Recent content by GDogg

The equivalence principle is usually stated locally and that's where it's valid. It's not BS. The constancy of the speed of light is also only valid for a local observer and nobody says it's BS. If you were a zero-dimensional person you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between gravity...

Oh I understand what the landscape and the anthropic principle are alright. That's why I call it nonsense. I never said I propose to stop all research. I just propose presenting what I just mentioned as nothing more than wild speculation that changes the way we do science, especially to the...

Changing the definition of science and making unfalsifiable or tautological claims is not revolutionary. THAT is nonsense.

I think theoretical physics has been more or less stuck at a dead for a long time, probably since the completion of the Standard Model in the 70s. And I'm not only referring to String Theory, but to most competing programs as well. However, I also think that's a good thing. The same happened...

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9507456

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Quantum/virtual_particles.html

1) & 2) There's no frame of reference associated with something traveling at c. So you can't really say what they do relative to each other.

Apples are made of a gazillion particles. Electrons are not. Like ZapperZ says, scale has nothing to do with it. What makes an apple classical is decoherence. It doesn't matter if apples or electrons seem bigger or smaller to us.

I hope we don't get the kind of comments they get in their articles with that...

OB50, how do you reconcile the existence of a rest frame for a photon with the second postulate of special relativity?

I'd say the reason is that one of the most important aspects of GR is the principle of relativity and the general covariance of its equations. Basically, that the laws of physics should be the same in any reference frame so naturally you'll want to perform coordinate trasnformations.

use substitution and then: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaussian_integral#Brief_proof

Well, yeah, obviously phases are physically meaningless. But the way it's usually presented to the popular audience, it's assumed that the ket is an object you can look at.

It's the inequality obeyed by the deviation of the energy distibution of the states forming a wave packet that evolves with a wave function \Psi(t). In other words, a relation between the energy distribution of a wave packet and the characteristic time it takes to deform. The interpretation...

Like they said before me, x^\mu are just the components of the four-vector. You need a basis to define the vector. The linearity comes from the fact that the new basis is a linear combination of the old basis. So the components of four-vectors transform in the same way...