both?)

Maybe things do not have to occupy the same space and time to "touch" each other? Does the Earth "touch" the Moon by that definition ? ( or non definition)

Aren't wave functions mathematical objects?

Well I did specify "artificially" Is the idea a non starter under those conditions .....or maybe just a pointless question?

Just to the question at the start of the OP..are we all agreed that it is a tautological idea to artificially create a new universe somewhere in the universe that (obviously) already exists ? That idea is a "non idea" ? There is nobody who thinks it can be done or even entertained as any sort of a possibility? (apart from Brad Watson.maybe) ?

No,he is an agent for the "Serious Party of America" whose goal is to put satire out of business in the 21st century.

Does the term "event" mean two different things in Relativity and Quantum Theory? And to the extent we imagine that ,in layman's parlance an "event" can be a unit of "things happening" is that a third sense that may not even be covered by either ? I say that because ,when I think about "events" I seem to be drawn to this meaning but it may have no application in either theory and so am I twisting myself in knots to no purpose? Admittedly I have not got my head around the two main theories yet ,but I do not want to cloud my future appreciation of them if and when I do. EDIT: Since you brought up the uncertainty principle as the manifold get more and more defined or populated does that imply that the space/time relationship could become "blurry" as more and more lines were drawn on the space time graph?

An "event" is a point on the Space-Time graph where something occurs . Or is it? Is it a point where something may occur but may not? (Are there [x,y,z,t] s where nothing happens? ) Also, I have an (erroneous?) idea in my head that the Space-Time graph can ,if drawn in sufficiently fine detail model every macro level interaction between things in the real world. Is this a misapprehension ? Is the name "event" in the Space-Time graph (or manifold) simply a description of when and where something might occur but it does not describe the occurrence in its entirety? So "event " is only a partial description of what is happening? If the manifold was assembled in fine enough detail (quantized?) would it possibly describe what occurs completely?

Suppose we have two events in Space-Time and they are (fictionally): (1) In AD 0 Marcus Suetonius is walking his dog in Londinium (2) In AD 2000 Ray Davis is having a coffee in a cafe near to the same place in London. QI Can these two events be modeled as members of a set of Space-Time events in a 4D manifold? Q2 If they can, are they joined** in this manifold by the entire set of events that can both have been caused by(1) and have been able to cause(2)? Q3 If this manifold model can be built it it necessary to choose a frame of reference at the outset? Will Hastings 1066 be as good as any? Q4 Is there a chain of Space-time events connecting (1) and (2) ? In fact are there many such chains of events connecting (1) and (2) ? An Infinite or perhaps rather a huge number ? EDIT: Have I perhaps completely misunderstood what is an "event" in Space Time ?(For those who remember him Howard Roark/xyzt told me that in the past in his brusque way) *joined" as in "join a group " -not "connected" or "joined up"

Relativity says that you cannot say this. And Relativity has yet to be shown experimentally to be wrong (in the large scale universe) I think this observation may also be related to the fact that there is apparently no "centre" to the universe because if there was a centre then it would be possible to say that A (for instance) was more "stationary" vis a vis this "centre" and so B was by that definition was more "in motion" -but you cannot say this if there is no "centre" . If you adopt A as a frame of reference then B will seem to be in motion vis a vis A If you adopt B as a frame of reference then A will seem to be in motion vis a vis B

Sometimes posting feels like driving a car . If there is a driver behind you who wants to overtake there is an unconscious desire to not let them pass . I find myself having to resist the temptation to speed up. So with posting , as Strange seems to be saying the poster already knows (they often tell us as much) that they know this h***it and are only really inviting us to perhaps fill in some gaps that they may acknowledge to themselves but are not willing to spell out in public because they anticipate that their interlocutors have not understood the whole picture and so find mistakes where there really are none (it is the audience that is confused) So back to the car , you are trying unconsciously not to be shown wrong by people you already have decided don't really "get it". Clearly a breakdown in communication but for the "greater good". "We can't handle the truth"

What about rotation ? if it is perfectly symmetrical does it also increase mass?

