Re: SpaceTime

On 06/02/2024 08:31 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:

On 06/02/2024 08:10 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:

On 06/02/2024 08:06 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:

On 06/02/2024 07:35 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:

On 06/02/2024 07:12 PM, gharnagel wrote:

Ross Finlayson wrote:

>
On 06/02/2024 04:22 PM, gharnagel wrote:

>
More invalid analogies.

>

Yeah, if you assume causality, then tachyons can't be fantastical,
they're only the result of something that is or did.
>
The neutrino physics are mostly about supersymmetry.

>
Nope.  Neutrinos are firmly ensconced in the Standard model of
particle physics, while supersymmetric particles are not.
>

If you assume lack of causality it's pretty easy to arrive at
itself.

>
That's the problem with the conventional view of FTL phenomena.
It comes from the Lorentz transform:
>
(1) dx' = gamma(dx - v dt)
(2) dt' = gamma(dt - v dx/c^2)
>
 From that comes
>
dx'/dt' = u' = (dx - v dt)/(dt - v dx/c^2)
>
u' = (u - v)/(1 - uv/c^2)
>
u' becomes infinite when u = c^2/v, and infinity is a red flag
in physics.  It means that the math becomes useless at and beyond
that point.  Physicists, who should know better, have persisted
into that real and come up with all kinds of frivolous assertions
like time going backwards, negative energy, causality violation
and a "reinterpretation principle."

>
>
>
>
Mathematics really owes physics more and better
mathematics of the super-classical and infinitary
and the law(s) of large numbers, mathematical
physics is entirely subject to mathematical formalism
and the ingenuity of mathematical forms.
>
Relativity is rather simplified with GR being primary
and SR being local, and what remains is mass/energy
equivalence and a cosmological constant reflecting
time.
>
Then, the linear mass/energy equivalence
is quite Galilean, while the rotational is
special in both the spatial and spacial,
and there's lots of data from both
linear particle accelerators, and, cyclotrons.
>
>
>
>

>
>
>
>
>
About supersymmetry, there's strong and weak I suppose,
about that the "weak" sort is usual flux while the "strong"
sort I suppose is only at "Tevatron energy levels", and sort
of contrived, where of course Higgs field is not even really
a classical field, and, Higgs Bosons if "Standard" are also
"Not Standard", that the Higgs Bosons have giant divots,
then neutrinos and for neutrino physics as a complement
to electron physics, have that those really reflect as
partner in the symmetric then super-symmetric as well.
>
I.e. this sort of neutrino supersymmetry or "low-energy"
is out of regular potentials, not "superpotentials".
>
Well. shoot, "low-energy supersymmetry" is already
called for "Tera-electronvolt" i.e. "the slightly weaker
cousin of extra-strong supersymmetry", where what
I'm talking about then I guess is "very-low" or even
"slightly negative" energy supersymmetry.
>
>
"Little-Higgs", say, ... like "in this case while it's a
thing the number would be negative like the flux
was going the opposite direction", ....
>
It's sort of like solar neutrinos and, you know,
those flowing _in_.
>
Which might help explain the usual seasonal models, ....
>
Yeah I'm interested in the "near-zero energy supersymmetry"
not the "freakishly outlandish well at least let's get a grant
to build a collider and talk about our g-2 lognormal shift
so it looks like we're writing physics", bit.
>
Heisenberg, now with more certainty,
Hubble, now with less inflation,
Higgs, much, much diminished.
>
>

>
(I.e., "supersymmetry", not "supersymmetry-breaking".)
>

>
"This “Higgs” is a NGB and therefore exactly massless."
-- http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0502182v1
>
>

(P.S. they work that up in a "3 + 1 space-time",
yet it works just fine in a "3 + 1/2".)