Reiku but not Farsight. Although I must admit that his spelling and grammar have (somewhat) improved over the last 7 years. I suppose he had to get better at something.
Thanks, both of you. You made me sort of laugh, and sort of throw up... Even Zephyr's English has gotten better. How many socks does he have anyway?
It is difficult to estimate the value that Noether's theorem has been to particle physics. Without it, we would have assuredly missed some of the most important symmetries we use every single day. Consider it confirmed to be at least as great a contribution to physics as the work of Einstein, who himself remarked about its inestimable value. For this, physics still owes Emmy a debt that never be repaid. Her untimely early death due to ovarian cancer shortly after immigrating from Nazi Germany to the United States was an event everyone should mourn. Who knows what other contributions to mathematics and physics she might otherwise have made? Why would someone who can still post under an old username need a "sock puppet"? Is it some sort of game? What, do they follow up their own posts with supporting comments: 'He's right, you know'! or something? That would be bizarre. "
As to Emmy Noether, I'm there. Awesome mind. As to socks, yes, I think they think it's a game. Yes, it is bizarre.
Nothing wrong with the discussion in the paper. The problem is you mixing up a classical domain with the quantum domain and then drawing nonsensical conclusions. Time in relativity theory is we'll defined. The manifold is continuous. In quantum theory the manifold is quantized. So which manifold (domain) is the discussion about? So mixing stuff up and drawing irrelevant conclusions is one way you're exposing yourself. Plus the mistake invoking quantum phenomena when you're discussing what exists and doesn't exist in the classical theory. She is a brilliant scientist but you're not. You're the guy who is told to leave and runs immediately to the back door. To bad your ass is so big or we might miss you sneaking in .
It's clear you don't know your theory of relativity very well. Time is well-defined, in the classical moving system of observers, time globally disappears from GR meaning there is no fundamental time. Einstein proved this using his ''hole theory'' which showed that you can't even speak about time without moving clocks. In fact, the early universe was pretty much this way, matter appeared in the electroweak symmetry breaking stage, meaning matter hasn't always been around, meaning clocks haven't either. Really... read your relativity and learn some shit, instead of talking shit.
It isn't constant. Really. That's a myth. It can't be constant across space because the energy density of space varies with gravitational potential. And it can't be constant over time because that's in breach of conservation of energy. I see Manifold said the energy of the universe is zero. I don't agree with that. I think it's a popscience myth borne from a misunderstanding of gravity. Sorry Manifold.
Hi, actually I said it was one of two possible things I could think of .... one being the universe has no energy, or the universe doesn't conserve energy because there is no global \(t\). I actually prefer the latter.... http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-the-universe-leaking-energy/
OK noted. I've read this article before. I like Tamara Davis, she wrote http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310808 with Charles Linewaeaver. But I think she's wrong here. The story goers that the CMBR photons have been redshifted a thousandfold, and have lost most of their energy. I don't think they have, because of something akin to gravitational time dilation in the early universe. It's similar for redshifted photons ascending out of the Earth's gravitational field. They haven't lost any energy. Instead when I lift you up you gain it, so the photons look like they've lost it. To really appreciate this, flip it around, and send a 511keV photon into a black hole. Then think about the blueshift of that photon. Then ask yourself this: how much mas does the black hole gain?
It's clear to the rest of us that you wouldn't have a clue about relativity theory. Don't know the domain of applicability. Oh yeah understanding the domain of applicability requires one to have a decent understanding of how the theory works. It's not a quantum theory reiku so quit making comments that assert it is. You misinterpret what Einstein says because you don't know how his theory WORKS. The idea that a measurement device (clock) has to exist before time begins is just solipsist nonsense from the crank reiku and his sock puppet Manifold1. How many times will you need to be banned before you figure out why it always happens to you? Hint: Manifold1 is a sock puppet of the multi banned reiku and his cadre of sock puppets.
Reality is symmetrical. We see bosons and fermions acting as one. We see nature exhibiting other kinds of symmetries such as those mentioned by rpenner. This is absolutely fascinating.
Is the symmetry between boson and fermions somehow related to entanglement where they both act as one?
Reality does have a symmetry to it, there is no doubt. Bosons can indeed transform into fermions and vice versa. There are other symmetries, and I am sure Rpenner has shown some as well. I have shown one recently found within the Dirac algebra. It's no coincidence these symmetries, the great wonder is what symmetry actually means in physics... and indeed math itself.
I just realized I made a mistake and as a result have asked a silly question. The symmetrical particles of both classes do not act as one unless they are entangled. A question I'd like to have answered is; Reality is symmetrical?
