Mystery111

They are topological openings which are analogous to coming across let us say, a dented hole in the road.

Yes. Very good question. As soon as a beginning has been initiated, the idea is that the universe has also an end story... what this end could be is a number of things.

http://www.stardrive...ience&Itemid=82 I hope this is not the cause. It is also such an elementary error if it is the cause. Just found out some information which has made me very happy indeed! They never made an error for the clocks in the GPS because they never used GPS clocks alone. Looking through the OPERA work, they use clocks based on the ground, that are periodically sycronized to the GPS clocks so the clocks are ALWAYS in the same time dilation state as the experiment itself. The paper I linked wouldn't make sense any more.

In many ways, the big bang, the idea matter is being spat out of a singularity is in fact the same as having a time-reversed black hole, which is a white hole.

There are two ways to view the present time. One is more accurate than the other. The dubious way to see the present time is in light of the pscyhological arrow of time. Because we have a disctinction of both a past and a future that somehow makes the present time somehow unique to human perception... however, there is really no such thing as a past and a future. Which leads us to the second and more correct way to view the present: in fact, it makes a definition of what time is itself! The idea is that all that may happen and will happen will happen within the present time frame. No measurements are ever conducted ''outside'' present time. Even though the past and future do not exist (and this was recognized by Einstein when he formulated his General Theory of Relativity) it still can be rewarding to think that the present is a record of the past and the future is record of the present. Rewarding also because we deal with the past and future states in evolution equations, so while the past and future might not physically exist, it still yields predictable physics most of the time. Let [math]t_1[/math] be the present time, [math]t_0[/math] as the past then [math]t_1=t_1[/math] [math]t_1 = t_0 + [t_1 - t_0][/math] so if we let [math]D[/math] represent a time delay, then: [math]t_1 = t_0 + D[/math] The past plus the now is really the same as saying the past plus a time delay, so replace that with [math]t_0 + D[/math]. (added:) you could also say [math]t_2 =t_1 + D[/math] Where [math]t_2[/math] is the future time which is just the present time plus a time delay. Time doesn't have a flow either. Time is not like a river. Time is not linear and there is no such thing as an arrow of time. The only arrow of time which holds any meaning is the psychological arrow of time.

Yeah, you could. Indeed! There maybe fruitful ways to keep the idea that the Hamiltonian as negative and positive solutions. According to a doctor I was speaking to recently: ''Imaginary Hamiltonian means non-unitary dissipation. Such models are used in nuclear physics to model decaying quantum states.'' So we be invoking a non-unitary solution to understand the initial equation. It is only by being able to to make the wick rotation in the denominator make the mass term real and positive. There may be a problem with simply multiplying the complex conjugate with the equation in context of the Dirac Equation. Mind I have been focused on describing neutrino's which can be resprented as spin 1/2 particles in a Dirac Equation which had been modified by Tsao Chang. Normally, when you take the adjoint matrix of the Dirac equation, (the hermician transpose) you effectively neglect all the imaginary parts and not the real parts. We would loose the mass term (as it is formally by definition in this theory an imaginary object) and that would not be good. Seems simple enough right? It just seemed problematic to assume a hermitian solution for equations describing particles with a negative mass sqaured straight away. That is like just like sweeping it under the carpet, or dressing up your variables so that you can deal with them easier. I think Tsao was right in what he did, that we often stare at the equation with a negative mass term and get scared of its implications. He just said ''deal with it another way,'' or I assume that is what went through. The good thing about treating the Hamiltonian as either positive or negative allows you to have the freedom to make the change in the mass term to being negative or indeed back to positive at will.

Yes.

It's completely formal in mathematics, I don't have a definition yet. It is interesting though I thought that it can be given this representation. It certainly has applications in that if you choose that the neutrino has an imaginary mass that you may be able to tranform the invariant mass term under a wick rotation which may help escape the negative mass squared term. It is a mathematical trick at best, but this is what motivated the idea. It acts like an equation which will satisfy a negative and a postive solution. It is paramount to understanding the dirac equation if we are going to believe that the Hamiltonian has two different energy state solutions. I might even go as far as saying it can be used as a shorthand to express these possible energy states without inferring all the complicated spinor equations which can derive the postive and negative energy solutions of the dirac equation by inferring an imaginary rotation on the Hamiltonian (energy of the system).

