Aethelwulf

There is no integral

The kinetic momentum [math]\pi[/math] can just be written [math]\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial \dot{\phi}}[/math]. This is the Canonical momentum to [math]\phi[/math]. The ordinary momentum term is just freely switched for [math]\pi[/math] even though they don't exactly describe the the same things. For instance, [math]\sum_i p_i(q) \rightarrow \int \pi(x) dx[/math]. I don't call it kinetic momentum, I tend to call it a field momentum.

Signals in the form of energy cannot exceed the speed of light. There might have to be some kind of radical change however to accommodate entanglement in physics. We don't know what causes it, so maybe not all information is made of physical things? The idea itself borders almost on the metaphysical nature of a vacuum - is there some underlying property we cannot measure? Some which has a tweak of determinism about it? What if the vacuum is a busy sheet of ethereal information which is not bound by speed or location? If we can't even measure such a thing what good does it do physics to speak of such a thing? We certainly don't and can't measure a superluminal signal in the form of energy.

You made an apology on the radiation example. But you continued ''correcting'' me on saying that weak measurements and the zeno effect are not the same. Let's drop it anyway, it's kind of deterring the OP. Back to the question of energy, if matter is but a condensed form of energy, energy should be a diluted form of matter. But what does it mean when we say this? Sometimes it becomes like a chicken and egg question, is energy is a form of matter, or is matter a form of energy? Indeed, are they just both forms of each other? The latter here makes more sense since we view this conventional question in the form of Einstein's equally conventional equation [math]E=Mc^2[/math]. Energy is somehow snared into some kind of transition which leads to mass - mass can be freed from this trapped form and brought back to energy again. If we where talking about antiparticles, it is reduced to gamma radiation every time. I think the question of ''what is energy'' can not be fully understood with today's knowledge on physics. General Relativity attempts to answer parts of it, classical physics attempts to answer it in its own way, but it's one of those questions which still escapes a full answer.

I am an English native speaker, I was born in Yorkshire. So I must ask, what is it about my speaking you can't understand? Was it the word ''freezing'' that threw you off? I didn't just say ''freezing'' a system, I also said ''freezing the evolution of a system.'' If swansont had read it more carefully, the previous posts as well, he would have realized you had picked me up wrong and that I was not replying to you frivolously on the question of a motion of a system. The word ''freezing'' in my terminology is simply the same word as ''suspending''. ''So keep up the inquiry, but first consider and study the mainstream model and try to understand it the best that you can before you logically try to consider alternative mainstream or other non-mainstream models/ hypotheses/ theories/ ideas, or develop your own ideas. When you have such knowledge I think your arguments will be more ineligible. what sayeth you?'' This is the problem, I do understand the current models - the use of time. I understand that Newtonian Time no longer has precedence when things like ''flows to time'' are considered. I also know that current quantum theory also does not see time have a flow, but rather is seen as a conglomeration of starts and stops. I probably have a very good grasp of relativity as well, both special and General theories, so I can certainly speak intelligently of time from its aspect. So I am aware enough of time in current mainstream physics enough to know that the things I have said up to this point have been true.

You're going to need to read back. I said ''freezing a system due to observations made on a system'' when the poster took this to mean ''the zero point energy field.'' Indeed, I replied what I did explaining this has nothing to do with the zero point energy field, the type of freezing I was describing was something different altogether. This is the conversation in its entirity: '''' Me: Yes, it is true that scientists often define time by radiating clocks, but you can essentially freeze an atom which is ready to give up all of its energy via the weak measurement theory. You can suspend an atom in time while ''time'' ticks on. So in a sense, I think its a mistake to think the two define each other. Pantheory: To have a condition of no motion at all within matter generally would require a temperature of absolute zero, whereby this temperature may be theoretically unobtainable. Even at absolute zero matter still has spin to it, which involves measurable change. '' Me: In my case, we are not talking about the absolute freezing of a system, we are talking about freezing the evolution of the system. An atom can be frozen by making weak measurements on the system, while we still expect time to truck on - so using radiation to define time in my eyes, is a faulty premise. You may think of my example as a priori. The name this goes by is the Zeno Effect of Quantum Mechanics. '' Perhaps now you can see I was not talking about motion, they where - they where talking about motions when I was not. They picked me up wrong, and now you have as well because you caught the tail end of a conversation. Also, I've asked you to show me where I said ''the zeno effect and weak measurements'' where the same. You've not answered me, or offered an apology to this.

I also said nothing about its motion, I said it freezes its evolution. ''Quantum Evolution'' if you like, so I think you have picked me up wrong on a number of things.

Yes, the vacuum is made of an energy density. The community seems somewhat split on whether the universes energy density is truly constant. It may dilute over time, for instance. It's one of those questions we are ''not completely sure about''. Most theories however will entertain a constant energy density.

If you can show me where I said they are the same thing (weak measurements and the zeno effect) then it will be my turn to apologize.

It's not the same thing, I thought they were related? As for the radiation thing, I have seen people use the rate of radiation as a definition of change and define in on equal terms as ''time''. (I just checked it up), they are related to a number of topics: http://qserver.usc.edu/group/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/zeno-108.pdf '' weak-measurement quantum Zeno effect (WMQZE).'' http://www.millitangent.org/pubs/08_double_well_zeno.pdf ''For weak measurements, this time may be much longer than the tunnelling time. For very strong measurements, there is no Zeno effect. '' I am sure there is more papers that can be found, these where the first two results from my search. Here is a reference to the radiation topic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time '' of time, the second, is defined in terms of radiation emitted by caesium atoms ...'' The cesium atoms define the unit of time. This is just trying to define time from natural clock systems, but as I have noted, things like atoms can be suspended in time through periodic measurements. Here's a paper showing that the zeno effect can be induced by weak measurements http://www.arimizel.com/images/PhysRevB_73_085317.pdf Which is absolutely what I mean.

