PDA

View Full Version : A Theory on Consciousness and the Geometry of Mu-Matter Geometry



Green Destiny
2011-Mar-23, 08:12 PM
Abstract

It will be shown that the understanding of time in physics right now is shrouded with an estranged set of different disciplines. One being is found rooted in the physics of General Relativity where time ceases to exist because diffeomorphisms acting as a constraint of the theory makes the time index vanish, meaning that if a defined energy exists, it does not change in respect to itself. But since time is a conjugate of energy in the Noether Theorem, it is argued that it is in favor of a universe without a defined energy, in close origins with the principle of observation. It is shown that consciousness is tied to the psychological principle of time, so that one can formally investigate the disappearance of time in the WDW equation as referring to real time events, the events that we exist day to another day. By preferring a wick rotation on the universe, time can be seen as disappearing in the real time sense. Real space events only are secured in the theory, and real space is formulated as being strictly global - this means that imaginary space refers to local events. This allows a foundation for a geometry for the appearance of sentient beings. Consciousness specifically does not seems to exist at the fundamental level. It is an appearance of low energy physics and the appearance of a geometry in spacetime, which gives rise to the idea that maybe the curvature of spacetime is somehow connected to the appearance of conscious-like systems. The final connection in the theory suggests that if all the above is true by their symmetrical components, then global time cannot apply also to the geometry of real space. You can't have a final theory which is local and global simultaneously. A paper is also forwarded which provides evidence that global time in universes permit to singularities.

The essay will posted tomorrow when I return home.

macaw
2011-Mar-23, 10:07 PM
Abstract

[i]It will be shown that the understanding of time in physics right now is shrouded with an estranged set of different disciplines.

Q1: What would those "disciplines" be?
Q2: Citation to support your assertion?



One being is found rooted in the physics of General Relativity where time ceases to exist

Q3: Please provide a citation that "times ceases to exist".


because diffeomorphisms acting as a constraint of the theory makes the time index vanish,

Diffeomorphisms don't "act as constraints".

Q4: What is a "time index" and how do diffeomorphims "make it vanish"?


But since time is a conjugate of energy in the Noether Theorem,

Q5: How is "time a conjugate of energy in the Noether theorem"?

John Mendenhall
2011-Mar-24, 02:05 AM
Could you please state, clearly and concisely, what you ATM idea is?

Green Destiny
2011-Mar-24, 03:04 AM
Q1: What would those "disciplines" be?
Q2: Citation to support your assertion?




Q3: Please provide a citation that "times ceases to exist".



Diffeomorphisms don't "act as constraints".

Q4: What is a "time index" and how do diffeomorphims "make it vanish"?



Q5: How is "time a conjugate of energy in the Noether theorem"?

This is an abstract of a work, and yet you act like someone from a play park. You don't even know the evidence, mind an absractual evidence.

Geo Kaplan
2011-Mar-24, 03:27 AM
This is an abstract of a work, and yet you act like someone from a play park. You don't even know the evidence, mind an absractual evidence.

Well, then, how about presenting a lucid statement of your ATM idea? That is certainly to be preferred over your petulance. Posting sentences containing phrases such as "abstractual evidence" is unlikely to work in your favor. Remember, in ATM the burden of proof lies with the proponent.

pzkpfw
2011-Mar-24, 03:45 AM
This is an abstract of a work, and yet you act like someone from a play park. You don't even know the evidence, mind an absractual evidence.

Green Destiny, you started a thread, questions got asked. That's the way it works. You are obligated by the rules to answer those questions. If you were not ready - why did you start the thread? The 30 days your thread is allowed to remain open starts from when you begin the thread, not from when you get home and paste the essay. Please also do not comment on what you perceive to be the behaviour of other members.

Geo Kaplan, please lay off the moderation.

macaw
2011-Mar-24, 06:00 AM
This is an abstract of a work, and yet you act like someone from a play park. You don't even know the evidence, mind an absractual evidence.

There are already enough errors in your abstract, the questions are triggered by these errors so, please answer the questions. Thank you.

Green Destiny
2011-Mar-24, 06:27 AM
Well, then, how about presenting a lucid statement of your ATM idea? That is certainly to be preferred over your petulance. Posting sentences containing phrases such as "abstractual evidence" is unlikely to work in your favor. Remember, in ATM the burden of proof lies with the proponent.


