Mystery111

You seem to be suggesting time moves.... what is time moving relative to exactly? See the problem is, is that time does not flow through us. We move through time. The appearance that time is linear comes from our perception of time. This does not mean it actually flows however.

I laughed when I read this... you were making a mockery of what was being suggested, but you actually hit jackpot! Three dimensions of space involve low energy physics and the emergence of this physics is called geometrogensis. There has been some revolutionary work on this, suggesting that the three dimensions of space is an emergent property of matter. Only when the universe cools down to allow synthesis of matter does the three dimesnions of space appear. Indeed, if you have no matter you have no clocks, but you also fail to describe geometry. Also, time is very much like the spatial dimension under certain conditions. What do you mean, time is not like the other dimensions through which we are able to move exactly? We are able to move in time, just in a very restricted way. Ok, in space, we are able to move freely left to right, back and forward, whereas in time it appears atleast in theory to be a forward-like motion without recourse. There are laws of physics which can change this aspect. Time becomes spacelike if you have the right kind of distortions around you. The fact space can become timelike, and time spacelike only strengthens how alike these two aspects are. Time is simply an imaginary leg of the space triangle. Time in theory is almost certainly an imaginary space dimension.

I actually promised someone I would make a thread on time. If I find time the next couple of days, I will. Pfft... of course we have ways to view the Higgs. If it was there, it would have been found by the LHC. And no that isn't the same principle I am afraid. As for space, you are right - no small square measurement of space is devoid of matter... every tiny part of space is filled with vacuum energy. But I am sorry, you will need to rephrase the last bit, had trouble understanding it.

But I would like to add... Whilst the past is not happening right now, the past does have a now that is happening. Without two bits of matter, you have no acting clocks. In a universe devoid of matter, where are your clocks so you can make measurements? It's all about relativity.

Yes, it may seem like an oxymoronic term.... nothing oxymoronic though, just an expansion of imagination required! Eternal may be something which repeats itself, or something which extends into infinity. In theory, you can have an infinity of present moments all existing but not preceeding or proceeding any other moment... for instance, suppose we quantized time in such a way that all of existence was just frame after frame of tiny stops and starts which equalled the Planck Time. You'd have a fantastically large collection of present moments, an eternal collection of them perhaps. Do all these moments exist simultaneously...? I don't think so. But just because a series of present moments do not exist simultaneously should not mean there is any easy chronological arrow which we can use.

An eternal present simply means, the present time is all that is ever in existence. The universe may end in the future, in which case obviously time is not as eternal as we might like to think... The difference with the way I view the eternal present (the time which is asymototically experienced by any observer) to the way presentism believes the present time, is that presentism believes the past and future are happening ''right now''. I don't believe this is the case at all, or atleast it is greately misunderstood. In some sense, relativity would have to permit that the past was happening now, due to allowing time travel to be a possibility. If you could travel to the past, in this theory you would end up in the past (in it's present time sphere). But as far as anyone is concerned in the past, our future is yet to happen, and this is true. There are some truths to presentism; Time may be viewed as one large timescape where only the present moment happens. This is as close to nature as we can test. It is true every moment we experience is simply the present time, no such distinction as a past or future really exist in physics. For a past to be happening ''now'' goes against the idea that a past does not exist alongside our own existence. I think the present moment is very much an issue of frame depency.

You are 14, and you want to know about neutrino's, or how they are applied in relativity? All due respect but you really are jumping in the deep end my friend first.

I know this was directed at another poster... I'd like to say I agree. There can be no universal now... But keeping that aside, presentism is still very compatible with every other idea of relativity. And the incompatibility could not be on a worse subject. Time is frought with controversy, and relativity itself makes a lot of controversial claims itself on time, many of those statements are in complete agreement with presentism.