Indeed! Exactly right. That is why I destinguished [math]\phi[/math] from the phi in electric potential term as a prime. But I take it then I have done this right? Thanks Ajb!

Well, I assume the description of the Lippmann-schwinger equation is [math]|\psi> = |\phi> + \frac{1}{E- H_0}V|\psi>[/math] Thus I also assume the Dirac Hamiltonian can be replaced with the notation above. Because of this, I was able to freely choose which potential I wished to have. Distinguisging the term [math]e\phi'[/math] as the interaction, playing the role of [math] V[/math]? I might have done it wrong, but I'm just applying the Lippmann-Schwinger proceedure to the Dirac Hamiltonian and replacing V with a new potential. So in the famous Lippmann Schwinger equation, the energy eigenstates are continious in the theory which invokes the transformations you are conerned with.

Yes. I have heard it being described like this.

If it had a mass, surely it would be to small to compare it to the mass of other particles...? I do believe that the mass of the photon would be around [math]10^{-51}[/math] grams... however saying this, certain field theories can treat a neutrino (which we all know to have a very small mass) as being negligable, meaning certain restrictions can treat a neutrino as acting like a massless particle. So maybe a photon does have mass... unlikely, but I am open to the suggestion. It would certainly remove the complicated symmetry-breaking hypothesis.

Due to work I have been conducting recently in regards to tachyonic neutrino's, I was investigating a mathematical proceedure found in the Lippmann-Schwinger Equation. I wanted to apply the process to the Dirac Hamiltonian. I wanted to know if I have done this right... Suppose I want to describe the Dirac Hamiltonian for a free particle can be given as: [math]\mathcal{H}_D = (\alpha \cdot \hat{p})c + \beta Mc^2[/math] I could have chosen natural units here, but let's express it in it's full beauty. Now, effectively, there is no interaction potential term in here. Because of this, I can say [math]\mathcal{H}_D \phi = ((\alpha \cdot \hat{p})c + \beta Mc^2)\phi[/math] The interaction could be given a number of ways, by choosing different representatives for your potential. In this case I choose a very simple electric potential [math]e\phi'[/math] [math](\mathcal{H}_D + e\phi')\psi = ((\alpha \cdot \hat{p})c + \beta Mc^2)\psi[/math] Due to continuity, as [math]\psi \rightarrow \phi[/math] and [math]e\phi' \rightarrow 0[/math] then it should be that a solution is [math]\psi^{\pm} = \phi + \frac{1}{E- \mathcal{H} \pm \epsilon} e\phi'\psi^{\pm}[/math] It automatically becomes possible solutions for retarded and advanced waves which is the idea I reached today.

I followed a link recently by ajb http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Propagator . There was notation in the work in the position space part. In the solutions, you can see there is an imaginary part in the denominator; [math]\pm i\epsilon[/math]. Now my memory is vague, but there was a reason why equations like this would have an imaginary part in the denominator.... of course, someone figured this out.... it involved a problem with a certain equation which could be fixed by assuming part of the denominator was imaginary... but who it was who assumed this and what equations it referred to is escaping me now. I wanted to look more into this, but I can't get anywhere further to understanding this without some information! Can anyone get their fingers on who I am talking about, or what equations I could be referring to? Thanks In fact that must sound really vague, I know the imaginary part plays roles in many parts of physics, such as the Green Function... How to go about this without being vague with little to go on is hard to do! I'm also under the impression that the term is also a wick rotation... using imaginary numbers to solve problems is pretty standard in QM, so the more I read my post, the less translational I think it is! (I'm going to get into trouble... this twice I've posted something and found my own answer! Upfront, I apologize:) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lippmann%E2%80%93Schwinger_equation

Ok I am sorry guys. I just wasn't sure about something at the time, but I think I solved my own problem, thanks anyway!!!!! lol

This is true. Force and energy cannot be directly equated, but there does exist relationships, like Fvt = E.

