Recent content by zaybu

Thanks

Can anyone point to a proof for the Wronskian formula: W[v,v*] = v'v* - vv*' = 2iIM(v', v*) Thanks

An article by Michael Weiss and John Baez might help. http://cybermax.tripod.com/Energy.html Another one by Philip E. Gibbs http://www.prespacetime.com/index.php/pst/article/viewFile/89/85

Thanks

In the paper, http://arxiv.org/pdf/1205.3365v1.pdf, page 21, the author argues that if: t →∞(1-iϵ), all the terms in equation (193) goes to zero, except the first term. Can anyone explain this to me? Thanks

Indeed, the 1/4 in the PDsat-b(B:2) term is a typo error. Thanks again

Thanks, I appreciate.

In Ramakrishna's paper, http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1111/1111.1922.pdf , he derived equation (9), page 5. It is a difference of two square-roots using an approximation method. Can anyone help in how this is done? Thanks

In Ramakrishna's paper, http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1111/1111.1922.pdf , it very much nails the error in the Opera`s findings. QUESTION: The author derived equation (9), page 5. It is a difference of two square-roots using an approximation method. Can anyone help in how this is done...

From x' = ax → Δx' = a Δx But I = Δx', therefore I = a Δx, or Δx = I/a Hope it helps.

For a simple graphic explanation, see http://soi.blogspot.com/2011/09/why-ftl-violates-causality.html

Relativity is a difficult subject. Even simple cases are difficult to tackle. I would suggest that before looking at complex situations, you start looking at simple cases to begin with. Here are two simple cases: 1) Twin paradox. See: http://soi.blogspot.com/2011/09/twin-paradox.html 2)...

If you like a simple graphic explanation, see here: http://soi.blogspot.com/2011/09/why-ftl-violates-causality.html

A consequence of Relativity is that we seek laws that are Lorentz invariant: meaning, if we have an equation A = BC + D in one frame of reference, then using the lorentz transformation laws to another frame of reference, we get A' = B'C' + D'. Note that not all equations will have this property...

At the same time, doesn't it also rule out the Higgs Boson?