The same principle, and the Lagrangian formalism, are tied closely to Noether's theorem, which connects physical conserved quantities to continuous symmetries of a physical system. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian Noether's (first) theorem states that any differentiable symmetry of the action of a physical system has a corresponding conservation law. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether's_theorem The Lagrangian, L, of a dynamical system is a mathematical function that summarizes the dynamics of the system...) It is used primarily as a key component in the Euler-Lagrange equations to find the path of a particle according to the principle of least action. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian Here we see that the Lagrangian and Noether's theorem can be applied to reality since reality is symmetrical. Can anyone confirm this?
No one can confirm that reality is symmetrical. But I can confirm that our state-of-the-art descriptions of the behavior of reality at the most fundamental levels understood has always been symmetrical since Newton first described his three laws of motion. In addition to continuous symmetries, like Lorentz symmetry, it also appears that there is a discrete symmetry called CPT which is is interesting because neither C- nor P- nor T-symmetry appears to be a discrete symmetry of particle physics.
With regard to supersymmetry which seems to like a Higgs boson at 120 GeV, are the symmetries you listed connected to the standard particle model, are they specific to GR, or if not, what is the connection between them and supersymmetry and the standard particle model?
Yes, or at least it could keep us from the problem of dealing with an infinite number of different CCs, one for every universe in the multiverse, and never being able to detect the other universes, let along determine their CC. I say that because supersymmetry and the energy of the Higgs boson that was found might not be compatible, and might instead point to a multiverse: The End of Supersymmetry? http://space.io9.com/the-end-of-supersymmetry-1536725846 "The first round of LHC experiments are complete, the numbers are crunched, and it's looking like that supersymmetry is beautiful, elegant, and wrong." https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/the-rise-and-fall-of-supersymmetry-c6ef51bea56b The Rise and Fall of Supersymmetry by Ethan Siegel It was the most promising idea for where new physics might lie. Now that the LHC data is in, is it dead?
If reality, when reduced to the foundational level, is nothing but wave energy traversing the medium of space, then in place of calling it an "energy field", would you be OK with calling it a "potentially infinite sea of wave energy"?
Yes, but that means the thread gets "waved" out of P&M (If so, it can be added to my "Issues" thread in AltTheories). The distinction is that with a potentially infinite sea of wave energy, particles are composed of inflowing and out flowing standing wave energy components, so there is always wave energy and wave-particles. It is those wave energy particles that respond to the gravitational wave energy gradient of the "sea of wave energy". The gradient is the "field" that governs the path of particles and objects, and is the product of the gravitational waves emitted by wave-particles (composed of the same wave energy but contained in standing wave-particles). If you ask which came first, the waves or the wave-particles, the answer is that wave energy is conserved and has always existed, in either the form that traverses space which creates the gradient, and in the form of the gravitational wave energy "contained" in the standing wave particles. The process is a continual flow of wave energy out of particles and into the gradient of the medium of space, and out of the gradient and into wave-particles.
Can I just say, Noethers theorem likely is an unstable thing when considering the universe as a whole. The problem is because we have no global time in GR, so there can be no conservation because to do so, we \(\Delta t\) to understand the energy of the universe \(\Delta E\) (conjugate variables)... in this sense, it could mean a few things 1. There is no energy to the universe. 2. That in not finding global time is an indication energy isn't conserved at cosmological scales.
"Not finding global time". What happens is GR uses a "global time coordinate" for the cosmological metric. We can choose a global time coordinate since the expansion of space is global natural phenomena. Go figure out what the cosmological time coordinate is. It's called physics.
No it doesn't, it uses diffeomorphism invariance which allows you to shuffle the space coordinates which is VERY different that working with a real time evolution. In fact this is very well-known amongst those who work in this specific field ''It is often said that in general relativity time does not exist. This is because the Einstein equations generate motion in time that is a symmetry of the theory, not true time evolution. http://arxiv.org/abs/0909.1861
Agreed, but maybe not for the same reasons as you give below. I would respond that GR has spacetime which constitutes "energy" to cause "gravity" by governing the geodesics that objects follow. Time and motion are there, energy is there, and energy is conserved, as far as I know. The reason I agree with your comment about instability of the big bang theory universe is because at 125 or 126 GeV, the Higgs is unstable, or at least less stable than what is predicted by Supersymmetry.
No I am not hinting at any instability with the Higgs. The fact we cannot retrieve a global time in GR, (as predicted from the Wheeler de Witt equation itself) shows us that we cannot measure the translation required in Noethers theorem, since it requires the conjugate of energy, which is time.
Is Manifold1 really Reiku and Farsight? From the style it could surely be, but I can't tell yet. Now I've given the clue to it to change styles... Let's see what happens! :yawn:
We are not the same person. For a site interested in science, it's more interested in paranoid conspiracy theories.
Idiot wind. That's what you came up with? "working with a real time evolution', LOL. Choosing a time coordinate is deciding how you want to meter 'a real time evolution'. All the nonsense you said has nothing to do with GR or any other physics besides the reiku pseudo bullshit physics.
She's a brilliant scientist, I don't agree with her removing space, but she's at the top of her field. She works with the best in the field of high gravity physics. I don't really think your opinion of her work matters... I think the fact she shows she has a grasp of how GR treats ''time'' is simple enough for the audience not to even listen to you.
