View Full Version : Oh Yes

6th May 2013, 19:59
Such is the case encountered in the attempt to unify general relativity and quantum theory, since they are expressed in differential geometry and functional analysis, respectively. That being said, spectral geometry a field in mathematics which concerns relationships between geometric structures of manifolds and spectra of canonically defined differential operators may resolve this long-standing quandary by allowing spacetime to be treated as simultaneously continuous and discrete, essentially relating the frequency-based ringing of the fabric of spacetime to its manifold-based shape.

Oh Yes !!!!!!

With thanks to phys.org

6th May 2013, 20:07
"The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible."

Albert Einstein

G&T ice n slice
6th May 2013, 20:12
Oh Yes !!!!!!

you've got one of those?

Mine goes "Oh GOD!"

DX Wombat
6th May 2013, 20:13
:confused: Say again all after "such is" ...;)

6th May 2013, 20:40
Well, what can one say when faced with such simplistic thinking other than ...

42 works just fine for me :ok:

6th May 2013, 20:42
Funny, someone said exactly this down the pub last night. What are the chances of that?

6th May 2013, 20:46
Infinitely improbable I'd say, therefore it almost certainly happened...

7th May 2013, 00:19
We did that at Primary School.

7th May 2013, 00:25
Well, how about that? No threads about physics on Pprune for years then 3 come along at once - got to be at least 5 standard deviations off the mean there!

Reminds me of Richard Feynman in a cab to the airport in NY to pick up his Nobel Prize in Physics. Cabbie says
"Can you tell me in simple language why you're getting it?"
"No. And if I could, they wouldn't be giving it to me."

7th May 2013, 01:35
I thought up time and relative dimension in space but then discarded it and went and bought a police box.


7th May 2013, 01:55
You've got it back to front.. and it is a question not a statement...

Shape based manifold, is its (to space-time of fabric) the fringing based frequency, the relating, essentially discrete and continuous, simultaneously as treated, be, to space-time, allowing by quandary long standing, this resolve may (operators differential defined) canonically of spectra and manifolds, of structures geometric (between relationships concerns) which mathematics- in a field geometry differential, in expressed, are they, (since theory quantum and relativity) general unify to attempt, the in encountered case is... such?


7th May 2013, 01:58
Wibble, wibble

Loose rivets
7th May 2013, 02:22
mick unwin?????!!!!!

. . . may resolve this long-standing quandary by allowing spacetime to be treated as simultaneously continuous and discrete, essentially relating the frequency-based ringing of the fabric of spacetime to its manifold-based shape.

Which, if you think about it, is exactly, erm, more or less, what I've been saying over the last ten years on that forum and on PpuNe.

Solid Rust Twotter
7th May 2013, 06:19
Dang space goats...

7th May 2013, 10:30
He needs to do some Fourier analysis on that....

Ancient Observer
7th May 2013, 10:35
In my book shelves, I have 3 copies of Hawkins book. In each copy, the bookmark is at page 15.

So 42 works for me, too.

7th May 2013, 11:22
Bistro mathematics does it:ok: for me (plus a good gulp of red wine).

7th May 2013, 13:36
It's like learning Malay. So easy for the first five minutes.

7th May 2013, 13:43
After reading the Op's opening post I have decided that in lieu of a migraine or head-throbbing headache (after reading all that) I will opt instead in consuming copious amounts of beer. That should allow me to better understand WTF he wrote. :}

7th May 2013, 15:01
We did that at Primary School.



7th May 2013, 15:02
Bistro mathematics does it for me (plus a good gulp of red wine).

As in, "Aaaah Bistro"?


7th May 2013, 23:54
I can see where you're coming from here ExRAFR, but don't forget; what is the main obstacle in the way of uniting the four forces and all of the elementary particles? Well, remember that what physicists have been trying to accomplish is the uniting of the microcosm and the macrocosm. These two areas of cosmology are represented respectively by quantum mechanics and general relativity. In the case of quantum mechanics, we have a world that operates on uncertainty, probability, and complimentarity. If we could look through a microscope at this tiny universe, we would see random quantum undulations resembling something looking like a storm on the North Atlantic Ocean. If we took this into outer space, into the smooth gravitational field of a planet, you would no longer have the smooth warp of space-time described by the spatial geometry of general relativity.
Just about sorts it out wouldn't yer say? :\

8th May 2013, 00:51
As in, "Aaaah Bistro"?

As in weird numbers. Bistromath derives from the knowledge that the number of people who will turn up at a table is any number except the number who booked. All other randomness follows. Deciphering the check requires a PhD in hypermathematics and 3 years, so it's easier just to add $20 to the total, ask everyone for an even share, then chip in another $20. The accumulated cash will always be $20 short for no apparent reason.

8th May 2013, 01:09
and the Stewardess will always say ... but I only had the soup.

Loose rivets
8th May 2013, 01:26
Or, I almost had the soup.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v703/walnaze/Flying/BiiiigHat.jpg (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/walnaze/media/Flying/BiiiigHat.jpg.html)