Even if you had an infinite amount of energy, the body is still a machine, and certain parts when they break down are harder to replace! Eventually bodies cannot sustain themselves.

so, in the wheeler experiment, the present affects the past, resulting in the past then affecting the future? Yes. In this interpretation, time does not have a preferred directionality. It is time symmetric, meaning it allows positive and negative time directions. If indeed a quantum particle can have many histories, then the universe applied as a whole also has many histories... many different pasts all existing side by side... again this is due to a wave function as well. So if a scientist in the lab can observe a particle and define a true proper history, then that scientist is effectively shaping that particles past - a single history. In much the same sense, assuming the cosmology of the universe can be expressed in quantum terms, then some maximum state of information in our universes history could be shaping up the past history of the universe. so they're all connected.. changing one, changes the other. Some times there might not be any changes in the physics at all. Understanding how this sort of stuff effects each other is very complicated, well, can seem complicated. But in theory, it is quantum differences which are effectively altered in this model. The early universe, when quantum mechanics ruled the first instant of time is what we are mostly interested in. The ''other'' states the universe could have arose in somehow did not, and maybe this is because information from our future horizon is somehow effecting the past. but where do these past/future waves originate? how does the past have a physical state that can be altered? They originate from what is called the emitter. The emitter sends out a combination of a retarded field which propagates into the future and an advanced field which propagates into the past. The emitter could be something as simple as an electron.

Before I write my response to this, what exactly is "someone attentively watching a quantum system and collapsing it's wave function."? How is that possible? Through thought? Is that proven? It's just pop culture which focuses on human observation. Human observation is almost certainly an interaction on the system, but it's not unique in that we are the only system which can ''observe'' - two particles for instance can observe each other when they come into contact with each other. But as for attentively watching a quantum system all we would be doing is locating a particle by using light for instance. In fact, a really good example of disturbing the evolution of something through a series of observations is the Zeno Effect. The evolution of the system will become non linear, meaning that normal radiative runnaway of a particle ripe to give up all its energy can be held in suspence, in theory, for as long as you want so long as you were willing to make a series of short equidistant observations on the system. There is even an anti-zeno effect. The thing which happens in the zeno effect, is just the same as saying something is watching it and disturbing its normal evolution by altering its wave function. Well if it is, then in the Bohmian interpretation, wouldn't there need to be an observer to collapse the wave function in the big bang? Like a super conscious? If you want, but you don't need to infer on God when science is involved. Instead, there are other ways to solve the problem of how our universe assembled correctly in the beginning, and that is by using the transactional interpretation. In this theory, the universe has both a past and a future as histories which are complimentary to each other. The future can interact through waves of information which will ''interact'' with the past. Waves moving back in time are called 'Echo Waves'. Waves moving forward 'Offer Waves.' Each wave moving in time will continue to oscillate until the meet up in the present time and collapse. Because of this, it opens up new idea's how past states and future states can effect each other. Whilst actions in the future can effect the past physically, things which happen in the past effect the future statistically. Wheeler's delayed choice experiment explains just this. A photon may travel great lengths across the universe, but because of the wave function and something called ''Sum over Histories'' the photon will not travel one path alone. A photon may travel all path's which would be available for it. It isn't until some detector here on earth, perhaps a scientist in his lab observing this photon reach his lense that something remarkable happens. All the histories it is allowed to have suddenly deflate and only one path the photon took remains! In this sense, the scientist observed something in the present time frame, and would effectively alter and change the past history of the photon! So Dr. Cramers Transactional Interpretation makes a lot of sense to people, even me. But what has this got to do with the early universe, and how it came into existence? Well much the same thing applies to the universe as a whole again. Actions made in the future cone of our universe are constantly sending quantum information back to the beginning state of our universe, defining everything which a common observer could not do!! This would need to infer the idea that when the big bang happened, the end of the universe happened also, assuming their is indeed a beginning. I think it is still accepted by many physicists that end stories in this sense are very important when speculating the beginning states. So we can remove all our problems associated to the wave function allowing as many universes to arise by deploying the Bohmian Interpretation with the addition of quantum waves in the form of the Transactional Interpretation to explain how the universe was defined from very early on.

