Take any continuous probability whatever; say, for example, the distribution of errors in measurements in space or of time, or even just the probability that a particular process that will end within a fixed interval of time but at a random point in this interval given by some pdf.
Since, for...
Division by 0 isn't defined. In order to get to a point where you can do calculus on the real or complex numbers you first have to build up the set theoretic and algebraic structures. But the required axioms don't allow for division by 0, because for ANY number a, if a|b iff there exists a...
It's a fairly common and very useful component of mathematical analysis, set-theoretical approaches to the real number line, etc. The most common version of algebraic treatment of ∞ as a "number" that can be negative or positive and to which algebraic properties are applied goes under the name...
Unless, of course, you want to work with something (or anything) that changes in time. Then Coulomb's law doesn't work anymore. So, for example, it only holds approximately when you can consider the force between two stationary charges at a fixed time (sure, it doesn't always work even...
You don't get that. In physics, we might. Mathematicians don't make such claims (not without serious preamble and carefully noting the conditions under which divergent series can be made to converge to particular sums with additional assumptions that may or may not satisfy uniqueness and why we...
WL Craig, whose arguments and even key phrasing you seem to repeat (often nearly, if not exactly, verbatim), has already attempted to "school the cosmologists" (at least when it suits him; when he finds something he wants to use from cosmology, he has no problem doing so, nor with making...
Just to be clear, according to the only type of theories that allow for virtual particles (QFTs), virtual particles are fields (that is, they are localized excitations of fields defined at every point in typically flat spacetime). Indeed, there is a related and important implication that follows...
When reading any kind of science reporting, news, or summary like this, it's always a good idea to find the original research paper. Firstly, because better sources for more reliable information tend to include the full citation at the bottom of the article (or barring this, will at least...
Not exactly. Because I don't think showing you equations or other aspects of models will make any difference, and because I don't think quoting specialists instead will either, I'll take the hard path.
I'll quote Vilenken himself in a later paper commenting on responses to the BGV theorem and...
This is simply not true, on a number of levels. Firstly, it is flat out wrong about the origins of inflationary cosmology and its purpose. Guth coined the term and proposed the first model in the paper I've attached in section III with these words:
"In this section I will describe a scenario...
Sort of. Actually, unifying gravity and quantum theory isn't much more difficult than unifying quantum mechanics and relativity as is done if QFT. With gravity, it's QFT on curved spacetimes. This framework is decades old now, and it doesn't suffer from much more in the way of problems than the...
Very diplomatic. I was curious as to how you were going to address this...uh...peculiar description in the post you were replying to:
The idea of two idealized point-like particles traversing the same geodesic in spacetime without being the same particle is already somewhat radical. That any...
We have no knowledge nor can we have any knowledge of something happening before quantum physics. The classical big bang picture in simplified form does indeed have universe that "begins" along with time and space. Nor can we neglect classical physics (not GR, anyway) at this region because GR...
This is a kind of bumper sticker version or popular version of the modernized notion "matter can be neither created nor destroyed". And it is fairly commonly stated as well as taught. It is, however, grossly oversimplified if not outright incorrect.
First, conservation laws, such as the...
Well, he has at time ignored his own sources (maybe they are too long to read...). So perhaps asking for some sort of connection is too much for us to request. After all, he's repeated the same claims over and over again, so they must be right at this point, no?
My references showed how that quantum mechanics relied on continuous time and that the kind of "quanta level scale" you refer to is not only without any empirical or observational support, we lack a cogent theory of how this "quantum world" could be realized theoretically. You referenced a blog...
I only gave you referenced because you, in an attempt to refute my original reply to your nonsense, you asked me to supply references.
I only joined this discussion because quantum foundations is my area of expertise and I am inundated with various bogus claims about quantum mechanics all of the...
My problem isn't with your references, which are (when relevant) about hypothetical solutions to what is an ongoing problem in theoretical physics (problems, actually). My problem is that you are trying to bully, bludgeon, and bluster others about QM when you don't know what you are talking...
You linked to some popular literature you don’t understand, but you provided nothing in the way of references that support some of your basic misconceptions. I can provide plenty of references, but it would be nice if you were more specific about which aspects of how I explained some of your...
We don't. At all. In fact, the development of the concept of energy turned out to be in no small way a serious of fundamental changes to the very concept in order to retain some form of energy conservation after we repeatedly found it to be violated.
In modern physics, observable violations of...