Trading in the Real Space for Real Time

Chaos, if you don't mind son, leave this work for somewhere else.

Alphanumeric, I never came here as a professional. You say it undermines me, but how can something be undermined if I have never claimed? I don't understand your comment on the square rooting thing.The rest I hold my hands up.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Why? You vastly misrepresent my purpose of the equation. the last one \(\omega\) is representative of a wave function. I'm not an expert on wave function. Would you care to simplify that part of the equation?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Please don't see that as something personal. I find it hard to keep up on everything alphanumeric says, never mind other things, which is the reason why I asked you to keep it out of this thread.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Either you think your posts are worth reading or you don't. If you admit your posts aren't worth reading then we're done. If you claim your original post was worth reading then my point stands.

You're just emailing PhDs to ask them your opinion because....?

I stand by what I said. Clearly you don't grasp what people are saying to you because the person elsewhere in the thread, who you mentioned agrees with you, talked about indices, about how '0' is often the index used to denote the time component of a tensor. That doesn't agree with you and it doesn't negate anything I've said because that person is mistaken, since the label used to denote the time component is arbitrary, a matter of convention. In some cases people use '4' to denote the time component. The equation is entirely different from that.

Indices on tensors is enough thing beyond you, along with the Schrodinger equation it seems.

That doesn't make you well or even decently read. You can't actually do any of the quantum mechanics so reading all the wordy explanations doesn't get you past 'interested layperson'. Doesn't even get you to 'competency of high school student'.

So what were the things like your bit on electromagnetism?

If you stopped reading wordy essays and looked at actual journals and papers you'd realise just how far short you fall of the level of detail expected in a science paper, even the more wordy ones.

And you're the one to evaluate the use of application of a quantitative concept when you can't do any quantitative physics relevant (or not) to your claims?

No, you're just posting lengthy attempts at convincing people you can do physics here because you're so modest.

Firstly it would be important to properly define 'system'. A particle in a potential will be a 'system' but within that system you have the Hamiltonian associated to the particle and the particle's wave function, so 'system' needs to be specified.

Secondly, if someone says \(H|\Phi\rangle = 0\) this doesn't give you enough information to completely and uniquely reconstruct the wave function. Nor, given a wave function with zero energy, can you uniquely reconstruct the Hamiltonian. This can be seen in simple 1d systems by viewing the Hamiltonian as a differential operator and the wave function as a function. Given \(\psi(x)\) doesn't mean you can reconstruct a unique linear differential operator H such that \(H\psi(x) = 0\). Conversely given H you cannot reconstruct \(\psi(x)\) uniquely. \(H\psi(x) = 0\) says "\(\psi(x)\) is a zero eigenvalue eigenfunction of the operator H". If H has more than one such eigenfunction then \(\psi(x)\) is not uniquely defined by the equation. Hell, even if it has only one the equation is linear so if \(\psi(x)\) is a solution then so is \(\lambda \psi(x)\). This only gets worse when you wander into the realms of infinite dimensional Hilbert spaces.

Suffice to say, given neither uniquely defines the other they do not encode all the information of the other within them, at least not in a way which can be extracted without additional information.

Yes but how much of that 'reading up' actually involves reading quantum mechanics, proper quantitative quantum mechanics? Little to none I'd wager, given your complete lack of grasp of it.

You've read other people's explanations of physics you don't understand and you delude yourself into thinking that means you now understand the physics. Perhaps if you weren't utterly outside any actual physics education or work system you'd have enough experience with physics to know how naive that point of view is.

I said in pure general relativity, ie that without quantum mechanics. This is not the first time I've corrected you on this point. What was that about you complaining I put words in your mouth.....?

Yes, your extensive hands on experience with both of those clearly puts you in an excellent position to evaluate the state of them. If only you knew what a tensor was and how to do basic Hilbert space algebra.....

A wordy essay which could quite easily be read as having dropped the word 'dependence'. My explanation of what it means squares exactly with the Schrodinger equation. It also squares with the actual definition of what the states in the Hilbert space in question could be. Given 'time' is not a state in the Hilbert space in question it wouldn't possibly literally be 'time'. It could be (and is) the relevant 0 of the Hilbert space, signifying that the state does not change under time changes, the 0 stands for time independence.