Some authors have calculated the possibility of the speed of light varying over the years, such as Barrow, who calculated the speed of light to something like [math]10^{60}[/math] times the everyday speed of light, and put this down to the possibility of a changing density structure in the spacetime continuum. The speed of light today depends on two properties of the vacuum, the permittivity and the the permeability - [math]c^{-1} = \sqrt{{\epsilon \mu}}[/math]. If you could change these, you can change the speed of light.

''"All-that-there-is in-the-universe" statements, in my opinion, are perspectives like every other description of reality from a particular point of view. ''<br style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; background-color: rgb(248, 250, 252); "> Yes, but it's not a baseless opinion, in my opinion There are some good reasons to think he is right. ''To have a condition of no motion at all within matter generally would require a temperature of absolute zero, whereby this temperature may be theoretically unobtainable. Even at absolute zero matter still has spin to it, which involves measurable change. '' In my case, we are not talking about the absolute freezing of a system, we are talking about freezing the evolution of the system. An atom can be frozen by making weak measurements on the system, while we still expect time to truck on - so using radiation to define time in my eyes, is a faulty premise. You may think of my example as a priori. The name this goes by is the Zeno Effect of Quantum Mechanics. ''I think the motion of the second hand on a clock can give a good sense of the rate that time passes, relative to the second. As to time being subjective, if you mean a human perspective of reality, then I would agree. '' Yes, the clock is not an illusion, but it was constructed to mirror our ''sense of time''. There are gene regulators apparently, one for short range sense of time and one for the long sense range of time inside of the brain which can fully explain why we even have a sense of time at all. Because of this, one must infer that time is a subjective experience and not a real component of the world around us. Again, one should not define time as a component of change - but rather a change in perception and the knowledge of the observer.

Sorry forgot about this... ''Time involves many different hypothesis, but maybe from the simplest perspective time is an interval of change.'' Yes, perhaps, but I don't think time should mean change. Indeed, Julian Barbour has explained in his own idea's, that all there is in the universe is change, but no time. He argues that time is not an observable and all we should deal with is observables... he says ''this is the way science should work''. ''Its observable physical motions are of matter and/or EM radiation. '' Yes, it is true that scientists often define time by radiating clocks, but you can essentially freeze an atom which is ready to give up all of its energy via the weak measurement theory. You can suspend an atom in time while ''time'' ticks on. So in a sense, I think its a mistake to think the two define each other. ''In the same way I consider time to be a measurement of changing conditions and locations. What say you'' Well, as I explained, time isn't an observable - it's only a tool we use to measure things passing. There does not seem to be any conclusive evidence that time is anything but a subjective phenomenon, which scientists often call the psychological arrow of time. Sorry I never answered sooner, I was suffering from a bad fever recently and have not posted here as much.

Oh my... is all I can.

I am sorry, I misread him. I realize he is wanting to talk about superluminal inference of information, when I thought he was arguing against it. This was why I mentioned John Bell, because he gave himself ways around that problem: ''There is a way to escape the inference of superluminal speeds and spooky action at a distance. But it involves absolute determinism in the universe, the complete absence of free will. Suppose the world is super-deterministic, with not just inanimate nature running on behind-the-scenes clockwork, but with our behavior, including our belief that we are free to choose to do one experiment rather than another, absolutely predetermined, including the "decision" by the experimenter to carry out one set of measurements rather than another, the difficulty disappears. There is no need for a faster than light signal to tell particle A what measurement has been carried out on particle B, because the universe, including particle A, already "knows" what that measurement, and its outcome, will be'' Of course, is is superdeterminism which is not the consensus. I've never heard anyone really talk about it other than John Bell. Funnily, I actually had a dream on entanglement last night. The spin of two particles where always known at the moment of their creation. Which is kind of an odd thought, but would seem to agree with the John Bell example. I obviously don't take dreams as facts though, was just a weird experience is all

I think I could handle it, so whenever there is a chance for my to study absract algebra covering these topics,I will Thank you again.

I guess not.

Ok, had a read about Sedenions. Now you say that you can go on forever, but from a different source I heard you can't get any higher than the Cayley Numbers --- which I was informed, had something to do with the Division Ring, so I am guessing something is a bit wrong here? Thanks DH for helping me understand this.

I said I would have been right back, but I got held up and I ended up doing something else... I will get back to this later! Promise.

Is it 70%, sorry... but yeah, we generally think it has a negative pressure, so it could be seen as a form of negative energy. It certainly has the properties we'd expect.

Yes it makes it possible but this is not the general consensus.... but John Bell certainly realized that was a possibility.

I'll try and answer this tomorrow, because your questions are certainly not light Plus it is late for me... so I need a fresh brain.

Sedenions>?? Argghhh...this is something I have not heard of...will be back soon

Yes... that is one requirement. Keep in mind that things like wormholes require them as well, so such a treatment is not outside of theoretical physics... indeed, physicists believe that at least 60% of the universe is made of such a negative energy.

You certainly give one to have much to debate, that is what one says I will be right back.