AXIOMS

1) There can be no moment in time which is absolute in an individual frame. The sum of frames in time at the smallest level
possible must all sit side by side as a static frame of reference.

2) Time must be an eternal present. There can be no distinction between an absolute past or an absolute future, but
there can only exist the present moment in time.

3) Since relativity says only objects can be defined when in relation to another moving frame of reference would suggest that
such an eternal present would suggest there is no internal changes in the dynamics of the universe. This is identical to
the interpretation of the Wheeler de Witt equation.

4) If the Wheeler de Witt equation is correct, then the time index ceases to exist any more. The right hand side of the equation
of the Wheeler de Witt equation refers to the Energy of the system. Since time and energy are conjugates under the Noether
Theorem, it is wise to admit that the universe seems to not have an energy at all.

5) One way you can solve this paradox is by saying to every positive peice of matter there must correspond a negative
counterpart which cancels it out mathematically -Mc^2 + Mc^2 = 0. In essence, as the enigmatic theory goes, the vacuum does not
contain a measurable energy. This is also in conjecture with the Observer Effect. For the universe to have an energy there
needs to be something or someone outside the universe to measure that energy. This is pure relativity.

6) Because of the nature of axiom 5), it can be coupled to the idea that to eliminate the problems inherent in axiom 1) is
by viewing the universe in terms of imaginary time, an approach first speculated upon by Prof. Hawking. Instead of veiwing time
horizontally, viewing time in terms of imaginary units shifts it by a factor of 90 degrees, and becomes vertical. This means
the universe has no boundary on it, and time is no longer seen linearly. The direct result of this would mean that moments
in time have no absolute order. This is in close conjecture of axiom 2) provided the eternal present has no boundary as well
which removes the singularity problem because big bang cannot be allowed to exist in an imaginary frame.

7) This then means that we must remove real time for imaginary time, and treat the Hamiltonian as Unitary on the Wheeler de
Witt equation, which means it refers to the real index time. Since real time will be seen to vanish, satisfying the WDW equation
in a process of a Wick Rotation we can freely choose to see time as satisfying all the axioms, so it would seem when we are
talking about cosmological time, we must be referring to imaginary time. Otherwise, real time simply does not exist, and somehow
these real time events I experience is simply an illusion.

Timelessness

The attempt taken in this paper is to tackle numerous problems; those problems have been highlighted to some degree. Those being
the removal of the time problem of QM and general relativity by freely choosing to view cosmological time strictly under an
imaginary time and by taking the time described by the WDW equation as an interpretation on how real time events ceases to exist.

This would mean that real time is a local phenomenon, and Imaginary time can only be applied to global phenomenon. Interestingly
and quite recently being said, prof. Lee Smolin explained how time must be a purely local event - he did not however elaborate on
what kind of time we could be assuming. As an extension to his conjecture, it is said now that real time is not only local,
but has no workable application on the universe as a whole, again, eleborated on by the time problem of quantum mechanics.



This is only the first part of the essay. I will be back later.

Green Destiny
2011-Mar-24, 07:07 AM
*Abusing the work computer here.... but.... here is a link which explains the disapperance of time and how this interpretation of time has plauged even the best of physics minds.

http://www.fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Markopoulou_SpaceDNE.pdf?phpMyAdmin=0c371ccdae9b5f f3071bae814fb4f9e9

Strange
2011-Mar-24, 09:09 AM
AXIOMS

You do know that an axiom is something which can be considered self-evidently true? It isn't clear what some of the following points mean, never mind working out if they are true or not.


1) There can be no moment in time which is absolute in an individual frame. The sum of frames in time at the smallest level
possible must all sit side by side as a static frame of reference.

What is an "absolute moment in time"?
What does the "sum of frames" mean?
What does "the smallest level possible" mean?
Wat does "sit side by side" mean in this context? What is sitting next to what?


2) Time must be an eternal present. There can be no distinction between an absolute past or an absolute future, but
there can only exist the present moment in time.

Why must time be an eternal present? And what does that mean?
What does "absolute past" mean?
What does "absolute future" mean?


3) Since relativity says only objects can be defined when in relation to another moving frame of reference

What does "objects can be defined" mean?
What does "when in relation to another moving frame of reference" mean?
Are you saying objects only exist when they are moving?


This is identical to the interpretation of the Wheeler de Witt equation.

That is clearly not an axiom, but something that needs to be proved (if it even means anything).


