Recent content by Paul Colby

While this is true, my understanding is that representation theory yields just a solution of the reps field equations. The corresponding ladder operators require more work.

My fluency hovers somewhere between 0.5 and 0.75 Copenhagen Interpretations.

Typically people use feedback to solve such problems. This doesn’t require an accurate model of motion. All that’s needed is a measurement of the error and a response function.

There is a coordinate system, referred to as the TT gauge, that I find makes visualization of bar detectors easier. Think of an isolated atom, a point mass. As the GW passes, the atom follows a geodesic. In the TT gauge, an atom at rest stays at rest. It’s X, Y and Z TT-coordinates don’t change...

Also, for Ohms law, current flowing through a resistor dissipates energy in the form of heat. For Newton, force goes into kinetic energy. This process is reversible. A closer mechanical analogy would be a loss term ##F=-\alpha \frac{dx}{dt}##.

This is an excellent question which is why I have the best free will money can buy.

In physics, all theories are quantitative and formulated in terms of mathematics.

I was going to say one bond at a time but…

FWIW this AI description matches what I was able to pull from the detector description in the paper. The Xe gives off light if a Xe nuclei collides with something. The entire Xe detector is surrounded by other detectors that reject backgrounds like neutrons and charged particles from the data...

What is the intended behavior of your hardware? For example, is it to balance? Cancel tipping motion?

The two twins follow two different paths. One twins path proper length is shorter. As setup, the shorter path twin must accelerate to get on this shorter length path. The shorter path length isn’t shorter because it takes acceleration for the twin to change to it. It’s shorter because it’s shorter.

Visualize as a manifold seems to be all you consider. There’s the algebraic aspect of ##SO(3)## as well.

Given your original question concerning photons and the double slit experiment, how have your views changed? The experiment showed that the interference pattern persists even with a significant path length change in one of the two paths.

Interference patterns happen for multiple “it”s, right? From post #5 “it” was water waves, sound waves or EM waves. “It” could also be particle beams of various flavors. Each of these physical systems are quite different yet exhibit similar wave phenomena. In post #1, two expressions, one from...

What is “it” in terms of currently accepted theory?