Is the gravitational attraction of a massive body greater depending on its temperature? Does the energy in the heat of the object contribute to curving space-time around it?

So ,if there is any massive body with a surface equidistant from the centre of gravity any other moving body will (ignoring friction and if its velocity allows) intersect this surface in any two places after the same time interval? It does not matter whether the initial trajectory is towards or from the centre of gravity?

Interesting. Like he is grooming Billy Bush and expanding his circle of compliant and dependent admirers. If it is "locker room talk" (and most men in locker rooms must surely be ashamed for that aspersion to be cast) then it is also encouraging others to take advantage of their celebrity to basically molest the women in their entourage.

Bit of a surprise

Could everything have started from the same region and thereafter have started retreating from themselves in a uniform way ? If we go back in time to what is loosely called the Big Bang might we find a circumstance where there was (at that time ) a centre but which is no longer apparent because it is so hard to discern? I am not saying that could be likely but is it possible.? I think there are supposed to be "inflation" and "expansion" as two distinct phenomena .I am not suggesting necessarily that "inflation" might have had a centre but could it have ?.

I think I may suffer from something like the opposite condition. I feel that I can express myself very well but what I express may have no basis in fact. Is that what they call (or is related to ) over thinking ?

Is it an impossibility to "create a new universe" at some point in the present universe? Obviously assuming some far off technical ability is it theoretically possible to create a new "universe" that would have its own independent laws and also be unaffected by and not subject to the laws of the universe wherein it had been created? Is that an entirely impossible concept? Would there have to be some kind a a barrier between the two universes? Would the barrier have to obey the laws of both universes? If such an attempt were ever to be made would someone just pipe up "it is the same universe ,just a subset"?

cui boner?

Am I right to think that this trajectory (through the Earth) is along a local geodesic in space time ? The initial acceleration will determine where (on the surface of the globe) you will "resurface" )? Adding a time constraint to the trajectory adds nothing to the exercise ,does it? It would be impossible to "resurface" in Glasgow 7 days later by taking this route ,would it? How long would it take for a journey from London to the far side of the globe and back up to London?If you were aiming for Glasgow the time would be determined at the outset by the length of the round trip (about 16,000 miles ) and the average speed.

Thanks (I realized after I posted ) that any spacial detours were irrelevant. Is it also irrelevant if speeds are allowed to be relativistic? So my question is entirely trivial? EDIT: Does the acceleration involved make the question any less trivial? Does it (the acceleration and deceleration )need to be spread out as much as possible over the entire length of the journey?

I am not quite sure this should be in Relativity and I am not quite sure why I am asking the question .I am "fishing" a bit ,perhaps to flesh out my ideas but this is the question. Suppose we are in London and need to be in Glasgow in a week's time , what is the most energy efficient method of getting there? (obviously the method of transport and all other environmental factors are the same no matter which route is taken) So ,the first option could be to leave directly ,arrive at Glasgow in 6 hours and remain in Glasgow for 6 days and 18 hours. As an alternative itinerary we could also leave at once , go to Norwich in three days (traveling very slowly) ,remain there for 3 days and then take 24 hours to complete the journey to London. A third possible itinerary might be to stay in London for 6 days and 12 hours and then journey to Glasgow taking 12 hours to do so. In all cases we are going to travel approximately 500 miles due North and take 7 days overall to do so. Out of all the infinite possible permutations involving velocities ,duration of velocities and lack of velocity is there one path between London and Manchester that is the most energy efficient when we know the direction from one to another and the time that is to be allowed for the journey ?

Pretty sure I know that "acetic acid" smell you are talking about. I think it is is the cheap silicon stuff that is not waterproof or paintable. I have worked in the past with pickling onions and hate that sweet ,sickly smell(esp with onions).