I saw a great video that argues the point that empty space is a something. Here is the link.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CD5tBIqJU4U
So all you pee brains who thought it was nothingness: WRONG!!!!
I find it funny that you'll ignore what people tell you until someone says something you agree with at which point you start repeating it. Simply ignoring when people demonstrate you are patently mistaken doesn't make you right.
As for space-time it obviously has properties and if you go from a quantum gravity point of view it is a macroscopic effect formed by a seething mass of gravitons.
I have tried to argue that the composition of space-time would be that of the wave-function, if the wave-function was elevated to the status of a physical phenomenon.
It's funny that Farsight hasn't complained about you saying such a thing. I guess since you're both hacks he's willing to ignore such things. Previously he's made the complaint that supposedly the mainstream community views the metric, the mathematical object used to describe the properties of space-time, as a real thing. Yet he remains silent when you claim the wavefunction, the mathematical object used to describe quantum phenomena, as a real thing.
If you've ever studied the infinite potential square well, there are only certain waves that can fit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_in_a_box
One of the solutions to the particle in a box looks like: $$\psi_N (x,t) = Asin(k_n x)e^{i\omega_n t}$$.
You haven't ever studied that, so please don't talk about it as if you have. You've previously shown you cannot do the most trivial of relevant mathematics pertaining to this, so clearly you have no idea how to do about solving the Schrodinger equation.
A physicist will look at this and just see a math equation. I look at this and I see a phenomenon of nature. I see an ontological object, a physical field of some kind. To me, it looks like a fiber in the weave of space-time. The only thing I would add to this ontological object is that the characteristic of the speed of light (permittivity and permeability) are built into it.
Once again you simply assume you know what physicists see/think, despite the fact you don't know any physics, you aren't a physicist, you obviously don't ask us what we think and you never listen when we correct you.
Don't mistake an object for the mathematical description of it. Or vice versa. Funny how you complained people like myself supposedly do that.
I was talking about this last night as it happens.
What you mean was you were arm waving about an area of physics you have no working understanding of and which you're incapable of doing because you lack any of the relevant mathematical knowledge.
And what a coincidence, I was talking about wavefunctions and the Schrodinger equation this week too. Except I did it with a multi-billion dollar technology developer and I got paid for what I said.
We can make an electron (and a positron) in pair production, and we can diffract an electron. And when you look at the wikipedia
Atomic orbitals you see this:
"1.The electrons do not orbit the nucleus in the sense of a planet orbiting the sun, but instead exist as standing waves." You bet they do. Even when they aren't in an orbital.
Tell me, can you actually show the Schrodinger equation leads to such orbitals? No, of course not because you cannot do any of the mathematics. You rely on others to do the details then you just make up arm waving.
I don't see it as a fibre or a weave, I see 4-potential, displacement, curvature, geometry.
All of which you've shown you have a flawed qualitative understanding of and zero quantitative understanding of.
Electromagnetism is associated with spatial curvature, see
The role of potentials in electromagnetism by Percy Hammond. Look at the bit near the end note which says this:
"We conclude that the field describes the curvature which characterizes the electromagnetic interaction". Also look at the Aharonov-Bohm effect on wikipedia. That's where when you switch on a solenoid, and it causes a phase shift for passing electrons, even though there's no electric field and no magnetic field outside the solenoid. See this bit of the
Global action vs local forces section:
"In fact Richard Feynman complained [citation needed] that he had been taught electromagnetism from the perspective of E and B, and he wished later in life he had been taught to think in terms of the A field instead, as this would be more fundamental."
I've been through this with you before. Either you didn't understand or you didn't listen, probably both, and since you lack the mathematical capability to go find this out for yourself you haven't been able to advance your understanding yourself. The electromagnetic field, F, is indeed a curvature but it is a curvature of a gauge bundle, not space-time. Curvature, in the space-time Riemannian sense, is to do with the tangent bundle, the bundle where space-time is the base and its tangent spaces the fibres (these are all technical words, do not interpret them as you would in layperson discussions using them, though you probably will). EM curvature has space-time as the base and the gauge potential as the fibre.
This would be something you'd know if you were the world leading electromagnetics expert you claim to be. Hell, you'd know that if you could do any differential geometry. But why let little things like details or accuracy bog you down when you can just arm wave and proclaim you're deserving of 4 Nobel Prizes, right? Managed to come up with
any working model of any real phenomenon yet?
Space is something like one big A field.
You're conflating a fibre for a base! Looks like you need to go brush up on your fibre bundle knowledge.
Try four pi divided by c to the power one point five. And c to the power half divided by three pi. The h drops out because it's the circular action associated with a sine wave, like you can see on wiki. Don't bother with dimensionality or the g-factor, just look at the numbers.
Wow.... just wow. Despite you having your one attempt at putting numbers to your work being laughed out by many people due to it being terrible numerology you're still peddling it? This just shows you not only don't know the mathematics pertaining to electromagnetism, curvature, gauge fields etc but you don't even know secondary school stuff!
Let's go through what you just said.
4pi = 12.566...
c = 3.54..E12
c^(1.5) = 6.663E18
So 4pi/c^1.5 = 1.886E-18
c^(1/2) = 1881716
c^(1/2)/(3pi) = 1970528
Oh hang on, did you mean that I should work in SI units and not use the speed of light in feet per hour? In that case....
4pi = 12.566...
c = 299792458
c^(1.5) = 5.1907613E12
So 4pi/c^1.5 =2.42E-12
c^(1/2) = 17314
c^(1/2)/(3pi) = 1837
Notice the answers are utterly different! That's because the values of dimensionful quantities are dependent on the units you use. c is a speed so you need to define units for length and time. The meter was originally defined as the distance from the North Pole to the Equator through Paris divided by 10 million. Hardly a fundamental definition, is it? As such the value of quantities which include length in their units are not going to be showing anything fundamental, attempting to make claims about them is pure numerology! Only dimensionless quantities can be looked at in such a way and even then it's highly dubious. You've had this explained to you before. When you attempted to answer my question about providing one, just one, quantitative working model of any phenomenon in the real world which comes from your work you provided numerology
someone else did. You called it (if memory serves) incredible, at which point you were roundly laughed at by several people for making such a ridiculous claim and being so utterly ignorant of even high school physics. Come on Farsight, this is stuff your
kids should know better than to do! That only serves to illustrate my repeated pointing out that you're functionally innumerate when it comes to maths. Curvature, electromagnetism, gauge fields,
units, all of them are written in mathematics you simply don't know.
You and Mazula have delusions of competency, wanting to use technical terms you don't know the meaning of, quoting equations you cannot work with. I repeatedly point this out because maybe one day the glaring truth will register in your brains and you'll find something more constructive to do with your existences. I sigh when I think of all the resources you've wasted peddling your work and how it's all come to naught.
Nice talking to you Mazulu.
I guess you've found a kindred spirit, something with delusions of grandeur and absolutely nothing to show for his claims.