For a nuetrino at rest, and even at that it is missing some important details in describing neutrino's. In fact, some theories of neutrino's would not have a mass term in it under a Weyl Limit. The mass does the same thing to coupling particles and antiparticles together as you would find from a majorana equation. Nuetrino's are spin 1/2 so they are fermions: [math]-i(\alpha \hat{p})c\psi + \beta M c^2 \psi = i\hbar \partial_t \psi[/math] This can be re-written as: [math]i\hbar \frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t} = -ic\hbar \vec{\sigma} \cdot \nabla_{\phi} + M c^2 \phi'[/math] [math]i\hbar \frac{\partial \chi}{\partial t} = -ic\hbar \vec{\sigma} \cdot \nabla_{\chi} + M c^2 \chi'[/math] as two component equations, when this equation is under a Weyl representation [math]i\hbar \frac{\partial \eta}{\partial t} = -ic\hbar \vec{\xi} \cdot \nabla \eta + M c^2 \xi[/math] and [math]i\hbar \frac{\partial \xi}{\partial t} = -ic\hbar \vec{\eta} \cdot \nabla \xi - M c^2 \eta[/math] [math]\eta[/math] and [math]\xi[/math] are in fact coupled to a limit where [math]M[/math] is nonzero. Under mathematcial strutiny, the fact that the Nuetrino has such a ridiculously small mass incorporates the similar contention that the nuetrino could act more or less like a particle with no mass. So in this case, the non-relativistic case [math]Mc^2[/math] will not suffice. With the limit where [math]M=0[/math] reduces to the Weyl equation [math]\frac{\partial \xi v'}{\partial} = -c\vec{\sigma} \cdot \nabla \xi v'[/math] This only suits right solutions for antiparticles for nuetrinos [math]v'[/math]. [math]\frac{\partial \xi v'}{\partial} = -c\vec{\sigma} \cdot \nabla \xi v'[/math] I think we established that it described antineutrinos.... The second equation in your coupled set up vanish because [math]\phi = \chi[/math] when [math]M=0[/math]. Now this is actually related to parity (you may understand parity under CPT-symmetry.) The Weyl equation is only permitted for right handed antineutrino's since a nuetrino is only ever left handed. For that purpose you may introduce a transformation [math]\alpha \rightarrow -\alpha[/math]. Anticommutator relations are preserved in the Dirac Equation which would describe the neutrino. The transformation also effects [math]\sigma \rightarrow -\sigma[/math] so the Weyl equation becomes [math]\frac{\partial \xi v}{\partial} = c\vec{\sigma} \cdot \nabla \xi v[/math] For a nuetrino. Simply a neutrino must have a mass at a specific limit which allows us to make these valid transformations. The non-relativistic case of [math]Mc^2[/math] also fails to descrive fermions correctly. As you will surely know, the correct energy condition has both a positive and negative solution [math]E= \pm Mc^2[/math]. So you will also deal with [math]\psi^1 = \begin{pmatrix} 1 \\ 0 \\ 0 \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} e^{\frac{iMc^2 t}{\hbar}}[/math] [math]\psi^2 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 1 \\ 0 \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} e^{\frac{iMc^2 t}{\hbar}}[/math] Are your two positive energy solutions with opposite spin states [math]\psi^3 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} e^{\frac{+iMc^2 t}{\hbar}}[/math] [math]\psi^4 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} e^{\frac{+iMc^2 t}{\hbar}}[/math] Are your two negative energy states with opposite spin

I wasn't so surprised to read Dr Rockets analysis on the situation. When I first came here, I began to teach time in accordance to (but not fully) presentism. I don't support all the views held by it, but what I did understand was there could only be an eternal present. This is true to physics and what is a relative fact is that past and future ceased to exist. Time as we knew it began to vanish from the theory and did completely vanish when taken to scales of the universe - this is the way it is because of a known constraint of the universe Hamiltonian called the Wheeler de Witt equation. It succesfully describes a non-changing universe, where time no longer can describe moving clocks. Dr. Rocket said ''utter nonsense'' in response, and I said to him he was entitled to his own opinion on the subject, but it wasn't taken any further. So as much as you were surprised, I knew he didn't like presentism or an eternal present at all.

Kinetic. you want a basic version of what sir? String Theory?

Oh but I do. I talk to people on a level they can understand but equally without making them feel degraded in anyway. You're either a bad teacher, or a bad liar.

