Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

General relativity and scale

  1. Feb 19, 2009 #1
    Einstein's remainder encodes (= formulates) a universal energy background as mass, in terms of a limit for this energy in discrete terms; the limit represents a bound for the other two components, the e and u that modulate spacetime M; time is then generated by a linear transform of these components as a binary wave, in spacetime.

    (first up, is E=mc^2 a remainder? It's certainly invariant)

    Is the remainder a one-way function? Can the structure of the universal spacetime be recovered from a universal mass term and universal energy? Can a transform be built that is Turing-complete?
    We know the transforms we use might be universal, but when we encode the physical constants that appear to be the limits of our local frame = (G,h,c), the results don't connect to the apparent distant limits when we use the same constants, so we see a lot more energy in this large space than there should be (apparently).

    (what does Turing-complete mean in this context)
  2. jcsd
  3. Feb 20, 2009 #2
    I think it has to do with another e, not charge but exponentiation of charge.
    Because e is a series and an integral (it has a geometry too), it encapsulates enumeration, sum and product and curvature, it's a complete yet infinitely-scaled value, of numbers, or a number.

    That is, e is gauged ( = measured, calculated) by 1 and infinity.

    c, the special velocity of light is too; since the m in [tex] E=mc^2\, [/tex] is too, or is at least molar, it doesn't inform the low end except exp doesn't ever vanish. The GR scale is: "to molarity and beyond"
    Last edited: Feb 20, 2009
  4. Feb 22, 2009 #3
    So we don't see, generally, anything unless it's made out of a lot of atoms, or an atom 'emits' something a lot of times (over a small time).
    This is the molar gauge, which we might envisage as a point of intersection, which can't be "the point = e", since e counts, both atoms and single atom 'events', it defines a series, and the sum of a series (it's a countable infinity)

    When we do use 'single' atoms and control their 'positions' with electric fields and their internal spin-energies with magnetic fields, they vanish from what we call a thermodynamic state and 'resonate' in place together, they self-assemble or condense in a strictly non-Avogadrian way,

    Avogadro has to take his number and leave the room for a while.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook