Trading in the Real Space for Real Time

What the hell are you talking about?

Remove foot from mouth, then talk.

Nothing to do with superiority. I will quite happily say when someone knows something or when they know more than me. Guest, QH, Ben, CptBork, Rpenner, Prom, Temur and plenty of others here I consider people who know their stuff in particular areas, including areas where I don't know much.

Each of them have shown many times that they are learned in certain areas and they have done so all without having to write 'essays' on their area of work. Instead they engage in honest discussion. Some of them have said things which were wrong, but they accept that and learn from it.

Those are traits you don't display and I don't consider you someone who actually understands what it is they talk about. If you could actually discuss things maybe I'd be more pleasant.

But my scientific knowledge and work isn't the sum of my forum posts. I spend 8 hours a day, 5 days a work at a desk doing work, time spent here doesn't hinder my ongoing learning. In the months since you joined I've learnt a great deal of physics, I can't say the same for you. You've obviously put in time to look through enough to try to spout enough crap to make it seem like you understand but that is wasted time.

If we were to put my time working and my time online together under the heading "Stuff I do to do with science" then I 'waste' a very small percentage of that here, the vast majority I spend constructively. If we did the same for you then you're squandering the majority of your time because you're not actually learning any science, you're learning how to appear to be doing science.

I don't come here to spend my time constructively, its recreation.

I've never claimed to know it all. But I do know more than most and so someone like yourself might not be able to tell the difference, as you're unable to probe the extent of my knowledge in areas where I specialise. Sure, you could find a recently published paper and say "Prove result 4" but that's not what I mean. In areas where I have experience there's no question a layperson can ask which I couldn't at least give some kind of answer to. This isn't me being arrogant, its what one should expect from having a broad education. Someone whose done a degree touches on a great many things on the way to the final exam, an education wouldn't be worth much if you didn't learn a thing or two. Hence any question a layperson might think up having read some science tit-bit I'm more likely to be familiar with the concepts and work than they, so I seem knowledgable in many things. Put me up against someone else whose done a degree (and particularly someone whose done a PhD) and they'll see how superficial my knowledge on many things is and I them.

Why are you so surprised that on a maths and physics forum someone whose done them for almost a decade actually knows something about them?

I've binned months of work in the past. I've pitched ideas during brain storming sessions at work which have been cringe-worthily daft. When I'm incorrect I'm happy to learn from it but I'm going to need a small amount of convincing. Someone who knows their stuff and says "You're wrong" to me can easily provide reasons, hence I'll listen to them. You don't know your stuff so not simply taking your word for it is hardly me saying "I am never wrong", I want you to present justified arguments. That is the hallmark of a good scientist too, reasoned arguments.

About 2 days ago I walked someone through how to compute half lives from measurements over in the main forum. It's clearly the guys high school homework but I didn't rip into him, I was polite. You used to think I was nice till you started posting your 'essays' and I pointed out all your mistakes.

I'm confident about what I know and I'm not afraid to show it. If you didn't put yourself in the firing line by posting such pathetically obvious conglomerations of material lifted from other sources and sprinkled with your ignorance I'd have less reason to reply to you. You post crap, your errors are exposed, you complain, you then go post more crap.

You remind me of a line from The Simpsons :

"...and the doctor said I wouldn't have so many nose bleeds if I just kept my finger out of there." - Ralph Wiggum.

Just like Ralph's problem would go away if he stopped acting stupid, so would yours.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You want to know why I came to the conclusions I did in the OP? You of all people should know this was not just a matter of ''picking things up from other sources'' - I was nearly in a week debate with you on a seperate issue concerning the nature of time. The endeavours which led me to those conclusions in the OP where considerably longer. I just feel you are not being fair, considering the things you know.

Imaginary time was a subject I read about a while ago, but returned to it because I was in part time making an investigation into the problematics of the WDW equation, and its application to quantum cosmology. The interesting thing I did uncover, was that imaginary time did something unique to beginning of time, whereas the wheeler de witt equation can describe real time in a unique way in comparison. In truth, I saw that there could be a viable solution where imaginary time prevails using the correct approach. Before the realization that the WDW equation could finally destroy the real-time line, showed me Hawking needed not to worry about real time any more, or the question of whether a big bang truely did occur or not. The equations would finally state that the view of imaginary time on a quantum cosmological scale would prevail.

It's very easy for James to say the subjects are unrelated - That was never the point of the essay. But if James looked more into it, he probably would have found the subjects are more related than he ever knew. Both subjects deal with the interesting properties of time, those being real and imaginary. Both are cosmological applications, mostly quantum cosmology. Both theories mirror the attempt to get rid of specific views; one being the beginning of time, the other is the real time-line altogether (which involves the big bang).

As for superiority, I very much hope you don't see yourself as somehow superior to the next human being. It's a horrible trade. Though, a little advice; if you don't want people to veiw you like you are on some egotistic power trip, you should tone it down a little. Out of everyone who attends the place, you are by far the worst (not one of the worst, but THE worst).

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Would you like a little cheese with that whine?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

A cube of Edam would go down a treat, thanks for asking.

 

This is truely the icing on the cake:

''According to quantum theory, all the properties of a system should be given by its wave function. Then the entire universe can be described by a wave function.''

Nice paper, it should be read if anyone has interest.

http://www.scichina.com:8081/sciAe/fileup/PDF/90ya1378.pdf

 

So it continues to say, ''the crux of the problem is to find the ground state of the wheeler de witt equation.''

 

I think I've found my solution!


\((-\frac{1}{4}\frac{\partial^2}{\partial \alpha^2}+\alpha^2 - g^2 \alpha^{2 \cdot 2} + \frac{1}{4} \frac{\partial^2}{\partial x^2}) \Psi(\alpha, x)=0\)

where \(x\) here is our matter field in minisuperspace. The equation can be solved by a seperation of variables \(\Psi(\alpha, x)= \psi_{\alpha}(\alpha)\psi_x(x)\) to give two coupled equations:

\((-\frac{1}{4}\frac{\partial^2}{\partial \alpha^2}+\alpha^2 - g^2 \alpha^{2 \cdot 2})\psi_{\alpha}(\alpha)=E\psi_{\alpha}(\alpha)\)

\((\frac{1}{4}\frac{\partial^2}{\partial x^2})\psi_x(x)=E \psi_x(x)\)

The definition of time now can be given as one of two solutions \((\Psi_1,\Psi_2)\) - to describe our time, we have also two choices, we can define our time as either the scale factor \(t= \alpha\) or as the matter field \(\tau= x\) which I have represented with a different description to identify the two \(\Psi(t, \tau)\) - these two different descriptions could be given a unique transformation. We can view one trivially as an imaginary time dimension, by a wick rotation, and one as a real time, given by our Hamiltonian.

But the real question is which time reference do we make real and which one imaginary? Interestingly, we would run into all sorts of problems if we performed the wick rotation on the matter field, namely, imaginary mass descriptions. Performing the wick rotation on the scale factor will rid us of our matter field because real time calculations would have \(\tau=x\) vanish due to the WDW equation. Though, we can simply say ''well, no use with that any more'' and resort to the final solution of an imaginary time reference on the theory.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/9503/9503073v2.pdf

 

\(N(t) = N_({(\frac{MC^2}{.66(6)}) - (\frac{\pi(r^2)}{5.413*h})) e^{-\lambda t} = N_({(\frac{\frac{V}{M}}{66(6)}) - (\frac{\pi(c^2)}{5.413*h})})e^{\frac{-t}{\tau}\)

Woo Hoo I win. Learn latex and do all that crazyness before Green Destiny, after downloading a useless 1.6G program!!! ugh(= LOL fun race man.

 

lol... I am glad I could satisfy. Now the big question, what is the equation?

 

James, an ''evil-genius'' was supposed to be a joke. It's a term used a lot in culture to define someones wicked ways.

 

Also, I hope all that self-proclaimed stuff wasn't hinted at me. I've never done that in my life.

 

I meant to make it clear, but forgot, that

\(\hat{H}\Psi= \Psi(\frac{2\pi G \hbar^2}{3} \frac{\partial^2}{\partial \alpha^2})+\sum_i[-\frac{\hbar^2}{2} \frac{\partial^2}{\partial x_{i}^{2}}+V_i(\alpha,x_i)]) = 0\)

Is trivially the same as

\((-\frac{1}{4}\frac{\partial^2}{\partial \alpha^2}+\alpha^2 - g^2 \alpha^{2 \cdot 2} + \frac{1}{4} \frac{\partial^2}{\partial x^2}) \Psi(\alpha, x)=0\)

where

\(\alpha^2 - g^2 \alpha^{2 \cdot 2}= V(\alpha)\)

and equally

\(x^2-g^2x^{2 \cdot 2}=V(x)\)

 

I have asked you before but you didn't answer:
What is \(\alpha\)?

Please show how you perform this separation of variables

 

Alphanumeric, these are the days that make life worth living.

''The zero does not refer to time...''

Despite repeated attempts to make you see difference, this will change your tune.

http://www.fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Markopoulou_SpaceDNE.pdf

''and the zero refers to time''.

Are you so sure now?

 

lets decompose this a bit:

\(\hat{H}\Psi\) is an operator acting on a state function

\(\Psi(\frac{2\pi G \hbar^2}{3} \frac{\partial^2}{\partial \alpha^2})\) is a state function multiplying an operator that isn't acting on anything

\(\sum_i[-\frac{\hbar^2}{2} \frac{\partial^2}{\partial x_{i}^{2}}+V_i(\alpha,x_i)])\) is an operator with no state function

Conclusion: this equation makes no sense.

 

Are yous saying I should not have the wave function in the description?

 

You might be right, I niavely applied it to the equation.

 

The wave function should have been multiplied by a parenthesis over all variables.

 

Perhaps niavely applied, but incorrectly applied might be a better wording.