I will get to the OP soon. To answer your question, there maybe up to 10^80 strings in a single vacuum. This is the least amount of strings required. Strings are made of energy. They are vibrating strings of energy, with that energy conneted to the frequency of each vibration. We have the elements we have due to what is called the Pauli Exclusion Principle. This Principle is enough and all that is required to explain why we have the elements we have.

I use symbols like that all the time you condescending prick. I am a physics student.

http://www.motionmountain.net/download.html "Time is a concept introduced specially to describe the flow of events around us; it does not itself flow, it describes flow. Time does not advance. Time is neither linear nor cyclic. The idea that time flows is as hindering to understanding nature as is the idea that mirrors Page 71 exchange right and left. The misleading use of the expression ‘flow of time’, propagated first by some flawed Ref. 36 Greek thinkers and then again by Newton, continues. Aristotle (384/3–322 bce), careful to think logically, pointed out its misconception, and many did so after him. Nevertheless, expressions such as ‘time reversal’, the ‘irreversibility of time’, and the much-abused ‘time’s arrow’ are still common. Just read a popular science magazine chosen at random.''

No. I am referring to Gravitational Waves. Gravitational waves are massless yet they cause curvature and propogate at lightspeed. To have no mass, this indiates the right hand side of [math]\nabla_{\mu} R^{\mu \nu} = \frac{1}{2} \nabla_{\mu}g^{\mu \nu} R[/math] But does the absence of matter imply zero curvature for a metric? The answer is inexorably no. Gravitational waves are not trivial, where the Ricci tensor is zero everywhere, but the Reimann tensor is not so it's not always the case you can deal with a massless universe and no curvature.

No I don't believe it does. There is no arrow.

In General Relativity, the ''connection'' is due to what is called the Christoffel Symbol [math]\Gamma[/math]. It is what is called an ''affine connection'' which defines the ability to have parallel transport i.e, curved spacetime. Also this isn't true. The Einstein Field equations allows you to have a zero-mass but non-zero curvature.

We will begin with a standard wave equation: [math]\frac{\partial^2 \phi}{\partial t^2} = c^2\frac{\partial^2 \phi}{\partial x^{2}}[/math] This is a wave equation. Using natural units and expressing this wave equation in three dimensions [math]\frac{\partial^2 \phi}{\partial t^2} = \frac{\partial^2 \phi}{\partial x^2} + \frac{\partial^2 \phi}{\partial y^2} + \frac{\partial^2 \phi}{\partial x^2}[/math] To make it into a tensorial equation, we can take [math]\eta^{\mu \nu}[/math] to be [math]g^{\mu \nu}[/math] so that [math]g^{\mu \nu} \frac{\partial \phi}{\partial X^{\nu}[/math] and differentiate as: [math]\nabla_{\mu} g^{\mu \nu} \frac{\partial \phi}{\partial X^{\nu}}+ \Gamma_{\mu \alpha}^{\mu} g^{\nu \beta} \frac{\partial \phi}{\partial X^{\beta}}=0[/math] To work out the covariant derivative involves Christoffel Symbols by definition. This equation will describe the path of a photon for instance in a curved spacetime geodesic. They are models of parallel transport.

Sorry, typo. I pasted and copied too. It is true though, it is not a continuous analogue of the prime numbers. You must however question when it happens.

Ah bugger it, for queen and country. And for the loudmouths. I found that the [math]3^{3}[/math] table contains a very important pattern that could be pivotal to calculating the connection between primes. 18 27 36 45 54 63 72 81 Which when each individual number is subtracted gives 1-8 = 7 2-7 = 5 3-6 = 3 4-5 = 1 5-4 = 1 6-3 = 3 7-2 = 5 8-1 = 7 Instead of the pattern occuring at the exact value of [math]3^{3}[/math] it is deterred until the second appearance. This seems like a mathematical analogue of the prime number pattern. It may be applied to the mathematical foundation of the OP, which I will be testing soon. I am likely to spend many hours on this. I enjoy puzzles.

I'm far too tired to have this discussion right now.

Wow... I was awash with negative vibes reading this.

I don't know what you're talking about. Do you actually understand what I am doing in the OP?