4) If the Wheeler de Witt equation is correct, then the time index ceases to exist any more.

What is the "time index"?


Since time and energy are conjugates under the Noether
Theorem

Are they? Can you (a) explain what this means and (b) prove it is the case?


it is wise to admit that the universe seems to not have an energy at all.

Doesn't sound very wise to me!

But as we left axioms a long way back and are now in the land of unsupported assertion and speculation, I'll stop there. But do you see why you need to be a little more precise, and explain your terms and assumptions, when formulating your ideas?

Green Destiny
2011-Mar-24, 02:30 PM
What is an "absolute moment in time"?

Absolute moments are absolute events, a relativistic terminology. Time is not absolute.

What does the "sum of frames" mean?

There are many frames of time. There maybe even more than one history in the universe. Summing over all histories is akin to summing over all frames of time, which by our mentality are seperated into the illusion of past and future.

What does "the smallest level possible" mean?

Whatever that level is. We tend to call this level this Planck Level. Some like to think of reality having a structure which probes deeper than this, who knows really?

Wat does "sit side by side" mean in this context? What is sitting next to what?

No offense, but I did explain this. Frames of reference sitting side by side each other. An illusion appears within this structure (the distinction of past and future). The factors don't exist.

Why must time be an eternal present? And what does that mean?

Time must be eternal without a big bang, and Hawking's universe seen in imaginary time in practical purposes seems very infinite on the whole. As for the eternal present, ask yourself what it means. It is a reality in existence always within the present time. Nothing exists than that which happens in the present time frame.

What does "absolute past" mean?

Again, see relativity for a definition on absolute events which happen.

What does "absolute future" mean?

Again, see relativity for a definition on absolute events which happen.

What does "objects can be defined" mean?

The mathematical explanation of objects being defined in the fundamental sense requires a collapse in the wave function of all matter.

What does "when in relation to another moving frame of reference" mean?

I am not answering this. I cannot answer it other than by saying the same thing over again. I read it, and it seems like a ridiculous question. What do you think an object which moves in relation to another moving frame of reference mean?

Are you saying objects only exist when they are moving?

No

That is clearly not an axiom, but something that needs to be proved (if it even means anything).

It should be of no surprise. The WDW equation is very famous. Many scientists have been aware that time vanishes in GR. It is a theory of the universe on large scales, and the constraint on the theory makes the time vanish, producing the WDW equation. I cited a paper yesterday to show that this is called the Time Problem.

What is the "time index"?

Partial Differentiation.

Doesn't sound very wise to me!

Well it sounds wise to me.

Strange
2011-Mar-24, 02:53 PM
Er, thanks. I think.


What is an "absolute moment in time"?

Absolute moments are absolute events, a relativistic terminology.

I am not familiar with this terminology. Could you define what an "absolute event" is, or provide a reference.


What does the "sum of frames" mean?

There are many frames of time.

I still don't know what a "frame of time" is.


Frames of reference sitting side by side each other.

How can frames of reference (in the SR sense) sit side by side? Do you mean something different by a frame of reference?


What does "when in relation to another moving frame of reference" mean?

I am not answering this. I cannot answer it other than by saying the same thing over again. I read it, and it seems like a ridiculous question. What do you think an object which moves in relation to another moving frame of reference mean?

But you didn't say "an object which moves in relation to another moving frame of reference". You said "objects can be defined when in relation to another moving frame of reference" So did you mean to say "an object can only be defined when in motion relative to another frame of reference" ?

What does "defined" mean? I didn't really understand your previous explanation.


What is the "time index"?

Partial Differentiation.

So "time index" is a synonym for "partial differentiation" ?

tusenfem
2011-Mar-24, 03:14 PM
I am not answering this. I cannot answer it other than by saying the same thing over again. I read it, and it seems like a ridiculous question. What do you think an object which moves in relation to another moving frame of reference mean?



I am sorry, but you will have to put more effort in answering the questions that are put to you.
Aparently, what is clear to you, does not make any sense to the other BAUT members in this thread, it is your job to convince them what you have written is correct. You know how it work here, you have been here in ATM long enough.

Green Destiny
2011-Mar-24, 04:04 PM
I am sorry, but you will have to put more effort in answering the questions that are put to you.
Aparently, what is clear to you, does not make any sense to the other BAUT members in this thread, it is your job to convince them what you have written is correct. You know how it work here, you have been here in ATM long enough.


