Hellllooooooo??

[Þon Txoteu É. Davinescu]

Little quiet around here lately. Anybody around?

[Cresti Nouacastra-Läxhirescu]

I’m here! I’m on almost everyday, but you’re right. Not too much going on lately.

[Þon Txoteu É. Davinescu]

I’d love to see posts in College, the Provinces, the Government, anywhere (!) that doesn’t involve the Cort or people yelling at each other! LOL

[Ián Tamorán S.H.]

Are you accusing me of yelling???!!!

[E.S. Bornatfiglheu]

Unfortunately, it appears we are approaching the Northern Hemisphere Summer Slump. It's been almost gospel in Talossa's social life that these months are also months of lower activity (elections notwithstanding). Essentially, it is too nice outside!

But what sort of posts would you like to see? At least in terms of the Royal Society/University, Provinces, etc?

[Iac Marscheir]

In a couple years, I might put an intro to quantum mechanics in the Royal Society, after I’ve mastered multivariable calculus and linear algebra.

[Ián Tamorán S.H.]

May 15, 2018 8:02:33 GMT -6 Iac Marscheir said:

In a couple years, I might put an intro to quantum mechanics in the Royal Society, after I’ve mastered multivariable calculus and linear algebra.

Aha! You have strayed into my territory, Iac - and welcome. For your interest (though, in reality, I don't suppose anyone is really interested!) I am currently doing some research - with quantum mechanics (heaven help us!) into the structure of Light (the possible rest mass of photons - highly improbable, by the way - our confusion as to how we measure and use the speed of light --- have you ever looked at the difference between Proper Distance and Co-moving Distance? --- and the possibility - but, again, improbability - of time's being not a single dimension, but like complex numbers made up of more than one part).
So let's have some Quantum Mechanics - please, Iac - and I shall shout from the gallery! <grin>

...and in case any of you are wondering why I do this kind of thing, it's because my first degree is in mathematics - and I miss using it.

[Iac Marscheir]

May 17, 2018 9:11:35 GMT -6 Ián Tamorán S.H. said:

May 15, 2018 8:02:33 GMT -6 Iac Marscheir said:

In a couple years, I might put an intro to quantum mechanics in the Royal Society, after I’ve mastered multivariable calculus and linear algebra.

Aha! You have strayed into my territory, Iac - and welcome. For your interest (though, in reality, I don't suppose anyone is really interested!) I am currently doing some research - with quantum mechanics (heaven help us!) into the structure of Light (the possible rest mass of photons - highly improbable, by the way - our confusion as to how we measure and use the speed of light --- have you ever looked at the difference between Proper Distance and Co-moving Distance? --- and the possibility - but, again, improbability - of time's being not a single dimension, but like complex numbers made up of more than one part).
So let's have some Quantum Mechanics - please, Iac - and I shall shout from the gallery! <grin>

...and in case any of you are wondering why I do this kind of thing, it's because my first degree is in mathematics - and I miss using it.

Wait, photons are massless because they don't have a Higgs'! They don't have a rest mass. As for proper and comoving distance, they're what're used to describe the cosmological distances of objects. They're equal to each other right now, but past moments have different ratios of proper and comoving because of the metric expansion of space. And not even crazy-ass string theory (which I don't approve of, due to its unfalsifiability) predicts more than one dimension of time among its 11+ dimensions.

This is just summary knowledge though... I hope to someday understand what causes these effects!

[Ián Tamorán S.H.]

May 17, 2018 11:31:02 GMT -6 Iac Marscheir said:

Wait, photons are massless because they don't have a Higgs'! They don't have a rest mass.

Ah, would that it were as simple as that! Photons are deemed to be massless not because of the presence/absence of Higgs (which is a comparatively recent addition to the theory), but because if they did have rest mass, and travel at the speed of light then they would acquire infinite mass and infinite energy. This, of course, is impossible. But (and it's a big "but") light does not travel at the speed of light. That seems to be a nonsensical statement, but there are great complications due to gravity (and other sources of acceleration), refraction, and the mismatch of the clocks and the rulers of different observers. All of these can be taken into account (and are) and produce coherent answers - provided that we are consistent in our use of proper and coming distances... which we are not. And don't forget Hubble.

May 17, 2018 11:31:02 GMT -6 Iac Marscheir said:

As for proper and comoving distance, they're what're used to describe the cosmological distances of objects. They're equal to each other right now, but past moments have different ratios of proper and comoving because of the metric expansion of space. And not even crazy-ass string theory (which I don't approve of, due to its unfalsifiability) predicts more than one dimension of time among its 11+ dimensions.

Ah, again, would that it were so simple. The definitions of proper/comoving assume that there is such a thing as proper distance, and that this is knowable, and that we can - over time - compare proper and comoving distances. We even have relationship formulae between these. Yes - here we have remembered Hubble, and all is well.
Or is it?
There is, alas, a fundamental problem - which is that we can never measure proper distance... not even locally, here on Earth. My reasoning for this statement is somewhat long (but not complicated) and would bore everybody if I wrote it up here - but I shall give you a pointer to a draft copy of my paper, when I have an adequate, readable version.

String theory aside (and I agree with your criticism of it), I have long thought that time is at least as "complex" as complex numbers - and quite probably even more complicated than that (quaternions?). The distance equation of

s² = x² + y² + z² - (ict)²

has always struck me as being a bit "odd". A more "regular" form (for which I have absolutely no theoretical or practical justification!) could be

s² = x² + y² + z² - (ict₁)² - (jct₂)² - (kct₃)²

where i, j, k are the (quaternion) "roots of -1" (over simplification!).

But I'm rambling now.

See you in the lecture theatre 

[E.S. Bornatfiglheu]

I am a theatre scholar... and shall expertly pretend I understand