What a poorly written work. the part about only light can travel at that speed is also wrong, not to mention that neutrino's moving at lightspeed does not violate relativity if the particle was already moving at superluminal speeds.

You're defining it perfectly. Because of the wave function, and applying quantum mechanics to the beginning of time, we are told that one universe did not just appear from the vacuum from a single possible state. Instead, if there was no one around to observe the early universe, then every universe that could be a possibility arose alongside our own universe. It's odd to think of a system having more than one state at a time. This is analogous to a single particle system having a spin up-spin down superposition; meaning a particle can have both a spin up directionality and a spin down directionality simultaneously. The reason for this is because Eigenstates of a system can overlap as possibilities, it is not until you take the absolute square of the wave function [math]|\psi|^2[/math] does any one singular existence appear. Because of this, there are ways to avoid the early universe undergoing creation alongside a great many other universes; that is by saying the wave function of our universe was already determined at big bang. The closest model we have to that kind of theory is the Bohmian Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. In this interpretation, the state vector of the universe [math]<\Psi>[/math] has already collapsed and produced the one reality it will evolve into, and the wave function we see is driven by what are called Pilot Waves. Saying the state vector of the universe [math]<\Psi>[/math] has been determined is an analog of someone attentively watching a quantum system and collapsing it's wave function. Parallel Universes just takes the wave function, seriously. It interpretes the wave function as being real, but existing in another vacuum state. Each quantum vacuum is very similar to other universes, maybe differing by only a small quantum difference, but other vacuums will be so different, they would maybe last for only a fraction of second. Again, the latter here comes down to fine tuning. Believing in parallel universes is matter of preference, but I doubt we will ever be able to confirm their existences. Though I will add, the idea that the universes wave function was determined at the big bang still has one major problem. Why did the universe choose the state we observe and none of the other (infinite) possible states it could have been in. That is why parallel universes can be appealing to people, because it seems to remove that question, for there is no question when every possibility came into existence.

i understand that the definition of the universe is everything... but thats only because its everything we can observe and infer right? Indeed, which would seem to indicate that speculating on the existence of parallel universes is nothing more than a philosophy and not science because there is no way to even measure the physical existence of other universes, which are self-consistent and self-contained. Even if parallel universes help to explain why we are in the specific universe we are in today, a problem of fine tuning ect, it still won't provide us with a credible measurable or observational solution. All we have to measure that theory against is our universe, so what good will it help us to infer on any other universal existance? You see when you actually study why people think other universes exist, other universes in the mathematical model is just a bunch of potential states. The physics which exists in the minima is where you find all these different quantum states. Some see this as parallel universes, but that is all they are, is a bunch of minima interpreted as different states independantly might I add.

Nice in the sense that it is very clear you have put a lot of work into this. I haven't spotted a mistake, but then again, I am never the best person to ask for spotting mistakes! I struggle slightly following your intentions and I am under the impression many of the equations you write are standard. That is my take, and I hope you take it as a kind critique. Maybe it's just me most of the time.... sentances like ''zero-dimension'' as being ''time'' seems like an Oxmoron to me, as time is a dimension.

Aren't we happy with the one we have? For a true, self-consistent universe would mean that we will never actually know of any other universes existing out there. Besides... there is no other truer definition of a universe other than one which encompasses everything. I suppose I believe in what Smolin believes: '' There is only one universe. There are no others, nor is there anything isomorphic to it. Smolin denies the existence of a multiverse. Neither other universes nor copies of our universe — within or outside — exist. No copies can exist within the universe, because no subsystem can model precisely the larger system it is a part of. No copies can exist outside the universe, because the universe is by definition all there is. This principle also rules out the notion of a mathematical object isomorphic in every respect to the history of the entire universe, a notion more metaphysical than scientific.''

How about psychological abuse? Many would appreciate that being led into sexual acts from a very young age is... psychologically wrong. Sex should be reserved for adults who know what they are doing, fully conscious of their own actions and are mentally adult enough to appreciate what sex is.