I can try reanswering questions which are not fully understood. I don't have a problem with this.

Strange
2011-Mar-24, 04:08 PM
I can try reanswering questions which are not fully understood. I don't have a problem with this.

That would be pretty much all of them! :) But lets pick one concept and see if we can make sense of it.

Can you explain what you mean by a "frame of time"

macaw
2011-Mar-24, 04:08 PM
time ceases to exist because diffeomorphisms acting as a constraint of the theory makes the time index vanish.

Based on the above sentence, you don't understand the meaning of diffeomorphism. Let's try a simple example:

Q6: f(x)=x^3 with f:R->R being a function defined on the real space. Is f a diffeomorphism or not? Use math
in explaining your answer.
Please answer Q1-Q5 as well. It has been a while since the questions where posed.

Green Destiny
2011-Mar-24, 09:49 PM
Based on the above sentence, you don't understand the meaning of diffeomorphism. Let's try a simple example:

Q6: f(x)=x^3 with f:R->R being a function defined on the real space. Is f a diffeomorphism or not? Use math
in explaining your answer.
Please answer Q1-Q5 as well. It has been a while since the questions where posed.

It's not wise to test me on this subject. I know what diffeomorphism is in context of a contraint on the theory of general relativity. I am very well read on the subject of timelessness. It is a result of diffeomorphism constraints on the theory of moving clocks - which directly involves time.

Diffeomorphism contraints bacisally allow you to shuffle spacetime events freely. A constraint on time is simply a special type of diffeomoprhism invariance. I won't answer your question either. It is sneekily wrapped up as some kind of test. Don't test me on what you think I know. You have been explained by tausenbaum before that you are required to do a little work yourself. If you want to learn about Canonical GR in the reflection of how time vanishes, I direct you to the paper I cited the other day. There are numerous other places you can learn about this for yourself. I can only explain this subject so much.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_independent

For more on what a diffeomorphism really is.

Green Destiny
2011-Mar-24, 09:59 PM
That would be pretty much all of them! :) But lets pick one concept and see if we can make sense of it.

Can you explain what you mean by a "frame of time"

Maybe we could go through each question seperately then until you agree I have explained each enough. By a frame of time, a frame of time can be seen as an instant of time - when you take a picture of the world with a camera, does your camera take a picture of an instant of time, taking a picture in that frame of time?

Strange
2011-Mar-24, 10:01 PM
Maybe we could go through each question seperately then until you agree I have explained each enough. By a frame of time, a frame of time can be seen as an instant of time - when you take a picture of the world with a camera, does your camera take a picture of an instant of time, taking a picture in that frame of time?

OK. So you are assuming time is quantized, then?

And no, a camera doesn't take a picture of an instant, but an interval or period.

macaw
2011-Mar-24, 10:02 PM
It's not wise to test me on this subject. I know what diffeomorphism is in context of a contraint on the theory of general relativity.

No, you don't know, it is obvious based on your post(s), you just use buzzwords whose meaning you do not understand (like the differential equations, like the "gamma" factor, like the total energy from the other threads). Likewise, you do not know if the simple function I asked you is a diffeomorphism or not. So, please, stop evading and answer the question. If you don't know the answer, just be honest and admit it.

Green Destiny
2011-Mar-24, 10:06 PM
That would be pretty much all of them! :) But lets pick one concept and see if we can make sense of it.

Can you explain what you mean by a "frame of time"

By the way I read back on one of the replies I gave you. you asked what is ''objects can be defined'' I thought this was in context with collapses in the systems state. I don't think this is what the sentance referred to.

Green Destiny
2011-Mar-24, 10:08 PM
No, you don't know, it is obvious based on your post(s). So, please, stop evading and answer the question.

Even though any link I have given you pretty much says the same things I say? Who are you trying to fool here? You asking a question on a mapping of a system, I am telling you what Covariant GR means for timelessness which is a result of a contraint on the Hamiltonian - a diffeomorphism.

macaw
2011-Mar-24, 10:13 PM
Even though any link I have given you pretty much says the same things I say? Who are you trying to fool here?

No one, I am exposing the fraud in your statements.



You asking a question on a mapping of a system,

Nope, I am just asking id f(x)=x^3 is a diffeomorphism or not. So, please answer.



I am telling you what Covariant GR means

Please stop stringing buzzwords whose meaning you do not understand and answer the questions that have been posed against your ATM.

