Science Forums  # Aethelwulf

Members

810

• #### Days Won

8

Aethelwulf had the most liked content!

## 1 Follower

• Rank
Explaining
1. Knowing $\Delta = \gamma_{\mu} \partial^{\mu}$ One can introduce this next equation as the square root of the spacetime interval $i \gamma^{\mu} \Delta \gamma_{\mu} R = 1$ Repeating indices cancel out $i \gamma^{\mu} \gamma_{\mu} \partial^{\mu} \gamma_{\mu} R = 1$  so what we really have is $i \gamma^{\mu}\partial^{\mu} R = 1$ Which is the square root of the space time interval. In an antisymmetric product, the spin matrices is given as $2 \sigma_{\mu \nu} = \gamma_{\mu} \gamma_{\nu} - \gamma_{\nu} \gamma_{\mu}$
2. Hi, for some reason I cannot post in this thread http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/27423-a-list-of-hard-to-deny-ufo-sightings/ Is there a reason for it?
3. Physics has no Place for Religion, But Does it Have a Place for God? Part One Many people today in a science-obsessed world often come to tackle what it means to speak about God and what it usually entails; today, the worship of a God or gods usually envokes the concept of a religion ... but what is religion? Some people today equate God and religion as synonymous concepts... but should people think this way? The answer is that the definition of religion covers a few things, we shall quickly go through some of these. A religion is an organized collection beliefs usually held by a large
4. It's true in our modern concept of General Relativity, where world lines are static and the quantum interpretation of existence is rather a fleeting existence of beginnings and ends, starts and stops. Time isn't a river flowing from the past to future, it isn't linear in the sense of Newtonian physics.
5. Well, I can shed some light to your understanding of the subject and it is complicated - I'll try and keep the math at a minimum. It appears that it is Global Time which doesn't exist within General Relativity. We get some idea that this is the case when we quantize the General Relativistic equations describing the universe; the result is the timelessness of relativity - the time derivative of the Hamiltonian which describes the universe effectively is zero $H \psi = 0$ On the right handside, it should look like the normal Schrodinger equation, but it doesn't end up this way,
6. In this specific model, when $G$ takes on the large value of $10^{40}$ inside a particle, it combines naturally with the torsional physics spoke about in the form of gravimagnetic spin forces on the subatomic level. This level of physics, the energy range itself has not been experimentally varified either way. It should be noted that there is no gravimagnetic forces present in any experiment at the present time but we haven't probed this space enough to confirm strong gravity theory. Magnetic and gravitational forces therefore couple naturally at this level it is hypoth
7. That's a difficult question, because $G$ is a constant of attraction: related by not only gravitational physics, but also related to the speed of light and the distance between two objects. This constant appears to be related to the gravitational nature, however there are exceptions in which gravity and magnetism are related to the torsional properties of spinning objects which exert the curvature on the local spacetime dynamics, so $G$ may play a wider role than just determining the gravitational force.
8. I think this is cool. Going back to our set of particles defined as $k = (i,j)$ both these particles are associated with a spin $\sqrt{j_i(j_i + 1)}$ $\sqrt{j_j(j_j + 1)}$ Then according to loop quantum gravity and their respective spin network, you can actually quantize their area's $A_{\Sigma} = 8 \pi \ell^{2}_{pl} \gamma \Sigma_i \sqrt{j_i(j_i + 1)}$ $A_{\Sigma}' = 8 \pi \ell^{2}_{pl} \gamma \Sigma_j \sqrt{j_j(j_j + 1)}$
9. Since there is no such thing as ''free space'' or ''empty space'' we must assume that all vertices making the geometric triangulation are in fact locations of particles, therefore that in all cases we are dealing with ''three neighbouring points'' on what I have come to call a Fotini graph. Really, the graph has a different name and is usually denoted with something like $E(G)$ and is sometimes called the graphical tensor notation. In our phase space, we will be dealing with a finite amount of particles $i$ and $j$ but asked to keep in mind that the neighbourin
10. It's a very promising approach. If I had to choose one theory, I'd say I agreed with this theory. Do I think this is how reality is built up... I don't quite think Triangulation has everything right, but I think the premise is correct. The idea that space and time, is in fact a geometric property of a configuration space involves a relativistic concept that particles are not independent as such and they do form a geometric reality at the world of the small. This idea of geometry can be linked with geometrogenesis: The emergence of geometry is when the universe sufficiently cooled down enough
11. 'removed'
12. It is actually, naturally occurrent to multiply our temperature equation by the constant $k$ which resides as an electromagnetic feature of the situation and acts as a bridge between micro to macro-systems. $E = k\sqrt{\frac{j^{*} (1 + z)^2}{\epsilon(\lambda) \sigma}}$ What we have in return is an energy again, which appears when calculating the average translational kinetic energy. This energy is part of no doubt, a Hamiltonian of the system, since each charge is responsible for the total luminosity output, described by the flux density.
13. If we solve for the temperature of the system, we do find a nice equation $T = \sqrt{\frac{j^{*} (1 + z)^2}{\epsilon(\lambda) \sigma}}$ This appears actually like an important equation. There are in fact strong similarities between this model of temperature with an equation used to calculate radiation flux, solved for temperature that equation looks like $T = \sqrt{\frac{(1 - a)S}{4 \epsilon \sigma}}$ The $S$ calculated a flux density, in our equation derived, it is also a type of flux, an emissive power to be precise. The factor $(1-a)[/mat 14. The simplicity of the derivation is rather beautiful. It retains all of the important features of the gravi-shift as it did in our original equation for power. The first method can describe luminosity per charge, applications such as virtual particles being boosted in the gravitational field of a black hole. The second power equation looks like it has best applications to large celestial bodies, since we are involving concepts of surface area. 15. A more modern representation of the previous equation is [math]j^{*} = \frac{\epsilon(\lambda) \sigma T^4}{(\frac{\sqrt{1 - 2\frac{Gm}{\Delta E_{rec}} \frac{M}{r} + \frac{GQ^2}{c^4 R^2}}}{\sqrt{1 - 2\frac{Gm}{\Delta E_{sou}} \frac{M}{r} + \frac{GQ^2}{c^4 R^2}}})^2}$ $\epsilon$ is the emissivity. We can therefore, using the last equation obtain a second representation of the power equation [math]P = Aj^{*} = \frac{A \epsilon(\lambda) \sigma T^4}{(\frac{\sqrt{1 - 2\frac{Gm}{\Delta E_{rec}} \frac{M}{r} + \frac{GQ^2}{c^4 R^2}}}{\sqrt{1 - 2\frac{Gm}{\Delta E_{sou}} \frac{M
×