If you understood Hilbert spaces, like you want people to believe, you'd realise that your view is incorrect and that source you provide includes a typo (ie drops a word). Instead all you can do is parrot wordy explanations crying "But I understand it!!" and throwing a hissy fit when someone who actually has done some quantum mechanics points out your misunderstanding.

 

And how do you know your internet source is reliable?

 

But if it's on the internet, it must be right. Right?:shrug:

 

So your typing to settle a mathmatical thread over a personal vendetta. Aren't we all. I know I am, from a long time ago, not from you but from the same moster you are currently arguing with. But I do not allow this to upset my objectivity at this point. He said was completely unable to calculate anything at all. I think my point is a little bit larger than yours my friend.

 

They are important for me, and worth my nown while. Whether they are anybody elses, is purely a subjective thing.

Alphanumeric, don't be ridiculous. I have not been e-mailing people sporadically. The doctor I was talking about is a facebook friend.

I don't know where you get ''often'' from. I said in this specific example that it refers to time. You said it didn't, remember?

Say what you will.

What would you know I have read? Or what I have taken in?

Trying to get to know the works. I know near enough nothing about electromagnetism.

I do, I link to papers all the time you disingenuous prick.

I've done some work. You don't need to come up with new equations to write an essay.

No, I do believe I said modesty was something a scientist should have. I am modest, but I am not a scientist.

I speak of any closed system with an energy. In the case of the wave function encoding the information of that equation, the energy vanishes.

They encode all the relevent information about the equation, which is really the whole point.

Lots. Of course. I mean, that has not been the only paper I have linked to. But then this isn't the first time you have not looked up on links I have provided.

Now this is becoming silly. Of course I read up on other peoples definitions, why wouldn't I? nearly 90% of all physics is built up on a ''all-agreed on'' interpretation of physics.

As I said, I think I understand the equation better than you, afterall, you've had three maybe more concepts about it yourself.

It is a problem of pure general relativity. It acts as a solution of pure relativity. You were wrong, end of.

No, but I think I knew a lot more about a Hilbert space than what you gave me credit for, or the average joe.

It wasn't dependance. That's the whole point.

and..
You're repeating youself.

Hissy fit? I am annoyed when I am lynched. I do know what a Hilbert space is. I know all the basics and preliminaries required to understand a Hilbert Space.

 

Because there are terms in the equation that make literal sense, such as the presence of the matter-field. The equation is also set to zero to account for a vanishing energy, the conjugate of time. I doubt the equation is wrong.

 

Matter fields vs Radiation Fields

Now it has came to my attention to make sense of the vanishing matter field in terms of General relativity. Matter fields, in the language of GR are said to be trivial, and these non-metrical fields will vanish in the theory. Trivial scalar fields like a matter field in conformally flat spacetime is in fact a non-gravitating part of the theory. Non-gravitating theories will hold for most of the universe where curvature is almost flat. Recent confirmation has been provided [1] to show that the universe is in fact, almost flat.

This means that relativity will be mostly concerned with the non-gravitating and trivial components of a near flat universe. Matter coupling becomes minimal, so matter fields do in fact vanish on the background. Radiation, or pure energy fields have a minimal matter coupling, and so apply to this contention. With spacetime itself being a sheet of radiation, or more formally recognized as a zero-point fluctuation field, spacetime remains to contain an almost flat background. With matter fields vanishing, this almost certainly implies a near zero cosmological constant.

Matter fields though do contain energy, so seperation of the radiation field and those attributed to matter coupling in the field are difficult to seperate. Vanishing matter fields will however lead to pure gravity vacuum solutions, whereas the spacetime metric almost certainly contains an energy, this energy must be attributed to a very small curvature. The crux of the problem is how GR has treated matter-fields, and the gravitating parts of the theory. In flat spacetime, energy does not necesserily vanish. However, even though gravitating part of the theory are attributed to the curvature of the metric, both matter and radiation fields are attributed to this. But this is challenged simply because energy is in fact non-zero in flat spacetime, and in absence of coupling matter fields. Some solutions to GR are attempted in ref [2] suggesting that matter fields may be non-trivial, yet equally conform to the theory with a vanishing cosmological constant.

