ydoaPs

bump is there a QFT in which it doesn't assume a flat spacetime, but has spacetime be a property of the fields?

[math]\lim_{x{\to}0^+}\frac{1}{x}=\infty[/math] wow, that was hard. infinity basically means expanding without bound

6 more here i finished my first exam in under half an hour.....we were allotted two hours for it...i was so bored...

you could get a powerful magnet and MagnaView Fluid and test how "frictionless" it actually is.

is QFT part of standard QM? can someone give me a nonmathematical overview of QFT? here's my current understanding(it is probably completly wrong): there are various quantum fields. when there is an excitement in only the EM field, we get photons. if there is an excitement in only the higgs field, we get chargeless massive "particles." if there is a coupled excitement in the EM and higgs fields, we get massive charged "particles." the higgs field is coupled with the gravitational field such that an excitement in the higgs field caused an excitement in the gravitational field(gravitons). am i anywhere close on any of that?

he can't answer. he was banned long ago.

we will not write an essay for you. that goes against the forum rules. with that being said, try wikipedia

part of the reason quantum teleportation works is because two electrons with the same properties are indistinguishable.

didn't we have a christmassy one last year? i know several people put santa hats on their avatars

how would one do this?

You are Robin Hartshorne's Algebraic Geometry. i would have shown the picture, but the library computers use IE and it won't let me view the image

i've already gotten warnings for not being nice. the worst part is after they expire.

they may well come up with it. we did it being in a location where gravity is apparent.

wow, i don't know what to say and still be nice about it.

you seriously can't see the difference here? compare the rates instead. mosquitoes have been around a LOT longer than nukes. that is very insensitive. if you continue to make such comments like that and the comments this thread, i predict a short membership for you. my predictions are usually correct, btw. i am just trying to help you out.

you thought a dirty bomb was a nuke. how wouln't a nuke hurt many people?

don't only additave quantum numbers matter in matter/antimatter annhialation?

yes

i've seen this before....

http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?p=229495#post229495 wow, that was hard

i told you what i was trying to do. if you don't understand, make specific questions and i'll try to explain it better. i know that concavity is connected to the second derivative, but i don't know anything about curvature, eccept that it should involve the acceleration and radius.

we didn't have [math]\LaTeX[/math] at the point, i think.

just post it and we'll see what we can do. blike, it doesn't seem as though he is one of the "GR is wrong because it doesn't make sense. my theory is right because it makes perfect sense, but i suck at maths and can't make formulae" guys; he sounds like he is just trying to learn and make his hobby more fun.

is it just me, or does this thread smack of the "it's only a theory. a logical explanation that fits observations and is backed by massive amounts of evidence is only as good as an inconsistant belief based on ancient mythology and must be accepted by faith. so, what's the difference?" fallacy?

ok, i was REALLY bored. i decided to try to derive the newtonian analogue of GR with absolute space and time-no space-time. i started like this: you have a piece of matter. this piece is the center of an imaginary sphere(not in the i sense, but in the sense of not existing). the gravity would cause a volume reduction. this could be seen by having the edge of the sphere be composed of matter. [math]V=\frac{4}{3}{\pi}r^3[/math] [math]\frac{dV}{dt}=4{\pi}r^2{\frac{dr}{dt}}[/math] [math]a{\frac{dV}{dt}}=4{\pi}GM\frac{dr}{dt}[/math] now, i know acceleration has something to do with curvature, but i'm not sure how to express it. the acceleration causing curvature can be seen by means of the first law of motion. how do i get rid of the [math]\frac{dV}{dt}[/math] and the [math]\frac{dr}{dt}[/math]? how do i use the a to make a term for curvature? i am pretty sure i need an r term in there as well. would [math]\frac{dr}{dt}[/math] be the same as v=at?