jaskey13

366 reputation

bio	website
	location	South Hill, VA
	age	35
visits	member for	2 years, 4 months
	seen	Jun 29 '12 at 14:56
stats	profile views	87

Studied undergrad physics at University of Massachusetts/Interned at SLAC. Currently an aborist, but attempting to keep up with this field while waiting to resume full time study. Appreciates all answers and apologizes ahead of time for the occasional gaff, poor phrasing, or outright amnesia.

	366 reputation	bio	website		visits	member for	2 years, 4 months
28 badges		location	South Hill, VA		seen	Jun 29 '12 at 14:56

summary answers questions tags badges favorites bounties reputation activity

119 Actions

suggestions reviews revisions comments badges posts accepts all

Jun 28	comment	Negative and positive energy and Hawking @dmckee I disagree- the definition/existence of God is peripheral to the question- Stephen Hawking is viewed by many of the rest of world as a kind of "spokesperson for physics" if he is saying things that are ill defined or unsupported then they should be addressed here. Particularly he evidences zero sum energy of universe as non-necessity of deity. As scientists we can 1) support/refute his evidence and then 2) examine the logic of his conclusions. The two are not necessarily hand in hand. Else we allow non-physicists solely to discuss Mr. Hawking's statements?
Jun 28	comment	Negative and positive energy and Hawking @dmckee i watched the above episode and Jim has characterized it and the statements correctly. So this was a show using a physics persona like Hawking and his quotations to make theological statements that are backed by "physical law" If Physics is not the place to answer this then where should he ask? Have you seen the documentary?
Jun 28	comment	Negative and positive energy and Hawking @stupidity interesting- so that would have been a valid answer to this question. Even more interesting is that spacetime was "flat" or at least nearly so supposedly after the inflationary period and not an AdS space. So does that unhinge the papers argument?
Jun 28	comment	Negative and positive energy and Hawking @Jim even if you formulate this question better it still will not be answered correctly as physics cannot currently answer- even if all "theological" concerns are removed. Your question is inherently fundamental yet broad based- the "origins" of things are as of yet undiscovered (as of yet the concept of "origin" if applicable is even unknown) philosophy may be the better place for such questions
Jun 28	comment	Negative and positive energy and Hawking so according to Hawking's theory of "balance" then as the universe expands it should be losing mass/energy as gravitational fields get weaker and move beyond the cosmic event horizon.
Jun 26	comment	Does $p=mc$ hold for photons? @Nick Rosencrantz For a motivating analogy to the relativistic energy equation it is useful to look at it as m^2 = E^2-p^2 (i have suppressed the constants) in this case the invariant quantity is placed on the left. Notice the similarity between this and invariant length in say 2-dim euclidean geometry s^2 = x^2 + y^2. The difference being that the "time-like" component in the SR equation is assumed to be imaginary- as squaring produces a negative quantity (which i moved w/ algebra) So the point is it can be intuitive to look at this like length of a 4-dim vector with an imaginary component.
Jun 26	comment	Does $p=mc$ hold for photons? I attempted to delete as my answer is redundant but it seems i can't?
Jun 26	comment	Does $p=mc$ hold for photons? I see i was late in my post as my answer is the same as @Zee Malasia. Oh well...
Jun 26	answered	Does $p=mc$ hold for photons?
Jun 24	comment	Causality in String Theory I'll move this to chat yes?
Jun 24	comment	Causality in String Theory You gave me reference that neither supports nor refutes your answer, and if it does I'd like to see where as I am "confused" maybe you can help me? So honestly, you didn't answer my question at all, you told me to basically figure it out myself. Which means that- well never mind- i'll wait thank you.
Jun 24	comment	Causality in String Theory Your kidding right? I'll wait for a real answer now....
Jun 24	comment	Causality in String Theory Can u give a site for- Ken Wilson's Physics Noble Prize? in particular the one which solves the loop problem in Feynman Diagrams? Please
Jun 24	comment	Causality in String Theory the loop problem in Feynman Diagrams is not indicative of the "infrared problems"?
Jun 24	comment	Causality in String Theory This appears to fall back to Quantum Field Theory and does not give an answer within the context of String Theory. That being said: in QFT the problem of closed loops in the Feynman Diagram (which the rhomboid region would clearly signify) is as of yet still unsolved and quite problematic. I believe that motivates my question (within the context of String Theory) even further..
Jun 24	asked	Causality in String Theory
Jun 11	comment	Is Schrodinger's Cat a real conceptual problem or just a problem with approximations? And these mathematics are not really working all to well if we cannot even decide if a thing is alive or dead. Or how and when it becomes to be such
Jun 11	comment	Is Schrodinger's Cat a real conceptual problem or just a problem with approximations? In your answer u state that the my question is answerable by the placement of the "Heisenberg Cut" ie where to separate the observer from the observable. This just pushes the argument back further onto the observer and what he does and is actually contrary to the other only other answer. I apologize for my brevity- I thought it was clear. As for POVM's once again the situation is removed in favor of a further measurement process.
Jun 11	comment	Is Schrodinger's Cat a real conceptual problem or just a problem with approximations? it is interesting though is it not that quantum mechanics relies on measurement but this is as of yet an inscrutable problem?
Jun 11	comment	Is Schrodinger's Cat a real conceptual problem or just a problem with approximations? One way of thinking provides a hidden variable answer which effectively undoes quantum mechanics- the other, i'd like to see a clear defense of. And i have no love of hidden variables.