Science Forums  # Shustaire

Members

457

• #### Days Won

6

Shustaire had the most liked content!

• Rank
Understanding
1. Never mind trying to get you to stop conjecturing Koch snowflakes that you try t apply to literally everything is a waste of time. The Uncertainty principle can be described via the analogy of a bed of springs where each spring oscillates individually. If one places a potential force at the ends of each spring to represent the particle then one can see how the HUP self interferes between springs. Local realism involves causality both the field and particle must obey the Einstein speed of information exchange. The EPR type experiments such as Bell the correlation value is a statistical funct
2. Am I suppose to find anything in that last post that makes sense? I cannot even begin to fathom what your attempting to describe (poorly I might add ) Try less word salad. Diamagnetism for example is well described by the inner, outer products Maxwell equations does a bang up job of that.
3. Back at Poly if you want to truly get your theory off the ground, incorporate the above functional sets under fractal a fractal functional describing the principle vectors that are then used to curve form to any graph or dataset under physics. {i,j,k,l} is one I would recommend for your string applications. Dubbleosix is already applying inner products via notation $\langle State_{final}|transpose| State_{initial}\rangle$ ie $\langle\phi |TR | \phi \rangle$
4. I replied to this exact post in 006 thread where you posted an identical copy
5. ah that explains the gradient terms. We x posted while I was adding a few hints to understand physics mathematics, I suggest you include some boundary conditions for each degree of freedom under Einstein localization as you have no means to differentiate the volume of each field dynamic as per range of each force. The range of a force involves energy, lifetime and momentum terms. (lifetime is best described under the probability treatments of QFT, however String can also do the same as it employs QFT as well) At Poly the last couple of posts gives a primary example of the power of understand
6. Your definitely right I do not understand what you are trying to do with the first equation. You have too many terms that would be far simpler to describe under gauge symmetries that the RHS would be far simpler in the long run. If you did a parts by integration you would discover many of the RHS terms are reducible to a few simple relations under symmetry and that you have numerous terms being repeated in terms of energy of a system state. Don't make the mistake of trying to separate physics from math, math is the language physics uses, it follows every math rule there is no separate group p
7. I don't need to, I can back any statement I make with professional peer review backing. That backing contains the experimental evidence, I simply need to understand the bulk of the mathematics to understand what those papers truly state without requiring the words written in those papers. The mathematics you shun are representations of experimental evidence, they describe the processes of measurements in a predictability and testable manner. If a theory cannot describe a process sufficient too make predictions of how and when said process occurs then it is useless. Here is a little hint if y
8. You can imagine any fallacies you wish Poly, the utter word salad above makes absolutely no sense please quit hijacking threads with your utter nonsense. Your personal beliefs in how the universe is just that unfounded personal belief with utterly no basis of proof. The equations you quoted of Dubbleosix are the creation/annihilation operators under QFT. This is part of mainstream physics despite your lack of faith in anything mainstream. You wouldn't understand a path integral under Feymann to even begin to show you how those equations apply.
9. Nah just don't get the a bad spark where you don't want it, lmao however the principle is extremely simple one can design the fuel jets in such a way to maximize efficiency.
10. Look again at the Unruh process they are very specific to the surface area why? Does not Hawking radiation prove that black-holes are not perfect blackbodies but are instead a grey body ? The definition of a true blackbody still applies the emitted radiation simply proves that the surface boundary is not a true blackbody as well as not being a true ground state. As all energy is observer dependent so is the associated vacuum states of a field. This is where most papers usually discuss killing vectors of a field lol but lets gloss over that for simplicities sake.... With both Unruh and Hawki
11. You are correct, however the distinction lies, in a blackbody first absorbs the incident radiation. This causes the temperature to raise, thus increasing the temperature radiation. The thermodynamic state is determined by the absorption and emission properties. In the other case, example a closed system the temperature lies behind the barrier and is due to internal processes. You can see how this will affect how one treats the thermodynamic equations in terms of closed vs open systems and the barrier. An idealized blackbody having 100% absorption.
12. Thanks for the accolade and yes that does save time I knew that but was too early in the am
13. Another nice hack to remember is that temperature is approximately the inverse of the scale factor. $T=\frac{1}{a}$ Freidmann was a genius when he developed his equations using the fluid equations of the FRW metric.
14. yes but you need to be careful in thinking of blackbody in terms of heat different devils.
15. Yes but recall your dealing with blackbody temperature not a true temperature. The blackbody temperature is the amount of absorbtion of the EM spectrum. Hence (black). So one has to be careful to remember this when applying the ideal gas laws.
×