PetersCreek
2011-Mar-24, 10:42 PM
Okay, last chance. If there is not an immediate and significant improvement in tone and behavior, I will close this thread and award infractions on both sides of the argument.

Green Destiny—Do not attempt to enforce what a moderator has already said. You've been told about the report button. Also, refusing to answer questions is not acceptable. A lot of these "test" questions are meant to determine if you're using terms and concepts in standard ways. If you think a member is going beyond that, ask for clarification...or if the member is violating the rules report the post.

macaw—drop the combativeness and leave out the inflammatory language, such as "fraud"

I repeat, if this continues, infractions will follow, with at least one suspension resulting.

Addendum: Green Destiny, it would be much preferred if you provided answers here in this thread. Citing references is fine but answering by predominantly by link is frowned upon.

Jim
2011-Mar-24, 11:17 PM
... You have been explained by tausenbaum ...

Tusenfem. Always a good idea to get the names right.

pzkpfw
2011-Mar-24, 11:21 PM
Maybe we could go through each question seperately then until you agree I have explained each enough. By a frame of time, a frame of time can be seen as an instant of time - when you take a picture of the world with a camera, does your camera take a picture of an instant of time, taking a picture in that frame of time?

You've also used the term "...moving frame of reference...".

Are you seeing your "instant" of time as possibly also moving (which seems odd), or are you using the word "frame" in two different ways?

caveman1917
2011-Mar-25, 12:25 AM
CM1: What is a


moving frame of reference

in the first place?

Rotating, accelerating, ... all good and well, but how do you distinguish a simply moving frame of reference from a stationary one?

CM2: in what way does such a distinction even make physical sense?

Green Destiny
2011-Mar-25, 04:26 AM
You've also used the term "...moving frame of reference...".

Are you seeing your "instant" of time as possibly also moving (which seems odd), or are you using the word "frame" in two different ways?

Time does not move. How can something like time move? What would it be moving relative to?

Instant frames of time do not move niether. Only the perception of events can be said to move - physical events where matter and energy act as relativistic clocks, meaning their movements are relative to other moving clocks. In a pure gravity scenario, this is not the case. Matter fields vanish and time prevails no longer in GR.

Green Destiny
2011-Mar-25, 04:31 AM
CM1: What is a



in the first place?

Rotating, accelerating, ... all good and well, but how do you distinguish a simply moving frame of reference from a stationary one?

CM2: in what way does such a distinction even make physical sense?

What an odd question. Simply that a train moves, but I am stationary on the platform. It becomes physically possible to measure the two frames of reference.

Green Destiny
2011-Mar-25, 04:34 AM
Okay, last chance. If there is not an immediate and significant improvement in tone and behavior, I will close this thread and award infractions on both sides of the argument.

Green Destiny—Do not attempt to enforce what a moderator has already said. You've been told about the report button. Also, refusing to answer questions is not acceptable. A lot of these "test" questions are meant to determine if you're using terms and concepts in standard ways. If you think a member is going beyond that, ask for clarification...or if the member is violating the rules report the post.

macaw—drop the combativeness and leave out the inflammatory language, such as "fraud"

I repeat, if this continues, infractions will follow, with at least one suspension resulting.

Addendum: Green Destiny, it would be much preferred if you provided answers here in this thread. Citing references is fine but answering by predominantly by link is frowned upon.

I argue then that his case is not in favor of tackling the OP. His question is not related to canonical GR in terms of the diffeomorphism invariance. His question should not be answered because of this statement of fact.

pzkpfw
2011-Mar-25, 04:41 AM
Time does not move. How can something like time move? What would it be moving relative to?

Instant frames of time do not move niether. Only the perception of events can be said to move - physical events where matter and energy act as relativistic clocks, meaning their movements are relative to other moving clocks. In a pure gravity scenario, this is not the case. Matter fields vanish and time prevails no longer in GR.

So, you are using the word "frame" in two different ways?

Green Destiny
2011-Mar-25, 04:43 AM
OK. So you are assuming time is quantized, then?

And no, a camera doesn't take a picture of an instant, but an interval or period.

We may differ then on what an instant of time means. To me, without specifying how long an instant is, an instant is any frame of time one chooses to measure in. Quantizing time may be how quantum mechanics views time, but time ceases to exist at all in GR.

Green Destiny
2011-Mar-25, 04:46 AM
So, you are using the word "frame" in two different ways?

Yes. A frame of reference is different to a frame of time. Time is not physical; not to mean to confuse however, but it has been given a physical interpretation where it is part of space, and is the dynamical vacuum. But time seems to be nothing more than a psychological arrow, which is not physical.

macaw
2011-Mar-25, 04:58 AM
I argue then that his case is not in favor of tackling the OP. His question is not related to canonical GR in terms of the diffeomorphism invariance. His question should not be answered because of this statement of fact.

The question establishes whether you know what a diffeomorfism is, so please stop evading and answer it. Also, please answer the other questions Q1-Q5.

macaw
2011-Mar-25, 04:59 AM
Quantizing time may be how quantum mechanics views time, but time ceases to exist at all in GR.

This is false, time does not "cease to exist in GR".

Q7: If you think otherwise, prove it.

macaw
2011-Mar-25, 05:08 AM
Yes. A frame of reference is different to a frame of time. Time is not physical; not to mean to confuse however, but it has been given a physical interpretation where it is part of space, and is the dynamical vacuum.

In mainstream physics frames of reference are neither "part of space", nor do they have anything to do with "the dynamical vacuum". Contrary to your claim, time IS physical, it is NOT "part of the space" and it is NOT "the dynamical vacuum"

Q8: What is the correct definition of a frame of reference?
Q9: If time is NOT part of the space, what is it part of? Any freshman physics book has the correct answer.

Green Destiny
2011-Mar-25, 05:19 AM
Macaw, time does cease to exist. Time vanishes in the WDW equation and I can cite several references to this understanding which is well known among physicists. As Markini responses on the matter, the WDW equation's right hand side refers to time. The right hand side of the equation is also a zero.

Green Destiny
2011-Mar-25, 05:20 AM
I will answer the rest later today. I don't have the time right now.

macaw
2011-Mar-25, 05:21 AM
Macaw, time does cease to exist.

Like I said, in Q7: Prove it.
While at it, please answer Q1-Q9. Thank you.

Green Destiny
2011-Mar-25, 05:24 AM
Like I said, in Q7: Prove it.
While at it, please answer Q1-Q9. Thank you.

Would you stop being so forthcoming. I have just explained I will later. And no I won't answer the question of diffeomorphism. There is an old saying. Attack the post, not the poster. Your means of wanting me to answer questions not related to the OP as a test on personal knowledge is not allowed here. Or atleast, I assume it is not.

Green Destiny
2011-Mar-25, 05:25 AM
Would you stop being so forthcoming. I have just explained I will later. And no I won't answer the question of diffeomorphism. There is an old saying. Attack the post, not the poster. Your means of wanting me to answer questions not related to the OP as a test on personal knowledge is not allowed here. Or atleast, I assume it is not.

Even better, why don't you explain why you think my understanding is wrong, so that if I ever do decide to answer you, I'll know more specifically what it is you are disagreeing with.

macaw
2011-Mar-25, 05:29 AM
Would you stop being so forthcoming. I have just explained I will later. And no I won't answer the question of diffeomorphism.

Please answer it since it demonstrates whether you know or not whether you know the meaning of the buzzwords you employ. From what you wrote, to people that know mathematics, it is clear that you don't know what you are talking about.



There is an old saying. Attack the post, not the poster.

Precisely, so answer Q6: is f(x)=x^3 a diffeomorphism or not?




Your means of wanting me to answer questions not related to the OP as a test on personal knowledge is not allowed here. Or atleast, I assume it is not.

Sure it is, you are using the term "diffeomeorphism", let's see if you know what it means. So, please answer the question.

macaw
2011-Mar-25, 05:34 AM
Macaw, time does cease to exist. Time vanishes in the WDW equation

No, it doesn't, you are confused. It is very much present.

Q10: If you think otherwise, please write down the equation and demonstrate how "time ceases to exist". It is a very simple equation, so you shouldn't have any problem posting the results.





and I can cite several references to this understanding which is well known among physicists.

Q11: Please do so.


the WDW equation's right hand side refers to time. The right hand side of the equation is also a zero.

Q12: How about the LHS?

PetersCreek
2011-Mar-25, 05:50 AM
Okay, thread closed while the moderators discuss the last page or so of responses.

Green Destiny: you really, really need to get a grip on the rules here. Do not argue moderation in thread. Use the report button. You cannot pick and choose the questions you will answer. You will not moderate other members.