[1] - Big Bang - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia In 2000–2001, several experiments, most notably BOOMERanG, found the Universe to be almost spatially flat by measuring the typical angular size (the size on ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang - Cached - Similar

[2] - http://www.mth.kcl.ac.uk/staff/dc_robinson/waves.pdf

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/8372/1/Lam2010.pdf

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/econf/C0307282/papers/TTH09.PDF

Non-gravitating energy and momentum for a quick example, may be given as:

\(E= \int_{v}T_{00}d \mathbb{V}\)

\(P^{i}= \int_{\mathbb{V}} T_{0i} d \mathbb{V}\)

So are only applicable for Newtonian Limits and flat spacetime metrics. I personally call theories dealing with radiation fields and non-gravitating parts as psuedo-pure gravity solutions.

 

Interestingly however, a distinction must be made between the radiation field and the matter field, since radiation does not emit gravitational waves though the presence of photon energy can cause a small curvature, hence why I call it a psuedo-pure gravity solution.

 

''A wordy essay which could quite easily be read as having dropped the word 'dependence'. My explanation of what it means squares exactly with the Schrodinger equation. It also squares with the actual definition of what the states in the Hilbert space in question could be. Given 'time' is not a state in the Hilbert space in question it wouldn't possibly literally be 'time'. It could be (and is) the relevant 0 of the Hilbert space, signifying that the state does not change under time changes, the 0 stands for time independence.. ''

Alphanumeric seems to be under the impression I believe the Hamiltonian is time-dependant. As he rightfully states, time is not a variable in the Hamiltonian, so how does it arise in the equations?

\(\hat{H}\psi= i \hbar \partial_t \psi\)

is how time enters the right hand side of the equation.This vanishes however because of the wdw equation. This means time is not part of the functional description of \(\psi\). Again, the information required on the system would normally be encoded in the wave function. Since time vanishes, it can no longer be part of the wave functions description.

I guess in some remedial sense, you could say \(\psi\) does not depend on time. But in every sense of the above work, it does refer to time, or the absence of it.

 

(Plus, I don't think you meant Hilbert Space, surely?)

 

This btw, green destiny, is not an insult. It is very very compassionate and honest. I have not read further but if you take it as an insult, you are drastically missing the point.

You need to learn pde's first. I mean really learn them. You are asking a geometry question. I do not have the skills necessary so I'm not preaching from that end. I've been interested in unusual -some might say quack but I see it differently- physics assertions for quite some time.

A couple of pop science books might give you a mental picture of the problem, and there is a big one that involves Hilbert Spaces and wavefunctions and the discrete nature of opur sensed universe, but to make your picture meaningful in the language of physics, you have to learn the real problems of physics, the real reason(s) that physicists are puzzled by the fact that we calculate the universe discretely and yet nothing in it is discrete. It is the equations that raise the problems, not the visualizations.

 

It was one of his less-insulting posts. I'll admit that.

But there are many posts afterwards I don't agree with. Also the fact he keeps making mistakes - he's quick to point out other peoples flaws, but when it comes to his own, he simply hates admitting them.

 

Whilst I had not explicitely believed an dependance of time with the operator, it seems it can still be allowed using a Dirac Picture, where not only the wave function is time dependant but also the operator:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0312/0312063v1.pdf

I will just assume you have never heard of it AN, or if you have, must have escaped your notice when trying to trash the thread.

Here is an interesting paper on it too, with even more detail between the three different pictures you are allowed in QM http://www.uncwil.edu/phy/documents/Shafer_09.pdf

 

Wasn't it just a few posts ago you were claiming that the majority of cosmologists said that the universe was closed? Now, you've decided to adopt a different view?

Why don't you just keep playing with latex and leave actual physics alone?

 

What a joke you are!!! Read up on black holes yet, or are you still making assinine comments?

http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=104927

By the way, the universe may be flat but still closed. Closed means 'an end' or a symmetry in time. There is still the possibility a big rip can occur.

 

As I said in another thread, stop pretending you know anything about physics. You've shown that your knowledge is a deep as wikipedia.

 

Do you know what? You should be a stand up commedian.

If anyone should shut their hole, it's you. Atleast I know where to find basic common-knowledge, whereas you spout shit for no reason.

In the future, I advise you to read up on things like black holes, before you go about saying their singular regions are not dense points. You obviously know nothing on the works of Penrose and Hawking singularity theorems, for if you had, you would never have made such an assinine comment.

Go tell yourself first to learn about physics, before becoming into the hypocritical monster you obviously are.