Recent content by Mr-T

I am curious to know what the troubles are with unifying gravity and quantum theory.

Thank you Tenshou and Shredder. The question has been resolved.

Ahh yes. That seems to be a more efficient technique to handle these kinds of quotient maps. I am still a bit concerned. If we deal with the closed square [0,1] x [0,1] and want to use a quotient map to create a cylinder, it is fairly straight forward. It is obvious that the square is not...

That is not what I was asking... I posted the exact page here... http://imgur.com/gallery/m6MhRjL/new I am not sure if how they do their quotient map is standard in all of topology but if it is not i will be willing to elaborate further. just ask.

I am independently working through the topology book called, "Introduction to Topology: Pure and Applied." I am currently in a chapter regarding manifolds. They attempt to show that a connected sum of a Torus and the Projective plane (T#P) is homeomorphic to the connected sum of a Klein Bottle...

Yea, that would be more correct.

Hello, I am having some difficulties understanding why a subset under the usual metric topology of the reals is connected. How can a set X = (0,1] u (1,2) be connected? The definition I am using is: A is disconnected if there exists two open sets G and V and the following three properties...

Ahh yes, talking in this fashion resolves my concerns. Thank you nug

If all direct observables have some uncertainty, won't this mess up our intensity distribution even more than the fouriers already do?

If you are not inputting any information into the T-I SE then how do you know what particle it is talking about?!

I understand what both of you are saying and I appreciate the replies. In the Schrödinger equation we input values for energy/mass assuming we know with 100% certainty what these values for energy/mass are. Due to the input of these values is where my question holds its regards.

Does the Schrödinger equation completely neglect the uncertainty principle? If so, wouldn't this imply that our intensity distribution has its own probability distribution?

To PeterDonis, Your comments are appreciated. I was under the impression charges moved at the same speed as their "host" particles. Is this not true? I am not following how a thing does not fall under the domain of an element of reality. Can you elaborate?

To DaleSpam, I completely agree with your first point but I am curious, is there any basis for undermining the definition of thing as opposed to undermining relativity? It appears to me that if one could not make an appropriate definition for something as simple as "thing" then that same...

The criteria of what it is to be thing-like is ad hoc. All of the responses answer why the shadow is not a thing only because we "know" that things cannot be traveling faster than c. This is a problem. The premises of these explanations do not "need" to be true in order for the conclusion to...